Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 04/01/1997
CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1997 6:30 PM, CITY CENTER HERITAGE ROOM II 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 Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Bob Lambert, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson ROLL CALL I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED POLICY ON PRIORITY USE OF CITY FACILITIES III. OTHER BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council �� FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources �" DATE: March 20, 1997 SUBJECT: Proposed Policy on Priority Use of City Facilities At the March 18 meeting, the City Council reviewed the proposed policy on priority use of City facilities. The Council continued the discussion to a workshop in order to discuss several issues, including: • A clear written residency requirement for swim teams. • Non resident fees • Second season fees, and whether or not any sports should be granted a second season at no cost. • Clarify dates when the City would determine a residency requirement and establish deadlines for associations to reserve facilities. RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR SWIM TEAMS: Rather than requiring a specific residency requirement percentage such as 65%, 70%, 75%, etc., the Council may wish to consider a fouuula, rather than a number. For example, if the City determined that any Eden Prairie non profit group would have the highest priority by determining which group had the highest total number derived by multiplying the percentage of Eden Prairie residents on the team, times the number of Eden Prairie residents on the team. If the Foxjets have 67% Eden Prairie residents with a total of 165 Eden Prairie residents on their team, their quotient number would equal 110.55. (67% x 165 = 110.55) If another club had 90% Eden Prairie residents on their team, but only 50 Eden Prairie residents on as the total, their quotient would be 45; however, if they had 90% Eden Prairie residents with 125 total Eden Prairie residents, their quotient number would be 112.5 and they would get first priority. This formula would encourage teams to have both a higher percentage and a higher number of Eden Prairie residents in order to obtain first priority use of the pool. There probably should be a minimum percentage required of Eden Prairie residents for use of the foiiuula. For example, it is unlikely the City would want to give any organization that had less than 50% Eden Prairie residents priority use of any City facilities. NON RESIDENT FEES: The subcommittee of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission that discussed the priority use policy with athletic association representatives talked about a "nominal fee" for non residents. It was suggested that the City consider a flat fee for all sports such as $5 per non resident per season in order to be consistent across the board. There needs to be some discussion regarding how a "season" is defined. Some sports define their season as year round, while other sports may be an eight-week season. Staff would recommend a season as the period of time that the athletic association is allowed to reserve facilities. This is generally divided into two or three "seasons" per year, depending on the sport. SECOND SEASON FEES: The reason for proposing or considering second season fees is to require any sport that decides to offer a second season to at least cover the additional direct maintenance cost to offer that sport a second time. For example, in softball or baseball this may be the extra cost to line and drag fields. They would not be charged for mowing, as the City would have to continue mowing those fields whether or not there were games being played. The second season fees were to be based on "direct costs" that would be determined by the City based on how much extra maintenance the organization would require to offer their second season. SECOND SEASON SPORTS THAT ARE GRAND FATHERED: At the March 18 meeting, it was suggested that some sports such as soccer may be GRAND FATHERED a second season without charge. City staff would recommend treating all sports in Eden Prairie on an equal basis, because the fact of the matter is, that second season does cost the City extra maintenance and causes additional wear on fields that would ordinarily be receiving restoration maintenance. Tom Bierman has a very good point in that second seasons are merely an opportunity to provide more kids with wholesome recreation, and the City should not be doing anything to discourage those opportunities. The second season rationale was based on the fact that the City is moving toward user fees and attempting to make sure that associations are aware of the costs for these programs. As it is, associations can expand seasons or add seasons and request (and expect) additional maintenance with no limitations. It is difficult for the City to anticipate when these additional seasons may be expanded, and it is difficult to not only budget for staffing for that extra maintenance, but trying to schedule when those fields can be closed for turf restoration when they are used from May 1 until October 15th. BL:mdd Marc h20.memo MEMORANDUM TO: Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Robert A. Lambert, Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources DATE: March 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Policy Establishing Guidelines for Priority Use of Public Facilities DRAFT POLICY: The following draft policy establishing guidelines for priority use of public facilities is based on a similar policy established by the City of St. Louis Park several years ago, and from input received at a meeting of Eden Prairie Athletic Association representatives on January 13, 1997. PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this policy which establishes guidelines for the priority use of parks and facilities in the City of Eden Prairie is to provide for health, safety and welfare of the public. It is the intent of this policy to grant priority use for exclusive or ongoing use of municipal park property to those organizations which operate programs under the same general guidelines which govern public programs operated by the Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Department. REQUIREMENTS OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT RECEIVE FREE OR PRIORITY USAGE RATES FOR LEAGUE USE OF PARK FACILITIES: Organizations which request special permits to offer ongoing programs on municipal property without paying a usage fee, or at priority usage rates, are required to comply with the following guidelines: 1. Organizations must be Eden Prairie, non profit, public service groups. "Eden Prairie" is defined as located or based in Eden Prairie. "Non profit"means a not for profit organization as defined by state statutes. "Public service group" is defined as a group organized to provide a public service to the entire community, or all individuals in the community within the age group being served. 2. Organizations are to deposit a copy of all bylaws or documents which govern their operation at the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department, so that those documents may be available for public review. 1 3. Organizations are to make all information concerning the governance of their programs available to participants upon request. 4. Meetings of the organization's governing body, except those which deal with personnel issues or litigation, are to be publicized in advance and open to participation to all program participants. 5. The election of the organization's governing body is to be a process which is open to all program participants. 6. Head coaches working in youth sport organizations are to be trained and/or certified through a program deemed appropriate by the Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Department. This training will address values, safety and liability. 7. Organizations are to be adequately prepared for dealing with participants that have special economic,physical or social needs. 8. Organizations are not to discriminate against program participants or applicants in any manner. REQUIREMENTS OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE PERMITS TO HOLD TOURNAMENTS ON MUNICIPAL PARK PROPERTY: 1. Organizations must be Eden Prairie, non profit public service groups. "Eden Prairie" is defined as located or based in Eden Prairie. "Non profit"means a not for profit organization as defined by state state statutes. "Public service group" is defined as a group organized to provide a public service to the entire community,or all individuals in the community within the age group being served. REQUIREMENTS OF TEAMS NOT AFFILIATED WITH AN EDEN PRAIRIE NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION REQUESTING RESERVATION OF FIELD USAGE: 1. Team must be composed of a minimum of 50% Eden Prairie residents. 2. Field reservations will be limited to their home games only, or their team practices with a maximum of one time per week. 3. Fees will be based on direct costs to the City. 4. Permit required. 2 REQUIREMENTS OF GROUPS FOR SINGLE USE REQUESTS: (i.e.,Eden Prairie Cub Scout Groups, Eden Prairie Church Groups, Eden Prairie Neighborhood Groups, Eden Prairie Businesses) 1. Fifty percent of the participants must either live or work in Eden Prairie. 2. Fees will be based on direct costs to the City. 3. Permit required. PRIORITIES: Organizations that meet the above stated guidelines that are requesting special permits for single use or to offer ongoing programs on municipal property will be granted the opportunity based on the following use schedule, and within the adopted standards for number of uses per team. Priority I: City Programs(Examples: summer recreation programs, lesson programs,open swim, special events open to the entire community.) Priority II: School District 272 Programs (Examples: curriculum programs, interscholastic team practices, games,tournaments, etc.) Priority III: Youth teams(18 and under)that are members of non profit organizations that have the following guaranteed in their bylaws: • 95%Eden Prairie residents. (Eden Prairie residents are defined as individuals who live in Eden Prairie or who go to school in Eden Prairie. Any non residents who don't attend Eden Prairie schools will pay a non resident fee to be established by the City Council.) • Association or club is a non profit organization as defined by state statute. • The Association or Club must file a financial statement with the City each year that will be made public upon request. This statement must indicate revenue, expenditures and fund balances. • Association is open to all Eden Prairie residents and must offer equal opportunities for participation. • All board meetings are open to the public with parents of participants able to vote on board members. • The organization must have an open process for parents to discuss concerns or recommend changes to the organization. • Teams are playing during the designated "primary season." • Priority III teams when scheduling tournaments will be charged a fee based on applicable tournament fee. Priority IV: Eden Prairie non profit public service groups who use the facilities to raise money for the benefit of the entire community. Applicable tournament fees apply. 3 Priority V: Businesses and neighborhood groups located in Eden Prairie during the designated primary season. Applicable tournament/league fees and guidelines will apply. Priority VI:Non profit youth teams or organizations that have 75% or more Eden Prairie residents during the designated primary season. Applicable tournament fees and guidelines apply. Priority VII:Non profit adult teams or organizations that have 75% or more Eden Prairie residents during the designated primary season. Eden Prairie adult "residents" must either live or work in Eden Prairie. Applicable tournament fees apply. Priority VIII: Private schools and churches located in Eden Prairie during the designed primary season. Applicable tournament, league fees and guidelines will apply. Priority IX: Priority III teams during a secondary season. A fee for a secondary season will be charged based on costs to the City. Applicable tournament fees apply. Priority X: All other Eden Prairie teams on a first come,first serve basis after higher priority teams have had an opportunity to schedule each season. All teams must be composed of at least 50%Eden Prairie residents and requests must be made by an Eden Prairie resident. Eden Prairie adult "residents" must either live or work in Eden Prairie. Applicable fees and guidelines will apply. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES: • Fees will be subject to change each year depending on actual cost to provide the services requested. Associations will be notified of fee changes approximately six months in advance of any change. • The City will establish dates each year by which teams must commit requests for field reservation use in order to utilize their priority status. After that date fields or facilities will be reserved on a first come, first served basis. City will only authorize reservations with Qn field coordinator per organization. • If teams or organizations are at the same priority level, then the team or organization that serves the highest number of Eden Prairie residents will receive the higher priority status in terms of field,pool,rink and court reservations. • Only Eden Prairie non profit public service groups or Eden Prairie youth organizations that are non profit can reserve facilities for tournaments, clinics,or other uses where a fee will be charged to teams, individuals, etc. • No more than one major tournament or special event will be scheduled at any one time. • Any organization which fails to provide for and follow the guidelines set forth above, or provides false information on a permit application,is subject to revocation of its permit at the discretion of the Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources. • No organization would be allowed to sublease City facilities without City approval. The City would not authorize subleasing for profit, or for programs that compete with City programs. 4 STANDARDS: STANDARDS FOR USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES Fac t s: ,', Primary n Travel Team or Grade I Ouse Team Age or Grade Baseball Fields& May 1 to July 30 12&over—4 per week 8&over—3 per week Softball Fields 11 &under—3 per week 8&under—2 per week Soccer Fields May 1 to July 30 under 12&over—3 per week under 10&over-3 per week under 10&under—2 per week under 9 and under—2 per week Football Fields Aug 15 to Oct 30 7th grade&over—4 per week 6th grade&under—3 per week Basketball Courts Nov 1 to Mar 15 7th grade&over—4 per week 6th grade&over—3 per week 6th grade&under—3 per week 5th grade&under—2 per week Volleyball Courts Sept 10 to Nov 15 7th grade&over—4 per week 6th grade&over—3 per week 6th grade&under-3 per week 5th grade&under—2 per week Wrestling Room Nov 1 to Mar 30 K-8th grade-4 per week Outdoor Rinks Dec 15-Feb 15 all ages-3 per week all ages- 1 per week Definitions Uses Per Week—defined as the number of times a team plays each week. If the team is practicing, it may require a field by itself. If the team is playing an out of town team, it will require a field by itself. If it is playing another Eden Prairie team, it will only require a "half use" for each team. Teams under 10 will generally only require a 1%2 hour time period. Teams over 10 may require 2 hours or more to play a game. These standards represent the maximum uses per week that the City would allocate any club or association provided facilities were available to accommodate their request. BL:mdd Policy.memoBob97 5 03/18/97 09:54 226123385288 GRIFFIN COS la31003/006 ,d Tietni 17, C, 2- March 17, 1997 To the Mayor and Eden Prairie City Council Members City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: Over the past several months, Bob Lambert and the Parks and Rec Commission have worked very hard to develop a policy on "Priority Use of Facilities" for approval and use by the City. In general, the policy addresses and meets the needs of most youth sports programs in Eden Prairie. However, the overall policy tries to deal with every youth program in the same manner. While this approach may seem equitable on the surface, it fails to address the specific differences between swim programs and other youth organizations such as baseball, hockey or soccer. The policy that has been forwarded to the City Council for approval places the Foxjet Swim Club at a Priority Xl level. This is the lowest priority level stated in the policy as proposed. Under the current policy, a 10 person swim group could be formed with all Eden Prairie residents and receive Priority III status (95% residency requirement). If this group rented pool time at the Eden Prairie Community Center from 6:00pm to 7:00pm five days per week, it would effectively make it very difficult for the Foxjet program, serving 163 Eden Prairie residents, to serve our membership and survive. In order to avoid this situation and serve the best needs of the Community and our Swim Team, the Eden Prairie Foxjet Swim Club requests that the City grant a variance to the 95% residency requirement proposed for Priority III teams. We believe that this is a reasonable request for the following reasons: A. The Foxjet Swim Cub has been part of the Eden Prairie community for the past 15 years. The Club has always maintained a high percentage of Eden Prairie resident members on our team_ The Club has been and always will be open to all Eden Prairie residents. The Foxjet Swim Club is a family-based Eden Prairie organization that provides a team swimming experience for beginning to experienced swimmers, age 5 to college. The Foxjets promote swimming and the values of athletics such as physical fitness, fun, perseverance, goal setting and discipline_ The main goal of 03/18/97 09:55 $6123385288 GRIFFIN COS 004/006 • our Club is to promote swimming as a healthy life-long activity. The Foxiet program has continued to grow, due in part, to our philosophy of developing swimmers regardless of abili yjevel_ Our Club places as much emphasis on developing swimmers interested in recreational or fitness swimming as it does on those swimmers interested in achieving the highest levels of competitive excellence. We believe this philosophy serves the broadest needs of the community as well as the best interests of our team. B. The sport of competitive swimming is unlike any other youth sports organization. The high cost of pool rental, as well as the expenses related to maintaining a professional coaching staff, make swimming an extremely expensive activity for most families. For any swim club to exist, it must have professionally trained coaches. Unlike most other youth sports programs, swimming cannot run its team through the use of parent coach volunteers. The Foxjet organization spends approximately $100,000.00 per year for our professional staff This equates to approximately $400.00 per swimmer on an annual basis for coaching salaries alone. At the last Park & Recreation Commission meeting, the question was asked, "Why not restrict your program to Eden Prairie residents only, and reduce your staff?". The answer is not so simple, but we can address this question in two ways: 1.) To provide a high level of individual attention to each of our swimmers, we have broken down our program into 9 distinct swimming groups. Each group has a different philosophy of stroke development and training. Due to the limited amount of available pool time, we run 3 to 4 different groups in the pool at the same time. Each of these groups requires its own separate coach_ The relationship of the number of swimmers is not directly proportional to coaching staff time. As an example, if we have 8 swimmers or 15 swimmers in a group, we still need a coach to run that individual practice_ The elimination of all non-resident swimmers from the Club would make it very difficult for the Foxjets to survive financially and run the type of swim program that has made us so successful to date. 2_) Success breeds success. Tad Hauck has developed an extremely successful swim program in Eden Prairie over the past 10 years. The Eden Prairie Foxjets are considered one of the best teams, if not the best team, in the State of Minnesota. As the Foxjets' reputation has grown, more swimmers have chosen to become part of our team. As the team has grown, we have been able to rent more pool time, thus helping reduce the pool operating costs for the City. Retaining all of our swimmers on the team is a must. Training and competing with other good swimmers helps to make all of our swim team members better. The Foxjets are no different than any other small non-profit business trying to excel, except that we serve the needs of children in the sport of swimming. 03/18/97 09:55 126123385288 GRIFFIN COS 005/008 C. The Foxjet Swim Club currently pays the City of Eden Prairie over $20,000.00 per year in pool rental fees, which help offset the costs of running and maintaining the current pool facilities. Foxjets have helped the City utilize and pay for their pool facilities for the past 15 years. D. Passing the current 95% residency provision without considering the special circumstances involved in running a swim program may not serve the best interests of the community at large. As stated above, the situation could arise where a team of 10 Eden Prairie resident swimmers (100% residency) would qualify under the current policy as the higher priority team, even though the Foxjet team serves over 160 Eden Prairie residents. We cannot imagine how this would serve the best interests of the community, both in terms of generating pool rental income, or serving the swimming needs of the largest number of Eden Prairie residents. We respectfully request, that the City Council adjust the proposed policy for swim clubs as follows: A. Reduce the Priority Ili residency percentage requirement for swim clubs to 70%. This would reduce the membership adjustments necessary for our Club to achieve residency compliance at the Priority III level. At this percentage level, we would still need to increase our Eden Prairie membership by 21 or decrease our non-resident membership by approximately 8 swimmers. We feel this range of membership adjustment would be achievable over a reasonable time period. The original recommendation by Robert Lambert to the Park & Rec Commission asked the Commission to consider reducing the residency requirement to 75% for swim clubs. While this level is much more reasonable than the 95% requirement, it would still be very difficult for the Foxjets to achieve. The Foxjet Swim Club currently has 163 Eden Prairie resident members out of a total team enrollment of 242. This represents a 67.3% residency percentage. In order for us to achieve a 75% residency ratio, we would have to either: 1.) increase our Eden Prairie membership by 74 members, or 2.) decrease our non-resident team members by approximately 20, which would decrease our team size by that number. Asking members to leave, would not only damage our team, but would result in a loss of revenue of approximately $12,000 to $15,000 annually. Attempting to increase our team size by 74 resident members to achieve the 75% level is, at least in the short-term, unlikely_ We already actively recruit members from the Eden Prairie schools. The base group of children interested in competitive swimming is small, when compared to other youth sports such as baseball, football, hockey and soccer. If you take into account the total number of Eden Prairie resident children who currently swim competitively (non-high school) in the State of Minnesota, the Foxjet Swim Club already has 90 to 95% of those children on our team_ 03/18/97 09:56 tt6123385288 GRIFFIN COS Z 006/006 B. Allow the Foxjet Swim Club two (2) years (3/15199 effective date) to achieve residency compliance before the policy would be effective. Since the Foxjet Swim Club has supported the City for the past 15 years, we do not feel that a phase-in period for the new policy to be an unreasonable request. It is our current understanding that the new policy will not take effect until at least January 1, 1998. Since the spring/summer session is only three weeks away, we would only have the 1997/98 fall/winter session starting in September 1997 to adjust our membership ratio. This simply isn't enough time to make the adjustments necessary without damaging our organization. Thank you very much for considering our request. Dave Rasmussen, a Foxjet Board member will be attending the City Council meeting this evening to answer any questions you may have about our proposal. Sincerely, latid&fo Mark A. Davis President Eden Prairie Foxjet Swim Club AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 1997 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher- Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene Dietz, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION & BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1997 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1997 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #1 FOR EDEN PRAIRIE LIQUOR STORE CONSTRUCTION C. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR SUNNYBROOK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, I.C. 94-5363 City Council Agenda Tuesday, April 1, 1997 Page Two D. EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERMAIN PURPOSES BETWEEN N.W.B.C. ASSOCIATES AND THE CITY ACROSS LOT 2, BLOCK 1, LePARC E. RELEASE OF LAND FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT FOR AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH 2ND ADDITION F. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH MONTGOMERY WATSON/PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL FOR WETLAND PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAINAGE PLAN UPDATE G. RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR LIME RESIDUAL REMOVAL, I.C. 97-5435 H. RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR HIDDEN PONDS EXTERIOR TANK PAINTING, I.C. 97-5430 I. RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFER OF PRESERVE VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER J. ALBIN CHAPEL by Albin Chapel. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 2.56 acres and Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.56 acres, Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 2.56 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Albin Chapel property. Location: Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road. (Ordinance for Rezoning and Resolution for Site Plan Review) K. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT L. RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1997A, SERIES 1997B, AND SERIES 1997C City Council Agenda Tuesday, April 1, 1997 Page Three M. RILEY CREEK RIDGE by Hustad Land Company. 2nd Reading for PUD District Review on 62.77 acres and Rezoning from Rural to RI- 9.5 and RI-13.5 on 62.77 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Riley Creek Ridge. Location: South of Pioneer Trail, west of Eden Prairie Road (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. EXTENDED STAY AMERICA by Extended Stay America. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 18 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 3.63 acres, Rezoning from Rural to Commercial Regional Service on 3.63 acres, Site Plan Review on 3.63 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 3.63 acres into one lot. Location: Valley View Road West of Market Place Drive. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) B. UNITED HEALTHCARE by United Healthcare. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Office on 10.4 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 17.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.4 acres, Rezoning from Industrial to Office on 10.4 acres, Site Plan Review on 10.4 acres. Location: Southeast corner of Prairie Center Drive and Technology Drive. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning ) C. CODE CHANGE - TOWERS AND ANTENNAE by City of Eden Prairie. Request for code change to amend the City Code, Section 11.03, Subdivision 6. Site Plan and Architectural Review, Section 11.02 Definitions, and adding a new Section 11.06 Towers and Antennae. The proposed code changes cover regulations for the placement and height of new towers and antennae. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS City Council Agenda Tuesday, April 1, 1997 Page Four VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION (Councilmember Nancy Tyra-Lukens) X. APPOINTMENTS Xl. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Miller Spring Improvements 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 .Vern UNAPPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS WORKSHOP MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1997 6:30 PM, HERITAGE ROOM II 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. and Nancy Tyra-Lukens PLANNING COMMISSION: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner and Youth/Student Representative Jessica Lind BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS: Corrine Dalquist, Cliff Dunham, Kathy Nelson, Matthew Hansen, Delavan Dye, Louis Giglio and William Ford CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, City Planner Michael Franzen, Zoning Administrators Jean Johnson and Steve Durham and Council Recorder Jan Nelson ROLL CALL Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Commission members Clinton, Kardell, Sandstad, Wissner and Lind were absent. Board members Dalquist, Nelson, Hansen, Dye and Giglio were absent. I. INTRODUCTIONS II. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES REQUIRING COUNCIL INPUT A. Future Land Uses for Southwest Eden Prairie Harris reviewed the trends she foresees in Eden Prairie: the aging baby boomers will sell their large homes and look for smaller homes; people who are here will want to stay in the city which will generate demand for lower cost and moderate cost housing; the price of in-fill land will go up making it extremely difficult to construct a great deal of single family housing in the remaining tracts; density transfer will be used as a planning and development tool to help preserve some of the space and to help provide additional diversity in housing. JOINT WORKSHOP MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 2 She noted we are currently at about 57% single family and 43% multi-family which is the reverse of what was originally planned for the community. Enger said we are in the final stages of a balancing act in land use. In 1977 we planned the infrastructure for an ultimate population of 80,000-100,000, based on the experience of Bloomington which had about the same amount of land. We will probably end up with an increase in open space of 10% above that anticipated and with 25-35% less population. We need to determine what are the services driven by population and what are the services that can be afforded by the population. We have to meet a regional balance, and the Met Council expects our remaining land to be three units per acre for the residential land while we have planned at 2.5 units. He thought we will be able to meet all of the goals, and noted we have 55 acres of land designated medium density remaining in the entire community. Harris asked if the 55 acres is both inside and outside the MUSA line. Enger said it is all inside the MUSA line. Harris asked how we will be able to come anywhere near the Met Council's goal of three units per acre. Enger said net is different from gross. We could use the land we would expect the airport to purchase in our density calculation and keep us at the right number. He said we could do something with multi-family like Edina's Centennial Lakes area with very high density in one area. The transit hub has a site that could be 300 units of multi-family, which would get us closer to the Met Council's goal and would be in line with our goals to keep high density housing near the service center. He said the Met Council would also like to see 40% of the remaining developed units be multifamily with ten units per acre or more. We need to make sure that we don't underutilize the remaining multi-residential land. He reviewed the handout showing land use breakdowns for the total acreage in the City, and for undeveloped versus developed acreage. Enger noted we are getting more expensive multi-family housing. The in-fill sites are often in older neighborhoods and can't be developed as single family units but can develop as moderately expensive attached development units. This type of development helps to enhance the value of the older homes in the neighborhood. Case asked if we have run the numbers to see if developing the potential 40 units per acre would enable us to develop southwest Eden Prairie as one-half acre lots and still meet our averages. Enger said he hasn't run those numbers, but we do know we could meet the goals and still go single family in the rest of the southwest quadrant. Harris said she is hearing that we would like a clustering of high density housing in the Major Center Area, and she wasn't sure we want that or a mix of housing density in southwest Eden Prairie. Enger thought the balancing act would be having a mix of housing densities in southwest Eden Prairie, JOINT WORKSHOP MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 3 preserving as much open space as possible, and promoting higher density projects in the Major Center Area, making it a lot more like Centennial Lakes. Thorfinnson asked if we would look at this on a project-by-project basis, or will we have to aggregate the entire area and keep track as we go. Enger thought, if it was important to have 2.5 units per acre in the southwest area, there would be some parcels that would have some area that we might be able to do density transfer on. Thorfinnson thought we would need to keep a running tally of what is going on for the benefit of the Planning Commission. He said we discuss how we want to see that part of the City develop, but in reality the developers will come in asking for much more. The neighborhoods make up the other side of the triangle when they want large lots and lots of open space and who fight almost anything that comes in. Butcher-Younghans thought the plan Enger outlined are goals that trends are showing us. We need to create a plan that we can embrace to provide for all of us to age and stay in the community. We also need to preserve some of the historic buildings and sites. We need an over-all plan on how we do this, which might also make it easier in terms of neighborhood opposition. Tyra-Lukens thought the average resident will be concerned about whether they will be able to have a view of the open space we create if we do density transfer and try to save certain areas. We need to make sure there are trails and access points to get people into these areas so they can enjoy them. Ismail asked Enger to define the southwest area. Enger said it is everything south of County Road 1 and west of County Road 4. Ismail thought the supply of land is limited and the demand is high. We have to be choosy and put our own plan into effect. We need to look at each project more closely than we have been doing up to now. He liked the idea of a Centennial Lakes somewhere in the City, and he thought we should keep that in our minds as a goal. We need a plan that could serve as a framework to evaluate development. Habicht thought the mall area was the appropriate place to look at some much higher densities. If we are looking at more people to support the infrastructure, perhaps affordable housing and senior housing would be appropriate in the mall area. He said the orchard project in the southwest area was an idea of a town square. It met some resistance because of having some kind of town center in the southwest corner of the city. They planned to have some commercial and retail in the project. He thought we should designate in the plans for the southwest area where the retail/commercial would go and how density transfer would work. Enger said we never specifically designated commercial/retail for a particular corner. Enger said this will develop very quickly, and he thought we need to regroup from the original guide plan, go over the past few years, and tweak our JOINT WORKSHOP MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 4 strategy on the development of the remaining part of the City. We should develop a strategy by which to review, possibly with density transfer as part of the strategy and including the issues raised by the Seniors Issues Task Force. He thought we could quickly define situations that we don't find tolerable. He believes there will be about three major projects in the southwest area. Tyra-Lukens asked what we see 20-25 years down the line for people in older homes on big acreage once the southwest area develops and the value of land increases. Those people will have huge tax bills. Enger said we will have that situation and possibly sooner than 20-25 years if the trends continue. Case was a proponent of the concept floated with the apple orchard. He was thinking along the line that we probably need to "ordain" property to define densities around commercial development. He asked if this should be part of the quick look at three or four commercial areas that can drive the rest of the planning the way we want it. He thought we can then sell it to the community. Harris thought we reached consensus that the Major Center Area is the area the City will focus on for high density development, and we would like to develop the southwest utilizing density transfer as a tool to help us achieve mixed housing uses. We have the issue of identifying retail areas. Enger said the northwest corner of the new Dell Road and County Road 1 was designated retail but was developed as residential. We could pick a square footage figure and designate a corner. Case said to accomplish our purposes we may want to designate one large corner or two small corners and then let the three major areas develop around that area. Foote asked if we planned another commercial center in the area. Enger said the corner of County Road 1 and County Road 4 was designated in response to development along Dell Road. There is a "sub-neighborhood" center at the northeast corner of Dell and Hwy 5 and one at the northeast corner of Hwy 212 and Dell Road, neither of which were depicted on the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Franzen said the guide plan talked about 10-15 centers to serve the city. We need to look at how many units would be built within a mile or so of each center and determine how big and what type of uses the centers would have. Enger said the difficulty with the apple orchard project was that the developer wanted to provide areas for people outside the community. Harris thought it will be possible to tweak the existing plan and identify certain areas as desired retail. We are then back to the fact that we are dealing with perception and emotion. We need to determine how best to do this in a way that minimizes the negatives in both of these while still encouraging quality development in the areas. y JOINT WORKSHOP MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 5 Enger said he would like to have about 30 days to put together some suggested strategies and further time to look at balance models. Staff could then come back with a list of strategies to look at. Habicht said if we look at the area the biggest question is what is going to happen with the neighbors. The biggest thing we deal with is expectations. Everyone thinks there will be some commercial so we aren't upsetting that expectation. Tyra-Lukens asked what the procedures would be for dealing with these strategies and if there would be an opportunity for people in the southwest area to have any input. Enger said he thought the strategies will come out of the existing Guide Plan. He expects that there would be nothing new that the City hasn't used before, based on our previous experience. We would be reaffirming our current policy. Thorfinnson said one thing we are not talking about is the market driving what goes into that area. If development happens rapidly during the next three years, we can probably assume that a lot of what will be proposed will be medium density housing. We need to take into account the types of proposals that will come forward and be prepared. He thought there will be much higher density on projects when they come forward whether we transfer density or not. Enger thought that will be self policing and transportation is the cap. The way our road plan goes together we have relied on a few arterial highways with not very many through roads. This builds in an inherent capacity problem. Foote said even if the market drives higher densities, we still wouldn't be able to do it. Thorfinnson thought that has to be part of the strategy. III. OTHER BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT Harris thanked all those who attended and said we will look forward to reviewing the Staffs strategy plans in the near future. Harris adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. -ff8 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 1997 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Julie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene Dietz, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL All members were present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Tyra-Lukens asked that item XI.C.2. be moved to follow the Public Hearings. Thorfinnson added item XI.A.1. Preliminary Report on Review of Boards and Commissions Committee. Jullie added item XI.B.1. Review Schedule for Council Workshops. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. Motion carried unanimously. II. OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SCHOOL BOARD MEETING HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25,1997 MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve as published the Minutes of the Joint City Council/School Board Meeting held Tuesday, February 25, 1997. Motion carried unanimously. B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 1997 Harris said item M of the Consent Calendar should be moved up to precede the discussion on the Consent Calendar items. She said the first sentence of the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 2 fourth paragraph of the discussion on the Consent Calendar, page 3, should be changed to read "Harris asked ... beaches are used when not officially opened." MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve as published and amended the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 4, 1997. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Thorfinnson abstaining. IV. CONSENT C LEND R A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. KOPESKY ADDITION by Wayne Kopesky. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 10-97 for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.32 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Kopesky Addition. Location: West 82nd Street. (Ordinance 10- 97 for Rezoning) C. BEARPATH 8TH ADDITION by Bearpath Limited Partnership. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 9-97-PUD-5-97 for PUD District Review on 2.3 acres and Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 2.3 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Bearpath 8th Addition for Bearpath Limited Partnership. Location: East of Bearpath Trail South, west of Dell Road and south of Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority. (Ordinance 9-97-PUD-5-97 for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change) D. RESOLUTION 97-36 RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 AND 7; ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS THEREFOR E. ONKEN PROPERTY by Paul and Kris Onken. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 11- 97 for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.27 acres for one single family home and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Onken Property. Location: 17809 West 62nd Street. (Ordinance 11-97 for Rezoning) F. MHFA FIRST TIME BUYER PROGRAM (Resolution 97-37) G. APPROVE BIDS FOR STARING LAKE PLAYGROUND RENOVATION H. AMENDMENT TO FEE RESOLUTION (Resolution 97-38) I. AWARD CONTRACT FOR CSAH 4/HIGH SCHOOL ENTRANCE/ EDENWOOD DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS, I.C. 96-5404 (Resolution 97-39) J. RESOLUTION 97-40 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF PURGATORY CREEK ESTATES (located south of Sunnybrook Road and west of Homeward Hills Road) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 3 K. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT, I.C. 94-5350 Regarding item G, Tyra-Lukens asked if we are still at the targeted budget amounts with the bids we received. Lambert said we will be about $20,000 over what our estimate was. She asked how we stand with respect to Midwest Asphalt since they are being awarded the bid for this. Jullie said they have a signed, approved land alteration permit, and we went through the past season without problems. They performed according to the requirements of the permit. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve items A-K on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. SUNNYBROOK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, ORDER IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, I.C. 94-5363 (Resolution 97-41) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on March 6 and March 13, 1997 in the Eden Prairie News. This project involves the construction of street and utility improvements along Sunnybrook Road west of Homeward Hills Road. It also includes improvements for the seven-lot Purgatory Creek Estates Subdivision which provides the required easements for connection of the sanitary sewer system. Copies of the amended Feasibility Report have been given to all owners of property abutting the project and an informational meeting was conducted on March 11. Al Gray, City Engineer, reviewed the details of the Feasibility Study, noting that the original Feasibility Study was done in 1995 at which time the Council authorized the project. In preparing the plans Staff had difficulty finding a corridor for the required outlet to Purgatory Creek for the utilities that need to be installed. He said the Posts have received approval of a subdivision that will provide an outlet for the two utilities. Because of the requirement to begin a project within a year of approval, we must redo the approval process. It will now include the improvements that will be within the Post Construction development. Gray then reviewed the proposed assessment rolls to cover the costs of the street, sanitary sewer and water main. He said there is a unique property with 1.5 units of assessment that belongs to Dean Longsyo and is located on the south side of Sunnybrook Road. It has a duplex structure on the property now, so it was proposed at 1.5 units of assessment. The owners have requested we reduce it to one unit based on the lot size. Dean Longsyo, 9248 Creekwood Drive, supports the project and believes there will be a lot of benefit for the residents and the City; however, he believes he is 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 4 being targeted with an inequitable assessment of property. It is clearly a single lot. There is another double on Sunnybrook road that is showing as one unit of assessment, and it is a much larger lot. Harris asked Gray to point out the Longsyo property on the map. Gray said they have not been able to recognize the other property as a duplex, although it may be an unofficial duplex. It is a larger piece of property but it has a small frontage on Sunnybrook. It is likely that this would be combined with other property for future development. He expects the Longsyo property to stay the way it is or be developed as a single family lot in the future. Case recalled discussing this a year ago and leaning towards one unit of assessment. He asked what the rationale would be for making this one unit. Gray said in the long term it is more likely to have a major remodel to a single unit. Thorfinnson asked about the suggestion that they pay the double trunk sewer and water. Gray said they would use the acreage calculation and would deal with this in the assessment rolls as one unit. Thorfinnson thought whatever we do we should do with the other unit. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing. Tyra-Lukens withdrew the motion with the consent of Case. Brian Post, Post Construction, asked how all the other duplexes in Eden Prairie are treated. Gray said he didn't believe we have had a mixture like this before. Post thought it would be fair to look at what has been done in other cases. Case thought the substandard lot size is driving it at this point. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing, and to adopt Resolution 97-41 ordering the Improvements and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Sunnybrook Road Improvements designated I.C. 9- 5363, to include treating Parcel No. 23-116-23-33-0010 as one unit. Motion carried unanimously. B. PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER RENOVATION 1997 by Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 9.46 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 9.46 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the C-COM Zoning District on 9.46 acres, and Site Plan Review on 9.46 acres. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway and C.S.A.H. 18. (Resolution 97-42 for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on March 6, 1997 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 64 property owners. This project q CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 5 involves a "facelift" of the development, including the parking lot and frontage road for better visibility to the site. Darcy Winter, consultant to Jerry's Enterprises, Inc., reviewed the proposal. She said there will be no demolition of the building and they have obtained approval from MnDOT and Hennepin County to make changes to the frontage road. They plan to regrade the slope of the parking lot and drop about five feet on the eastern slope to improve visibility. They also want to drop the frontage road elevation which they believe will improve safety on that road. All of the costs will be born by the developer. Enger said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this project at its March 10, 1997 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of March 7, 1997. Larry Mueller, 9285 Garrison Way, was concerned about the Garrison Way exit onto Anderson Lakes Parkway and whether the change in the placement of the west exit from the shopping center would affect that exit. Winter said the Garrison Way exit will stay where it is. Dave Oliver, 9661 Clark Circle, understood the two lots directly south of this development are owned by Jerry's, and he was concerned about what will be developed on those. Winter said they are not owned by Jerry's. Thorfinnson asked if the Engineering Department has taken a look at the changes they propose to the parking lot and the frontage road. Winter said Rod Rue has been involved in the meetings with the county and the state. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt Resolution 97-42 for PUD Concept Review on 9.46 acres; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment within the C-COM Zoning District; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. C. PRAIRIE GREEN MINI-STORAGE by Four S. Properties Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment in the I-2 Park District on 4.96 acres, Site Plan Review on 4.96 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 7.21 acres into one lot. Location: County Road 4, south of Terrey Pine Court. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment and Resolution 97-43 for Preliminary Plat) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on March 6, 1997 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 47 property owners. This project involves the expansion of the existing mini-storage facility along the east side of County Road 4 and south of Terrey Pine Drive. 6- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 6 Todd Jones, representing Four S Properties, was available to answer questions. Enger said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project on a vote of 6-0 at its meeting on February 24, 1997, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of February 24, 1997. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the I-2 Park District on 4.96 acres; to adopt Resolution 97-43 for Preliminary Plat Approval of 7.21 acres into 1 lot; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. D. CENTRON DPL by Centron DPL. Request for PUD Concept Review and PUD District Review on 5 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the I-2 Zoning District on 5 acres and Site Plan Review on 5 acres. Location: City West Parkway. (Resolution 97-44 for PUD Concept Review and Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on March 6, 1997 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 16 property owners. This project is located along City West Parkway and is Phase II of plans reviewed by the City Council two years ago. There are some changes from the original approved plan, including additional parking and the hidden loading dock area. The request also includes a PUD waiver allowing the office percentage to increase from 50% to 75%. Tom Wassmolen, representing Centron DPL, reviewed the project. He said they are requesting more office space than was previously approved. He noted that the parking is approved for 75% already. Enger said the Planning Commission recommended approval of this project, including the PUD waiver request, on a vote of 6-0 at its meeting on February 24, 1997, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of February 19, 1997. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt Resolution 97-44 for PUD Concept Review on 5 acres; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment in the I-2 Zoning District on 5 acres, and PUD District Review on 5 acres with a waiver to allow 75% Office Use; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. 4 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 7 E. EDENVALE CROSSING BUSINESS CENTER by CSM Corporation. Request for Guide Plan Change from Office to Industrial on 9.8 acres, PUD Concept Amendment on 12.7 acres, PUD District Review on 12.7 acres , Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 2.9 acres, and from Rural to I-2 on 9.8 acres, Site Plan Review on 12.7 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 12.7 acres into 3 lots. Location: South and east of Anagram Drive. (Resolution 97-45 for Guide Plan Change, Resolution 97-46 for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change and Resolution 97-47 for Preliminary Plat) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on March 6, 1997 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 102 property owners. This project includes a request to change the Guide Plan from Office to Industrial on 9.8 acres abutting the east and south sides of Equitable Drive, south of Valley View Road. The proposal is a mixture of mostly Office, with some Industrial, consistent with the current mix of Office/ Warehouse uses in the PUD. In addition, waivers for parking setback and 75% Office Use for one of the buildings is requested through the PUD. Dave Carland, Vice President of CSM, reviewed the proposal. Enger said this is the land development component of the project proposed by MnDOT for a retaining wall or reduction of grade of the hill west of Norwest Bank. There are three buildings proposed. He said the Planning Commission recommended approval of this project on a vote of 6-0 at its February 24, 1997 meeting, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of February 21, 1997. It was not reviewed by the Parks Commission. There were no comments from the audience. Case asked if these are the exact heights as we reviewed them. Enger said these are slightly lower. MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt Resolution 97-45 for Guide Plan Change from Office to Industrial on 9.8 acres; to adopt Resolution 97-46 for PUD Concept Amendment on 12.7 acres; to approve the 1st Reading of Zoning District Change from Rural to Office on 2.9 acres and from Rural to I-2 on 9.8 acres, and PUD District Review on 12.7 acres; to adopt Resolution 97-47 for Preliminary Plat Approval of 12.7 acres into 3 lots; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. F. CHIMNEY PINES by Laukka-Jarvis, Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 1.29 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 1.29 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the R1-9.5 acre CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 8 District on 1.29 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.29 acres and Preliminary Plat of 1.29 acres into 8 lots. Location: Spyglass Drive, south of Riverview Road. (Resolution 97-48 for PUD Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment and Resolution 97-49 for Preliminary Plat) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on March 6, 1997 in the Eden Prairie News and mailed to 49 property owners. This proposal is to subdivide 1.29 acres into eight lots. The existing house would be removed and replaced with three new homes. The lot lines on five existing lots to the east would be adjusted slightly. The three new homes would be constructed consistent with the architectural theme for the approved Planned Unit Development. The project location is south of Riverview Road and west of the north/south alignment of Homeward Hills Road extended. Peter Jarvis, representing Laukka-Jarvis, Inc., reviewed the proposal. Enger said the Planning Commission recommended approval of this project on a vote of 6-0 at its meeting on February 24, 1997, subject to the recommendations of the Staff report of February 21, 1997. He said they received a letter from the Office of the State Architect of Minnesota subsequent to the project being reviewed at a meeting of the Heritage Preservation Commission that clears the project for development. The project was not reviewed by the Parks Commission Laura Bluml, 10540 West Riverview Drive, has concerns about the landscaping. They were assured that significant trees would be planted along the road next to the five lots and that has not occurred. She was concerned about traffic control along Concord Drive and Riverview Road. She would like to see someone take a look at the placement of the stop sign on west-bound Riverview Road. She also asked the developer to move the advertising signs for the development that have been placed in the street. Case was concerned that the burial mound site investigation was done during December. When this was first approved he bought into the density transfer concept; however, we now have 51 lots, not 49, and he was at a maximum with 49. He said he is feeling a little bit pushed. Discussion followed regarding the effect of removing the existing house on the total count. Tyra-Lukens said she originally voted for the project because, given the road constraints in the area, this was not the place to do higher density housing. She has watched the development and agrees it doesn't work with the older home in there. She didn't think three more units would make or break the traffic situation out there. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt Resolution 97-48 for PUD Amendment Review on 1.29 acres; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review on 1.29 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 9 acres, and Zoning District Amendment in the R1-9.5 District on 1.29 acres; to adopt Resolution 97-49 for Preliminary Plat Approval of 1.29 acres into 8 lots; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. G. VACATION 97-01: DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN BOULDER POINTB (Resolution 97-50) Jullie said the official notice of this Public Hearing was published on February 27, 1997 in the Eden Prairie News. The property owner has requested the vacation of the underlying drainage and utility easements over two adjoining lots within the Boulder Pointe Subdivision. The applicant has purchased both lots and intends to construct a single-family home and replat the two lots into one. The replat will include the dedication of replacement drainage and utility easements. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Butcher-Younghans moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing; and to adopt Resolution 97-50 Vacating the Drainage and Utility Easements within Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Boulder Pointe. Motion carried unanimously. XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS_, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES 2. Proposed Policy on Priority Use of City Facilities Lambert reviewed the draft policy, noting this issue was initiated a number of months ago with a request from another baseball club for use of playfields. This brought up other issues that staff felt needed to be addressed including the issue of second seasons. We have lost the ability to keep our fields in good condition. Another issue is the amount of field use per team. We have more and more requests from different age groups needing a field every day of the week. He said we have never set any standards on usage. There have been a lot of discussions at meetings over the last three or four months with representatives of the various athletic clubs. Another issue that came up during the meetings is how the various associations operate. We as a city have given various clubs exclusive use of public facilities. On occasion we would get complaints from parents who don't think a club is operating fairly, and they ask what the city is doing to monitor them. He said the main thing that came out was the proposed policy presented tonight. They used an outline that the City of St. Louis Park used a few 9 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 10 years ago, but they made significant changes to that policy. It has been accepted by all of the athletic associations with the exception of the FoxJets who had concerns about priority usage and the 95% Eden Prairie resident requirement. Lambert said the Parks Commission recommended denial of the request from the Fox Jets and recommended that all swim clubs be treated like the rest of the associations. The FoxJets have a history of providing service to people other than Eden Prairie residents and are now about 67% Eden Prairie residents. They have paid coaches and pay for the rental of the pools by bringing in more members. We recommended that they go to 75% Eden Prairie residents within two years, and they are requesting that the city consider granting a variance to them for 70% within two years. They don't want to go to any of the kids in the club and tell them they can't participate. He said one of the reasons the Parks Commission recommended denial is that there are two swim clubs that are asking for pool time. The Dolphin Aquatic team has requested time and the state swimming authority recognizes kids on that team as an Apple Valley team, therefore we should look at that team as being from Apple Valley. They are concerned that the Dolphin team could decide to organize their own club and be 100% Eden Prairie residents and then take the prime time because of that status which would make it difficult for the FoxJets. Dan Rasmussen, 13598 Woodmere Circle, said he is on the board of the FoxJets. He reviewed their request for variance and asked that they receive a Priority III and get an effective date of 3/15/99 to comply. He said they would continue to actively recruit Eden Prairie members, but they do not want to be forced to ask non-residents to leave the team. Ken Bomben, 9260 Talus Circle, represented the Eden Prairie Soccer Association. They would like to take issue with the statement of Mr. Lambert that the Soccer Association and the Soccer Club have had spring and fall soccer here since 1988. He said their fall season has always been as big or bigger than the spring season. He was concerned that the policy will force them to distinguish between their seasons, and they have no good criteria for splitting the two seasons. Tyra-Lukens asked if they were forced to designate a season, would it be the same as the Soccer Club choice. Bomben said they would be inclined to ask for a different primary season, and they probably would prefer to have spring designated as their second season. Case thought we are finding that each of the sports has its own unique requirements. He couldn't think of another sport that should be 10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 11 encouraged to have two seasons more than soccer because of its low price, lack of equipment required and the skill level required Tom Beirman, 9160 Flyway Circle, representing the Soccer Club said it is hard to believe we are running out of field space already; however, the new fields at Miller Park are restricted to use for games only. The practice space in the community has dwindled, and their club has over 600 members. They have had spring and fall seasons since 1982. He would like to see all-weather fields constructed. We need to think about an indoor, multi-purpose facility for a multitude of programs. Gerard Wersal, 12645 Sunnybrook Road, could see the strain on the parks and on our budget. He wondered if with new developments we could start looking at some of the locations that are now limited use facilities. He said there is property by Staring Lake where a house was taken down that might be made into a limited use facility. Case wanted to probe the concept of sanctioning one club to provide services in the community. He thought we were going to develop criteria to give to groups that serve the greatest number of kids. That way we could have more control over the open elected official process because groups would want our sanction. Lambert said he would be interested in the City Attorney's opinion on sanctioning a group. He didn't think we have to do that if we adopt the policy. The associations have talked the staff into recommending 95% Eden Prairie participants, and he didn't think we would have an issue with the 5% non-resident. What this does is to have the major association that is providing for most of the kids get priority and allows fields to be allotted according to priority. The one thing that is different is the pool usage, but everything else will fall into place. Case asked if he envisioned what might happen if the new swim team hit the same percentage of participation as the FoxJets, or what happens if the FoxJets stay at only 69% participation by Eden Prairie kids and there is no allowance for hard numbers. Lambert said the policy recommends that the club with the most participants receive priority. He said they don't want to limit the participation of the swimmers and skaters because they purchase time from the City at the Community Center. We want to sell out all of the hours of pool and ice time. He didn't think that the Fox.lets will suddenly have extra money to buy up all the pool time. Lambert thought this is where swimming is different. He didn't know what the percentage of Eden Prairie residents should be set at, but if we don't set a number there will be a problem. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 12 Tyra-Lukens was concerned that if we don't follow a policy of "sanctioning" there will be a lot of organizations offering the same sport and it will be difficult for the parent or child to decide which group to choose. She thought we need to make an exception for the swim club, and 70% residents may be too great. She thought there might come a point where, if the percentage of resident participants gets too small, then we need to reconsider. She thought the FoxJets' request was very reasonable. Concerning the soccer issue, Tyra-Lukens thought they serve a great number of kids in the community and it is hard to say that there is a primary season for them. She thought we might want to leave them as a Priority III but with an exception for their primary season. Thorfinnson had a problem with setting precedent if we give a waiver. We are the deliverer of services and he didn't think we should be turning it over to one particular club. This addresses the number of residents, and for swimmers we would reduce the percentage to 70 or 75%. He thought the greater number takes priority after meeting the percentage require- ment. He was not comfortable approving this with all the questions we have. He thought we need some sort of system like this, but he would like to get away from calling it waivers, possibly by writing it into the policy. Butcher-Younghans also was not sure about sanctioning. Multiple programs do offer multiple opportunities. We would be doing a favor by offering an exception for the swim clubs. She thought we might want to revisit the percentage figures after a year or so. Rasmussen said they have agreed with Lambert to sit down once or twice a year and plan for use of the pool. They have also agreed to consider paying a fee for non-residents as they are also concerned about subsidizing non-residents. They would not pass that along to the non-residents, but rather would absorb it as a club. That would limit them from bringing on more kids from other communities. They are also working on concepts for adding kids to the program but they will need time to implement a percentage figure. Harris asked what the experience has been in St. Louis Park with the policy they developed and if there are other cities who have the same problems. Lambert said St. Louis Park is the only one they found with a policy, and we made a lot of changes and additions to their policy to address the priority use of fields. We tried to make it fair and not have a different policy for each association while giving priority to items other than just the percentage of residents. Harris had concerns with the use of the word "sanctions." She was uncomfortable identifying one club as the sanctioned group. She wanted to keep it open to all residents of the city. She was willing to bend the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 13 regulations to allow the swim team to build on the number of Eden Prairie residents, but she can't decide how best to handle this. Case said he would like to see the swim team receive an exception for 70%, but he wanted to clarify it so that other sports understand why there is an exception. He was also okay with giving them time to reach the 70% goal. He was also in favor of a non-resident fee for all sports, and that might be a way to address some concerns of residents. He thought if we looked at the grandfathering issue, soccer has had 16 years of operating with two season, and that might be a way to resolve the precedent issue. He thought the policy should be brought back with an explanation or rationale for soccer. Dick Brown said the committee has been working on this for months. We have another decision to make regarding the improvements that will be made in the pool. He said we are leasing pool space at a little more than half of the costs to run the pool. He thought it is about time the team started paying for what they use. He was also concerned that there would be no time for repairs if we have two soccer seasons. Case said he would like to see this brought back with the exceptions worded correctly. Thorfinnson was having trouble saying that two soccer seasons are the rule. He was okay with the swim team exception, but he wanted to know how many other sports might have two seasons and might come forward to ask for an exception. Harris thought we are stuck on the fact that we need to continue to review this. She would like to see it come back for review at a workshop. A lot of thought has gone into this and a lot of review has been done. Tyra-Lukens thought we need to clarify the policy for sports that are year round like the FoxJets in terms of at what point in time we will look at their rosters. She thanked the Park and Rec Commission and all others who had input to the draft policy. The consensus was to remand the issue to staff and have them bring it back at one of the Council's early workshops. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, 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." 13 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 14 VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. TELECOMMUNICATIONS TASK FORCE -Report Jullie said during its last several meetings, the Telecommunications Task Force, which includes Mayor Harris and Councilmember Thorfinnson, has been working to draft a Zoning Ordinance Amendment for construction of wireless telecommunications. This is pursuant to City Council direction on August 6, 1996. After meeting with industry representatives and researching other cities ordinances, the Task Force has finalized draft amendments to the City Code relating to telecommunications towers and antennae. The next step is to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendations prior to formal City Council consideration. A City Council Public Hearing is scheduled for April 1, 1997. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to refer the draft Ordinance to the Planning Commission for review at its March 24 meeting. Motion carried unanimously. X. APPOINTMENTS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. Report on City Manager's Performance Evaluation Session Harris stated during the Closed Session on March 4, 1997, the Council completed Mr. Jullie's Annual Performance Review. Mr. Jullie received very positive ratings from the 3 community groups surveyed and also positive reports from City Councilmembers and Department Heads. The Council reviewed pertinent salary survey information and approved a salary increase of 3.75% effective March 1, 1997, in accordance with the City's employee salary guidelines. 2. Preliminary Report on Review of Boards and Commissions Committee Thorfinnson reviewed a preliminary report of the committee working to review the Boards and Commissions. The committee is made up of Thorfinnson, Enger and Swaggert who met with the staff liaisons to the Boards and Commissions, the Chairs of the various Boards and Commissions, Council members and City staff. He said they are lU CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 15 recommending that commissions should help prepare issues for action by the Council. They would operate according to guidelines prepared by the Council using community values to develop an effective advisory process. He suggested using a planning workshop to revisit the guiding principles discussion and use those to develop community values to provide guidelines for the future. They want to revisit the communication between boards and commissions and the Council, to replace the joint meetings with regular presentations on the Council agenda, to encourage boards and commissions to bring forward issues and concerns on a timely basis, and to use the next strategic planning workshop to complete the community values statement. Their next step as a subcommittee will be to begin meeting with each of the commission liaisons and board chairs to gather information. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Review Schedule for Council Workshops Jullie presented an updated listing for the next couple of months. There are two different topics for May, the Council operational procedures workshop on May 6 and the Youth Assessment Study results on May 20. Thorfinnson asked when we would revisit the proposed policy for use of City facilities. Harris thought we could substitute that in for the liquor sale topic and move liquor sales to June 3. Thorfinnson thought we should get to a system where we have a running list of topics to fill in the workshop schedule. We have also discussed having workshops to bring ideas forward and not have the entire time filled with a specific topic. Case thought we could have some discussion topics at the May 6th meeting. Thorfinnson said he was thinking more along the lines of one session dedicated to whatever issues you want to bring up. C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Proposed Improvements to the Eden Prairie Community Center Pool - IIVAC and Pool Disinfectant System Lambert reviewed the report from Water Technology regarding the deficiencies in the existing heating and ventilating system at the Community Center swimming pool. He said the life of the system is 20 to 25 years. As outlined in the Staff Report of March 18, 1997, Staff is recommending that we replace the HVAC system with one that would CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 16 double the amount of fresh air and double the amount of air turnover. The cost estimate is around $300,000. They are also recommending improvements to the disinfectant system as put forth in option two to replace the pump and existing chlorine system, doing some plumbing and replacing the filter system at a cost of approximately $65,000. Lambert said they are recommending that we pay for this initially with cash park fees, to be reimbursed as soon as possible from the General Fund. We should also increase the rental amounts we are charging for the use of the pool. We need to discuss with the School District what the fees should be as the competitive swim teams are what is driving the need for these improvements. Lambert read the motion made at the Parks Commission meeting last night that passed on a 6-0 vote: "MOTION: Brown moved, seconded by Wilson, that one of the Commission's responsibilities to this community is to build a park system with the funds available and that major funding sources is cash park fees, and if the Commission would recommend utilizing that funding source for major repairs and maintenance of facilities like the Community Center, they're heading down a road that will guarantee that they will not be able to build a park system with the cash park fees, and with that in mind, recommend these three options to do the right fix, and the right fix is the major repair and ozone system but not to fund it from cash park fees and find another source; and the second option would be if the City does not have the funds available, ask the School District and the City Attorney to figure out a way, if there is a Joint Powers Agreement, allow the School District to assist the City in paying for this improvement, and if that's not feasible, the third option appears to be to do the minimum fix that allows the Community Center pool to operate and function the way it was originally designed and that would mean recommending all competitive swim practices to Oak Point Pool and the Community Center could still hold competitive swim meets, diving practices, and synchronized swimming and move the Foxjets to Oak Point pool also. Motion carried 6-0." Harris said there are major questions about the costs and where the source of funds should come from, as well as the issue of School District participation. Tyra-Lukens asked if there is only one option that will solve the air quality problems if the pool continues to be used as it is now used. Lambert said option one to replace the HVAC system is the only one that will solve the problems with use as it is now./Tyra-Lukens then asked if the other option CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 17 costing $75,000 would be based on moving to Oak Point. Lambert said Oak Point would not be able to accommodate swimming meets and would not be able to accommodate the number of kids on a swimming team the way they do now. They would either have to limit the number of kids or have staggered practices. They also do not have a diving board. They would have to split the team and have the divers at the Community Center pool and hold the swim meets there as well. Tyra-Lukens asked if the system would handle the air quality issue if the practices were moved. Lambert said when we had smaller swim teams we were not having these problems. Tyra-Lukens thought we have been bandaiding this for a long time, so we should now resolve it. Case thought there was no doubt the School District has to be a player here; however he was not sure how they would agree to participate. They have a potential referendum for some facility improvements. He thought the Joint Powers agreement might be a possibility. He thought we are committed to offering swimming to the public and as a sport in the City so we need to do the repairs. Harris thought the first question is shall we replace the whole system and, if not, then every other decision flows from that. If we feel it is worth replacing and we wish to share that expense with the School District, then we should make every effort to get them in. Thorfinnson asked what their incentive to participate is if we decide to do the improvements now. It truly is a dilemma because if it has to be repaired or replaced then who is going to pay for it. We are looking at a 0.7% increase in the tax rate if we pay for it. He thought this points to the stupidity of past decisions not to have capital improvement budgets--we have no money on hand to pay for items such as this. Lambert said they are asking tonight for authorization to prepare plans and specifications for something, and we could then decide not to do the repairs this year. He said one of the discussions that the Parks Commission had was that we shouldn't make a decision until we know how it will be paid for or if the School District will be involved. He said the City and the School have been partners in providing services for many years; however they will not reimburse cash park fees and, if we use them for this repair, other CIP projects will not get done. Thorfinnson was not convinced that the School will come to the table on this if we go ahead, because of their reaction at our joint meeting when we discussed the issue of paying increased fees. He was not prepared to come up with the funds from the General Fund since we are doing this for the swim teams' benefit and also for the FoxJets. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 18 Tyra-Lukens asked if the Oak Point pool is able to handle the air exchanges and if the locker room is adequate to deal with this kind of usage. Lambert said they are at the air quality standards that we are trying to get to, but it is a smaller facility Thorfinnson asked if we are to decide tonight which improvements we would prefer. Lambert said we are asking for authorization to prepare plans and specifications for one of those improvements. We would have the plans and would be ready to go if we decide to go ahead with the improvements. Chuck Newman, of WTI, and Bruce Johnson, of EEA, said they have been involved in similar projects many times before. They explained how the air quality impacts the water. He said they recommend six to eight air changes per hour to help flush contaminants off the pool surface, and the current system has a turnover of somewhat over four changes per hour. Case was concerned that we are leaning on the School District as a way out when the same tax payers will be footing the bill anyway. Because our constituents pay either way, he was not as sure as the other Council- members are about the need for School District participation. Harris said it is a matter of where it appears on the tax bill. Thorfinnson thought it is a question of perception and he thought it is important that the School District be included in the whole process. Harris thought increased user fees will be required no matter what is done in order to offset utilization expenses. Jullie said the recommendation is that the Council not make the decision to do the project now; however, Staff believes it will be necessary to replace the system. We need to get on with the plans and specifications and refer this to the committee that has been put together to study and make recommendations of joint use of facilities to see if they can wrestle with this. Tyra-Lukens asked if we need a more formal meeting with the School Board. She didn't think the members of the Joint Facility Use Committee feel they are part of the decision-making process. Case agreed we need a meeting on just that issue. Harris asked Staff to set up the meeting and provide some good briefing materials to share with the School Board. She asked if there would be some value in having this discussed by the Joint Facility Use Committee prior to the joint meeting with the School Board. Their review might raise some issues that would help surface items that may need discussion. 1� CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 19 Thorfinnson agreed with that idea. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to authorize staff to proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications and advertisement for bids for the air handling and pool disinfectant systems at the Community Center pool as per the Staff Agenda Report of March 18, 1997, including the referral of this matter to the Joint Facility Use Advisory Committee for a recommendation on cost sharing and the referral to a joint meeting of the City Council and the School Board. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Flying Cloud Field Traffic Study Report Lambert said last November, the City Council approved contracting with Benshoof and Associates for a traffic study to determine what improve- ments should be considered to address the safety issues caused by traffic at the entry and exit points at Flying Cloud Fields as well as the traffic conflicts between pedestrians and automobiles within the complex. He reviewed the plan that shows a two-way road system with parking around the perimeter. The plan would require some fill for parking on the east side and expanding the boundaries somewhat. This would remove the parking conflicts in the center of the site. The first step would be to go to the Metropolitan Airports Commission to see if they would consider allowing us to do this. Case said his only concern is whether there is anything that can be done now to correct some of the problems. Lambert said until the cost estimates are done, the biggest cost will be the fill and we get offers for free fill all the time. Case asked if there is any middle ground. Lambert said anything done there now would be a waste of money. Tyra-Lukens was struck by the fact that this is similar to the pool issue. It is an improvement for safety and is primarily for the use of people that are using the fields. She thought we need to think about what we are doing and have some consistency. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to receive the Benshoof and Associates Flying Cloud Fields Traffic Study and to direct Staff to proceed as per the Staff Agenda Report of March 4, 1997. Motion carried unanimously. D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 19 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 20 1. Award Contract for Interior Painting of Baker Road Reservoir, I.C. 96-5419 (Resolution 97-51) Dietz reviewed the Staff Report of March 18, 1997, recommending the contract for interior painting of Baker Road Reservoir be awarded to DeLoughery Painting. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to adopt Resolution 97-51 accepting the bid of DeLoughery Painting in the amount of $99,500.00. Motion carried unanimously. Case asked if this is the same type of project as the one at Dell Road. Dietz said this is for the interior painting. 2. Award Contract for Parks/Public Works Maintenance Facility, I.C. 96-5417 (Resolution 97-52) Dietz reviewed the Staff Report of March 18, 1997 recommending the contract for the Parks/Public Works Maintenance Facility be awarded to Sheehy Construction Company. He said Sheehy Construction has informed us of an error in their bid of$53,000; however, we have determined they have not met the criteria to withdraw the bid. He said they are recommending the bid be awarded without alternates two and six. Without the two alternates the cost will be about the same as the revenue; however, we can expect to have change orders. Staff recommends that any additional costs, which might possibly amount to $100,000-$150,000, be taken from the utility trunk fund. Dietz said Sheehy has ten days to sign or refuse. If they don't sign, we would then go after the bid bond to pay the difference of$20,000 between their bid and the next lowest bid. In that case, Staff would then return to the Council at the April meeting. Thorfinnson asked if the MnDOT agreement covers both the Fire Department and the Maintenance building. Dietz said it is just the back end of the fire station that the Parks Department uses and the Maintenance Facility. Thorfinnson then asked where the one-time revenues are from. Dietz said it is the 9% fee from the utility fund for capital improvements. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to adopt Resolution 97-52, awarding the contract for Parks/Public Works Maintenance Building to Sheehy Construction Company in the amount of $3,619,900.00, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of March 18, 1997, which included the requirement of confirmation of the MnDOT settlement for acquisition of the current maintenance facility. Motion carried unanimously. av CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 18, 1997 Page 21 3. Review Proposed Surcharge for Lawn Irrigation/Conservation Dietz reviewed the Staff Agenda Report of March 18, 1997 requesting the Council to establish a water surcharge rate to promote water conservation in Eden Prairie. The proposed extra charge of$1.00 per thousand gallons would apply for summer usage in excess of 150% of the winter quarter amount. The surcharge plan has been jointly developed by City staff and the Environmental &Waste Management Commission over the past year. The Commission believes that this surcharge mechanism provides the best compromise between the number of customers impacted and creating enough of a cost to make the surcharge noticeable. The Commission further recommends that this plan be implemented for the 1997 lawn irrigation season. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to approve the water rate surcharge for lawn irrigation/conservation as recommended by the Environmental & Waste Management Commission per the Staff Agenda Report of March 18, 1997. Motion carried unanimously. Tyra-Lukens said there should be an educational component in the City newsletter if we intend for people to conserve water . Dietz said they plan to use the surcharge revenues for the education budget. They will do some direct mailings and work with the newspapers. F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher-Younghans, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. 2 � els CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: adan SECTION: Consent Calendar 4/1/97 • prairie DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance - Pat Solie Clerk's License Application List IV.A. These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. CONTRACTOR(MULTI-FAMILY& COMM.) GASFITTER Fluor Daniel, Inc. Tom Motzko Plumbing & Heating Co GSB Developments Owen Services Corporation Kahle's Construction Northland Mechanaical Contractors Kelleher Construction Inc Paragon Plumbing& Heating Inc Northern States Power Company Plymouth Plumbing & DBA/Mr Rooter Oakwood Builders Pokorny Company PCL Construction Sevices Inc Pride Mechanical Inc RRR Construction Residential Heating &Air Ryan Construction Co of Minnesota Inc Riccar Heating&Air Conditioning Inc Schreiber Mullaney Construction Co Inc Ron's Mechanical Inc Sorensen Gross Construction Company Rouse Mechanical Inc Twin City Corp Construction Snell Mechanical Inc Walker Roofing Company Inc Welter&Blaylock Inc Weis Builders Inc Wenzel Heating&Air Conditionig Wenzel Mechanical PLUMBING HEATING & VENTILATING John Anderson Plumbing Company Tom Motzko Plumbing & Heating Co Northwest Sheetmetal Co of St Paul Northern Mechanical Inc Northland Mechanical Contractors Northland Mechanical Contractors Owens Services Corporation P & D Mechanical Contractors Co Palm Brothers Inc Paragon Plumbing & Heating Inc Plymouth Plumbing& DBA/Mr Rooter Plumbing Services Inc Pokorny Company Plymouth Plumbing& DBA/Mr Rooter Residential Heating & Air Pokorny Company Riccar Heating & Air Conditioning Inc Pride Mechanical Inc Ries Heating & Sheet Metal Royal Plumbing& Heating Ron's Mechanical Inc Total Mechanical Services Inc Rouse Mechanical Inc Welter& Blaylock Inc Royal Plumbing & Heating Wenzel Mechanical Snell Mechanical Inc Wenzel Heating & Air Conditioning February 6, 1996 1 epedamCITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar 4-1-97 prairie DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance - Pat Solie Clerk's License Application List IV.A. These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. LAWN FERTILIZER APPLICATOR Guaranteed Spray Inc Lawn Ranger UTILITY INSTALLER Wenzel Mechanical April 1, 1997 2 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4/01/97 SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO. LV 8 _ DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approve Change Order#1 for Eden Prairie Barbara Cross, Admin. Liquor Store Construction RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a change order in the amount of$4,584.23, increasing the Liquor Store contract from $1,221,100 to a new total of $1,225,684.23. BACKGROUND: A change order adding $4,584.23 to the original contract with Hunnerberg construction is necessary to complete the new liquor store across from Cub Foods on Den Road. Included in this change order are four items added to the contract, and one item which was deleted. The changes were necessary either because of code requirements or due to discrepancies in the drawings. A detailed breakdown has been included for clarification. The building has been under construction since November and is scheduled to be completed by June 1, 1997. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Money for the additional items will be funded with proceeds from the liquor store operations. I CHANGE Distribution to: ORDER OWNER ❑ AIA DOCUMENT G701 ARCHITECT ❑ CONTRACTOR 0 • FIELD 0 OTHER 0 PROJECT: µ mime N lo)r�`L Ict7e4f CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: I (name, address) �IYi��� ` � �,��/ {17'�lrrt. INITIATION DATE: 14 AW't/N fill TO (Contractor): Ef11)i i Cofr 14N c ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: r�'�'7 15105 20111 M t OM CONTRACT FOR: oIGII°AI. (,Koor 14F6 titi6 !Gb Air TegisarSreee u p�r YTty I J CONTRACT DATE: /L� OCri 11160 You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract: Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original (Contract Sum) G-s-a*�' Max~--60-* was $ 1t1,2 0 • Net change by previously authorized Change Orders $ • The (Contract Sum) prior to this Change Order was $ 1)2.2.)/100•OD • The (Contract Sum) will be (increased) 44ikaeFete9eeli 410theritediQ� by this Change Order $ + ?,4; LP The new (Contract Sum) including this Change Order will be $ 1j2.*664.23 • The Contract Time will be leased.) 4et.,,..3cd+ (unchanged) by ( 0 ) Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Authorized: Naiad.1.1/41W4 f3GHIT 1140 }:1014 a r1s c fl 1.eU 1 at co. orf.0 WEN Ming t4 r/frm 5rr r nnn 11l ��, M he.JIo. Sur1e leo Mrrr u,1 Address j Address ) Address EGEN -'•I P ) BY � fa 5534+ f,-000 MN 5 q�1 1:t N t 1 )Mf4 55 I , ` BY BY DATE ' Mil v DATE DATE MA DOCUMENT G701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1978 EDITION • AIA® • © 1978 G701—1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS,1735 NEW YORK AVE., N.W.,WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 2, i ("3/• Eden Prairie Municipal Development Eden Prairie,MN MIC4AELJ WLKU5 ALA Change Order No: 1 JEFFREY M.PAPP AIA 14 March 1997 Description Item No. 1: Add one(1)PIV to water line going to the Motel as per Proposal Request No. 1, due to review by City of Eden Prairie Engineer received after the Addendum period. 1,282.44 Item No. 2: Add one 6" gate valve to liquor store water service as per Proposal Request No. 1, due to review by City of Eden Prairie Engineer received after the Addendum period. 560.72 Item No. 3: Increase door and frame widths at openings 007B and 011 as,noted on Shop Drawings, due to discrepancy between masonry openings and door schedule. 78.42 Item No. 4: Add rigid insulation and drywall assembly at portions of north and west walls behind cooler walls as directed by the Client, due to the City of Eden Prairie Inspections request received after start of construction. 3,407.25 Item No. 5: Delete one(1) exterior wall mounted light fixture as directed by the Architect, due to discrepancy between the elevation and the electrical plan. (744.60) Total: Change Order No. 1 4,584.23 w:\jobs\epliquor\chor#1 MICuAEL J. WILKUS APCI-1ITECTS, INC 14180 WEST 78TN STREET EDEN PRAIRIE MINNESOTA (b12)q4Q-0Q85 55344 (FAA)q44-QO47 DATE: 04/01/97 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: e SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 94-5363 Engineering Division Approve Plans and Specifications for Sunnybrook Road Improvements Alan D. Gray Recommended Action: Adopt resolution approving plans and specifications and ordering advertisement for bids for Sunnybrook Road Improvements. Overview: The preliminary public hearing for this project was held March 18, 1997. Based on public input at this hearing, Council adopted a resolution directing the preparation of plans and specifications. The project schedule anticipated the presentation of completed plans and specifications for Council approval on April 1, 1997. Financial Issues: In accordance with the Feasibility Study, this project will be financed through special assessments. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer through R.C.M., Inc., has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 94-5363 - Sunnybrook Road Improvements 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 3 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until 10:00 a.m., May 1, 1997, 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, May 5, 1997, 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 April 1, 1997. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made , 19 , by and between NWBC Associates Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, ("Grantor"), and City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ("Grantee"). 1. Grantor, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration to Grantor from Grantee, receipt of which is acknowledged, grants to grantee, its successors and assigns, forever, the following: A 20-foot, non-exclusive easement over Lot 2, Block 1, LeParc according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota for the purpose of maintaining an underground municipal watermain. The centerline of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the most southerly corner of said Lot 2, thence along the Southwest property line of said Lot 2 on an assumed bearing of North 65 degrees, 31 minutes, 37 seconds West a distance of 293.48 feet to the actual point of beginning of said centerline; thence North 13 degrees, 22 minutes, 14 seconds West a distance of 134.13 feet; thence North 45 degrees, 01 minutes, 54 seconds East, a distance of 154.31 feet; thence South 66 degrees, 31 minutes, 15 seconds East a distance of 252.31 feet; thence South 59 degrees, 41 minutes, 24 seconds East a distance of 72.50 feet, and there terminating on the Northeast property line, a distance of 151.49 feet from the Southeast corner of said Lot 2. The sides of said easement to be lengthened or shortened to fall within the boundaries of said Lot 2. 2. Grantee agrees that it will disturb as little as possible any vegetation, shrubs, trees, pavement or other property now on the easement granted herein or placed there subsequent to this Agreement. If any such vegetation, shrubs, trees, pavement or other property is removed or becomes damaged by Grantee's maintenance of the watermain, Grantee agrees to restore the same, at its sole cost and expense, as nearly as possible to their original condition within 3 months. Grantor may construct, operate and maintain driveways, parking facilities, sidewalks, curbs and similar improvements (exclusive of buildings) on, over and across the easement area, consistent with the rights granted Grantee hereunder. 3. This Agreement may be executed in several counter parts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 160644.2 2 DATE: 04/01/97 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: �V p. SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Easement Agreement for Watermain Purposes between N.W.B.C. Associates Jim Richardson and the City across L2,B1, LeParc Recommended Action: Recommend approval of the watermain easement agreement in order to clear title work on a pending property transfer. The watermain was installed in 1984 for looping purposes between Shady Oak Road and Washington Avenue. Overview: The work was originally accomplished by use of a right-of-entry for construction purposes. Presently we have the opportunity to be granted an easement to cover said watermain. Financial Issues: The permanent easement is provided at no cost to the city. GRANTOR NWBC ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership By:NWBC ASSOCIATES,INC., Its general partner By: Its: STATE OF ) )ss COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by the of NWBC Associates, Inc., the general partner of NWBC Associates Limited Partnership, on behalf of the corporation, as general partner of the limited partnership. Notary Public 160644.2 GRANTEE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Its: By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this_ day of , 19_, by and , the and respectively of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation on behalf of said municipal corporation. Notary Public THIS DOCUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: PARSINEN KAPLAN LEVY ROSBERG&GOTLIEB,PA 100 South Fifth Street Suite 1100 Minneapolis,MN 55402 160644.2 LI DATE: 04/01/97 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: 7/ E. SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Release of Land from Special Assessment Agreement for American Lutheran Jeffrey Johnson Church 2nd Addition Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Release of Land from Special Assessment Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the release. Background: In April of 1996 the city entered into a special assessment agreement with Hustad Land Company to distribute assessments evenly through a 13-lot subdivision called American Lutheran Church 2nd Addition, located at the southeast corner of Pioneer Trail and Bennett Place. This agreement was then recorded at Hennepin County and appears on the title of each of the lots. Staff was contacted two weeks ago by a title company requesting that the city release this agreement. The assessments have been levied against each of the affected parcels, therefore; it is appropriate and timely to release this agreement. RELEASE OF LAND This Release of Land is executed by the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and is dated as of FACTS 1. A certain Agreement Regarding Special Assessments ("Agreement") dated April 2, 1996, was executed by and between the City, and Hustad Land Company, a Minnesota corporation, which Agreement was filed as Document No. 2706816 with the Registrar of Titles on June 3, 1996. The Agreement related to the property described therein as: Lots 1 through 13, Block 1, American Lutheran Church 2nd Addition and a subsequent plat of the property into Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, American Lutheran Church 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. The special assessments contemplated by the Agreement have been levied and the time for appeal has expired. 3. To evidence the fact that the special assessments have been levied and the time for appeal has expired, the City is executing this Release of Land. THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereby releases the Property described above from all obligations and conditions set forth in the Agreement Regarding Special Assessments dated April 2, 1996, filed with the Registrar of Titles as Document No. 2706816 on June 3, 1996. This Release of Land shall not release or discharge the Property from the lien of any special assessments levied by the City pursuant to the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Eden Prairie has executed the foregoing instrument. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE A Municipal Corporation BY: BY: Jean L. Harris Carl J. Jullie Its Mayor Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss HENNEPIN COUNTY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1997, by Jean L. Harris and Carl J. Jullie, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 #7--Release.0 RFR/01-14-88 RELEASE OF LAND This Release of Land is executed by the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and is dated as of FACTS 1. A certain Agreement Regarding Special Assessments ("Agreement") dated April 2, 1996, was executed by and between the City, and Hustad Land Company, a Minnesota corporation, which Agreement was filed as Document No. 6564426 with the Registrar of Titles on April 23, 1996. The Agreement related to the property described therein as: Lots 1 through 13, Block 1, American Lutheran Church 2nd Addition and a subsequent plat of the property into Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, American Lutheran Church 3rd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota 2. The special assessments contemplated by the Agreement have been levied and the time for appeal has expired. 3. To evidence the fact that the special assessments have been levied and the time for appeal has expired, the City is executing this Release of Land. THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereby releases the Property described above from all obligations and conditions set forth in the Agreement Regarding Special Assessments dated April 2, 1996, filed with the Registrar of Titles as Document No. 6564426 on April 23, 1996. This Release of Land shall not release or discharge the Property from the lien of any special assessments levied by the City pursuant to the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Eden Prairie has executed the foregoing instrument. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE A Municipal Corporation BY: BY: Jean L. Harris Carl J. Jullie Its Mayor Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss HENNEPIN COUNTY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1997, by Jean L. Harris and Carl J. Julie, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 #7--Release.0 RFR/01-14-88 5 DATE: 04/01/97 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: F SECTION: Director of Public Works DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Public Works Professional Services Agreement Eugene A. Dietz Wetland and Drainage Plan Requested Action: Adopt motion approving a Professional Services Agreement with Peterson Environmental(Montgomery Watson as a subcontractor) for development of a comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan and a Local Drainage Plan update at an estimated cost of$103,215. Background: In 1995, the city of Eden Prairie implemented a storm water utility to meet the challenges of maintenance and management of quality and quantity of surface water and wetland issues in our community. It was anticipated that an initial project would be to hire a consultant to develop a plan to address these issues. Proceeding at this time has only been possible due to the prerequisite step -- Watershed District 509 Plan approval -- being accomplished. City staff solicited proposals from eight consulting firms to perform a rigorous analysis of surface water and wetland issues in the community. Staff and representatives of the Environmental & Waste Management Commission and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District interviewed three candidates and unanimously recommend the Peterson/Montgomery Watson selection. In very general terms, this work effort will provide the following: • Wetland identification and classification • Development of a means to prioritize the importance of specific wetlands in the community • Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of our drainage system • Preparation of data base for monitoring wetland and drainage systems • Preparation of Wetland Management Plan in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act • Preparation of a Local Drainage Plan update This effort is expected to be completed by the end of this year and would represent approximately 70% of the work required to complete surface water and environmental planning in the community. This contract would generally provide the technical reports necessary to complete the final step which would develop specific plans and priorities for projects that will be identified as part of this process. Financial Implications: The funding source for this project will be from the Storm Water Utility, which generates an excess of $500,000 per year. Eden Prairie Wetland Plan and Local Drainage Plan Update PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PARTIES: The City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation organized under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota(hereinafter"The City"). Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc., a corporation organized under the pursuant to the laws of the state of Minnesota (hereinafter "Prime Contractor"). RECITALS: The City wishes to employ Contractor to perform environmental and engineering consulting services relating to the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan and Local Drainage Plan Update. The City acknowledges that all elements of the Scope of Services involved in the Local Drainage Plan Update will be performed by Montgomery Watson as a subcontractor to the Prime Contractor. AGREEMENTS: Pursuant to the foregoing recitals, and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, and intending to be bound legally thereby, it is agreed as follows: SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORK 1.1 Work To Be Performed The Contractor will perform the services defined in the Scope of Services set forth as Attachment A of this Agreement. 1.2 Extra or Out-of-Scope Work Any work requested by the City which is not set forth in the Scope of Services section of the Agreement will be considered extra, out-of-scope work and, unless otherwise agreed 1 1355 Mendota Heights Road,Suite 100 ■ Mendota Heights,Minnesota 55120-1112 a 612-686-0151 ■ Fax 612-686-0369 Eden Prairie Wetland Plan and Local Drainage Plan Update in writing, will be invoiced on an hourly basis using the billing rates set forth in the Section 2.1 of this Agreement. SECTION 2: INVOICING AND FEES 2.1 Billing Rates The Contractor shall invoice the City in accordance with the Cost Breakdown Tables set forth as Attachments B and C of this Agreement. 2.2 Frequency of Billing The Prime Contractor will invoice the City on a monthly basis. As set forth in the Scope of Work, each invoice will be accompanied by a progress and budget report. 2.3 Payment of Fees Payment is due upon the City's receipt of the invoice and will be considered past due sixty (60) days from date the invoice is transmitted to the City. 2.4 Past Due Accounts On past due accounts,the City will pay a finance charge of 1.5%per month on the unpaid balance until the invoice is fully paid. If the City fails to pay the Prime Contractor within ninety (90) days of the date the invoice is transmitted, the Prime Contractor may deem the City in default and may, without incurring liability, terminate the agreement and/or stop all work on the project until the default is cured. The Prime Contractor's termination or stoppage of work due to the City's default shall not relieve the City from its duty to compensate the Prime Contractor for work done up to the date of termination or work stoppage. SECTION 3: PROJECT DOCUMENTS 3.1 Ownership of Project Documents Original copies of maps, drawings, reports, field notes and other documents (hereafter referred to as Project Documents) shall be the property of the City. The Prime Contractor may retain copies of all Project Documents as hard copies, reproducibles or in digital form. 3.2 Changes to Project Documents by Others The Prime Contractor shall not be responsible for changes to Project Documents made by others. 2 3 Eden Prairie Wetland Plan and Local Drainage Plan Update SECTION 4: PRIME CONTRACTOR'S INSURANCE 4.1 Purchase of Insurance Prime Contractor shall purchase and maintain such comprehensive general liability and other insurance as is appropriate for the Services being performed and furnished and as will provide protection from claims which may result from Prime Contractor's performance and furnishing of the services and other obligations of Prime Contractor under this Agreement, whether it is to be performed or furnished by the Prime Contractor, Prime Contractor's employees, or anyone for whose acts Prime Contractor may be liable. 4.2 Specific Coverages The insurance required by this Section (4) shall include the specific coverages and be written for not less than the limits of liability and coverages as hereinafter provided, or required by law, whichever is greater. Workers Compensation insurance shall be written for not less than the statutory limits. Comprehensive general liability including bodily injury property damage and personal injury shall be maintained with limits of not less than $2,000,000 for each occurrence and $2,000,000 total aggregate liability. The comprehensive general liability insurance shall include completed operations insurance. Comprehensive automobile liability insurance shall be maintained with limits of $1,000,000 for each person and $1,000,000 for each occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. Professional errors and omissions insurance shall be maintained with limits of$1,000,000 each loss and aggregate of$1,000,000. SECTION 5: TERM AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement is from March 19, 1997 to December 31, 1997. The Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice if there is a substantial failure of the other party to perform. SECTION 6: ASSIGNMENT Both the Prime Contractor and the City, and their respective successors, assigns and legal representatives shall be bound by the provisions of this agreement. Neither party shall assign or transfer their interest in or duties under this agreement, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party. SECTION 7: RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES Unless otherwise set forth in the Agreement, the Prime Contractor will perform its duties under the Agreement as an independent contractor for the City and not as the City's legal representative or agent. Neither the Prime Contractor nor the City may enter into any agreement or assume any obligation for the other. 3 Lj Eden Prairie Wetland Plan and Local Drainage Plan Update SECTION 8: ENTIRE AGREEMENT The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the prime Contractor and the City and will supersede any previous written or oral communications, representations or agreements by either party. SECTION 9: STANDARD OF CARE In performing its services, the Prime Contractor will use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession practicing in the same locality. No other warranty is either made or intended. SECTION 10: FORCE MAJEURE No liability shall result to either party from any delay in performance or non-performance hereunder caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the party who has delayed performance or not performed, but not limited to, strikes, riots, wars, fire, flood, explosion, acts of nature, acts of government, labor disputes, delays in transportation or inability to obtain necessary material or equipment. The non-performing or delayed party shall immediately notify the other party of the onset, extent and probable duration of such circumstances and, if unable to remove such causes within thirty (30) days, the other party may upon written notice,terminate this Agreement. SECTION 11: APPLICABLE LAW This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. SECTION 12: CONSTRUCTION Wherever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this Agreement or any related document shall be prohibited by or invalid under applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective only to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity without invalidating the remainder of such provision or the remaining provisions of this Agreement or such related document. SECTION 13: WAIVER OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The failure of either party in any one or more instances to enforce one or more of the terms or conditions of this Agreement or to exercise any right or privilege under this Agreement, or the waiver by either party of any breach of the terms or conditions of this Agreement shall not be construed as thereafter waiving any such terms, conditions, rights, 4 Eden Prairie Wetland Plan and Local Drainage Plan Update or privileges, and the same shall continue and remain in force and effect as if no such failure to enforce had occurred. SECTION 14: EXECUTION: The parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be appropriately executed as of the day and year first above written. City of Eden Prairie Peterson Environmental Consulting,Inc. By: y: Mayor President Its: Its: 3/2 y79 7 Date Executed: Date Executed: By: City Manager Its: Date Executed: 5 Eden Prairie Wetland Plan and Local Drainage Plan Update ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF WORK Phase I-Project Initiation 1. Establish and introduce consultant's project team members, team leaders and project manager who will be directly involved with the project(one meeting). 2. Introduction and meeting of project manager and team leaders with the Environmental and Waste Management Commission(one meeting). 3. Project initiation meetings to review the scope of work, establish a work time table, and to identify and provide a list of needed data and other materials (two meetings). 4. Identify all Federal, State, County, regional, watershed organizations and adjacent city requirements, as well as any existing water resource agreements including stormwater pond and wetland mitigation monitoring agreements. Establish and identify local concerns. 5. Collect and review all existing City stormwater and wetland resource data, including, but not limited to: a) Topographic contour maps. b) Aerial Photographs. c) As-built surveys for stormwater facilities and structures. d) Storm sewer system maps. e) City comprehensive plan, land use plan, and drainage plan. f) Demography, zoning and street maps. g) City water resource management ordinances. h) Known or potential non-point source contaminants. i) Stormwater pond volumes, dead storage, rate control structures and maintenance agreements. j) Description of Study Area. 6. Develop objectives for the collection and analysis of wetland data in order to provide the City with wetland classifications, wetland functions and values, and protection and management of wetland resources. 7. Phase I background information to be provided by the City will include: a) One clean copy of each 1" = 200 - scale half section (1996) aerial photograph for the City. 7 Eden Prairie Wetland Plan and Local Drainage Plan Update b) One marked-up copy of each 1" = 200 - scale half section (1994) aerial photograph for the City showing potential wetlands identified by the City in its cross-referencing of National Wetland Inventory maps, Metropolitan Mosquito Control District maps, and the SCS County Soil Survey. c) One copy of each approved development plan within the City containing approved wetland delineations and/or stormwater ponds. d) Watershed organization information, including plans and ordinances. Plans for the Nine Mile and Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed Districts will be provided to the consultant on a short-term loan basis. The City will provide a copy of the Lower Minnesota River Water Management Plan when it becomes available in approximately June 1997. e) Any other relevant information on hand at the City such as State, Federal or independent studies of water resource related issues. 7. Phase I Products/Deliverables The consultant will generate the following products or deliverables in Phase I: a) Agenda for kickoff meeting b) Monthly status report(to accompany invoice to the City) Phase II.-System Analysis 1. Potential stormwater pond locations/configurations will be drawn onto the 1" = 200' scale half section aerial photos based on existing plans and office maps/drawings. As necessary, additional information on stormwater ponds will be obtained from other agencies or authorities. 2. The consultant will provide the City with a list of needed field surveys. The City will conduct any surveys that are required. 3. The consultant will review the City's 1970 Drainage Plan to insure its general conformance with current laws and regulations. The following items will be reviewed: a) Flood protection and flood insurance studies. b) Sub-basin boundaries, inlet and outlet points, runoff characteristics, lengths and slopes, low lands and overflows, stormwater collection network and conveyance, storage, and routes of existing storm sewers and ditches. 2 Eden Prairie Wetland Plan and Local Drainage Plan Update c) Lakes, water courses, wetlands and ponds which may be utilized to reduce peak flows, including any conflicts such use may pose to the quality of such resources. d) Data requirements for stormwater analysis and computer modeling, including impervious areas, ultimate land uses, soil types and characteristics, and the intensity, duration and frequency of precipitation. 4. Sub-basin boundaries and drainage systems will be digitized by the consultant in a format compatible with AutoCAD 13t'°. 5. Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling will be performed by the consultant as required to clearly and concisely display pertinent hydrologic information within each of the subwatersheds studies. This modeling effort will include: a) Creation of a hydrologic model (HydroCAD) of existing and ultimate land use conditions based on the 70 subwatersheds used in the 1970 Drainage Plan. The model will be run for 2-, 10- and 100-year events. Additional events will be run for the 100 year, 10-day runoff event and the 100-year rainfall plus a 25 percent increase in runoff volume. b) Creation of a water quality model (P8) of existing & ultimate land use conditions based on 27 subwatersheds (10 sq. miles ±) identified as special modeling areas. Model will be run using washoff characteristics determined by Watershed District Engineers for consistency w/District modeling effects. 6. Field verify wetlands provided on City's aerial photographs and perform the following: a) MinRAM assessment for wetlands greater than 1/4 acre in size in Accesstm Database. b) Wetland type and classification according to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Manual and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act in Accesstm Database. c) Photograph of each wetland on CD ROM linked to Accesstm Database. d) Water use classifications as stated in Minnesota Rules 7050.0200. e) Map all wetlands on 1"=200' aerial photo base. f) . Identify Reference wetlands. 3 q Eden Prairie Wetland Plan and Local Drainage Plan Update 7. Identify critical wetland resources within the City as discussed in Minnesota Rule 8410 subpart 4 (Land and Water Resource Inventory). 8. Evaluate the susceptibility of the wetlands identified as critical or pristine to indirect impacts. 9. Develop management prescriptions for critical wetland resources. 10. Map all permitted wetland mitigation sites and stormwater ponds and enter data in Accesstm Database. 11. Review historical aerial photographs for up to 40 selected wetlands and/or stormwater ponds to determine origin and jurisdictional status. 12. Provide the City with the input data diskettes used for the modeling and provide 16 hours of training to support the modeling of future improvements in the City. It is anticipated that 3 City personnel will require training. 13. Phase Two Products/Deliverables: a) Computer training materials (individual perches and licensing of software by City). b) HydoCADt`"Model. c) P8 Model. d) City Wetland ID numbers, MinRAM forms, Circular 39 and Cowardin classification on Access`"' Database. e) Digitize wetlands based on approximate areas noted on aerials onto AutoCADtrt(version 12 or 13). f) Provide photographs scanned on CD ROM and linked to Access Database. g) Attendance at three (3) Environmental & Waste Management Committee Meetings. Phase III-Technical Report Preparation The Report will include,but not be limited to: 1. Assessment of problems identified during the system analysis. 2. Evaluation of stormwater management and treatment requirements, including computation of existing flood flows, mapping of existing drainage patterns, identification of drainage problems, and evaluation of future development issues. 3. Preparation of a Wetland Management Plan in accordance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. 4 /0 Eden Prairie Wetland Plan and Local Drainage Plan Update 4. Preparation of Local drainage Plan Update. 5. Report shall be compatible with WordPerfect 6.1 and AutoCAD' . 6. Phase Three Products/Deliverables: a) Draft technical report(20 Copies) b) Draft Wetland Management Plan(20 Copies) Phase Four-Review 1. The Consultant shall be available to the City during the review process, including attendance at Watershed District, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Environmental & Waste Management Commission and City Council meeting(6 meetings.) 2. Reports revisions shall be made by the Consultant, as required to meet Watershed District requirements. Requirements for completion of stormwater modeling. No major revisions are anticipated due to the limited scope of work and since the City intends to work directly with the Watershed Districts and Board of Water and Soil Resources during this process. 3. Phase Four Products/Deliverables a) Responses to comments received. b) Summary of edits to plan. c) Final technical report (15 copies) (additional report copies to be provided for $30 per copy). d) Final Wetland Management Plan (15 copies) (additional report copies to be provided for$30 per copy). 5 // Work Plan and Cost Breakdown for Eden Prairie Comprehensive Wetland Protection ATTACHMENT B & Management Plan: Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. .:'llY'� :a .<' le I.s..'...� ,i,a�t it ; .mdf{ ...... ...:... 1�... dlex It „t',;4"u1 i1,e.69.3 iF ' .z l {773 I 1-3 Meetings(4) 12 12 ��� $50 I 4-5 Data Rev./Draft Backgr.Text 16 4 I 6 Customize MinRAM 4 6 ------ I 6 Draft Ob'ectives/Methods Sects. 4 5 -- 5 II 6 Set Up Data Sheets/Database 24 ---- 20 II 13 Three(3)Meetings with 6 6 Ci /EWMC . $30 II 10 Map Delineations/Mitigation __ 8 8 __ Sites/Stormwater Ponds II 6 Field Verify Wetlands& 16 20 60 60 240 Stormwater Ponds/Draft raft Maps $600 II 11 Rev. His Ptos for 4 --- 16 Selected Wetlands/Ponds II 12 Di.itize Wetland Boundaries ----- 80 II 6 Select Reference Wetlands 10 --- 8 --- II 7 ID Critical Wetland Resources 2 6 -- 4 --- Characterize Susceptability o II 8 Critical Wetland Resources 4 4 8 j Prepare Management II 9 Prescriptions 8 12 8 III 1-5 Prepare Draft CWPMP(20 30 60 16 24 16 co•ies $200 IV 1 Review Meetin.s(6) 14 14 -- 9 IV 2 Revise/Finalize CWPMP(15 5 10 8 12 co•ies $150 All Phases — Prepare progress summaries with 8 6 __ 3 invoices Work Plan and Cost Breakdown for Eden Prairie Local Drainage Plan Update: ATTACHMENT C Montgomery Watson pa ..)$t,r , 1 , r, -r ,p.i., . ss 3s`1,1 ..,(3,. , ', 3.<f..1 _ z ra, E a ' ,. I 1-3 Meetings 4) 12 2 $ 80.00 1 4 Identify Government Policies 1 5 I 5 Collect Ci Information 1 5 4 I 7 Collect W.D.Information,Etc. 1 5 4 II 13 Three(3)Meetings with 9 City/EWMC $ 150.00 II 1 Review Aerials/Define System 2 16 16 II 2 Request Surve s 2 8 16 II 3 Review 1970 Plan 1 4 4 -__- II 5a H droCAD Model w 70 Subs 8 60 52 8 Model w 27 Subs6 64 II 12 Training 2 2 20 2 III 1 Problem Assessment 3 8 III 2 Discussion 3 4 3 $ 35.00 III 4 Report Assembly&Figures 2 20 4 7 IV 1 Review Meetings(5) 10 5 • 2 $ 80.00 IV 2 Report Revisions 2 2 8 _- 3 �- 3_ ar ash r�t� T�`)k a�.....:b. .,,. ,-..,,<._ ..._.. be..r_ '' ;.]< �.. = „ �. •._ , E, DATE: 04/01/97 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: f)I C ' SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Award of I.C. 97-5435: 1997 Lime Residuals Removal Mary Krause Recommended Action: Award of Contract for I.C. 97-5435, Removal of Lime Residuals, to Don Rihn Transport. in the amount of$176,800.00. Overview: Three bids were received as follows: Don Rihn Transport -- $176,800.00 ($11.05/c.y.) Rehbein, Inc. -- $183,200.00 ($11.45/c.y.) DKH Exc., Inc. -- $190,400.00 ($11.90/c.y.) Financial Issues: This project is paid for out of the Utility Enterprise Fund as a necessary maintenance project. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement: I.C. 97-5435 - 1997 Lime Residuals Removal bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of Contract to DON RIHN TRANSPORT as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in a Contract • with Don Rihn Transport, in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $176,800.00 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 1, 1997. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk DATE: 04/01/97 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA L' ITEM NO: /4 SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Award of I.C. 97-5430: Hidden Ponds Tank Exterior Painting Mary Krause Recommended Action: Award of Contract for I.C. 97-5430, Hidden Ponds Tank Exterior Painting, to Odland Protective Coatings. in the amount of$209,500.00. Overview: Five bids were received as follows: Odland Protective Coatings -- $209,500.00 V.E. Gray and Sons -- $213,300.00 DeLoughery Painting -- $261,000.00 TMI Coatings -- $277,700.00 Abhe & Svoboda -- $406,990.00 1 AEG ENGINEERING ENGINEERS 400 First Avonuo North,Suite 400 INSPECTORS Minnow)Gs,Minnesota S 401 Phone:(6123 332.3905 Fax:(612)334 3101 March 26, 1997 By Fax and U. S. Mail Mr. Gene Dietz, Director of Public Works, City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-2230 Re: Exterior Reconditioning Technical Investigation 1.0 MMG Hydropiilar- Hidden Ponds Tower Location: Eden Prairie, Minnesota. AEC Project No. 96502-1157 Dear Mr. Dietz: The bid opening for the above referenced project was held on March 25, 1997 at 2:30 p.m. The following five bids were received as follows: BIDDER TOTAL Odland Protective Coatings $209,500 V.E. Gray and Sons 213,300 DeLoughery Painting 251,000 TMI Coatings 277,700 Abhe & Svoboda 406,990 In reviewing the qualifications of the lowest bidder, AEC finds that Odland Protective Coatings meets the requirements of the Project Specifications. AEC recommends that Odland Protective Coatings be awarded the contract for the Exterior Cleaning, Repairing and Painting of the 1.0 MMG Hydropiilar , Hidden Ponds Tower in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. It is AEC's understanding the Notice of Award and the Contract Documents will be sent to the Contractor you select by us. if you have any questions regarding AEC's recommendation please call me. Sincerely, AEC ENGlNF RJNG Robert E. Kollmer Supervisor, Coating Systems NACE International Certificated Coatings Inspector No. 1291 Enclosure (Sideval) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement: I.C. 97-5430 - Hidden Ponds Tank Exterior Painting bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of Contract to ODLAND PROTECTIVE COATINGS as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in a Contract with Odland Protective Coatings, in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of$209,500.00 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 1, 1997. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk 3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Date: Section: Consent Calendar April 1, 1997 Department: Item Description: Item No.: Resolution approving the transfer of Administration Preserve Village Shopping Center Requested Action Approval of the transfer of Preserve Village Shopping Center, the assumption by Jerry's of the obligations of Ryan under the Bond Documents and the release of Ryan from certain obligations. Background On February 4, 1980, the City entered into a Loan Agreement with Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. in connection with the issuance by the City of its $2,400,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Commercial Development Revenue Bond, the proceeds of which were used for the construction of the Preserve Village Shopping Center. Ryan Companies US, Inc. (formerly Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc.) has agreed to sell Preserve Village Shopping Center to Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 97- WHEREAS, on February 4, 1980, the City entered into a Loan Agreement with Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. in connection with the issuance by the City of its $2,400,000 City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Commercial Development Revenue Bond (Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc. Project) the proceeds of which were used for the construction of the Preserve Village Shopping Center located at the intersection of Highway 169 and Anderson Lakes Parkway; WHEREAS, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (formerly Ryan Construction Company of Minnesota, Inc.) ("Ryan") has agreed to sell Preserve Village Shopping Center to Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. ("Jerry's"); WHEREAS, Jerry's desires to assume all of Ryan's obligations under the Loan Agreement and related bond documents (the "Bond Documents") and Ryan desires to be released from certain obligations thereunder; WHEREAS, it appears that it will be in the best interest of the City to approve the transfer of Preserve Village Shopping Center, the assumption by Jerry's of the obligations of Ryan under the Bond Documents and the release of Ryan from certain obligations; WHEREAS, the members of the City Council concur in this resolution; NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. The transfer of Preserve Village Shopping Center by Ryan Companies US, Inc. to Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. is hereby approved. 2. The City consents to the assumption by Jerry's of all of the obligations of the Borrower under the Loan Agreement and Bond Documents. 3. The City consents to the release of Ryan from all of the obligations of Borrower under the Loan Agreement and related Bond Documents arising subsequent to the transfer referred to above. ADOPTED by the Council this day of April, 1997. Jean L. Harris, Mayor (Seal) ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 3 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-1-97 SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. T• DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger ALBIN CHAPEL Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.56 acres; • Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 2.56 acres; • Approval of a Developer's Agreement. Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement r ALBIN CHAPEL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 12-97-PUD-6-97 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CERTAIN LAND WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS,CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance(hereinafter,the"land")is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be amended within the Office Zoning District 12-97-PUD-6-97(hereinafter "PUD-6-97-Office"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of April 1, 1997, entered into between Albin Chapel and the City of Eden Prairie, (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-6-97-Office, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following fmdings: A. PUD-6-97-Office is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-6-97-Office is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-6-97-Office are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-6-97-Office is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is amended within the Office District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development 6-97-Office, 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. • n 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 18th day of February, 1997,and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 1st day of April, 1997. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris,Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on . S ALBIN CHAPEL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 12-97-PUD-6-97 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CERTAIN LAND WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS,CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows the amending of land located at Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road, within the Office Zoning District on 2.47 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Franc /s/Jean L. Harris City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) y EXHIBIT A Lot 2, Block 2, Shady Oak Business Center, according to the proposed plat, Hennepin County, Minnesota. S ALBIN CHAPEL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR ALBIN CHAPEL BY ALBIN CHAPEL WHEREAS, Albin Chapel has applied for Site Plan approval of Albin Chapel on 2.47 acres for construction of a one-story 9,462 square foot building located at Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road, to be zoned within the Office Zoning District by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on February 18, 1997; and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its February 10, 1997,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 February 18, 1997, meeting; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that site plan approval be granted to Albin Chapel for the construction of a one-story 9,462 square foot building,based on plans dated November 8, 1996,between Albin Chapel, and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on April 1, 1997. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT ALBIN CHAPEL THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as April 1, 1997, by Albin Funeral Chapel, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation hereinafter referred to as"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Amendment Review on 5.2 acres,Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.56 acres,Zoning District Amendment in the Office District on 2.56 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.56 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 5.2 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 9,500 sq. ft.building, situated 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 Resolution No. for PUD Amendment, Ordinance No. for PUD District Review, Resolution No. for Preliminary Plat, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials submitted by Developer and revised and dated February 18, 1997, reviewed and approved by the City Council on February 18, 1997, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 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 approval of plans for sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and storm sewer. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to implement the approved utility plans prior to building permit issuance. 4. FINAL GRADING,DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's 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 storm sewers. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's approval of an Erosion Control Plan for the Property. The Erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures. All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. 5. STORMWATER QUALITY FACILITY PLAN: Prior to grading permit issuance for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's approval of plans and design information for all storm water quality facilities to be constructed on the Property. Developer shall implement the approved storm water quality facility plan concurrent with site grading and shall have completed the approved plan prior to occupancny permit. Developer shall also verify the original design volume of the treatment pond to ensure that pond size has not diminished because of sedimentation/erosion and shall restore original volume if sedimentation/erosion has occurred. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's 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 as shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Developer shall furnish to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape security equal to 150% of the cost of said improvements as required by City code. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 7. TREE REPLACEMENT: Developer has submitted to the City Forester and has received the City Forester's approval of a tree replacement plan for 110 caliper inches, as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said plan includes replacement trees of a 3 inch diameter minimum size for a shade tree and a seven foot minimum height for conifer trees. Developer agrees to implement the approved tree replacement plan concurrent with building construction. 8. IRRIGATION PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved irrigation plan concurrent with construction and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 9. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Developer has submitted to the City Planner, and has received the City Planner's approval of a plan for exterior building materials and colors for the Property, as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto. If these materials and colors are changed, the Developer shall, prior to building permit issuance, submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting the exterior materials and colors to be used for the Property. Upon approval by the City Planner,Developer agrees to implement the approved exterior materials and colors plan concurrent with building construction on the Property and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 10. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer has submitted to the City Planner, and received the City Planner's approval of a plan for screening of rooftop mechanical equipment on the Property, as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, per City Code requirements. Developer shall implement the approved plan concurrent with building construction. If, after completion of construction of said mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by the City Planner, in his sole discretion, that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then City Planner shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until all such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed by Developer. 11. SIGNS: Developer agrees that for each and every sign to be located on the property, Developer shall obtain a sign permit. The application shall include complete description of the sign and a sketch showing the size, location, 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, as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto, and in accordance with the requirements of City code, Section 11.70, Subdivision 5a. 12. SITE LIGHTING: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a site lighting plan. All lighting shall consist of downcast shoebox fixtures. All pole mounted fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer shall implement the approved lighting plan concurrent with building construction. 9 13. CROSS ACCESS ,MAINTENANCE AND USE AGREEMENT: Prior to release of the final plat, the Developer shall enter into an executed cross access, maintenance, and use agreement, between the Property and the lot to the east as shown on Exhibit B, attatched hereto, approved by the City Engineer, which addresses vehicle access,maintenance of parking areas, driveways, storm sewer and Nurp pond. All of these facilities shall be privately owned and maintained by the Developer or owner. Upon approval by the City Engineers, Developer shall deliver and record the approved easement in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrars Office and shall provide evidence of the recording of the approved crosss access, maintenance and use agreement prior to the release of the first building permit. 14. SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources, and obtain the Director's approval of detailed plans for a sidewalk to be constructed along Old Shady Oak Road as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer shall provide access easements, as determined by the Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Director. Upon approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources, Developer agrees to implement the approved plan concurrent with street construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. Bonding in accordance with City code shall be required for sidewalk construction on Cascade Drive. 15. DEDICATION OF PARK LAND: Developer agrees to dedicate that portion of the wetland area on the Property owned by the Developer, as delineated on Exhibit B, attached hereto, to the City free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, mortgages for park purposes. The dedication of the wetland to the City shall occur prior to the release of the final plat. I0 OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALBIN CHAPEL AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of April 1, 1997, by and between Vision Corp., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, hereinafter referred to as "City": For,and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance No. 12-97-PUD-6-97, amending the zoning of the Property owned by Owner in the Office District, Ordinance No. 12-97 for PUD District Review, Resolution No. 97-27 for Preliminary Plat,Resolution No. 97-26 for PUD Amendment Review, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of April 1, 1997, by and between Albin Chapel, a Minnesota Corporation, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Albin Funeral Chapel, Inc.,fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the City's reconsideration and rescission of the Zoninf Amendment, Site Plan Review, Preliminary Plat, PUD Amendment, and PUD District Review, identified above, thus restoring the existing status of the property before this project was approved. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the Property. 3. If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. � I EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4/1/97 SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO. LV,K_ DEPARTMENT: PRNR ITEM DESCRIPTION: Memorandum of Understanding Bob Lambert, Director—at- REQUEST: City staff requests the Council to approve the Memorandum of Understanding Between School District 272 and the City of Eden Prairie, which outlines the terms of agreement between the governmental units on how facilities are shared. BACKGROUND: Attached is a draft copy of a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City the School District that summarizes how the City and the School District have shared these facilities for many years. City staff believe that it is important to develop a written agreement which clarifies these existing practices. School District staff and City staff have reviewed this document and agree on the language as proposed. The Joint Facilities Use Advisory Committee also reviewed and approved this document at their March 19 meeting. The Memorandum of Understanding is a less formal agreement than a Joint Powers Agreement, but provides a clarification of which governmental agency is responsible for design and construction of facilities, maintenance of facilities, and scheduling the use of facilities during various times of the year. Although School District staff and City staff have worked very well together over the years with a general understanding of how we share facilities, as the "players"change it becomes more important to get these agreements in writing to ensure the cooperation will continue. The tax payers of this community truly benefit when the School District and the City can share in the use and maintenance of facilities, rather than duplicating playgrounds,ballfields,tennis courts, etc. BL:mdd under.memo/Bob97 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 272 & CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE SHARED FACILITIES 1 . Philosophical Position Independent School District No. 272 ("District") and City of Eden Prairie ("City") generally represent the same constituencies and promote the use of their facilities described below (the "facilities") by the community in order to maximize the use of the facilities . Whenever possible, the parties will share the facilities rather than duplicate construction and maintenance costs . 2 . Concept for Intergovernmental Cooperation It shall be the general philosophy and concept of the District and the City to provide the facilities for each party at no charge to the other when the use is for the City' s residents, except as provided in this Memorandum or other written agreement between the parties . 3 . Agreements Relating to the Facilities The following provisions shall govern the use, maintenance, liability and other matters applicable to the facilities . 3 . 1 Description of Round Lake Park/High School Facility The Round Lake Park/High School Facility ("Round Lake Park/High School") consists of approximately 185 acres, including Round Lake Park containing approximately 115 acres and the High School site containing approximately 70 acres, located west of County Road 4 and southerly of valley View Road and certain lands northerly of and abutting on Valley View Road, excluding the school buildings and the land underlying the perimeters of the school buildings and excluding the Community Center and the land underlying the perimeter of the Community Center. Round Lake Park/High School contains tennis courts and lighted and unlighted ball fields and other facilities . 3 . 1 . 1 Ownership of Round Lake Park/High School Round Lake Park/High School is owned by the parties as follows: 2 A. District. The District owns the High School site which is the property west and north of the Community Center and north of Valley View Road. B. City. The City owns Round Lake Park which is the property south of Valley View Road, as well as the property that includes the Community Center and the baseball field and the two softball fields east of the Community Center and north of Valley View Road. 3 . 1.2 Design and Construction. Each party has designed and constructed the facilities on its property. 3 . 1 .3 Maintenance of Round Lake Park/High School Round Lake Park/High School shall be maintained by the parties as follows: A. City Tennis Courts (i) District - District will pay 50% of the cost of net and wind screen replacement, surface repairs and major maintenance. (ii) City - City will maintain the tennis courts at its expense, except as follows : City will pay 50% of the cost of net and wind screen replacement, surface repairs and major maintenance. (iii) Major maintenance means replacement or repair of the surface, fence and/or grounds within the fenced area. City will notify District one (1) year in advance of contemplated major maintenance. B. Ball Fields (i) District - District will maintain (including major repairs) , at its expense, ball fields located within District' s property, except as indicated in subparagraph (ii) below. (ii) City City will maintain (including major repairs) , at its expense, ball fields located within City' s property within Round Lake Park/High School . -2- 3 (iii) Shared Use - City will mow and line, at its expense, ball fields located within District' s property when City requests their use for athletic associations or for City activities . District will mow and line, at its expense, ball fields located within City' s property when District requests their use for District activities . (iv) A party may be charged for the cost of electric power for use of the other party' s lighted fields . 3 .1 .4 Use of Round Lake Park/High School Use of Round Lake Park/High School shall be governed by the following: A. Tennis Courts The City will have priority use of tennis courts . District may use Round Lake Park/High School tennis courts for high school curriculum programs, tennis team practices, games and tournaments, provided District first notifies City of the time or times it desires to use the facilities at least three (3) months prior to such use. B. Ball Fields Except as provided below, each party shall have priority use of its ball fields. City will grant District use of City' s softball and baseball fields for high school curricular programs interscholastic team play, provided the City receives a schedule request at least three (3) months prior to the scheduled use. District may use ball fields located on City property for classes, practices, games and tournaments, provided District first notifies City of the time or times it desires to use the facilities at least three (3) months prior to such use. City may use District ball fields for athletic associations or City activities, provided City first notifies District of the time or times it desires to use the facilities at least three (3) months prior to such use. -3- Li 3 .2 Description of Central Middle School Facility The Central Middle School Facility ("Central Middle") consists of the outdoor facilities located on the northeast and northwest sides of the school, and excludes the school buildings and land underlying the perimeters of the school buildings. 3 .2 . 1 Ownership of Central Middle Central Middle is owned by the District. The District and the City shared in the cost of the tennis courts . 3 . 2 .2 Design and Construction The District has designed and constructed Central Middle. 3 .2 . 3 Maintenance of Central Middle Central Middle shall be maintained by the parties as follows: A. District Tennis Courts (i) District will maintain the tennis courts at its expense, except District and City will each pay 50% of the cost of net and wind screen replacement, surface repairs and major maintenance. (ii) Major maintenance means replacement or repair of the surface, fence and/or grounds within the fenced area. District will notify City one (1) year in advance of contemplated major maintenance. B. District Ball Fields (i) District - District will maintain (including major repairs) , at its expense, ball fields at Central Middle, except as noted below. • (ii) City - City will mow and line, at its expense, ball fields located at Central Middle when City requests their use for athletic associations or for City activities . (iii) The City may be charged for the cost of electric power for use of the school' s lighted fields at Central Middle. -4- J 3 .2 .4 Use of Central Middle Without further notice to City, District will have priority use of all Central Middle facilities . City may use Central Middle facilities, provided City first notifies District of the time or times it desires to use a facility or facilities at least three (3) months prior to such use. 3 .3 Description of Forest Hills School/Park The Forest Hills School/Park Facility ("Forest Hills") consists of a 55 acre site located west of Baker Road and north of Holly Road, excluding the school buildings and land underlying the perimeters of the school buildings. 3 .3 . 1 Ownership of Forest Hills Forest Hills is owned by the parties as follows: A. District. The District owns land extending a few feet beyond the school buildings. B. City. The City owns Forest Hills with the exception of the property described above. 3 . 3 .2 Design and Construction The District has designed and constructed the playground structure and the nature trails . The City designed and constructed all of the other outdoor recreation facilities . 3 . 3 . 3 Maintenance of Forest Hills Except as provided below, Forest Hills will be maintained at its expense by City. The parties will share equally in the costs to maintain the playground and the nature trail . 3 . 3 .4 Use of Forest Hills Without further notice to City, District will have priority use of Forest Hills during school hours and during the school year by the school-age child care program, which the District has chosen. -5- 3 .4 Description of Prairie View School/Park Facility The Prairie View School/Park Facility ("Prairie View") consists of approximately 16 acres on the west side of Duck Lake Road, excluding the school buildings and land underlying the perimeters of the school buildings. 3 .4 . 1 Ownership of Prairie View Prairie View is owned by the parties as follows : A. District. The District owns approximately the east one-half of Prairie View. B. City. The City owns approximately the west one- half of Prairie View (approximately 8 .6 acres) . 3 .4 .2 Design and Construction The District has designed and constructed the playground area and all facilities on its property, except any part of the hockey rink of which a portion is located on its property. The City has designed and constructed the hockey rink and all facilities on its property. 3 .4 . 3 Maintenance of Prairie View District will maintain at its expense that part of Prairie View located within District property, except that part of the hockey rink located on its property. City will maintain at its expense that part of Prairie View located within City property, as well as the entire hockey rink. 3 .4 .4 Use of Prairie View Without further notice to City, District will have priority use of Prairie View during school hours and during the school year by the school-age child care program, which the District has chosen. 3 .5 Description of Eden Lake School/Park Facility The Eden Lake School/Park Facility ("Eden Lake") is located north of Anderson Lakes Parkway and west of Preserve Boulevard, excluding the school buildings and land underlying the perimeters of the school buildings . -6- 3 .5 . 1 Ownership of Eden Lake Eden Lake is owned by the parties as follows : A. District. District owns the property from the base of the hill west (approximately 13 acres) . B. City. The City owns the property from the base of the hill east, including the playground and nature trail . 3 .5 .2 Design and Construction The District has designed and constructed the basketball courts, the nature trail, and the southwest parking lot on City property and all facilities on its property. The City has designed and constructed all of the other facilities on City property. The District and City shared in the cost of the playground equipment. 3 .5 . 3 Maintenance of Eden Lake District will maintain at its expense that part of Eden Lake located within District property. City will maintain at its expense, except as indicated below, that part of Eden Lake located within City property. The parties will share equally the cost of maintenance of the playground. 3 .5 .4 Use of Eden Lake Without further notice to City, District will have priority use of Eden Lake School Park during school hours and during the school year by the school-age child care program, which the District has chosen. 4 . Supervision of Use of Facilities A party shall not be responsible for the supervision of the use, by the other party or any third party or parties whose use is not occasioned through any program, obligation or authorization of the party, of that part of a facility owned by the party. 5 . Liability A party shall be liable to the other party for damage or destruction of that part of a facility owned by the other party caused by or occurring during the exclusive use by the party of that part of the facility owned by the other party and which occurs as a result of the negligence or intentional act of the party. -7- A party shall be liable and hold the other party harmless for bodily injuries or death of any person or damages to the property of another caused by or occurring as a result of the negligence or intentional act of the party, its agents and employees in the performance or failure to perform the party' s obligations arising under this Memorandum with respect to a facility and for defects in design or construction of a facility or part thereof by the party. 6 . Description of Facilities The description of the properties owned by each party contained herein is a general description. For specific descriptions of the properties owned by each party reference is made to the legal descriptions on file and of record less the portions of those properties specifically excluded by the terms of this Memorandum, e.g. the land on which are located the school buildings and the Community Center referred to in the description of Round Lake Park/High School. 7 . Joint Powers Agreements Joint Powers Agreements already in existence will take priority over interpretations contained within this Memorandum of Understanding. Specific Joint Powers Agreements govern the use of : - Hockey rink and lockers - Oak Point pool - High school tennis courts . NOTE: For purposes of clarification, a "major repair" will be defined as costing over One Thousand and no/100 Dollars (411,000.00) . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Dated: March , 1997 By: Carl J. Jullie, Its Manager Dated: March , 1997 By: Jean Harris, Its Mayor -8- INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 272 Dated: March , 1997 By: Its Dated: March , 1997 By: Its C:\wp51\rap\ep\understand.mem\draft _9 _ Iv ara=Jan CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: prairie SECTION: Consent Calendar April 1, 1997 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Approval of resolution ITEM NO. Finance authorizing the refunding of bonds IV.L Background: We have set in motion the process to refinance the following bonds: • 1989 recreation bonds in the amount of$3,105,000 • 1991 improvement bonds of$2,865,000 • 1978 water and sewer bonds of$3,330,000 The anticipated savings as of last week were $169,457; $203,743; and $26,042. Changes in interest rates this week will make the 1978 refunding unfeasible and we will not offer these bonds for sale. The bond sale date will be Tuesday, May 6, 1997. Action/Direction: Recommend adoption of the resolution calling for the refunding sale of the 1989 and 1991 bonds. April 1, 1997 Page 1 Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1997A BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the City), as follows: Section 1. Purpose. It is hereby determined to be in the best interests of the City to issue its General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1997A, in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $3,105,000 (subject to adjustment as provided in the Terms of Proposal) (the Bonds), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, to refund (a) the 1998 through 2002 maturities of the $2,060,000 General Obligation Public Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1989A, dated April 1, 1989 and (b) the 1998 through 2002 maturities of the $2,770,000 General Obligation Recreational Facility Refunding Bonds, Series 1989B, dated April 1, 1989. Section 2. Terms of Proposal. Springsted Incorporated, financial consultant to the City, has presented to this Council forms of Terms of Proposal for the Bonds which are attached hereto and hereby approved and shall be placed on file by the Finance Director/Clerk. Each and all of the provisions of the Terms of Proposal are hereby adopted as the terms and conditions of the Bonds and of the sale thereof. Springsted Incorporated, as independent financial advisers, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2, paragraph (9) is hereby authorized to solicit proposals for the Bonds on behalf of the City on a negotiated basis. Section 3. Sale Meeting. This Council shall meet at the time and place shown in the Terms of Proposal, for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for the purchase of the Bonds and of taking such action thereon as may be in the best interests of the City. Upon vote being taken thereon, the following members voted in favor thereof: and the following members voted against the same: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $3,105,000* CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1997A (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Tuesday, May 6, 1997, until 10:30 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (612) 223-3002 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (612) 223-3000 or fax (612) 223-3002 for inclusion in the submitted Proposal. Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. Proposals may also be filed electronically via PARITY, in accordance with PARITY Rules of Participation and the Terms of Proposal, within a one-hour period prior to the time of sale established above, but no Proposals will be received after that time. If provisions in the Terms of Proposal conflict with the PARITY Rules of Participation, the Terms of Proposal shall control. The normal fee for use of PARITY may be obtained from PARITY and such fee shall be the responsibility of the bidder. For further information about PARITY, potential bidders may contact PARITY at 500 Main Street, Suite 1010, Fort Worth, TX 76102, telephone (817) 885-8900. Neither the City nor Springsted Incorporated assumes any liability if there is a malfunction of PARITY. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner of the Proposal submitted. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated June 1, 1997, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on March 1 and September 1 of each year, commencing March 1, 1998. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature March 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1998 $500,000 2000 $625,000 2002 $740,000 1999 $565,000 2001 $675,000 The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the principal amount of the Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed$25,000 and will be made in multiples of$5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken by the successful bidder will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced. - i - 3 BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of$5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The Bonds will not be subject to payment in advance of their respective stated maturity dates. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. The proceeds will be used to refund the 1998 through 2002 maturities of the City's General Obligation Public Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1989A, dated April 1, 1989 and to refund in advance of maturity the City's General Obligation Recreational Facility Refunding Bonds, Series 1989B, dated April 1, 1989. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $3,086,370 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $31,050, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. - ii - Li AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i)waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Dorsey & Whitney LLP of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE In accordance with SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5), the City will undertake, pursuant to the resolution awarding sale of the Bonds, to provide annual reports and notices of certain events. A description of this undertaking is set forth in the Official Statement. The purchaser's obligation to purchase the Bonds will be conditioned upon receiving evidence of this undertaking at or prior to delivery of the Bonds. - iii - OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly-final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded up to 120 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of l:he syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated April 1, 1997 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/John Frane City Clerk/Finance Director - iv - p Councilmember _ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1997B BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the City), as follows: Section 1. Purpose. It is hereby determined to be in the best interests of the City to issue its General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1997B, in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $2,865,000 (subject to adjustment as provided in the Terms of Proposal) (the Bonds), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, to refund the 2001 through 2012 maturities of the $6,050,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1991B, dated September 1, 1991. Section 2. Terms of Proposal. Springsted Incorporated, financial consultant to the City, has presented to this Council forms of Terms of Proposal for the Bonds which are attached hereto and hereby approved and shall be placed on file by the Finance Director/Clerk. Each and all of the provisions of the Terms of Proposal are hereby adopted as the terms and conditions of the Bonds and of the sale thereof. Springsted Incorporated, as independent financial advisers, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2, paragraph (9) is hereby authorized to solicit proposals for the Bonds on behalf of the City on a negotiated basis. Section 3. Sale Meeting. This Council shall meet at the time and place shown in the Terms of Proposal, for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for the purchase of the Bonds and of taking such action thereon as may be in the best interests of the City. Upon vote being taken thereon, the following members voted in favor thereof: and the following members voted against the same: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. I THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $2,865,000* CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1997B (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Tuesday, May 6, 1997 until 10:30 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. :. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (612) 223-3002 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (612) 223-3000 or fax (612) 223-3002 for inclusion in the submitted Proposal. Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. Proposals may also be filed electronically via PARITY, in accordance with PARITY Rules of Participation and the Terms of Proposal, within a one-hour period prior to the time of sale established above, but no Proposals will be received after that time. If provisions in the Terms of Proposal conflict with the PARITY Rules of Participation, the Terms of Proposal shall control. The normal fee for use of PARITY may be obtained from PARITY and such fee shall be the responsibility of the bidder. For further information about PARITY, potential bidders may contact PARITY at 500 Main Street, Suite 1010, Fort Worth, TX 76102, telephone (817) 885-8900. Neither the City nor Springsted Incorporated assumes any liability if there is a malfunction of PARITY. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner of the Proposal submitted. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated June 1, 1997, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 1998. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 2001 $245,000 2005 $235,000 2009 $250,000 2002 $245,000 2006 $235,000 2010 $245,000 2003 $240,000 2007 $230,000 2011 $240,000 2004 $240,000 2008 $225,000 2012 $235,000 The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to increase or reduce the principal amount of the Bonds offered for sale. Any such increase or reduction will be in a total amount not to exceed$25,000 and will be made in multiples of$5,000 in any of the maturities. In the event the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced, any premium offered or any discount taken by the successful bidder will be increased or reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage by which the principal amount of the Bonds is increased or reduced. - i - BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of$5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2005, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2006. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify DTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge special assessment against benefited property originally pledged to the Series 1991 B Bonds dated September 1, 1991. The proceeds will be used to refund in advance of maturity the 2001 through 2012 maturities of the City's General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1991 B, dated September 1, 1991. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $2,833,485 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $28,650, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at - ii - settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The Cily's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i)waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal which-the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Dorsey & Whitney LLP of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. - iii - 'U CONTINUING DISCLOSURE In accordance with SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5), the City will undertake, pursuant to the resolution awarding sale of the Bonds, to provide annual reports and notices of certain events. A description of this undertaking is set forth in the Official Statement. The purchaser's obligation to purchase the Bonds will be conditioned upon receiving evidence of this undertaking at or prior to delivery of the Bonds. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly-final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223-3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded up to 115 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated April 1, 1997 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/John Frane City Clerk/Finance Director - iv- /I I Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, which motion was seconded by Councilmember RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1997C BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the City), as follows: Section 1. Purpose. It is hereby determined to be in the best interests of the City to issue its General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 1997C, in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $3,330,000 (subject to adjustment as provided in the Terms of Proposal) (the Bonds), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, to refund the 1998 through 2002 maturities of the $6,150,000 General Obligation Water and Sewer Refunding Bonds, dated March 1, 1978. Section 2. Terms of Proposal. Springsted Incorporated, financial consultant to the City, has presented to this Council forms of Terms of Proposal for the Bonds which are attached hereto and hereby approved and shall be placed on file by the Finance Director/Clerk. Each and all of the provisions of the Terms of Proposal are hereby adopted as the terms and conditions of the Bonds and of the sale thereof. Springsted Incorporated, as independent financial advisers, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2, paragraph (9) is hereby authorized to solicit proposals for the Bonds on behalf of the City on a negotiated basis. Section 3. Sale Meeting. This Council shall meet at the time and place shown in the Terms of Proposal, for the purpose of considering sealed proposals for the purchase of the Bonds and of taking such action thereon as may be in the best interests of the City. Upon vote being taken thereon, the following members voted in favor thereof: and the following members_voted against the same: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $3,330,000* CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1997C (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Tuesday, May 6, 1997, until 10:30 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (612) 223-3002 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (612) 223-3000 or fax (612) 223-3002 for inclusion in the submitted Proposal. Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. Proposals may also be filed electronically via PARITY, in accordance with PARITY Rules of Participation and the Terms of Proposal, within a one-hour period prior to the time of sale established above, but no Proposals will be received after that time. If provisions in the Terms of Proposal conflict with the PARITY Rules of Participation, the Terms of Proposal shall control. The normal fee for use of PARITY may be obtained from PARITY and such fee shall be the responsibility of the bidder. For further information about PARITY, potential bidders may contact PARITY at 500 Main Street, Suite 1010, Fort Worth, TX 76102, telephone (817) 885-8900. Neither the City nor Springsted Incorporated assumes any liability if there is a malfunction of PARITY. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner of the Proposal submitted. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated June 1, 1997, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on January 1 and July 1 of each year, commencing January 1, 1998. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature January 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1998 $650,000 2000 $660,000 2002 $700,000 1999 $665,000 2001 $655,000 The City reserves the right, after proposals are opened and prior to award, to adjust the maturity schedule in an amount not to exceed$25,000 and any such adjustment will be made in multiples of $5,000. The principal amount of the issue will not change. BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, - i - 13 representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Cede & Co. as nominee of The Depository Trust Company ("DTC"), New York, New York, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of$5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to DTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with DTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The Bonds will not be subject to payment in advance of their respective stated maturity dates. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. The proceeds will be used to refund the 1998 through 2002 maturities of the City's General Obligation Refunding Bonds, dated March 1, 1978. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $3,310,020 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of$33,300, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1%. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. - ii - f The City will reserve the right to: (i)waive non-substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Borids qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the city will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Dorsey & Whitney LLP of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no-litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non-compliance with said terms for payment. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE In accordance with SEC Rule 15c2-12(b)(5), the City will undertake, pursuant to the resolution awarding sale of the Bonds, to provide annual reports and notices of certain events. A description of this undertaking is set forth in the Official Statement. The purchaser's obligation to purchase the Bonds will be conditioned upon receiving evidence of this undertaking at or prior to delivery of the Bonds. OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly-final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223-3000. -iii - The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded up to 130 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated April 1, 1997 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/John Frane City Clerk/Finance Director - iv- EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-1-97 SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR ,,(� ITEM NO. r •ill I. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger RILEY CREEK RIDGE Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 62.77 acres and Rezoning from Rural District to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 Zoning District on 62.77 acres; • Approval of a Developer's Agreement. Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning 2. Developers Agreement RILEY CREEK RIDGE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 13-97-PUD-7-97 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 R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 Zoning Districts 13-97-PUD-7-97 (hereinafter "PUD-7-97-R1-9.5 and R1- 13.5"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of April 1, 1997, entered into between Hustad Land Company, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-7-97-R1-9.5 and R1-13.5, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-7-97-R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-7-97-R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-7-97-R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-7-97-R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction,marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. 2 Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-7-97-R 1-9.5 and R 1-13.5 and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled"General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 6th day of August, 1996, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 1st day of April, 1997. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on . 5 RILEY CREEK RIDGE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 13-97-PUD-7-97 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located South of Pioneer Trail, west of Eden Prairie Road from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 on 62.77 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane s/Jean L. Harris City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) Exhibit A Riley Creek Ridge Legal Description I I That part of!the Wept Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 20,Township 116, Range 212 lying southerly of the southerly line of County Road No.1 and west of the west link of the plat of "EDEN HEIGHTS", EXCEPT tle West' 107.00 feet of said West Half lying north of a line drawn at right arhgles to the West line of said West Half from a point on said west line didtant 1406.00 feet north of the southwest corner of said West Half That part of the NorkILHaIf L he. NJor .h.e.ast_nilnrter o SectioA_21 _lawasbaip.—. 116, Range 2i2 lying 'west of the west line of Eden Prairie Road and northerly , of the centerline of Riley Creek. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT RILEY CREEK RIDGE THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of April 1, 1997 by Hustad Land Company, a Minnesota Corporation,hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,Developer has applied to City for,Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 62.77 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 62.77 acres,Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 and R1- 13.5 on 62.77 acres and Preliminary Plat of 62.77 acres into 134 lots and 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, situated 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. for Rezoning, Resolution No. 96-129 for Planned Unit Development Concept, Ordinance No. for Planned Unit Development District Review, and Resolution No. 96-130 for Preliminary Plat, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon,development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials reviewed and approved by the City Council on August 6, 1996 and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. STREET,UTILITY,AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS: Prior to release by the City of any final plat for the Property,Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems, storm sewer, and erosion control for the Property. The street, utility, and erosion control plans shall include the following sanitary sewer stubs: A. An 8 inch sanitary sewer stubbed to the west end of Hilltop Road at an invert elevation of 852. l.P B. An 8 inch sanitary sewer stubbed to the west end of Valley Road at an invert elevation of 800. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed in the approved plans, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. Developer agrees to pay the City a fee of five percent of the construction costs of public streets and utilities. Developer also agrees to be responsible for errors and omissions of the Developer's professional consultants and contractors. 4. CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF EXISTING TREES ON THE PROPERTY: Prior to the release of the final plat, Developer shall submit a Conservation Easement for review and approval by the Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources, as shown on Exhibit B. Upon approval by the Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources, Developer shall deliver and record the Conservation Easement in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrars Office and shall provide evidence of the recording of Conservation Easement prior to the release of the first building permit. 5. FINAL GRADING,DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's 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 storm sewers. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to,or concurrent with building construction. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's approval of an Erosion Control Plan for the Property. The Erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features,temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures. All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. 6. GRADING IN THE WOODED AREAS ON SITE: Prior to grading within any of the wooded areas on the property, Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the City Forester's approval of a plan depicting the construction grading limits on the Property. Prior to the issuance of the land alteration permit,Developer shall place and maintain a construction fence at the limits of the proposed grading as shown on Exhibit B. 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. 7. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance,the Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's 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 as shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit.B attached hereto. 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. Upon approval by the City.Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT: Prior to final plat approval for any portion of the Property, Developer agrees to sign an assessment agreement with the City for the following : A. Trunk sewer and water assessments for the net assessable area of 56.32 acres. Trunk assessments to Phase II and III shall be deferred until sewer is available. B. Subtrunk sanitary sewer and lateral watermain improvements in Eden Prairie Road serving phase two of the Property. C. Future improvements to Eden Prairie Road along the eastern boundary of the Property. Improvements to Eden Prairie Road shall include its reconstruction as a 32' collector with concrete curb and gutter, storm drainage, 5' concrete sidewalk and 10 foot bituminous trail. 9. STORM WATER QUALITY FACILITIES: Prior to final plat approval on the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's approval of plans and design information for all storm water quality facilities to be constructed; and receive City Engineer's approval of said plans. Developer shall implement the approved storm water quality facility plan concurrent with building construction. Upon completion of the housing construction and before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Developer shall verify the original design volume of the treatment pond to ensure that pond size has not diminished because of sedimentation/erosion and shall restore the pond to original volume if sedimentation/erosion has occurred. 10. REMOVAL/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 approval of,plans for demolition and/or removal of existing structures, septic systems, and wells on the Property. Prior to such demolition or removal, Developer shall provide to the City a certified check in the amount of$1,000.00 to guarantee implementation of the approved plan. City agrees to return said certified check to Developer after the demolition or removal is completed and after it is verified by City that the structures, well, and/or septic system have been property demolished or removed and that the Property has been restored to grade. 11. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by 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 approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining walls. Upon approval by the Chief Building Official, Developer agrees to implement the approved retaining wall plan,concurrent with the grading, street, and utility construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 12. SIDEWALK AND TRAIL CONSTRUCTION: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Director of Parks,Recreation, and Natural Resources, and obtain the Director's approval of detailed plans for sidewalks and trails to be constructed on the Property. Developer shall convey access easements, as determined by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Director. Said sidewalks and trails shall be constructed in the following locations: A. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk to be located on the west side of the north/south collector street and the north side of the east/west collector street, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. B. An eight-foot wide bituminous trail to be located on the east side of the north/south collector street and the south side of the east/west collector street, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Upon approval by the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, said sidewalks and trails, concurrent with street construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 13. TREE LOSS - TREE REPLACEMENT: There are 3509 caliper inches of significant trees on the Property. Tree loss is calculated at 982 caliper inches. Tree replacement required is 366 caliper inches. Prior to the release of the final plat, Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the City Forester's approval of a tree replacement plan for 366 caliper inches. Said plan shall include replacement trees of a 3 caliper inch diameter minimum size for a shade tree and a seven foot minimum height for conifer trees. Upon approval by the City Forester, Developer agrees to implement the approved tree replacement plan prior to building permit issuance. q 14. WETLAND DELINEATION: Prior to the issuance of a land alteration permit to grade on the Property, Developer shall obtain approval from the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District for delineation of all wetlands on the Property. 15. ARCHITECTURAL DIVERSITY PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit an architectural diversity plan for Phase One, as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto, for review and approval by the City Planner. Developer agrees that the architectural diversity plan shall have no units alike side by side,opposite, or diagonally across from each other. /0 OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN Hustad Investment Corporation Dean and Teresa Sundmark William Schiebler Doug and Juanita Swanson Glenn and Phyllis Peterson Eugene Swanson Steve and Darla Yerkes AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of April 1, 1997, by and between Hustad Investment Corporation, Dean and Teresa Sundmark, William Schiebler,Doug and Juanita Swanson, Glenn and Phyllis Peterson, Eugene Swanson, and Steve and Darla Yerkes,hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,hereinafter referred to as "City": For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance No._ , changing the zoning of the Property owned by Owner from the Rural District to the R1-9.5 and R1-13.5 District and PUD District Review,Resolution No. 96-129 -PUD Concept, and Resolution No. 96-130 -Preliminary Plat as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1996,by and between Hustad Land Company, a Minnesota Corporation, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Hustad Land Company, fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the rezoning of the Property to the Rural District. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the Property. 3. If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. � I (,) EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-1-97 SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR Tr A) ITEM NO. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER RENOVATION 1997 Michael D. Franzen Recommended Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 9.46 acres and Zoning District Amendment within the C-COM Zoning District on 9.46 acres; • Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 9.46 acres; Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER RENOVATION 1997 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 14-97-PUD-8-97 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CERTAIN LAND WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS,CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance(hereinafter,the "land")is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be amended within the C-COM Zoning District 14-97-PUD-8-97 (hereinafter "PUD-8-97-C-COM"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. signing a Development Agreement between Jerry's Enterprises Inc. and the City of Eden Prairie. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD-8-97-C-COM is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-8-97-C-COM is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD-8-97-C-COM are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-8-97-C-COM is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is amended within the C- COM Zoning District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development 8-97-C-COM, and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled"General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 18th day of March, 1997, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 1st day of April, 1997. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on Exhibit A Preserve Village Center Renovation 1997 Legal Description: Outlot E, GARRISON FOREST SECOND ADDITION, according to the duly recorded plat thereof Hennepin County,Minnesota, except the following described property: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Outlot E, thence run westerly along the southerly line thereof on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 40 minutes 54 second West for a distance of.73 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line being described; thence North 0 degrees 25 minutes 47 seconds West for 395.94 feet;thence deflect left along a tangential curve having a radius of 110.00 feet, delta angle of 76 degrees 55 minutes 26 seconds, for 147.68 feet; thence North 77 degrees 21 minutes 13 seconds West for 200.22 feet; thence deflect right along a tangential curve having a radius of 140.00 feet for 180.00 feet and said line there terminating. PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER RENOVATION 1997 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 14-97-PUD-8-97 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CERTAIN LAND WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows the amending of land located at Anderson Lakes Parkway and C.S.A.H. 18,within the C-COM Zoning District on 9.46 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane /s/Jean L. Harris City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER RENOVATION 1997 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PRESERVE VILLAGE CENTER RENOVATION 1997 BY JERRY'S ENTERPRISES,INC. WHEREAS, Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. has applied for Site Plan Approval of Preserve Village Center Renovation 1997 on 9.46 acres for a remodel of exterior building elevations and signs of the existing building, and a regrading of the parking lot and frontage road located at Anderson Lakes Parkway and C.S.A.H. 18, to be zoned within the C-COM Zoning District by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on March 18, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its March 10, 1997, 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 March 18, 1997, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that site plan approval be granted to Jerry's Enterprises,Inc., based on plans dated March 7, 1997, between Jerry's Enterprises, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie, and subject to a Developer's Agreement between Jerry's Enterprises,Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on April 1, 1997. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Franc, City Clerk DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT PRESERVE VILLAGE MALL 1997 THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as April 15, 1997,by Jerry's Enterprises Inc., a Minnesota Corporation hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS,Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Planned unit Development District Review,Zoning District Amendment in Community Commercial Zoning District, And Site Plan Review, all on 9.46 acres, situated 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 PUD Ordinance No. for rezoning, and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials submitted by Developer and revised and dated March 18, 1997,reviewed and approved by the City Council on March 18, 1997, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. STREET AND UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the construction of streets and utilities for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's written approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and storm sewer. Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved street and utility plans prior to building permit issuance. 4. FINAL GRADING,DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer agrees that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading 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 storm sewers. All design calculations for storm water quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the final grading and drainage plan. Developer shall complete implementaion of the approved plan prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's written approval of an erosion control plan for the Property. The erosion control plan shall include all boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf restoration procedures. All site grading operations shall conform to the City's Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property. 5. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by City of a building permit for 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 indicated 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 shall complete implementation of the approved retaining wall plan prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. 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 as 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. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan prior to the issuance of anu occupancy permit for the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 7. IRRIGATION PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the 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 shall complete implementation of the approved plan prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Developer has submitted to the City Planner, and has received the City Planner's written approval of a plan for exterior building materials and colors for the Property as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto. If these materials and colors are changed, the Developer shall,prior to building permit issuance, submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting the exterior materials and colors to be used for the Property. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 9. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer has submitted to the City Planner, and received the City Planner's written approval of a plan for screening of rooftop mechanical equipment on the Property , as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, per City Code requirements. Developer shall complete implementation of the approved plan prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. If, after completion of construction of the mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by the City Planner, in his/her sole discretion, that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then City Planner shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to reconstruct the mechanical equipment screening in order to cure the deficiency identified by the City Planner. to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until all such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed by Developer. 10. SIGNS: Developer agrees that for each and every sign which requires a permit by Eden Prairie's City Code, Section 11.20, Developer shall obtain a sign permit. The application for such a permit shall include complete description of the sign and a sketch showing the size, location, 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. 11. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: City hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the Community Commercial District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD A. Front yard setback waiver from 35 to 30 feet for structure, as shown on Exibit B. B. Front yard setback waiver from 35 to 30 feet for parking, as shown on Exibit B. 12. REDESIGN OF FRONTAGE ROAD: Developer desires to implement a design change to the construction of the frontage road along the easterly portion of the Property that lowers the elevations of the road. This road is currently under contract by the State Department of Transportation as part of the C.S.A.H. #18 reconstruction project. Developer agrees to assume all costs associated with design changes to the frontage road and to assume any additional costs involved with construction of design changes as determined by the State Department of Transportation. The developer further agrees to execute a special assessment agreement* for any additional costs associated with the design changes along the frontage road, prior to issuance of a building permit. * or a cooperative agreement with Hennepin County or MnDOT 13. NURP POND: 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 City in the amount of $35,000, which Developer and City agree is an amount sufficient to substantially offset the additional impact on the City's stormwater 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 defend and indemnify City for any claims made by any party that the nature or amount of the payment is invalid for any reasons. Developer acknowledges that this payment is in lieu of a NURP facility only and that Developer and the Property may still be assessed or charged other amounts for construction and maintenance of stormwater facilities,including but not limited to amounts for the stormwater utility fund and special assessments relating to the Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties to this Agreement have caused these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid. DEVELOPERS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Jean L. Harris, Mayor Carl J. Jullie, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by Jean L. Harris and Carl J. Jullie, respectively the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by , the of , on behalf of the company. Notary Public Exhibit A Preserve Village Center Renovation 1997 Legal Description: Outlot E, GARRISON FOREST SECOND ADDITION, according to the duly recorded plat thereof.Hennepin County,Minnesota, except the following described property: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Outlot E, thence run westerly along the southerly line thereof on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 40 minutes 54 second West for a distance of.73 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line being described; thence North 0 degrees 25 minutes 47 seconds West for 395.94 feet;thence deflect left along a tangential curve having a radius of 110.00 feet, delta angle of 76 degrees 55 minutes 26 seconds, for 147.68 feet, thence North 77 degrees 21 minutes 13 seconds West for 200.22 feet;thence deflect right along a tangential curve having a radius of 140.00 feet for 180.00 feet and said line there terminating. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT EXHIBIT C Prior to release of any building permit,Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for approval two copies of a development plan(1" =100' scale) showing existing and proposed contours,proposed streets, and lot arrangements and size,minimum floor elevations on each lot,preliminary alignment and grades for sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer, 100-year flood plain contours,ponding areas, tributary areas to catch basins, arrows showing direction of storm water flow on all lots, location of walks, trails, and any property deeded to the City. II. Developer shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the Watershed District for review and approval. Developer shall follow all rules and recommendations of said Watershed District. III. If Developer fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within twenty-four(24)months of the date hereof, Developer, for itself, its successors, and assigns, shall not oppose City's reconsideration and rescission of the , , and , thus restoring the existing status of the Property before this project was approved. IV. Developer shall pay cash park fees as to all of the Property required by City Code in effect as of the date of the issuance of each building permit for construction on the property. Presently,the amount of cash park fee applicable to the property is $ per acre (or unit). The amount to be paid by Developer shall be increased or decreased to the extent that the City Code is amended or supplemented to require a greater or lesser amount as of the date of the issuance of any building permit for construction on the Property. V. Provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against owners,their successors, and their assigns of the Property herein described. VI. Developer represents that they have fee title to the Property, except: With respect to any interest in all portions of the Property which Developer is required, pursuant to this Agreement,to dedicate or convey to the City(the "Dedicated Property"), Developer represents and warrants as follows now and at the time of dedication or conveyance: A. That Developer has marketable fee title free and clear of all mortgages, liens, and other encumbrances. Developer shall provide to the City a current title insurance policy insuring such a condition of title. B. That Developer has not used, employed,deposited, stored, disposed of,placed or otherwise allowed to come in or on the Dedicated Property, any hazardous substance, hazardous waste, pollutant, or contaminant, including, but not limited to, those defined in or pursuant to 42 U.S.C. SS 9601, et. seq., or Minn. Stat., Sec. 115B.01, et. seq. (such substances,wastes, pollutants, and contaminants hereafter referred to as "Hazardous Substances"); Developer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its successors and assigns, against any and all loss, costs, damage and expense,including reasonable attorneys fees and costs,resulting from or due to the release or threatened release of Hazardous Substances which were, or are claimed or alleged to have been,used, employed,deposited, stored,disposed of, placed, or otherwise located or allowed to be located, in or on the Dedicated Property by Developer, its employees, agents, contractors or representatives. VII. Developer acknowledges that Developer is familiar with the requirements of Chapter 11, Zoning, and Chapter 12, Subdivision Regulations, of the City Code and other applicable City ordinances affecting the development of the Property. Developer agrees to develop the Property in accordance with the requirements of all applicable City Code requirements and City Ordinances. V 111. Prior to release of the final plat,Developer shall pay to City fees for the first three (3)years' street lighting on the public streets adjacent to the Property(including installation costs, if any, as determined by electrical power provided), engineering review, and street signs. IX. City shall not issue any building permit for the construction of any building, structure, or improvement on the Property until all requirements listed in this Exhibit C have been satisfactorily addressed by Developer. X. Developer shall submit detailed water main, fire protection, and emergency vehicle access plans to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. Developer shall follow all the recommendations of the Fire Marshal. XI. Developer acknowledges that the rights of City performance of obligations of Developer contemplated in this agreement are special, unique, and of an extraordinary character, and that, in the event that Developer violates, or fails, or refuses to perform any covenant, condition, or provision made herein, City may be without an adequate remedy at law. Developer agrees,therefore, that in the event Developer violates, fails, or refuses to perform any covenant, condition, or provision made herein, City may, at its option, institute and prosecute an action to specifically enforce performance of such covenant. No remedy conferred in this agreement is intended to be exclusive and each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy. The election of any one or more remedies shall not constitute a waiver of any other remedy. XII. Any term of this Agreement that is illegal or unenforceable at law or in equity shall be deemed to be void and of no force or effect to the extent necessary to bring such term within the provision of any such applicable law or laws, and such terms as so modified and the balance of the terms of this agreement shall be enforceable. XIII. Developer shall,prior to the commencement of any improvements,provide written notice to Paragon Calbe, a Minnesota Limited Partnership,the franchisee under the City's Cable Communication Ordinance (80-33) of the development contemplated by this Developer's Agreement. Notice shall be sent to Paragon Cable, 801 Plymouth Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411. XIV. Prior to building permit issuance, all fees associated with the building permit shall be paid to the Inspections Department, including; Building permit fee, plan check fee, State surcharge, metro system access charge (SAC), City SAC and City water access charge (WAC), and park dedication. Contact Metropolitan Waste Control to determine the number of SAC units. EROSION CONTROL POLICY January 1, 1993 EXHIBIT D MISSION STATEMENT At any given time, Eden Prairie has a large amount of property denuded of vegetation with land alteration in progress. Erosion may result from ongoing construction activities such as road and highway projects, industrial, commercial, residential development, and individual house construction. These activities are prone to erosion, producing sediment that can infiltrate storm sewer systems, affect water quality, clog streets and sidewalks, and cause damage to property. The City Council has recognized the need and directed City staff to devise a comprehensive erosion control policy. The benefits of these controls can be realized in improved water quality, increased safety and monetary savings in clean up efforts. The City Council has directed the following Policy to be implemented: 1. All construction projects permitted by the City of Eden Prairie which result in the temporary disturbance of vegetative or non-vegetative surfaces protecting soils from erosion require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP's) as outlined in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's manual, Protecting Water Quality In Urban Areas, to mitigate the impact of erosion on wetland and water resources. The City Engineer or the Director of Inspections may impose special conditions to permits which stipulate erosion control procedures and/or direct the installation of erosion control features or the clean up of erosion at construction sites. Permits affected by this policy include all grading permits, building permits, and permits for the installation of utilities. 2. All erosion control systems stipulated in the permit shall be installed prior to the issuance of the permit. Supplemental erosion control systems ordered by the City Engineer or the Director of Inspections shall be installed within 48 hours. 3. All erosion control systems must be maintained by the permittee in a functional condition until the completion of turf and/or structural surfaces which protect the soil from erosion. The permittee must inspect erosion control bi-weekly and immediately after each rainfall event of.5 inches or more. Needed maintenance shall be performed within 48 hours. 4. Best Management Practices (BMP's) shall be utilized at all construction sites to minimize the trackage or spillage of soil on public streets or highways. BMP's may include,but are not limited to,rock construction entrances, washing stations, frequent cleaning of streets adjacent to the construction site or limiting operations when site conditions are unmanageable. Trackage or spillage of soil on a public street or highway must be cleaned by power sweepers within the time frame stipulated in the permit special conditions or as ordered by the City Engineer or the Director of Inspections. 5. If erosion breaches the perimeter of a construction site,the permittee shall immediately develop a clean up and restoration plan,obtain the right-of-entry from the adjoining property owner, and implement the clean up and restoration plan within 48 hours of obtaining the adjoining property owner's permission. In the event eroded soils enter onto or are tracked or spilled on a public street, highway, sidewalk or trail,the permittee shall remove the soil material and thoroughly sweep the street or sidewalk surface within four hours. If eroded soils enter, or entrance appears imminent, into wetlands or other water bodies, clean up and repair shall be immediate. Permittee shall provide all traffic control and flagging required to protect the traveling public during the clean up operations. r 6. When a permittee fails to conform to any provision of this policy within the time stipulated in a written notification, the City Engineer or the Director of Inspections may take the following actions: a. Withhold the scheduling of inspections and/or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. b. Direct the correction of the deficiency by City forces or separate contract. The issuance of a permit constitutes a right-of-entry for the City or its contractor to enter upon the construction site for the purpose of correcting deficiencies in erosion control. All costs incurred by the City in correcting erosion control deficiencies shall be reimbursed by the permittee. All invoices for erosion control correction shall be due and payable within 30 days. Invoices not paid within 30 days shall accrue interest at a rate of 1% per month. Each charge for correction of erosion deficiencies shall be a lien upon the property to which the permit applies. Invoices more than 30 days old on September 30 or any year or on any other date as determined by the City Engineer or the Director of Inspections may be assessed against the property. As a condition of the permit,the owner shall waive notice of any assessment hearing to be conducted by the City, concur that the benefit to the property exceeds the amount of the proposed assessment and waive all rights by virtue of Minnesota Statute 429.081 to challenge the amount or validity of the assessment. I, We, The Undersigned, hereby accept the terms and conditions of the Erosion Control Policy dated January 1, 1993 as set forth and agree to fully comply therewith to the satisfaction of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Applicant's Name (Please Print) Date Applicant's Signature Applicant's Title Office Phone No. Mobile No. Home No. Development Name: Lot: Block: EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-1-97 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS A ITEM NO. v. - DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger Extended Stay America Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1st Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 3.63 acres and Rezoning from Commercial Regional to Commercial Regional Service on 3.63 acres with a waiver from 35'to 20' for front yard setback to MnDot ROW; • Approve a Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 18 acres; • Approve a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 7 acres into one lot and 2 outlots; Background: At the March 10, 1997 meeting,the Planning Commission voted unanimously for approval of the Extended Stay Project. The approval included a front yard setback waiver from 35'to 20' for MnDOT frontage which was not reflected in the staff report. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3-10-97 4. Staff Report dated 3-10-97 5. Correspondence EXTENDED STAY AMERICA CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF EXTENDED STAY AMERICA FOR EXTENDED STAY AMERICA WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development(PUD)Concept of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS,the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Extended Stay America PUD Concept by Extended Stay America and considered their request for approval for development(and waivers)and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on April 1, 1997; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Extended Stay America,being in Hennepin County,Minnesota,legally described as outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated March 25, 1997. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated March 10, 1997. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 1st day of April, 1997. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 2 Exhibit A Extended Stay America Legal Description: Outlot A and Part of Outlot B,Bryant Lake Center J EXTENDED STAY AMERICA CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EXTENDED STAY AMERICA FOR EXTENDED STAY AMERICA BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Extended Stay America for Extended Stay America dated March 25, 1997, consisting of 7 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 1st day of April, 1997. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Lf STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Krista R. Flemming,Planning Intern THROUGH: Michael D.Franzen, City Planner DATE: March 7, 1997 SUBJECT: Extended Stay America APPLICANT: ESA Management,Inc. FEE OWNER: Wallace Hustad LOCATION: Valley View Road and Office Ridge Circle REQUEST: 1. PUD Concept Review on 18 acres 2. PUD District Review on 3.63 acres 3. Rezoning from Commercial Regional to Commercial Regional Service on 3.63 acres 4. Site Plan Review on 3.63 acres 5. Preliminary Plat of 7 acres into one lot and 2 outlots 1 NimommmEkk . . \ "A, k ,. .-'.' _.-,.,,,,77,- 77\,,..\,..'.,j2---,..•. : : . . .:::. ,,,,, \----(- '.-,,, ...., \ , . . 1 . • . . .• • .: i . . . . . . .1 .. . . . .., ,„ : :• • :: : 1.-,1 : '...------ . •—rlt-*** I \ '; 1*.:•: :•. :• : : • :• • •. .•. .. .. . , ... .. . . . . • . • • . : -:..;:.: . :: :• • •' .::: . . • s 's 1,:j..i :::".. . ''.\.\: • : . : . ‘•••4 '''- .'"\-c"...I 1 •. . er.e s rn II , \ • • •. . • .. • . . . . . . . . . . • . . : • :::.•...::: :::: :11 ... .. . .. . . ,.. 1:1,:::.•:: •:: ii ........-\ e• . \ \ 40 IL ..-------- :1 __ _ —\\ 1 ty .\ r.....Ai.:„.. ,.,..... . '".,• k .. (..i::.i'•,!': Zri, -.'"----• / ) -•,,' 's:, .. .....• N./ ) ...........4„ / MOO. .''.... .......,....,. 1.9 1° '•'" --- ' Y.V:2 1 . * ' • ,) 1 . ,:._..., t....0 I / ' .:kt..:;;;S P.' '-,•-• 1 I • . ../-7::•':I • 440 ..1.:), . •..,..• • •%'• ...4• 0:7NT ER ) 0 ik\s•I ' '.-.':.:'''-------e..-••'''..----- /--"----------------------------7:7C-----------------••-.-._._..._....s......_(D __.) '•/;,: i-;G' — ',I F.::,• / :.: .• . •. ... _..... ..'-'-"--------...----' -..--..N",11. • , ,74. 7 8 \ . .. • . . . . ._ ... ':'..1'- .:' .. •••:•i; : - 'c' . . .. .. .... .. . . •:•V•,\ 7.;: , '.• • —.I • • ,....I••`• l. ,.., •.; 1:...: \ . ;_,—.••::, :.::.C....E ..•. ' w..)....o \ \\ LE-0147=1\p\ .T.I.,:•..;,.., i ir---T______.__ ::.:.). Vw,=.:)."7.•F.: ,c, ,.. I i i e.F: MA A KE C.VI'TER . r.F.;•il-C:i7. _ \ 1•••-•:. ." .:;::h• I 'Al?.,„ •,ltiti 't'L)° -. .....? TREE - c . SIP 111101 • :e•Nt-C-'-•:;-.2"i-E1 (0 :..) ......- -. Staff Report Extended Stay America March 7, 1997 BACKGROUND The 1981 Planned Unit Development showed an office use for this area. The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this site and surrounding land uses as Regional Commercial. This land use allows office and commercial uses. The hotel will be developed on a 3.63 acres located in the middle of the vacant land area. This allows future office development potential. Hotels in Eden Prairie have traditionally been developed in C- Reg-Ser Districts, near offices, and adjacent to interstates. A hotel on this site would be an appropriate land use. SITE PLAN The site is currently zoned C-Reg as part of a larger overall rezoning in the 1960's. The request is to rezone the property to C-Reg-Ser and construct a 45,822 sq. ft., 3 story building totaling 104 units. The units have standard hotel room features and a kitchenette for longer stays. Building coverage, setbacks, and parking for 112 stalls meet C-Reg-Ser District requirements. PRELIMINARY PLAT Outlot A and Outlot B of Bryant Lake Center consisting of 7 acres will be replatted into one lot and two outlots. GRADING AND DRAINAGE There are no significant trees that will be lost due to construction. The project requires permission from MnDOT to grade and drain water into highway right of way. The MnDOT federal review process takes approximately 3 months to complete. If approval does not occur, an alternate grading and drainage plan will be constructed. The alternate plan has retaining walls and a larger pond on private property. Staff supports both grading and drainage plans. ARCHITECTURE The building meets the 75% face brick and glass requirement. 2 17 Staff Report Extended Stay America • March 7, 1997 UTILITIES/DRAINAGE Sewer and water service exist in Office Ridge Circle. A NURP pond will be constructed on the west side of the property. LANDSCAPING The amount of landscaping required for this project is based upon a caliper inch requirement and screening of parking and loading areas. The plan provides the required 143 caliper inches. Parking and loading areas are screened. LIGHTING Down cast lighting will be attached to the building and poles in the parking lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff would recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Amendment, Site Plan Review,and Preliminary Plat based on plans dated March 7, 1997, and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated March 7, 1997, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval,the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utilityand erosion controlplans 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. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. B. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. C. Pay the required cash park fee. D. Submit samples of colors and exterior materials. 3 Staff Report Extended Stay America . March 7, 1997 3. Prior to grading,the proponent shall notify the City Engineer,Watershed District, and City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and approved by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal. 4. Receive approval from MnDOT for grading and storm water drainage in Highway right of way. 4 a) 044ESOT, Minnesota Depar 'nt of Transportation (0fi Metropolitan Division °pis, Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 • February 25, 1997 Michael Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie MN 55344-2230 Dear Michael Franzen: SUBJECT: Extended Stay America Preliminary Plat Review P97-012 Southeast Quadrant of I-494 and Valley View Road Eden Prairie, Hennepin County CS 2785 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Extended Stay America preliminary plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subd. 2, Plats. We find the plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments. • The final plat must identify the edge of Mn/DOT right of way. Any questions may be directed to JeffHoffstrom of our Surveys Section at 797-3108. • A Mn/DOT storm water drainage permit is required for the proposed development. Hydraulic computations and drainage area maps, showing before and after conditions and addressing 100-year storms, must be submitted with the permit application. Existing drainage patterns and rates of runoff affecting Mn/DOT right of way should be perpetuated. The proposed pond must be designed to accommodate 100-year storms. The Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District should also review this plan. Any questions regarding Mn/DOT drainage concerns may be directed to Bonnie Peterson of our Water Resources Section at 797-3054. Questions regarding the permit process may be directed to Bill Warden of our Permits Section at 582-1443. • A Right of Way Alteration Permit is required for the proposed work. Please be advised that the permit takes approximately two to three months to process. The process includes Federal Highway Administration, Mn/DOT Environmental Services, Mn/DOT Metro Division and Minnesota State Historical Society review. The permit also requires the applicant to pay for soil removed. For further information regarding the Right of Way Alteration Permit process please contact Bill Warden of our Permits Section as noted above. An equal opportunity employer /0 Michael Franzen February 25, 1997 page two • Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses, including hotels, located adjacent to highways often results in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from I-494 could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. • Future Valley View Road access for the parcel west of this site should be provided through Office Ridge Circle Drive. A proliferation of excess openings close to the Valley View Road/I-494 interchanges should be avoided. Please contact me at 582-1654 with any questions regarding this review. Sincerely, Scott Peters Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison c: Pete Tulkki, Hennepin County Surveys Section Doug Mattson, Hennepin County Engineering Section Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District I 1 o t,�2 Minnesota Depar nt of Transportation bit Metropolitan Division A Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 • October 28, 1996 Michael Franzen City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear Michael Franzen: Subject: E.S.A. Addition Preliminary Plat Review P96-110 Southeast Quadrant of I-494 and CSAH 39 (Valley View Rd) Eden Prairie, Hennepin County CS 2785 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the E.S.A. Addition preliminary plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subd. 2, Plats. We apologize for the delay in responding to this submittal. We find the plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments. • Extended Stay America proposes to acquire right of way along County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 39 (Valley View Road). This right of way, shown on the preliminary plat, is currently owned by Mn/DOT. No parking lot construction will be allowed in areas owned by Mn/DOT. The right-of- way must be reconveyed to the project proposer before construction may begin. To initiate the reconveyance process, Mary Martin of our Right of Way Section may be contacted at 582-1635. Mn/DOT will retain a minimum of 30 feet of right-of-way from the edge of the existing pavement, to accommodate the I-494 reconstruction project. The preliminary plat's proposed right-of-way line must be at least 30 feet from the existing pavement. In addition, some issues regarding the future of Trunk Highway (TH) 212 may need to be resolved before this area can be reconveyed. • Any other use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way will require an approved permit. The permit necessary depends on the nature of the proposed work. Bill Warden of our Permits Unit may be contacted at 582-1443 for further information regarding the permit process. An equal opportunity employer IA Michael Franzen October 28, 1996 page two • A Mn/DOT stormwater drainage permit is required for this development. Drainage area maps and computations, showing conditions before and after development, must be submitted. Existing drainage area boundaries and rates of runoff should be maintained. Any questions regarding Mn/DOT's drainage concerns may be directed to Bonnie Peterson of our Water Resources Section at 797-3054. Questions regarding the permit process may be directed to Bill Warden, as noted above. As you may be aware, the approval of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District may also be needed. • It is Mn/DOT's policy to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential land use adjacent to highways will usually result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from I-494 could exceed standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Dept. of Transportation. Mn/DOT policy regarding new developments adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 582-1383. Sincerely, be&114 Elizabeth Malaby Transportation Planner c: Pete Tulkki, Hennepin County Surveys Doug Mattson, Hennepin County Public Works l� N enne in Count An Equal Opportunity Employer F P James NI. Bourey, County Administrator September 19, 1996 Mike Franzen City Planner City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Proposed Plat - Extended Stay America CSAH 39, southeast quadrant CSAH 39 and I-494 Section 11, Township 116, Range 22 Hennepin County Plat No. 2355 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. Franzen: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require county review of proposed plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: • The Existing Conditions Plan, dated August 21, 1996, shows the CSAH 39 right of way line, as proposed by the developer, to be approximately 20 to 24 feet from the existing eastbound curb line. This is within current CSAH 39 right of way, and within right of way currently owned by MN/DOT. We have informed MN/DOT of this development proposal and of our opposition to the proposed parking lot and landscaping within the road right of way. • CSAH 39 is identified in Hennepin County's Bicycle Transportation Plan as a full accommodation bike route. That is CSAH 39 should have both on and off-road bikeways to provide for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Also, CSAH 39 is an urban design four lane divided road. To accommodate road and bikeway development, there should be at least 30 feet from the current eastbound curb line to the right of way line. • The plats access, as proposed by the developer, is located on O.L. A, Bryant Lake Center. The developer needs to acquire an easement from the adjacent property owner for this access. This proposed access must be aligned opposite the full movement access on the north side of CSAH 39, and the access must include provisions for a left turn lane from westbound CSAH 39. Hennepin County will not permit any other full movement access to CSAH 39. Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Recycled Paper Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 TDD:(612)930-2696 Mike Franzen September 19, 1996 Page 2 • All proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access, drainage, utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for the appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within the county right of way, disturbed during construction. • Since the proposed plat also abuts I-494 it must also be reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Send a copy of this plat to Elizabeth Malaby, Transportation Planner, Metropolitan Division, Minnesota Department of Transportation. Please direct any response to Doug Mattson. As a matter of procedure, we request that the City Clerk inform us of the City Council 's action on the right of way and access provisions. Sincerely, Thomas D. J nson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DBM cc: Elizabeth Malaby, MN/DOT Mary Martin, MN/DOT H:\PLATS\ESA 15 -_ - - 7732 -,.I Hr.j. .AD _..:�I +_�.PI_ ..il_ : .. 7 TREK. LAND DEVELOPMENT Michael D. Franzen City of Eden Prairie Community Development 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-8399 Re: Extended Stay America Dear Mr. Franzen Trek. Land Development has been retained by the Sellers of this property, to grade the site in preparation for the Extended Stay America project. This project is scheduled to be presented for approval to the City Council on April 1, 1997. The Watershed is scheduled to review this project on April 3, 1997. Extended Stay America would like to start construction of their building as close to May 15,1997 as possible. Because of this target date I would like to request an early grading permit for this project so that I may start the grading as soon as the weather permits. I understand that you have expressed concern about the road restrictions. The grading contractor, Turner Excavating, moved his equipment onto the site prior to March 15, 1997. Please contact me at 944-4046 if you have any questions or concerns. mens cc: Wallace Hustad, E.P Land Company II Jennifer Posma, EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 4-1-97 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. V, DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger UNITED HEALTHCARE Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • 1st Reading of an Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.4 acres, and Rezoning from Industrial to Office on 10.4 acres; • Approve a Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Office on 10.4 acres; • Approve a Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 17.4 acres. Background: At the March 10, 1997 meeting,the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the project. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change 2. Resolution for PUD Concept Review 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3-10-97 4. Staff Report dated 3-7-97 5. Plans dated 3-25-97 UNITED HEALTHCARE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive Municipal Plan("Plan"); and, WHEREAS,the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and comment; and WHEREAS, the proposal of United Healthcare by United Healthcare for construction of a two-level, 135,000 square foot parking deck in addition to the existing 154,000 square foot office building requires the amendment of the Plan; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby adopts the amendment of the Plan subject to Metropolitan Council approval as follows: 10.4 acres from Industrial to Office located at the Southeast corner of Prairie Center Drive and Technology Drive. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 1st day of April, 1997. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk UNITED HEALTHCARE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF UNITED HEALTHCARE FOR UNITED HEALTHCARE WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned Unit Development(PUD)Concept of certain areas located within the City; and, WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the United Healthcare PUD Concept by United Healthcare and considered their request for approval for development(and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and, WHEREAS,the City Council did consider the request on April 1, 1997; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie,Minnesota, as follows: 1. United Healthcare, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in Exhibit A,is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans dated March 25, 1997. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated March 10, 1997. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 1st day of April, 1997. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 3 Exhibit A United Healthcare Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 1, DataServe Business Center y STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: March 7, 1997 SUBJECT: United Healthcare APPLICANT: United Healthcare FEE OWNER: Opus Corporation LOCATION: Southeast corner of Prairie Center Drive and Technology Drive REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Plan Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Office on 10.4 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 17.4 acres. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review on 10.4 acres. 4. Rezoning from Industrial to Office on 10.4 acres. 5. Site Plan Review on 10.4 acres. 1 6 Staff Report United Healthcare March 7, 1997 • BACKGROUND The site is currently zoned and guided Industrial. The City previously approved a waiver in the Industrial District to allow up to 90% office for TCF Bank. TCF Bank decided not to buy the site. United Healthcare signed the developer' agreement and is remodeling the building under the same conditions required for TCF Bank. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL United Healthcare wants a 100% office use of the building. This requires a guide plan change and rezoning to office. Reasons to consider the guide plan change and rezoning are as follows. 1. Office is a compatible land use adjacent to existing office and industrial uses. 2. The adjoining streets have the capacity to support an office use. SITE PLAN The existing building is 154,000 square feet. The code requires 4 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area or 616 spaces. United Healthcare requires 785 spaces. A two level, 135,000 square foot parking deck is proposed in the northwest corner of the site. The park decking will be constructed of brick and glass meeting office district standards. The main portion of the deck is 28 tall. The stairwell portion of the deck is 37.5 feet tall. The maximum height permitted for an accessory structure in the office district is 15 feet. UHC needs a PUD waiver. As part of 212 construction, Prairie Center Drive will be shifted to the west and Technology Drive shifted to the north, providing more green area between the deck and the road. The distance to the deck will be a minimum of 105 feet. Prairie Center Drive will also be raised approximately 10 feet. The view will be level with the first level of the deck. The existing berm and trees are not affected by grading for Prairie Center Drive or Technology Drive. Reasons to consider the height waiver are as follows: 1. While the office district permits a 35 foot setback,the deck is setback 50 feet, which allows the existing berm and landscaping to remain. 2. As part of 212 construction, Prairie Center Drive will be shifted to the west and Technology Drive shifted to the north, providing more green area between the deck 2 Staff Report United Healthcare March 7, 1997 and the road. 3. The majority of the deck is less than the 30 foot height permitted for main structures in the office district. 4. The existing parking decks in the City were granted height waivers, based on the location off major roads, increased setbacks, size of deck, and amount of landscaping. 5. The deck meets city code for face brick and glass. TRAFFIC Even though the site is being converted from an industrial to an office use, the adjacent roads can handle the traffic. In 1984, the City approved the Prairie Center Business Park on this site. Prairie Center Drive and Technology Drive were existing streets in 1984. The approved plan was 206,000 square feet of office,manufacturing, and warehouse with no less than 50%office with flexibility for 75% office. The peak hour traffic was 308 trips. This project was not built. The Datasery use generated 216 peak hour trips. The UHC proposal generates 265 peak hour trips. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff would recommend approval of the Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Office, PUD Concept Review, PUD District Review,Rezoning from Industrial to Office and Site Plan Review, based on plans dated March 7, 1997 and subject to the recommendations of the staff report dated March 7, 1997. 1. Prior to Building Permit issuance,the proponent shall: A. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements. B. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review. C. Submit samples of exterior materials and colors for review. g:\unhealth 3 U JAMES P.LARKIN RoBERT,L,HOIH Eo LARKINDELL , HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. CHRL4TOPHER J.H4RRISTNN. GERALDJAMES C.ERICKSON BRUCE BRUCE J.J. O DOUGLAS E GRIFFITH,GENE N.J.DRI3C011 ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHNWILLIAMR.C. IFFI JR GENE N.Fltl I PR - JOHN R HILL JOHN D.FULLMER PETER J.COYLE FRANKCHLEs MS ALL 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER JANEE.DER CHRISTOPHER J.DIETZEN JOHN J.STEFFENHAGEN UNDA H.FISHER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH DANIELW.`rose THOMAS P.STOLTMAN PHIUP G.ALDEN MICHAEL ,Lc.JACKn1AN BLOOMINGTON MINNESOTA-55431-1194 MICHAEL J.SMITH JOHN E DIEHL VILIS R INDE JON S.SNAERZEWSKI ANDREW F.PERRN THOMASJ.FLYNN TELEPHONE(612)835-3800 ApN M.MEYER JAMES P.QUINN CHRISTOPHER 0.JOHNSON TODD L FREEMAN FAX(612)896-3333 RENEE L JACKSON GERALD L SECK CHAISTOPHER K.LARUS JOHN B.LLNDOUIST MARCY R.FROST DAYLE NOLAN• JOHN A.COTTER' STEPAEN M.WAILER BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER TH-pHEN J.KAMINSKI NSKI THOMASIELT. A I.SC It PAIR B.PLUNKETT DANIEL T.KADLEC ALAN L KILDOW BHARNAA.WAHLGREN KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE NEWMAN KARIN M.NELSEN MICHAEL B.LEBARON JOHN F.KLOS GREGORY E.KORSTAD C.ERIK HAWES GARY A.VAN CLEVE• LYNNE MICHELLE MOORE DANIEL L BONLES C.BRENT ROBBINS TIMOTHY J.MCMANUS KRISTIN 8.NESTGARD' TIMOTHY J.KEANE JOUE S.FREDERICKSON ALAN M.ANDERSON DONNA L RCBACK OF COUNSEL. MICHAELW.SCHLEP JACK F.DALY RONN B.KREPS D.KENNETH LINDGREN TERRENCE E.BISHOP ALLAN E MLEJJGAN USA A GRAY NENDELL R ANDERSON GARY A.RENNEKE JOSEPH GITIS ' ALSO ADMITTED IN W I8CONSIN March 24, 1997 Members of the Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-2230 Re: Proposed Ordinance for Telecommunications Antennae and Towers Dear Planning Commission Members: This firm represents American Portable Telecom ("APT") in connection with its plans to develop sites to erect telecommunications antennae and towers in key locations throughout the Greater Twin Cities Metropolitan Region, some of which may be within the City of Eden Prairie (the "City"). We understand that the Planning Commission for the City is considering the above-referenced ordinance (the "Proposed Ordinance") at its planning commission meeting this evening. The purpose of this letter is to present APT's position with regard to the Proposed Ordinance. APT was one of the successful bidders for new license rights to construct a wireless communications franchise in the Twin Cities Region. APT must proceed immediately under its license to construct a seamless telecommunications network in the Twin Cities Region. It must install one hundred seventy (170)antennae to commence operations by the spring of 1997. In order to develop the communication network, APT needs to obtain tower sites for telecommunications antennae of up to one hundred sixty-five (165) feet in height. APT has been evaluating proposed sites to establish coverage in high demand locations, securing rights to the proposed sites from property owners, and is processing applications throughout the Twin Cities Region seeking authorization for needed tower and antenna locations. Therefore, on behalf of APT, we request that the City consider the comments listed below regarding the Proposed Ordinance. All capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined herein have the meanings attributed to them in the Proposed Ordinance. Lig LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY&LINDGREN,LTD. Members of the Planning Commission March 24, 1997 Page 2 1. SUBDIVISION 3 (Towers in Rural and Residential Zoning Districts). Subpart B. This provision establishes the requirements for placing a Commercial Wireless Telecommunications Tower i Rural and Residential zoning districts. Subpart (1) states that such towers are allowed in s "when compatible with the nature of the park." The standards to be applie ' this pr 'sion are vague. We request that this provision be clarified. In addition, we request that C es be added to the list of tower locations allowed in Rural and Residential districts. 2. SUBDIVISION 4 (Height). a. Subpart B. This provision states that the height of towers located in all districts shall not exceed one(1) foot for each four(4) feet the tower is setback from a Rural or Residential Zoning District, up to a maximum height of one hundred fifty(150) feet. We are opposed to this method of setback determination because it: (i)will interfere with the ability to site communications towers; (ii) creates an unwarranted setback of up to six hundred(600) feet; and (iii)will reduce the number of sites available in all districts. Therefore, we request that this provision be changed to require that towers be set back at least the height of the tower,plus ten(10) feet from any residential structure. b. Subpart C. This provision states that height of towers shall not exceed one(1) foot for each two (2) feet the tower is setback from the nearest lot line, up to a maximum height of one hundred fifty(150) feet. Once again, we are opposed to this method of measuring setback because it: (i)will interfere with the ability to site communications towers; (ii)creates an additional setback requirement of up to three hundred(300) feet in non- residential districts; (iii)will force towers to be placed in the middle of lots, preventing other uses thereof, and (iv)will reduce the number of sites available in all districts. Therefore, we request that this provision be changed to require that a tower be set back at least the height of the tower,plus ten(10) feet from any residential structure. In addition, since APT's system is designed to operate optimally at one hundred sixty-five(165) feet, we request that the maximum height of towers be increased to one hundred sixty-five(165) feet. 3. SUBDIVISION 5 (Setbacks and Locatio ). Subpart A. This provision requires towers to comply with the setback requirements of the underlying zoning district, except in industrial zoning districts where towers may encroach into the rear setback area in certain situations. We request that towers be allowed to encroach into the side setback in industrial districts, under similar circumstances. 4. SUBDIVISION 6 (Co-Location Requirements). a. Subpart A. This provision requires applicants to co-locate equipment upon an existing tower or building except in certain circumstances. We request that this provision be revised as follows: LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY&LINDGREN, LTD. Members of the Planning Commission March 24, 1997 Page 3 • A proposal for a new commercial wireless telecommunication service tower shall not be approved unless the City Manager or his designees it can be documented that the telecommunications equipment intended to be attached to the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower,public utility structure, or building within a one-half(1/2) mile (one-quarterly mile search radius for towers under 120 feet in height, one quarter mile for towers under 80 feet in height) of the proposed tower due to one or more of the following reasons: (a) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of an existing or approved tower, public utility structure, or building, as documented by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and if owned by applicant the existing or approved tower, public utility structure, or building, cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost. (b) The planned equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the tower, public utility structure, or building as documented at applicant's expense by a qualified radio frequency engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. (c) Existing or approved towers, public utility structures, or buildings within the search radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented at applicant's expense by a qualified andnsed pfefessienal-radio frequency engineer. (d) Other unforeseen reasons that make it infeasibleimpractical to locate the planned telecommunications equipment upon an existing or approved tower,public utility structure or building. (e) In spite of its reasonable efforts, within sixty(60) days. the applicant was unable to obtain approval to co-locate on an existing or approved tower,public utility structure or building. EXPLANATION. Our understanding of the various issues to be evaluated by engineers suggests there are essentially two components to the evaluation. First, there may be structural and design considerations of the physical equipment as erected. Secondly, questions may be raised relating to the performance of transmission and reception equipment used to provide wireless communication. `1 lP • LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. Members of the Planning Commission March 24, 1997 Page 4 It is reasonable to require that any construction be designed pursuant to plans and specifications of a "licensed professional" engineer to assure the structure is designed to withstand natural and artificial forces exerted upon it. This is an appropriate function of a professional engineer. However, with respect to personal communications system coverage/interference and capacity analyses for antenna location and height issues, requiring such analysis be prepared by a "licensed professional" engineer presents a problem. These are issues for qualified radio frequency engineers. Although there are a limited number of"licensed professional" engineers who are also competent in issues of radio frequency engineering, the fact of being licensed has no relation to competence in radio frequency engineering. To obtain the best analysis of the technical issues involved, the City would improve its position by obtaining analysis by a"competent radio frequency engineer"without regard to local licensing. With regard to the change in search radius to one-half(1/2) mile, certain limitations inherent to the current technology dictate that the area within which alternative locations are available is limited to a one-half(1/2) mile radius,therefore,we request that the search radius requirements be reduced to a maximum of one-half(1/2) mile. Any search area greater than this distance will only develop unusable information. b. Subpart B. This provision requires all commercial towers to be built to accommodate at least two (2) additional users if the height of the tower is greater than one hundred(100) feet, and at least one (1) additional user if the height is greater than sixty(60) feet. Since the current state of technology requires (i) antennas to be at least seventy(70) feet in height to function effectively; and (ii) a separation of approximately twenty (20) feet is required between antennas, we request that one hundred(100) feet be increased to one hundred twenty(120) feet and that sixty (60) feet be increased to ninety(90)feet. 5. SUBDIVISION 8 (Tower and Antenna Design Requirements). a. Subpart A. This provision establishes certain design requirements for towers. We request that the phrase "camouflaging architectural treatments"be replaced with the term"design." b. Subpart B. This provision requires towers to be of a monopole design "unless the City Manager or his designee determines that an alternative design would better blend into the surrounding environment." We request that the phrase "or that it better facilitates co- location"be added to the end of this provision. c. Subpart F. This provision limits the size of the face of an antenna in different circumstances. We see no reason for the City to so limit the antenna face size. Therefore, we request that this provision be removed. 6. SUBDIVISION 11 (Application). LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY&LINDGREN, LTD. Members of the Planning Commission March 24, 1997 Page 5 a. Subpart 3. This provision requires an application to construct a tower to include a listing of the locations of all existing towers within one mile of the proposed tower and the distances between such towers and the proposed tower. In light of the revisions request regarding Subdivision 6(A) above, we request that one mile be changed to one-half(1/2) mile. b. Subpart 5. Item (c) of this provision requires an application to include a certificate stating that the proposed equipment will not interfere with public safety equipment. We request that the term "licensed engineer" be replaced with the term "radio frequency engineer." (See discussion of Subdivision 6(A) above). In addition, APT must respectfully oppose its inclusion in the Proposed Ordinance. Use of a radio frequency is not a land use issue for local regulation. The Federal Communications Commission license issued to APT virtually assures non-interference. Moreover, Section 704(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "Act") (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(iv))provides that: No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction. and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC's] regulations concerning such emissions. (emphasis added) Therefore, we believe that this non-interference provision is unnecessary, and consequently we request that this provision be removed. Please make this letter part of the formal record of the City's deliberation on the Proposed Ordinance. If you have any q estions or concerns regarding any of these matters please call me at 896-3292. Sine 9, II / 1/ ti orstad for LA ' ,-HOFFMAN,DALY &LINDGREN,Ltd. cc: John Barstow Michelle Johnson 0286503.01 4 MAR.25.1997 - 5: 17PM"" US WEST w1MLLL55 Sir U PIO,s(d p,2iz Date Ms.Jean Johnson City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Ms, Johnson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the city's new proposed telecommunications ordinance. My comments pertain to Subdivision 4"Height'. In this section of the proposed ordinance, paragraph B states that height will be limited to"1 foot of tower height for each 4 four of set back from either rural or residential zoned properties." Our feeling is that this is highly restrictive and may bar entry to areas of Eden Prairie. This barrier will likely mean that portions of Eden Prairie may not have adequate coverage. In many codes throughout the metro area,this height/setback issue has been worded so towers must be setback 1.5 to 2 times the tower height from the closest residential structuce and not property line. This allows,through careful site selection,the deployment of PCS service to all in the community. Subdivision 4. "Height". Paragraph C maintains "that in all other zoning districts, height will be limited to 1'of tower height to every 2'of setback from property lines." 1 believe this to be an attempt to guide providers to zoning districts where a communication tower fits with the property use. Unfortunately this does not guide us to seek an Industrial zoned property over an office/retail zoned property as both will have the same restrictive height constraint. If It is the city of Eden Prairie's intention to keep sitting in industrial and business, i would like to recommend a normal building setback formula, This will encourage providers to locate in these areas and open a number of the smaller parcels in the industrial zones to be considered for antenna-siting. Additionally,If will help with your co-location requirements. EXAMPLE: If US West is allowed a 65'tall tower on a site based on the mandate of 1'of height for each 2'of setback and must allow for co-location of 1 additional user, it Is likely that no other providers will be able to use the tower because with the required 20'separation of antenna,it would place the 2nd user at 45'above grade. This will not work for PCS providers as the technology demands more height. Hence,you would end up with a second tower as opposed to a co-locate. The same Is true of a 100'tower with space for two additional users. It is likely that no one would be able to make the lower antenna locations work with their system. hence,the city will face the expanded need for more towers. I believe a way to head this off Is to allow normal building setbacks with allowed encroachment Into the rear yard setbacks in Industrial districts and allow the max height to remain at 150'.as opposed to linking height to setback from property lines. This will encourage realistic co-location from the industry and keep towers to a minimum in Eden Prairie, As written in your draft, i can see ail providers, of which there will be approximately 9, needing individual tower sites for each system because the height limitations make the co-location on shorter towers unfeasible from a technical standpoint. Please feel flee to call me at 612-I ivy (0663 any questions you have. Sincerely, ��2 e, Aden CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: prairie SECTION: Payment of Claims 4-01-97 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance Payment of Claims VI Checks 50706 thru 51145 Action/Direction: Approve payment of claims. COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY 26-MAR-1997 (10:07) • DIVISION TOTAL N/A $0.50 LEGISLATIVE $1,600.00 LEGAL COUNSEL $7,936.63 GENERAL SERVICES $25,745.10 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $6,873.06 DATA PROCESSING ' $388.96 CITY MANAGER $1,547.96 FINANCE $144.49 HUMAN RESOURCES $4,748.96 COMMUNITY SERVICE $622.56 ELECTIONS $948.00 ENGINEERING $4,393.67 INSPECTIONS $630.28 FACILITIES $13,659.78 ASSESSING $593.95 CIVIL DEFENSE $31.40 POLICE $25,578.26 FIRE $7,086.30 ANIMAL CONTROL $250.00 STREETS & TRAFFIC $8,326.54 PARK MAINTENANCE $8,622.20 STREET LIGHTING $47,356.74 FLEET SERVICES $31,862.61 ORGANIZED ATHLETICS $6,208.00 COMMUNITY DEV $430.59 COMMUNITY CENTER $18,219.26 YOUTH RECREATION $6,642.36 ADULT RECREATION $1,208.64 RECREATION ADMIN $86.94 ADAPTIVE REC $133.00 OAK POINT POOL $526.10 ARTS $1,609.45 PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ $129,634.31 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $68,956.84 CITY CENTER $36,263.19 SW METRO TRANSIT $18.59 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $5,704.48 PRAIRIE VILLAGE $39,068.91 PRAIRIEVIEW $54,760.97 PRESERVE $14,750.13 WATER DEPT $141,367.99 SEWER DEPT $248,327.67 STORM DRAINAGE $148.83 AGENCY FUNDS $9,284.61 $982,298.81* • mow COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAR-1997 (10:07) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 50706 $3,595.51 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 50709 $684.00 CROWNE PLAZA PARC FIFTY-FIVE H HOTEL - SWAGGERT IN SERVICE TRAINING 50710 $250.00 FOUNTAIN PLACE APARTMENTS DAMAGE DEPOSIT-HOPE PROGRAM HOPE LOAN PROGRAM 50711 $4,681.63 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY 02-2730 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50712 $1,009.38 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER METER REPAIR 50713 $507.49 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR WATER SOFTNER SENIOR CENTER 50714 $60.00 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES SAFETY,LOSS CONTROL WORKSHOPS IN SERVICE TRAINING 50715 $586.89 MCGLYNN BAKERIES 29319 MG FIRE 50716 $225.00 NATALIE SWAGGERT ADVANCE CONF EXPENSES IN SERVICE TRAINING 50717 $637.47 STREICHERS TRAINING SUPPLIES POLICE 50718 $80.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SEMINAR-TESCH,CRACAUER IN SERVICE TRAINING 50719 $1,068.72 BACHMANS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 50720 $2,349.04 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY MARCH DISABILITY INSURANCE FD 10 ORG 50721 $662.81 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PR 2/28 FD 10 ORG 50722 $200.00 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MPLS PR 2/28 FD 10 ORG 50723 $7,745.50 GREAT WEST LIFE AND ANNUITY PR 2/28 FD 10 ORG 50724 $578.72 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT AND PR 2/28 FD 10 ORG 50725 $5,296.46 I.C.M.A. RETIREMENT TRUCT-457 PR 2/28 FD 10 ORG 50726 $91.46 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES DIRECTORY CITY MANAGER 50727 $432.00 MINN STATE RETIREMENT SYS PR 2/28 FD 10 ORG 50728 $8,312.62 MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGEN APPLICATION DEPOSIT ESCROW 50729 $2,472.50 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE PR 2/28 FD 10 ORG 50730 $35.00 MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNI PR 2/28 FD 10 ORG 50731 $52.79 PETTY CASH POSTAGE GENERAL 50732 $3,329.94 PRUDENTIAL INS CO OF AMERICA-C MARCH LIFE INS FD 10 ORG 50733 $44,496.27 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PR 2/28 FD 10 ORG 50734 $273.00 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT MARCH LIFE INSURANCE FD 10 ORG 50735 $60.00 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS PR 2/28 FD 10 ORG 50736 $3,800.00 RIGHT WAY ROOFING PMT FOR REHAB WORK 1993 REHAB 54044 50737 $180.60 UNITED WAY PR 2/28 FD 10 ORG 50738 $95.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SNOW & ICE CONTROL VIDEO IN SERVICE TRAINING 50739 $130.00 APCO INTERNATIONAL DUES-THERKELSON, SCHEDIN POLICE 50740 $194.00 BELLBOY CORPORATION BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50741 $215.00 CARVER-SCOTT EDUCATIONAL COOPE TRAINING-BARLI POLICE 50742 $87.31 CONCEPT MICRO IMAGING MICROFILMING SERVICE ENGINEERING DEPT 50743 $6,985.35 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50744 $19,061.70 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50745 $105.45 GRIGGS COOPER & CO BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50746 $7,410.58 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON DESIGN & CONST RIVERVIEW RD 50747 $10.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEF ASS 1997 DUES FIRE 50748 $319.52 HOLIDAY INN - DULUTH RESERVATIONS FIRE 50749 $75.00 INSTITUTE OF INTERNAL AUDITORS MEMBERSHIP DUES FINANCE DEPT 50750 $119.75 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50751 $9,126.80 MARK VII BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50752 $500.00 METROPOLITAN STATE UNIVERSITY FIRE SCHOOL - 5 FF FIRE 50753 $771.30 MIDWEST COCA COLA BTLG CO MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50754 $17,193.00 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH MISCELLANEOUS WATER SYSTEM SAMPLE 50755 $430.00 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE EDUCATIONA TRG-CLARK, CONLEY POLICE 50756 $36.75 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRESERVE LIQUOR #2 50757 $46.82 PETTY CASH OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM 50758 $195.00 RICHARD ERICKSON BAND-1997 SAFETY CAMP SUMMER SAFETY CAMP 50759 $285.00 SMITH & WESSON ACADEMY TRAINING - MILLARD POLICE 50760 $19.00 THE WINE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 50761 $16,229.45 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50762 $3,038.24 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE SEWER LIFTSTATION 3 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAR-1997 (10:07) CHECK NO, CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 50763 $91.00 ALAN BARNESON 1ST AID REFUND POOL LESSONS 50764 $3.50 ANGIE KNISS REFUND-SWIMMING POOL LESSONS 50765 $3.00 ANN WALKER REFUND SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 50766 $35.00 BARBARA LUSKIN ADAPTIVE TEEN PROGRAM ADAPTIVE RECREATION 50767 $5.14 BARBARA SCHREIER DIVING-MALLORY POOL LESSONS 50768 $5.14 BECKY SMITH , DIVING-ANISA POOL LESSONS 50769 $2.00 BETTY KINNE HOUSE CLASS SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 50770 $100.00 BLAKE EDMONDSON CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50771 $100.00 BRAD ANDERSON CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50772 $80.00 BRIAN PROPSON CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50773 $35.00 CAROL MILLER ADAPTIVE TEEN PROGRAM ADAPTIVE RECREATION 50774 $25.00 CHERYL GREEN ADAPTIVE TEEN ADAPTIVE RECREATION 50775 $80.00 CHRIS TERRES CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50776 $8.00 CINDY BLOMGREN KIDS KORNER FALL SKILL DEVELOP 50777 $20.83 CRYSTAL KELLEY SKATING-AMBER ICE ARENA 50778 $28.00 DAN AAS DANCELINE-JULIA WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 50779 $80.00 DAVE LYONS CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50780 $100.00 DAVID GULLICKSON CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50781 $20.75 DAVID HOWELL SWIMMING-JOSH OAK POINT LESSONS 50782 $51.00 DEBBIE EWING SWIMMING-MICHELLE POOL LESSONS 50783 $5.00 DEBRA LIND WARM FEET OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 50784 $40.00 DEBRA TESKE PAINT THE DAY AWAY SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 50785 $52.00 DENISE MURPHY GYMNASTICS FALL SKILL DEVELOP 50786 $210.00 DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES HUNTER EDUCATION OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 50787 $160.82 DONALD OVERBEY FAMILY RESIDENT MEMBER COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN 50788 $100.00 ERIC SCHULTZ CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50789 $529.20 ERIC SIT TAE KWON DO WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 50790 $100.00 ERIC ZILLMER CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50791 $31.00 ETHEL HOFFHINES GATHERING OF EAGLES ADULT PROGRAM 50792 $70.00 GORDON BENTLEY INSTRUCTION OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 50793 $100.00 GREG OSMOUSON CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50794 $29.00 GUNN HATLEHOL SWIMMING-THOMAS POOL LESSONS 50795 $100.00 GUY TREANOR CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50796 $25.50 JANE NEMECEK SWIMMING-GREGORY OAK POINT LESSONS 50797 $7.50 JEANETTE GUNDERSON SWIMMING-SAM POOL LESSONS 50798 $60.00 JEFF MOLENAAR CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50799 $100.00 JIM KASTANEK CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50800 $26.00 JOHANNA MUENCH GYMNASTICS WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 50801 $100.00 JOHN KOMULA CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50802 $6.00 JULIE THOMSEN DIVING-ANDY POOL LESSONS 50803 $5.00 KATHLEEN MCCAHEY WARM FEET OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 50804 $29.00 LAURIE JONAS SWIMMING-MAGGIE OAK POINT LESSONS 50805 $18.75 LEDRISH KUDISHEVICH SWIMMING-SARAH OAK POINT LESSONS 50806 $40.00 LINDA HAYEN PAINT THE DAY AWAY SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 50807 $29.00 LISA BERGLY SWIMMING-ELLEN POOL LESSONS 50808 $6.00 LONNIE BREWER DIVINGC-CHRISTINA POOL LESSONS 50809 $18.67 LYNN BJORKMAN GYMNASTICS-JENNA WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 50810 $2.00 MARIAN GROVES BYERLYS VAN TRIPR SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 50811 $80.00 MARK DYSTHE CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50812 $6.00 MARTI MORFITT DIVING-MICHAEL POOL LESSONS 50813 $80.00 MATT HOTCHKISS CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50814 $100.00 MIKE PARSINEN CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50815 $80.00 MIKE RANDS CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50816 $25.50 NANNETTE MYERS SWIMMING-LUKE POOL LESSONS 50817 $23.00 NORMA LEONARD GYMNASTICS WINTER SKILL DEVELOP y COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAR-1997 (10:07) CHECK NO' CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 50818 $31.00 OCTAVIA BENNETT GATHERING OF EAGLES ADULT PROGRAM 50819 $49.00 PATTY SWEDBERG GYMNASTICS WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 50820 $80.00 PAUL HOFFER CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50821 $100.00 PAULA DONNA ICE SHOW ICE SHOW 50822 $100.00 PHIL CASEY CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50823 $80.00 PHIL LAMERS CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50824 $28.00 PHIL OLSON DANCELINE-KRISTIN WINTER SKILL DEVELOP 50825 $80.00 RANDY LARSON CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50826 $100.00 RICH BIRHANZEL CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50827 $80.00 RICH POLSON CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50828 $74.00 ROBERT HANSON-EMERSON PAINT THE DAY AWAY SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 50829 $6.00 ROBERT LUNDBERG DIVING-ERIN POOL LESSONS 50830 $100.00 ROGER PETERSON CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50831 $80.00 SCOTT AEILTS CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50832 $80.00 SCOTT BENDER CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50833 $80.00 SHAWN OKEEFE CONDUCT DEPOSIT BASKETBALL 50834 $25.50 SOM DUONG SWIMMING-NAM POOL LESSONS 50835 $35.00 STEVE ANDERSON ADAPTIVE TEEN ADAPTIVE RECREATION 50836 $50.00 SUSAN KOCHER INSTRUCTION OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM 50837 $6.00 TERESA MURPHY DIVING-TONY POOL LESSONS 50838 $16.00 VANCE & JOYCE CROSBY DEFENSIVE DRIVING SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 50639 $9,652.17 AMERICAN PAGING OF MN COMMUNICATIONS CITY MANAGER 50841 $1,020.14 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET POLICE EQUIPMENT POLICE 50842 $3,471.01 LANO EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 50843 $210.00 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC ELGIN SWEEPER CLINIC IN SERVICE TRAINING 50844 $1,149.02 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIBUTING MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS 50845 $751.19 OLYMPIC HILLS GOLF CLUB XMAS PARTY HUMAN RESOURCES 50846 $642.50 USSSA UMPIRE SHIRTS SOFTBALL 50847 $60.00 WARNING LIGHTS OF MINNESOTA WORK ZONE,TRAFFIC CONTROL SEM IN SERVICE TRAINING 50848 $1,024.11 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 50849 $65.00 APCO INTERNATIONAL MEMBERSHIP - JOHN CONLEY POLICE 50850 $13.90 AT&T TELEPHONE GENERAL 50851 $1,216.50 CONCEPT MICRO IMAGING MICROFILMING SERVICE CITY MANAGER 50852 $35.00 IAPE MEMBERSHIP-T SAUGESTAD POLICE 50853 $64.00 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH CERTIF-ALLMANN,GRINDELAND WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 50854 $325.04 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50855 $188.40 PATRICIA A JOHNSON DENTAL REIMBURSEMENT BENEFITS 50856 $153.44 PETTY CASH MILEAGE AND PARKING HUMAN RESOURCES 50858 $5.42 PRESERVE REXALL DRUG OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PRESERVE LIQUOR #2 50859 $145.09 RITZ CAMERA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TREE DISEASE 50860 $112.14 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SOCIAL 50861 $79.34 STEVE HANLON BOOKS FOR APPARATUS OPERATION FIRE 50862 $493.04 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 50863 $328.08 WM MUELLER AND SONS INC GRAVEL WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 50864 $493.00 WORKING FIRE VIDEO TRAINING TRAINING SUPPLIES FIRE 50865 $337.90 REBS MARKETING UTILITY BILLS-2/20/97 WATER ACCOUNTING 50866 $992.24 US POSTMASTER MAILING DISTRICT 2 WATER ACCOUNTING 50867 $232.00 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING AARP 55 ALIVE DRIVING CLASS SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 50868 $210.00 CHRIS ENGER PER DIEM-ENGER IN SERVICE TRAINING 50869 $98.40 CO 2 SERVICES CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE 50870 $912.95 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 50871 $2,840.65 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SER TIRES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50872 $1,041.88 MARRIOTT HOTEL & MARINA HOTEL ACCOMMODATIONS-ENGER IN SERVICE TRAINING 50873 $25.00 MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNI DUES 9/95 FD 10 ORG 50874 $90,999.32 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC STORMWATER LIFTSTATION 5 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAR-1997 (10:07) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 50877 $10.00 NORTHWESTERN COLLEGE JOB FAIR DAY PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 50878 $40.90 PAPER WAREHOUSE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 50879 $2,849.25 PINK BUSINESS INTERIORS OTHER EQUIPMENT CC CAPITAL OUTLAY 50880 $795.30 SISINNI FOOD SERVICE MISCELLANEOUS IN SERVICE TRAINING 50882 $1,196.47 W W GRAINGER INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 50883 $800.00 WEST SUBURBAN COLUMBUS CREDIT CREDIT UNION FD 10 ORG 50884 $198.00 BRENDA JERDE OFFICIATING VOLLEYBALL 50885 $40.00 BRIAN BAKER OFFICIATING ADULT OPEN GYM 50886 $385.00 BRUNSWICK BOWLING LANES SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 50887 $93.00 BUTCH SUMPTER GATHERING OF EAGLES ADULT PROGRAM 50888 $626.15 CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 50889 $22.00 DAVID JOHNSTON COLORED DRAWING SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM 50890 $149.82 FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE FIRE 50891 $321.61 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES FITNESS CENTER 50892 $268.65 GREEN MILL-PLYMOUTH LUNCH-WERTZ ADULT PROGRAM 50893 $89.97 JAMES C SCHEDIN UNIFORM PANTS POLICE 50894 $89.97 JENNIFER BAHR CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE 50895 $124.45 JIM LINAK OVERBILLED WATER/SEWER WATER DEPT 50896 $60.00 JOHN BENIK MEALS-MANKATO FIRE SCHOOL FIRE 50897 $142.50 JOSH HENDERSON OFFICIATING BASKETBALL 50898 $68.00 JOSH LANNON OFFICIATING BASKETBALL 50899 $42.34 JOYCE CONLEY SUPPLIES-PD POLICE 50900 $108.00 JULIEANN SCHAUER PANTS POLICE 50901 $87.66 KATHLEEN 0 CONNER FIRE SCHOOLS FIRE 50902 $26.00 KATHRYN WALTER UNLIMITED THURSDAY SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 50903 $90.00 LISA MASCAREMAS OFFICIATING VOLLEYBALL 50904 $216.00 MARY FREY OFFICIATING-FREY VOLLEYBALL 50905 $16,929.00 METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL WASTEWAT JANUARY SAC CHARGES SEWER DEPT 50906 $100.00 MICHAEL FULLER SPRING BREAK SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 50907 $599.00 PATRICIA BESSER OFFICIATING VOLLEYBALL 50908 $245.06 PLYMOUTH PLAYHOUSE TICKETS-3/25/97 ADULT PROGRAM 50909 $73.00 SCOTT IMHOFF INLINE SKATING SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 50910 $21.94 STEVE HANLON OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 50911 $880.00 TARGET CENTER FIELD TRIP SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 50912 $360.00 TESSMAN SEED CO LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL RILEY LAKE 50913 $400.00 THE U S CONFERENCE OF MAYORS MAYORS' CONFERENCE-SAN FRAN IN SERVICE TRAINING 50914 $8,000.00 US POSTMASTER FILL POSTAGE METER GENERAL 50915 $380.00 TARGET CENTER DISNEY ON ICE SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 50916 $500.00 TARGET CENTER FIELD TRIP SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 50917 $757.63 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 50918 $22.00 BELLBOY CORPORATION BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50919 $6,802.06 DAY DISTRIBUTING EPL1 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50920 $42.50 DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVICES PLATES-UNMARKED/UNDERCOVER EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50921 $17,909.22 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRESERVE LIQUOR #2 50922 $174.59 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL CANINE SUPPLIES POLICE 50923 $395.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER POOL LICENSE POOL OPERATIONS 50924 $9,441.48 MARK VII 618378,619080,620633,621434 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 50925 $569.97 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50926 $179.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 50927 $171.75 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50928 $212.00 THE WINE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50929 $14,672.00 THORPE DISTRIBUTING 102227,102065,101711 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 50930 $40.00 TWIN CITIES FREE-NET FREE NET SUBSCRIPTION IN SERVICE TRAINING 50931 $114.89 US FILTER/WATERPRO EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 50932 $314.95 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE GENERAL 4 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAR-1997 (10:07) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 50933 $184.74 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE FIRE 50934 $45.00 SOUTHWEST METRO 40 YOUTHS, 5 ADULTS SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 50935 $145.96 SUBWAY SPECIAL EVENT-WEDNESDAY SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 50936 $159.20 SUBWAY SPECIAL EVENT-FRIDAY SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS 50937 $4,193.08 US FILTER/WATERPRO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE WATER METER READING 50938 $402.57 WATER SPECIALITY OF MN INC ' CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE 50939 $2,475.50 AEC ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HIDDEN PONDS TOWER 50940 $146.46 ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURNITURE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ENGINEERING DEPT 50941 $202.25 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI TRAINING SUPPLIES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 50942 $317.85 ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY PRINTING OAK POINT LESSONS 50943 $732.73 APPLIANCE OUTLET CENTER OTHER EQUIPMENT WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 50944 $165.18 ARMOR SECURITY INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE 50945 $429.33 ASPEN REACH EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50946 $95.59 ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT COMPANY IN EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50947 $8,245.43 B & F DISTRIBUTING P.O.* 12611 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50948 $81.48 B & S TOOLS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 50949 $94.31 B&S INDUSTRIES INC POLICE EQUIPMENT POLICE 50950 $1,110.60 BACONS ELECTRIC COMPANY CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER WELL #12 50951 $544.48 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50952 $220.35 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 50953 $2,766.24 BELLBOY CORPORATION TOBACCO PRODUCTS PRESERVE LIQUOR #2 50957 $6,308.06 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC REFERFILE: 95-32 E.P. TRANSPORTATION PLAN 50958 $220.00 BETH AND MORLEY BURNETT REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 50959 $34.00 BETH BEUTELL ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPRING SKILL DEVELOP 50960 $30.00 BFI TIRE RECYCLERS OF MN INC WASTE DISPOSAL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50961 $651.04 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE 50962 $40.00 BILL DROEGER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 50963 $59,826.00 BLACK & VEATCH DESIGN & CONST 10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION 50964 $175.00 BRIAN WIPPERMAN MEMORIAL GUN R RENTALS POLICE 50965 $584.73 BRW INC DESIGN & CONST DELL ROAD 50966 $671.60 BSN SPORTS REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES DAY CAMP 50967 $68.10 BTO DEVELOPMENT CORP DEPOSITS ESCROW 50968 $2,764.02 CARGILL SALT SALT SNOW & ICE CONTROL 50969 $700.00 CARLSON COUNSELING AND CONSULT FEBRUARY BILLING BENEFITS 50970 $49.70 CARLSON TRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50971 $55.51 CASEY HOOKE CLOTHING & UNIFORMS ICE SHOW 50972 $617.94 CENTRAIRE INC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS SENIOR CENTER 50973 $338.47 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50974 $5.15 CHANHASSEN LAWN AND SPORTS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINTENANCE 50975 $1,121.40 CHAPIN CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN I LEGAL NOTICES PUBLISHING STORM DRAINAGE 50976 $37.28 CHUCK'S FLORAL & GIFTS PLACELILY TO MCCARTY SERVICE HUMAN RESOURCES 50977 $64.00 CITY BUSINESS CITY BUSINESS IN SERVICE TRAINING 50978 $250.00 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON KENNEL SERVICE ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT 50979 $280.00 CITY OF EDINA LAB MONTH OF FRBRUARY WATER SYSTEM SAMPLE 50980 $589.30 CLUTS 0 BRIEN STROTHER ARCHITE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES 50981 $398.10 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 50982 $363.49 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL INSPECTION-ADMIN 50983 $778.26 COPY EQUIPMENT INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ENGINEERING DEPT 50984 $36.00 COREY JENSEN COREY JENSEN B/B BASKETBALL 50985 $29.00 CORPORATE REPORT OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL IN SERVICE TRAINING 50986 $46.09 CREATIVE CRAFTS INTERNATIONAL OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM 50987 $11,522.49 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 50988 $128.41 D C HEY COMPANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL INSPECTION-ADMIN 50989 $6.00 DEBRA BRYAN DIVING-DEBRA POOL LESSONS 50990 $768.28 DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC RENTALS EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAR-1997 (10:07) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 50991 $755.39 DELEGARD TOOL CO NEW CAR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50992 $20.00 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY, CAIS TRAINING SUPPLIES SAFETY 50993 $85.73 DEXIS CORPORATION COMPUTERS FIRE 50994 $58.00 DIXIE QUINN SWIMMING-COLIN, SEAN OAK POINT LESSONS 50995 $17.04 DYNA SYSTEMS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 50996 $302.25 EARL F ANDERSON SIGNS TRAFFIC SIGNALING 50997 $113.85 EDEN PRAIRIE FLORIST OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 50998 $1,682.51 EDEN PRAIRIE FORD CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 50999 $1,776.00 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT N GYM RENTAL BASKETBALL 51000 $1,320.00 EKLUNDS TREE AND BRUSH DISPOSA WASTE DISPOSAL TREE REMOVAL 51001 $163.10 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 51002 $33.92 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE GENERAL 51003 $707.59' FAUVER EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51004 $82.50 FEDEX POSTAGE GENERAL 51005 $398.99 FIBRCOM COMMUNICATIONS POLICE 51006 $1,469.10 FISCHER AGGREGATES INC SAND SNOW & ICE CONTROL 51007 $359.97 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 51008 $1,040.00 FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE & RESCUE FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES FIRE 51009 $2,261.88 G & K SERVICES DIRECT PURCHASE CLOTHING & UNIFORMS EPCC MAINTENANCE 51011 $45.00 GALAXY COMPUTER SERVICES CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT INFORMATION SYSTEM 51012 $200.00 GARY DIETHELM OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES CEMETERY OPERATION 51013 $20.50 GAVIC & SONS PLBG PRMT REFUND FD 10 ORG 51014 $627.06 GE CAPITAL CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT GENERAL 51015 $428.83 GENERAL MACHINING INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51016 $585.56 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPAN OFFICE SUPPLIES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 51017 $365.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPA CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE 51018 $50.68 GINA MARIAS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 51019 $2,524.36 GLASS SERVICE COMPANY INC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS FIRE STATION #3 51020 $85.86 GLENROSE FLORAL AND GIFT SHOPS EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES 51021 $98.55 GREENTREE GRAPHIC PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 51022 $1,446.00 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC REHAB WORK-6670 BARBERRY LANE 1993 REHAB 54044 51023 $50.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVT CTR-GEN A OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ASSESSING-ADMIN 51024 $694.77 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF DECEMBER 1996 BOOKING POLICE 51025 $2,365.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC POLICE 51026 $1,186.75 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 3 500 FT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 51027 $138.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER LICENSES & TAXES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51028 $16.97 HENNEPIN COUNTY MONTH OF MARCH PARK MAINTENANCE 51029 $137.07 HENNEPIN COUNTY STATEMENT ACC'T #92 PARK MAINTENANCE 51030 $255.60 HOIGAARD'S CLOTHING & UNIFORMS WATER METER REPAIR 51031 $14.00 ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERI OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ICE ARENA 51032 $135.58 INLAND TRUCK PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51033 $33,634.02 J H LARSON ELECTRICAT. COMPANY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS RETROFIT 51034 $334.84 J J KELLER & ASSOCIATES INC TRAINING SUPPLIES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 51035 $55.01 J W PEPPER OF MINNEAPOLIS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ART & MUSIC 51036 $1,688.63 JANEX INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 51037 $36.72 JIM TORNUE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SUMMER SKILL DEVELOP 51038 $120.40 JOY JORGENSON 14 HAREM TOPS ICE SHOW 51039 $21.46 KINKOS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 51040 $39,967.34 KODET ARCHITECTURAL GRP LTD DESIGN & CONST PW STORAGE FACILITY 51041 $616.76 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 51042 $134.60 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS FIRE STATION #3 51043 $2,000.60 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS PRESERVE LIQUOR #2 51044 $487.99 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51045 $41.75 LAND'S END CORPORATE SALES CLOTHING & UNIFORMS OAK POINT LESSONS 51046 $20,533.97 LANG PAULY GREGERSON AND ROSOW LEGAL SERVICE LEGAL COUSEL COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAR-1997 (10:07) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 51047 $5,508.00 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS INSURANCE GENERAL 51048 $261.46 LESCO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS SEWER LIFTSTATION 51049 $115.06 LOCATOR & MONITOR SALES CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 51050 $194.36 LOFTNESS EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51051 $238.40 LUNSKI CONSTRUCTION SALES OUTSIDE WATER WATER DEPT 51052 $187.24 M A ASSOCIATES INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51053 $466.59 M R SIGN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TRAFFIC SIGNALING 51054 $1,807.61 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51055 $175.95 MARSHALL & SWIFT PRIORITY CODE BO1E7 ASSESSING-ADMIN 51056 $612.00 MARTIN-MCALLISTER PHYSICAL & PSYCO EXAM HUMAN RESOURCES 51057 $150.00 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51058 $51.55 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTING POLICE 51059 $138.00 MEDTOX PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BENEFITS 51060 $1,000.00 METRO IMPROVEMENTS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PW STORAGE FACILITY 51061 $4,206.61 METRO SALES INCORPORATED OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL 51062 $227,393.00 METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL WASTEWAT WASTE DISPOSAL SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL 51063 $20.16 MICHAEL W JACQUES MILEAGE AND PARKING PRESERVE LIQUOR #2 51064 $432.77 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION PATCHING ASPHALT STREET MAINTENANCE 51065 $190.25 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE CONCESSIONS 51066 $117.86 MINNCOMM PAGING COMMUNICATIONS INSPECTION-ADMIN 51067 $1,075.96 MINNESOTA BLUEPRINT OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ENGINEERING DEPT 51068 $48.79 MINNESOTA CONWAY CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE 51069 $847.63 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING INSPECTION-ADMIN 51070 $1,463.87 MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL SOFTWARE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51071 $32.00 MN CHAPTER TEI OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ASSESSING-ADMIN 51072 $69.00 MN REAL ESTATE JOURNAL DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING 51073 $312.36 MN TROPHIES & GIFTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 51074 $447.30 MN VALLEY LANDSCAPE INC LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL GOLDEN RIDGE DRIVE 51075 $400.00 MN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE 51076 $2,549.54 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES 51077 $470.80 NERCO EVANS DISTRIBUTING STATEMENT ACC'T # 14151 999 CONCESSIONS 51078 $74.53 NORTHERN EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51079 $260.27 OHLIN SALES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 51080 $297.42 OLSON CHAIN & CABLE CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 51081 $192.66 PAPER DIRECT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE 51082 $35.63 PARAGON CABLE CABLE TV GENERAL 51083 $430.89 PARAGON CABLE CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 51084 $1,963.49 PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HEALTHSYS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BENEFITS 51085 $130.44 PAULA DONNA OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ICE SHOW 51086 $1,245.05 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 51087 $659.93 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 51088 $265.00 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC OFFICE EQUIP MAINT WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 51089 $108.50 PRINTERS SERVICE INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA 51090 $30.98 PRO SOURCE FITNESS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES FITNESS CENTER 51091 $1,663.23 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC WASTE DISPOSAL FIRE STATION #1 51092 $919.46 RDO EQUIPMENT CO CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51093 $306.49 RECOVERY ROOM UPHOLSTERY P.O. # 12630 POLICE 51094 $206.55 RED WING SHOE STORE CLOTHING & UNIFORMS WATER UTILITY-GENERAL 51095 $100.00 RESERVE OFFICER TRAINING ASSOC RESERVE EQUIPMENT POLICE 51096 $247.93 RESPOND SYSTEMS SAFETY SUPPLIES GENERAL 51097 $8.50 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OAK POINT OPERATIONS 51098 $3,442.74 RIEKE CARROLL MULLER ASSOCIATE DESIGN & CONST FLYING CLOUD SANITARY SEWER 51099 $260.93 ROAD RESCUE INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51100 $130.90 ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51101 $28.70 SANDY WERTS MILEAGE AND PARKING REC SUPERVISOR 9 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 26-MAR-1997 (10:07) CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM 51102 $264.39 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE 51103 $375.00 SCHMITTY & SONS SCHOOL BUSES I TRANSPORTATION SKI TRIPS/WINTER CAMP 51104 $3,749.60 SERCO LABORATIES CONST TESTING-SOIL BORING WATER TREATMENT PLANT 51105 $310.52 SNAP-ON TOOLS SMALL TOOLS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51106 $284.09 SNELL MECHANICAL INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE 51107 $2,391.22 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING ADVERTISING ARTS 51108 $342.90 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING SEASONAL MAINTENANCE HUMAN RESOURCES 51109 $585.13 SPS COMPANIES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER METER REPAIR 51110 $6,232.59 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC DESIGN & CONST DELL ROAD 51111 $1,135.07 STANDARD TRUCK & AUTO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51112 $2.92 STAR TRIBUNE ACCOUNT # AF52001 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 51113 $96.20 STAR TRIBUNE TRAINING SUPPLIES POLICE 51114 $10.00 STATE OF MN - DEPT OF LABOR & LICENSES & TAXES FIRE STATION #2 51115 $27.00 STEVE JOHNSON LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA 51116 $872.56 STREICHERS NEW CAR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51117 $163.09 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT GENERAL 51118 $42.00 STS CONSULTANTS LTD DESIGN & CONST SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD 51119 $77.29 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51120 $1,600.00 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 1/2YEAR MEMBERSHIP ASSESSMENT COUNCIL 51121 $542.83 SUBURBAN TIRE & AUTO SERVICE I TIRES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51122 $125.00 SWEDLUNDS PUMPED HOLDING TANK 2/26/97 OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE 51123 $63.73 THE PROMOTION GROUP TRAINING SUPPLIES HUMAN RESOURCES 51124 $89.00 THE SPECTACLE SHOPPE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE 51125 $386.81 THE STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 51126 $60.00 THERESA SPANDE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE 51127 $547.00 TIE COMMUNICATIONS INC TELEPHONE GENERAL 51128 $50.86 TOWN AND COUNTRY DODGE EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51129 $56,420.12 TRAUT WELLS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WELL #3 51130 $34.95 TWIN CITY TIRE CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51131 $23.43 TWIN CITY VACUUM CLEANING SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS 51132 $817.24 UNIFORMS UNILIMITED CLOTHING & UNIFORMS INSPECTION-ADMIN 51133 $177.26 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 51134 $3,627.39 US FILTER/WATERPRO EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 51135 $343.96 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT INFORMATION SYSTEM 51136 $1,080.64 VALLEY RICH CO INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 51137 $5,386.24 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 51138 $546.46 VESSCO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER TREATMENT PLANT 51139 $119.96 VOSS LIGHTING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE 51140 $211.00 VWR SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 51141 $150.00 WEATHER WATCH INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SNOW & ICE CONTROL 51142 $690.10 WITCHER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PERMIT # 96-30 & 96-26 ESCROW 51143 $430.99 X-ERGON REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 51144 $1,741.91 YALE INCORPORATED OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER TREATMENT PLANT 51145 $345.63 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SAFETY SUPPLIES POOL OPERATIONS $982,298.81* !0 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 3/18/97 SECTION: Director of Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources ITEM NO. L DEPARTMENT: PRNR ITEM DESCRIPTION: Miller Spring Improvements Bob Lambert, Director REQUEST: City staff request authorization for the City to propose a joint project with the Riley/Purgatory/Bluff Watershed District to improve the Miller Spring site on Spring Road. Staff would recommend raising the parking lot level approximately three feet, installing a retaining wall on the eastern side of the parking lot to minimize any impact on the creek floodplain,move the spring outlet from the west side of the parking lot to the east side of the parking lot and provide several small amenities, including benches, picnic table, and a kiosk. The kiosk would provide information on the testing procedures for water quality, a statement about water that the Health Department would like the City to post, as well as the history of Miller Spring and trail head information when the City develops trails leading from Miller Spring to the Prairie Bluff Conservation Area. BACKGROUND: Due to the proximity of the Miller Spring outlet to Spring Road, the Health Department has expressed concern about possible contamination of the water from roadside spray as people are collecting water at the spring. Moving the outlet of the spring to the east side of the parking lot would allow the City to design the outlet to make it easier for people to get water and incorporate a water feature with water tumbling over rocks into the creek. Literally thousands of people use Miller Spring each month. This area becomes an eyesore every year due to the high ground water table that continually heaves the wood structure surrounding the spring, and causes erosion and drainage problems through the parking lot. These drainage problems could be corrected by installing a series of tile through the parking lot and through a retaining wall, and raising the parking lot several feet to eliminate the erosion problem. Miller Spring could be a very attractive amenity,rather than the eyesore it has become. City staff would propose that the Watershed District work with the City staff in developing concept plans for the improvements, obtain the necessary approvals and complete the plans and specifications for the project. The City would then evaluate what portions of the project could be done with City crews and what portions would have to be bid, and would request the Watershed District to determine what portions of the project the Watershed District could fund. Once that information is available and a cost estimate is completed,both the City Council and the Watershed District Board would make a final decision to proceed with the project. 1 Staff would recommend that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, Environmental and Waste Management Commission and the Heritage Preservation Commission review this proposal and provide comments and recommendations to the City Council prior to forwarding the request to the Watershed District Board. BL:mdd Spring.memBob97 2 Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Monday, March 17, 1997 mean recommending all competitive swim practices to Oak Point pool and the Community Center could still hold competitive swim meets, diving practices, and synchronized swimming, and move the Foxjets to Oak Point pool also. Motion carried 6-0. C. Staring Lake Playground RenQvation Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated March 11, 1997, from Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. Lambert explained they have received three bids for the Staring Lake Playground Renovation. Staff recommended accepting Sunram Construction, Inc. to do the job. Staff also recommended to use a vinyl covered chain link fence instead of the aluminum decorative fence, and to furnish and install the east connection between the playground and the amphitheatre. All of the other fences are vinyl covered chain link and this is the most the City can afford to spend on it. The cost for the path is a good price and would be similar to the cost for the City to do it themselves. MOTION: Wilson moved, seconded by Jacobson, to accept Sunram's bid for the Staring Lake Playground renovation. Motion carried 6-0. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Miller Spring Improvements Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated March 4, 1997 from Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. Lambert commented he sent a letter to the Heritage Preservation Commission and the Environmental Waste Management Commission asking for input from all three Commissions before going to the City Council and eventually to the Watershed District to actually see if they would go in on a joint project with the City. Staff has met with the engineer for the Watershed District and a board member on the site and showed them the condition of the spring. Hilgeman asked if there would be any effect on the spring by moving it to the east side. Lambert said no. Hilgeman commented the Historical Society should know about this out of respect for the fact they worked so hard 5 3 Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Monday,March 17, 1997 preserving this for the people of Eden Prairie. Lambert explained that part of the review process is not through the Historical Society. It's through the Commissions to the City Council. The Heritage Preservation Commission certainly is the group that has the connection with the Historical Society and he would expect their staff liason to discuss it with the Historical Society. MOTION: Koenig moved, seconded by Brown, to approve the March 4, 1997 memorandum regarding Miller Spring improvements. Motion carried 6-0. VIII. REPORTS OF COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF A. Reports of Manager of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources 1. Policy on Public Use of City Facilities Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated March 4, 1997, from Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. Lambert said this is the final draft of what will go to the City Council and thought the Commission would like to see it. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Wilson moved, seconded by Brown, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m. 6 4 MEMO To: Parks&Recreation Department From: Leslie Stovring Subject: Miller Spring Date: March 25, 1997 The proposed Miller Spring Improvement Project was discussed at the March 13, 1997 Environmental &Waste Management Commission meeting. The Commission expressed that they would approve of the project as long as the information kiosk is constructed on site to allow posting of messages and information regarding the spring. The Commission feels that the public needs to know more about the water quality testing that is currently being done by the City and what this means to the people who are using the spring for drinking water on a regular basis. Also, as this is such a heavily visited site, the parking and building improvements should add a more aesthetic component to the spring. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development FROM: John Gertz,Historic Preservation Specialist DATE: March 25, 1997 SUBJECT: Heritage Preservation Commission Review and Recommendation of Miller Spring Improvement Concept Plan RECOMMENDATION The Heritage Preservation Commission reviewed the Miller Spring Improvement Concept Plan at its March 17 meeting. Improvements proposed in the plan were reviewed by the HPC within the spring's historical context. Based on the concept plan provided,the HPC made a motion to approve and support the plans and recommendations for the Miller Spring improvements. COMMENTS The HPC's concern with improvements of Miller Spring is threefold. First, that the spring's spatial relationships be maintained. The spring's setting is its most significant characteristic and contributes to its historical importance. The site plan and elevation reviewed by the HPC appears to maintain original spatial relationships. Second,the rural character of the spring and contiguous vicinity should be preserved. The HPC recommends that new amenities such as signs,benches,tables, and kiosk be unobtrusive or limited in number. Third, the HPC recommends that landscaping be minimal and limited to local or indigenous wild flowers and grasses. nznyoho\memos\milIenpcc , / I\1. ..- .. .. , . ..,.. - . . . , . . ... - ,...- / 0 m. iltr, SprLYIS ,,....: ., _ . (concept plan) ,..,;,,,,„tc„...„„i: , - -• ... . : , / ' ' '"' • , ,, , 0...,,,,i-„, . '-'•,7, .4Y.' .e • . -1•,....•••;,-;•'..';';•..-ff!'.;•.: 1 ," ,. . , 'S.4:11-:-J,•.'.-e'ic'if1.41•71'-• •;'.1,k . ,, 4 --, :r.,..1'.:::;:•?1:71e-C.Nori'''ti-,-, ,,74;:-'242:;i‘' — i k k ,Pri N *,..t'''' 44'''''4.- ', •.1 .r.(01 :•-2,•••:',:il'..••• voh! ' • ' ' ' •• , . •P' ' 10`-' -1,4, - ';:r4A4f ' ' ,/ 1 • ''''''''' -" • . • ;.....', 4" ' ,,, ,,4•`••_",k •...s-,7•.$7- -•-• • ) , ,-.,0. 114r,it i4,'.;:, --• .4 -' I-,- . ..,e4fL.a .\T:1-).`t.7.7.A f-''--.: lot@ii` .: i .- .-",' ...,.. ....., i' ''1-' V-.,'',';'40// `..'.,:„:.%•t•-)tit: -,',- ( • , --" '.i,,N), ;,.;•.T,' . . ','•.:..; .r.g=. ...,,, ,,„: i % i, .,. ... .„ • .,/...,,.. ,,...:II .i.:, •• .. s-'2,•)r . -04-- ' , ' '44 ,.. • , ..,-, , - ,,,,;, -•,,,,,,;.-•-:, , ,' stowi - - .-„, ., , r 1,..tdriA,T .'..'"=*.v. ,.',,-..-P;,''' gt• .',,' • ,,' - . , , ' i i- ill •,,k,„:Nr4.. . ,..'i:C4;1',...•.----1) ,!:•.±; . '4- .,, ,;,:i.,'" . ;•;,. .'lt.livIf - ' -'-'. --..'•''.''':, ':,•''''..„.i.... 1 ;.•`::4S.,.:::',,;:,:::: 1-'1.-' •,-,":-,..'1t'-i..'t,,',,•.:::';',2:::-4- ..,.. ' -`r -. ' 1- ' .--4' • / ''-'44'''''';'''-''''' A. '';:i-0`.'::''''',';,4: 1-*-...,4" ' ;1'.' ' • I . `:'k-;"; t‘':;,-•14;././ . ..„.-40-,-,..:.-., -4. , •4,4'; , 1;... - ‘„,:,,,,,mk.1„., .,..,„ ,,, ':14.,,,,.;',:-.1,,„?. ,,.i. ..;,441.: • $ , ‹ i'. ,,-k4.1*44f..i--!:,.,,..-',:, ..,..-,-? :-,., ,..-t-,1,..1.„..„..„-,,,,..?„...,,,.. ---77.-...,,,.,,,-, ,*,.--;r1.,,T;..i-,";"$'‘!-'f':'-'•-•:i....,',-- -.. o,11"* .,." .., •-"..' _i' / ' • • i ; i. '="/•,,41''.,'=ii.`Aiitst4L5:".'4.'',' 2.1° -- ,..-. 4". c, ' '.: 7 ' ' ''' /...., ; • , IN, ..7,-,-,...;,,,,fit;_e.4,"ir, /;,.„,4-010!4' • *.„, . i 111 -6 i v. f, , , •k .. -------- ,, . . a gt_ ' 4 to rfairit., V144's-x r , ..--- ;-,- .I. ' A' tee. oi,t16w% •....• , COASr4 ;:';•„•'•-•' '.....- ''' ./T . ',‘:1- , ,, ', . ;,.t.':•,'•'-?:,-.::::: - ./.4;i ... - ,•••••:-.1•';',".....,. f,•';!;,'"•';', ,,,,'•• 'i•''''.-: .-.0 • i • ' .5.. ;'{I ,,:;'', ... t..'•• :: ..:. ,i, ... \„ ...., i:- � [ / Y : \ . / ' 4! a �� !;. . . ems. �} <* 4)- cm. {� % /\ ;:` \ . \ \ �f ' � �{ • i § i • • • ‘.. � � CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Date: Section: PUBLIC HEARINGS April 1, 1997 Department: Item Description: Item No.: Amendment to Chapter 11 for Community Development TeleCommunications V•C' Chris Enger Jean Johnson Requested Action Give first reading to Ordinance amending Chapter 11, Telecommunications placement and height of towers and antennas. Background A City Task Force was organized in August, 1996 to study and recommend code changes. The Task Force produced the 3-10-97 Code Amendment. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the code change 4:0:1 at their 3-24-97 meeting. Attachments March 11, 1997 Staff Memo March 10, 1997 Proposed Code Amendments March 4, 1997 Letter from AT & T March 4, 1997 Letter from Doherty, Rumble & Butler March 24, 1997 Letter from SBA March 24, 1997 Letter from Doherty, Rumble & Butler March 24, 1997 Letter from Larkin Hoffman I MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JEAN JOHNSON,ZONING ADMINISTRATOR THROUGH: MICHAEL FRANZEN, DATE: MARCH 11, 1997 SUBJECT: TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS PROPOSED CODE CHANGE CURRENT CITY CODE Presently City Code allows towers and antennas to be erected 25 feet higher than the maximum height for structures in the zoning district the property is located within. This allows towers and antennae 55-65 feet in height. Some existing towers are higher than code and were processed via a variance or PUD waiver. For a listing of existing towers in excess of the code refer to addendum A(attached). Accessory structure setbacks are applied to ground located towers or antennas. PURPOSE OF NEW CODE REGULATIONS In the Fall of 1996 the Telecommunications Act was adopted. The Act requires governmental entities to adopt ordinances which regulate the location and height of communications equipment without infringing upon the industry's ability to provide services. A"Fact Sheet"is attached as Addendum B which summarizes the Telecommunications Act and provides answers to the most common asked questions. 2- - EDEN PRAIRIE'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS TASK FORCE The City Council established a Telecommunications Task Force Committee in August, 1996. The task force was comprised of two Council members,the City Manager,the City Attorney, and City Staff. Monthly meetings were held in an effort to draft new regulations on the location and height of towers and antennae. The task force reviewed code examples from other communities and then formulated a draft ordinance for Eden Prairie's City code. Meetings were established for industry representatives to attend and discuss their future needs and the City's draft regulations. PROPOSED CODE CHANGES The following is a synopsis of the changes contained in the proposed new ordinance: Section 1. Item(b)in the last sentence of the first paragraph is new. Excepts antenna or tower building or alteration from Site Plan Review. Section 2. Four definitions are added to Chapter 11 of the City Code to define antenna, commercial wireless telecommunication services, public utility structure, and tower. Sections 3-9 Amends the Permitted Uses subdivision in all the zoning districts and includes Antennae and Towers as permitted uses according to new Section 11.06. Section 10 Is adoption of a new Section(Sec.11.06) for the City Code containing following regulations: Subd.l. Contains the Purpose of the ordinance of: facilitating communi- cation services,minimize adverse visual clutter,protect adja- jent properties, and to promote co-location in order to control tower proliferation. Subd.3. Allows ham radio towers in Residential&Rural Districts, and commercial towers in parks, schools and right-of-ways which are located in Residential Districts. Subd.4.Height. The maximum height of a tower is 150 feet. This height may appear extreme,but it is conditioned upon a required setback. The setback is 2:1(for every foot of tower height the setback is 2 feet),i.e., a 60 foot high tower requires a setback of 120 feet. If a tower is adjacent to Residential or Rural,the required Setback is 4:1. Subd.5. Additional setback regulations are outline in this subdivision to permit use of side and rear yards if a site abuts Industrial. Subd.6. Exceptions. Exceptions are provided for water towers and poles upon which emergency warning devices are attached(civil defense sirens). Exceptions are also provided for church steeples, etc., and Ham Radio Communication. Ham Radio towers will continue to be regulated by the existing code which allows a maximum height of 65 feet. Subd.7. Contains regulations for co-location. Co-location is preferred in to control tower proliferation. In some cases co-location may not be feasible due toexistence of other antennae,the cost of reinforcing an existing tower/structure,interference,etc. Subd.8. Outlines the design criteria for a tower/antennae. Subd.9. Prevents interference with Public Safety Telecommunications. Subd.10. Outlines the approval process. Staff will review requests according to Sec.11.06 regulations. If an applicant desires to appeal a decision or a variance is requested an applicaiton can be filed with the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Subd.11. Outlines the information required on an application. SUGGESTED ACTION After discussion of the new telecommunications regulation, the Planning Commission needs to forward a recommendation onto the City Council. q DRAFT 3-10-97 Following are proposed amendments to Eden Prairie City Code relating to telecommunication towers and antennae: Section 1. City Code Section 11 . 03 , Subd. 6 . B. is amended as follows : B. Exceptions . The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to the issuance of a building permit for (a) a building or structure to be built or constructed on land in conformity with a Site Plan approved prior to February 21, 1989 , but not more than two years prior to issuance of the building permit by the City Council in connection with the rezoning or platting of the land, or (b) the building or alteration of an antennae or tower. The Director of Planning may determine that an alteration or enlargement of a building or structure is minor and does not require conformance with an approved Site Plan and Architectural Design or an amendment thereof, provided however, if the Director shall not make such a determination an owner of the land on which the building or structure intended to be altered or enlarged is situated may request the Council to make such determination. Section 2 . City Code Section 11 . 02 is amended by renumbering paragraphs 4 through 9 inclusive, as 5 through 10 inclusive; 10 through 41 inclusive, as 12 through 43 inclusive; 42 through 54 inclusive, as 45 through 57 inclusive; and, 55 through 63 inclusive, as 59 through 67 inclusive, and by adding new paragraphs 4 , 11, 44 and 58 as follows : 4 . "Antenna" - Any structure or device used for the purpose of collecting or transmitting electromagnetic waves, including but not limited to directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes, and satellite dishes, and omni-directional antennae, such as whip antennae. 11 . "Commercial Wireless Telecommunication Services" - Licensed commercial wireless telecommunication services including cellular, personal communication services (PCS) , specialized mobilized radio (SMR) , enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR) , paging, and similar services that are marketed to the general public. - 1- S 44 . "Public Utility Structure" - A structure or pole supporting wires for communication or transmission of data or electricity. 58 . "Tower" - Any (a) ground or roof mounted pole, spire, structure, or combination thereof, taller than 15 feet, including supporting lines, cables, wires, braces, and masts, on which is mounted an antenna, meteorological device, or similar apparatus above grade, or (b) ground or roof mounted antennae taller than fifteen feet (15' ) . Section 3 . City Code Section 11 . 10, Subd. 2 is amended by adding paragraph G. as follows : G. Antennae and Towers, in those locations and subject to the limitations contained in City Code Section 11 . 06 . Section 4. City Code Section 11 . 11, Subd. 2 is amended by adding paragraph F. as follows: F. Antennae and Towers, in those locations and subject to the limitations contained in City Code Section 11 . 06 . Section 5. City Code Section 11 . 15, Subd. 2 is amended by adding paragraph D. as follows : D. Antennae and Towers , in those locations and subject to the limitations contained in City Code Section 11 . 06 . Section 6 . City Code Section 11 . 20 , Subd. 2 is amended by adding paragraph D. as follows : D. Antennae and Towers, in those locations and subject to the limitations contained in City Code Section 11 . 06 . Section 7 . City Code Section 11 . 25, Subd. 2 is amended by adding paragraph E. as follows : E. Antennae and Towers, in those locations and subject to the limitations contained in City Code Section 11. 06 . Section 8. City Code Section 11 . 30, Subd. 2 is amended by adding paragraph G. as follows : G. Antennae and Towers, in those locations and subject to the limitations contained in City Code Section 11 . 06 . Section 9 . City Code Section 11 . 35 , Subd. 2 is amended by adding paragraph F. as follows : F . Antennae and Towers , in those locations and subject to the limitations contained in City Code Section 11 . 06 . -2- Section 10 . City Code Chapter 11 is amended by adding Section 11 . 06 as follows : "Section 11 . 06 . Towers and Antennae, in those locations and subject to the limitations contained in City Code Section 11 . 06 . Subd. 1. Purpose. In order to accommodate the communication needs of residents and business while protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community, the Council finds that these regulations are necessary in order to: A. facilitate the provision of commercial wireless telecommunications services to the residents and businesses of the City; B. minimize adverse visual effects of towers through careful design and siting standards; C. avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through structural standards and setback requirements; and, D. maximize the use of existing and approved towers and buildings to accommodate new commercial wireless telecommunication antennae in order to reduce the number of towers needed to serve the community. Subd. 2 . Prohibition. No tower or antenna shall be erected, constructed, maintained. altered or used unless in compliance with this section. Subd. 3 . Towers in Rural and Residential Zoning Districts . Towers shall be allowed in the Rural and Residential Zoning Districts only as follows : A. Towers for amateur radio communication and conforming to all applicable provisions of this Code shall be allowed only in the rear and side yards of rural and residential zoned lots . B. Towers for Commercial Wireless Telecommunications Services and conforming to all applicable provisions of this Code shall be allowed only in the following residentially-zoned locations : 1 . parks, when compatible with the nature of the park; 2 . schools; and -3 - 3 . public streets and rights-of-way when attached to, or part of a public utility structure. Subd. 4 . Height. A. The height of a tower shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance from the point of contact with the ground of the tower or the structure to which it is attached (if attached) to the highest point of the tower, including all antennae and other attachments. B. In all zoning districts the maximum height of a tower, except those which are public utility structures located within a Public Street or right-of-way, shall not exceed one foot for each four feet the tower is set back from a Rural or Residential Zoning District up to a maximum height of 150 feet . C. In all zoning districts, the maximum height of a tower, except those which are public utility structures located within a Public Street or right-of-way, shall not exceed one foot for each two feet the tower is set back from the nearest lot line up to a maximum height of 150 feet. D. No tower, except those which are public utility structures, located within a Public Street or right-of- way, shall be in excess of a height equal to the distance from the base of the tower to the nearest overhead electrical power line which serves more than one dwelling or place of business . E. No antennae shall extend more than 20 feet above the highest point of a public utility structure. Subd. 5 . Setbacks and Location. Towers shall conform with each of the following minimum requirements : A. Towers, except those which are public utility structures, located within a Public Street or right-of-way, shall meet the setbacks of the underlying zoning district, except industrial zoning districts where towers may encroach into the rear setback area, provided that the rear property line abuts another industrially zoned property and the tower does not encroach upon any easements . B. Towers, except those which are public utility structures, located within a Public Street or right-of-way, shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, with the following exceptions: -4- 1 . In industrial zoning districts, towers may be placed within a side yard abutting an internal street. 2 . On sites adjacent to public streets on all sides, towers may be placed within a side yard abutting a street. C. Towers which are public utility structures located in a Public Street or right-of-way need not be set back from a street or right-of-way line. D. A tower' s setback may be reduced or its location in relation to a public street varied, at the sole discretion of the City Council, to allow the integration of a tower into an existing or proposed structure such as a church steeple, light standard, power line support device or similar structure. Integration may include replication of the existing or proposed structure by a new structure provided the new structure is substantially similar in design and color to the exiting or proposed structure and extends no more than 20 feet above the highest point of the existing or proposed structure. Subd. 6 . Exceptions . The provisions of Subds . 4 and 5 shall not apply to the following: 1 . Water towers and poles supporting emergency warning devices to which are attached antennae. 2 . Church sanctuaries, steeples and bell towers to which are attached antennae. 3 . In accordance with the preemption ruling PRB1 of the Federal Communications Commission, towers for amateur radio communication that comply with other provisions of City Code Chapter 11 relating to towers . Subd. 7 . Co-Location Requirements . All commercial wireless telecommunication towers erected, constructed, or located within the City shall comply with the following requirements : A. A proposal for a new commercial wireless telecommunication services tower shall not be approved unless the City Manager or his designee finds that the telecommunications equipment intended to be attached to the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower, public utility structure, or building within one mile (one-half mile for towers under 120 feet in height, one quarter mile for towers under 80 feet in height) of the proposed tower due to one or more of the -5- following reasons : 1 . The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the existing or approved tower, public utility structure or building, as documented at applicant' s expense by a qualified and licensed professional engineer, and if owned by applicant the existing or approved tower, public utility structure or building, cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost. 2 . The planned equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability of the existing or planned equipment at the tower, public utility structure or building as documented at applicant' s expense by a qualified and licensed professional engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost. 3 . Existing or approved towers, public utility structures and buildings within the search radius cannot accommodate the planned equipment at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented at applicant' s expense by a qualified and licensed professional engineer. 4 . Other unforeseen reasons that make it infeasible to locate the planned telecommunications equipment upon an existing or approved tower, public utility structure or building. B. Any proposed commercial wireless telecommunication services tower, except public utility structures, shall be designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant' s antennae and comparable antennae for at least two additional users if the tower is over 100 feet in height or for at least one additional user if the tower is over 60 feet in height. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennae upon the tower and to accept antennae mounted at varying heights . Subd. 8. Tower and Antenna Design Requirements . Proposed or modified towers and antennae shall meet the following design requirements : A. Towers and antennae shall be designed to blend into the surrounding environment to the maximum extent possible through the use of color and camouflaging architectural treatment, except in instances where the color is dictated by federal or state authorities such as the - 6- 10 Federal Aviation Administration. B. Commercial wireless telecommunication service towers, except those which are public utility structures, shall be of a monopole design unless the City Manager or his designee determines that an alternative design would better blend in to the surrounding environment. C. Towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or state authority for a particular tower and then only at such time or times required. When incorporated into the approved design of the tower, light fixtures used to illuminate ball fields, parking lots, or similar areas may be attached to the tower. D. Metal towers shall be constructed of, or treated with, corrosive resistant material . Wood poles shall be impregnated with rot resistant substances . E. No antenna or tower shall have affixed or attached to it in any way, except during time of repair or installation, any lights, reflectors, flashers, or other illuminating device, except as required by the Federal Aviation Agency or the Federal Communications Commission, nor shall any tower have constructed thereon, or attached thereto, in any way, any platform, catwalk, crow' s next, or like structure, except during periods of construction or repair. F. The face of an antennae having one face shall not exceed 30 square feet. No face of an antennae having more than one face shall exceed 24 square feet per face. Subd. 9 . Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications . No new or existing Commercial Wireless Telecommunications Services shall interfere with public safety telecommunications . Before the introduction of new service or changes in existing service, Commercial Wireless Telecommunications Services providers shall notify the City at least ten (10) calendar days in advance of such changes and allow the City to monitor interference levels during the testing process . All applicants for new Commercial Wireless Telecommunications Services shall submit with the application evidence of compliance with all rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission with respect the to new Commercial Wireless Telecommunications Services . Subd. 10 . Required Approval . A tower may not be constructed or increased in size or capacity without the approval of the City Manager or his designee. In the event an application for a tower _7 _ I I is disapproved by the City Manager or his designee, the City Manager or his designee shall state the decision, together with the reasons therefor in writing. A notice of, and the written decision shall be given to the applicant by mail at the address stated in the application or such other address as applicant directs by written request to City prior to the giving of such notice. Within thirty (30) days applicant may appeal the decision of the City Manager or his designee to the City' s Board of Adjustments and Appeals in accordance with City Code Section 2 . 11 . Subd. 11. Application. An applicant for a permit for the construction of a tower shall make a written application to the City. The application shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1 . Name, address, telephone and fax numbers of applicant. 2 . Location of proposed tower, including the legal description. 3 . The locations of all existing towers within one mile of the location of the proposed tower, together with the distances between the existing towers and the proposed tower. 4 . Description of the tower, including its height, size of base, configuration, design, number of antennae to be attached to the tower, potential for additional antennae, color and camouflage treatment and lighting, if any, and materials out of which the tower will be constructed. 5 . A certificate in such form as approved by the City Manager or his designee that (a) the applicant' s commercial wireless telecommunications services equipment cannot be accommodated on an existing tower in accordance with Subd. 7 .A. hereof, (b) the applicant' s proposed commercial wireless telecommunications services tower meets the requirements of Subd. 7 .B. hereof, and (c) the commercial wireless telecommunication services to be accommodated on the proposed tower will not interfere with public safety telecommunications, and which includes a technical evaluation of existing and proposed transmissions indicating all potential interference problems . The certificate shall be by a duly licensed engineer, registered in Minnesota. 6 . The application shall be accompanied by payment of such fees as provided by City Council resolution. Fees shall include reimbursement to City of its costs, including those incurred for consulting and technical advice relating to the proposed tower. rfr\ep\telecomm\antenn2.tow -8- 12, TOWER VARIANCES TODATE No. PIN# PROJECT ADDRESS VARIANCE DATE DECISION REQUEST CONDITIONS 1 16-116-22-11-0007 Cooperative Power 14615 Lone Oak Rd 16-1-PUD 07/17/79 granted Microwave tower-70' PUD project waiver approval 2 20-116-22-11-0061 Old EP City Hall 8950 Eden Prairie Rc 80-12 06/19/80 granted Transmission tower-80' None 3 16-118-22-11-0005 Former Police Dept. 7900 Mitchell Rd 82-23 08/15/82 granted Radio antenna tower-85' Built within a year;Subject to CC review 4 13-116-22-11-0008 KMSP 7905 Golden Tri.Rd 86-43 10/14/86 granted Transmission tower-100' 1st Tower and satellite dishes be painted a color similar to the color NSP uses on power lines(must be approved by the CC) 2nd Only 4 dishes permitted as proposed 3rd Only 1 transmission tower permitted on the site;no additional towers permitted; rooftop transmission devices be completely screened 4th No signs or banners affiliated to tower 5th A security wall/fence around the tower 6th Base of tower be screened from public roads and differirj land uses 7th Tower shall not be lighted in manner either electrical devices or ground mounted 8th Construction shall not take place until CC reviews and approves the total site plan or until the principle building is constructed_ 5 08-116-22-43-0000 NSP W 78th St 87-03 F 01/08/87 granted Steel pole Transmission lines-95' None 6 16-116-22-11-0005 E.P.Police 7900 Mitchell Rd 91-26 10/10/91 granted Radio Transmission Tower-200' None 7 01-116-22-14-0006 JS West New Vector 10125 Crosstown Cr 93-49 12/09/93 granted Cellular antenna-100' Space on the monopole shall be reserved to accommodate the City's future _ communication needs 8 09-116-22-34-0003 NSP 15100 W 78th St 94-26 10/13/94 granted lel pole-80'replacing lattice:14910 a None 70'pole;New 80'pole installed to facilitate the expanded area 9 14-116-22-24-0009 E.P.Water Tower Singletree Lane -93-036 08724/93 granted - Water tower at 190' None - ADDENDUM A 13 1 I 1 2 I 3 ( 4 1 5 I 6 7 1 8 9 1_ 10 I sxoo' J 0 , - - —. j. .-M .. --._. "_.•p.._. i"�- - �° �+ •- �• '. i ` .� pia A�� r \ 2 + 4 - f r ._y / - . 1 1; f -- :fin ■■11 �� •a% �1 i/ 3 _ 8 B LI,•1•7..r s' 41 ,:a-14'--.'- Pi 'I a, : ir to, 'N.\\ Viiil t sir- _i!etictip _ - _ ig __ ._ ... ......,i, `{ �4714 l [yam CL` ` D 'x ' fir 4.ak 0 ), -1,.......' ' -'°' Cw-ussiM i/ \ f �, ci: \ , `. " _mac. t D lI00 I .. .Li.�:. 'rill*, 1 T �ti-` ✓r� � er.. •� _- AGO E i / E sow .-. AY -7:1L':''' N i'' . :.: k Jr � H r M. • ,I.-1 • JJ f iasoo •• �� - _- -�- r.-`.' _-- tom:, ..... i `l oo r. ��� �� — K ( 'woo t =i 8 g e 8 1 8 8 8 8 00 8 8 w'ti 2 2I 1 [ 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 1 6 1 7-- 8 9 1 10 I 14 PIM ,4 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION .ct ,• WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU iwas 2025 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554 FACT SHEET #2 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 NATIONAL WIRELESS FACILITIES SITING POLICIES The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act)contains important provisions concerning the placement of antenna structures and other facilities for use in providing personal wireless services. State and local governments have already been working closely with wireless service providers to place such facilities within their localities. The new law establishes a framework for the exercise of jurisdiction by state and local zoning authorities over the construction, modification and placement of facilities for personal wireless services. . The new law also directs the Commission to offer assistance to state and local governments in resolving wireless facilities siting issues. In that capacity,the Commission has formed a Wireless Facilities Siting Task Force to serve as a focal point for collection and dissemination of information relating to the efforts of state and local governments, as well as providers of personal wireless services, to address facilities siting concerns. The Task Force believes it can serve as a valuable information resource for state and local governments and for the industry as they carry out the responsibilities assigned them under the new law. Proper implementation of the new law will ultimately benefit the American public by preserving local zoning and land use authority,while at the same time, promoting the broad availability of these exciting new technologies. On April 23, 1996,the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued Fact Sheet#1 to inform the public about the provisions of Section 704 of the 1996 Act, and to assist state and local governments as they deal with the complex issues of personal wireless facilities siting in their local communities. Fact Sheet#1 summarized key provisions of Section 704, reprinted the complete text of Section 704 of the 1996 Act, provided technical information concerning personal wireless services, and, finally, answered frequently asked questions. This Fact Sheet#2 consists of four parts : • • PART I is a new compilation of frequently asked questions and answers; • PART II summarizes the Commission's radiofrequency (RF) emission rules governing personal wireless services, adopted August 1, 1996, and sets forth the ADDENDUM B most relevant RF rules for personal wireless facilities siting purposes; ■ PART III provides revised information about those personal wireless services most likely to be submitting facilities siting requests during the upcoming year; and • PART N consists of maps showing the geographic areas used by the Commission to license cellular radiotelephone service and personal wireless services, and lists licensees for certain personal communications services. Fact Sheet#1 and Fact Sheet#2 on National Wireless Facilities Siting Policies are both available from the Commission's "fax-on-demand" system at(202)418-2830. To obtain the 12- page Fact Sheet#1 from fax-on-demand, please reference Document Number 6507. To obtain the 39-page Fact Sheet#2, please reference Document Number 6508. Both Fact Sheets are also available on the Internet, from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau homepage, at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/wirehome.htrnl. In addition to the contacts listed elsewhere in this Fact Sheet #2, questions on the following general topics should be directed to the Commission staff listed below: • The Telecommunications Act of 1996 in general: Office of Legislative Voice: (202)418-1900 , and Intergovernmental Affairs Fax: (202)418-2806 • Federal regulation of wireless communications services in general: Rosalind K. Allen Voice: (202)418-0600 Deputy Chief Fax: (202)418-0787 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau E-mail: rallen@fcc.gov ■ Antenna structure siting, licensing issues and technical matters: Steve Markendorff Voice: (202)418-0620 Chief, Broadband Branch Fax: (202)418-1412 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau E-mail: smarkend@fcc.gov • Commission guidelines on radiofrequency emissions: RF Safety Program Voice: (202)418-2464 Office of Engineering Fax: (202)418-1918 and Technology E-mail: rfsafety@fcc.gov ■ Transmitter power, antenna structure painting and lighting requirements: Dan S. Emrick Voice: (202)418-1170 Compliance Division Fax: (202)418-2813 Compliance and Information Bureau E-mail: demrick@fcc.gov 2 111) Additional questions on wireless facilities siting issues may be addressed to the following national governmental and trade associations: • American Planning Association Karen B. Graham Voice: (202)872-0611 Public Affairs Associate Fax: (202) 872-0643 • National Association of Counties Robert J. Fogel Voice: (202)393-6226 Associate Legislative Director Fax: (202) 393-2630 • National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Eileen E. Huggard Voice: (202)429-5101 Executive Director Fax: (202) 223-4579 • National League of Cities Frank Shafroth Voice: (202)626-3026 Director of Policy and Federal Relations Fax: (202) 626-3043 • United States Conference of Mayors Kevin S. McCarty Voice: (202) 293-7330 Assistant Executive Director Fax: (202) 293-2352 • American Mobile Telecommunications Association Till Lyon Voice: (202) 331-7773 Director of Regulatory Relations Fax: (202) 331-9062 • Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Andrea D. Williams Voice: (202) 785-0081 Assistant General Counsel Fax: (202) 785-0721 or Lauren Fry Voice: (202) 785-3236 Manager for Industry Education Fax: (202) 887-1629 • Personal Communications Industry Association Mark J. Golden Voice: (703) 739-0300 x 3008 Senior VP, Industry Affairs Fax: (703) 836-1608 • PART I FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS The Commission's Wireless Facilities Siting Task Force has spent a substantial amount of time over the past three months meeting with representatives from various state and local governments and their national associations, as well as with representatives from personal wireless service providers and their trade associations. We have also answered numerous inquiries from members of the public on facilities siting and RF emission issues. The questions and answers listed below reflect the Task Force's collective assessment of those issues of most interest to parties affected by wireless facilities siting issues. PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES & FACILITIES 1. What are "personal wireless facilities"referenced in Section 704 of the 1996 Act? Answer: Personal wireless facilities are transmitters, antenna structures and other types of installations used for the provision of personal wireless services. Section 704 defines personal wireless services to include a broad range of spectrum-based services. All commercial mobile services fall within the definition of personal wireless services. Elsewhere in the statute, commercial mobile services have been defined as mobile services that are for-profit, are available to the public or a substantial portion of the public, and provide subscribers with the ability to access or receive calls from the public switched telephone network. Common examples of commercial mobile services are personal communications services(PCS), cellular radio mobile service and paging. Personal wireless services also includes unlicensed wireless services, which are services that are not licensed by the Commission, but are deployed through equipment that is authorized by the Commission. Finally, personal wireless services include common carrier wireless exchange access services, which are offerings designed as competitive alternatives to traditional wireline local exchange providers. 2. Are home satellite services considered "personal wireless service"? Answer: No. Section 704 of the 1996 Act specifically excludes "direct-to-home satellite services" from the definition of personal wireless services. State and local regulation of facilities used to receive these broadcast services is addressed under Section 207 of the 1996 Act. Pursuant to Section 207,the Commission has adopted rules concerning state, local, and private restrictions on viewers'ability to receive video programming signals from direct broadcast satellites, multichannel multipoint distribution (wireless cable)providers, and television broadcast stations. For more information on the Commission's rules under Section 207, please contact 1- 888-225-5322. A separate fact sheet has been prepared regarding these rules, which is available from the Commission's fax-on-demand system at(202)418-2830 or from the Internet at http:\\www.fcc.gov\Bureaus\Common_Carrier\Factsheets\otafacts.html. 4 3. How can providers of personal wireless services benefit my community? Answer: Personal wireless services are not just car phones for businesses. Due to technological innovation and the continuing availability of additional spectrum, PCS and cellular providers are • offering light-weight portable phones at increasingly affordable prices that enable consumers to make and accept calls anywhere and at anytime. It is also anticipated that providers of personal wireless services will offer wireless computer networking and wireless Internet access. Many PCS providers also intend to offer a service that will eventually compete directly with residential local exchange and exchange access services. The inherent flexibility of wireless services makes it possible to introduce new service offerings on a dynamic basis as consumer demands grow and change. Wireless services are also integral to many businesses that rely on mobility of their operations to provide goods and services to consumers. Communicating by a wireless network enables companies in various businesses, from car rentals to package delivery, to operate in a more efficient manner, and to ultimately lower the cost to the consumer while improving the quality of service. It is also worthwhile to keep in mind that the antenna structures required to deploy personal wireless services can be used for other purposes that could benefit your community. For example, a community that has a long-term plan to improve its public safety communications may be able to expedite that process by teaming with personal wireless service providers to construct new sites that could be used for deployment of both public safety and personal wireless communications. • Furthermore,wireless telecommunications and data services play an increasing (and increasingly sophisticated)role in providing healthcare services. Wireless services may be particularly helpful in delivering healthcare to the home,for example, by allowing a nurse, while in a patient's home, to access the patient's vital information directly from the database at the hospital. Personal wireless service providers may also serve as a lower-cost source of advanced telecommunications capabilities for schools and libraries. Therefore, state and local governments should engage the personal wireless service providers in a dialogue about how their offerings can best serve the community. 4. Why do personal wireless service providers require so many antenna structures? Answer: Generally, low powered transmitters are an inherent characteristic of cellular radio and broadband PCS. As these systems develop and more subscribers are added, the effective radiated power of the cell site transmitters is reduced. Channels are reused at closer intervals to increase the subscriber capacity of the system, and therefore, more transmitting facilities are needed. Additionally,because broadband PCS operates at a higher frequency than cellular,these providers may require more antenna structures than cellular services to provide equivalent coverage in their service areas. 5 S. it seems as if the Commission is authorizing a large number of these personal wireless service providers. How many new antenna structures should my community expect to accommodate? Answer: Currently, there are over 40 million mobile/portable cellular units and over 22,000 cell sites operating within the United States and its Possessions and Territories. The Commission is allocating spectrum to personal wireless service providers on an ongoing basis. In addition, at the direction of Congress,the federal government is making spectrum currently allocated to federal government use available to the Commission for private sector use. As a result, it is difficult at this time to predict the ultimate number of personal wireless service providers that may serve your community. At present, however, the greatest demand for new site construction is concentrated in cellular and broadband PCS. In most parts of the country,there are two Commission-licensed entities providing cellular services. In addition, the Commission has already issued two broadband PCS licenses in each Major Trading Area, and soon will issue four more broadband PCS licenses for Basic Trading Areas. (PART 1V of this Fact Sheet#2 contains maps showing the Major and Basic Trading Areas). Therefore, during the upcoming year, local governments can expect approximately eight discrete cellular and broadband PCS licensees to seek antenna facilities in each community. However, the actual number is likely to be smaller than eight due to the ability of existing cellular and PCS licensees to obtain more than one license in an area, and the expected consolidation of providers within the wireless communications industry. 6. Does the Commission maintain any records on the locations of personal wireless structures throughout the United States? Answer: The Commission maintains site information on antenna structures that may affect air navigation, including(1) antenna structures located over 200 feet above ground, and (2)antenna structures that are in close proximity to airport runways. Antenna structures that do not exceed 20 feet above existing landscape or buildings, however, are not included. Site information for structures built prior to July 1, 1996, is contained in the Commission's "tower file" database. Site information for structures built after July 1, 1996,*as well as an increasing number of structures built before that date, is contained in the Commission's "antenna registration" database. The registration database will contain all the tower file information by July 1998. Additionally, the Commission's cellular and SMR licensing databases contain some site information for base stations in those services. For a fee,you can request a search of the tower file or antenna registration databases through International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS), 2100 M Street,N.W., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037, at(202)857-3800. You may also view the antenna registration database on-line using the Commission's ASR Electronic Filing/Viewing Software. For more information on this software, please call (800) 322-1117. 6 2,0 The cellular and SMR databases are available for on-line viewing in the Public Reference Room of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Commercial Wireless Division, located on the fifth floor of 2025 M Street,N.W., Washington, DC 20554. For more information, you may contact the Reference Room at(202)418-1350. You may also obtain on-line access from a remote location,by contacting Interactive Systems, Inc., 1601 North Kent Street, Suite 1103, Arlington, VA 22209, at(703) 812-8270. However, because PCS licensees are issued a blanket license for their entire geographic area,the Commission does not maintain any information in its databases on the specific locations of any PCS base stations,unless they fall into the categories listed above. 7. Some people consider personal wireless service facilities to be unsightly. Is there some way to make these structures blend in with their surroundings? Answer: Antennas for personal wireless services can sometimes be mounted on existing structures such as building roof tops, church steeples, street lights, traffic lights, or electric utility substations,where they are relatively unobtrusive. Painting antenna structures to blend in with the existing structure is also an effective camouflage. Camouflaging of antennas is also used to accommodate highly specialized land use concerns. For example, a personal wireless service provider seeking to locate a transmitter site in a historic district may consider camouflaging the antenna in such structures as clock towers or artificial trees. Such camouflaging is, however, expensive and time consuming and most service providers are reluctant to routinely use.the camouflage option. ZONING ISSUES 8. What types of information exchanges should occur at the beginning of the local zoning process that would be helpful both to local and state governments and to personal wireless service providers? Answer: From the perspective of the local and state governments, it is helpful for the wireless service provider to supply as much advance information as possible about the nature of its service offerings and the "big picture" plan for service deployment. Local zoning authorities have a strong interest in becoming fully informed about exactly what they are authorizing, and what will be the long-term effects of facilities siting on land use in their communities. Many personal wireless service providers have found it helpful to organize seminars aimed at acquainting local zoning authorities with their services. Community outreach is also a productive way for new wireless service providers to pave the way for introduction of their offerings. Personal wireless service providers may be able to expedite the zoning authorization process if they target,where possible, site locations that are compatible with the proposed use, such as industrial zones, utility rights of way and pre-existing structures. From the perspective of the personal wireless service provider, knowing what to expect in the zoning process is the primary concern. Therefore, state and local authorities should endeavor to provide wireless service providers with a clear picture of the zoning authorization process in 7 at advance. It is also helpful for zoning authorities to share information about their land use priorities to determine where and how wireless service facilities fit into the plans. Finally, keep in mind that wireless telecommunications systems are very dynamic. Personal wireless services are thus designed to respond quickly to customer demands which may change dramatically as a result of the construction of new highways and roads and the development of new residential and business communities. 9. How do personal wireless service providers approach state and local governments to request authorization to construct,place or modem their facilities? Answer: A personal wireless service provider may have an internal antenna facilities siting team which seeks potential sites for the company's own needs, or it may hire an independent contractor to seek potential sites. Some of these independent facilities siting companies may be working on behalf of more than one Commission licensee at a time,or they may not be seeking sites for any Commission licensees at all. The local zoning authorities should therefore be aware that a facilities siting company may not be seeking the sites that are of most interest to particular Commission licensees, but rather seek general sites on highly elevated locations in the hopes of leasing the sites, in turn,to Commission licensees. 10. Can personal wireless service providers share common structures to house their transmitters? • Answer: Yes, it is possible for these entities to share structures. Sharing of structures by several wireless service providers is typically referred to as "collocation." The Commission encourages collocation of antenna structures to the extent technologically feasible, and recommends that local zoning authorities engage the parties in cooperative efforts to chart the potential overlap of desirable locations, in order to minimize the number of antenna structures to be sited. It has also been our experience that personal wireless service providers are responsive to positive incentives to collocate, such as, for example, processing the zoning application of a collocating facility more quickly. There are, however, limitations on collocation, and it should not be viewed as a complete solution to all land use concerns associated with the deployment of personal wireless services. First,there are physical limitations on how many transmitters a single structure can sustain. Different tower structures have different structural tolerances. In general, there are other technical issues that the service provider must consider, including the evaluation of interference and compliance with the Commission's RF emissions criteria. In addition, personal wireless services will deploy a variety of technologies that will require differing site configurations to provide subscribers with quality service. It is also important to note that as additional service providers enter the market, they will tailor their offerings to market demands that remain unsatisfied, so that while the first two providers in the community may be able to share a site because they seek to provide similar service to a similar market, the third provider may require a new site configuration because it intends, for example,to provide wireless Internet access to the 8 community's educational institutions. For this third provider, collocation with the first two providers may therefore be technically or economically problematic. Additionally,because collocation groups many pieces of equipment on a single structure, collocation may result in larger and more obtrusive and unsightly structures than multiple, discrete installations of individual antennas and transmitters. It should also be kept in mind that personal wireless service providers are fierce competitors that are often deploying the first commercial use of a particular technology. As a result, the providers may be unwilling to share their siting plans, particularly actual site locations,because they consider these plans proprietary business information, or they may be reluctant to engage in group discussions with their competitors about siting because such conduct could be viewed as anticompetitive. Finally,because these services are new technologies, it will be difficult to predict the exact location of all sites at the time of initial service deployment, and adjustments may be necessary along the way. New technologies also present unique technical challenges. Attempts by state and local governments to "reengineer"these new technologies and service offerings may have unpredictable effects on service quality and coverage. At the same time,the new law recognizes the legitimacy of local zoning and land use concerns. Service providers and local zoning authorities are thus encouraged to work together to develop ways to protect the proprietary nature of siting plans yet still yield information that can be useful to local zoning authorities for developing overall zoning plans for personal wireless facilities. 11. How quickly must state or local zoning authorities process applications for new personal wireless antenna structures? Answer: Section 704 of the 1996 Act states that local authorities are required to act upon an application for a facility site within a reasonable period of time. The Conference Report • accompanying Section 704 explains that the "nature and scope" of each request should be taken into account. The Conference Report further explains that "[i]f a request for placement of a personal wireless facility involves a zoning variance or a public hearing or comment process, the time period for rendering a decision will be the usual period under such circumstances. It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frame for zoning decision." Some state and local governments have adopted, or have considered adopting, "freezes" on the processing of facilities siting applications in anticipation of an increase in applications for personal wireless antenna structures. Many state or local governments believe that such freezes or moratoria are necessary because they are being asked to evaluate long-term land use issues without having relevant ordinances in place, and in some instances without the information they need to make these types of global assessments. Freezes of this nature are not looked upon favorably by personal wireless service providers because the providers are generally concerned 9 that moratoria(especially those that are open-ended or renewable)cause uncertainty and disruption to their business plans. In addition, wireless service providers find the lack of certainty amplified when it is not clear exactly what the state or local government is accomplishing during the moratorium other than not processing their applications. While the issue of whether moratoria are consistent with Section 704 is being developed in the courts,the Conference Report provides some guidance: "It is the intent of this section that bans or policies that have the effect of banning personal wireless services or facilities not be allowed and that decisions be made on a case-by case basis." Moratoria may have a disproportionate impact on some personal wireless service providers,who may be effectively blocked from entering the market during the pendency of the freeze, or may be inhibited from further deployment or improvement of existing service. For one court's opinion on this issue, see Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. City ofMedina, 924 F. Supp. 1036 (W.D. Wash. 1996). In certain instances, state and local governments may benefit from a brief, finite period of consideration in order to set up a process for the orderly handling of facilities siting requests. These brief periods of consideration may be most effective if the state or local government communicates clearly to wireless service providers the specific duration of the moratorium,the tasks that the local governmental entity intends to accomplish during the moratorium and the ways in which the wireless service providers can help the local government to achieve the stated goals of the moratorium by, for example, providing additional information about their needs and about their services. 12. If the state or local zoning authorities deny applications for personal wireless antenna structures, must the decisions be in writing? Answer: Yes. Section 704 of the 1996 Act mandates that the decision must be in writing, and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. The Conference Report explains that "substantial evidence contained in a written record" means "the traditional standard used for judicial review of agency actions." For one court's opinion on this issue, see BellSouth Mobility Inc., v. Gwinnett County, No. 1:96-cv-1268-GET (N.D. Ga. Aug. 13, 1996). 13. Section 704 states that state or local governments may not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. What types of state and local • governmental actions constitute unreasonable discrimination? Answer: It appears that what constitutes "reasonable" discrimination among providers will be developed in the courts on a case-by-case basis. However,Congress' Conference Report accompanying Section 704 provides some guidance as well, explaining that the intent of the conferees is "to ensure that a State or local government does not in making a decision regarding the placement, construction and modification of facilities of personal wireless services . . . unreasonably favor one competitor over another." The Conference Report further explains the intent of the conferees is to "provide localities with the flexibility to treat facilities that create 10 9q r different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even if those facilities provide functionally equivalent services. • For example,the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor's 50-foot tower in a residential district." As a general matter,there appears to be an expectation that state and local governments should endeavor to avoid making land use decisions that give one personal wireless service provider a competitive advantage over another. For one court's opinion on this issue, see Westel-Milwaukee Co., Inc. v. Walworth County, No. 95-2097, 1996 WL 496670(Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 1996). 14. What should I do if the state or local government has acted inconsistently with Section 704, and 1 have been adversely affected? Answer: If the state or local governmental action is inconsistent with Section 704, and you are adversely affected by such action, you may appeal the zoning authority's decision to a court of competent jurisdiction. Congress' Conference Report which accompanied Section 704 states that such actions may be filed in the federal district court in which the facilities are located or a State court of competent jurisdiction, at the option of the party appealing the decision. Section 704 also requires that such action be filed in court within 30 days after the state or local government acts or fails to act, and courts are directed to rule expeditiously on such cases. If the decision of a state or local government authority which adversely affects you is based on the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions, such decision may be appealed to the courts or it may be appealed directly to the Commission through a request for Declaratory Ruling, pursuant to Section 1.2 of the Commission's Rules. Either way, however, the appeal must be filed within 30 days after the state or local government's action. 15. What can the federal government do to accommodate multiple providers of personal wireless services in seeking antenna structure locations? Answer: Section 704 of the 1996 Act mandates that the federal government make available property, rights-of-way, and easements under its control for the placement of new spectrum-based telecommunications services. It also provides that a presumption may be established to grant such requests absent unavoidable direct conflict with the government's mission or planned use of the locations, and that the decisions regarding siting on such locations must be fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. On August 10, 1995, President Clinton issued an Executive Memorandum directing the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), in coordination with other federal government departments and agencies, to develop procedures to facilitate appropriate access to federal property for the siting of mobile services antenna structures. In response to this order and the Congressional mandate, GSA has prepared a manual entitled "Government-Wide Procedures for Placing Commercial Antennas," which is published in Volume 61, page 14100 of the Federal 11 Register, issued on March 29, 1996. For more information on the use of federal property to site wireless antenna facilities, please contact James Herbert, Office of Property Acquisition and Realty Services, Public Building Service, General Services Administration, at(202) 501-0376, or write to GSA at 18th & F Streets,NW, Washington, DC 20405. Section 704 also mandated the Commission to provide technical support to states in order to encourage them to make property, rights-of-way and easements under their jurisdiction available for the placement of new spectrum-based telecommunications services. For more information on how the Commission can be of assistance to the state and local governments in this area, please contact Steve Markendorff, Chief of the Broadband Branch, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at(202)418-0620, or fax(202)418-1412, or email "smarkend®fcc.gov." RADIOFREOUENCY (RF)EMISSIONS 16. Does Section 704 preempt state and local governments from basing regulation of the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless facilities directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of RF emissions? Answer: Yes. Section 704 states that "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." 17. Have any studies been conducted on potential health hazards of locating an antenna structures close to residential communities? Answer: Many governmental agencies, scientists, engineers and professional associations have conducted studies of exposure levels due to RF emissions from cellular transmitter facilities. These levels have been found to be typically thousands of times below the levels considered to be safe by expert entities such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements(NCRP), as reflected in the Commission's rules governing RF emissions. 18. Has the Commission adopted new guidelines for evaluating RF exposures? Answer: Yes. In light of revised guidelines developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. and adopted by the American National Standards Institute in 1992 (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992),the Commission initiated a proceeding in 1993 to determine whether the Commission should adopt these guidelines to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Section 704 of the 1996 Act required the Commission to complete this rulemaking proceeding(ET Docket 93-62)and have in place revised RF exposure guidelines by August 7, 1996. The Commission adopted a Report and Order, FCC 96-326, on August 1, 1996, which revised the guidelines that 12 d�l0 • Introduction to Cellular Technology . In: the past, mobile. telephones were only.available.to a privileged few who..were. willing to.. : tolerate the considerable limitations of a system that utilized only 12-20 channels and often had poor voice quality and spotty coverage. These systems operated with one centrally located high-powered transmitter to communicate with all of the mobile units in the service area. This technology did not make large-scale service practical, because each of the system channels could handle only one call at a time. Channels could not be reused because the transmitted signals were strong enough to interfere with one another. Conventional System Cellular System I • • i t tF • ---fir ! - • ,))II x 3 The current cellular telephone technology was developed by Bell Laboratories to respond to these problems. This system consists of many low-powered antennas in a honeycomb pattern of "cells" that invisibly blanket the service area. Today, cellular phones are being used throughout the business and professional communities, the agricultural community, and virtually all other facets of the public and private sectors, including police, emergency, and medical service providers. Relationship With Neighboring Systems < A#7. g xvv„u cT� I 1 w"—.� ,,`•. § „•,.,may. r:'KK•se• 's - ®wry"'^•q ..Z' uw.: .mac ate.. -- fi +c .+o' :ww - 7'�xr Q ..t3°' _ >-- w;e@...•X �x '9=,� .^, �;ram ,� �,,r •� r �� �, .�".:<� t _. y�^�"�.b'.�,a a:$ w� ,. x` zr • g - t �'�R + `"xr Ka'°Y..,s j ' „} x< ..K a^ cea `zaa&3x.'x''s.:.>< ¢fro y , F ^a�ofi.� c«i's ate- ;xr v.. • '.4 .:#« ?�vsar.'3.ai- '1'•"s" o r,.,�,.�`�'.cx.,� �xs.fi y, R•�d 0. ,.w .,� ?�•>»�y.,,..�..�.�nyyil:;'��E,' a,,,�C�.ypx�,"n�^.� �„>��;*' .<�n.'�+..ux : aaz wi.�+?apt'any:;rs�;a..`.st'at.:.s"v:�r.....;;x;,2^,.:.,::�a..,tx.r » o,+....:.,..'>wn•.wk...:Si:su .. 'S;::a, i e yam ^�s:Y"<?,Jeav?^#1,;>.;<vsr ,�:o: :;74;r :.e.� All cellular systems are compatible, so when you travel to another city which has cellular service, your cellular telephone still works. This is called roaming. As cellular mobile systems expand throughout the nation, many major highway corridors between cities will be covered with additional cells. US West New Vector Group prepared by: Real Estate and Zoning 1994 Cell Site Selection Cellular telephone service is expanded in a given area to provide better service to cellular customers. This can be done in two ways: extending the coverage to new areas or increasing the capacity of the system within the current service area. The decision to expand the system depends on a number of factors. First, the number of current customers within the area and the capacity of the current system are analyzed to identify the need to expand. Second, the quality of service within the area is continually evaluated, both electronically at the switching equipment, and through feedback from customers. If there are a significant number of service failures reported, such as dropped calls, continuous busy signals, or an "all circuits are busy" message, the capacity of the system must be increased. Third, the FCC license granted to the cellular carrier requires that service be provided to 75% of its CGSA (Cellular Geographical Service Area) within 5 years from the date the license is granted. Maintaining a high quality, interference-free service is essential in order to comply with these FCC requirements and to compete with other cellular carriers. Once the decision has been made to expand or improve service, the engineers at US WEST NewVector prepare a preliminary design analysis. The topography and terrain features within the service area are entered into a computer, along with a series of variables, such as antenna height, available frequencies, and equipment characteristics. From this information the en- gineers determine a search area for the optimum location and height of the antenna to maximize service within the cell. When this technical analysis is complete, a search area map d other requirements are provided to the real estate and site selection consultants. With this information, the real estate acquisition consultant applies various criteria to identify and rank potential sites. The following is a summary of these cell site selection criteria: CGSA Cellular Geographical Service Area. The boundaries of the entire system are determined by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Cell sites must be located so that radio signals from the system stay within the boundaries of the CGSA. The Cellular Grid. Within the CGSA, individual cell sites are planned on a hexagonal grid pattern. This pattern allows frequencies to be reused between cells and provides coverage for the largest area utilizing fewer antenna sites, thus reducing the potential for land use impacts. This pattern also allows future "cell splitting", or "sectorization", as the system grows. Topography, Land Forms and Other Constraints. The computer analysis takes into consideration the hills and valleys within the service area. Basically, a line-of-sight relationship is needed between the antenna and the cellular telephone to insure quality service. There are often land features within a search area that limit the options for site locations. Features such as bodies of water, swamps and steep slopes may prove impossible to build upon, and since cell sites must be periodically maintained, they must be accessible to technicians year-round. Therefore, we need to find sites near the center of the search area, at the optimum elevation, and accessible by existing roadways. Sites with existing or proposed high-rise buildings nearby must also be avoided because buildings or other massive objects or landforms block the cellular radio signal in much the same way a building blocks sunlight. Since all of the cell sites work together (calls are automatically handed off from one cell to mother as the driver travels between coverage areas), one antenna may not be lowered or raised without affecting the performance of that cell and adjacent cells. Tne combination of these factors results in the identification of well-defined "prefered locations" within the search area. In urban areas, conditions can sometimes result in a search area with a radius as small as one quarter mile or less, while in rural areas the radius of the search area may be many miles. FAA And Existing Radio Conflicts. In addition to the engineering constraints noted above, the site location must not interfere with either Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements, or existing radio transmitters operating at high frequencies. FAA regulations protect air space zones and flight paths surrounding airports and the locations and heights of all antennas are .reviewed to insure that they do not violate these safety zones. Also, when certain AM and FM radio broadcast towers are located in close proximity to cellular antennas, it can degrade the performance of the cellular signal by creating interference. Consequently, the placement of a cell site in close proximity to AM or FM towers must be thoroughly analyzed. Zoning and Land Use Compatibility. Whenever feasible US WEST NewVector strives to acquire property that is properly zoned and adjacent to compatible land uses. Sites adjacent to existing tall power lines, microwave facilities, antenna farms, water treatment facilities, and on the tops of buildings are selected when they meet the other.technical requirements of the system. When compatibility might be a concern, a concerted effort is made in the design process to screen facilities and reduce visual impacts. Property Availability. Due to all of the engineering and design constraints described above, it is sometimes difficult to find sites that meet all of the requirements. In all cases, more .han one site is evaluated prior to selecting the most favorable location. Existing Tower * Water Tank Within Search Area Outside Search Arca Oc 4 1 Tower La.un w• k T n Water d B e Outside Search Are a Within Search Ar ea a •rjA• •-•• --•-•••-..i.-••••••• • • .. :...:... .:.:::::... :...:::... .......::: ................ Protected ':i ;:;:.:.'.'�'.� .a'? Airspace Zone This illustration summarizes some of the site selection constraints ag Public Safety Questions recent years there has been concern over possible health effects from radio frequency (RF) ,.clergy. This energy is around us every day, coming from commercial radio and TV, radar, amateur radios, and other sources. The frequencies used by the cellular,phone network are the same ones assigned previously to certain UHF TV channels, and so have been in the airwaves for many years. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has established a standard for safe ex- posure levels to RF energy. That standard is 3 j compared to other household sources and a j typical cellular phone antenna in the adjacent 3 ara h. Cell site antennas transmit relatively � _ P _ , very low operate atpower G/ short distances and r / levels. The amount of energy from a single Z / Cellular cellular phone channel is typically about the = 1 / I ! anywhere.from elnt to fifty channels simuita- 0 neousiy, though the channels rarely all transmit Axsl 1 Foot Hand Held Cordless Cellular Standard from a CS Radio Phone at the same time. Therefore, the energy from a MigCtoWare typical cell site would be equivalent to the en- ergy needed to operate up to fifty 100-watt light Comparison of RE Energy, Cellular Antennas vs. bulbs, depending on how many channels are ANSI Standard & Household Sources being used at one time. e ne twork thecellular phone Some antennas in cell 1 P are microwave rela yantennasthat tra nsmit tan d receive telephone messages Q es from cellular ar site s to the wir l'ue telephon e ne twork: The signal al between these antennas is ina directed ec fed bea m, so the dispersion of RF energy ergY ou tside e t is ------------ - narrow beam is insignificant.nifi c an t. Even directly -"...... ... .. . ......,. .......... .... .. ............. ... ......... .. ..... . beneath ace cellular the exposure e is The power from a single cellular channel is about about half that of an ordinary cordless phone, the same as an ordinary 100-watt light bulb. or less than one percent of the ANSI standard. Cellular Does Not Interfere With Other Transmissions To maximize the capacity of the system, cellular antennas transmit at very low power. This allows the same frequencies to be used simultaneously in non-adjacent cells. US WEST NewVector Group operates hundreds of cell sites in its market area and has never caused any interference problems with other transmissions. Ultra Cellular Phones Radio frequencies are a precious national Gamma Violet Visible AM Rays X Rays Light tainted Microwave ITV/FM Radio resource for which there is a tremendous and growing demand. The Federal Communications 10 10 10 10 l0 /10 10 10s 103 l9 l7 l5 U ll 9 1 Commission (FCC) regulates the use of radio EL--.CtROMAGNELiC sPecr UMW '\Frequency/Hz frequencies throughout the United States. The C llular Phones-..- hon/es \ graphs illustrate the broad range of frequencies UHF TV Omelets 7-1; FM Radio TV Clarinets 2-6 rid the narrow segment of this spectrum that Y ?~ ":xr constitutes radio and television frequencies and — ` t chose allotted to cellular phone transmissions. tog ma 101 Frequency/Hz 0 Cellular Glossary Cell. A small geographic area served by a Mobile Telephone Switching Office low-powered transmitter, 2 to 10 miles in (MTSO) Also known as the MTX or radius. "Switch". The interface between the cell sites and the conventional wireline tele- phone network. It serves as the central co- Cell Site. An installation containing the ordinator and controller, as well as housing transmitters, receivers and control equip- the switching equipment for a cellular tele- ment necessary to connect the cellular phone system. phone system and the conventional wireline telephone network. Radio Common Carrier (RCC). Firms licensed by the Federal Communications Cell Splitting. The division of a larger cell Commission (FCC) to provide a variety of into several smaller cells to provide more radio services to the public, including dis- channels within the same geographical area, patch and paging services. Many RCC's now and therefore providing better service. own cellular licenses. US WEST NewVector is an RCC licensed by the FCC. Cellular Geographical Service Area (CGSA). A specific geographic area, Roaming. The ability to operate a cellular within which a cellular system serves cus- mobile telephone in a mobile service area tourers. Mobile customers are expected to other than the one from which service is subscribe to cellular service within a given subscribed - for example, being able to use CGSA. your cellular phone in Minneapolis, even though you subscribed originally in Seattle. Digital Radio Link. A radio signal used to connect telephone circuits from a cell site to Sectorization. An engineering refinement the central switching equipment (the of a cell's transmission antennas, which im- MTSO). proves call quality by reducing cross- talk/interference. This is done by splitting the coverage of the cell site into three equal Electronic Switching System. A computer sectors, by means of directional antennas. that automatically routes calls within the cel- lular system, located at a central site. Wireline Telephone Network. The con- ventional local telephone network which Hand-Off. The indistinguishable auto- transmits calls over wires rather than radio matic switching of a signal from one cell to waves. another, which occurs within a fraction of a second. _..__ AT&T Cellular Division AT&T Wireless Services 2515 24th Avenue South Minneapolis,MN 55406 March 4, 1997 612 721-1660 FAX 612 721-4770 Ms. Jean Johnson Mr. Terry Kucera City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear Ms.( son and Mr. Kucera, Thank you for the opportunity to meet today regarding the City of Eden Prairie's telecommunications tower and antenna ordinance and about our plans for sites in and around Eden Prairie. We appreciated hearing of your concerns and hope that you gained some insights about some of our concerns regarding long and short term impacts of the ordinance. AT&T Wireless Services is committed to providing quality services to your constituents and customers, including residents, businesses in Eden Prairie, service providers, necessary emergency services, and those who frequent the area and provide the city with revenue. We are hopeful that local legislation and processes will enable us to provide access to telecommunications services, as set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions about the comments we've provided or our discussion today. Sincerely, - i ,%i Marie K. Grimm Local Government Affairs Manager cc: Peter Beck Ron Mielke Recycled Paper D�N 4j RTl :_ll0 Fifth FtithFarmT t—rs 'lti*d+ru-Atl.:World :edc Ct:.tc! l•4•i1 New lock.' ern.N W 2-t1 Ore Tabor Crete: RUMBLE '• l 1 o11 Siitl:F,iLh Stow! l0 I.�ct tic,t nth�tfee; Suite 11O :200 Sl:,enlnadh Stew( ?vluuceapulu.Mua,ralti i i112,123i S.ilnt 1'au!.\tinna•sr.t.;7,::11 4999 1\ad,:ngten,P.C.20007, hilne,.Cokes allu A1202- 'i lelcphtmc(612) 40 55?9 Tele}•ho a i1i1_'1_4:-'.'!'.:i1 ?rh thlnn•I211_`1 ix! li•trphlnt'(_i) i i 2 2!Ilt FAX Ibltl 340-=+61 phone 21I-S:!3 (A.l 1`'r.•!a9:•:i : I.',a;3117.1-772 6203 1'ItI,1-1.14!ill IN Al ,"'jc.I At Itl.\i Attorneys at Law ter a dined dial nurn .•rr 340-5588 pit. In Ninap]r,dy.dLp March 4, 1997 VIA FAX: 949-8390 Eden Prairie Telecommunications Task Force do Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator/Task Force Member City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Re: Proposed Amendments to Eden Prairie City Code Relating to Telecommunication Towers and Antenna Dear Task Force Members: This Ietter is written to present the comments of AT&T Wireless Services (AT&T) on the November 25, 1996 draft of the proposed amendments to the Eden Prairie City Code relating to telecommunication towers and antenna. Many of the comments in this letter were made during our meeting with Task Force Members on December 18, 1996. AT&T is one of the two original cellular telephone providers in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. AT&T's FCC license requires AT&T to provide high quality cellular telephone coverage throughout its licensed service area,including the City of Eden Prairie. AT&T and its predecessor, Cellular One of Minnesota, have been providing cellular telephone service to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area since 1984. In the course of establishing and developing its cellular telephone system for the Twin Cities, AT&T has developed over 90 "cell sites". A cell site consists of a set of cellular antennas, mounted on a building,monopole or other structure, and the necessary telephone switching equipment to transmit and receive signals via the antennas. A typical cell site consists of a 75-foot to 150-foot monopole to support the antennas, and a 12'x 28' equipment building to house the switching equipment. Cell sites are placed around the metropolitan area in locations designed to ensure that all areas: (1) receive high quality cellular telephone service; and (2) have enough frequencies available to meet customer demand in that area for cellular telephone use. Since each cell site can only transmit and receive on a limited number of frequencies, as cellular telephone customers increase the number of cell sites must also increase to ensure that customers can access and use the cellular telephone system to meet their communication needs. nrc-nr o, aLrt Qt :TT 1a/bGi/C71 DOHERTY RUMBLE BUTLER Eden Prairie Telecommunications Task Force c/o Jean Johnson, Zoning Adminlsiratodf'ask Force Member March 4, 1997 Page 2 Locating cell sites is a very complex undertaking. The need for a new cell site is often identified when customers complain about the quality of service or inability to access the system in a certain area. These complaints are logged in and referred to AT&T's radio frequency engineers for analysis. Using data obtained from customer complaints, field testing and computer modeling, the radio frequency engineers identify needs for and locations of new cell sites. The radio frequency engineers then give AT&T's property manager a"search area" for each new cell site. This search area can be anywhere from a quarter mile or less in diameter to one or two miles in diameter, depending upon the density of development and cellular telephone usage in the area to be served. As more and more people take advantage of the benefits which cellular telephone service provides, and the system matures,the need for additional cell sites increases and the size of the search area for each cell site decreases. Many times there are very few available properties in a search area where the consent of the landowner and approval of the local government can be obtained. AT&T, and this office as their outside legal consultant, have worked with many metropolitan area municipalities, including Eden Prairie, over the past 12 years to identify and approve appropriate sites for cellular telephone facilities. We look forward to continuing this cooperative effort with the City of Eden Prairie to ensure that its citizens are adequately provided with cellular telephone coverage. Following are our specific comments on the proposed amendments. 1. Section 2.(58). Subdivision(b)of the definition of"tower" is redundant. 2. Section 10, subdivision 3(B). As discussed during our meeting on December 18'h, the restrictions on locations in rural and residential zoning districts contained in this subdivision, coupled with the extraordinary setback requirements in subdivision 4 below, appear as though they will make it all but impossible to provide wireless coverage to the City of Eden Prairie. We suggest that subdivision 3(B) be broadened to include other institutional uses such as churches, cemeteries, etc. We also believe that restricting park locations to"when compatible with the nature of the park" may eliminate virtually all opportunities to locate in parks. Finally, we suggest that locations in public rights of way be allowed as rights of way have historically been the typical location for communications infrastructure. Monopoles can be designed to replicate existing public utility structures. A single monopole would be far less intrusive than a string of power line poles. 3. Section 10, subdivision 4(B). This extraordinary setback requirement is not only unnecessary but would severely limit location options for wireless communication infrastructure. We suggest that a more appropriate aesthetic setback requirement like this would be the height of the pole or 11/2 times the height of the pole from a residential structure. HeckP 509615.1 15Li PC-nChC.7TQ+ f- AWi qb:T T J.F,/721/�0 boiiry RUMBLE & BUTLER Eden Prairie Telecommunications Task Force PROI L'..,C)NAI.Ar...00TAT?(1N c/o Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator/Task Force Member March 4, 1997 Page 3 4. Section 10, subdivision 4(C). We are not sure the purpose behind this extraordinary setback requirement, but it would eliminate virtually all potential locations in the City, and seems to be in conflict with subdivision 5(A). We recommend that subdivision 4(C)be stricken. 5. Section 10,subdivisions 4(D)and(E). We recommend that these subdivisions be stricken as unnecessary. The monopole construction that the wireless providers are utilizing in this market is an extremely safe structure. When built to the requirements of the appropriate build:rig codes, these structures are safer and less likely to fail than virtually any other structure in the City, including overhead electrical power lines. 6. Section 10, subdivision 5(A). We suggest that this section be revised to allow monopoles to be pushed up against both rear and side yard setback lines in not only industrial but also commercial,office and public properties, provided that the adjacent property falls within one of those zones. The concept here is to provide as much flexibility as possible to locate the poles in the best location on the site. Typically this is in a corner, out of the way of other activity on the site. 7. Section 10, subdivision 5(D). We suggest that this section be expanded to also allow the "replication" of an existing structure, such as a light standard, etc. Often times we cannot actually install our antennas on a light standard or power line pole. However, we can replicate the existing poles so that the communications facility is all but unnoticeable. 8_ Section 10, subdivision 7(A)(1) and (2). We suggest that the last clause of section (1) (beginning on the third line of page 6)be eliminated, along with the last clause of section(2). It is not within the control of the applicant whether to modify an existing structure or to take steps to prevent interference. 9_ Section 10, subdivision 7(B). Under present technology, the lowest the existing wireless providers can go is approximately 75 feet, absent unique circumstances. Requiring that a 75-foot pole be designed for two users is unreasonable, because it is unlikely that any of the existing users could use a height below 75 feet (existing users need approximately 20 feet vertical separation between them). Most cities have required that poles over 75 feet in height be designed to allow one additional user. This is a requirement that AT&T and most other providers have not objected to. Requiring the poles to be designed for two additional users is excessive in that the additional bulk and cost of the pole to accommodate two additional users is out of proportion to the likelihood that a single location could ever accommodate three wireless providers. Be&509615.1 ...ran -inn •ni �� nrs-nat, 7Ta4_ n in lb:ti 1.F./bR/c0 DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER Eden Prairie Telecommunications Task Force pw.-ccr.ION AI.A,::1 u'�.�T'ON c/o Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator/Task Force Member March 4, 1997 Page 4 10. Section 10, subdivision 8(F). We see no need for a provision restricting the size of the antennas_ None of the providers are going to put any more antennas on a pole than they have a need for, and restricting their ability to install antennas they need would violate federal law. 11. Section 10, subdivision 9. We suggest that this subdivision be stricken in its entirety. All of the wireless providers have licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission which prohibit them from interfering with public safety telecommunications. These are issues within the sole regulatory authority of the FCC. 12. Section 10, subdivision 11(5). This subdivision should also be stricken, for the reasons set forth immediately above. These are our comments on the ordinance as provided to us in December. We look forward to continuing to work with the City as this ordinance is further developed and refined. • cerely, Peter K. Beck PKB/eka cc: Ron Mielke Marie Grimm HeckP 509615.1 nrr•nrf.r-,Tr ("Pori )h'TT /G/MA/Cn MAR-24-1997 15:48 SBA, INC. 8301924 P.02/03 SEIM SBA,Inc.•Wireless Communications Consultants National&International 7625 Metro Boulevard•Suite 235 Edina,Minnesota 55439 FAX:(612)830-1924-Phone: (612)830-1555 March 24, 1997 Jean Johnson Zoning Administrator/Task Force Member City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 .RE: Proposed Text Amendment Regarding Telecommunication Towers and Antennas. Dear Ms.Johnson:• - • I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to review the draft ordinance amendment to the Eden Prairie City Code. You and the other members of the Task Force have done a great job of incorporating the needs of the telecommunications industry, while protecting the public safety, and minimizing possible negative impacts upon adjacent properties. As we discussed today, there are only a few minor revisions that we would like to suggest. These are provided on the enclosed document. I plan on attending the February 6, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission and will be available for questions. Again, both SBA and Sprint PCS appreciate the opportunity to review the draft and to provide comments. If you have any questions or should require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at(612)830-1555, ext. 222. Sincerely, M /i) errie A.Thurmer SBA Inc.Zoning Specialist c: Dale Runkle, SBA-Minneapolis,Zoning Manager; and Tom Hallett,SBA-Minneapolis,Project Director. • movitepedeeprorkewdoc I • .997 15:48 SBA+ INC. 8ii1 5d4 r.163/163 City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission Comments to Text Amendment Draft Regarding Telecommunication Towers SBA, Inc. has reviewed the draft text amendment and has the following minor recommendations: Section No. Draft Language. • Recommendation Reason 2 4 "Antenna'-Any structure... 'Antenna'-My structure ... Most dictionaries use'antennas"to and omnidirectional and omni-directional antennas, refer to more than one apparatus used antennae,such as whip such as whip antennas;' for sending and receiving antennae." electromagnetic waves. They often define"Antennae"as"one of the paired, flexible,jointed sensory appendages on the head of an insect myriapod,or crustacean". 3 4.B "In all zoning districts the 'in all zoning districts the SBA, Inc.and Sprint PCS feel that a maximum height of a tower, maximum height of a tower, setback of 4 feet for each 1 foot of • except those which are public except those which am public tower height would be excessive. In utility structures located utility structures located within addition,if a tower is proposed within a within a Public Street or right- a Public Street or right-of-way, park or a school(as recommended in of-way,shall not exceed one shall not exceed one foot for the draft for residentially zoned areas) foot for each four feet the each two feet the tower is set and it is zoned residential(as is tower is set back from a Rural back from the lot line for a sometimes the case within a city),it or Residential Zoning District Rural or Residential Zoning would not be a viable site. up to a maximum height of District up to a maximum 150 feet." height of 150 feet" 7 B 'Any proposed commercial 'Any proposed commercial We recommend two providers on wireless... for at least two wireless... for at least two towers between 60 and 120 feet,and additional users if the tower is additional users if the tower is requiring 3 providers on towers over over 100 feet in height or for over 120 feet in height,at least 120 feet in height.SBA,Inc.and Sprint at least one additional user if one additional user if the tower PCS feel that requiring 3 providers on a the tower is over 60 feet in is over 60 feet in height.' tower between 60 and 100 feet in height." he' hug t would be excessive. itmiglaNienvaiarom.doc 2 TOTAL P.03 J • DOL 1 �J V SI7'I•/tF'•.r r l I.•err 'ti '\1 6•t: :: Ir•..•tanic, 14(11\rw link ",,nut%N _L:•'(Iiw Div::titter j�r � �� E1 j 5('�.•ul!•I.•.h'-:n..•r 1t)i'1-:t-.•.�.:II�•-r,�l .artr 111+11 1°i).l k'te 1hC111i1 me URlnynjj�•J( V•:•nr•.rr NI: . ...:.r .11': 1'f•11:•.. .Ir.n ;:1 1\.rJi:nrlrnl 2(11>l, 'Loire'[(.oIir.:.Lr VI:111-'1t 13 I.L•1..-:.n.•... r..accr. Ir..:•:x•-m _ _ v: I,ir•fh.m.••:pal 5:c_,:;1 .:rt•aocr ;r :( I'A .nl_} iV I.\\.:r11J ,14:.I.,1 %.\r Ar�1 .-.2111 r•Rtrb(no-It rn!.\I 1';:,i`r.I:1TIr.lt•J pp .�tlernrre al lard 1\•,.,...:i.. r.i�.'..:red...•. 340-5588 1•;,Id• I'..11i..nr'.r,•.F>•.Ih•:. March 24, 1997 VIA FAX: 949-8390 AND MAIL Eden Prairie Planning Commission City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 • Re: Proposed Amendments to Eden Prairie City Code Relating to Telecommunication Towers and Antenna Dear Planning Commission Members: This letter is written to present the comments of AT&T Wireless Services(AT&T)on the proposed amendments to the Eden Prairie City Code relating to telecommunication towers and antenna. Many of the comments in this letter were made during a meeting with the Eden Prairie Telecommunications Task Force on December 18, 1996, and in a letter to the Task Force dated March 4, 1997. AT&T is one of the two original cellular telephone providers in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. AT&T's FCC license requires AT&T to provide high quality cellular telephone coverage throughout its licensed service and including the City of Eden Prairie. AT&T and its predecessor, Cellular One of lvfinnesota, have been providing cellular telephone service to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area since 1984. In the course of establishing and developing its cellular telephone system for the Twin Cities, AT&T has developed over 90 "cell sites". A cell site consists of a set of cellular antennas, mounted on a building,monopole or other structure, and the necessary telephone switching equipment to transmit and receive signals via the antennas. A typical cell site consists of a 75-foot to 150-foot monopole to support the antennas, and a 12'x 28'equipment building to house the switching equipment. Cell sites are placed around the metropolitan area in locations designed to ensure that all areas: (1)receive high quality cellular telephone service; and (2)have enough frequencies available to meet customer demand in that area for cellular telephone use_ Since each cell site can only transmit and receive on a limited number of frequencies,as cellular telephone customers increase the number of cell sites must also increase to ensure that customers can access and use the cellular telephone system to meet their communication needs. 3°) gRfil/?GttlA cru—nN 06�86b6ZT9+ E- eaa 6Z:0T L6/17zi20 i DOTS/ jT �1' .I R MBLE & BUTLER Eden Prairie Planning Commission I.E.) 1.!..7()N.\l.; .i'i,Alps March 24, 1997 Page 2 Locating cell sites is a very complex undertaking. The need for a new cell site is often identified when customers complain about the quality of service or inability to access the system in a certain area. These complaints are logged in and referred to AT&T's radio frequency engineers for analysis. Using data obtained from customer complaints, field testing and computer modeling,the radio frequency engineers identify needs for and locations of new cell sites. The radio frequency engineers then give AT&T's property manager a"search area" for each new cell site. This search area can be anywhere from a quarter mile or less in diameter to one or two miles in diameter, depending upon the density of development and cellular telephone usage in the area to be served. As more and more people take advantage of the benefits which cellular telephone service provides, and the system matures, the need for additional cell sites increases and the size of the search area for each cell site decreases. Many times there are very few available properties in a search area where the consent of the landowner and approval of the local government can be obtained. AT&T, and this office as their outside legal consultant, have worked with many metropolitan area municipalities, including Eden Prairie, over the past 12 years to identify and approve appropriate sites for cellular telephone facilities. We look forward to continuing this cooperative effort with the City of Eden Prairie to ensure that its citizens are adequately provided with cellular telephone coverage. We are very concerned about the current draft of the proposed amendments regulating telecommunications towers and antenna. The proposed ordinance is extremely restrictive, to the point where we are concerned that it will not be possible to provide adequate wireless communication services to all areas of the City of Eden Prairie if the amendments are adopted in their current form. If this is the case,the ordinance amendments will be in violation of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides that municipalities may not take actions which prohibit and have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless communication services. The comments set forth below are AT&T's suggestions for the minimum revisions that should be made to these ordinance amendments to ensure that they will comply with the federal law and allow for the provision of wireless communication services to all areas of the City. 1. Section 10, subdivision 3(B). As discussed during our meeting on December 18"`, the restrictions on locations in rural and residential zoning districts contained in this subdivision, coupled with the extraordinary setback requirements in subdivision 4 below, appear as though they will make it all but impossible to provide wireless coverage to the City of Eden Prairie. The vast majority of Eden Prairie is zoned either rural or residential. Disallowing the wireless communication infrastructure from these zones, and from an area around these zones four times the height of any communications infrastructure, appears as though it will make it impossible to provide wireless communications throughout these areas of the City. This would be contrary to the best interests of those members of the public living, working and traveling through those areas of the City, contrary to the best interests of the public service ear 512609.1 14U 900i5-00d 9T�'ON 06286176ZT9+ F geia 6E:OT L6/VE/20 DOHER 1 i RUMBLE & BUTLER Eden Prairie Planning Commission PI.(ITI:SM(,.AI 365S01.14M,. March24, 1997 Page 3 and public safety agencies who use wireless communications in providing their services to these areas of the City, and contrary to the federal law mentioned above. We suggest that subdivision 3(B) be broadened to include other institutional uses such as churches, cemeteries, etc. We also believe that restricting park Iocations to"when compatible with the nature of the park" may eliminate virtually all opportunities to locate in parks. Finally, we suggest that locations in public rights of way be allowed, as rights of way have historically been the typical location for communications infrastructure. Monopoles can be designed to replicate existing public utility structures. A single monopole would be far less intrusive than a string of power line poles. 2. Section 10, subdivision 4(3). This section is our greatest concern with the ordinance amendments as proposed. There is simply no reason for imposing such restrictive and extraordinary setback requirements on the monopoles which support the wireless communication infrastructure_ This setback requirement would severely limit location options for the infrastructure necessary to support wireless communications. As noted above, we believe this restriction will make it impossible to provide wireless communication services to all areas of the City. We suggest that a more appropriate aesthetic setback requirement would be the height of the pole or PA times the height of the pole from a residential structure. 3. Section 10, subdivision 4(C). The two to one setback requirement from any lot line set forth in this section is unique among the 20 or 30 similar ordinances which we have reviewed over the past several years. This setback requirement would eliminate many of the potential locations in the City which are not already eliminated by the exclusion from rural and residential areas. Furthermore,this section is in direct conflict with subdivision 5(A), which provides that towers shall meet the setbacks of the underlying zoning district. We request that subdivision 4(C) be stricken, in lieu of the setback requirement set forth in subdivision 5(A). 4. Section 10, subdivision 4(D). The monopole construction which the wireless providers are utilizing in this market is an extremely safe structure. When built to the requirements of the appropriate building codes, these structures are safer and less likely to fail than virtually any other structure in the City, including overhead electrical power lines. There is no need to protect overhead electrical lines from these structures. We suggest this section also be stricken as unnecessary. 5. Section 10, subdivision 5(A). We suggest that this section be revised to allow monopoles to be pushed up against both rear and side yard setback lines, in not only industrial but also commercial, office and public properties, provided that the adjacent property falls within one Beth?512609_1 900/V00d 9T�'ON 06E86b6ZT9+ t- eaa 0�:0T 1.6/VE/20 DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER Eden Prairie Planning Commission March 24, 1997 Page 4 of those zones. The concept here is to provide as much flexibility as possible to locate the poles in the best location on the site. Typically this is in a corner, out of the way of other activity on the site. 6. Section 10, subdivision 7(B)_ Under present technology, the lowest the existing wireless providers can go is approximately 75 feet, absent unique circumstances. Requiring that a _ 75-foot pole be designed for two users is unreasonable,because it is unlikely that any of the existing users could use a height below 75 feet (existing users need approximately 20 feet vertical separation between them). Most cities have required that poles over 75 feet in height be designed to allow one additional user. This is a requirement that AT&T and most other providers have not objected to_ Requiring the poles to be designed for two additional users is excessive in that the additional bulk and cost of the pole to accommodate two additional users is out of proportion to the likelihood that a single location could ever accommodate three wireless providers. 7. Section 10, subdivision 9_ We suggest that this subdivision either be stricken in its entirety, or that everything after the first sentence be stricken as it deals with issues which are outside the scope of the City's zoning authority and jurisdiction. Title III of the Federal Communications Act of 1934(47 U.S.C. §301,et seq) confers exclusive jurisdiction over the licensing and use of radio frequencies to the Federal Communications Commission. This includes all matters relating to the use of radio frequencies and involving radio frequency interference issues. The most recent case setting forth this principle is aroyde v, Gotham Tower,Inc.,,13 F3rd 994 (6121 Cir. 1994). Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, while it expressly preserves local zoning authority over personal wireless service facilities, does not confer any authority on local government to regulate in any way the use of the radio frequency spectrum. The Conference Report on Section 704 specifically states: The limitations on the roll and the powers of the commission under this subparagraph relate to local land use regulations and are not intended to limit or effect the commission's general authority over radio telecommunications, including the authority to regulate the construction, modification and operation of radio facilities. The City simply has no authority to require that a provider address or explain the use of its licensed radio frequencies. The requirements in this subdivision of the proposed ordinance are preempted. 8. Section 10, subdivision 11(5)(C). This clause regulating interference should also be stricken, for the reasons set forth immediately above. BeckP 512609-1 qc c /cn R,--1 gTc''nw £iNn P :!lT 1.Fi/bF/r10 DOHERTY RUMBLE Q' BUTLER Eden Prairie Planning Commission Pi:..a l'.r,tilifR.\I .\CSO AfIUN March 24, 1997 Page 5 These are our comments on the ordinance provided to us. We look forward to continuing to work with the City as this ordinance is further developed and refined. Sincerely, P. K,Eirt Peter K. Beck PKB cc: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator(via fax) Rick Rosow, City Attorney(via fax) Ron Mielke(via fax) Marie Grimm(via fax) BeckP 512609.1 a 9OO/9OOd 9W"ON O6286b6ZT9+ <- eeKI 02:0T 2,6/t /