The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council - 06/16/1998r------------------------------------- TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1998 CITY COUNCIL I STAFF WORKSHOP 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM IV 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, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Bob Lambert, Director of Human Resources, Community Information & Services Natalie Swaggert, Chief of Police Jim Clark, and Council Recorder AGENDA I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. OVERVIEW OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PROCESS A. VISION 2001 I A STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PROCESS B. REPORT ON BOARD AND COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS 1. PARTICIPATION LEVELS 2. INSIGHTS I OUTCOMES C. COMMUNITY FORUM -FINAL REPORT 1. COMMUNITY FOCUS AREAS AND VALUES 2. USE AND APPLICATION ' III. DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PLAN A. IDENTIFICATION OF "STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS" B. PROCESS AND TIME LINE IV. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1998 CITY COUNCIL: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher- Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens 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 I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY. JUNE 2.1998 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR I.C. 93-5304 EDEN PRAIRIE CROSSING FRONTAGE ROADS C. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR RUED FIRST ADDITION D. RESOLUTION APPROVING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT WITH MnDOT AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT THE CSAH 39 (VALLEY VIEW ROAD) AND 1-494 RAMP INTERSECTIONS. I.C. 97-5443 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 16, 1998 Page 2 E. RESOLUTION APPROVING TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT WITH MnDOT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT TH 212 (FLYING CLOUD DRIVE) AND REGIONAL CENTER ROAD. I.C. 97-5445 F. HTG OFFICE BUILDING by TGP Enterprises, L.L.C. 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on .86 acres and Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review on .86 acres. Location: 9300 and 9310 Hennepin Town Road (Ordinance for Zoning District Change and Resolution for Site Plan Review) G. FULLER ROAD BUSINESS CENTER by Fuller Road Business Center L.L.C. 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review on 7.02 acres and Rezoning from I-General to 1-2 Industrial on 7.02 acres and Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review on 7.02 acres. Location: 7905 Fuller Road. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning and Resolution for Site Plan Review) H. ADOPT RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENT TO EXERCISE THE LOCAL TRANSIT LEVY OPTION FOR TAXES PAYABLE IN 1999 I. APPROVE AN ORDER TO HAVE THE UNSAFE CONDITION AT 7143 TICONDEROGA TRAIL REMEDIED 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. AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE. SALE AND DELIVERY OF UP TO $4.000,000 REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, (CASTLE RIDGE CARE CENTER, INC. PROJECT) SERIES 1998, AND APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS AND THE RELATED DOCUMENTS (Resolution) VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 16, 1998 Page 3 VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. REQUEST TO MODIFY PARK BOUNDARY AT PRAIRIE VIEW PARK BY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS X. APPOINTMENTS A. ENVIRONMENTAL & WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION - Appointment of a member to fill an unexpired term through March 31, 2001 XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Proposed Petition to the Riley/Purgatory/Bluff Creek Watershed District and the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District for the Creek Corridors Basic Water Management Project 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 ~-------------------------------- UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1998 CITY COUNCIL: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLLCALL 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher- Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorrmnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra- Lukens 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 Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. All members were present. PRESENTATION OF EDEN PRAIRIE HISTORICAL TIME LINE PROJECT Councilmember Case introduced four members of his class at Oak Point Intermediate School. The four students presented information about the historical time line they created as a class project this year. They presented the time line to the City of Eden Prairie. Mayor Harris thanked the students on behalf of the citizens of Eden Prairie and suggested it be kept at City Hall in a place where people could come by to see it. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Butcher-Younghans added item XI.A.l. Jullie added item XI.B.l. Update on Storm Damage. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried 5-0. II. OPEN PODIUM Judy Smith, 7129 Ticonderoga Trail, was concerned that the City needs a safety ordinance or law that would cover rotten trees that hangover someone else's property. She has had several discussions with both City Manager Jullie and Stu Fox. She would I CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 2,1998 Page 2 like to find out if there is such an ordinance and how she could get it enforced to protect her property. City Attorney Pauly said he has had discussions with Jullie and Fox regarding this matter. There is a state procedure which may be available in cases such as this that is designed to eliminate unsafe or unsanitary conditions. They have used this in the past primarily for unsafe buildings. It requires there be a fmding that a condition existing on a property is unsafe. An investigation is conducted and opinion is received from an expert staff member. It is then presented to the Council, and the Council at that point can adopt findings concerning the matter and issue an order to remove or remedy the condition. The order must go through the District Court process, and the property owner has an opportunity to be heard in court. The court is the final judge of whether the condition is unsafe. Harris would like to see something that would set forth the issues. Case would like to know if other cities have ordinances. Tyra-Lukens said this issue coincides with the discussions of a group that is meeting regarding exterior home maintenance. There is a State law that applies, and it may be part of our duty to clarify the process people might use to bring forth issues. Jullie said Stu Fox plans to visit the neighbor tomorrow and talk about the process. The extended process is there if we need it. Joan Hohn, 17240 Park Circle, would like the City to adopt a hazardous tree ordinance. She wrote a letter a year ago explaining that the neighbor's tree has fallen and ruined her fence twice. It is a financial burden to come up with the deductible to repair the fence. The neighbor also has a huge maple tree that is cracked and looks dangerous. She feels insecure and would like to have Staff come over and look at the trees. She appreciated the fact that the City has agreed to help clear up the storm damage. III. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1998 MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve as published the Minutes of the City Council Workshop held Tuesday, May 19, 1998. Motion carried 4-1-0 with Harris abstaining. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MAY 19, 1998 Butcher-Younghans said sentence 5, paragraph 3 on page 8 should be changed to "She said the Eden Prairie's Familink coordinator, Nancy Holden, has increased .... " MOTION: Tyra Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve as published and amended the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, May 19, 1998. Motion carried 4-1-0 with Harris abstaining. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 2, 1998 Page 3 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVAL OF DISPLAY OF CHAMPIONSIDP BANNERS FOR EDEN PRAIRIE IDGH 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 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 Ordinance 15-98-PUD-11-98 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- l3.5 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 15-98-PUD-ll- 98 for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 2, 1998 Page 4 K. APPROVE ORDER TO HAVE THE UNSANITARY CONDITION AT 16501 PIONEER TRAIL REMEDIED Harris said she received an explanation of the repairs necessary to correct the conditions for item K. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to approve items A-K on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. 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 Rl-22 to RI-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. Because of problems with the Planning Commission time line process, Jullie said this needs to go back through the review process. The item will return at the June 16th Council meeting after the appropriate Planning Commission recommendation has been made. City Attorney Rosow advises that the City must do more than communicate a two-week or 30-day continuance, and the hearing must be continued to a certain date. MOTION: Tyra Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to continue the Wynstone project to the June 16, 1998 City Council meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 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 RI-13.5 District on 28.32 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 28.32 acres into 46 lots. Location: Riverview Bluffs. (Resolution 98-104 for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment and Resolution 98-105 for Preliminary Plat) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on May 21, 1998 in the Eden Prairie News and sent to 74 property owners. This project is an 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 acres at a density of 1.59 units per gross acre. All of the lots meet the frontage and lot size requirement of the Rl-13. 5 district. Joel Cooper, representing Laukka-Jarvis, reviewed the proposal. Butcher-Y ounghans asked how they intend for property owners to know the burial mounds exist as time goes by and how do they intend for property owners CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 2, 1998 Page 5 to protect the mounds. Jarvis replied at the time of final plat there will be individual lot surveys for each of the lots affected by the candidate mound areas, and there will be a buffer area around those. They will establish fences at the buffer line as proposed by the State Archeologist. The surveys will document what those buffer areas are. No grading will be allowed there in perpetuity, and the City will have copies of the surveys. Each buyer will be provided that information along with the builder. He said they will take all the precautions they are required to do. Butcher-Younghans was concerned that property owners will be living so close to a sacred area and they could encroach on the mounds even though there is a recorded document. Case asked what the law permits and what it forbids about such property. Butcher-Younghans understood it is virtually non-touch in such areas. A discussion followed regarding the issue of candidate mound areas on this property. Enger said at its May 11, 1998 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 8. Lambert said the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the project at its May 18, 1998 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the May 8 and May 14 Staff Reports. There were no comments from the audience. Jarvis questioned the recommendation regarding the building materials. Enger said proponent was to submit samples of exterior building materials prior to receiving a building permit. Jarvis said they intend to prepare architectural standards for these homes, but he was confused by this reference to building materials. Enger said this is a requirement that was put in the report by error. MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Case to close the Public Hearing; to adopt Resolution 98-104 for PUD Concept Review; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the Rl-13.5 District on 28.32 acres; to adopt Resolution 98-105 for Preliminary Plat of 28.32 acres into 45 lots; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations, except for the recommendation regarding exterior building materials, and with the following Council conditions: 1) Snow fencing to be placed around the mound areas before a grading permit is issued; 2) Documents regarding the properties to carry the information about the mounds on them so that it is passed on from owner to owner; 3) Developer to provide property owners with information about their obligation regarding burial mounds on their property as outlined in State statute. Motion carried 5-0. -~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 2,1998 Page 6 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 98-106 for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on May 21, 1998 and mailed to 7 property owners. There have been 3 projects approved on this site since the Technology Park PUD was approved, including a five-story, 58,000 square foot office, a three-story 27,800 square foot office, and a 48,000 square foot office/warehouse. The current proposal is for a thee-story, 50,000 square foot 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 and mitigation is proposed on site. Gary Lally, representing Hoyt properties, reviewed the project. Enger said the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at its May 11, 1998 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 8. Lambert said the Parks Commission reviewed the project at their May 18 meeting and, on a 2-3-0 vote, did not recommend approval. The three Commissioners who voted against approval concurred that there were too many variances required and too much impervious surface proposed for the project. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public Hearing; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change from 1-2 to Office on 3.76 acres; to adopt Resolution 98-106 for PUD Concept Amendment on 3.76 acres of the overall Technology Park PUD; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried 5-0. D. REALIFE V ALLEY 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 of7.5 acres, into 1 lot, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South side of Smetana Lane. (Resolution 98-107 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Resolution 98-108 for PUD Concept CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 2,1998 Page 7 Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change, Resolution 98-109 for Preliminary Plat) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on May 21, 1998 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 7 property owners. 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. He noted the project addresses one of the needs identified by the Senior Issues Task Force for a variety of affordable senior housing opportunities. The Final Report of the Task Force 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. Bill Griffith, representing Realife, Inc., reviewed the project. Tyra-Lukens asked if this project will be marketed to people age 62 years and older or is that age limit a requirement for the units. Griffith said it is both. Tyra-Lukens then said she liked the project but was concerned about the units including items that would allow people to continue to live there should they become physically challenged at some point. Dick Hansen, representing Realife, Inc., said they have the option of a tub or a shower, and they can choose to make modifications at the time of purchase. There would be no reason for someone to leave the cooperative unless they need extended care. They will have their own transportation system and a full time staff of qualified people who can help inform the residents of what services are available. There will be 24-hour emergency help available. A discussion followed regarding design standards for the units and the changes to City code that might have to be made to meet the standards. Butcher-Younghans asked if there is a double elevator. Griffith said there is. Enger said the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the project at its May 11, 1998 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 8. Lambert said the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the project at its May 18, 1998 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of May 8. Patricia Kostecka, 10805 Valley View Road, said she lived in that area for 40 years and was very pleased to see a project proposed for the property that will enhance Eden Prairie and provide affordable housing for seniors. -7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 2, 1998 Page 8 As a member of the Senior Issues Task Force, Case noted this is exactly the type of project they talked about at the Senior Issues Task Force meetings. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to close the Public Hearing; to 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; to adopt Resolution 98-107 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential on 3.6 acres; to adopt Resolution 98-108 for PUD Concept Review on 7.5 acres; to adopt Resolution 98-109 for Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into 1 lot, 1 outlot and road right-of-way; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations, Motion carried 5-0. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion carried on a Roll Call Vote with Butcher- Younghans, Case, Thorfinnson, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye." VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS 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 Jullie said Mr. Richard Haefele, fee owner, and Ms. Jennifer Coughlin, Solid Foundation's Program Director, have appealed to the City Council for a review 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. Jullie referred Councilmembers to the background information relating to this request, including the Staff report of April 2, 1998 and also a memorandum from the City Attorney's office dated February 13, 1998. Richard Haefele, property owner, said he developed the property as a group home about 12 years ago. He was not aware of any problems that occurred during the 12-year period, but he thought there is a disagreement as to whether a group home should be operated in that area. He has three issues: 1. He originally put $300,000 into the property and received letters and confirmations from City Staff that up to October of last year the intended use was within the requirements. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 2, 1998 Page 9 2. In December 1997 after entering into a lease with Jennifer Coughlin, he was contacted by a neighbor who was concerned about the use. It was their intent to contact the City and attempt to prevent us from running a group home at that site. City Staff indicated they were investigating the issue. In February the City Attorney issued a letter with findings that the group home which had lost its license to run programs. He continued to pay rent until January of 1995 and in January 1996 contacted a realty company to find another occupant. They tried to find another group home operator because an appraisal of the property showed it was worth 40% more as a group home. The realtor suggested that it be listed as a single family home to try to reach more people. 3. He ended up renting the property to a single family for a period of time while he had leased it to the group home, so the single family rental was a temporary arrangement. He never had any intent of abandoning the group home use. Enger said the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their April 9, 1998 meeting concurred with Staff's conclusion that the non-conforming use of the property located at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive had been abandoned. He reviewed the findings of fact which were: the non-use of the property since the middle of 1994 for a group home facility; the listing of the property for sale as a single- family residence in April, 1997; and the rental of the property to a single person in August, 1997 •. Brad Shied, Mr. Haefele's real estate agent, said the multiple listing effort was to reach out to group home providers that were looking for a large home. The intention was to reach realtors. The commercial listing didn't generate any response. Harris noted the Council has reviewed volumes of material on this item, and the issue is whether the original non-conforming use as a group home has been abandoned. Bob Tandy, representing nearby homeowners, said he didn't think the issue is just abandonment of the non-conforming use. The ordinances are designed to get property back into conforming uses and, in this case, he thought the question is whether the property use was discontinued as a non-conforming use. The property use as a group home and as a duplex was discontinued. Pauly did not agree it is just a question of discontinuance. The concept of abandonment is two-fold--intention to abandon and an act or failure to act from which an inference of that can be drawn. Case thought it is our desire that all of our non-conforming property would be in conformance, and he believes this property was allowed to slide back into CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 2, 1998 Page 10 conformance. He thought we have been given ample evidence to support that conclusion. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to affirm the decision of the Board of Adjustments & Appeals on April 9, 1998 which determined that the non-conforming use of the property located at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive had been abandoned, and further that the Council's decision is based upon the following findings: 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. Motion carried 5-0. IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION (Councilmember Nancy Tyra-Lukens) Tyra-Lukens said Southwest Metro has finalized their strategic plan. They are in the process of doing a one-year evaluation of the new Director of Southwest Metro Transit. They have had very encouraging results financially. They are moving ahead with the BPI site and have an extension of the lease on the current site for another month. X. APPOINTMENTS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. Community News Publication Butcher-Y ounghans thought the publication was very aesthetically appealing and very informative. She thought Staff deserved kudos for a fabulous job. Jullie noted we recently won the Northern Lights Award from the Minnesota Association of Community Planners. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Update on Storm Dama&:e Jullie said last Saturday night's storm did considerable damage to trees in several of the neighborhoods throughout the City. Sixty quite large trees were damaged or destroyed and some of them were hit by lightning. He noted the Weather Service said the damage was caused by straight line winds. Staff activated the Emergency Operation Center at about 11 :30 p.m. /0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 2, 1998 Page 11 They called out Public Works crews who were busy all night and all day Sunday removing debris. They reviewed the damage reports on Monday morning and then put together a press release that helped answer a lot of questions. The press release was also posted on the web site. Jullie said this coming Saturday is spring cleanup day so residents will be able to bring debris to the BFI facility. The City will provide assistance starting next Monday for large tree debris. Tree inspectors will meet with homeowners who have major removal efforts. We have also set up a City hot line. Harris thought it is a very well instituted plan. Case said he was concerned about getting this information out since only 1/3 of the residents are hooked up to the net. He asked what else we are doing. Jullie said we went out to the neighborhoods where there is a lot of damage with the press release and it will be in the Eden Prairie News. There was a spot in the Minneapolis paper today that had the phone number of the hot line. 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 Tyra-Lukens, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 9: 10 p.m. /1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar June 16,1998 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 B & B SHEETMETAL & ROOFING INC CARVER HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING RRR CONSTRUCTION SABRE HEATING & AlC INC SCHADEGG MECHANICAL INC SOUTHRIDGE CONSTRUCTION VSI CONSTRUCTON INC YEH-MCGREW CONSTRUCTION INC June 16, 1998 I DATE: 06/16/98 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: N.b SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 93-5304 Engineering Division Eden Crossing Frontage Roads AlanD. Gray Recommended Action: Adopt resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing the advertisement for bids for I.C. 93-5304 Eden Crossing Frontage Roads. Overview: The frontage road project as shown on the attached drawing is part of TH 212 improvements. By constructing it at this time better access can be provided to properties in the northeast quadrant of Mitchell Road and TH 5 during construction of the new interchange at that location. By agreement with MnDOT it is proposed that the City will act as the contract agency for this frontage road improvement. Financial Issues: MnDOT will provide financing for construction and engineering costs. City staff will provide overall administration of the construction contract. In accordance with MnDOT policy, the City share of construction should include curb and gutter on one side of the frontage road improvement. MnDOT is preparing a cooperative agreement for City approval prior to the award of a construction contract. J CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer (through) has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 93-5304 -Eden Crossing Frontage Roads and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public inspection in the City Engineer's office, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for three weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until July 16, 1998, at City Hall after which time they will be publicly opened by the Deputy City Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, July 21, 1998 at the Eden Prairie City Hall, Eden Prairie. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5 % (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 16, 1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Donald R. Uram, Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer (through) has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 93-5304 -Eden Crossing Frontage Roads and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public inspection in the City Engineer's office, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for three weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until July 16, 1998, at City Hall after which time they will be publicly opened by the Deputy City Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, July 12, 1998 at the Eden Prairie City Hall, Eden Prairie. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 16, 1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Donald R. Uram, Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR EDEN CROSSING ROADS ~ ~ RIDGE ION Of REVISIONS 73. BELAIR LA. 74. CAPRICE LA. 75. SAVANNAH CIR. SCENIC :5 DESIGNED SJS w > <{ ........ SJS CHECIl[D Ra.. ci 0:: LONE OAK RD. City ~ Holl ~HTS. RD. ~ ~ I6fI5 T I 16N R22W TECHNOLOGY ci a z 0 I/) .41\10. w <.::> a ..... 0:: ~~ J'o ~ CD ::.:: u o l- V> RAYMOND TRAIL <>; -' CHESTNUT -' w :x: u SORREL WAY I-:s: ..... ::;E 0 TOWERS ~GAN I HEREeT CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED TKDA BY Ij£ OR I.H)[R MY DIRECT SUP£RYISION AND THAT I AM. DULY REGISTERED PlllFESSIONAI. ENGINEER UNJ£R THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF IUMr£SOTA y y ~ ;.-' ~ 0 LA. ci 0 w VINA .,... ci Q.. u-0:: I- -. ~ a: Q.. a Df? :x: « <.::> > ci ;-U 3C <{ ...J W CD CD W l-I-I-0 VI u SCOTT I/) 0:: W l- I- :=J CD VIEW ® ~ EDEN PRAIRIE 1990 POP. 39.311 HENNEPIN COUNTY Till n. ICING. DUVALL. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED DATE REG. NO. ENGINEERS· ARCHITECTS. PLANNERS SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA II LA. E EDEN PRAI DATE: 06/16/98 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: JJ[ C SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCR1PI10N: Engineering Division Final Plat Approval of Rued First Addition Randy Slick Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Rued First Addition subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $260.00 • Completion of Vacation of underlying drainage and utility easements Background: This plat consists of a combination of Lots 23 and 24, Block 5 of Bearpath Second Addition. This proposal falls under the guideline for a "simple subdivision" defined within the City Code. A hearing for the vacation (98-04) of underlying easements on Lots 23 and 24, Block 5 is scheduled for July 7, 1998. RS:ssa cc: Scott and Leah Rued Harold Peterson, James R. Hill, Inc. / J Ut'Hjo-l ':;1':38 15: 1:3 Jm'lE~, F.' HILL, INC. 612 :3'30 6244 P. 02/1]2 z o i= o Q <{ ---~-I .i Cl w ::> a: I ! L "7", -. ----3 -'>'.~ N r-------.... __ CO·",,;:, __ I ----=:::: ___ ~~ I $I ,---------__ ;--. __ : ~ \ I I *" I I ·0) lot I _ 'is> :" I ."\ r ... , ~ , '" , III , I -I a : I ';' I f I I j J • I I , I ! 1 J J i ~ ! i )1 l i I f Ii J t ! J If .. 1 ~ i , it i ~ z--__ r~- • TOTRL P.02 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF RUED FIRST ADDmON WHEREAS, the plat of Rued First Addition has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for Rued First Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated June 2, 1998. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 16, 1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Donald R. Uram, Clerk DATE: 06/16/98 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO: II[ y DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 97-5443 Engineering Division Rodney W. Rue Approve Traffic Control Signal Agreement with MnDOT and Hennepin County for Traffic Signals at the CSAH 39 (Valley View Road) and 1-494 Ramp Intersection Recommended Action: Approve resolution approving Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 77454 for traffic signals at the CSAH 39 (Valley View Road) and 1-494 ramp intersections. Overview: This agreement is associated with a MnDOT project to install traffic signals at the CSAH 39 (Valley View Road) and 1-494 ramp intersections. Primary Issues: This project has been planned for a few years and is being implemented this year due to the TH 212 project and the increased traffic expected on Valley View Road during the construction of TH 212. Fmancial Issues: This agreement identifies the financial and maintenance responsibilities for the signal systems at these ramp intersections. These ramp signals are on the TIP project list and we propose to use TIP funds to finance our share of the project which is estimated at $85,236.83. Our estimated share includes construction, engineering and state-furnished material costs. We hereby recommend approval of Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 77454 with MnDOT and Hennepin County to install new traffic signals at the CSAH 39 (Valley View Road) and 1- 494 ramp intersections. A copy of the agreement is available in the Engineering Division. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS AT THE CSAH 39 (VALLEY VIEW ROAD) AND 1-494 RAMP INTERSECTIONS I.C. 97-5443 WHEREAS, MnDOT has prepared construction plans for the construction of traffic signals at the CSAH 39 (Valley View Road) and 1-494 ramp intersections within the corporate boundaries of the City of Eden Prairie; WHEREAS, a Traffic Control Signal Agreement has been prepared by MnDOT which identifies the construction, operation and maintenance obligations for the construction of said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that said Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 77454 for State Project No. S.P.2785-305 (City Project No. 97- 5443) is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 16, 1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Donald R. Uram, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss HENNEPIN COUNTY ) This agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 1998, by Jean L. Harris and Donald R. Uram, the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie. Notary Public ______________ My commission expires _____ _ DATE: 06/16/98 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO: TIt. £.. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 97-5445 Engineering Division Approve Traffic Control Signal Agreement with MnDOT for Traffic Signals Rodney W. Rue at the TH 212 (Flying Cloud Drive) and Regional Center Road Intersection Recommended Action: Approve resolution approving Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 77502 for traffic signals at the TH 212 (Flying Cloud Drive) and Regional Center Road intersection. Overview: This agreement is associated with a MnDOT project to install traffic signals at the TH 212 (Flying Cloud Drive) and Regional Center Road intersection. Primary Issues: This signal has been on MnDOT's project list for a couple years and now ranks high enough to be installed in 1998. This project also includes some minor modifications to the existing signal systems at TH 212/Prairie Center Drive and TH 212/Singletree Lane as well as interconnecting this new signal with the existing signalized intersections. Fmancial Issues: This agreement identifies the financial and maintenance responsibilities for this signal system. This project is eligible for Federal-Aid Transportation Funds, which will pay for 80% of the project costs. Our share of the project costs, which includes construction, engineering, and state-furnished material costs, is estimated at $22,923.00. We propose to use State-Aid funds to finance our share of the project costs. We hereby recommend approval of Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 77502 to install a new traffic signal at the TH 212 (Flying Cloud Drive) and Regional Center Road intersection. A copy of the agreement is available in the Engineering Division. I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVAL OF A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL AGREEMENT FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM AT THE TH 212 (FLYING CLOUD DRIVE) AND REGIONAL CENTER ROAD INTERSECTION I.C. 97-5445 WHEREAS, MnDOT has prepared construction plans for the construction of a traffic signal at the TH212 (Flying Cloud Drive) and Regional Center Road intersection within the corporate boundaries of the City of Eden Prairie; WHEREAS, a Traffic Control Signal Agreement has been prepared by MnDOT which identifies the construction, operation and maintenance obligations for the construction of said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VEO by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that said Traffic Control Signal Agreement No. 77502 for County Project No. 2744-50 and S.P .181-010-12 (City Project No. 97-5445) is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 16, 1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL Donald R. Uram, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss HENNEPIN COUNTY ) This agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 1998, by Jean L. Harris and Donald R. Uram, the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Eden Prairie. Notary Public _____________ _ My commission expires _____ _ ----------------------------- EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR DEPARTMENT: Community Development Chris Enger Scott A. Kipp Requested Council Action: ITEM DESCRIPTION: HTG OFFICE BUILDING The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: DATE: 6-16-98 ITEM NO. • Approve 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to Office on .86 acres; • Adopt the Resolution approving Site Plan Review on .86 acres; • Approval of a Developer's Agreement. Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for Rezoning 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. HTG OFFICE BUILDING 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 Office District. SECTION 3. That 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 Office District, 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 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of June 16, 1998, entered into between TGP Enterprises, L.L.C. and the City of Eden Prairie, and which Agreement are hereby made a part hereof. SECTION 6. 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 19th day of May, 1998, 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 16th day of June, 1998. ATTEST: Donald R. Vram, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on ____________ _ Exhibit A HTG Office Building Le~al Description: The East 238 Feet of the North 100 Feet of the South 615 Feet of the Southeast Quarter, Except Road, Section 24, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The East 238 Feet of the North 100 Feet of the South 515 Feet of the Southeast Quarter, Except Road, Section 24, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. HTG OFFICE BUILDING 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: SummatY: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at 9300 and 9310 Hennepin Town Road from Rural to Office on .86 acres. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: ATTEST: lsi Donald R. Dram City Clerk This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. IslJean L. Harris Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _____ _ (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) 3 HTG OFFICE BUILDING CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR HTG OFFICE BUILDING BY TGP ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. WHEREAS, TGP Enterprises, L.L.C. has applied for Site Plan approval ofHTG Office Building on .86 acres for construction of a 4,200 square foot office building located at 9300 and 9310 Hennepin Town Road, to be zoned from Rural to Office Zoning District on .86 acres by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on May 19, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its April 27, 1998, Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its May 19, 1998, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to TGP Enterprises, L.L.c. for the construction of a 4,200 square foot office building, based on plans dated May 12, 1998, between TGP Enterprises, L.L.c., and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on June 16,1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT HTG OFFICE BmLDING THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of June 16, 1998, by TGP Properties, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, 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 Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Office on 0.86 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 0.86 acres, Site Plan Review on 0.86 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 0.86 acres into one lot for construction of a 4,260 square foot office building, legally described on Exhibit A (the "Property"); NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No.98-102 for Guide Plan Change, Ordinance No. for Zoning District Change, Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, and Resolution No. 98-103 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 revised and dated May 12, 1998, reviewed and approved by the City Council on May 19, 1998, and attached hereto as Exhtbit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer agrees to the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C. 3. UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of utilities for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's written approval of plans for sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved utility plans in conjunction with building permit issuance, and prior to occupancy. 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 ofa land alteration permit. All design calculations for storm water quantity together with· a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan. Developer shall employ the design professional who prepared the final grading plan. The design professional shall monitor construction for conformance to the approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy. The design professional shall 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 ExJnbit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Prior to release of the grading bond, Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan. 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. NURP POND: Developer acknowledges City's requirement that a NURP facility for the treatment of storm water be created and maintained on the Property. Developer has represented to City that construction of such a pond on the Property is not feasible. As a result, Developer has volunteered to make a payment to the City equal to the amount of2% of the land acquisition costs, plus $1000 per acre of impervious surface area on site, which Developer and City agree is an amount sufficient to substantially offset the additional impact on the City's storm water facilities caused by the absence of a NURP pond on the Property. Developer waives any and all rights to object to the nature or amount of this voluntary payment and agrees to hold hannless, defend and indemni:fY City, its officers, employees and agents from any claims, including claims made by third parties, challenging the nature or amount of the payment for any reason. Developer acknowledges that this payment is in lieu of a NURP facility only and that Developer and the Property may still b6 assessed or charged other amounts for construction and maintenance of storm water facilities, including but not limited to amounts for the storm water utility fund and special assessments relating to the Property. 7. REMOV AL/SEALING OF EXISTING WELL AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or building on the Property, Developer agrees to submit to the Chief Building Official and to obtain the Chief Building Official's written approval of plans for demolition and removal of existing septic systems and wells on the Property, and restoration ofthe Property. Prior to such demolition or removal, Developer shall provide to the City a deposit in the amount of$I,OOO.OO to guarantee that Developer completes implementation of the approved plan. The city agrees to return to Developer the $1,000.00 deposit at such time as the Chief Building Official has verified in writing that the Developer has completed implementation of the approved plan. 8. TREE LOSS -TREE REPLACEMENT: There are 122 caliper inches of significant trees on the Property. Tree loss related to development on the Property is calculated at 32 caliper inches. Tree replacement required are 11 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 11 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. 9. 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 Exlnbit C. 10. 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. 7 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. 11. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer shall submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property. For purposes of this paragraph, "mechanical equipment" includes gas meters, electrical conduit, water meters, and standard heating, ventilating, and air- conditioning units. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, in accordance with City Code requirements. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. If, after completion of construction of the mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by the City Planner, in his or her sole discretion, that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen mechanical equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then the City Planner shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to cure the deficiencies identified by the City Planner. Developer agrees that City will not release the security provided until Developer completes all such corrective measures. 12. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and colors to be used on the buildings on the Property. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved exterior materials and colors plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 13. SIGNS: Developer agrees that for each sign which requires a permit by Eden Prairie City Code, Section 11.70, Developer shall file with the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of an application for a sign permit. The application shall include a complete description of the sign and a sketch showing the size, location, the manner of construction, and other such information as necessary to inform the City of the kind, size, material construction, and location of any such sign, consistent with the sign plan shown on Exhibit B and in accordance with the requirements of City Code, Section 11.70, Subdivision Sa. 14. SITE LIGHTING: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan for site lighting on the Property. All lighting shall consist of downcast shoebox fixtures, and all pole mounted lighting shall not to exceed 20 feet in height. No lighting shall be permitted on the back side of the building. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved lighting plan prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. 15. TRASH: Developer agrees that all trash, trash receptacles and recycling bins shall at all times be located inside of the building depicted on Exhibit B. 16. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND USE AGREEMENT: Prior to issuance of the buildingpennit for the Property, the Developer shall prepare and execute a sanitary sewer easement maintenance agreement with the parcel directly south of the Property, the form of which must be approved in writing by the City Engineer. This Agreement shall address sanitary sewer use, access, and maintenance. All facilities shall be privately owned and maintained by the Developer or Owner(s). Prior to the issuance of any building pennit for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer proof that the sanitary sewer easement and maintenance agreement has been recorded in the Hennepin County Recorder's OfficelRegistrar of Titles' Office. 17. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT: Prior to release of a final plat for any portion of the property, Developer agrees to sign an assessment agreement with the City for trunk sewer and water assessments for an assessable area of 0.86 acres at the per acre rate then in effect. In addition Developer agrees to pay two connection fees for sanitary sewer and water at current rates prior to issuance of the building pennit. 18. FINAL ORDER NO. 98-13: Developer has obtained approval from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for a variance from City Code requirements within the Office zoning district for front yard setback to parking of 17.5 feet on the Property as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. This approval has been granted through Final Order No. 98-13, attached hereto as Exlubit E. Developer agrees to comply with all requirements of said Final Order No. 98-13. Prior to any building permit issuance for the Property, Developer agrees to provide proof to the City Planner that Final Order No. 98-13 of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals was filed against the Property at the Hennepin County Recorder'slRegistrar of Titles' Office. 19. 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. 9 OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN TGP PROPERTIES. LLC. AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE TIllS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of June 16, 1998, by and between Supplee Enterprises, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, ("Owner"), and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ("City"): For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Resolution No.98-102 for Guide Plan Change, Ordinance No. for Zoning District Change, Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, and Resolution No. 98-103 for Preliminary Plat, as more fully descnbed in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of June 16, 1998, by and between TGP Properties, LLC., a Minnesota Limited Liability Company, and City ("Developer's Agreement"), Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. IfTGP Properties, LLC., or Owner 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 Guide Plan Change, Zoning District Change, Site Plan Review, 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. 4. The City agrees that in the event TGP Properties, LLC. does not acquire the Property from Owner, the City agrees and consents to the assignment of the Developer's Agreement to Owner, and Owner hereby agrees in such event to perform obligations of "Developer" in the Developer's Agreement. /(J EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6-16-98 SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. JI1: (;-, DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger FULLER ROAD BUSINESS CENTER Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Approve 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 7.02 acres and Rezoning from I-General to 1-2 Industrial on 7.02 acres; • Adopt the Resolution approving Site Plan Review on 7.02 acres; • Approval of a Developer's Agreement. Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement ! FULLER ROAD BUSINESS CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 16-98-PUD-12-98 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 I-General Zoning District and be placed in the 1-2 Industrial Zoning District 16-98-PUD-12-98 (hereinafter "PUD-12-98-1-2"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of June 16, 1998, entered into between Fuller Road Business Center L.L.C., and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-12- 98-1-2, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-12-98-1-2 is not in conflict with the goals ofthe Comprehensive Guide Plan ofthe City. B. PUD-12-98-I-2 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-12-98-1-2 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-12-98-1-2 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the 1- General District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-12-98-1-2 and the legal descriptions ofland 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 19th day of May, 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 16th day of June, 1998. ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on ________________ _ Exhibit A Fuller RQad Business Center LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3. except that part of the North 390.98 feet of said Lot 3 (as measured at right angles to that port of the North line .of said Lot 3 having a record dimension of 398.11 feet) which lies Westerly of a line 60.00 feet Northwesterly of. measured at right angles to and parallel with the Southwesterly extension of that part of the Northwesterly line of Lot 2 having a record dimension of 426.00 feet. Block 1. Eden Prairie Industrial Park (The Southeast and Southwest boundaries of which have been marked by Judicial Landmarks set by Order of the Court in Torrens Case 18820). according to the plot thereof on file cr of record in the office of the Registrar oi Titles .in and for Hennepin County. ;/ FULLER ROAD BUSINESS CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 16-98-PUD-12-98 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: Summaiy: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at 7905 Fuller Road from I-General to 1-2 Industrial on 7.02 acres. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: ATTEST: lsI Donald R. Uram City Clerk This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. IslJean L. Harris Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _______ ' (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) s FULLER ROAD BUSINESS CENTER CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR FULLER ROAD BUSINESS CENTER BY FULLER ROAD BUSINESS CENTER L.L.C. WHEREAS, Fuller Road Business Center L.L.C. has applied for Site Plan approval of Fuller Road Business Center on 7.02 acres for construction of a one-story, 74,224 sq. ft. building located at 7905 Fuller Road, to be zoned from I-General to 1-2 Industrial Zoning District on 7.02 acres by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on May 19, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its April 27, 1998, Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its May 19, 1998, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Fuller Road Business Center L.L.C. for the construction of a 74,224 square foot building, based on plans dated April 10, 1998, between Fuller Road L.L.C., and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on June 16, 1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FULLER ROAD BUSINESS CENTER THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of June 16, 1998, by Fuller Road Business Center L.L.C., 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 PUD Concept Review, PUD District Review, Zoning District Change from 1-General to 1-2 Industrial, and Site Plan Review all on 7.02 acres in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property"; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. 16-98-PUD-12- 98 for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change, Resolution No. ___ for Site Plan Review, and Resolution No.98-88 PUD Concept Review, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer agrees to develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated April 10, 1998, reviewed and approved by the City Council on May 19, 1998, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer agrees to the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C. 3. 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 sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer. Plans for public infrastructure including water main and storm sewer shall be of a plan and profile presentation consistent with City standards. Developer agrees to complete implementation. of the approved utility plans in conjunction with the building permit and prior to occupancy of the property. 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 1 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, stonn water detention areas and other items required by the application for and release of a land alteration permit. All design calculations for stonn water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Prior to release of the grading bond, Developer shall certify to the City that the water quality pond confonns to the final grading plan. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan Developer shall employ the design professional who prepared the final grading plan. The design professional shall monitor construction for confonnance 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 pennit, 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 confonn to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Prior to release of the grading bond, Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan. Developer shall remove any sediment that accumulates in the existing and/or proposed sedimentation pond during construction. Developer shall provide preconstruction and post construction surveys for evaluation by City. 5. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property. 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. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, 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 pennit for the Property, Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved landscape plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C. 7. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer shall submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property. For purposes of this paragraph, "mechanical equipment" includes gas meters, electrical conduit, water meters, and standard heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning units. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, in accordance with City Code requirements. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. If, after completion of construction of the mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by the City Planner, in his or her sole discretion, that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen mechanical equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then the City Planner shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to cure the deficiencies identified by the City Planner. Developer agrees that City will not release the security provided until Developer completes all such corrective measures. 8. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and obtain the Chief Building Official's written approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls identified on the grading plan in Exhibit B. These plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for the retaining walls. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved retaining wall plan in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto, prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. 9. SIGNS: Developer agrees that for each sign which requires a permit by Eden Prairie City Code, Section 11.70, Developer shall file with the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of an application for a sign permit. The application shall include a complete description of the sign and a sketch showing the size, location, the manner of construction, and other such information as necessary to inform the City of the kind, size, material construction, and location of any such sign, consistent with the sign plan shown on Exhibit B and in accordance with the requirements of City Code, Section 11.70, Subdivision 5a. 10. TREE LOSS -TREE REPLACEMENT: There are 186 caliper inches of significant trees on the Property. Tree loss related to development on the Property is calculated at 186 caliper inches. Tree replacement required are 247 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 247 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. SITE LIGHTING: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's written approval of a plan for site lighting on the Property. All lighting shall consist of downcast shoebox fixtures not to exceed 20 feet in height. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved lighting plan prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. 12. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: The city hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the 1-2 Park Industrial District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD -I a -, g A. A waiver from the 50% office use allowed to 80% office use. 13. DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTRACTORS: Developer agrees to release, hold harmless, 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, hold harmless, defend and indemnify because of any inspection, review or approval by City. 14. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT: Prior to release of a final plat for any portion of the Property, Developer agrees to sign an assessment agreement with the City for the storm sewer improvements within Fuller Road. OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN FULLER ROAD BUSINESS CENTER AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of June 16, 1998, by and between Fuller Road Business Center L.L.C., a Minnesota corporation, ("Owner"), and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ("City"): For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance No.16-98-PUD-12-98, changing the zoning of the Property owned by Owner from the I-General District to the 1-2 District, Resolution No.98-88 for Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Resolution No. For Planned Unit Development District Review, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of June 16, 1998, by and between Fuller Road Business Center LLC, a Minnesota Corporation, and City ("Developer's Agreement"), Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Fuller Road Business Center L.L.C. 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 ofthe Rezoning, Site Plan Review, and Planned Unit Development 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. // CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent June 11, 1998 SOUTHWEST METRO ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. TRANSIT COMMISSION Participation in Local Levy Transit $. 'ft. Option for 1999 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: According to statute, each year, SMTC must request that its three service communities participate in the Local Levy Transit Option which provides that the City, instead of the Metropolitan Council, levy the transit tax for its property owners. For the 1998 levy, SMTC agreed to meet the "levy cap" imposed on the cities by the Legislature. Since that cap is in place for the 1999 levy as well, SMTC expects to follow the same procedure by agreeing to the same "levy cap" as the City of Eden Prairie. Regardless of the amount levied by the City for transit purposes, SMTC agrees that its budget and spending will remain within the limits set by the levy. After approval by Eden Prairie and the other two cities, SMTC will notify the Metropolitan Council and the Commissioner of Revenue of the intent of the cities and SMTC to participate in the option. The deadline for that notification is June 30. BACKGROUND: The adoption of the resolution sets a maximum transit levy amount for the City of Eden Prairie to levy its property owners. As with the city's process, this is not necessarily a final levy number, but a maximum amount which will not be exceeded for 1999. Of course, detailed budgets will be completed in tandem with the City's processes and presented for Council review. BUDGET IMPACT: This action will not impact the local budget for the City of Eden Prairie monetarily; however, the cities are once again able to include information on the Truth in Taxation (TNT) statements which separates the transit portion of the levy from the city portion of the levy. Southwest Metro will provide any assistance needed by the cities to facilitate the inclusion of these statements on the TNT statements. REQUESTED ACTION: That the Eden Prairie City Council adopt the resolution declaring its intent to exercise the Local Transit Levy Option for Taxes in 1999. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN RESOLUTION NO. __ DECLARING INTENT TO EXERCISE LOCAL TRANSIT LEVY OPTION FOR TAXES IN 1999 WHEREAS, Laws of Minnesota for 1996, Chapter 455, Section 4 (the "Local Levy Option Act"), allows the Cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, and Chaska, to make a local transit tax levy in lieu of receiving assistance from the Metropolitan Council under Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.388, subdivision 4; and, WHEREAS, said local transit levy will replace a similar transit tax levy which would otherwise be made by the Metropolitan Council; and, WHEREAS, in order to effectively exercise the local transit tax levy option, it is necessary that each of the Cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, and Chaska, notify the State Commissioner of Revenue and the Metropolitan Council of its intent to levy the taxes before July 1 of each levy year and to include in the notification the amount of the City's proposed transit tax for the levy year; and, WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Eden Prairie that it declare its intent to exercise the local transit levy option for taxes payable in 1999. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie as follows: I . The City hereby declares its intent to exercise the local transit tax levy option for taxes payable in 1999 as permitted by Local Levy Option Act and as certified by the State Commissioner of Revenue in accordance therewith. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to give the State Commissioner of Revenue and the Metropolitan Council of the City's intent to exercise the local transit tax option for taxes payable in 1999 in accordance with the notice attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of June, 1998. Jean Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Dram, City Clerk EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF INTENT TO EXERCISE LOCAL TRANSIT TAX LEVY OPTION FOR TAXES PAYABLE IN 1999 The State Commissioner of Revenue and the Metropolitan Council are hereby notified that the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, intends to exercise the local transit tax levy option for taxes levied in 1998 and payable in 1999 pursuant to Laws of Minnesota for 1996, Chapter 455, Section 4. The proposed amount of the City's transit tax for the 1999 levy year is $3,039,303, or the 1998 levy amount ($2,772,442) multiplied by the maximum levy limit for the City of Eden Prairie, whichever is less, all in accordance with Laws of Minnesota for 1996, Chapter 455, Section 4, for taxes levied by the City in 1998 and payable in 1999. By order of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Date: June 16, 1998 Section: Consent Calendar Department: PRNR ~ Subject: Tree That Creates A Hazardous Condition Item No.: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of at 7143 Ticonderoga Trail 1iJ:I Parks & Natural Resources BACKGROUND: Following the City Council meeting on June 2, 1998, staffwas directed to evaluate a tree at 7143 Ticonderoga Trail. The evaluation of that tree is attached to this memorandum. Staff has talked to Mr. And Mrs. Kleve since the initial inspection and has been told that they are seeking quotes from tree contractors to have the tree removed. Because of the recent storms, they are having difficultly finding a contractor; however, they hope to have quotes in the next few days and the tree removed within the next two weeks. They have indicated that they have a desire to have the tree removed as soon as possible for the safety of their property as well as that oftheir neighbors. The declaration of an unsafe condition is being pursued as a parallel course of action should the Kleve's not follow through on removing the tree. By declaring an unsafe condition, City staff would be able to bid out the removal of the tree and have the cost assessed against the property taxes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend that the City Council find this tree to be unsafe and order its removal under the affidavit set up and prepared by the City Attorney's office. In addition, staff would recommend that the order be implemented on July 1, 1998 ifa contractor is not secured by the Kleve's. SAF:mdd HazardlStu98 I Memorandum To: Roger Pauly, City Attorney Through: Carl Jullie, City Manager :~ From: Stuart A. Fox, City Forester Date: June 5, 1998 SiI~ject: Evaluation of Green Ash Tree at 7143 Ticonderoga Trail BACKGROUND: Staff was directed to evaluate a tree at 7143 Ticonderoga Trail following a complaint from the neighbors, the Smiths at 7129 Ticonderoga Trail. The Smiths reported that one portion of a tree had fallen onto their garage during a windstorm several weeks ago. Their concern was that additional damage may occur if the remaining portion of the tree fell. EVALUATION OF TREE'S CONDITION: Staff visited the property on the afternoon of June 3, 1998. The property owner, Mr. Keith Kleve, was present at the time that the tree was exanrined and photographed. The tree was found to be a twin stemmed green ash. Originally, it had three stems, but only two are remaining. One stem is 12" in diameter and the other is 18" in diameter. The tree is located approxlinately 18" from a plastic fence, which is assumed to mark the property line. The smaller diameter trunk is leaning over the . Smith's property and the larger 18" diameter trunk is leaning towards the Kleve's home. In looking at the tree, several things were noted during the examination. The major problems that were noted are as follows: • • • • The trunk that broke off allowed the interior of the three stems to be examined. Included bark was present on all three stems. Water was present in the bottom portion of the common union area. Two major cracks were found on the remaining stems. On each stem, I was able to insert a screwdriver easily to a depth of 6" into rotted portions of the lower trunk area. Decay was present on the interior faces of both remaining tree stems. RECOMMENDATION: Utilizing a pUblication by the International Society of Arboriculture entitled A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas staff considers this tree to be a hazard. Because of the codorninant nature of the stems and the rot that is present in the two remaining stems, either of these could fail under wind loading or snow loading. Because one stem has already failed in a windstorm, this only increases the likelihood that the remaining stems could fail in the near future. The presence of rot on the interior stems to a depth of6" or greater indicates that the trees when they do fail will fall outward from the center of the tree. This would result in one stem falling onto the Smith property and the other stem falling onto the Kleve property. It is the staffs recommendation tnat this tree be removed as soon as possible. SAF:mdd paUJy.memo -........ STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.----------------------- City of Eden Prairie, Plaintiffy v. Keith F. Cleve, Penny A. Cleve, Hiway Federal Credit Union, Sears Consumer Financial Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and First Bank National Association, Defendants. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER TO: Keith F. Cleve, Penny A. Cleve, Hiway Federal Credit Union, Sears Consumer Financial Corporation, and First Bank National Association: 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. Keith F. Cleve and Penny A. Cleve are the owners of property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 5, Hidden Ponds, subject to utility and drainage easements as shown on the plat. 3. Hiway Federal Credit Union is the holder of a mortgage on the Property filed with the Hennepin County Recorder as Mortgage Document No. 2283838, dated July 16, 1992, from Keith F. Cleve and Penny A. Cleve, husband and wife. 4. Sears Consumer Financial Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is the holder of '- a mo~gage on the Property filed with the Hennepin County Recorder as Mortgage Document No. 2293997, dated July 27, 1992, from Keith F. Cleve and Penny A. Cleve, husband and wife. 5. First Bank National Association is the holder of a mortgage on the Property filed with the Hennepin County Recorder as Mortgage Document No. 2389140, dated May 12, 1993, from Keith F. Cleve and Penny A. Cleve, husband and wife. 5. The Property is hazardous because of a damaged tree, a portion of which has already fallen during a windstorm. The remaining portion is substantially damaged and poses a hazard to neighboring properties. 6. The Property constitutes a hazardous condition of a parcel of real estate within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 463.161 for the following reasons: a. The tree, a twin stemmed green ash, is located approximately eighteen inches from the property line. The tree originally had three stems, but only two are remaining. One stem is twelve inches in diameter and the other is eighteen inches in diameter. The. smaller diameter trunk is leaning over the neighboring property, and the larger diameter trunk is leaning towards the Cleves' home. b. Upon examination, it was noted that water is pres~nt in the bottom portion . of the union area of the stems. Two major cracks were found on the remaining stems. On each stem, the lower trunk area is substantially rotted, allowing the insertion of a screwdriver up to a six inch depth. Decay is present on the interior faces of both remaining tree stems. c. Based on the nature of the stems, and the rot that is present in the two remaining stems, either stem could fail under wind loading or snow loading. The presence of rot on the interior stems to a depth of six inches or greater indicates that when the tree does fall it will fall outward from the center, resulting in one stem falling upon the neighboring property and one upon the Cleves' property. 7. The Property is in need. of correction in order to remedy the hazardous condition. The following repair is necessary: a. Removal of the hazardous tree. ORDER 8. It is ordered that the hazardous condition 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. jmi\eplhazbldglfindings.cle BY ORDER OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By __________________________ _ Dr. Jean Harris, Its Mayor By ________________________ __ Carl .J. Ju11ie, Its Manager LANG, PAULY, GR£GERSON & ROSOW, LTD. BreJ/!G~t(:6if 1600 IBM Park Building 650 Third Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 338-0755 '7 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6-16-98 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS Jttt ITEM NO. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger WYNSTONE 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 Zoning District Change from RI-22 to RI-13.5 and RM- 6.5 on 9.01 acres; 3. Adopt the Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 6.95 acres; 4. Adopt the Resolution for Preliminary Plat of9.01 acres into 29 lots; and 5. Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations (and Council conditions). Background: This project is 24 twinhomes and 5 single family homes. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission voted 4 - 2 to recommend approval of the project at the June 8, 1998 meeting. Park & Recreation Commission Recommendation: The project was approved on a 4-1 vote. Supporting Reports: I. Resolutions 2. Staff Report dated April 10, 1998 and May 8, 1998 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated May II, 1998 and April 13, 1998 4. Correspondence WYNSTONE 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 ofWynstone by Jasper Development for 24 twinhomes and 5 single family homes requires the amendment of the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby adopts the amendment ofthe Plan subject to Metropolitan Council approval as follows: 6.95 acres from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential located at 7102, 7126 & 7128 Baker Road. ADOPTED by the City Council ofthe City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of June, 1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Uram, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF WYNSTONE FOR JASPER DEVELOPMENT BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: WYNSTONE That the preliminary plat ofWynstone for Jasper Development dated May 26, 1998, consisting of 9.01 acres into 29 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 16th day of June, 1998. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: Donald R. Dram, City Clerk 3 PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 2 A. WXNSTONE, continuation, by Jasper Development. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 6.95 acres, Rezoning from RI-22 to R1-13.5 and RM-6.5 on 9.01 acres, Preliminary Plat on 9.01 acres into 31 lots and Site Plan Review on 6.95 acres. Location: 7102, 7126 & 7128 Baker Road. Planner Franzen introduced Jim Jasper, of Jasper Development, and asked him to give his report to the Commission. He requested that Jasper address how the developer has taken another look at the density, talk about the changes in the buffer zone, and how to resolve the off-site drainage. Larry Harris, Jasper Development's attorney, addressed the Commission with the following report: The developer has reduce the number of town home units from 26 to 24, this reduced the multi-family density from 3.95 to 3.64 units. In terms of increasing the buffer: Landscaping and plantings have been moved to the southeast of the development, which is the area that the screening issues were raised. At a previous Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission had asked the developer to consider adding sidewalks to back of the lots. Harris told the Commission there is a public safety issue in the fact that the grade of the area is over 40 percent, which would make the land unsuitable for public sidewalks. In terms of the stormwater drainage issue: Jasper Development has had meetings with Hennepin County and is proposing that Jasper Development will construct a new storm sewer line in the roadway right-of-way of Baker Road, the Hennepin County roadway right-of-way, discharging into the low area on the north end of St. Andrews. The issue of private easements will be resolved because the entire line will be on Hennepin County right-of-way. This solution will also alleviate the problem that the City currently has with a storm sewer line which is encroaching on private property in this area. Gene Ernst, landscape architect, gave a visual presentation of the revised landscape plans, both in plan view and in section view. Sandstad expressed concerns that the 6-and-8-foot-high retaining walls would need to have some type of safety fencing installed at their tops, along with the planned plantings. PLANNING COMMISSION May 11, 1998 Page 3 Planner Franzen stated staff is recommending approval according to the recommendations of the last two pages of the staff report. Foote opened the floor to the public for their comments. No public concerns were raised on the Wynstone application. Foote asked for comments from the Commission. Sandstad spoke in favor of the project; although, he, again, expressed his concern for safety issues at the tops of the retaining walls. He asked the developer to consider installing a split-rail fence in these areas. Dorn, too, expressed his concern about the retaining wall height. He suggested that the retaining walls be built in stages: A four foot height, then step back to another height. This would give more eye appeal to the walls and also offer more green space. Alexander stated she would vote in favor of the project. Lewis thanked the developer for addressing the density issue and the drainage issues. She said she was in favor ofthe project. Habicht agreed with Ms .. Lewis' statement and said he was in favor ofthe project. Clinton gave the project his approval. Foote stated his original concern had been tree loss and these concerns have been addressed in the landscaping plan. He thanked the developer for addressing the density issue and the storm sewer issues. MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Clinton to close the public hearing. Motion carried. 7 -O. MOTION: Alexander moved, seconded by Clinton to recommend to the City Council approval of the request by Jasper Development for a 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, based on plans dated May 5, 1998, and subject to the recommendation of the staff report dated May 8, 1998. Motion carried 7 -O. PLANNING COMMIS~10N MINUTES April 13, 1998 Page 2 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. WYNSTONE by Jasper Development. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 6.95 acres, Rezoning fromRI-22 toRI-13.5 andRM-6.5 on 9.01 acres, Preliminary Plat on 9.01 acres into 31 lots and Site Plan Review on 6.95 acres. Location: 7102, 7126 & 7128 Baker Road. Jim Jasper and Larry Harris gave a presentation on the project. Harris noted this projec;t was not approved in 1997 because the City Council determined there was no compelling reason to change the guide Plan. The plans have been revised to reflect the changes requested by the City and the residents of the area and are detailed in the staff report. The landscape plan has been revised and the site has been redesigned to meet the goal of the City to have more life cycle housing. The development will be housing for seniors or people 55 and over and features one level housing and no maintenance exteriors. This project will meet the goals and desires set forth by the City of Eden Prairie in it's long range housing plans. There will be a private non- through street for the proj ect. There will be a good deal of landscaping and the housing will be constructed as townhomes with only one common wall between each unit. He described the common areas and noted there will be a Homeowners Association for the maintenance of the property. Prices of the units will range from $170,000 to about $210,000 per unit. Harris reviewed the landscape plan and the plantings around the perimeter of the site and within the site itself. He noted the improvements they have made to this plan from the previous plan. He noted the project has been redesigned and is being specifically marketed to meet a specific need identified by the City, and the Planning Commission must determine if it is appropriate for this site. Kipp gave the staff report and noted that the total number of units has not changed from the previous plan. However, staff recommends approval of Alternative I as outlined in the staff report. Foote asked about the amount of tree loss and Kipp responded that it is about 57% and this was similar to the tree loss for the Maple Hill development where the topography was such that it was difficult to avoid substantial tree loss in order to develop the property. Dorn asked where the tree loss would occur and Kipp responded it would be over the entire property. Dorn noted that it appeared they would end up losing most of the trees on the property whenever it was developed. Clinton asked if the project would have some identification as a senior housing project. Jim Jasper responded that they would not specifically designate it as a development for seniors, but their marketing strategy would be directed towards people in this age group. They have found that when most of the homeowners are in this age group it tends to discourage younger people from buying in the same development. PLANNING COMMIS::uON MINUTES April 13, 1998 Page 3 The Public Hearing was opened. Jim Brandser, 7238 Vervoort Lane, stated he was opposed to the development because the density has not changed from the previous plan and he felt it would be a detriment to those homes that are already in the area. He was concerned about the drainage plan and how it would impact the property to the south. He believed the density proposed was too high and there was no compelling reason to change the guiding on the property. He was also concerned about increased traffic from the development. John Mallow, Forest Hill road, stated he agreed with Mr .. Brandser that the density was too high, and was unchanged from the previous proposal. He was concerned about whether the project would be sold as senior housing and that there were no restrictive covenants on the property which would guarantee that was how these lots would be sold. He commented the proposal was a community unto itself and he was opposed to this because he wanted to see sidewalks connecting their neighborhood with Forest Hills school so the children do not have to walk along Baker Road to get to the playgrounds there. He commented he had been told that this was a private development and the city cannot require the proponent to construct a sidewalk. He felt this was very serious and there would be children within the new development. These neighborhoods should be connected to allow access between them. He was concerned about the home that is adjacent to the site being moved onto Forest Hill Road and not being a part of this development, and he thought it should be included. Terry Willms en, 7265 Vervoort Lane, stated he was concerned about the density which was too high and the amount of tree loss which would occur on the site. He would prefer to have single family homes constructed on the site. If the Guide Plan is changed for this site it will set a precedent for further guide plan changes throughout the City. Scott Ringhand, 7270 Vervoort Lane, stated he felt the density was too high and he was told it would be developed as single family housing when he purchased his home. He was concerned about the substantial amount of tree loss and noted the view would be buildings instead of trees as it is now. He commented it will take 40 years for the trees to grow back the way they are now. He was concerned about how the children in his neighborhood would be adversely impacted by this development. Wayne Zeien, 7246 Vervoort Lane, was concerned about the landscaping plan which was not as complete as he would like to see and he wanted to know if it would be changed. The plan was not that much different from the earlier one. He was concerned about the drainage and how the development would impact the drainage flow to the south. He was concerned about how it would be marketed as being for "empty nesters" because there were no covenants requiring that it be marketed that way. He was also concerned about the amount of tree loss, he felt the density was too high, and the Guiding was for single family housing and he felt it should remain that way, and was opposed to changing it. 1 PLANNING COMMIS~~ON MINUTES April 13, 1998 Page 4 M. Eshmawy, 8724 Crest Road, Bloomington, submitted a letter noting he was the owner of the property directly south of the proposed development. He stated he was opposed to the project because the drainage will go across his lot and ruin his property. He asked the City of Eden Prairie to re-route the drainage from going across his land. Kipp stated the proponent will have to work with the property owner to resolve this issue prior to any permit approval for this project. Marty Camp, Project Engineer, reviewed the drainage plans as they were of such concern to the residents. He noted they plan to install a NURP pond in the central portiqn of the town house development which will provide water storage and it will be discharged from this NURP pond at the same rate as the existing runoff. This runoff will flow into the existing storm drainage system, at the same rate as presently exists on the site. Ron Harris, 7262 Vervoort Lane, was concerned about the density of the project, and noted the trees that would replace the existing trees would be much smaller in size. He asked what size tree would be used in the landscape replacement process. He was concerned about children playing in the cul-de-sac and what the impact of this development would be on their safety. He was concerned about the traffic that would be generated from this development. Lyndon Moquist, 13772 Candice Lane, was concerned about the density which was too high, and noted he built his horne there because he had been assured by City officials that the land adjacent was guided for single family residential. He thought the value of the townhomes was too little for Eden Prairie and it would adversely impact the adjacent property values. He was opposed to changing the zoning or the Guide Plan to permit this development. He noted there were approximately 150-200 townhomes available in Eden Prairie now, and he did not believe they should be building more when so many were currently available. He felt the need should revolve around the buyer rather than the seller. Foote asked if the proponent had a cross-section which would show the view from the adjacent properties, and Valerie Rivers, the landscape architect for the project, stated that the trees they intend to use for the project would be ten feet tall when planted and they were guaranteed for a year, or they would have to be replaced. They will use 2.5-3" caliper shade trees, and it will be screened significantly more than the previous plan. There will be the grade change to break up the view. Sandstad commented he was concerned about how much flexibility in the design there was as they often pass things as they are presented. He was also concerned about the density and the buffering and the amount of screening around the project, as well as the drainage onto an adjacent property. He commented the average horne valuation in Eden Prairie was not $300,000 to $400,000, but concurred that diversity in housing types was desired in Eden Prairie. Foote stated he felt the project was needed but the density was rather high. If one unit were removed it would not change the view from the west much and it would PLANNING COMMIS~HON MINUTES April 13, 1998 Page 5 bring the density down. Even single family residential development would be visible from the adjacent properties. He was not comfortable with the drainage plan. The premise could work but the plan needs to be reworked. Alexander commented the City needs more senior housing but it was not specified that this development would be senior housing. She felt the density was rather high, and she was concerned about the drainage onto an adjacent property. Dorn commented that the City could not specify a certain type of housing or enforce covenants to that effect. The developer can build a project that the younger people of Eden Prairie want to buy ifhe so desires. He asked about the house on top of the hill and how much of the hill would be removed. The Engineer reviewed the existing topography on the site and noted that it flows from north to south and the existing high point on the south part is at the 908 elevation. The foundations for the garages will be at about the 902 elevation. They will take off about ten feet on the north and about five feet on the southern portion of the site. Dorn inquired if the proponents intended to secure an easement for drainage over the property to the south, and the engineer responded that the existing storm system along Baker Road flows into catch basins along Baker Road and St. Andrews Road. They will be required to discharge drainage from the NURP pond at the predetermined rate of not more than goes out now. Discussion ensued regarding the needed easement for the existing storm sewer system as well as the proponent's drainage plan. Jasper stated that water is being discharged onto private property without benefit of an easement and they have been required to resolve this problem with M. Eshmawy. Lewis commented she concurred there was a need for senior housing in the City but was concerned about this development being used for that purpose. She was also concerned about the drainage issue as well as the density. Kipp noted staff checked with the City Attorney regarding the issue of requiring the developer to declare the property as a senior housing project and had been advised that to do this would not violate any civil right the developer has as age was not held to be a discriminating element in the area of housing. Sandstad commented he was not concerned about this project being purchased by other people and he did not want to get into requiring them to sell to a particular market. He believed that the type of housing built would determine who would buy it. Jasper concurred with Sandstad and noted the developer of a project does things required by the City that will appeal to a certain type of homeowner. He did not want to have a requirement put on an approval that would limit the product to a certain type of homeowner. Jasper discussed the issue of the density and commented that in order to provide affordable housing for this age group, it was necessary to construct the units at a level that made it possible for the development to succeed. If the Planning Commission felt the density was too great for the site then there was no point in discussing it further. This housing was meant to allow people 55 and older that want to scale down to have some affordable housing that is in the vicinity of where they presently reside. They <1 PLANNING COMMIS~.lON MINUTES April 13, 1998 Page 6 believe the landscaping plan is excellent and he did not know what more the City could want,. He noted the drainage issue can be resolved, and they are willing to consider changes. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote, to continue the Public Hearing for 30 days to allow the proponent to resolve the issues of density, to provide cross sections of the views from adjacent properties from the south, west, and north, and resolve the drainage issue with the property owner to the south. The issue of pedestrian safety should be reviewed, and the proponent should consider connecting side~alks to Candice Lane. Motion carried 6-0. Sandstad commented there are at least four parties involved in the drainage issue, and it might take longer than 30 days to resolve it. /0 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: REQUEST: Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, City Planner April 10, 1998 Wynstone 1998 Jasper Homes of Waconia Wilbur Gjersvik, Steven T. and Karen 1. Lipe, William B. Bunn, Donald Flom East of Baker Road and north of St. Andrew Drive 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 6.59 acres. 2. PUD Concept Review on 9.01 acres. 3. PUD District Review on 9.01 acres. 4. Zoning District Change from RI-22 to RM-6.5 on 6.59 acres and RI-13.5 on 2.42 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 9.01 acres into 31 lots. ;1 ~ .~ r I » :z: _ , ~ "'[I (". r: ~ .:"./ r. rr. "_;'] '~.' :v c: z I'" ~ ._/ » AI --I c.~: .~ i:: ~ ~~: r---.J ._. r ..: .- ~,:>-l+' ~ ". '1<"" I I ~ // / ( II /.J. _L1J~~j·J--~-'-'->' '-..... --u~- r r r' -< Staff Report Wynstone April 10, 1998 BACKGROUND: A plan for 31 lots, 9 single family and 22 twinhomes, was denied by the Council in 1997 due to no compelling reasons for changing the guide plan, an inadequate transition to single family areas to the south, and road connections. The site is currently guided low density residential for up to 2.5 units per acre. Surrounding land is guided low density to the north, south and west. Land east of Baker Road is low density and medium density. The site is currently zoned RI-22. Surrounding land is zoned RI-22 to the west, RI-13.5 to the north and south, and RI-13.5 and RM 6.5 east of Baker Road. REVISED SITE PLAN: The site plan has 26 twinhomes and five single family homes. There is no connection to Forest Hills Road. Candice Lane is a cuI de sac. The twinhomes have a separate entrance on Baker Road. The grading plan eliminates the 20 foot high retaining walls along the south property line which leaves room conifers and shade trees. The twinhomes are proposed as slab on grade or walkout and designed for the 55 and over market. All of the single family lots meet the lot size requirements of the RI-13.5 zoning district. All of the twinhome lots meet the 3,000 square foot lot size requirements of the RM-6.5 district. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE: The Planning Commission must decide if there are compelling reasons for changing the comprehensive plan on a portion of the property to allow 26 twinhomes at a density of 3 .95 units per acre. The proponent believes the guide plan should be changed for the following reasons: 1. The mixed use is consistent with land uses in this part of Eden Prairie. 2. The proposed townhouses are situated to have minimal impact on existing single family homes. Tree replacement is used to create a buffer to the single family homes to the south. 3. The proposed town homes are consistent with the City's goal of providing a Staff Report Wynstone April 10, 1998 variety of housing. Reasons for not changing the guide plan are as follows: 1. Arbor Glen Townhouses is the only multiple family development adjacent to the site across Baker Road. Arbor Glen is a mixed use project. The overall density is 1.96 ynits per acre. Even though the guide plan graphically shows the townhouses as multiple, since the density is less than 2.5 units per acre, the City did not require or approve a guide plan change. 2. The density ofthe proposed townhouses at 3.95 units per acre is higher than Arbor Glen Townhouses at 3.77 units per acre. 3. The density is higher than the adjoining neighborhoods. TRANSITION: When higher density projects are located next to lower density neighborhoods, the City code requires a transition. Transition can be created by small increases in density at the edge of abutting neighborhoods, berming and plantings, and increased setbacks. The use of a private road, the Candice Lane cuI de sac, and perimeter plantings help create a transition. GRADING AND TREE LOSS: There are 548 caliper inches of significant trees on the property. Tree loss is calculated at 334 inches. The tree replacement required is 266 inches. The landscape plan meets this requirement. UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE: Sewer and water are available to the site. A NURP pond is shown on the plan. Drainage easements must be acquired by the developer from the property owner to the south or increase the size of the pond to keep runoff to pre development rates. SIDEWALKS: A five-foot wide sidewalk is shown on the plan. The sidewalk on Baker Road must be extended Staff Report Wynstone April 10, 1998 to the south property line. ACCESS: The access to Baker Road has been approved by Hennepin County. CONCLUSION: The current plan is better than the previous proposal for the following reasons. 1. The proj ect provides a buffer to the single family homes to the south. 2. Candice Lane is a cuI de sac. 3. The housing is designed for the 55 and older market. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Alternative One If the Planning Commission is believed that compelling reasons have been provided for changing the Comprehensive Guide plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, then one option would be to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Change from RI-22 to Rl- 13.5 and RM 6.5 and Preliminary Plat based on plans dated April 10, 1998, subject to the conditions of the staff report dated April 10, 1998, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. --) ------------------------------------------ Staff Report Wynstone April 10, 1998 C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review. D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. 3. Prior to grading, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer, Watershed District, and City Forester. Construction fencing must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal. Alternative Two If the Planning Commission feels that compelling reasons have not been provided to change the guide plan from low density residential to medium residential, that the plan does not provide a transition in density, and that tree loss is high, then one option would be to recommend that the project be continued to meet the guide plan density of2.5 units per acre. The staff recommends Alternative One. /0 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SURJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: REQUEST: Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, City Planner May 8, 1998 Wynstone 1998 • Jasper Homes of Waconia Wilbur Gjersvik, Steven T. and Karen I. Lipe, William B. Bunn, Donald Flom East of Baker Road and north ofSt. Andrew Drive 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 6.59 acres. 2. PUD Concept Review on 9.01 acres. 3. PUD District Review on 9.01 acres. 4. Zoning District Change from Rl-22 to RM-6.5 on 6.59 acres and R1-13.5 on 2.42 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of9.0l acres into 29 lots. --------::--- '!lO 3 Alln.)3lC3 "" C. rr. fJ1 c..~~CJ c: :r. rr> ; ., :u --f ,', ;: j.,./, _. , ' .. ' ~~ ~: -... ,. --:~Jr )I!j\'d ~ u ... '" ., ...... ..... 'it <I, ''.>: 11 T :l~ '. :~: Pi P! _ ... .. :":: .... . ," ,)' i; \ :;::~ p'; u., ]]11]~lJii-LJ I I , V13llt··Z~>;1. \ t7---U0~~_~~ "\ '\\ ~ -------.~ L ::c o r r -< ::c o ~ o Staff Report Wynstone May 8,1998 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission voted to continue discussion on this item and directed the developer to take another look at density, improve the buffer zone, resolve offsite drainage, and provide site lines from the north, south and west. REVISED SITE PLAN: The site plan has two less twinhomes. There are 24 twinhomes and five single family homes. The density of the twinhomes is 3.64 units per acre. The density of the Arbor Glen town homes is 3.77 units per acre. GRADING AND TREE LOSS: There are 548 caliper inches of significant trees on the property. Tree loss is calculated at 334 inches. The tree replacement required is 266 inches. The landscape plan meets this requirement. All of these trees are located on the south and west sides of the site. LANDSCAPE PLAN: The landscape plan meets the caliper inch requirement based on building square footage. Most of the caliper inch trees are in the interior of the project. If the Commission feels that additional trees are needed, the amount of available land is limited due to a storm sewer line needed to provide proper rear yard drainage. Staff estimates that 15 more trees could be added. DRAINAGE: Sewer and water are available to the site. A NURP pond is shown on the plan. The offsite drainage plan is a storm sewer pipe in County right of way which does not impact the land to the south. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Alternative One If the Planning Commission is believed that compelling reasons have been provided for changing the Comprehensive Guide plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, then one option would be to recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Change from RI-22 to RI- 19 -------------------------------------------------- Staff Report Wynstone May 8,1998 13.5 and RM 6.5 and Preliminary Plat based on plans dated May 8, 1998, subject to the conditions ofthe 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 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 must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal. Alternative Two If the Planning Commission feels that compelling reasons have not been provided to change the guide plan from low density residential to medium residential, that the plan does not provide a transition in density, and that tree loss is high, then one option would be to recommend that the project be continued to meet the guide plan density of 2.5 units per acre. The staff recommends Alternative One. Date: May 19,1998 Memo: To: Mayor and City Council, and Planning Commission From: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner Subject: Wynstone Public Hearing " 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. ~I JUN-08-98 MON 02:44 PM NORWEST BLOOMINGTON Date: 6/8/98 To: Mike Franzen City Planning Commission Members From: Wayne Zeien 7246 Vervoort Lane Eden Prairie Rc: Wynstone Development by Jasper Development Dear Mike and Planning Commission Members: Tonight the council will be voting on the Jasper Development's Wynstone project off of Baker Road. I live directly south of this proposed site and will not be able to be at the meeting tonight due to an unexpected work emergency. I would however like to make the following points. 1. The Comprehensive Guide Plan for the city currently has this property zoned at single family. This was one of the primary reasons that we purchased om home 5 years ago. We, as djd our neighbors, visited the city offices to be sure ofthe zoning of this land. We would not have bought our home here had we suspected that the city would ignore the comprehensive guide plan and rezone the property because a builder asks. This is the main point with this development -THE PROPERTY DOES NOT NEED TO BE REZONED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT -THE PROPERTY CAN BE EASILY DEVELOPED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 2. This property had a similar project rejected a few years ago because to the need to change the densiry. And also Jasper Development wanted to change the development fOT the same project, but they were voted down because there was not sufticient evidence that the zoning change was needed. Because of these two prior decisions it would contrary to the planning commisions own record to approve rezoning this property at this time. Although Mr. Jasper has made improvements to the plan, THE PROPERTY IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR REZONING EVEN THOUGH IT HAS BEEN SEEN AS NOT NECESSARY IN THE PAST! JUN-08-98 MON 02:44 PM NORWEST BLOOMINGTON EBS FAX NO. 6128308907 3. I have many concerns about the trallsistion from this property to my back yard. Although the plans show a fair amount of screening, 10 foot conifers. 1 feCI that the height of the twin homes will still mean that these homes will be IOOlning over my home. 4. My other concern is the property that is at the end of Vervoort Lane. The owner of this property has already stated publicly that if this development is approved he will demand that the council approve the same rezoning on his property. This is not acceptable due the the number of small children on Vervoort Lane and the increase in traffic. Please, remember that the land has already been voted down twice prior for rezoning. The design of the more dense plan does not change the fact that rezoning this property goes against the comprehensive guide plans, and the information given to the neighbors who have bought their homes several years ago. P. 02/03 Please call with any questions that you Jnay have. I would be more than happy to discuss this with you. Sincerely, /)~:w--Wayne~ien work 830-7107 home 975-0550 ***'* I have also attached a e-mail from my neighbor Jim Brandser who is out of town on business and unable to attend the meeting. JON dB 98 noN 62. 45 Pi! Zeien, Wayne From: To: Subject: Date: (MNIMT) "Bo _ Brandser"@dgii.com 613@compuserv.com; Zeien, W"iJ.yne Jasper Monday. June 08, 19981:17PM I n1\ 1 'IV. 0 I CO;)UuoJu I (MNIMT) 1. In 1993, when considering a move to eden prairie{on Vervoort lane),1 did my research and the land above us W"iJ.S zoned single-family. This was important to me in choosing a place to raise my family. Now it appears that you are changing the rules by ch"iJ.nging the density and I have seen no compelling reason for the change other than Mr. Jasper wanting to make a ' bigger profitThe multi-family does not fit existing homes nor is it ' consistent with guide pl"iJ.n. THIS LAND DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DEVELOPgD into town homes! 2. Jaspers has 5 homes that buffer the Candice Lane homes ( that are similar homes). The townhomes that will be next to the Vervoort homes do not provide the same consistency nor acceptable transition. 3. Arbor Glenn was built prior to any of the homes around it The home owners had a choice to buy, knowing to the townhomes were already built there. Mr. Jasper's example of the Arbor Glen neighborhood. to his project, is not a fair comparison. 4. If this project is approved, the land south of Jasper development. will have a open door to build townhomes This means more cars driving through a neighborhood of many children. Why even design guideplans, to protect our neighbor hoods, when they can be altered for any builder who can complain .!nd petition to have denSities changed for bigger prOfits. 5. The walking path disturbs roe very much. The idea of strangers walking just yards from my children, two dogs and our deck seems like an invaSion of our privacy and safety. Eden Prairie is known for is parks and walking paths, I feel another path is not needed. 6. Council Members before you vote I ask you to put yourself in our position -Please do not approve this density change. Page 1 Planning Commissioners/City Council City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN. 55344 Dear City Representatives, 4/17/98 Housing for senior citizens has become a city misSion overriding concerns of current residents .• The Jasper development called Wynstone at Baker Road has become a scam. The developer has misrepresented his plans to the city and residents of Eden Prairie. Is the commission's loyalty to a developer or the citizens of Eden Prairie? The meeting held April 9th at Eden Prairie Center by Jasper Development raised many concerns; first, the intent of the development. The developer insists there is a preSSing need for senior housing and this would fulfill that need. If intended for senior citizens, wouldn't it be appropriate to include a covenant to allow only seniors to purchase the property? Mr. Jasper's representative stated it would be illegal. When at the public hearing this concern was raised again at least two commission members agreed. After much discussion, city planners said that the City Attorney had assured the commission it is legal. While illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, and religion, age can be used. After the commission was told, they stated a covenant was unnecessary. Why does the commission side with the developer by saying that a covenant would be illegal, then when told a covenant is legal agree with the developer again that it is unnecessary? Another concern raised was the Flom home not being included as part of the submitted plan. Jasper stated, ''If the house is brought up to code it can put anywhere we want it, and that can be done without any public hearing." This issue was raised again at the public hearing. The planning commission sent it back to the planning department without addressing the Flom home. In the interim I have found the planning department was unaware of Mr. Jasper's plan. Mr. Jasper mislead attendees; moving a home into an existing neighborhood requires a public hearing. A third concern is safety and a closed neighborhood. This development will have a private sidewalk encircling it, not connected with Candice Lane. During the development of Candice Lane I requested a sidewalk connecting Forest Hill to Theresa. Our children now go to Forest Hills School without travelling on busy Baker Road. Children play between Candice and Forest Hills and there are many adults contacts. Connecting communities has been positive. The last issue is density. Density changes will affect adjoining neighborhoods. The public hearing addressed water run-off. The Baker Road storm sewer built in 1985 was sized for low density housing, lower than recommendation, with the understanding that ponds would be built. Now owners are trying to change the density and reduce the pond sizes to maximize their relurn. They are trying to put 10 pounds into a 5 pound bag. The main concern of this developer has always been return on investment. Whatever can be done for the greatest return, from reducing sewer size, to removing all the trees, to increasing density. The concern has never been the city or community. It's time to refuse. They need to start over by developing a plan to meet the City's plan and finish Forest Hill Road with a cul-du-sac. People left the public hearing of April 13th feeling many issues were never addressed. Whether it is the intent or the precedent that has been established, the format favors the developer. He presents his plan, then residents bring forward issues. The developer presents his plan again now knowing concerns of the commissioners and community. The commissioners then discuss it. Many concerns the residents present do not get addressed, i.e. movement of the Flom house. Secondly, the developer get to react to/adjust a second presentation based on knowing salient information. The public has no second chance or recourse. Public hearings need time limits but there are changes that could greatly enhance communication. First, each issue should be answered as it is brought up. Secondly, residents should have the opportunity to ask questions of the developer. It hardly encourages participation in government if issues which have been voiced are unaddressed by the process. Thank you for your attention. John E. Mallo 14000 Forest Hill Road Eden Prairie, MN 55346 937 -9309 or 937-2926 Aprii 10. 1998 Tn' r;i-"\.' Pbnnll'o Vn(y11'""PT" .... ~." -..... : ...... _· ....... · ........ 0 ................ 0. ........ -_ .. From: Iv!. Eshmnwv I am the owner of lite onmertv iegallv described as lot 2 i Auditor's t:' ., ,_ .. 1: •. : .. : "._ .-, "" :: uUUU!V!,')lVU ..t....t....J. --.. -.. T '.J I ~.' ..' t 1 ,1 n' ~ ara. opposIng Tl'!e ... asper !-'el:/~!(:P!!1~!l!. prq;e:-.. :0carea 0!1 0D.l(er Street. I srrongiy believe that It this development \vil1 be built. my land win be fu.ii1~d. "tNhy? \V ~ll, Jasp~l D~vdopment is planning to build an e3.sement on the CO!!ler of !'n.)' kt. Fu!"!!'!e!7!'!ore, tl:e drainage from their houses \vili pour jnto m:v lot. ruining the soil on my iot. I feel like I have no ~hoice in this situation. although I own this piec~ of land. There must be something !h3.t ·:u!'! be ·:!one to s:top this drainage. Also_ originailv. from reading the zoning: Dlans for this area of Eden --- rrairie, it staks thu'£ <..I.E hOliS~S pbi1l1ed fu{ th~ 101:S J.~v·aiL1bk are to be made L' 1 ". 1 ' '1 T L ,..... 1 t' 1 l' .:..(;! t .. le !'!ee~~ ()! :l S:!1~Ae ta!!:I40'~' ~,:c,t t.c·'.:\.:n!10~lse~. l'l".!rt.!.le!"!TIOre, J0!11 ... f~0!(lr!g -~ .- at the clans for Jasner Deveiocments houses. thev are all drawn to _ ,;... a l\.)WiihOU~~;j. This \"i11 d~preciat.; tile value of the houses in this area~ ;,,(,11'(11-T'0 ,,'h~t T rlP-t';~p h' ~llild nn nn! lr.t ........ _ .... _ .. -... ......... c ......... -...... ---... ----.. _. -_ ......... --..-.......... -.... .: ........... ~ J would ':!remly uDnrec~tc yeu lonkimz all ofthis over. and considering <ill thcs~ CllUfliZCS lil\..jl~ Ci0Sdv. '"-.,:' ,,; n .~p1"",l,. _ .......... _-.... -"'--" , ,A.../f £-// / C J. r/--.. k'...__......._. "\ / . ' ~:{E_;h~1~~',~.~-, -----------17-----·------- 8724 Crest Road n1.--..... :1""t.-.. ... ..-~-. "'rlt..T c:.~1"':' L>!VVllU 19lVU, lVl1. ~ ..... ' .J'-t..t....J if; 1 '1 \ Q':; (L R:.i7'l \ _. --./ ----.. - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 1998 Page 2 A. WYNSTONE by Jasper Development. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Changes from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 6.95 acres, Rezoning from Rl-22 to RI-13.5 andRM-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. Larry Harris, representing Jasper Development reviewed the proposed plans. He noted the number of twinhome units has been reduced from the previous plan from 26 units to 24 units. The sidewalk connection to Candice Lane has been reviewed, but the proponent felt the grades were too steep for the sidewalk which would be over 30% slope. The storm sewer extension will be constructed within the right-of- way of Baker Road and the easement issue will be resolved. A new storm sewer system will be constructed within the right-of-way of Baker Road. The landscaping plan has been revised to meet the requirements of the Planning Commission. Dorn requested a full presentation for the benefit of the citizens who were not present at the last meeting. Gene Earnst reviewed the proposal beginning with the plat and layout of the development. He reviewed the landscape plan and the signage that is proposed. They have met the tree preservation requirements as established by the City and will make additional plantings as required by the ordinance. He reviewed the sight sections which were done at the request of the Planning commission which illustrate the existing contours and the proposed contours. These views illustrate what it will be like after the project is constructed. He described the screening and buffering which will be done to reduce visibility from adjacent properties. Sandstad asked about the split rail fence along the top of the retaining wall he had requested and Earnst responded they intended to construct that and were prepared to add plantings to provide further barriers. Kipp reviewed the staff report and noted that two twin homes have been eliminated from the project and the drainage issues have been resolved. Staff recommended approval of the proj ect. The Public Hearing was opened. Teny Wi1lmsen, 7265 Vervort Lane, stated he was opposed to the project because he was told that this property was zoned for single family homes. He was concerned that if this project was approved it will set a precedent and open the door for more higher density residential developments. He was opposed to the density and believed it was too high. He was concerned about how the lot behind his property would be developed if this project was approved. Cheryl Larson, 14000 Forest Hill Road, stated she cannot see how the trail or sidewalk connects this development with any other neighborhood. Earnst illustrated it's location on the plan, and noted they have not proposed a trail connection because of the grade and the topography in this location it would be too hazardous. A trail ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 1998 Page 3 connection in this location does not meet handicapped requirements. A 30% slope is about a 3: I slope and the City does not typically allow them to be built. There is a retaining wall in this area with no access provided. Larson stated she wanted to see a connection made between the neighborhoods to allow people to gain access without having to go out to Baker Road. The plan was creating a physical barrier between these neighborhoods. Scott Ringhand, 7270 Vervort Lane, read a letter from his neighbor Tim Brandser, stating his opposition to the proposed development, and requesting the Planning Commission to deny the project. Mr. Ringhand's objections were based on the density being too high and he felt it would obstruct their view. He was not opposed to senior housing being built in Eden Prairie but felt this project would be precedent setting. It was not consistent with existing development in the area and will have a negative impact on their property values. He requested the Planning Commission to deny the proj ect. Ron Harris, 7262 Vervort Lane, stated he built his home there and the surrounding land was zoned for single family homes. With this proposal the walkway is keeping this development separate from his neighborhood. He felt it would be it's own community and he would not know his neighbors. He felt the walkway should be connected because they were building the grade up which in tum made the connection difficult. He was opposed to the density, and felt the trees proposed in the landscape plan would be inadequate to provide much screening for years. He did not want to look at the town houses for years until the trees grew enough to hide them. He felt larger trees should be installed initially to reduce the time they would need to grow before they would provide adequate screening. He stated he was opposed to this project and the Planning Commission has a responsibility to watch out for the rest of the citizens of Eden Prairie. The project was not consistent with existing development in the area. Wayne Zeien, 7246 Vervort Lane, stated he did not feel the screening proposed would be adequate for 15 years. The walkway would be a trail in his back yard that people he did not know would walk on. He was opposed to the density and the guide plan change, and felt it was not consistent with the existing neighborhoods. While there was a need for senior housing in Eden Prairie he did not believe that this development would resolve that problem. He felt the Guide Plan should be adhered to. John Mallo, 14000 Forest Hill Road, stated he attended a neighborhood meeting and was told that the Pflom home was being moved to Forest Hills Road, but this issue has not been resolved yet. Harris stated the Pflom home is being moved to Lot 4 along Forest Hill Road, and this will be reviewed by the City prior to that occurring. Mallo was concerned regarding the sidewalks which should be connected throughout the neighborhoods. If no connection is made between these walkways people will have to walk along major roadways. There is no connection to Forest Hills School for access for neighborhood children. He felt it was a safety issue and should be addressed. Forest Hills School is also considered a park, and this was another reason PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8,1998 Page 4 to make this connection. The grade is not steeper than one which exists at Staring Lake Park. Clinton commented the grade on that particular segment of walkway was about a 20% grade because he could ride his bicycle up it, but he could not do that if it were steeper than that. Mallo requested that the grade be changed to see if the connection could not be made. Foote asked what the grade of the sidewalk was and Jasper responded that the walkway or trail was not intended to be a public trail or walkway, but was included in the plan to bring a sense of community to the town house residents only. It was to be constructed on private property, there were no dedicated easements to the City or maintenance agreements with the City and it was intended as a private internal trail and would not be connected to the public trail. They have not been required to make this connection by the City and do not want the public trespassing on private property. He noted they are not proposing any amenities that would make this a development attractive to people with children, but were designing it for people 55 and older. Dorn asked if Mallo had no objection to having the developer propose a project for residents 55 years of age or older and Mallo responded that he has no objection to that, but would prefer to see a restrictive covenant required for the development requiring this. He had checked with the City Attorney who said it could be done because there is no restriction based on an age requirement. Kipp noted that such a restriction could be placed on a development if it were determined that it was in the best interests of the City and there was other housing available. Mallo commented that if no restriction was placed on the development, there would be people with children living there. Discussion ensued regarding connection of the trail and the potential for children living in the development. Mallo stated he was opposed to having closed and separate communities and believed neighborhoods should be brought together. Chuck Wallach, 13784 Candice Lane, stated the sidewalk by his property has connected neighborhoods and this should be continued throughout the area. He noted this project keeps coming back with no significant changes and he was opposed to the project. It was not a senior housing project for any other reason than to get approval by the City. Rob Ronglien, 13725 Jennifer Lane, stated he was concerned that the Planning Commission was not going to change it's position and the citizen's objections are the same as they have been for the last several public hearings. As residents and taxpayers they feel frustrated and do not understand why the City would approve this project. The zoning does not mean that land will be developed as it is supposed to be. They now have townhomes a few lots away from his home and they will be looking at the roofs of this proposed on if it is approved. He asked if his taxes would go down because of the change in his view. He is looking at the Planning Commission to be the buffer on the density issue and if they approve this plan it is not according to what the City Council said the last time this project was reviewed. He appealed to the integrity of the Planning Commission and asked that they consider their position carefully. 30 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 1998 Page 5 Dot Wallach, 13784 Candice Lane, stated she has met more people because of the sidewalk in her neighborhood and asked how keeping a trail private added to a feeling of community. Ifthis was going to be a retirement community it should be connected to the surrounding neighborhoods, because people don't want to be isolated, but would rather feel connected to their surroundings. Deb Ronglien, 13725 Jennifer Court, stated this land was zoned for single family residential development when they moved into their present home. She did not understand why the City did not follow the Guide Plan and zoning for this area. She was opposed to the project and saw no compelling reason to change the zoning. Roger Gaetz, 7171 Prairie Center Drive, stated he was opposed to the project, and felt the slope was too steep for townhouses and he will have to see them from his home. Randy Malquist, 13772 Candice Lane, noted this was the fourth time this project had been before the Planning Commission with few changes between proposals and he has not seen much improvement. If the sellers would price the land reasonably it would develop as single family residential. He was opposed to changing the Guide Plan or the zoning and there was no substantive reason to do so. He was opposed to the project and requested it remain single family. Clinton stated the purpose of a public hearing is to get citizens input in order to make better decisions. He heard much conflicting information regarding this input, such as some residents supported senior housing, while others did not; some supported the trail connection while others did not want people walking in their back yards. He noted that single family housing generates more traffic, and there would be more roofs and higher buildings which would also impact these views. Lewis stated the trail was not stated as being a private trail, and she felt it should be a public trail or not be constructed at all. Harris stated that one of the issues was that a private trail would give this development more of a sense of community and that was why it was proposed. It will be constructed in the common areas within the development and this is not unique to this project. Dom commented the proponent has redesigned the trail and the grades were not advantageous for making a connection to the public trail. Discussion ensued regarding the trails, the zoning and density issues, and the views and sight lines. Foote commented that if single family housing was constructed there would be 16 roofs with 2-3 stories in height rather than 12 roofs for the residents to look at. He stated he would support the project ifthe trails can be connected. Alexander stated he heard and understood the concerns of the residents as well as those of the developer. The proponent has changed the density, resolved the storm sewer problem and met the requests of the Planning Commission. He has designed a trail system within the development for the benefit of the people who will live there. 31 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8,1998 Page 6 She would support a trail connection to the public trail if it could be done safely. She stated she supported the proj ect as proposed. Sandstad noted that improvements have been made which were encouraged by the Planning Commission, and if this land were developed as single family it would be very expensive. The Park and Recreation Commission has not recommended that the trail be either a public trail or that it be connected to the public trail, nor have they requested any easements to have the City maintain it. The Planning Commission has to respond to proposals and they felt there were reasons to change the Guide Plan at the last review because of the property's location along Baker Road and it was a good location for this density. Foote did not like the idea of segregating communities and while the senior housing was a product which was greatly needed by the City, there would be objections to a single family housing development also. He noted he has had experience similar to that of these residents when a town home development was constructed next to his neighborhood, and after it was built he appreciated that it was only one story in height. Discussion ensued regarding the reasons to change the Guide Plan and Clinton stated that after hearing input from the residents he did not see a compelling reason to change the Guide Plan and did not support the project. Lewis stated that as the City grows and changes we will need to have other types of housing and it does not presently exist in Eden Prairie. She strongly urged the developer to look at connecting the trail or eliminating it. She noted the City Attorney had not recommended that restrictive covenants be placed on the project because it would only create many more problems than it would solve. These units are two bedrooms which is not conducive to families with children, and it was unlikely that anyone with more than one child would even consider living there. Discussion ensued regarding the trail and what direction the Planning Commission should take on the connection issue. Foote felt the trail should be connected, and noted he would not support the project unless the connection to the public trail system was made. Sandstad commented perhaps they should refer the project back to the Park and Recreation Commission to resolve the issue of the trail connection. Harris noted that the project has been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission and they did not make any requirements regarding connecting the trail. He requested action from the Planning Commission because further delays will only lengthen this process. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Alexander to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Alexander to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Jasper Development for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 6.95 acres, Rezoning from RI-22 to RI-13.5 andRM-6.5 on 9.01 acres, Preliminary Plat PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8,1998 Page 7 on 9.01 acres into 29 lots based on plans dated May 1, 1998 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated May 8, 1998. Motion carried 4-2. Commissioners Clinton and Dom voted no. Dom commented he voted no because he could not see pushing this development through before the trail connection issue was resolved. 33 To: Through: From: Date: Subject: BACKGROUND: Memorandum Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources ~ Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources May 13,1998 Supplemental Staff Report to the May 8, 1998 Staff Report for Wynstone 1998 by City Planner The proposed Wynstone project is located west of Baker Road and north of St. Andrew Drive. The proponent is requesting to rezone 6.59 acres of property and plat a total of9.01 acres into 29 lots. NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUES: Tree Loss and Landscaping , The proposed developrrlent site is currently owned by four property owners and has a wide variety of tree species growing on it. A lot of the trees have been planted by existing and previous property owners, and comprise of landscaping trees such as apple, ash, hackberry, ironwood, maple, oak, and various conifers. In addition, there are many elm trees, primarily Siberian elm. There are 38 trees as defined by City Code as significant. These total 548 diameter inches. Twenty-five of these trees would be removed due to construction resulting in a loss of 334 diameter inches. The tree replacement required for this project is 266 caliper inches. The landscaping plan that has been submitted includes planting ash, hackberry, maple, Austrian pine, Black Hills and Colorado spruce trees. The landscaping pian meets the requirements for landscaping and mitigation under City Code. The majority of the landscaping material will be used along the westerly and southerly boundaries of the property as screening to adjacent existing single family resident areas. NURPPond The pond is proposed in the center of the project, which would collect stonn water from the area and provide sedimentation prior to discharge into the stonn sewer along Baker Road. Prior to construction of this pond and adjacent piping system, it will have to be approved by the City Engineering Department and Watershed District. Sidewalks and Trails Currently, there is an existing concrete sidewalk along the westerly side of Baker Road. Staff is recommending that this concrete sidewalk be extended to the southerly boundary of the proposed development. This sidewalk would be constructed concurrent with the project and according to City and County standards. The appropriate curb cuts are needed at the driveway entrance to the project. The developer is also proposing a private loop trail over the common areas for the twin homes. The staff is recommending that this trail be either a five-foot concrete sidewalk or an eight-foot bituminous trail. The proposed plan has this private trail connecting to the sidewalk along Baker Road. The intent from the developers is to provide a walking area for those living within this subdivision. Staffhas concerns as to whether or not the general public will find this area inviting because of the connections to the existing sidewalk along Baker Road. In addition, the backyard location may make homeowners uncomfortable if the trail use is heavy. This trail would be maintained by the association and not be the responsibility of the City to maintain. An alternative would be to locate the sidewalk along the interior of the roadway system to provide pedestrian access to Baker Road. RECOMMENDATIQN: 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 details ofthe May 8, 1998 City Planner Staff Report and the recommendations within this supplemental staff report. SAF:mdd WynstoneiStuart98 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 Rea life descnbed 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-tum lane to make it easier for residents to access the site. The building will own a l2-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. Riyerview 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 Comeille, to recommend approval ofthe 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 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 infonnation 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 Starin" Lake Play"round 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. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 6-10-98 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGSIMEETINGS V.B· ITEM NO. DEPARTMENT: Finance ITEM DESCRIPTION: Final resolution relating to a Don Uram Health Care Facilities Revenue Bond Refunding ($4,000,000) for Castle Ridge Care Center, Inc. Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Adopt the final resolution relating to a health care facilities revenue refunding bond. Background: The City previously issued $3,875,000 First Mortgage Health Care Refunding Revenue Bonds (Castle Ridge Care Center Inc. Project) Series 1989. Castle Ridge has requested to refinance these original bonds. The City has generally been accommodating to these requests. Notice was published in the Eden Prairie News on May 28, 1998. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution I City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Resolution Number 98- A resolution of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (Castle Ridge Care Center, Inc. Project), Series 1998, in the original aggregate principal amount of up to $4,000,000 (the "Bonds"), which Bonds and the interest and any premium thereon shall be payable solely from the revenues pledged pursuant to the Indenture of Trust; approving the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of the Indenture of Trust, the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Loan Agreement, the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement; approving the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of the Bonds; and providing for the security, rights, and remedies of the holders ofthe Bonds WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "Issuer"), is a statutory city duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, particularly Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165, as amended (the "Act"), the Issuer is authorized to issue its revenue bonds or obligations in such principal amount as, in the opinion of the Issuer, is necessary to provide sufficient funds for financing a "project" as defined in the Act, including the payment of interest on the bonds and obligations of the Issuer, the establishment of reserves to secure such bonds and obligations, and the payment of all other expenditures of the Issuer incident to and necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of the project, as well as to issue bonds for the purpose of refunding any bonds of the Issuer then outstanding; and WHEREAS, the Issuer has heretofore issued its First Mortgage Health Care Refunding Revenue Bonds (Castle Ridge Care Center, Inc. Project), Series 1989 (the "1989 Bonds"), the proceeds of which were loaned to Castle Ridge Care Center, Inc. (the "Borrower") to refinance a 60-unit nursing home facility and an attached 21-unit assisted living facility attached thereto located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Issuer (the "Project"); and \VHEREAS, the Issuer proposes to refinance the Project and finance certain improvements thereto pursuant to the Act and this Resolution by the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Bonds will be issued under an Indenture of Trust, as hereinafter defined, and a pledge and assignment of certain other revenues, all in accordance with the terms of the Indenture of Trust, and the Bonds and the interest on the Bonds shall be 1 payable solely from the revenues pledged therefor and the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the Issuer within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation, nor shall the Bonds constitute nor give rise to a pecuniary liability of the Issuer or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers and shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the Issuer other than the Project; . and WHEREAS, the Issuer on this date has held a public hearing with respect to the issuance of the Bonds with respect to the Project in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: 1. For the purpose of refinancing the Project and financing certain improvements thereto, as well as the establishment of a reserve to secure the Bonds and the payment of all other expenditures of the Issuer incident to and necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of the Project, there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds in the original aggregate principal amount not to exceed $4,000,000, the proceeds of which shall be applied to the redemption of the 1989 Bonds and to the payment of other costs related to the Project. The Bonds shall be in such principal amounts, shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall mature, shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, and shall be in such form and have such other details and provisions as are prescribed in the Indenture of Trust, dated as of July 1, 1998 (the "Indenture"), between the Issuer and Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer. The Bonds shall bear interest at the rates established by the marketing of the Bonds; provided that no interest rate shall exceed seven and one-half percent per annum. Notwithstanding the preceding, the Mayor may establish or change the maturity dates for the Bonds, the principal amount of the Bonds maturing on any date of maturity, the principal amounts of the Bonds subject to redemption, and the dates of redemption of the Bonds. The forms of the Bonds included in the Indenture are approved in substantially the forms in the Indenture, subject to such changes not inconsistent with this resolution and applicable law, and subject to such changes that are approved by the Mayor of the City. The issuance and delivery of the Bonds shall be conclusive evidence that the Mayor has approved all provisions of the Bonds as issued and any changes to the forms of the Bonds on file with the City on the date hereof. 2. The Bonds shall be special obligations of the Issuer payable solely from the revenues provided by the funds pledged pursuant to the Indenture. The City Council of the Issuer hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Manager of the Issuer (the "Mayor" and the "Manager," respectively) to execute and deliver the Indenture, and hereby authorizes and directs the execution of the Bonds in accordance with the Indenture, and hereby provides that the Indenture shall provide the forms and conditions, 2 covenants, rights, obligations, duties, and agreements of the bondholders, the Issuer, and the Trustee, as set forth therein. All the provisions of the Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated . verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery of the Indenture. The Indenture shall be substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in the Mayor's discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 3. The Mayor and Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement"), dated as of July 1, 1998, among the Issuer and the Borrower, providing for the loan of the proceeds of the Bonds to the Borrower. All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement. The Loan Agreement shall be substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer with such variations, omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in the Mayor's discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 4. The Mayor and Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bond Purchase Agreement, among the Issuer, Dougherty Summit Securities LLC (the "Underwriter"), and the Borrower (the "Bond Purchase Agreement"), relating to the Bonds. All of the provisions of the Bond Purchase Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be deemed to be a part of this Resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Agreement. The Bond Purchase Agreement shall be substantially in the form now on file with the Issuer, with such necessary and appropriate variations. omissions, and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor, in the Mayor's discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor shall be conclusive evidence of such determination. 5. The Trustee is hereby appointed the custodian of the funds and accounts created under the Indenture and the paying agent and bond registrar with respect to the Bonds. 6. The Mayor, Manager, and Clerk of Issuer (the "Clerk") are hereby authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the Issuer such other certificates, instruments, and other documents as are necessary, customary, or appropriate in connection with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds, or are necessary to establish 3 the validity or enforceability of the Bonds, or are required by Bond Counsel to establish the validity or enforceability of the Bonds or the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds for purposes of Federal and State of Minnesota income taxation (including a certificate as to the status of the Bonds as "arbitrage bonds," an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bonds Issues, Form 8038, UCC-l financing statements, and . an assignment of mortgage to the Trustee. 7. The Issuer hereby consents to the distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement, relating to the Bonds (the "Preliminary Official Statement"). The Issuer hereby consents to the use by the Underwriter of the final Official Statement substantially in the form of the Preliminary Official Statement described above (the "Official Statement") in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement are the sole materials consented to by the Issuer for use in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The Issuer has not participated in the preparation of the Preliminary Official Statement or the Official Statement and takes no responsibility for and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. 8. All covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements of the Issuer contained in this resolution and the aforementioned certificates, instruments, and documents shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements of the Issuer to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all such covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements shall be binding upon the Issuer. No covenant, stipulation, obligation, or agreement herein contained or contained in the aforementioned certificates, instruments, or documents shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation, or agreement of any member of the City Council of the Issuer, or any officer, agent, or employee of the Issuer in that person's individual capacity, and neither the City Council of the Issuer nor any officer or employee executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof. No provision, covenant, or agreement contained in the aforementioned certificates, instruments, or documents, or in the Bonds, or in any other document related to the Bonds, and no obligation therein or herein imposed upon the Issuer or the breach thereof, shall constitute or give rise to any pecuniary liability of the Issuer or any charge upon its general credit or taxing powers. In making the agreements, provisions, covenants, and representations set forth in such documents, the Issuer has not obligated itself to payor remit any funds or revenues, other than funds and revenues derived from the Loan Agreement which are to be applied to the payment of the Bonds, as provided therein and in the Indenture. 9. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this resolution or in the aforementioned documents expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person or firm or corporation, other than the Issuer or any holder of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution any right, remedy, or 4 claim, legal or equitable, under and by reason of this resolution or any provision hereof, this resolution, the aforementioned documents and all of their provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Issuer and any holder from time to time of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution. 10. In case anyone or more of the provisions of this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution, or of the aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds, but this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds shall be construed and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein. 11. The Bonds, when executed and delivered, shall contain a recital that they are issued pursuant to the Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof and that all acts, conditions, and things required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the issuance of the Bonds, and to the execution of the aforementioned documents to happen, exist, and be performed precedent to and in the enactment of this resolution, and precedent to issuance of the Bonds, and precedent to the execution of the aforementioned documents have happened, exist, and have been performed as so required by law. 12. The officers of the Issuer and its attorneys, agents and employees are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this resolution, the aforementioned certificates, instruments, or documents, and the Bonds for the full, punctual, and complete performance of all the terms, covenants, and agreements contained in the Bonds, the aforementioned certificates, instruments, and documents, and this resolution. In the event that for any reason the Mayor of the Issuer is unable to carry out the execution of any of the documents or other acts provided herein, the Acting Mayor shall be authorized to act in the capacity of the Mayor and undertake such execution or acts on behalf of the Issuer with full force and effect, which executions or acts shall be valid and binding on the Issuer. If for any reason the Manager or Clerk of the Issuer are unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this resolution, such documents may be executed by the Assistant City Manager or the Deputy Clerk, respectively, with the same force and effect as if such documents were executed and delivered by the Manager or Clerk of the Issuer. If the person whose signature appears on any of the foregoing certificates, instruments, or documents as the Mayor, Manager, or Clerk shall cease to be the Mayor, Manager, or Clerk, respectively, before the date of issuance of the Bonds such signature shall, nevertheless, be valid and sufficient for all purposes. 13. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. 5 Adopted by the City Council of the Issuer this 16th day of June, 1998. Attest: Clerk GP:490089 vi 6 7 Mayor [Letterhead of the City of Eden Prairie] Commissioner Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development 500 Metro Square 121 7th Place East St. Paul, MN 55101-2146 June 17, 1998 Re: City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (Castle Ridge Care Center, Inc. Project), Series 1998 Dear Commissioner: The undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Mayor of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City"), certifies that the City Council has been provided by Castle Ridge Care Center, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Corporation"), with certain information concerning a proposed project under the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165 (the "Act"). On the basis of such information, the City Council, by resolution adopted June 16, 1998 has given approval to the proposed project and the financing thereof by the issuance of revenue bonds of the City. The following are factors considered by the City Council in determining to give approval of said project. 1. The project consists generally of the refunding of obligations previously issued with respect to, together with the financing of improvements to, the health care facilities currently owned by the Corporation and located at 625 Prairie Center Drive in the City. 2. Bond Counsel is of the opinion that the project constitutes a "project" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.153, Subd. 2(d). 3. Upon entering into a revenue agreement, the City will submit to the Department of Trade and Economic Development the information required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.154, Subd. 5, ifany. 4. It is the feeling of the City Council that the project will help assure that necessary health care facilities to the community will remain available to serve the needs of residents of the City and surrounding area. June 17, 1998 Page 2 5. Representatives of the Corporation have indicated that the Corporation currently employs 110 employees with respect to the facilities. Representatives of the Corporation have also indicated that they will, when possible, make employment opportunities available to individuals who are unemployed or who are economically disadvantaged, as contemplated by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.154, Subd. 7. 6. The City has complied with the notice and hearing requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.154, Subd. 4. The public hearing was held on Tuesday, June 16, 1998, at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views. In addition, all written proposals filed with the City Clerk prior to said public hearing were considered. A draft copy of the application required under the Act with attachments was available for public inspection prior to the hearing .. 7. Based upon representations of the Corporation, the project to be financed by the revenue bond does not include any property to be sold or affixed to or consumed in the production of property for sale, and does not include any housing facility to be rented or used as a permanent residence. We respectfully request prompt approval by the Department of Trade and Economic Development of the State of Minnesota of the Project under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165. Very truly yours, Mayor, City of Eden Prairie GP:488737 vi 9 ..... _-------------------------------------------------- Revised June 1995 A STATE OF-MINNESOTA MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND PROJECT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 469.152 THROUGH 165 (please submit this fonn in duplicate -all supporting data in single copy only), Date: June 17, 1998 •••••••••••••••••• The governing body of f~~.~i~~.~{.~9~~.~I~~Ii~ County of •• ~~~~~p.~~ •••••••• , Minnesota, hereby applies to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (Department) fQr approval of a proposed Industrial Development Bond issue as required by Minn. Stat. 469.152-.165. • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ,.,Attn: •• PP1I. PI"PPl.~. F~~il~~~.1Jia~~~r....... Telephone: •• (~n). .~~~-;~lt~~ ••••••••••••••• We have entered into preliminary discussions with: Attorney: Paul Brown •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Address: ~.j~P~I"~~.C~~~~r.Vr}Y~ ••••••••• Ci ty: ~ fI"PJ.I"J.~tate. MN ••• Zip .~~~11 .... Address: •••• 11~.~~~~~.~~~~~~.~~~~~~ ..... . Na of ProJ"ect· Castle RidQe Care Center, Inc. Project me • • •••••••••• i' •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• This finn is engaged pr~marily in (nature of business): .~vr~i~i.V~~~ ••••.••••••••••••• · ..................................................................................... . • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• The proceeds from the sale of the Industrial Development qonds will be used to , (descr "be the pr j t). refund bonds nrevious1v issued w~th respect to tfie Borrower s , 0 ee • • •••••••••••••••••••••• II •••••••••••••••••••• ., •••••••••••••••••• 'h",,,1t;'"' "",. 4=",,; 1 ;t.; es ;n the Citv and finance certain imorovements tnereto. · l#.......... 1.J .............................. -. ... __ •• .-41"" • I ....••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Address of Project • 6?~ Prairie Center Drive, Eden Prairie • ..~. tI-••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• · ..................................................................................... . Proceeds from the sale of the bonds of approximately $.~.pSD.DDD ••• , will be applied toward payment of costs now estimated as follows: Refunding of Prior Bonds Acquisition of land: New construction: Renovations Demolition and site preparation: Acquisition and Installation of Equipment: Fees: Architectural, engineering, inspection, fiscal, legal, administration, or printing: Construction Interest: Initial Bond Reserve: Contingencies: Other: -1- /() 3,200,000 $ •••••••..•••.. •• Z1~aQQQ ••••• • ••••••••••••• • ••••••••••••• ••• 10,000 ••••• • ••••••••••••• •• ~J~,OOO •••.• • ••••••••••••• • ••••••••••••• It is presently estimated that construction will begin on or about •• ~,~ •••••••••••••• , 19 •••• , and will be complete on or about ••• ]VA ••••••••••••• , 19 ••••• When completed, there will be approximately .)i/J\. new jobs created by the project at an annual payroll of approximately $ •••• ~k! ••••• , based upon currently prevailing wages. (If applicable) There are •• 110 •••• existing jobs provided by business. (If applicable) There will be ••• ~/A ••••• jobs created by construction of the project. Number of hours •••• ~'A •••• Average wage level $ ••• JVA •••••••• Repayment of the proposed issue will be amortized over a period of ••• ;P ...•... years. The following exhibits are furnished with this application and are incorporated herein by reference: 1. An opinion of bond counsel that the proposal constitutes a project under Minn. Stat. 469.i53, subd. 2. 2. A copy of the resolution by the governing body of the issuer giving preliminary approval for the issuance of its revenue bonds and stating that the project, except for a project undrr Minn. Stat. 469.153, subd. 2(g) or (j) would not be undertaken but for the availability of Industrial Development Bond financing. 3. A comprehensive statement by the municipality indicating how the project satisfies the public or purpose and policies of Minn. Stat. 469.152-.165. 4. A letter of intent to purchase the bond issue or a letter conf1nm1ng the feasibility of the project from a financial standpoint. 5. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority to the effect that upon entering into the revenue agreement, the infonmation required by Minn. Stat. 469.154, subd. 5 will be submitted to the Department (not applicable" to project under Minn. Stat. 469.153, subd. 2(g) or (j). 6. A statement signed by the principal representative of the issuing authority that the project does not include any property to be sold or affixed to or consumed in the production of property for sale, and does not include any housing facility to be rented or used as a penmanent residence. 7. A statement signed by a representative of the issuing authority that a public hearing was conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. 469.154, subd. 4. The statement shall include the date, time and place of the meeting and certify that a draft copy of this application with all attachments was available for public inspection and that all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views. 8. Copies of notice(s) as published which indicate the date(s) of publication and the newspaper(s) in which the not1ce(s) were published. 9. Provide a plan for compliance of employment preference of economically disadvantaged or unemployed individuals. (See Minn. Stat. 469.154, subd. 7.) -2- .'l We. the undersigned. are duly elected representatives of .~~~.~~~x.o.~.~~~~l.~alll~ ..... . Minnesota and solicit your approval of this project at your earliest convenience so that we may carry it to a final conclusion. Signed by: (Principal Officers or Representatives of Issuing Authority; type or print official's name on the line to the 1ef~ of the Signature line. Thank you.) ..Dr. Jean Harris · ....................................... . ......................................... Mayor/chair Signature !:arl Jullie • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• . ....................................... . Ti t 1 e City Manager Signature This approval ~ha1l not be deemed to be an approval by the Department or the State of the feasibility of the project or the terms of the revenue agreement to be executed or the bonds to be issued therefor. • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Authorized Signature, Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development Please return to: Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development Office of Bus1ness F1nance Attn"~ Paul""Moe 500 Metro Square Building ~21 Seventh-Place East St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2146 -3- • ••••••••••••••••••••• Date of Approval DOUGHERTY SUMMIT SECURITIES LLC 3800 West 80th Street, Suite 200 Bloomington, MN 55431-4412 6121897-5100 or 800/444-3015 601 Carlson Parkway, Suite 1100 Minnetonka, MN 55305-9902 6121449-5300 or 800/678-5593 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 4400 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4115 6121376-4000 or 800/328-4085 6121338-1400 or 800/328-4000 June 3, 1998 Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development 500 Metro Square 121 Seventh Place East St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2146 Re: Proposed $3,680,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Health Care Facilities 120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1110 Chicago, IL 60602-2414 3121658-1100 or 800/406-1440 200 N. Phillips, Suite 203 Sioux Falls, SO 57104-6042 605/339-9800 or 800/339-1111 Revenue Refunding Bonds (Castle Ridge Care Center, Inc. Project) Series 1998 Ladies and Gentlemen: We have evaluated the economic feasibility of the proposal that the City of Eden Prairie (the "City") issue its revenue bonds under the provisions of the Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, to provide funds for the refinancing and improvement of health care facilities located at 625 Prairie Center Drive in the City and owned by Castle Ridge Care Center, Inc. (the "Borrower"). Based on our review of the fmancial status of the Borrower, we conclude that the fmancing is economically feasible and that the revenue obligations of the City can be successfully issued and sold. Very truly yours, DOUGHERTY SUMMIT SECURITIES LLC k:\wpdata\cjs\edenprai.cas\maeda.ltr Member SIPC. NASD /3 --- Commissioner Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development 500 Metra. Square 121 7th Place East St. Paul, MN 55101-2146 3400 CITY CENTER 33 SOUTH SIXTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3796 612 343-2800 FAX: 612 33 3-0066 WEB SITE: www.gpmlaw.com June 8, 1998 CONSIIITlN(; OFFICE, BElfIN(; CHINA John R. Green 612 343-2951 Re: $3,680,000 Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds (Castle Ridge Care Center, Inc. Project), Series 1998 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Commissioner: We have reviewed a resolution adopted by the governing body of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City") on May 19, 1998 relating to a proposal that the City issue the above-referenced revenue bonds under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165 (the "Act"), to fmance a project (the "Project") on behalf of Castle Ridge Care Center, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower"). On the basis of our review of the resolution and preliminary discussions with representatives of the Borrower as to the nature of the Project and the proposed financing thereof, it is presently our opinion that the Project constitutes a "project" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.153, Subd. 2(d), and that the City is authorized, assuming further proceedings are taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and any other applicable law, to issue its revenue bonds as proposed by the resolution. It is further our opinion, based on such review and preliminary discussions, that the revenue bonds to be issued by the City would constitute "qualified 501(c)(3) bonds" pursuant to Section 145 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), which is not subject to the volume cap imposed by Section 146 of the Code. Therefore, an allocation will not be required under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A. JRG:mm:488771 Sincerely, GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A. By Ri:.~~ John . Green GRAY, Pl.ANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A. ATTOIINEYS .it LAW CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Finance Checks 63668 to 64057 Wire Transfers 143 to 151 Action/Direction: Approve Payment of Claims Payment of Claims DATE: 06/16/98 ITEM NO. VI. COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY 09-JON-1998 (13:44) DIVISION TOTAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LEGISLATIVE LEGAL COUNSEL GENERAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DATA PROCESSING CITY MANAGER FINANCE HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION HUMAN SERV ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS FACILITIES ASSESSING CIVIL DEFENSE POLICE FIRE STREETS/TRAFFIC PARK MAINTENANCE STREET LIGHTING FLEET SERVICES ORGANIZED ATHLETICS COMMUNITY DEV COMMUNITY CENTER YOUTH RECREATION SPECIAL EVENTS ADULT RECREATION RECREATION ADMIN ADAPTIVE REC OAK POINT POOL ARTS PARK FACILITIES PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS CITY CENTER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS PRAIRIE VILLAGE PRAIRIEVIEW CUB FOODS TRUST FUNDS WATER DEPT SEWER DEPT STORM DRAINAGE AGENCY FUNDS EQUIPMENT $531.49 -$225.00 $30,835.95 $8,663.08 $1,571.62 $98.29 $10,407.32 $4,521. 86 $2,866.74 $1,250.00 $8,280.75 $1,897.76 $8,212.30 $45.00 $212.92 $34,198.08 $25,505.99 $26,998.47 $27,817.84 $330.35 $22,422.60 $7,146.91 $730.00 $23,421. 70 $869.78 $140.39 $1,530.73 $126.78 $436.76 $1,699.95 $16.12 $473.35 $197,584.09 $5,340.70 $140,958.93 $1,418.45 $3,110.00 $59,657.96 $70,989.37 $103,372.95 $109,000.00 $185,390.35 -$9,561. 82 $29,596.07 $1,692.00 $75,183.00 $1,226,767.93* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT 63668 63669 63670 63671 63674 63675 63678 63679 63680 63681 63682 63683 63685 63686 63688 63689 63690 63691 63693 63694 63695 63696 63698 63699 63700 63701 63702 63703 63704 63705 63707 63708 63709 63710 63711 63712 63713 63714 63715 63716 63717 63719 63720 63721 63722 63723 63724 63725 63726 63727 63728 63730 63731 63732 63733 $2,209.79 $130.00 $500.00 $75.00 $82.49 $32,821.33 $256.34 $101.26 $314.95 $5,623.50 $35.00 $308.08 $871.10 $16,562.92 $5,332.15 $1,227.30 $756.48 $453.40 $4,775.40 $7,647.20 $8,492.19 $10,546.72 $1,742.68 $3,718.03 $461.72 $21. 50 $75.00 $233.35 $27.00 $345.67 $41,580.00 $2,250.00 $20.00 $66.55 $90.70 $5,000.00 $217.32 $187.26 $3,395.85 $384.00 $2,899.35 $7,887.30 $259.40 $5,634.78 $1,111.96 $11,644.85 $3,731.00 $5,233.00 $56,430.00 $3,024.00 $1,386.52 $1,929.40 $1,759.40 $10,878.18 $5,497.72 VENDOR AIRTOUCH CELLULAR BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC FOR PAINTS SAKE HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFIC MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL NORTHERN STATES POWER CO PRODOEHL, JERRY RADISSON HOTEL US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC DAY DISTRIBUTING JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC THORPE DISTRIBUTING WINE COMPANY, THE DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN EAGLE WINE COMPANY EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY GRIGGS COOPER & CO JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO PRIOR WINE COMPANY QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO VINIFERA MINNESOTA ANDRYSKI, DAVID DUCHSCHERE, KYLE HUTTER, MICHAEL KRESS, CARLA MENARDS METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME MINNESOTA POST BOARD MRPA O'CONNELL, JAY STEWART TITLE UNITED FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY US POSTMASTER US POSTMASTER DAY DISTRIBUTING GRAPE BEGINNINGS JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MARK VII PEPSI COLA COMPANY PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO THORPE DISTRIBUTING FRANE, JOHN JASON-NORTHCO L.P. #1 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME MRPA BELLBOY CORPORATION DAY DISTRIBUTING EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY GRIGGS COOPER & CO JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO 09-JUN-1998 (13:44) DESCRIPTION TELEPHONE REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL CONFERENCE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ELECTRIC EMPLOYEE AWARD SCHOOLS TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TRAVEL REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES BEER 6/12 TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION BEER 6/12 DISCOUNTS BEER 6/12 TRANSPORTATION BEER 6/12 TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION DISCOUNTS WINE IMPORTED LICENSES & TAXES SCHOOLS MILEAGE AND PARKING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL DUE TO OTHER GOVNT UNITS LICENSES & TAXES TRAVEL TRAVEL CASH OVER/SHORT IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS POSTAGE POSTAGE BEER 6/12 TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION BEER 6/12 MISC TAXABLE TRANSPORTATION DISCOUNTS BEER 6/12 OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES DUE TO OTHER GOVNT UNITS SPECIAL EVENTS FEES TOBACCO PRODUCTS BEER 6/12 BEER 6/12 TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL ICE ARENA 1996 REHABILITATION POLICE SUMMER SAFETY CAMP STORMWATER LIFTSTATION HUMAN RESOURCES POLICE GENERAL WATER UTILITY-GENERAL IN SERVICE TRAINING WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE POLICE OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM PROGRAM SUPERVISOR STREET MAINTENANCE SAC AGENCY FUND POLICE IN SERVICE TRAINING FIRE UTILITY DEBT FUND ARB MARKETCENTER STREETSCAPE SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM GENERAL PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 FINANCE DEPT PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 SAC AGENCY FUND SOFTBALL LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT 63734 63735 63736 63737 63738 63739 63740 63741 63743 63744 63745 63746 63747 63748 63749 63750 63751 63752 63753 63754 63755 63756 63757 63758 63759 63760 63761 63762 63763 63764 63765 63766 63767 63768 63769 63770 63771 63772 63773 63774 63776 63777 63778 63779 63780 63781 63782 63783 63784 63785 63790 63791 63792 63793 63794 $2,298.25 $348.75 $3,050.49 $711. 69 $4,977.70 $2,159.43 $2,505.55 $7,831.14 $37.05 $274.40 $119.02 $3,696.40 $12,723.95 $803.31 $606.10 $967.27 $214.12 $811.49 $100.00 $7,248.85 $911.83 $5,818.86 $39.00 $14.63 $43.68 $66,451.35 $4,222.50 $1,205.00 $40.00 $513.79 $366.89 $51,364.81 $110.00 $20.00 $14.76 $312.00 $192.70 $1,606.13 $236.40 $2,530.41 $192.00 $145.00 $160.50 $152.00 $125.00 $553.00 $9,262.74 $423.18 $1,290.00 $400.00 $956.95 $1,126.45 $4,230.80 $81.00 $413.00 VENDOR MARK VII MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO THORPE DISTRIBUTING WORLD CLASS WINES INC CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY CORPORATE EXPRESS HOEFT, JULIE MCGOWAN, CATHERINE PETTY CASH PRUDENTIAL HEALTHCARE GROUP RESCUE ONE INC WESTACOTT, JOEL DAY DISTRIBUTING BEAR COM CARLTON CO HUMAN SERVICES CTR CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MPLS GREAT WEST LIFE AND ANNUITY HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT AND ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 KRESS, CARLA LINDAHL, DAVID MANN, TRIA MEDICA CHOICE MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYS MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNI MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS STOVRING, LESLIE THIELMAN, MARC TRAVELERS DIRECTORY SERVICE UNITED WAY JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC CHANHASSEN DINNER THEATRE FBINAA NORTHWEST CHAPTER JULLIE, CARL J LAMBERT, BOB LERN MARSHALL & SWIFT MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSU MINUTEMAN PRESS MRPA PRISM HOLIDAYS DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN EAGLE WINE COMPANY EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY GRAND PERE WINES INC GRAPE BEGINNINGS 09-JUN-1998 (13 :44) DESCRIPTION BEER 6/12 MISC TAXABLE TRANSPORTATION DISCOUNTS BEER 6/12 DISCOUNTS DISABILITY IN EMPLOYERS FURNITURE & FIXTURES MILEAGE AND PARKING INSTRUCTOR SERVICE POSTAGE LIFE INSURANCE EMPLOYERS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAl NT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BEER 6/12 OTHER EQUIPMENT GARNISHMENT WITHHELD GARNISHMENT WITHHELD BOND DEDUCTION DEFERRED COMP GARNISHMENT WITHHELD DEFERRED COMP MILEAGE AND PARKING TRAVEL MILEAGE AND PARKING COBRA COSTS/REV DEFERRED COMP DEFERRED COMP CREDIT UNION ELECTRIC ADVERTISING EMPLOYERS PERA EMPLOYERS PERA CONFERENCE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ADVERTISING UNITED WAY WITHHELD TRANSPORTATION MISC TAXABLE TRANSPORTATION DEPOSITS CONFERENCE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PRINTING DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS SPECIAL EVENTS FEES BEER 6/12 TRANSPORTATION BEER 6/12 TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS FD 10 ORG EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS AQUATICS & FITNESS SUPERV WINTER SKILL DEVELOP GENERAL FD 10 ORG FIRE COMMUNITY SERVICES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 POLICE FD 10 ORG FD 10 ORG FD 10 ORG FD 10 ORG FD 10 ORG FD 10 ORG ADAPTIVE RECREATION IN SERVICE TRAINING SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL BENEFITS FD 10 ORG FD 10 ORG FD 10 ORG STORMWATER LIFTSTATION PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 FD 10 ORG FD 10 ORG IN SERVICE TRAINING GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 FD 10 ORG PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 ESCROW POLICE IN SERVICE TRAINING IN SERVICE TRAINING IN SERVICE TRAINING IN SERVICE TRAINING PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 INSPECTION-ADMIN IN SERVICE TRAINING ADULT PROGRAM PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT 63795 63797 63799 63801 63802 63804 63805 63806 63807 63808 63809 63810 63811 63812 63813 63814 63815 63816 63817 63818 63819 63820 63821 63823 63824 63825 63826 63827 63828 63829 63830 63831 63832 63833 63834 63835 63836 63837 63838 63839 63840 63841 63842 63843 63846 63847 63848 63849 63850 63851 63852 63853 63854 63855 63856 $10,155.33 $4,417.15 $1,232.04 $1,482.74 $5,919.16 $531.49 $99.45 $243.11 $362.50 $37.61 $3,503.95 $1,144.99 $1,500.00 $5,409.90 $129.70 $46.50 $3,023.99 $502.90 $10,115.42 $6,139.60 $75,183.00 $495.27 $401.09 $119.60 $70.00 $69.20 $30.00 $4.24 $126.38 $809.00 $125.67 $188.56 $148.60 $3,961. 85 $356.32 $262.08 $884.80 $150.00 $43.13 $22,961.00 $379.66 $1,413.01 $158.69 $8,758.75 $10.00 $7,036.57 $148.00 $333.00 $2,556.00 $2,528.15 $696.91 $834.04 $117.50 $1,628.75 $6.17 VENDOR GRIGGS COOPER & CO JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY PRIOR WINE COMPANY QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO HARRIS, JEAN HELLING, LAURIE IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS* SPIKE NASHBAR WERTS, SANDY DAY DISTRIBUTING JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES MARK VII NORTHWEST ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOG PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HEALTHSYS PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO THORPE DISTRIBUTING 09-JUN-1998 (13 :44) DESCRIPTION TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION DISCOUNTS TRANSPORTATION DISCOUNTS TRAVEL MILEAGE AND PARKING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES MILEAGE AND PARKING BEER 6/12 TRANSPORTATION WORKMANS COMP INS BEER 6/12 OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION TOBACCO PRODUCTS TRANSPORTATION BEER 6/12 ABM EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPA AUTOS CARLSON TRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER CRACAUER, CLIFF DIETZ, EUGENE STOVRING, LESLIE THOMPSON PLBG BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO DETELLOS PIZZA & PASTA KINKO COPY CENTER ABM EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPA ALBINSON INC ALEX AUDIO & VIDEO SERVICES ALL GOALS INC ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURNITURE AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY ANOKA TECHNICAL COLLEGE AQUA ENGINEERING INC BARBER CONSTRUCTION CO INC BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY BEARPATH GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC BIFFS INC BLOOMINGTON LOCK AND SAFE* BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF BRANDT, LEE BRION, ED BROCK WHITE CO LLC CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS CATCO CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SE CEMSTONE CENTRAIRE INC CHAD NESTOR ILLUSTRATION & DES CHANHASSEN LAWN AND SPORTS EQUIPMENT PARTS MILEAGE AND PARKING LICENSES & TAXES SOFTWARE PLUMBING PERMIT TRAINING SUPPLIES TRAINING SUPPLIES TRAINING SUPPLIES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FURNITURE & FIXTURES OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRINTING TRAINING SUPPLIES LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL PARK EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS EMPLOYEE AWARD REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WASTE DISPOSAL REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES COMPUTERS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES EQUIPMENT RENTAL CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT PARTS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS PRINTING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PROGRAM PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS COUNCIL RECREATION ADMIN INSPECTION-ADMIN VOLLEYBALL REC SUPERVISOR PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 BENEFITS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 POLICE HUMAN RESOURCES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 P/R REVOLVING FD EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION FD 10 ORG OAK POINT OPERATIONS OAK POINT OPERATIONS OAK POINT OPERATIONS PARK MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING DEPT WATER UTILITY-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE FINANCE DEPT PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 ADAPTIVE RECREATION FIRE STREET MAINTENANCE ORGANIZED ATHLETICS FEES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE HUMAN RESOURCES ICE ARENA PARK MAINTENANCE POLICE-CITY CENTER POLICE SOFTBALL SOFTBALL STREET MAINTENANCE POLICE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE STORM DRAINAGE FIRE STATION #1 COMMUNITY SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT 63857 63858 63859 63860 63861 63862 63863 63864 63865 63866 63867 63868 63869 63870 63871 63872 63873 63874 63875 63876 63877 63878 63879 63880 63881 63882 63883 63884 63885 63886 63887 63888 63889 63890 63891 63892 63893 63894 63895 63896 63897 63898 63899 63900 63901 63902 63903 63904 63905 63906 63907 63908 63909 63910 63911 $27,690.35 $2,680.00 $92 .19 $160.00 $459.44 $511.62 $10,492.00 $4,969.10 $245.00 $57.51 $8,048.54 $317.81 $188.97 $530.00 $147,990.18 $5,250.00 $201. 45 $77.00 $475.36 $6,320.00 $1,053.13 $2,986.25 $210.00 $106.40 $60.47 $1,250.00 $56.76 $398.99 $2,600.00 $294.48 $261.98 $105.00 $950.00 $100.92 $45.00 $18,612.33 $78.43 $114.10 $300.24 $364.00 $13.55 $331. 72 $136.65 $4,687.56 $250.00 $5.23 $338.35 $11,523.24 $111. 00 $294.00 $19.50 $578.71 $775.00 $4,782.00 $796.29 VENDOR CLEAN SWEEP INC CLOSED CIRCUIT SPECIALISTS INC CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS INC COOK, BRIAN CURB MASTERS INC CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY DALCO ROOFING & SHEET METAL IN DALE GREEN COMPANY, THE DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC DELEGARD TOOL CO DESAULNIERS, DAN DON RIHN TRANSPORT DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP EARL F ANDERSEN INC EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT N EIDE HELMEKE PLLP ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANC ERICKSEN ELLISON AND ASSOCIATE EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY FAMILY HOPE SERVICES FERRELLGAS FIBRCOM FINLEY BROS INC FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY FORESTRY SUPPLIERS INC. FUNCHARACTERS FUTURE CITY G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL GALAXY COMPUTER SERVICES GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG IN GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPAN GETTMAN COMPANY GINA MARIAS INC GME CONSULTANTS GREENTREE GRAPHIC PRODUCTS GROVE NURSERY CENTER GTE DIRECTORIES GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC GUSE, BARBARA P.T. HANCE COMPANIES HARMS DISTRIBUTING INC HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC HENDERSON, JOSH HENNEPIN COUNTY I/T DEPT HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S ACCO HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER HERC U LIFT 09-JUN-1998 (13 :44) SWEEPING BUILDING DESCRIPTION SAFETY SUPPLIES DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASPHALT OVERLAY LEGAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS TO LAND CHEMICALS CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT PARTS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BOND ISSUE COSTS SIGNS TRAVEL TRANSPORTATION AUDIT & FINANCIAL REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT TESTING & CERT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL EQUIPMENT PARTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES MOTOR FUELS COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS CLOTHING & UNIFORMS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL MISC TAXABLE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROTECTIVE CLOTHING LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL ADVERTISING OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT PARTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL MOTOR FUELS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES RENTALS RECORDING DOCUMENT FEE BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PROGRAM STORM DRAINAGE FIRE STATION #3 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE IN SERVICE TRAINING STREET MAINTENANCE LEGAL COUSEL MITCHELL LAKE PK WATER TREATMENT PLANT FIRE STATION #5 STREET MAINTENANCE FIRE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SOFTBALL LIME SLUDGE PRINCIPAL & INTEREST TRAFFIC SIGNS IN SERVICE TRAINING SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS FINANCE DEPT SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE FIRE COMMUNITY CENTER HVAC GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC ICE' ARENA POLICE MILLER PARK PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 TREE DISEASE POOL SPECIAL EVENTS POLICE-CITY CENTER STREET MAINTENANCE ASSESSING-ADMIN ICE ARENA FIRE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS FIRE 10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION FIRE TREE DISEASE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 ROUND LAKE HUMAN RESOURCES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PARK MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SOFTBALL POLICE ENGINEERING DEPT POLICE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICE PARK MAINTENANCE COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT 63912 63913 63914 63915 63916 63917 63918 63919 63920 63921 63922 63923 63924 63925 63926 63927 63928 63929 63930 63931 63932 63933 63934 63935 63936 63937 63938 63939 63940 63941 63942 63944 63945 63946 63947 63948 63949 63950 63951 63952 63953 63954 63955 63957 63958 63959 63960 63961 63962 63963 63964 63965 63966 63967 63968 $444.00 $172.62 $654.98 $2,010.00 $50.30 $65.95 $277.66 $100.00 $798.76 $1,817.00 $31.18 $150.52 $388.46 $2,627.79 $24.83 $206.61 $10,885.44 $3,248.25 $60,935.84 $60.00 $2,448.33 $214.90 $2,065.07 $913.50 $1,429.70 $65.00 $37.00 $6,277.34 $225.00 $13,116.39 $1,599.87 $2,703.89 $596.00 $70.00 $86.99 $8.31 $600.00 $461.67 $488.53 $181. 52 $40,060.00 $177.62 $1,175.89 $80.94 $1,751. 05 $102.11 $3,235.77 $1,412.19 $554.29 $112.83 $35.63 $35.00 $70.25 $212.31 $37.28 VENDOR HIGLEY, STEVE HIRSHFIELDS DECORATING CENTERS HIRSHFIELDS PAINT MANUFACTURIN HOME CARE IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS* INLAND TRUCK PARTS COMPANY INTERNATIONAL SUNPRINTS INC IPMA ITS A KEEPER J A PRICE AGENCY INC J H LARSON ELECTRICAL COMPANY J&R RADIATOR CORP KINKOS INC LAKE REGION VENDING LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES LAND CARE EQUIPMENT COMPANY LANG PAULY GREGERSON AND ROSOW LANO EQUIPMENT INC LINCOLN STUDIOS MIDWEST LOES OIL COMPANY LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC LONG ISLAND PRODUCTIONS INC M R SIGN MARTIN-MCALLISTER MASYS CORPORATION MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC MCFARLAND, ROYAL MCSB INC ME2 INC METRO SALES INCORPORATED* METROPOLITAN FORD MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION MIDWEST FIRE PROTECTION INC MINNESOTA BOARD OF AELSLAGID MINNESOTA CONWAY MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOD SERVICE MON-RAY MTI DISTRIBUTING CO MUNICILITE NELSON RADIO COMMUNICATIONS NO FAULT INDUSTRIES INC NORSTAN COMMUNICATIONS INC NORTH STAR ICE NORTHERN NORTHSTAR REPO PRODUCTS INC OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC OPM INFORMATION SYSTEMS OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS INC P & H WAREHOUSE SALES INC PAPER DIRECT INC PARAGON CABLE PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTL PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO PITNEY BOWES INC POKORNY COMPANY 09-JUN-1998 (13 :44) DESCRIPTION OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT PARTS AWARDS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS EMPLOYEE AWARD INSURANCE REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT PARTS PRINTING TOBACCO PRODUCTS EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS LEGAL SERVICE EQUIPMENT RENTAL IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS WASTE DISPOSAL CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT TRAINING SUPPLIES SIGNS PHYSICAL & PSYCO EXAM CONTRACTED COMM MAINT CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT PARTS WASTE BLACKTOP/CONCRETE CONTRACTED BLDG MAINT DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT MISCELLANEOUS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT PARK EQUIPMENT CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT MISC TAXABLE SMALL TOOLS FURNITURE & FIXTURES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMPUTERS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL CABLE TV DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS EQUIPMENT PARTS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT BLDG REPAIR & MAINT PROGRAM SOFTBALL POLICE-CITY CENTER PARK MAINTENANCE 1996 REHABILITATION GENERAL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BASKETBALL IN SERVICE TRAINING HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE COMMUNITY SERVICES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION STREET MAINTENANCE 10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL FIRE TRAFFIC SIGNS HUMAN RESOURCES POLICE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SOFTBALL INSPECTION-ADMIN GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES GENERAL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE STREET MAINTENANCE POLICE STATION IN SERVICE TRAINING FIRE GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 1996 REHABILITATION EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE CIVIL DEFENSE STARING LK PLSTUCT K20 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING DEPT PARK MAINTENANCE OAK POINT OPERATIONS PARK MAINTENANCE PARK MAINTENANCE SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL GENERAL IN SERVICE TRAINING EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT 63969 63970 63971 63972 63973 63974 63975 63976 63977 63978 63979 63980 63981 63982 63983 63984 63985 63986 63987 63988 63989 63990 63991 63992 63993 63994 63995 63996 63997 63998 63999 64000 64001 64002 64003 64004 64005 64006 64007 64008 64009 64010 64011 64012 64013 64014 64015 64016 64017 64018 64019 64020 64021 64022 64023 $101.30 $257.72 $14,218.34 $193.83 $2,417.17 $639.00 $204.75 $110.90 $234.61 $39.68 $903.00 $168.15 $733.40 $704.50 $559.92 $56.83 $49.16 $101.10 $50.00 $202.69 $240.96 $255.61 $216.00 $101. 98 $372.75 $28.35 $471.38 $916.78 $201.14 $635.59 $21.90 $104.00 $170.00 $33.91 $47,489.61 $125.00 $53.56 $382.24 $28.58 $25.00 $124.80 $140.45 $219.77 $5,492.48 $633.75 $104.63 $729.03 $106.52 $1,626.96 $150.00 $174.18 $9,659.10 $55.86 $74.00 $472.71 VENDOR PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING PRECISION PAVEMENT MARKING PRIVATE PROTECTION PRO SOURCE FITNESS PROFILE EVALUTATIONS INC PROMOTION GROUP, THE QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER RADIO SHACK RAY, LEE RDO EQUIPMENT CO REBS MARKETING RESPOND SYSTEMS RIA GROUP RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED RITZ CAMERA ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION INC ROWEKAMP ASSOCIATES INC RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO SAFETY-KLEEN SNAP-ON TOOLS SODERSTROM, CHRISTOPHER SOUTHWEST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY SPORTS WORLD USA INC SPS COMPANIES SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC ST CROIX RECREATION CO INC ST JOSEPH EQUIPMENT INC STANDARD SPRING STAR TRIBUNE STAR TRIBUNE STRASBURG, JOAN STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS SWEDLUNDS THERMOGAS COMPANY TIE COMMUNICATIONS INC TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING INC TWIN CITY AREA LABOR MGMT COUN TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC US FILTER/WATERPRO US PREMISE NETWORKING SERVICES W GORDON SMITH COMPANY, THE W W GRAINGER INC WASTE MANAGEMENT -BLAINE WATER TECHNOLOGY INC. WEATHER WATCH INC WESTWELD WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WURTH USA INC ZOELLNER, MARK BELLBOY CORPORATION 09-JUN-1998 (13 :44) DESCRIPTION CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR PRINTING CONTRACTED STRIPING CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAl NT OTHER EQUIPMENT PHYSICAL & PSYCO EXAM SAFETY SUPPLIES WASTE DISPOSAL POSTAGE OFFICE SUPPLIES OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES EQUIPMENT PARTS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES MISC FIRE EQUIPMENT DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS EQUIPMENT PARTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT CONFERENCE EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT RENTAL SMALL TOOLS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES DESIGN & CONST BUILDING MATERIALS EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS MISC NON-TAXABLE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WASTE DISPOSAL MISC FIRE EQUIPMENT TELEPHONE BUILDING MATERIALS TRAVEL LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES CLOTHING & UNIFORMS EQUIPMENT PARTS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT MOTOR FUELS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WASTE DISPOSAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES EQUIPMENT PARTS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SMALL TOOLS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TOBACCO PRODUCTS ------------------------------------- PROGRAM GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN TRAFFIC SIGNS STARING LAKE CC CAPITAL OUTLAY HUMAN RESOURCES HUMAN RESOURCES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS GENERAL GENERAL SOFTBALL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE WATER ACCOUNTING EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE IN SERVICE TRAINING EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE TREE DISEASE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE IN SERVICE TRAINING EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PARK MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE VOLLEYBALL PARK·MAINTENANCE SOFTBALL PARK MAINTENANCE Scenic Heights Road STARING LAKE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 IN SERVICE TRAINING BASKETBALL GENERAL EDEN PRAIRIE REAL FLOW OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE FIRE GENERAL RILEY LAKE IN SERVICE TRAINING EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE POLICE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE OAK POINT OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE STREET MAINTENANCE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 COMMUNITY CENTER FILTRATION SNOW & ICE CONTROL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING DEPT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SOFTBALL PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT 64024 64025 64026 64027 64028 64029 64030 64031 64032 64033 64034 64035 64036 64037 64038 64039 64040 64041 64042 64043 64044 64045 64046 64047 64048 64049 64050 64051 64052 64053 64054 64055 64056 64057 $506.90 $2,635.75 $1,067.90 $2,327.18 $545.95 $2,431.56 $188.40 $533.08 $2,372.48 $4,268.15 $256.00 $172.53 $704.47 $53.00 $42.90 $13.96 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $30.00 $144.00 $46.00 $325.00 $69.00 $19.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $120.00 $120.00 $1,226,767.93* VENDOR DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN DAY DISTRIBUTING EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY GRIGGS COOPER & CO JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MARK VII MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO THORPE DISTRIBUTING AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING DALE GREEN COMPANY, THE GE CAPITAL KLUTE, JOEL PICKA, STEVE JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO BATKEZ, JEFF CARLING, STEVE CHALLENGE PRINTING CORNETT, ERIC DALY, JIM DUSTRUD, JON GIORDANO, MARK GOBLE, THERESA LYNCH, JOHN MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH MINNESOTA, UNIVERSITY OF MPCA NESS, RICHARD NEUMAN, BILL O'ROURKE, TIM ORMAN, MIKE POWER, MARGARET WEILER, GRETCHEN 09-JUN-1998 (13:44) BEER 6/12 BEER 6/12 BEER 6/12 DESCRIPTION MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE MISC TAXABLE MISC TAXABLE TRANSPORTATION DISCOUNTS BEER 6/12 SPECIAL EVENTS FEES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES RENTALS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL MILEAGE AND PARKING TRANSPORTATION VIOLATION FEES VIOLATION FEES VIOLATION FEES VIOLATION FEES VIOLATION FEES VIOLATION FEES VIOLATION FEES DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LICENSES & TAXES CONFERENCE LICENSES & TAXES LICENSES & TAXES VIOLATION FEES VIOLATION FEES VIOLATION FEES HOMEWARD HILLS BLDG RENTAL HOMEWARD HILLS BLDG RENTAL PROGRAM LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM STORM DRAINAGE GENERAL ICE ARENA COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS ICE ARENA ICE ARENA ICE ARENA ICE ARENA ICE ARENA ICE ARENA ICE ARENA IN SERVICE TRAINING BASKETBALL WATER UTILITY-GENERAL IN SERVICE TRAINING SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL WATER UTILITY-GENERAL ICE ARENA ICE ARENA ICE ARENA PARK FACILITIES PARK FACILITIES COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY DIVISION INFORMATION POLICE STREETS/TRAFFIC PARK MAINTENANCE FLEET SERVICES COMMUNITY CENTER BEACHES YOUTH RECREATION OAK POINT POOL PARK FACILITIES PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS PRAIRIE VILLAGE PRAIRIEVIEW CUB FOODS WATER DEPT SEWER DEPT 09-JUN-1998 (13 :44) TOTAL $4.49 $14.30 $244.68 $11.11 $458.78 $3,138.31 $6.71 $47.06 $127.84 $193.15 $97,466.20 $115,980.00 $346,708.00 $10,128.96 $11,782.64 $19,747.31 $6,118.38 $88.24 $612,266.16* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 09-JUN-1998 (13:44) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 143 $135,655.94 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A FEDERAL TAXES W/H FD 10 ORG 144 $76,756.23 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A EMPLOYEES SS & MEDICARE FD 10 ORG 145 $76,756.23 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A EMPLOYERS SS & MEDICARE FD 10 ORG 146 $57,538.76 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE STATE TAXES WITHHELD FD 10 ORG 147 $340.80 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 148 $51,772.00 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENU SALES TAX PAYABLE FD 10 ORG 149 $97,466.20 KNUTSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS 10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION 150 $60,742.50 FIRST TRUST NATL ASSOC PRINCIPAL B & PAYMENTS 151 $55,237.50 NORWEST BANK MN N. A. PRINCIPAL 92 STATE AID DEBT $612,266.16* CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Date: June 16, 1998 Section: Petitions and Requests Department: PRNR ~ Subject: Request to Modify Park Boundary at ItemN~ A, Robert A. Lambert, Director Prairie View Park by Adjacent Proper1:Y_ Owners RECOMMENDATION: At the May 18, 1998 meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission voted unanimously to deny the request of three property owners along the west boundary of Prairie View Park to purchase a portion of the park property. City staff concur with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommendation to deny the request. BACKGROUND: Last fall, the City staff was checking property boundaries in the vicinity of Prairie View Park and found that the three property owners located on South Shore Lane were trespassing on City park property. Because the staff was unable to find the iron monuments, the City was required to hire a surveying fum to replace the park boundary irons. In replacing the boundaries, it was determined that a wedge of property 72 feet wide on the south, tapering to zero feet on the north had been maintained by adjacent property owners. See attached plat of survey map. A letter was sent by the staff to inform the three property owners of the trespass issue and request that amenities such as gardens, fences, and garden sheds be removed from the park property prior to April 1, 1998. City staff has received a request by the three adjacent property owners to consider selling that park property to them. The three parcels vary from 1,500 square feet to nearly 4,000 square feet. The existing situation has been created due to the grading that took place with Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Muirfie1d 2nd Addition, Block 4. This subdivision was graded and the homes initially built in the mid 1980's. As a portion of the grading that occurred, there was a need for a backyard storm drainage system. In order to do this, a portion of the City parkland was utilized to pick up backyard drainage from the subdivision. A catch basin was located in the southwestern comer of Prairie View Park. This southwesterly comer ofthe park has been "maintained" as a natural area because of the sandy soils and the steep westerly facing slope. The current maintenance level is to remove dead or diseased trees and check for any soil erosion. Because of the configuration of the Muirfield Subdivision, in conjunction with the City park, there is a 72 foot lot depth difference between Lot 3 and 4, Block 4. The grading on park property was done for the rear yard drainage and it is easy to see why the backyards have been maintained the way they are currently are being maintained. 1 PROPERTY OWNERS REQUEST: The property owners for Lots 1,2 and 3 have indicated in a letter to the City that they are willing to purchase the park property at a price to be determined by an independent appraiser. CONCERNS: Although, City staff understand the rationale for the request by the adjacent owners, staff concurs with the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission that the City could find many other similar situations where private property abuts City parkland and residents would have reasons to acquire parkland. The Connnission and staff believe that the City would be starting down a "slippery slope" ifwe began selling parkland to adjacent property owners for any reason. Staffrecornmends the City Council deny the request and require the property owners to remove their "improvements" within 30 days. It should be noted that the City does not intend to maintain that portion of Prairie View Park in anything other than a "natural" condition as it is nearly impossible for the City to gain access to that portion of the park with a tractor mower. If grass, trees, and shrubs are allowed to grow in that area, it will eventually provide cover for a variety of wildlife and will blend into the natural vegetation already existing on the slope. City staff anticipate that all three residents will be in attendance at the Council meeting. BL:mdd PVPark.memo/Bob98 2 UNAPPROVED MINUTES PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MONDAY, MAY 18, 1998 COMMISSION MEMBERS: STUDENT MEMBERS: COMMISSION STAFF: I. ROLLCALL 7:00 P.M. CITY CENTER 8080 MITCHELL ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS Richard Brown, Chair, Frantz Comeille, Claire Hilgeman, Don Jacobson, Vicki Koenig, Glenn Stolar, John Wilson Elizabeth Cook, Stacy Enger Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources, Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources, Laurie Helling, Manager of Recreation Services, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder ";.f Glenn Stolar, John Wilson, Stacy Enger and Elizabeth Cook were absent. ll. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Jacobson moved, seconded by Hilgeman, to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 5-0. ID. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -MAY 4. 1998 Koenig noted one change on page 4 in the motion requesting the developer to restore some replacement trees similar to those presently existing on the site. MOTION: Koenig moved, seconded by Hilgeman, to approve the May 4, 1998 Minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1. Comeille abstained. IV. PETITIONS. REOUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Petition for Purchase of Park Property -Prairie View Park Fox reviewed the staff report and recommended that the property owners be allowed to purchase the property they have been maintaining. The cost for purchase will have to be worked out and all three property owners must purchase the land. Mike Aaron, 17740 South Shore Lane, stated he is the owner of Lot 1 which is next to the Tot Lot. He has maintained this area to keep the weeds from growing into his yard. He was willing to purchase the land to help out his neighbors. He noted that at night the Tot Lot becomes a place for kids to smoke and hang out and they are the only ones looking after this property. He commented it would be difficult for him to purchase the larger parcel. Bob Watkins, 17712 South Shore Drive, stated he bought his lot as it appears today and these lots PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES May 18, 1998 Page 2 were maintained up to the point that they are because of the topography and it makes sense to keep these lots maintained to the base of the hill. He asked the Commission to approve the sale of this property so they can continue to maintain it. Marilyn Schmidt, owner of Lot 2, stated they maintained this area for twelve years to prevent erosion in the spring and to improve it's appearance. They were working with the City to try to find out who owned this land because they wanted to purchase it from the beginning. They did not get a resolution to the ownership question. Craig Schmidt, 17512 Pavelka Drive, stated his yard borders the park and he had asked the City to establish the park boundaries because they wanted to plant some landscaping material. When this was done, it was discovered that there were several structures and gardens located on park land. He did not feel there was any reason to sell park property and if residents wanted bigger lots they should have bought larger ones. He was concerned that this was a major issue and the neighborhood wasn't notified of this request. He was opposed to the sale of the park land to individual property owners. He noted that some of the neighbors had been dumping garbage and yard waste on this land. The catch basin takes drainage from this entire area and it was thought by the Engineering Department that it drains into Round lake. He requested the City to reclaim this property and let it become natural again. Lynn Featherstone, 17500 West Hills Drive, stated she was concerned about setting a precedent if the City sells any park land to residents. Ed Featherstone stated that if people can buy park land it will reduce the area available for use by Eden Prairie residents and he requested the Commission to deny this request. Kathy Watkins, 17712 South Shore Drive, stated that one neighbor's perception of another's business is often the cause of problems and they do not want this to happen. They are willing to buy this land which is not being used but rather they want to see it maintained without chemicals and in it's best state. Lambert stated that at one time he had suggested an exchange of parkland for other land and he was sanctioned by the City Council for even considering such an option to give up any park land. The City has about 1,200 acres of land in conservations easements which many people would define as "not being used." He was concerned about setting a precedent and,where it would end. He was opposed to selling this property and the City has already requested that the structures and gardens be removed from the land and it be restored to its natural state. Jacobson stated he was concerned about the catch basin draining into Round Lake. Fox stated there are a series ofNURP ponds in this chain, which eventually do go into either Round Lake or Duck Lake. Jacobson commented he thought it might be good to utilize the land to create an additional NURP pond given the water quality conditions in Round Lake last year. Hilgeman stated she had been told by the City they would not entertain any suggestion to sell any park land when she had inquired into that possibility to straighten out her yard a long time ago, and she did not support the sale of park land to private individuals. Koenig stated she was opposed to selling land to individual people. Corneille stated he concurred with the other Commissioners. Brown stated that these residents have been using City land tax free for years and it was not right for property owners to 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 if 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 staffreport 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 if it 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 staff report and noted staff recommended approval subject to the stipulations listed in the Planning Commission staff report and the supplemental staff report. s City of Eden Prairie Mayor of Eden Prairie Dr. Jean Harris City Manager Mr. Carl Jullie City Council Members Ms. Sherry Butcher-Y ounghans Mr. Ronald Case Mr. Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. Ms. Nancy Tyra-Lukens I am attempting with this letter to clarify the situation which has evolved behind the houses at 17712, 17726 & 17740 Southshore Lane West, also referred to as lots 1,2 &3 in block 4 of the Muirfield second addition. The Schmidt family has resided at the 17726 address since 1986 when the houses were built. The Garin's and Watkin's moved in about 6-7 years later. At the time the houses were built it was winter and the lot markings were non-existent or snow covered. In the spring and early summer the final grade was done in such a manner that it appeared our lots rear boundaries were aligned with the lots south of us. We proceeded to sod the lots as if that were the case. A look at the attached plat drawing shows that to be a logical manner in which to proceed. It was a mistake not to check the plat drawings at that time to verify the boundaries but visually it looked like the grading was done correctly since all the lots lined up. We did not know who owned the property behind any of the homes at that time. About a year later we became aware of the discrepancy between our back lot lines and our neighbors. We then determined we were dealing with city property. As it turned out, the Eichmann family which lived at 17712 at the time, knew Council Member Paul Redpath quite well. Barry Eichmann approached Mr. Redpath for advice on how to proceed. At that time we wished to purchase the sliver of parkland which would align our lots with our neighbors. Mr. Redpath came out and looked over the situation. He told us we shouldn't worry about it. That having sodded the property and in a couple of cases having a vegetable garden on the property was nothing that the city cared about. Not having an abundance of money to spend that solution sounded fine. Since that time we have maintained the property by mowing the grass and planting many trees and shrubs. In addition, we have, once or twice a year, cleaned trash off the hill to the point of incurring extra garbage fees. We have not dumped garbage on the hill, or polluted the lake to make it unswimmable, or any of the other crimes we were accused of by the park board who were led astray by a hostile third party. I, in fact, built a rock wall at the base of the hill to stop the debris washing off the hill from entering the storm sewer and the lake. We have stopped kids from having fires on the hill (in at least one case, preventing a major fire), tom down tree forts, stopped illicit sex and drug use by teens in the tall weeds on the hill, etc. We have placed some grass clippings on the hill and some tree branches (mainly dead and dangerous tree branches I removed from park trees). We have also placed dog droppings in the tall weeds. I could argue that placing the vegetation and dog droppings in the weeds is a more ecologically sound solution to the problem than putting it in the garbage to be hauled off to a landfill. However, it is admittedly not the right thing to do, by law, and will no longer occur. Finally, Barry Eichmann constructed a shed on city property. I don't understand why he felt he could do that or whether he even realized he did it. The Watkins had no knowledge of the property dispute when they purchased the house and shed. I pointed out to Bob where his property line was (approximately) and noted the sincere surprise he expressed at that time. The Garin's built a fence partially on the city property. They are also innocent of bad intent. They hired a survey firm to determine the back boundaries of their lot before building the fence. Due to ineptitude on the surveyors part and/or misplaced markers part of the fence ended up on city property. They were completely unaware of any problem with their fence until the latest city financed survey. They are willing to move the fence. In summary, you are dealing with people who have tried to do the right thing from the beginning. We were given bad advice from Mr. Redpath, an outstanding person, but probably wrong on this point. We have done our best to be good citizens both in our neighborhood and in the city as a whole. We are all deeply involved in many volunteer activities with children's sports teams, church and school functions. We are not the horrible people the hostile third party and the parks commission accused us of being at the parks commission hearing. When this third party made it their business to bring the situation to city attention without ever talking to us, thereby costing the city thousands of dollars, we again tried to do the right thing by discussing it with the appropriate city official. Mr. Stuart Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources, reviewed the situation and agreed with our argument that the best solution is to allow us to purchase the small amount of land involved in the dispute. Please see the attached letter. At this time, the third party decided, for what ever reason, to launch an attack on our characters, exaggerate claims and create stories in such a way the parks commission had decided against us before the hearing ever took place. The section of parkland we are discussing is a hill behind the Prairie View School ballfields. No child has ever played in that area, due to the high weeds, the gullies caused by wash outs and the hill itself. We are only interested in purchasing a small portion of that already unused section of land. Ifwe are allowed to proceed with this purchase, as recommended by Mr. Stuart Fox, we will continue to be good stewards of the area and the city will realize the increased tax revenue. If we are not allowed to proceed with this purchase we will also continue to be good stewards of the area, but the city will have no extra tax revenue and will be called to handle all problems in this area. I realize this is a tough situation for the city to handle. I realize you are in danger of setting a precedent that other citizens may try to use to expand their lots. I feel our situation is somewhat unique but I can't express it in legal terms in such a way to hold up in the future. If you don't feel you can allow us to purchase this land I feel a fair compromise would be to allow us to maintain the grassy areas by mowing as we have done for the past 12+ years. We would, of course, remove any permanent, non-natural objects from the property. I would also request an apology from the parks commission for their unwarranted abusive treatment of my wife and neighbors at the Parks Commission meeting. Please understand, the disputed sliver of parkland has only been used by neighborhood children because we maintained it. The rest of the area can barely be walked through much less played in. That part is best left to the wildlife which utilizes it. 7 We thank you for your kind consideration. Sincerely, Thomas A .. ,Sc?FidtIM~i1yn M. Sc \'{\~m- ~~ Bob Watkins/Cathy Watkins \~~ ~£~ cc: Mr. Stuart Fox " .. 9 A.,...e",-t)f I:>;~ r~te.. March 23, 1998 Stuart A. Fox Manager of Parks and Natural Resources City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Fox: Regarding properties on South Shore Lane West recently resurveyed for boundary identification for lots 1, 2 & 3 on Section 8, T .116m R,22, we would propose the following: 1) The purchase of the property at a price to be determined by an independent appraiser which we can supply. 2) Have the City of Eden Prairie determine other costs involved in the transfer of properties. 3) Extend the April 1, deadline until the matter is resolved. Enclosed is a sketch outlining a possible change to property lines oflots 1,2 & 3. Please take these points into consideration and let us know. Sincerely, ~~/C~(LYY~ 1j~ ~ ! Jnmh bOJufl ~~\ ~ (\' _t\\ Mike and Brenda Garin ;1m ~~ Tom and Marilyn Schmidt Bob and Cathy Watkins /0 PLAT OF SURVEY ,. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PARK IN SEOTION 8 / / LOT 1 ----. h=::'08" " L = 10.76 "-, 6 ~ 48'41'12" R = 20.00 L = 16.99 LOT 2 ... -- LOT 3 ~ .. ' LOT J/ fOUND I.P. ..,--FENCE , .. .SH B w '00 .. !" ., en ~ SHRUB o 0 '" Vl APPl@ CAROEN • SET LP. o l3 WIllOW SO I.P. 4, 8 WlLLOW N89'36'38"E G o CATCH BA.SlN r , CITY 72.00 FOUND I.P. :: . t~. ( 10) "3 2 I (29) (28) 8 (9) g ( 10) --.. ~" - t N "'.'00 ' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Date: Section: Appointments June 16, 1998 Department: Item Description: Item No.: Public Works Appointment of Commissioner for Leslie Stovring EWMC X.A. Requested Action Appoint Ms. Kristi Yager to an unfilled position on the Environmental & Waste Management Commission which expires on March 31, 2001. Background Mr. David Swan was appointed to the Environmental & Waste Management Commission (EWMC) on Apri11, 1998. He subsequently resigned from the Commission on April 27, 1998 leaving an unfilled position. Ms. Yager has applied for this position and her application will be included in Friday, June 12th's FYI packet. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Date: June 16, 1998 Section: Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources , Department: PRNR ~ Subject: Proposed Petition to the Item No.: Robert A. Lambert, Director RileylPurgatorylBluffCreek Watershed District and the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District for the -n:e, /' Creek Corridors Basic Water Management Project RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommend the City Council submit a joint petition to the RileylPurgatoryl Bluff Creek Watershed District and the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District for the Creek Corridors Basic Water Mamigement Project. PURPOSE: The purpose of this project would be to develop a management plan for each ofthe conservation areas the City has preserved along Nine-Mile Creek, Riley Creek and Purgatory Creek. These management plans would provide an inventory of unique natural resource features, water management and protection sites, including wetlands, wildlife areas, prairie lands, forest lands, and sites for wetland and forest restoration. The preliminary planning stage would precede completion of the final report and preliminary plans and specifications for submittal to the Division of Waters of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Board of Water and Soil Resources for their review and recommendations prior to a proposed public hearing of the project. A goal of the project is to implement projects recommended in the approved Water Management Plans of the District and in the City's Conservation Management Plans to protect water quality and provide water storage management that will allow urban development to occur in harmony with the natural system of the watershed. The plan should determine the feasible alternatives for use and protection of each of these natural resource sites consistent with the approved Water Management Plans for the District and recommended for the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare in light of the City's concern for the protection of its air, water, land, and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. The City Council previously approved obtaining a Request for Proposal for contracting for services to assist the City in developing a management plan for the various conservation areas. As staff drafted this RFP and developed criteria for conserving these areas, much of it referred back to protecting the water resources within these corridors and complimenting the approved Watershed District plans. City staff discussed the possibility of a joint project between the City of Eden Prairie, 1 the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District, and the RileylPurgatorylBluffCreek Watershed District in developing the management plan for these conservation areas as a basic water management project. After discussing the general goals and purpose of the Conservation Area Management Plans, it became apparent to the staff of the Watershed Direct that the goals for these management plans are consistent with the goals ofthe Watershed District's in protecting the natural resources along these creek corridors. FINANCING: It is the condition ofthe petition that the preliminary Basic Water Management Plan be completed and approved by the City and District prior to preparation of the engineers report required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 103D.60l, and that 100% of the basic water management features and costs of the project be paid for and funded by the Watershed District. The City would also agree to pay all related costs and expenses which may be incurred by the District's in the event the City does not approve the preliminary Basic Water Management Plan, the proceedings are dismissed, or if for any reason no contract for construction and completion ofthe Basic Water Management Plan Project is let. BASIC WATER MANAGEMENT FEATURES: The goal for the creek corridors project, which lies entirely within the City, is to implement projects recommended in the approved Water Management Plans of the District and in the City's Conservation Area Management Plans to protect water quality and provide water storage management that will allow urban development to occur in harmony with natural systems of the watershed. These projects will also have the goal of providing public access and passive recreational use of these conservation areas where appropriate and when that use can be developed without a negative impact on the resource. The City will have the opportunity to review and approve the preliminary plans and cost estimates for each project prior to authorizing any projects. This joint Watershed District project would provide management plans for the following conservation areas: 1. Cardinal Creek Conservation Area -56 acres 2. Edenbrook Conservation Area -245 acres 3. Edenvale Conservation Area -92 acres 4. Lower Purgatory Creek Conservation Area -91 acres 5. Mitchell Lake Marsh Conservation Area -38 acres 6. Nine-Mile Creek Conservation Area -51 acres 7. Purgatory Creek Recreation Area -112 acres 8. Riley Creek Conservation Area -48 acres 9. Timber Creek Conservation Area -55 acres 2 10. Westgate Conservation Area -44 acres A management plan has already been developed for the Prairie Bluff Conservation Area. The Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area, which falls within the Lower Minnesota Watershed District, is the only conservation area that would not have a management plan completed. Staff would recommend contracting for services with the same team used by the Watershed District for the other ten sites to complete a management plan for the Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area as well. PETITION AND LOCATION OF SITE: A copy of the proposed petition is attached to this memorandum as well as a map depicting the various conservation areas within the Park and Open Space System. BL:mdd PetitionIBob98 3 Edenbrook Cons. Area. 245 acre :~J}i Nitt,e Creek Cons. Area· 51 acre ::t~~t~\}\:::::::::::::::::! 16 . " .... I ~ :I: ':::t! I-__ -f-·· ...... Jtt:.. ] ............. :?:~ion~ ~ ··;:II]!I\ .... ~ Lower Plrgatory Creek "::::::::. _Ny.9\ ~:.::!!i!liif: '·-·'~/I). .. -. ! ..... "!~$. I " . '~-0l: ! , ...... '! /if, l \ .'-. Hennepin County i ........ ~,. : '. ./. \ .. -"-", : ........ _ .......... -........ I ."' .. -.. _ .. _ .. .1 ' •• _........ \ _ •• -•• -",..1 ..... i......... , •. _.. Scott County ..... • .... .. ,---_ . .".,.,.. -., \, '. I ' .. ~ f RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT In The Matter Of The Petition Of The City Of Eden Prairie F or The Creek Corridors Basic Water Management Project ) ) ) JOINT PETITION OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE WHEREAS, the approved water management plans of the Riley.:.Purgatory-Bluff Creek and the Nine Mile Creek watershed districts provide for basic water management proj ects pursuant to the provisions of the Minnesota Watershed Act, Sections I03D.605, I03D.705 and I03D.905; and WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie designated conservation areas in and adjoining the open space, floodplain and riparian corridors of Nine Mile Creek, Riley Creek and Purgatory Creek to protect and conserve those areas as natural and recreational resources; and WHEREAS, the Nine Mile Creek and Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed districts classified existing and attainable uses of the creeks and are planning for projects that will preserve and enhance the creek corridors; and WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie intends to manage its conservation areas to providently use these natural resources in cooperation with the watershed districts; and WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie seeks to determine the feasible and prudent alternatives for use and protection of these natural resources consistent with and reasonably required for promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare in light of the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air, water, land and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City of Eden Prairie jointly petitions the Nine Mile Creek and Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, pursuant to the following conditions and consistent with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Sections I03D.705 and l03D.605, to undertake the Creek Corridors Basic Water Management project, which will be a benefit to all the residents of the Districts. PRELIMINARY PLANNING The City requests that the project planning and, implementation occur in stages, with the first stage being a preliminary Basic Water Management Plan for the Creek Corridors. The preliminary Basic Water Management Plan will utilize information contained in the approved water management plans of the Districts and the City's information regarding its designated conservation areas to identify unique natural resources features and water management and protection sites, including wetlands, wildlife areas, prairie lands, forest lands and sites for wetland and forest restoration. The preliminary Basic Water Management Plan will precede completion of the Watershed District Engineer's report and preliminary plans and specifications for submittal to the Division of Waters of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Board of Water and Soil Resources for their review and recommendations prior to the public hearing of the project. BASIC WATER MANAGEMENT FEATURES Petitioner's goal for the Creek Corridors project, which lies entirely within the City, is to implement projects recommended in the approved water management plans of the District and in the City's conservation area management plans to protect water quality and provide water storage management that will allow urban development to occur in harmony with the natural systems of the watershed. PUBLIC HEALTH, WELFARE, NEED AND NECESSITY The urbanization of areas surrounding and public use of the conservation areas is accelerating and the protection of the critical water storage, flood plain, open space, recreation, wetland, prairie and forest areas requires prompt completion of the preliminary Basic Water Management Plan and final Basic Water Management Project implementation as priority objectives of the petitioner and Watershed District. Completion of the Creek Corridors Water Management Project will enhance the value of property adjacent to the area, provide protection against the damage of uncontrolled flood waters and preserve and enhance important marsh, wetland, prairie, forestry, water quality and wildlife habitat of the Watershed and the public areas. The public trails, recreational and other public areas will be of common benefit to the entire District and will be open to and available for general public use. FINANCING It is a condition of the Petition that the preliminary Basic Water Management Plan be completed and approved by the City and District prior to the preparation of the Engineer's report required by Minnesota Statutes Section 103D.605, and that 100% of the Basic Water Management features and costs of the project be paid for and funded by the Watershed District, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section 103D.905, Subdivision 3. The Petitioner states it will pay all related costs and expenses which may be incurred by the Districts in the event the City does not approve the preliminary Basic Water Management Plan, the proceedings are dismissed, or if for any reason no contract for construction and completion of the Basic Water Management Project is let. Dated: ________ , 1997 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By _________________________ ___ 2