Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 03/12/1996 AGENDA ORIENTATION FOR NEW BOARD & COMMISSION MEMBERS TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1996 6:00 - 6:30 PM, CITY CENTER ATRIUM CONFERENCE ROOM 8080 Mitchell Road 6:30 - 7:15 PM COUNCIL CHAMBER COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. and Nancy Tyra- Lukens NEW COMIVIISSION APPOINTEES: Ann Birt, Louis Giglio, Tim Nelson, John Blankenship, Tom Heffelfinger, Gloria Winans, John Bell Wilson, Bill Habicht STAFF LIAISONS: Laurie Helling, Scott Kipp, Gene Dietz, Natalie Swaggert, Bob Lambert, Michael Franzen CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, City Attorney Ric Rosow ROLL CALL I. CALL TO ORDER AND WELCOME (MAYOR JEAN HARRIS) H. OVERVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE (CARL JJL.LIE, CITY MAANACER 1. Plan B - CounciUManager Form of Government 2. Roles and Responsibilities City Council City Manager and Staff Staff Liaison 3. Board and Commission Overview III. OVERVIEW OF LEGAL FRAMEWORK (RIC ROSOW, CITY ATTORNEY) 1. Open Meeting Law 2. Parliamentary Procedure 3. Code of Ethics (Conflict of Interest and Gift Ban) 4. Data Practices IV. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1996 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock,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 & Facilities Bob Lambert,Director of Public Works Gene 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. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 20, 1996 B. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/TOLL ROAD TOWN MEETING HELD TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 27, 1996 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. COLUMBINE TOWNHOMES by Cornerstone/Equities LLC. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 3.3 acres and PUD District Review on 3.3 acres; Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 3.3 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Columbine Townhomes by Cornerstone/Equities LLC. Location: Columbine Road, North of the Post Office. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change and PUD District Review and Resolution for Site Plan Review) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 12, 1996 Page 2 C. KINDERCARE- SHADY OAK ROAD by Tandem Corporation. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.7 acres; Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 1.7 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Kindercare - Shady Oak Road by Tandem Corporation. Location: City West Parkway and Shady Oak Road. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change and Resolution for Site Plan Review) D. MHFA FIRST TIME BUYER PROGRAM Requesting the City's Participation in the 1996 Minnesota Cities Participation Program (Resolution) E. CITY CENTER ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLAN F. RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR IC 96-54031996 STREET SWEEPING G. DISCLAIMER OF INTEREST FOR NSP EASEMENT V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. ISSUANCE OF$3,300,000 HOUSING REFUNDING BONDS FOR ELIM SHORES B. ROGER'S HOMESTEAD by Paul Thorp. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.9 acres and Preliminary Plat of 10.9 acres into 16 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: Duck Lake Road and Duck Lake Trail. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) C. DATA METALCRAFT by Gene 0' Brien. Request for Zoning District Change from I-Gen to I-2 on 3 acres and Site Plan Review on 3 acres for construction of a 16,734 sq. Ft. building addition. Location: 7875 Fuller Road. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change) D. 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT(CDBG) ACTIVITIES Adopt Resolution approving the 1996 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) activities as recommended by the Housing, Transportation, and Social Services Board (HTSSB). (Resolution) VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. Roger's Commercial Guide Plan Change (Resolution for denial) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 12, 1996 Page 3 VIII. PETITIONS, REOUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Appeal of Variance#95-31 (Mr. Tom Morgan) B. Proposal from General Growth for Public Participation in Upgrade of Eden Prairie Center IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Livable Communities Strategies X. APPOINTMENTS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS,RECREATION& FACILITIES 1. Concept Plan & Cost Estimates for Miller Park Skating Rink 2. Playground Site Inventory and Recommended Improvement Plan D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY XII. OTHER BUSINESS 1. City Manager Evaluation (Closed Session) XIII. ADJOURNMENT -H UNAPPROVED MINITTF_S EDEN PRAIRIE. CITY COUNCIL. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1996 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Ronald Case, Patricia Pidcock, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J.Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Facilities Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL All members were present. PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING EDEN PRAIRIE VARSITY DANCE TEAM RECOGNITION WEEK IN EDEN PRAIRIE, FEBRUARY 26 - MARCH 1, 1996 Mayor Harris read the Proclamation proclaiming February 26 - March 1, 1996, as Eden Prairie Varsity Dance Team Recognition Week in Eden Prairie. She presented certificates to each member of the dance team. DONATION OF THREE AUTOMATIC EXTERNAL DEFIBRILLATOR FROM FAIRVIEW AUXILIARY, FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL MEDICAL STAFF, FAIRVIEW FOUNDATION, AND THE FAIRVIEW FOUNDATION ANESTHESIA FUND Mayor Harris welcomed representatives from Fairview Southdale Hospital who presented the City with a donation of three automatic external defibrillators to be used by our emergency responders. Representatives of the Police and Fire Departments accepted the donation on behalf of the City, and Mayor Harris presented a plaque to the Fairview representatives thanking them for their donation. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. II. OPEN PODIUM - /— CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 2 III. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP REGARDING NSP ISSUES HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1996 B. CITY COUNCIL/HRA MEETING HEID TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1996 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the minutes of the City Council/Staff Workshop Regarding NSP Issues held Tuesday, February 6, 1996, and the minutes of the City Council/HRA Meeting held Tuesday, February 6, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE 4-96 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2.32 FOR ISSUANCE OF CITATIONS C. RFSOI.ITTION 96-30 AMENDING RFSOLLTTIQN NO. 96-1, REGULATING FEES AND CHARGES FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES FOR CITY CENTER AND COMMUNITY ROOMS D. 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE 5-96 AMENDING PARK ITSE ORDINANCE, CITY CODE SECTION 9.04 E. 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE 6-96 CHANGING STREET NAME OF OLD COUNTY ROAD 18 F. 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE 7-96 AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 2, SECTIONS 2.10, 2.16,2.21 AND 2.29 RELATING TO BOARDS & COMMISSIONS G. SUNNYBROOK WOODS by Stephen J. Kroiss. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 8-96 for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 4.0 acres; and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Sunnybrook Woods by Stephen J. Kroiss. Location: North side of Sunnybrook Road. (Ordinance 8-96 for Zoning District Change) H. RESOLUTION 96-31 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BIRCH ISLAND ACRES 2ND ADDITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, I.C. 96-5396 I. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 96-32 AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF$886,000 FOR OLYMPIC RIDGE PROJECT - ) - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 3 Regarding the issuance of a liquor license to Fuddruckers, Inc., per item A, Pidcock said she assumed the issuance would be contingent upon receiving all of the proper paperwork. Jullie assured her that was true. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve items A-I of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. ROGER'S COMMERCIAL GUIDE PLAN CHANGE by Roger Lindeman. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.91 acres. Location: 9125 Flying Cloud Drive. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change) Continued from February 6, 1996 Jullie noted this item was continued from the February 6, 1996 Council meeting. Roger Lindeman, representing proponent, presented their request for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change on 1.91 acres from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial. Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at the January 8, 1996, meeting and recommended denial of the request on a vote of 7-0. The Commission noted the abundance of convenience gas stations in the area, and this project would impact the residential areas to the south. Ory Hein, 9135 Flying Cloud Drive, reviewed his letter outlining his concerns about the proposal, including the negative influence on home values of a 24-hour gas station in the neighborhood, the precedent such a variance would set, and the potential heavy traffic that would share his 350-foot driveway. Jim Simchuk, 9145 Flying Cloud Drive, said his property is directly across the driveway from the proposed site. He was concerned about the agreements made for the driveway access to this property, and thought MNDoT might have an interest in changing the configuration of the intersection if this project is approved. Lynn Eichman, representing Rogers Body Shop, said there are alternatives for the entrance, noting the City's long term plans show a city street to go into an undeveloped area to the east. He said there are, in fact, other commercial establishments located in that area. Pidcock asked what options would be available to them under the industrial zoning and whether they had looked into those options. Eichman said industrial is very difficult on this site. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 4 Tyra-Lukens asked what zoning existed when the property was purchased. Eichman said it was rural but they requested industrial for the body shop they intended to build at the time of purchase. Mike O'Leary, 6697 Promontory Drive, thought a body shop on this site would also generate a lot of traffic, and a gas station at this location would serve the community better. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Case asked if we would be more inclined to consider this for commercial if the plan was for a retail store. Enger replied we probably would not because the Council and the Planning Commission have been trying to deal with land use along Highway 169 for 20 years to keep it from becoming a strip commercial highway. He reviewed the current businesses in the area, all of which were zoned industrial. Harris asked what kinds of development could be put in under industrial zoning. Enger said it could be used for office/showrooms, leaning towards very light industrial or high tech usage. Harris asked if the ravine is considered a natural transition zone. Enger said it could be, as could the future road; however, the ravine is significantly south of this site. He said we have a lot of experience recently with problems created when residential and commercial establishments share the same road. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to direct Staff to prepare a Resolution with Findings for Denial of this project for Council action at the March 12, 1996, meeting. Case said, while his original thought was that this was an ideal location for a 24-hour gas station, he now has great concern about deviating from our two acre minimum. He was also concerned about having three gas stations in proximity. Tyra-Lukens expressed concern about the amount of traffic that would be generated by a gas station at this location. Harris was concerned about the lot size and the problems that would be created by additional traffic. She thought there are some alternatives that proponent can pursue without changing the zoning to commercial. Pidcock thought the traffic generated by a gas station would impact the residential driveways, and proponent does have some alternatives. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 5 B. BLUFFS FAST 16TH ADDITION - I.OT 1, BLOCK 1 by Hustad Land Company. Request for Rezoning from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 on 0.4 acres. Location: Franlo Road and Normandy Crest. (Ordinance for Rezoning from RM 6.5 to R1-13.5) Beth Simenstad, representing Hustad Development, reviewed their request for a Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 to build a single-family home instead of a twin-home unit. Enger said the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 6-0 vote at their February 12, 1996, meeting. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public Hearing and to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Rezoning from RM-6.5 to R1-13.5 for Lot 1, Block 1, Bluffs East 16th Addition. Motion carried unanimously. C. SOITTAWFST METRO TRANSIT HUB by Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public Open Space to Regional Commercial on 8.5 acres, PUD Concept Review on 22 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 8.5 acres and PUD District Review, Site Plan Review on 8.5 acres and Preliminary Plat of 22 acres into one lot. Location: South of Highway 5, north of Technology Drive and west of Prairie Center Drive. (Resolution 96-33 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Resolution 96-34 for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for Zoning District Change and PUD District Review, and Resolution 96-35 for Preliminary Plat) Kate Garwood and Kyle Williams, representing Southwest Metro Transit, reviewed the purpose of the development and the details of the project. Williams also reviewed the traffic patterns in the area that will occur during construction of the project. Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the project at their January 22, 1996, meeting and recommended approval on a unanimous vote, subject to the recommendations of the January 19th Staff Report. Lambert said the Parks, Recreation &Natural Resources Commission reviewed the proposal at their February 5, 1996, meeting and recommended approval on a 6-0 vote. There were no comments from the audience. • MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public Hearing; to adopt Resolution 96-33 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change; to — S CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 6 adopt Resolution 96-34 approving the Planned Unit Development Concept Review for the Southwest Metro Transit Hub; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change and PUD District Review; to adopt Resolution 96-35 approving the Preliminary Plat; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. D. VACATION 96-02: SNOW FENCE EASEMENT AT 6509 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE (Resolution 96-36) Jullie noted this is a housekeeping item. Pidcock asked why the easement was there. Jullie said the highway department was accustomed to putting up snowfence years ago, but they don't use it now that the area is developed. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution 96-36 vacating the snow fence easement at 6509 Flying Cloud Drive. Motion carried unanimously. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Payment of Claims as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Case, Pidcock, Thorfinnson, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye." VII. ORDINANCES AM)RESOLUTIONS A. 1ST READING OF ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 6, BY AMENDING SECTION 6.06, SURD. 5, RELATING TO THE PLACEMENT OF SNOW OR ICE IN A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Jullie said we have been experiencing growing numbers of problems with snow from commercial parking lots being dumped on City sidewalks. He said this ordinance will expand the existing code restriction to include any area within a public right-of-way. Pidcock asked about the penalty for violation of the ordinance. Rosow said it is a misdemeanor. Tyra-Lukens was concerned about the date of effectiveness for the amendment since many businesses have seasonal contracts for snow removal in place that may not be subject to change in order to accommodate the ordinance for this season. Jullie said we would have to deal with a transition period for enforcement, and that CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 7 the ordinance would be effective upon 2nd Reading. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance amending Section 6.06, Subdivision 5, relating to placing snow or ice in a public right-of-way. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS ANI) COMMUNICATIONS IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Third Quarterly Report from Senior Issues Task Force Bette Anderson, Co-Chair of the Senior Issues Task Force, presented a report on recent activities of the Senior Issues Task Force. They have the demographic report nearly completed. The report will show a much increased senior population during the next ten years, and an explosion in the numbers of frail elderly by 2015. She noted the Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging is considering coordinating with the Family Services Collaborative in order to provide whole community service. Pidcock thanked Anderson and the rest of the Task Force for their many hours of work. Harris thanked Anderson for her report. B. Preliminary Recommendations for Habitat for Humanity Housing Prgjeet Dave Lindahl reported, as requested by the Council on January 16, 1996, the Housing, Transportation and Social Services Board (HTSSB) has reviewed the request from the Common Ground Church Consortium for the City to assist in finding a lot for the construction of an affordable single-family house in Eden Prairie by Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity. The staff agenda report of February 20th summarizes the recommendations from the HTSSB regarding how the City participates in developing affordable single family detached housing. Lindahl said the HTSSB members were concerned that we be sure to help low income people, or at least those who are at 80% of median income. They recommend setting aside $20,000-$30,000 for 1996 to be used to acquire or help to acquire a site. The funds could be used to help pay the assessment on tax-forfeit property. They recommend limiting the amount of subsidy to one family to $15,000. Lindahl said Rosow reviewed some of the issues regarding tax-forfeit property in his memorandum of February 13, 1996. We have not been able to determine the cost of acquisition from the county. We would acquire the property and deed it over to the non-profit agency. He cautioned we should be sensitive to where such a home is placed, and make sure that it will provide transition into an existing neighborhood. -, - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 8 MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt the recommendations of the Housing, Transportation and Social Services Board regarding City participation in developing affordable single-family detached housing. Motion carried unanimously. X. APPOINTMENTS A. ARTS COMMISSION-2 Appointments for terms commencing April 1, 1996 -March 31, 1999 Thorfinnson nominated Deb Campbell Potter. Case nominated Ann Birt. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the nominations and cast a unanimous ballot for Deb Campbell Potter and Ann Birt. Motion carried unanimously. B. BOARD OF AL)JITSTMENTS & APPEALS-3 Appointments for 3-year terms commencing April 1, 1996 - March 31, 1999 Pidcock nominated Del Dye. Tyra-Lukens nominated Louis Giglio. Case nominated Tim Nelson. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the nominations and case a unanimous ballot for Del Dye, Louis Giglio, and Tim Nelson. Motion carried unanimously. C. ENVIRONMENTAL & WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION - 2 Appointments for 3-year terms commencing April 1, 1996 - March 31, 1999 Thorfinnson nominated John Blankenship. Case nominated Sabina Kitts. Pidcock nominated Ellen Richard. MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to close the nominations. Motion carried unanimously. Following are the results of the written ballot: Blankenship--4 votes; Kitts--4 votes; Richard--2 votes. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to cast a unanimous ballot for John Blankenship and Sabina Kitts. Motion carried unanimously. D. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION- 2 Appointments (1 citizen representative and 1 Flying Cloud Business rep) for 3-year terms commencing April 1, 1996 - March 31, 1999 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 9 Tyra-Lukens nominated Tom Heffelfinger as the Citizen Representative. Pidcock nominated Allen Nitchman as the Flying Cloud Business Representative. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to close the nominations and cast a unanimous ballot for Tim Heffelfinger as the Citizen Representative and Allen Nitchman as the Flying Cloud Business Representative to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission. Motion carried unanimously. E. HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION- 2 Appointments for 3-year terms commencing April 1 1996 - March 31, 1999 Case nominated Betty McMahon. Pidcock nominated James Mason. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the nominations and cast a unanimous ballot for Betty McMahon and James Mason. Motion carried unanimously. F. HTTMAN RIGHTS & DIVERSITY COMMISSION - 2 Appointments for 3-year terms commencing April 1, 1996 - March 31, 1999 Thorfinnson nominated Munna Yasiri. Case nominated Gloria Winans. Thorfinnson nominated Vladimir Kozyrev. Pidcock nominated Nancy Westby MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the nominations. Motion carried unanimously. Following are the results of the written ballot: Gloria Winans--five votes; Munna Yasiri--five votes. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to cast a unanimous ballot for Gloria Winans and Munna Yasiri. Motion carried unanimously. G. PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION - 3 Appointments for 3-year terms commencing April 1, 1996 - March 31, 1999 Tyra-Lukens nominated John Bell Wilson. Case nominated Claire Hilgeman. Thorfinnson nominated Richard Brown. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to close the nominations and to cast a unanimous ballot for John Bell Wilson, Claire Hilgeman, and Richard Brown. Motion carried unanimously. H. PLANNING COMMISSION- 2 Appointments for 3-year terms commencing April 1, 1996 - March 31, 1999 Tyra-Lukens nominated Bill Habicht. Case nominated Douglas Sandstad. Pidcock c� _ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 10 nominated Gretchen Schellhas, Bill Ford, and Bill Jackson. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to close the nominations. Motion carried unanimously. Following are the results of the written ballot: Bill Habicht--4 votes; Douglas Sandstad--4 votes; Bill Ford--1 vote; Gretchen Schellhas--1 vote. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to cast a unanimous ballot for Bill Habicht and Douglas Sandstad. Motion to cast a unanimous ballot failed on a 4-1 vote with Pidcock opposed. Bill Habicht and Douglas Sandstad were appointed to the Planning Commission for 3-year terms commencing April 1, 1996 to March 31, 1999. XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Set date for Annual Awards Banquet Jullie asked the Councilmembers to choose Wednesday, May 1 or Thursday, May 2 as the date for the Annual Awards Banquet. The consensus was to select Wednesday, May 1, 1996 as the date. C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES 1. Concept Plan and Cast Estimate for Miller Park Skating Rink As outlined in the Staff Report of February 20, 1996, Lambert said Staff was not satisfied with the quality of the building that could be provided for the estimated budget. The architect was asked to revise the design to expand the building and the parking lot in order to provide a summer playground site. Those revisions resulted in an increase in cost from the original estimate of$150,000 to$235,000 for the current design. Lambert said the Parks Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval of the revised design and the $235,000 budget on a unanimous vote. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the concept design and the cost estimate of$235,000. Tyra-Lukens was concerned about a 150% increase over the original estimate and about the comment that these increased costs may indicate - /( CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 11 similar increases for other buildings in this project. Lambert replied the $150,000 was a budget cost estimate for the purpose of developing five-year capital improvement projects and was not based on any specific program or building size. He said we need to use very durable materials that will withstand vandalism because the park is in a remote area and is screened from view. We also need a building constructed for heavy use and one that meets ADA requirements. So far we have spent $3.8 million on the park, and our efforts will be judged from the quality of the buildings there. We increased the size of the building and parking lot in order to accommodate our summer play program. The metal roof added $15,000 to the cost. Harris was not uncomfortable with the price increase because it would give us a low maintenance, multi-purpose building with parking. Case shared the concern about the cost increase; however, because this is one of three high use parks, he thought we should put money into this to ensure quality. Thorfmnson was concerned we will be spending cash park fees on this project, while we just recently turned down the purchase of some property in order not to spend cash park fees. Tyra-Lukens questioned what items increase the total to $235,000. Lambert said much of the increase comes with the additions that the City will do to enlarge the parking lot and construct the rink, and the cost of the asphalt. Tyra-Lukens said she thought we may have some alternatives and asked if we could cut expenses by not building the cupola. Lambert said the cupola is $5,000, and the main increase for the building is changing from a truss building to using steel beams. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion failed with Thorfmnson, Tyra-Lukens and Pidcock opposed. Thorfinnson said he thought we have to come up with a different design or find some way to cut this back. Lambert asked what figure we should cut it back to. Case suggested Staff and the Parks Commission review the prioritized list of cash park fee expenditures. Harris suggested Staff work with Councilmembers on a structured option list that would also consider the maintenance costs involved with the options. Thorfmnson added we would need to see the present value cost of maintenance. // CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 12 Lambert said Staff will come back to the Council with what the different component costs will be within the building. 7ullie suggested Staff work with a subcommittee of the Council to address the concerns and return with recommendations. Harris appointed Thorfinnson and Tyra-Lukens to serve on the subcommittee. 2. leek Lake Management Plan Lambert said the Council directed Staff to work with the DNR and the developer to see if there could be a public access designation on Duck Lake. After looking at two possible locations with the developer, it was determined that neither one was feasible. Duane Shodeen of the DNR has agreed to designate the City property as a public access if the City will pass an ordinance that would restrict use of Duck Lake to no motors. The DNR would also set aside some fish to restock the lake if we approve the public access and pass the no motors designation. Lambert said the Parks Commission recommended approval of this earlier this evening; however, we will have to have a Public Hearing and draft an ordinance for DNR approval. It will be a 90-day process at best. Tyra-Lukens asked if there will be a fishing pier on the City property. Lambert replied the DNR has a grant program to donate a certain number of piers each year. We could probably get one in 1997. Tyra-Lukens asked if there will be a problem with restricting use to no motors. Lambert said he thought there are two property owners on the lake that have electric motors; however, he did not think anyone would oppose this because of the benefit from DNR management. Case asked if the use of paddleboats would be a problem. Lambert said the DNR indicated those would not be a problem. Pidcock asked if the DNR provides fishing piers for rivers. Lambert said he was not aware of such a program, and they provide piers for lakes in the metropolitan area to encourage safe access for kids to fish. He said he would check on the issue of whether they provide them for rivers. Thorfinnson said this would alleviate the potential problem on Duck Lake Road with kids fishing along the road. MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the proposed Duck Lake Management Plan as recommended in the staff report of February 20, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. -- — CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 13 3. Natural and Scpnir Grant Program Lambert said in 1995 the City turned back a $50,000 grant we received for acquisition of the Peterson property because it was not enough incentive to pursue acquisition of the $280,000 property. As outlined in the Staff Report of February 20, 1996, the State Legislature is considering changing the maximum grant amount from $50,000 to $200,000 for the 1996 program. If the maximum amount is changed, we could now get $150,000 towards the purchase price. We would have to spend about $1,000 to get a current appraisal of the property in order to apply for the grant. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to authorize staff to apply for the 1996 Natural and Scenic Grant Program, per the recommendations of the staff report of February 20, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1. Bearpath Public Access Referring to the staff report of February 20, 1996, Enger said staff has had several meetings with Bearpath management and have developed the proposed regulations for public pedestrian and biking access to the private street system of Bearpath. The public would be considered guests of the Bearpath Homeowners Association and would register at the gatehouse. Access would be limited to daylight hours only, and visitors would be allowed to use the streets only, not the golf cart paths. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to grant consent to the proposed easement regulations for the Bearpath development public access, per the recommendations of the staff report of February 20, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS Dietz said he wanted to begin with item 2 to accommodate those in the audience who were here for that item. 2. Storm Drainage Problems in the Westwind Addition of the Preserve (Continued from 12/19/95) As outlined in the staff agenda report of February 20, 1996, Dietz said we are proposing this be a partnership process to deal with the drainage problems that exist. /3— CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 14 Evelyn Law, 10680 Lake Fall Drive, read a letter from the Preserve Association Board of Directors in which they stated that nothing the Preserve Association has done or fails to do contributes to the drainage problem that exists for the property owners. The Preserve Association is willing to grant permanent drainage easements across the property for improvements. The annual assessments provide for maintenance, and they could not assess on all 680 units for a drainage problem involving only a few units. Case asked to what extent this problem results from an inadequate storm water drainage infrastructure. Dietz replied some of the drainage ways have silted in. Case asked if there is precedent in other areas. Dietz said there is, and the concept of storm water utility funds could be used for this sort of project, but probably not as a top priority. Dietz said there should be some participation by property owners in the solution; therefore, staff suggested the 50% funding. This area is all privately owned, and the outlots and trails are owned by the Preserve Association. When the Preserve was developed 20 years ago design standards were not as rigorous as today's standards. Pidcock asked if we participated in solving the problems with the Association at Penny Hill near Bent Tree. Dietz said he thought the regrading of the golf course may have resolved those problems. Julie said he thought the City may have picked up part of that expense. Case asked if the mitigation would occur on the Dominick property or on the Association outlot. Dietz said the drain tile would be on Mr. Dominick's property. Case then asked if we would be setting a precedent by entering into a 50% funding agreement. Dietz thought funding split has the best chance of success. He showed the proposed project on a map of the area, and said the total cost for the project he described would be about $20,000. Case asked if there is federal money available for old properties to retrofit with drainage. Dietz said storm water utility fees have been used to deal with flooding and water quality;however,this is a difficult site to work with. Case liked the idea of the different parties participating in the cost. Leo Dominick, 8675 Westwind Circle, presented a letter summarizing the problems that he believed were not addressed by the staff report. He said those problems go beyond those described in the staff report and include storm sewer catch basins that do not have enough capacity and inadequate storm drainage ditches in other areas.He said he represents 23 of the adjacent property owners. He said all of the property that would be involved in the project is on Preserve Association property or City property. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 15 Dietz was concerned doing the kind of work proposed may not solve Mr. Dominick's problems and suggested he may need to look at how the grading has been done around his home. Mr. Dominick said he has no problem with water coming in from the outside;however,three or four years ago a problem developed with water in his basement when there was water standing in the drainage ditch on the Association property. Dietz said dealing with the additional problems presented by Mr. Dominick would increase the cost estimate tremendously. Harris thought there was more than one problem involved in this issue, and we will not be able to resolve it all this evening. The central issues are a clear definition of the problems and how the solution would be paid for. We also need to determine what the true cost would be, and there are some policy issues involved. Dietz said further investigation would probably take more than two weeks. Case asked if we would be viewing this differently if the Preserve outlot area were owned by the City. Dietz said that was possible; however, we don't know what has been done, and a public trail might have been done differently. Case said he would like to have some information regarding precedent and the issue of culpability. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to return this item to Staff for further study of the issues, including how this might look in different type of projects where the City owns the land and the impact on other areas that would have similar concerns, and to bring back a report as soon as possible. Motion carried unanimously. 1. Approval of Water. Sewer and Storm Water Utility Enterprise Budget for 1996 Dietz presented the highlights of the proposed 1996 Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Water Utility Enterprise budgets, as per the staff report of February 20, 1996. Thorfinnson said he would like to include the enterprise funds in our next budget workshop. Dietz said he would do that and would also provide projections. MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to approve the proposed 1996 Water, Sanitary Sewer and Storm Water Utility Enterprise Budgets, per the staff report of February 20, 1996, with the stipulation that these be included in future budget discussions. Motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 20, 1996 Page 16 3. Resolution 96-37 Authorizing Disposal of Tax Forfeited Land Referring to the staff report of February 20, 1996, Dietz reviewed the three parcels that are scheduled for tax forfeiture. Staff is recommending all three parcels be withheld from auction for up to one year so that we can develop a more detailed plan for them. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case,to approve Resolution 96-37 authorizing the referenced parcels be withheld from auction for up to one year and classified as non-conservation land, as recommended in the staff report of February 20, 1996. Motion carried unanimously. F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY G. DIRECTOR OF ASSESSING X.H. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1996 7:30 p.m. CITY CENTER TOLL ROAD TOWN MEETING Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Ron Case, Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Patricia Pidcock, and Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Engineer Al Gray, and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting began at 7:30 p.m. II. T.A. TOIL ROAD PROPOSAL A. Presentation Mr. Lawry from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Department of Finance discussed why MnDOT has been looking at toll roads since • 1993 as a means of financing new roadway construction. It has been established that highway funds are not used where the need is and also Federal subsidies for roadway construction have decreased to the point where the State receives approximately one federal dollar for every state dollar collected from the gasoline tax. Under the present funding scenario, and without alternative funding, it will take 118 years to complete this roadway. This is the reason they are considering alternative types of funding, and it is now required that the State look at the possibility of mixing toll road funds with federal funds. If it is determined that any of the proposed projects meet public needs then MnDOT will enter into negotiations with the various City Councils to get approval for this project. Mr. Robert Ferris, Director of Transportation Services for Interwest introduced the contractor from Markeson Construction Company, John Wilson in charge of real estate acquisition, and Robert Lindal from the 212 Community Highway Association Board of Directors. Mr. Ferris described the segment of Highway 212 which was proposed as a toll road would extend from Wallace Road through to the point where it would intersect with Highway 47 and Old Highway 212 in Chaska. He explained the segment which is the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Highway 5 is now fully funded and construction will commence this spring. He discussed the funding for segment 1 and noted it has only become available this year as Congress passed CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 27, 1995 Page 2 legislation permitting this type of funding. T.H. 5 is a separate project which will be funded through a lease program and will not be a toll road. The toll road would be funded by those who use it and it will be a partnership in which the project is designed, constructed and funded. The objective is to build the road with as little expense as possible to keep the toll costs down. Robert Lindal stated he was Chairman of the Community 212 Highway Association, and a member of the Chaska City Council. Highway 212 is badly needed as Old Highway 212 is the most dangerous highway in the State of Minnesota. Conditions on Highway 5 have worsened and become more congested, and there is a need for the new roadway. Highway 212 has been planned for a long time and the project has been approved by the State. Over $1 Million have been invested in the project thus far. Two-thirds of the right-of-way has been purchased in Eden Prairie and Chaska and the roadway has been determined to be part of the national highway system. Construction of this roadway has been an important issue for all the communities affected, including Eden Prairie. Construction of the new Highway 212 will accomplish several important things. It will alleviate traffic congestion on Old Highway 212, and improve traffic on Pioneer Trail and Highway 5. It will also advance completion of Highway 5 improvements from I-494. People who don't want to use the toll road can continue to use the old existing roads or use different routes. Lindal read a letter from Sever Peterson, 15900 Flying Cloud Drive in support of constructing the toll road and submitted a letter from David Huntley of Mammoth, Inc. in support of toll roads. Mayor Don Chmiel of the City of Chanhassen stated he was soliciting the City of Eden Prairie's support for this project because without toll road financing it would not be constructed before the year 2016. The roadway would be beneficial for all the cities, but particularly for those of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. Bob Roepke, Mayor of the City of Chaska, stated he was strongly in support of the project because it addresses the issues of traffic and safety. The traffic levels have increased to the point where they are becoming problematic within the community itself. They must be proactive in seeking solutions to these problems, and he believed they have waited as long as possible and this was the time to take the steps to get the roadway built. Utilization of the toll road type of financing, as proposed, was one way to achieve this goal. Community financial exposure is protected and if people can set aside the implications formerly conveyed by toll roads, this can produce a quality result that will help build a quality project. Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, commented he had been involved in the Highway 212 project for many years and strongly supported this project with the toll road financing plan. With this type of funding Highway 212 can be built instead of waiting until well into the future. The need is obvious, and the public CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 27, 1995 Page 3 funding is not going to happen. He believed this was the way to get the job done. Bill Green, 12001 Technology Drive, read a letter from Steven M. Quist, President of Rosemount Measurement in support of the proposed roadway. Gary Johnson 15020 Ironwood Court, stated he had been a resident of Eden Prairie for 17 years. He supported the toll road as it was a way to get the roadway built. He believed it would be an option for those who chose to use it and it would benefit all the communities along its route. He believed it would improve the quality of life for all the residents in these communities and he requested the City Council to give it their support. Gordon Lewis, 4201 Norex Drive, Chaska, stated he owns a manufacturing business there and this could be a lifesaving choice for the cities along the proposed roadway. He urged support of the toll road proposal and noted the gas taxes were insufficient to pay for construction costs. B. Comments from the Public Mayor Harris invited the public to speak. Michael Rush, 16907 Hanover Lane, commented the reason a toll road was needed was because the State had cut off the funding. There was a process available within the State to obtain the funding from them. The reason the road had not been constructed was because the people do not want to pay for this road. The proposed toll road is not free and it will become a tax for everyone in the future. He was concerned about maintaining the surrounding roadways in good repair if the toll road is constructed. He noted when the toll road is paid for the toll still remains. He moved to Eden Prairie 5 years ago because it was a nice community and he did not believe cutting a major roadway through the City would enhance that, but rather would turn it into another Bloomington. He had heard of the benefits to other cities located further west but he had not heard about the benefits to Eden Prairie. If the roadway is constructed the City is divided, there is a tax that goes on the road, the noise levels are increased and added development occurs further west. He believed Eden Prairie residents needed to put their interests first and try to maintain the quality of life that exists in Eden Prairie today. Sandy Russen, 8731 Summit Drive, discussed the proposed roadway connections to Highway 212 and commented she did not see how this would alleviate traffic congestion on Pioneer Trail, but believed it would increase because people would want to avoid the toll road. She believed if the roadway is approved it would be subsidizing development in the suburbs further west and Eden Prairie would not gain very much. She conceded there was a need for roadway improvement but believed there were other ways to do this rather than through a toll road. She was not comfortable with the financing plan and believed the impact would be more .3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 27, 1995 Page 4 far-reaching than was generally thought. If a toll road is approved it would set a precedent for other communities in the metro area to do the same, and a way of life that has been enjoyed by Minnesota residents will disappear. Pete Bellus, 15790 Summit Drive, commented he believed there were many oversimplifications and misstatements by the Highway 212 Board. The congestion and safety issues had been oversimplified, and Highway 5 is used as a giant metering ramp for I-494. There are other routes available to carry traffic and he did not believe the situation would improve until the entire metro area infrastructure was updated. He noted there have been transportation improvements completed in this area in the past years. He believed Highway 212 was obsolete and should not be built. Michael Drager, 15332 Leslie Lane, stated while he believed the roadway needed to be built, he liked the small town atmosphere of Eden Prairie. He did not believe the toll road proposal was the way to do this, but there were projects in MnDOT that were way over budget and he believed some funding could be re-allocated to cover the cost of constructing Highway 212 without making it a toll road. Jerry Fashant, 8580 Norwood Circle, did not believe that Minnesota residents would drive on a toll road. He commented the questionnaire asked slanted and biased questions. He was concerned if the road were constructed as a toll road and it did not generate enough revenue to pay for the road, that the toll rates would be raised. He believed there must be a strong reason why this roadway has not been built if there is so much support for it. He noted all the people who spoke in support of the toll road proposal have a strong vested interest in seeing the road constructed. He requested the City Council to respect the wishes of the residents and deny the toll road proposal. Dean Edstrom commented he had no business interest in this project and had testified solely as a resident of Eden Prairie. Pidcock stated she faithfully represented all the people of the City of Eden Prairie all of the years she has served on the City Council. She noted, for the record, she has no vested interest in seeing this project completed and in no way stands to benefit financially or personally from this project. Robert Ferris, Director of Transportation Services, Interwest, stated the speed on the proposed toll road would be 55 miles per hour and there were no at-grade intersections. The roadway would be built to interstate standards. Robert Lindal stated they were non-profit owners and all proceeds would go into local projects and reserves for maintenance, and finally into MnDOT itself. Chaska has not supported this project as a means for expansion but as a way to provide a roadway that will handle the traffic levels which are rapidly approaching 4/ CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 27, 1995 Page 5 gridlock. There would be a joint powers agreement signed by the municipalities affected and they will supervise the payment of the bonds. The new roadway is needed because of the traffic hazards on Old Highway 212 with its intersections and the significant safety problems. Traffic levels have increased substantially in this area. Ferris reviewed gradients for intersection flow and noted many intersections presently operate at Level E which is one level up from Gridlock (Level F). Highway 212 would alleviate some of the traffic and improve signal levels at intersections. The state does not have the funds to build the road because the revenues from the gas tax have significantly decreased. The asset base is not held by a corporation and they are managers for the project but have no ownership interest. They provide a service and they charge a fee for that service. Richard Carr, President of DLR Group, commented the 5 cent per gallon gas tax produces $100,000,000 which is divided among various agencies. Discussion ensued regarding the traffic lights on Highway 5, and Dietz noted Fuller Lane would be the first light before County Road 4. III. I-494 TOIL ROAD PROPOSAL A. Presentation Bob Zauner, Chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Group presented the I- 494 Toll Road proposal. This was not a stand-alone proposal and it encourages the involvement of private business as well as all the municipalities and the State government in the issue of transportation. The Legislature stated any highway project exceeding $100,000 in costs must look at alternative financing methods. Many roads in the metropolitan area will be affected by this ruling. Toll roads will offer choices in commute times. The toll road method of financing roadway construction will achieve several important goals, including quick delivery of the project, rapid commute times, good transportation systems and roadways, and development of projects that need to be built. There is no such thing as a free road, and he did not believe there would be any roadway improvements in the future without the use of toll roads. He discussed funding methods and reasons for revenue decline. He noted insufficient revenues are generated from the gas tax to meet the need of the metropolitan area at this time. I-494 would become a toll road from the intersection with Highway 212 to Highway 100 with two additional lanes being constructed in each direction. If you consider the time wasted at on ramps in wasted fuel, and time lost from work, then the toll is paid now. They would implement an all electronic toll system, which would require a device attached to the dashboard of the vehicles and overhead CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 27, 1995 Page 6 recorders would record the presence of that vehicle on the roadway. This could be handled as a debit system, credit card or an anonymous account. There would be no stopping to pay the toll as is common on many other toll roads in other parts of the country. The toll road would reduce congestion and also the number of accidents would decrease. The entire project would be completed in four years. This would be a privately financed project with no risk to taxpayers. The City has the choice to take the project or reject it. B. Comments from the Public Kevin Rosen, 8731 Summit Drive, stated he had been an Eden Prairie resident for 16 years. He was very familiar with toll roads having lived in Chicago and New Jersey. He works in Eagan and he would choose not to drive on toll roads and would do everything he could to circumvent them, as he thought others would. He did not see why Eden Prairie residents were being asked to fund interstate highway projects formerly funded by tax dollars. The tax could be as much as a dollar each way, which would add up to a significant amount in a short period of time. Zauner commented the tax was proposed to be $0.65. Rosen stated tolls were usually placed on roads which went somewhere or on bridges. He commented perhaps a sign should be placed at the City entrance reading "Welcome to Eden Prairie; please pay before entering"! He inquired how the City would feel being portrayed in this manner, and while he understood the need for alternative funding there were a number of other alternatives available. He questioned the fairness of adding to the already high tax burden on Hennepin County taxpayers. Zauner stated the Federal Government has funded most of the highways in the past but this has changed so that now there are no more federal funds available for new roadway construction. They have looked at the possibility of having the fee reduced for those who car pool. There would be four lanes in each direction within the extended right-of-way. The design as proposed has been through the Environmental Impact Statement process and been approved. Richard Kiehl, 8676 Braxton Drive, stated he commutes into downtown Minneapolis and he car pools so they can use the express lane. If they construct four lanes going down into three lanes past Highway 100 it will still be a bottleneck because it is a lane decrease. If these electronic toll systems were so new and wonderful why were they not in use elsewhere. He believed it should be tried out on another roadway somewhere else. Gary Sodevig, 8440 Montgomery Court, stated this is an Eden Prairie issue because it impacts on the property values of Eden Prairie residents. He stated his property taxes increased 30% this past year and he was not alone in this situation. The rate of infrastructure in the community is inadequate to support the growth rate. He inquired what the toll road was going to do to the Eden Prairie tax base and the pocketbooks of its residents. There have been instances where CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 27, 1995 Page 7 communities have been threatened by roadways expanding into other areas and this creates a loss of revenues to those communities that those roadways pass through. He believed the construction of Highway 212 and the expansion of I-494 would deplete potential tax base for the Eden Prairie community. He did not believe that Eden Prairie should open this door to the south which would damage Eden Prairie's long term viability. He thought Eden Prairie was the only community to lose in this instance, and he urged the City Council to act as gatekeepers to allow Eden Prairie's tax base to fully mature to the point where the impact of business moving further west would not have such a significant impact. Steve Walam, 17055 Candlewood, stated he recently purchased a home in Eden Prairie because of the aesthetics of the community. He believed these were an important part of Eden Prairie quality of life. He commented he had heard a lot about the benefits of the roadway construction for other communities, but not for Eden Prairie. Jack VanRemortel 16031 Summit Drive, commented the decision that Highway 212 was needed was made many years ago. He would like to see if they can't find other methods of funding it besides making it a toll road. If the gas tax is inadequate perhaps they should consider raising it to cover the costs of roadway construction. He was concerned there was no public bid aspect to the construction process. He described a toll road in California which has not alleviated congestion and expressed concern we might find the same thing happening here. He was also concerned if the toll road did not earn sufficient income to pay the costs of construction they might request public money to pay for it. Mike Mulvahue, 16931 Hanover Lane, commented it appeared the benefits of constructing Highway 212 were primarily for those communities to the west, while Eden Prairie residents would be paying for the road. He did not see the sense in spending the funds to create a Downtown Eden Prairie and then construct a major highway through the middle of it. He believed the road did not encourage Eden Prairie's economic growth. Michael Drager, 15332 Leslie Lane, stated while the federal government may require a feasibility study on alternative funding it did not mean that they had to use it. Perhaps the fiscal responsibility needs to be adjusted so that the metropolitan area gets a larger share than 50% of the gas tax money. He commented mass transit may be the solution to the transportation problems rather than toll roads. Mayor Harris closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Case asked if they would have access to this information at a later date, and Mayor Harris responded yes. Staff will also assimilate the input from the public and present it to the City Council. 7 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 27, 1995 Page 8 Adel Lawry, MnDOT, stated they can raise the gas tax, but the people need to remember they do not live on an island and it has to be considered as something that will happen in the future. Toll roads are all over and the technology is being used everywhere. The projections of added population indicate that it will not be too long before we are in the same position that Los Angeles is in today. V. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, Case seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 3-12-96 fin= SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance - Pat Solie CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST IV.A I THESE LICENSES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT HEADS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LICENSED ACTIVITY. CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM. ) PLUMBING (continued) J. W. Anderson & Associates One Stop Plumbing Shop Design 1 of Edina Ltd. Peterson Bros. Sheetmetal I Robert C. Devany Plumbig Services, Inc. Eaton Corporation Steve Pokorny Plumbing GBR Remodeling Specialists, Inc. Dale Sorensen Company GSB Developments Southtown Plumbing, Inc. Grussing Roofing, Inc. Sowada & Barna Plumbing C. F. Haglin and Sons Co. Hauenstein & Burmeister, Inc. GAS FITTER Hy-Tek Material Handling, Inc. M. P. Johnson Construction, Inc. Air Conditioning Associates, Inc. Koll Construction Bell-Air Heating & Cooling The Maintenance Team Blaylock Plumbing Co. Northern States Power Company Boedeker Plumbing & Heating Pahl Construction Budget Plumbing Corp. C.O. Carlson Air Conditioning PLUMBING Cedar Valley Heating & Air Cond. Construction Mechanical Services Blaylock Plumbing Co. Countryside Heating & Cooling, Inc. Boedeker Plumbing & Heating Cronstroms Heating & Air Cond. Oak Grove Mechanical Controlled Air Bruckmueller Plumbing Dakota Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Budget Plumbing Corp. Dependable Indoor Air Quality, Inc. Egan Mechanical Contractors Egan Mechanical Contractors, Inc. G R Mechanical Fredrickson Heating & Air Cond. Gavic & Son Plumbing & Water G R Mechanical Gilbert Mechanical Contractors Gavic & Sons Plumbing & Water Grupa Mechanical ' Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. H.I .S. Plumbing Co. H. I,S, Plumbing Co. Hiltner Plumbing & Heating Heating & Cooling Two, Inc. Horwitz, Inc. Hiltner Plumbing & Heating Lakeside Plumbing & Heating Horwitz, Inc. Lake State Plumbing Lake-Air Heating & Cooling, Inc. Randy Lane & Sons Plumbing Lakeside Plumbing & Heating Larson Plumbing, Inc. Larson Plumbing, Inc. Nordwall & Associates, Inc. One Stop Plumbing Shop Nova Frost, Inc. Peterson Bros. Sheetmetal Action/Direction. • • 3-12-96 page 1 DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA admrt fin= SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR 3-12-96. DEPARTMENT: ITE1it 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. GAS FITTER (continued) HEATING &VENTILATING (continued) Plumbing Services, Inc. Hiltner Plumbing & Heating Ron's Mechanical , Inc. Horwitz, Inc. Rush Heating & Sheet Metal , Inc. Judkins Heating & Air Conditioning Seasonal Control Company Lake-Air Heating & Cooling, Inc. Dale Sorenson Company Larson Plumbing, Inc. Southtown Plumbing, Inc. Nordwall & Associates, Inc. Superior Contractors, Inc. Peterson Bros. Sheetmetal I Valley Aire, Inc. Ron's Mechanical , Inc. Yale, Inc. - Rush Heating & Sheetmetal , Inc. -Seasonal Control Company HEATING & VENTILATING Superior Contractors, Inc. • Valley Aire, Inc. Air Conditioning Associates Allan Mechanical , Inc. SEPTIC SYSTEMS Boedeker Plumbing & Heating C.O.Carlson Air Conditioning Bohn Well Drilling Co. , Inc. Cedar Valley Heating & Air Conditioning Construction Mechanical Services CIGARETTE Countryside Heating & Cooling, Inc. Cronstroms Heating & Air Conditioning Garden Court Gifts Controlled Air Dependable Indoor Air Quality Dronen' s Heating & Air Conditioning Egan Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Excel Air Systems , Inc. - Fredrickson Heating & Air Conditioning. G R Mechanical General Heating & Air Conditioning • General Sheet Metal Corp. • Gilbert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Green Mechanical Heating & Cooling Two, Inc. Action/Directionz • 3-12-96 page 2 - - EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 3-12-96 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. 6 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger COLUMBINE TOWNHOMES Michael D. Franzen Recommended Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 3.3 acres and PUD District Review on 3.3 acres, • Approve a Site Plan Review on 3.3 acres, • Approval of a Developer's Agreement Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for Zoning District Change and PUD District Review 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement COLUMBINE TOWNHOMES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 9-96-PUD-2-96 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 Planned Unit Development RM-6.5 Zoning District 9-96-PUD-2-96 (hereinafter "PUD-2-96-RM- 6.5"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of March 12, 1996, entered into between Cornerstone/Equities LLC, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-2- 96-RM-6.5, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following fmdings: A. PUD-2-96-RM-6.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD-2-96-RM-6.5 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-2-96-RM-6.5 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD-2-96-RM-6.5 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. 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-2-96-RM-6.5 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 February, 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 12th day of March, 1996. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on COLUMBINE TOWNHOMES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 9-96-PUD-2-96 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at Columbine Road,North of the Post Office from Rural to RM-6.5 on 3.3 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.) T Columbine Townhomes Legal Description-Exhibit A Outlot A, Anderson Lakes Center 2nd Addition, according to the plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. s COLUMBINE TOWNHOMES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR COLUMBINE TOWNHOMES BY CORNERSTONE/EQUITIES LLC WHEREAS, Cornerstone/Equities LLC has applied for Site Plan approval of Columbine Townhomes on 3.3 acres for construction of eight buildings for a total of 32 units located at Columbine Road,Northo f the Post Office to be zoned RM-6.5 by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on February 6, 1996; and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its December 11, 1995, 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 6, 1996, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that site plan approval be granted to Cornerstone/Equities LLC for the construction of a 32 townhome units, based on plans dated March 5, 1996, between Cornerstone/Equities LLC, and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on March 12, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT COLUMBINE TOWNHOUSES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of March 12, 1996, by Cornerstone/ Equities,LLC, a Limited Liabilites 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 Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Office to Medium Density Residential on 3.3 acres,Rezoning from Rural to RM- 6.5 on 3.3 acres, PUD District Review on 3.3 acres and PUD Concept Amendment on 15.3 acres, Site Plan Review on 3.3 acres and Preliminary Plat for construction of 32 townhouses on 3.3 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 Ordinance No. 9-96-PUD-2-96 for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 3.3 acres and PUD District Review on 3.3 acres and Resolution No. 96- 26, Preliminary Plat, Resolution No. 96-27, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Resolution No. 96-28, PUD Concept Amendment 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 revised and dated January 30, 1996, reviewed and approved by the City Council on February 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 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 approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and storm sewer. Developer shall prepare a restrictive convenant, in a form to be approved by the City Engineer to be recorded on the property which states that the driveways and ponding areas shall be privately owned and maintained by the developer. Prior to building permit issuance the Developer shall provide evidence of recording to the City. The sanitary sewer and watermain shall be dedicated to the city by easement on the Final Plat. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to implement the approved street and utility plans prior to building permit issuance. 4. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and colors to be used on the buildings on 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. 5. FINAL GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: A. FINAL GRADING PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the final grading 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 plan for the Property. The final grading 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 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. IRRIGATION PLAN: 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. 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 payment and performance bond of the general contractor, with the City named on said bond.. 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. y 8. 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. 9. 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 sidewalks to be constructed on the Property. Developer shall construct a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along both sides of the private drive as shown on 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 sidewalk 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. 10. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: City hereby grants a waiver from from the maximum density of 6.7 units per acre to 10 units per acre for the Property located within the RM 6.5 Zoning District through the Planned Unit Development District Review. 9 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 3-12-96 SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. -a- C DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger KINDERCARE- SHADY OAK ROAD Michael D. Franzen Recommended Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: . • Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.7 acres, • Approve a Site Plan Review on 1.7 acres, • Approval of a Developer's Agreement Supporting Reports: 1. Ordinance for Zoning District Change 2. Resolution for Site Plan Review 3. Developer's Agreement KINDERCARE- SHADY OAK ROAD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 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 Neighborhood Commercial District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Neighborhood Commercial District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety,by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of March 12, 1996, entered into between Tandem Corporation and the City of Eden Prairie, and which Agreement are hereby made a part hereof. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 6th day of February, 1996, 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 12th day of March, 1996. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on KINDERCARE- SHADY OAK ROAD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at City West Parkway and Shady Oak Road from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 1.7 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.) Kindercare- Shady Oak Road Legal Description - Exhibit A Outlot A, Chase Point 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota KINDERCARE-SHADY OAK ROAD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR KINDERCARE-SHADY OAK ROAD BY TANDEM CORPORATION WHEREAS, Tandem Corporation has applied for Site Plan approval of Kindercare-Shady Oak Road on 1.7 acres for construction of a Kindercare Center located at City West Parkway and Shady Oak Road to be zoned Neighborhood Commercial by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on February 6, 1996; and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its January 8, 1996, 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 6, 1996, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that site plan approval be granted to Tandem Corporation for the construction of a Kindercare Center,based on plans dated February 23, 1996,between Tandem Corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on March 12, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT KINDERCARE/ SHADY OAK AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 19 ,by Kindercare, a Delaware 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, Rezoning From Rural to Neighborhood Commercial, Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat for construction of a 10,500 square foot daycare on 2.0 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 Ordinance No. for Zoning District Change from Rural to Neighborhood Commercial on 2.0 acres and Resolution No. 96-25, 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 revised and dated February 23, 1996, reviewed and approved by the City Council on February 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 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 approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and storm sewer. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to implement the approved street and utility plans prior to building permit issuance. 4. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner, and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and colors to be used on the buildings on 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. 5. FINAL GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: A. FINAL GRADING PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, building permit or approval of the final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a final grading plan for the Property. The final grading 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 plan. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction. Final plans shall include a drainage easenment to the City for any portion of water quality ponds proposed on the abutting the Property outside of the plat. 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. IRRIGATION PLAN: 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. 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. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer shall submit to City Planner, and receive City Planner's approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property. Said mechanical equipment includes the gas meters, electrical conduit, and water meters in 1 addition to standard heating, ventilating, and air conditioning units. Security to guarantee construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, 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 its 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. 9. 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. 10. CITY WEST PARKWAY CONSTRUCTION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit or approval of a final plat for the Property, the Developer shall reinburse the City for cost to complete construction of City West Parkway with the plat of Chase Point. OWNER'S SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN KINDERCARE AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of March 12, 1996, by and between Crosstown Investors, a Minnesota partnership, 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 Neighborhood District,Resolution No. 96-25 for Preliminary Plat and Resolution No. for Site Plan Review as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of March 12, 1996, by and between Kindercare, a Delaware Corporation, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Kindercare 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 Rezoning, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat 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. 9 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calender March 12, 1995 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO: Community Development MHFA First Time Buyer Chris Enger Program m David Lindahl REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Approve resolution authorizing the City's participation in the 1996 Minnesota Cities Participation Program (MCPP), and the execution of all related agreements. BACKGROUND: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) is again sponsoring the MCPP to help local communities provide home ownership opportunities to first time buyers. MHFA sells bonds on behalf of cities to provide low- interest mortgage financing for low and moderate income first time home buyers. These loans are originated by private mortgage lenders interested in taking part in the program. This will be the fifth year Eden Prairie's has participated in this Program. Program Specifics: MHFA Bond Allocation - $966,653 City requested 1.5 million based on helping 15 buyers at $95,000/mortgage. The final allocation amount was determined by applying a population-based formula. Income Limits - $43,650 Set by MHFA- 80%of median income for family of four. Maximum Purchase Price - $95,000 Set by MHFA. Because of the City's participation in the Livable Communities Program, MHFA funds can be used to purchase new homes, whereas in past only existing homes qualified. Many new townhouse products are available in Eden Prairie under$95,000. Participating Lenders - All lenders on MHFA's participation list. Participation Fee - $200 All cities participating in the Program must again pay a participation fee based on $20 for every $100,000 allocated to their community. The fee is required to help MHFA reduce the administrative costs associated with Program. Marketing - As in the past,the City will assist MHFA in marketing the program through local newspapers, the community newsletter, and various other publications. Timelines - July 20 Bond sale July 25 Program Begins November 25 City allocation period ends, all unused funds are "collapsed" into a single, statewide pool. January 25 Program Ends. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION# A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE'S PARTICIPATION IN THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY'S (MHFA)MINNESOTA CITIES PARTICIPATION PROGRAM (MCPP) WHEREAS, The City of Eden Prairie is eligible to participate in the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's(MHFA)Minnesota Cities Participation Program(MCPP) for the purpose of assisting first time home buyers in purchasing homes in Eden Prairie. WHEREAS,By participating in the MCPP the City will allow MHFA to access the City of Eden Prairie's local government bond authority to sell bonds on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. WHEREAS,The proceeds from MHFA's sale of mortgage revenue bonds will be used to provide below market fmancing to low and moderate income first time home buyers. WHEREAS,MHFA will incur bond issuance expenses that would have normally been incurred by cities selling their own bonds. WHEREAS,The City's total allocation is $966,653. WHEREAS, The City will submit a proposal deposit of $9666.53, which is 1% of the total allocation and is refunded to the City when bonds are sold by MHFA. WHEREAS, A fee charged to the City by MHFA for participating in the MCPP will be $20 for every $100,000 allocated to Eden Prairie,or$200. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that the City of Eden Prairie will participate in the MHFA's Minnesota Cities Participation Program and Authorizes the City Manager to execute the MHFA Mortgage Revenue Allotment Agreement and Program Application-Commitment Agreement. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 12th day of March 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 3/12/96 SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO. / E. DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Recreation and Facilities- _AirBarbara Penning Cross City Center Energy Management Plan Recommendation The Facility Staff is recommending the City take part in the Local Government Energy Conservation Program offered by NSP. The program is structured to implement energy conservation measures using an interest free loan to make the improvements. The energy savings will pay back the loan amount so there will be no up front costs incurred by the City. Issues The Facility Staff has been working with Northern States Power(NSP) and a consulting engineer to prepare an energy management plan for the Eden Prairie City Center. The plan has identified twenty-three energy saving projects which will result in significant cost savings to the City. The energy audit process for the City Center has been completed with a comprehensive list of energy saving measures identified. A copy of the summary sheet has been attached. Improvements to the City Center will include adding the entire building to the energy management system, changing the software to allow separate zones for heat and lights within the building,utilizing energy efficient lighting throughout the building, as well as other smaller and more technical items. NSP has approved the project and the Facilities staff is in the process of completing the loan application to be submitted to First Banks,who is handling this program for NSP. Once the loan is approved,the City will take competitive bids for the improvement projects and award contracts. The loan,through NSP, will pay for the improvements, including the contracted labor. The City will continue to pay the electric bills at the rate prior to the installation of the energy improvements while the conservation savings repays the loan. Financial Considerations The City Center building uses over 6.5 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually, or approximately $350,000 of electricity each year. Savings after the energy conservation projects are implemented will be approximately $62,600 each year. The cost of the improvements, and the loan amount, is estimated to be $243,400. With the estimated rate of savings, the payback time of the loan will be slightly less than four years. The retirement of the NSP loan will allow the City to retain the savings and reduce electrical costs by $62,000 annually. The Facilities Staff intends to add other City buildings to this program and is currently evaluating other facilities for energy-saving measures. BC:ccenrgcc SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES Rec. # Recommendation Demand Energy Fuel Estimated Estimated Proposed Remarks Savings Savings Savings Savings Capitol Payback Per Year Cost (Years) KW KWH THERMS 1. Install lighting/dimmer controls for the city hall atrium 6.6 44,088 $1,416.00 $2,500.00 1.8 lighting(*) 2. Install lighting/dimmer 31.0 113,158 $3,634.40 $5,000.00 ** 1.4 3,v/o Rec. #5 controls for the C.H.Robinson atrium lighting(*)(west side) 5.6 20,440 $656.00 $3,000.00 ** 7.6 w/Rec. #5 3. Replace existing incandescent lamps with compact 11.0 34,408 $1,105.00 $2,000.00 1.7 fluorescent lamps and ballasts (*)(Dining/Kit. Area) 4. Replace exit sign lights with light emitting diode(LED) 0.70 6,132 $197.00 $775.00 3.9 retrofit kits (*) 5. Replace existing fluorescent lamps and ballasts with T-8 59.38 216,143 $6,960.60 $49,000.00 ** 6.9 lamps and electronic ballasts (*) 6. Install occupancy sensors in (4)Heritage rooms to control 14 15,082 $486.00 $5,000.00 ** 10.0 heat pumps and lights. 7. Install capacitors to correct low power factor on west end $1,987.00 $2,400.00 1.2 and east end electric service 7.1 Install capacitors to correct low power factor on east end $2,825.00 $1,500.00 .53 electric service. 8.1 Control heat pumps from EMS that are not already on 14.97 20,808 - $668.00 $3,000.00 4.5 system(Savings&Loans) Totals: (*)This recommendation qualifies for NSP's electric rebate programs. The effect of the incentives is reflected in the capital cost and simple payback figures. (**)With Rebate Section 2 Page 1 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES Rec. # Recommendation Demand Energy Fuel Estimated Estimated Proposed Remarks Savings Savings Savings Savings Capitol Payback Per Year Cost (Years) KW KWH THERMS 8.2 Control heat pumps from EMS that are not already on 275, 385,250 $12,280.00 $61,000.00 5.0 system(C.H.Robinson) 8.3 Control heat pumps from EMS that are not already on 44.5 67,195 $2,158.00 $8,000.00 3.7 system(Misc. Storage). 8.4 Control heat pumps from EMS that are not already on 90.4 108,480 $3,484.00 $15,000.00 4.3 system(Dining/Kitchen). 8.5 Control heat pumps from EMS that are not already on 23.9 33,221 $1,067.00 $4,000.00 3.75 system (Heritage Rooms) 9. Replace standard efficiency east core-loop 30 hp motor 1.5 13,105 $507.00 $1,559.00 ** 2.5 high-efficiency motor(*). 10.Replace standard efficiency west make-up air unit 15 hp 1.0 8,400 $325.00 $919.00 ** 2.6 motor with high-efficiency motor immediately(*). 11. Control of east fluid coolers 3.33 8,263 $265.0 $12,000.00 45 (Saves in and heat pump loop pumps. maint. costs.) (3.2) 12.Load Shedding 1400 $12,000.00 $10,000.00 .83 (6 mos.) 13.Zoned lighting and heat pump control by EMS in C.H. 373.6 194,272 $6,240.00 $18,000.00 2.9 Robinson Area Totals: (*)This recommendation qualifies for NSP's electric rebate programs. The effect of the incentives is reflected in the capitol cost and simple payback figures. (**)With Rebate Section 2 Page 2 L3 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES Rec.Recommendation Demand Energy Fuel Estimated Estimated Proposed Remarks Savings Savings Savings Savings Per Capitol Payback # Year Cost (Years) KW KWH THERMS 14.Replace standard efficiency 2 H.P.MAU fan motors with 1.0 8,760 $281.00 $920.00 ** 3.2 high efficiency motors. Two motors 15.Existing MAU's on the east end to be controlled by EMS. 1.0 14,022 $450.00 $4,500.00 10.0 16. Local switching and EMS control of lights in Dining& 6.4 5,004 $160.00 $1,000.00 6.25 City Training Room. 17. EMS to control track lighting in east end lower level 2.8 13,000 $417.00 $4,500.00 10.8 corridors. 18.EMS and photocells to control lighting in City Hall main 2.3 6,458 $207.00 $2,000.00 9.6 south entrance. 19. Miscellaneous control points in east boiler room. 2.4 9,043 $290.00 $2,500.00 8.6 20.Revise programming of EMS to provide individual 648 158,112 $5,078.00 $9,500.00 1.87 scheduling and temperature and setpoint trend logging of individual heat pumps already on the EMS. 21.Revise programming to allow individual time scheduling of 23 11,960 $384.00 $1,000.00 2.6 each area lighting/heat pump zone(10)in City area. 22. Separate override buttons for area lighting/heat pump 47.3 24,596 $790.00 $4,800.00 6.1 control to control the lights& heat pumps separately. (In City Area only) 23. Change the software system from the present software to $1,000.00 $11,000.00 11. Andover SX-8000. ** With Rebate Section 2 Page 3 47 DATE: 03/12/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO:-f-)- SECTION: Consent Calendar L� DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Award Contract for IC 96-5403 MaryKrause 1996 Street Sweeping Recommended Action: Award Contract for IC 96-5403, 1996 Street Sweeping to Allied Blacktop Company in the amount of$26,550.00. Overview: Sealed bids were received Thursday, February 15, 1996 for the 1996 Street Sweeping. Two bids were received and are tabulated as follows: Allied Blacktop $26,550.00 Clean Sweep $26,955.00 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. 96-5403 - 1996 Street Sweeping 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 ALLIED BLACKTOP COMPANY 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 Allied Blacktop Company in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $26,550.00 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 March 12, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk DATE: 03/l 2/96 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO: SECTION: Consent Calendar U DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Engineering Division Disclaimer of Interest for NSP Easement Jeffrey Johnson Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a Disclaimer of Interest regarding an easement granted to NSP by the City over three separate parcels in the Southwest Crossing area. Background: City staff was contacted by the attorneys representing purchasers of property within the Southwest Crossing area. When the requisite title work was completed in connection with the sale of the property, an objection was made to the title of the property with regards to an NSP easement granted to NSP by the City in February, 1994. This easement involves three properties: The City-owned Outlot C of Golden Strip Addition and Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Viking Drive West. The City and the property owners of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Viking Drive West, granted NSP an easement to relocate the power lines near Viking Drive and Prairie Center Drive. When the easements were recorded at Hennepin County, the documents contained an Exhibit A which was the legal description of the easement for all three properties. Thus, the title issue that has arisen is that the City effectively granted NSP easements over property in which the City has no interest. Therefore, executing this Disclaimer of Interest will release title issues in regards to the two other lots in which the City has no ownership interest. Staff has also asked the attorneys that requested this Disclaimer of Interest to obtain the same disclaimers with regards to City-owned Outlot C. Typical drainage and utility easements were granted to the City with the final plat of Viking Drive West. These easements are excepted in the disclaimer document. DISCLAIMER OF INTEREST The undersigned, being the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, do hereby state on oath as follows: 1. That Affiants are the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie ("City"); and 2. That the City granted to Northern States Power Company ("NSP") an easement ("Easement") dated February 8, 1994 over three parcels of real property described therein and which Easement was filed of record with the Hennepin County Recorder's Office as Document No. 6410841; and 3. That there was attached to the Easement a three page Exhibit A which legally described the three parcels subject to the Easement and attached hereto is a copy of said Exhibit A; and 0c212.41- 4. That the City at the time of the granting of the Easement was the owner of-Lot C, Golden Strip (page 3 of Exhibit A) and was granting the Easement to NSP for such parcel only and did not claim an ownership interest or intend to grant NSP an easement in the remaining two parcels (pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit A); and 5. That pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit A to the Easement were attached to reflect the ownership interest and the granting of the easement to NSP by HMH Courtyard Properties, Inc. and Southwest Crossing Land, Inc. as reflected in documents 6410840 and 6410842 respectively; and 6. That this Disclaimer of Interest is given to evidence the fact that the City does not have or claim any ownership interest in Lot 2, Block 1, Viking Drive West and Lot 3, Block 1, Viking Drive West (except for easements of record, if any). Dated this _ day of December, 1995. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) That the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 199__, by and 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 the corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: MAUN & SIMON (BGO) 2900 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 338-1113 12/14/95,BG0,47019_1M -2- 3 VPadanCITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Public Hearings 3/12/96 prairie DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Issuance of$3,300,000 ITEM NO. Finance Refunding Housing Revenue Bonds V.A. Background: The original bonds were issued in April of 1989 to finance the Elim Shores Housing Project. Notice of the hearing was published in the Eden Prairie News on February 22. Action/Direction: Hold the public hearing; adopt the resolution authorizing the bond sale. Page 1 Resolution No. Resolution providing for the issuance and sale of Elderly Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds (Elim Shores, Inc. Project), Series 1996, and authorizing the execution of certain documents in connection therewith. WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City") has heretofore issued its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Elim Shores Project), Series 1989, originally dated as of April 1, 1989 (the "Prior Bonds"), of which $3,955,000 principal amount remains outstanding, and loaned the proceeds of the Prior Bonds to Elim Shores, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Corporation") to be used for the purpose of paying the costs of acquisition, construction and furnishing of a 64 unit senior housing facility in the City (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, at the request of the Corporation and pursuant to the Act, the City now proposes to issue its Elderly Housing Refunding Revenue Bonds (Elim Shores, Inc. Project), Series 1996, in the principal amount of $3,300,000 (the "Series 1996 Bonds"), and loan the proceeds to the Corporation to be used, along with certain additional funds to be contributed by the Corporation, to refund and retire the Prior Bonds on or about May 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted a public hearing on the date hereof on the issuance of the Series 1996 Bonds as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and WHEREAS, forms of the following documents relating to the issuance of the Series 1996 Bonds have been submitted to the City Council and are now on file in the office of the City Clerk: (a) Loan Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1996 (the "Loan Agreement"), between the City and the Corporation, whereby, among other things, the City has agreed to sell the Series 1996 Bonds to provide funds to be loaned to the Corporation to pay a portion of the costs of retiring the Prior Bonds, and the Corporation has agreed to make loan repayments sufficient to pay debt service on the Series 1996 Bonds when due, and to pay related costs, expenses and fees of the City; (b) Indenture of Trust, dated as of March 1, 1996 (the "Indenture"), between the City and First Trust National Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, as trustee (the "Bond Trustee"), whereby the City authorizes the issuance of the Series 1996 Bonds upon the terms and conditions set forth therein; (c) Mortgage and Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement and Assignment of Leases and Rents, dated as of March 1, 1996 (the "Mortgage"), from the Corporation to the City whereby the Corporation grants to the City a mortgage lien on and security interest in the Project as security for the performance by the Corporation of its obligations and covenants under the Loan Agreement; (d) Assignment of Mortgage Agreement, dated as of March 1, 1996 (the "Assignment"), from the City to the Bond Trustee whereby the City assigns its interests in the Mortgage, except for certain rights to fees, charges and indemnity thereunder, to the Bond Trustee as security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Series 1996 Bonds when due; (e) Preliminary Official Statement (the "Preliminary Official Statement") to be circulated by Miller, Johnson & Kuehn, Incorporated (the "Underwriter") in connection with the sale of the Series 1996 Bonds describing the terms thereof and containing material information concerning the Corporation, the financing and other matters; and (f) Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement") between the Underwriter, the Corporation and the City setting forth the terms and conditions upon which the Underwriter proposes to purchase the Series 1996 Bonds. The foregoing are referred to from time to time in this Resolution as the Bond Documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Findings. That it is hereby found and determined that: (a) The City is authorized to issue the Series 1996 Bonds pursuant to the provisions of the Act. (b) There is no litigation pending or, to the best of its knowledge threatened, against the City relating to the Project or to the Series 1996 Bonds or the Bond Documents, or questioning the organization of the City or its power or authority to issue the Series 1996 Bonds or to execute and deliver the Bond Documents required to be executed by the City. -2- (c) The execution and delivery of, and the performance of the City's obligations under, the Series 1996 Bonds and the Bond Documents do not and will not violate any material order of any court or other agency of government, or any material provision of any indenture, agreement or other instrument to which the City is a party or by which it or any of its property is bound, or be in conflict with, result in a breach of, or constitute (with due notice or lapse of time or both) a default under any such indenture, agreement or other instrument. (d) No member of the City Council (i) has a direct or indirect interest in the Project, the Bond Documents or the Series 1996 Bonds, (ii) has a direct or indirect interest in the Corporation, or (iii) has received or will receive any commission, bonus or other remuneration for or in respect of the Project, the Bond Documents or the Series 1996 Bonds. 2. Approval and Execution of Bond Documents. The forms of Bond Documents referred to above are approved. The Bond Documents required to be executed by the City shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Manager in substantially the form on file, but with such changes therein, not inconsistent with the Act or other law, and Section 3 hereof, as may be approved by the City Attorney and the officers executing the same, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof. The Mayor and the City Manager are also authorized and directed to execute such closing certificates and other documents as may be necessary to complete the issuance and delivery of the -3- Series 1996 Bonds upon approval thereof by the City Attorney, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by the execution thereof. 3. Approval of Terms and Sale of Series 1996 Bonds. The most recent draft of the Indenture as provided to the City contains the terms and provisions of the Series 1996 Bonds as negotiated to date. At such time as the final terms of the Series 1996 Bonds become available, the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute a contract with the Underwriter approving such terms (and to consent to changes in the Bond Documents reflecting such final terms) provided that (i) the total principal amount of Series 1996 Bonds to be issued shall not exceed $3,300,000, (ii) the final maturity of the Series 1996 Bonds shall not be later than March 1, 2026, (iii) the average coupon rate on the Series 1996 Bonds shall not exceed 7.50% per annum and (iv) the purchase price of the Series 1996 Bonds paid by the Underwriter shall not be less than 98% of the par amount thereof, plus accrued interest to the date of issuance of the Bonds. The Underwriter may receive an additional underwriting fee from the Corporation to be paid from funds of the Corporation. 4. Execution and Delivery of Series 1996 Bonds. The Series 1996 Bonds shall be executed by the facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, and the Series 1996 Bonds shall be delivered to the Underwriter upon payment of the agreed purchase price therefor, and upon receipt by the Bond Trustee of the signed legal opinion of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, bond counsel, and the other documents required pursuant to the Indenture. -4- 5. Consent to Circulation of Official Statement. The City hereby consents to the circulation of the Preliminary Official Statement and a final Official Statement to prepared substantially in the form of the Preliminary Official Statement, provided that the Preliminary Official Statement and the final Official Statement shall recite that the City has neither participated in the preparation thereof nor made any independent investigation of the facts contained therein nor does the City assume any responsibility for the sufficiency, accuracy or completeness of the information contained therein. 6. Certifications. The Mayor, City Manager and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to Dorsey & Whitney LLP, bond counsel, to the Corporation, the Bond Trustee and the Underwriter certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Project and the Series 1996 Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts appearing from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. 7. Limited Liability. No covenant, provision or agreement of the City herein or in the Bonds, the Bond Documents or in any other document executed by the City in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of the Series 1996 Bonds, or any obligation herein or therein imposed upon the City or breach thereof, shall give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a charge against its general credit or -5- taxing powers or shall obligate the City financially in any way except with respect to the Loan Agreement and the application of revenues therefrom and the proceeds of the Series 1996 Bonds. No failure of the City to comply with any term, condition, covenant or agreement herein or therein shall subject the Issuer to liability for any claim for damages, costs or other financial or pecuniary charges except to the extent that the same can be paid or recovered from the Loan Agreement or revenues therefrom or proceeds of the Series 1996 Bonds. No execution on any claim, demand, cause of action or judgment shall be levied upon or collected from the general credit, general funds or taxing powers of the City. In making the agreements, provisions and covenants set forth herein and in the Bond Documents, the City has not obligated itself except with respect to the Loan Agreement and the application of revenues thereunder and the proceeds of the Series 1996 Bonds. The Series 1996 Bonds constitute special obligations of the City, payable solely from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof pursuant to the Loan Agreement and the Indenture, and do not now and shall never constitute an indebtedness or a loan of the credit of the City, the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof or a charge against the City's general taxing powers within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory provision whatsoever. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, this 12th day of March, 1996. Mayor Attest: • City Clerk -6- EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 3-12-96 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. SC 15 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger ROGER'S HOMESTEAD Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: • Adopt an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10.9 acres • Approve a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 10.9 acres. Background: The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the project on February 12, 1996. The Commission also approved sidewalks along Duck Lake Trail and Duck Lake Road. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution for Preliminary Plat 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 12, 1996 3. Staff Report dated February 9, 1996 4. Correspondence ROGER'S HOMESTEAD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ROGER'S HOMESTEAD FOR PAUL THORP BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Roger's Homestead for Paul Thorp dated March 5, 1996, consisting of 10.9 acres into 16 single family lots and road right-of-way, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 12th day of March, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 12, 1996 Page 2 • C. ROGER'S HOMESTEAD by Paul Thorp. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R-1-13.5 on 10.9 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 10.9 acres into 16 single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: Duck Lake Road and Duck Lake Trail. Paul Thorp reviewed the subdivision proposal, which included 16 single family lots. Sandstad inquired if the proponent had given consideration to dedicating land for the public access and Thorp responded he had met with Bob Lambert and there is some property available, but with the lake being so shallow it will be difficult to install a boat access there. Foote inquired if sidewalk was proposed to be installed around the perimeter of the development, and Thorp responded it was not. Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated staff recommended approval of the Rezoning and Preliminary Plat subject to the recommendations in the staff report. Sidewalks had not been required because staff believed they would be included with the roadway improvement project. The Park and Recreation Commission could consider requiring the portion of sidewalk that would be adjacent to this development to be constructed now,but the remainder of the sidewalk would be built as part of the roadway improvement project. Foote inquired if plans were made for sidewalk to be built in this area and Franzen responded that there are some sidewalks in the area and the City may determine that sidewalks are desirable in this location. Wissner inquired if the road ever flooded in this area and Franzen responded that staff had no recollection of flooding occurring. The Public Hearing was opened. �3 PLANNING COMMIS:._JN MINUTES February 12, 1996 Page 3 Barbara Jeffries, 6950 Barberry Lane, inquired about the mature oak trees on the site and how many of them would be preserved and now many trees would be replaced. Franzen reviewed the tree preservation policy and responded that about 40 trees will have to be planted on the property to replace those lost due to grading or construction. The DNR requires a 37.5 foot setback from the lake and they want to have all the existing vegetation in this area preserved to the greatest extent possible. They will permit some tree removal to allow a homeowner a view of the lake, but do not permit clear-cutting of vegetation. He noted there was a large cluster of oak trees on the lakeshore that would be preserved. Thorp stated that he plans to elevate one cul-de-sac which will in turn elevate the houses, and hopefully preserve more trees that are located close to the lake. Jeffries asked if a small area could be set aside in this development for the kids to use as a play area, because it was a very popular area now and many children played there. There is no shoulder on the roadway, and traffic is fairly heavy which presents a danger to children who are fishing or playing in the area. Rod Fisher, 16820 South Shore Lane, complimented the proponent on the development. He discussed the Park and Recreation Commission Meeting held the previous Monday evening, and the discussion regarding the overall health of Duck Lake and the public access. The DNR requires a public access to be created before it will assume management responsibility for the lake, which is something the residents would like to see happen. The homeowners would like to see the access created for hand-launch boats, which would not adversely impact the neighborhood, and still give the DNR an opportunity to manage the lake. He stated that the area does not flood, even on the land bridge, because the outlet controls the lake levels. He discussed the traffic in the area and expressed concerns regarding pedestrian safety. The High School and Prairie View Elementary School create a great deal of student traffic along Duck Lake Road and the kids are constantly walking in the roadway because there are no sidewalks. He requested that the Planning Commission require sidewalks to be constructed along Duck Lake Trail. Fisher stated he did not have any objection to the variances and considered them to be reasonable. He believed that the City could make the area more pedestrian-friendly by requiring the sidewalk and creating the access to the lake for small boats. Dorothy H.Reuss, 6923 Barberry Lane, stated she had been a resident of Eden Prairie for 39 years and were happy to see people enjoying fishing on the lake with their children. She commented the City should put some garbage receptacles in the vicinity to facilitate cleanup of the area. She was concerned about the grading on the site and the amount of trees that would be lost by the development. She believed that safety was a significant issue and urged the City to construct sidewalks in the area and make the roadway safer for both drivers and pedestrians. William Munz, 169805 South Shore Lane, commented that he presently has a good view of the lake and he was concerned about the setbacks for the new homes from the lakeshore. Kardell stated that the houses would be setback 100 feet from the lakeshore. Munz was concerned about the impact on the waterfowl that build nests 7' PLANNING COMMISS1UN MINUTES February 12, 1996 Page 4 along the lakeshore in the spring as any clear-cutting of vegetation would adversely impact them. Also,he was concerned about runoff into the lake during construction as the lake is shallow and siltation would adversely impact the water quality in the lake. He believed that sidewalks would be an improvement for this area as there was no room for pedestrian traffic on the roadway. Franzen commented that the Shoreland Ordinance does not allow for clear cutting of trees. Grading must be kept at least 25 feet from the wetland and erosion control measures, including siltation fencing,must be in place before grading can commence. Sandstad commented that when this development was reviewed by the Planning Commission previously he recalled they had requested that a sidewalk be included as part of the plan, and that should be continued forward with this development proposal. He believed that the amount of land needed to construct a sidewalk should be included in the plans. Foote stated he thought that there should be a sidewalk and the City should construct the remainder of the sidewalk along Duck Lake Road as soon as possible because the situation with pedestrians was most dangerous. Clinton concurred with the other commissioners. Wissner inquired if it would be possible to install stop signs at strategic locations to slow the traffic, and Franzen responded that stop signs were installed based on traffic volumes and there has been no recommendation from the Engineering Department regarding this, but staff would look into it. Kardell commented she felt sidewalks in this area should be encouraged and that the area adjacent to the land bridge was particularly critical. MOTION: Clinton moved, Sandstad seconded,to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Clinton moved, Sandstad seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Paul Thorp for Zoning District Change on 10.9 acres based on plans dated February 9, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 9, 1996. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Clinton moved, Sandstad seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Paul Thorp for Preliminary Plat of 10.9 acres based on plans dated February 9, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 9, 1996, with the addition of the following stipulation: 5. Consider requiring sidewalks be included along Duck Lake Road and Duck Lake Trail on the subject property and strongly encourage that they be continued further along the land bridge. Motion carried 6-0. STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: February 9, 1996 SUBJECT: Roger's Homestead APPLICANT: Paul Thorpe FEE OWNER: Lillian B. Rogers LOCATION: Duck Lake Trail and Duck Lake Road REQUEST: 1. Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 11.04 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 11.04 acres into 16 single family lots and road right-of-way. v y �. ' J t 7C+ c ` �O 4 4 ► N I T it 't! 1 • lir ' • : - ailk,,,'.. kt. 0 •#, is " LlulOM ' Ilk ilk 4 -73 ,---- 1 2 T . _� .'. �:'ar 3.TAIGA CI IIMI 41 IIII ... ---7 —L 11", gailb . MANOR Ad I i 1�1��• ... ,� j • Ili Allh. — i' mivisiminig, vezogra‘ ,,,,,,, I i.. ... , <,.. r ' 1144..a 454.101 . voo s.-, . : g •---...--• vit.arm . wilt-tal It"4/111... ,it 1 1 NEN IIII z 11,14,,,,,t 4. _., -,--, ..-1 , 4 ..-- Imam gm • - 31 iiVrAVP A.. ,.i► Icy -v 4 rm ,. co 3ME ____. :11 paim ........--- ow ...._________- AN 1.1111.1114 000 ;� pl►� ,iitjit .. �.r,-- ,� , J 5 TERf 1NG TFRR al ♦ • — ZEIMIC6-20. a i ilb....../ -fliAmill11111111.-• ASb. allifilakti • 7 111WilielliP: VIPP419 77 t. F scow 1011 il1l.CT- "a_24I11ISI s,.c y .rv,i..m....I.*. ..., .,I. sii 10/ Af0AVm. ` "` A . •I1.1aALLM0 CT MiL C .V, % i r� � Q 50.HI_LC4ES- CT o 11,46.7tip 1� V • y l ,�� ° t -• IIIW- • W 0 � v ��� C 4/ E1 1 ___ ti � • f,4 _ .,.............:2 � _ ;p-, . t__ h ' I � :illla: I � � _ ' --- '''':'': .' ' ::::..:•:.:.:-:-:::. :- , 1 4 0 Pt • • • • • .---1 1 1.1<61- ES_:I I .S 2 ' ' i'--wESTGATE cf.' tr" ti I I I---- ,______.� � a tI c W mFSTGATE 1_ u =—r—S — Ft- -..d t n r r 7 T rT T . .TF.y i LL: W 1„ C � F ` f.��(�[////\� l r I t11TNiR't � WAY •. L W r an L___ rill 4( A<._J I 1 I k II ' -- .au.r Staff Report Roger's Homestead February 9, 1996 BACKGROUND This 16 lot subdivision is the same plan as the Lakeside subdivision approved by the Planning Commission and Parks Commission in 1994. The developer withdrew the item before City Council action. This site is currently guided Low Density Residential for up to 2.5 units per acre or a total of 27 units. The site is currently zoned Rural. The surrounding areas are guided Low Density Residential, and zoned R1-13.5 and R1-22. PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat depicts the subdivision of 11.04 acres into 16 single family lots at a density of 1.45 units per acre. Lot sizes range from 13,981 sq. ft. to 46,023 sq. ft. The average lot size is 24,520 sq. ft. The minimum lot size and average lot size are consistent with the surrounding area. All of the lots meet the minimum street frontage and square footage requirements for R1-13.5 Zoning District with the exception of Lot 14 which does not meet the minimum 55 foot frontage on a cul-de- sac (proposed at 42 feet) and Lot 3 for frontage on a corner lot of 100 feet (87 feet proposed). Reasons for considering these variances may be a low site density, no wetland fill, and large lot sizes. The proponent must apply for and receive approval of the street frontage variances from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. SHORELAND ORDINANCE Duck Lake is classified as a recreational development water. For all lots abutting,or within 150 feet of the lake,the minimum lot size must be 20,000 sq. ft,the width of the lot at the rear building line must be 120 ft. (at the required 100 foot setback from the lake), and the building setback from the high water mark must be 100 feet. The Shoreland Ordinance affects Lots 3,4, and 7-16. Lots 3, and 16, do not meet the minimum lot size requirement. Lot 16 also does not meet the 100 foot setback. There is enough room on lot 16 to move the house to meet the setback requirement. The proponent must apply for and receive approval of the lot size variances through the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. Reasons for considering the Shoreland Ordinance lot size variances are as follows: 1. The Guide Plan would allow up to 27 units on the property, while the current proposal is for 16 units. 2 Staff Report Roger's Homestead February 9, 1996 2. The average shoreland lot size proposed is 25,830 sq. ft. as compared to the minimum requirement of 20,000 sq. ft. 3. The average lot width is 135 feet as compared to the 120 foot minimum width requirement. 4. No wetland fill is proposed. 5. The shore impact zone, which is 37.5 feet back from the high water mark of the lake, will remain undisturbed. Lots 7-16 show the proposed homes at the 100 foot setback from the lake. This does not leave room for decks or three season porches. The 100 foot setback applies to decks and porches. This means that the homes facing the lake will be long and narrow. Even though this proposal is not requesting variances for any future decks or porches,the plan should show how future decks and porches will work without the need for variances. GRADING AND TREE LOSS City code defines a significant tree as a hardwood tree of at least 12 inches in diameter. Boxelder, elm and ornamental trees are not significant trees,regardless of the size. A significant conifer tree is greater than 8 inches in diameter. There is a total of 1186 caliper inches of significant trees on the property Tree loss as determined by the City Forester is 29%or 344 inches. Tree replacement is 133 inches. UTILITIES Sewer and water service is immediately available adjacent to the site. A treatment pond is shown on the grading plan. CONCLUSION Variances are requested from City code. There are reasons to consider the variances. The density of the site at 1.45 units per acre is low considering the guide plan allows up to 2.5 units per acre. The average lot size of 24,500 sq. ft. is consistent with the surrounding R1-13.5 and R1-22 zoning. No wetland fill is proposed on the property. For these reasons staff feels that the variances are reasonable. 3 9 Staff Report Roger's Homestead February 9, 1996 LAND DEDICATION As part of continued discussion regarding fish management,the Parks and Recreation staff has asked the developer to consider a land dedication that would serve as a public access to the lake. The Parks and Recreation staff is looking at the southern part of lots 14 and 15. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffwould recommend approval of the request for rezoning to R1-13.5 and preliminary plat into 16 lots based on plans dated February 9, 1996 and the Staff Report dated February 9, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review,the proponent shall: a. Provide a tree replacement plan for 133 caliper inches. 2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: a. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. b. Submit detailed storm water runoff,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: a. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. 4. Proponent shall apply for and receive approvals from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for street frontage less than 55 feet on a cul-de-sac for lot 14, street frontage less than 100 feet on the straight portion on the street for lot 3, and lot size less than 20,000 sq. ft. in a shoreland area for lots 3 and 16. 4 /0 n�STATEn OF tir .J U�J E J c rza DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL,MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO. February 22, 1996 Mr. Mike Franzen, City Planner City of Eden Prairie Community Development Department 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Rogers Homestead, Duck Lake (27-69P), City of Eden Prairie,Hennepin County Dear Mr. Franzen: We have reviewed the site plans and variance requests(received January 19, 1996) for the Rogers Homestead site (Section 5, T116N, R22W). We have no objection to the approval of the variance for the lot width of lot 14. However, we object to the approval of the variance for the lot size of lot 16 for the following reasons: 1. Lot 16 is adjacent to lot 15, which is 27,600 square feet in size. It appears that it may be possible to increase the size of lot 16 by adding a portion of lot 15 to lot 16. This alternative would make a variance unnecessary. 2. Issuing a variance for lot 16 would create a nonconforming lot that would not comply with the Eden Prairie Shoreland Ordinance. 3. The applicant must demonstrate hardship to justify receiving a variance. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: a. The proposed use is reasonable. b. It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns". Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. c. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. d. The problem must not be created by the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. In the case of the platting of lot 16, it appears that the problem with lot size was created by the developer. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER // Mr. Mike Franzen February 22, 1996 Page 2 In addition to our recommendations on the variances, we have the following general comments to offer on the development proposal in general: 1. Duck Lake(27-69P) is a border of the Rogers Homestead site. Any activity below the ordinary high water(OHW)level of 915.3', which alters the course, current or cross- section of Duck Lake, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. When showing the OHW, the plans should indicate whether the boundary was surveyed elevation or the location of the edge of the water. There are wetlands on the Rogers Homestead site that are not under DNR Public Waters Permit jurisdiction. The project is subject to federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may provide additional comments on the project through our review of applications submitted under these other regulatory programs. 2. According to the plans, the stormwater from the northern cul de sac will be treated, which is good. However, it is unclear whether the stormwater from the southern cul de sac will be treated. The DNR objects to having untreated stormwater routed directly to lakes. Routing untreated stormwater to lakes can cause sedimentation, water quality degradation, and water level bounces that are detrimental to aesthetic values, property values, recreation and wildlife. 3. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties adjacent to the lake and the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that the DNR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. 4. The plans make it clear that the structures of this development will be built above the regulatory flood protection elevation of Duck Lake in accordance with the floodplain ordinance of the City of Eden Prairie,which is good. Should any of the structures that are built on these lots seem lower than the elevations indicated on the plans, then the city should require certification of the building elevation. 5. Duck Lake has a shoreland classification of recreational development. The shoreland district extends 1000 feet from the OHW of 915.30' (NGVD, 1929). Rogers Homestead must be consistent with the shoreland ordinance of Eden Prairie. In particular: a. The southern half of the project area contains steep slopes. Topographic alterations should be minimized in this area. Eden Prairie should evaluate the erosion control protection for the site during construction, possible soil erosion impacts, soil erosion protection and development visibility from Duck Lake before a permit is issued for this development. b. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zone. The minimum shore impact zone is an area within 25' of the OHW. Mr. Mike Franzen February 22, 1996 Page 3 c. The homeowners and builders should be encouraged to minimize the amount of impervious surface in the development as much as possible. The larger the amount of impervious surface, the greater the negative impacts that Rogers Homestead will have on Duck Lake. d. Lots 4, 5, 10 and 11 all contain large areas of wetland. We are concerned that land that is unsuitable for development because of wetlands is being platted. Allowing wetlands to be platted will set a precedence for future development. Using land that is unsuitable for platting to artificially increase the size of a lot can result in the over use of the lot, which is detrimental to the landowners, natural resources and the neighbors of the lot. e. It appears that lot 15 is a substandard lot. Lot 15 has a lot width of 55' at the OHW of Duck Lake. However, it seems possible for the lot lines to be adjusted between lots 15, 14, 13 and 12 so that all of the lots will meet the minimum lot width and size required by the Eden Prairie Ordinance. 6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. b. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(Dan Sullivan @ 296-7203). c. The comments in this letter address DNR-Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, )4'6-0\--d-laci\tUv Joe Richter Hydrologist JR/cds c: Bob Obermeyer,Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed Joe Yanta, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers City of Eden Prairie Shoreland File City of Eden Prairie Floodplain File /3 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 3-12-96 SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. C DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger DATA METALCRAFT,INC. Scott Kipp Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Adopt an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from I-Gen to I-2 on 3 acres. Background: The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the zoning district change and site plan review at its February 12, 1996 meeting. The 16,734 sq. ft. building addition will also involve a significant improvement to the site,including: a paved parking lot,on-site storm sewer, upgrading landscaping, and screening of existing rooftop mechanical units. A variance for a small percentage of plain concrete block is proposed to maintain consistancy with the front elevation of the structure, and is supported by Staff. Supporting Documents: 1. Staff Report dated February 9, 1996 2. Planning Commission approved minutes dated February 12, 1996 3. Correspondence I STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Planner THROUGH: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner DATE: February 9, 1996 SUBJECT: Data Metalcraft APPLICANT: Data Metalcraft, Inc. FEE OWNER: Gene O'Brien LOCATION: 7875 Fuller Road REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from I-General to I-2 Park on 3 acres. 2. Site Plan Review on 3 acres. 1 ilk ups .:: •:•:•:. •••••. : _ , :::•: :::,... .:. -::::::.. . ...::,- isplummium ;ammo. I ... a , 1... .•:::•. EST! ■■S il, .{-11.1It .,.. . _1- # 41 vs as la MI.1> ---, aveir. ...tri ai __I, Li •;,..); ;47) I. 1 AVENUE t g imiv ...I a .: P 10, 111 1111000* walw- =II MI ':•.\- 111 - ilir. - ,, , -10i 0 . '" 0 ill t5TH Ae.„ ,...,\ •(:, ,,.. \ Lir&i irl-, ..A ....• • :::. la 6. /*V / all •0 •an - .• ",*11' O.::9!19-:-.*:'...:;., ir • =�". P;;, SITE • ;, NNE DRIVE r io / ... 1 ° I ITr n.iH 7.....11'I-41• ..., 4k ADD BIR•:...:H\Al•:.:,00 e 14 r 5 ,,,/ ..7., ^ly < . .ildiaill -'. 11/*.I:::: :•••:;i :• :,::: ...,,_, . ii.::i::..41,.., 4111r.7i4,:'.:Ar Old' ,/v. ESS ® 17 •. : . v. - 7 • ; ABS ;.: :::::i::.:.# -', -Ito- 44 Ar 5" •:'::::::•:•:::), 415r..')::•:.••::-•::ti••• 1 i:,.i i.. i,. ♦ -\ o., . 0g:4r,a1A/i,n....1,...4 4i t,,..• ri \ L rE-i • E [ N P R l Ti R I! _ i••4:::.••i::•::::ii••,•:::i:•:1:::•::.:ii••:::•••::.i•••: :i•.•::i:i.:•::i:•::•.4 i.:::,-i•i:. .h\* •`-iits,a.:-1,gD%( e/ N 4 iF/� 0 � / f C 11 0 0 L r. Z . /- P scc ' c4::!7 . ggi il 1114: ■ii lig Wi - i: i I . 's / ,.., • •Ce.' . . . . .•.• '-: .4 ilirs 0,) v:iii :;.: .:i .::::!..:::::::::::::.:.:.:' • :::•,:.:::::.•:!:E:. i 45 MI Era y^}►TS RD. / `sc �.tt• • • gG�Z11G^' OF`0-.1.1:- :_ . �._ �. � �H. � 1S. Rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Staff Report Data Metalcraft February 9, 1996 BACKGROUND This site was zoned I-General in 1969 per Ordinance 135, and is surrounded by other I-2 Park Industrial zoned property including I-General to the east. The existing building is 25,500 sq. ft. and is served by gravel driveways. During the upgrading of Highway 5, a cul-de-sac was built along the north side of the property, leaving the existing building 15 feet from the newly established lot line. A variance was granted for this setback from the required 75 feet within the I-General zoning district. The current request is to rezone the property from I-General to I-2 Park for the construction of a building addition. SITE PLAN The proposal includes a building expansion of 16,734 sq. ft. for a building footprint of 39,534 sq. ft. on the 3-acre parcel. This addition will bring the total base area ratio to the maximum 30%permitted in the Industrial zoning district. The floor area ratio is proposed at 32%. City code permits up to a 50% floor area ratio. A new hard surface parking area will be built consistent with City code for the number of parking stalls and setbacks. The proposal to rezone the property from I-General to I-2 Park will provide the additional area on-site to meet these parking requirements and is consistent with neighboring uses. Currently, a portion of this site is being used by a neighboring business for outside storage. Since the I-2 Park zoning district does not permit outside storage, this material must be moved back to the neighboring owners site, which is zoned I-General,prior to building permit issuance. GRADING AND DRAINAGE Grading of the property will be necessary to provide positive drainage for the new parking lot area and to construct a screening berm along Fuller Road. The new parking area will use a stormsewer system to direct runoff to the existing storm sewer at the corner of Fuller Road. The Engineering Division has determined that a NURP pond on this site will have minimal effect in storm water treatment since there is no existing storm sewer system in the surrounding area south of the corner at Fuller Road. The area would be better served by a potential future pond located within the surrounding area. A cash contribution to the Storm Water Utility is recommended in lieu of the pond. 2 Staff Report Data Metalcraft February 9, 1996 UTILITIES The existing building is connected to municipal sewer and water. ARCHITECTURE The existing building is constructed primarily of standard concrete block with some corduroy concrete block along the Fuller Road frontage. Current City code does not permit the use of standard concrete block as an approved building material. The existing building was constructed prior to the adoption of the building material standards. The proposed building addition will be built with rock face block along the east and south elevations with corduroy block and some standard concrete block along the west, or front elevation to maintain the existing architectural continuity. A total of 9%of the building addition is proposed in standard concrete block and will require a variance from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Since the use of standard concrete block is very limited, and is needed for architectural continuity on the front elevation only, staff believes this variance has merit. The proponent has provided a rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan meeting code requirements. LANDSCAPING The landscape plan meets City code for caliper inch and screening requirements. The majority of existing landscaping currently on site and affected by the proposed development will be relocated on the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend approval of the rezoning from I-General to I-2 Park on 3 acres and Site Plan Review on 3 acres,based on plans dated February 1, 1996,this Staff Report and the following: 1. Prior to 2nd reading at the City Council, the proponent shall receive a variance from the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the use of standard concrete block in the design of the front elevation for the building. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Permanently remove all outside storage from the site. Staff Report Data Metalcraft February 9, 1996 B. Pay the cash contribution to the Storm Water Utility in lieu of construction of the NURP pond. C. Submit detailed stormwater run-off,utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. D. Submit detailed stormwater run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 12, 1996 Page 5 D. DATA METALCRAFT EXPANSION by Gene O'Brien. Request for Zoning District change from I-General to I-2 on 3 acres and Site Plan Review on 3 acres for construction of a 16,734 sq. ft. building addition. Location: 7858 Fuller Road. Kipp reviewed the staff report and stated staff recommended approval of the requests. Gene O'Brien and Tim Miller, of Miller Construction were present to answer any questions. Wissner commented that she was very pleased to see a business expanding and remaining in Eden Prairie. The Public Hearing was opened. No one present wished to speak. MOTION: Wissner moved, Foote seconded to close the Public Hearing Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Wissner moved, Foote seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Gene O'Brien for Zoning District Change from I-General to I-2 on 3 acres based on plans dated February 1, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 9, 1996. Motion carried 6-0. MOTION: Wissner moved, Foote seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Gene O'Brien for Site Plan Review on 3 acres based on plans dated February 1, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 9, 1996. Motion carried 6-0. 7 Mr. Scott Kipp January 10, 1996 Planning Department City of Eden Prairie City Center 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Subject: Zoning change at 7875 Fuller Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Dear Mr. Kipp: Data Metalcraft is asking me to explore the possibility of expanding their building located at 7875 Fuller Road. As part of the expansion plan the zoning may need to be changed from I-General to I-2 so as to accommodate parking requirements. As owner of the facility, I will not give up the I-General zoning unless the expansion proceeds as planned. The request for zoning change should only be considered as part of the building expansion plan and the zoning should not be changed at this time. If you have questions regarding this contingency, please call. Sincerely; 4, •�r Gen; G. O'Brien •wn-r of Property • cden Prairie r = `ces ea; t • Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 iri , .ne (612) 949-8300 • TDD (612) 949-8399 • Fax (612) 949-8390 May 9, 1995 Mr. Gene O'Brien, President Data Metalcraft, Inc. 7875 Fuller Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 SUBJECT: Rezoning Of The Data Metalcraft Site Dear Mr. O'Brien: On April 20, 1995 you inquired about the process to rezone the Data Metalcraft site from I-GEN to I-2 PARK, and were concerned about the City changing the zoning if you decided not to construct the addition during the rezoning process. For the purpose of background information, there have been earlier conversations with Miller Construction which reveled that the total number of proposed parking spaces could not be accommodated based on the setbacks of the existing I-GEN zoning district. In order to meet your expansion request, Staff suggested that they look at rezoning the property to. I-2 PARK. This action would provide additional buildable area on the site to meet the total parking requirement. Based on plans submitted for Planning Commission review, it appears that you are proposing that this rezoning take place. As you and I discussed on April 27, 1995, there are some options available to you regarding your concern: 1. If you decide any time during the rezoning process that you do not wish to proceed with your proposal, you may submit a letter to the city indicating that you would like to withdraw the project from further consideration. 2. If you wish to proceed to a point where you know that the City Council has approved the expansion plans, you could proceed through 1st reading at the City Council. At that time you could evaluate your financing before proceeding to 2nd reading. It is only after the 2nd reading that the rezoning ordinance is published in the Eden Prairie News, officially rezoning the property. Keep in mind that any delay between readings should not exceed a reasonable amount of time. 4111I- Recyclea P30er • Gene O'Brien May 9, 1995 Page 2 I hope that this letter helps clarify any concerns you may have regarding the rezoning process for your expansion proposal. If you have any questions in this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, yceS141V. S Ott A. Kipp 7v/ Planner cc: Tim Miller, Miller Construction D:ucport\O'Br,cn /0 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Public Hearing March 12, 1995 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO: Community Development 1996 Community Chris Enger Development Block Grant David Lindahl (CDBG) Activities REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Adopt resolution approving the 1996 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) activities as recommended by the Housing, Transportation, and Social Services Board(HTSSB). BACKGROUND: Each year Eden Prairie receives funding through the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program to address various community needs. Eden Prairie is expected to receive $185,336 for 1996. The HTSSB reviewed all requests for CDBG funding and recommended to the City Council to approve funding for the following activities: Child Care Subsidy Program $24,000 HOME Program(elderly home maintenance/chore service) $10,067 HOMELINE (tenant advocacy/mortgage foreclosure prevention) $ 3,000 Scattered Site Single Family Land Acquisitions $30,000 Housing Rehabilitation Program $70,000 Rental Housing Project $48,269 SUPPORTING INFORMATION: The national objectives for the CDBG Program include: • Developing viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities for low and moderate income, elderly, and disabled individuals. • Meeting other community development needs having particular urgency. The only new activity for 1996 is the inclusion of$30,000 for acquisition of sites intended for affordable single family detached housing. SUPPORTING REPORTS Memorandum CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF FUNDS FOR 1996 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS,the City of Eden Prairie,through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a cooperating unit in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has developed a proposal for the use of urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it, following a public hearing on March 12, 1996 to obtain the views of citizens on local and Urban Hennepin County housing and community development needs and priorities the City's proposed use of$185,336 for the 1996 Community Development Block Grant. related income: BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie approves the following projects for funding from the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County for review and inclusion in the 1996 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program. PROJECTS BUDGET Child Care Subsidy Program(GMDCA) $ 24,000 Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly(HOME) $ 10,067 HOMELINE suburban advocacy/foreclosure prevention $ 3,000 Scattered Site Acquisitions $ 30,000 Housing Rehabilitation $ 70,000 Rental Housing Project $ 48.269 TOTAL $185,336 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 12th day of March, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST; John D. Frane, City Clerk MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council Through: Carl Jullie, City Manager Chris Enger, Community Development Director From: David Lindahl, HRA Manager Date: February 7, 1996 Subject: 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING PROPOSALS Eden Prairie's CDBG entitlement for 1996 is $185,336. The national objectives of the CDBG program include: • Developing viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities principally for low and moderate income persons. • Aiding in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight. • Meeting other community development needs having particular urgency. The Housing, Transportation,and Social Services Board(HTSSB)reviewed the proposed CDBG activities at their February 15, 1996 meeting and recommended to the City Council approval of the following activities: 1996 CDBG FUNDING REQUESTS Human Service Activities: Hennepin County will not allow more than 20%of the City's total CDBG allocation to be used for public service related activities,which for Eden Prairie in 1996 is $37,067. The human service requests for 1996 are as follows: Activity#1 - Child Care Subsidy Program Agency/Contact - Greater Minneapolis Day Care Association(GMDCA) - Grace Norris Funding Request - $24,000 - GMDCA has indicated that this level of funding would help assist the three families currently being served, and six families from their waiting list. They requested $24,000 in 1995, but received $24,379 since additional funds were available within the 20%human service cap. Purpose - Provide child day care assistance to lower-income families in Eden Prairie who are working/training a minimum of 25 hours per week. The City has been funding this activity since 1986. Clients Served - Ten unduplicated Eden Prairie families were served between July 1, 1995 to January 31, 1996. Sixty families are on the waiting list. See an attached letter from GMDCA for additional information. 3 Activity#2 - Household& Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME) Agency/Contact - Senior Community Services - Betty Crouch Funding Request - $10,067 Purpose - Provide maintenance and chore service to persons 60 and older. The City has been funding this activity since 1982. Clients Served - Twenty-nine households were served in 1995. See an attached letter from Senior Community Services for additional information. Activity#3 - Homeline &Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Programs Agency/Contact - Community Action for Suburban Hennepin- Charlie Warner Funding Request - $3,000 (same level as 1995) Purposes - Home-line is a housing service that provides tenant information and advocacy through a hotline to help resolve tenant-landlord problems. They also administer a foreclosure prevention program that helps homeowners faced with possible foreclosure renegotiate loans, and preserve home ownership. Clients Served - In 1995 Home-line received about 177 calls from E.P. residents, and forty households requested foreclosure prevention assistance. See an attached letter from CASH for additional information. Housing Related Activities: Activity#1 - Housing Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program Agencies - HRA/Community Development Department Funding Request - $70,000 Purpose - To provide low-interest deferred loans of up to $15,000 to eligible residents for home improvements. The loans are recovered when the recipients sell their homes.Recovered funds are rolled back into the program. Clients Served - Ten clients were served in 1995 - some of these applications are still active. Activity #2 - Affordable Rental Housing Developments Agencies - HRA/City of Eden Prairie Funding Request - $48,269 Purposes - The need exists for rental housing affordable to lower income families in Eden Prairie. Rent levels in market-rate apartment developments are out of reach for many workers in the retail trade and commercial service industries in Eden Prairie. The Council should consider banking funds in 1996 and combining them with part of the 1997 CDBG allocation to enable the City to assist developers in writing down land costs for affordable rental housing projects. Using the funds in this manor is consistent with the recently drafted strategies for meeting the City's Livable Communities rental housing goals. CDBG funds were banked in 1993 and 1994 and used to help acquire land for the recently approved Columbine Townhouse development. Activity#3 - Affordable Single Family Home Ownership Projects Page 2 Agencies - The City in Partnership with nonprofit housing developers. Funding Amount - $30,000 Purposes - The City Council was approached by a consortium of churches called Common Ground and asked to consider providing a lot for the construction of an affordable single family detached home through Habitat for Humanity. City staff has been contacted by another party also interested in building a Habitat Home. Since the City currently does not have land available for this purpose, it could set aside CDBG funds to help acquire a site for an affordable single family home, or to help pay down City assessments on tax forfeit parcels being considered for a project of this nature. The Council should consider placing a limit on how much subsidy the City would provide for one family. From 1986 through 1990 the City administered a Scattered Site Housing program where loans of up to $10,000 were provided to low-income families to help write down the cost of homes purchased in Eden Prairie. The funds were provided as deferred loans to be repaid to the City when the homes are sold. A similar arrangement is recommended for this program,but perhaps capping the loan amount at$15,000. Summary of 1996 CDBG requests: Funding Human Service Activities Level 1) Child Care Subsidy Program $ 24,000 2) Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME) $ 10,067 3) Homeline & Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention Program $ 3.000 Sub Total $ 37,067 Housing 4) Housing Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program $ 70,000 5) Affordable Rental Housing Developments $ 48,269 6) Affordable Single Family Home Ownership Projects $ 30.000 Sub Total $148,269 Grand Total $185,336 Page 3 el G'ClCrT DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MARCH 5, 1996 - pram SECTION: DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. FINANCE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VI CHECKS NUMBER 38928 THRU 39272 Action/Direction: MARCH 5, 1996 VI 38928 DARRIL S PETERSON AND PAYMENT DUE FOR KLEIN/PETERSON PARCEL. 101607.24 38929 EUGENE WEBER AND MARCELLA KLEIN PAYMENT DUE FOR KLEIN/PETERSON PARCEL. 55384.08 38930 THE TRUSTEES OF THE 1975 PAYMENT DUE FOR KLEIN/PETERSON PARCEL. 15407.72 38931 THE TRUSTEES OF THE 1975 PAYMENT DUE FOR KLEIN/PETERSON PARCEL. 15407.72 38932 THE TRUSTEES OF THE 1975 PAYMENT DUE FOR KLEIN/PETERSON PARCEL. 15407.72 38933 BUDGET SIGN GRAPHICS COLOR DECALS-HERITAGE PRESERVATION 114.49 COMMISSION. 38934 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING 55-ALIVE MATURE DRIVING CLASS TUITION- 112.00 FEES PAID. 38935 AFTON ALPS YOUTH SKI TRIP-FEES PAID. 380.00 38936 BEST WESTERN-INDIANAPOLIS EAST CONFERENCE, EXPENSE-FIRE DEPT. 160.60 38937 LARRY A DOIG REIMBURSE FOR TRAINING SCHOOL EXPENSES. 18.24 38938 DRISKILLS NEWMARKET MEETING EXPENSE-PARKS AND RECREATION. 166.73 38939 ISA NATIONAL DUES - FORESTRY DEPT. 85.00 38940 ISA PUBLICATION-FORESTRY DEPT. 35.00 38941 MACTA SEMINAR EXPENSE-CITY HALL. 30.00 38942 MSA MN SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE STATE DUES. 15.00 38943 MICHAEL ROGERS REIMBURSE FOR SEWER LINE REPAIR. 674.23 38944 STATE FOREST TREE NURSERY TREES-FORESTRY DEPT. 164.62 38945 JOEL WESTACOTT AUDIO VISUAL SERVICE MARTIN LUTHER KING 173.25 CELEBRATION. 38946 RICHARD WILLIAMSON REIMBURSE FOR CLASS A CLD WITH 37.50 INDORSEMENTS. 38947 APPLEBEES BAR AND GRILL Q-TIP GIFT CERTIFICATES. 50.00 38948 TARGET Q-TIP GIFT CERTIFICATES. 50.00 38949 RAINBOW FOODS Q-TIP GIFT CERTIFICATES. 25.00 38950 CIATTIS Q-TIP GIFT CERTIFICATES. 75.00 38951 SEARS Q-TIP GIFT CERTIFICATES. 100.00 38952 WAL MART Q-TIP GIFT CERTIFICATES. 75.00 38953 CARVER CO CHILD SUPPORT UNIT PAYROLL 1-26-95. 90.00 38954 CARVER COUNTY COMMUNITY SOCIAL SV PAYROLL 1-26-95. 276.93 38955 CARVER CO CHILD SUPPORT UNIT PAYROLL 1-26-95. 49.37 38956 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 1-26-95. 350.00 38957 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY PAYROLL 1-26-95. 8230.50 38958 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 1-26-95. 10.00 38959 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 1-26-95. 240.46 38960 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 PAYROLL 1-26-95. 3921 .40 38961 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION DUES FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 1306.00 PAYROLL 1-26-96. 38962 MN DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 1-26-96. 227.42 38963 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE PAYROLL 1-26-96. 1267.50 38964 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 1-26-96. 247.00 38965 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 1-26-96. 35.00 38966 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOC PAYROLL 1-26-96. 455.09 38967 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOC PAYROLL 1-26-96. 110.00 38968 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOC PAYROLL 1-26-96. 42334.01 38969 BELLBOY CORPORATION BEER. 91 .00 38970 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 9679.42 38971 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER. 27791.25 38972 HOHENSTEINS BEER. 79.90 30254839 MARCH 5, 1996 VI 38973 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO BEER. 384. 18 38974 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 15348.37 38975 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX. 701 .00 38976 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY MIX. 278.05 38977 THE WINE COMPANY BEER. 19.20 38978 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 34105.55 38979 ALLIED BALCKTOP CO SEMINAR-ENGINEERING DEPT. 45.00 38980 JOE APT SERVICE-INSTRUCTOR TAI CHI CHIH CLASS- 184.50 FEES PAID. 38981 CIRCUS PIZZA YOUTH SPECIAL TRIP - MONDAY FEB 19TH. 167.74 38982 DISCOVERY ZONE YOUTH SPECIAL TRIP. 148.73 38983 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-PARKS AND 304.52 RECREATION/REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAINING EXPENSES. 38984 IPMA MEETING EXPENSE-HUMAN RESOURCES. 14.00 38985 FRANKLIN QUEST CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-FACILITIES. 123.65 38986 KAMI KISSNER SERVICE-GYMNASTICS INSTRUCTOR-FEES PAID. 105.00 38987 DAVID LINDAHL REIMBURSE FOR MEETING EXPENSES-STREET 27.00 DEPT. 38988 SPEC MATERIALS INC SEMINAR-STREET AND PARK MAINTENANCE. 75.00 38989 LOIS WILDER SERVICE-WRITING INSTRUCTOR SR CENTER-FEES 180.00 PAID. 38990 BRENDA UTING REIMBURSE FOR TRAINING EXPENSE. 22. 15 38991 WORDPERFECT MAGAZINE OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 12.95 38992 EDIE ANDERSON REFUND-QUEEN OF HARPS ADULT TRIP. 31 .50 38993 LAVERNE ANDERSON REFUND-QUEEN OF HARPS ADULT TRIP. 31 .50 38994 JACKIE BORDIN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 31 .50 38995 CARRIE BUTLER REFUND-QUEEN OF HARPS ADULT TRIP. 31 .50 38996 JEAN CHAFFEE REFUND-QUEEN OF HEARTS ADULT TRIP. 31 .50 38997 VIRGINIA ENGELMAN REFUND-QUEEN OF HEARTS ADULT TRIP. 31 .50 38998 CYNTHIA ERICSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 42.00 38999 GLADYS GUTTROMSON REFUND-QUEEN OF HARPS ADULT TRIP. 31 .50 39000 LORI JUELICH REFUND-GYMNASTICS CLASS. 4.00 39001 MARILYN AND PETER KITTELSLAND REFUND-QUEEN OF HARPS ADULT TRIP. 63.00 39002 VIOLET LAPPIN REFUND-QUEEN OF HARPS ADULT TRIP. 31 .50 39003 MRS MILLER REFUND-YOUTH SKI TRIP. 19.00 39004 KAREN PAUL REFUND-SKI TRIP. 19.00 39005 DENISE PARRISH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 28.00 39006 KYLE RODE REFUND-YOUTH SKI TRIP. 22.00 39007 BONITA SHAH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 15.00 39008 LORRAINE WALLACE REFUND-QUEEN OF HARPS ADULT TRIP. 31 .50 39009 MRS WINTER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS. 21 .00 39010 VALLEY PLUMBING REFUND-PLUMBING PERMIT. 113.50 39011 CARVER CO CHILD SUPPORT UNIT PAYROLL 2-2-96. 49.37 39012 CARVER COUNTY COMMUNITY SOCIAL SV PAYROLL 2-2-96. 276.93 39013 CARVER CO CHILD SUPPORT UNIT PAYROLL 2-2-96. 90.00 39014 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 2-2-96. 10.00 39015 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 2-2-96. 240.46 39016 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 2-2-96. 275.08 39017 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 2-2-96. 227.42 5404585 MARCH 5, 1996 VI 39018 BCA FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY TRAINING-POLICE DEPT. 160.00 39019 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION POSTAGE-POLICE DEPT. 12.50 39020 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY VEHICLE STOCK PARTS/TOOLS/MISC PARTS- 2870.98 FLEET MAINTENANCE/UTILITES/PARK MAINTENANCE. 39021 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER MISC SUPPLIES-FIRE/FACILITIES/FLEET/PARKS/ 956.78 STREETS/UTILITIES. 39022 BOB LAMBERT REIMBURSEMENT FOR ROTARY DUES. 147.50 39023 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE MISC SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE/COMMUNITY 416.39 CENTER. 39024 PATRICIA PIDCOCK ADVANCE-NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 200.00 CONFERENCE. 39025 JERRY PRODEHL REIMBURSEMENT-MEETING EXPENSES. 27.00 39026 M SHANKEN COMMUNICATIONS INC PUBLICATIONS-LIQUOR STORE III. 74.99 39027 SISINNI FOOD SERVICE MEETING EXPENSE-STAFF/SAFETY/ENVIRON 602.09 WASTE/COUNCIL/SR ISSUES. 39028 SQUARE CUT SHELF IN RECEPTION AREA-POLICE DEPT. 312.39 39029 THE STOUFFER MAYFLOWER HOTEL CONFERENCE EXPENSE-CITY COUNCIL. 560.46 39030 US WEST CELLULAR SERVICE. 1476.60 39031 MARK VANDENBERGHE REIMBURSEMENT TRAINING EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT. 52.21 39032 WARNING LIGHTS TRAINING-STREET DEPARTMENT. 600.00 39033 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND EXCISE TAX. 2120.84 39034 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE REGISTRATION. 29.20 39035 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A FEDERAL SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE 85860.04 WITHHOLDING PYMT PAYROLL 2-16-96. 39036 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOC PAYROLL 2-16-96. 7083.41 39037 WEST SUBURBAN COLUMBUS CREDIT UNI PAYROLL 2-16-96. 750.00 39038 BELLBOY CORPORATION BEER. 245.00 39039 ABES ALES AND BEERS BEER. 36.00 39040 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 11565.78 39041 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER. 12916.05 39042 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 7988.97 39043 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX. 510.05 39044 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MIX. 257.80 39045 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER. 9014.95 39046 ASE / ACT TRAINING-CERTIFICATION. 40.00 39047 CIRCUS PIZZA SPECIAL YOUTH TRIP -YOUTH RECREATION. 158. 15 39048 DAVID LINDAHL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT-COMMUNITY 17.08 DEVELOPMENT. 39049 MINNESOTA ZOO SPECIAL YOUTH TRIP-YOUTH RECREATION. 122.69 39050 HARRY MORAN REFUND-WATER AND SEWER. 175.80 39051 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE. 75942.34 39052 PRAIRIE CYCLE AND SKI CROSS COUNTRY SKI CLASS EQUIPMENT RENTAL - 92.00 FEES PAID. 39053 PAUL UPTON SERVICE-INSTRUCTOR CROSS COUNTRY SKI 69.00 CLINIC-FEES PAID. 39054 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE. 5676.82 39055 TINA ROHDE AND COLLEEN SHASKIN ENTERTAINMENT-SNOW PICNIC. 95.00 39056 LILA KLEHR ENTERTAINMENT-SNOW PICNIC. 300.00 39057 U S POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING DISTRICT 1 . 675.61 23021247 MARCH 5, 1996 VI 39058 DAWN CARDARELLE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER-ADAPTIVE REC. 60.00 39059 INFORMATION POLICY OFFICE COPYING AND POSTAGE FOR MN DATA PRACTICE 5.00 ACT MATERIALS. 39060 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PUBLICATIONS-INSPECTION DEPT. 29.00 39061 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES CONFERENCE EXPENSE-CITY HALL. 50.00 39062 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC TRAINING EXPENSE-STREET DEPT. 60.00 39063 SUE MCCARVILLE MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 62.72 39064 KATHLEEN MILLBERG REFUND-SKI TRIP. 12.00 39065 MINNEGASCO SERVICE. 26841.36 39066 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY RECHARGE DRY CHEMICAL-FIRE DEPT. 317.02 39067 PETTY CASH POLICE DEPT PETTY CASH. 79.61 39068 WENDY SCHMITZ SUPPLY REIMBURSEMENT. 47.87 39069 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION CONFERENCE EXPENSE-CITY HALL. 100.00 39070 SUPER 8 MOTEL SOUTH 1 TRAINING EXPENSE-FIRE DEPT. 105.34 39071 TURF SUPPLY COMPANY TRAINING EXPENSE-PARK MAINTENANCE. 20.00 39072 WBCS GRAPHICS PRELIMINARY DRAFTS-DIVERSECITY/ 50.00 COMMUNITY CENTER/AROUND THE CENTER. 39073 AFFIRMED MEDICAL SERVICES INC FIRST AID SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 90.88 39074 AMERICAN PHOTO COPY TONER/SERVICE CONTRACT - CITY HALL. 586.00 39075 AMERI-DATA SOFTWARE UPGRADE-ADMINISTRATION/LAPTOP 5463.45 COMPUTER-SIGNAL MAINTENANCE. 39076 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 2.00 39077 ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY SWIMMING CERTIFICATES-COMMUNITY CENTER 204.00 ACQUATIC DEPT. 39078 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 136.32 39079 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 10.65 39080 BAUER BUILT INC TIRES/SHOP SUPPLIES-FLEET MAINTNENACE. 749.61 39081 S H BARTLETT CO INC TIMING CARTRIDGE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 238.88 39082 BELLBOY CORPORATION SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 479.48 39083 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE - PLUTE 3706.81 HOMES. 39084 B AND F DISTRIBUTING FUEL-FLEET SERVICES. 4751 . 16 39085 BLACK & VEATCH CITY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT-WPT DESIGN. 200802.32 39086 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ANIMAL CONTROL CHARGES FOR JANUARY 1996. 269.00 39087 B & S TOOLS SUPPLIES-STREET DEPT. 19. 12 39088 NATE BUCK SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 648.00 39089 CARGILL INCORPORATED DEICING SALT-STREET DEPT. 4673.04 39090 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SVC INC NUT-PARK MAINTENANCE. 1 .30 39091 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER PARTS-FLEET SERVICES. 208.98 39092 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS 20" BAR-PARKS. 44.68 39093 JAKE CHRISTIANSON SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 127.50 39094 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC SPOT LAMP-FIRE DEPT. 35.00 39095 COPY EQUIPMENT INC SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING. 56.66 39096 CORNERHOUSE SUBURBAN POLICE JURISDICTION-POLICE DEPT. 2455.00 39097 CULLIGAN - METRO SERVICE-OUTDOOR CENTER. 36.60 39098 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC LABELS/0 RINGS/DRILL BITS/SOCKETS/GASKET/ 187.90 LID CHART/KEY BLANKS-FLEET SERVICES. 39099 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC KEY BLANKS. 56.68 39100 CUSTOM HEADSETS INC HEADSET REPAIRS-POLICE DEPT. 165.94 39101 DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SVCS INC PARTS-FLEET SERVICES. 106.50 25415338 MARCH 5, 1996 VI 39102 DECORTEC INCORPORATED WATER DAMAGE REPAIRS-FACILITIES. 400.00 39103 DELEGARD TOOL CO SHOPTOOLS-FLEET SERVICES. 64.82 39104 DESIGN 1 OF EDINA LTD ESCROW FUND 81 UNUSED BALANCE RETURNED TO 367.32 DEVELOPER. 39105 DRIVERS LICENSE GUIDE COMPANY 1996 ID CHECKING GUIDES-POLICE DEPT. 49.95 39106 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY DEC 95 USAGE BILLING-CITY HALL. 363.05 39107 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FEBRUARY CHAMBER LUNCHEON/LEGISLATIVE 67.00 FORUM. 39108 EDEN PRAIRIE FORD REPAIRS-FLEET SERVICES. 38.34 39109 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST 272 TRANPORTATION-YOUTH RECREATION-FEES PAID. 359.02 39110 EDINA S W PLUMBING REPAIRS TO WATER PIPE AT FIRE STATION 2- 990.25 FIRE DEPT. 39111 EKLUNDS TREE & BRUSH DISPOSAL JAN 96 BRUSH DISPOSAL-PARKS DEPT. 450.00 39112 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MAINTENANCE I REPAIRS TO FROZEN TRUCKS - FIRE DEPT. 1273.97 39113 FERRELLGAS PROPANE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 129.05 39114 FIRE PROTECTION PUBLICATIONS PUBLICATION-FIRE DEPT. 25.00 39115 FISCHER AGGREGATES INC FILL SAND-STREET DEPT. 504.38 39116 FLAHERTYS HAPPY TYME CO SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 459.00 39117 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY ACCOUNTING SERVICES-FINANCIAL STATEMENT 3035.07 AUDIT. 39118 FRANKLIN QUEST CO SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 303.79 39119 GALAXY COMPUTER SERVICES SERVICE CONTRACT-FINANCE DEPT. 45.00 39120 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG INC VIBRATION ANALYSIS OF RINK REFRIGERATION 2705.60 SYSTEM-COMMUNITY CENTER. 39121 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-UTILITIES/FIRE DEPT. 408.09 39122 GE CAPITAL MODULAR SPACE COPIER SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER. 134.75 39123 GLENROSE FLORAL AND GIFTS EMPLOYEE AWARDS-HUMAN RESOURCES. 146.43 39124 GOLD COUNTRY INC UNIFORM EXPENSE-FIRE DEPT. 1056.75 39125 GOLD KEY SECURITY REPAIRS-LIQUOR STORE III. 42.00 39126 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SVC TIRES-FLEET SERVICES. 3858.36 39127 GOVERING PUBLICATION-CITY HALL. 10.00 39128 GRAFIX SHOPPE DECALS FOR POLICE CARS-FLEET SERVICES. 1059.60 39129 MICHAEL HAMILTON SERVICE-BROOMBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 122.50 39130 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC REPAIRS AT ROUND LAKE PARK-PARK 121 .95 MAINTENANCE. 39131 HANCE COMPANIES PARTS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 71 .31 39132 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC COLUMBINE MEDCOMEXTENSIONS/RIVERVIEW 27967.27 ROAD/PAFKO 2ND ADD/BIRCH ISLAND ACRES 2ND ADD/RILEY LAKE RD. 39133 HARMON GLASS COMPANY WINDSHIELDS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 915.89 39134 JIM HATCH SALES CO GUTTERBROOMS/MAIN BROOMS-FLEET SERVICES. 2862.72 39135 HELICAOPTER FLIGHT INC DEER CENSUS-PARKS DEPT. 577.20 39136 JOSHUA W HENDERSON SERVICE-BASKETBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 144.50 39137 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 1996 TRAFFIC TICKETS-POLICE DEPT. 774.27 39138 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER PROPERTY OWNER LISTS-COMMUNITY 1081 .25 DEVELOPMENT. 39139 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS ABSTRACT AND TORRENS RECORDING FEES. 79.00 39140 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER REIMBURSEMENT OF STATE DEED FEES PAID BY 27. 15 COUNTY. 39141 D C HEY COMPANY INC COPIER MAINTENANCE AND COPIER SUPPLIES- 85.34 FIRE DEPT. 5317694 MARCH 5, 1996 VI 39142 LARRY HILLARD SERVICE-OPEN GYM SUPERVISOR-FEES PAID. 184.00 39143 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERVICES QUARTERLY MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE- 470.00 LIQUOR STORE II. 39144 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL INC REPAIRS AND PARTS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 307.37 39145 BRENDA JERDE SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/ATTENDANT- 511 .00 FEES PAID. 39146 CRAIG JERDE SERVICE-HOST-FEES PAID. 150.00 39147 CHRIS JESSEN SERVICE-BROOMBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 710.00 39148 STEVE KNUTSON SERVICE-BROOMBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 710.00 39149 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR REPAIR TO FIRE STATION 2 DOOR. 132.90 39150 LAKE REGION VENDING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES. 1845.25 39151 LAMETTRYS COLLISION ACCIDENT REPAIRS-FLEET SERVICES. 465.60 39152 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD LEGAL SERVICES FOR NOVEMBER 1995 $10219. 16656.72 22/LEGAL SERVICES FOR DECEMBER 1995 $6437. 50/4312. 39153 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD JANUARY 1996 PROSECUTION-POLICE DEPT. 9690.00 39154 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD LEGAL SERVICES FOR JANUARY 1996. 9983. 16 39155 L MCI T 4TH QUARTERLY INSTALLMENT SELF INSURED 54203.50 WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM. 39156 L MCI T INSURANCE CLAIMS PAID. 5893.81 39157 LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC TRANSCRIBER-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 424.94 39158 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE. 17.63 39159 TOWN AND COUNTRY DODGE REPAIRS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 135.83 39160 LONG LAKE TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT PUMP-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 54.67 39161 MAACO AUTO PAINTING & BODYWORKS C REPAINT VEHICLE-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 1500.00 39162 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC PLOW SPRINGS REPAIR/SHOP SUPPLIES-FLEET 642.84 MAINTENANCE. 39163 MASUEN COMPANY GAS MONITORS - WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 3576.85 39164 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC MEETING EXPENSE-PARKS AND REC/COMMUNITY 44.96 CENTER/POLICE/SENIOR CTR. 39165 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC MEETING EXPENSE-SENIOR CENTER. 24.51 39166 MED COMPASS INC PHYSICAL EXAMS-FIRE DEPT. 3873.84 39167 MENARDS TARPS/TOOLS/PAINT SUPPLIES/MOBILE GARBAGE 396.54 CAN/GRREN TREAT/LUMBER/BATTERIES/MAILBOX/ DRIVEWAY MARKERS/MISC SUPPLIES-UTILITIES/ PARKS/STREETS/ENGINEERING. 39168 METRO SALES INC COPIER CONTRACT RENEWAL/COPIER SUPPLIES- 2000.37 CITY HALL. 39169 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTEWATER S SEWER SERVICE FOR MARCH. 207811 .00 39170 METRO SYSTEMS BOOKCASE AND TOP-SENIOR CENTER. 292.77 39171 MID-AMERICA POWER DRIVES REPAIR PARTS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 109.08 39172 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO PARTS-PARK MAINTENANCE/FLEET SERVICES. 219.39 39173 MINGER CONSTRUCTION INC SEWER REPAIR-UTILITIES DIVISION. 1356.00 39174 MINNCOMM PAGING PAGING SERVICE-UTILITIES DIVISION. 44.46 39175 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS SUPPLIES-CITY HALL. 51 .28 39176 MOORE MEDICAL CORP BREATHSAVER-FIRE DEPT. 420.00 39177 MSSA ATTN D SCHWARTZ MSSA 1996 ANNUAL DUES-FLEET SERVICES. 75.00 39178 MUNICILITE CO PARTS-FLEET SERVICES. 709.82 39179 MWOA MEMBERSHIP DUES MN WASTEWATER OPERATORS 25.00 ASSOC. 32572009 MARCH 5, 1996 VI 39180 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES. 1426.00 39181 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB SUPPLIES FOR RESALE-COMMUNITY CENTER 513.19 CONCESSIONS. 39182 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 39183 NORTHERN HYDRAULICS INC PARTS-UTILITIES/STREETS. 443.96 39184 TODD OLNESS SERVICE-SOFTBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 131 .00 39185 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC STRAP/ROPE/CLIPS/BATTERIES-UTILITIES/ 344.55 STREETS. 39186 PALM BROTHERS TABLES-FACILITIES. 6291 .97 39187 PARAGON CABLE CABLE SERVICE-CITY HALL. 9.95 39188 PARROTT CONTRACTING INC WATERMAIN REPAIR - UTILITIES. 1751 .00 39189 LYNN PEAVEY COMPANY POUCHES/EVIDENCE BAGS-POLICE DEPT. 283.90 39190 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE II. 19.29 39191 PITNEY BOWES INC POSTAGE METER RENTAL-CITY HALL. 179.72 39192 POWERTEX SPORTSWEAR INC UNIFORMS-PARK AND REC DEPT. 215.69 39193 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC PARTS AND REPAIRS-POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY 1372.48 CENTER/FIRE STATION 1/SENIOR CENTER. 39194 PRAIRIE EQUIPMENT CO UTILITIE TRAILOR-UTILITIES DIVISION. 2721 .07 39195 THE PROMOTION GROUP JACKET-SAFETY DEPT. 68.42 39196 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC START CAP/RELAY-UTILITIES. 239.88 39197 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC WASTE DISPOSAL JAN FEB-COMMUNITY CENTER. 325.70 39198 RADIO SHACK SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 2. 12 39199 RAINBOW FOODS MEETING EXPENSE-PARK AND REC. 12.21 39200 RDO EQUIPMENT CO CUTTING EDGE FOR GRADER-STREET DEPT. 299.61 39201 RESCUE ONE INC ROPE BAGS/HELMETS-FIRE DEPT. 2794.56 39202 THE RETAIL MARKETING GROUP ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES. 50.00 39203 RICOH CORPORATION COPIER-CITY HALL. 626.86 39204 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC SERVICE-TECHNOLOGY DR WATERMAIN DESIGN/ 37524.07 SUNNYBROOK RD DESIGN/BFI FLYING CLOUD FIELD UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS/SW AREA WATER AND SEWER STUDY/WATER TOWER/CITY WEST PKWY/GOLDEN RIDGE RD-ENGINEERING DEPT. 39205 REGIONAL MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION 96 REGIONAL MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION DUES. 10.00 39206 CITY OF RICHFIELD ADAPTIVE REC SHARE OF ANNUAL INSURANCE 1128.00 PREMIUM. 39207 RITZ CAMERA FILM AND FILM PROCESSING-POLICE/CITY HALL. 47.94 39208 ROGERS SERVICE VEHICLE PARTS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 510.42 39209 ROLLINS OIL CO FUEL-FLEET SERVICES. 6601 . 13 39210 ROOT-O-MATIC SEWER SERVICE JETTING DRAINS-FIRE DEPT. 105.00 39211 R & R SPECIALTIES INC SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER. 69.01 39212 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC SUPPLIES-YOUTH RECREATION. 83.39 39213 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER/CITY HALL/ 414.40 POLICE DEPT. 39214 SANCO INC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER/ 394.08 FACILITIES. 39215 SHIELY COMPANY SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 438.51 39216 SIGNUM GRAPHIC SYSTEMS INC GERANIUM VINYL-PARK MAINTENANCE. 80.94 39217 ERIC SIT SERVICE-INSTRUCTOR TAE KWON DO-FEES PAID. 815.85 39218 SIGN SOLUTIONS INC SIGNS-POLICE DEPT. 320.42 39219 SIGNSOURCE INC SIGN-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. 63.90 6873019 MARCH 5, 1996 VI 39220 PETER SMITH SERVICE-VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL-FEEES PAID. 180.00 39221 W GORDON SMITH CO FUEL/FUEL SUPPLIES-FLEET SERVICES/FIRE 1859.51 DEPT. 39222 KELLY SPANN SERVICE-BASKETBAKK OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 105.00 39223 SPECIALTY TECHNICAL PUBLISHERS IN SUBCRIPTION-UTILITIES. 294.00 39224 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION SHOP TOOLS-FLEET MAINTNENACE. 463.75 39225 SNYDER DRUG SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT. 73.47 39226 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT TRANSPORTATION-SR CENTER TRIP-FEES PAID. 175.00 39227 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES. 112.50 39228 THE SPECTACLE SHOPPE INC SAFETY EYEWARE-FIRE DEPT. 201 .00 39229 STANDARD REGISTER SUPPLIES-FINANCE DEPT. 168.39 39230 STANDARD SPRING COMPANY VEHICLE REPAIRS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 165.24 39231 STAR TRIBUNE SUNDAY PAPER FOR RESALE-LIQUOR STORE III. 36.50 39232 STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES-DELL ROAD SOUTH 12474.55 PROJECT/SCENIC HEIGHTS RD/WEST 82ED ST. 39233 STATE TREASURER CERTIFICATION FEE UTILITY OPERATOR. 23.00 39234 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ DRUG TEST KITS/MOURNING BANDS/POLICE 390.68 VEHICLE PARTS-POLICE DEPT/FLEET MAINTENANCE. 39235 STERLING WELDING COMPANY INC THAW WATER-VALLEY VIEW RD-UTILITIES. 390.00 39236 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC COPIER MAINTENANCE CONTRACT-CITY HALL. 37.95 39237 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET REBUILD TRANSMISSION/MISC PARTS-FLEET 2007. 19 MAINTENANCE. 39238 SUPERIOR FORD TRANSMISSION REPAIR-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 656.82 39239 SUPERIOR PRODUCTS MFG CO SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE I. 47.99 39240 JEFF SWANSON SERVICE-BROOMBALL OFFICIAL-FEES PAID. 315.00 39241 SWEDLUND SEPTIC SERVICE PUMPED HOLDING TANK-OUTDOOR CENTER. 95.00 39242 SYSTECH SERVICES COLOR PRINTER-POLICE DEPT. 665.72 39243 TEENS ALONE SERVICES 4TH QRT 95. 2000.00 39244 THERMOGAS CO OF CHASKA PROPANE-STARING LAKE PKWY. 225.00 39245 THIRTY THREE MINUTE PHOTO FILM AND FILM DEVELOPING-ASSESSING. 127.06 39246 TIE SYSTEMS INC OF MN SERVICE-CITY HALL. 366.00 39247 TNEMEC CORPORATION INC SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 1274. 15 39248 TRAUT WELLS PUMP AND MOTOR REHABILITATION PUMP NO 2. 10856.23 39249 CHEMICALS-UTILITIES/FLEET SERVICES. 249.91 39250 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC SHOP SUPPLIES-FLEET SERVICES. 127.75 39251 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORM EXPENSE-POLICE DEPT. 844.03 39252 US WATER NEWS SUBCRIBTION-UTILITIES. 99.00 39253 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC CHEMICALS-WATER TREATMENT FACILITY. 5389.97 39254 VESSCO INC COUNTER-UTILITIES. 284.88 39255 VICTORIA REPAIR AND MFG SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT. 72.00 39256 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CORPORATION SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 484.75 39257 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT REPAIR-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 54.00 39258 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 39259 WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER FOURTH QRT 95 MEDIATION SERVICES. 625.00 39260 WEST WELD SHOP SUPPLIES-FLEET SERVICES. 87.57 39261 WEYERHAEUSER BIN RENTAL FEE-COMMUNITY CENTER. 5.00 39262 WORKING SMART PUBLICATION-FINANCE DEPT. 115.44 39263 WRIGHT LINE INC WORK SURFACE-FACILITIES. 464.71 39264 X-ERGON SUPPLIES-UTILITIES. 142.62 4483333 MARCH 5, 1996 VI 39265 X IMAGE PRINTSETS-POLICE DEPT. 450.00 39266 YALE INC PARTS AND REPAIRS TO AIR COMPRESSOR- 1974.59 UTILITIES. 39267 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 39268 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE FIRST AID SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER/PARK 157.26 AND REC. 39269 ZIEGLER INC PARTS-FLEET MAINTENANCE. 123.78 39270 LOGIS DECEMBER 95 SERVICE. 20261 .60 39271 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 39272 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD OCTOBER 95 CHARGES-FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT 1327.40 $851 .60/TEMAN LAND MUSICLAND GROUP $475. 80. 22000 MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 2-2-96. 17464.57 22000 MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 2-2-96. 1453.94 22000 MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE JAN SPECIAL FUEL TAX. 778.20 44000 MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE JANUARY 96 SALES TAX. 39110. 10 11000 NORWEST BOND PAYMENTS. 4155471 .30 11000 AMERICAN BANK BOND PAYMENT. 504342.50 36378 VOID OUT CHECK 240.00- 36978 VOID OUT CHECK 196.28- 37624 VOID OUT CHECK 39.76- 37788 VOID OUT CHECK 94.65- 38374 VOID OUT CHECK 536.46- 38409 VOID OUT CHECK 80573.68- 38442 VOID OUT CHECK 64.67 38595 VOID OUT CHECK 96.00- 38766 VOID OUT CHECK 2705.60- 38768 VOID OUT CHECK 481 .20- 38786 VOID OUT CHECK 520.64- 38987 VOID OUT CHECK 27.00- 22000 MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE TAX WITHHOLDING. PAYROLL 2-2-96 17277.44 467474608 $6008166.72 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 3-12-96 SECTION: ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ITEM NO. DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development Chris Enger ROGER'S COMMERCIAL GUIDE PLAN CHANGE Michael D. Franzen Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • City Council directed the Community Development staff to prepare a Resolution for Denial of the Amendment of the Comprehensive Municipal Plan by Roger Lindeman. Supporting Reports: 1. Resolution ROGER'S COMMERCIAL GUIDE PLAN CHANGE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING THE AMENDMENT OF 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 Roger's Commercial Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial by Roger Lindeman requires the amendment of the Plan; The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby makes the following findings of fact: 1. The property is currently guided Industrial and is zoned I-2 Park. 2. The property contains 1.91 acres of property. 3. The minimum lot size in a Commercial area is two (2) acres. 4. The property does not meet the minimum lot size requirement of two (2) acres for the Commercial district. 5. The City has not previously granted a variance for lot sizes less than two (2) acres in a Commercial district. 6. The owner intends, assuming the Guide Plan and zoning changes, to operate a Holiday convenience gas station on the property. 7. There are two convenience gas stations located within one-half mile of the site, an Amoco station at the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and Highway 169 and a SuperAmerica at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Highway 169. 8. The area is already adequately served by convenience gas and retail. The typical service area for a convenience gas/retail in the neighborhood commercial area is 1% to 2 miles. 9, A commercial, use in this location would generate considerably more traffic than industrial. Convenience gas/retail, banks, and fast-food restaurants are the highest traffic generators. 10. At 1.91 acres, the property is small for a commercial use. The size, however, avails itself more appropriately for other than commercial uses. 11. A commercial driveway opposite future residential land to the south will generate traffic conflicts. 12. Traffic on Highway 169 is already a concern. A Guide Plan and zoning change to Industrial would result in higher traffic at this location and exacerbate existing traffic problems. 13. The location of a commercial use at this site would have a negative impact on the residential property to the south and the driveway of the owner immediately to the south. 14. Alternatives are available for use of the site as an. Industrial use in accordance with its current Guide Plan and zoning classification. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, hereby denies the amendment of the Plan that would change the Guide Plan designation for the property located at 9125 Flying Cloud Drive, comprised of 1.91 acres from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 12th day of March, 1996. Jean L. Harris, Mayor ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk 3 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: March 12, 1996 SECTION: PETITIONS,REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS ITEM NO. 4 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: City Council Appeal of Variance Community Development # 95-31 Chris Enger Scott Kipp Requested Council Action: Staff does not have difficulty with a decision to overturn the tie vote made by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. This is due to the compatibility with the surrounding homes, the variance granted to the neighboring property, no easement encroachment, and the neighborhood support for the variance. Background: The Board of Adjustments and Appeals continued this variance on October 12, 1995, and again on November 9, 1995, with final review and action on January 11, 1996. The issues discussed were: neighbors variance, living space impacts, steep wooded slope,neighborhood consistency, and insufficient hardship. The Board's motion to approve variance# 95-31 failed on a 3-3-0 vote. Supporting Documents: 1. Letter requesting review of Board's decision dated January 24,1996. 2. Board of Adjustments and Appeals Staff Report. 3. Proponent's variance request information. 4. Minutes for November 9, 1995,and January 11, 1996 Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting. c:\scott\boa\var9531.cc I . January 24, 1996 City of Eden Prairie Scott Kipp Community Development 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 The Mayor of Eden Prairie and Eden Prairie City Council, I respectfully request you overturn a 3 to 3 vote by the Board of Appeals on a variance I asked for recently. My neighbor and I both wanted to add third stalls onto our garages. I was out of town on business when the first request was submitted. He got the approval to build his garage two feet from my property line. When I went before the Appeals Board they had a split decision of 3 to 3 for approval. A tie means I can't proceed with plans to add a third stall, even though I was asking for only a 4' ft. variance. I would very much like a chance for my builder and myself to tell you the details of the addition at your next meeting. Thank you for your time, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 949-8485 STAFF REPORT VARIANCE #: 95-31 MEETING DATE: October 12, 1995 and November 9. 1995 APPLICANT: Tom Morgan LOCATION: 10160 Phaeton Drive REQUEST: To permit a garage addition 5.5 feet from the side lot line (Code requires 10 feet). (continued item. Please note unapproved minutes for history.) ZONING DISTRICT: R1-13.5 AREA CHARACTER: Single family homes with double and triple garages built in the mid to late 1980's. BACKGROUND: A 5 foot utility easement exists along the side lot line. The proposed addition will not encroach into the utility easement. The 9 foot wide garage addition will be 30 feet from the front property line. APPLICANT'S STATED HARDSHIP: Garage cannot be extended out the back due to living space. The backyard is steep and wooded. OPTIONS: 1) Construct a garage 8 feet wide so a 6'6" setback is maintained, 2) add a parking stall area beside the garage. ACTION: The Board may wish to choose from one of the following actions: 1. Approve Variance Request #95-31 as submitted. 2. Approve Variance Request #95-31 with conditions. 3. Continue Variance Request #95-31 if additional information is needed. 4. Deny Variance Request #95-31. BARBUEAN\REPORTS\9531 September 14, 1995 Thomas and Denise Morgan 10160 Phaeton Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Board of Appeals Members City of Eden Prairie City Offices 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 Dear Board Members, We are asking your support in granting a variance so we may build an attached third car stall to our existing attached two car garage. We are asking for variance so we may build an attached third car stall which would require us to build up to feet 6 inches from our property line. If granted, this third stall would be 9 feet in width and 24 feet in length. 1. When we built our home 9 years ago, we did not realize that most houses would be built with 3 car garages in the neighborhood. We were the 5th house build and all house built after ours now has 3 car garages. 2. We have analyzed the property thoroughly and have exhausted any other reasonable alternatives to gaining more garage space. It is not economically feasible to extend the depth of the garage as there is a family room directly behind the garage. The home is place on a lot in such a fashion which makes it difficult to add on without a variance being granted by the city. 3. The addition of an attached third stall would be keeping within the character of the area. 4. Due to the setback and the angle of our homes, the third stall would not be visually obtrusive. 5. If approved, there would be approximately 25 feet between our garage and our neighbor's garage. 6. Our neighbor is not opposed to this variance request. (Refer to attached letter.) L. 7. Should this variance request be approved, the third stall would match the existing exterior and be aesthetically pleasing as an integral part of the home. (Refer to attached architectural plan.) 8. If a variance is not granted, we would have to move to another property which is better suited for three cars along with the necessary lawn and garden equipment. 9. Moving would cause our family endure significant negative financial impact and emotional hardship. We have 2 young girls who love to play in the woods behind our house. We enjoy all the wildlife, birds, squirrels and deer that we see all the time. 10.A professional real estate agent made note of the 2 car garage in the real estate appraisal and said "It will definitely hinder your ability to sell your house with only a 2 car garage, the house next door took over a year to sell because there wasn't a 3rd car garage. The home was big enough for a large family, but lacked garage space. 11. Our family is very involved in the community. Our girls participate in fast pitch softball and basketball programs and we would hate to disrupt their progress by moving to another area. In closing, we would like to thank you all for your time. We take a great deal of pride in Eden Prairie and believe this variance, if granted would help to I increase our property value, provide more tax dollars to the community and provide our neighborhood with stronger home values. Best regards, /2/17/ • 6 David and Carol Graff 10178 Phaeton Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 September 10, 1995 Board Members City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 To whom it may concern, We have reviewed the Morgan's variance request and plans to build a third car garage, and we are in support of their efforts. Sincerely, Dave Graff Carol Graff 6 I • 1 • 1 1 • -- • li ,••� �� t 1,,. .••,:// ,1 /1 'L - fir:; ___ • . -- •---- P li ( %r i !mow alliii—N44-k 1,,, Ii isigfris -__,,,,.......— - - -- .. ....... 1 1111 6..............71.1_,1 h o. �till- �: — ,i■r��,, ': I:-..• a • 'r •s� .iT, ., ''�a t . , . , r b • • , . • • a •a • ; tP ' r • a t,�� • 1 VIEW FROM STREET SHOWING MOVED TREES AND NEW GARAGE ADDITIONS • . I • ��1 ALCHEMY Geoffrey Warner (612)278-8876 GARAGE ADDITION perspective Torn 6 Denise Morgan i� Revisions PERSPECTIVE O 0.•1 , NO SCALE el j ` r TZ/•.ZG'''•W G Do • • \ 1 J \\ .s 1 ‘; ?../ rri t 1,..:_j:=1 , , , r1'1 n a 1 .i Z7 a i :r / it .` \ \• ,\ *1 ,\• , ` y NI • • ss.~."Q' '4• - dotl i(/• y• \ \w 1 V ..---.' • - — I• \. uaor wooden �s�\-,„_- op `tu0_/•d09.i`sg, \--i d0g e• C^7!„,_ 'i�S \~'1t :{ • MCI: ..1.r7• ' y -Of • \� .7 aaa.d l I"r� • -...r ea f I e io—�' �ROvpSEO 2•S \�- r- __ 1 -e— w4uOU-OwE 1 / \ .r-• I. r.___\::\__ pi, it:... -- --4 / I SE:sgcr`rN�>•'70 '1 7.e- a `, G';b�• ._ I T. • rg,$ ���///6K.3 s��— li��`drZo\�/�`\ `i �^ GaR;Gc \ oii li Z- \.<JCc. ri __fie r-� *e \•d a \�� 1 .i r4.'.tt 1 o �o 321a'•+ /3+0o•'• •r �:. Idld.S) I '•r...w_�• � / .� G,4.�s^ N, 'v.-t• ` ctl/n 1 i is fa a / :.•.' I 33.a7°: s ' c\i� ra�� e� a 6 . `m <, • `� ��ear •d roio\ - a7 \ A�� ;3 /u, v- !�' :r - • III 4441 ,ice i ----.......py44.s. ..........."'.X.....: "..,e --. `r". 1 i • 4.›.b•tio Cs r .. V' .. .. .• %• / .. / I Pei le 'Nil •aye p.3� -;� - f� d's 7 ;rC." \' . \ _. • .� 5,�4,4f71 .u'r7 `� b W \-- C / SN ,.,.. - Alik 3 • v ro • 3 r9• a/.... • oa 95211 26/116/22 GRIEF,DAVE . ADVANCE' SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. \`a 0 MOOS.Ilwy.No.101 Minn Ph Minnetonka.MN 35)47 one 1612)474 7964 Faa 012)476 6267 \�, f SUEYFYFOR. DAVE GRAFF • ,,; \ S. O gent' 51111.YFYFD• May 22.199S RItAFlFD• lune 7,199$ S1e�ty. •y r ' ........... % LEGAL DFSCE1 Ent �� ,'\ �\ The Nunh IisK of Lot 1,Block 1,OLUFFS WEST itI AUUIIION.Ilcstnepin County,Minnesota. \ // //.. \ ' 41hllIalll)NS: �'`e' '/ / ;\�i \ YU� 1. We have surveyed the North line of the above described property which the client claims to own or appears to own u Iron various government records. We make no representation that the client dues in fact own the property nor that a vo/ • o) ` •h of the records has been node to determine the extent and nature of his holdings. If there is any doubt �t^�! •� G1 concerning the accuracy of the lest Jescriptiun,competent legal counsel should be retained to perfume a title search f f e7'/oe -S- and issue a title opinion fef our use its preparing the survey. /1. Nets' 0- 2. We show only those easements which the client informs us of or which we happen to become aware of through /e'ar 4r~ r other sources. ,Cr 4'/ 3. the survey shows only those imptoveutents which are visible and which we deem imponarn. r 47 is ST��IQARI) YMJ1OI S&CONYFN7'IONS: 44 \ / � ', 'o'Denotes 172'ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235,set.if'o'is filled in.then denotes (t1C , ,s' 'i 4'-.11t.' found iron monument. • f' a i �o n,, CJ&Iff ICATtQtL. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I on a Professional \ • Engineer and a Prolessional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. • �'fs \ • last•s II.Parker P.E.&P.S.No.9235 �� �47• .., SC, E: ONE INCH EQUALS.20-PELT--• 04 vv 40 F E eT 4 • JOB NO.95281 I — EXISINTC•SETBACK LINES . I ` I I _ I 1 _ I I s/ I ! I I I I s . I I 1 I GPaEr...p SIDFh/Ce I I I I I I I —NEW GARAGE ` I 11..4. ! Ex15 IN • 9'X 24' I I ' I ... / 1 I NEW GARAGE I EXISITNG ' I 9'X 20© I ' /` I L - LINE OF EXISTING GARAGE I / I DRIVEWAY / i I 6'0. ♦ I I �Ct I 1111 ♦ I • / EXISTNG ` GARAGE • �` v •• • ..,.. , . .. . e err e ♦ " ' I • • 1 ' N ` i ♦ ♦ ♦ S. ♦ •N S. ♦N. NOTES Q , ♦ ♦♦ ! GRAFF NEW GARAGE TO BE APPROX.9'X 24'. \ ♦ .- I 1 MORGAN NEW GARAGE TO BE APPROX.9'X 20'. ♦ . , 1 BOTH SLABS AT THE SAME GRADE AS EXISITNG GARAGES. S. MORGAN GARAGE WILL BE APPROX. \ 5'-6' TO PROPERTY LINE ♦ ' GRAFF GARAGE WILL BE APPROX. N.. r='�! 2'-4"TO PROPERTY LINE ♦ : ;'�_ AL. Y BOTH GARAGES WILL NOT BE CLOSER ♦Y _ Geoffrey Wa (612)378 887 THAN APPROX.16'-0•BECAUSE OF THE l''ARAGE ADDITION--_ SITE ANGLES OF THE GARAGES TO EACH OTHER. David L Car Gnff Tom LDanl.*h a` PLAN L 1 SITE PLAN XavIslons 9710/95 ♦ 0 1.0 1"= 30'-0" ` ' /0 1, -r 711;f ALCHEMY1.4 Geoffrey Wamer (612)378-6876 GARAGE ADDITION ELEVATION Tom 6 Dsne**Morgan ELEVATION Revisions 2.1 1/8"=1'-0" /1 - Preserve -•',',,,,,-," Preserve , P 10.:1 h ,-•'. '',:', E3 a ,...,, { n .. Bun Ridge -..,-.....,..,,,, D r i v e ..'..,',; • Homeward Hills Road 1:3(The Majority of homes have 3 car garages) 2 car garage 3 car garage proposed 3 car garage .min......----- APPROVED MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS • THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1995 7:30 P.M. CITY CENTER 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Arthur Weeks (Chair), Cliff Dunham, Delavan Dye, Matthew Hansen, Mary Vasaly STAFF LIAISON: Scott Kipp,Planner Kelly Kroeninger,Recording Secretary BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Corrine Lynch,Kathy Nelson CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL-PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Weeks called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Corrine Lynch and Kathy Nelson were absent; all other members present. L APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Vasaly moved that the Board approve the Agenda as published. Hansen seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. • IL APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 12, 1995, MINUTES Final approval of October 12, 1995 Meeting,due to board members requests and input. These minutes are to be brought to the next meeting for final approval Additionally,the corrections for the November 9, 1995 minutes will be approved and finalized. III. VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. A. Request Number 95-31 by Tom Morgan for 10178 Phaeton Drive to permit a garage addition 5 feet 6 inches from the side lot line. City Code requires a minimum 10 feet sidevard setback with a total of 25 feet both sides in the R1-13.5 Zoning District. This is a continued item from the October 12, 1995, meeting. Tom Morgan residing at 10160 Phaeton Drive briefly reviewed his variance request before the board. He also thanked the board members for their patience in dealing with this item. Morgan stated the hardship exists because the garage cannot be extended out the back due to living space. Additionally,Morgan indicated that the backyard is • steep and wooded,they would lose many oak trees by trying to extend the garage out the back. Morgan indicated that they had received written approvals from 12 nearby neighbors to go ahead with the work. / 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November, 9, 1995 Page 2 Morgan also noted that he felt that the granting of this variance would not be out of character with the neighborhood and surrounding areas. Weeks inquired as to the inside dimensions of the existing garage. Morgan responded that it was 26 feet by 26 feet currently, but with the mudroom the total inside size would be reduced. Morgan also stated that due to the large amount of sports that their children are involved in, it is even more difficult to store all of the sporting equipment in the existing garage. Weeks then inquired as to what Morgan thought the actual hardship was, and to explain it to board members. Morgan indicated that the back of the property was such that it was not conducive to building onto the back of the lot. Morgan also indicated that he had consulted with an architect who stated that with the current position of their chimney,building to the back of the structure would force them to have to swing their vehicles nearly in a loop to enter the garage. This was not considered feasible by the architect or Morgan himself. Morgan also apologized that the builder for this variance was unable to attend the meeting for this particular variance. Weeks inquired as to how many cars the Morgan's currently own. Morgan replied that they currently owned 3 vehicles and that upon investigating, it would be cheaper to put on a third car garage than to try to expand the existing structure. Morgan stated that he could but it was an extremely tight space and hard to move around within the garage. Mary Vasaly inquired of Morgan as to whether he had contacted the surrounding neighbors on this proposal Morgan replied that yes he had and all of the neighbors were in approval of this variance and that they all signed a letter of approval. Vasaly then questioned Morgan as to the problems with extending the existing garage further back on the lot. Morgan replied that doing so would result in the loss of many trees. Vasaly reiterated that according to Morgan,his current vehicles were a Honda, Cutlass Supreme and a Station Wagon. Morgan indicated that yes they were and having them presented a real problem in storage of needed maintenance tools, snowblower, etc. 2 JhL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November, 9, 1995 Page 3 Delavan Dye then stated the current problem with this garage could have been easily solved in the beginning by turning the home 10 degrees. Additionally, Dye stated that we have a problem with poor developer builders and that they should be told to shape up and build homes correctly. Kipp agreed with Dye and stated that they have the same problems with building of decks and that builders set the tone of not being able to expand without violating city code. Dye remarked that he couldn't build in the floodplain, as is must be within the easement. Vasaly responded that in these types of situations many homebuyers pay less for such existing limitations on their new home. Cliff Dunham asked how hard it is to currently move a car from out of the garage. Morgan responded he had to manipulate around a large pine, a small crab tree and a basketball hoop. Dunham stated that this variance was different from others of this type in that they already had at least a 2 stall garage. He indicated that he was having a difficult time approving this, based on the hardship presented. Weeks inquired as to whether Morgan had built the house, with the current dimensions. Morgan stated that yes he had built the house to those dimensions, including the mudroom. Weeks inquired of Kipp as to how the maximum requirement of the 25 feet would work. Kipp responded that all setbacks are to be perpendicular to the closest lot line. Weeks inquired about adding an asphalt pad instead of a third car garage and brought up the fact that with respect to the recent variance request from Morgan's neighbors, the Grams, Morgan did have more storage space than they did. Morgan stated that should he decide to buy a boat,jet ski, etc., leaving them on an asphalt pad would not sit well with the neighbors. Morgan stated that he thought this was a very reasonable request and stated that the other option of putting a blacktop driveway and having it run to the back of the home would be very unappealing. Weeks opened the public hearing. Weeks closed the public hearing. 3 7/5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS November, 9, 1995 Page 4 Vasaly stated that although it would be nice to grant the variance, she was unable to see sufficient hardship for this request. Dye said that while it would be nice to have the additional space,but felt that an alternative plan should be researched and presented at a later time to the board. Weeks inquired as to the width of garage door. Morgan was quite sure that it was 16 feet. Weeks replied that he was sensitive to not creating a precedence and could not see any real hardship based on the evening's discussions. He stated that this variance would probably be denied this evening, and suggested that Morgan investigate other options and return before the board at a later time. Morgan stated that this would be agreeable to him and he would begin working with an architect and have him attend the meeting regarding this request. Weeks responded that he felt the board would be perceptive to a continuation on the variance and opened it up to the board members.. Dye motioned for a 60 day continuance and was seconded by Vasaly. MOTION: Dye motioned the Board for a 60 day continuance of variance request Number 95-31 and seconded by Vasaly. The motion passed 5-0-0. B. Request Number 95-35 by Design I of Edina,Ltd. for 9973 Valley View Road (1) to permit a lot without frontage on a public road (pre-existing condition). City Code requires all lots to have frontage on a public road. (2) to permit parking 0 inches from a side lot line. City Code requires a 10 feet side yard setback. (3) to permit exterior building material of 63 percent redwood siding. City Code requires 75 percent brick, glass or stone and not more than 25 percent wood. Robert Davis, President of Design I of Edina, stated that the hardship was due to the original concept and approvals for this site being based on code for variances which have since expired. Additionally, he stated that if the variance for elimination of public road frontage, as currently exists, then the site is essentially unbuildable. Davis also stated that the difference in the usage and percentage of exterior materials, as well as zero setback to parking, was necessary to maintain consistency with the original buildings. Vasaly inquired as why it was a hardship to be required to use a large amount of stone. 4 /&o BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS&APPEALS January 11, 1996 Page 2 III. VARIANCES Weeks explained the order of the Variance presentation process to those in attendance. A. Request#95-31 by Tom Morgan for 10160 Phaeton Drive to permit a garage addition 5 feet 6 inches from a side lot line. City Code requires a minimum 10 foot sideyard setback with a total pf 25 feet both sides in the R1-13.5 Zoning District. (Continued item from November 9, 1995 meeting) Mr. Morgan,residing at 10160 Phaeton Drive,told Board members about his next door neighbors who received a variance to build a third garage stall onto their home. The addition was built 2 feet 6 inches from his property line. He explained when his neighbors come out of the side door of the garage,they are on his property. Morgan showed pictures of his garage with the car inside, indicating there is not much room within. He stated other homes have a 5 foot set back. He indicated he does not want to go 2 feet, as his neighbor did, but 5 feet. Morgan displayed a list of neighbors in favor of the addition to his home. Morgan stated he is requesting the variance because the lot is too steep to build farther back or he would build a double deep garage. Weeks said at the last meeting Morgan mentioned he would look into other alternatives. Steve Sather, a residential builder, spoke on behalf of Morgan. He stated Morgan's property is a walkout in the rear and drops 8 - 10 feet. In order to build an attached structure, the variance plan is the only way to accomplish this. He addressed the Board's suggestion to build a free standing structure by saying it would not be appropriate in this particular neighborhood, as well as,not allowing it to be used for a car. He also said several good oak trees would have to be removed. Weeks asked what the hardship was. Morgan also questioned that and asked what the Board's position was on hardship. Vasaly stated the main concern seemed to be additional storage and questioned why not build a smaller expansion that would accommodate storage and not a third car stall. Morgan stated it would cost $16,000, whether the addition was 4 feet or 10 feet. Hansen asked if there was space in the yard to put a shed. Morgan showed an example of a large tree that would have to be removed to do that. Hansen asked if a shed could be built to blend in with the house, in place of a third garage stall. Sather,the builder, said 'as a neighbor, he objected to this' because it would not look good. Sather said he originally objected to the addition by Morgan's neighbor, but stated it turned out fine. He said he believes Morgan's would also look good. Weeks asked if the Grafs, Morgan's neighbors, would object to the addition by Morgan. Morgan answered he hadn't asked them,but he did not think they would. Nelson asked if any trees would have to be removed for the third car garage and would the distance of the oak tree spoken of earlier be any different than it is now. /7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS&APPEALS January 11, 1996 Page 3 Morgan answered no. Nelson asked if the possibility of building a double deep garage had been looked into. Morgan said yes, but due to the set up of the house the garage would have to be at an angle. Dye indicated the difficulty in putting three cars in the garage using this scenario. Sather said his view would be to Morgan's garage. He stated he would rather look at a garage tied into the house. Sather stated he is in full support of Morgan. Weeks asked how many neighbors store cars outside of their garages. Morgan said none right now. Morgan said when the Grafs wanted to build their addition, he told them they would be close to his property line. The Grafs offered to buy two feet of Morgan's property,but instead both parties agreed to build a third stall. Morgan stated he did not understand how the city could grant a variance for the Grafs addition without allowing a variance for his addition. He said the addition to Grafs home has enhanced the look of their property. Nelson stated he is not opposed to Morgan's request. He said there would still be five feet from the edge of the property. Vasaly said she is disappointed that the Board granted the Grafs' request for a variance since it appears there was little hardship. She expressed concern over setting a dangerous precedence regarding the granting of requests of this nature for everyone if the Board approves Morgan's variance. Dye stated he is in agreement with Nelson. Hansen said it appears as though Morgan has ample room in his existing garage. He also said looking at Morgan's request individually indicates there is no hardship. Weeks asked if the existing landscaping on the front corner of the property would remain the same. Morgan said yes. Weeks expressed concern for the existence of enough room. Morgan said he could have the driveway parallel with the property line or at a angle. MOTION: Nelson moved that the Board grant variance request #95-31, with the hardships being the slope of the yard away from the house,making it impossible to go back on the property and the wooded nature of the lot,making it impossible to add in the back without removing trees. Dye seconded the motion. Request was denied due to a tie vote of 3-3-0, with opposition by Hansen, Dunham and Vasaly. B. ,Request#95-37 by Challenge Printing/Robert Lothenbach for 7500 Golden Triangle Drive to permit construction of a building_addition with a portion of the northeast corner 16.3 feet from a side lot line. City Code requires a side yard setback of 20 feet in the I-2 Zoning District. Weeks explained the request by Challenge Printing for an additional 30 day continuance so they could complete their evaluation of alternatives as directed by the Board. Kipp stated that the neighboring property owner was also notified of request for continuance. �g. 3/4/96 HONORABLE MAYOR JEAN HARRIS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 8080 MITCHELL ROAD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 KIM M. BERGMAN DEBRA MAGNUSON 11174 BURR RIDGE LANE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 RE: MARCH 12TH COUNCIL MEETING-VARIANCE #95-31 (SEE ATTACHED) DEAR DR. HARRIS: WE ARE OPPOSED TO GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SET BACK. THE DEVELOPER AND BUILDER WERE NOT ABLE TO PUT A THREE CAR GARAGE ON THIS LOT ORIGINALLY. NUMEROUS HOMES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT HAVE SIMILAR LOT SIZES AND HAVE DOUBLE GARAGES . TO GRANT A VARIANCE THE APPLICANT MUST SHOW A HARDSHIP. HE CANNOT DO SO. HE CAN PARK HIS VEHICLES IN HIS DRIVEWAY. HE CAN ALSO SELL HIS HOME AND PURCHASE A HOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A THREE CAR GARAGE. (THESE PEOPLE PAID MORE FOR THEIR COMPARABLE LOTS BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE THE THIRD GARAGE WITHOUT A VARIANCE. ) THE BOARD OF ZONING MADE THE RIGHT DECaISION IN DENYING THIS REQUEST. THE COUNCIL MUST AVOID APPEASING INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS, AND SUPPORT THE BUILDING STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 12TH. PLEASE COPY THIS LETTER TO YOUR FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU AND YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR THEIR SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF EDEN PRAIRIE. SINCERELY KIM M. BERGMAN jot_ v�. �� DEBRA L. MAGNUSC� of li — N't •s,] •� ... ". NJ •• 1 ; •. -2,;1.., 1 :21' -'" .. .i .t10 . •\7 .n�: :,. • ;. `� ' \Z a , PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE °� t it�t " , - .:u , CITY COUNCIL MEETING No Sa•-E + 2:., Tuesday, March 12, 1996 - 7:30 PM • -• - '' s .a_ •r.I,� City Center - 8080 Mitchell Road •r,Z . �] , • r 1 :1 *3 u -. '� 14, Pg. •cunt i r/ R =ice a Eden Prairie, MN 55344 1• .• ' :4-_``: �r "' ' •°.P-''� . t - Variance: #95-31 yy �7t. .' ; '* 7 `�"f' .-'.11 ' .,. -:' _ •-?`', ` -1 ]•I Location: 10160 Phaeton Drive � . ( t- •' f•--= °; • 4 Applicant: Tom Morgan ,;, 1,. r,;,,-. rr4;r] ' ... i ']•;L4".1-.9,,i;44. 1.•6,""• .aa d"a"4•4r LOCATION MAP NOTICE: You and your neighbors are invited to attend the public meeting about a variance appeal being requested for a lot in your area. The land owner is requesting the following actions by the City: Overturn the Board of Adjustments and Appeals denial of a request to permit a garage addition 5'6" from a side lot line. City Code requires a minimum 10' sideyard setback with a total of 25'both sides in the RI- 13.5 Zoning District. WHAT HAPPENS AT THE MEETING: The purpose of this public meeting is to inform you about the land owner's appeal and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this • variance appeal request. - QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS: If you wish to see the plans before the meeting,please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you want to talk to someone about the proposed variance, please contact Scott Kipp at 949-8489. 8080 Mitchell Road o Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230 o Telephone:(612)949-8300 BARBVEAMBOA\9531 CC.RES 026 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 3-12-96 SECTION: PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS ITEM NO. V 111 6 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Community Development PROPOSAL BY GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, Chris Enger INC.FOR RENOVATION OF EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER Requested Council Action: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • Continue discussion until the March 19th City Council meeting for action on the concept. BACKGROUND In 1994, the Eden Prairie City Council recognized the importance of taking proactive steps to help assure long-term viability of the Eden Prairie Center for two reasons: 1. The Center was not providing the commercial service to Eden Prairie's citizens that they wanted. 2. The value upon which property taxes are based had fallen since the Center was built in 1974. The Mall was originally constructed for approximately$35 million and is currently valued at$17 million. With other regional malls valued well above $100 million(Southdale $125 million) the unrealized tax to Hennepin County,the School District and Eden Prairie is enormous. The Eden Prairie Center needs at least one and preferably two major, nationally recognized department stores to attract full occupancy of national tenants to support the shopping market. At this point, Eden Prairie Center is 21 years old and requires major tenant reconfiguration and renovation. PROPOSAL As a result of Eden Prairie City Staff discussions with Dayton's and Nordstrom's, and parallel discussions by General Growth Properties, Inc. Staff, a proposal in concept for a public/private partnership has been developed. General Growth Properties,Inc.proposes with assistance from the City using Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing to completely renovate the Mall and rebuild the Sears Department Store and provide a new Department Store. The Redevelopment Program will result in an increase in taxable value of approximately $42 million. (This would represent the increment of new value upon which taxes would be paid which would flow for a specified number of years to projects in the Tax Increment District rather than the County, School District, City, etc. All taxes generated from the existing base would continue to be received by the County, School District,City.) About 65%of the cost of reconstruction,renovation,tenant relocation costs, code improvement and parking ramp construction ($60 million in costs) would result in market value increase. General Growth Properties, Inc. is asking the City to invest about 15% of the total cost of the renovation. General Growth Properties,Inc. would invest about$50 million. The City investment would be guaranteed against risk by General Growth Properties, Inc. General Growth Properties, Inc. would go ahead with the construction and signing of the department store and new tenants before any investment by the City. Over time, we expect the value of the Mall to eventually grow to more than$100 million,which is more commensurate with other regional Malls. NO COST TO TAXPAYERS Tax increment financing is a type of public financing that may be used under conditions prescribed by State law for public purposes that would not be made without public assistance. The financing for the property improvements comes only from the taxes generated on the increase of property value above the existing value of the property. Taxes on the existing value would continue to go to existing jurisdictions. Taxes on the increased value or tax increment would be used to support a portion of Eden Prairie Mall improvements and fund public projects such as housing transportation and redevelopment. • Eden Prairie Mall is currently valued at $17 million, a decline from a construction cost of approximately $35 million when built. The 1996 values for other malls are: Southdale Mall $125 million- 199.62/sq. ft. Ridgedale Mall $ 86 million- 180.20/sq. ft. Burnsville Mall $ 75 million- 121.47/sq. ft. Eden Prairie Mall $ 17 million- 52.32/sq. ft. • Eden Prairie Mall fully occupied including one new major department store and a reconstructed Sears store would have approximately$42 million in additional taxable value by completion. • To attract department stores and tenants,Eden Prairie Mall must be completely renovated and offer amenities to department stores for costs of approximately $60 million. • The rental from 100%tenant occupancy of a renovated mall will not pay for$60 million in costs. • General Growth Properties, Inc. will invest$50 million in the renovation with public participation for the balance. Any public investment would be guaranteed against loss by General Growth Properties,Inc. • General Growth Properties,Inc.would go ahead with the construction and signing of the department store and new tenants before any investment by the City. • Money for public investment would go toward:parking ramp,building code compliance,demolition and site improvements. • Money for public investment would come only from taxes generated from the $42 million in new taxable value from the improved Mall and department stores. All current taxes would continue to go to existing taxing jurisdictions. There would be no real cost to Eden Prairie taxpayers. We are convinced,left to the market,the Eden Prairie Center will not be substantially improved, and in the short and long run, Eden Prairie citizens will lose tremendous unrealized tax value that is potential at the Eden Prairie Center. BENEFITS TO CITY • With City participation, General Growth Properties, Inc. is convinced that the Mall can be renovated resulting in the following: 1. The construction of at least one and likely two major, nationally recognized department stores. 2. An increase in the square footage of the Eden Prairie Center of approximately 285,000 square feet and additional nationally recognized tenants. A new 500 car parking deck would be built to accommodate additional stores. 3. Demolition and construction of a new Sears Department Store. 4. A new 14- 16 screen theater consolidated in one location as contrasted with the current split of 9. 5. A completely relocated,new food court of 12 or 13 vendors and 200-300 additional seats,clustered with the theaters in an entertainment core. 6. Up to three full service restaurants in the entertainment area. 7. The current food court area would be rebuilt as an ice rink with supporting facilities. 8. General Growth Properties, Inc. would provide to the City rent free for at least 20 years, approximately 36,000 sq. ft. of space for the performing and visual arts, adjacent to center court. 9. General Growth Properties, Inc. would provide to the City rent free for at least 20 years, 5,000 ± square feet of space for a Social Services Center. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING(T.I.F.) In addition, the T.I.F. program should generate enough revenue annually (above the current taxes, which would continue to flow to the County, School District,and City)to help fund the City's Livable Community Housing Goals, provide for some redevelopment of substandard parcels in the City; and help fund some needed road improvement projects in the City. It is important to understand that, of the Eden Prairie shopping center parcels, only the parcel upon which the current Sears store sits, and the Mall parcel is proposed to be included in the Tax Increment District. That means that all the current value,plus all increase in value resulting from renovation of the Center, for Target,Kohls,and Mervyn's,would flow to the County, School District and City,as it does today. The land and developments surrounding the Eden Prairie Center will benefit from a successful center. All increases in value of the perimeter lands will flow to the County, School District and City. SUMMARY Dramatic changes are necessary for the Eden Prairie Center to attract the Department Stores necessary to fill the Mall with nationally recognized tenants. Because all of the costs of extraordinary renovation cannot be paid for entirely by tenant rent, General Growth Properties, Inc. is asking for help in earmarking some of the potential taxes resulting from the improved value of the Center to help pay for part of the improvements. All taxes generated from the existing base would continue to be received by the County, School District,and City. Based upon our assumptions and analysis,there will be no cost to the Eden Prairie taxpayer,or other taxing jurisdictions. After the term of the T.I.F. District, all taxes would again flow to the normal jurisdictions. The improved Center should result in substantial value increase. Perimeter properties would also benefit. The City would be able to use the balance of the T.I.F. proceeds for necessary public projects of local and regional need. These could include; housing, roads,utilities and economic redevelopment projects. 7 TAXABLE MARKET VALUE — EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER With TIF Assistance $70 rr-•r,:{{s: {c'::{{{fx::' ..xJ;r;r;;:.;L.,u., ..::....,:Y,..;c. .:ry.. ....,. ;•..r•}:•w:.::w:.}.:]] :.r•:.Y:.+;.:: +4•:,::xc::....:?:T :w:..}rn.:;?{:f:: ]{?F^ t:{:'i.:,, .f:k: {7� .:+x"....r...-: {yt. \i+;o:Y.;::r;; w:,;.i.;,a:k...� ,:•.. w::]{::::: n..:n. ,{TG}} :.:'iF.t-S^}tT' }.:4 k•.w. +T.0.. L��. }\:..W. •Ti:vv.'u �'::+{jf,..w $ Y•::..;, -...w•`.:w :: f..�i- v.:,,,ciiG.,-..v. r.:.�iw. ..w... ... ........:..:...:...d.. x::...r:... ...... .:. ;{.}„?k} >F:J-r w A):;} rx..:-:::c`.G'.:: K»r.G.,i:�;tili,?••:t;''<- ,�::,!t� ",.v?� '�€ .::.:: :. .a-:f•.;... :r::.:c ,.:.:c,."o. !.. w.t.. r{:9eT Y'�i7'r^` . -:n{,..:} rh:rr fT ,:.,w: L-:?.±cL-: :R..y ::::}^ +t,,.: krt.,- •......-rc...:.:.:::Jr:J ....^L.:..o::v.-:wfoJ J,.... :f-.... ...:r:,. rojic. ':{:h� �;:- .5:,�w • :�7 r4 },.w: ....pr,..:vv-xv...rv.: ..0 +.::.r....v.. :rvv- Y•;.'.i;j^?; •., +..v'LG"r::^j•kkf". .vC .}:w.{?c�E?x. ( f :• x >.. : }.: :`..::..... .f {.....:,+::..vw...v{�.::ly „h p....T}+:?�:::`}4. ::f.r..W;w.t?T:. { „t{' v.r> `Li}o-h 3^ir3jC!„?}k`.:a ��+�y:'•fi'i?}ai�:4'�>?,F :r x.:..:r.{.:.:.r. ..r... ..'t::!f.;;.xx +::::.,-.;nY:+w-•: ,.::i.y:�� E3 ; •..4.:r•aAFJi:d +..s,g,iir;;u}Y• +i:,::.:iy.r-. :.fi ,..m.-5, ,.. . •. ::: :.-.;?FLTtt -i?;,:t .:iF{;i<.'::ka;i}xx. .F::?,:{ .e:QS„+p•r} ^:{,-v:{,xF.-fkak: -:'Cu-'.: .�} ;i Ni../ra, •?:' v`;; ;ic\`r h,:;d..uc i•02 :,CL; — :''fi.:: w �! €.+, w•:4'�,.. w.�: r}„s,7� ;. > s,:..:.r.3..+,.::,�:. _r...:�;:.'�:J..�:f'��r�s: ?;..:{�.Y.:�,.... ..::tea•'•::•w:&.:: �,t?,.. x};'i:'<„. $6U w,. ::f.::: \ir'..ir .:,:li x:ii r. f::.iimi n::rY+:J]Y: : .:Q.4:v$,?.:. :{J:m .. .:r. :...... j;(::w;:::$ Y.•:.. r f..{: i•.! u':itii•: :;?. ?{•:�ti.: .rx-4'twwc3:JrY{•.T: ,F:.f{% ..Y.r \x '.:`'i?:::iu. £ ix•- k::A.^ y:t' tf.°R. F?S}T: ..rF.t: :ii\}.J: ?.•y,r.�.iiYru3.: ?�'i?`S,�k!•'vk'/Stii a^:•)�ki .:O'.':'G'':?'�:•"k ,,yC .�+. .j.. sJ :J. .r� g#.Y.ti'v `'7.fi.:.;;:•.. i{yrl r. ::Y,.. x`•:i�`•.!wdlp+:4'i'f>. i. .. t•:. � •: +. .::<.!7.; ,..;x•f!�.... ' J•-•fir.] Y�?w• x-x::k ,,;K7.;.-r:-C,;::{R.�::•f {.Y:.:::.ri:. .{: !:f ;.'•-4FS.!•... .K::ir.:F{:^'?::' 4w. ••'.eF�;k:�Y.. :rlw.:$u ux.... ;agtk'irc 4-'&�SSv}.,•?.?:£r+w Ki?.. :'fi{tvRJ{}}•tc. f: :p: ,.fi,,..';tm k%}S>:%',uj, -v 3:c+$F v::^ }x?,... a{, w:': .i{sa•4:•nc�.:>.>:r V• .:N;3k.: :v�'-: '; v^...}:tW :?rtifi+.:/.aCJ::SY�:! FwY�i:ti ..C::. �.i+�.,.�•`':.,'.:H.:F.v'f- -??f{. ..?,�{x.+ g :Jd:.'.?? .�i•:v:?YakLYG :F::;{?;:::?y�4k:{ :. } c?J"l-:•••.:#.r�'a :+:`:: :-. ..{.:}:r:::.:.: t f�;?.?:;:::::::}: .: ?&•..:. {C% ':L-:....-f.J!.••x:x}}? .-ro.Y'L::,• 4': :.k•: J!,.}. ?h}.{'7x',T fi✓..0.P:' �•fi Y,w..,'^xu}, {3{ :k ,});,11 a:::yJ. ,:;ti`�,rorFY;iq;•;, g.t.;Y ai Siy:F.};ki{? gi;:;�;;t; -: :•Y .,f2,. ..:.v.�• .:::j:.:...?n.'.k •`4ww�::�iR?i':'�:.c; L!?.-:+ ..:Jw :'�./.�:.. u.f,.w4 E.wtt.-;.r+}, .•.SJ:a �::if%:�.:,':•}.. •:+.:.:.:.• ::. r .::..+:..:,:!. /k.. r:.:-:....i.. :?{;;...{{]{}.--:::::r;. �g� n,.:,;,y. >.`;::i ::r�G:::#:.'S.L:• .j. •^::+ .,x,t:q • , ,,iw :}r:.?r..: .4tti:;/{�Cw...u+.{:.f. :!..:•';,-.. 5G'r> '::r+cu :J.': ]wf%• {^?...!.:-: :Y]F .wL. :.{. .h.}{] w : .w.--:...•.;{:;cf:'::C:-:::; ..xf:4.. 44.:..:�. a: Y^.c:•!:: ;�J. s:;yCjt�.:�. } ,4• f, h n:':..FJ;f+^Y:tk .rN.?.... .}{: .;$'y4' t"/,4; i:.J{FFJ?r:kv ti.; :fo,i .. .V .4wi,.. i*O y 3.:} .^;R:.,'�4+' ?:kiii, K+,?:: �;:':iig Lit... Y.. jgiii a: ;.?3e:;• fy{,`�.\J�F';ti.Y }Y}.r +xN..tt•,4:, 'f r.. J .. p ': 'g"f, ?..•J.:.firci.ai.L •'.4}.Jax..,s:?k.:k:{: {,.:ik -Lxn..,.' ..::rti-.:!'<t'bv.Jr•!J •"3 :{;k{:'.'•3?�:-g2 f.:.?..fir.';:??'o. ]w!?o:{ :�i` :•::r. =v••+r+,ihJ ::r ].� ::`,rw.lx l y[{;;��+ } ^:�.:t !• •;;}J\:::iY y�F�+,'.fL�.. y:, :JRk>tS:}�: F.'. ri}{?G,,.ih\�.^^.44+N.44'•: J!kxY•';YF.'�.\:Av�.7 v{3•GF}r?r:,t?3.J{,vF?{ s%iti}Y+.S:}J' sag LfriJ:i}. ';tiA4':tiY::J�i C:,\ Jf+.�.�q..h2'. \`L'k AGT... {.}?l.?5-m',:i:i•:\Lth`:S 7w.;.Q,:y J\:k.T*r ...7;.vYlf{ ': tT uvy?. ''4.�(r 'r4.1'-kh:^i::x4': : �r'J] ..^j:.... :{..? :3rFRr{•4:-... wJ.•n.. .!+r kk.; 3:C::: �2,,: w:jCti: .`C`L..}; $50 r-- :.. . ..ww:.;;:; i;'f*::xr::.•,?•?.i:-:t:: :.:L•�r.. w:fykk;�k , i +.ti: .-kc ;,.�.. ca:•' a r .:,,.?Y.:i .•.•:.wti.;...•+,x..sx::t f-':.•.'gy. r,::a• >. y . K• .}.. . . :r JTsz 3. i 3 T. l':'2'.ca .3 f.Sr. 3.w:3xw}:xrr.}F.. `;%x }. : a i,v...,'. gi—n3. } o:.w>st: £: °.S�:�rf{. :. �,r?`"F 'k?� J. / :`,`:'.'uy't'{:� r':::?c:5?::x::.G?. ..Yr '�+W?.T•-:.�;.n...4;r J":` 4+ +'G-?+-�JF �};. F.: ;Y,.:.:.: -4^..r{Cv'''{?'ir.�b:::-{ ':.``✓:::. +-:7rf{•:: .:�::.+} :u..Yf;•- ., �;{f•.r•.fa.,„ , -: .„..„j: ,,,, r'x''}:.,} �.5� .:J-.:J' Hc{`•"' ♦.T••.y-. •,.w:: ..4/,::cpt!:+. .rcf ,•kr-.Y'r�J:r• ?',`4 +'iF'ak..� ,;.�;{; i;.,,.:?z t{i;2''J:.'ck•�t4¢i4'+ F.< ,.'v�t';�{t.<;{; F%::: r}T. :{ir:., off..?;x i..r.;. :::::..:•.. -..,a. :.x,': x ws.::..x.,...: t,,,,,4, .�>>r c.:. 3 s.,o• .s:,. :c:8;x.. , :r k:0,2 �? Y{�.x. 3.•.�.u�d`'.' w-=`::{ ::c.xr::::; .•:•^:•�.. ..r:��. �..:�•Y '��:*` :].:?a:; crr. ..�:'a .•7. :-S.�`Jy:{7 kk^.}:.-.. .- ::? ::{k�f..x:{tx..•: ,..0 Y: .;5,. t��ek'` `fY;•F.J :•kr{•::](• y:. o]4 . U ..�..,..- .r.;•r-.w,x.Y:; .: ;?,;. r.. , �:t}..•xc- `• t: r..-fJ.:.: f:+ �.:ti���.'#�.t�y„.�3 �-:;:: Y{x::. a ...7c:;:c7�v :!`9'vcf.•:.•r':},: ti4ji�'•::: ..d-.'!. ::kF. .::!.'/•+ Fq�; �i<v i' {..Y•.'} . . + `^-t....;f.-:;x+c:s :S'";${:i:^{t....3-.,.,>:`� �:"'.?•7:`�r;.#:.::-•s}'{i}r': iYt2iy'.. ;� ,W�},,,,+Jy&i �ttr:'�:;:..t�x{ P .:`�.a`•' f:oM$;:�C},f:'C-..v vf}y� L }Y7:r:,, v ; :%. f.i.;':iGT iM:c::] � v:2•'•::?X u~". !'?+il.. :,lff'w.• {Yi:%i:: r.:t�},i'.!:NSY}i,:.'•: '•'�. ?L....:.. ..?k%�"i'^ 'G:ia?�. r�:;kv<;t.! ,F" J. '{�"SL�''^..��:r.: f{ri.'7.sk 6,f-':••i '::7{..:J:ef-.f ::Y ? ::' iisg:?o":%: £g w. .::Nar;•t1 .; . as:2'x�-ti�` ..:;�.�`.:.{y.: x:.aF?*,.,} r!x. fi:,• 4Y.��,kg... w-}"?•�?x:.4: m. r. 's :E eff.X x:•. {giMessca'a..{V "u,:o`i''q''fktJ?:'}!!€...: j+.':.`-..w'.Y•— ^:k)`ti:+.'r {F?.,Jt{�.>".e?Z<.v,4r�,,T F?,v' fi. k;•,i:,?$' r,.:ko?.vs{�:;kt+.,S:fi:, ;'`fkr••a'J'n3r •,T ,}}s. 'J :} ::• f ?t, .c:{. .?{: :.*i: ••. kir: u}Y r ;,ZW .,, . .: ,JaW:.k}^.k;; t.`:;fi::;cty V.P '6,E w.*igiO,'`«- f;:-{.v4' i>>`>..;.m.•T. `�}.:,'.�.'��.:'^ Tx:{{:+;.; e.ssoF�:`�.fC�`.x>:#4t�• .:.3.o4 `'o�..,*J,� i(:-; .4.:w•?�{. wi;Y, . J`:;:§ $;'�v .h:...:•:i'{ rl y:: ... :}.?iT� 'h vN w Jk:y':'} •+iNy..n.F.-::: ! rwV:.;h ; it'r,.�[;,y;.:.S...g. k ?...:.':,: -r? +[ iJ t :2;�i::-.:t'!•'F fc;; Y•!;v y�:•,:e.:.5:nh.{J'.• ,- y jtiT>;->.cro.,\.:.Y•]' �ih .::u.`C.6,:>T:r7. eRi-,`:7. H.xx•4.0 a:J.:.4:v::Y.!.C^ri�?i� >{{.::n •Sn ..?f{:;t. }:;+':'?J�.7.3.}...:.{?;k�Y,:' .:�i..r}.<+!: ...,t.,.:rc:aa+..�.: r.-:fr.. :+t6:.. "::a-T:•:{-::.+ '�:''y ?::{�{.]x !.:\ �L.J: N� :,M'�..:.,;)o�-.tr.,. • '\:.. i:xL.:11 r::.:k7:: e J-7,..}?:{`::c:Y.:.r. fk.:.....::..f ij Y:-cr: k{f.-:w•+:w..,{.::•:::•. :G:.t. r:::W; .a4<' -: -:f.1igAir :',V`�--.-:.,..: fYr.::. .'i.. a r..n:..:w... ,.3..: .::.. .:.o:t:F.., .... .vrrr.::;J:.: nw F'.t9:4?•J,,.:. x.J`i::.,(. `y..Y:.,r; +;fJ:F ��^! ^•'t•r� .y ';'v. :J. `C � ^,.A., %{'uti i't.'G:v i6:Lr;iw :J'{Y.ik�! .vviv.Y: .h v , P•�?V \tl4 `;<FF �x, .+n' ^ ..-'S^.•:'•:??^ iJ 4�.$::`3vi. �'l.R r, + rYFAJ.F>, +.:....'? `w. 5t.+ �F w:-.. :f::Yi?.{ ::.::- ?c: -is?r.:.ww:.+.:?..rr .::.:: rri �-F,;:. .. .: fi�+xt� n:..v:4, ..,,yti ...:.r:...:....Y..r•;;..:. +v:r...:n.v.,r{t;::-. {. .S c.4.,:L y. .xr i ;Ld.J vv.J.A„xv,:; ky'4i iJa"'? v J- {"i??tRty� v]'• :;;,\,n3r... :::::0F;2}ri?}hv},:. ':';?{;,•:*:+ ,:::: F�9 ;: .feAr.5 ^:UixC:iV??Lty.q •• : .n:w:•:w::^.w. :4... •p}}•vvp}?..:!v^vrr Jrii vr+:::.r:::�iYvi^ ... ..:.......... C:w ..:........-, +::::.:kkk:iikv^w:k+::: .:w.::::w.w.::.....�...,. ...::x.:.....:-! :{f:.:: vni;<4xY- ....+............x.. ........:..:....:....:: +::::.....:•...v•:.+:: .:......:•:f:•rr.:::+ ::.::.:{•x.•::-r-::,Y-1 Stv.. ... ?::kRi'{:.+':ru'i}}'r.::}v .:::.::vr.::-:x•::::-:: ::•.:::�:::::::::::::.: ..........+...,:::•r::..:.: ...:::::......!{:•-.+t;•rY.; kr::.:...r.;ri:b.::: :.::• -:.:•r:^-: n{+J • +v,n v •�4;i+i^� :v.J'i-n 'kkC2vx^• .' H:Yt*i?'f{Yv Nrki ... v?r:.?}vv.,xv}»,:v .nx;tt:KL++{.v:.,::.:.v :::::::x-.v�.vvn;} .,::.nv x,. l'n $30 it??«{ .r••• :ff?; !.�i3 f>G `v't %G'tat: Eyj. F{: x F%F .r.x .:,:Y i .: i!ggi<- .ate:.? Fr#'> r. :\`d:;�• x�: x r :,;°'.,`� a L''FT, ::,6?;u..�}::"^} .4.w .;,v+ Zvi. .iG?� ,r::�:�fir;, r.'c4>. >: "y.ka.:.:?-? iir.:�...,:�tt`o7w..;xT,..¢ 1;::u.,.;L.:: .•.o;. ..vkr .fir '�Ltt '"�t.�fr{., .'?i:�-:�£ r{:;<vSX,�W':�"����Y ?:SfY ^1� !FY.•'i.?:' :7.:.i'.::.`):+wv v+:rr "%v`.^}!fr:\ '{: ..3.'" Y!.Fiti?:: •{•:M'•Frw 4�J,v'rkF xi}.�.•',':{,.,'�:?g +:t{i�`: '-fi• ?:'42'F... :":?:k:-..��.`�.:•-f.� :rYl.?r.:;•{ :S'•{C.. ;.�• :�hn: .7�:\?rk :`:r ^ �i;.� 'Y5`:::k•^:;*f;:c. {:.. .-°}':, .?'. :0 i.�;v:•�'r ?'.' x£ '::::f:<; ,,t,•:thi3J.� '%:: 'AM it 4a}^x '! .o. :•F. ma's x.:=: '. .r..}x.:.:. ,,. :a. .:„z ::., .k ::: k> - xx��,,,, ..,�}.�: Yf x` •YiF.t{; •T.`..: .: ::c,}.} J:?•.-.':i:: {�S !r '''¢@"f.�,�-•^,•'`';�': $20 — $10 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 YEAR Pi BASE MARKET VALUE-Taxes go to County,School District and City : INCREASED MARKET VALUE-Taxes used to fund Development and Community TIF projects All amounts in 1996 dollars net of Fiscal Diparities. Assumes no substantial increase in Eden Prairie Center value without TIF assistance. TAXABLE MARKET VALUE - EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER Without TIF Assistance $70 $60 $50 O (� =- $40 $30 $20 $10 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 YEAR MI BASE MARKET VALUE-Taxes go to County,School District and City All amounts in 1996 dollars net of Fiscal Disparities. Assumes no substantial increase in Eden Prairie Center without TIF assistance. Casserly Molzahn & Associates, Inc. Suite 1100 Southpoint Office Center • 1650 West 82nd Street • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431-1447 Office (612) 885-1298 • Fax (612) 885-1299 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Eden Prairie Attention: Carl Jullie Chris Enger FROM: James R. Casserly and Mary E. Molzahn RE: Executive Summary of GGP/Homart Inc . ' s TIF Assistance Request DATE: March 1, 1996 INTRODUCTION GGP/Homart, Inc. (the "Redeveloper") is proposing an expansion to and renovation of the existing Eden Prairie Center and Sears store (the "Center" ) in the City of Eden Prairie (the "City" ) . The proposal assumes a two year build-out, commencing in the fall of 1996 and concluding in 1998, and would accomplish the following: 1 . add an additional major department store and construct additional space for another potential anchor tenant; 2 . relocate and renovate the existing Sears store; 3 . increase the square footage of the Center by approximately 285, 446 square feet; 4 . add approximately 500 structured parking spaces; 5 . consolidate and enlarge the movie theater component of the Center by providing approximately 14 to 16 privately operated movie theaters in a designated area; 6 . relocate and enlarge the food court to include 12 to 14 new food shops; 7 . provide a new cluster of three sit down restaurants; 8 . increase the market value by approximately $42, 467, 780; and 9 . increase annual property taxes by approximately $2, 656, 223 upon completion. ISSUES 1 . Creation of a Tax Increment Financing District The Redeveloper is proposing that the City create a seventeen year (fifteen years of tax increment receipts) redevelopment tax increment financing district (the "TIF District" ) . The TIF District would include the Mall parcel, the Sears parcel, and other parcels to be designated by the City which are in need of redevelopment or are considered non-conforming uses . The TIF District qualifies as a redevelopment district because it contains structures deemed substandard as defined in Minnesota Statutes . 2 . Request for TIF Assistance The Redeveloper is proposing that the City issue bonds upon the Redeveloper' s completion of its redevelopment activities in 1998 in an amount that would provide the Redeveloper with $10 . 0 million in TIF assistance. By delaying the sale of bonds until the project is completed, the City can be assured that the improvements are constructed, that the market value is in place, and that there would be sufficient tax increment generated to pay debt service on the bonds . 3 . Eligible Expenses The $10 . 0 million in bond proceeds would be used to pay the following eligible costs : (a) acquisition; (b) demolition; (c) pollution abatement; (d) relocation of existing tenants; and (e) site improvements, including renovation and parking. Through 2013 (fifteen tax increment years) approximately $32 . 0 million is generated in tax increment revenues . Of this amount approximately $20 . 0 million is required for debt service on the bonds and approximately $12 . 0 million is available for City administrative fees and other development and redevelopment activities. Within the TIF District, approximately $6 . 4 million may be available for (a) civic uses; (b) assistance with affordable housing programs; (c) transportation improvements; (d) utility improvements; and, (e) other development and redevelopment activities . Outside the TIF District but within the City' s project area, approximately $5 . 6 million may be available for assistance with (a) affordable housing goals and (b) other tax increment eligible expenses including transportation and utility improvements. 2 4 . Local Election Versus LGA/HACA Aid Reduction It is more advantageous for the City to elect to make a local contribution of $2 .4 million (7 . 50% of the tax increment generated) rather than sustain a potential $5 . 6 million reduction in LGA/HACA payments . 5 . The "But For" Test Minnesota Statutes require that the increased market value with TIF Assistance less the present value of the tax increment generated be greater than the increased market value without TIF Assistance. With TIF Assistance, the existing Center and Sears stores would be renovated and an additional department store would be added resulting in approximately $42 .467 million in additional market value, approximately $1 . 953 million in additional tax capacity, and approximately $2 . 656 million in additional annual property taxes upon completion in 1998 . Without TIF Assistance, the existing Center would be renovated on a smaller scale, the Sears store would not be renovated and an additional department store would not be added. These improvements would add approximately $15 . 000 million in additional market value, approximately $690, 000 in additional tax capacity and approximately $937, 434 in additional annual property taxes . As a result, the additional market value with TIF assistance is greater than the additional market value without TIF assistance ($42 .467 million - $13 . 363 million or $29 . 104 million < $15 . 000 million) , and this project clearly passes the "But For" test. 6 . Fiscal Disparities Election. In order to avoid any financial impact to City taxpayers, it is recommended that the City elect to make its fiscal disparities contribution from inside the TIF District . CONCLUSION Without TIF assistance the Redeveloper would proceed with its proposed renovation of the Eden Prairie Center and Sears store; however, the scope of the renovation would be scaled back from $42 .467 million in additional market value to $15 . 0 million. With TIF Assistance, the Redeveloper would proceed with its current, more substantial renovation and expansion proposal, but would also plan to provide adequate space for an enclosed ice skating complex and public improvements including utilities for an approximate 36, 000 square foot arts center. The location for 3 the arts center would be available on a rent free basis for approximately fifteen to twenty years with five year renewal options. As a result of this redevelopment, the City would not only enhance its retail/commercial image, but would achieve several community, cultural, recreational, affordable housing and transportation goals . By securing a major shopping Center, the City would be able to provide additional employment opportunities and would be able to attract additional customers to the Center and surrounding retail, service and restaurant facilities . Finally, upon termination of the TIF District in 2013 , the City and other affected taxing jurisdictions (the County and School District) would have an estimated market value of $84 . 334 million upon which to levy, resulting in additional annual property taxes of $3 , 855, 869 . 4 '11 r TAX INCREMENT FINANCING BACKGROUND DEFINITION Tax increment financing (TIF) is a financing technique that allows a city to use the increases in property taxes from a development or redevelopment project to pay for certain costs associated with these activities. Property taxes increase because the value of the project increases as a result of the development or redevelopment. Tax increment is the difference between the assessed valuation and tax revenues a property generates after construction, compared to the difference between assessed valuation and tax revenues before construction. Using or capturing the tax increment on a project to pay development or redevelopment costs is not the same as tax abatement. Cities then use or "capture" the tax increment to make payments on the bonds issued to finance a portion of the various development or redevelopment costs. The common expenses financed by TIF are land - more - // Page 2 of 4 acquistion and write-down, demolition, and construction of public infrastructure. TIF does not change the amount of taxes the developer pays, but it does change the distribution of the taxes for a certain period of time. The city, county, and school district don't share those taxes immediately since the taxes usually go to pay debt service on bonds issued to pay a portion of the development costs. However, all the taxing jurisdictions will benefit through promotion of quality development and enchancement of the property tax base which all taxing jurisdictions ultimately share. TIF induces new developments that wouldn't have occurred without this financing tool usually because of high initial costs. AN ILLUSTRATION OF HOW TIF WORKS Consider a property with a dilapidated building that is now producing $2, 000 per year in property taxes. The local housing and redevelopment authority could acquire the building, clear the land, and resell it for private development for construction of a 25-unit elderly apartment building costing $800,000. It would generate $45,000 in property taxes per year, and there would be a tax increment of $43,000. The city could sell general obligation bonds - more - ., Page 3 of 4 to get the funds to acquire the property and remove the dilapidated building. After redevelopment, the original $2,000 property taxes would continue to go to the local taxing jurisdictions, but the $43,000 tax increment would go into a special bond redemption fund until the city pays off the bonds. After repaying the bonds, the entire $45,000 property taxes ($43,000 tax increment plus $2, 000 original taxes) would go to all local taxing jurisdictions (city, county, school district) , assuming the tax rate remains constant. USES The main purposes of TIF are to attract private investment to: * Redevelop blighted areas * Provide housing for low and modete-income individuals and families * Promote economic development and provide employment opportunities - more - /3 THE BENEFITS With the steady decline in federal assistance available to cities for urban renewal and development, the need for an alternative financing method was evident. That alternative is TIF. The need for a local redevelopment and development tool also grew in recent years because cities are more active in attracting private development to their communities. There are numerous "TIF success stories" throughout Minnesota where cities, by using this financing method, have attracted businesses, redeveloped blighted areas, or made construction possible for low-income housing, as well as for the elderly or handicapped. The League of Minnesota Cities (MC) will release a study in January telling of how communities have used TIF throughout Minnesota. These case studies show how the entire community (city, county, and school district) benefits from the use of TIF. Cities using TIF have experienced growth in their tax base at a rate that is twice as great as cities not using TIF, according to an analysis by the League of Minnesota Cities and the Minnesota Chapter of the National Association of Housingand Redevelopment Officials. P - 30 - Source: League of Minnesota Cities // CITY OFFICIALS PROMOTE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING City officials are actively promoting the merits of a local development and redevelopment tool, tax increment financing (TIF) , before the upcoming legislative session. This financing method has become more important to cities in their development and redevelopment since the cuts in federal resources available to help cities in these efforts. TIF is the one remaining tool that cities can use to encourage local economic development. Also, more city officials recognize the importance of promoting development in their communities than they have in the past. Tax increment is a way of paying for some development or redevelopment costs. The technique pledges a portion of the property tax revenue on the project to pay debt service on bonds issued to finance some of the costs incurred in preparing the site for development or redevelopment. The common expenses financed by TIF are land acquision and write-down, demolition, and construction of public infrastructure. - more - /5 Page 2 of 3 The benefits of TIF can be seen throughout Minnesota. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) will release a study in January documenting the "success" stories of Minnesota cities using this financing tool. The case studies reveal how the use of tax increment allows communities to redevelop blighted areas, attract new industries to their communities, keep exising businesses, and provide housing for low and moderate income individuals, as well as for the handicapped and elderly. The case studies reveal how important TIF is to cities. "Cities view tax increment financing as the single most important development tool available to them, " according to LMC Executive Director Donald A. Slater. By using TIF, cities are increasing their tax and job bases to benefit the entire community. TIF does not change the amount of taxes the developer pays, but rather changes the distribution of these taxes for a limited amount of time. The city, county, and school district do not share the taxes immediately since the taxes usually go to pay development costs. However, the counties and school districts don't lose any funds from using the taxes in this way. Once the bonds have been repaid, taxes on the property are shared with the school district and the county. City officials argue that the taxes from the development wouldn't have been possible in - more - /6 Page 3 of 3 the first place without the use of TIF. Extending TIF to promote development is not equivalent to offering tax abatement, Slater explained. City officials are against further statewide restrictions on the use of TIF since they believe assessment of local needs should be done at the local level. It would be difficult for the Legislature to understand each city's individual development and redevelopment needs. Tax increment finance is the cornerstone of redevelopment and economic development programs throughout Minnesota. The Legislature should preserve TIF rather than seeking ways to curtail and limit municipal TIF authority, according to Slater. -30- Source: League of Minnesota Cities /7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Reports from Boards and Commissions March 12, 1995 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO: Community Development Livable Communities Chris Enger Strategies A David Lindahl REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Adopt the attached Strategies for meeting the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities housing goals developed by the Housing, Transportation, and Social Services Board (HTSSB). The Strategies were approved unanimously by the Planning Commission February 26, the Park and Recreation Commission March 4, 1996, and the Human Rights and Diversity Commission March 4, 1996. Background: Attached are six housing goals the City has agreed to pursue over the next fifteen years as part of the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Act. The Livable Communities Act was enacted by the State Legislature in 1995 to help address a variety of housing and redevelopment issues facing the metro region. The main thrust of the program is to provide affordable housing in closer proximity to large job concentrations and in developing suburbs. A set of strategies designed to help the City meet these goals were developed by the Housing, Transportation, and Social Services Board(HTSSB) and are listed behind each goal. These goals and strategies were shared with the Planning Commission,the Park and Recreation Commission, and the Human Rights and Diversity Commission, for their support and approval. The HTSSB is seeking support for these strategies from the City Council in order to assist City staff in implementing the Livable Communities Goals. Housing, Transportation, and Social Services Board(HTSSB)members include: Ross Thorfinnson, City Council Patricia Pidcock, SW Metro Commission Kathy Kardell,Planning Commission Vicki Koenig,Parks Commission Munna Yasuri, Human Rights Commission Mary Jane Wissner, Citizen at Large Peg DuBord, Citizen at Large Support Information: Memo Livable Communities Goals and Strategies Strategies for Meeting Livable Communities Goals It is the intent of the City of Eden Prairie to make every reasonable effort to meet the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act goals adopted by the Metropolitan Council January 14, 1996. The aim of the Livable Communities effort is to expand affordable housing opportunities throughout the region, particularly in communities with high employment concentrations like Eden Prairie. The housing goals the City has agreed to pursue over the next fifteen years correspond favorably with the goals set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. However, unlike the goals in the Comprehensive Plan, which are very general, the Livable Communities goals set specific numeric targets for the City to achieve by 2010. Because of this, the City's Housing, Transportation, and Social Services Board (HTSSB) have drafted specific housing strategies designed to help the City meet its Livable Communities goals. Each of the six housing goals and related strategies are listed below. The Eden Prairie Parks Commission, Planning Commission and City Council should recognize, approve, and adopt these housing strategies in order to help the City meet its Livable Communities obligations, and to assist City staff implementing these strategies. Thir ce :of all newiou .rshi housin :units: r€tl>ita :: ales less a ::: :'115,0f ::The::::: Citygpiptestimat addition .1:: i : oinl: »t. >be develop b 2010,:within ::k City Strategies: a) All future residential housing proposals should be expected to participate in helping meet the City's Livable Communities goals whenever possible. When contacted by developers or land owners considering submitting a residential project for City review, City staff (Community Development) will explain to them the Livable Communities goals and strategies. b) Encourage or recommend to developers of all future ownership housing proposals to have 30%of its units for sale (initially) at a price less than $115,000. Consider allowing less than 30% affordable ownership housing on small "in-fill" parcels that do not transition well from single family neighborhoods. c) Encourage residential developers to consider providing more than 30% affordable ownership housing when proposals are part of a large Planned Unit Development (PUD). d) Offer density bonuses to developers to help them achieve a 30% affordable housing set aside in areas of the Comprehensive Plan not already planned for multiple family. e) Allow single-family attached housing (townhomes, condos, and doubles) to represent 30% new ownership housing affordable under $115,000. Since the average new single family home in Eden Prairie is valued at about$250,000, it is unlikely these affordable ownership goals will be met with new single family detached development. 02 f) Consider using City financing where appropriate to help reduce housing costs to a level that meets the goals for ownership housing. Current funding tools the City will consider using include the following: Tax Increment Financing (TIF) - Future taxes generated from the increased value of an improved property are used to write-down land costs and reduce rents. Community Development Block Grants ICDBG) - Bank CDBG funds and use them to write- down the cost of land, utilities, or site improvements on affordable housing developments. Local Housing Incentives Account (LHIA) - These funds should be available to all cities participating in the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Program. Cities can apply for funds through this account for specific projects that meet Livable Communities objectives. The Metro Council will match dollar for dollar each city's annual Affordable and Life Cycle Housing Opportunities Account(ALHOA) contribution, which for Eden Prairie will be about $125,000 in 1997. Livable Communities Demonstration Account - Approximately$4.6 million in funding should be available from the Metro Council in 1996 to communities participating in Livable Communities with eligible projects. Projects generally must attempt to link housing with transit, or create affordable housing near employment growth areas. Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Levy - The City HRA is authorized by law to levy a small tax if it chooses to do so for the purpose of performing certain housing and redevelopment activities. The HRA currently does not levy for such activities. g) Explore establishing a special housing fund that would be financed by developers that choose to pay cash in lieu of providing housing for Livable Communities. It could be structured in a manner similar to the cash park fee the City charges developers choosing to pay cash in lieu dedicating property for parks and open space. The housing funds would be used to help developers meet Livable Communities goals. If special legislation is required to establish such a housing fund, pursue it through the Metropolitan Council. This fee could apply to developers of small parcels (5-10 acres), and to all office, commercial, and indistrial projects. h) Consider working with adjoining communities in meeting the Livable Communities ownership housing goals. Communities that do not have land available for development may consider funding a project in Eden Prairie and receiving credit toward meeting their Livable Communities obligations. Catriftkuniiii .StalegTOS. ":: • 'lr�ee Fturtdid;f ... :rr affbli�rental hkiSinirlitsFipLlld big bst #ed> eween ':' to bi3 builEt.ove(Al il0xt1ifti0n:yra ::;:':::0 und�sd tpe 3 o able writs should be affordable to..p sons it i i #rp median ant :` units shone.<ba;fifordabl�e t# . ....rsons with nc m below:;:5 'f.. . rtetr ; : . City Strategies: a) Each new rental housing proposal should have 20% of its units affordable. The affordable units will be split with 80% affordable to families with incomes below 60% of area median, and 20% affordable to persons with incomes below 50%. Every effort should be made to scatter the affordable units throughout a development. These units should not be concentrated in one building or single area of a site. b) Support rental housing proposals with all units affordable under 50/60 percent of median provided they do not exceed 32 units on any one site. c) Encourage rental housing proposals that are 100% affordable on sites that meet the following criteria: • Close to commercial services, schools, parks, and public transit routes. • Transitions well from existing neighborhoods. • Good access to public streets. • Safe and compatible land uses. • Total units do not exceed 32 units d) Encourage and support rental housing within all PUD proposals. e) Consider writing down land costs where appropriate on expensive sites in order to assist in making these sites more feasible for developing affordable housing. f) Consider using any of the financing tools listed above where appropriate to help reduce housing costs to a level that meets Livable Communities goals for rental housing. g) Consider mixing rental housing into sites guided on the City's Comprehensive Plan for commercial, office, or industrial developments whenever and wherever possible. Community Development staff will explore rental housing alternatives with developers and land owners when they contact the City with development proposals. h) Consider working with adjoining communities in meeting Livable Communities rental housing goals. Communities that do not have land available for development may consider funding a project in Eden Prairie and receiving credit toward meeting their Livable Communities t3 obligations. 416 CfiR�1 i.I F,.i l,ilf .'.; dr abi >& fi :<+ yoe.Houirrg tpporturiett .: 'a>t loeoi po:iia�u:irnttt rt.?o pfis<l<t o!o1i c ir'Caltor't:f`hsniss iiblb<zt:ol`ies> Comt<m:i<<t Is?t nh?i:teu:s::i!lpne<gr`i Hgigisooaua.lta<,.�toi'e spflty dt ipnis< ttx�ae<>sgra+ vri<etod s;topis>ebnd#!ta rta no; • : O portu iti _moo determined City Strategies: a) The City currently dedicates enough of its annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for housing related activities to meet its (ALHOA) obligations. b) If the City spends more that its minimal contribution in any given year, those funds can be credited to the following years obligations. I»d hfe.C. .roy ■� ■:. ::.;::;:QfT�' �4,a�:��:4Il�7Q���':��:�:�l:u:R�:::71Fk:�SFi.4�F �.:.�k!t:�l:Il�:io�.:: .. cy,�.^:�:;1�'.'::.�.+::;''�::aISR:::�AR�I• :N:.'�:j.�:Y':�:;:�;::�:: ::::'::::::::: City Strategy: a) If the City meets its rental housing goals listed as goal #2 above, then 25% of its total housing stock at the year 2010 will be rental housing. obi.:�.:::�!rnt:�s;��a :.;:<.;:.;:::;;;:.;:.;:::;:.;.::: itil : i"ti :..f :"• I':h 0010 ".at ll:: via m+ rtlr: tel::>r.:e tt.. ::ta.: #:>t :: t�all..s si stoek. City Strategy: a) In order to meet the ownership housing goals listed above as Goal #1, 30% of all future housing will need to be multiple family "attached" housing. If 30% of all future housing are multiple family ownership units, and an additional 20% are rental units, then the City should expect to achieve a mix of 43% multiple and 57% single family detached at full development. (Housing Density . Thd:a t .e::hous n . ens ti€esir..new Sin le Fa it detach :develo is > ill beat :: least too ni per acre, The average densi r fn Mul[t >le F rfti j=t fi l :developments will beat lam 10 unrts pc r ecru .. City Strategy: a) The City will encourage all future single family detached housing proposals to be developed at a density of 2 units per acre or greater, and multiple family proposals at 10 units per acre or greater. b) Twin home housing projects ati low densities should be considered as single family, this will bring single family and multiple family density averages up. t st e ens " S>'z"< »>>>> e < <> > < ft2 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:p12/96 SECTION: Report of Director of Parks,Recreation and Facilities ITEM NO. -ge I DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Concept Plan& Cost Estimates for Miller Park Recreation and Facilities Skating Rink Robert A. Lambert, Director L. BACKGROUND: In 1992,during the design of Miller Park, staff determined to place excess fill from the grading of the park in a location between two wetland areas in the southeast corner of the park. Staff suggested that this location might accommodate a future hockey rink and skating rink depending on the final delineation of the wetland edges on the north and south side of the site. At that time, staff estimated the cost to construct a concrete building that would serve as a warming house was approximately $130,000 with an estimated additional $20,000 to install a hockey rink and lighting, as well as a 18-20 car parking lot. At that time,there was no specific plan for a park building nor was the staff even certain that the site would accommodate a hockey rink, skating rink,park shelter and parking lot. In 1995,the Hockey Association approached the City requesting consideration of developing an indoor ice rink in one of our parks that could be used as a park shelter during the summer months. During the process to study the feasibility of that request, staff further evaluated the site proposed for an outdoor skating facility in Miller Park. Eventually, the staff and Parks Recreation and Natural Resources Commission determined that the indoor facility was not feasible; however, when the Hockey Association expressed their needs for additional skating facilities, the Commission agreed to recommend construction of an outdoor hockey facility in Miller Park. Late in 1995,the City Council authorized staff to contract with an architect to provide design services and cost estimates for a park shelter to serve that purpose. During the review process with the park and recreation staff, it was suggested that the park shelter also accommodate a summer playground program to serve the residents in that part of the community. Staff further indicated that there were between 50-60 groups that had requested park shelter reservations that were not able to be accommodated in 1995. Many of those groups were 50 or fewer people. Staff recommended providing a park shelter to serve as a warming house for the skating facilities during the winter months and to accommodate the playground program during the summer months, as well as providing a facility that could be rented for small group picnic reservations seven days a week in the spring and fall, and on weekends during the summer months when it was used for playground programs during the week. Staff continue to plan for the development of a large picnic pavilion in the wooded area immediately east of the playground facilities in Miller Park. This pavilion will accommodate large groups and would be available seven day a week during the spring, summer and fall, if the summer playground is moved to the smaller shelter presently be proposed. With the additional program use (beyond a warming house) of accommodating the summer playground program and providing for group reservations the staff recommended some changes to the design of the facility. Staff recommended adding the outdoor shelter that will accommodate four picnic tables and to provide an improved level of finish in the building, and to raise the ceiling in the interior of the building to 1 I follow the roof line. This design will provide a feeling of a much larger building in the interior and will allow for providing lighting from the cupola in the ceiling, These design changes will make for a much more attractive facility and be more desirable for group picnic reservation use. Those design changes also increased the cost of the building by approximately $30,000. Staff also requested the architect to use a masonry wall rather than a wood frame building with concrete block veneer and to specify a metal roof rather than as asphalt shingle roof. This design consideration increases the cost of the facility by approximately$10,000. Staff believe that the masonry walls and the metal roof will uphold against vandalism and abuse over a long period of time. The increased cost to construct with these finishes may exceed the cost to repair over the years; however, the building should maintain a better appearance over the life of the building rather than having periods of time when the building needs to be reshingled or walls patched, etc. Staff determined that if the facility was going to be available for reservation use, the parking lot should be developed to the largest size the site would accommodate;therefore, the parking lot increased from 20 cars to 38 cars. This cost approximately an additional $7,000, if we construct the lot without curb and gutter. Staff also recommended that we add window grills to the building due to the remote location of the building and the amount of vandalism we have experienced at the park over the last three years. This is an estimated $2,500 increase in cost. Due to the rapid increase in the interest in roller blading over the last few years, staff recommended considering placing an asphalt base under the hockey rink. This would provide a place for roller blade hockey leagues, etc. in the southern half of the City. This will cost approximately $10,000. This may reduce the damage to tennis courts that is caused by roller blades and hockey sticks. INCREASED REVENUE: At the February 20 Council meeting staff did not review the increased revenue the City will receive over the life of this building due to the changes in the program. As previously indicated,this park shelter will be able to be rented for smaller picnic groups from May-September 15, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays at approximately $120/day (1996 fees) and approximately two days/week at $55/day for the seven weeks before, and seven weeks after, the summer playground program. The park and recreation staff believe that this facility would generate approximately $6,000/year revenue if it is an attractive park shelter available for group reservations of 50 or smaller. If the facility is designed to accommodate the summer playground program, as proposed, the larger picnic pavilion that is proposed to be constructed in the wooded area adjacent to the lakeshore would be available for large group rental seven days a week through the summer months, rather than weekends only during the ten-week summer playground program. This facility would generate $200/day on weekdays during that ten- week period. If the facility is only rented two days/week during that ten-week period, it would generate an additional $2,000/year. Staff believe that is a very conservative estimate for this facility. 2 Assuming the picnic shelter is developed as proposed, is attractive for group rental, and is large enough to accommodate the summer playground program, the City will generate approximately $8,000/year above what was originally proposed. Using 1996 group rental rates over the 40-year life of the building,the City would receive approximately $320,000 of revenue to offset the additional cost of this facility design. COST BREAKDOWN: Del Eirckson, architect for the project,has provided a cost breakdown for the park shelter. His February 26 report is attached to this memorandum. To summarize his report "Scheme A" which includes the upgraded building,the entry to the building, site work, site lighting, and architect and engineering fees totals $199,600. Staff estimates an additional $35,000 for grading of the parking lot and skating rink areas, construction of the parking lot (asphalt parking lot with no curb and gutter and sheet drainage), and construction of a hockey rink with an asphalt base. Staff could reduce the cost of this portion of the project by approximately $15,000 to $17,000 by reducing the size of the parking lot from 38 cars to 20 cars and eliminating the asphalt base within the hockey rink. Staff recommend the maximum size parking lot of 38 cars in order to accommodate park shelter reservations, and staff recommend the asphalt base for the skating rink to accommodate roller blade leagues and summer playground use in the summer months. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REDUCED COSTS: 1. Omit cupola $11,000 2. Flat ceiling trust 6.000 Total $17,000 Comment- Staff believe the cupola and raised ceiling provide the unique design that would make the building attractive for park shelter users and would be less receptive to vandalism during the winter months when children are in that facility with hockey sticks. 3. Omit patio/fire ring $5,000 Comment - the patio and fire ring provide additional hard surface space adjacent to the building for programming the summer playground programs. It also provides an additional amenity for group reservation users during the summer months, as well as unique ability to provide outdoor fires adjacent to the skating rink on a weekly basis. Staff believe this additional facility will be a very unique attraction for this skating rink during the winter months. 4. Omit skate tile $6,000 Comment -In most of the park shelters the City now obtains carpet scraps from residents to use on the floors during the winter months. Although, it is effective, it is also "tacky." Staff believe the City should move toward putting rubber skate tile on all of the park shelters that are used for skating rinks as a permanent floor covering. 5. Omit wall benches $2,000 3 3 Comment- Staff can construct these after the fact and save some funds, although,they would not be built- in with the initial construction. 6. Omit window grills $2,500 Comment-The window grills are heavy duty screens that protect the windows from being broken by rocks, sticks, etc. from the exterior. Staff recommend installing the grills with the initial construction. 7. Omit painting $5,000 Comment - Staff recommend putting this item as a deduct alternate in the bid. Staff may be able to save $1,500 to $2,000 by painting the building using City staff. RECOMMENDATION: City staff continue to recommend the upgraded "Scheme A" but would recommend several deduct alternates in the bid, including the following: 1. Wall Benches 2. Painting 3. Patio and Fire Ring 4. Use of Asphalt Shingles versus Metal Roof BL:mdd Mi11erP.memo 4 `7� MEMORANDUM TO: Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks,Recreation&Facilities DATE: March 1, 1996 SUBJECT: Updated Five Year Capital Improvement Program 1994-2000 BACKGROUND: City staff are presently in the process of evaluating five and ten year projections for the City budget. In order to assist this process, staff have provided a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for acquisition and development of the park system that projects an acquisition and development schedule that would not anticipate use of general funds. Staff have also attached a list of the projects that may see high demand over the next five years that are not included in the enclosed Capital Improvement Program. These items may be funded within the next five years depending on park dedication fees (staff have projected $400,000 a year when, in fact, we have exceeded that amount the last three years), the City's ability to obtain grants for some of the proposed acquisition and development projects, or these projects may be funded through the general fund from dedicated funds from the Liquor Store or other sources. ACQUISITIONS: Lake Riley Park- $288,050 The City spent$105,000 on the Thomas property in 1994 and$85,000 for the Hill property later that year. Mr. Hill has filed an appeal of the condemnation award. The court awarded Mr. Hill$144,000. With the addition of the trial costs, appraisals, etc., the total cost for the Hill property was approximately $160,000. This required a $75,000 expenditure in 1995. The City ultimately anticipates acquiring the two Shuldhiess lots north of the Hill property when those properties are offered on the open market. Staff anticipates those sales would be after the year 2000. Riley Creek Woods Conservation Area-$884,920 The City acquired the Kathy Trost property in 1994 for $284,920, including attorneys' fees and closing costs. The City acquired the Peter George property for$600,000 in 1995, and has anticipated acquiring approximately 2.35 acres on the southwest corner of the Riley Creek Woods Conservation Area after the year 2000. The 2.35 acres are relatively unbuildablc and there is not a pressing need to acquire the property at this time. The referendum of 1.9 million dollars did not cover all of the cost associated with the Trot, George and Carlson acquisitions. 1 Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area- $1,719,000 The City purchased the Klein/Peterson property, a total of 68.76 acres, at$18,000/acre for a price of$1,237,620.60. This property was purchased on a contract for deed with $500,000 down in 1995 and the balance paid over a five-year period with the final payment being made in February of the year 2000. The City has applied for a $150,000 grant to acquire option parcel number one, a 15.68 acre parcel that the Klein/Peterson property owners have agreed to sell at $18,500/acre in 1996, for a total of$290,080. City staffrecommend acquisition of this site over a two-year period of 1997 and 1998 using cash park fees and the State grant. The plan does not anticipate acquiring the 30.28 acre parcel under Option#2 for$22,000/acre in the year 2000 for a total of$666,358. The year 2000 is the last year of the option on that property. Prairie Bluff Conservation Area-$1,178,520 The Capital Improvement Plan depicts $49,400 expended on this property in 1994 and$1,129,120 in 1995. Actually the$49,400 indicates all of the attorney's fees, environmental testing, and surveys expended in 1994 on the Charlson property, the Peterson property, and some of the Riley Creek Woods property. The City acquired the Charlson property,a 55.079 acre parcel at$20,500/acre, in February of 1995. Purgatory Creek Recreation Area-$50,000 There are several parcels of land the City needs to acquire along Purgatory Creek in the vicinity of Anderson Lakes Parkway to complete the trail connection from the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area south to Staring Lake Park. There is also a short distance between Highway 169 and Staring Lake Park that is owned by the State of Minnesota that will require a trail easement or acquisition by the City. Staff have budgeted $50,000 for acquisition of these parcels and the possibility that the City may have to acquire trail easements in order to complete the trail around the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area in 1996. These funds would come from the 1.8 million dollars of tax increment financing budgeted for this project. Staring Lake Park- $306,300 The City borrowed $675,200 from the utility's fund in 1990 to purchase the Boyce property. The $147,000 amount in 1995 is the final payment back with the current rate of interest. The City will take possession of the Boyce home on June 15, 1995. Crestwood Park-$81,600 The City entered into a purchase agreement for 12 acres west of Dell Road in 1992. Payments of $36,150/year,plus interest in 1995 were committed for funds from the cash park fees. The additional money is the amount needed to pay taxes on that land. This year(1995) is the final year of payments for the property. 2 Cedar Forest Park- $250,000 The City anticipates having to pay approximately $250,000 (for approximately 10 acres) for a neighborhood park to serve the Cedar Forest/Hilltop neighborhood. The City has evaluated a site on the end of Valley Road, as well as property owned by Don Atkins adjacent to Riley Creek. Staff have also had discussions with representatives of Lynn Charlson regarding the possibility of acquiring land east of Eden Prairie Road for a neighborhood park to serve that section of the community. Due to the large land holdings of Mr. Charlson,the City may consider acquiring land in lieu of park fees for approximately 100 acres of development in that neighborhood. Duck Lake- $5,990 The City acquired a 470' strip of land between Duck Lake Trail and the south shore of Duck Lake in 1994 for$5,000. The additional funds were attributed to attorneys' fees and filing fees,etc. Rice Marsh Lake Park-$9,000 The City agreed to reimburse the developer$100 per lot on 90 lots as a part of the negotiated park dedication agreement that acquired Rice Marsh Lake Neighborhood Park in 1994. Smetana Lake Park- $50,000 The City of Eden Prairie and the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District have entered into an agreement titled the Smetana Lake Improvement Project, which would raise the water level of Smetana Lake three feet through the development of an outlet control structure. The project would also anticipate constructing a trail around Smetana Lake and,at one time, anticipated acquisition of land owned by Frank Smetana, Sr. on the north shore of Smetana Lake. Developer's have discussed a possible request to change the Guide Plan from office and industrial to a multi family designation on the north shore of Smetana Lake. If a multi family development is approved, staff would recommend acquiring six to seven acres to provide a neighborhood park to serve this area, as there is no neighborhood park or any other recreation facilities to serve a proposed multi family development within the area bounded by 494 and Highway 212. Staff recommends delaying any decisions on acquisition of land for park purposes in this area until a final decision is made on land use north of Smetana Lake. Land dedication in lieu of park fees may be the most feasible alternative for providing a park in this location. The City will have to pay 50%of the easement costs necessary to proceed with the lake improvement project. At this time, there is only one property owner requesting reimbursement for flowage easements. Another property owner has also indicated that he would like to have the City purchase his home on Smetana Lake at this time. Staff have budgeted a total of$50,000 for acquisition of easements or land with this project. Staff would not anticipate that flowage easements would be a significant cost. If the Council decides to make an offer for any of the single family property, staff would recommend discussing the feasibility of the Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District paying for 50%of the cost of that acquisition as part of the Smetana Lake Improvement Project. 3 Riley Creek Linear Park-$50,000 Staff have projected a $50,000 expenditure in 1999 for land along Riley Creek. Staff believe it is prudent to anticipate some expenditure for land along the creek, as there are several parcels that will have to be acquired by the City to complete a trail from County Road 1 to the Riley Creek Woods. The majority of that property can be acquired through dedication when adjacent land is developed; however,there are a couple of small parcels that are owned by single family homes that will have to be acquired to develop a trail along the creek. Staff anticipates that when the Peterson property is developed there will be a demand for a trail along Riley Creek both to the north to connect to Riley Lake Park and to the east to connect to Riley Creek Woods. PARK DEVELOPMENT: Community Center- $165,800 Fifteen thousand eight hundred dollars was budgeted for the Community Center in 1994 to complete ADA improvements. Sixty thousand dollars is budgeted in 1995 to install a dehumidification system in rink#1. This is a critical piece of equipment that not only will guarantee spring, summer and fall usage, but reduces maintenance costs and adds to the life of the facility, $90,000 is budgeted to replace the dasher board system in rink one at the Community Center in 1996. The Council should reimburse the park fund from the general fund over the next five years for these expenditures. The Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommended the City find some funding method to improve the locker rooms. The Council authorized an architect's study and proposal to expand the locker rooms and approved the locker room expansion and front entry expansion plan, but did not authorize funding at this time. Staff indicated that there will be demand for expansion of locker facilities, improvements to the entry, and construction of a gymnasium at the Community Center in the near future. Hopefully,the City planning team will work with the bond counsel and devise a future projection on when it will be feasible to have another park bond issue without raising the levy rate, or the City may consider selling a portion of the entry at the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area and use those funds for this addition. Senior Center- $175,270 The Senior Center renovation was completed in 1994. There are no additional major improvements proposed to that facility within the next five-year period at this time. Round Lake Park-$135,000 Fifteen thousand dollars is budgeted in 1997 for construction of dugouts at the baseball field, and $50,000 is budgeted for lighting the field in 1998. The City has only six regulation size baseball fields and one of those (the field at CMS) will be lost in the near future. The City does not have any additional fields projected;therefore,the only method to meet the demand for regulation size baseball 4 fields will be to light some of the facilities already owned. The City will not be able to light the field at Hying Cloud ballfields and it would be very difficult to light the field at Franlo due to the proximity of residential homes to that field. The ballfield at Miller Park is already lighted;therefore,the next most likely field to be lighted is the City owned field at Round Lake Park. This field is located in the center of the park relatively far away from adjacent homes but would still face opposition from neighbors. Fifty thousand dollars was budgeted in 1995 for replacement of the playground structure in Round Lake Park with an accessible facility. Due to the proximity of the sand beach and the high volume of use, this facility is relatively worn out and will have to either be replaced or removed within the next two years. Twenty thousand dollars is budgeted in 1994 for correction of erosion problems around the backstops at field 3 and 4 and between field 5 and the Fire Station. That project was completed in the fall of 1994. Staring Lake Park- $275,000 Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars is budgeted in 1997 for renovation of the playground facilities. This estimate would include bringing the structure up to today's safety guidelines, accommodating ADA access to portions of the facilities,replacing the rock walls with conventional concrete retaining walls, and installing a drainage system to eliminate erosion problems. Twenty-five thousand is budgeted in 1996 to move the archery range to the Flying Cloud Riding Arena site and to replace it with an eight-court horseshoe court. (The horseshoe league will move to this facility in 1997.) Riley Lake Park-$928,595 In 1992 the City passed a referendum that included $500,000 for improvements to Riley Lake Community Park. Development of this park was delayed until 1994 to coordinate road construction with the Bear Path Development. Park construction began in June of 1994 and will be completed in 1996 with the installation of four volleyball courts and the final landscape material; however, construction of a park shelter is not budgeted until 1997. The construction costs for the park have exceeded the original estimate as the original estimate for the bond referendum was made anticipating only a first phase development. After that projection was approved Bear Path development was approved and the City Council agreed to complete the entire development of Riley Lake Park in one phase using cash park fees as a supplement to the referendum funds Two hundred thousand dollars is budgeted in 1997 for construction of a park shelter that will accommodate year round activities and will be available for park reservation use/ 5 Miller Park-$1,241,150 The 1992 bond referendum included$3,800,000 for improvements to Miller Park. Development of this park was initiated in 1992 and the first phase development will be completed in 1995 using referendum funds. Two hundred and thirty thousand dollars(the balance of the 1992 referendum funds) is scheduled for completion of Miller Park in 1996 and includes developing a park shelter that will accommodate a summer playground program, winter warming house program and small group picnic reservations. The funds will also be used for developing a 38 car parking lot,a skating rink and a hockey rink. Two hundred thirty thousand dollars is budgeted in 1997 for construction of a picnic pavilion in the wooded area, large enough to accommodate groups of 200 for picnic reservations, etc. on a May through mid October seasonal use. This budget would have to be increased if the Council decides to have a year round facility. Two hundred fifty thousand dollars is budgeted for 1998 for construction of a softball complex building(restrooms,concession, and storage facility). Two hundred fifty thousand dollars is budgeted in 1999 for a soccer/football facility building (concession,restrooms, storage facility). Two hundred thousand dollars is budgeted in the year 2000 for a baseball building/seating area. This facility is projected to be a covered seating area similar to the old style baseball park with concession, restrooms, and storage facility constructed under the seating area. Purgatory Creek Recreation Area-$1,770,000 A $20,000 grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the outlet control structure will be utilized in 1996 and $500,000 is budgeted in 1997, $1,000,000 in 1998, and $250,000 in 1999 for the City's matching portion of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. This $4,000,000 project is projected to begin in 1997. The Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District will fund approximately 3.2 million dollars of this $4,000,000 project. The 1.8 million dollars is budgeted under the tax increment financing program. Approximately $7,000 is budgeted in 1995 for a redesign of the park entry that is required due to the Southwest Metro access to Technology Drive. Preserve Park- $135,000 One hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars is budgeted in 1996 for construction of a park shelter and grading a free skating rink to accommodate the revised park. The existing park shelter is falling apart and the use of the pond as a skating rink results in extremely poor quality ice and shortened season to due to the springs in that pond. 6 Prairie View Park-$130,000 One hundred thirty-thousand dollars is budgeted for replacing the park shelter that was destroyed by fire in 1995. The City is renting a satellite in the interim. Pheasant Woods Park- $50,000 Fifty thousand dollars is budgeted in 1996 for tiling Pheasant Wood Park,replacing the playground equipment,repairing the backstop,park benches, etc. The tiling project should be done before any additional improvements are made to that park due to the high ground water. Edenbrook Conservation Area-$55,000 Fifty five-thousand dollars is budgeted in 1999 for construction of a small parking lot access and trail loop system through the park. Staff anticipates two bridges necessary across Purgatory Creek to accommodate the loop trail system. Purgatory Creek Trail-$2,000 Two thousand dollars was budgeted in 1994 for completion of the trail crossing over Purgatory Creek in the vicinity of Branching Horn. That project was completed by the Twin City Tree Trust Program. Rice Marsh Lake Park-$85,000 Ten thousand dollars is budgeted in 1995 for finish grading, seeding, and landscaping. Twenty five- thousand dollars is budgeted in 1996 for installation of a backstop and playground structure. Fifty thousand dollars is budgeted in 1997 for construction of the tennis courts,basketball court, and final landscaping of this park. Miller Spring-$10,000 Ten thousand dollars is budgeted in 1997 for renovation of Miller Spring, which would include upgrading the parking lot and improving the design of the pedestrian access to the spring, as well as providing a flower garden and landscaping automatically watered by the spring. This location is also the trail head location the Charlson prairie. This project is long overdue; however, the staff has delayed the project due to concerns about affecting Miller Spring with any major changes to the piping system, etc. Pioneer Park-$70,560 Fifteen thousand five hundred and sixty dollars was spent in 1994 on the fmal phase of the park construction. 7 Fifty-five thousand was budgeted in 1995 for completing the contract for development of the park, as well as installing a tile system to provide proper drainage for the playground area and around the tennis courts. Cedar Forest Park-$50,000 Fifty thousand dollars was budgeted in Cedar Forest Park for the year 2000 for initial grading and seeding of that park. Crestwood Park-$200,000 Twenty five-thousand dollars was budgeted in 1997 for grading and seeding Crestwood Park. Twenty five-thousand dollars is also budgeted for 1998 for installation of the backstop and playstructure. Fifty thousand dollars is budgeted in 1999 for construction of the tennis courts,basketball court, and parking lot. One hundred thousand dollars is budgeted in 2000 for construction of the warming house and hockey rink. Eden Lake Park- $60,000 Thirty thousand dollars was budgeted in 1995 to make site improvements to make the play equipment accessible and$30,000 was donated by the Eden Lake PTO for additional playground equipment. Forest Hills Park- $110,000 Ten thousand dollars was budgeted in 1994 for installation of an asphalt base in the hockey rink and improving the pedestrian access from the warming house to the rink. One hundred ten-thousand dollars is budgeted in 1998 for replacement of the park shelter/warming house. Smetana Lake Park- $100,000 One hundred thousand dollars is budgeted in 1999 for the City's match for the Smetana Lake Improvement Project. City staff is recommending delaying this project two the three years to wait until the large land parcels north of the lake are proposed for development. 8 Bike Trail Improvements-$83,000 Eighteen thousand five hundred dollars was spent in 1994 for construction of the bike trail improvements around the Mitchell Lake Marsh and within Miller Park and$34,500 is budgeted for County Road 4 trail improvements from Oak Ridge Road north to County Road 62 in 1996. Thirty thousand dollars is budgeted for construction of trails within Miller Park in 1996 and widening the trail along Mitchell Road south of Scenic Heights Road to Pheasant Woods Park. CONSIDERATIONS: The cost estimates(guess estimates)are not based on specific plans or with developed specifications; therefore, Commission and Council members should expect that actual costs of estimates obtained after drafting plans or more detailed programs are developed may vary considerably from these estimates. The City receives petitions from neighborhoods, special interest groups, etc. each year that may change priorities;therefore,this CIP is reviewed and revised on an annual basis. The value of the CIP is to provide the Commission and Council with a "general view" of the revenue and expenditures over the next five-years in order to help make decisions regarding projects that will occur over the next six months. OTHER PROJECTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE CIP: There are a number of other projects that have not been included in the Five-Year CIP that may well be a higher priority than some of the projects currently listed. As the CIP already depicts deficit spending in the fourth year,it is obvious that priorities will change each year. Some of the projects that may receive strong support are as follows: 1. Development of Birch Island Park-The City has owned this park for over 25 years and has not yet even paved the parking lot. There have been several comments over the last few years that the surrounding neighborhoods would like safe access (trails)to the park, and would like some facilities developed within the park. 2. Topview Park-In 1994,the City received a petition from neighbors to improve the asphalt court and to provide some play equipment. The Council authorized staff to move the play equipment from the old Family Center to Topview Park. Prior to moving the equipment,the NRPA came out with new playground safety guidelines. None of the old equipment from the Family Center met the guidelines, so staff did not install it at Topview. 3. There are several key trail sections that remain incomplete. The City will continue to receive pressure to complete these sections as increased traffic on these road sections make pedestrian and bicycle use more dangerous. Some of those trail sections are as follows: 9 a. County Road 1 east of Homeward Hills Road and east of Franlo Road. b.. County Road 4 north of Purgatory Creek. c. Bryant Lake Drive and Shady Oak Road to Bryant Lake Park. GENERAL FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY: The Council has committed to reimbursing Fund 30 for the cost to replace the hockey boards in the Community center over the next five years. BL:mdd CIPMemo/Bob 10 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 3/12/96 SECTION: Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities ITEM NO. 1L C 2., DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Playground Site Inventory and Recommended Recreation and Facilities Improvement Plan Robert A. Lambert "Peoie Attached is a memo dated January 30, 1996 from Stuart a. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources regarding Playground Site Inventory and Recommended Improvement Plan. Also, attached are the approved minutes from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission dated February 5, 1996. The Commission recommended approval as per the attached motion. 1 • MEMORANDUM TO: Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks,Recreation and Facilities FROM: Stuart A. Fox;Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Doug Ernst, Park and Trail Construction and Repair Supervisor DATE: January 30, 1996 SUBJECT: Playground Site Inventory and Recommended Improvement Plan BACKGROUND: During the 1994 National Recreation and Park Association Conference held in Minneapolis, two staff members attended the National Playground Safety Institute that was held prior to the actual conference. It was during that time that the staff realized the need to take on a more proactive evaluation and an inspection program related to the playstructures within our park system. The reason for this was the new standards that were brought to the staffs attention. A brief history of playground safety and the rules and regulations that have been developed is as follows: The history of safety related to playground usage covers a relatively short time span. It has only been since the 1930's that formalized playground activity equipment has been manufactured and used both in school and city park settings. During that time, playground equipment has taken on various shapes and intent as manufacturers saw the need to be more creative and more "daring" in the types of activities they offered to the public for their enjoyment. A playground in the 1950's was primarily constructed of metal and would include giant swings, a giant slide, a merry-go-round, and various pieces of climbing equipment. In the 1970's the switch was made to wooden structures with multi level platforms. Various types of play apparatus were combined into one large structure. Also, wood became the preferred raw material that was used in the majority of playstructures. In the 1970's and 1980's, the structures got larger, taller, and more challenging to the park users. Finally, in the late 1980's and into the 1990's, the manufacturer of playgrounds has turned from wooden structures back to brightly colored metal structures. These include multiple colors of plastic panels, various types of active and passive play areas and reduction in the height of the overall playstructure. This is due primarily to the efforts of several groups who investigated playground accidents and came up with some recommendations to lower the frequency and severity of those accidents. The first group that looked into playground safety was the National Recreation Association, which is actually the predecessor of the National Recreation and Park Association. They found in the 1930's that there were certain pieces of equipment that was causing major traumatic injuries to 1 children. One piece of equipment in particular,the Giant Stride, a pole with chains hanging down with hand grips that spun around, was particularly dangerous. The NRA passed a resolution to have it banned from all public playgrounds. This resolution was adopted by the NRPA, but it was never enforced by states or local municipalities. In other words, this resolution was without legal enforcement. In the early 1970's a woman from Ohio became alarmed at the number of injuries to children that she saw at a local playground. A public school teacher serving on the United States Consumer Products Safety Commission(CPSC)heard about this woman's plight and felt that it was necessary to begin an initial evaluation of the safety related to playground equipment. The Consumer Product Safety Commission(CSPSC)published a couple of journals to help better define the manufacturer and the purchasing guidelines for play apparatus. The first was a set of guidelines for technical manufacturers that basically outlined some suggestions on how to put together play equipment of a safer design for children. The second guidebook was one for the consumer. This volume gave practical suggestions about supervision around play areas, gave details about the types of equipment and some general lists for safety problems related to various types of equipment. During the 1980's another professional group began to raise questions about playground safety. The committee on play of the American Association of Leisure and Recreation(AALR) was formed in 1983. During the time that they were together, they published three playground summaries and results from surveys they conducted. The first survey was to ascertain which pieces of playground equipment were causing the most accidents. From that they found most playground injuries resulted from climbing equipment, followed by swings and slides. The primary type of injury involved a fall onto the surface below the piece of equipment. The second survey that was conducted by the AALR resulted in a larger number of communities being surveyed. Again no piece of playground equipment was free from a report of some type of injury occurring. The third AALR National Survey was conducted in the late 1980's and was directed at preschool centers. They asked questions related to safety surfacing and age appropriateness of the play area for preschool children. Again, no play area was free of safety problems and many had inappro- priate safety surfaces. The last organization involved in playgrounds is the American SocietyTestingMaterials(ASTM), P Yg an organization that develops compliance standards for various products, including consumer products. These standards are developed to encourage the industry to comply in order to provide products that are safer for the consumer to use. The first sets of guidelines published by ASTM were done in 1988 and those were directed at the manufacturers for home playground equipment. In addition, in the early 1990's the ASTM published a playground equipment surfacing standards, since it was found that most injuries had been caused by falls from playground equipment. The CPSC also continued in its efforts to analyze various playground components and the playground surfacing. In 1990, they published a new series of standards that related the depth and type of surfacing material to the relative height of the equipment. In addition, the standards 2 developed by the CPSC were easier for the consumer to use and understand than those of the ASTM. The CPSC continued its effort also in developing guidelines for playground safety. In November of 1991 they released a revised issue entitled Handbook for Public Playground Safety. The guidelines within the CPSC handbook are basically the ones that the staff utilized conducting a safety audit of all existing playstructures within the park system. In addition to the agencies already mentioned, the Americans with Disability Act became effective in January of 1992. That legislation states that persons with disabilities should have equal access to schools, parks, and other public areas, including playgrounds. EDEN PRAIRIE PLAYGROUND AUDIT: The staff used the information put together by the National Recreation and Park Association - National Playground Safety Institute. The staff utilized a booklet entitled Playground Safety is No Accident. Detailed within the booklet were directions on how to conduct a playground safety program and the steps necessary to audit playgrounds and develop a comprehensive maintenance program. The formal audit of all playground equipment within the park system was undertaken during the summer and fall of 1995. Attached to this memo is a summary of the playground audit that outlines the various sections of the playgrounds that were checked during the audit, the possible hazard points, and the listing of the various parks and the year which the playground equipment was installed. In order for the commissioners to have a better idea of what was done in this playground audit, a quick summary is needed to explain the process. The first audit includes border hazards, general environment, age/size, design, accessibility design, protective surfacing, fall zone/use zone. Three hundred seventy-two are the maximum points. • Border Hazards - Possibility of 70 points. Distances to such hazards, including streets, water, active use areas, including football and baseball fields, as well as parking lots and trees were looked at in this section. If a hazard was identified within 100' of the playground, five hazard points were given. If the hazard occurred within 100-200', only two points were assigned. • General Environmental Hazards - Possibility of 53 points. Things that were looked at as general hazards included accessability, whether or not bench seating was available, signage including where to go for emergency help and regulations of hours and age, trash receptacles, and if poisonous plants were within the play area. • Age/Size Appropriate Design- The possible hazard points were 50. 3 Things that were looked at in this area included if the equipment was designed for the appropriate age, in other words, ages two to five of one set of criteria, and equipment for ages six to twelve goes under another heading. The additional audit items included proper signage for the equipment and the physical separation of the equipment, so that younger users select the proper equipment for their age. • Accessibility Design- This had a possible index of 19 points. Accessibility means that people with disabilities would be able to access the playground area, that the playground use zone has a safety surface, and that items such as restroom, seating, and drinking water were accessible to the playground site. • Protective Surfacing- Some totals of 80 points were included in this section. Safety surfacing for the equipment means that at least 12" of loose fill or impact absorbing material was present under the playstructure and that it extended a minimum of 6'outside of the use area. Other items to be checked included the frequency that the safety surface was checked(whether it was daily or monthly or seasonally), and how often loose material was added to maintain adequate depth. • Fall Zone/Use Zone - This area had a possible hazard index of 100 points. The items that were checked for this included: - making sure that swings were at least 24" away from each other and 30" away from the framework that slides had adequate safety space, which was the result of the height of the slide plus four or six feet whichever was greater making sure that all boundaries between pieces of equipment were installed at grade, so that they would not create a trip hazard - making sure that active areas were located away from the more quiet activities, i.e., bike riding and running games would be located away from a sand box or table area The next section of the audit included a possible total of 2,040 points, and the items that evaluated included slides, climbing equipment, swings, and the remaining individual pieces of play equipment that were found in the playground area. The evaluation breakdown for this was as follows: • Slide -The total possible hazard point for slide usage was 280. When evaluating slides the staff looked at the height of the slide, the angle of the slide, the surface at the top,the slide bed, safety barriers, the height of the bed ways, and a number of other items. In total when evaluating slides, 14 separate items were used to evaluate the possible hazard created by one or many slides on a piece of equipment. • Climbing Equipment - A total hazard index of 230 points. 4 r J When looking at climbing equipment,they took a look at platform heights and the diameter of the climbing bars and perimeter barriers. Guard rails were required on all elevated surfaces and the height of these barriers was determined by age of the child using the equipment. In addition, specific hazards such as protrusion, fasteners, splinters, and other physical defects were noted in this section. • Swing Set- A total number of 267 possible index points. Under swings, they included all animal figure swings, bucket type swings for infants,and standard type tire and to-and-fro swings. Fifteen separate evaluation items were included in this section and they included the physical condition of the swing and protrusions, excessive wear, and the distance above the ground,as well as two safety zones were included in the evaluation. • See-Saw - Possible 185 hazard points. Seesaws were evaluated uses five points which included pitching points, pinch points,hand holds, as well as protrusions, splinters, and other general excessive wear or loose parts. • Sand Play Area- A Total possible of 161 hazards points. Sand play areas were evaluated using five evaluation points, including shade, standing water, animal excrement contamination, and freedom from various types of protrusions,or other specific equipment hazards. • Rocking Equipment- A total of 175 possible hazard index points. Each piece of rocking equipment was evaluated to make sure that it was less than 30" above protective surfacing that there were no pinch or crush points, and that it was free from hazards such as protrusions, rust, splinters, etc. • Crawl Through Tunnel - A total of 175 possible hazard index points. Crawl through tunnels were evaluated on five criteria, including fastening, has two safe clear exists, that it freely drains, and that it is free of protrusions, splinters, rust, and other hazardous conditions. • Merry-go-round - 195 possible hazard index points. Merry-go-rounds were evaluated using five criteria that included the distance that the merry- go-round traveled the distance to other playground structure pieces that there are no sheering or crushing mechanisms and that the speed of the platform does not exceed 13' per second. • Crawl Through Ring - 145 possible hazard points. This was found on only one playground area and there were no hazard points associated with the ring • POINTS ASSIGNED TO HAZARDS: In each case, whenever a hazard was found any number of points were assigned based on the detailed information included in the audit booklet. In assigning points,the evaluator was asked to assign the maximum points if a particular hazard was found irregardless of its severity, i.e., if a platform was recommended to be 8" above the previous one and was found to be 9", that was just as bad as finding a platform that was a foot above the recommended height. In evaluating a site in general,the only way to really get a true picture is to compare the particular structure and the items that are included and are contrasted with the total number of possible points in each category in each subdivision. What this will point out is that even though some sites are in need of updating or correction,it may be only one particular piece of equipment or apparatus that indicates through the hazard index points that this particular playground has a substantial problem. In order to rank the sites, the staff used a comparison that is called the hazard score percentage rating formula, which takes the hazard score, plus the frequency of inspection and divides it by possible hazard points. This gives you the percentage reading. The way that this is interpreted is the same as golf scores. The higher the score the more problems it indicates. In addition,this helps even out a number of factors by using the frequency of inspection rating. The frequency of rating is a number that is determined by looking at several factors at each of the playgrounds, including things such as what has been the history of vandalism at the site, what is the use level (is it in a community park or neighborhood park), and is the equipment designed for a specific age, if so, for ages. Also, evaluated are things such as the type of safety surfacing that is underneath it, the type of material that makes up the major components, as well as the age of the play equipment itself. Environmental factors include such things as soil types, sun exposure, and drainage system. If a play area has a frequency of 50 points or greater, it would indicate that this particular play area should be inspected two to three times per month. If the points were between 40 and 50,the inspection would be done monthly and if it was between 30 and 40 inspections would be done every other month. However, this may not be suitable for some of the higher used neighborhood parks where weekly inspection may be necessary to keep safety surfaces property fluffed and in place. EVALUATION OF THE PLAYGROUND AUDIT RESULTS: From looking at the results, it is already apparent that most of our playground facilities arc not in compliance with the 1991 CPSC Standards. However, there arc some clear-cut steps that the City can take to minimize the deficiencies that were found in the audit and to ensure that the playgrounds are safe for children to use. Some of the items that the staff is doing currently arc as follows: 1. We have individual booklets for each of the playground areas, including photos and other pertinent information detailing the playground apparatus for each park site. Specific inspection forms will be developed in the next few months, so that complete inspection records can be done on a site specific basis. 2. In addition to the single audit sheet, the staff also have individual sheets for each of the playgrounds that details the specific problems and recommended corrections that need to be undertaken. The hazards for most of the sites are listed as either an A, B, or C hazard. The 6 9 A hazards are the most significant and could possibly be life threatening. These include areas where play equipment is too high for the safety surfacing, where entrapment areas are found so that a child is unable to pass freely from one area to the other, and free and clear fall zone areas, which are necessary so that falling from playstructures do no impact hard objects or obstacles. According to the information that the staff received at the National Playground Safety Institute,the number one cause of injuries on playgrounds was from falls. Proper surfacing under playgrounds and in the fall and use zones is the most critical thing that needs to be done when evaluating playground areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: While the information from the playground audit can be rather overwhelming,the staff would like to assure the Commission and others that steps are being taken to establish priorities to make sure that our playgrounds are safe, and that equipment that is not acceptable gets replaced in the near future. The reality of attempting to totally replace all our playground equipment would exceed the reasonable limits of the community's resources at this current time. It would be difficult for the playground users, as well as financially challenging for the taxpayers to undergo such a large proposition. The staff is proposing that the following steps be used as a guideline in determining the priority for making sure that all of Eden Prairie's playgrounds are safe and enjoyable. 1. To make sure that the safety surfacing under each playground is in compliance with CSPC standards both for the height of the playstructure and the safety distance around each of the structures. 2. To have signage at each playstructure location. The signs would indicate the need for supervision of children and would also indicate the appropriate age of the child for whom the playground/playstructure is designed. 3. To identify all Class A hazards that could result in severe injury. These areas would be corrected using recommendations either from the manufacturer or by removing the particular piece of equipment or portion of equipment that represents the Class A hazard. 4. To develop a five-year capital improvement program that includes the order and costs that would be associated with refurbishing or replacing of the playgrounds with the highest hazard ratings. The playground equipment at Round Lake Park is budgeted for replacement in September of 1996. Staff is further recommending that the playground equipment in Pheasant Woods Park also be replaced in 1996,as it is one of the highest ranked parks and due to the high water table the existing equipment continues to heave during the annual spring thaw. This caused the concrete base around each structure to be pushed through the sand and create a potentially dangerous fall zone. Staff also recommends the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and City Council authorize the necessary site design changes at Staring Lake Park playground to accommodate drainage patterns and replacing the boulder walls with a more conventional retaining wall system 7 that can be designed to meet the new playground safety standards. The design work should be completed in 1996 with the actual construction to take place in 1997. Staff will also be submitting a Five-Year CIP for addressing immediate safety concerns in the overall park playground system,as well as plans for replacing the most critical equipment at Nesbitt Preserve Park, Prairie East Park and Homeward Hills Park. SAF:mdd Play.Memo/Stuart96 8 Y Y V w 9 a '..; a e° -'O e v O 13 m.. v ,.11 t I Y 'd . 1 " Y x i ...i g we V .L 3 .o _ o. w_ q x a; 13 v V v iv > :Y m , € $ qI. Audit Section Possible Hazard .E e vs o q — € 3 :,; E E 3► t� $ 3 g r 1 t 3 e t Heading Index Points gi h E •4 _ e .e 'a c� m s`L. ac !G ti oc 3 4 s .° a 6.1 3 g A , to 'o a � c4 iY 1984 1982 1980 1984 1985 1984 1984 1983 1982 1985 1981 1989 1984 1985 1991 1983 1986 1985 :.1985 1987 1986 87-95 1985 1991 1989 1995 1995 ' ' 'Border Hazards 70 15 24 12 10 13 0 7 5 16 15 10 19 7 5 15 17 7 22 0 12 16 17 10 16 14 6 20 General Environment 53 22 41 37 31 22 18 18 22 21 18 17 17 22 37 22 22 18 17 17 16 16 11 18 12 16 11 32 Age/Size Design 50 20 40 40 40 40 40 50 20 40 40 50 20 20 20 40 20 20 20 40 40 20 40 40 40 20 50 20 Accessibility Design 19 17 19 19 14 18 19 19 19 19 19 17 18 I 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 4 19 14 19 17 2 Protective Surfacing SO 40 50 50 30 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 30 30 50 50 50 30 50 20 30 50 50 35 15 l Fall Zone/Use Zone 100 70 70 60 40 60 50 40 60 20 20 50 80 20 50 60 40 50 20 20 60 40 20 0 20 30 20 10 SUBTOTAL;, 372 ' 184 244 _238 165 `203 .177 224 ] .176 166 162 194 204 138` 181 T 186 148. 164 148 ;,146 177 161, 112 1117' 172' 149' `'139 ' 99 Slides 280 135 70 90 125 80 75 75 70 85 100 60 65 60 45 50 55 40 50 55 65 35 50 45 15 30 15 20 Climbing Equipment 230 125 110 70 85 85 105 80 70 90 75 65 50 80 40 60 '45 35 65 15 30 25 60 50 I 35 15 0 5 Swings 267 80 70 56 65 35 30 15 36 37 35 55 25 45 40 10 40 40 10 40 25 35 15 5 11 10 0 1 ' — 'Seesaws 185 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A' N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 Sand Play Areas 161 65 16 46 16 25 26 11 45 16 16 16 10 16 11 11 11 11 11 10 11 10 N/A 11 11 15 N/A 6 Rocking Equipment 175 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A 5 N/A 0 5 Crawl Through Tunnel 175 85 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A' N/A N/A 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 N/A 5 25 N/A N/A' N/A 5 Merry-Go-Round 195 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 40 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ' 'Crawl Through Ring (145) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SUBTOTAL 490 + 266 262 291 225 + 236 181 221 +:228 226'.a 221. 150 201 136 1.131 151 126 136 ,120 151 145 130 136; 77: 70 15 52 TOTAL 2040 674 510 500 456 428 413 405 397 394 388 415 354 339 317 317 299 290 284 266 328 306 242 253 249 219 154 151 I , : 1 Frequency of Inspection Rating 76 58 57 52 49 61 37 37 52 55 49 58 45 48 52 49 45 43 45 49 49 40 52 52 40 43 34 52 'Hazard Points Given 732 567 552 505 489 450 442 449 449 437 473 399 387 369 366 344 333 329 315 377 346 274 305 289 262 188 203 Hazard Points Possible 1561 1386 1386 1386 1531 1386 1386 1386 11386' 1386 1561 1386 1386 1386 1386 1386 1386 1386 1386 1736 1581 1400 1561 1561 1386 1400 19211 1 I ' - ' Hazard % Rating 47% 41% 40% 36% 34% 33% 32% 32% 32% 32% 30% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 24% 23% 22% 22% 21% 20% 19% 19% 13% 11% • /0 EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION February 5, 1996 Page 5 A. Southwest Metro Transit Hub Kate Garwood and Kyle Williams were present representing Southwest Metro. Garwood reviewed the site plan and landscape plan, and stated they were present to answer any questions. Fox reviewed the staff report and noted that the project was approved by the Planning Commission on January 22, 1996. MOTION: Brown moved, Kube-Harderwijk seconded, to recommend approval of the Southwest Metro Transit Hub. Motion carried unanimously. Vl. OLD BUSINESS A. Playground Site Inventory and Recommended Improvement Plan Fox reviewed the inventory process of the playgrounds and the safety standards which have evolved over the years. He discussed the categories upon which the sites were evaluated and which arc applied to playgrounds throughout Eden Prairie. Brown inquired about the percentages and what they meant and Fox responded that they were based upon the probability of accidents that could happen at the playground and calculated from the percentage of a possible number of points assigned to specific features. Most of the sites in Eden Prairie need some upgrading in varying degrees. Kracum inquired if there was no adult supervision if the sites had to be designed to preclude any and all accidents that could happen. Fox responded that this was why signage was going to be installed to get people to use the equipment safely. Jacobson inquired why there was such a high hazard potential for Miller Park and Doug Ernst, Park and Trail Construction and Repair Supervisor, responded it was because the playground was so close to the lake and there are rocks and physical features in the area which increase the number of points. Fox reviewed the staff report and the staff recommendations for upgrading the playground facilities. Karen Powers, 14440 West Drive, inquired when Pheasant Woods Park would be done, and Lambert responded that it would be done in the late summer of 1996. If this is approved by the City Council they will invite neighborhood residents to meet with the Park Planner to determine what type of playground equipment will be installed. The project must be bid and they will write specifications to get as close to what they want as possible. The playground will be geared to younger children and not as high as the existing structure. Powers inquired what // EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION February 5, 1996 Page 6 surface is determined to be the safest, and Fox responded that wood fiber was the safest and that is what they plan to use on this playground area. Powers inquired when the volleyball courts and basketball courts would be constructed and Lambert responded that it would probably be another phase of development as the City's primary goal was to get the playground equipment upgraded. The City's funds are very limited and the amenities are constructed on an as-needed basis. Powers commented that she would come back to the Commission to request the basketball and volleyball courts later on. MOTION: Kube-Harderwijk moved, Brown seconded, to recommend approval of the following steps to be taken to bring the playground equipment in the Eden Prairie parks into compliance with the safety standards of the National Playground Safety Institute: • To make sure that the safety surfacing under each playground is in compliance with CSPC standards both for the height of the playstructure and the safety distance around each of the structures. • To have signage at each playstructurc location. The signs would indicate the need for supervision of children and would also indicate the appropriate age of the child for whom the playground/playstructure is designed. • To identify all Class A hazards that could result in severe injury. These areas would be corrected using recommendations either from the manufacturer or by removing the particular piece of equipment or portion of equipment that represents the Class A hazard. • To develop a five-year capital improvement program that includes the order and costs that would be associated with refurbishing or replacing of the playgrounds with the highest hazard ratings. • The playground equipment at Round Lake Park is budgeted for replacement in September of 1996. • Staff recommends that the playground equipment in Pheasant Woods Park also be replaced in 1996 and funds to do this be allocated from the Cash Park Fees, as it is one of the highest ranked parks and due to the high water table the existing equipment continues to heave during the spring thaw. This causes the concrete base around each structure to be pushed through the sand and create a potentially dangerous fall zone. • Staff also recommends that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and City Council authorize the necessary site design changes at Staring Lake Park playground to accommodate drainage patterns and replacing the boulder walls with a more conventional retaining wall system /a— EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION February 5, 1996 Page 7 that can be designed to meet the new playground safety standards. The design work should be completed in 1996 with the actual construction to take place in 1997. • Staff will also submit a Five-Year CIP for addressing immediate safety concerns in the overall park playground system, as well as plans for replacing the most critical equipment at Nesbitt Preserve Park, Prairie East Park and Homeward Hills Park. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Kracum left the meeting at 9:07 p.m. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Natural and Scenic Grant Program Lambert reviewed the staff report and noted this item was placed on the agenda for the Commission to review and determine whether they believed the City should apply for a grant for funds to purchase the Peterson Property. Hilgeman inquired if there would be any impact on the new grant application because the City turned back a previous grant last year. Lambert responded that technically there should not be any adverse impact. Brown inquired if the City could come up with the $150,000 needed to match the grant, and Lambert responded affirmatively, but the reallocation of funds will put the playground replacement program behind schedule. Koenig commented she did not believe a referendum to purchase natural land would pass. Jacobson inquired if this was the first time the grant amount had been increased and Lambert responded that they have varied greatly over the years and some of them were 100% grants. At the present time there is almost no federal money available for these grants. Given the rise in land costs, they asked to have the amounts increased so they would be able to purchase something substantial with the funds. MOTION:Brown moved, Koenig seconded, to direct staff to apply for the grant for Option Parcel #1. Motion carried unanimously. /3 Support toil road Unlike most of our"input"line callers,we believe a new Highway 212 should be constructed as a toll road. For the Iast three weeks,people have been voicing their attitudes about that possibility and most of those opinions have been in opposition.On the other hand, people bringing the toll road story to various organiza- tions say their message has had a better reception in those settings.Nei- ther setting, however, offers a true picture. The best picture will come from a random survey,with questions that have been designed to be neu- tral. Still,all this doesn't keep us from supporting the toll road concept.The road is needed to relieve the heavy volume of traffic on all east-west roads. And it is needed to replace a dangerous old Highway 212. One argument that seems to have been lost is that it will help expedite the movement of goods from outstate to the heart of the city. There are some recurring arguments that opponents have raised,com- ments we'd like to address. The most prominent in Chaska have been: gasoline taxes should pay for the road;let's wait a few years more;and a new 212—toll or non-toll—would divide the community. We agree, gasoline taxes should pay the cost, but they won't. They won't because on the one hand while people are calling for gasoline taxes to pick up the cost, they also oppose raising the gasoline tax or at least raising it enough to gamer the new dollars needed for this and other state road construction projects.The state, after all, is little more than able to maintain its maintenance and repair schedule. Many don't understand this. This state and nation are in a mindset that says "pay as you go or you don't get anything."Now,people who say no to education and programs for children, are unlikely to support raising more public money to build roads. • Let's wait a few years is fine unless you drive these roadways during the rush hours.Those who use east-west highways to commute to and from work,know what traffic congestion is and it is getting worse.Traf- fic counts just continue to rise. Furthermore,if there is little state and federal money today,there is no sign it will be better in a few years,or 10 or 20. Finally, there is that argument about dividing Chaska. Chaska has al- ways been divided.The only people residing in the Jonathan area of Chaska who come downtown regularly are those people who have made a com- mitment to being a part of the community.Upper Chaska takes Highway 7,5 or Pioneer Trail east.It shops in Southdale,Ridgedale and,perhaps occasionally at 7-Hi and Knollwood. Lower Chaska drives Highway 212 and shops at Eden Prairie Mall or Burnsville Center.And only by conscious choice do the twain meet. Transportation corridors have de facto already divided the community. A new Highway 212 only adds an additional east-west corridor. So, we think the toll road is a good idea. There will be some public money involved in the construction project,but the private money will be raised from investors who assess the risks involved. And, as everyone points out,no one has to use the toll road;but for every motorist who opts to use it, travelers on the already existing roadways will experience a little bit of traffic relief. —LaVonne Barac FEB 21 '96 03:21PM RMT FACILITIES P.2/2 Rosemount Measurement RosanountInc. Measurement Division 12001 Tccnnology Drive February 21, 1996 Eoen Prairie.MN 55344 USA Tel 1(612)941.5560 Fax 1(612)628-306B Dr. Jean Harris Mayor City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Dear Dr.Harris, I am writing to you to urge your support for the Proposed T.H.212 Tollway. As a major employer in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen,Rosemount will benefit greatly from improvements to the surrounding infrastructure. The new road is needed to relieve present and future congestion as well as to improve safety conditions along T.H. 5. The proposed tollway will provide improved access for our employees, customers and suppliers. Improvements to this section of highway are long overdue. With the cuts in federal and state funds it does not appear that the road can be built without the use of tolls. I understand that the environmental impact statement has been approved for this project by both state and federal agencies. In addition, more that 67% of the required right of way has been acquired for construction of T.H. 5 improvements and the new T.H. 212 in Eden Prairie. We believe that the improved roads will be paid for by those who use them. The surrounding roads would be less congested and be available as alternate routes for those who do not choose to use the proposed road. Sincerely, Steve Quist President Rosemount Measurement FISHER-R0SEMORNT From the .r, of Sever Pete h.,. <'•,` !tiU00 Fiyi :; . .;d Drive Lcien ' '7344 12) 937, • 224J96 To Whom It May Cr.mcem, I have lived all my life at the intersection of Co. Rd. 4 and Hwy. 212/169. As traffic has increased on this highway, especially the last twenty years, It has become very dangerous. We are all aware of the many fatalities on the Chanhassen /Eden Prairie stretch of the present highway 212. I believe that the number of accidents could be reduced by a reduction in the numbers of vehicles traveling this highway_ There is so much traffic on highway 212 that there is no room for any driver error. I believe that any reduction in the resent highway 212 traffic would save lives. As to the toll issue i believe the government should be paying for our roads- particularly our Interstates. However, because of the dramatic safety concern I think we must carefully consider building the new highway 212 as a toll road. In my opinion, because safety dwarfs all other issues, a new highway 212 should be built as soon as possible. After the 'ast decade of "talk" on the new highway 212 it may be time to get the project done > 'oil project. It has been pretty disappointing as a public project. I believe we must consider this new highway 212/toll proposal carefully. I wish, for all involved, wisdom 7• *his consideration. Sincerely, Sever Peterson 03427 15:10 1996 FROM: TO: 1 612 339 0486 PAGE: 2 FEB 27 '96 15: 10 FROM TO 93390981 PAGE.002,003 FEB 27 'SE 13:41 FROM TO 63375310 PAGE.802/003 diir mmoth Inc. A '343 West 82n43 Street • A Post Office Sox 9333 . • • a1,..01cW yMirnesot056318.966a Glued J.Hurst*.Resident • • Jean Harris • Mayor,CI*of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie Center . 8080 Mitchell Road . Eden Prairie.Minne 66344 . • Re:T.H.212 Highway • Dear.Mss. Hams • • As both a businessman employing over 350 people in Chaska and as a concerned citizen I think it is important that you agree to support the construction pith.Highway 212 Toll Road. As a new business.in the Chaska area I have been surprised by the large volume of traffic on Highway 6 leading from the intersection with north/south Highway 494 and its intersection with .Highway 41 in Chanhassen. Having moved our business from Plymouth to Cheeks in 1994, many of our employees commute from the northern suburbs via this route and regularly complain of the high levels of traffic both morning and night As an Eden Prairie resident I also.travei Highway 5 on a regular basis and can . attest to the large volume of traffic that is moved on that roadway everyday. 1 believe that.the construction of Highway 212 as proposed could alleviate a large percentage of the traffic that currently flows onto►'this roadway and would provide far batter access to Highway 5 from some of the major feeders such as Mitchell Road and County Road 4. It also could alleviate the heavy traffic now encountered on the surface roads such as Pioneer Trail.. However it would seem that based on the availabirtty of highway funding,both . • federal and state,that there is little hope of having any construction completed until well into the 21st century unless a form of alternative funding is found. I believe the alternative is the toll road being proposed by the 212 Community Highway Association. It provides an alternative to the currently crowded • highways in our community but does so at a cost to the.general public that is acceptable. The perception that we can continue to raise gas taxes to fund all of the required road improvements needed for the ensuing future seems highly improbable. A (612)363 2711 • A (612)361-2703 Fox 02,427 15:11 1996 FROM: TO: 1 812 339 0486 PAGE: 3 FEB 27 '96 15: 10 FROM TO 93390981 PAGE.003/003 FEB 27 '96 13:42 FROM TO G3379312 PAGE.203/203 • • • • • • The proposal also has a completion date that•puts it into service far.quicker•that . • any atternetivoe•plan of publicly ilmded road aanstruction.00uld. The speed with. which the highway could.be built under this propose!would put.it into service as the communities to the West of Eden Prairie continue to grow and before the currsnt•mads system become***over taxed as to maks commuting impossible. . t:also believe that the proposed plan of electronically metering and charging those individualsusing the road removes one of the major complaints of . • conventional toll roads,that of having to stop to pay the toll. This method . appears tohave.been tested and proven in other areas with excellent results. The elimination of the convention toll booths elevate the concerns normally expressed over the delays in getting either onto or off of the roadway. I would encourage you to endorse this proposal not only for tnefuture of Eden Prairie but for all of the communities to the South'and West of our city. • .Respecttulty Y • • • • 'dJ. H • • • • • ** TOTAL PAGE.003 ** ** TOTAL PAGE.003 ** 02/27. 15:22 1996 FROM: TO: 1 612 339 0486 PAGE: 4 e" FEB-27-96 TUE 16 - 17 P _ A4 Counci lmember 01 son introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF CHASKA RESOLUTION NO. 96-21 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED NEW TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 AS A TOLL ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Chaska ("City") is a Minnesota municipal corporation which is responsible for the public health, welfare and safety of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City is located adjacent to T.H. 212 and its residents depend upon T.H. 212 and T.H. 5 as their principal connections to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area; and WHEREAS, the City has cooperated with and supported the efforts of the cities and counties within the T.H.212 corridor and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) in efforts to obtain construction of New T.H. 212; and WHEREAS, the centerline for New T.H. 212 was first identified by MNDOT in 1967; WHEREAS, the construction limits for New T.H.212 were reserved on the comprehensive plans of Eden Prairie, Chaska, Chaska and Carver County in 1987; and WHEREAS, Carver County and the Cities of Eden Prairie, Chaska and Chaska provided financial and technical assistance to MNDOT to assist in the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for New T.H.212 from I-494 to Chaska; and WHEREAS, the New T.H.212 project has been included in numerous MNDOT construction programs that proposed construction in 1993 and previous years but the project has never been funded; and WHEREAS, the 1996-1998 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes a project that will construct one mile of the 18 mile New T.H.212 project; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota and the federal government have both ' . indicated that neither is likely in the foreseeable future (i.e., before 2015) to be able and willing to appropriate sufficient funds to enable construction of New T.H.212; and WHEREAS, it currently seems unlikely that the Minnesota Legislature or Congress will appropriate sufficient new highway funding to assure construction of New T.H.212 prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the lack of sufficient future state and federal funding, the Metropolitan Council's transportation plan for the year 2015 indicates RJ1400493 T8195-1 02127.15:19 1996 FROM: TO: 1 612 339 0486 PAGE: 2 FEB-27-96 TUE 16 : 1 -4 - 02 ▪ Because the bonds will be revenue bonds secured only by toll revenues, real property taxpayers will have no risk of incurring a tax levy to finance any deficiency in toll revenues; ▪ The bond indenture will include a covenant entitling the State of Minnesota to satisfy the remaining indebtedness under the bonds at any time, take title to the project and eliminate the duty to pay tolls; - New T.H. 212 is proposed to be a four lane, divided expressway with grade separated intersections, which will be partially or totally depressed in most locations; - Two lanes will be added to T.H. 5 between Wallace Road and I-494 (which will be useable without payment of a toll) at an earlier time than would otherwise be proposed by MNDOT; ▪ All previously existing roads crossing the proposed New T.H. 212 right of way will continue to cross New T.H. 212 (by means of grade separated crossings) after its construction; Berms, other sound abatement techniques, landscaping and other measures will be utilized to mitigate any adverse impacts of New T.H. 212 to adjacent property owners; ▪ A trustee bank will oversee disbursement of all bond revenues during construction and all toll revenues until the bonds are fully paid; ▪ The owner-operator of the tollway will be Association, a non-profit corporation (unless a joint powers agency is agreed upon to replace the following construction); and • • Construction of New T.H. 212 as a toll road will require a much smaller investment of public funds than if the project were funded solely by federal and state funds. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City supports the Interwest Proposal to finance, construct, operate and maintain New T.H.212 as a toll road provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing, City does not hereby waive its rights pursuant to Minn. Stat. 1 160.85, Subd. 3. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Dockter and upon the vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against same: &TL100483 T8195-1 3 • 02/27. 15:20 1996 FROM: TO: 1 612 339 0486 PAGE: 3 r FEB-27-96 TUE 16 : 15 P. 03 that New T.H. 212 will not be completed west of Eden Prairie Road (Hennepin County Road No. 4) prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, there Is presently heavy congestion on T.H. 5 and existing T.H. 212 for substantial periods of each day; and WHEREAS, traffic on T.H.5 at Powers Boulevard was 250%greater in 1994 than it was in 1988; and WHEREAS, existing T.H. 212 between I-494 and Chaska is subject to a number of unsafe conditions which, together with heavy traffic and heavy truck traffic, cause this segment of highway to be among the least safe highways in the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City is convinced that New T.H. 212 must be completed from I-494 to old T.H.212 west of Chaska as soon as possible and in any event before 2015; and WHEREAS, MNDOT has solicited proposals for construction and financing of new highways as toll roads; and WHEREAS, the Interwest/DLR Infrastructure Corporation ("Interwest") and 212 Community Highway Association ("Association") have submitted a proposal to MNDOT for construction of New T.H.212 as a tollway ("Interwest Proposal"); WHEREAS, Interwest and Association have requested that City endorse the Interwest Proposal as being in the best interests of the City; WHEREAS, the Interwest Proposal is the only proposal submitted to MNDOT for construction of New T.H. 212 as a tollway; WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City that New T.H. 212 be constructed as soon as possible; and WHEREAS, it is not likely that New T.H.212 will be constructed before 2015 if it is not constructed as a toll road. WHEREAS, the Interwest Proposal contemplates that: ▪ All existing routes (including, but not limited to, existing T.H. 212 and T.H. 5) will remain open and available for use without charge after construction of New T.H. 212; ▪ Due to diversion of traffic to New T.H. 212, existing T.H. 212, T.H. 5 and other alternate routes are likely to be substantially less congested if New T.H. 212 is built than if New T.H. 212 is not built; - Because New T.H. 212 will be built in 1997 under a single negotiated construction contract, it should be built at a substantial savings as compared with the cost if built over several years and pursuant to several publicly bid contracts; R1b100483 TH195-1 2 02/2715:18 1996 FROM: TO: 1 612 339 0486 PAGE: 1 FEB-27-95 TUE 16 : 13 P . 01 Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed = - • adop =d. Dated: FPhruary 26 , 1996 :yor es City Jerk Post-It Fax Note 7671 'Date Alevi b'pt� _► To 6 ( 11 Fro usa" f I V LA c° l d eln•frtd0.-1 c°. (Ca U Phone a -Phone a �t,f't'b o b�7 pi Fax k ' n sJ1 Fax I PJL100483 4 TH19'S-1 "' 02-27-1996 12:54 P.01 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA DATE Febrnury 27, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. 16-96 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Earl F. Gnan SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER Tracy D. Swanson COUNTY OF CARVER RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OP PROPOSED NEW TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 AS A TOLL ROAD WHEREAS, the County of Carver ("County") is a Minnesota govtal subdivision which is responsible for the public health, welfare and safety of its residents; and WHEREAS, the County is crossed by Trunk Highway 212 ("T.H. 212") and its residents depend upon T.H. 212 as a principal connection to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area; and WHEREAS, the County has cooperated with and supported the efforts of the cities and counties within and outside the County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) in efforts to obtain construction of new T.H. 212; and WHEREAS, the centerline for new T.H. 212 was first identified by MNDOT in 1967; WHEREAS, Carver County and the Cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska provided financial and technical assistance to MNDOT to assist in the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)for new T.H. 212 from 1-494 to Cologne; and WHEREAS, the construction limits for new T.H. 212 were reserved on the comprehensive plans of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska and Carver County in 1987; and WHEREAS, the new T.H. 212 project has been included in numerous MNDOT construction programs that proposed construction in 1993 and previous years but the project has never been funded; and WHEREAS,the 1996-1998 State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP)includes a project that will construct one mile of the 18 mile new T.H. 212 project; and WHEREAS,the State of Minnesota and the federal government have both indicated that neither is likely in the foreseeable future(i.e., before 2015)to be able and willing to appropriate sufficient funds to enable construction of new T.H. 212; and WHEREAS, it currently seems unlikely that the Minnesota Legislature or Congress will appropriate sufficient new highway funding to assure construction of new T.H. 212 prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the lack of sufficient future state and federal funding, the Metropolitan Council's transportation plan for the year 2015 indicates that new T.H. 212 should not be completed west of Eden Prairie Road (Hennepin County Road No. 4) prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, there is presently heavy congestion on T.H. 5 and existing T.H. 212 for substantial periods of each day; and WHEREAS, traffic on T.H. 5 at Powers Boulevard was 250% greater in 1994 than it was in 1988; and WHEREAS, existing T.H. 212 between I-494 and Chaska is subject to a number of unsafe conditions which, together with heavy traffic and heavy truck traffic, cause this segment of highway to be among the least safe highways in the State of Minnesota; and Post-lt"Fax Note —7571 °a�B F,1.1 24.4 3 1 e iii co.D.vt. c0•Lea VC K. egg, , Phone• Phone N BOARD OF CO1 � CARVER C(, ., . 1 1 9 inliliW aV 1 A DATE February 27, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. 16-96 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Earl F. Gain SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER D.Swam WHEREAS, the County is convinced that new T.H. 212 must be completed from I-494 to Norwood/Young America as soon as possible and in any event before 2015; and WHEREAS, MNDOT has solicited proposals for construction and financing of new highways as toll roads; and WHEREAS. the Interwest/DLR Infrastructure Corporation ("Interwest") and 212 Community Highway Association ("Association")have submitted a proposal to MNDOT for construction of new T.H. 212 as a tollway ("Interwest Proposal)); WHEREAS,Interwest and Association have requested that County endorse the Interwest Proposal as being in the best interests of the County; WHEREAS, the Interwest Proposal is the only proposal submitted to MNDOT for construction of new T.H. 212 as a toliway; WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the County that new T.H. 212 be constructed as soon as possible; and WHEREAS, it is not likely that new T.H. 212 will be constructed before 2015 if it is not constructed as a toll road. WHEREAS, the Interwest Proposal contemplates that: - All existing routes(including, but not limited to, existing T.H. 212 and T.H. 5)will remain open and available for use without charge after construction of new T.H. 212; - Due to diversion of traffic to new T,H. 212, existing T.H. 212,T.H. 5 and other alternate routes are likely to be substantially less congested if new T.H. 212 is built that if new T.H. 212 is not built; - Because new T.H. 212 will be built in 1997 under a single negotiated construction contract, it should be built at a substantial savings as compared with the coat if built over several years and pursuant to several publicly bid contracts; - Because the project will be financed by Internal Revenue Code Section 6320 tax exempt bonds, the bonds are likely to be sold for approximately 2% lower interest rate than typical revenue bonds; - Because the bonds will be revenue bonds secured only by toll revenues, real property taxpayers will have no risk of incurring a tax levy to finance any deficiency In toll revenues; - The bond indenture will include a covenant entitling the State of Minnesota to satisfy the remaining indebtedness under the bonds at any time, take title to the project and eliminate the duty to pay tolls; New T.H. 212 is proposed to be a four lane,divided expressway with grade separated intersections,which will be partially or totally depressed in most locations; - Two lanes will be added to T.H. 5 between Wallace Road and I-494(which will be useable without payment of a toll) at an earlier time than would otherwise be proposed by MNDOT; 02-27-1996 12:55 P.02 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA DATE February 27, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. 16-96 MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Bad Ft. Gun SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER They D.SWUM - All previously existing roads crossing the proposed new T.H.212 right of way will continue to cross new T.H. 212 (by means of grade separated crossings) after its construction; - Berms, other sound abatement techniques, landscaping and other measures will be utilized to mitigate any adverse impacts of new T.H. 212 to adjacent property owners; - A trustee bank will oversee disbursement of all bond revenues during construction and all toll revenues until the bonds are fully paid; - The owner-operator of the tollway will be Association, a non-profit corporation(unless a joint powers agency is agreed upon to replace the Association following construction); and - Construction of new T.H. 212 as a toll road will require a much smaller investment of public funds that if the project were funded soley by ibderal and state funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the County supports the lnterwest Proposal to finance, construct, operate and maintain new T.H. 212 as a toll road provided that, notwithstanding the foregoing,the County does not hereby waive its rights pursuant to Minn. Sat. #160.85, Subd. 3. YES ABSENT NO Earl F. Onan James Hoese. John Siegfried Tracy D. Swanson Ursula Disler STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER I, Richard J. Stolz, duly appointed and qualified County Administrator of the County of Carver, S. of Minnesota, do hereby certify ify that I have compared the foregoing copy of this resolution with the orl:inal mimes of the proccedi of the Board of County Commissioners,Carver County,Minnesota,at its session held on the 27th day - • 19' . , the Administration office, and have found the same to be a true and correct copy thereof. 411141 , Dated this 27th day of February, 1996. , 0 introduced the following resolution and aloved its adoption: CITY OF COLOGNE RESOLUTION NO. — RESOLUTICN SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OF P'3.OPOSED NEW TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 AS A TCLI, ROAD 74111:1EAS, the City of Cologne ,"C`_--") is a Minnesota municipal corporation w is S -2es-mac nsible for J c health, welfare `^ •=ty f •os ent and h _ a-__ .a. .. as _u. _ _a; 1 HI A5, :he Cit-r is located ad-:acent to T.H. 212 and Its esidents daoend uocn T.H. 212 and T.7. 3 aS :heir -on r. c1oal connections to the Ml in eauoiis-St. ?aul area; and - - the City has ccc-oerated with and su-o';cr-ec the ._f ores oI the cities and co-unties -,violin the T.H. 12 corridor and the :/Iinnesc to -C e oarTment of Transportation ;.MINDOT) in efforts to obtain construction of New T . _:. 212; and '1=2.EAS, the centerline for New T.H. 212 was by MNT,CT in 1.967; WHEREAS, the construction limits for New T.H.212 were reserved on the comprehensive plans of .den Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska and Carver County in 1987; and WHERE.- S, Career Caun T and the Cities of Eden Prairie. Chanhassen and aska provided financial and :as :a:loa assistance :o /I1T C`T -o assist in the comrBetio of �n v ron .al _ amen- -4 4 ,. -__ -- n :he r_ _ men _��ac:. .,ta� .__,._-- '=� =o� New �' •_-._12 from I `� to T:i R?-.3, the New .H. 212 project :as oeen =nciuded .__ .-..._.ercus construction)ro grar=is :hat-proposed ocnstruction_in 1993 and -^e---c,�s gears :-s: :ne has .ever been funded; and 'Y E3.E.�3, the 1998-_093 State Transportation Im-or s.::ant Program (STIP) it udes a -oro ect that will construct one mile of the 13 mil_e New T..H.212 project; and WHEREAS, the State Iinnescta and the federal government have both indicated :hat :neither is like.iv in :he _'oreseeab!e future ' .a oefor e 201 :O be "e and - i 3 - ier :d era' . r,"1Ct±O c able. to anvropr_at ct.t..;c_ _.� 'a _ s to :._.. _.._,st_ _ n :f New T.H.212; and , it currently seems unlikely that the Min_escta Leg siatur.e cr Congress w: i appropriate sufficient new highway funding to assure construc::on oL New T.H.212 prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the lack of sufficient future state and federal funding, the Metropolitan Council's transportation pian for the year 2015 indicates arL100245 Th195-1 04 that New T.H. 212 will not be completed west of Eden Prairie Road (Hennepin County Road No. 4` p_:or to 20'_� and WHEREAS, there is presently heavy congestion on T.H. 5 and existing T.H. 212 for substantial periods of each day; and WHI.EAS, traffic on T.H.3 at Powers Boulevard was 250% greater in 1994 than it was in 1988; and 'VI-IER..?AS, existing T.H. 212 between I-494 and aska is sum ect to a number oI unsafe conditions which, together with heavy traffic and heavy :_aliiC, cause this segment of llighwa-i to be among the _east safe _a g h'.vw_'3 i n the Sate of _;Iinnesota; and ;VHEREAS, the City is convinced that New .T.H. 212 -rust be completed from 1-494 to Cologne as soon as possible and in any event before 2015; and :Y': �R..AS, MNDOT has 3olici7.ec ;proposals for ttonstrucition and financing of new highways as toil 'roads; anti -V,-IE EAS, the In terwest/DLR I:if.asteructure Corporation ("I_1 erwest") and 212 Community Highway Association ("Association'') have submitted a -proposal to MNDC'': for construction of New T.H.212 as a :oilway ("Interwest Proposal") ; -N1.3ER:AS, Inter-vest and Association have requested that City endorse the Interwest Proposal as being in the best interests of the City; -YEEREAS, the T_nterwest proncsai is the only proposal submitted to MNDOT for construction of New T.H. 212 as a :oilway; -� n the 'Mere City that �2,2 be WHEREAS, it is in best interests of the ... � New T.s. _ constructed as soon as -Possible; and _ that Ne-v T ._. .vi i be constructed before 2015 if it is aot constructed aS a toll oad. Y,_E ?.lilA . the nterwest -ocsai contemplates :hat: - All existing routes ,_n ciuci ng, but not 'limited to 3_ .s�__'� _' .:i H. 212 an T._.. 3 will remain open and available for :se without charge after construction of New T.H. 2.12 sue :o iiversicn oI traffic to New `. . ._:' ex" ling T•H. 212, .H. In: other alternate routesare l eiT tobe 3Lti5 tan-__a less congested _ if New '.H. 212 is built than if New T.H. 212 is not uil t; - 3ecause New T.H. 212 will be built n 199'7 under a single negotiated construction contract, it should be built at a substantial savings as compared with the cost if built over several years and pursuant to several publicly bid contracts; - Because the project will be financed by Internal Revenue Code Section 3320 tax exempt bonds, the bonds are likely to be sold for approximately 2% lower interest rate than typical revenue bonds; :L71100245 TH195-1 2 - Because the bonds will be revenue bonds secured only by toll revenues, real property taxpayers will have no risk of incurring a tax levy to finance any deficiency in toll revenues; - The bond indenture will include a covenant entitling the State of Minnesota to satisfy the remaining indebtedness under the bonds at any time, take title to the project and eliminate the duty to pay tolls; - New T.H. 212 is proposed to be a four lane, divided expressway with grade separated intersections, which will be partially or totally depressed in most vocations; - Two lanes will be added to T .:_. 5 between -Vailace 3.oad and I-494 (which will be useable without payment of a toil) at an earlier time than would otherwise be proposed by `MINBCT; - All previously existing roads crossing the proposed New T.H. 212 right of way will continue to cross New T.':. 212 (by means of grade separated crossings) after its construction; - Berms, other sound abatement techniques, landscaping and other measures will be utilized to mitigate any adverse impacts of New T.H. 212 to adjacent property owners; - A trustee bank will oversee disbursement of ail bond revenues during construction and all toll revenues until the bonds are fully paid; - The owner-operator of the tollway will be Association, a non-profit cor^oration (unless a joint powers agency is agreed upon to replace the following construction) ; and Construction of _`iew T.H. .212 as a toil road will require a much smaller investment of public funds than if the project were funded solely by federal and state funds. NU H7. 7TC2.T, �]-± :T _"l_$'+r`.'�' '7= that the City Tye vv 1 yl �7.1. a.LJ ✓-� supports the i�it.'.r Yes i. ro-oosai to -inane construct, :perate and :ain:ain New T.H.212 as a toll road. T e motion for the adoption of the foregoing =esoiuticn was duly seconded by Member and upon the vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: � •i and the following voted against same: �1 - R.Th CO245 TH195-1 3 Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Dated: F�bRV/Wi 2C , 1996 Mayor Attest: City lrar'k PJL100245 TH195-1 4 4* <•!;!o., Fv,eS introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: COUNTY OF MCLEOD RESOLUTION NO. t 1 -�?6 C.� - CMG, RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED NEW TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 AS A TOLL ROAD WHEREAS, the County of McLeod ("County") is a Minnesota governmental subdivision which is responsible for the public health, welfare and safety of its residents; and WHEREAS, the County is crossed by Trunk Highway 212 ("T.H.212") and its residents depend upon T.H. 212 as a principal connection to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area; and WHEREAS, the County has cooperated with and supported the efforts of the cities and counties within and outside the County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) in efforts to obtain construction of New T.H. 212; and WHEREAS, the centerline for New T.H. 212 was first identified by MDOT in 1967; WHEREAS, Carver County and the Cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska provided financial and technical assistance to MNDOT to assist in the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for New T.H.212 from 1-494 to Cologne; and WHEREAS, the construction limits for New T.H.212 were reserved on the comprehensive plans of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska and Carver County in 1987; and WHEREAS, the New T.H.212 project has been included in numerous MNDOT construction programs that proposed construction in 1993 and previous years but the project has never been funded; and • WHEREAS, the 1996-1998 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes a project that will construct one mile of the 18 mile New T.H.212 project; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota and the federal government have both indicated that neither is likely in the foreseeable future (i.e., before 2015) to be able and willing to appropriate sufficient funds to enable construction of New T.H.212; and WHEREAS, it currently seems unlikely that the Minnesota Legislature or Congress will appropriate sufficient new highway funding to assure construction of New T.H.212 prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, In recognition of the lack of sufficient future state and federal funding, the Metropolitan Council's transportation plan for the year 2015 indicates RJLice246 .95-1 that New T.H. 212 should not be completed west of Eden Prairie Road (Hennepin County Road No. 4) prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, there is presently heavy congestion on T.13. 5 and existing T.H. 212 for substantial periods of each day; and WHEREAS, traffic on T.11.5 at Powers Boulevard was 250%greater in 1994 than it was in 1988; and WHEREAS, existing T.H. 212 between 1-494 and Chaska is subject to a number of unsafe conditions which, together with heavy traffic and heavy truck traffic, cause this segment of highway to be among the least safe highways in the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the County is convinced that New T.11. 212 must be completed from 1-494 to Cologne as soon as possible and in any event before 2015; and WHEREAS, MNDOT has solicited proposals for construction and financing of new highways as toll roads; and WHEREAS, the Interwest/DLR Infrastructure Corporation ("Interwest") and 212 Community Highway Association ("Association") have submitted a proposal to MNDOT for construction of New T.H.212 as a tollway ("Lnterwest Proposal"); WHEREAS, Interwest and Association have requested that County endorse the Interwest Proposal as being in the best interests of the County; WHEREAS, the Interwest Proposal is the only proposal submitted to MNDOT for construction of New T.H. 212 as a tollway; WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the County that New T.H. 212 be constructed as soon as possible; and WHEREAS, it is not likely that New T.I1.212 will be constructed before 2015 if it is not constructed as a toll road. • All existing routes (including, but not limited to, existing T.H. 212 and T.H. 5) will remain open and available for use without charge after construction of New T.H. 212; - Due to diversion of traffic to New T.H. 212, existing T.H. 212, T.H. 5 and other alternate routes are likely to be substantially less congested if New T.H. 212 is built than if New T.H. 212 is not built; - Because New T.H. 212 will be built in 1997 under a single negotiated construction contract, it should be built at a substantial savings as compared with the cost if built over several years and pursuant to several publicly bid contracts; - Because the project will be financed by Internal Revenue Code Section 6320 tax exempt bonds, the bonds are likely to be sold for approximately 2% lower interest rate than typical revenue bonds; L L10024i 12295-1 2 • Because the bonds will be revenue bonds secured only by toll revenues, real property taxpayers will have no risk of incurring a tax levy to finance any deficiency in toll revenues; • The bond indenture will include a covenant entitling the State of l4finnesota to satisfy the reaimning indebtedness under the bonds at any time, take title to the project and eliminate the duty to pay tolls; ▪ New T.H. 212 is proposed to be a four lane, divided expressway with grade separated intersections, which will be partially or totally depressed in most locations; • Two lanes will be added to T.H. 5 between Wallace Road and I-494 (which will be useable without payment of a toll) at an earlier time than would otherwise be proposed by MNDOT; • All previously existing roads crossing the proposed New T.H. 212 right of way will continue to cross New T.H. 212 (by means of grade separated crossings) after its construction; • Berms, other sound abatement techniques, landscaping and other measures will be utilized to mitigate any adverse impacts of New T.H. 212 to adjacent property owners; - A trustee bank will oversee disbursement of all bond revenues during construction and all toll revenues until the bonds are fully paid; - The owner-operator of the tollway will be Association, a non-profit corporation (unless a joint powers agency is agreed upon to replace the Association following construction); and • Construction of new T.H. 212 as a toll road will require a much smaller investment of public funds than if the project were funded solely by federal and state funds. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County supports the Interwest Proposal to finance, construct, operate and maintain New T.H.212 as a tollroad The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member tier /r1 rem and upon being taken thereon, the following voted in favor the . /1.040r /V, ci • and the following voted against same: 14.71.100246 1$195-1 3 • Where upon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Dated: Feb. 2-0 , 1996 Cyr, oard of Comffissioners 7 .. C Attest: County ' trator 1=100246� 4 19s-1 I f t 3 V .•J I1 v S O• :O• 7 1 FROM : CITY OF GLENCOE PHONE NO. : 612 864 6405 PO2 • Councilman Bul1ert introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF GLENCOE RESOLUTION NO. 1996-0 7 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED NEW TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 AS A TOLL ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Glencoe ("City") is a Minnesota municipal corporation which is responsible for the public health, welfare and safety of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City is located adjacent to T.H. 212 and its residents depend upon T.H. 212 and T.H. 5 as their principal connections to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area; and WHEREAS,the City has cooperated with and supported the efforts of the cities and counties within the T.H.212 corridor and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) in efforts to obtain construction of New T.H. 212; and WHEREAS, the centerline for New T.H. 212 was first identified by MNDOT in 1987; WHEREAS, the construction limits for New T.H.212 were reserved on the comprehensive plans of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska and Carver County in 1987; and WHEREAS, Carver County and the Cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska provided financial and technical assistance to MNDOT to assist in the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for New T.H.212 from I-494 to Cologne; and WHEREAS, the New T.H.212 project has bean included in numerous MNDOT construction programs that proposed construction in 1993 and previous years but the project has never been funded; and WHEREAS, the 1998-1998 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes a project that will construct one mile of the 18 mile New T.H.212 project; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota and the federal government have both indicated that neither is likely in the foreseeable future (i.e., before 2015) to be able and willing to appropriate sufficient funds to enable construction of New T.H.212; and WHEREAS, it currently seems unlikely that the Minnesota Legislature or Congress will appropriate sufficient new highway funding to assure construction of New T P.H.212 prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the lack of sufficient future state and federal funding, the Metropolitan Council's transportation plan for the year 2015 indicates W1.100244 11t193-1 - FAJM : CITY OF GLENCOE PHONE NO. : 612 864 6405 P03 that New T.H. 212 will not be completed west of Eden Prairie Road (Hennepin County Road No. 4) prior to 2015; and WIiEREAS, there is presently heavy congestion on T.H. 5 and existing T.H. 212 for substantial periods of each day; and WHEREAS, traffic on T.H.5 at Powers Boulevard was 250%greater in 1994 than it was in 1988; and WHEREAS, existing T.H. 212 between I-494 and Chaska is subject to a number of unsafe conditions which, together with heavy traffic and heavy truck traffic, cause this segment of highway to be among the least safe highways in the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City is convinced that New T.H. 212 must be completed from I-494 to Cologne as soon as possible and in any event before 2015; and WHEREAS, MnDOT has solicited proposals for construction and financing of new highways as toll roads; and WHEREAS, the Interwest/DLR Infrastructure Corporation ("interwest") and 212 Community Highway Association ("Association") have submitted a proposal to MNDOT for construction of New T.H.212 as a tollway ("Interwest Proposal"); WHEREAS, Interwest and Association have requested that City endorse the Interwest Proposal as being in the best interests of the City; WHEREAS, the Interwest Proposal is the only proposal submitted to MNDOT for construction of New T.H. 212 as a tollway; WHEREAS) It is in the best interests of the City that New T.H. 212 be constructed as soon as possible; and WHEREAS, it is not likely that New T.H.212 will be constructed before 2015 if it is not constructed as a toll road. WHEREAS, the Interwest Proposal contemplates that: ▪ All existing routes (including, but not limited to, existing T.H. 212 and T.H. 5) will remain open and available for use without charge after construction of New T.H. 212; - Due to diversion of traffic to New T.H. 212, existing T.H. 212, T.H. 5 and other alternate routes are likely to be substantially less congested If New T.H. 212 is built than if New T.H. 212 is not built; ▪ Because New T.H. 212 will be built in 1997 under a single negotiated construction contract, it should be built at a substantial savings as compared with the cost if built over several years and pursuant to several publicly bid contracts; - Because the project will be financed by Internal Revenue Code Section 8320 tax exempt bonds, the bonds are likely to be sold for approximately 2% lower interest rate than typical revenue bonds; L7Ltoou4 '15195-1 2 FROM : CITY OF GLENCOE PHONE NO. 612 864 6405 PO4 • - Because the bonds will be revenue bonds secured only by toll revenues, real property taxpayers will have no risk of incurring a tax levy to finance any deficiency in toll revenues; ▪ The bond indenture will include a covenant entitling the State of Minnesota to satisfy the remaining indebtedness under the bonds at any time, take title to the project and eliminate the duty to pay tolls; ▪ New T.H. 212 is proposed to be a four lane, divided expressway with grade separated intersections, which will be partially or totally depressed in most locations; ▪ Two lanes will be added to T.H. 5 between Wallace Road and I-494 (which will be useable without payment of a toll) at an earlier time than would otherwise be proposed by MNBOT; - All previously existing roads crossing the proposed New T.H. 212 right of way will, continue to cross New T.H. 212 (by means of grade separated crossings) after its construction; - Berms, other mound abatement techniques, landscaping and other measures will be utilized to mitigate any adverse impacts of New T.E. 212 to adjacent property owners; • A trustee bank will oversee disbursement of all bond revenues during construction and all toll revenues until the bonds are fully paid; - The owner-operator of the tollway will be Association, a non-profit Corporation (unless a joint powers agency is agreed upon to replace the Association following construction); and - Construction of new T.H. 212 as a toll road will require a much smaller investment of public funds than if the project were funded solely by federal and state funds. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,• that the City supports the Interweet Proposal to finance, construct, operate and maintain New T.11.212 as a toll road. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Nelson and upon the vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bullert, Ne] son, Shamla, Roberts, Ballard and the following voted against same: None 5JL100244 TIl199-i 3 rr FROM CITY OF GLENCOE PHONE NO. : 612 864 6405 P05 Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Dated: February 20 , 1996 Curt Rutske ,. Mayor Mark D. Larson Attest: City Clerk 167L100241 4 V11195-1 freb-23-96 03:56P City of Young America 612-467-2645 P.02 Councilmember Durbin introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF YOUNG AMERICA RESOLUTION NO. 1996 - 15 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED NEW TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 AS A TOLL ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Young America ("City") is a Minnesota municipal corporation which is responsible for the public health, welfare and safety of its residents; and WHEREAS,the City is located adjacent to T.H. 212 and its residents depend upon T.H. 212 and T.H. 5 as their principal connections to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area; and WHEREAS, the City has cooperated with and supported the efforts of the cities and counties within the T.H.212 corridor and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) in efforts to obtain constructio of New T.H. 212; and WHEREAS,the centerline for New T.H. 212 was first identified by MNDOT in 1967; • WHEREAS, the construction limits for New T.H.212 were reserved on the comprehensive plans of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska and Carver County in 1987; and WHEREAS, Carver County and the Cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska provided financial and technical assistance to MNDOT to assist in the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for New T.H.212 from I-494 to Cologne; and • PJc100242 TH195-1 F'b-23-96 03:56P City of Young America 612-467-2645 P_03 WHEREAS, the New T.H.212 project has been included in numerous MNDOT construction programs that proposed construction in 1993 and previous years but the project has never been funded; and WHEREAS,the 1996-1998 State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP) includes a project that will construct one mile of the 18 mile New T.H.212 project; and WHEREAS,the State of Minnesota and the federal government have both indicated that neither is likely in the foreseeable future (i.e., before 2015)to be able and willing to appropriate sufficient funds to enable construction of New T.H.212; and WHEREAS, it currently seems unlikely that the Minnesota Legislature or Congress will appropriate sufficient new highway funding to assure construction of New T.H.212 prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the lack of sufficient future state and federal funding, the Metropolitan Council's transportation plan for the year 2015 indicates that New T.H. 212 will not be completed west of Eden Prairie Road (Hennepin County Road No. 4) prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, there is presently heavy congestion on T.H. 5 and existing T.H. 212 for substantial periods of each day; and WHEREAS,traffic on T.H.5 at Powers Boulevard was 250% greater in 1994 than it was in 1988; and RJL100242 TR195-1 2 Feb-23-96 03:56P City of Young America 612-467-2645 P.04 WHEREAS, existing T.H. 212 between 1-494 and Chaska is subject to a number of unsafe conditions which, together with heavy traffic and heavy truck traffic,cause this segment of highway to be among the least safe highways in the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City is convinced that New T.H. 212 must be completed from I-494 to Cologne as soon as possible and in any event before 2015; and WHEREAS, MNDOT has solicited proposals for construction and financing of new highways as toll roads; and WHEREAS, the Interwest/DLR Infrastructure Corporation ("Interwest") and 212 Community Highway Association ("Association") have submitted a proposal to MNDOT for construction of New T.H.212 as a tollway ("Interwest Proposal"); WHEREAS, Interwest and Association have requested that City endorse the Interwest Proposal as being in the best interests of the City; WHEREAS, the Interwest Proposal is the only proposal submitted to MNDOT for construction of New T.H. 212 as a tollway; WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City that New T.H. 212 be constructed as soon as possible; and • RJL100242 TH195-1 3 • Feb-23-96 03:57P City of Young America 612-467-2645 P.05 • WHEREAS,it is not likely that New T.H.212 will be constructed before 2015 if it is not constructed as a toll road; and WHEREAS, a trustee bank will oversee disbursement of all bond revenues during construction and all toll revenues until the bonds are fully paid; and WHEREAS, construction of New T.H. 212 as a toll road will require a much smaller investment of public funds than if the project were funded solely by federal and state funds. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City supports the Interwest Proposal to finance, construct, operate and maintain New T.H.212 as a tollroad. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Noll and upon the vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Stephen Udell, Robert Saarloos, Robert Durbin, John Noll. Kathy Green and the following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Dated: February 22 , 1996 IWO •ayor I • ttes . City Clerk RJL100242 TH195-1 4 FEB-26-96 MON 09 :34 AM NORWOOD 612 467 3773 P. 02 LaVonne Kroells introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF NORWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 1996-04 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED NEW TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 AS A TOLL ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Norwood ("City") is a Minnesota municipal corporation which is responsible for the public health, welfare and safety of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City is located adjacent to T.11. 212 and its residents depend upon T.H. 212 and T.H. 5 as their principal connections to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area; and • WHEREAS, the City has cooperated with and supported the efforts of the cities and counties within the T.H.212 corridor and the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MNDOT) in the effort to obtain construction of New T.H. 212; and WHEREAS, the centerline for New T.H. 212 was first identified by MNDOT in 1967; WHEREAS, the construction limits for New T.H.212 were reserved on the comprehensive plans of Edcn Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska and Carver County in 1987; and WHEREAS, Carver County and the Cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska provided financial and technical assistance to MNDOT to assist in the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for New T.H.212 from 1-494 to Cologne; and W1.100241 TH195.1 FEB-26-96 MON 09 :34 AM NORWOOD 612 467 3773 P. 03 • WHEREAS, substantial public investments have been made in the proposal to construct New T.H. 212 through planning,design.acquisition of right of way and relocation of persons and businesses displaced from the project area; and WHEREAS, the New T.H.212 project has been included in numerous MNDOT construction programs that proposed construction in 1993 and previous years but the project has never been funded; and WHEREAS,the 1996-1998 State Transportation Improvement Program(STIP) includes a project that will construct one mile of the 18 mile New T.H.212 project; and WHEREAS,the State of Minnesota and the federal government have both indicated that neither is likely in the foreseeable future (i.e.,before 2015) to be able and willing to appropriate sufficient funds to enable construction of New T.H.212; and WHEREAS, it currently seems unlikely that the Minnesota Legislature or Congress will appropriate sufficient new highway funding to assure construction of New T.H.212 prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the lack of sufficient future state and federal funding, the Metropolitan Council's transportation plan for the year 2015 indicates that New T.H. 212 will not be completed west of Eden Prairie Road (Hennepin County Road No. 4)prior to 2015; and • P34100241 1N195.1 2 612 467 3773 P.04 FEB-26-96 MON 09 :35 AM NORWOOD WHEREAS, there is presently heavy congestion on T.H. 5 and existing T.H. 212 for substantial periods of each day; and WHEREAS,traffic on T.H.5 at Powers Boulevard was 250% greater in 1994 than it was in 1988; and WHEREAS, existing T.H. 212 between 1-494 and Chaska is subject to a number of unsafe conditions which, together with heavy traffic and heavy truck traffic,cause this segment of highway to be among the least safe highways in the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS,the City is convinced that New T.H. 212 must be completed from 1-494 to Cologne as soon as possible and in any event before 2015; and WHEREAS, MNDOT has solicited proposals for construction and financing of new highways as toll roads; and WHEREAS, the Interwcst/DLR Infrastructure Corporation ("Interwest") and 212 Community Highway Association ("Association") have submitted a proposal to MNDOT for construction of New T.H.212 as a tollway ("Interwest Proposal"); WHEREAS, Interwest and Association have requested that City endorse the Interwest Proposal as being in the best interests of the City; RJLt00241 7111'6•I 3 FEB-26-96 MON 09 :35 AM NORWOOD 612 467 3773 P. 05 WHEREAS, it is not likely that New T.H.212 will be constructed before 2015 if it is not constructed as a toll road; and WHEREAS. a trustee bank will oversee disbursement of all bond revenues during construction and all toll revenues until the bonds are fully paid; and WHEREAS. construction of New T.H. 212 as a toll road will require a much smaller investment of public funds than if the project were funded solely by federal and state funds. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City supports the Interwest Proposal to finance,construct, operate and maintain New T.H.212 as a tollroad. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Dorothy Bohnen and upon the vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Gene Miller Jr. , Mayor LaVonne Kroells Dorothy Bohnen Mike McFadden Tim Irvin and the following voted against same: None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Dated: 2/22/96 , 1996 /s/Gene Miller Jr. Mayor • Attest: C'fEy Clerk IJ6100242 TH195-1 4 C A P A U L introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF OLIVIA RESOLUTION NO. 9 6-8 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED NEW TRUNK HIGHWAY 212 AS A TOLL ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Olivia ("City) is a Minnesota municipal corporation which is responsible for the public health, welfare and safety of its residents; and WHEREAS, the City is located adjacent to T.H.212 and its residents depend upon T.H. 5 and T.H. 212 as their principal connections to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area; and WHEREAS, the City has cooperated with and supported the efforts of the cities and counties within the T.H.212 corridor and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) in efforts to obtain construction of New T.H. 212; and. WHEREAS, the centerline for New T.H. 212 was first identified by MNDOT in 1967; WHEREAS, the construction limits for New T.H.212 were reserved on the comprehensive plans of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska and Carver County in 1987; and WHEREAS, Carver County and the Cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska provided financial and technical assistance to MNDOT to assist in the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for New T.H.212 from I-494 to Cologne; and WHEREAS, the New T.H.212 project has been included in numerous MNDOT construction programs that proposed construction in 1993 and previous years but the project has never been funded; and WHEREAS, the 1996-1998 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes a project that will construct one mile of the 18 mile New T.H.212 project; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota and the federal government have both indicated that neither is likely in the foreseeable future (i.e. , before 2015) to be able and willing to appropriate sufficient funds to enable construction of New T.H.212; and WHEREAS, it currently seems unlikely that the Minnesota Legislature or Congress will appropriate sufficient new highway funding to assure construction of New T.H.212 prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the lack of sufficient future state and federal funding, the Metropolitan Council's transportation plan for the year 2015 indicates RJI.100677 TH195-1 • that New T.H. 212 will not be completed west of Eden Prairie Road (Hennepin County Road No. 4) prior to 2015; and WHEREAS, there is presently heavy congestion on T.H. 5 and existing T.H. 212 for substantial periods of each day; and WHEREAS, traffic on T.H.5 at Powers Boulevard was 250% greater in 1994 than it was in 1988; and WHEREAS, existing T.H. 212 between I-494 and Chaska is subject to a number of unsafe conditions which, together with heavy traffic and heavy truck traffic, cause this segment of highway to be among the least safe highways in the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City is convinced that New T.H. 212 must be completed from I-494 to Cologne as soon as possible and in any event before 2015; and WHEREAS, MNDOT has solicited proposals for construction and financing of new highways as toll roads; and WHEREAS, the Interwest/DLR Infrastructure Corporation ("Interwest") and 212 Community Highway Association ("Association") have submitted a proposal to MNDOT for construction of New T.H.212 as a tollway ("Interwest Proposal"); WHEREAS, Interwest and Association have requested that City endorse the Interwest Proposal as being in the best interests of the City; WHEREAS, the Interwest Proposal is the only proposal submitted to MNDOT for construction of New T.H. 212 as a tollway; WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the City that New T.H. 212 be constructed as soon as possible; and WHEREAS, it is not likely that New T.H.212 will be constructed before 2015 if it is not constructed as a toll road. WHEREAS, the Interwest Proposal contemplates that: ▪ All existing routes (including, but not limited to, existing T.H. 212 and T.H. 5) will remain open and available for use without charge after construction of New T.H. 212; ▪ Due to diversion of traffic to New T.H. 212, existing T.H. 212, T.H. 5 and other alternate routes are likely to be substantially less congested if New T.H. 212 is built than if New T.H. 212 is not built; ▪ Because New T.H. 212 will be built in 1997 under a single negotiated construction contract, it should be built at a substantial savings as compared with the cost if built over several years and pursuant to several publicly bid contracts; ▪ Because the project will be financed by Internal Revenue Code Section 6320 tax exempt bonds, the bonds are likely to be sold for approximately 2% lower interest rate than typical revenue bonds; RJL100677 TH195-1 2 Because the bonds will be revenue bonds secured only by toll revenues, real property taxpayers will have no risk of incurring a tax levy to finance any deficiency in toll revenues; ▪ The bond indenture will include a covenant entitling the State of Minnesota to satisfy the remaining indebtedness under the bonds at any time, take title to the project and eliminate the duty to pay tolls; ▪ New T.H. 212 is proposed to be a four lane, divided expressway with grade separated intersections, which will be partially or totally depressed in most locations; ▪ Two lanes will be added to T.H. 5 between Wallace Road and I-494 (which will be useable without payment of a toll) at an earlier time than would otherwise be proposed by MDOT; ▪ All previously existing roads crossing the proposed New T.H. 212 right of way will continue to cross New T.H. 212 (by means of grade separated crossings) after its construction; ▪ Berms, other sound abatement techniques, landscaping and other measures will be utilized to mitigate any adverse impacts of New T.H. 212 to adjacent property owners; - A trustee bank will oversee disbursement of all bond revenues during construction and all toll revenues until the bonds are fully paid; ▪ The owner-operator of the tollway will be Association, a non-profit corporation (unless a joint powers agency is agreed upon to replace the Association following construction); and ▪ Construction of New T.H. 212 as a toll road will require a much smaller investment of public funds than if the project were funded solely by federal and state funds. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City supports the Interwest Proposal to finance, construct, operate and maintain New T.H.212 as a tollroad. The motion I for E the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member and upon the vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Saeger , Kohout , Bailey , Capaul , Miller and the following voted against same: None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RJL100677 TH195-1 3 Dated: - ' y o , 1996 Mayor Attest: City Cle RJL100677 TH195-1 4 Benefits of the Proposed New 212 Community Highway Essential New Highway Capacity - The Southwest metro area is the fastest growing area in the state, and has been expanding for over two decades. Existing Highways 212 and 5 will reach "system failure" -- gridlock conditions -- within ten years with even modest growth. Substantial new highway capacity is essential in order to keep a significant portion of the metro highway system from becoming non-functional. A Strictly Voluntary Choice Since Only The New Highway Has A Toll - The proposed New 212 Community Highway provides Southwest metro residents with a true transportation choice. Every highway and cross street operating in the region today will operate without any toll at all. Only the new additional capacity built with private financing will have a toll. With all the current routes as toll-free options, only those who see a personal benefit will choose to pay the toll. Even Non-Users Will Benefit - Even though use of the New 212 Community Highway will be strictly optional, area residents who choose never to pay the toll will also benefit. With an estimated 27,200 vehicle trips per day on the busiest segments of the new highway, users of Highways 212 and 5 will see substantial relief in traffic congestion on the toll-free roads they continue to use. With MnDOT's projections for traffic increases of 30% over the next 10 years, existing roadways will not fail as they would without this essential relief capacity. Community-Sensitive Financing& Operations - The New 212 Community Highway is proposed as a community non-profit project, making it eligible for tax-exempt bond financing at the lowest available interest rates. Because the community is paying the toll, this approach gives the community the greatest control of the facility and its operation. Private developers are paid a fee to complete the project and see that it is working properly. Then the 212 Community Association supervises the professional team that operates the facility. There will be no long-term cash flow to the developers, no pay to the non-profit board and no requirement for high rates of return on investment. The non- profit approach, with lower interest rates and minimal obligations to developers, will keep tolls low and assure that area residents pay no more than necessary to support this project. State of the Art Toll Technology - New electronic toll technology assures that most users will never stop at a toll plaza. Regular users will travel at highway speeds through the entire corridor and be billed through a credit card or similar account. Old ideas about toll roads -- especially fears of delays at coin toll plazas -- will not be applicable on the New 212 Community Highway. Proves Private Financing Feasible For State's Most Critical Highway Needs - Minnesota's highway funding needs are critical and adequate funding for significant new highway construction does not seem to be a realistic option in the foreseeable future. Even modest gas tax increases to keep up with maintenance have not been possible since 1988. Minnesota needs a workable alternative to meet the demands of a growing economy and to maintain economic vitality for the future. The state needs a project supported by communities, one that can be financed and built-- and can pay for itself-- to create a real alternative in the mix of transportation funding solutions for the future. Many Southwest metro residents already endorse the immediate need for a New 212 Community Highway, and few would deny the need will be even more critical within the decade. Improves Public Safety - Southwest metro residents face dangerous traffic congestion -- mixing commuter passenger cars and commercial grain and freight trucks -- in a narrow winding corridor on old 212 with little margin for error. With the growth projected in the region, public safety will be threatened even further. The New 212 Community Highway not only provides a 50% increase in regional highway capacity designed to freeway standards, it also eases some of the dangerous congestion and reduces the safety hazard for vehicles operating elsewhere on the system. 212 Community Highway Enjoys Very Strong Community Support - Southwest metro communities... from Eden Prairie to Glencoe and beyond ... have a long history of advocacy for new highway capacity in their communities. Generation after generation of community leaders in the areas have taken up the cause and worked hard to get a new Highway 212 built. Polling conducted by a Ph.D. in Mass Communications at the University of Minnesota School of Journalism, shows that when residents in the area are faced with the prospect of doing without new highways or building needed new highways with tolls, more than two-thirds support building needed new highways with tolls. Utilizes State's Existing Investment - Recognizing the unquestionable need for new highway capacity in the Southwest Corridor, MnDOT has invested millions in environmental studies, engineering and design, right of way acquisition and other costs to develop a new Highway 212. These taxpayer investments are sitting idle, without additional state funds needed to make the highway a reality. Private investment funding, and the use of tolls to pay for it, will make use of those assets and investments as intended by taxpayers. And eventually, taxpayers will be repaid for those investments from the toll payments made voluntarily by those who see a personal benefit to using the road. Accelerating Planned Improvements Insures Funds Earmarked For the Southwest Region Will Not Be Reallocated - Some of the limited construction resources MnDOT now has available have been dedicated to improving the interchange of Highway 5 and 494. Over the next six years MnDOT plans and funding are also in place to improve the next few miles west on Highway 5 to Wallace Road. The New 212 Community Highway proposal suggests using those funds that are already earmarked and committing them to paying for accelerated construction of those segments on the same timetable as the entire project -- with completion by January 1, 2000. Improvements financed from state funds already earmarked for the route would remain without any toll, but the new roads would be in place many years earlier than is possible under traditional MnDOT funding capabilities. 40095_1.DOC - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works • DATE: February 23, 1996 SUBJECT: Town Meeting Toll Roads for TH212 and I-494 Staff members have met to discuss the viability of the two toll road proposals that affect Eden Prairie. Clearly, the City Council is under no obligation to "declare a position" at this stage. The rules surrounding the toll road proposals appear to allow the City of Eden Prairie to veto either of the projects any time until a contract for the construction of the toll roads would be signed by MnDOT and the developers. It appears that point would be reached in approximately November, 1996. Therefore, at this stage,the proponents would welcome your insight on the proposals, but do not expect a final decision. A recommended strategy for each proposal follows: TH212 TOLL ROAD PROPOSAL The City of Eden Prairie could support a toll road facility that addresses the following: • MnDOT needs to ensure that the technology for a TH212 toll road would be compatible with other toll road technology that may occur in the future. Particularly, if several toll roads are constructed in the metro area, the ability to use one transponder on all of the facilities would be highly desirable, if not mandatory. • Although proposed, it is paramount that toll-free access at Wallace Road, Mitchell Road and Prairie Center Drive be preserved in any toll road agreement. • TH212 would be much more successful if some type of priority access to I-494 were granted. In fact, we may wish to explore the possibility of an approval conditioned upon MnDOT agreeing to rebuild the TH212/I-494 interchange in conformance with the I-494 approved layout plan. It would be premature to make this an ultimatum at this time, but at the very least having MnDOT prioritize this interchange in their capital program would be highly desirable. • Prior to any agreement being executed, a satisfactory understanding of metering conditions at free access points should be determined. In other words, metering should be regulated to balance access to the system without trying to force trips onto the toll road facility at the expense of congestion on City roadways. • There should be a clause in a toll road agreement that specifically states that a change in transportation funding that could have allowed TH212 to be built as a free road, MnDOT would be required to pay off the debt and return the project to free status. • Finally, the possibility of an impact or franchise fee on the toll road should be explored. The specific purpose of such a fee would be to generate a funding source to provide upgrades to other roadways that would be impacted to a higher level due to this particular road being built as a toll road. In other words, everyone agrees that fewer vehicles will use TH212 as a toll road compared to a free road —therefore, more vehicles will travel alternate routes, which will require additional improvements beyond the free road scenario. The points noted above should be viewed as a potential starting point for negotiation, if the project proceeds. Staff believes that the funding picture for traditional financing of roadways is very bleak and the likelihood of a "free" TH212 in the next ten years is very small. The one compelling argument in favor of the toll road is that it would relieve congestion on parallel routes without requiring our residents to use the toll road. The degree of relief will always be debated, but we do know that the 1994 traffic volumes on TH5 between Eden Prairie Road and Mitchell Road are at 46,000 trips per day. The traffic projections from the TH212 Environmental Impact Statement for the year 2010 under the "no-build alternative" was 46,400 trips per day (level of service F). The hard reality is that the projected volumes exist 14 years early. It is our understanding that building permits in Carver County have exceeded the pace in Eden Prairie in 1995 and the prognosis is that volumes will increase. When the corridor for TH212 was approved by the City of Eden Prairie, very little development was in place west of CSAH 4. At the town meeting, it is likely that people may object to TH212 in any manner of financing scheme. You may wish to ascertain that aspect from those that would argue against the facility. In the past few weeks, there have been articles in the Eden Prairie News that would suggest the only need is to convert TH5 to a limited access facility. First of all, over a forty-year period we have studied the need for TH212 and the record is clear. Secondly, the impact to the community would be significant—both from a loss of tax base as well as the ability to use TH5 as a community roadway. For example, an interchange at CSAH 4/TH5 would most likely require the removal of all of the commercial property at the intersection. The alternative would be no access, which would be devastating to our transportation system. In the final analysis, we could solve our transportation needs on our existing system if no additional growth were to occur. However, that is simply not the case and the City of Eden Prairie has no ability to alter that fact. I-494 TOLL ROAD PROPOSAL A toll road facility (although not the specific proposal before us) could be acceptable on I-494, but with the following conditions being required: • Unlike TH212, an I-494 toll road is not a stand-alone project. It is imperative that MnDOT would take a lead position in a toll road system that would develop a master plan for uniform tolls on the I-494/1-694 beltway as well as other principle arterials in the metropolitan system. For example, one scenario might be that the identical technology currently proposed would be implemented at strategic locations on the I-494/1-694 beltway;strategic points on Crosstown Expressway;at each point that I-94 enters the beltway; at each point TH169, I-35E, I-35W, enter/leave the beltway system; etc. The result could be approximately 20 strategically located high-speed tolling locations. With a $.25 toll and an average 90,000 vehicles per day at each tolling point, the system could gross $160,000,000 annually. If the Legislature's decision is to finance the transportation system in the metropolitan area through tolls, a uniform application could generate money to develop and finance the system into the future. In reality, by manipulating the tolls during peak hours, a demand management system would be in place that could reduce the ultimate facility needs. The end result would be that most people would pay a small toll compared to the few that would be subjected to high tolls under the current limited proposal. • If tolling is the funding mechanism for our transportation system, a uniform technology would be necessary. • Only one agency — most likely MnDOT — could administer an equitable tolling system in the metropolitan area. The current limited proposal estimates that peak hour toll rates might be$1.50, each way. If done by segment, the next segment of toll road to the east of the current proposal is much more expensive and might cost twice as much. Again, the primary point to be made is that a coordinated master plan is clearly required — IF TOLL ROADS ARE TO BE THE PRIMARY FINANCIAL TOOL TO UPGRADE OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. Without a "big picture approach" the current proposal should not be supported. Eden Prairie City Council Public Meeting February 27, 1996 Contents of Background Information Packet (Items listed in order presented in folder) • New 212 Community Highway Project Benefit Summary • Chaska Herald Editorial In Support-- La Vonne Barac (2/22/96) • Letter of Support-- Rosemount Measurement, Steve Quist, President • Letter of Support-- Sever Peterson • Letter of Support-- Mammoth Inc., David Huntley • Resolution of Support-- City of Chaska • Resolution of Support -- Carver County • Resolution of Support-- City of Cologne • Resolution of Support-- McLeod County • Resolution of Support -- City of Glencoe • Resolution of Support -- City of Young America • Resolution of Support-- City of Norwood • Resolution of Support-- City of Olivia • Booklet of Questions & Answers About The Project 40985 AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TOLL ROAD TOWN MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1996 7:30 PM, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. and Nancy Tyra- Lukens CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, City Engineer Al Gray and Council Recorder ROLL CALL I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. T.H. 212 TOLL ROAD PROPOSAL A. Presentation B. Comments from the Public M. I-494 TOLL ROAD PROPOSAL A. Presentation B. Comments from the Public IV. OTHER BUSINESS V. ADJOURNMENT 1994-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CITY OTHER FUNDS 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 ' ACQUISITION - Lake Riley Park $288,050 $213,050 75,000 Riley Creek Wood Cons Area 64,040 *820,880 *284,920 *600,000 Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area 1,669,000 ****50,000 4,700 500,000 206,000 345,000 332,900 171,100 159,300 Prairie Bluff Cons Area 49,400 *1,129,120 49,400 *1,129,120 Purgatory Creek Rec Area **50,000 **50,000 Staring Lake Park 306,300 159,300 147,000 1 Crestwood Park 81,600 40,800 40,800 Cedar Forest Park 250,000 r Duck Lake - Karasek 5,990 5,990 Rice Marsh Lake 9,000 9,000 Smetana Lake Park 50,000 ti 50,000 Riley Creek Linear Park 50,000 50,000 345 000 ;:: 0 _ .. _ . ; 0 0 256 EX3b � 332 90 1 100 Us TOTAL � 823 350.. ......._ �2049 12 5�767 160 ;>$2 49'€ 92 � . ;.... _ .. ? 415'9'30tJ is PARK DEVELOPMENT Community Center $165,800 $15,800 $60,000 I $90,000 Senior Center 106,270 ****69,000 175,270 Round Lake Park 135,000 20,000 50,000 15,000 50,000 Staring Lake Park 275,000 25,000 250,000 Riley Lake Park 350,000 *578,595 *578,595 150,000 200,000 1994-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM a CITY OTHER FUNDS 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Miller Park 530,000 *711,150 *481,150 230,000 230,000 250,000 250,000 200,000 Purgatory Creek Rec Area **1,820,000 20,000 **500,000 **1,000,000 **250,000 Homeward Hills Park Franlo Park Red Rock Lake Park Preserve Park 135,000 135,000 Prairie View Park 130,000 130,000 I Carmel Park Hidden Ponds Park 1 Pheasant Woods Park 50,000 50,000 F . Edenbrook Conservation 55,000 55,000 Edenvale Conservation Area , Purgatory Creek Trail 2,000 2,000 Prairie Bluff Park Rice Marsh Lake Park 85,000 10,000 25,000 50,000 Miller Spring 10,000 10,000 1 Pioneer Park *70,560 *15,560 *55,000 Willow Park Cedar Forest Park 50,000 50,000 Crestwood Park 200,000 25,000 25,000 _ 50,000 100,000 S; 1994-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM CITY OTHER FUNDS 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Westgate Park Creekwood Park Eden Lake Park 30,000 xxxxx30,000 60,000 Flying Cloud Fields Prairie View Park Forest Hills Park 110,000 10,000 75,000 Smetana Lake Park 100,000 100,000 Bike Trail Improvements 83,000 18,500 64,500 • SUB TOTAL T .: 0 $ SZ,60Z-07'f3 3,.279,305 1�3 6'87S $335fiD41fl 54F50Q>; $1 415,00 f530f000f $705,000 $350r000 Acquisition & Dev Total Expense $5,425,420 $5,328,425 $2,084,035 $2,826,920 $810,500 $1,760,000 $1,862,900 $976,100 $509,300 Referendum Total + Grants $3,374,345 1,360,225 1,784,120 230,000 and Donations T.I.F. Total 1,800,000 50,000 500,000 1,000,000 250,000 Lease Purchase endum *Referendum Required for Funding **Tax Increment Financing ***Lease Revenue Bonds ****Grants AA***Donations cip/Bob60 - March 5, 1996 7 1994-2000 ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ESTIMATED REVENUE 1994 1995 1996 i 1997 1998 1999 2000 Fund Balance Beginning of Year $1,238,295 $1,445,870 $1,177,360 ' $1,146,860 $371,860 $3,960 ($267,140) Cash Park Fees Fund 30 520,865 417,800 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 Softball/Volleyball Fees - Improvements 33,500 30,000 30,000 30,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Bond Referendum (Fund 39) 1,071,475 287,230 230,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- (1992 4.5 million for development) Bond Referendum (Fund 105) 316,400 1,729,120 (1994 1.95 million for acquisition) Tax Increment Finance -0- -0- 50,000 500,000 1,000,000 250,000 -0- Federal & State Park & Recreation Grants 27,350 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- CDBG 69,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- General Fund ADA 9,200 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Other (donations, etc.) -0- 30,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Interest Accrual - Fund 31 218,020 64,260 50,000 15,000 20,000 -0- -0- General Fund (capital outlay, etc.) 30,800 -0- 20,000 40,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 Estimated Total Revenue 3,534,905 4,004,280 1,957,360 2,131,860 1,866,860 708,960 187,860 Estimated Total Expenses $2,089,035 $2,826,920 $810,500 $1,760,000 $1,862,900 $976,100 $509,300 (Deficit of$321,440 going into 2001) estrev/Bob March 5, 1996 R