HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 11/19/1996AGENDA
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1996
CITY COUNCIL:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
CITY STAFF:
I. INTRODUCTIONS
6:30 PM, CITY CENTER
HERITAGE ROOM IV
8080 Mitchell Road
Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock,
Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and
Nancy Tyra-Lukens
Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill
Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine
Kardell, Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane
Wissner, Student Representative Jessica
Lind
City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant
City Manager Chris Enger, City Planner
Mike Franzen, Council Recorder Jan
Nelson
II. PRESENTATION/STATUS OF WORK PLAN
III. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES REQUIRING CITY COUNCIL INPUT
A. Future Land Uses For Southwest Eden Prairie
B. Road Connections
IV. CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION
V. ADJOURNMENT
the Comprehensive Guide Plan then one option would be to recommend approval of approval
of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space To Low Density Residential,
Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Planned Unit Development District Review,
Zoning District Change from Rural to Rl-13.5 and Preliminary Plat based on plans dated
September 20,1996 and subject to the recommendations of the staffreport dated September
20,1996, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed stonn water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed stonn water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for
review by the City Engineer.
2. Prior to Building Pennit issuance, the proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee.
B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements ..
3. Prior to grading, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer, Watershed District, and
City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and
approved by the City Forrester prior to grading and tree removal.
4. The following waivers from City code are granted as part of the Planned Unit
Development District review in the RI-13.5 Zoning district:
A. a private road.
B. lot width less than 55 on a cuI de sac for lots 10,11, Block 1; and lots 7-9,
Block 3.
C. Minimum lot size less than 40,000 square feet for lots 1, 2, and 12.
D. Minimum width at the building line less than 150 feet for lots 1,2, and 12.
E. Minimum wdth at Ordinary High Water Level less than 150 feet for lots
1,2,and 12.
F. Mirnimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Level less than 150 feet for
lots 7,10,11,12.
II. If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have not been made for
changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan , that the environmental impacts of the development
on the sites natural features are high, and that shore land ordinance and lot frontage waivers
should not be granted then one option would be to recommend that the project be revised as
follows.
1. Reduce tree loss to 32.4%.
2. Revise the preliminary plat to eliminate all shoreland waivers.
3. Revise the preliminary plat to eliminate the lot width waivers on the cuI de sacs.
4. Revise the preliminary plat to eliminate the lots on the east side of Riley Creek.
5. Revise the plans to show trails and conservation easements as recommended by the
Parks and Recreation staff.
The staff recommends alternative II.
1
Minnesota Depal mt of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
August 23, 1996
Michael Franzen
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Rd
Eden Prairie MN 55344
Dear Michael Franzen
SUbject: Bearpath 7th Addition
Preliminary Plat Review
Between Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley in Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie, Hennepin County
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Bearpath 7th Addition
preliminary plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subd. 2, Plats. The plat is not
adjacent to a trunk highway, and traffic from the development is not likely to have a significant
impact on the trunk highway system. We have no comment on the proposed plat.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact
me at 582-1383.
Sincerely,
l5~#uY(a&~,/
Elizabeth Malaby 6
Transportation Planner
An equal opportunity employer
September 4, 1996
Mr. Mike Franzen
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
R[ARPAIII
9 0 ) f it n.) COli n • r!1 C) II b
RE: Response to staff comments regarding the application for amendment to the
Bearpath PUD and preliminary plat of Bearpath 7th Addition.
Dear Mike,
As stated in your letter dated August 27th, received by our office on August 29th, the city
is required by state law to notify an applicant "within 10 days" as to the completeness of
an application made to the city. As we delivered by messenger our application to your
office on August 15, the city has failed in their obligation to provide the proper
notification to our application. Furthermore, the various requests stated in your letter
required a response within "three (3) working days" in order to maintain a reasonable and
timely hearing before the planning commission scheduled on September 23.
We believe this is unreasonable and given that Bearpath was not timely notified we do not
feel we should be penalized by setting back our hearing before the planning commission.
Bearpath respectfully requests that we be included on the agenda for the Commission
meeting on the 23rd. The following is a response to each of those items that where
addressed in your letter. Given that you will have all information requested to you no later
than September 11, your staff will have a week and a half to prepare your comments to
what is a very straight forward and simple request. If your staff feels our application
would be incomplete at that time we would have no problem in having the planning
commission evaluating the completeness of our application and voting based on the
information provided.
The following is the information requested for the 11 items identified in your letter:
I 7 Ii (I (I Pill II " ,'r TO'.. I I I r ,I "II P".. i r i ". ~1 N :':':1 -1 7 I Ii I ~ -II 7 :. -II II II II
I' .. , I' " I' .. I" () I I I '" I ., !I -1 (I V I l I "" I),; v,' I ~1 I II .. " .. I' " I I '. ~1 N :':1,,:1:1 I Ii I ~! -I; :I :. -~ I; (I I;
·1. The wetland deletion contained on the plan was completed by Minnesota State
Highway Department. We do not know of any objection from any governmental agency as
to their delineation which has been previously approved.
2. The wetland located in Block 2 of the Bearpath 7th Addition was a wetland that we
created. A small portion of this area (4,000 sq. ft.) has been approved by all agencies
having jurisdiction as mitigation for a wetland filling application on another potion of
Bearpath. The remaining square footage has been approved for the wetland banking
program. However the exact location and size of the wetland can not be finalized until the
storm drainage improvements that dictate the wetland elevation and size are installed.
Under separate cover, I am having a copy of our wetland bank documents sent to your
office. If you have any questions please feel free to call Mr. Bob Obenneyer from the
watershed district.
3. A 50 scale tree inventory will be delivered to your office no later than September 11th.
4. There is no need to revise lot street frontages as the proposed streets are private and
such lot configurations have been excepted previously.
5. The staffs comments that no lots should be located east of the creek seems quite
prejudicial in that staff had previously recommended approval of a 200 foot wide highway
improvement which in effect would have completely destroyed the creek in this area. Two
driveway crossings, with specific plans submitted at the time of application for housing
permits will provide the least amount of impact to this area of any development concept
possible.
6. Storm water runoff calculations will be proved to your staff no later than September
11th.
7. The Bearpath 7th Addition is simply a 38 lot extension of the Bearpath single family
development already approved and existing in the city. It provides the least impact to the
environment of any development concept within a urban setting.
8. A check for $525.00 is enclosed. The completion of the guide plan questionnaire will be
delivered to your office no later than September 11.
9. The outlot currently located on the western edge of the plat is designed for a
bituminous trail.
10. As is currently the requirement in the Bearpath PUD, the park fee would be paid per
lot when a building application is made.
11. The tree replacement plan will be delivered to your office no later than September
11th.
Thank you for your assistance regarding this request.
cc: Jeff Anderson
Bearpath Limited Partners
September 11, 1996
Mr. Mike Franzen
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
golf anJ counlry club
RE: Tree replacement plan -comments/answers to comprehensive guide plan cbange
questionnaire for the application of the Bearpath 7th Addition.
Dear Mike,
Currently Bearpath has an approved tree replacement plan and would request that this plan be
amended to reflect the additional tree loss as a result of the 7th addition which totals a loss of
3,834 caliper inches. As a result of this additional tree loss, the existing plan will be amended to
show and provide for an additional replacement of 1,978 caliper inches. These trees will be
planted within the Bearpath 7th Addition as well as in the previously approved areas located in
Bearpath Additions previously approved by the City.
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change Questions:
The following are the responses to the questions on page 20 & 21 of the development application
booklet:
1. None
2. None
3. Substantially less impact than the currently planned interstate highway construction.
4. No adverse effect.
5. Yes.
1 7 Ii II II I' I " " " "" T"" I I I E ,I t' II P r " I r I ". ~I N :;:;:1,. 7 I Ii I 2 -!I 7 :; -II II II II
r " " i' " " " I" () I I I ..,' I -1 !I 4 n V I l I II 'I I> I' i .,' I N I " II t, " I' II I I '. ~1 N :'i:'i 4 :\ :'i I Ii 1 ~, -Ii :I :'i -2 Ii n N
Page 2.
Mike Franzen
September 11,1996
1. This Comprehensive Guide Plan change has no material impact on the balance of land use in
the city.
2. This request has no adverse impact on the surrounding land uses.
3. The change requested will have far less environmental impact on the subject site.
4. This application has no significant change to the city services of sewer, water, storm sewer and
roads.
5. Yes.
Mike, if you have any questions regarding this response, please contact me at your earliest
convenience. We look forward to the review of this application before the City Planning
Commission on September 23.
~
John Vogelbacher
Project Manager
cc: Jeff Anderson
Bearpath Limited Partners
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks. Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks. Recreation and Facilities
FROM: Stuart A. FO~ager of Parks and Natural Resources
DATE: October 31, 1996
SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to the Planning Staff Reports Dated September 20 and
October 11, 1996 for Bearpath 7th Addition
BACKGROUND:
This development proposal is for 69.7 acres ofland immediately north of the Bearpath PUD. The
proposal is for 39 single family lots and one outlot.
The property is within the official alignment of Highway 212. As stated in the Planning staff
report, dated September 20, 1996, Bearpath Limited Partnership is submitting a development plan
for review and approval by the City as part of the negotiations with the Sate of Minnesota Highway
Department. The City is required to review the project as if the plans for Highway 212 do not exist.
Full review of this project is based on codes, policies, and in a manner similar with other
development projects.
NATURAL RESOURCES ISSUES:
Tree Loss and Replacement
The staff has reviewed the proposed and has found the tree loss to be 35.4%. The tree inventory
shows this area to have a mixture of deciduous hardwoods including basswood, bur oak, sugar
maple, ironwood, and cottonwood. Coniferous trees include a group of white pine that must have
been planted sometime in the past 50-60 years.
In evaluating the tree loss, staff found that there were some discrepancies in the numbers indicated
on the plan and those found under staff review. Based on staff calculations, there are 497 trees with
a total of9, 167 diameter inches of trees found on the project site. A total of 3,250 diameter inches
(185 trees) would be lost due to construction and grading. The tree replacement required under City
ordinance would be a total of 1,530 caliper inches of tree replacement.
From the time that this project was ftrst reviewed by the staff to the present time a request has been
made to have a landscaping plan indicating the location and listing the species of trees to be planted
to mitigate this tree loss. A tree replacement plan/landscape plan has not been submitted by the
developer and, therefore, is not available for review by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission.
NURP Pond
The developer has proposed to utilize the existing lowland area in the interior portion of the project
as a NURP pond. The outflow from this proposed area would go into the wetland immediately
south of the NURP pond and then be linked to the storm water system for the existing Bearpath
PUD via a concrete pipe carrying the runoff water to the south of the proposed project.
Shoreland Impact
The original plan that was submitted for the September 30 staff report had a number oflots that
would have required waivers when reviewed under the City's Shoreland Ordinance; however, the
most current plan has removed the need for shoreland waivers with the exception of the need for a
waiver to access Lots 6, Block 3. The full details of the waiver are included in the October 11, 1996
Planning Staff Report.
The current status of the waiver in question has not been discussed with the developer and this is
an issue that should be discussed by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Commission.
Sidewalk and Trails
The current Bearpath PUD had a requirement that the developer install an 8' wide bituminous
trailway along the westerly side of the project. This trail is outside of the property fence and runs
from Riley Lake Road northward to the northwesterly corner of the original Bearpath PUD. With
the proposal of Bearpath 7th, the staff made a recommendation that an 8' wide trailway be continued
northward on the area known as Outlot A to the northwesterly comer of the lot and then be
continued eastwardly and southeasterly to a point on the property line due east of Block 1, Lot 18.
At this point, the trail would cross Riley Creek on a bridge and be brought to the easterly property
line. Since Bearpath is a gated community, this trail poses a number of questions, one is that a trail
would have to go through backyards of some of the proposed lots. In addition, the property along
the northerly edge includes some very wet conditions and the staff would recommend that the trail
be constructed at an elevation of least 8800 This would put it l' above the high water level of 879
for Rice Marsh Lake. The staff would recommend that the trail be constructed concurrent with
grading and development of the project and be done by the developer. In addition, trails easements
would be required wherever the trail was located on private lots. Any boardwalk or bridging that
would be necessary to cross wetlands or creek areas would also be installed by the developer.
This information was made known to the developer from the time of the first submission and to date
the staff has not received any plans showing a trail location or trail corridor.
Scenic Conservation Easement and Outlot Ownership
Since there are a number of shore land wetland issues, as well as some steep slopes along the outlet
of Riley Creek, the staff has made a recommendation that the shore impact zone and bluff impact
·0'
zone the dedicated to the City or protected by a scenic and conservation easement. Portions of the
shore impact zone lie on proposed platted lots and those could be covered by standard scenic
conservation easement language. The area that lies in Outlot A could also be included in a scenic
and conservation easement document or the developer may wish to dedicate the outlot to the City
or gift the outlot to the City at the time of platting. If the City were to own Outlot A, either through
dedication or gifting, a significant portion of the creek corridor at the northerly end would be
protected from future development.
RECOMMENDATION:
This project was reviewed twice by the Planning Commission. At the September 23 meeting, it was
continued into October because of the number of perceived deficiencies in the plans. The concern
was the number of variances that the developer was requesting in regards to the Shoreland setbacks.
There was also some question as to the amount of tree loss, which on the first plan was calculated
at 47%. The developer revised the plans and the project was then reviewed by the Planning
Commission at the October 28 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the project was
approved on a 3-0-1 vote by the Planning Commission. The vote was based on the staff
recommendations as outlined in the October 11, 1996 Planning Staff Report.
The staff recommendations that have been consistent since the initial submission of this project in
that a trail or corridor be shown, a landscape plan be submitted, and that areas delineating and scenic
and conservation easements be shown on the proposed plan. This information has not been
submitted to the staff and, therefore, the staff would offer the Commission two options. The
Commission could continue the project for failure to submit infonnation specific to review by the
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, or could recommend approval of the project,
conditional on submission of the missing items to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission prior to the second reading at the City Council.
SAF:mdd
BearpathlStu96
MEMORANDUM
TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities
FROM: Stuart A. FO~ager of Parks and Natural Resources
DATE: November 14,,1996
SUBJECT: Bearpath 7th Addition
At the November 4, 1996 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission meeting, the
commissioners voted 5-0 to continue the review of the development project known as Bearpath 7th
Addition. Return to the Commission was conditioned on information that was lacking at the original
meeting including the following items:
1. Complete trail plan indicating a 40-foot wide outlot 'and bridge locations.
2. A complete landscape plan indicating species, sizes and the number of trees to be planted
and their sizes.
3. Delineation of an area to be set aside under a scenic and conservation easement for
preservation.
4. The status of the 4-acre lot which requires a private crossing of Riley Lake Creek for access.
Trail and Sidewalk Issues
The developer has submitted a map which redefines Outlot A and shows detailed plans for raised
boardwalks to accommodate an eight foot wide trail. The staff has reviewed these items and feels
that this does meet our requirements to continue the trail from the south through this project.
Landscaping
The staffhas contacted the developer and requested a list of tree species and sizes to supplement the
original information that was submitted. As of this date, that information has been talked about over
the phone, but nothing in written form has been received. Staff will forward the information to the
Council and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission at the meetings.
Scenic and Conservation Easements
The staff has not received a map indicating the proposed location of any scenic and conservation
easements from the developer. The staff has recommended that the scenic and conservation
easements cover the area from the high water level in Outlot A, as the floodplain elevation of Riley
Creek. The staff has made these recommendations to the developer and is awaiting a map that
would delineate that information. Staff will forward the maps to the City Council and the Parks,
Recreation and Natural Commission when they are received.
The Status the Private Lot with Creek Crossing
Staff has confirmed that a recommendation was made by the Planning Commission that the
developer eliminate the private creek crossing and not have a lot on the east side of Riley Creek.
The recommendation was made by the Planning Commission since this would require a variance
and they felt that his particular variance would be one that would cause some future problems if a
house was build on that long driveway.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend that if the proper information is received and reviewed by the
commissioners, the project be approved as per the following:
• With a reduction of one lot -to be a total of 38.
• With a scenic/conservation easement over the position of Outlot A below the 879 contour.
• A trail use easement be given to the City following construction by the developer.
• Tree replacement would be done concurrent with construction.
SAF:mdd
BearlStuart96
Unapproved Minutes
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Monday, November 4, 1996
v. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. Bearpath 7th Addition
Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated October 31, 1996, from
Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; a staff report dated
October 11, 1996, from Michael D. Franzen, City Planner; and a staff report
dated September 20, 1996, from Michael D. Franzen, City Planner.
John Vogelbacher, project manager for the Bearpath development, presented
his development proposal to the Commission giving background information.
The request is to bring in an additional 39 lots for the proposed 7th Addition
and the property is located just directly south of Rice Marsh Lake. There is
a connecting road to Bearpath Trail on the southern portion of the proposal.
They have gone through a number of different meetings with the Planning
Commission and this plan has gone through three different revisions relative
to the amount of density of lots along the shoreline of Rice Marsh Lake. A
lot has been removed on the east side of the creek. The only waiver
requested by the Planning Commission is for a private street. There are no
other waivers requested and the Planning Commission approved the proposal
unanimously with one abstention.
The City indicated tree replacement to be 1,530 caliber inches. The
developer has submitted a proposal for three different areas to establish this
requirement. The first plan is for 420 inches of boulevard trees. There is
4,800 lineal feet of boulevard, and 3 Yz inch shade trees with 40 feet on the
center. The second plan includes the minimum replacement of 12 inches per
lot for 38 lots which equals 456 inches. The trail landscaping includes 1,000
lineal feet of 12-14 feet tall evergreens with six feet on center for a total of
830 inches. The total replacement totals 1,706 inches which is more than the
requirement by the City. A tree replacement plan/landscape plan was not
included in the packets but this is an outline of the plan for tree replacement.
The developer asked that the Commission take into consideration all that
Bearpath has done over the last three years. They have complied with the
requirements ofthe developer's agreement of approximately 9,000 caliber
inches on site and still have one more addition to go. They currently have
planted in excess of 2,000 additional caliper inches of trees which is over and
beyond what was required.
2
Unapproved Minutes
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Monday, November 4,1996
Fox reviewed the staff report with the Commission. This proposal is for 39
single family lots and one outlot on 69.7 acres of land immediately north of
the Bearpath PUD. Staff found tree loss to be about 35.4 percent. When
calculations were done, it was a little different than when it was submitted
due to some accounting errors. Staff found 516 trees on the plan of which
19 were questionable as to whether or not they were on the property. They
settled on 497 total trees for a total of 9, 167 diameter inches. Of that total
there would be 185 trees with 3,250 diameter inches lost due to construction
and grading. Therefore, the developer is required to replace 1,530 caliber
inches of trees through replacement which the developer has indicated would
be in excess of that. Fox noted he received a fax of the outline of the tree
replacement plan on Friday afternoon and has not had a chance to review it
in total.
The developer has proposed to utilize the existing lowland area in the interior
portion of the project as a NURP pond. The outflow from this proposed area
would go into the wetland immediately south of the NURP pond and then be
linked to the storm water system for the existing Bearpath PUD via a
concrete pipe carrying the runoff water to the south of the proposed project.
The original plan, in terms of shore land impact, had a number of lots that
required waivers which is why this project was continued at the Planning
Commission. All those waivers were removed with the exception of an
access waiver for Lots 6, Block 3 which is for access to a driveway 500 feet
long.
There is currently an eight foot wide bituminous trail constructed along the
westerly side of the project which runs along the golf course between
Bearpath and the City of Chanhassen Lakeview Apartments. It ends in the
southwesterly comer of this proposed development. Staff recommended that
the trail be continued through that outlot on the westerly edge and meandered
through the upper portion of the project. The question is whether or not it
would be appropriate to put a sidewalk through on the streets and allow
pedestrian traffic to come through the streets and access through that one
cul-de-sac. Staff was concerned about running the trail through the backyard
of homes. They were concerned about how to handle the easement for the
trail, how to get across the wetland areas, and what's going to be the most
direct route for pedestrians to get there.
Regarding the scenic conservation easement and outlot, there is a lot of
3
Unapproved Minutes
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Monday, November 4,1996
property along the northerly edge which has delineated wetland in there.
There is no impact there from the development of the homes. Staff
recommended that the high water mark for Rice Marsh Lake, which is 878,
from that point toward the lake body be set aside with a conservation
easement to insure there would be no cutting, clearing, or development on
those lands. The issue of Outlot A has not been resolved as to whether this
would be a piece of land dedicated to the City or gifted to the City in the
future. The majority of Outlot A is unavailable since it is in the floodplain
of the lake.
The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September 23 and
continued because of the number of waivers in the original proposal. It was
returned to the Planning Commission October 28 and was approved on a 3-0-
1 vote. The vote was based on staff recommendations outlined in the
October 11 planning staff report.
Koenig was concerned about the type and species of trees included in the tree
replacement plan. Vogelbacher replied what is currently in Bearpath are
lindens, sugar maples, and oak which are boulevard trees. He would
probably mix those trees again in the subdivision. There would be about 160
coniferous trees 12-14 feet tall running right along the western boundary
along the backyards of homes that back up to Chanhassen.
Koenig asked about the removal of one of the lots east of Riley Creek.
Vogelbacher stated it's a four acre lot which is a rather unusual shaped piece.
It is, in effect, a result of the impact of the 212 corridor. When Bearpath was
originally proposed they designed the whole subdivision with consideration
that the roadway would go through eventually. There is still talk that it
would potentially happen. However, they have not been successful at this
particular time in moving forward with any kind of acquisition by the
Highway Department. They have had this property for over 3 Y2 years,
owning it and paying taxes on it. The developer believes this is the least
impact environmentally in this particular area.
Koenig referred to the staff report that the developer owned the land at the
time of the PUD and access to that land could have been provided at the time
without crossing Riley Creek before the lots were platted. Vogelbacher said
that was correct, however, at the time there was the understanding that the
highway would go through and that has not happened. That has created a
hardship for them. They went ahead and platted all the other subdivisions in
4
Unapproved Minutes
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Monday, November 4,1996
Bearpath with the consideration of the highway at that particular time. They
have not had any success in working with the Highway Department to
acquire that property.
Koenig asked about staff concerns regarding the waiver. Fox replied staffs
main concern is about providing adequate fire protection for that lot. They
were also concerned about someone paying for a higher sewer service since
a cul-de-sac has a higher elevation, but that's not up to the staff to determine.
Koenig asked why the developer added a lot from the first Planning
Commission meeting to the second meeting going from 38 to 39 lots.
Vogelbacher said as they went back and looked at the plan to make the
changes requested by the Planning Commission they determined another lot
could fit in as a result.
Jacobson asked for clarification as to where Highway 212 would go.
Vogelbacher explained the potential location of Highway 212 on the map.
Jacobson asked for clarification on the trail issue. Vogelbacher gave the
Commission a handout which depicted the trail and reviewed the sheet. He
said what the City has in terms of their overall plan is a nice option to
surround Rice Marsh Lake with a trail. They think they can do that but their
first choice would be not to do that.
Wilson asked how staff thinks this project should best be done. Lambert
commented the problem is this plan is running the trail right into a marsh
area and he would rather have the developer redraw rear lot lines. He would
prefer to do what is a requirement of the developer's agreement which
requires the developer to construct the trail to City standards and then get an
easement over the trail. What looks good on paper does not necessarily
mean it's feasible once you get out there to actually do it.
Vogelbacher commented their preference would be not to build the trail but
they are interested in cooperating. This is a monetary issue for Bearpath. He
feels Bearpath has made substantial contributions. They are going to stand
by their agreement to construct what they agreed to construct in the original
developer's agreement.
They can build the trail above the ordinary high water level as recommended
by staff but they will probably need some boardwalks to do it.
5
Unapproved Minutes
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Monday, November 4, 1996
Kracum asked staff how far south would they recommend moving the trail
so it would be feasible. Lambert said it should be one foot above the high
water level mark. He agreed that Bearpath has done their share in providing
trail systems and cash park fees but they have not done anything more than
asked of other developers. All developers are asked to pay cash park fees
and build trail systems that effect their property or border their property. It's
been found that a majority of the users of those trails are the people that live
along the trails.
Vogelbacher proposed a path that main vehicles can drive on like a three ton
bridge. They cost about $120 to $130 per lineal foot. This will help when
they have to cross marsh land and it will maintain being able to get around
the lake. They would be happy to construct such a bridge and have had a lot
of success in the past with this.
Brown commented he has questions about the trail corridor, the landscaping,
the scenic conservation easement and none of it has been thoroughly
submitted to the Commission. He said he has a problem voting for or against
anything until he sees this information. He doesn't have enough answers to
vote. He would like all this information submitted before he votes.
Vogelbacher explained that a landscape plan includes a map with a bunch of
stamps on it representing trees. It's just as easy to look at it in written form
and may be more understandable.
Lambert agreed with Vogelbacher and noted the City does have a standard
to enforce and there would be a written agreement. What he sees as not
being pinned down is the location of the trail and suggested that be done
prior to the second reading. He was concerned about the 18 percent slope of
the one driveway. He suggested the roadway be designed to meet the
standard that would allow fire protection and emergency vehicles to reach
that house.
Kracum commented he was concerned about the one lot and whether or not
fire protection can be provided. He was also confused about the jurisdiction
issue about whether he agrees with the decision to approve this plan by the
Planning Commission. Voge1bacher stated the Planning Commission
approved this plan subject to the removal of that lot. This lot did not get the
approval of the Planning Commission.
6
Unapproved Minutes
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Monday, November 4, 1996
Koenig asked about the possibility of Outlot A being dedicated to the City.
Vogelbacher said they would prefer to hold the lot themselves. It's their
property and they want to keep it.
Fox noted the first reading with the City Council is scheduled for December
17 and typically the second reading follows one month after the first reading.
This would put the second reading for January 21.
Jill ( ), 18887 Magenta Bay, noted she lives on the north side of Rice
Marsh Lake. She requested the Commission not to rush through this process.
She appreciates the questions the commissioners have asked because she has
the same ones. None of the lots in her area infringe on any wetland on their
side of the lake and she would like that to remain on the other side of the lake
as well. She supports the idea of a trail system but was concerned that the
path will not be wide enough. She called the trail currently through Bearpath
a ditch. It is benned on both sides and you can not see any of the area that's
around. If the path proposed is like this it would defeat the purpose of
having a path through that area. It would be an access to Lake Riley but part
of the purpose of the path is to enjoy the surrounding area. She asked that
the Commission not deviate from the wetland plan that the City of Eden
Prairie has worked so hard to preserve just so some lots can be closer to the
lake.
Lambert stated the comment from the audience about the path not being wide
enough is a good one. He said the trail the woman spoke about is the LR T
trail and has nothing to do with Bearpath. The standard for outlots per trail
between homes or behind homes is a minimum of 40 feet, and what is
proposed is only 20 feet. He recommended the outlot on the west side to be
a minimum of 40 feet wide.
MOTION: Jacobson moved, seconded by Koenig, to continue to review this
project until the developer has submitted before the Commission a landscape
plan, a trail or corridor plan showing the areas delineated, scenic and
conservation easement to be shown on the proposed plan, and review of the
wetland requirements, shoreland requirements for crossing of the creek, and
the environmental impact of the proposed trail. Motion carried 5-0.
Jacobson commented the reason he made the motion he did was because the
Commission needs more infonnation in order to make a solid decision.
7
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 11-19-96
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO. V, C .
DEP ARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger CARPENTER NORTH
Michael D. Franzen
Requested Council Action:
The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action:
• Approve a Resolution for PUD Concept Review on approximately 7 acres.
Background:
The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to approve the project at the October 28, 1996 meeting.
Supporting Reports:
1. Resolution for PUD Concept Review
2. Planning Commission Minutes 10-28-96
3. Staff Report dated 10-25-96
4. Correspondence
5. Background Information from 1991
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
CARPENTER NORTH
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT OF CARPENTER NORTH
FOR WALTER CARPENTER
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Carpenter
North PUD Concept by Walter Carpenter and considered their request for approval for development
(and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on November 19, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. Carpenter North, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined
in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans
dated November 12, 1996.
3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission
dated October 28, 1996.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 19th day of November, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
2
Carpenter North
Exhibit A
Legal Description
Part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 22 West, in
Hennepin County, lying northerly of Valley View Road.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 28, 1996
PageS
C. CARPENTER NORTH by Walter Carpenter. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Review of Phase Two Grading on approximately 7 acres.
Location: North of Valley View Road and west of Prairie Center Drive.
Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that this included the 1991 approved
Concept Plan for this property. Staff recommended approval of the request.
Walter Carpenter, 4724 Emerson South, Minneapolis, reviewed the history of the
project and the requirements for the grading pennit for Phase II of their project. They
have addressed the wetland problems on the site. The Corps of Engineers has given
them permission to use their property in Chanhassen for wetland mitigation purposes
for this site and it will be reviewed by the Watershed District next week. They have
no plans to build on this site and have no buyer lined up to purchase the property for
development purposes. They held a neighborhood meeting on 10/16/96 at the New
Testament Church which 15 people attended.
Don Brauer, 250 Prairie Center Drive, noted he was the consultant on the project and
reviewed the reasons why the project needed to be completed in two phases. This
was because they were using the material excavated from the top of the hill to fill in
the lower portion of the site. When the 1991 Wetland Act went into effect they had
to meet those requirements with more mitigation area. He described the areas to be
graded and noted there would be much less wetland loss than if they were not
providing wetland area in Chanhassen.
Ismail asked about the street and if it would become a through road. Franzen
responded that staff had not considered extending Prairie Center Drive because it
would become a shortcut through a residential neighborhood and it was approved
with access being provided via a cul-de-sac only. Wissner asked when the proponents
would do the rest of the grading on the site and Brauer responded that it would be
completed next spring as it was too late in the year to finish it now. He noted that
Mr. Carpenter was marketing the land for future development.
Carpenter noted that the south half of the site would be commercial and the north half
would be high density residential as was illustrated in the 1991 Concept Plan. He
does not know what will eventually be constructed on the site; the plan was provided
to obtain the grading permit. He has been holding discussions with multiple home
builders regarding future construction on the site.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Kevin Bloom, 7465 Scott Terrace, stated he was concerned about the buffering
between this development and the existing residential property to the north. He
requested the Planning Commission review the screening for the development.
Carpenter stated that the grading was completed between this site and the residential
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 28, 1996
Page 6
property and their intent was to leave as much of the hill as possible. They have
planted 15 foot trees adjacent to Mr. Bloom's property. He stated nothing would be
changed on the north side of the hill.
Discussion ensued regarding the location of the road and the trees that would be left
on the site. Wissner inquired if the top of the hill had received its final grading and
Carpenter responded affirmatively.
Nancy Berg, 7435 Scot Terrace, noted she had written a letter to the Planning
Commission expressing her concerns about the impact of the grading on this property
on her home and retaining walls which hold the house in place. She was upset that
apartments were on the Concept Plan because it would adversely impact her property
value. There is presently significant erosion on the property and she was concerned
about where the water would go when the property was developed. She was also
concerned about what would happen to the trees.
Brauer responded that they had been more concerned about the terraced walls when
the grading commenced at the top of the hill, and they had exercised great caution and
care when doing that portion of the grading. Now that was completed, and the
grading was well below the retaining walls, and there should not be any problems with
those being disturbed or weakened by the grading. The drainage will be contained on
the site. The trees which have been removed will be replaced, and there are no more
trees which will be lost when they complete the grading. The drainage will be
addressed because the land will be flatter and the erosion will stay on the site until it
is developed. At that time it will be addressed by a drainage plan provided by that
developer.
Foote inquired how many feet away from the apartment building the retaining walls
were located and Brauer responded that they were about 150 feet away. The
residential lots are very small lots and it was only about 30 feet from Berg's deck to
her property line.
Marilyn Bernick, 7445 Scot Terrace, was concerned about what might happen when
the land was developed. She had been told that this area was zoned for commercial
development and was concerned about what might be built there. Clinton responded
that each site plan would require City review and approval before any construction
could occur on any ofthe sites. This was only a Concept Plan, not an approved plan
indicating what uses would be proposed for the site. It was an idea of what might be
proposed only.
Allan Moore, 7400 Butterscotch Road, stated he lives adjacent to Willow Park and
was concerned about the final development of the site and its impacts on the park.
He understood that this was only a concept of what might be built on the site and was
proposed in order to obtain the grading permit. He was concerned about setting the
stage for what may be proposed for this property in the future. He felt that any tree
loss on the site was significant and when trees are lost it is difficult to replace them.
s
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 28,1996
Page 7
He believed the landscape would change significantly. The term commercial
development is very general. He commented it was unfortunate that the land had to
be graded so significantly in order for it to be developed.
David Wick, 7353 Butterscotch Road, was concerned about what the plans would be
for future development. Carpenter stated he had no plans and has not met with any
developer who had a specific proposal. It will some type of multi-family development
but exactly what type he did not know. Wick stated he was opposed to having an
apartment complex built on the site.
Clinton stated the Planning Commission is only acting on a grading plan not on the
concept plan. The Commission must have good reasons to reject any proposal and
property owners have the right to develop their property. The City Council has the
fmal say on every development project.
Wissner commented she related to the concerns expressed by the residents present,
particularly those regarding tree loss, and any change within the community can be
difficult to accept and become accustomed to. However, she believed it was time for
this project to move forward and be completed. The Commission has to follow the
guidelines and staffhad assured her that the grading has been done in a responsible
manner. The screening, berming, and tree loss issues will be addressed later on when
the land is developed.
Foote inquired if the park could be expanded and Franzen responded there was not
any available land which could be acquired for that purpose. Ismail commented that
the Commission considered the input from the citizens very seriously and he wished
to assure those present of that situation.
MOTION: Foote moved, Ismail seconded, to close the Public Hearing and
reconnnend approval of Planned Unit Development Concept Review of Phase Two
Grading on approximately 7 acres based on plans dated October 25, 1996 and subject
to the reconnnendations of the Staff Report dated October 25, 1996. Motion carried
4-0.
C·
, .
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
October 25, 1996
Carpenter North
Walter Carpenter
North of Valley View Road and west of Prairie Center Drive
1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review of Phase II
Grading on approximately 7 acres.
1
7
;:: PR~!?:~
••
•.• ~ •. I ,~' ., _'.,
'l ;~_':I . '.
I:;
FLAGSHIP
":)" . : ~.. :.i .., -AOOI"'lCH
Staff Report
Carpenter North
October 25,1996
BACKGROUND
( (
In 1991 the City Council approved a Concept Plan for future development of the Walter Carpenter
property. The concept plan included an 80 unit apartment building, 37 townhouses, and 104,000
square feet of commercial. Approval of the Concept Plan was for the general feasibility of the plan.
It did not give the property owner permission to build. The property must be rezoned through a
public hearing process before building permits can be issued.
As part of the Concept Plan approval, the City Council gave permission to grade Phase I of the
property. The City Council required that Phase II grading be reviewed by the Planning Commission
and City Council before the property owner can begin Phase II grading.
PHASE II GRADING
Phase II grading is approximately 7 acres. Sur-charge material from Phase I in the southwest
comer of the site would be removed and used for fill for Phase II. There are portions of Phase I
which have not been graded which will also be used for fill for Phase II.
There are 2.16 acres of wetlands on the property as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ..
The property owner has received permission from the Army Corps and Watershed District to use
a wetland banking site in Carver County to mitigate the proposed wetland fill.
The Watershed District is requiring the construction of two ponding areas to treat storm water
runoff. In order to determine the size of the ponding areas, the Watershed District required the
developer to prepare a concept plan showing building and parking areas so that the amount of
potential stormwater runoff could be calculated. The City is not being asked to approve a specific
plan for building and parking on the property.
TREE INVENTORY -TREE PRESERVATION -TREE REPLACEMENT
There are a total of 1359 caliper inches of significant trees on the property. In 1991 tree loss was
calculated at 35% or 475 inches Since the grading limits for Phase II are the same as in 1991 and
the developer has followed the grading limits for Phase I, tree loss is the same. Tree replacement
is 199 caliper inches. The tree replacement would occur concurrent with building construction on
the property.
q
Staff Report
Carpenter North
October 25, 1996
(
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
(
The staff recommends approval of the Phase II grading plan subject to the following conditions.
1. Prior to grading, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer, Watershed District, and
City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and ~
by the City Forester prior to grading and tree removal.
10
--
Park
(11
........
III
en
c
' •• 11 •• -.. .. ~.
nil
rc'h
(
October 21, 1996
City of Eden Prairie
A TfN: Community Development Department
8080 Mitchell Rd
Eden Prairie MN 55344-2230
Re: Carpenter North Grading Phase 2
To Whom it May Concern:
(
I purchased my home at 7435 Scot Terrace in September of 1993. At this time I was informed by the city
of Eden Prairie that the land behind me was zoned commercial. I also asked the city at this time if there
were any pending or upcoming planned assessments on the property or any changes planned that would
affect the value or status of the property I wanted to purchase and I was told NO. I am very upset to now
fmd that a concept plan has been in effect since 1991 to rezone the property right behind me to high
density apartments. This will defmitely decrease the value of my home and the quality of life for all the
homes which border this high density concept. The city had an obligation to tell me of this plan approved
in 1991 to rezone the property which boarders mine. Had I known that there was a plan to build an 80 unit
apartment building in my back yard I would defmitely NOT have purchased this property.
Some concerns which will affect me is the fact that my property is the back side of the HILL and I have
three tiers of railroad tie terrace walls which is my entire back yard. These walls are up to 12 feet tall and
the top of the last wall is only 50 feet from my back door, so you can see how steep they are. The HILL is
as tall as my two story twin home. The HILL is kept back by these enormous walls. I had the terrace walls
inspected when I purchased my home and they were found to be sound and had a life expectancy of about
20 to 30 more years as the hill is gravel and rock. These walls also keep back the hill from neighbors on
both sides of my home. The heavy construction required for grading and building an 80 unit apartment
building which is planned right behind this hill will shake these walls and decrease their life expectancy
greatly and will cause stress and erosion immediately. I have great concern as to replace or even repair
these walls would be prohibitively expensive. To approve a plan that would put this large apartment
complex this near the hill would stress the existing 14 year old timber walls. I need to know if the city will
be responsible for any damage now or in the future to these walls as you are the people who told me that no
changes were under consideration for this property. I could bring you pictures of these timber walls but
you would not get a true understanding of how massive these walls are, unless you come and look at them.
You would than understand the jeopardy you would be putting our homes in if anything were to happen to
these walls.
As I have to work every day I will not be able to view the plans you have for these residential buildings, in
a commercial zone, until I can get leave from my job later in the week. Just looking at the attachments I
have a few concerns to address.
A concern where this grading will be done is what about all the very old oak and other old trees and woods
which stand there and all over this property. Will these be left alone? You have already allowed much fill
to be brought into this property which was a wet land, as you can tell by the pond which holds the water
run off. When we have heavy rains now there is a stream which runs across Roberts in front of the church
and runs into the gully that is to be filled and goes to the pond which crosses where this proposed grading
is going to take place. Where is this runoff water going to go? Is the city going to put in proper drainage
systems for this water runoff? Nature, the trees, woods, ravines and hills protect our area from road noise
from 494 & Valley View, water and pollution now. What is going to happen to the eco system here?
A concern which you should address putting this high density housing in this area is the traffic flow. To
have only an entrance on Valley View for an additional 120 homes would be prohibitive. Currently we
now must wait sometimes up to 5 min. to get onto Valley View Rd from Topview during rush times.
Think of the impact this high density housing will have on this busy road and Topview Rd.
I"
( (
Another great concern is that you are looking at approval to put an 80 unit apartment building in the
backyard of a residential district. How would you like an 80 unit apartment in your back yard? Well I
don't want one in my back yard either, and this will be right in my backyard. This land was zoned
commercial for reasons by your forefathers. This city seems to think that it is no big deal to rezone
property. When I purchased my home I thought I was aware of the existing zoning for the property and
how the landscape was laid out and the eco system on the property. You change all of the above by
rezoning, letting fill be brought in to the wetlands and changing the lay of the property with bulldozing
beautiful old trees and woods and grading hills and gullies in order to accommodate profitable high density
housing on land that by nature was not planned to be used for high density housing.
Where is the land for commercial development in this city going to be if all this land is rezoned? You
already have Valley View a complex of Manor homes, condo's, apartments and a large new townhome
project at Mitchell. Has your corp. of engineers looked into how the water and ecosystem will be affected
when all these woods are removed, gullies filled, hills leveled and low lands filled? It would be a shame
to level any of the old trees or woods to look at piles of dirt on this property. My hope is you insure that
some of natural beauty of this area be left intact for the future.
I am very concerned for the future of Eden Prairie to see the approval that the city has already given which
allows the high influx of townhomes being built in such a small areas of Eden Prairie. How will the
integrity of the city change with the high influx of people coming into the already approved building
projects? What affect will the high percentage of new townhomes being built affect the sale of current
townhomes? You have already approved enormous high density living within small areas and not enough
time has passed to see what affects this overbuilding will have if townhome living falls out of favor as it
has in the past. Already some of the 10 year old townhomes in Eden Prairie are repossed by HUD to be
resold. Who will buy all the townhomes being built now 10 years from now? and at what cost or loss? and
in what condition? We had some of the 14 year old twin homes in our neighborhood sold by HUD this last
year in very bad shape. This is what happens when you allow investors to overbuild any part of a
community. I know that when I bought my twin home it was in bad shape, and, as the neighborhood is
going from rentals in bad shape, to owners who are working to fIX up the homes, it is a much better place
to live, and more desirable for others to purchase the homes left to repair. This is reflected in the Cities
revaluing our homes over 12%. I have, and so have many of my neighbors, worked very hard to clean up
and restore our homes. If this planned development is approved I know that I will sell my home, and
probably at a loss, due to approval of a concept that was not provided to me by this city. This is not right.
A friend of mine who used to live in Eden Prairie 4 years ago visited me. Her comments upon driving
along Prairie Center Dr to Technology Drive to Mitchell to Anderson Lakes Pkwy was "How in the
world can this city allow the greed of investors rape the land like this!" It really made me stop and take a
look at all the piles of dirt.
The City of Eden Prairie just continues and continues to fill and rezone property to accommodate profitable
high density building without any thought to how this rezoning will affect the citizens who boarder the
property, the wear on schools, parks, roadways and public needs, the high density property values now vs.
the future, the eco system which created the beauty of the city and the quality of life of the community.
~~
Nancy Berg
7435 Scot Terrace
Eden Prairie, MN 55346-3228
cc: Dr. Jean Harris, Mayor
I~
:
:
r :
: ': ..
:~ ...
::
:l :~. : .. ····r " :.
:~ .. >:'" . i 1
";';':, '" ':
:: ...... : .. ':
",'" :'
BACKGROUND
INFORMATION
FROM
1991
.............. ;.;.; ..... ............... , ...
14
.. r ,.
"\o~ ':, ..
"
, .," .
. ~.~. ,
~~I" t:,i(" ' rf~~~":'
~. ~·t~· ' .. :
. '~!.~.:~;'" .
....• ' .
• ~ 1"I"f;":". ',:., .. ,
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
'THROUGH:
"DATE:
SUBJECT:
FEE OWNER:
REQUEST:
PI~ing Commission
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
May 23, 1991
Carpenter North PUI?
Northeast quadrant of the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Valley
View Road
Donald G. Brauer
Walter S. Carpenter
1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change on approximately 6.2 acres
from a Medium density residential area to a Regional commercial
area.
2. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from a Medium density
residential area to a High density residential area on approximately
9.3 acres.
3. Planned Unit
Development
Concept Review
on approximately
27 acres .
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN
CHANGE
This site is planned both Medium Density
Residential land use for up to 10 units per
acre and Regional Commercial land use. The
purpose of the Guide Plan analysis review is:
1. Define a specific division line between
the land areas on the Carpenter site for
Regional Commercial uses and multiple
family housing.
11)
..
. --
(
Carpenter North PUD Staff Report
. May 24, 1991
[
Determine how much commercial development and housing units the site can support .
The use of the property for multiple family housing and commercial land uses will have some
impact on surrounding uses. Medium density housing needs a transition on the northern portion
of the property. This could be accomplished with setback, grade change, and existing trees
retained as a buffer. Medium density housing on the northern portion of the property provides
a transition between the commercial areas along Valley View Road and the lower density areas
to the north.
The Comprehensive Guide Plan change will impact natural features. The site is steeply sloped
with heavy tree cover. Any development of the site will disturb the site's natural character.
Multi-story buildings with small footprints are appropriate on steep wooded slopes since less land
area would be disturbed than if the same density is proposed with more buildings. With this
proposal, the 165 units depicted on the Guide Plan are consolidated in a smaller area. 85 of the
units are located on the oak forested hill requiring 36 feet of cut and a 64 % tree loss. The
commercial areas are proposed in the low level areas adjacent to Valley View Road, and some
significant trees will be lost due to proposed grading.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
The Planned Unit Development concept depicts 161 multiple family housing units in two
... buildings, 99,800 square feet of commercial, 33,400 square feet of office, and a 6,000 square
foot gas station. The site plan shows building and parking areas meeting setback requirement
for the apartment buildings. Parking requirements for one enclosed per unit and one on-grade
per unit are shown on the site plan. ..
The proposed commercial and office areas are shown consistent with commercial zoning
regulations for a .20 Base Area Ratio maximum. The buildings proposed meet the setback
requirements for commercial zoning. Parking is provided according to City code.
J(P
( r
Carpenter North PUD Staff Report
\.'. 'May 24, 1991
.. ~. " .... ' ,
}~i~; . AOCFSS
Prairie Center Drive was initially contemplated to connect Valley View Road and Roberts Drive.
There are signs on the property which indicate future streets. The City park to the northwest is
designed to allow the road to be extended. After reviewing access in the area, connecting Prairie
.. (:.i,-..• :.
Center Drive to Roberts Drive along Butterscotch Drive would provide a shortcut through a
residential area. Butterscotch Drive has homes with direct driveway access. While making this
road connection would improve emergency vehicle access to the area to the north, Butterscotch
Drive is a local residential street. Due to the differences in land use and increased traffic on a
residential street, it is not recommended that the street connection be made. A public street is
necessary to serve the commercial development and multiple family housing units on this site.
This is shown on the PUD plan.
GRADING
An overall grading plan for the property has been submitted. The grading plan in general depicts
the location of the proposed cut and fill (See Attachment A). The grading plan consists of a first
. phase area and the final grading area. Only Phase I grading area is requested for approval at this
time.
The overall grading plan proposed is not the plan the developer will build. It is a general
indication of how the site might be fmal graded if the property is developed for multiple family
and commercial land use as proposed by the PUD concept.
The grading plan indicates the following:
1. 36' of cut is proposed off the top of the hill. This cut area is used to fill the low areas
for the gas station and small retail building sites.
2. Fill must be imported for the other commercial and office sites.
3. 64% of the significant trees (mostly 20-30") would be lost with phase one grading.
4. The overall grading plan removes the majority of the existing conifers (planted by
owner).
5. The overall grading plan removes natural vegetation which could be used as a buffer to
transition to the lower density residential areas to the north.
11.
,
~ ..
Carpenter NorthPUD Staff Report
May 24, 1991
TREEWSS
(.
The tree inventory indicates a total of 1359 inches of significant trees which are mostly oak trees
between 20-30" in diameter located on tI:te hill on the property. A total of 872 inches of trees
would be lost due to construction as part of grading for phase one, or 64 % of the total significant
trees. Of the 872" of trees lost due to construction, 75 % of these trees are located where the
east apartment building is shown on the site plan.
In order to provide a pad area for the east apartment building and the required on-grade parking,
36' of cut IS proposed off the top of the hill. In order to save the majority of significant trees
on the top of the hill, no grading should occur. This would require that the developer obtain all
fill from off-site. .
TRAILS
An easement for a sidewalk connection from the cul-de-sac to the City park should be provided
in a location to be determined by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources.
CONCLUSION
The PUD Concept plan and proposed general grading allows the City to evaluate the impact of
the development on the site's natural features. Because of this steeply sloped forested nature of
the property, any development of the property would result in an alteration of the hill and loss
. of significant trees. Since the concept plan represents one way of developing the site. and is not
the final plan that the developer intends to build, the amount of site alteration and tree loss
should be kept to a minimum until detailed plans are available with a rezoning request. It should
be determined if the type and intensity of housing and commercial land uses proposed retain
enough of the site's riatural character to be considered a reasonable development of the property.
Although the hill is cut 36' and tree loss is 64 %, the grading plan preserves the slope of the hill
and leaves undisturbed tree areas around the base.
STAFF RECOMl\1ENDA TIONS
The PI3:1lning Staff would recommend approval of the Guide Plan change and PUD based on the
following conditions:
A. Approval of the grading plan is limited to the phase one areas of cut and fill as shown
as shown on Attachment A.
I~
, \ ....
,,'.
(
Carpenter North PUD Staff Report
May 24, 1991
(
B. Tree loss on the property is 64%, and tree replacement would be 744". A tree
replacement plan and bonding amount will be a requirement of any future zoning or
subdivision of the property.
C. Any grading subsequent to phase one will require further review by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
D. PUD Concept approval is granted for 161 multiple dwelling units, a 6000 square foot gas
station, 99,800 square feet of commercial, and 33,400 square feet of office ..
E. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the grading limit area shall be staked with a
snow fence. All disturbed areas shall be restored and seeded.
F. The filling of the wetland areas will require approval by the Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and the Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
G. Phase II grading should retain a natural buffer along the north property line.
~
.j
.:
!:~ . .', ,. .' < •
i
I
I
I~
':. I ----... -' ~"-:;",--
.... -'
".
.... '0,
.! .• ~
...:-.l;.,; *' ".,
.' 'JIE-:I
. " ·0 i
.:---~-~.';:~?.:.!~"-"-".-' ... .:.. ! .&. ••• ~:-•• -•
... -~ ... VALLEY •
,.'
~o~o
• I ,
.'"-""-"-'-~ .J Att~ch~~nt
....... Itlt.;.;
I_OSlO" co"'_o.
lIaa llrue.er I AssDclales, Inc. -----.. --.-" .
A
/ .... ~ . . . '. . ~. . . . . . .
. ":'/'::'
I
'1,\ ·::'n:\.-;'~~
.\. .... " •• 0 "
;..;:0.0 ":"-.. '
REVISED
5/17/91
C,:,;::=:\'T:?,
tJC:--:::'.::
PREL:UINARY
GR&::ING
UHlIIT"
01
~
-----_ ... ,.
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
THROUGH:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
\.
Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner
Chris Enger, Director of Planning
July 5, 1991
Carpenter North PUD
LOCATION: . Northeast Quadrant of the Intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Valley
View Road
APPLICANT: Donald G. Brauer
FEE OWNER: Walter S. Carpenter
REQUEST: Comprehensive Guide Plan Change on approximately 4.5 acres from
Medium Density Residential to Regional Commercial.
BACKGROUND
This project was first reviewed by the
Planning Commission on May 28, 1991.
The Planning Commission voted to continue
the item to allow the developer time to hold
a neighborhood meeting and to address the
following concerns identified by the
neighborhood and the Planning Commission:
1. Changing the Guide Plan from
Medium Density Residential to High ,.,. ,.
2. ::::::::~rehenmve GUide; ~~~~:,~:"R:~._~~:.. 1"';.'.6~~'5~ .. ~~~~~
Plan from Medium Density
Residential to Commercial.
3.
4.
5.
Not enough time for residents to
understand the proposal.
Speculative grading.
Negative impact of tree loss.
. ............ ".~ .
(:.
6. Not enough buffering to the adjoining neighborhoods.
7. Gas station along Valley View Road.
The developer held two neighborhood meetings, one on June 18 and one on June 24.
REVISED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The Carpenter North proposal has been revised in the following ways:
1. Withdrawn Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Medium Density to High Density
Residential.
2. Reduced the amount of Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Medium Density
Residential to Commercial from 6.1 acres to 4.5 acres.
3. Withdrawn PUD concept approval for a specific plan for housing type, commercial
buildings and a gas station. .
4. The number of potential housing units has been reduced from 161 to 117 (10 units per
acre).
5. The amount of commercial square footage possible according to the Guide Plan has been
reduced from 139,200 to 104,000.
The similarities to the first proposal are as follows:
. 1. Grading is proposed on the hill to provide a pad for future development. The hill would
be reduced in height approximately 36 feet.
2. Tree loss is 64 %.
The changes in the plan from High Density Residential to Medium Density Residential provides
a better transition to the residential areas to the north. Since the PUD concept request has been
withdrawn, it is not possible to allocate densities in a manner suggested on the revised site plan.
Retaining the PUD concept request would allow the city to provide assurances to the
neighborhood that any future development would be limited to the densities in the location as
shown on the revised plan.
GRADING AND TREE LOSS
The grading plan is revised as follows:
1. Grading in the northwest and northeast corners of the site has been eliminated as part of
phase one. Grading within these areas would occur when specific plans are available in
22-
the future.
2. More of the existing natural vegetation on the property is retained as a natural buffer to
provide transition to the residential areas to the north.
3. The majority of the existing conifers (planted by the owner) would not be removed with
phase ~ne grading. -
The grading plan is similar in the following ways:
1. 36' of cut is proposed off the hill.
2. Fill must be imported for the low areas adjacent to Valley View Road.
3. 64 % of the significant oak trees would be lost due to phase one grading.
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
It is possible to provide a better transition to the residential areas to the north and reduce tree
loss with phase one grading. An alternative development for the property is recommended by
City staff as follows:
1. Recommend that the PUD concept plan request be retained by the developer. This would
allow the city to allocate densities along the northern portion of the property to provide
a better transition to the residential areas to the north (See Attachment A).
2. Limit phase one grading to reduce tree loss to 35 %. This is the average for development
in the city. (See Attachment B.
A PUD concept approval on the property can provide assurances to the City and to the
neighborhood that the site in the future can be developed in a way that provides a transition to
the areas to the north. The alternative development plan as depicted on Attachment A shows 20
units at 4.4 units per acre in the northwest corner of the property. (This would be comparable
to townhouse densities.) The northeast corner of the site would be designated for 17 housing
units at a density of 7.4 units per acre. (This would be comparable to the manor home
development on Valley View Road.) The north central portion of the project on the hill would
be for 80 units. By benching a lower pad area in the hill, it would be possible to construct a
building which would not be visible from the residential areas to the north. (See Attachment C)
Tree loss can be reduced from 64% to 35%. It is physically possible to accommodate 80 units
on the hill and limit tree loss to 35 % if the site is developed according to Attachment C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan change based
on the following conditions: .
( (
1. Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent shall:
A. Retain and revise the PUD concept as shown on Attachment A.
B. Revise the grading plan to limit phase one grading as shown on Attachment B.
C. Tree loss is 35%; tree replacement would be 199". The tree replacement plan and .
bonding amount will be a requirement of any future zoning or subdivision of the
property. Attachment D indicates where tree replacement should be located to
buffer residential areas to the north.
D. Any grading subsequent to phase one will require further review of the Planning
Commission and City Council.
E. PUD concept approval is granted for a maximum of 117 units and 104,000 square
feet of commercial. The amount and type of housing units and the amount and
square footage commercial uses shall be based on a specific site plan submitted
with future rezoning and subdivision requests predicated upon providing a
transition to the residential areas to the north. Transition shall include future
buildings to be residential in character designed to reduce building mass with
varying roof lines and building jogs. Heavy landscaping and berming shall be
required to offset the building mass and to minimize visibility of commercial and
housing to the residential areas to the north. Preserve large areas of natural
vegetation. No access to Stewart Drive shall be permitted.
F. Prior to issuance of any grading permit for the property, the grading area shall be
staked with a snow fence. All disturbed areas shall be restored and seeded.
G. The filling of any wetland areas along Valley View Road shall require approval
by the Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and the
Purgatory Creek Watershed District.
24
. ..
>1
, ; T ' .,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.'
t--
, ..-
'-,
I
I
I
1,.--1 ~o /)~' ~
-" -C) ..
CD
E
E
0
~
~~
0 ..
0
(II)
ii
o ·0 Q .. CD ; .. " ~.
o
U .'
. .
; • ; ~a! '~ !
J~' ,'i
l
': . .'
--;~J\1~
. ...~. ..
., .. {~,.:::3
?~:~q
• ..... :' I' ~'.:.
.,.\.;;.~
'". :": 4. '~y'~ .. {~.
.:.. .'
(~1.~ 'y,-"
-.. -......,\ .. ~~
, iJ ... ~."
: : -" ..... ~
0'"
. ~i ~
'CD"; E.
. oj .•.• J
... f; .. :; .
. ',.
~,' ~ ..
. !t,.:t:;
.~' ?-' t--.:...-..... ~:II1
c ca -a..
c
::J a..
"0
CD
"0
C
CD
E
E o u
CD a:
~
~
. ':" ,.,. .'
': A._ . 010.1' ''''.1' I .• ,: I .•.. 1 L .....
"!' ,"' •. , •• ' ."
I I J \ I '
• ," . '._ !... . ". \ 14/0, • I
HQ "~:~; .
i. ,.., ".t 't)' ... ---r ;--------------------------~.--:~ -~ ;.~:-..:.: .. ---. -. " " -,., r-----.--· -..... , .. t ' ...,,---~.-
I
\ 'I' ' ~ ~;tif!~~~~ '~ \" '.' .""-'
1\ .... "I' ~ l~ I"~ :. . : , ..
~ I'L . ' " . I' I" " '. RM I r : . '---.. -.. .. 1H1, "-
., ',. '" ,/1
: ~ I
• l" \ I, --.. '\, ..... ~
1.
'"
., ..
;Ie 3
11.000 I."
': 1'""1----_______ f _________ .J \
! H ---------:---""1---------~:
:i
:i .-'~
;i ; ;:; g :! :,:
I • ~ I~. I "', I ' j.
I
I
I,t.,.
_~ ..... ; T"",..' -...... C7 ;',' • ..,. ./" ~ ~ ,,'-i' , ... ~_.:;.-:-._. ._ ?-\ . I I ,'" , ....... ".~."t.-:. ." /' .,.. .....
I .~ • ' .. =:::CO: • -6',,· .. ~c_t:· -." ~~~""-~·r:~·~ -:-.~?~~.--,.... .. .. .' ._----
-....... ~ .•
~ .' . ..--.::::'~----::~1'
'-. ,."... .. _...... .
~. ~ ... ,----, • I :'''::'''"'':', 'I c.. ~ _,_ .... --. ~'! I ....
dlt~·al I ~-.
; .... t.'
'.0,,0" CO ..... OI
•. YC"~~' . ~~ / ... ......
\ 'h"
\ '1')11.'1
',1,11 .. ,'10,'
.\\...\ '111111 "1:-
·\0:;:.· .. 1(·· .. •
!oJ: :.·';Ct.:
\.
; .... " ..
""Ia, Ii!
l"'~""" .~. " »~ till_
CARPENTER.
NORTH PUD
("
t::J :.'::'~:~"n~. GRAO'NG PlAN
. .. -. ~
t65-:= .. ,: V
-:.-_-=:. -=. EXH'Bli R
c __ ~ 'U~1
I
XX.X
Recommended Revised Phase One Grading Area
Attachment' . B
~. ,.
~", ,.
! --~ ~6'....rA:""~nt. C .. :::-.
,r
~
-~
f'
I
t: ,..:, ...... ~ •••• PI! .. I· ... ,,, : L_ •. ___ .J
: ;:: ..
'!! ,. , .
.
~
. !
!~r-:::-------------------------
. ,
•. I '.1
~·i '.
• I ", . .. :. -..
N~~
, . .-Rt.A,
. ", .... &0 OIIEU. ... ""' • . . ... ' ~_/)
, . .
~ :
:
, .
, \00 ; ,
\
'. '-, ".
., ..
RC 3
16.000 S.,.
~ . ..
"'"1:--_________ f ________ .J \
! tt ---------:--+---------::
___ J , L_~_J
r.e:. 'n! I IU'
. \ ...• ; ... "
I&'~: "".-:
'\
~ .. ~ .... ---".~
." ..... .. / .
J' " ".:--.--'" ~/
./
l::J
/ ~ ,.,
:' •. ,ui
".I!UII~11IU!~, . ....;....
!~. '~.~~
'.OSION to"'1I0,
liaR Ilraeger •
~os,IDC. --------
/':'::"
.... .. ... ....
\ ,
1/'111
. ,'.1, .. ! i I
:\1...\ 'IIITL<
'.C:;;! 'il'·-·/"
,; ;~~:!,,<:.
7-... ", 4
Il'-!":"S'-Z l'·"'''· ·91 .~. Ho »J.,"-r.
CARPENTER.
NORTH PUD
..
GRACING PlAN
EXHIBIT R
~_o< '1o,
xx.x
Tree Replacement Area
'Attachment 0
(.
l
..
City Council Meeting 6 July 16, 1991
F.
Amendment on 60.8 acres, Planned Unit' Development District
Review on 8.5 acre with waivers, Zoning District Amendment
within the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 8.5 acres, Site Plan
Review on 8.5 acres, and adoption of Resolution 91-129,
Preliminary Plat of 8.5 acres into 12 lots for construction
of 96 townhouse units to be known as Jamestown Villas.
Location: South of Highway 5, north of George Moran Drive.
(Resolution 91-128 -PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance 21-91-
PUD-7-91 -Zoning District Amendment; Resolution 91-129
Preliminary Plat)
Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing was mailed to
owners of 10 surrounding properties and was published in the
July 4, 1991 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Tod Stutsa, Executive Vice President of the Rottlund
Company, addressed the proposal. .
Pidcock asked if there would be regulation-size double
garages. Stutsa said they would be 20 feet wide.
Senior Planner Franzen said the Planning Commission reviewed
this project at their June 24th meeting and recommended
approval with some revisions to be completed prior to
Council review. He referred to the Staff report 'of June
21st and noted that the main change the Planning Commission
was concerned with was the transition to the single family
homes to the east and south. He said the Commission
recommended additional and larger landscaping to provide a
buffer. He said the developers have completed all the
recommendations made by the Planning Commission.
Lambert said the Parks Commission did not review this
proposal as there were no issues different from those it
reviewed with the original PUD.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to close the {
Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 91-128 for PUD
Concept Amendment. Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve 1st
Reading of Ordinance No. 21-91-PUD-7-91 for Zoning District
Amendment, to adopt Resolution No. 91-129 approving the
Preliminary Plat, and to direct Staff to prepare a
Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff
recommendations. Motion carried 5-0.
CARPENTER NORTH PUD by Donald G. Brauer. Adoption of
Resolution 91-113, request for Comprehensive Guide plan
Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Regional
Commercial on 4.5 acres, Adoption of Resolution 91-114,
Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 27.2 acres for
future development of commercial and multiple residential
land uses to be known as Carpenter North PUD. Location: . 2q
(
( (
City Council Meeting 7 .July 16, 1991
North of the intersection of Valley View Road and Prairie
Center Drive. (Resolution 91-113 -Comprehensive Guide Plan
Amendment; Resolution 91-114 -PUD Concept Review) .
.Jullie said notice of this Public Hearing was sent to owners
of 100 surrounding properties and was published in the 3uly
4, 1991 issue of the Eden Prairie News.
Don Brauer and Walter Carpenter addressed the proposal •
.Jessen asked if the Guide Plan permitted 165 units. Brauer
said the current plan does. 3essen then asked if the number
of units is now 117. Brauer said that was true, but on a
little less acreage, with 15.4 acres of Regional Commercial
and 11.7 acres of Residential.
Fransen said the Planning Commission recommended approval of
~the Carpenter PUD at their .July 8th meeting with changes to
be made before the project went on to the Council. He
referred to the Staff Memo of .July 12th and said that the
Commission was concerned that there be lower densities on
the northwest and northeast corners because those were areas
of concern from the surrounding neighbors. He said they
wanted a change in the grading plan that would reduce the
tree loss. He said the plans have been revised according to
the Commission's recommendations regarding tree loss and PUD
densities.
{t;:Lambert said the Par ks Commission heard the presentation for
the project; however, there was not a quorum present at the
meeting so they could not vote approval of the project. He
said the three members present were in support of the
Planning Commission recommendations to limit grading and to
require a sidewalk along the north side of Valley View,
along the west side of the cul-de-sac, and extending to the
park property to the west when the property is platted.
Kevin Blohm, 7465 Scott Terrace, expressed concern with the
road that will be almost directly behind his house. He said
he would like to see the road sunken down with retaining
walls. He said he was concerned with the height of the
apartment building and that they would really like to see
townhouses or condos instead of apartment buildings.
Tenpas noted that we are trying to approve a concept plan
tonight and that any project plans for the site will have to
be reviewed again with public hearings •
.Jessen asked if his concern about the road was primarily
because of the lights. Blohm said that was correct. Brauer
said that a berm could be built to screen the lights.
Cindy Winkel, 13392 Zenith Lane, said her property is the
closest to the proposed development. She said she bought
her home solely for the view and her windows face the
proposed development. She said when she bought her home she
30
(
(
l
r r
City Council Meeting 8 .July 16, 1991
was told that none of that land was zoned commercial. She
said she is concerned about how the development will impact
the wildlife, her view and the noise pollution.
Bob Flynn, 7390 Butterscotch Road, said he lives just across
the street from the development. He said his main concern
is that multiple zoning will not allow townhouse development
on the property as he would not like to see apartments go in
there.
Tenpas said that the majority of the apartment complexes
built in Eden Prairie are of very high quality. Flint said
he was not concerned with looks, but rather he wanted owner-
occupied units.
Roger Brooks, 7370 Butterscotch Drive, said the Phase 1
grading is already done so development is already limited.
~enpas said the Council has to look at this as an entire
plan. Pidcock reiterated that anything to be developed
there will have to come back before the Council and the
Planning Commission to get approval. Brooks said he thought
they should wait to do the grading until there was a plan.
Lyman Olson, 7360 Scot Terrace, said he couldn't imagine why
they would want to dig the hill down without lowering it on
the residential side. He said he didn't think the building
should be over two stories high and he thought the road
should be moved like Mr. Bluhm suggested.
Paul Swidewski. 7393 Butterscotch Road. said he had concerns
with tree loss and with the hill being taken out which would
create problems with erosion.
Tenpas said there will be a specific grading plan and there
are ordinances regarding screening ~nd grading .
.Jessen noted that we sometimes have trouble with erosion
control. He said the people in the neighborhood can help
.with that by notifying the City if there are erosion
problems on a particular site.
Anderson said he regards this proposal as speculation and,
while he sympathizes with Mr. Carpenter, he didn't believe
we should grade the hill at this time without having a
specific plan. Anderson said he would agree with all of the
rest of the project except the grading of the top of the
hill .
.Jessen said this parcel represents a very difficult
decision. He said the City has called for this kind of
parcel to transit between commercial and residential. He
said he thought the proposal before us was entirely
consistent with the long-term objectives set forth by the
City. He further added that this is one of those areas that
is going to require serious erosion and dust control. He
31
(
(,
l
( , (
City Council Meeting 9 July 16, 1991
said he thought that we need to revise the alignment of the
road and to mitigate the effects of the lights.
Harris said she sees this as a plan that has progressed
through modifications that have attempted to meet
neighborhood and staff interests. She said this plan sets
parameters around what might happen to the property~
Pidcock said she had a problem with cutting down the hill
just for the sake of cutting it down. She said it is a good
plan except for that and asked how much will be taken down.
Brauer said they have preserved over 30% of the site and
they will be taking only the very top of the hill which has
no trees on it anyway.
Tenpas said he didn't have a problem with the plan as
presented. He said he saw the problem for most of the
~eople here to be the apartment complex; however, he
couldn't see any other economic use for the site. He said
there will be some type of multiple-family use on the site.
MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to adopt
Resolution 91-113 amending the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Motion carried 4-1 with Anderson opposed.
MOTION: Jessen'moved, seconded by Harris, to adopt
Resolution 91-114 approving PUD Concept Review, subject to
the conditions set forth in the Planning Commission
~~ecommendations and the Staff Report of May 29, 1991.
Motion carried 4-1 with Anderson opposed.
V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
Pidcock said she would like the list of claims included in the
Council packet rather than receiving the list at the meeting.
Harris said she agreed.
MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the
payment of claims Nos. 16361 -16745. Motion carried with
Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Jessen and Tenpas voting MAye."
VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. TECH 10 by Hoyt Development Company. 2nd Reading of
Ordinance 20-91-PUD-6-91, Planned Unit Development District
Review within the 1-2 Zoning District with waivers on 5.6
acres, Approval of Developer's Agreement; Adoption of
Resolution 91-160, Authorizing Summary and Ordering
Publication of Ordinance 20-91-PUD-6-91; Adoption of
Resolution 91-148, Site Plan Review on 5.6 acres for
approval of additional parking spaces on the Technology Park
7th Addition.site. Location: southwest corner of West 74th
Street and Golden Triangle Drive. (Ordinance 20-91-PUD-6-91
-PUD District Review; Resolution 91-160 -Summary and
Publication of Ordinance 20-91-PUD-6-91; Resolution 91-148 -
Site Plan Review).
32
'I,.
' ..
(
(
l
APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Monday, July 15, 1991
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
COMMISSION STAFF:
I. ROLL CALL
7:30 p.m., City Hall
7600 Executive Dr.
Pat Richard, chairperson; Bruce
Bowman, Diane Popovich Lynch
Karon Joyer, Paul Karpinko,
David Kuechenmeister, Del
Vanderploeg
Bob Lambert, Director of Parks,
Recreation and Natural Resources;
Laurie Helling, Manager of
Recreation Services
There was not a quorum present to hold a regular me~ting.
II. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. Carpenter North PUD
Refer to memo dated July 11, 1991 from Bob Lambert,
Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
and staff reports dated May 23, 1991 and July 5, 1991.
Don Brauer and Walter Carpenter were present at the
meeting to make a brief presentation to the Commission.
Brauer showed an aerial photo of the site which is
located at the northeast quadrant of Prairie Center
Dr. and Valley View Road. There is already a sanitary
sewer system, dike and channel on the site and there
are three large oak trees located in the park area.
There is also a large hill in the middle of the site.
There is poor soil and the area will have to be excavated
or surcharged for a couple of years prior to development.
The developer is requesting permission from the City
to grade the area and fill it later on.
Brauer said that staff asked for a revised plan. The
original plan was for medium density residential on
the site and included two apartment buildings. This
was changed to show a general idea of how the site
may be developed which shows less than 30% tree loss.
This plan has been approved by the planning staff.
Bowman .asked if the plan includes topping the hill.
Brauer said yes.
(
(
l
. "APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. July 15, 1991
: .'
-2-
Lambert asked what the timing is for the cul-de-sac
to be constructed. Brauer said the cul-de-sac would
not be built until development begins on the site.
Only grading will be done at this point. There will
be no platting or roads.
Richard asked if there are any trees east of Valley
View Road. Brauer said that there is mostly brush
and the site is planned to be strip commercial in the
future.
Richard asked what type of homes will be built in the
upper northeast corner. Brauer said they would most
likely be manor homes, townhomes or twin homes. I
Richard asked if any trees will be spared when the
homes are built. Brauer said the trees could be moved
to other locations if the hill was cut down. He would
like to salvage the trees and replant them in other
areas on the site. They are asking for credit from
the City for doing this.
Carpenter added that he would like to see as many trees
as possible utilized in this area •
.
Richard said he feels if we give credit to the owner
for the trees and the developer does not agree to relocate
them, the trees will be lost anyway.
Lambert asked what is being propQsed follows set standards
and staff is not recommending any type of a compromise. . .
Carpenter said they are currently trying to sell some
of the trees, but some trees aren't in very good conditio
because they have grown so close together.
Lynch asked how the tree replacement percentage is
figured. Lambert said he does not have the formula,
but the higher the percentage that is removed, the
more that need to be replaced.
Bowman said he has a problem with approving a grading
plan when development is not being done at this time.
Brauer said that two potential purchasers have already
been lost because the soil work was not done. ..... "-.....
.,' .·1
," :.~' .
.. .
"
(
(
l
"APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. July 15, 1991
III.
-3-
Richard asked if there will be any resistance to the
plan from the neighborhood. Lambert said that some
resistance has already been seen.
Bowman asked if there is a chance that the site won't
be buildable. Carpenter said that studies have been
done by an engineering firm and the area will be
buildable. He added that the ~ain objection to
development of the site by the neighbors has been
apartment buildings to be located here. They feel
that this would bring bad people into their neighborhood.
Richard asked if the neighborhood park will be large
enough to serve all the people that will be living
in this area. Lambert said this park has actually
turned into a good sized park.
Richard asked about the trail system. Lambert said
the developer will be required to construct a sidewalk
on the north side of Valley View Road and on the west
side of the cul-de-sac connecting to the sidewalk on
Butterscotch.
Lambert said that the main parks, recreation and natural
resources issues were tree loss and the trail system.
Staff recommends approval.
MISCELLANEOUS
Richard asked about alcohol related problems at Riley Lake.
Lambert said that police surveilance of the area has been
stepped up and staff will be meeting with the police, park
staff, etc. to discuss the problem.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lois Boettcher
Recording Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JULY 8, 1991
A. CARPENTER NORTH PUD (91-11-PUD) by Donald G. Brauer. Request
for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density
Residential to Regional Commercial on 4.5 acres for commercial
and multiple residential land uses to be known as carpenter
North PUD. Location: North of the intersection of Valley
View Road and Prairie Center Drive. A continued public
hearing.
Franzen reported that the proponent was ready to present
updates to the original plan which came about as the result of
neighborhood concerns and Staff recommendations.
Wal ter Carpenter, proponent, stated that he had owned the
property for some time and was now before the Planning
Commission to request a grading permit to prepare the property
for marketing. Carpenter stated that the property had been
guided commercial until 1982 when the northern portion was
modified to multiple-family to provide a better transition.
He added that in 1990 the division line between the commercial
and multiple-family changed. Carpenter noted that he had
agreed to donate property for a roadway system and also had
accepted a $50.00 per front foot assessment. The property had
been assessed over $600,000 for the roadway, and he had been
the largest donor of property for the roadway in this area.
Carpenter stated that the grading plan had been revised to
minimize damage to the hill. The multiple units would be
concentrated in the center of the property to allow the
largest number of units in the smallest area. The request for
density had been reduced from 17 to 10 units per acre.
Carpenter noted that several of the residents were upset with
the proposal. He added that he had circulated 292 notices
which extended well beyond the City's requirement of 500 feet
from the proposed site. A neighborhood meeting was held on
June 18, 1991 where strong objection from the residents to the
construction of apartment buildings, the hill being lowered,
and the construction of a gas station. The residents also
wanted to see more trees saved. . A second meeting was held
with the residents on June 24, 1991 to present an alternate
proposal. The alternate plan reduced the density of the
project, reduced the amount of grading on the hill to allow
for 2 buildings in lieu of 1 as per original plan, designated
the northeast corner of the property for multiple dwelling in
lieu of commercial and the northwest corner for a condominium
type building.
1
Planning Commission Minutes
July 8, 1991
"
Don Brauer, proponent, presented the plans for the
development. The northeast corner, approximately 4.5 acres
would be designated as medium density, the northwest area
would be restricted to a maximum of 24 units, and the center
of the property would contain two apartment buildings. The
apartments would have 117 units in lieu of the 161 originally
. requested. Brauer noted that the request at this time was for
Phase I grading only. He stated that the grading area had
been significantly reduced and the tree loss would not exceed
60%. Brauer said that the Phase II grading area would be a
fill area; not an excavation area. He added that the
commercial area had also been reduced. Brauer presented
aerial photographs of the area.
Franzen reported that the proponent had reduced the density
along the upper portion of the property to 10 units per acre,
which was consistent with the Guide Plan. The commercial area
would be along the lower portion of the property. Franzen
noted that the proponent was presenting a general plan to show
were the homes and commercial areas would be located. Franzen
stated that the City wanted some assurance that the number of
units and the density of the project would be maintained as
presented. Franzen did not believe that the development in
the center of the property would be visible and, therefore, it
made sense to propose the most units in this area. Franzen
stated that if the PUD was maintained the City and the
neighbors would have some assurances that the future plans
would be very similar to what was being proposed. He added
that this was the first level of approval for transition.
Franzen noted that when a proponent would come forward with a
definite proposal they would have to provide for saving the
trees, and provide berming and landscaping to provide a
buffer for the residents. Franzen said that Staff was
requesting a further restriction of the grading area for Phase
I. This would require no grading in the area with the oak
trees which would reduce the tree loss from approximately 60%
to approximately 35%. Staff also requested that the PUD be
maintained so that the City would know where units would be
located on the property. Franzen stated that actual tree
replacement would take place when actual development would
commence and at this time recommended that the area be seeded.
Franzen added that this was a concept approval for 117 units
only. A transition needs to take place between the multiple
and commercial areas. The commercial buildings need to have a
2
31
(
Planning Commission Minutes
July 8, 1991
(
residential character to assist in the transition. The roof
lines would need to be varied and heavy landscaping and
berming would be required. Franzen said that there would be
no access to Stewart Drive·and further recommended that the
access to the 17 unit section run along the eastern property
line.
Sandstad asked if the grading to the north needed to extend
all the way to the property line. Brauer replied that it
would be necessary to talk with adjacent property owners to
see if a flat area could be developed between the two
properties. Sandstad asked if retaining walls would be
necessary. Brauer replied that retaining walls would be
necessary to save the trees. Sandstad questioned if the grade
was approximately 30 feet lower than the road to the north.
Brauer replied that the grade was approximately the same as
stewart Drive and at the southern end it was somewhat lower.
Kevin Blohm, 7465 Scot Terrace, asked if there would be any
alternative to the road placement for access to the apartment
buildings. Blohm was concerned with the possibility of
headl ights shining into his home wi th the proposed road
alignment. Sandstad replied that there would be approximately
100 feet of trees between the Blohm home and the roadway.
Brauer replied that Blohm's concern was real, but believed
that if the trees could be left and a berm constructed the
problem would be eliminated. Blohm questioned why grading.
needed to be done before any plans were ready for approval.
Blohm did not feel that approval tonight was accomplishing
anything. Brauer replied that the purpose was to try to get
the property ready for developers to look at. Blohm asked if
the grading could be approved but the grading not actually be
done until a developer came forward with a definite plan.
'Brauer believed that it would be to both the developers and
the neighbors benefit to have the property graded in advance
and have a concept plan in place.
Kardell asked if the pad at the top of the hill would be
.screened by trees on three sides. Brauer replied yes.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
July 8, 1991
Blohm stated that he did not consider the timber walls to be
safe. Norman asked if the proposed grading would affect the
walls currently on existing property. Brauer replied that the
adjacent neighbors would have to agree to any grading being
done on their property and any removal of any retaining walls.
Ellen Maloney, 13364 Zenith Lane, asked if this property were
developed commercial, what guarantee did the neighborhood have
that noise pollution would not occur. Franzen replied that
the property would only be approved for commercial use and not
a specific use. He added that when an actual development plan
was presented it ·would be reviewed by both the Planning
Commission and the City council. Maloney then asked how many
times the neighbors would have to question the same issues and
how many meetings would they need to attend. Maloney noted
that a petition with approximately 80 signatures was presented
to the City against commercial development. Franzen noted
that the City Code outlined specific criteria regarding
rezoning and issues related to noise pollution and land usage
in relation to adjacent properties and minimize the impact on
existing homes. Franzen added that transition areas were also
required. He stated that the plans would be looked at very
carefully when a specific plan were proposed. Franzen noted
that it could be possible that 5 separate hearings could take
place related to this property. Maloney noted that the first
proposal presented was for a gas station in the commercial
area, which Staff was ready to allow to be passed, and
stressed her concern related to noise pollution and traffic if
that plan had been passed.
Hawkins questioned Maloney's statement related to Staff
approval of a plan for a gas station. Franzen responded that
the initial use for apartments and a gas station was a
reasonable use of the property in his opinion, but this was
formed prior to Commission and neighborhood input. The
neighbors presented several good arguments for a better
transition and to save more trees. After listening to
comments from both the neighbors and the Planning Commission,
Staff had looked at the plan from a new prospective and had
tried to balance all the expectations of the proponent,
Planning Commission and neighborhood which resulted in a
compromise plan.
4
(
Planning Commission Minutes
July 8, 1991
(
Maloney asked if the commercial area extended further north
than originally proposed. Franzen replied that Carpenter was
correct that in 1968 the entire property was planned for
commercial use, in 1977 the plan changed to move Valley View
Road. He added that in 1982 the commercial area extended up
into the hill area. Maloney stated that she advocated saving
more trees and increasing the berming toward the commercial
property to the west. Franzen noted that the proponent could
make a plan to show site line views from the site. Maloney
stated that the Manor Homes Association Board was concerned
about the commercial property and its close proximity to the
Manor Homes. Franzen then offered to meet Maloney on-site to
review site lines.
Leslie otten, 7310 Butterscotch Road, presented a list of
approximately 120 names of residents who did not want to see
the commercial line moved. otten stated that a month ago the
residents were no't happy with the proposed plan and the only
changes made were to reduce the density somewhat and to move,
the commercial line. He added that many of the oak trees
would still be removed. otten did not believe that there was
a plan being presented to vote on and did not see any need at
this time to grade the hill down. otten wanted to see more
specific details before approval of any grading.
Sandstad read into the record the petition statement presen,ted
by otten regarding maintaining the commercial zoning lines as
they-exist. Sandstad 'noted the date of the Petition as June
16, 1991, which was prior to the last meeting with the
developer.
Franzen believed that the neighbors had raised a valid point
related to grading of the hill at this time. He added that he
had looked very carefully at the hill and if it were actually
possible to develop a building on the hill. Franzen believed
that it could be possible to construct 80 units with a similar
elevation as previously proposed with a different building
design. Franzen noted that the building could be constructed
in the reduced grading area proposed by Staff for Phase I.
Brauer stated that there were several alternatives for
development. ,Brauer added that the proponent did not want to
grade this property unless it was feasible to develop the
property. Brauer believed that there would be nothing
definite to offer a potential developer without grading.
5
lIO
. Planning Commission Minutes
July 8, 1991
Leslie otten stated that residents were confused by a notice
received that the meeting tonight was canceled and rescheduled
for July 16, 1991, so several residents with objections were
not present.
Sandstad asked who had sent the letter. Franzen replied that
this letter was regarding the City Council review. otten
believed that this was confusing for residents. Franzen added
that residents had been told at the last Planning Commission
meeting that this item would be discussed at this meeting and
that addition notices would not be mailed.
Brauer stated that the proponent believed that the maj or
issues had been addressed and did not believe that it would be
possible to please everyone.
Cindy Winkel, 13392 Zenith Lane, asked if there were other
areas in Eden Prairie where commercial area abuts park land.
Winkel was concerned about animal migration. Hawkins replied
that as a Commissioner the wildlife was a consideration and
the' unique character . of the land was important. Brauer
replied that he had been part of the design of several of the
nature area within the Major Twin City Area. He added that
wetlands surround all the major center areas. Brauer stated
that it was decided to preserve large nature area and to
remove the smaller area because they could not be well
managed. Brauer believed parks to be good separators between
commercial and residential areas. Brauer noted that the
Woodlake Nature Area in Edina was a great wildlife area due to
good management. Brauer stated that he had received a letter
from the DNR stating that this area was not marked as an area
to be preserved.
Sandstad believed that the City went to great lengths to
preserve as many areas as possible. Brauer stated that the
original plan had approximately 21% of the property untouched
and the revised plan had approximately 40% untouched.
MOTION 1:
Norman moved, seconded by Kardell to close the public hearing.
6
41·
(
Planning Commission Minutes
July 8, 1991
(
Norman believed that a lot of work had gone into this plan on
the part of everyone including Staff, proponent, and
residents. Norman believed that some grading was necessary
because of the 2 year period needed to allow for settling of
the soil.
Norman stated that she could approve the plan with the Staff.
alternative for a reduced grading area and with the absolute
minimum grading and number of units to be developed.
Kardell believed that a sUbstantial improvement had been made
in the plan. She added that it was important that the PUD be
maintained and better screening provided.
Hawkins believed that it was important that the residents
continued ~o voice their. concerns and opinions throughout the
entire process. Hawkins added that he would vote in favor of
the Staff alternative due to a better transition, less grading
and a less intensive site plan.
Sandstad believed that grading was necessary in order to
market the property and would vote in favor of the Staff
motion. Motion carried 4-0-1. Bauer abstained.
MOTION 2:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Kardell to rec~mmend to the City
Council approval of the request of Donald G. Brauer for
Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Medium Density
Residential to Commercial on 4.5 acres to be known as
Carpenter North PUD, based on plans dated June 28, 1991,
subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July
5, 1991. Motion carried 4-0-1. Bauer abstained.
MOTION 3:
Hawkins moved, seconded by Kardell to recommend to the City
Council approval of the request of Donald G. Brauer for PUD
concept approval on 27 acres for 117 housing units and 104,000
square feet of commercial to be known as Carpenter North PUD,
based on plans dated June 28, 1991, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 5, 1991.
Motion carried 4-0-1. Bauer abstained.
7
'"
. PLANNING,COMl\1lSSION MINUTES -MAY 28.1991
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. CARPENTER NORTH PUD (91-11-PUD) by Donald G. Brauer.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density
Residential to Regional Commercial on 6.2 acres and from Medium
Density Residential to High Density Residential on 9.3 acres; Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 27.2 acres for future development of
commercial and multiple residential land uses to be known as Carpenter
North PUD. Location: North of the intersection of Valley View Road
and Prairie Center Drive .
. Walter Carpenter, the proponent, gave a background on the history of the
proposal. His business, Minnesota Tree Incorporated, moved to this site
following the condemnation of Highway 169. The property is part of the
Major Center Area. Carpenter stated that the initial concept for the parcel
was to have the entire parcel zoned commercial. After the bisection of the
property by Prairie Center Drive, only the southerly portion has developed
as commercial property.' Carpenter indicated that a service
station/convenience store was proposed for the northwest comer across the
street from this proposal, but because of the poor soil conditions, it has
been deleted and may be replaced with something else at a later date.
Carpenter stated that he is requesting permission to do some grading in the
area which is why a plan is being presented. He reported that he is unsure
of what development plans are for the site because of the way the market
is today.
Don Brauer, representing the proponent, stated that he has been involved
with Eden Prairie planning since 1964. He indicated the location of the
Carpenter North PUD as shown on a 1989 aerial photograph. Brauer
reviewed the 1968 Guide Plan and the fact that the "ring road" was
planned to go further to the north of the Carpenter site. He indicated that
the roadway location was changed in 1986, and the "ring road" split the
Carpenter parcel into two pieces on either side of Valley View Road.
Brauer stated that the current City Guide Plan shows the site to be split on
a diagonal line and is guided for Medium Density Residential.
Brauer reported that the site has a high hill of approximately 90'. At the
northerly end of the site, it slopes down 30' to the abutting duplex home
sites. The southerly end of the site abutting Valley View Road is 8' below
the grade of the street.
.".<
'<.< ". <
• f':" ~......... " ••
c
Planning Commission Minutes
. May 28, 1991
(
Brauer reviewed the drainage on the site. He indicated that the southwest
corner will drain into the park pond. The remainder of the site will drain
into the Ford Pond just west of Menard's. Drainage structures are already
in place. A small part of the hill drains to the north but will drain to the
south with development. Brauer reviewed what could be built on the site
which included a service station and convenience store on the west side.
. Plans also include commercial development to the east and a two-story
office building to the north. A driveway between the two commercial
buildings will allow drainage to leave the site. Two multiple dwellings are
also a possibility on the site for a total of 161 units.
Brauer reported that the grading is proposed to take down the top of the
hill so that it slopes up 25' and down 25'. The proposed building
elevations would be the same as the height of the hill as it is now. Access
to the site would be off of Valley View Road.
Hawkins asked if the drawings showed existing contours for grading.
Brauer replied that they did, and reviewed the drawings. The low area is
proposed to be filled, and 21 % of the site will be undisturbed. Plans are
to shape the ridge so that it will.1ook as if it is part of the hill. Brauer
reviewed two cross-sections through the site as they relate to existing
homes to the north.
Hawkins questioned whether sight lines from Valley View Road were
indicated on the cross-sections. Brauer responded that Valley View Road
would be 2' below the site.
Franzen reported that the site has always been guided for Medium Density
Residential and Commercial. The developer came to City Hall to request
permission to cut down the hill. He was informed that it couldn't be done
until a plan was presented. Intensity on the property was also discussed
at that time. The proponent is making the residential area smaller to allow
for more commercial area. Franzen believed that the commercial area
along Valley View Road makes sense because of the changes in grade and
distance from residential areas. Franzen stated that the multiple makes
sense on the wooded sites, because more trees can be saved. Franzen
reported that the developer is not proposing to build this plan. He stated
that fill will have to be brought on the site. Franzen indicated that 64%
of the significant trees will be lost during phase one grading. He stated
that the significant trees on the site are taken into consideration for tree
replacem~nt and reported that the trees at the northwest corner would not
, .
";
.',',"
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1991
be removed with phase one grading but would be removed as part of phase
two. Franzen believed that there should be a transition to the residential
area to the north. He stated that the proposal has more intense uses than
the Guide Plan depicts. He reviewed the staff recommendations for
approval of the request. Dirt from the hill will be used to fill the low
area, and dirt will be brought in to fill the commercial areas. Staff is not
recommending that the entire site be graded at this time. Franzen
indicated that the City ordin~ce requires that trees removed during
construction be replaced which means that 744" of trees will have to be
replaced. The proponent must return to the Planning Commission and
City Council when they request phase two grading. The proponent must
fence the area to be graded before the permit is issued to insure that the
correct areas are graded. Franzen also indicated that permits from the
DNR, Corps of Engineers, and Purgatory Creek Watershed District are
needed before grading can begin. Franzen indicated that phase two
grading must retain a natural buffer along the north property line.
Sandstad asked if there is a time limit on the agreement as far as tree
replacement is concerned. Franzen replied that tree replacement is part of
a legally binding agreement with the City which runs with the land Hallett
questioned if money is set aside in escrow for tree, replacement. Franzen
replied that a decision hasn't been made as far as partial or total guarantee
is concerned with phase one grading; however, before a building permit
is issued, a guarantee must be given at 150% of the cost of improvements.
Hallett asked what would happen if the property is sold and the new owner
goes bankrupt as far as tree replacement. Franzen responded that the
developer's agreement goes with the land, and the next owner is
responsible for tree replacement.
Norman asked what the history has been on developers requesting only ,
permission to grade rather than develop. Franzen replied that it is not a
commonplace occurrence, but it has happened in the past. He indicated
that the site the City Hall is on was graded on the basis of a concept plan
in preparation for future development. Trees were cut down, but there is
a condition in the developer's agreement that a prorated share of tree
replacement will take place as each lot develops. He again noted that the
City does not issue grading permits unless there is a plan to review.
Hawkins asked how tree sizes are determined in the tree ordinance.
Franzen replied that trees replaced have to be a minimum of 3" in
diameter. ,', i ,
45
-':,'
(
, Planning Commission Minutes
, May 28, 1991
(
Hallett asked how many units/units per acre were on this site. Franzen
replied that the Guide Plan shows 16.5 acres' or 165 units. He also
indicated that since the proposed multiple family area is reduced to 9.3
acres, the density goes up to 17 units per acre. Franzen further stated that
the amount of commercial will increase along Valley View Road since the
existing multiple acreage is proposed to be reduced.
Pamela Bacon. 7222 Divinity Lane and Linda Melquist. 15433 Kerry Lane
were unable to attend the meeting. They indicated in writing, their
opposition to the project. '
Kevin Blohm. 7465 Scot Terrace asked why the staff report wasn't mailed
to residents of the area. He felt that the plans presented weren't very
informative. They don't show where existing homes or trees are located.
He stated that the hearing should be stopped, because residents have not
been given enough time to review the proposal. Franzen explained the
public notice process and stated that staff reports are available on request.
Blohm was concerned with the presentation made by the proponent and the
fact that no one in the audience understands it. He suggested that fill be
brought in to the site rather than. tearing down the hill. He asked if soil
tests have been done to which Brauer replied that they have.
Blohm indicated that his main concern is that the plans shown didn't
indicate the locations of any of the surrounding houses. Ruebling asked
Brauer to indicate on' the' map where surrounding houses are located.
Brauer reviewed the locations of housing on the north end of the site.
Blohm was also concerned about the percentage of trees being removed.
Franzen explained that the developer is responsible for replacing any
significant trees of 12 inches or greater in size which are removed or die
because of grading. Franzen also discussed the public hearing process for
Roger Brooks, 7370 Butterscotch Drive stated that when he moved in four
years ago, he asked what the Guide Plan for that area was. He was told
it was Medium Density, which to him mean duplexes or single family
homes. He opposes the apartment building in the proposed location,
because it is a family neighborhood to the north, and the plan he had
reviewed indicated 400 units. Franzen stated that the number of units has
been reduced to 161', Hawkins asked what would happen if a 161-unit
building is constructed. Franzen replied that it would need to be seven
stories high. Brooks stated that 161 units would generate approximately
300-400 ~dditional people in the neighborhood. He was considered about
" ;,'
,·",,·i •.• ,'
Planning Commission Minutes
. May 28, 1991
additional people in the area and believed that owner-occupied housing·
would fit in better with the neighborhood. He was also concerned that
land values in the neighborhood would go down if apartment buildings are
built. He asked what the neighborhood could do to change the Guide Plan
to single family homes. Franzen responded that neighborhood groups have
come to the Planning Commission and City Council questioning the Guide
Hawkins asked the developer if there was some sort of demarcation line
where the location of the Medium Density and commercial are better
defined. Brauer indicated that the proposal is to define the line to follow
the hill rather than cut through it. He also stated that if single family
homes are built, the hill will be entirely removed, and there will be no
access to the north .. For the benefit of those present, Franzen reviewed
the City's Guide Plan map and indicated where the existing division
between multiple and commercial was on the site.
Stephen Hanson. 7289 Butterscotch Road was concerned about what would
happen to the scotch pine trees located next to Willow Park. He was not
against the commercial development. He asked if there was a builder in
mind for the apartment buildings.
Paul Swidewski. 7393 Butterscotch Road indicated that he was assured by
the City four years ago that the area was guided Medium Deosity
Residential. He was concerned about the fact that there doesn't have to
be a zoning change to begin grading and trees will be lost. He had a
problem with the Medium Density designation because of all the vacancies
in the area apartment buildings already. He was concerned with an
apartment building being built and the fact that Willow Park could not
accommodate them. He was also worried about his property values going
down. He believed that the residents need more time for this proposal.
Hawkins asked what the property was zoned. Franzen replied that it was
zoned Rural. He indicated that the City does not zoned property until a
development is proposed. Hallett asked what percentage is guided
commercial and residential on the 27 acres. Franzen responded that it is
2/3 Medium Density and 1/3 commercial. Swidewski stated that his house
would be a stone's t~row away from the apartment building.
Valerie Flint. 7390 Butterscotch Road didn't like the apartment buildings
being so close to her home and was concerned that Butterscotch Road
doesn't go all the way through to Valley View Road.
41
( (
Planning Commission Minutes
. May 28, 1991
. . . .' Of'·' ........... 'I' .. ~ . .'.
Leslie Otten. 7310 Butterscotch Road indicated that his major concern is
the grading which could begin before a decision is made about what will _
be built there. He didn't want the stand of oaks on the top of the hill
taken down. He was worried about the runoff from the top of the hill and
asked where the water would go once the hill is removed. He was
concerned about the 86% rental rate of apartments in the area. He didn't
think that a gas station should be built on a slough because of water table
contamination by gas tanks. He reported that an attorney will be in
attendance at the next meeting to represent the neighbors. Otten believed
that an apartment building would depreciate his home 30-40%.
Anton Waldner. 7340 Butterscotch Road asked who residents should
contact to voice their opposition to this being guided High Density
Residential. Ruebling responded that this item will be taken to the City
Council in the future, and residents are encouraged to attend and voice
their concerns.
Ruebling asked if the insignificant trees would need to be replaced.
Franzen responded that they would not, but the City is requesting that
many of the trees remain. Ruebling stated that the Planning Commission
has often suggested that insignificant trees not be removed.
Roger Enfield. 7350 Butterscotch Road was concerned about replacing
large oak trees with 3-inch replacement trees, having an apartment
building next to his house, disturbing the natural environment and
overcrowding the neighborhood park.
Reverend James McCracken. 12655 Roberts Drive stated that he is the
pastor of the New Victory Church. He was surprised about the lack of
information that he received on this proposal. He urged the Planning
Commission to stick with the original Medium Density Residential and
Commercial designations .
Ellen Maloney. 13364 Zenith Circle was concerned about the proposed gas
station and the proximity to her home and believed that the entire area
should be guided Medium Density Residential.
Steve Funk. 7485 Scot Terrace did not want this neighborhood to become
transient again with this proposal. Hawkins asked him what has changed
the neighborhood. Funk replied that residents have moved there who want
to grow ~ith the City.
. Planning Commission Minutes
. May 28, 1991
Allen Moore, 7400 Butterscotch Road discussed what attracted him to this
area. A second apartment building would be within sight of his home.
Moore indicated that the park was developed to support a single family
area, He questioned whether the apartments would be adults only. He
was concerned with grading for a speculative· development. He believed
that the property on the south side of Valley View should be developed as
commercial first.
Ruebling summarized the concerns of those present, which included:
Guide Plan change request to higher density and more commercial,
speculative grading, not enough detail on plans presented, not enough time
for residents to understand the proposal, negative impact of tree loss, loss
of property values, not enough buffering between neighborhoods' and
qoise.
Neil Ackerman. 7345 Butterscotch Road stated that this is the only
commercial development on the north side of Valley View Road.
A person in the audience asked for clarification of what 10 units per acre
meant. Ruebling indicated that it meant ten units per acre of land on the
average. Franzen stated that it is a maximum cap.
Brauer stated that it will take 3-9 months to get all the permits needed for
grading. A grading permit cannot be obtained until the demarkation line
is defined. Carpenter stated that it was obvious that the residents haven't
had enough time to discuss this proposal and suggested that a
neighborhood meeting be held. He indicated that he is willing to continue .
. MOTION
Motion by Sandstad to continue the public hearing in order to provide time
for the developer to provide more detailed plans. Motion died for lack of
a second.
Norman believed that the developer should come back with a more
detailed plan.
Hallett believed the developer should hear the Commission's thoughts on
the proposal.
Sandstad'.s major concern was about tree loss.
. '~ .
(
Planning Commission Minutes
. May 28, 1991
(
Hallett asked p-ow many acres are guided Medium Density. Franzen
. replied that 16.5 acres are Medium Density. Hallett believed that a
developer should have the right to develop their property, but a plan that
makes sense to the residents is necessary. Hallett was nervous about the
speculative nature of the request, not mowing what's going in and trees
not being replaced for a long period of time. Hallett stated that he would
not support a High Density request. Hallett believed that the residents
need more time to review this proposal.
Kardell stated that she would be opposed to the High Density request
based on the plans she saw. She was concerned about tree loss. Kardell
also commended the property owner for suggesting that a neighborhood
. meeting be held.
Hawkins was concerned that the gas station would be built and no further
development would take place, slow rental in the City and tree removal of
significant and insignificant trees based on a speculative plan. He
indicated that he was leaning towards voting against the request.
Ruebling believed that the Guide .Plan should be changed when there is a
compelling reason to do so. He was concerned about the amount of
grading that is being done without a real plan of what will be going there.
He believed that given the character of the site, the City needs some
protection against this happening. He suggested that the public hearing be
continued.
Hawkins asked if the proponent could be given a certain time period to
come back with the same plan should this plan be denied. Franzen replied
that if this plan is denied by the Planning Commission and City Council,
the proponent cannot come back with the same plan for a one year period.
If the developer wishes to proceed to' the Council and the request is
denied, the project will be closed. Franzen stated that if the Planning
Commission denies the request, the City Council could still approve it.
Hallett stated that he is leaning towards a continuance, because he has seen
some significant changes when a proposal is continued.
Hawkins believed that even with a delay, there is such an abrupt change
from the Guide Plan and zoning, and denial might be the best route.
<)0
. .:' . ... ';
. Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 1991
-.'
....
Norman believed that if the proponent submits a significantly different
plan, they should get the benefit of a continuance.
~ ... "... '~~. ;;', .,., .... ;. .
"
Hawkins asked ifrenotification would be necessary if there is a
continuance .. Franzen replied that republication would not be necessary if
the plan remains the same. Franzen indicated that after a neighborhood
meeting, the proponent could submit a different plan. If approved by the
Planning Commission, it could be republished correctly since notices of
Council meetings are mailed to residents also. Hawkins stated that he
thought such republication would be appropriate.
Sandstad believed the proponent has reasonable opportunities to rework the
plan and take care of many of the problems. The general consensus was
that this item be continued to the June 10 meeting. Hawkins indicated that
he and Norman would not be able to attend the meeting. Hawkins was
concerned that there would not be a quorum and to hold a neighborhood
meeting and make plan changes would take more than two weeks to
complete. He still believed that the request should be denied based on tree
loss, a speculative grading plan and impacts on the neighborhood.
Hallett stated that he would rather continue the item to the June 24
meeting in order to have a full quorum. Carpenter was concerned with the
delay of an entire month and would prefer a continuance of two weeks or
a denial.
MOTION
Motion by , seconded by to cpntinue the request for Comprehensive Guide
Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Regional
Commercial on 6.2 acres and from Medium Density Residential to High
Density Residential on 9.3 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 27.2 acres for future development of commercial and multiple
residential land uses to be known as Carpenter North PUD to the June 24
Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. Ruebling suggested
that notices of the continuance with minutes of this meeting be mailed to
those who spoke.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
11/19/96
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: V.D.
ADMINISTRATION Renewal of Cable TV Franchise with
Paragon Cable
Requested Action:
It is recommended that a 1st Reading be given to the following Ordinances:
1) Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance; and
2) Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance.
Background Information:
Paragon Cable has requested an early renewal of its Cable TV franchise with each
of the five cities included in the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (SSCC).
In return, Paragon would make a major investment ($25 -$30 million) to update the
system and add channel capacity.
Over the past several months, the SSCC Negotiating Committee (5 City
Managers/Assistants) have worked out proposed language on the major issues
involved with the renewal. This language has been incorporated in a Proposed
Franchise Agreement Ordinance now submitted for Council approval. The
Proposed Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance sets up the framework for
granting of such Cable Television franchises.
The essential terms of the franchise renewal are as follows:
1) Public Access Channels -Paragon will continue to provide four public
educational and government (PEG) access channels. Paragon will also
provide one large studio located in Eden Prairie for PEG access
purposes. The studio will have the capacity for audience participation
and will include two separate editing suites, storage space, and the
entire facility will be wheelchair accessible. This facility will also have
more hours than currently provided. These requirements for public
access will be reduced or eliminated in the event that it is deemed that
Paragon has substantial competition with other wired providers.
-2-
2) Customer Service Standards -Paragon will make periodic surveys of
its customer satisfaction, and agrees to comply with the Customer
Service Standards of the Federal Communications Commission as
such standards from time-to-time may be amended.
3) Line Extension -Paragon will within 12 months of receiving a request,
extend the system to any residences within the City served by City
water and sewer facilities.
4) Franchise Fees -Paragon has agreed to continue paying a 5%
franchise fee to the cities; however, this fee would be reduced to 2%
upon the existence of "competition" as defined by the Federal
Communications Commission.
Attach ments:
1. Summary of the Franchise Renewal Documents
2. Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance
3. Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance
SUMMARY OF TIlE FRANCHISE RENEWAL DOCUMENTS FOR
TIlE CITY OF ______ _
November 13, 1996
1. SUMMARY OF TIlE CABLE TELEVISION REGULATORY ORDINANCE
The Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance ("Regulatory Ordinance") provides the
franchising process and requirements for all cable operators within the City of
. It defmes the tenns used within the documents. It also outlines ------------------the authority that the City of has to grant cable franchises.
The Regulatory Ordinance provides an application process for new applicants and a
renewal process for current applicants. The Regulatory Ordinance specifies that no franchise
can be granted for a period of time longer than 15 years. It also describes the franchise
territory.
Within the Regulatory Ordinance, franchise administration procedures are outlined.
The Regulatory Ordinance specifies that the City Manager or the City Manager's designee is
responsible for cable administration. Under the Regulatory Ordinance, the City is authorized
to delegate its rights regarding administration of the Regulatory Ordinance. During
emergencies or disasters, the City is authorized to use the Grantee's emergency alert system.
The Regulatory Ordinance provides construction requirements that outline the
responsibilities of a Grantee during the construction of a cable system and specifies the
process for the movement of or removal of the Grantee's equipment at the request of the City
or another person. Additional construction issues addressed by the Regulatory Ordinance
include interconnection with adjacent systems, abandonment of the cable system and removal
of the cable system. The Regulatory Ordinance incorporates the Federal Communications
Commission's technical standards by reference.
To address customer service issues, the Regulatory Ordinance incorporates the
Federal Communications Commission's customer service standards and includes additional
customer service standards regarding outages, subscriber complaints, subscriber practices,
subscriber charges, rate regulation and the rights of individuals. It also requires each
Grantee to maintain a local office.
The Regulatory Ordinance requires each Grantee to provide public, educational and
governmental access programming and facilities consistent with state and federal law.
Provisions within the Regulatory Ordinance allow the City to review Grantee's
records and books. The Regulatory Ordinance also specifies the documents and records that
each Grantee must provide annually including an Annual Perfonnance Review.
The Regulatory Ordinance provisions state that the City has the right to review
transfers of ownership and to match a bona fide purchase offer for an asset sale of the
system. Additional provisions govern the City'S right to purchase the cable system upon
forfeiture, revocation or expiration.
To minimize litigation, the Regulatory Ordinance contains mediation procedures. The
Regulatory Ordinance also affirms the City'S right to assess a franchise fee.
To protect the City, the Regulatory Ordinance includes provisions detailing the
Grantee's liability for damages and penalties, the Grantee's responsibility for indemnifying
the City, requirements for security funds, and insurance requirements.
The Regulatory Ordinance contains extensive default provisions including
requirements for the continuation of cable services if a franchise is terminated or if it is not
renewed, and foreclosure and receivership procedures. Additional provisions in the
Regulatory Ordinance include a Force Majeure provision allowing exceptions for events
beyond the Grantee's control, a severability procedure and an effective date provision.
II. SUMMARY OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
ORDINANCE
The Cable Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance ("Agreement Ordinance")
grants a cable franchise to KBL Cable Systems of the Southwest Inc. d/b/a Paragon Cable
("Grantee") for 15 years. It also provides the effective date for the renewal.
The Agreement Ordinance specifies that Grantee will upgrade the current cable
system to a capacity of 750 MHz with 550 MHz reserved for providing the delivery of up to
79 analog cable channels (the present system has a capacity of 58 analog channels). The
technical operations of the system shall also be upgraded and the Grantee shall provide
standby power for the cable system. Grantee agrees to extend service to any residences
receiving City water and sewer services. Parental control provisions shall be available to
subscribers upon request. Under the Agreement Ordinance, Grantee shall provide a free
connection and specified free cable services to public schools and municipally owned
buildings. Free installation and service shall also be provided to private schools until the
year 2000.
A provision in the Agreement Ordinance allows the City to engage the Grantee in a
periodic review process to determine whether the cable system is state-of-the-art. Such a
review includes at least two public hearings to obtain public comment. Provisions in the
Agreement Ordinance also permit the City to require subscriber surveys.
The Agreement Ordinance requires the Grantee to provide four public, educational
and governmental access channels. Grantee shall also provide leased access channels and the
Metro Cable Network, Channel six, as required by law.
Under the Agreement Ordinance, Grantee will combine the three existing public,
educational and governmental access facilities into one large facility located in Eden Prairie.
The Grantee is required to me a transition plan with the City describing this process. The
combined facility will feature a studio with audience participation capacity, two separate
editing suites, storage space, regular hours including evening and weekend hours, and it will
be wheelchair accessible.
Grantee will provide at least $200,128 in funding for the facility during the frrst year.
After the first year, the Grantee shall provide sufficient fmancial and in-kind support to
maintain a substantially equivalent level of services, facilities and equipment in the remaining
years of the Agreement Ordinance.
The Agreement Ordinance requires the Grantee to assist the City in providing live
City Council meetings, reruns of government access programming and character generated
programming on the government access channel. Grantee shall also assist the City in .
replaying tapes in pre-arranged time slots and it will switch to C-SP AN 2 or other
comparable programming when the government access channel is not carrying live or taped
government access programming.
The Agreement Ordinance requires Grantee to pay a franchise fee of five percent.
Grantee must maintain a bond of $300,000 until the system upgrade is complete and then the
City may reduce the bond to $100,000. Several provisions specify penalties in the event of
non-compliance with the franchise and the procedures to enforce those penalties.
In consideration of the Grantee's investment of $20 million to rebuild the systems for
the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka, Hopkins and Richfield, MN, the Agreement
Ordinance contains a competition adjustment provision that relieves the Grantee of certain
franchise fee and public, educational and government access obligations within a city if a
wired competitor offers video programming services in that city.
598968
-~--------------------------------------------------~
CABLE TELEVISION
REGULATORY ORDINANCE
CITY of
, MINNESOTA
---------------------------------
Prepared by:
Adrian E. Herbst, Esq.
Theresa M. Harris, Esq.
Fredrikson & Byron, P .A.
1100 International Centre
900 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 347-7000
Fax: (612) 347-7077
With the assistance of:
The Southwest Suburban
Cable Commission
Sec. 20. ~ ..
Sec. 21. 1
Sec. 22. 1
Sec. 23. 1
Sec. 24. (
Sec. 25. ~
Sec. 26. 1
Sec. 27. 1
Sec. 28.
Sec. 29.
Sec. 30.
Sec. 31.
Sec. 32.
Sec. 33.
Sec. 34.
Sec. 35. I
Sec. 36.
Sec. 37. I
Sec. 38.
Sec. 39.
Sec. 40.
Sec. 41. (
588627
Franchi" Ordina
October 16, 199c
.. TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PURPOSE ..................... .
Sec. 1. Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sec. 2. DefInitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sec. 3. Authority to Grant Franchises ......................... .
Sec. 4. Application for Franchise
Sec. 5. Acceptance and Duration of Franchise ...................... .
Sec. 6. Franchise Territory ................................ .
Sec. 7. Franchise Administration ............................ .
Sec. 8. Construction of System ............................. .
Sec. 9. Work Performed by Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sec. 10. Conditions on Use ................................ .
Sec. 11. Use of Grantee's Facilities .......................... .
Sec. 12. Failure to Complete Work ..... -...................... .
Sec. 13. Technical Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sec. 14. Interconnection .................................. .
Sec. 15. Removal or Abandonment of A System ................... .
Sec. 16. Customer Service Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sec. 17. Programming Provisions ............................ .
Sec. 18. Subscriber Practices ............................... .
Sec. 19. Weal Office ........................... 0 ••••••••
588627
FranchiK Ordinance
October 16, 1996 • Pqc i
1
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A -Federal Communications Commission
Customer Service Obligations .. ............................. 32
Exhibit B -Annual Performance Review .............................. 33
588627
Franchise Ordinance
October 16, 1996· Pile iii
ORDINANCE NO. _____ _
AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE THE GRANTING OF FRANCmSES TO
OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A CABLE SYSTEM IN THE CITY; SETTING
FORTII CONDmONS ACCOMPANYING TIlE GRANT OF FRANCmSE;
PROVIDING FOR REGULATION AND USE OF THE SYSTEM:; AND
PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF ITS PROVISION.
The City Council of ______ , Minnesota ordains:
STATEMENT OF INfENT AND PURPOSE
The City of __________ , pursuant to applicable federal and state
law, is authorized to grant one or more nonexclusive cable television franchises to construct,
operate, maintain and reconstruct Cable Television Systems within the City limits.
The City Council fmds that the development of Cable Television Systems has the
potential of having great benefit and impact upon the residents of _____ . Because of
the complex and rapidly changing technology associated with cable television, the City
Council further fmds that the public convenience, safety and general welfare can best be
served by establishing regulatory powers which should be vested in the City or such Persons
as the City shall designate. It is the intent of this Ordinance and subsequent amendments to
establish minimum requirements regarding the granting of cable television franchises
consistent with Minnesota and federal law recognizing that these laws and the requirements
of local government are continuously changing, and to provide for and specify the means to
attain the best possible cable television service to the public. Any franchises issued pursuant
to this Ordinance shall be deemed to include this intent as an integral part thereof.
581627
Franchi" Ordinance
October 16. 1996· PliO I
q
Sec. 1. Title.
This Ordinance shall be entitled, "Cable Regulatory Ordinance."
Sec. 2. DefInitions.
For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following, tenns, phrases, words, derivations
and their derivations shall have the meanings given herein. When not inconsistent with the
context, words used in the present tense include the future tense, words in the plural number
include the singular number and words in the singular number include the plural number.
A. IIAccess Channels II shall mean those Channels which, by the terms of this
Ordinance or the Franchise Agreement, are required to be kept available by the Minnesota
Cable Communications Act for partial or total dedication to public access, educational
access, or local government access.
B. "Affiliate" shall mean any person controlling, controlled by or under common
control of a Grantee of a franchise issued pursuant to this Ordinance.
C. "Applicant" means any person that applies for a Franchise under this
Ordinance.
D. "Application" or "Proposal" are synonymous for the purposes of this
Ordinance. An Application or Proposal means the process by which the Applicant submits a
request and indicates a desire to be granted a franchise for all, or a part, of the City. An
Application or Proposal includes all written documentation, including official city council
minutes concerning the construction, detailed description of services to be provided, the area
to be served within the City, the portion of Street to be used, rendering of services and the
manner thereof, rates and charges, maintenance, or any other matter pertaining to the
proposed Cable Communications System.
E. "Basic Cable Service" means any service tier which includes the
retransmission of local television broadcast signals. This defInition shall be deemed to
change pursuant to any changes in applicable federal law and shall be interpreted in a manner
consistent with the rules of the Federal Communications Commission.
F. "Cable Communications System, II "Cable Television System, II IICable
System," "CATV" or "System", shall mean a System of coaxial cables or other electrical
conductors and equipment used or to be used to originate or receive television or radio
signals directly or indirectly off the air and to transmit them via cable or fIber optics to
Subscribers for a fIXed or variable fee, including the origination, receipt, transmission, and
distribution of voices, sound signals, pictures, visual images, digital signals, telemetry, or
any other type of closed circuit transmission by means of electrical impulses, whether or not
directed to originating signals or receiving signals off the air.
S88627
pflJlCbiJe Ordinance
Oc1obcr 16. 1996 • Pille 2
/0
G. "Cable Service" shall mean (a) the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i)
Video Programming or (ii) Other Programming Service, and (b) subscriber interaction, if
any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other
programming service. For the purposes of this defInition, "video programming" is
programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by
a television broadcast station; and, "other programming service" is information that a cable
operator makes available to all subscribers generally.
H. "City" shall mean the City of ___________ , a municipal
corporation in the State of Minnesota.
1. "Connection" means the attachment of the drop to the fIrst radio or television
set of the subscriber.
J. "Converter" means an electronic device, which converts signals to a frequency
not susceptible to interference within the television receiver of a subscriber, and by an
appropriate channel selector also permits a subscriber to view all signals included in the basic
service delivered at designated converter dial locations.
K. "Council" shall mean the governing body of the City.
L. "Drop" shall mean the cable that connects the subscriber terminal to the
nearest feeder cable of the cable.
M. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission, or a designated
representative.
N. "Franchise" means the non-exclusive right and authority granted to an
Applicant by a Franchise Agreement Ordinance to construct, maintain and operate any part _
of a Cable Communications System described in the Application, through use of the public
Streets, public utility easements or other public rights-of-way or public places in the City.
The Franchise shall describe in detail all requirements applicable to the Franchise including
all applicable requirements of federal, state and local laws.
O. "Franchise Agreement Ordinance" or "Franchise Agreement" means the
ordinance adopted by City granting a Franchise to an Applicant.
P. "Grantee" shall mean any Person to whom a Franchise is granted pursuant to
this Ordinance and any lawful successor or assignee of the original Grantee.
Q. "Gross Revenues" shall mean all revenues received directly or indirectly by
the Grantee, arising from or in connection with the provision of Cable Service in the City
and consistent with local, state and federal law, including, but not limited to, Subscriber
revenues (including Pay TV), advertising income, home shopping programs, rentals of
581627
Praochile Ordinance
OclDbcr 16, 1996· Page 3
II
equipment, antenna or signal space, and any and all other Gross Revenues received by the
Grantee from the provision of Cable Service in the area under the jurisdiction of the City.
Grantee is not required to include revenues recorded as received but which are "bad debt, "
but it must include any recoveries of bad debt. This defInition of gross revenues also does
not include any sales, excise or other taxes collected by Grantee on behalf of federal, state,
county, city or other governmental unit. Funds coUected by Grantee to support public,
educational and governmental access programming are also excluded from the defInition of
Gross Revenues.
R. "Minnesota Cable Communications Act" means the provisions of Minnesota
law governing the requirements for a cable television franchise as set forth in Minn. Stat.
§ 238, et. seq., as amended.
S. "Ordinance" means this Ordinance concerning the granting of Franchises in
and by the City for Cable Communications Systems.
T. "Person" means any natural person and all domestic and foreign corporations,
closely-held corporations, associations, syndicates, joint stock corporations, partnerships of
every kind, clubs, businesses, common law trusts, societies and/or any other legal entity.
U. "Street" shall mean the surface of and the space above and below any public
Street, road, highway, freeway, lane, path, public way, alley, court, sidewalk, boulevard,
parkway, drive or any easement or right-of-way now or hereafter held by City which shall,
within its proper use and meaning in the sole opinion of City, entitle Grantee to the use
thereof for the purpose of installing or transmitting over poles, wires, cables, conductors,
ducts, conduits, vaults, man-holes, amplifIers, appliances, attachments and other property as
may be ordinarily necessary and pertinent to a System.
v. "Subscriber" shall mean any person or entity receiving service provided by a
Grantee pursuant to the authority of a Franchise.
W. In the event the meaning of any word or phrase not defmed herein is
uncertain, the defmitions contained in applicable State or Federal law shall apply.
Sec. 3. Authority to Grant Franchises.
A. The Council is empowered and authorized to issue non-exclusive Franchises to
install, construct, operate and maintain Cable Communications Systems in the City's Streets,
as well as to regulate these activities.
B. The Council has determined that the granting of Franchises for Cable
Communications Systems in the City will promote the public interest, enhance the health &
welfare and safety of the public and stimulate commerce by assuring that: (1) Cable
Communications Systems are responsive to the needs and interests of the City and its
588627
Franchi" Ordinance
OclObcr 16, 1996 -Paee 4
12-
residents; (2) Cable Communications Systems provide, and are encouraged to provide the
widest diversity of information and service to the public; and (3) there is an orderly process
for the granting or renewal of Franchises, and oversight of the services provided pursuant to
Franchises.
C. No person shall construct, operate, maintain, or continue to operate or
maintain a Cable Communications System which occupies any part of the City's Streets,
without the authority of a Franchise granted by the City pursuant to this Ordinance.
D. No provision of this Ordinance shall be deemed or construed to require the
granting of a Franchise by the City.
E. Any Franchise granted must comply with the Minnesota Cable
Communications Act standards.
F. Grantee's rights are subject to the police power of City to adopt and enforce
ordinances necessary to the health, safety and welfare of the public of general applicability.
G. Both the City and the Grantee expressly reserve any and all rights that either
may have under applicable state and federal law including but not necessarily limited to, the
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended, and the rules and regulations of the
FCC. Neither adoption of this Franchise by the City nor acceptance by the Grantee shall be
construed as a waiver, modification, termination or discharge of any right that either the city
or the Grantee may now or hereafter have.
H. Except as may be based upon public health, safety and welfare requirements of
general applicability or where required by federal or state law or rules, no modification or
amendment to the Regulatory Ordinance or the franchise agreement ordinance shall be
effective unless in writing and signed by both the City and Grantee.
Sec. 4. Application for Franchise.
A. Each Applicant for a Franchise, including the renewal of a Franchise
consistent with state and federal law , requesting permission to construct, operate or maintain
any Cable Communications System in the City shall me an Application with the City in a
form and containing such information as is requested by the City. The contents of such
Application may vary, according to the nature of the proposed Cable Communications
Systems. However, an Initial Application shall contain, at a minimum, the following
information.
588627
(1) The name, address and telephone number of the Applicant. If the
Applicant is a partnership, the home and business address of each partner shall also
be set forth. If the Applicant is a corporation, the -Application shall state the names
Prmcm.e Ordinance
Oc1obcr 16, 1996· Pace 5
and addresses of its directors, main officers, major stockholders and associates and
the names and addresses of parent or subsidiary companies.
(2) A statement setting forth in its entirety any and all agreements and
understandings, whether formal or informal, written, oral or implied, existing or
proposed to exist between the Applicant and any Person who proposes to have an
ownership interest with respect to the proposed Franchise or to the proposed Cable
Communications System. If a Franchise is granted to a Person acting as a
representative of another Person and such information is not disclosed in the original
Application, the Franchise shall be deemed void and of no force and effect.
(3) Financial statements, as determined by the Council, prepared by a
certified public accountant, or person otherwise satisfactory to the Council, showing
Applicant's fmancial status and fmancial ability to complete the construction and
installation of the proposed Cable Communications System and/or continue the
operation of the existing Cable Communications System.
(4) A statement describing the Cable Communications System and
specifying the type and capacity of the Cable Communications System proposed to be
construed, installed, maintained or operated by the Applicant and the proposed or
existing location of the Cable Communications System.
(5) A description of all previous experience of the Applicant in providing
Cable Communications System service and in related or similar fields.
(6) Any other details, statements, information or references pertinent to the
subject matter of such Application which shall be required or requested by the
Council, or by any provision of any other ordinance of the City.
The City reserves the right to modify the Application in a renewal process to
accommodate information regarding the Applicant that is already in the possession of the
City. Any renewal of a Franchise shall comply with applicable federal, state or local law .
B. Prior to the issuance of a Franchise, the City shall hold a public hearing,
following reasonable notice to the public, at which Applicant and its Application shall be
examined and the public and all interested parties afforded a reasonable opportunity to be
heard. The City reserves the right to seek reimbursement of its costs to the extent permitted
by applicable state and federal law . The preceding statement does not constitute an
agreement by any Applicant to reimburse the City for the cost of the Application process.
C. In making any determination hereunder as to any Application, the City shall
consider the impact on the Streets with the addition of the proposed Cable Communications
System, the needs of the City and the legal, technical and fmancial qualifications of the
Applicant. For initial franchises, the City shall give due consideration to the quality of the
S88627
PrlllChile Ordinance
OclObcr 16, 1996 -Pace 6
service proposed; experience, character, background and the fmancial responsibility of any
Applicant and its management and owners; willingness and ability to abide by policy
conditions; Franchise limitations and requirements; and any other considerations deemed
pertinent to the Council for safeguarding the interest of the City and the public. For a
renewal of a Franchise, the City shall also consider the factors identified in the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended.
D. The City may require the Applicant for an initial franchise to reimburse the
City for its reasonable costs to review the Application including costs for technical assistance
to aid the City in understanding the nature and effect of the Application.
Sec. 5. Acceptance and Duration of Franchise.
A. Any Franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance shall be in the form of a
Franchise Agreement Ordinance between the City and the Grantee which shall comply with
all specifications of this Ordinance.
B. Any Franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance shall become effective in
accordance with the terms and conditions approved by the Council, provided that a Grantee
has fIled with the City Clerk a written instrument addressed to the Council accepting the
Franchise, within the time specified by the City Council, and agreeing to comply with all
provisions of this Ordinance and the Franchise.
C. The term of a Franchise shall be stated in the Franchise Agreement Ordinance,
but shall in no event exceed 15 years.
Sec. 6. Franchise Territory.
Any Franchise shall be valid within all territorial limits of the City, and within any
area added to City during the term of a Franchise, unless otherwise specified in the
Franchise Agreement Ordinance.
. Sec. 7. Franchise Administration.
A. Administrator. The City Manager or the City Manager's designee shall be
responsible for the continuing administration of a Franchise. The administrator may be
changed by City from time to time by written notice given to a Grantee.
B. AdvisOIY body. The City may appoint an advisory body to monitor the
performance of a Grantee in executing the provisions of a Franchise. The advisory body
shall perform all functions required of it by the City and applicable laws, ordinances, rules
and regulations.
588627
Franchise Ordinance
October 16, 1996. Page 7
588627
C. Delegation of Authority by the City
(1) The City reserves the right to delegate and redelegate from time to time
any of its rights or obligations under a Franchise to any body or
organization.
(2) Any delegation by City shall be effective upon written notice by City to
a Grantee of such delegation.
(3) Upon receipt of notice by a Grantee of City's delegation, a Grantee
shall be bound by all tenns and conditions of the delegation not in
conflict with a Franchise.
(4) Any such delegation, revocation or redelegation, no matter how often
made, shall not be deemed an amendment to a Franchise or require any
consent of a Grantee.
D. Nonenforcement by City. A Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligation to
comply with any of the provisions of a Franchise by reason of any failure of
the City or to enforce prompt compliance.
E. Administration of Franchise.
(l) The City shall have continuing regulatory jurisdiction and supervision
over the System and a Grantee's operation under a Franchise. The
City may issue such reasonable rules and regulations concerning the
construction, operation and maintenance of a System as are consistent
with the provisions of a Franchise.
(2) A Grantee shall construct, operate and maintain a System subject to the
supervision of all the authorities of the City who have jurisdiction in
such matters and in strict compliance with all laws, ordinances,
departmental rules and regulations affecting the System.
(3) A System and all parts thereof shall be subject to the right of periodic
inspection by the City where reasonably necessary to the enforcement
of a Franchise and provided that such inspection shall not interfere with
the operation of a System and such inspections take place during
nonnal business hours.
F. Emergency Use. In the case of any emergency or disaster, a Grantee shall,
upon request of the City or emergency management personnel, make available
to the City its emergency alert system and related facilities for use during an
emergency or disaster period in accordance with Section 47 C.F.R. § 11.
Franchi" Ordinance
October 16, 1996· Page 8
G. Controlling Law. A Franchise shall be construed and enforced in accordance
with the substantive laws of the State of Minnesota except to the extent the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution requires application of
federal law.
H. Captions. The paragraph captions and headings in a Franchise are for
convenience and reference purposes only and shall not affect in any way the
meaning of interpretation of a Franchise.
I. Calculation of Time. Where the performance or doing of any act, duty,
matter, payment or thing is required hereunder and the period of time or
duration for the performance is prescribed and fIxed herein, the time shall be
computed so as to exclude the fIrst and include the last day of the prescribed
or fIxed period or duration of time. When the last day of the period falls on
Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday, that day shall be omitted from the
computation and the next business day shall be the last day of the period.
Sec. 8. Construction of System.
A. A Grantee shall, at least 60 days prior to any construction regarding the
System in the City, provide notice to representatives of the City of the following: (1) The
nature of the work to be undertaken; (2) the estimated schedule for said work; (3) steps to be
taken to minimize disruption to public; and (4) steps to be taken to notify the residents and
others of said work.
B. A Grantee shall not open or disturb the surface of any Streets without fIrst
obtaining a permit from City for which permit City may impose a reasonable fee to be paid
by a Grantee. The lines, conduits, cables and other property placed in the Streets shall be
located in such part of the Street as shall be reasonably determined by the City. In so
determining the location in such part of the Street, the parties shall take into account the
health, safety and welfare considerations together with the technical parameters of the System
design. A Grantee shall, upon completion of any work requiring the opening of any Streets,
restore the same, including the pavement and its grounds to as good a condition as formerly
and in a manner and qUality approved by City, and shall exercise reasonable care to maintain
the same thereafter in good condition. Such work shall be performed with diligence and due
care, and if Grantee shall fail to perform the work promptly, to remove all dirt and rubbish
and to put the Street back into the condition required hereby, City shall have the right to give
written notice to Grantee regarding the condition of the Street. Grantee shall have 30 days
from the receipt of written notice from the City to put the Street into the condition required
hereby or reach an agreement with the City. Such work shall be performed with diligence
and due care, and if Grantee shall fail to perform the work promptly, to remove all dirt and
rubbish and to put the Street back into the condition required hereby, the City shall have the
right following 30 days written notice to a Grantee to put the Street back into good condition
at the expense of the Grantee. A Grantee, upon demand, shall pay to the City the cost of
S88627
Franchi" Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Pile 9
11
such work done or perfonned including its administrative and overhead plus an additional ten
percent as liquidated damages.
C. All wires, conduits, cable and other property and facilities of a Grantee shall
be so located, constructed, installed and maintained as not to endanger or unnecessarily
interfere with the usual and customary trade, traffic and travel upon, or other use of, the
Streets of City. A Grantee shall keep and maintain all of its property in good condition,
order and repair so that the same shall not menace or endanger the life or property of any
person. A Grantee shall keep accurate maps and records of all of its wires, conduits, cables
and other property and facilities located, constructed and maintained in the City.
D. All wires, conduits, cables and other property and facilities of a Grantee, shall
be constructed and installed in an orderly and workmanlike manner. All wires, conduits and
cables shall be installed, where possible, parallel with electric and telephone lines. Multiple
cable configurations shall be arranged in parallel and bundled with due respect for
engineering considerations.
E. A Grantee shall at all times comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules,
regulations and codes, federal, state and local. In any event, the installation, operation or
maintenance of System shall not endanger or interfere with the safety of persons or property
in the City.
F. Whenever City shall undertake any public improvement which affects a
Grantee's equipment or facilities, City shall, with due regard to reasonable working
conditions and with reasonable notice, direct a Grantee to remove its wires, conduits, cables
and other property located in Streets. A Grantee shall relocate or protect its wires, conduits,
cables and other property at its own expense. If the City, from its own funds, reimburses
any non-municipally owned utility for relocating its property at the City's request, the City
shall reimburse Grantee in a substantially similar manner.
G. To the extent a Grantee plans to construct or rebuild its System, it shall
comply with the following minimum requirements:
S88627
(1) A Grantee shall construct underground in any area where both electrical
and telephone has been installed underground.
(2) A Grantee shall change from aerial to underground, at its own expense,
in any area where both electrical and telephone are hereafter changed
from aerial to underground. If the City, from its own funds,
reimburses any non-municipally owned utility for relocating its property
at the City's request, the City shall reimburse Grantee in a substantially
similar manner.
PtlllCbiJe Ordinance
October 16, 1996· Pale 10
(3) A Grantee shall change from aerial to underground, when both
electrical and telephone are similarly required, without cost to City,
whenever requested by City, which request can be made for a certain
area or areas or for the entire System. If the City, from its own funds,
reimburses any non-municipally owned utility for relocating its property
at the City'S request, the City shall reimburse Grantee in a substantially
similar manner.
(4) To enable a Grantee reasonable opportunity to change its wiring from
aerial to underground, and also to allow it to pre-wire all new
subdivisions or new development areas, City shall arrange for the
Grantee to receive timely notice of a new Franchise granted for Cable
Services, but in no event shall City have any liability for failure to
arrange for notice of the following:
(a) Any changes of which City has knowledge of, or which City
may order, regarding a change from aerial to underground of
any line (telephone or electrical) within its boundaries.
(b) Any underground trenching that may be pending.
(c) New subdivisions and development. All of such subdividers or
developers shall be notified of a Franchise and a System.
Sec. 9. Work Performed by Others.
A. A Grantee shall give notice to City specifying the names and addresses of any
entity, other than a Grantee, which performs construction services pursuant to a Franchise,
provided, however, that all provisions of a Franchise remain the responsibility of a Grantee.
B. All provisions of a Franchise shall apply to any subcontractor or others
performing any work or services pursuant to the provisions of a Franchise.
Sec. 10. Conditions on Use.
A. A Grantee shall not place poles or other fIxtures where the same will interfere
with any gas, electric or telephone fIxture, water hydrant or main.
B. A Grantee, at the request of any person holding a building moving permit and
with not less than fIve business days advance notice, shall temporarily remove, raise or lower
its wires, conduits and cables. The expense of such temporary removal, raising or lowering
of wires, conduits and cables shall be paid by person requesting the same, and Grantee shall
have the authority to require such payment in advance of any required work taking place.
588627
Franchi" Ordinance
October 16, 1996· Pile 11
C. A Grantee shall have the authority, to the extent the City has authority to grant
the same, to trim trees upon or overhanging any Street so as to prevent the branches of such
trees from coming in contact with the wires, conduits and cables of a Grantee. All trimming
shall be done under the supervision and direction of City and at the expense of a Grantee.
D. Nothing contained in a Franchise shall relieve any Person from liability arising
out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring a Grantee's facilities while
perfonning any work connected with grading, regrading or changing the line of any Street or
public place or with the construction or reconstruction of any sewer or water system.
Sec. 11. Use of Grantee's Facilities.
A Grantee is authorized to use Streets to construct, operate and maintain a Cable
Television System and to provide Cable Services in the City. All uses by Grantee or others
authorized by Grantee shall be subject to applicable pennits, licenses, certificates or
franchises as may be required by the City, state or federal law or rules.
Sec. 12. Failure to Complete Work.
Upon the failure, refusal or neglect of a Grantee to cause any work or other act
required by law, this Ordinance or a Franchise to be properly completed or performed, after
notice to a Grantee the City may cause work or other activity to be completed or perfonned,
in whole or in part, to the satisfaction of the City. Upon so doing, the City shall submit to a
Grantee an itemized statement of the cost thereof. A Grantee shall, within 30 days after
receipt of the statement, pay to the City the entire amount thereof.
Sec. 13. Technical Standards.
A. A Cable System shall be designed, constructed and operated so as to meet
those technical standards promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission relating
to Cable Television Systems contained in part 76 of the Federal Communications
Commission's rules and regulations relating to Cable Television Systems and found in Code
of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Sections 76.601 to 76.630. The City shall be able to
enforce these standards to the extent allowable under local, state or federal law . Any tests
required by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to these rules must be fIled
with the City upon request.
B. A Grantee shall perform additional tests if requested by City. The tests may
be done at such times as is determined by City, with notice to a Grantee. All expenses for
all such tests shall be paid by City, unless otherwise agreed upon .
.588627
Franchi" Ordinance
October 16, 1996. Page 12
Sec. 14. Interconnection.
A. A System shall be designed to be interconnected with other adjacent Systems.
At a minimum, a System shall be capable of interconnecting the access channel programming
to other adjacent systems. Grantee shall not be required to provide more access channels as
a result of interconnecting with another system than the number of channels required by the
franchise agreement ordinance.
B. The City may request a Grantee to negotiate interconnecting the Subscriber
Network with other adjacent Systems in the general area. A Grantee shall use its good faith
to negotiate such interconnection and shall keep the City informed of the progress of any
negotiations.
Sec. 15. Removal or Abandonment of A System.
A. In the event that: (1) the use of any System is discontinued for any reason for
a continuous period of 12 months; or (2) any System has been installed in a Street without
complying with the requirements off this Ordinance and a Franchise, a Grantee, at its
expense shall, at the demand of the City remove promptly from the Streets all of a System
other than any which the City may permit to be abandoned in place. In the event of any
such removal Grantee shall promptly restore to a condition as nearly as possible to its prior
condition the Street or other public places in the City from which a System has been
removed.
B. A System to be abandoned in place shall be abandoned in the manner
prescribed by the City. A Grantee may not abandon any portion of a System without having
fIrst given three months written notice to the City. A Grantee may not abandon any portion
of a System without compensating the City for damages resulting from the abandonment.
C. At the termination or expiration of the term for which a Franchise is granted
and following a denial of renewal, or upon its revocation, as provided for, the City shall
have the right to require a Grantee to remove within two years, at a Grantee's expense, all or
any portion of a System from all Streets within the City. In so removing a System, a
Grantee shall refill and compact at its own expense, any excavation that shall be made and
shall leave all Streets and private property in as good a condition as that prevailing prior to a
Grantee's removal of a System, and without affecting, altering or disturbing in any way
electric, telephone or utility, cables wires or attachments. The City, or its delegation, shall
have the right to inspect and approve the condition of such Streets after removal. The
security fund, insurance, indemnity and penalty provision of a Franchise shall remain in full
force and effect during the entire term of removal. The insurance and indemnity provisions
of this Ordinance in Sections 32 and 34 shall survive any termination or revocation .
.588627
Pranchi" Ordinance
October 16, 1996· Pile 13
21
D. If a Grantee has failed to complete such removal within the time given after
written notice of the City's demand for removal is given, the City shall have the right to
exercise one of the following options:
(1) Declare all right, title and interest to a System to be in the City or its
designee with all rights of ownership including, but not limited to, the
right to operate a System or transfer a System to another for operation
by it; or
(2) Declare a System abandoned and cause a System, or such part thereof
as the City shall designate, to be removed at no cost to the City. The
cost of said removal shall be recoverable from the security fund,
indemnity and penalty section provided for in the Franchise, or from a
Grantee directly.
E. Upon tennination of service to any Subscriber, a Grantee shall promptly
remove all its facilities and equipment from a dwelling of a Subscriber who owns such
dwelling upon his or her written request, except as provided by applicable state and federal
law. Such Subscribers shall be responsible for any costs incurred by a Grantee in removing
the facilities and equipment.
Sec. 16. Customer Service Standards.
A. At all times, a Grantee shall meet the requirements of the Federal
Communications Commission regulations on Consumer Service Obligations. A Grantee shall
comply with the Customer Service Obligations of the Federal Communications Commission
as such standards may from time to time be amended. A copy of the Consumer Service
Obligations is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
B. A Grantee shall begin actions to correct service or maintenance problems no
later than 24 hours after it is notified of a System outage for 95 % of Subscribers. A Grantee
shall bear the costs of making any repairs, adjustments, or installations, unless the Subscriber
caused the damage necessitating the repairs or maintenance. A Grantee may charge for
service.
S88627
C. Subscriber Complaints to the City.
(1) Subscribers shall direct all complaints regarding service to a Grantee.
(2) If such complaints are not rectified within seven days from the date the
complaint is made, the Subscriber may fue a complaint with the City.
(3) The City shall maintain a record of all complaints it receives.
Prlllchiac Ordinance
October 16, 1996· Paco 14
(4) If, at any time after receipt of a complaint, the City believes that the
complaint may constitute a violation of a Franchise, or local, state or
federal law, the City may notify a Grantee regarding the complaint.
(5) If the City and a Grantee cannot resolve the complaint within seven
days after the date that the Subscriber fIles a complaint with the City,
the City may issue a written notice specifying the nature of the
complaint and ordering a Grantee to appear at the next regularly
scheduled meeting or other appropriate public forum, as determined by
City.
(6) If the City and Grantee fail to rectify the complaint, the City may begin
default procedures as specifIed in Section 34.
Sec. 17. Programming Provisions.
A Grantee shall identify its initial services in an Exhibit attached to a franchise
agreement ordinance.
Sec. 18. Subscriber Practices.
A. There shall be no charge for disconnection of any installation or outlet. If any
subscriber fails to pay a properly due monthly subscriber fee, or any other properly due fee
or charge, a Grantee may disconnect the subscriber's service outlet, provided, however, that
such disconnection shall not be effected until after the later of: (i) 45 days after the original
due date of said delinquent fee or charge; or (li) ten days after delivery to subscriber of
written notice of the intent to disconnect. If a subscriber pays before expiration of the later
of (i) or (ii), a Grantee shall not disconnect. After disconnection, upon payment in full of
the delinquent fee or charge and the payment of a reconnection charge, a Grantee shall
promptly reinstate the subscriber's cable service.
588627
B. Refunds to subscribers shall be made or determined in the following manner:
(1) If a Grantee fails, upon request by a subscriber, to provide any service
then being offered, a Grantee shall promptly refund all deposits or
advance charges paid for the service in question by said subscriber.
This provision does not alter a Grantee's responsibility to subscribers
under any separate contractual agreement or relieve a Grantee of any
other liability.
(2) If any subscriber terminates any monthly service because of failure of a
Grantee to render the service in accordance with a Franchise, a Grantee
shall refund to such subscriber the proportionate share of the charges
paid by the subscriber for the services not received. This provision
Franchile Ordinance
October 16, 1996. PAle 15
23
does not relieve a Grantee of liability established in other provisions of
a Franchise.
C. If any subscriber tenninates any monthly service prior to the end of a prepaid
period, a proportionate amount of any prepaid subscriber service fee, using the number of
days as a basis, shall be refunded to the subscriber by a Grantee.
D. Continued failure by a Grantee to provide services required by a Franchise
may, in the discretion of City, be cause for imposition of a penalty or tennination of a
Franchise.
Sec. 19. Local Office.
Each Franchise shall require that a Grantee maintain a local business office, as
described in a Franchise, or agent, which subscribers may access by telephone 24 hours a
day, seven days a week, without incurring long distance toll charges, so that complaints,
questions or requests regarding the service provided pursuant to a Franchise may be promptly
reported to a Grantee.
Sec. 20. Subscriber Charges.
Current subscriber charges, the length and tenns of residential subscriber contracts,
and the procedure by which subscriber charges are established shall be available during
nonnal business hours for public inspection.
Sec. 21. Rate Regulation.
The City reserves the right to regulate rates for services offered over the Cable
System, to the extent not expressly preempted by federal and state law. A Grantee shall be
subject to the rate regulation provisions provided for herein, and those of the FCC at 47
C.F.R., Part 76.900, Subpart N.
Sec. 22. Rights of Individuals.
A. DiscriminatOIY Practices Prohibited. In the performance of a Franchise, a
Grantee shall not discriminate against any person on the ground of or because of race, creed,
color, national origin or ancestry, sex, religion, sexual preference, or political opinion or
affiliation or age. A Grantee shall comply at all times with all other applicable federal, state
and City laws, and all executive and administrative orders relating to non-discrimination.
S88627
B. Subscriber Privacy.
(1) No signals, including signals of a Class IV Channel, shall be
transmitted from a subscriber tenninal except as required to provide a
PrlDChiae Ordinance
O~r 16, 1996 -Page 16
service authorized by a Franchise and the Subscriber. A Grantee and
any other Person shall neither initiate nor use any procedure or device
for procuring or storing infonnation or data from a subscriber's
tenninals or tenninal by any means, without the prior authorization of
the affected Subscriber which shall not have been obtained from the
Subscriber as a condition of service. The request for such authorization
shall be contained in a separate document and identify the purpose for
which the data or infonnation is being gathered or stored. After the
fIrst year of the authorization's initial signing, a Grantee shall, for each
year said authorization is in effect without revocation, mail a notice to
each authorizing Subscriber infonning him or her of the right to revoke
said authorization. The authorization shall be revocable at any time by
the Subscriber without penalty of any kind whatsoever. A separate
authorization shall be required for each type or classffication of data or
infonnation sought from a Subscriber terminal.
(2) A Grantee shall not, without the written authorization of the affected
Subscriber, provide to anyone data identifying or designating any
Subscriber other than where that third-party is perfonning a service or
task in furtherance of the Grantee's business including, but not
necessarily limited to, billing or telemarketing functions. Any data
authorized shall be made available upon request by and without charge
to the authorizing subscriber in understandable fashion, including
specffication of the pUIpose for which the infonnation is being gathered
and to whom and for what fee the infonnation is to be sold.
C. A Grantee shall not tap or monitor, arrange for the tapping or monitoring, or
pennit any other person to tap or monitor, any cable, line, signal input device,
or Subscriber outlet or receiver for any purpose whatsoever, without the prior
written authorization of the affected Subscriber as required by paragraph B of
this section.
D. Nothing herein contained shall prohibit a Grantee from verifying System
operation and the transmission of signals to an affected subscriber or from
monitoring for the pUIpose of billing.
Sec. 23. Public, Educational and Governmental Access.
Each Franchise shall include a requirement for public, educational and governmental
access programming and facilities consistent with state and federa1law.
S88627
Franchise Ordinance
October 16, 1996· Pace 17
Sec. 24. Grantee Records and Books.
A. Throughout the term of a Franchise, a Grantee shall maintain books and
records in accordance with normal and accepted bookkeeping and accounting practices for
the Cable Communications industry, and allow for inspection of them at reasonable times at
its designated office where necessary to enforcement of a Franchise. The books and records
to be maintained by a Grantee shall include the following:
(1) A record of all requests for service;
(2) A record of all subscriber or other complaints, and the action taken;
(3) A fIle of all subscriber contracts;
(4) Grantee policies, procedures and company rules; and
(5) Financial records.
B. A Grantee shall fIle with City, at the time of its annual payment of a Franchise
Fee, as described in a Franchise, the following:
S88627
(1) A copy of the most recent performance review for a Grantee utilizing
the Annual Performance Review Form attached hereto as Exhibit B.
(2) A statement certified by an officer of Grantee showing, in such detail
as acceptable to City, the gross revenues of a Grantee for the preceding
fiscal year.
(3) Current list of names and addresses of each officer and director and
other management personnel, and if a corporation, each shareholder
having stock ownership of three percent or more, and if a partnership,
all general partners, and if a general partner is a corporation, the
foregoing information shall be given as to the corporate general
partner.
(4) If requested by City, a copy of each document fIled with all federal,
state and local agencies during the preceding fiscal year not previously
fIled with City.
(5) A statement of its current billing practices.
(6) A current copy of its rules governing use of equipment and facilities
and public, educational and government access and leased access
programming.
(7) A current copy of its subscriber service contract.
FrlllChi" Ordinance
Oc\obcr 16, 1996· Pace 18
(8) A copy of any subscriber surveys conducted during the last calendar
year.
C. City, its agents and representatives shall have authority where necessary to
enforcement of a Franchise to arrange for and conduct an inspection or audit of the books
and records of a Grantee. A Grantee shall fIrst be given fIve days notice of the inspection or
audit request, the description of and pUIpose for the inspection or audit, and description, to
the best of City's ability, of the books, records and documents it wants to review.
Sec. 25. Transfer of Ownership.
588627
A. A Franchise shall not be assigned or transferred, either in whole or in part, or
leased, sublet or mortgaged in any manner, nor shall title thereto, either legal
or equitable or any right, interest or property therein, pass to or vest in any
person other than an Affiliate of Grantee without the prior written consent of
City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Further, Grantee
shall not sell or transfer any stock or ownership interest so as to create a new
controlling interest except with the consent of City, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
B. Any sale or transfer of Franchise, including a sale or transfer by means of a
fundamental corporate change, requires the written approval of City. The
parties to the sale or transfer of Franchise shall make a written request to City
for its consent. City shall reply in writing within 30 days of actual receipt of
the request and shall indicate its approval of the request or its determination
that a public hearing is necessary. City shall conduct a public hearing on the
request within 30 days of such determination if it determines that a sale or
transfer of Franchise may adversely affect the Grantee's subscribers.
C. Unless otherwise already provided for by local law , notice of any such hearing
shall be given 14 days prior to the hearing by publishing notice thereof once in
a newspaper of general circulation in the City. The notice shall contain the
date, time and place of the hearing and shall briefly state the substance of the
action to be considered by City. Within 30 days after the public hearing, City
shall approve or deny in writing the sale or transfer request.
D. In a sale or transfer of only a Franchise, without the inclusion of the System in
which at least substantial initial construction has commenced, a Grantee shall
be required to establish to the sole satisfaction of City that the sale or transfer
of a Franchise is in the public interest.
E. For purposes of this section, fundamental corporate change means the sale or
transfer of a controlling interest in the stock of a corporation or the sale or
transfer of all or a majority of a corporation's assets, merger (including a
Franchi" Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Page 19
parent and its subsidiary corporation), consolidation or creation of a subsidiary
corporation. For the purposes of this Section, fundamental partnership change
means the sale or transfer of all or a majority of a partnership's assets, change
of a general partner in a limited partnership, change from a limited to a
general partnership, incorporation of a partnership, or change in the control of
a partnership.
F. The word "control", as used herein, shall apply to the sale or transfer of all or
a majority of Grantee's assets or shares of stock, merger (including any parent
and its subsidiary corporation), consolidation, creation of a subsidiary
corporation of the parent company, or sale or transfer of stock in Grantee so
as to create a new controlling interest. The term "controlling interest" as used
herein is not limited to majority stock ownership, but includes actual working
control in whatever manner exercised, including the creation or transfer of
decision-making authority to a new or different board of directors. Every
change, transfer or acquisition of control of a Grantee shall make the
Franchise subject to cancellation unless and until City shall have consented in
writing thereto, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. For the
purpose of determining whether it shall consent to such change, transfer or
acquisition of control, City may inquire into the qualifications of the
prospective controlling party. The City reserves the right to seek
reimbursement of its costs for conducting an inquiry to the extent permitted by
applicable state and federal law. The preceding statement does not constitute
an agreement by any party to reimburse the City.
G. In no event shall a transfer or assignment of ownership or control be approved
without transferee becoming a signatory to a Franchise.
H. Any transferee of a Franchise shall be subordinate to any right, title or interest
of City.
1. For information on the right of the City to purchase the cable system during a
transfer of ownership, see Section 27.
J. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, no such consent or approval shall be
required for a transfer or assignment to any Person controlling, controlled by
or under the same common control as the Grantee.
Sec. 26. Right to Purchase.
588627
A. Transfer of Ownership.
If at any time a Grantee receives a bona fide purchase offer for an asset sale of
a System which a Grantee is willing to accept, a complete copy of such offer
Franchise Ordinance
October 16, 1996· Paee 20
588627
shall promptly be given to City and City shall have the right to purchase a
System according to the terms of that offer. City shall exercise such right by
submitting to a Grantee, within 60 days after City's actual receipt of the bona
fide offer, notice that City desires to purchase a System pursuant to said offer.
If City does not exercise such right a System may be sold, but only on terms
substantially similar to those terms submitted to City. If any substantive
changes are made in the purchase offer given to City, such purchase offer, as
so changed, shall again be given to City and City shall have 60 days from
actual receipt by City of the offer, as changed, within which to exercise its
right to purchase a System pursuant to the offer, as changed, all as above
provided. If City does not exercise its right to purchase a System pursuant to
any offer given to City pursuant to this paragraph, and a System is not sold to
the buyer and on the terms set out in the offer given to City, then the right of
City to purchase a System shall continue, and all subsequent purchase offers
shall be given to City pursuant to this paragraph. Also, the City's right to
purchase pursuant to this paragraph shall survive every sale to a buyer and
shall continue and be binding upon every buyer of the System.
B. Upon Forfeiture, Revocation or Expiration
(1) Upon forfeiture, revocation or termination of a Franchise, or at the
normal expiration and denial of any renewal of a Franchise term, City
shall have the right to purchase the System. Such right shall be
exercised upon written notice to Grantee given within 120 days after
the occurrence of any such event.
(2) In the event City elects to exercise its right to purchase the System as
provided in this Paragraph B, the following shall then apply:
(a) If a Franchise expires and the renewal of the Franchise is denied
and the City acquires ownership of the Cable System or effects
a transfer of ownership of the System to another Person, any
such acquisition or transfer shall be at fair market value,
determined on the basis of the Cable System valued as a going
concern but with no value allocated to the Franchise itself, or
(b) If a Franchise held by a Grantee is revoked for cause and the
City acquires ownership of the Cable System or effects a
transfer of ownership of the System to another Person, any such
acquisition or transfer shall be at an equitable price.
(c) A Grantee expressly waives its rights, if any, to relocation costs
that might otherwise be provided by law.
Fraochile Ordinance
October 16, 1996 • Pille 21
zq
(d) The date of valuation shall be no earlier than the day following
the date of revocation, forfeiture, expiration or tennination of a
Franchise and no later than the date City makes a written offer
for a System.
Sec. 27. Mediation.
It either a Grantee or City asserts that the other is in default in the perfonnance of
any obligation of a Franchise or in the event of a dispute relating to a right to purchase or
tenns and conditions of it as described in Section 27 of this Ordinance, the complaining party
shall notify the other of the default or claim and the desired remedy. The notification shall
be written. Representatives of City and a Grantee must promptly meet and attempt in good
faith to negotiate a resolution. If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the written
notice, the City and a Grantee may jointly select a mediator to facilitate further discussion.
The City and a Grantee will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. If a
mediator is not used, or if the City and a Grantee are unable to resolve the matter within 30
days after frrst meeting with the selected mediator, either may commence an action in any
court of competent jurisdiction in Minnesota to interpret and enforce a Franchise or for such
other relief as may be pennitted by law or equity, or either Grantee or City may take any
other action pennitted by law.
Sec. 28. Special Provisions.
A. As pennitted by state and federal law, and specified in a Franchise Agreement
Ordinance, each Franchise may require a Grantee to provide facilities and services to public
schools and community colleges within the City, and to fIre and police stations and other
buildings owned and controlled by the City used for public non-residential purposes.
B. System Maps and Layout - A Grantee shall have, at all times, up-to-date route
maps showing the location of the Cable Communications System adjacent to the Streets. A
Grantee shall make all maps available for review by the appropriate City personnel.
C. System Construction and Equipment Standards -The Cable Communications
System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with standard good engineering
practices and shall confonn, when applicable, with the National Electrical Safety Code and
the FCC's Rules and Regulations.
Sec. 29. Franchise Fee.
A. As pennitted by state and federal law, a Grantee may be required to pay to the
City a Franchise Fee as set forth in a Franchise, in compensation for the use of the City's
Streets pursuant to a Franchise.
588627
PrlllChilC Ordinance
October 16, 1996 • PICe 22
B. If a Franchise requires payment of a Franchise Fee, each such Franchise shall
authorize the City to audit a Grantee's fmancial records and accountings relating to a
Franchise Fee. A Grantee shall make available at its local business office, upon reasonable
request, such data as needed to conduct such audit in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles.
C. The City and its representatives shall have the right to inspect a Grantee's
fmancial records during normal business hours to determine whether a Grantee has properly
paid all sums due to the City pursuant to the terms of a Franchise.
D. Any neglect, omission or refusal of a Grantee to cooperate with the City in
reviewing its fmancial information for the putpose of auditing payment of a Franchise Fee,
or to pay a Grantee fee in full, at the time and in the manner provided in the Franchise,
which neglect, omission or refusal shall continue for more than 30 days following written
notice thereof to a Grantee from the City, shall be grounds for default of a Franchise as
provided for in Section 35 hereof.
Sec. 30. Liability.
A. A Grantee shall pay all damages and penalties which the City may legally be
required to pay as a result of granting a Grantee's Franchise.
B. A Grantee shall pay all expenses incurred by the City in defending itself with
regard to all damages and penalties mentioned above. The expenses shall include all costs,
such as attorney's fees.
Sec. 31. Indemnification.
A. Grantee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City for all damages
and penalties, at all times during the term of this Franchise, as a result of the procedures for
granting this Franchise, the granting of this Franchise, or Grantee's conduct or performance
under this Franchise. These damages and penalties shall include, but shall not be limited to,
damages arising out of Personal injury, property damage, copyright infringement,
defamation, antitrust, errors and omission, theft, fIre, and all other damages arising out of
Grantee's exercise of this Franchise, whether or not any act or omission complained of is
authorized, allowed or prohibited by this Franchise.
B. In order for the City to assert its rights to be indemnified, defended, or held
harmless, the City must:
(1) Notify Grantee of any claim or legal proceeding which gives rise to
such right;
588627
Franchise Ordinance
Oe1ober 16, 1996 • Pile 23
(2) Afford Grantee the opportunity to participate in and fully control any
compromise, settlement or other resolution or disposition of such claim or proceeding,
unless, however, the City, in its sole discretion, determines that its interests cannot be
represented in good faith by Grantee; and
(3) Fully cooperate with the reasonable requests of Grantee in its
participation in, and control, compromise, settlement or resolution or other disposition of
such claim or proceeding subject to paragraph (2) above.
(4) Act reasonably under all circumstances so as to protect the indemnitor
against liability and refrain from compromising any of indemnitor's rights.
C. In the event the City, in its sole discretion, determines that its interests cannot
be represented in good faith by Grantee, Grantee shall pay, upon receipt of written demand
from City, all reasonable expenses incurred by the City in defending itself with regard to all
damages and penalties mentioned in paragraph A above. These expenses shall include, but
not be limited to, all out-of-pocket expenses, such as attorney's fees and costs and the
reasonable value of services (as determined by City, rendered by City or any employees,
agents or representatives of City; provided, however, the attorney fees shall not exceed (on
an hourly basis) those customarily charged for similar work in the Twin Cities Metropolitan
area of Minnesota. City reserves the right to cooperate with a Grantee and participate in the
defense of any litigation either through intervention or otherwise.
Sec. 32. Security Funds.
A. The City may require a Grantee to fIle with the City Clerk, concurrently with
its acceptance of a Franchise and at a Grantee's sole expense, a corporate surety bond,
construction bond or letter of credit. Such bond or letter of credit shall be in an amount
specified in the Franchise Agreement Ordinance, issued by a responsible company licensed to
do business in Minnesota and conditioned upon the faithful performance of the Grantee to
meet its obligations under this Ordinance and the Franchise Agreement Ordinance. The bond
or letter of credit may be reduced at the sole discretion of the franchising authority.
B. The provisions of this Section shall not be construed to excuse unfaithful
performance by a Grantee or limit the liability of a Franchise under this Ordinance or a
Franchise for damages.
Sec. 33. Insurance.
A. A Grantee shall maintain liability insurance covering its obligations of
indemnification provided for in or as a result of the exercise of a Franchise covering both the
City and a Grantee (and shall maintain said insurance during the entire term of a Franchise)
in the minimum amount of:
588627
Franchile Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Page 24
(1) $500,000 for property damage to anyone person;
(2) $2,000,000 for property damage in anyone act or occurrence;
(3) $1,000,000 for personal injury to anyone person; and
(4) $2,000,000 for personal injury in anyone act or occurrence.
B. During the tenn of this Franchise, the Grantee shall maintain insurance, as
required by paragraph (A) above, issued by a carrier or carriers with an A.M. Best rating of
II A_" or better. The Grantee shall maintain on fIle with the City certificates of insurance
together with written evidence of payment of required premiums throughout the tenn of this
Franchise. The above minimum amounts may be changed from time to time by Grantee as
requested by the City; provided, however, the Grantee shall not be required to provide
insurance in excess of what is customarily provided by other cable television operators in the
Twin Cities Metropolitan area.
C. A Grantee shall immediately give notice to City of any threatened or pending
litigation likely to affect this insurance.
D. Neither the provisions of this section nor any damages recovered by City shall
be construed to, or shall, excuse unfaithful perfonnance by a Grantee or limit the liability of
a Grantee.
E. No recovery by City of any sum by reason of the Letter of Credit or Bond
required in a Franchise shall be any limitation upon the liability of a Grantee to City under
the tenns of this section, except that the sum so received by City from such Letter of Credit
or Bond shall be deducted from a recovery under this section, if for the same act or
occurrence.
F. All insurance policies maintained pursuant to a Franchise shall contain the
following endorsement:
law.
It is hereby understood and agreed that this insurance policy may not be
cancelled nor the intention not to renew be stated until 30 days after receipt by
the City, by registered mail, of written notice of such intention to cancel or
not to renew.
G. A Grantee shall provide worker's compensation insurance as required by state
H. All such insurance coverage shall provide a 30 day notice to the City Manager
in the event of material alteration or cancellation of any coverage afforded in said policies
prior to the date said material alteration or cancellation shall become effective.
588627
PrancbiJc Ordinance
October 16, 1996· Pile 25
Sec. 34. Default.
A. City shall give written notice of default to a Grantee if City, in its sole
discretion, determines that a Grantee has:
(I) Violated any provision of a Franchise or the acceptance hereof, or any
rule, order, regulation or determination of the City, state or federal
government, not in conflict with a Franchise;
(2) Attempted to evade any provision of a Franchise or the acceptance
hereof;
(3) Practiced any fraud or deceit upon City or subscribers;
(4) Made a material misrepresentation of fact in the application for or
negotiation of a Franchise; or
(5) Incurred a 12 month or more delay in the construction schedule.
B. If a Grantee fails to cure such default within 30 days after the giving of such
notice (or if such default is of such a character as to require more than 30 days within which
to cure the same, and a Grantee fails to commence to cure the same within said 30 day
period and thereafter fails to use reasonable diligence, in City's sole opinion, to cure such
default as soon as possible), then, and in any event, such default shall be a substantial breach
and City may elect to terminate the Franchise. The City may place the issue of revocation
and termination of a Franchise before the governing body of City at a regular meeting. If
City decides there is cause or reason to terminate, the following procedure shall be followed:
588627
(1) City shall provide a Grantee with-a written notice of the reason or
cause for proposed termination and shall allow a Grantee a minimum of
30 days subsequent to receipt of the notice in which to correct the
default.
(2) A Grantee shall be provided with an opportunity to be heard at a public
hearing prior to any decision to terminate a Franchise.
(3) If, after notice is given and an opportunity to cure, at a Grantee's
option, a public hearing is held, and the City determines there was a
violation, breach, failure, refusal or neglect, the City may declare by
resolution the franchise revoked and of no further force and effect
unless there is compliance within such period as the City may fIX, such
period may not be less than 30 days provided no opportunity for
compliance need be granted for fraud or misrepresentation.
PranchiJe Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Page 26
Sec. 35. Continuity of Service.
A. It shall be the right of all Subscribers to continue receiving services insofar as
their fmancial and other obligations to a Grantee are honored. In the event that a Grantee
elects to rebuild, modify or sell the System, or the City gives notice of intent to tenninate or
fails to renew a Franchise, a Grantee shall act so as to insure that all Subscribers receive
reliable service.
B. In the event of a change of a Grantee, or in the event a new operator acquires
a System, a Grantee shall cooperate with the City's new Grantee or operator in maintaining
continuity of service to all Subscribers. During such period, a Grantee shall be entitled to
the revenues for any period during which it operates a System and shall be entitled to
reasonable cost for its services when it no longer operates the System.
C. In the event a Grantee fails to operate the System for three consecutive days
without approval of the City or without just cause, the City may, at its option, operate the
System or designate an operator until such time as a Grantee restores service under
conditions acceptable to the City or a permanent operator is selected. This section shall not
apply if the cable operator is unable to operate the system due to Force Majeure as defmed in
Section 38. If the City is required to fulfill this obligation for a Grantee, a Grantee shall
reimburse the City for all reasonable cost or damages in excess of revenue from the System
received by the City that are a result of a Grantee's failure to perform.
D. A Grantee shall not allow its cable or other operations to interfere with the
television reception of Persons not served by a Grantee, nor shall a System interfere with,
obstruct or hinder in any manner, the operation of the various utilities serving the residents
of the City, as the facilities of such utilities exist at the time of construction or extension of a
Grantee's System.
Sec. 36. Foreclosure and Receivership.
588627
A. Foreclosure. Upon the foreclosure or other judicial sale of a System, a
Grantee shall notify the City of such fact and such notification shall be treated
as a notification that a change in control of a Grantee has taken place, and the
provisions of a Franchise governing the consent to transfer or change in
ownership shall apply without regard to how such transfer or change in
ownership occurred.
B. Receivership. The City shall have the right to cancel a Franchise subject to
any applicable provisions of state law, including the Bankruptcy Act, 120 days
after the appointment of a receiver or trustee to take over and conduct the
business of a Grantee, whether in receivership, reorganization, bankruptcy or
other action or proceeding, unless such receivership or trusteeship shall have
been vacated prior to the expiration of said 120 days, or unless:
Franchise Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Pace 27
(1) Within 120 days after his election or appointment, such receiver or
trustee shall have fully complied with all the provisions of a Franchise
and remedied all defaults thereunder; and,
(2) Such receiver or trustee, within said 120 days, shall have executed an
agreement, duly approved by the Court having jurisdiction in the
premises, whereby such receiver or trustee assumes and agrees to be
bound by each and every provision of a Franchise.
Sec. 37. Compliance with Laws, Rules and Regulations.
Any of the provisions or terms of this Ordinance may be amended by the City in
order to be made consistent with any new or amended local, state or federal law , rule, or
regulation of governmental authorities with jurisdiction to regulate Cable Communications
Systems. The City and a Grantee shall conform to federal and state laws and regulations as
soon as they become effective. Where amendment to laws, rules or other regulatory
standards requires modification of any Franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance, the
modifications necessary to effect compliance with such laws, rules or regulations shall be
made within one year of the effective date of such change, or at the time of renewal of a
Franchise, whichever occurs ftrst.
Sec. 38. Force Majeure.
A. In the event a Grantee's performance of any of the terms, conditions or
obligations required by this Ordinance or a Franchise granted hereunder is prevented by a
cause or event not within a Grantee's control, such inability to perform shall be deemed
excused and no penalties or sanctions shall be imposed as a result thereof.
B. For the purpose of this section, causes or events not within the control of a
Grantee shall include but not be limited to acts of God, strikes, sabotage, riots or civil
disturbances, restraints imposed by order of a governmental agency or court, failure or loss
of utilities, explosions, acts of public enemies and natural disasters such as floods,
earthquakes, storms, landslides, and ftres.
Sec. 39. Severability.
A. This Ordinance shall be construed in a manner consistent with all applicable
federal and Minnesota laws.
B. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance or any Franchise granted hereunder is for any reason held illegal, invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions hereof or thereof.
588627
Pranchise Ordinance
October 16, 1996. PAle 28
Sec. 40. Effective Date.
This Cable Regulatory Ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 1997 and
simultaneously Ordinance No. __ , also known as the Cable Communications Ordinance,
and Ordinance No. __ , also know as the Local Programming Restructuring Ordinance,
shall be repealed, provided that the current Grantee under the Cable Communications
Ordinance has executed a Franchise Agreement Ordinance in compliance with this Ordinance
before December 25, 1996. If the current Grantee under the Cable Communications
Ordinance has not executed a Franchise Agreement Ordinance pursuant to this Ordinance by
_______ , this Cable Regulatory Ordinance becomes null and void, and the
existing Cable Communications Ordinance remains in force.
Sec. 41. Certification and Publication.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same
to be printed in accordance with the requirements of the City and state law.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Mayor and Council of the City of
__________ , Minnesota, this __ day of , 1996.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
S88627
I'ranchise Ordirwlce:
October 16. 1996 -Page: 29
31
Sec. 40. Effective Date.
Jo\9 /
This Cable Regulatory Ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 1997 and
simultaneously Ordinance No. __ , also known as the Cable Communications Ordinance,
shall be repealed, provided that the current Grantee under the Cable Communications
Ordinance has executed a Franchise Agreement Ordinance in compliance with this Ordinance
before . If the current Grantee under the Cable Communications
Ordinance has not executed a Franchise Agreement Ordinance pursuant to this Ordinance by
_______ , this Cable Regulatory Ordinance becomes null and void, and the
existing Cable Communications Ordinance remains in force.
Sec. 41. Certification and Publication.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same
to be printed in accordance with the requirements of the City and state law. Thirty days
from and after its fInal passage, it shall take effect and be in full force.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Mayor and Council of the City of
__________ , Minnesota, this __ day of , 1996.
ATIEST:
City Clerk
588627
Franchise Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Page 29
Mayor
588627
Franchise Ordinance
October 16. 1996 -Page 30
EXHIBIT A
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
CUSTOMER SERVICE OBLIGATIONS
Federal Communications Commission
within 30 days of receipt of such re-
quest.
[58 FR 17364, Apr. 2, 1993]
t 76.305 Records to be maintained lo-
cally by cable system operators for
public inspection.
(a) Records to be maintained. The oper-
ator of every cable television system
having 1.000 or more subscribers shall
maintain for public inspection a file
containing a copy of all records which
are required to be kept by § '16.20'1 (po-
litical file); 76.221(0 (sponsorship iden-
tifications); 76.79 (EEO records avail-
able for public inspection); '16.225(c)
(commerical records for children's pro-
gramming); '16.601(c) (proof-of-perform-
ance test data); '16.601(e) (signal leak-
age logs and repair records) and
§ '16. '101(h)(records for leased access).
(1) A record shall be kept of each test
and activation of the Emergency Alert
System (EAS) procedures pursuant to
the requirement of part 11 of this chap-
ter and the EAS Operating Handbook.
These records shall be kept for three
years.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) Location 01 records. The public in-
spection file shall be maintained at the
office which the system operator main-
tains for the ordinary collection of sub-
scriber charges. resolution of sub-
scriber complaints, and other business
or at any accessible place in the com-
munity served by the system unit(s)
(such as a public registry for docu-
ments or an attorney's office). The
public inspection file shall be available
for public inspection at any time dur-
ing regular business hours.
(c) The records speCified in paragraph
(a) of this section shall be retained for
the period specified in §§ 76.20'1. 76.221(0.
76.79, 76.225(c). '16.601(c), and '16.601(e).
resPecti vely.
(d) Reproduction 01 records. Copies of
any material in the public inspection
file shall be available for machine re-
production upon request made in per-
son, provided the requesting party
shall pay the reasonable cost of repro-
duction. Requests for machine copies
shall be fulfilled at a location specified
by the system operator. wi thin a rea-
sonable period of time, which in no
event shall be longer than seven days.
The system operator is not required to
§76.309
honor requests made by mail but may
do so if it chooses.
{Secs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 301. 303, 3111, 308, 309, 315, 317,
48 Stat., as a.mended, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1068,
lOBI, lOB2, 1083, lOB4, 1085, 1088, lOB9; (47 U.S.C.
152, 153, 154, 155,301,303,307,308,309,315,317»
[39 FR 29186, Aug. 14, 1974. as amended at 40
FR 25024, June 12, 1975; 42 FR 19349. Apr. 13.
1977; 51 FR 26251, July 22, 1986; 56 FR 19617,
Apr. 29, 1991; 57 FR 11001, Apr. I, 1992; 58 FR
7993, Feb. 11, 1993; 59 FR 67103, Dec. 28. 1994]
t 76.307 SY8tem iDBpection.
The operator of a cable television
system shall make the system. its pub-
lic inspection file (if required by
§'16.305). and its records of subscribers
available for inspection upon request
by any authorized representative of the
Commission at any reasonable hour.
[42 FR 19349, Apr. 13, 1977]
t 76.309 Customer service obligatioll.8.
(a) A cable franchise authority may
enforce the customer service standards
set forth in paragraph (c) of this sec-
tion against cable operators. The fran-
chise authority must provide affected
cable operators ninety (90) days writ-
ten notice of its intent to enforce the
standards.
(b) Nothing in this rule should be
construed to prevent or prohibit:
(1) A franchiSing authority and a
cable operator from agreeing to cus-
tomer service requirements that ex-
ceed the standards set forth in para-
graph (c) of this section;
(2) A franchising authority from en-
forcing. through the end of the fran-
chise term. pre-existing customer serv-
ice requirements that exceed the stand-
ards set forth in paragraph (c) of this
section and are contained in current
franchise agreements;
(3) Any State or any franChising au-
thority from enacting or enforcing any
consumer protection law. to the extent
not specifically preempted herein; or
(4) The establishment or enforcement
of any State or municipal law or regu-
lation concerning customer service
that imposes customer service require-
ments tha.t exceed. or address matters
not addressed by the standards set
forth in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Effective July 1. 1993. a cable op-
erator shall be Bubject to the following
customer service standards:
507
40
§76.309
(1) Cable system office hours and
telephone avallability-
(1) The cable operator will maintain a
local, toll-free or collect call telephone
access line which will be available to
its subscribers 24 hours a day, seven
days a week.
(A) Trained company representatives
will be available to respond to cus-
tomer telephone inquiries during nor-
mal business hours.
(B) After normal business hours, the
access line may be answered by a serv-
ice or an automated response system,
including an answering machine. In-
quiries received after normal business'
hours must be responded to by a
trained company representative on the
next business day.
(11) Under normal operating condi-
tions, telephone answer time by a cus-
tomer representative, including wait
time, shall not exceed thirty (30) sec-
onds when the connection is made. If
the call needs to be transferred, trans-
fer time shall not exceed thirty (30)
seconds. These standards shall be met
no less than ninety (90) percent of the
time under normal operating condi-
tions, measured on a quarterly basis.
(i11) The operator will not be required
to acquire equipment or perform sur-
veys to measure compliance with the
telephone answering standards above
unless an historical record of com-
plaints indicates a clear failure to com-
ply.
(iv) Under normal operating condi-
tions, the customer will receive a busy
signal less than three (3) percent of the
time.
(v) Customer service center and bill
payment locations will be open at least
during normal business hours and will
be conveniently located.
(2) Installations, outages and service
calls. Under normal operating condi-
tions, each of the following four stand-
ards will be met no less than ninety
five (95) percent of the time measured
on a quarterly basis:
(i) Standard installations will be per-
formed within seven (7) bUSiness days
after an order has been placed. "Stand-
ard" installations are those that are
located up to 125 feet from the existing
distribution system.
(11) Excluding conditions beyond the
control of the operator, the cable oper-
47 CFR Ch. I (10-1-95 Edition)
ator will begin working on "service
interruptiOns" promptly and in no
event later than 24 hours after the
interruption becomes known. The cable
operator must begin actions to correct
other service problems the next busi-
ness day after notification of the serv-
ice problem.
(111) The "appointment window" al-
ternatives for installations, service
calls, and other installation activities
will be either a specific time or, at
maximum, a four-hour time block dur-
ing normal bUSiness hours. (The opera-
tor may schedule service calls and
other installation activities outside of
normal business hours for the express
convenience of the customer.)
(iv) An operator may not cancel an
appointment with a customer after the
close of business on the business day
prior to the scheduled appointment.
(v) If a cable operator representative
is running late for an appointment
with a customer and will not be able to
keep the appointment as scheduled, the
customer will be contacted. The ap-
pointment will be rescheduled, as nec-
essary, at a time which is convenient
for the customer.
(3) Communications between cable
operators and cable subscribers-
(i) Notifications to subscribers-
(A) The cable operator shall provide
written information on each of the fol-
lowing areas at the time of installation
of service, at least annually to all sub-
scribers, and at any time upon request:
(1) Products and services offered;
(2) Prices and options for program-
ming services and conditions of sub-
scription to programming and other
services;
(3) Installation and service mainte-
nance policies;
(4) Instructions on how to use the
cable service;
(5) Channel positions programming
carried on the system; and,
(6) Billing and complaint procedures,
including the address and telephone
number of the local franchise
authority's cable office.
(B) Customers will be notified of any
changes in ra.tes, programming services
or channel positions as soon as possible
through announcements on the cable
system and in writing. Notice must be
given to subscribers a minimum of
508
Federal Communications Commission
thirty (30) days in advance of such
changes if the change is within the
control of the cable operator. In addi-
tion, the cable operator shall notify
subscribers thirty (30) days in advance
of any significant changes in the other
information required by the preceding
paragraph.
(ii) Billing-
(A) Bills will be clear, concise and
understandable. Bills must be fully
itemized, with itemizations including,
but not limited to, basic and premium
service charges and equipment charges.
Bills will also clearly delineate all ac-
tivity during the billing period, includ-
ing optional charges, rebates and cred-
its.
(B) In case of a billing dispute, the
cable operator must respond to a writ-
ten complaint from a subscriber within
30 days.
(iii) Refunds-Refund checks will be
issued promptly, but no later than ei-
ther-
(A) The customer's next billing cycle
following resolution of the request or
thirty (30) days, whichever is earlier, or
(B) The return of the equipment sup-
plied by the cable operator if service 1s
terminated.
(iv) Credits-Credits for service will
be issued no later than the customer's
next billing cycle following the deter-
mination that a credit is warranted.
(4) Definitions-
(1) Normal business hours-The term
"normal business hours" means those
hours during which most similar busi-
nesses in the community are open to
serve customers. In all cases, "normal
business hours" must include some
evening hours at least one night per
week and/or some weekend hours.
(11) Normal operating conditions-The
term "normal operating conditions"
means those service condi tions which
are within the control of the cable op-
erator. Those conditions which are not
within the control of the cable opera-
tor include, but are not limited to, nat-
ural disasters, civil c.ieturba.r.ces,
power cutages, telephone networ~ OLi.~
ages, and severe or unu~ual weather
conditions. Those conditions which are
ordinarily within the control of the
cable operator include, but a.re not lim-
ited to, special promotions, pay-per-
view events, rate increases, regular
§76.4OO
peak or seasonal demand periods, and
maintenance or upgrade of the cable
system.
(iii) Service interruption-The term
"service interruption" means the loss
of picture or sound 011 one or more
cable channels.
[58 FR 21109, Apr. 19, 1993]
Subpart I-Forms and Reports
§ 76.400 Operator, mail address, and
operational statu. cJumgea.
Wi thin 30 days following a change of
Cable Television System Operator, and/
or change of the operator's mail ad-
dress, and/or change in the operational
status of a cable television system, the
Operator shall inform the Commission
in writing of the following, as appro-
priate;
(a) The legal name of the operator
and whether the operator is an individ-
ual, private association, partnership or
corporation. See §76.5(cc). If the opera-
tor is a partnership, the legal name of
the partner responsible for communica-
tions with the Commisson shall be sup-
plied;
(b) The assumed name (if any) used
for doing business in each community;
(c) The. new mail address, including
zip code, to which all communications
are to be directed;
(d) The nature of the operational sta-
tus change (e.g., became operational on
(year) (month), exceeded 49 subscribers,
exceeded 499 subscribers, operation ter-
minated temporarily, operation termi-
nated permanently);
(e) The names and FCC identifiers
(e.g., CAOOOl) of the system commu-
nities affected.
NOTE: FCC system community identifiers
are routinely asliigned upon registration.
They have been assigned to all reported sys-
tem communities based on previous Form 325
data. If a system community In operation
~:-!c:-to March 31, 19'12, has not previously
teen 3.ssigned a s~'!!tem comm:lI~lty identi-
ner, the operator shall provide the following
information in Heu of the identifier: Commu-
nity Name, Community Type (i.e., incor-
porated town, unincorporated settlement,
ct.c.j County Name, State, O~rator Legal
Name, Operator Assumed Name for Doing
Business In the community, Operator Mail
509
EXHIBIT B
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW
1. RATES AND CHARGES
No change
Changed
Notices sent to City and subscriber
Changes in rates and costs identified by attachment
Change "reasonable" and consistent with the standards
prescribed by the FCC
Other (describe in attachment)
2. PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
No change in programs and services
New programs and services added
Identify new programs and services
Other (describe in attachment)
3. CUSTOMER SERVICE
588627
Customer service requirements complied with
Periodic subscriber satisfaction survey performed
Results of subscriber satisfaction survey with comment
on meeting needs identified (attached)
Pranchile Ordinance
Oc\ober 16, 1996 -Pile 31
Check Where
ARRlicab1e
4. FILINGS WITH FCC
Summary of all filings with FCC described in attachment
s. PERFORMANCE TEST IN FRANCmSE COMPLETED
Summary of performance test results (attached)
6. FRANCmSE FEE PAYMENTS MADE WITH REVENUE SOURCES
IDENl'IF'lED (SUMMARY ATTACHED)
7. COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION
Upgrade/rebuild (summary attached)
New technologies incorporated into system
Channel capacity increased
Service extended to new areas
Other
8. NEW SERVICES
No Changes
Services other than programming made available in the subscriber
network (summary attached)
9. TERMS AND CQNDmONS IN mE FRANCmsE
HA VE BEEN COMPLIED WITII
588627
Summary attached of outlining incomplete matters requiring
action by Company
Company participated in planning studied and Cable Advisory
Committee activities (summary attached)
FraacbiJe Ordilwlce
October 16, 1996 • Pile 32
44
All insurance, bonds and deposits are updated and filed with City ______ _
Duplication of materials already filed with the City is not required with this filing.
Dated this _ day of _______ , 19_ by ___________ _
Officer of Cable Company
City of ___________ Verification:
The above Annual Performance Review has been filed by ____________ _
as required. The Office of Administrative Services for the City of has reviewed
the information and finds that the filing is complete lis not complete ___ _
The following matters are deemed incomplete and require further information andlof
compliance by _________________________ _
THE CITY OF ________ _
By: ____________________________ _
Dated this _ day of ____ , 19_.
588627
Pnnchde OrdiDmcc
October 16, 1996 • Pacc 33
45
Cable Television
l~ranchise Agreement Ordinance
CITY of
, MINNESOTA
------------------------------
Prepared by:
Adrian E. Herbst, Esq.
Theresa M. Harris, Esq.
Fredrikson & Byron, P .A.
1100 International Centre
900 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 347-7000
Fax: (612) 347-7077
With the assistance of:
The Southwest Suburban
Cable Commission
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1. RENEWAL OF GRANT OF FRANCHISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
SECTION 2. SHORT TITLE .................................... 2
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS ..................................... 2
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL .............. 2
SECTION 5. WRITIEN NOTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
SECTION 6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
DESIGN PROVISIONS ............................... 3
System Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
Cable Nodes System Connect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
Service to the Schools and Government Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3
Parental Control Lock ................................ 4
Standby Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
Periodic Review Provisions ............................. 4
SECTION 7. PUBllC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS
PROG~G ................................... 5
7.1 Access Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
7.2 Studio/Facilities.................................... 6
7.3 Funding for PEG Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
7.4 Regional Channel Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel .................. 7
SECTION 8. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
SECTION 9. UNE EXTENSION POllCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
SECTION 10. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS ....... 9
10.1 Payment to City .................................... 9
10.2 Bonds .......................................... 9
10.3 Security Fund ..................................... 10
SECTION 11. SOCIAL CONTRACT ............................... 13
SECTION 12. COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
588638
PranchiJe Agreement Ordinance
October 16, 1996· Page i
SECTION 13. ACCEPTANCE ................................... 17
13.1 Other Franchises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
13.2 Time of Accq>tance: Incomoration of
Offering: Exhibits. . ................................. 18
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A -Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet .......................... 20
Exhibit B -Time Warner Social Contract ............................. 21
Exhibit C -Paragon Cable Initial Programming ......................... 22
588638
Franchile AClllCIDcnt Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Pace ii
SECTION 1. RENEWAL OF GRANT OF FRANCmSE
The cable television Franchise granted through Ordinance Number __ on the day
of , 19_ and now held by Grantee is renewed. Ordinance Number __
that granted the original franchise is repealed and replaced by the Cable Television Franchise
Ordinance, Ordinance Number and this Franchise Agreement Ordinance. This
Franchise shall be subJ~t to the terms and conditions of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance
and shall be subordinate to the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance and all applicable federal,
state and local law.
SECTION 2. SHORT TI1LE
This Agreement shall be known and cited as the "City of Cable
Television Franchise Agreement Ordinance." Within this document it shall also be referred to
as "this Franchise" or "the Franchise."
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS
The defInitions contained in Ordinance Number of the City of
___________ are incorporated herein by reference and adopted as fully as if
set out verbatim.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TERM OF RENEWAL
This Franchise shall commence on the effective date described in Section 13 and shall expire 15
years thereafter.
SECTION 5. WRITTEN NOTICE
All notices, reports or demands required to be given in writing under this Franchise shall be
deemed to be given when delivered personally to any officer of Grantee or City's Manager of
this Franchise or 48 hours after it is deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope,
with registered or certifled mail postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the party to which notice
is being given, as follows:
If to City:
If to Grantee:
Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as provided
in this section.
588638
Franchiae Aerccmcnt Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Page 2
SECTION 6. DESIGN PROVISIONS.
588638
6.1 System Design.
Grantee agrees to upgrade its System to a capacity of 750 MHz which is the
equivalent of 112 6 MHz analog video channels. However, Grantee will initially
use the 54 MHz-550 MHz section of the System to deliver analog signals and
reserve the 550 MHz to 750 MHz section for future applications. Stated in terms
of 6 MHz analog channels the 54 MHz to 550 MHz of the System has capacity
for 79 channels. The upgraded System shall have the technical capacity for non-
voice return communications which means the provision of appropriate system
design techniques with the installation of cable and amplifiers suitable for the
subsequent insertion of necessary non-voice communications electronic modules.
Such upgrade shall be completed and in use by December 31, 1999.
6.2 Cable Nodes System Connect.
Grantee will locate its "nodes" near schools where possible, without in Grantee's
opinion, comprising the engineering design of the System. The City will provide
maps showing the location of the schools.
6.3 Service to the Schools and Government Buildings.
A. Service to Pubic Schools and Public Buildings
1. The Grantee shall continue to provide one outlet of Basic Service,
the Cable Programming Service Tier and one Converter, ifneeded,
to those facilities presently served. Service to public schools and
municipally owned buildings constructed or occupied after the
effective date of this Franchise shall be similarly provided subject
to the building being located within 200 feet of the Grantee's then
existing System.
2. If facility is over 200 feet from Grantee's then existing System, the
school or municipality shall be responsible for all equipment,
construction costs and additional wiring beyond the fIrst 200 feet
that are the Grantee's responsibility.
3. All internal wiring cost beyond the one outlet that Grantee agrees
to provide shall be the responsibility of the school or municipality.
4. The fInancial responsibility for any additional Converters desired
by the school or municipality shall be their responsibility.
FrlllChile: A,rumcnt Ordinance:
October 16, 1996· Pa,e 3
~o
.588638
B. Service to Private Schools
Grantee shall provide Installation to private schools within 200 feet of
plant. A private school is defmed as any private secondary school that
receives funding pursuant to Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965. Installation and Cable Service shall be provided
for free to such private schools through the year 2000.
6.4 Parental Control Lock.
Grantee shall provide, for sale or lease, to Subscribers, upon request, a parental
control locking device.
6.5 Standby Power.
Grantee shall continue to provide standby power throughout the System now and
as rebuilt capable of providing at least three hours of emergency supply.
6.6 Periodic Review Provisions.
The City may request a State-of-the-Art review at any time between the sixth year
anniversary and the twelfth year anniversary of the granting of this Franchise.
In conducting a State-of-the-Art review, the City shall undertake the following
process:
A. The City and the Grantee shall undertake a review of the then existing
Cable System. This review shall, at a minimum, take into account the
following:
1. Characteristics of the existing System;
2. The State-of-the-Art;
3. Additional benefits provided to customers by the State-of-the-Art;
4. The market place demand for the State-of-the-Art; and
5. The fmancial feasibility of the State-of-the-Art taking into account
associated rate increases, and the premature retirement of assets.
B. The City shall hold at least two public hearings to enable the general
public and Grantee to comment and to present evidence.
C. For the purposes of this Section the term "State-of-the-Art" shall mean
equipment or facilities that:
Franchi" A,reement Ordinanoe
October 16, 1996 -Page 4
Sl
1. Are readily available with reasonable delivery schedules from two
or more sources of supply;
2. Have the capability to perform the intended functions demonstrated
within communities with similar characteristic (including, but not
necessarily limited to, population, density, Subscriber penetration,
etc.) under actual operating conditions for pUIposes other than tests_
or experimentation; and
3. Are technically and economically feasible to implement. The term
"State-of-the-Art" shall not include equipment or facilities
associated with or dedicated to the general public, educational or
governmental access or telecommunication services.
D. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the City may not undertake a
State-of-the-Art review at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to
effective competition pursuant to then applicable state or federal law.
E. As a result of any review based on this Section, City and Grantee may
enter into good faith negotiations to amend this Franchise as agreed upon.
SECTION 7. PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS
PROGRAMMING.
588638
7.1 Access Channels.
A. Grantee shall provide four public, educational and government (pEG)
Access Channels (the "Access Channels"). One channel shall be dedicated
to public access, one channel shall be dedicated to governmental access,
and two channels shall be dedicated to educational access.
B. Grantee shall provide to each of its Subscribers who receive all or any
part of the total services offered on the System, reception of each public,
educational and governmental Access Channel.
C. Grantee shall provide at least one specially designated access channel
available for lease on a fIrst come, nondiscriminatory basis by commercial
and noncommercial users. This Section is not applicable to Subscribers
receiving only alarm system services or only data transmission services for
computer operated functions. The VHF spectrum shall be used for at
least one of the specially designated noncommercial public Access
Channels required.
D. Whenever any of the Access Channels are in use during 80 percent of the
weekdays (Monday-Friday), for 80 percent of the time during any
Franchise Aercemcnt Ordinance
October 16, 1996· PAle S
588638
consecutive three hour period for six weeks running, and there is demand
for use of an additional channel for the same purpose, Grantee shall then
have six months in which to provide a new specially designated access
channel for the same purpose at no additional cost to Subscribers.
E. Grantee must establish rules and regulations for the public, educational
and leased Access Channels. The rules and regulations established by the
Grantee are subject to approval by the City.
F. Subscribers receiving programs on one or more special selVice channels
without also receiving the regular Subscriber selVices may receive only
one specially designated composite Access Channel composed of the
programming on Access Channels. Subscribers receiving only alarm
system selVices or only data transmission selVices for computer operated
functions shall not be included in this requirement.
7.2 Studio/Facilities.
A. Subject to a transition plan that shall be fIled with the City before the City
executes this Agreement and that shall be updated annually until the
transition is complete, Grantee will provide one large facility containing
one studio with the current square footage of 1440 square feet in the Eden
Prairie studio for public, educational and governmental access production
which will be located in Eden Prairie. The studio will have the capacity
for audience participation. The facility will include two separate editing
suites, storage space and the entire studio facility will be wheelchair
accessible. The facility shall meet the current hours of Monday through
Friday 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and by appointment on evenings and
weekends. The facility shall also add regular weekend hours and some
regular week night hours.
B. Grantee shall make readily available for public use at least minimal
equipment necessary for the production of programming and playback of
prerecorded programs for the specially designated noncommercial public
Access Channel. The Grantee shall also make readily available upon need
being shown, the minimum equipment necessary to make it possible to
record programs at remote locations with battery operated portable
equipment.
C. No charges shall be made for channel time or playback of prerecorded
programming on the specially designated noncommercial public Access
Channel. Grantee can include any costs associated with production and
playback for the noncommercial public Access Channel in the total sum
allocated for public, educational and governmental access programming
as stated in Section 7.3. Additionally, at the City's request, Grantee will
Franchise Acn:c:ment Ordinancc
October 16, 1996 -Pacc 6
-------------------'
588638
work with the City to institute a nominal membership fee for users of the
PEG access facility.
D. Need within the meaning of this section shall be determined in the sole
discretion of City or by Subscriber petition. Said petition must contain the
signatures of at least 10 percent of the Subscribers of System, but in no
case more than 500 nor fewer than 100 signatures.
7.3 Funding for PEG Access.
In the fIrst year after the effective date of this Franchise, Grantee shall provide
no less than $200,128 annually for PEG access operating expenses collectively
for the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and RichfIeld. After
the fIrst year of the Franchise, Grantee shall provide sufficient fmancial and in-
kind support to maintain a substantially equivalent level of services, facilities and
equipment in the remaining years of the Franchise Agreement Ordinance
comparable to the services, facilities and equipment provided in the fIrst year of
the Franchise. These expenses will be itemized on customers' bills. This amount
will provide the following services: (a) labor costs; (b) educational consultant;
(c) facilities and utilities; (d) access expenses; (e) educational expenses;
(f) equipment maintenance; (g) technical support; and (h) replay expenses. This
funding shall not be deducted from the Franchise Fee within the meaning of this
Agreement. Grantee shall not calculate a Franchise Fee upon funds itemized on
the customers' bills for public, educational or governmental access production and
programming.
7.4 Regional Channel Six.
Under Minnesota Cable Communications Act, standard VHF Channel six has
been designated for usage as the regional channel. Also known as Metro Cable
Network, this independent, non-commercial, non-profIt channel shall be made
available without charge. This provision shall remain in effect as long as a
regional channel is required by the State of Minnesota.
7.5 Override of the Government Access Channel.
Grantee agrees to provide the capability such that the City, from its City Hall,
can switch its government Access Channel in the following ways:
A. Insert live Council meetings from City Hall;
B. Replay government access programming from City Hall;
C. Transmit character generated programming;
FranclWe Aerccmcnt Ordinance
October 16, 1996 • Pace 7
D. Schedule for Grantee to replay City-provided tapes in pre-arranged time
slot on the government Access Channel; and
E. Switch to C-SP AN 2 or other comparable programming provided by
Grantee at any time when not carrying live or taped government access
programming.
SECTION 8. PERIODIC CUSTOMER SURVEYS
8.1 The Grantee shall upon request of the City and at times mutually agreed upon by
the parties, but no more frequent than once every three years conduct a random
survey of a representative sample of Subscribers. Each questionnaire shall be
prepared and conducted in good faith so as to provide reasonably reliable measure
of customer satisfaction with: (1) audio and signal quality; (2) response to
customer complaints; (3) billing practices; (4) programming; and (5) Installation
practices;
8.2 The survey shall be conducted in conformity with standard research procedures
including the use of telephone survey conducted by an independent person in the
business of regularly conducting such surveys. The survey shall consist of a
sample size of 300 customers or such other sample size as to yield a margin of
error of plus or minus six percent or less of the total customer base.
8.3 The Grantee shall report the results of the survey and any steps the Grantee may
be taking in response to the survey within 60 days of the completion of the
survey.
8.4 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Grantee shall be under no obligation
to conduct a survey at any time the Grantee is deemed subject to effective
competition under then applicable state or federal law .
SECTION 9. liNE EXTENSION POllCY.
588638
9.1 The Grantee shall within 12 months of receiving a request, extend the System to
any residences within the City served by City water and sewer facilities.
9.2 The City recognizes that in some instances the Grantee needs the permission of
private property owners to extend service to others who may be interested in
service and agrees that should the Grantee be unable to obtain these needed
permissions under terms reasonable to the Grantee and the property owners from
whom permission is required that the Grantee shall be under no obligation to
extend service.
Pranchi.e Aereement Ordinance
October 16. 1996 • PAle 8
ss
SECTION 10. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS.
588638
10.1 Payment to City.
A. Grantee shall pay to the City a Franchise Fee in an amount equal to five
percent (5 %) of its annual Gross Revenues.
B. The foregoing payment shall be compensation for use of Streets.
C. Payments due the City under this provision shall be computed at the end
of each calendar quarter. Payments shall be due and payable for each
quarter not later than 60 days from the last day of the quarter. Each
payment shall be accompanied by a brief report showing the basis for the
computation. At the end of each calendar year, Grantee shall complete
a Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Grantee shall fIle a completed Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet no later
than 60 days after the last day of the calendar year.
D. No acceptance of any payment shall be construed as an accord that the
amount paid is in fact the correct amount, nor shall such acceptance of
payment be construed as a release of any claim the City may have for
further or additional sums payable under the provisions of this Franchise.
All amounts paid shall be subject to audit and recomputation by the City.
E. In the event any payment is not made on the due date, interest on the
amount due shall accrue from such date at the annual rate of 12 %.
10.2 Bonds.
A. At the commencement of this Franchise, and at all times thereafter until
Grantee has completed the System Upgrade in Section 6.1 of this
Franchise, Grantee shall maintain with City a bond in the sum of
$300,000.00 in such form and with such sureties as shall be acceptable to
City, conditioned upon the faithful performance by Grantee of this
Franchise and the acceptance hereof given by City and upon the further
condition that in the event Grantee shall fail to comply with any law,
ordinance or regulation, there shall be recoverable jointly and severally
from the principal and surety of the bond, any damages or losses suffered
by City as a result, including the full amount of any compensation,
indemnification or cost of removal of any property of Grantee, including
a reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees and costs (with interest at two
percent in excess of the then prime rate), up to the full amount of the
bond, and which bond shall further guarantee payment by Grantee of all
claims and liens against City or any, public property, and taxes due to
City, which arise by reason of the construction, operation, maintenance
Franchise Agreement Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Page 9
588638
or use of the System. Upon completion of the System Upgrade as
described in Section 6.1 of this Franchise, the City may reduce the bond
to the sum of $100,000.
B. The rights reserved by City with respect to the bond are in addition to all
other rights the City may have under this Franchise or any other law.
C. City may, in its sole discretion, reduce the amount of the bond.
10.3 Security Fund.
A. In the event the Grantee is given notice of a non-compliance pursuant to
Section 34 of the Ordinance, the Grantee shall within ten (10) days thereof
deposit into a bank account, established by the City, and maintain on
deposit the sum of Twenty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($20,000.00) or
deliver to the City a letter of credit in the same amount as a common
Security Fund for the faithful perfonnance by it of all the provisions of
this Franchise and compliance with all orders, pennits and directions of
the City and the payment by Grantee of any claim, liens, costs, expenses
and taxes due the City which arise by reason of the construction, operation
or maintenance of the System. Interest on this deposit shall be paid to
Grantee by the bank on an annual basis. The security may be tenninated
by the Grantee upon the Resolution of the alleged non-compliance.
B. Provision shall be made to permit the City to withdraw funds from the
Security Fund. Grantee shall not use the Security Fund for other pUlposes
and shall not assign, pledge or otherwise use this Security Fund as
security for any purpose.
C. Within ten (10) days after notice to it that any amount has been withdrawn
by the City from the Security Fund pursuant to (A) of this section,
Grantee shall deposit a sum of money sufficient to restore such Security
Fund to the required amount.
D. In addition to recovery of any monies owed by Grantee to City or
damages to City as a result of any acts or omissions by Grantee pursuant
to the Franchise, City in its sole discretion may charge to and collect from
the Security Fund the following penalties:
1. For failure to complete System construction in accordance with
Grantee's upgrade plan, unless City approves the delay, the
penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, o~art thereof,
such failure occurs or continues.
Pranchile Aerecment Ordinance
October 16. 1996 • Page 10
588638
2. For failure to provide data, documents, reports or information or
to cooperate with City during an Application process or System
review, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each day, or part
thereof, such failure occurs or continues.
3. For failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise
for which a penalty is not otherwise specifically provided pursuant
to this Paragraph C, the penalty shall be $50.00 per day for each
day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues.
4. For failure to test, analyze and report on the performance of the
System following a request by City, the penalty shall be $50.00
per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or
continues.
5. For failure by Grantee to provide additional services as negotiated
between City and Grantee at a periodic review session within 45
days after a request by City the penalty shall be $200.00 per day
for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues.
6. Forty-five days following notice from City of a failure of Grantee
to comply with construction, operation or maintenance standards,
the penalty shall be $200.00 per day for each day, or part thereof,
such failure occurs or continues.
7. For failure to provide the services Grantee has proposed, including
but not limited to the implementation and the utilization of the
Access Channels and the making available for use of the
equipment and other facilities to City, the penalty shall be $100.00
per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or
continues.
8. Each violation of any provlslon of this Franchise shall be
considered a separate violation for which a separate penalty can be
imposed.
E. Exclusive of the contractual penalties set out above in this section, a
violation of any provision of this Franchise is a misdemeanor.
F. If Grantee fails to pay to the City any taxes due and unpaid; or fails to
repay to the City, any damages, costs or expenses which the City shall be
compelled to pay by reason of any act or default of the Grantee in
connection with this Franchise; or fails, after thirty (30) days notice of
such failure by the City to comply with any provision of the Franchise
which the City reasonably determines can be remedied by an expenditure
Franchi" A,rcemcnt Ordinance
October 16, 1996 • Page 11
588638
of the security, the City may then withdraw such funds from the Security
Fund. Payments are not Franchise Fees as defmed in Section 29 of the
Ordinance.
G. Whenever the City finds that Grantee has allegedly violated one or more
terms, conditions or provisions of this Franchise, a written notice shall be
given to Grantee. The written notice shall describe in reasonable detail
the alleged violation so as to afford Grantee an opportunity to remedy the
violation. Grantee shall have 30 days subsequent to receipt of the notice
in which to correct the violation before the City may require Grantee to
make payment of penalties, and further to enforce payment of penalties
through the Security Fund. Grantee may, within 10 days of receipt of
notice, notify the City that there is a dispute as to whether a violation or
failure has, in fact, occurred. Such notice by Grantee shall specify with
particularity the matters disputed by Grantee and shall stay the running of
the above-described time.
1. City shall hear Grantee's dispute at the next regularly scheduled or
specially scheduled Council meeting. Grantee shall have the right
to subpoena and cross-examine witnesses. The City shall
determine if Grantee has committed a violation and shall make
written fmdings of fact relative to its determination. If a violation
is found, Grantee may petition for reconsideration.
2. If after hearing the dispute, the claim is upheld by the City, then
Grantee shall have 30 days within which to remedy the violation
before the City may require payment of all penalties due it.
3. The time for Grantee to correct any alleged violation may be
extended by the City if the necessary action to correct the alleged
violation is of such a nature or character as to require more than
30 days within which to perform provided Grantee commences
corrective action within 15 days and thereafter uses reasonable
diligence, as determined by the City, to correct the violation.
H. If City draws upon the Security Fund delivered pursuant hereto, in whole
or in part, Grantee shall replace the same within three days and shall
deliver to City a like replacement Security Fund for the full amount stated
in Paragraph A of this section as a substitution of the previous Security
Fund.
I. If any Security Fund is not so replaced, City may draw on said Security
Fund for the whole amount thereof and hold the proceeds, without
interest, and use the proceeds to pay costs incurred by City in performing
and paying for any or all of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of
PranchiJo ABroomoDt Ordinance
October 16, 1996 • Pago 12
Grantee under this Franchise that are not performed or paid for by
Grantee pursuant hereto, including attorneys' fees incurred by the City in
so performing and paying. The failure to so replace any Security Fund
may also, at the option of City, be deemed a default by Grantee under this
Franchise. The drawing on the Security Fund by City, and use of the
money so obtained for payment or performance of the obligations, duties
and responsibilities of Grantee which are in default, shall not be a waiver
or release of such default.
J. The collection by City of any damages, monies or penalties from the
Security Fund shall not affect any other right or remedy available to City,
nor shall any act, or failure to act, by City pursuant to the Security Fund,
be deemed a waiver of any right of City pursuant to this Franchise or
otherwise.
SECTION 11. SOCIAL CONTRACT.
The Social Contract between Grantee and the Federal Communications Commission is attached
hereto as Exhibit B. It is expressly understood by the City and the Grantee that the Social
Contract is made a part hereof for informational purposes only. Inclusion of the Social Contract
by reference is not intended to nor shall it create any right of the City to enforce any provisions
of the Social Contract directly or indirectly under the terms of this Franchise. The parties
expressly acknowledge and understand that the Social Contract and the obligations contained
therein are enforceable exclusively by the FCC as more fully set forth in the Social Contract.
SECTION 12. COMPETITION ADJUSTMENT.
588638
12.1 In consideration of Grantee's substantial investment estimated at $20 million
dollars to rebuild its System at an early date for the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina,
Minnetonka, Hopkins and Richfield, MN, the City agrees to include the following
provisions.
12.2 Any additional or subsequent cable Franchise granted to cable or non-cable
companies who may compete with Grantee within the Franchise area will be
granted only on substantially similar terms and conditions as this Franchise and
shall not contain less burdensome nor more favorable terms than those imposed
on Grantee by this Franchise.
12.3 The City and Grantee agree that all Franchise provisions that Grantee is subject
to are effective against the Grantee only if such requirements are applied as well
to any and all wired competitors of the Grantee within the Franchise area. For
purposes of this subsection, a wired competitor is any video provider using
Streets and offering at least 12 channels of video programming at least one of
which is a broadcast signal, which uses wires, coaxial cables, optical fiber or
other similar technology and places or attaches such wires, cables or fibers on
Franchile A,rccment Ordinance
October 16. 1996· Page 13
loO
588638
Streets or public utility facilities. This definition of wired competitor does not
include a Satellite Master Antenna Television system located wholly on private
property within a building.
12.4 Any Franchise provision or other regulation enforced by the City upon Grantee
which is not also imposed upon Grantee(s) wired competitors within the Franchise
area of the City, shall be void as to Grantee, subject to the following_
requirements:
A. The existence of a wired competitor in the Franchise area of the City shall
not relieve Grantee of an obligation to provide an annual minimum
Franchise Fee of two percent of Gross Revenues. If the wired competitor
obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to pay ,a Franchise Fee or
substantially similar fee of an equivalent amount to the City, the State of
Minnesota or any other governmental entity which is less than five percent
of Gross Revenues, the City shall reduce Grantee's Franchise Fee to the
same level, but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If
the wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, but it is required
to pay a Franchise Fee or substantially similar fee to the City, State of
Minnesota or any other governmental entity, then Grantee shall pay the
same fee, but in no event less than two percent of Gross Revenues. If the
wired competitor is not required to pay a Franchise Fee or similar fee to
the City or the State of Minnesota, then the two percent minimum
Franchise Fee shall apply to Grantee for all homes and customers who are
passed by the wired competitor's system. If at any time a wired
competitor with a cable Franchise pays a Franchise Fee of more than two
percent, or if a wired competitor without a Franchise Fee pays a
Franchise Fee or similar fee of more than two percent, Grantee shall pay
the same Franchise Fee. In no event shall Grantee be required to pay
more than a five percent Franchise Fee. If the wired competitor
discontinues providing multichannel video services, the Grantee's
Franchise Fee shall immediately return to its original level.
B. The existence of a wired competitor shall not relieve Grantee of an
obligation to provide at least one channel for public, educational and
governmental access programming. If the wired competitor obtains a
cable Franchise which requires it to provide less than four public,
educational and governmental Access Ch3nnels, the City shall, upon the
effective date of the subsequent Franchise, reduce Grantee's requirement
to the same number of channels, but in no event shall Grantee provide less
than one public, educational and governmental access channel. If the
wired competitor does not obtain a cable Franchise, but it is required to
provide less than four public, educational and governmental Access
Channels, or if the wired competitor is not required to provide any public,
Franchise Aereemcnt Ordinance
October 16, 1996· Pille 14
588638
educational or governmental Access Channels, then the City shall reduce
the number of Access Channels required of Grantee as follows:
(i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25 % of the homes and
customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins,
Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least four
public, educational and governmental Access Channels.
(li) If the wired competitor passes 25 % or more but less than 50 % of
the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie,
Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least
three public, educational and governmental Access Channels.
(iii) If the wired competitor passes 50 % or more of the homes and
customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins,
Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall provide at least one
public, educational and governmental Access Channel.
If at any time, a wired competitor provides channels for public,
educational and governmental access which exceed the channels provided
by Grantee, Grantee shall provide the same number of channels as the
wired competitor. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide more
public, educational or governmental Access Channels than it has agreed
to in this Franchise Agreement Ordinance.
If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video
services, the Grantee's requirement for the provision of public,
educational and governmental Access Channels shall immediately return
to its original level.
C. If a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which requires it to
provide less funding for equipment or facilities for public, educational and
governmental access or less facilities and equipment than Grantee, the
City shall reduce the Grantee's requirement for funding for public,
educational and governmental access and facilities and equipment to the
level of the wired competitor. If the wired competitor does not obtain a
cable Franchise, including open video providers in accordance with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and FCC rules, but it is required to
provide less funding for public, educational and governmental access or
less equipment or facilities than Grantee, or if the wired competitor is not
required to provide any funding for public, educational or governmental
access or equipment or facilities, then the City shall reduce the Grantee's
required funding as follows:
Franchile Arrumcnt Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Page 15
588638
(i) If the wired competitor passes less than 25 % of the homes and
customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins,
Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to provide the
same level of funding for public, educational and governmental
access facilities and equipment as indicated in this Ordinance.
(il) If the wired competitor passes 25 % or more but less than 50 % of
the homes and customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie,
Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall reduce the
funding and, equipment and facilities requirements of the Grantee
by 30%.
(iii) If the wired competitor passes 50 % or more of the homes and
customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins,
Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall eliminate the funding
and, equipment and facilities requirements for public, educational
and governmental access funding.
It is not the intent of this section to reduce Grantee's funds, equipment
and facilities requirements regarding public, educational and governmental
access programming to an amount less than the amount provided by its
wired competitors. If at any time a wired competitor provides funds,
equipment or facilities for public, educational and governmental access
that exceed the funds, equipment or facilities provided by Grantee under
this paragraph, Grantee shall provide the same amount of funds,
equipment and facilities. In no event shall Grantee be required to provide
more funds, equipment or facilities than it has agreed to provide in
Section 7 of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance.
If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video
services, the Grantee's requirement for the provision of funding and,
equipment and facilities for public, educational and governmental access
and, facilities and equipment shall immediately return to its origina1level.
D. For all other Franchise provisions imposed upon Grantee in this
Ordinance, if a wired competitor obtains a cable Franchise which does not
require it to meet the same Franchise provision, the City shall not require
Grantee to meet that Franchise provision. If the wired competitor does
not obtain a cable Franchise and it is not required to meet the same
Franchise provision, then the City shall relieve the Grantee from that
Franchise provision as follows:
(i) If the wired competitor passes less than 50 % of the homes and
customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins,
PrlllCm.c Agreement Ordinance
OclObcr 16, 1996· Page 16
Minnetonka and Richfield, Grantee shall continue to comply with
the Franchise provision.
(ii) If the wired competitor passes 50% or more of the homes and
customers in the cities of Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins,
Minnetonka and Richfield, the City shall not require Grantee to
meet the Franchise provision.
If at any time a wired competitor provides a requirement contained
originally in this cable Franchise, Grantee shall comply with that same
requirement.
If the wired competitor discontinues providing multichannel video
services, the Grantee shall be required to meet the Franchise provision.
12.5 If Grantee is aware of a Franchise provision imposed by the City upon Grantee
which is not also imposed by the City or the State of Minnesota upon a wired
competitor, it shall identify the wired competitor, including the basis for stating
that the entity is a "wired competitor" as defmed above; it shall identify the
Franchise provision in question; and it shall provide this information to the City.
Within 90 days, the City shall: (1) pass a resolution declaring that Grantee is
subject to this section for that requirement; (2) declare why the entity in question
is not a wired competitor; or (3) state that the "wired competitor" is subject to a
requirement that substantially duplicates the Franchise provision. During the
above process, the Grantee shall escrow any funds at issue in the above process
that the Franchise requires be remitted during the time period of the above
process and Grantee shall continue to meet any and all requirements in question.
If the City declares such requirement void as to Grantee, the City is not liable for
Grantee's past compliance with the requirement, including any past fees remitted
to the City.
12.6 If the City and Grantee are unable to agree upon the operation of this section of
the Ordinance within 90 days after one party provides notice to the other party,
the parties may agree to enter mediation.
SECTION 13 . ACCEPTANCE.
588638
13.1 Other Franchises.
A. The System intended for City, may be part of a joint system that serves
the cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield,
Minnesota.
B. Grantee will, in good faith, apply for and accept, if offered to it, a
Franchise (similar Franchis~) from each of the other cities on all the same
Franchi" Aerecmcnt Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Page 17
588638
terms and conditions herein provided, except provisions omitted as
inapplicable.
13.2 Time of Acceptance: Incorporation of
Offering: Exhibits.
A. Grantee shall accept this Franchise in form and substance acceptable to
City by December 25, 1996. Such acceptance by Grantee shall be deemed
the grant of this Franchise for all purposes.
B. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Ordinance No. _, also known as the
Cable Communications Ordinance, and Ordinance No. _, also known
as the Local Programming Restructuring Ordinance, shall be repealed and
Grantee shall be bound by all the terms and conditions contained in
Ordinance No. , also known as .the Cable Television Regulatory
Ordinance, and herein. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver to
City an opinion from its legal counsel, acceptable to City, stating that this
Franchise has been duly accepted by Grantee, that this Franchise is
enforceable against Grantee in accordance with its terms, and which
opinion shall otherwise be in form and substance acceptable to City.
C. With its acceptance, Grantee also shall deliver to City true and correct
copies of documents creating Grantee and evidencing the power and
authority referred to in the opinion of Grantee's counsel, certified as of
a then current date by public office holders to the extent possible and
otherwise by an officer of Grantee.
D. At the time of acceptance, Grantee shall provide a copy of its initial
services which shall be attached hereto as Exhibit C.
E. The effective date of this Franchise Agreement Ordinance shall be
January 1, 1997.
PrmcbiIe Agrcc:mCOI OrdinaDcc
OcIObcr 16, 1996 • PliO 18
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Franchise Agreement
the date and year fIrst above written.
(SEAL)
(Corporate Seal)
STATE OF _________ )
)
COUNTY OF _____ )
crrYOF ____________________ ,~~m
By ____________________________ __
Date: ____________________________ _
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________ , City Clerk
KBL CABLE SYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST,
INC., A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF
TIME WARNER INC.
By ____________________________ __
Date: _____________________ __
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on _____ , 199_, by
____________ the of the City of _________ _
on behalf of the City.
588638
Pranchise ACrccmcnt Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Paee 19
NoWy Public
STATE OF _____ )
)
COUNTY OF ____ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 199_, by
____________ the ofKBL Cable Systems of the Southwest,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., on behalf of the company.
588638
Franchile Aereemcnt Ordinance
October 16, 1996 • Pille 20
Notary Public
588638
Franchise Alrcemcot Ordinance
October 16, 1996 -Page 21
EXHIBIT A
FRANCmSE FEE PAYM'ENT WORKSHEET
PARAGON CABLE -SOUTHWEST, MINNESOTA REGION
DETAIL CALCULATION OF 19XX FRANCHISE FEES (%)
PAYMENT PERCENTAGES BASED ON 19XX REVEUUE AND BAD DEBT
19XX REVENUE
=========== =========== ============
BASIC 0
ADDITIONAL OUTLETS 0
EQUIPMENT RENT 0
PAY TV 0
PAY PER EVENT 0
TRANSACTION FEES 0
ADVERTISING 0
SHOPPING SERVICE 0
OTHER 0
----------
TOTAL REVENUE 0
"
LESS: BAD DEBT 0
LESS: LOCAL ACCESS 0 ----------
CHARGEABLE REVENUE 0
x FRANCHISE FEE % 0%
._---------------
TOTAL 19XX FRANCHISE $0
FEES TO BE PAID IN ------------------------
19XX
PERCENTAGES BASED
ON 19XX REVENUE AND
BAD DEBT
------------
EDEN PRAIRIE 0.0000%
EDINA 0.0000%
HOPKINS 0.0000%
MINNETONKA 0.0000%
RICHFIELD 0.0000% ----
TOTAL 0.0000%
------------------
SEP 1 199£
< PAYMENT SCHEDULE >
TOTAL 19XX
Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter PAYMENTS
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
o o 0 0 0
o o 0 0 0
o o 0 0 0
o o 0 0 0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------===========
~
588638
Francbil~ Ar~ent Ordinance
October 16. 1996 • Page 22
EXHIBIT B
TIME WARNER SOCIAL CONTRACT
eden
f=' reI! r II~
DEPARTMENT:
Finance
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Payment of Claims
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Payment of Claims
Checks No. 047344 thru 047642
ActionlDirection:
Approve payment of claims.
I
DATE:
11-19-96
ITEM NO.
VI
COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY THU, NOV 14, 1996, 4:02 PM
DIVISION TOTAL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL SERVICES
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
FINANCE
HUMAN RESOURCES
COMMUNITY INFORMATION
ELECTIONS
SOCIAL SERVICES
ENGINEERING
INSPECTIONS
FACILITIES
ASSESSING
CIVIL DEFENSE
POLICE
FIRE
ANIMAL CONTROL
STREETS & TRAFFIC
PARK MAINTENANCE
STREET LIGHTING
FLEET SERVICES
ORGANIZED ATHLETICS
COMMUNITY DEVELOP
COMMUNITY CENTER
HISTORICAL
YOUTH RECREATION
ADULT RECREATION
RECREATION ADMIN
ADAPTIVE REC
PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ
DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
CITY CENTER
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
PRAIRIE VILLAGE
PRAIRIEVIEW
PRESERVE
WATER DEPT
SEWER DEPT
STORM DRAINAGE
AGENCY FUNDS
$4,101. 88
$856.35
$215.64
$585.89
$4,196.49
$462.22
$4,500.00
$113.40
$209.71
$11,575.91
$2,311.47
$20.00
$18,451.79
$4,877 .82
$605.04
$15,547.96
$13,939.37
$180.14
$28,726.45
$2,990.00
$344.56
$2,149.22
$953.35
$1,157.97
$1,311.75
$105.52
$198.57
$538,050.48
$718.55
-$921.00
$4,576.15
$3,547.50
$2,386.21
$3,193.27
$1,854.90
$145,772.48
$5,031.83
$21,310.12
$4,288.95
$850,497.91*
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, NOV 14, 1996, 4:02 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION
47345
47346
47347
47348
47349
47350
47351
47352
47353
47354
47355
47356
47357
47358
47359
47360
47361
47362
47363
47364
47365
47366
47367
47368
47369
47370
47371
47372
47374
47375
47376
47377
47378
47379
47380
47381
47382
47383
47384
47385
47386
47387
47388
47389
47390
47391
47392
47393
47394
47395
47397
47398
47399
47400
47401
$47.50 20TH CENTURY PLASTICS
$69.01 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER
OFFICE SUPPLIES
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
$57.51 AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
$2,554.20 ADVERTISING INCENTIVES
$68.75 AFFIRMED MEDICAL SERVICES INC
$204.61 AIM ELECTRONICS
$311.04 ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURNITURE
$20.00 AMEM ATN C KOLAR TREASURER
$27,950.00 AMERICAN LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION
$179.52 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY COMPANY
$756.85 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI
$86.27 AMERIDATA INC
$70.00 APPRAISAL INSTITUTE
$133.50 APPRAISAL INSTITUTE
$833.35 APRES
$43.28 ARBOURS GARDEN & FLORAL CENTER
$59.90 ARCHITECTURAL DIGEST
$3,487.00 ASPEN CARPET CLEANING
CLOTHING & UNIFORMS
SAFETY SUPPLIES
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
SOFTWARE
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
CONTRACTED BLDG MAINT
$557.25 ASPEN REACH EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT RENTAL
$95.70 ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT COMPANY IN EQUIPMENT PARTS
$425.02
$6,500.92
$91. 43
$1,875.00
$110.77
$1,696.20
$380.25
$1,413.15
$649.65
$243.30
$80.00
$43,762.27
$389.16
$3,431.40
$1,195.30
$13,878.25
$455.49
$201.00
$64.41
$45.00
$69.96
$675.89
$2,607.28
$3,848.64
$563.70
$385.43
$27.00
$738.00
$307.23
$1,408.70
$75.00
$375.00
$290.00
$239.20
$30.00
AVR INC
B & F DISTRIBUTING
B & STOOLS
BAKKEN & LIEDL
BARKER HAMMER ASSOCIATES INC
BATTCHER AND AERO ELECTRICAL C
BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY
BELLBOY CORPORATION
BENIEK LAWN SERVICE
BILL CLARK OIL CO INC
BILL DROEGER
BLACK & VEATCH
BLOOMINGTON LOCK AND SAFE
BONINE EXCAVATING
BOYDS OIL DISTRIBUTING
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
BRC -ELECTIONS
BRENDA JERDE
BRO-TEX INC
BROCK WHITE CO LLC
BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE
CAMAS-SHIELY DIVISION
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS
CARGILL SALT
CARL BOLANDER & SONS
CARLSON TRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT
CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC
CARTER HOLMES
CATCO CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SE
CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER
CHRISTOPHER SODERSTROM
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON
CITY OF EDINA
CLEAN SWEEP INC
COMPUTER CHEQUE OF MINNESOTA I
BUILDING MATERIALS
MOTOR FUELS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
CLEANING SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR
EQUIPMENT PARTS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
REPAIR & MAl NT SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
DESIGN & CONST
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS
MOTOR FUELS
DESIGN & CONST
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
CLEANING SUPPLIES
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
SALT
DEPOSITS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
EQUIPMENT PARTS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CONST TESTING-SOIL BORING
ASPHALT OVERLAY
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
PROGRAM
GENERAL
EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
STORM DRAINAGE
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
GENERAL
ICE ARENA
EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
CIVIL DEFENSE
MILLER PK K3 2
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
WATER UTILITY-GEN
ASSESSING-ADM
IN SERVICE TRAINING
ASSESSING-ADM
SUNBONNET DAYS
FIRE
IN SERVICE TRAINING
SENIOR CENTER
PARK MAINT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
STARING LAKE
EQUIPMENT MAINT
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ASSESSING-ADM
FIRE STATION #1
HIDDEN PONDS RES
EQUIPMENT MAINT
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
PARK MAINT
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION
PUBLIC WORKS/PARKS
PAFKO 2ND ADDITION
EQUIPMENT MAINT
10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION
ELECTION
VOLLEYBALL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
FIRE STATION #3
IN SERVICE TRAINING
MILLER PARK
POLICE
SNOW & ICE CONTROL
ESCROW
EQUIPMENT MAINT
TRAFFIC SIGNALING
SOFTBALL
EQUIPMENT MAl NT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
SOFTBALL
ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT
WATER SYSTEM SAMPLE
STREET MAINT
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, NOV 14, 1996, 4:02 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION
47402
47403
47404
47405
47406
47407
47408
47409
47410
47411
47412
47413
47414
47415
47416
47417
47418
47419
47420
47421
47422
47423
47424
47425
47426
47427
47428
47429
47430
47431
47432
47433
47434
47435
47436
47437
47438
47439
47440
47441
47442
47443
47444
47445
47446
47447
47448
47449
47450
47451
47452
47453
47454
47455
47456
$935.84
$56.56
$94.27
$113.40
$216.70
$3,047.50
$64.45
$299.50
$8.42
$559.70
$11,666.04
$601.69
$255.80
$2,586.00
$96.35
$47.00
$231.35
$133.13
$731. 70
$50.99
$990.00
$30.00
$120.00
$414.58
$1,786.70
$147.60
$2,235.00
$1,001. 75
$195.49
$462.27
$186.40
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
COPY CHECK
COPY EQUIPMENT INC
CORPORATE GRAPHICS
COTY CONTRUCTION
CREATIVE CONCEPTS IN MARKETING
CRONATRON WELDING SYSTEMS INC
CROWN MARKING INC
CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE
CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY
D C HEY COMPANY
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
PRINTING
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
EMPLOYEE AWARD
SMALL TOOLS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
CHEMICALS
OFFICE EQUIP MAINT
D J'S MUNICIPAL SUPPLY INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
DALCO ROOFING & SHEET METAL IN CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
DALCO
DANYS TAILOR
DAY-TIMER
DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC
DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC
DELEGARD TOOL CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY, CAIS
DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIRECT SAFETY CO
DIVERSIFIED INSPECTIONS INC
DONS SOD SERVICE
DPC INDUSTRIES INC
DYNA SYSTEMS
EARL F ANDERSON
EASTMAN KODAK CO
ECOLAB INC
CLEANING SUPPLIES
CLOTHING & UNIFORMS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
EQUIPMENT PARTS
RENTALS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
CONTRACTED COMM MAINT
LICENSES & TAXES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
CHEMICALS
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
CONTRACTED BLDG MAINT
$202.00 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER MEETING EXPENSES
$89.88
$310.91
$2,567.99
$101.18
$675.00
$1,005.79
$175.79
$15,116.00
$117.00
$398.99
$75.00
$718.55
$923.45
$17.00
$21. 00
$121. 84
$487.00
$107.62
$75.00
$69.23
EDEN PRAIRIE FLORIST
EDEN PRAIRIE FORD
EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT N
EDENBLOOM FLORAL
EDINA S W PLUMBING
ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC
F F JEDLICKI INC
FAIRVIEW CLINICS
FIBRCOM
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
EQUIPMENT PARTS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
ADVERTISING
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
REPAIR & MAl NT SUPPLIES
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
COMMUNICATIONS
FIRE DEPT SAFETY OFFICERS ASSO DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
FIRSTAR TRUST COMPANY PAYING AGENT
FISCHER AGGREGATES INC
FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL
FRANK LAVALLE
FRANKLIN QUEST
FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE & RESCUE
G & K SERVICES DIRECT PURCHASE
GASB ORDER DEPARTMENT
GENERAL MACHINING INC
SAND
CANINE SUPPLIES
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAl NT
CLOTHING & UNIFORMS
TRAINING SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
$604.61 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPAN OFFICE SUPPLIES
$185.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPA CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
$38.00 GETTMAN COMPANY MISC TAXABLE
PROGRAM
WATER SYSTEM MAINT
SEWER SYSTEM MAINT
OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
ENGINEERING DEPT
ASSESSING-ADM
1993 REHAB 54044
HUMAN RESOURCES
EQUIPMENT MAINT
GENERAL
FIRE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
WATER UTILITY-GEN
TRAFFIC SIGNALING
FIRE STATION #2
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
POLICE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
EQUIPMENT MAINT
POLICE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
WATER SYSTEM MAINT
FIRE
STORM DRAINAGE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
LAKE EDEN PARK
GENERAL
FIRE STATION #2
IN SERVICE TRAINING
FIRE
EQUIPMENT MAINT
HOUSING TRANSP & SOCIAL SERV
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
SENIOR CENTER
STORM DRAINAGE
WATER SYSTEM MAINT
STORM DRAINAGE
BENEFITS
POLICE
FIRE
B & I PAYMENTS
SNOW & ICE CONTROL
POLICE
SOFTBALL
ADAPTIVE RECREATION
FIRE
WATER UTILITY-GEN
FINANCE DEPT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
WATER UTILITY-GEN
FIRE
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, NOV 14, 1996, 4:02 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION
47457
47458
47459
47460
47461
47462
47463
47464
47465
47466
47467
47468
47469
47470
47471
47472
47473
47474
47475
47476
47477
47478
47479
47480
47481
47482
47483
47484
47485
47486
47487
47488
47489
47490
47491
47492
47493
47494
4"1495
47496
47497
47498
47499
47500
47501
47502
47503
47504
47505
47506
47507
47508
47509
47510
47511
$22.48
$76.68
GINA MARIAS INC
GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
$391.70 GOLD COUNTRY INC SIGNATURE CON DEPOSITS
$1,723.96 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SER TIRES
$101.50 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
$156.56
$229.43
$419.15
$2,224.64
$331,386.86
$656.13
$3,341. 94
$130.00
$30,095.84
$102.35
$899.52
$1,535.00
$2,345.29
$74.16
$45.00
$266.78
$195.00
$80.00
$315.32
$160.00
$85.00
$188.50
$100.00
$60.00
$16.35
$718.88
$270.43
$2,009.39
$384.34
$47.38
$34.43
$626.49
$134.40
$180.00
$3,302.00
$419.79
$7,987.50
$680.17
$257.19
$1,864.76
$190.17
$74.79
$113.50
$48.06
$109.02
$259.47
$60.00
$68,763.45
$452.56
$2,882.39
GRAFIX SHOPPE
GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC
HACH COMPANY
HANSEN THORP PELLlNEN OLSON
HARDRlVES INC
HARMON AUTOGLASS
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -PU
HENNEPIN COUNTY
HENNEPIN COUNTY
HOME TEAM PAINTING & DECORATIN
HONEYWELL INC
HOSP. SUPPLY SCIENTIFIC PROD
lAAO
ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERI
IFMA
IKI
INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC
INFRATECH
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBOR
INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL INC
INTL ASSOC OF ARSON INVESTIGAT
INTL SOCIETY OF FIRE SERVICE I
ITS A KEEPER
J CRAFT INC
J H LARSON ELECTRICAL COMPANY
JANEX INC
JASPER DEVELOPMENT
JC PENNEY
JOAN AKINS
JOEL WESTACOTT
KAROL ROCKLER
KELLY SPANN
KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC
KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC
KUSTOM SIGNALS INC
LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC
LAKE COUNTRY DOOR
LAKE REGION VENDING
LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES
LANO EQUIPMENT INC
LARSON TRANSFER & STORAGE
LAW ENFORCMENT TARGETS INC
LIONS TAP
LOCATOR & MONITOR SALES
LOES OIL COMPANY
LUNDA CONSTRUCTION CO
M AMUNDSON
MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
CHEMICALS
DESIGN & CONST
IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
DEPOSITS
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
SPECIAL EVENTS FEES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
TRAINING SUPPLIES
EMPLOYEE AWARD
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
CLEANING SUPPLIES
DEPOSITS
CLOTHING & UNIFORMS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
WAGES PART TIME
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
CLEANING SUPPLIES
PAGERS & RADAR EQUIP
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
MISC TAXABLE
EQUIPMENT PARTS
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
WASTE DISPOSAL
TRAINING SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR
WASTE DISPOSAL
IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
PROGRAM
FIRE
FITNESS CENTER
ESCROW
EQUIPMENT MAINT
WATER SYSTEM MAINT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
OUTDOOR CTR-STARING LAKE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
GOLFVIEW DRIVE RETAINING WALL
SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD
EQUIPMENT MAINT
POLICE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TOWNLINE RD/CSAH62
TCD INVENTORY
ESCROW
FIRE STATION #2
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
IN SERVICE TRAINING
ICE ARENA
IN SERVICE TRAINING
SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
SEWER SYSTEM MAINT
FD 10 ORG
EQUIPMENT MAINT
POLICE
FIRE
HUMAN RESOURCES
EQUIPMENT MAINT
FIRE STATION #2
FIRE STATION #2
ESCROW
POLICE
FALL SKILL DEVELOP
COMMUNITY SERVICES
FALL SKILL DEVELOP
SOFTBALL
TCD INVENTORY
FIRE STATION #3
POLICE
WATER SYSTEM MAINT
FIRE STATION #2
PRESERVE LIQUOR #2
EQUIPMENT MAINT
PARK MAINT
EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
POLICE
FIRE
WATER SYSTEM MAINT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
DELL ROAD
SOCIAL
EQUIPMENT MAINT
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, NOV 14, 1996, 4:02 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT
47512
47513
47514
47515
47516
47517
47518
47519
47520
47521
47522
47524
47525
47526
47527
47528
47529
47530
47531
47532
47533
47534
47535
47536
47537
47538
47539
47540
47541
47542
47543
47544
47545
47546
47547
47548
47549
47550
47551
47552
47553
47554
47555
47556
47557
47558
47559
47560
47561
47562
47563
47564
47565
47566
47567
$150.00
$72.46
$597.47
$265.07
$1,146.00
$60.00
$256.23
$330.77
$21. 00
$33.31
$11,007.31
$4,565.00
$38.00
$73.44
$750.00
$1,953.32
$150.00
$116.02
$240.00
$704.35
$297.91
$620.50
$79.00
$23.38
$837.00
$328.05
$469.56
$29.95
$500.37
$70.93
$95.85
$76.62
$300.00
$397.01
$220.46
$314.18
$105.52
$27.16
$41.50
$14,688.50
$337.50
$120.00
$59.62
$291.50
$319.81
$410.36
$1,707.76
$1,948.83
$1,072.55
$1,545.12
$62.30
$113.63
$198.05
$500.00
$56,777.89
VENDOR
MARTIN-MCALLISTER
MATEJCEKS
MAXI-PRINT INC
MCNEILUS STEEL INC
MEDICINE LAKE TOURS
MEMA ATTN KEN SOUTHORN
MENARDS
MERLINS ACE HARDWARE
MICHELLE SCHROEDER
MIDLAND EQUIPMENT COMPANY
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION
MIDWEST FENCE & MFG COMPANY
MIDWEST TELETRON INC
MINNCOMM PAGING
MINNEAPOLIS CRISIS NURSERY
MINNESOTA PIPE AND EQUIPMENT
MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS
MIRACLE RECREATION
MN STATE FIRE DEPT ASSOC
MN TROPHIES & GIFTS
MODEL STONE
MORN REPAIR
MPLS AREA ASSOC OF REALTORS
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO
NATHAN D BUCK
NATL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOC
NEBCO EVANS DISTRIBUTING
NORCOSTCO
NORTH STAR ICE
NORTHERN GLASS & GLAZING INC
OCHS BRICK AND TILE COMPANY
OFFICE MAX
OH LANDSCAPE LLC
OHLIN SALES
OPPIDAN INVESTMENT CO
OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS INC
PAPER DIRECT INC
PAPER WAREHOUSE
PARK NICOLLET CLINIC HEALTHSYS
PARROTT CONTRACTING INC
PAUL BROWN
PAUL S STORCH
PETSMART
PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING
POWER SYSTEMS
POWERTEX SPORTSWEAR INC
PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY
PRECISION PAVEMENT MARKING
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC
QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC
RAINBOW FOODS
RC IDENTIFICATIONS INC
RDO EQUIPMENT CO
REAL ESTATE EQUITIES
REHBEIN INC
DESCRIPTION
PHYSICAL & PSYCO EXAM
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
DONATIONS/CONTRIBUTIONS
BUILDING MATERIALS
SPECIAL EVENTS FEES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
INSTRUCTOR SERVICE
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
BUILDING MATERIALS
PARK EQUIPMENT
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
COMMUNICATIONS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
ADVERTISING
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
SMALL TOOLS
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAl NT
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
EQUIPMENT PARTS
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
MISC TAXABLE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL
OFFICE SUPPLIES
GRAVEL
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
DEPOSITS
MOWING
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OFFICE SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
CANINE SUPPLIES
MISC TAXABLE
EQUIPMENT PARTS
CLOTHING & UNIFORMS
CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS
CONTRACTED STRIPING
CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR
WASTE DISPOSAL
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
EQUIPMENT PARTS
HOPE LOAN RECEIVABLE
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
PROGRAM
HUMAN RESOURCES
PARK MAINT
ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT
MILLER PARK
ADULT PROGRAM
FD 10 ORG
STORM DRAINAGE
EPCC MAINTENANCE
SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
TRAFFIC SIGNALING
MILLER PARK
WYNDAM KNOLL
POLICE
INSPECTION-ADM
HOUSING TRANSP & SOCIAL SERV
WATER SYSTEM MAINT
PRESERVE LIQUOR #2
CARMEL PARK
FD 10 ORG
FIRE
PARK MAINT
SEWER LIFTSTATION
FD 10 ORG
EQUIPMENT MAINT
TOUCH FOOTBALL
FIRE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
POLICE
PARK MAINT
STREET MAINT
STREET MAINT
WATER SYSTEM MAINT
ESCROW
STREET MAINT
RECREATION ADMIN
POLICE
BENEFITS
SEWER SYSTEM MAINT
SPECIAL EVENTS
HERITAGE PRESERVATION
POLICE
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
EQUIPMENT MAINT
POLICE
FIRE STATION #1
TRAFFIC SIGNALING
SEWER LIFTSTATION
FIRE STATION #1
OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN
EQUIPMENT MAINT
HOPE LOAN PROGRAM
LIME SLUDGE
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THU, NOV 14, 1996, 4:02 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT
$86.16
$306.15
$75.40
$340.00
$96.82
$343.88
$42.08
$5,942.63
VENDOR
RESPOND SYSTEMS
REVERE
RICHARDS ASPHALT COMPANY
RICMAR INDUSTRIES
RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED
RITZ CAMERA
ROAD RESCUE INC
ROLLINS OIL CO
RYANS RUBBER STAMPS
S H BARTLETT CO INC
SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION
DESCRIPTION
SAFETY SUPPLIES
BLDG REPAIR & MAINT
PATCHING ASPHALT
CHEMICALS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
PHOTO SUPPLIES
EQUIPMENT PARTS
TIRES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
47568
47569
47570
47571
47572
47573
47574
47575
47576
47577
47578
47579
47580
47581
47582
47583
47584
47585
47586
47587
47588
47589
47590
47591
47592
47593
47594
47595
47596
47597
47598
47599
47600
47601
47602
47603
47604
47605
47606
47607
47608
47609
47610
47611
47612
47613
47614
47615
47616
47617
47618
47619
47620
47621
47622
$28.76
$161. 58
$169.33
$370.30 SEARS
SEARS
I EQUIPMENT RENTAL
$50.43
$3,570.00
$6.20
$39.41
$183.58
$208.80
$17.06
$338.66
$292.38
$1,370.87
$220.06
$439.88
$568.24
$18.98
$74.41
$1,250.00
$160.03
$2,640.48
$24.47
$352.29
$836.61
$125.14
$1,060.00
$216.00
$87.33
$78.27
$120.43
$168.00
$597.74
$354.56
$288.21
$451.95
$1,842.97
$2,201. 72
$32.23
$522.00
$19.17
$2.60
$479.36
$2,209.66
$4.80
$104.85
$1,064.14
SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES
SHIELY COMPANY
SIGNUM GRAPHIC SYSTEMS INC
SIR SPEEDY
SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORK INC
SMITH & WESSON
SNAP-ON TOOLS
SOUTHWEST CONTRACTORS SUPPLY
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING
ST JOSEPH EQUIPMENT INC
STANDARD SPRING
STANDARD TRUCK & AUTO
STAR TRIBUNE
STATE OF MN -MN BOOKSTORE
STOREFRONT/YOUTH ACTION INC
STRAND MANUFACTURING CO INC
STS CONSULTANTS LTD
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO
SULLIVANS UTILITY SERVICES INC
SUPERIOR FORD
SUPERIOR PRODUCTS MFG CO
SUPERIOR STRIPING INC
T SCHLUTER
TENNANT
THE DALE GREEN COMPANY
THE DARTNELL CORPORATION
THE PROMOTION GROUP
THE WATSON CO INC
THE WORK CONNECTION
THERMOGAS COMPANY
THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP INC
TIE COMMUNICATIONS INC
TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING INC
TOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY
TOM HOLMES
TOTAL REGISTER
TRANS UNION CORPORATION
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN MTKA
TURF SUPPLY COMPANY
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO
TWIN CITY TIRE
UNIFORMS UNILIMITED
SAFETY SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
GRAVEL
SIGNS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
BUILDING MATERIALS
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
EQUIPMENT PARTS
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
LEGAL NOTICES PUBLISHING
EQUIPMENT PARTS
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
EQUIPMENT PARTS
MISC NON-TAXABLE
TRAINING SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
EQUIPMENT PARTS
IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
CONTRACTED BLDG MAINT
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
SEAL COATING CONTRACTED
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
EQUIPMENT PARTS
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
EMPLOYEE AWARD
MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
GAS
TRAINING SUPPLIES
TELEPHONE
LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CITY CENTER GROUNDS MNTC
CHEMICALS
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
CLOTHING & UNIFORMS
1
PROGRAM
GENERAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
STREET MAINT
PARK MAINT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
GENERAL BLDG FACILITIES
EQUIPMENT MAINT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
GENERAL
EPCC MAINTENANCE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
STREET MAINT
SAFETY
COMMUNITY SERVICES
STREET MAINT
TRAFFIC SIGNALING
GENERAL
OUTDOOR CTR-STARING LAKE
POLICE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
WATER SYSTEM MAINT
GENERAL
EQUIPMENT MAINT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
WATER UTILITY-GEN
HOUSING TRANSP & SOCIAL SERV
SEWER LIFTSTATION
SCENIC HEIGHTS ROAD
EQUIPMENT MAINT
FIRE STATION #2
EQUIPMENT MAINT
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
OUTDOOR CTR-STARING LAKE
VOLLEYBALL
EQUIPMENT MAINT
STORM DRAINAGE
WATER UTILITY-GEN
HUMAN RESOURCES
CONCESSIONS
PARK MAINT
OUTDOOR CTR-STARING LAKE
STORM DRAINAGE
GENERAL
DUCK LAKE ACCESS
PARK MAINT
VOLLEYBALL
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
POLICE
SENIOR CENTER
PARK MAINT
WATER SYSTEM MAINT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
INSPECTION-ADM
------------------------------------------------------------~~
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER THO, NOV 14, 1996, 4:02 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION
47623
47624
47625
47626
47627
47628
47629
47630
47631
47632
47634
47635
47636
47637
47638
47639
47640
47641
47642
$1,049.71
$65.85
$5,650.00
$1,309.12
$1,995.76
$417.72
UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC
UPPER MIDWEST SALES CO
VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC
VESSCO INC
W W GOETSCH ASSOCIATES INC
W W GRAINGER INC
SMALL TOOLS
CLEANING SUPPLIES
CHEMICALS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
EQUIPMENT PARTS
$669.03 WALMART STORES INC PHOTO SUPPLIES
$108.41 WASTE MANAGEMENT -SAVAGE WASTE DISPOSAL
$198.83 WATER SPECIALITY OF MN INC CHEMICALS
$43,624.46 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CORPORATION EQUIPMENT PARTS
$303.48
$3,583.40
$42.56
$50.00
$40.00
$619.87
$505.63
$283.19
$825.76
$850,497.91*
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT
WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
WILD BIRDS UNLIMITED
WILDLIFE SCIENCE CENTER
WOMEN IN LEISURE SERVICES
YALE INCORPORATED
ZACKS INC
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
ZEP MANUFACTURING CO
CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT
DESIGN & CONST
SMALL TOOLS
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR
REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES
OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL
EQUIPMENT PARTS
PROGRAM
EQUIPMENT MAl NT
EPCC MAINTENANCE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
POLICE
PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
POOL MAINTENANCE
WATER METER REPAIR
EQUIPMENT MAINT
VALLEY VIEW & CO RD 4
OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
IN SERVICE TRAINING
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
STORM DRAINAGE
WATER TREATMENT PLANT
EQUIPMENT MAINT
DATE: 11119/96
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMNO:W~
SECTION: Petitions and Requests
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Public Works Environmental and Waste Management Commission Request to Amend Code
Eugene A. Dietz Sec.2.20
Requested Action:
Adopt First Reading of an Ordinance amending City Code Section 2.20 relating to the
Environmental and Waste Management Commission.
Background:
On October 1, 1996, the City Council met in joint session with the Environmental and Waste
Management Commission. One of the discussion topics was the revisions to the enabling
ordinances under which the Commission operates. As proposed with this amendment, the code
section is proposed to be revised to more accurately reflect the mission and work effort of the
Commission.
Representatives of the Environmental and Waste Management Commission will be in attendance
at the November 19, 1996 Council Meeting to review and discuss this amendment.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. ___ -96
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY
CODE SECTION 2.20 RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND WASTE
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION; AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER
1 AND SECTION 2.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 2.20 of the City Code is amended to read
as follows:
"Subd. 1. Establishment and Composition. An Environmental
and Waste Management Commission composed of seven (7) members
is hereby established for the purpose of advising the Council
in all matters concerning the environment and their potential
impact on the quality of life within the City. These issues
involve aspects of waste management, water quality, water
conservation, air quality, land use and other relevant
environmental concerns. Commission members shall either be
residents of the City or employed within the City; however, at
least five (5) of the members must be residents of the City.
The members shall be appointed for terms of three (3) years
each. A term shall continue until the member's successor has
been appointed and qualified.
Subd. 2. Duties. The duties of the Environmental and Waste
Management Commission are to advise the Council concerning the
following:
A. Recommendations regarding the management of environmental
wastes: solid; liquid (including sewage); hazardous,
radioactive; and other wastes; and review and make
recommendations related to resource recovery and
recyclables.
B. Waste management and all other issues directly and
indirectly affecting the air, water and land quality of
the City in an effort to strike a reasonable balance
between environmental preservation and development.
C. Establishment of programs to disseminate information to
residents regarding aspects of waste management practices
within the community.
D. Recommendations regarding ways, to improve, restore and
protect the water quality of City lakes, wetlands and
creeks, to ensure uses compatible to water quality
desired by area residents and to maintain a healthy
environment.
E. Development of a strategy to reach the community
regarding the importance of environmental stewardship.
Such strategy will make use of civic organizations,
schools and churches, and provide speakers, facilitators
and educators for environmental issues. The Commission
will advise the Council on selection of the annual
Environmental Quality Award to an Eden Prairie business
that exemplifies sound environmental ethics.
F. Actions and requirements of other units of local, state
and federal agencies and their impact upon the City.
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Section 2.99 entitled "Violation a
Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 3. 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 ____ day of , 1996, and
finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting
of the City Council of said City on the day of
_____________ , 1996.
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the ___________________ , 1996. day of
DATE: 11119/96
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Petitions and Requests
ITEM NO:-mrr f3
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Public Works Environmental and Waste Management Commission Request to Enact
Eugene A. Dietz Ordinance Banning the Commercial Application of Fertilizer Containing
Phosphorous
Requested Action:
To adopt First Reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 5 and Chapter 9 of the
City Code to regulate the application of lawn fertilizer in Eden Prairie.
Background:
On October 1, 1996, the City Council met in joint session with the Environmental
and Waste Management Commission. A draft of an ordinance to regulate the
application of fertilizer --specifically phosphorous --was presented for
discussion. The attached ordinance has not been revised since that meeting and
generally provides for:
• Licensing of commercial fertilizer applicators
• Does not apply to farming/agricultural operations
• Prohibits the use of phosphorous (unless testing provides otherwise) by
commercial applicators
• Is not mandatory upon homeowners as individuals
• Prohibits application to impervious surfaces or in/within ten feet of natural
water courses, etc.
• Prohibits fertilizer application between November 30 and April 1
Representatives of the Environmental and Waste Management Commission will
be present to review and discuss the ordinance revision.
I
-------------------------------------------~
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. ___ -96
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY
CODE CHAPTER 5 BY ADDING SECTION 5.45 RELATING TO LICENSING OF
COMMERCIAL LAWN FERTILIZER APPLICATORS; AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER
9 BY ADDING SECTION 9.14 RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS UPON THE USE OF
LAWN FERTILIZER; AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND
SECTIONS 5.99 AND 9.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
section 1. City Code Chapter 5 is amended by adding section
5.45 to read as follows:
"SECTION 5.45. COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER APPLICATORS.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The City has reviewed studies and existing
data to determine the current and projected water quality of
various lakes within its community. The data indicate that
lake water quality may be maintained and improved if the City
is able to reduce the amount of phosphorus containing
fertilizer entering the lakes as a result of storm water
runoff or other causes. The purpose of this Section and
Section 9.14 is to provide regulations which will aid the City
in managing and protecting its water resources which are
enjoyed by its residents and other users. "
Subd. 2. Definitions. For the purpose of this section,
certain terms and words are defined as follows:
A. "Commercial Fertilizer Applicator" is a person who is
engaged in the business of applying fertilizer for hire.
B. "Fertilizer" means a substance containing one or more
recognized plant nutrients that is used for its plant
nutrient content and designed for use or claimed to have
value in promoting plant growth. Fertilizer does not
include animal and vegetable manures that are not
manipulated, marl, lime, limestone, and other products
exempted by Rule by the Minnesota Commissioner of
Agriculture.
Subd. 3. License Required. It is unlawful for any person to
engage in the business of commercial fertilizer applicator
within the City without a license from the City.
-1-
Subd. 4. Exclusions. This Section does not apply to persons
who apply fertilizer for normal and ordinary~arming and
agricultural operations.
Subd. 5. License Application Procedure. Applications for a
commercial fertilizer applicator license shall, in addition to
containing the information required by this Chapter, include:
A. Formula. A description of the formula{s) of the
fertilizer{s) proposed to be applied within the City.
B. Time of Application. A time schedule for application of
fertilizer{s) and identification of weather conditions
acceptable for fertilizer applications.
C. State Licenses. A copy pf all licenses required of the
applicant by the State of Minnesota regarding the
application of fertilizers.
Subd. 6. Condi tions of License. Commercial fertilizer
applicator licenses shall be issued subject to the following
conditions:
A. Random Sampling. Commercial fertilizer applicators shall
permit the city to sample fertilizers to be applied
within the city. The cost of analyzing fertilizer
samples taken from commercial fertilizer applicators
shall be paid by the commercial fertilizer applicator if
the sample analysis indicates that phosphorus content
exceeds the levels authorized herein.
B. Possession of License. A commercial fertilizer
applicator license, or a copy thereof, shall be in the
possession of any person employed by a commercial
fertilizer applicator when making fertilizer applications
within the City.
C. Possession of Product Material Safety Data Sheet. A copy
of Product Material Safety Data Sheet of fertilizer used
shall be in the possession of a person employed by a
commercial fertilizer applicator when making fertilizer
applications within the City.
D. Possession of Labels. A copy of the label{s), including
product chemical analysis of the fertilizer{s) to be
applied.
E. State Regulations. Licensees shall comply with the
applicable provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1994, Chapter
18C, as amended, which is adopted by reference.
-2-
F. city Regulations. Licensees shall comply with all
applicable provisions of the city Code, including §9.14.
G. Notice. At least 24 hours prior to applying fertilizer
that contains phosphorus, licensees must notify City of
the fertilizer application, the reason for applying
phosphorous (whi~h may be only those set forth in City
Code section 9.14), and the amount of phosphorous
contained in the fertilizer to be applied."
section 2. City Code Chapter 9 is amended by adding section
9.14 to read as follows:
"SECTION 9.14.
FERTILIZER.
RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO THE USE OF
Subd. 1. Definitions. lo"or the purpose of this Section,
certain terms and words are defined as follows:
A. "Commercial Fertilizer Applicator" is defined in section
5.45.
B. "Noncommercial Fertilizer Applicator" is a person who
applies fertilizer during the course of employment, but
who is not a Commercial Fertilizer Applicator.
C. The definitions contained in Minnesota Statutes 1994, as
§103E.005, SUbd. 1, as amended, are adopted by reference.
Subd. 2. Exclusions. This section does not apply to persons
who apply fertilizer for normal and ordinary farming and
agricultural operations.
Subd. 3. No Commercial Fertilizer Applicator or Noncommercial
Fertilizer Applicator shall:
A. Time of A~~lication. Apply fertilizer when the ground is
frozen or when conditions exist which will promote or
create runoffs or between November 30 and April 1 of any
year.
B. Fertilizer content. Apply fertilizer, liquid or
granular, containing phosphorous or compound containing
phosphorous, such as phosphate, except:
1. naturally occurring phosphorous in unadulterated
natural or organic fertilizing products such as
yard waste compost;
2. upon newly established or developed turf and lawn
areas during the first growing season; or
-3-
C.
3. upon turf and lawn areas which soil tests confirm
are below phosphorous levels established by the
University of Minnesota Extension Services. A lawn
fertilizer application shall not contain an amount
of phosphorous exceeding the amount of phosphorous
and the appropriate application rate recommended in
the soil test evaluation.
Imperyious Surfaces.
surfaces.
Apply fertilizer to impervious
Phosphorus applied as lawn fertilizer pursuant to
subparagraphs 2. and 3. above shall be watered into the
soil to protect it from loss by runoff.
Subd. 4. General Regulations. No person shall apply
fertilizer to natural water courses, public water basins,
wetlands or public waters below the ordinary high water level
of any thereof or within ten (10) feet of the upland side of
any thereof.
section 3. city Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and sections 5.99 and 9.99 entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by
reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
section 4. 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 day of , 1996,
and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the city Council of said City on the day of
______________ , 1996.
city Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the ______________________ , 1996.
-4-
5
___ day of
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 11/19/96
SECTION: REPORTSOFAD~SORYBOARDSAND
COMMISSIONS ITEMNO·11~
DEP ARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger Senior Issues Task Force Final Report
Jean Johnson
Requested Council Action:
Receive fmal report. Task Force members will briefly review report.
Background:
The Council established the Senior Issues Task Force in April of 1995. The Task Force's purpose was to
provide the City Council with a comprehensive report that identifies the impact of changing demographics
of the senior population and the resulting impact on housing, transportation, health and social services and
related issues.
Supporting Reports:
Executive Summary
Senior Issues Task Force Final Report, November 1996
I
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Report of City Manager November 19, 1996
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.
Human Resources, Community Proposal for Employee Benefit Program XI.B.1.
Information & Services Modifications
Requested Action:
The Human Resource staff has carefully reviewed recent legislative decisions impacting employee benefit programs,
monitored changes in the market place and has determined that a number of modifications are needed to the City
Employee Benefit Program.
Background:
The proposed changes are necessary in order to:
• maintain a competitive program.
• clarify and improve employee understanding of the City'S Short-Term and Long-Term Leave income protection
programs.
•
•
•
more accurately reflect the recent changes in Family and Medical Leave requirements.
reduce time consuming administration.
maximize productivity and level of service through reduced absenteeism.
Staff is requesting that the Council consider the following modifications and improvements to the 1997 Employee
Benefit Program.
1. Increase Basic Life Insurance from $10,000 to $20,000. A market analysis of comparable metro area cities
indicates the prevailing level for employer paid Basic Life is between $20,000 and $25,000.
2. Consolidate the current leave accounts (sick, emergency sick leave, extended illness, personal, and vacation)
into two accounts and clarify the purposes of and use of time from each.
Personal Leave Bank -former vacation and personal leave accrual
Sick Leave Bank -former sick leave, emergency leave and extended illness time
3. Allow sick leave to accrue to an increased maximum level of 1040 hours in the Sick Bank. Annual accrual of
sick leave beyond 1040 will be capped at 1088; the difference (up to 48 hours) will be paid out at the end of
each year.
4. Modify the Severance Program to provide employees with an incentive to minimize their absence from work
and accrue leave time in their Sick Leave Bank.
5. Provide employees, who currently have accrued sick leave in excess of 1040 hours, with a severance adjustment
at time of termination.
Additional information, including projected costs and potential savings for major elements of these program
changes is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the modifications to the Employee Benefit
Program as proposed and direct staff to prepare the appropriate communication materials, complete the
PayrollJPersonnel administrative procedures and finalize the implementation plans.
Fonn c\ hr\ council \ all-19.wpd
Rev 11/12/96 \bmm
1
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PROGRAM
Change Proposal
PROGRAM: Basic Life Insurance
PROPOSED CHANGE: Increase employee's Basic Life Insurance (includes Accidental
Death and Dismemberment) from $10,000 to $20,000.
REASON FOR CHANGE: The City's Basic Life Insurance level has not been adjusted in the
past 12-15 years. The current level of $10,000 lags the metro average for comparable cities.
Bloomington
Burnsville
Edina
Maple Grove
Minnetonka
Plymouth
Richfield
Average
$25,000
$30,000
$10,000
$10,000
$15,000
$30,000
$25.000
$20,714
BENEFIT TO EMPLOYEE/CITY: The City has successfully maintained a comprehensive
benefit program that covers all employees, including employees that are members of organized
units. Because benefits are traditionally a negotiable item, it is important that our program
remain competitive to avoid negotiated benefit level differences for select employee groups.
PROJECTED COST: Insurance cost 22¢ / $1,000 / month.
Base $2.20 x 12 x 230 = $6,072 1996 cost
Proposed $2.20 x 5 x 230 =
$4.40 x 7 x 230 =
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1,1997
hr \ council
p-spp96.wpd \ bmm
$2,530
$7,084 1997 cost
$9,614 (added cost $3,542 first year)
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19,1996 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: 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
Eugene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly,
and Council Recorder Jan Nelson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING NOVEMBER 21,1996 AS "EDUCATION
DAY"
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. OPEN PODIUM
III. MINUTES
A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY. NOVEMBER 5, 1996
w. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. REQUEST FOR EDEN PRAIRIE HOCKEY ASSOCIATION TO
UTILIZE MEETING ROOM D
B. RESOLUTION AWARDING 1996 REGENERATIVE AIR HIGH
DUMP STREET SWEEPER CONTRACT, I.C. 96-5427
C. CHANGE ORDER NO.1 FOR ATHERTON TOWNHOMES
DRAINAGE. I.e. 93-5332
D. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF ST. ANDREWS
BLUFF (located at the NE corner of Baker Road and Valley View
Road)
City Council Agenda
TuesdaY,November19,1996
Page Two
E. APPROVE STIPULATION CLARIFYING CITY EASEMENT OVER
SAILER/MARSHALL PROPERTY AND APPROVE AGREEMENT
SPECIFYING CITY OBLIGATIONS FOR SAILER/MARSHALL
PROPERTY
F. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE RECONVEYANCE OF TAX
PARCEL #16-116-22-24-0018
G. BARTUS ADDITION by Dan Bartus. 2nd Reading of an
Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on .44 acres.
Location: Baker Road at St. Andrew Drive. (Ordinance for
Rezoning)
H. 2ND READING OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CHAPTER 11.
SECTION 11.03, SUBD 3.C.. AMENDMENT TO CHANGE
AVERAGE SETBACK CALCULATION
I. 2ND READING OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CHAPTER 11.
SECTION 11.40. SUBD. 6 .• AMENDMENT CHANGING MINIMUM
AREA FOR PUD FROM 15T05ACRES
J. REQUEST BY BTO DEVELOPMENT FOR A LAND ALTERATION
PERMIT FOR OUTLOT A. KMSP PLAZA (located at the
Northwest corner of Prairie Center Drive and Northerly entrance
to KMSP site)
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS
A. ALBIN CHAPEL by Albin Chape\. Request for Planned Unit
Development Amendment Review on 2.56 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 2.56 acres, Zoning District
Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.56 acres, Site Plan
Review on 2.56 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 2 lots.
Code Amendment to amend Section 11.20 of City Code adding
Funeral Homes as a permitted use in the Office Zoning District.
Location: Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road. (Resolution for
PUD Amendment Review, Ordinance for PUD District Review
and Zoning District Amendment and Resolution for Preliminary
Plat and Ordinance for Code Amendment)
City Council Agenda
Tuesday, November 19,1996
Page Three
B. BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION by Bearpath Limited Partnership.
Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space
to Low Density Residential on 28.75 acres, Planned Unit
Development Concept Review on 489.7 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 28.75 acres, Rezoning from Rural to
R1-13.5 on 28.75 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 69.70 acres into 39
lots. Location: North of Bearpath Trail and south of Rice Marsh
Lake. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change,
Resolution for PUD Concept Review, Ordinance for PUD District
Review and Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Resolution for
Preliminary Plat)
C. CARPENTER NORTH by Walter Carpenter. Request for Planned
Unit Development Concept Review of Phase 2 grading on
approximately 7 acres. Location: North of Valley View Road and
west of Prairie Center Drive. (Resolution for PUD Concept
Review)
D. RENEWAL OF CABLE TV FRANCHISE WITH PARAGON CABLE
(Cable Television Regulatory Ordinance and Cable Television
Franchise Agreement Ordinance)
VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL & WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
REQUEST TO ENACT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE
SEC. 2.20
B. ENVIRONMENTAL & WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
REQUEST TO ENACT AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE
COMMERCIAL APPLICATION OF FERTILIZER CONTAINING
PHOSPHOROUS
IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. RECEIVE SENIOR ISSUES TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
X. APPOINTMENTS
City Council Agenda
Tuesday, November 19,1996
Page Four
XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
1. Employee Benefit Changes
C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES
D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XII. OTHER BUSINESS
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
PROCLAMATION
EDUCATION DAY
NOVEMBER 21, 1996
WHEREAS, a quality education system is vitallY important to the well-being of a city -to its
quality of life, its economic vitality, the safety and security of its neighborhoods, the future of its
children; and
WHEREAS, a quality education system requires a strong commitment from all those who live
and work in cities; and
WHEREAS, many mayors and city governments are increasing their involvement in the
education system by strengthening links among schools, local businesses, community facilities,
police departments, families and neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the United States Conference of Mayors has declared Thursday, November 21,
1996 Education Day to recognize that education must be a top priority for all communities
throughout this country,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED, that I, Jean L. Harris, Mayor of Eden Prairie,
do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 21, 1996, Education Day in our City as a reminder
to all of the importance of a quality education system to the well-being and success of our
community.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAmIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1996 8:00 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
CITY COUNCIL:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLLCALL
All members were present.
8080 Mitchell Road
Mayor Jean Harris, Ronald Case, Patricia
Pidcock, Ross Thorrmnson, Jr., and
Nancy Tyra-Lukens
City Manager Carl J. JuDie, Assistant City
Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks,
Recreation & Facilities Bob Lambert,
Director of Public Works Eugene Dietz,
City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Council
Recorder Jan Nelson
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OrnER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Pidcock added item XI.A.1. Inyite Met Council to Discuss Vision for Eden Prairie
Affordable Housing and Transportatjon. Thorfinnson added item XI.A.2. Appointments
to Boards and Commissions Next Year. Harris added items XI.A.3. Help Day and
XI.A.4. Inyitation to Chamber. Jullie added item XI.B.1. Workshop Schedule.
Tyra-Lukens suggested a representative of the group here for the last item on the agenda
be allowed to discuss that item earlier in the Agenda. Harris said she would prefer to keep
the order as is.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Agenda as
published and amended. Motion carried unanimously.
ll. OPEN PODIUM
ID. MINUTES
A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDA¥, OCTOBER 15, 1996
Thorfinnson said sentence 1, paragraph 2 on page 11 should be changed to read
" ... and an empty public utilities building."
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Minutes of
the City Countil meeting held Tuesday, October 16, 1996, as published and
I
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
November 5, 1996
Page 2
amended. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
B. mE HILLS OF EDEN PRAmlE by Venku Corporation. 2nd Reading of
Ordinance 45-96 for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.84
acres, Adoption of Resolution'96-185 for Site Plan Review on 14.84 acres and
Approval of a Developer's Agreement for The Hills of Eden Prairie. Location:
Bryant Lake Drive between Wood dale Church and Willow Creek Road.
(Ordinance 45-96 for Zoning District Change and Resolution 96-185 for Site
Plan Review)
C. EXTENSION OF DEYEWPER'S AGREEMENT by Metro Printing, Inc.
Request to extend Developer's Agreement dated March 7, 1995. (Resolution 96-
186)
D. APPROVAL OF FLYING CWUD AIRPORT DESIGN FRAMEWORK
MANUAL
E. RESOLUTION 96-187 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF EDEN HILLS
TOWNHOMES (located east of FranJo Road and south of Prairie Center
Drive)
F. RESOLUTION 96-188 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF EDENYALE 24m
ADDITION (located south of Executive Driye and east of Anagram Driye)
G. RESOLUTION 96-189 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF EDEN PRAmlE
GROCERY ADDITION ('LIL RED)
H. APPROVAL PROPOSAL FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR A TRAmC
SIGNAL AT mE INTERSECTION OF m 169 AND FOUNTAIN PLACE,
I.C. 96-5398
Regarding item IV.5. on page 3 of the Flying Cloud Airport Design Framework
Manual (Item D), Case asked if our inspectors would inspect for conformance to
our Building Codes. Jullie said they will apply for a permit, and we will do the
review as on any other building. Case asked if they have cooperated. Jullie said
they have gone through the permit process.
Regarding Item H, Tyra-Lukens asked if we will have to go through the design
process one more time if we are not selected for a cooperative project agreement
for 1997. Dietz said we will design the project and get it ready to go in hopes of
getting a cooperative agreement with MNDoT. The design will work whether it
is a cooperative project or we do it on our own. If we do not get a cooperative
1-
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 3
project agreement, the item will be brought back so the Council can decide whether
to proceed.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve items A-G on
the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
v. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS
A. CAMP EDENWOOD by Friendship Ventures. Request for Site Plan Review on
2 acres. Location: Indian Chief Road. Edenwood Camping and Retreat Center.
(Resolution 96-190 for Site Plan Review) Continued from October 1, 1996
Enger said this item was continued at the October 1, 1996, City Council meeting,
and referred to the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) for their review and
recommendation prior to City Council action. He reviewed the recommendations
of the HPC contained in their memo of October 29, 1996, noting that their
preferred option is preservation of the building. He also reviewed the memo from
Scott Kipp outlining three possible alternative building sites for the new dining
facility.
Harris asked if the figures presented for stabilization options would provide
remodeling in order to put it to some other use. Enger said staff feels that an
adaptive use has not been identified at this time and believes that costs to modify
the building to be acceptable for any adaptive use would be close to the cost of
reconstruction, at which point the value as a historic site would be destroyed.
Harris asked if the options have been discussed with Friendship Ventures. Enger
said they have discussed the option of an alternative site plan, and Friendship
Ventures is concerned about additional costs and whose responsibility the
maintenance and liability of the preserved building would be.
Ed Stracke, president of Friendship Ventures, said they need to construct a year-
round program center in order to provide a safe and sanitary place to prepare
meals. Edenwood is the only program of its kind in the seven county metro area.
The existing dining structure is not adequate to provide year-round services. They
have no interest in looking at alternative uses for the garages and the dining hall.
If they are required to keep the existing structures, the Board would have to look
at whether they want to explore alternative locations. They are willing to offer a
place in the new building that would document the history of the camp.
Rolf Anderson, consultant to the State Historic Preservation Office, said most of
the 14 county tuberculosis facilities in Minnesota have been demolished. The Glen
Lake Children I s Camp was a summer camp for children at risk for T. B. and, as
such, is a rare reminder of the state I s treatment of T. B. The facility is eligible for
placement on the Register of Historic Places, and, as such, would be eligible for
grant money. He asked the Council to consider ways to work together to find
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 4
solutions to preserve a very unique site.
Pidcock asked if the Cannon Falls camp has been preserved. Anderson said that
was demolished two years ago.
Norma Anderson, resident of Eden Prairie and employee of Oak Terrace Nursing
Home, said she took oral history of people who had anything to do with the Glen
Lake facility and compiled it into a book for the 75th anniversary celebration. She
said she has received repeated requests for copies of the book.
Maxine Dixon, President of the Minnetonka Historical Society, urged the City to
keep and restore the facility, noting that the Glen Lake Sanitarium building was
demolished a few years ago so that facility if now lost.
Tom Ferguson, representing the Eden Prairie Lions Club, said they have been
involved in the camp for 20 years or so and are one of the few organizations that
helped keep the camp afloat. His group made a commitment about six months ago
to give $50,000 to help them kick off a new facility. The current building is not
handicapped accessible and cannot be used year round.
Mary Ann Johnson, an Eden Prairie resident, said her child uses the camp and
there is a need for a larger building for year-round use of the facility. She noted
that the old building would take a lot of upkeep.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Harris summarized the real issue as whether to preserve the building or move
forward with the proposal from Friendship Ventures.
Tyra-Lukens said she has a real soft spot in her heart for the Glen Lake Sanitarium
and the camp is all that remains of that facility. It would be great to have the site
on the National Register; however, the use of this facility for children is a high
priority. It would be very expensive to retrofit the building. She did not think
there is an adequate alternative site for the dining hall and there doesn't seem to be
any good alternative use for the building that wouldn't jeopardize the privacy of
the campus or present security issues. There are other very valuable sites in Eden
Prairie that she would like to see saved. She thought the founder of the camp was
concerned about children and would probably want this to be used by children who
need it. She appreciated the work of the HPC in bringing this to our attention, but
she would have to go with allowing demolition.
Case said he encouraged continuing this proposal at the last Council meeting
because he wanted to slow down the process on this project to ensure that what is
happening tonight did indeed happen--that we as a city think very carefully about
any decision to destroy an historical resource because architectural historical
CITY COUNCn. AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 5
resources are non-renewable. However, government decisions are never simple
and this one is very complicated. First we have plain, simple, architecturally
insignificant buildings that just happen to qualify for the National Historic Register
because of the unique story of childhood suffering and hope that was played out
during the TB epidemic of the 1920's here in Eden Prairie. But we also have a
camp today creating its own story of hope and service amid childhood suffering in
many ways memorializing the earlier work on the campsite 70 years ago. In
addition there is the money problem. Who is going to pay to maintain the
buildings and cover the liability insurance? What will happen to the site if
Friendship Ventures finds it unworkable to stay? Case has a great desire for the
people of Eden Prairie to know our heritage, to celebrate it, and to want to save
it, but the city now owns and maintains three historic homes that cost us very little
in annual expenditures. However, he would like to see the scope of those sites
expanded in the future, and he was concerned how we will be able to do all that.
Case said he will vote to permit Friendship Ventures to construct their new dining
hall and in so doing destroy the historic structure there now. He cautioned
everyone in city government that one of our greatest challenges over the next ten
years will be to build community spirit and a sense of small town ambiance as we
grow to be a city of over 65,000 people. He believes we can't keep the small town
feeling and destroy our historic architecture right and left. While the decision was
difficult, he thought the work Friendship Ventures does with challenged children
in 1996 is possibly the best way to memorialize the work of the historic camp with
challenged children of the 1920's. In government, people should always come
first.
Pidcock thought it is good to maintain buildings but not at the expense of children.
The new facility will serve children well into the 21st century, and it is important
to get them a decent dining room and have facilities that are comfortable. She
thought we might memorialize the camp as it was in an historic display like that at
Mayo Clinic.
Thorfinnson thought the importance of this program to those who use it outweighs
the importance of preserving the structure.
Harris thought that even though this site is unique, the program that Friendship
Ventures offers is also unique and there are so few programs available for people
with developmental disabilities. She thought it would be possible to memorialize
the history of the camp through documentation, photos and other means and urged
that be taken into consideration as we move forward to approve the proposal.
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt Resolution 96-190
for Site Plan Review as originally proposed by Friendship Ventures on October 1,
1996, and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating
Commission and Staff recommendations.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 6
Case asked if the recommendation includes the $5,000 to meet the federal
documentation requirements. Tyra-Lukens did not want the City to pay for the
documentation efforts if there are state funds available.
Thonmnson withdrew the motion with the consent of Pidcock.
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt Resolution 96-190
for Site Plan Review as originally proposed by Friendship Ventures on October 1,
1996, to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating
Commission and Staff recommendations, and to direct Staff to document the site
and make all efforts to obtain federal or state funding and, if such funds are not
available, to return to the City Council for authorization to spend city funds for the
site documentation. Motion carried unanimously.
B. EDEN BLUFFS by Baton Corporation. Request for PUD Concept Amendment
on 44 acres, PUD District Review on 1.53 acres, Zoning District Amendment in
RM-6.5, Site Plan Review on 1.53 acres, and Preliminary Plat for 1.53 acres.
Location: Sherman Drive at County Road 1. (Resolution 96-191 for PUD
Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District
Amendment and Resolution 96-192 for Preliminary Plat)
Jan Zedlik, representing Baton Corporation, reviewed the proposal. She said they
met with the neighborhood to discuss construction issues and concerns about
building materials.
Enger said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this
project at its October 14, 1996 meeting, based on the recommendations of the Staff
Report of October 11, 1996. He reviewed the cross access easement and the
waivers to City Code that are required. The Parks, Recreation & Natural
Resources Commission did not review the proposal.
Referring to the Staff Report of September 6, Tyra-Lukens asked whether the cash
contribution to sewer and water utilities in lieu of a NURP pond is a standard
amount. Dietz said staff computes this by getting the cost to build ponds on larger
sites. They then have an opportunity to apply the fees to another pond in the area
at a future date. This is the way we have computed it for similar projects where
it is not practical to build a pond on site.
Jerry Marx, 10961 Old Wagon Trail, had not heard about the retaining wall and
asked for more details. Zedlik said that had been discussed with a representative
of Wooddale Building, and she was just relaying that discussion. Marx asked if
she knew where it would be located. Zedlin said there will have to be some type
of retaining wall at the point where it cuts into the existing property.
Harris asked staff it they had more information about the retaining wall. Enger
said he was aware of a difference in grade that will have to be addressed with the
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 8
D. BARTUS ADDITION by Dan Bartus. Request for Rezoning from Rural to R1-
13.5 on 0.44 acres. Location: Baker Road at St. Andrew. (Ordinance for
Rezoning)
In the absence of proponent, Enger reviewed the proposal to rezone the property
and construct one single-family home. He said the Planning Commission reviewed
the request at their October 14, 1996, meeting and recommended approval on a
unanimous vote, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report of October 11,
1996. The request was not reviewed by the Parks Commission.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case to close the Public Hearing; to
adopt 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to Rl-13.5 on 0.44
acres; and to direct Staff to prepare the Development Agreement incorporating
Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously.
E. CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.03, SUBD3.,C. AMENDMENT TO CHANGE
AVERAGE SETBACK CALCULATION Clarify regulation pertaining to
average setback. (Ordinance)
J ullie said Staff is recommending that existing language in the City Code be
modified so that the average front yard setback will be calculated with the principal
structure on either side of the lot rather than to the average of all of the house
setbacks within the entire block.
Enger said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed Code
change on a 5-0 vote at its October 14, 1996 meeting.
There were no comments from the audience.
Tyra-Lukens asked if this pertains to single-family homes only. Enger said that
was correct. Tyra-Lukens said she likes the idea in concept but wondered if there
will be possible problems in neighborhoods where there are older homes. Enger
said Staff and the Board of Appeals have had considerable experience with such
situations and are recommending this change in order to allow the setbacks to be
calculated better.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing; and
to approve 1 st Reading of the Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code
relating to the average setback calculation. Motion carried unanimously.
F. CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.40, SUBD. 6., AMENDMENT CHANGING
MINIMUM AREA FOR PUD FROM 15 TO 5 ACRES (Ordinance)
Jullie said Staff is recommending that the PUD regulations be amended by
1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 9
changing the minimum 15-acre tract size down to a 5-acre minimum. The pun
process often can eliminate obstacles to creating greater variety and efficiency in
land use planning. The present requirement of a 15-acre minimum is too large for
many of the remaining parcels to be developed. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the proposed Code change on a unanimous vote at its
October 14, 1996 meeting.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public
Hearing; and to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance amending Chapter 11,
changing the minimum area for pun from 15 to 5 acres. Motion carried
unanimously.
G. VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PART OF COLUMBINE ROAD IN
RESEARCH FARM 2ND ADIDTIQN (Resolution 96-193)
Jullie said the new plat of Staring Lake Townhomes changes the alignment for
Columbine Road from that previously established in the plat of Research Farm 2nd
Addition. The property owners have requested this vacation to avoid property title
concerns when the ownership transfer of Outlot C, Staring Lake, is completed.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to close the Public Hearing; and
to adopt Resolution 96-193 vacating right-of-way for part of the Columbine Road
extension in Research Farms 2nd Addition. 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, Thorfmnson,
Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye."
VU. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
VID. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. REQUEST FROM THE SENIOR ADVISORY BOARD FOR A CANOPY AT
mE SENIOR CENTER
Jullie said the Senior Center Advisory Board is requesting that the Council
authorize funding for the construction of a canopy for the rear entry to the Senior
Center. The estimated cost is $8,800 to construct an 8 foot by 4 foot by 42 foot
canvas canopy at the rear entrance. At this time, because no source of funding has
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 10
been identified for this project, Staff recommends that it be referred to Staff for
inclusion in the 1998 budget process.
Pidcock asked if this is a health and safety issue. Jullie said he thought this is an
important item for the seniors and might alleviate some icy conditions; however,
it does not impose any immediate danger or threat, and it would be important to
balance this with other requests for our funding allocations.
Tyra-Lukens was concerned about the length of the proposed canopy and its
stability in the wind. She asked if a more permanent structure would be better.
Jullie said Staff would review all of the alternatives and come back with an
appropriate construction plan. Harris noted she had the same concerns.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to refer the request from the
Senior Advisory Board to Staff for inclusion in the 1998 Budget planning process.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. REQUEST FROM RESIDENTS TO ADDRESS UPCOMING EXPANSION
OF COUNTY ROAD 4 BETWEEN HIGHWAY 5 & PIONEER TRAIL
Jullie said our Engineering Staff, together with Hennepin County Public Works,
has set up an open house meeting with the residents of the neighborhood in order
to address questions that have surfaced regarding the upcoming expansion of
County Road 4 between Highway 5 and Pioneer Trail. Notices have already been
sent for this meeting which is scheduled for Thursday, November 7, beginning at
5:30 p.m. with a formal presentation at 7:00 p.m .. At this meeting Hennepin
County officials will be prepared to address any changes in the construction plans,
which have given rise to concerns on the part of residents abutting the project
construction limits. Hennepin County plans to award a contract for this project
early next spring. Prior to advertising for bids the County will need to have City
Council approval of the final plans and specifications. That action is anticipated
for January or February of next year. Jullie said we have received a petition from
the neighborhood asking questions and expressing concerns. Those concerns will
be addressed on Thursday evening.
Cindy Chrzenowski, 16272 Mayfield Drive, reviewed the issues and concerns of
the residents in the neighborhood. She thought a big mistake was made to allow
homes to be built on each side of County Road 4 with no thought for expansion.
She was concerned that the original plan called for dropping the grade along the
Fairfield stretch and that grade-dropping has now been reduced. The early
discussion of plans did not include a jogging trail along both sides of the road. She
was concerned that this will have an impact on property values and that granting
easements to the county would not stop them from widening the road further. She
would like to have a sound barrier constructed along the road in order to increase
safety for children in the neighborhood and to reduce noise levels. She also
thought the utility lines need to be buried and they would like to know where the
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 11
street lights, signal lights, and stop signs will be placed. They would like to know
what restrictions will be placed on road signs.
Chrzenowski said they would like to have the speed limit reduced to 30 mph south
of Scenic Heights Road and would like the maximum load limit reduced to
eliminate dangerous truck and trailer traffic. They would like stop signs to help
control the traffic and access to County Road 4. She thought the expansion will
create unsafe living conditions and would like the City to conduct a cost study of
the property acquisition.
Harris asked Ms Chrzenowski to provide her list of concerns to Staff so they can
be addressed at the Thursday meeting.
Michael Rush, 16907 Hanover Lane, asked if we are going forward with the
construction at Scenic Heights Road near the proposed Hwy 212. Dietz said we
do not have the right-of-way at this time but it is in the plans.
Rush asked where the Planning Commission and the City Attorney are in the
planning process for the County Road 4 expansion. Harris noted this has been in
the works for eight years, but things changed in that period and we are now going
back to look at the neighbor concerns. Dietz said the City gave approval to the
preliminary plan 2-112 years ago but we need to compare the two plans to see
where there might be differences.
Rush asked if we have seen the variances and how much of the decision has been
made. Tyra-Lukens noted that she has not yet seen the preliminary plan or the
final plan. Harris said many of the questions being raised will be addressed on
Thursday.
Case was concerned that there may be a perception that nothing will happen
between November 7 and when we vote in January. He would be open to making
sure the concerns are being addressed. He noted this is not a question of county
government forcing something on us because we have been begging for county
dollars to upgrade our road system.
Dietz said the final plans have been delayed in coming to us for review, but the
County sent out notices to property owners and we are now reacting to their
concerns. He said the County staff will be there on Thursday night. City Staff has
not finished their review of the plans and, to the extent possible, they will try to
get it to conform to the approved layout.
Thorfinnson said we will be voting on the final plans before it is complete;
however, he was concerned about the issue of notices and the timing of the project.
He asked what the sequence is. Dietz said the County promised this project would
go to bids this fall. They elected to begin the acquisition of right-of-way in order
to preserve the possibility of beginning construction next spring. He said
/0
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 12
preliminary conversations with the County indicate they can probably get the
acquisition down to five feet and have talked to them about the possibility of using
easements rather than permanent acquisitions.
Thorfinnson asked if the County can start negotiations before the Council has
approved the final plan. Dietz said they will probably start negotiations as soon
as possible. He said it will come to the Council within the next month for
approval. Harris asked Dietz to provide a summary of the November 7 meeting
for the Council packets.
Gary Bryndal, a resident of the Centex development, said he saw the original plans
and was told this is the way it would be built. The new plan is not what was
presented at the original meeting, and he is concerned that this is the road that will
be built now. Dietz said since the original plans were presented 2-112 years ago
the County hired a consultant to do the detail design. We have asked them to
compare the approved plan to the plan now being proposed for final construction.
Dennis Wittenberg, 9880 Crestwood Terrace, was concerned about the statement
that the County would have significant control over the project. Dietz said this is
their project and their money. We are participating in part of the cost, but they do
expect and need the City approval to implement the project. We expect they would
build in accordance to plans the City Council approves.
Wittenberg asked why no subsequent consideration for traffic patterns have been
taken into consideration. Dietz said the plans that were approved represented a
compromise back then when the road was reduced from a divided facility to an
undivided facility. The City Council tried to match the needs of the residents to
the needs for transportation.
Wittenberg asked how the Council looks at the plan for recreational facilities in the
area. He was concerned that plans to put trails along both sides of a 45 mph
highway do not take safety issues into consideration. Harris urged him to attend
the Thursday evening meeting.
Pidcock noted that we did raise the issue of trail crossing, and we have been
concerned about safety along the trails and the issue of being able to cross the road.
She was sure that these issues will be discussed at the Thursday meeting.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to refer the petition to
Staff and to ask Staff to report back to the Council following the November 7
neighborhood meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Harris then changed the sequence of the Agenda to consider item XI.C.4. next.
1/
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 13
4. Community Center Pool Report
Lambert reviewed the Staff Memorandum of November 5, 1996, that
presented an update on the status of the Community Center pool. They
have received complaints on the air and water quality since mid-September.
They have met with the pool staff and the swimming coaches from the Fox
Jets and the school. They are trying to make the air and water quality as
good as possible with the systems in place. They are asking the Council to
authorize staff to contact the School District to see if they will join the City
in selecting consultants to investigate the disinfectant system and air quality
system. We would jointly review any reports from the consultants to
determine solutions to make the necessary corrections that will fit the
School District programs and the City programs in the pool. Once we have
the suggested improvements and the costs for the improvements, we would
have a joint meeting to review the options.
Dave Rasmussen, 13598 Woodmere, said he is on the Fox Jets Board and
thanked Lambert and Staff for addressing the concerns of the parents and
swimmers. The Fox Jets have worked for many years to build the program
to where it is now, and they would like to be included in the process for the
recommendations that Lambert outlined. They offered to help study the
issues and help with the implementation of the solutions. Harris could not
see any reason to not include them.
Rasmussen asked what the time frame will be to put this together. Lambert
said they will make recommendations on an RFP within the next couple of
weeks, select or recommend consultants within the next month to six
weeks, and then get a report from the consultant six to eight weeks after
that with cost estimates. They might be able to come back to the Council
in February or March with solutions and costs. Harris asked if there are
any other groups that should be included. Lambert said just the schools and
the Fox Jets.
Case asked if the joint committee could look at some more immediate
corrections of the problem, such as moving programs to Oak Point so we
can drop the temperature at the Community Center pool. Lambert said
they will discuss that with the School staff. Case asked if a list of small
"interim" modifications would come out of the meetings. Rasmussen noted
they have taken some of those interim steps themselves.
Tyra-Lukens was eager to see a solution to this problem; however, she
noted that a representative of the Health Department said that some people
can remain hypersensitive to chlorine despite changes that might be made.
Brian Boysen, 17683 George Moran Drive, said his two daughters have
participated in swimming at the school and with the Fox Jets. He was
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 14
involved several years ago in work to correct the problems at the
Community Center. Those problems really have not been corrected yet.
He thought the School District will be an important part of the process and
would encourage the Council to recommend that parents be involved in the
process.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to refer this matter
to Staff and to direct Staff to confer with the School District Staff and
representatives of the Fox Jets to jointly develop a request for proposal
from Pool Consultants to review the air quality issues at the Community
Center swimming pool, per the Staff Agenda Report of November 5, 1996.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. REQUEST FROM POST CONSTRUCTION REGARDING STREET AND
UTILITY IMPROYEMENTS
Jullie said Staff has agreed to set up a neighborhood meeting for next Thursday to
discuss the request from Post Construction. He said Post Construction has received
Preliminary Plat Approval and First Reading for their proposed seven lot
development along Sunnybrook Road. We have been discussing with them the
various options for constructing the required public improvements for both
Sunnybrook Road and their property as well. Post is requesting the City's
approval at this time for them to be able to construct all of the improvements on
their property plus those on Sunnybrook Road which would also abut their
property. They believe that it may be possible that their costs will be lower with
this plan rather than lumping all of the work together under a City assessment
project with Sunnybrook Road. They would need a private cost participation
agreement with two other property owners to make their plan feasible. At this time
we are not aware that they have secured such commitments.
Jullie said we believe the best process for all the property owners involved in this
neighborhood is to put all the street and utility work together as one City
Improvement Contract. A new Feasibility Report would be prepared and a Public
Hearing process conducted. Post Construction has no experience with Public
Works contracts which makes us hesitant to allow them to proceed on their own.
Also, allowing Post to do only a portion of the total project will apparently
increase the cost for the other residents to the west along Sunnybrook Road.
Barry and Brian Post, 12381 Sunnybrook Road, reviewed their request to extend
the sewer down Sunnybrook Road. They have tried without success to create a
Developer's Agreement. There are areas that create additional costs--the Nurp
pond has increased in size, the sewer will have to be deeper and bigger pipe will
be required and bigger pipe will be required than was proposed in the Feasibility
Study, and they had to obtain new wetlands for mitigation. They asked if they are
operating under a "first-timer's" rule. Harris said there is nothing in the statutes
about "first timers". She thought there are enough questions that we may need to
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 15
look at this again, and she would like to send this back to Staff so they can review
the situation and return to the Council with recommendations.
Barry Post asked if the City Council could keep them from building the sewer since
they own the property on both sides of the road. City Attorney Pauly said the City
has control over its own rights-of-way and utilities.
Barry Post asked what we are expecting at the November 7 neighborhood meeting.
Jullie said we expect that the Posts will have a proposal for discussion, and we
would try to work out a compromise solution.
Barry Post said he feels that Post is paying more than their share of the 26
assessments along the road. Dietz said we do not change the assessment rate
because one basement is lower than the other--everyone has sanitary sewer service
and everyone benefits from that. The benefit exists and the property is improved
by that amount of money.
Brian Post said it will be difficult for the Posts to present what they would do,
since they do not know what they can do. They are asking the Council if they
would give Post Construction permission to do this contract.
Case was concerned that we don 't know what the impact would be on the rest of
the neighborhood if Post Construction builds the sewer.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Pidcock, to refer this matter back to Staff
for inclusion on the next Council agenda following the proposed neighborhood
meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Brian Post asked that Alan Gray attend the meeting. Dietz noted Staff understood
the Posts were going to defer this action so Mr. Gray made other plans for this
evening. Gray will attend the next meeting.
IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
x. APPOINTMENTS
A. AppoINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS TO
FILL AN UNEXpmED TERM THROUGH MARCH 31, 1999
Jullie said a vacancy has occurred on the Board of Appeals & Adjustments with the
recent resignation of Tim Nelson.
Pidcock nominated William Ford.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to appoint William Ford
to fill the unexpired term through March 31, 1999 on the Board Adjustments &
Appeals. Motion carried unanimously.
J~
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 16
XI. REPORTS OF OmCERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCU.MEMBERS
1. Inyite Met Council to Discuss Vision for Eden Prairie Affordable
Housing and Transportation
Pidcock said the Met Council gave a presentation to Suburban Transit on
their expectations for cities such as Eden Prairie in the areas of housing and
transportation. She suggested it would be good to have them come out and
give a similar presentation to the Council and Planning Commission. She
thought we could invite them to be part of our up-coming meeting with the
Planning Commission. We would have an opportunity to ask them
questions.
The consensus was that this is a good idea, and Staff will take action to
issue the invitation.
2. Appointments to Boards and Commissions Next Year
Thorfinnson said he had a conversation with Natalie Swaggert about last
year's process to make appointments to Boards and Commissions. He
noted we got a lot of positive feedback on the open house for potential
appointees to Boards and Commissions. He thought we should build on
that and make the open house the focus of the process. They will bring a
revised process to the next meeting. It will include interviews as always,
but the open house wi11lead things off.
3. Help Day
Harris said Paragon Cable is trying to connect kids with community service
opportunities by sponsoring a Help Day on November 23rd. They are
encouraging everyone to participate in helping kids make a difference in
our community through volunteerism.
4. Inyitation to Chamber
Harris thought we should set up a joint meeting with the Chamber as they
are an important component of the community. Other Council members
agreed and Staff will arrange the meeting.
JI}
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 17
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
1. Workshop Schedule
Jullie said we are scheduled for a joint meeting with the School District on
Tuesday, January 28, 1997.
C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES
1. Request from The Trails Association Regarding Trail Easement
Lambert reviewed the request from the Trails Association to exchange plant
material for a trail easement through The Trails Townhouse Association,
as outlined in the Staff Report of November 5, 1996. He said this issue
was presented to the Council about 1-1/2 years ago when the Association
found out that the trail was a City trail, not a private trail as we had
assumed. The developer had intended to dedicate the trail to the City but
did not do so. The City wanted to keep the trail because the public trail ties
into it.
Lambert said The Trails Association held meetings with their membership
to discuss the situation and came up with a recommendation to sell the trail
easement to the City for the gift of 45 trees that the City would purchase
and plant to help screen the neighborhood from Anderson Lakes Parkway.
They want to be assured the City would be responsible for paying for the
survey and drafting the easement documents as well as providing signage
necessary. They would like to have some input on the location of the trail.
Lambert said Staff supports the request and estimates we can acquire trees
wholesale and pay for the other improvements at a total cost of $8,000 to
$10,000. He thought this is a good decision to try to keep the trail
corridor.
Harris asked if this runs along Anderson Lakes Parkway. lambert said it
runs from the underpass through the Trails Association to their southern
boundary.
Case asked if this would be paid for with cash park fees. lambert said it
would if the Council so directs.
A representative of The Trails Association reviewed their recommendations
about the type of trees that should be planted. Their association would like
to see a plan for the widening of Anderson Lakes Parkway to see how
much property will be taken. lambert said he thought the majority of the
road expansion will occur on the north side of the road. The representative
/(P
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 18
said they would prefer to sell or grant the trail property rather than give an
easement as they are also concerned about their liability for bike riders on
the trail. Lambert said we would prefer an easement so that we would
maintain the trail, but the association would maintain the mowing. We
could make sure to spell out that the City accepts liability for the trail use
by the public.
A discussion followed regarding the issue of primary liability. Pauly
thought the exposure is limited, but he would check this out.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to extend the meeting to 11:20
p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
The Trails Association representative recommended that something be done
about the tum in the trail by the rock wall. They would like the signage to
complement the trail signage and would like the legal work done by the
City. Lambert said the trees will be planted in the spring, and the signage
will be done as soon as possible. The trail reconstruction will be done
sometime next year.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the agreement
with the Trails Association Board to exchange plant material for a trail
easement through this Townhouse Association in accordance with the Staff
Agenda Report of November 5, 1996. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Proposal for Traffic Study at Flying Cloud Fields
Lambert said Staff is now comfortable with proposing some permanent
improvements in the ball fields now that the expansion plans for the airport
have been revealed. They would like to do a traffic study and get quotes
for an irrigation system for the ball fields.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the
proposal from Benshoof and Associates, Inc. to complete a traffic parking
study for the Flying Cloud ballfields, and to further authorize the Staff to
obtain quotes on irrigating the remaining portion. of the site that is not
irrigated at this time, as per the Staff Agenda Report of November 5, 1996.
Tyra-Lukens said she wanted to have the chloramine issue at the pool taken
care of before irrigation of the ballfields.
Vote on the Motion: Motion carried unanimously.
J'}
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
November 5, 1996
Page 19
3. Proposed 1997 Cash Park Fees
Lambert said the Parks Commission believes we are underestimating the
value of land and should base the fee on a greater value which translates
into an increase to $1400 per unit.
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to increase the
residential cash park fees to $1400 per unit, per the recommendation of the
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Motion carried
unanimously.
D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
xu. OTHER BUSINESS
xm. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to adjourn the meeting. Motion
carried unanimously. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 11/19/96a SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO. TV
DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Request for Eden Prairie Hockey Association to
Recreation and Facilities Utilize Meeting Room D
E1yce Kastigar
BACKGROUND:
Meeting Room D is located in the back of the Community Center off the Olympic ice rink. This
meeting room has been utilized by the Eden Prairie Hockey Association for the past several years. They
hold board meetings, ice committee meetings, and make it their central location during try-outs. This
meeting room is not commonly used by the public due to the small space which does not accommodate
most groups and users. Attached is a breakdown of meeting room utilization numbers for the
Community Center meeting rooms during 1995. As you can see, meeting room D user numbers are
much smaller than meeting rooms A, B and C. Also, many of meeting room D user numbers for 1995
were utilized by the Hockey Association. The City has provided the Figure Skating Club a designated
room in the Community Center since the building opened in 1982.
REQUEST:
The Hockey Association has approached staff with the request of making meeting room D the Hockey
Association room. The association would like to have meeting room D to utilize as their coaches room
and team meeting room. They have made this request due to the increasing number of participants in
their association and the demand for increased training and services for their participants. The number
of male and female hockey players are continuing to rise yearly. They feel this room would allow for
the coaches and board members to hold weekly meetings and the room would be used as a library and
office training room. The Hockey Association would install a cabinet, complete with T.V. and VCR,
bookshelves with books for coaches and participants to review on the fundamentals of hockey. Staff
would continue to do daily maintenance (i.e., vacuum, garbage, and dusting) in meeting room D. Due to
the growing number of participants and the desire of the association to improve services to Eden Prairie
youth, staff recognizes the need for the Hockey Association to have their own room.
I
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends meeting room D be provided to the Hockey Association for their use for association
meetings and training with the understanding that the Community Center will have full and complete
access to this room throughout the year. Staff seeks direction for approval of this request. If you need
further information or would like to meet to discuss this request, please let me know.
CC: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities
Laurie Helling, Manager of Recreation Services
Brad Hewitt, President of Eden Prairie Hockey Association
2
FACILITY USE STATISTICS -MONTHS TOTALS
MEETING ROOMS
LIST THE TOTAL NUMBER OF USERS PER MONTH I PER ROOM
1995 SUMMARY
MONTH
JAN 509 4671 1152 150
FEB 684 573 1225 345
MARCH 819 560 1504 298
APRIL 783/ 514 12971 369
MAY 540 439 996 161 --
~ JUNE 944 565 944 1841
JULY 678 498 784 129 -,
AUG 1141 858 1007 239
SEPT 893 . 571 1392 193
OCT. 12961 966 1563 218
NOV 8751 951 1448 340
DEC 681 515 823 250
TOTAL 9843 74n' 14135 2876
32 2310
2827
30 3211 . =:.:
6 2969
101 2146
5 2642
4 2093
3245
10 3059
61 4104
47 3661
2269
205 o 34536
DATE: 11119/96
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO: :Ili.' e.
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 96-5427
Engineering Division Award of Bid for Street Sweeper
Mary Krause
'>~" Recommended Action: "", .... "",:u' .
Award of bid to RDO Equipment Company for the Tymco FHD Regenerative Air High Dump
Sweeper in the amount of $114,833.63.
Overview:
The City received two bids for this piece of equipment on October 31, 1996 as follows:
ABM Equipment & Supply, Inc.
ROO Equipment Company
$113,640.00
$114,833.63
The award of the sweeper as called out in the specifications was to be based on a point system
taking into account the conformity to specifications, equipment performance, warranty and low
bid price. Total maximum points was 270. Results of the point tabulation were:
ABM Equipment & Supply, Inc.
ROO Equipment Company
168 points
253 points
The proposal form submitted by ROO showed a total bid price of $114,883.63, however, this
". included an error in calculating the appropriate sales tax. The supplier has verified the
computation error and will honor the price of $114,833.63.
Based on the above reasons, staff recommends award of the sweeper to ROO Equipment
Company.
Ymanciallssues:
The budgeted amount for the sweeper was $115,000. The bid price falls within the budgeted
amount.
I
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. 96-5427 -1996 Regenerative Air High Dump Sweeper
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
RDO Equipment 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 ROO Equipment Company in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount
of $114,833.63 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the
Council and on me in the office of the City Engineer.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on November 19, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
DATE: 11119/96
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Consent Calendar
ITEM NO: JJ/C.
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 93-5332
Engineering Division Approving Change Order No. 1 for the Atherton Townhomes Drainage
Mary Krause Project ,
Recommended Action:
Move to approve Change Order No.1 for Improvement Contract Number 93-5332, Atherton
Townhomes Drainage Project.
)
'Primary Issues:
This project was begun in the fall. Because of wet weather it was necessary to install temporary
erosion control and turf establishment items for the winter months so that final construction
could take place in the spring.
Fmanciallssues:
This change order will increase the contract amount by $1,032.00 to a total of $38,136.25. We
hereby recommend approval of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $1,032.00 to F.F.
Jedlicki, Inc.
I
Date:
Project Name:
Contractor:
Engineer:
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
I.C. 93-5332
November 8, 1996
Atherton Townhomes Drainage
F.F. Iedlicki, Inc.
City of Eden Prairie
Nature of Changes: Temporary Erosion Control and Turf Establishment for the Winter
1. Top dress and mulch area
Labor and Material Costs ............................. $ 240.00
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 792.00
2. Seed and wood fiber blanket -528 s.y. @ $1.50 s.y.
TOTAL CHANGE ORDER COST •••••••••••••••••••••• $ 1,032.00
SlJMMARY OF CONTRACT CHANGES:
• Original Contract Amount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 37,104.25
• Net Increase resulting from Change Order No.1 ............... $ 1,032.00
• Current Contract Amount including Change Order No.1. . . . . . . .. $ 38,136.25
· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
THE ABOVE CHANGES ARE APPROVED: THE ABOVE CHANGES ARE ACCEPTED:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE F.F. JEDLICKI, INC.
BY~/~A I
. Date 11-g -9;i Date --t..~--=:::."",,--_-....;~_b~ __ _
2
DATE: 11119/96
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Consent Calendar
ITEM NO: :cvO.
SECTION:
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Engineering Division Final Plat Approval of St. Andrews Bluff
Jeffrey Johnson
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the final plat of St.
Andrews Bluff subject to the following conditions:
• Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $400
• Receipt of conservation easement over the existing wetland area
• Revision of plat to extend drainage and utility easement within the northeastern half of
the plat to the intersection of the Baker Road right-of-way
• Receipt of easement documents for the installation of off-site sanitary sewer and
watermain
• The requirements as set forth in the Developer's Agreement
Background:
This proposal is the lO-unit townhouse project located on the south and east side of Baker Road
across the street from St. Andrew Drive. The plat consists of 4.3 acres to be divided into 10
townhouse lots and one outlot covering the common area.
Utility service to this property is provided by extension of sanitary sewer and watermain from
off-site into this property, therefore; it will be required that the City receive executed utility
easements for this off-site utility work.
JJ:ssa
cc:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
ST. ANDREWS BLUFF
WHEREAS, the plat of St. Andrews Bluff has been submitted in a manner required for platting
land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes
and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
A. Plat approval request for St. Andrews Bluff is approved upon compliance with the
recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated November 8,
1996.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this
Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing
provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on November 19, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
/
"
/
TO /
ClATES
I"" s.._yO ... , I"c. /
---
a -11'.1 "'-,
::I'v~ ~~~ 'y/
"--? //
) " ,
/ , , ,
, ,
,
/ ,
,/--
I
I
/~
,
/
, ,
OUT LOT A
ana
,
,
"
" "
j
.... ~ .. ci ~ z .. ~ " ;a s .. i .. '" .., ~ :-
0
z ~
::;
!
"0
DATE: 11119/96
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO: 79E
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Engineering Division Approve Stipulation and Agreement Concerning Watermain Easement over
Dave Olson Sailer/Marshall Property
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action:
Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Stipulation and Agreement concerning
watermain easement over Sailer/Marshall property.
Overview:
In February, 1991, a 17-foot wide easement for watermain purposes was obtained from Harry
A. Rogers over property located at the intersection of County Roads 1 and 4. The specific
watermain is located along the westerly side of County Road 4 and the existing fruit/vegetable
stand is located partially within the easement (the existing watermain is not located under the
stand). Ownership of the property is being transferred to Mark and Margaret Sailer and George
and Mable Marshall. The property is now in the process of Torrens Registration and the new
owners have requested clarification of the City's obligations for the watermain easement. The
stipulation and Agreement have been re~iewed by City Legal and Engineering Staff.
DO:ssa
{
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this __ day of , 1996, by
and among City of Eden Prairie ("City" ) and Mark Sailer and
Margaret Sailer, husband and wife, and George Marshall and Mable
Marshall, husband and wife ("Owners").
RECITALS:
A. Owners own and have made application to register the
title to the following described real estate situated in
Hennepin County, Minnesota, namely:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 20, Township 116, Range 22, described
as commencing at a point on the East line of said
Southeast Quarter distant 330 feet Southerly from the
Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter; thence
Westerly parallel with the North line of said Southeast
Quarter to the Easterly right-of-way line of Hennepin
County State Aid Highway No.4, Plat 34, being the actual
point of beginning; thence Southerly along said right-
of-way line to the intersection with a line drawn
Westerly at right angles from said East line at a point
distant 356.8 feet Southerly from said Northeast corner;
thence Westerly along said right angle line, to a point
264 feet Westerly from said East line; thence Southerly,
deflecting at right angles, 82.5 feet; thence Easterly,
deflecting at right angles, to said Easterly right-of-way
line; thence Southerly along said right-of-way line and
its extension to the center line of Pioneer Trail; thence
Westerly along said center line to the East line of Cedar
Ridge Estates; thence Northerly along said East line of
Cedar Ridge Estates to a line drawn Westerly, parallel
with the North line of said Southeast Quarter from the
point of beginning; thence Easterly along said parallel
line to the point of beginning (the "Land").
B. Owners and City have stipulated that the Decree of
Registration shall specify that Owners title to the land
is subject, among other things, to a watermain easement
in favor of the City of Eden Prairie as contained in
County Recorder Document No. 5748292 over a strip of land
17 feet in width lying parallel with and adjoining and
lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way line of
Hennepin County State Aid Highway No.4, Plat No. 34
(llwa termain easement ") .
2.
.. ,.'
C. There is situated on and within a portion of the
watermain easement a vegetable sales stand.
D. It is intended by this Agreement to set forth the
obligations of City to Owners in the event that the
maintenance, repair or replacement of the watermain
presently situated within the watermain easement or the
addition of a watermain, its maintenance, repair or
replacement ("watermain work") within the watermain
easement would require temporary removal or destruction
of the vegetable sales stand or any part thereof.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. In the event that City's watermain work within the
watermain easement results in, or requires, the temporary
movement, removal or destruction of the vegetable sales
stand or any part thereof, City shall, at its cost,
replace or reconstruct the vegetable sales stand or part
thereof which has been moved, removed or destroyed to the
same (or at City's option better) condition as existed
prior to the watermain work in the same location as the
present vegetable sales stand is located within the
watermain easement or at such other location as is
mutually agreed to by the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused
these presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
OWNERS: CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
George , ~arshall By ____________ ~--__ ---------
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
2)~ JJ 11L~~L~(2j By
Mable". Marshall Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Mark T'. Sailer
-2-
8
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of , 1996 by Jean L.
Harris and Carl J. Jullie, respectively the Mayor and the
City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this 22nd day of October, 1996 by George Marshall and Mable
Marshall, husband and wife.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this 22nd day of October, 1996 by Margaret Sailer and Mark
Sailer, wife and husband.
-3-~ATHY L SIMONSON ,~>' TARY PUB!.!C-MINN£SOTA
My Co H,ENNEPIN COUNTY
mmrsslon Expires Jan, 31, 2000
No. 19984
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
S 1/2 20-116-22
Amended App. &
Last Doc. No. 6403665
In the Matter of the Application of
MARK SAILER and MARGARET SAILER, as joint tenants of )
an undivided one-half and GEORGE MARSHALL and )
MABLE MARSHALL, as joint tenants of an undivided )
one-half, )
)
To Register the Title to Certain Land. )
STIPULATION
WHEREAS, Applicants have made Application to register the
title to the following described real estate situated in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, namely:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 20, Township 116, Range 22, described as commencing at
a point on the East line of said Southeast Quarter distant 330
feet Southerly from the Northeast corner of said Southeast
Quarter; thence Westerly parallel with the North line of said
Southeast Quarter to the Easterly right-of-way line of
Hennepin County State Aid Highway No.4, Plat 34, being the
actual point of beginning i thence Southerly along said right-
of-way line to the intersection with a line drawn Westerly at
right angles from said East line at a point distant 356.8 feet
Southerly from said Northeast corner; thence Westerly along
said right angle line, to a point 264 feet Westerly from said
East linei thence Southerly, deflecting at right angles, 82.5
feet; thence Easterly, deflecting at right angles, to said
Easterly right-of-way line; thence Southerly along said right-
of-way line and its extension to the center line of Pioneer
Trail; thence Westerly along said center line to the East line
of Cedar Ridge Estates; thence Northerly along said East line
of Cedar Ridge Estates to a line drawn Westerly, parallel with
the North line of said Southeast Quarter from the point of
beginning; thence Easterly along said parallel line to the
point of beginning (the "Land").
Applicants and City of Eden Prairie (IiCityll) hereby stipulate
and agree as follows:
1. The Decree of Registration shall specify that Applicants'
title to the Land is subject to the following:
A. Subject to a watermain easement in favor of the
City of Eden Prairie as contained in County
Recorder Document No. 5748292 over a strip of land
17 feet in width lying parallel with and adjoining
and lying Westerly of the Westerly right-of-way
line of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No.4,
Plat No. 34.
B. Subject to a perpetual, easement in gross in favor
of the City of Eden Prairie for the construction,
installation, operation, use, maintenance, repair
and replacement of a watermain system (including
hydrants) (the "watermain easement") over, under
and across the following described land:
Said watermain easement being 10 feet in width,
lying northerly of and parallel with a line,
hereinafter called "line A," which lies 23 feet
northerly of and parallel with the following
described line:
Beginning at the intersection of the Easterly
right-of-way line of Hennepin County State Aid
Highway No.4, Plat 34, and it's Southerly
extension and the centerline of Pioneer Trail also
known as Hennepin County State Aid Highway No.1,
Plat 6; thence Westerly along said centerline to
the East line of Cedar Ridge Estates and there
terminating.
Also said watermain easement being 20 feet
Northerly of and parallel with "line A" and
extending 7.5 feet easterly and 7.5 feet westerly
at right angles to "line A" from the following
points along said "line A":
Point 1 being 335.0 feet Westerly from the
beginning and point 2 being 560.0 feet Westerly
from the beginning.
2. Applicants recognize and grant to City the rights and
interests in the Land flowing from the easements
described in paragraph 1 hereof and the easements
described in paragraph 1 shall be noted as memorials in
Applicants' Certificate of Title.
3. Subject to the Decree of Registration specifying that
Applicants' title to the Land is subject to the easements
described in paragraph 1 hereof, and their
memorialization, City hereby withdraws its Answer to
Applicants' Application in the above-entitled matter, and
insofar as it affects City, Applicant's Application may
be heard as a default matter.
Dated: 10-;).'";)... I 1996 UtiL-
Mar
Dated: IO-~d. I 1996 Ma~~~
Dated: 10-~ ~
I 1996 ,d~ m a LA-Let:." /Geor~rshall
Dated: I 0 ~~d...
I 1996 JJ&-i-t(J 1111~JUL
Mable Marshall
Dated: _____________ , 1996 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By:
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
By:
Carl J. Jullie, Manager
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SSe
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ _
day of , 1996, by Jean L. Harris and Carl J. Jullie,
respectively the Mayor and the Manager of the City of Eden Prairie,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SSe
COUNTY OF +len ne tOil\, ) •
Notary Public
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this~~~~
day of Qc.+o~ 1996, by George Marshall and Mable
Marshall, husband and wife.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SSe
COUNTY OF tJenrlepin..)
CCL:t:.h.y, ot., ~
Notary Public
CATHY L SIMONSON
NOTARY PUBUC.MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
My Commission expires Jan. 31, 2000
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~~"d
day of Oc.tQb.vz.., , 1996, by Margaret Sailer and Mark Sailer,
wife and husband.
,
C~ rL.. x!~
Notary Public
c: \wpSl \rap\03p\marshall \stipulation
~~~~~~~~~~.
CATHY l. SIMONSON -
NOTARY PUB~!C.MINNESOTA
u.. HENNEPIN COUNTY
... , CommissIon ExpIres Jan. 31, 2000
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 11/19196
SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM NO. 'Iv. f
DEPARTMENT: Parks, ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Relating to the Reconveyance of Tax
Recreation and Fa~.:K2:: Parcel #16-116-22-24-0018
Stuart A. Fox '"z9 l'
BACKGROUND:
The City of Eden Prairie acquired a piece of property known as Outlot A of Eden Prairie Industrial Center
back in the 1960's as a result of tax forfeiture. Since that date, the City of Eden Prairie has owned the
property, although, the primary reason for the parcel of land was direct access to the Eden Prairie Middle
School Property. During the last remodeling of the Central Middle School, the access point to the school
was changed and, therefore, the access through Outlot A was no longer necessary.
In 1995, the City Council adopted a resolution, 95-79, turning this parcel ofland back to Hennepin County
as called for under state law when the parcel of land was no longer being utilized for the purpose of which
it was acquired. When that resolution was reviewed by Hennepin County Tax Forfeiture Division there was
an error because of a wrong property identification number (PIN). The County has requested that a new
resolution be prepared correcting this error and be resubmitted to the County Property Division.
The document has been prepared by attorney for the School District and has been reviewed by City staff.
The result of this reconveyance would be that the parcel, Outlot A, would be split equally between the two
adjacent property owners and absorbed into those parcels for tax purposes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend that the Council approved the Resolution Relating to the Reconveyance of Tax
Parcel No. 16-116-22-24-0018, which would reconvey the property to the County for subsequent division
into two parcels to be split equally to adjacent property owners.
SAF:mdd
Reconvey/Stu96
1
• -. ..
"" RLK CIVIL ENGINEERING • URBAN PLANNING • TRANSPORTATION • ENVIRONMENTAL
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT • LAND SURVEY -------
(ASSOCIATES LTD)
~
LAND DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1:
That part of Outlot A, Eden Prairie Industrial Center, lying westerly of the
foJ/owing described line:
Commencing at the southwest comer of said Outlot A, thence North 87
degrees 31 minutes 02 seconds East, assumed basis for bearings, 181.80
feet, along the southerly line of said Outlot A, to the beginning of the
line to be described; thence North 02 degrees 28 minutes 58 seconds West
30.00 feet, to tha northerly line of said Outlot A, and the;e
tenninating.
Parcel 1 contains 5422 square feet, or 503.7 square meters.
LAND DESCRIPTION PARCEL 2:
That part of Outlot A, Eden Prairie Industrial Center, lying easterly of the
fol/owing described line, and its northerly extension:
Commencing at the southwest comer of said Outlot A, thence North 87
degrees 31 minutes 02 seconds East, assumed basis for bearings, 181.80
feet, along the southerly line of said Outlot A, to the beginning of the
line to be described; thence North 02 degrees 28 minutes 58 seconds West
30.00 feet, to the northerly line of said Outlot A, and there
terminating.
Parcel 2 contains 5766 square feet, or 535. 7 square meters.
I hereby certify that this DES'~!?/PiJf)l..I
was prepared by me or under my direct
superviSion and that I am a duly registered
La·ld Surveyor under the laws of the State of
M:~ q~~:p-
Thomas G. Arneson II MN. REG. NO. 12682
Da!e £-?-fk· -. ..... ~ ~:: .. ~ : -.
(611)933-0972 • 61 10 Blue Circle Drive • Suite 100 • Minnetonka.MN55343 • FAX (612) 933-1153
Exhibit A
,/
,/
/
( 2)
EbEtJ ?r2A \ ~ If:
ee; .. rn2AL t\\lboL£
5c..+\ool-
:;
( 14)
6
( 6)
, ,
\
:;
( 12)
------------------------------~----------------------~--------
~
( 10)
--
L~A~6J.1
'~l>
OJrur ~. ""1£ iHl:P".,A("t'eIa
( 5)
ern
.\
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. ___ _
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE RECONVEYANCE
OF TAX PARCEL NO. 16-116-22-24-0018
WHEREAS, on December 31, 1979, the State of Minnesota conveyed to the City
of Eden Prairie, by tax deed, title to Tax Parcel No. 16-116-22-24-0018, legally described
as Outlot A, Eden Prairie Industrial Center; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has not put the subject property to roadway
use, nor does it plan to in the future; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to reconvey the subject property to the State of
Minnesota, for reconveyance, in whole or in part, to Independent School District No. 272
for continued use for school purposes; and
WHEREAS, the School District and John Otterli, the other owner of adjacent
property abutting the subject property, desire to each acquire a portion of the Outlot; and
WHEREAS, in order for the parcel to be split through the tax forfeiture process, it
is necessary for the City to approve the lot split, declare the property unbuildable, and
approve the sale of the portion of the outlot to abutting owner John Otterli.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Eden Prairie, Minnesota as follows:
1. The City shall reconvey the subject property to the State of Minnesota so
that it may be conveyed by the State, in whole or in part, to Independent
School District No. 272, as requested by the School District.
2. The City requests that the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and
the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue take all action necessary to carry
out the purpose of this Resolution.
3. Outlot A, Eden Prairie Industrial Center, tax parcel No. 16-116-22-24-0018
may be split into two parcels, identified more fully on Exhibit A attached
hereto.
..
1996.
4. The two parcels created by the lot split are hereby declared unbuildable, and
the City approves of the sale of the parcels to adjacent owners.
5. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized and directed to execute any
documents or certificates, including the attached Reconveyance Document,
as may be required to accomplish the objective of this Resolution, subject to
review of such documents as certificates by the City Attorney.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on ____ _
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk [SEAL]
# 17999/dlr
,
2
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 11-19-96
SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM NO. 1S/. G.
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger BARTUS ADDITION
Scott A. Kipp
Requested Council Action:
The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action:
• Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to R 1-13.5 on .44 acres.
Supporting Reports:
1. Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to R 1-13.5
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
BARTUS ADDITION
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 Rl-13.5 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 Rl-13.5 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 1l.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
SECTION 5. 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 5th day of
November, 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 19th day of November, 1996.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on _____________ '
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
BARTUS ADDITION
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND
FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summaty; This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at Baker Road at St. Andrew Drive
from Rural to RI-13.5 on.44 acres. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this
property.
Effective Date:
ATTEST:
lsi John D. Frane
City Clerk
This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
IslJean L. Harris
Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the -------
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.)
Exhibit A
Bartus Addition
Le~al Description
Those part"s of Lots 25 and 26, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 225
Hennepin County, Minnesot~", lying northerly of a line drawn
parallel with and 50.00 feet northwesterly fron the following
described line 1, and lying south~esterly of the following des-
cribed line 2.
Line 1: Commencing at the northeast corner of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 22; thence
south along the east line of said Northwest Quarter a
distance of 856.15 feet to the point of beginning of
the line to be described; thence southerly and south-
westerly 1168.97 feet along a tangential curve con-
cave to the northwest, having a radius of 1432.40
feet and a central angle of 46 degrees 45 minutes 31
seconds; thence soutpwesterly, tangent to said c~rve,
a distance of 100.00 feet and said line 1 there term-
inating.
Line 2: Commencing at. a point on the above described line 1
distant 918.50 feet southerly and southwesterly along
said line 1 from its point of beginning; thence on an
assumed bearing of North 53 degrees 36 minutes 01
seconds West along a line which is radial to said line
1 a distance of 50.00 feet to the point of beginning
of said line 2; thence continuing North 53 degrees
36 minutes 01 seconds West along said radial line a
distance of 30.77.feeti thence North 20 degrees 24
minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 22.62 feet;
thence South 87 degrees 17 minutes West to the northerly
line of said Lot 26 .. and said line 2 there terminating.
Subject to a permanent easenent for drainage pur?oses over that
part of Lot 26, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 225 Hennepin·:County,
Minnesota, lying 12.5 feet on each side of the center line of said
easement, said center line is radial to the above described line 1
and extends northwesterly 65.00 feet from a point on said line 1
distant 1073.5 feet southerly and southwesterly along said -line 1
from its point of beginning. ~
4
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 11119/96
SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. t:V. H,
DEP ARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger Chapter 11 Amendment to Change Average Setback
Jean Johnson Calculation
Requested Council Action:
Second Reading of Ordinance
Background:
Existing language in the code has been modified so the average front setback will be calculated with the
principle structure on either side of a lot.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the code change at their October 14, 1996 meeting.
Council First Reading was November 5, 1996.
Supporting Reports:
Ordinance
CITY OF EDEN PRAlRlE
HENNEPIN CO UNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINA1~CE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRlE, MINNESOTA, AlVIENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.03 ENTITLED AND ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AlvIONG
OTHER THlt'iGS, CONTAlN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAlRlE, MINNESOTA ORDAlNS:
SECTION 1. City Code Chapter 11, Sec. 11.03, Subd. 3, C., Shall be and hereby is
amended to read as follows:
C. \Vhere 40% or more of a block is developed, the required setback shall be equal to
or -greater than the average of the principle structures on either side.
SECTION 2. 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 iYfisdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim
herein.
SECTION 3. 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
___ day of , 1996, finally read and adopted and ordered published in
summary fonn as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the
____ day of ,1996.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean 1. Harris, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _______________ _
~_ord
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 11119/96
SECTION: 2ND READING ITEM NO. 15/.:[
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger Chapter 11 Amendment Changing Minimum Area for
Jean Johnson PUD from 15 to 5 acres
Requested Council Action:
Second Reading of Ordinance
Background:
In 1982, when the City adopted PUD regulations, the standard was a 15 acre minimum and development
applications were for large tracts of land. Today, cities have a 5 acre minimum or no minimum, and
development applications will be for smaller tracts of land. The Plannmg Commission recommended approval
ofthe code change at their October 14, 1996 meeting.
Council First Reading was November 5, 1996.
Supporting Reports:
Ordinance
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.40 ENTITLED "PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT" AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WflICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN
PENAL TY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. City Code Chapter 11, Sec. 11.40, Subd. 6 Shall be and hereby is amended
to read as follows:
Subd.6. MINIMUM AREA. A PUD Concept and Planned Unit Development District must
include an area of at least 5 acres.
SECTION 2. 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 3. 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
___ day of , 1996, finally read and adopted and ordered published in
summary fonn as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the
____ day of ,1996.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _______________ _
DATE: 11119/96
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO: IJI,T
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Engineering Division Land Alteration Permit -Outlot A, KMSP Plaza
Jeffrey Johnson and
Michael Franzen
Community Develop.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Land Alteration Permit for Outlot A, KMSP
Plaza provided the proponent can adequately address the issues of commencing this work in
winter conditions.
Issues:
• Tree Loss -Once tree removal begins on this site, there may be a public perception of
a large-scale tree loss. As described in the next section of this memo, the proponent
addressed tree loss on a PUD level last summer.
• Winter Operations -This project will have a fairly significant amount of dirt trucked in
from off-site to fill the property to a workable level. There are basically two concerns
with regard to commencing this work through the winter, namely; tracking dirt and mud
to adjoining roadways and providing adequate site restoration upon completion of
grading. Staff feels that these issues can be appropriately addressed with the proponent
and drafted into the special conditions for a land alteration permit.
Background:
Outlot A is part of a tree loss and tree replacement plan approved on August 6, 1996, by the
City Council for the 109 acre Southwest Crossing Planned Unit Development. This plan also
was approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission.
Tree loss over the entire Planned Unit Development was calculated at 35 % which is less than
the 40 % average tree loss for commercial and office projects. The 240 inches of tree loss
approved on the site currently proposed for grading (Outlot A) is offset by a 12.10 acre
woodland preserve which saves a wooded hill containing 6,678 inches of trees near Golden
Triangle Drive.
J .....
, "".'.'.
STO
Development
Corporation
'f', • __ .,' ~;....:, ."':,
. ' ,~,"
, ""~~~~~~bi~'May~r Jean L. Harris
~c~,,··,:,·:,::;;,;,/;~,e·
: ' Members of the City COUn~il
City of Eden Prairie '
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230
;;::Y" ,: <", Re: Application for Land Alteration Permit
.~~:t}:::,:;.~' Outlot A, KMSP Plaza
· .. t~~i~::r .. ;::,· -
"?:,'. ;;, Dear Mayor Harris and Members of the City Council:
Smetana Holdings LLC is requesting the City Council approve a Land Alteration Permit to grade
Outlot A, KMSP Plaza, located at the southwest corner of Flying Cloud Drive and Prairie Center
Drive.
(" This 1.5 acre site was approved for a restaurant as part of the Southwest Crossing Planned Unit
, Y?4.':;?:~l*'c Development in 1987. On August 6, 1996 the City approved an amendment to the Southwest
~i~;~}'#;Ji#:; Crossing Planned Unit Development which included concept plans for the remaining undeveloped
:~~. '\':-.!~~~~/
~I.t~~~t:~~,~~~loverall tree loss and tree replacement plan, and a woodland preserve. .
c~~}~,The AuguSt 1996 plan for Outlot A, anticipated the removal of all trees, with the exception of one, . ,.:<c1,
'i~':::':~::J: 30 inch oak tree, since the trees were located in the middle of the site and there was no alternative
. ,"" .,. way to develOp the site in a reasonable and economically feasible manner. As a tradeoff for higher
"'J",,;,';, .• ,' tree loss on this site we agreed to follow a development plan for the remainder of the PUD which
would result in an overall tree loss of 35% and the preservation of a large wooded hill next to Nine
Mile Creek and Golden Triangle Drive.
.,.1 ..•.
• : .--t'" •
'. '.. ,. ',<,:.U~~)~j~::;::
5700 Smetana Drive, .Suite 210 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 (612) 938-9490 Fax: (612) 938-9414
Page Two
Letter to The Honorable Mayor Jean L. Harris
and Members of the City Council
November 1, 1996
, We would like to complete the grading of this site before winter. Please call me if you have any
• ,ii'" . questions. We will be at the City Council meeting on November 19, 1996, to answer questions or
",.,:; ',' " , ~" provide additional information you may require.
-: ~< ',,;~ ••
Enclosures: Tree Inventory Outlot A, Prel. Site plan Outlot A,
Grading/erosion control plan Outlot A.
CC: Jeffrey Johnson w/enclosures
Michael D. Franzen
Tom Lincoill w/enc10sures
•. J'; ..
'. ,I
'-;.,'
X J,
f'
-S::..
0 ...
~)m
DATE or PREPARATION: 11-14-"
till Ral
............. , ... ., 4· ............. _ ..... . If,,_ .'1/1"' ..... " ................ -., ...... ,-
TREE INVENTORY MAP
FOR
~"t, ~;~1'"
of
,,~.
BTO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
. ~I
j'\,
OUTLOT A, KMSP PLAZA
\
DENOTES TAG«D TREE
SEE TABlE AT RIGHT rOR
SPECIES .. DIAMETER (TYPICAl)
~
ii: Q
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
flU IIAP 110.
<';;lC" ...
(~;) <: ,'."
... ~;~~>'"
4.1 (~ • (:;J 4"
LOT r. BLOC.'; ,
'. , v' I,:
'.:; .. 9
..; .... .'
"
§
a5 u
~ ~
~ ll.:
[f-
Ar
." .. ,
.. J ... ... ... .. , ... ... ...
"'" tOlM.:
DI"..
W
II"
'" '0'
JO'
II' ,,' 10'
JI'
lO'
J" , ....
ftClrs
Wlilil OAII
arutl'OAl(
WIllI( 0".
.. ,," 0"" ... lfl nAIC
MtlllOAl(
.. lilt nAk
Wlillf OAK
'Millf Ou.
.1111 OAK
MIIIIOAK
............
F' I GURE NO. 2
.... ~.-. ----_ ... _ .. -.--.-... _---.
...... ~ .. \\
• .. u:
~.
o
"'. ---
\
\ c:.
\ '.,. ,
-------
~----------------~ ----.-~'-~~~ ---.-:...-------------
..... _ .. -. ..... _---,.'"~-... .~r
o
I
I
i
I
I
I
\\ I
\1 \
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
APPLICATION FOR LAND ALTERATION PERMIT
1. APPLICANT: Name Smetana Holdings LLC. c/o BTO Development Corp. -
Address 5700 Smetana Drive. Suite 210. Minnetonka. MN 55343
Tel. (Day) 938-9490 (Ni ght/Weekends )_sa_m_e ____ _
Contractor Performing Work BTO Development Corp.
Tel. (Day) 938-9490 (Ni ght/Weekends )_sa_m_e ____ _
Signature of Applicant ·~W~11~li~a=m-nH-.~1m·h~o~m~a~s-.~P~r~e~sl~ar-e=nrt-----
2. DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION OF EXCAVATION OR GRADING WORK PROPOSED (ATTACH
PLANS)
Rough grading/erosion control/tree removal on Outlot A. KMSP Plaza
southwest of the intersection of Hwy 169 and Prairie Center Drive.
3. CITY CODE SECTION APPLICABLE
_~X_( 11.55) MINING OPERATION AND LAND ALTERATIONS REGULATION (SEE
REVERSE)
____ ( 11.45) FLOOD PLAIN ORO INANCE
_____ OTHER _________________________________________ __
4. REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUIRED
___ X __ CITY COUNCIL
___ X __ WATERSHED DISTRICT
_ PLANNING DEPT.
_ BUILDING DEPT.
-lLCITY ENGINEER
5. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING & ZONING COHM. --
PARK & RECREATION COMM.
D.N.R.
__ M.P.C.A.
A. SEE CITY SPECIFICATIONS REGARDING COMPACTION AND SURFACE RESTORATION
OF STRE~TS IF PERMIT INVOLVES WORK IN CITY STREETS
B.DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE IN-PLACE PRIOR TO ANY GRADING
WORK.
C. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO NOTIFY UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. .
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 11-19-96
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS VIA ITEM NO.
DEP ARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger ALBIN CHAPEL
Michael D. Franzen
Requested Council Action:
The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action:
I. • 1st Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 2.56 acres and Zoning District Amendment
in the Office Zoning District on 2.56 acres;
, ,
j,r-{
•
•
•
Approve a Resolution for PUD Amendment Review on 2.56 acres;
Approve a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 2 lots;
1 st Reading of an Ordinance for Code Amendment to amend Section 11.20 of City Code adding
Funeral Homes as a permitted use in the Office Zoning District.
Background:
The Planning Commission first reviewed this project at the September 9, 1996 meeting. The Planning
Commission voted to continue the item with direction to revise the site plan to meet building and parking
setbacks. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to approve the Albin Chapel project at the October 28, 1996
meeting since the revised plan met building and parking setbacks.
At the October 28, 1996 meeting the Planning Commission also voted 4-0 to approve a change in the City
code to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the office zoning district based on the following reasons.
1. A survey of suburban communities indicates that funeral homes are allowed as a transitional land use
between commercial and residential development.
2. For sites that are currently guided office and located next to residential, a quiet and residential looking
building or use is appropriate.
3. While funeral homes might locate in an office area, generally the price of land would discourage these
uses from locating there. A funeral home would not choose the middle of an office park since good
access and visibility is a requirement.
4. Not every office site will work for a funeral home. The site plan ordinance permits the City to
evaluate traffic impacts, architecture, parking, landscaping, lighting, tree preservation, drainage and
buffer zones. If these items are not addressed to city code and the impacts on adjoining land uses
are high the City would not be obligated to approve the use.
,
Supporting Reports:
1. Resolution for PUD Amendment Review
2. Resolution for Preliminary Plat
3. Ordinance for Code Amendment
4. Staff reports dated 10-25-96, 9-5-96
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 10-14-96,9-23-96,9-9-96, od-obe.r tSJ Itt'll:,
6. Correspondence
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
ALBIN CHAPEL
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT REVIEW OF ALBIN CHAPEL
FOR ALBIN CHAPEL
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Review of certain areas located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Albin Chapel
PUD Amendment by Albin Chapel and considered their request for approval for development (and
waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on November 19, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. Albin Chapel, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as outlined in
Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Amendment Review approval as outlined in
the plans dated November 12, 1996.
3. That the PUD Amendment Review meets the recommendations of the Planning
Commission dated October 28, 1996.
ADOPTED by the City Council ofthe City of Eden Prairie this 19th day of November, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
ALBIN CHAPEL
Exhibit "A"
EXISTING DESCRIPTION;
~
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quane ... Sec1io'n 2. Township
1 15. Range 22 described as beginning at the Northeast corner of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence West along the North line of said ·Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of. 566.4 feet: thence Southerly deflecting
to the left gO degrees. 12 minutes a distance of 15.67 feet: L'1ence Southerly along a
tangential curve to the right having a radius of 1526.43 feet and a central angle of 6
degrees. 00 minutes. !I distance of 159.85 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to said
curve. 59.85 feet; thence Southerly along a tangential curve to the left having a
radius of 396.16 feet and a central angle of 28 degrees. 20 minutes a distance of
195.9 feet; thence Southeasterly tangent to the last described curve. 166.7 feet
thence Southeasterly along a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 867.98
feet and a central angle of 13 degrees. 09 minutes. a distance of 199.21 feet; thence
Southeasterly. tangent to the last described curve to an intersection with a line drawn
West. parallel with the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
from a point on the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
distant 786.3 feet South from the point of beginning; thence East along said parallel
line to the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, thence North
along said East line 786.3 feet to the point of beginning. except that part of the North
200 feet. as measured at right angles to the North line thereof which lies West of a
line drawn parallel to and 333.4 feet West of. as measured at right angles to the East
line ot said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. a=rding to the Government
survey thereof. .
All that part of the North 200 feet. as measured at right angles to the North line
thereof. of the following described parcel of land which lies West of a line drawn
parallel to and 333.4 feet West of. as measured at right angles to. the East line of
said follOWing described parcel to-wit
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. Sec1ion 2. Township
116. Range 22. described as beginning at the Northeast corner of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence West along the North line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. a distance of 566.4 feet: thence Southerly.
deflecting to the left 90 degrees. 12 minutes, a distance of 15.67 feet; thence
Southerly, along a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 1526.43 feet and a
central angle of 6 degrees, 00 minutes, a distance of 159.85 feet: thence
Southwesterly, tangent to Said curve, 59.85 feet thence Southerly along a tangential
curve to the lett having a radius of 396.16 feet and a central angle of 28 degrees 20
minutes, a distance of 195.9 feet; thence Southeasterly, tangent to the last described
curve 166.7 feet; thence Southeasterly along a tangential curve to the right having a
radius of 867.98 feet and a central angle of 13 degrees, 09 minutes, a distance of
199.21 feet; thence Southeasterly, tangent to the last desaibed curve, to an
intersection with a line drawn West, parallel with the SautII Bne of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, from a point on the East ftne of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant 786.3 feet SouIh from the point of beginning;
thence East along said parallel line to the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter: thence North along s~id East line 786.3 feet of the point of
beginning, according to the Government Survey thereat..
Subject to the effect of an Ordinance of the Town of Eden Prairie regulating the
platting and subdividing of land. a certified copy of which onIinance is recorded in
Book 785 of Miscella~eous Records, page 354, Doc. No. 3C!l0507.
Parcel C
Tract I, Registered Land Survey No. 1581, Files of RegisIra of Tilles. County of
Hennepin.
Subject to a permanent easement for drainage purposes as shown in deed Doc. No.
970391, Files of Registrar of Tilles; (See Inst.) (Now over pact of Tract I).
Subject to a limitation of the right of access from part at aI!o¥e. land to County State
Aid Highway Numbers 61 and 62 as acquired by the County in Deed Doc. Nos.
970391 and 1632389. Files at Registrar to Titles. (See Instl·.
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast ~. Section 2. Township
116. Range 22. described as commencing at the Northeast comer of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter: thence West along !he North line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 566.4 feet thence Southerly,
deflecting to the left 90 degrees, 12 minutes, a distance at 15.67 feet; thence
Southerly along a tangential curve to the right having a raoJUs of 1526.43 feet and a
central angle of 6 degrees, 00 minute. a distance of 159.115 feet; thence
Southwesterly, tangent to said curve, 59.85 feet; thence Southerly along a tangential
curve to the left having a radius of 396.36 feet and a cenIIaI angle of 28 degrees. 20
minutes, a distance of 195.9 feet. thence Southeasterly. lallgent to the last described
curve, 166.7 feet; thence Southeasterly along a tangential ClINe to the right having a
radius of 867.98 feet and a central angle of 13 degrees. 09 minutes, a distance of
199.21 feet; thence Southeasterly tangent to the last desailed curve, to an
intersaction with a line drawn West, parallel with the SouIh line of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, from a point on the East Ine of said Southeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant 786.3 feet South "om the Northeast comer
of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. said inCe€section being the actual
point of beginning; thence continuing Southeasterly, tangenC to the last described
curve, to a point 23.5 feet from the point of tangency of the last described curve;
thence Southeasterly along-.!.~(1gential curve to the right having a radius of 1090.85
feet and a central angle of 3 degrees. 00 minute. a distance of 99.99 feet; thence
Southeasterly. langent to the las! described curve, 121i'.5 feet: thence Southeasterly
along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 1278.17 feet and a central
angle of 6 degrees, 16 minutes. a distance of 139.87 feet thence Southeasterly,
tangent to the last described curve, 130.1 feet. more or 1es5, to a point on the South
line of said Southeast Quaner of the Northeast Quarter distant 386 feet West frem
the Southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Nor1heast Quarter. thence East
along said South line to the Southeast comer of said Southeasl Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter; thence North alan; the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter to a point thereon 786.3 feet South from the Northeast corner of
said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence West parallel with a South
linc of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. 10 the actual point of
beginning according to the Government Survey thereof. exceplthe East 179.00 feet
thereof. as measured along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of Northeast
Quaner. .
That part of the East 179.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter cfthe Northeast Quarter of
Section 2. Township 116. Range 22. as measured along the South line of said
Southeast Quarter of the Northeast quarter lying South of a line drawn West. parallel
with the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter from a point
on the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant 786.3 feet·
South from the Northeast comer of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter.
according to the Government Survey thereof.
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter. Section 1. Township
116. Range 22. Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying West of a fine which is parallel
with and 40.00 feet Westerly from the follOWing described line; Commencing at the
Southwest corner of Section 36, Township 116, Range 22. thence East along the
South line of said Section 36. a distance of 488.84 feet to the beginning of the line tc
be described; thence deflecting to the right 84 degrees 19 minutes 12'seconds, a
distance of 2373.01 feet: thence Southerly along a tangential curve to the left. having
a radius of 1432.30 feet, to the South line of said Southwest Quaner of the Northwest
Quarter and there terminating.
Subject to easements of record.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
ALBIN CHAPEL
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF ALBIN CHAPEL FOR ALBIN CHAPEL
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Albin Chapel for Albin Chapel dated November 12, 1996, consisting
of 5.22 acres into 2 lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance
with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto,
and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 19th day of November, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINAt~CE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.20 ENTITLED "OFFICE DISTRICT" AND ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 wmCH, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. City Code Chapter 11, Sec. 11.20, Subd. 2 Permitted uses shall be and
hereby is amended by adding Item D. To read as follows:
Subd.2. PER1VIITTED USES
D. Funeral Homes.
SECTION 2. 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 3. 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
___ day of , 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
____ day of ,1996.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean 1. Harris, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _________________ '
funeral.ord
,
1
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
FEE OWNER:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
c, (
Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
October 25, 1996
Albin Chapel
Albin Chapel
Gordon Galarneau
Rowland Road and Shady Oak Road
1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.2 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.56 acres.
3. Zoning District Amendment on 2.56 acres.
4. Site Plan Review on 2.56 acres.
5. Preliminary Plat of 5.2 acres into 2 lots.
6. Code Amendment to Chapter 11 to add Funeral Homes as a
permitted use in the Office Zoning District.
1
I C,="
-' -" '-
DAT.~
( (
BACKGROUND
This is a continued item. The Planning Commission previously directed the developer to revise the
site plan to meet building and parking setbacks.
PLAN REVISIONS
The plan meets the required 35 foot setback from Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road. The plan
meets the required 10 foot side yard setback to parking.
CODE AMENDMENT
Chapter 11 of the City code needs to be amended to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the
office district. Potential reasons for changing the City code are.
1. A survey of suburban communities indicates that funeral homes are allowed as a transitional
land use between commercial and residential development.
2. For sites that are currently guided office and located next to residential, a quiet and residential
looking building or use is appropriate.
3. While funeral homes might locate in an office area, generally the price of land would
discourage these uses from locating there. A funeral home would not choose the middle of
an office park since good access and visibility is a requirement.
4. Not every office site will work for a funeral home. The site plan ordinance permits the City
to evaluate traffic impacts, architecture, parking, landscaping, lighting, tree preservation,
drainage and buffer zones. If these items are not addressed to city code and the impacts on
adjoining land uses are high the City would not be obligated to approve the use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff would recommend approval of the PUD Concept Review on 5.2 acres, PUD District
Review on 2.56 acres, Zoning District Amendment on 2.56 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.56 acres,
and Preliminary Plat of 5.2 acres into 2 lots , and a Code Amendment to allow funeral homes as a
permitted use in the office zoning district, based on plans dated October 18, 1996 and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 5, 1996, and October 25, 1996, and subject
to the following conditions:
----- - -------
( (
1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed stonn water runoff, utility and erosion cO!ltrol plans for review by the
Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed stonn water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the
City Engineer.
2. Prior to Building Pennit issuance, the proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee.
B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements.
C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review.
D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review.
3. Prior to grading, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer, Watershed District, and City
Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and approved by the
City Forester prior to grading and tree removal.
4. Implementation of the required tree replacement concurrent with development on this site.
5. Construction of a sidewalk along the east side of Old Shady Oak Road.
6. Construction of a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk connection between the building and the
sidewalk along Rowland Road.
7. Enter into a cross-access and maintenance agreement for use of the common driveway
between this site and the proposed site to the east.
10
( (
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.20 ENTITLED "OFFICE DISTRICT" AND ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. City Code Chapter 11, Sec. 11.20, Subd. 2 Permitted uses shall be and
hereby is amended by adding Item D. To read as follows:
Subd.2. PERMITTED USES
D. Funeral Homes.
SECTION 2. 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 3. 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
___ day of , 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
____ day of , 1996.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _______________ _
f\Jneral.ord
1/
(
STAFF BEPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
FEE OWNER:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
(
Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
September 5, 1996
Albin Chapel
Albin Chapel
Gordon Galarneau
Rowland Road and Shady Oak Road
1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 5.2 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development District Review on 2.47 acres.
3. Zoning District Amendment on 2.47 acres.
4. Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres.
5. Preliminary Plat of 5.2 acres into 2 lots.
6. Code Amendment to Chapter 11 to add Funeral Homes as a
permitted use in the Office Zoning District.
1
I~
CATA
Staff Report
ALBIN CHAPEL
September 5,1996
BACKGROUND
(
This site is part of the 1992 GalarneaU/Shady Oak Business Center. The 18.4 acre Planned Unit
Development included 52,400 square feet of Office, 11,600 square feet of Commercial, and 4,000
square feet of Restaurant.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
This portion of the Planning Unit Development is currently guided Office and zoned Office for a two
story, 10,000 sq. Ft. building.
Albin Chapel is proposing a 9,462 square feet one-story building.
SITE PLAN
The site plan shows the construction of a one-story 9,462 square foot building at a base area ratio
of .08. The Office zoning district permits up to a.30 base area ratio.
A total of 47 parking spaces are required. The site plan shows 67 parking spaces.
A Planned Unit Development waiver for building setback from 35 feet to 20 feet from Old Shady Oak
Road is requested. A reason to consider the waiver is that the average building setback is 38 feet
A Planned Unit Development waiver for parking setback from an internal lot line from 10 to 5 feet
is requested. A reason to consider the waiver is that there is 20 feet between parking areas on
adjoining properties.
LANDSCAPING
The landscaping requirement is based upon a caliper inch requirement according to building square
footage, tree replacement from the approved PUD, and screening of parking areas.
The caliper inch requirement is 30 inches. The tree replacement requirement is I 10 inches.
The landscape plan meets these requirements. Parking is screened by evergreen trees.
GRADING AND EXISTING TREES
14
Staff Report
ALBIN CHAPEL
September 5, 1996
( (
This site was previously graded as part of the original grading plan approved with the Planned Unit
Development. There will be a slight modification to the approved grading plan to accommodate the
site plan as proposed, but it will not affect the existing significant trees.
UTILITIES
Sewer and water service is available in Rowland Road.
A NURP pond is proposed to treat water for Albin Chapel and Marbles.
SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS
There should be a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk connection from the building to the existing
bituminous trail along Rowland Road.
A requirement of the approved Planned Unit Development was a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk
along the east side of Old Shady Oak Road. This sidewalk is to be completed concurrent with the
construction ofthis building.
ARCHITECTURE
The approved Planned Unit Development architecture was the use of similar colors, similar building
materials and a pitched roof The pitched roof was for screening views of mechanical equipment from
the homes on Cherokee Trail at a elevation higher than this property, for a residential character since
the property was adjacent to residential property, and since the day care and SuperAmerica also have
pitched roofs. The building has a pitched roof.
The building meets the 75% face brick and glass requirement ofthe Office Zoning District.
LIGHTING
Any proposed lighting on the property must be a down-cast shoebox design with a maximum height
of20 feet.
SIGNS
The proposed monument sign is not designed at this time. The City code will allow a 50 square foot
8 foot high monument sign provided it meets a 20 foot setback requirement from both Shady Oak
Road and Rowland Road. Since the proposed sign is located ncar an intersection, it is important that
the monument sign be located to not block sight vision distance at the comer.
11)
Staff Report
ALBIN CHAPEL
September 5, 1996
(
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
(
The staff would recommend approval of the PUD Concept Review on 5.2 acres, PUD District
Review on 2.47 acres, Zoning District Amendment on 2.47 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres,
and Preliminaty Plat of5.2 acres into 2 lots based on plans dated August 21, 1996 and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated September 5, 1996, and subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the
Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the
City Engineer.
2. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee.
B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements.
C. Submit samples of exterior building materials for review.
D. Submit a landscaping and screening bond for review.
3. Prior to grading, the proponent shall notify the City Engineer, Watershed District, and City
Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and approved by the
City Forester prior to grading and tree removal.
4. Implementation of the required tree replacement concurrent with development on this site.
5. Construction ofa sidewalk along the east side of Old Shady Oak Road.
6. Construction ofa five-foot wide concrete sidewalk connection between the building and the
sidewalk along Rowland Road.
7. Enter into a cross-access and maintenance agreement for use of the common driveway
between this site and the proposed site to the south.
I~
Staff Report
ALBIN CHAPEL
September 5, 1996
( (
8 . The following waivers from city code are granted as part of the Planned Unit
Development District review in the Office Zoning district:
A. Front yard setback from 35 to 20 feet.
B. Internal lot line parking setback from 10 to 5 feet.
g:\hdmgcOIp.fac
(}
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 28, 1996
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ALBIN CHAPEL by Albin Chapel. Request for Planned unit Development
Amendment Review on 2.47 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning
District on 2.47 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres
into 2 lots and Code Amendment to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the
Office Zoning District. Location: Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road.
Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that the developer had made the
recommended changes from the last Planning Commission review of this proposal.
The developer was present to answer any questions.
Jim Albinson, 2200 Nicollet Avenue South, President of Albin Funeral Chapel, stated
they have met with the seller of the adjacent property to discuss purchase
arrangements to acquire the land to address the concerns of the Planning Commission
raised at the previous review ofthe plans. He showed a three-dimensional rendering
of the building and described the exterior building materials. They are in agreement
with the stipulations contained in the staff report.
Ismail inquired about the signage which would be used on the building and Albinson
responded that there would be no signage on the building but they propose to have
a sign located at the shared entrance to the site on their property. The sign would
read "Albin Chapel." Wissner inquired about the landscape plan and how it had
changed and Albinson responded that there will be more landscaping because the
building had been shifted to the north.
The Public Hearing was opened.
No one present wished to speak.
Foote commented that he liked the building architecture and would support the
proposal. Wissner stated she was pleased the proponents had made the changes
requested by the Planning Commission. Ismail commented he was a bit concerned
about the existence of two such similar businesses in Eden Prairie but assumed the
proponent had done his homework and determined that there was sufficient
popUlation in the surrounding areas to support two funeral homes. Clinton stated he
was pleased with the plans and glad the proponents had held a neighborhood meeting
to discuss issues with the area residents.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to close the public hearing and
recommend approval of the request by Albin Chapel for Planned unit Development
Amendment Review on 2.47 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning
District on 2.47 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres
into 2 lots and Code Amendment to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the
Office Zoning District based on plans dated October 25, 1996, and subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 25, 1996. Motion carried 4-0.
I~
c APPROVED MINUTES
(
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, OCTOBER 14,1996
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
STAFF MEMBERS:
7:30 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chambers
8080 Mitchell Road
Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote, Bill
Habicht, Ismail Ismail, Katherine Kardell,
Douglas Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner
Mike Franzen, City Planner, Scott Kipp,
Senior Planner, AI Gray, City Engineer,
and Barbara Anderson, City Recorder
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL
Chair Clinton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Kardell and Habicht
were excused.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to approve the Agenda as published.
Motion carried 5-0.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Wissner, to approve the Minutes of the September
23, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting as submitted. Motion carried 5-0.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. ALBIN CHAPEL by Albin Chapel. Request for Planned unit Development
Amendment Review on 2.47 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning
District on 2.47 acres, Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres
into 2 lots and Code Amendment to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the
Office Zoning District. Location: Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road.
Franzen noted staff had received a letter requesting this item be continued until the
October 28, 1996 Planning Commission meeting to allow the proponents time to
address the concerns raised by the Planning Commissioners during the initial review
of this project.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner, to continue the request for Albin
Chapel for Request for Planned unit Development Amendment Review on 2.47 acres,
Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.47 acres, Site Plan
Review on 2.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of5.22 acres into 2 lots and Code Amendment
to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the Office Zoning District until the
October 28, 1996 meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 5-0.
( (
APPROVED MINUTES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 23, 1996
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Kenneth E. Clinton, Randy Foote,
Bill Habicht, Ismail Ismail,
Katherine Kardell, Douglas
Sandstad, Mary Jane Wissner
STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner;
Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner;
Ellnda Bahley, Recording Secretary
I.
II.
III.
IV.
A.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.rn. by Chair Clinton. Commissioner Kardell
was excused; all other members were present. Commissioner Sandstad arrived at
7:20p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Foote moved, seconded by Ismail, to approve the Agenda as published.
Motion carried 5-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES -SEPTEMBER 9. 1996
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Continued Public Hearing:
ALBIN CHAPEL by Albin Chapel. Request for Planned Unit Development
Amendment Review on 2.47 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on
2.47 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.47 acres,
Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 2 lots and Code
Amendment to allow funeral homes as a permitted use in the Office Zoning District.
Location: Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road.
Franzen stated they received a letter from Albin Funeral Chapel indicating they would
like additional time to work on the revisions as recommended by the Planning
Commission. They have asked that the project be continued until the October 14
meeting.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote, to continue the public hearing until
October 14. Motion carried 5-0.
Planninq Commission
Monday, September 9, 1996
(
D. ALBIN CHAPEL by Albin Chapel. Request for Planned Unit Development
Amendment Review on 2.47 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on
2.47 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Office Zoning District on 2.47 acres,
Site Plan Review on 2.47 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.22 acres into 2 lots. Location:
Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road.
Franzen explained that this item is related to the next item because funeral homes are
are not a permitted use in the Office Zoning District. A couple of years back Huber
Funeral Home's property was zoned Industrial on County Road 4. It seemed like a
good location for a funeral home and the City amended the code in that location to
accommodate that use.
James Albinson, president, 2200 Nicollet Avenue S, commented they are trying to be
sensitive to the area and showed the site plan on the overhead.
Wissner asked how they decided to come to Eden Prairie. Albinson replied his family
business is in an expansion mode and would like to add another location. His brother
is a member of the Wooddale Church and noticed the property for sale. They liked
the look of the property because it has a nice calm setting with the view of the
wetlands.
Franzen reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission noting the proposal is for a
9,462 square foot building. The project meets the requirements of the Office Zoning
District for the most part. A PUD waiver for building setback from 35 feet to 20 feet
from Old Shady Oak Road is requested, and the average setback is 38 feet. A PUD
waiver for parking setback from an internal lot line from 10 to 5 feet is requested. A
reason to consider the waiver is that there is 20 feet between parking areas on
adjoining properties. The landscaping requirements meet City Code and the
architecture meets City Code requirements using the same shared access that was
approved as part of the Marbles proposal.
He explained the reasons why the Planning Commission might consider allowing
funeral homes in the Office Zoning District. This is a situation between Office and
Residential and it would be better in the long run to preserve the existing Office
zoning rather rezoning the property to Commercial with someone coming back in 10
years and converting it into a convenience store. Funeral homes are good neighbors
and are residential in character. Staff recommended approval on the plan as submitted
with the two waivers and the approval of the code amendment for funeral homes to
be a permitted use in the Office Zoning District.
15
(
Planninq Commission
Monday, September 9, 1996
The Public Hearing was opened.
(
Joe Ruzic, 6825 Rowland Road, commented he has lived in Eden Prairie for 40 years
and is a developer. He was concerned that the name Albin Chapel was misleading to
him and other residents because they thought it was a church when it is actually a
funeral home. He lives directly across the street on Old Shady Oak Road where they
want a variance of 20 feet. He was opposed to the variance and to having a funeral
home there because it is very depressing. He was concerned that there was no other
case where a residential area is adjacent to a funeral home. He was concerned about
the future three lots that he's going to build regarding the site distance from the
funeral home. He was also concerned that people will not buy his homes because they
don't want to live across from a funeral home. He noted that Huber Funeral Home
is on a heavily traveled street and Shady Oak Road is not. A funeral can bring in
hundreds of people which will cause additional traffic. He commented about there
only being 67 parking spots and was concerned about the overflow of cars. He would
rather see an office building at this site. An office building is not depressing.
Brice Holasek, 6602 Old Shady Oak Road, noted he lives right across the street from
the funeral home. He believes this is an inappropriate place for a funeral home. It
was mentioned earlier that a Commercial location would be too expensive for a
funeral home. He doesn't feel they should amend the City Code to accomodate a
hardship for them looking for a place.
Paul Huber, Huber Funeral Home, 6394 Glory Lane, noted they have been in Eden
Prairie for the last year and a half. According to the Department of Health, there are
between 90 and 110 deaths per year in Eden Prairie. For many years there was no
funeral home in Eden Prairie and people would go somewhere else. They have only
seen approximately 50 of those numbers and the rest have gone to surrounding areas.
They still have not seen 50 percent ofthe business in Eden Prairie. He was concerned
that another funeral home will cause him to fail or for them both to fail. It's going to
be very difficult for one or both of them to make it.
Sandstad commented there are no such laws restricting the number of Dairy Queens,
bakeries or convenience stores nor should there be. He feels that two funeral homes
within a city population of 48,000 people should work just fine. Huber indicated they
were building with the future in mind and of the numbers seen in Eden Prairie in the
last year the average age of the deceased was 57 years old. If this was ten years later
he would not be addressing these issues.
Sandstad expressed concern about the variance for setback because the wall is
16
(
Planning Commission
Monday, September 9, 1996
(
unattractive on the comer closest to the property line. He would rather have a
building designed to fit on the property without a variance.
Albinson commented that they are trying to be as sensitive to the neighbors as
possible with minimwn impact to the site. All entrances and exits are from Rowland
Road. There is no entrance to Old Shady Oak Road. Funerals happen during the
middle of the day. The building to be constructed has a capacity of 85 seats. They
plan on doing heavy landscaping on the west side of the building.
Habicht stated the issue of economics is not an appropriate issue for this Commission.
They need to take a look at land use and zoning issues, whether or not a funeral home
is appropriate in an Office District and if the proposed site plan is acceptable.
Wissner asked for examples of where this type of situation is in a residential area.
Franzen stated all the funeral homes in Minneapolis are in Commercial or Office areas
on collector streets typically with the back portion of their building abutting
residential areas. A Commercial use would impact residential neighborhoods the most
because they generally have longer hours of operation for retail uses and are open
Saturdays and Sundays. Convenience stores are a 24 hour a day operation. The next
most intense use would be Industrial with trucks, and night shifts. Office uses are
generally an eight to five use.
Wissner expressed concern about the parking with the residential homes at such a
close proximity.
Foote commented he has no problem with funeral homes in the Office Zoning District
but doesn't know if this is the best location. He was concerned about problems with
traffic and parking.
Sandstad was comfortable with the Office Zoning District Amendment for funeral
homes. He expressed concern about the building being too close to the property line,
the parking, and the additional traffic without the possibility of an access.
Albinson explained that many people double up when they go to funerals. The
requirement is for 47 parking stalls and they are providing 67. If they get to a point
where they are exceeding the capacity they make sure they get an off-site location that
has greater parking and use shuttle buses.
Franzen explained that the parking at Huber Funeral Home was determined without
the church next door being part ofthe equation. It was done based on the City Code
17
(
Planning Commission
Monday, September 9, 1996
requirements and based on the seating capacity.
(
Rick Ahmand, 6604 Golden Ridge Drive, gave the background of this site as it
originated in 1992. He supported 25,000 square feet of total building as it was less
than the approved Pud for 45,000 square feet with three separate buildings, versus
original request for an 80,000 square foot office building, with density transfer off the
wetland.
Sandstad asked if Rowland Road is one that would be able to handle a large event.
Franzen stated Rowland Road is a collector road. The City's design of Rowland Road
was based on the original land use of multi-family use. The approved Pud for office
and commercial generates less traffic than the multiple family use. Now with less
square footage, even though the funeral home is a higher traffic generator than office
, overall traffic is still less.
Dan Albinson of Albin Chapel noted they would be more than happy to try and work
within the setback issues raised by the Commission.
The Commission asked the developer to work on eliminating building and parking
setbacks variances.
Ismail indicated he would like to see a sketch of the front of the proposed building to
see how it fits in the surrounding vicinity.
MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Habicht, to continue the public hearing
for two weeks. Motion carried 6-0.
18
(
I
September 4, 1996
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Commissioners:
(
I am writing on behalf of Paul Huber and Huber Funeral Homes. I want to urge you to hold off
for several years on allowing another funeral home into the city.
I remember when the city spent several years trying to resolve a conflict of location and costs with
a funeral home. It finally became financially not feasible and the proposal was withdrawn. Several
years passed and Huber Funeral Home came before you with a proposal with a slightly different
location. That also took awhile and a lot of adjustments to complete. Finally, perhaps a year and a
half ago, Huber Funeral Home became a reality.
I believe that allowing a second facility in so soon after the establishment of the first one would be
disaster for both businesses. We all know that it takes several years, 5 to 8 actually, to develop a
clientele and establish a new business. Two natural elements hinder the growth of that kind of
business in Eden Prairie: 1) the majority of residents are considered young, not elderly, and 2) not
having had a funeral home in Eden Prairie before makes people go elsewhere in the metro area
out of habit for these services. Under such conditions, it would doubly difficult to get a business
going if there were two such facilities in Eden Prairie ..
The Hubers and their business are fine community supporters. It was a challenge and a stretch for
them to expand here~ and while they like being here, I think the city should in tum be supportive
of the Hubers by allowing them time to establish their business before allowing another funeral
home into the city.
Sincerely,
Norm and Marge Friederichs
6421 Kurtz Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55346
934-3502
cc: Paul Huber
Eden Prairie City Council
( (
FUNERAL HOMES
September 6, 1996
Eden Prairie Planning Commissioners
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485
Re: Albin Chapel Project
Dear Commissioner Douglas Sandstad:
As the owner of the Huber Funeral Home at 16394 Glory Lane in Eden Prairie,
it is with great concern that I write this letter to you.
My concern is that the possibility of another funeral home within the city limits of Eden
Prairie at this time could present a real hardship for our business. It has been a year and a
half since we opened in Eden Prairie and we opened with the facts and figures that
indicated we were looking at a long range project. Eden Prairie is considered a young
community. The Minnesota Department of Health Statistics shows that the death rate in
Eden Prairie is approximately 90 to 100 deaths per year. Other factors contribute to the
success of a funeral home. For example, Eden Prairie has an infant mortality rate of
approximately 10% and usually is not factored into the equation of a proforma. Another
area of consideration is the rate of cremation within a community. Eden Prairie's rate of
cremation is approximately 20 -25%. When all these factors are combined, the numbers
clearly show that this is not enough to sustain two funeral homes in a community such as
Eden Prairie. When I mentioned that we were building for the future, it is in the future,
possibly five, ten or fifteen years that this community would be able to sustain two funeral
homes as mortality rates increase due to an aging population.
If there were another funeral home in Eden Prairie at this time, it could possibly mean the
ruin of one or even both. I can only ask, does the city want two floundering establishments
or one that can actually survive? If our numbers decrease because of a new funeral
home in town it will be very difficult if not impossible to pay my employees, my
bills and of course my taxes. With the tremendous investment in Eden Prairie
it is very difficult as it is to make all those payments. I have taken the risk and invested
in your community. I feel the city of Eden Prairie has the responsibility to existing
businesses within their community to assure that the business can survive before allowing
duplication. This can be paralleled to allowing two auto dealerships in the community; one
being a Chrysler and the other a Dodge.
EDEN PRAIRIE CHAPEL
16394 Glory Lane
Eden Prairie. Minnesota 55344
(612) 949-4970
EXCELSIOR CHAPEL
520 Seq>nd Street
Excelsior. Minnesota 55331
(612) 474-9595
;;~
MOUND CHAPEL
1801 Commerce Boulevard
Mound. Minnesota 55364
(612) 472-1716
(
FUNERAL HOMES
Letter regarding Albin Chapel Project continued:
I ask the commission to consider if the demographics of Eden Prairie could sustain two
funeral home establishments.
I ask the commission to consider if rezoning the proposed sight to add Funeral Homes as a
permitted use in the Office Zoning District is truly the best for the community.
I thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please feel free to call me with any
questions at my home, 474-5066.
Zin;'~
Paul F. Huber
Huber Funeral Homes
EDEN PRAIRIE CHAPEL
16394 Glory Lane
Eden Prairie. Minnesota 55344
(612) 949-4970
Lisa T. Huber
Huber Funeral Homes
EXCELSIOR CHAPEL
520 Second Street
Excelsior. Minnesota 55331
(612) 474-9595
MOUND CHAPEL
1801 Commerce Boulevard
Mound. Minnesota 55364 2
(612) 472-1716
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 11-19-96
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO. v.8.
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION
Michael D. Franzen
Requested Council Action:
The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action:
• 1 st Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 28.75 acres and Rezoning from Rural to
Rl-13.5 on 28.75 acres;
• Approve a Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density
Residential on 28.75 acres;
• Approve a Resolution for PUD Concept Review on 489.7 acres;
• Approve a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 69.70 acres into 39 lots.
Background:
The Planning Commission first reviewed this project at the September 23, 1996 meeting. The. Planning
Commission voted to continue the project and directed the developer to revise the plans as follows.
1. Reduce tree loss to 32.4%.
2. Revise the preliminary plat to eliminate all shoreland waivers.
3. Revise the preliminary plat to eliminate the lot width waivers on the cuI de sacs.
4. Revise the preliminary plat to eliminate the lots on the east side of Riley Creek.
5. Revise the plans to show trails and conservation easements as recommended by the Parks
and Recreation staff.
At the October 14,1996 meeting the developer presented revised plans with the following changes.
1. Tree loss was reduced from 47% to 35.4%.
2. Shore land lot size, setback, and width waivers were eliminated with the exception of
encroachment in the shore impact zone for access to lot 6 Block 3.
The Planning Commission voted to continue the project until the October 28, 1996 and asked that legal
council be present to explain the Planning Commissions role in reviewing a proj ect with in the 212 Official
Map Area.
I
At the October 28,1996 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 3-0-1 to approve the project with the
following conditions.
1. Prior to review by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council, the proponent
shall submit a tree replacement plan, trails plan, conservancy easement plan and revised
preliminary plat which eliminates lot 6, Block 3, for review and approval by the Director of
Parks Recreation and the City Forester.
2. The guide plan change is based on 28.75 acres of roads and lots. The other 40.95 acres of
the property would remain currently guided Natural Environment Water and Public Open
Space/Park/Floodplain.
Supporting Reports:
1. Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
2. Resolution for PUD Concept Review
3. Resolution for Preliminary Plat
4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 10-14-96, 10-28-96, and 9-23-96
5. Staff Report dated 10-11-96,9-20-96
6. Correspondence
BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has prepared and adopted the Comprehensive
Municipal Plan ("Plan"); and,
WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review and
comment; and
WHEREAS, the proposal of Bearpath 7th Addition by Bearpath Limited Partnership for
construction of 39 lots requires the amendment of the Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie, Minnesota, hereby proposes the amendment ofthe Plan as follows: 28.75 acres from Open
Space to Low Density Residential all located at North of Bearpath Trail and south of Rice Marsh
Lake.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 19th day of November,
1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT OF BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION
FOR BEARP ATH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has by virtue of City Code provided for the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Concept of certain areas located within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did conduct a public hearing on the Bearpath
7th Addition PUD Concept by Bearpath Limited Partnership and considered their request for
approval for development (and waivers) and recommended approval of the requests to the City
Council; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the request on November 19, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. Bearpath 7th Addition, being in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as
outlined in Exhibit A, is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. That the City Council does grant PUD Concept approval as outlined in the plans
dated November 12, 1996.
3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission
dated October 28, 1996.
ADOPTED by the City Council ofthe City of Eden Prairie this 19th day of November, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
BEARP ATH 7TH ADDITION
Exhibit A
Le~al Description
PROPOSED PLAT DESCRIPTION.
,-
That part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 116,
Range 22 lying South of a line drawn from a point on West line of said Section distant
412.5 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter to a point on the
East line of said West Half of the Southwest Quarter distant 775.5 feet South of the
. Northeast corner thereof.
And
That part of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 116,
Range 22 lying Northerly of the Northerly line of the plat of Bearpath Addition.
And
That part of Outlot B, BEARPATH THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
lying north of· a line drawn 755.00 feet northerly of and parallel with the most southerly
line of said Outlot B. .
s
----------------
BEARP ATH 7TH ADDITION
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF BEARP ATH 7TH ADDITION FOR
BEARPATH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of Bearpath 7th Addition for Bearpath Limited Partnership dated
November 12, 1996, consisting of 69.70 acres into 39 lots, a copy of which is on file at the City
Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting
ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 19th day of November, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 28,1996
Page 3
B. BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on
68 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 420 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 68 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RI-13.5 on 68
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 38 lots. Location: North of Bearpath Trail
and south of Rice Marsh Lake.
Franzen introduced Ric Rosow, City Attorney, who was present to address the legal
issues raised at the last Planning Commission meeting.
Rosow stated that he understood the Planning Commission was concerned about the
legality of approving a plan located within the Highway 212 right-of-way area. The
Planning Commission should review this plan as they would review any other plan and
apply the same standards regarding its confonnance to the City Codes and
regulations. If the Commission finds that this plan does not meet those requirements
they can move to deny the request. At the same time, if the plan meets those
requirements they can recommend approval of the plans. Franzen noted the plans
have not changed since the last meeting and the staff recommendation is the same.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Larry Zieske, 18803 Magenta Bay, stated the comments he made at the last meeting
were still applicable. He believed that things change and so do the overall strategies
for development within cities. He was concerned that the open space around Rice
Marsh Lake was unique and should be preserved if at all possible. He requested
clarification regarding the Planning Commission using the Highway 212 right-of-way
as part of its consideration for this plat. He was concerned about the development
being an impediment to having Highway 212 built in the future and he believed the
Planning Commission should consider this in their deliberations. The property was
zoned for rural development when the proponents purchased it and he did not see why
it should be changed now just to afford the developers a large profit when there were
so many uses and needs for our tax dollars.
Charlene Ashley, 18947 Magenta Bay, stated she was present representing her
neighborhood and wished to state for the record that they were in opposition to
having this land built upon.
Foote inquired how much of the Highway 212 right-of-way has been purchased by
MnDOT to date and Franzen responded approximately 50%, primarily that located
between 1-494 and County Road 4. The land between County Road 4 and
Chanhassen has not yet been acquired. Wissner asked about the staff
recorrnnendation to leave Outlot A (40.95 acres) as currently guided Open Space and
Natural Environmental Water (Rice Marsh Lake). Franzen responded that
approximately 30-32 acres was actually water body and the rest was protected by the
1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, October 28, 1996
Page 4
Shoreland Ordinance.
Ismail inquired if staff met with the proponents regarding revision of the plans.
Franzen responded the proponents would prefer a recommendation from the Planning
Commission requiring them to revise their plans prior to City Council and Park
Commission review.
Foote commented he was uncomfortable with the process, but since 50% of the right-
of-way for Highway 212 had been purchased by MnDOT he assumed the remainder
would eventually also be acquired. He stated he would approve the plan as long as
Lot 6 was removed from the project. Ismail commented he was concerned about
these issues and he would abstain from voting on this project because of personal
objections to the project. Wissner commented she was not comfortable with the legal
ramifications but understood the City's and proponent's positions and believed the
project should be moved forward to the City Council. Clinton commented that he
was concerned about the degree of tree loss in the plans and believed the proponents
should meet the stipulations set forth in the staff report.
MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Foote to close the Public Hearing and
recommend approval of Bearpath 7th Addition by Bearpath Limited Partnership for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on
68 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 420 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 68 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RI-13.5 on 68
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 38 lots based on plans dated October 11,
1996 and subject to the recommendations ofthe Staff Report dated October II, 1996.
Motion carried 3-0-1. Ismail abstained.
PLANNING COMMIS~n)N MINUTES
Monday, October 14, 1996
Page 4
]
C. BEARPATH 7TH ADDITION by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on
68 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 420 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 68 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RI-13.5 on 68
acres, and Preliminary Plat of 68 acres into 38 lots:-Location: North of Bearpath Trail
and south of Rice Marsh Lake.
Jeff Anderson, the attorney representing Bearpath Limited Partnership introduced
Rod Hardy and John Vogelbacher. Anderson stated that during a previous review the
Planning Commission had been concerned about the location of the lots and the
degree of tree loss and they have revised their plans to address these concerns.
John Vogelbacher stated they are requesting a waiver for access to Lot 6 to encroach
into the shore impact zone.
Sandstad commented he liked the revisions and believed the proponents had done all
that had been asked of them except for changing the access to Lot 6 and eliminating
the waiver.
Franzen reviewed the staff report and noted that the proponents had reduced the
amount of tree loss to 35% by revising their plans. The tree replacement plan needs
to be completed prior to review by the Park Commission. Also, revision of the
preliminary plat to eliminate the waiver for the access to Lot 6 needs to be done.
Clinton inquired about the length of the driveway for Lot 6 and Vogelbacher
responded that it was necessary to have if this long to put the house in the proposed
location.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Robert Rose, 18708 Erin Bay, stated that when he was looking for a home to
purchase he had contacted the City to inquire about the plans for the western side of
Rice Marsh Lake and had been told that it was to be public open space. He had been
informed that this project was a "ghost project" by City staff because Highway 212
was scheduled to go through this area. It was stated that they had only set this area
aside until it was detennined what uses should be made of this land. He believed that
someone should be held accountable for what was said at City Hall. There are flags
on the site and trees are tagged and it needs to be decided what is really going to be
done with this area.
Doug Kelso, 18744 Erin Bay, stated that in July of 1983 when they had looked at
building their home in this location he had been told that there would not be any
development on the other side ofthe lake and it was an open space. On that basis he
made the decision to build his home in its present location. He asked the Planning
Commission to look at what the Engineering Department has been saying to people.
q
PLANNING COMMIS~.lJN MINUTES
Monday, October 14, 1996
PageS
Highway 212 is not a dead issue and it could be a big problem in the future.
Lany Zieske, 18803 Magenta Bay. stated he was very opposed to the rezoning of the
land and wished to see the preservation of the area as a wild and natural area. He had
been told that the land would remain as a natural area. He also felt that Highway 212
was a viable roadway and not a dead issue. The current request is motivated by the
developers needs, not what the community needs. He believed the overall philosophy
regarding this land needs to be answered by the DNR, specifically regarding crossing
the creek. If this land is rezoned it would be a breach of what had been said by City
staff. He noted that it would be impossible to connect the lots on the northern portion
of the site to the remainder of the development once Highway 212 is built.
Tom Winegarden, 18762 Erin Bay, was concerned that the Planning Commission
seemed to be encouraging this development and it was unethical as he believed this
project was set aside as a wildlife area and if homes go into this area the ridge will be
covered with buildings and a forest will be lost along with the natural habitat. It
should stay a natural area. He was angry and opposed to this project and intended to
devote time and energy to mobilizing the political process to get this project stopped.
Dan Seeler, 18831 Magenta Bay, stated he purchased his home three years ago in
Winfield Development, and he went to the City to find out about the land across the
lake during the purchase process. He was told it was designated as park area and
there were no plans to develop this area. He expressed concern to staff regarding this
proposal and was told that there was no intention of this project being developed but
the owners were trying to properly value the land by making this proposal. At the
September 23, 1996 Planning Commission meeting he discovered there was
something planned for this area and he believed misinformation was being
disseminated which was designed to keep this proposal in a low profile. He believed
there was more going on with this proposal that development on the lake.
Steve Campbell, 19067 Magenta Bay, stated he had been promised by his builder as
recently as 10 months ago that the area across the lake would remain as open space.
He stated he concurred with the sentiments expressed by the previous speakers.
Roger Croy, 18862 Erin Way, stated he had been told this area would not be
developed and he agreed with his neighbors that the development should not proceed.
Nick Ayoon, 181 Fire Point, stated he was ashamed to hear how many people had
been misled by staff. They had been told that this was an open space and it was not
consistent with the plans of Eden Prairie to develop this area. He asked that the City
take responsibility for the misinformation dispensed by City Staff.
Franzen stated that in 1993 the Guide plan showed open space and Highway 212.
The Highway 212 plans show no access to land on the north side of 212, so if the
road is built there would be no homes between the highway and Rice Marsh Lake.
10
PLANNING COMMIS~1\)N MINUTES
Monday, October 14, 1996
Page 6
With this scenario, there would be more open space than would be if it were
developed as single family residential only. He described other projects similar to this
one which were put together to get the state to purchase the land before it was
developed. The City code requires notification of residents within 500 feet of a site
being proposed for development, and in this instance staff deteImined that a larger
area should be notified because the 500 foot dimension falls in the middle of the lake.
The 150 foot setback requirement from the lake was part of the Shorland Ordinance
and will contain a trail which will be built no matter what else is constructed in this
area.
Wissner commented that in 1993 this property was not included in the initial
application but the proponents owned the land. There are no guarantees that land will
never be developed. Franzen commented that his opinion on if the land would
develop for residential was based on previous decisions of the State of Minnesota to
purchase highway land for development in Eden Prairie and previous developers who
chose to plat outside of the corridor.
Anderson stated that they do not see Highway 212 being built and feel they have the
right to develop their property. If MnDOT wanted to buy the land they would be in
a position to negotiate a sale. MnDOT has not done anything with this and at last
review completion of Highway 212 was scheduled for the year 2015. Their only
option is to go forward with this plan in a way which .benefits the landowners and the
community. They have tried to address the concerns expressed by the Commission.
Their intent is to build this project and they will move forward with the approval
process. He noted they would prefer not to have the creek crossing but they could
not find another option which was acceptable. They are sensitive to what the
residents are saying but they have the right to develop their property.
Foote connnented he was disturbed by this type of project as he held the Highway 212
right-of-way to be sacred. If it was a "ghost" project, he could not support it.
Wissner inquired if the project was approved, when would MnDOT become involved
and Gray responded that the City expected that MnDOT would purchase the
property. He understood that MnDOT had made an offer for the property. Highway
212 will be constructed as platted and that is what people can expect to see there.
Anderson stated that if the State were to condemn the property or issue an injunction
to stop the project that is one thing, but they are prepared to pursue the project to
completion. It would be easier to sit down with MnDOT and work out a solution.
Foote inquired ifMnDOT would have to have City approval before they purchased
the property and Gray responded that MnDOT could purchase the property at any
time. Approved high-value residential property would be a good negotiating tool for
Bearpath and give them greater profits.
Vogelbacher asked what the role of the Planning Commission was and the function
of that body. They arc going forward with the plan and this is the plan which has the
least amount of impact on the adjacent land and the least amount of tree loss. Homes
II
PLANNING COMMIS~.luN MINUTES
Monday, October 14, 1996
Page 7
are designed to fit in around the existing trees. He noted they have the right to use
this property and they have the best plan before the Planning Commission who have
an obligation to take action. They believe this is the best use of the land and the
project meets the Code requirements.
Sandstad stated he was concerned about this project because they have not had any
proposals in the Highway 212 corridor. He was considering the implications of
approving a project on land which the State may be forced to acquire in the future.
He was concerned about the legality of approving a project which was wholly
included in the Highway 212 Corridor, and while he appreciated the improvements
made by Bearpath which were requested by the Planning Commission, he felt that
they should step back and consider the further implications of the proposal.
Clinton commented that the project could be continued for two weeks to allow them
to get more infonnation. He was concerned about whether there was a negotiation
between Bearpath and the State of Minnesota. Wissner agreed and suggested they
obtain a written opinion from legal counsel on this issue as she did not want to
approve something that could have significant ramifications in the future. Foote
commented he would not approve the project at all unless Lot 6 was deleted from the
plans.
Ismail stated he was uncomfortable about the citizen comments in reference to City
staff and allegations of mis-communication. He would like to have more information
regarding the Highway 212 issue and the legality of approving such a project.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner, to continue Bearpath Th Addition
by Bearpath Limited Partnership for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open
Space to Low Density Residential on 68 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 420 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 68 acres,
Rezoning from Rural to Rl-13.5 on 68 acres, and Preliminary Plat of68 acres into 38
lots until the Planning Commission meeting on October 28, 1996 to allow time for a
legal brief to be written regarding the issues involved with this project and the
Highway 212 Corridor. Motion carried 5-0.
I~
Planning Commission
Monday, September 23, 1996
B. BEARP ATH 7TH ADDITION by Bearpath Limited Partnership. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Open Space to Low Density Residential on
69.7 acres, Planned Unit development Concept Review on 489.7 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review on 69.7 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RI-13.5 on 69.7
acres, and Preliminary Plat of69.7 acres into 38 lots. Location: North of Bearpath
Trail and south of Rice Marsh Lake.
John Vogelbacher, representing Bearpath Limited Partnership, introduced Jeff
Anderson, attorney representing Bearpath Limited Partnership.
Clinton asked if the negotiations of land purchase between Bearpath Limited
Partnership and the State of Minnesota is a joint purchase. Anderson replied the
discussions are quite preliminary. There has been some discussion as to how the
purchase will be handled whether directly by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation or through the Metropolitan Council. There are not any serious
negotiations at this time. The reason he was present was from a legal standpoint. If
the State is not going to acquire this property then they should be given the
opportunity to develop it. The Planning Commission has to look at this property as
if the plans of Highway 212 do not exist.
Vogelbacher reviewed his development proposal explaining the site plan. The
proposal is for 38 single family lots. He reviewed the lots and their sizes explaining
they are in the creek area. They have looping roads that connect back and a platted
roadway called Bearpath Trail North which runs along the southern portion of the
property. The lots themselves are proposed for private streets which is similar to
what they currently have in Bearpath. There is a pond in the middle of the second
block of the plat which was constructed by the developer. That particular body of
water could be used for wetland mitigation or it could be drained. The actual surface
area that would be allowed as mitigation area can not finally be determined until the
actual storm sewer pipe is put under the ground.
(Commissioner Sandstad arrived at 7:20 p.m.).
They have requirements of 4000 square feet of this wetland area and need to maintain
it with a permanent easement as a wetland for mitigation or other fill that occurs. In
the previous addition at Bearpath they have about two acres of open water that's been
created for 4000 square feet which would be required to be maintained as a wetland.
At least a minimum of 4000 square feet must be maintained as a wetland.
Franzen reviewed the staff report with the Commission. He explained that the
Planning Commission must decide whether or not there should be a change in the
2
Planning Commission
Monday, September 23, 1996
Comprehensive Guide Plan from open space to residential based upon impact on
surrounding land uses, transition, and impact on natural features. One of the reasons
to consider the change is the single family land use is consistent with the single family
land use in the Bearpath Planned Unit Development. Although the entire property is
guided as open space, the open space area on the guide plan was designated in a
general way as a measure to preserve the slopes and the vegetation on the south side
of the lake and on both sides of the creek, and to provide room for a trail on the south
side of the lake. The floodplain and shoreland ordinance requirements define these
areas more specifically. The land area not protected by ordinance would be available
for development and that's where staff applied the normal standard.
The City did not grant shoreland waivers as part of the original Bearpath project and
are looking for consistency from an ordinance standpoint. The significant tree loss is
47 percent which refers to trees that are greater than 12 inches in diameter. Staff
recommends that be reduced down to the average tree loss for the Bearpath
development which was 32.4 percent. The recommendation is for lots on the east
side of Riley Creek be eliminated from the project because the issue relates to
shoreland ordinance, steep slopes, and shore impact zones. In conclusion, it's not the
number of lots staff was concerned about but it's the placement of the lots and the
sizes of the lots. There may be a way Bearpath can redesign the project to retain the
same number oflots and still be in compliance with shoreland requirements, lot width
requirements, and also reduce the tree loss on the project.
Sandstad asked if the City Forester looked at the tree loss plan for any significant
individual trees. Franzen indicated that has not taken place at this point. The staff
first had to determine the extent ofthe tree loss.
Clinton expressed concern about the shoreland ordinance and the problems with some
of the lots. He asked how much discussion was there with staff prior to the
development of this plan to try and work out this issue before being presented. They
did not sit down with staff formally and review the plan.
Vogelbacher believes there are some concepts being presented which they are
comfortable with. They feel it's a reasonable plan. Waivers are generally not
something that the Commission likes to grant but he feels that the proposal meets the
intent and the protection that these ordinances are set up for. He noted that certain
lots are debatable as to whether they are shoreline lots or wetland lots, and they
believe certain lots are creek lots and not a shoreline lot. There may be some waivers
that are required to execute this partiCUlar plan but they really believe the requests for
waivers is not out of line with the intent of the ordinance.
3
Planning Commission
Monday, September 23, 1996
Wissner suggested using smaller lots and pulling them in a little similar to zero lot line
lots. Vogelbacher replied they did have a proposal for what they call villa lots which
are typically 75 feet wide.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Tom Winegarten, 1872 Erin Bay, noted he built a house on Rice Marsh Lake facing
across the lake. He was concerned that when he built that lot he was told by the City
the piece of property in question was scheduled to be a park. He never would have
built a home there if he knew about this. It was a big shock and surprise to find out
about this proposal. He does not support the project and if it goes any further he will
do every thing in his power to make sure it does not happen.
Wissner asked Winegarten ifhe knew about the Highway 212 proposal. Winegarten
replied he did. Highway 212 would be too close so they would not be able to put any
homes in there. His understanding was that it would be too tight.
Wissner suggested the lots be more clustered in some way or done in another way so
that the tree loss could be reduced. She would like the property developed a little
differently.
Habicht asked for a review of the guide plan use and how it was intended to protect
the natural features. Franzen reviewed the guide plan. He noted that anything outside
of the shoreland area has development potential and the developer has the right to
developer property.
Foote was concerned whether there would be enough room for the trail to be built if
this is approved. Franzen indicated the staff report talks about putting the trail above
the high water level of 879.
Sandstad said he was supportive of the staff recommendations and thinks it's
reasonable to develop a portion of this property. He said the east side and each of the
waivers including the tree loss need to be revisited and should really be designed in
performance with the City standard.
Foote noted he was comfortable with the density but would like to see the lots pulled
back from the lake a little bit.
I smail stated the developer needs to work a little more with the City staff because
there are unresolved issues that need to be discussed and this project should be
continued.
4
Planning Commission
Monday, September 23, 1996
Wissner concurred with Ismail. .
Habicht commented they need to find the compelling reason to grant a guide plan
change. He supported the project and noted it's nice to see that density is not the
Issue.
Clinton stated the Commission doesn't seem to have a problem with the granting of
the guide plan change but they do have issues with granting of the waivers. He
requested the developer to go back and review the issues addressed in the staff report.
Vogelbacher expressed concern about the staff report recommending the two lots east
of the creek be removed. He does not believe there is any ordinance that does not
allow development of that area. He feels those two lots on the east side of the creek
are extremely large, three acres and two acres in size. He asked that the Commission
consider that as a reasonable alternative to the use of that property.
Sandstad stated the corridor along the creek should not be developed and he also sees
a problem with the isolated lots east of the creek. He would not support crossing that
corridor. In order to preserve that corridor they would have to move back a little bit
from the creek on the west side.
Habicht said they are granting development of 25 acres rather than taking away acres
of development from the property owner.
Vogelbacher commented if the Commission was so directed to maintain this as open
space they would be more than happy to talk about the sale of the property to the
Highway Department. No one ever wanted to step forward and sit down and
seriously talk about the purchase of the property. They have been in possession of
that property for four years and have paid taxes on it. It seems they can not get any
movement with any governmental agency to say they would like to have the property
and use it for a different use. That's the reason they have waited on this and now
bringing it to the Commission which is a very reasonable application. The property
is something they actually own and are entitled to.
MOTION: Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote, to continue the public hearing until
October 14 and to sustain the recommendation in the staff report regarding the
corridor. Motion carried 6-0.
5
Ho
ST AFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
. October 11, 1996
Bearpath 7th Addition
Bearpath Limited Partnership
Bearpath Trail and Dell Road
1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Public Open Space
to Low Density Residential on 69.7 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development Amendment on 489.7 acres.
3. Zoning District Change From Rural to Rl-13.5 on 69.7 acres.
4. Preliminary Plat of 69.7 acres into 39 lots and one outlot.
1
11
~ ... -----~
J
... ... ... ... ...
. ,
I
I
I
I
/
W,821d ST.
,g
LAKE
Staff Report
Bearpath7th Addition
October 11, 1996
BACKGROUND
This is a continued this item from the September 23, 1996. At the last meeting the Planning
Commission directed the developer to revise the plans as follows.
1. Reduce tree loss to 32.4%.
Tree loss has been reduced from 47% to 35.4%. The reduction in tree loss is due to
a more accurate tree inventory, changes in the grading plan, and shifting lots away
from tree groupings. There are 9167 diameter inches of trees on site. A total of 3250
diameter inches would be lost to construction or construction practices. Tree
replacement is 1530 inches. This plan should submitted for review and approval by
the City Forester prior to review by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
2. Revise the preliminary plat to eliminate all shore land waivers.
Shore land lot size, setback, and width waivers have been eliminated.
There is still a waiver for encroachment in the shore impact zone for access to lot 6
Block 3. Staff does not support the waiver for the following reasons:
A. Bearpath owned this land at the time of PUD and rezoning approval for the
land to the south. Access to this lot could have been provided, without
crossing Riley Creek, before the lots were platted and sold to the south.
B. The Bearpath Pud did not have individual driveways crossing Riley Creek.
C. The subdivision can be designed with the same number of lots without
crossing Riley Creek.
D. The proposed driveway is an 18% grade. The City Code pennits a maximum
ofI2%.
E. The driveway grading, and construction of sewer and waterlines will disturb
vegetation.
Staff asked the Department of Natural Resources for their interpretation of the
code. The DNR concurs with the staff interpretation. The DNR feels that the intent
of the code is to minimize creek crossings and alteration of vegetation in the shore
impact zone. The DNR would allow access across a creek for an existing lot. The
DNR would not allow a creek crossing for new subdivisions where the plan can be
designed without a creek crossing.
3. Revise the preliminary plat to eliminate the lot width waivers on the cuI de sacs.
These waivers have been eliminated.
4. Revise the preliminary plat to eliminate the lots on the east side of Riley Creek.
One lot adjacent to Rice Marsh Lake has been eliminated.
5. Revise the plans to show trails and conservation easements as recommended by
the Parks and Recreation staff.
The plans do not show trails or easements. The plans must be revised prior to review
by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
The preliminary plat shows 39 lots as compared to the previous plan which had 38 lots. Staff asked
the City Attorney if the addition of one lot would require a new public hearing. The City Attorney
indicated that since the size of the project area has not changed, that the additional lot is not
significantly changing the subdivision, is not creating new impacts, and that residents can receive
a new notice for the City Council meeting, that this project would not have to be republished for the
Planning Commission.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have been made for changing the
Comprehensive Guide Plan, then approval of approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
from Open Space To Low Density ResidentiaL Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Planned
Unit Development District Review, Zoning District Change from Rural to RI-13.S and Preliminary
Plat should be based on plans dated October 11,1996,1996 and subject to the recommendations of
the staff report dated October 11, 1996 and subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to review by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council, the
proponent shall:
A. Submit a tree replacement plan, trails plan, conservancy easement plan and
revised preliminary plat which eliminates lot 6, Block 3, for review and
approval by the Director of Parks Recreation and the City Forester.
J.
ao
2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed stonn water runoff. utility and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed stonn 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.
B. Meet with the Fire Marshal to go over fire code requirements ..
4. Prior to grading. the proponent shall notify the City Engineer. Watershed District. and
City Forester. Construction fencing to protect existing trees must be in place and
approved by the City Forester prior to grading.
5. The following waivers from city code are granted as part of the Planned Unit
Development District review in the R 1-13.5 Zoning District:
A. a private road.
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
Planning Commission
Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
September 20, 1996
Bearpath 7th Addition
Bearpath Limited Partnership
Bearpath Trail and Dell Road
1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change From Public Open Space
to Low Density Residential on 69.7 acres.
2. Planned Unit Development Amendment on 489.7 acres.
3. Zoning District Change From Rural to Rl-13.5 on 69.7 acres.
4. , Preliminary Plat of 69.7 acres into 38 lots and one outlot.
1
I'
,
/
" I
· ....... . · ......... . · ....... . · ......... . · ....... . · ......... . · ....... . · ......... . · ....... . · ......... . · ....... . · ......... . · ....... . · ......... . · ....... . · ......... . · ....... . · ......... . · ....... . · ......... . · ....... . · ........ . · ....... . · ........ . · ....... . · ......... . · ....... . · ......... . · ........ . · ......... . · ....... . · ........ . .. . . . . . . . · ......... . · ....... . · ......... . · ....... .
•• 121Mf ST.
LAKE
Staff Report
Bearpath7th Addition
September 20,1996
BACKGROUND
This property is within the official alignment of Highway 212. Bearpath Limitied Partnership and
the State of Minnesota Highway Department are currently negotiating on the purchase of the
property. As part of this process Bearpath Limited Partnership is required to submit development
plans for review and approval by the City.
The City must review the project as ifthe plans for Highway 212 do not exist. The review should
be based on City codes, policies, and consistency with similar projects.
GUIDE PLAN CHANGE
The proponent is requesting a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Open Space to Low-
Density Residential on 69.70 acres. The proposal is 38 single family lots.
The Planning Commission must decide if there are compelling reasons for changing the
Comprehensive Guide Plan. The decision should be based upon impact on surrounding land uses,
transition, and impact on natural features.
Reasons to consider the Comprehensive Guide Plan change are:
1. The single family land use is consistent with the single family land use in the Bearpath
Planned Unit Development.
2. Although the entire property is guided as open space, the open space area on the
guide plan was designated in a general way as a measure to preserve the slopes and
vegetation on the south side of the lake and on both sides of the creek and to provide
room for a trail on the south side of the lake. The floodplain and shoreland ordinance
requirements define these areas more specifically. The land area not protected by
ordinance would be available for development.
Reasons to not consider the Comprehensive Guide Plan change are:
1. Tree loss is higher than the approved PUD.
2. The waivers would allow development on the east site of the creek, which is an
environmentally sensitive area. The approved PUD does not have driveway access across
the creek to allow the construction of individual homes.
3. The plan does not meet shoreland ordinance requirements. The approved PUD did not have
shore land waivers.
If the Plannning Commission believes that the guide plan could be changed, the staff would
recommend that the Guide Plan and zoning only be changed for the area where development is
permitted.
HIGHWAY 212 CORRIDOR
The official map of the Highway 212 Corridor impacts the southerly 400 feet of this property. The
corridor is approximately 500 feet south of Rice Marsh Lake.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
The Bearpath Planned Unit Development was approved in 1992. The plan was 400 units. The plan
was amended the following year to 300 units. This plan is a 38 unit addition to the approved plan.
The proposed single family land use is consistent with the single family land use approved to the
south.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The preliminary plat is the subdivision of 69.70 acres into 38 lots at a gross density of .55 units per
acre. The net density, excluding the outlot which is lake and wetland, is 1.19 units per acre. The lot
sizes meet the requirements of the Rl-13.5 zoning district.
The developer is asking for·Planned Unit Development waivers for a private road and lot width less
than 55 feet on the cuI de sacs for lots 10 and 11, Block 1; and lots 7-9, Block 3.
The private road is consistent with the approved PUD. There is no alternative way to provide a
public road to the property.
The lot width waivers should not be granted for the following reasons.
1. Tree loss is higher than the approved PUD.
2. The waivers would allow development on the east site of the creek, which is an
environmentally sensitive area. The approved PUD does not have driveway access across
the creek to allow the construction of individual homes.
3. The plan does not meet shoreland ordinance requirements.
SHORELAND ORDINANCE
Rice Marsh Lake is classified as a Natural Environment Water and Riley Creek is classified as a
General Development Water.
A Natural Environment Water requires the following standards for lots sizes if they are within 150
feet of the ordinary high water level of the lake. The standards apply to lots 10,11, and 12 Block
1 and lots 1, 2, and 7 Block 3.
Lots abutting with public sewer and water:
(1 ) Minimum lot size -40,000 square feet.
(2) Minimum width at building line -150 feet.
(3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level-150 feet.
(4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level-150 feet.
Lots 1,2,and 12 do not meet the lot size requirement.
Lots 1,2,and 12 do not meet the width at the building line
Lots 1,2 and 12 do not meet the width at the oridinary high water level.
Lots 7, 10,11, and 12 do not meet the setback requirement.
A General Development Water requires the following standards for lots within 150 feet of the
ordinary high water level of Riley Creek. The following requirements apply to lots 1-4 and lots 6
-9, Block 3.
Lots abutting with public sewer and water:
(1) Minimum lot size -13,500 square feet.
(2) Minimum width at building line -120 feet.
(3) Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Level -120 feet.
( 4) Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Level -100 feet.
All lots meet these requirements.
The Shoreland Ordinance defines a shore impact zone as 75 feet from the ordinary high water level
of Rice Marsh Lake and 50 feet from Riley Creek. No grading or alteration of vegetation is
permitted in theses areas. This area could be dedicated to the City or protected by conservation
easement. The shore impact zone would prohibit driveway access to lots 7 and 8, Block 3.
The Shoreland Ordinance defines a bluff as a slope within a shoreland area (1000 feet from a lake
and 300 feet from a creek) with a slope greater than 30% and a rise in slope greater than 25 feet. No
grading or alteration of vegetation is permitted in this area and structures must be 30 feet away from
the top of the bluff. There is a bluff area affecting lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 3. The stucture setback
affects lot 6. The bluff impact zone would prohibit driveway access to lots 7 an 8, Block 3.
PARKS. OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
The Parks and Recreation staff recommend that an 8 foot wide bitwninous trail be constructed along
the west side of the property and along the south side of Rice March Lake at the 880 elevation to
the east property line. The developer would be responsible for the construction of a bridge across
Riley Creek. The shore impact zone and bluff impact zone should be dedicated to the City or
protected by conservation easement. Lots 7 and 8 Block 3 should either be dedicated to the City or
protected by conservation easement.
GRADING AND TREE IMPACTS
There are 9,903 caliper inches of significant trees greater than 12 inches in diameter on site. The
City Forester has determined that tree loss is 4706 caliper inches or 47%. Tree loss is higher than
the estimate by the developer due to cut and fill adjacent to significant trees. The approved tree loss
for the PUD is 32.4 %. Tree replacement is 3,004 caliper inches.
WETLANDS
There are wetlands on the property. No wetland alteration is proposed.
UTILITIES
Sewer and water is available to the property. A Nurp pond is shown on the plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff presents the following alternatives for consideration by the Planning Commission.
I. If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have been made for changing