Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 03/16/1993• TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1993 COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL STAFF: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLLCALL AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER 7600 Executive Drive Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Fmance Director John D. Frane, Director of Community Development Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, and Director of Public Works Gene Dietz I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUS~S • ll. MINUTFS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEE'I'ING DEI'» TUESDAY. Pg. 363 • MARCH 2. 1993 m. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Dec1arin& Costs and Setting Hearing Date regarding Rnwland Road Improvements C. Release of Special ~ent Agreement for Hawk rup Ricke D. Approve Ruzic Special ~ Aneement E. Approve Musecb Special ~ent A&reement F. Receive 100% Petition and Order Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Public Improvements for Riverview Heirhts I.C. 93-5320 G. Approve ArchitectlEnWneer Aueement for constmction of Water Plant facilities and Police Station entrance necessary due to TH 212 constmction Pg. 368 Pg. 370 Pg. 372 Pg. 374 Pg. 377 Pg. 379 Pg. 384 city Council Agenda Tuesday, March 16, 1993 Page Two H. I. J. K. Chanee Order No.5 for Eden Prairie Community Center Ice Arena Addition APDrove Aeency Constmction Aueement with MnDOT for Fairfield west Sanitan Sewer Revision Request by Bent Creek Golf Club for a Gradine Pennit for Improvements to Drivine Ranee 2nd Readine of RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS, by Hustad Development. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance requesting Rezoning from RI-22 to RI-13.5 on 11.0 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Riverview Heights; Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Summary of an Ordinance and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: South of Riverview Road. (Ordinance for Rezoning from Rl-22 to Rl-13.5; and Resolution Authorizing Smnmary and Publication.) IV. PUBUC HEARlNGSIMEETINGS A. B. C. CARMODY VILLAGE by Centex Real &tate Corporation. Request for PUD Concept, PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 27.2 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 27.2 acres into 18 lots. Location: North of Anderson Lakes Parkway at the Carmody Drive Intersection. (OnJinance for PUn District Review and Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5; Resolution for PUD Concept; and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) FREEBURGIPERKINSIFELTL ADDITION by Freeburg/Perkins! Feltl. Request for Preliminary Plat of three acres into three lots and Zoning Code variances to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals: Location: Willow Creek Road (Resolution for Preliminary Plat) ST. ANDREW LUTHERAN CHURCH by St. Andrew Lutheran Church. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Church on 4.8 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Church on 4.8 acres and PUD District Review with waivers for building height on 59.70 acres, PUD Concept Review on 59.70 acres and Preliminary Plat of 59.70 acres into three lots and one outlot. Location: Technology Drive, South of Highway 5 adjacent to Purgatory Creek. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Churcl1; Ordinance for Rezoning and PUD District Review; Resolution for PUD Concept; and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) • Pg. 398 Pg. 404 Pg. 412 Pg. 413 Pg. 414 • Pg. 432 Pg. 460 • City Council Agenda Tuesday, March 16, 1993 • Page Three • • D. E. NORMANDY CREST by Associated Investments, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to RI-13.5 on 3.77 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.4 acres into 8 lots and two outlots. Location: South of Pioneer Trail and west of Normandy Crest. «()rdjnance for Rezoning and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) FLOOD PLAIN REGULATION ORDINANCE FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE REVISION (Ordinance to Amend City Code) V • PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VI. ORDINANCFS AND RFSOLUTIONS A. 2nd Reading of Ordinance Related to Trapping VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS & COMMI1*I'EES A. Discussion of Housing Recommendations from Planning Commaon IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of Community Representative to the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency (SHeRPA) x. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. Reports of Cooncilmembers B. Report of City Mana&er 1. Naming of New City HaD C. Report of Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resource 1. 2. Cedar ForestlHilltop Neighborhood Park Acquisition Status Update Request from Eden Prairie Land Tmst Pg. 476 Pg. 493 Pg. 513 Pg. 514 Pg. 526 Pg. 543 Pg. 546 City Connell Agenda Tuesday, March 16, 1993 Page Four D. Report of Director of Community DevelQDlllent E. Report of Director of Public Works 1. Consideration of a Stonnwater Utility to Finance System Maintenance and Water Quality Management ProgJ.-am, F. Report of City Attorney G. Report of Finance Director XI. OTHER BUSINESS xu. ADJOURNMENT • Pg. 552 • • • • TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1993 COUNCILMEMBERS: MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCn... IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING HRA MEETING City Hall Council Chamber 7600 Executive Drive Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCn... STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Senior Planner, Mike Franzen, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, and Director of Public Works Gene Dietz PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLLCALL Mayor Tenpas called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. All members were present. I . APPROV AL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Pidcock added Item X.A.I.. Peddlers and Solicitors Stickers; X.A.2 .. Odors from F1yina= Cloud Landfill: and X.A.3 .. Coveraee of Items in Eden Prairie News. Harris added Item X.A.4 .. Annual Review of City Manaeer. Jullie added Item m.E. Approval of Eden Prairie Foundation By-Law Amendment. and X.B.1 .. Appointment of Council Subcommittee for Review of Proposals to Purchase Downtown Property. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the agenda as submitted and amended. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY. FEBRUARY 16. 1993 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of the City Council held Tuesday, February 16, 1993, meeting as submitted. Motion carried on a 3-0-2 vote with Anderson and Tenpas abstaining. m. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Approve School District Lease for Community Center Locker Room • C. Resolution #93-34. Approvin2 the Layout Plans for CSAH No. 18 and Anderson Lakes Parkway D. Resolution #93-35. Settina= Sale of Additional Lease Revenue Bonds for Eden Prairie Commons in the Amount ofS1.415,OOO; Resolution #93-36, Public Improvement Bonds; Resolution #93-37, City Council Minutes 2 March 2, 1993 Sewer Refundin& Bonds in the Amount of $6.690.000; Resolution #93-39. General Obli&ation Buildin& Refundin& Bonds in the Amount of $4.805.000: and Resolution #93-40. General Obli~ation Improvement Refundin~ Bonds in the Amount of $3.285,000 E. Approval of Eden Prairie Foundation Bylaw Amendment MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve items A. -E. of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. EDEN PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL ADDmONS AND REMODELING by I.S.D. 272 for Zoning District Amendment within the Public Zoning District on 47 acres and Site Plan Review of 47 acres for expansion of classroom space by 40,800 square feet. Location: 17185 Valley View Road. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment) Continued from February 16, 1993. John Hamilton, Cunningham Architects, presented the proposed development plans for the property. Council members discussed the impact of the expansion on traffic on Valley View Road and the surrounding neighborhood. Staff was directed to review the traffic at the intersection of Valley View Road and Hames Way, as well as any impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, and report back. the Council. There were no comments from audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to: 1) Close the public hearing; and 2) Approve first reading of the ordinance for zoning district amendment. Motion carried unanimously. B. TECH NINE (CHALLENGE PRINTING) by Golden Triangle Partners for rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Park on 4.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 23.52 acres into 1 lot and 2 outlots for a 47,600 square foot printing facility. Location: 7500 Golden Triangle Drive. (Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Park and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Continued from February 16, 1993 Brad Hoyt, landowner, and Dave Bangasser, Opus Corporation, presented the details of the proposed development. Hoyt pointed out that dedication of property proposed would complete the ownership and/or control by the City of Nine Mile Creek in this area for everything below the 841 elevation. Franzen said the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project at its January 25th meeting. Lambert said the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission had recommend. approval of the development at its meeting on March 1st. • • City Council Minutes 3 March 2, 1993 Councilmembers discussed the visibility of the back of the building from Valley View Road, across the flood plain. During continued discussion, the proponent agreed to add trees to this area of the landscape plan to help screen the back of the building from this vantage point. Staff was directed to work with the developer to utilize part of the tree replacement plantings totalling 180 inches for this purpose. There were no comments from members of the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to: 1) Close the public hearing; 2) Approve first reading of the ordinance for rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Park; 3) Adopt Resolution #93-41, Preliminary Plat; and 4) Direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations, including the screening provisions for the back of the building as discussed at this meeting. Motion carried unanimously. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve the Payment of Claims as presented. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Anderson, Harris, Jessen, Pidcock, and Tenpas voting "aye." VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. TECH NINE (CHALLENGE PRINTING) by Golden Triangle Partners. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance requesting Rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Park on 4.5 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Tech Nine (Challenge Printing); Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Summary of an Ordinance and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: 7500 Golden Triangle Drive. (Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to 1-2 Park; and Resolution Authorizing Summary and Publication.) MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Jessen, to: 1) Approve second reading of the Ordinance #5-93, rezoning the property from Rural to 1-2, and approval of the Developer's Agreement for Tech Nine (Challenge Printing); and 2) Adopt Resolution #93-42, Authorizing Summary of the Ordinance and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Motion carried unanimously. ------------------------------------------------------- City Council Minutes 4 March 2, 1993 B. Partners MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve Resolution #93-43, approving the Final Plat for Tech Nine (Challenge Printing) for Golden Triangle Partners. Motion carried unanimously. VIT. PETITIONS. REOUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Vill. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES IX. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. Reports of Councilmembers 1. Peddlers and Solicitors Stickers Pidcock reported that she had receive complaints about "No Peddlers or Solicitors" stickers distributed in the recent edition of the Community Newsletter. People had complained that the stickers were too large. It was suggested that the stickers be reprinted and made smaller . 2. Odors from Flyin& Cloud Landfill • Pidcock said she had received several complaints regarding the smell from the landfill. Staff reported that information about odors and reporting them had been included in the latest Community Newsletter. Councilmembers asked Staff to keep them informed about the different situations surrounding these types of problems. That way, when residents called them at home, they would be able to provide better information to the callers. It was also suggested that Staff contact additional public relations information sources, such as radio stations and cable news about the problems and how to report the concerns. 3. Covera&e of Items in the Eden Prairie News Pidcock asked that the next Community Newsletter contain an article regarding the City'S relationship with the Eden Prairie News, i.e., while the Eden Prairie News is the City's official newspaper, the City does not control the content of the news covered. She said she had received complaints from people that the paper had not covered events which were believed to be significant. 4. Annual Review of City Mana&er Tenpas and Harris agreed to serve as a subcommittee of the Council for the annual review of the City Manager. • • • • City Council Minutes 5 March 2, 1993 B. Report of City Manaeer 1. Appointment of Subcommittee of the Council to Review Proposals for Downtown Property Pidcock and Jessen volunteered to serve as a subcommittee of the Council to review proposals for the Downtown property. C. Report of Director of Parks. Recreation & Natural Resource 1. A ward Bid for Miller Park Construction MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Pidcock, to award the bid for Miller Park construction to Richard Knutson, Inc., in the amount of $2,513 ,419 .20, which excludes scoreboards. Motion carried unanimously. D. Report of Director of Community Development E. F. G. XI. XU. Report of Director of Public Works Report of City Attorney Report of Finance Director OTIlER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to adjourn the meeting. Mayor Tenpas adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST March 16,1993 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) Eaton Corporation Jeff McCall Construction Mill/Works Construction Moynihan Homes, Inc. PLur~BING A-Aarons Plumbing Bowler Co., Inc. Donahue t·1echani cal Hillman Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Kingsway Plumbing Kl amm Mech an i ca 1 Can t ra cto rs Lakeside· Plumbing & Heating· Leo's Plumbing LeVahn Brothers, Inc. LeVasseur Plumbing Meier Plumbing r~etropo1itan Mechanical ~10narch ~1echanica1, Inc. Tom Motzko Plumbing N S Mechanical, Inc. No. St. Paul P1 umbi ng ~~orth1 and Mechani cal Northridge Plumbing Company Podany Plumbing Steve Pokorny Plumbing Riven Plumbing SCAVENGER McKinley Sewer Service & Supply SEPTIC SYSTEMS Larry's Onsite Septic System GAMBLING Eden Prairie Lions Club (Bingo-Schooner Days) International School of Minn. (Raffle) TYPE B FOOD Emporium Exceptionale, Iric. Wal greens GAS FITTER A-Aarons Plumbing Bow 1 e r Co., Inc. Carver Heating & Air Conditioning D.J.~s Heating & Air Conditioning Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc. Helitin'g & Cool ing Two, Inc. Hillman Plumbing & Heating, Inc. J & H Gas Services, Inc. Joyce Pl umbing, Inc. Klamm Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Kluver Mechanical Construction Lakeside Plumbing & Heating Leo's Plumbing LeVahn Brothers, Inc. Metro Air ~etrooolitan Mechanical Contractors ~narch ~1echanical, Inc. Tom Motzko Plumbinq & Heating Co. N S r~echani cal, Inc. ~o St. Paul Plumbing Northland Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Royal ton Heating & Cool ing Co. Valley Aire, Inc. !..Jenc 1 Servi ce Company HEATING & VENTILATING Bowler Co., Inc. Carver Heating & Air Conditioninq D.J.'s Heating & Air Conditioning G R Mechanical C P Gobeil Company Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc. Heating & Cooling Two, Inc. Hillman Plumbing & Heating, Inc. Kluver t"1echanica1 Construction Metro Ai r Metropol itan r1echani cal Contractors Northland Mechanical Contractors Northwest Sheet Metal Company Palm Brothers, Inc. Quality Refrigeration, Inc. Royal ton Heating & Cool ing Co. Valley Aire, Inc. Watertown Sheet ~etal, Inc. ~encl Service Comoany CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST page two CIGARETTE Emporium Exceptionale, Inc. Walgreens REFUSE HAULER Nitti Disposal, Inc. Northern Disposal, Inc. These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. • • • • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF 1993 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND SETTING HEARING DATE WHEREAS, contracts have been let for the following listed improvements and the total project cost, including expenses incurred, or to be incurred and the City's share, exclusive of that assignable to City Property, are established as shown on the attached Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: l. The cost of such improvements to be specially assessed are hereby declared to be those as set forth in Exhibit A. 2. The City Clerk with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be assessed for each improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and he shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the office of the Deputy Clerk for public inspection. 3. A hearing shall be held on the 6th day of April, 1993 in the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive Drive, at 7:30 p.m., to pass upon such proposed assessments and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessments. 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessments to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of the record of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on March 16, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk l}'} ....:J EXHmIT A 1993 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PROJECTS ., Total Cost City Funds Amt to be Assessed ~ , ! 1 -IC 52-067 Utility improvements on Rowland Road. (1) (2) ~> $110,589.00 ! .. 1. Total costs have not been finally determined but exceed the amount to be assessed. 2. Total City funds will be determined when total costs are known and will be allocated from fund accounts as noted in the feasibility study. I, • • • RELEASE OF LAND • This Release of Land is executed by the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal • • corporation ("City"), and is dated as of ________ _ FACTS 1. A certain Agreement Regarding Special Assessments ("Agreement") dated October 1, 1991, was executed by and between the City, and Walter Bauer, which Agreement was flIed as Document No. 5833510 with the Hennepin County Recorder on October 10, 1991. The Agreement related to the property described therein as: Lots 1 through 8, Block 1; Lot I, Block 2; Hawk High Ridge; Eden Prairie, Minnesota 2. The special assessments contemplated by the Agreement have been levied and the time for appeal has expired. 3. To evidence the fact that the special assessments have been levied and the time for appeal has expired, the City is executing this Release of Land. THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereby releases the Property described above from all obligations and conditions set forth in the Agreement Regarding Special Assessments dated October 1, 1991 filed with the Registrar of Titles as Document No. 5833510 on October 10, 1991. This Release of Land shall not release or discharge the Property from the lien of any special assessments levied by the City pursuant to the agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Eden Prairie has executed the foregoing instrument. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE A Municipal Corporation BY: ~~--~------------------Douglas B. Tenpas Its Mayor BY: -----------------------------Carl J. J ullie Its City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SSe COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) -,-'. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of ___ _ 1993, by Douglas B. Tenpas and Carl J. Jullie, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 #7--RELEASE.C RFRlOI-14-88 • • • • • Onnald J. Softnnn SORENSEN & SORENSEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 950 NORWEST MIDUND BUILDING ~Ol SECOND AVE!'IUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55401 TELEPHONE (612) JJ9.SJOO FA.X (612) 371·9726 nan.ld J. SOftft •• n 100c. 1978) December 31, 1992 Mr. Carl J. Jullie City Manager City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-3677 Re: Special Assessments for Street, Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, and Water Inprovements Project: Improvement Contract 52-067 Legal: Outlot A, Shady Oak Ridge 2nd Addition PIN: 02-116-22-41-0020 Address: 6825 Rowland Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Jullie: The purpose of this letter is to set forth in writing the terms of the settlement which has been agreed to between myself acting as the attorney for Joseph Ruzic, the owner of the above captioned parcel of real property, and yourself and Alan D. Gray acting on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. The terms of our agreement are: 1. The total special assessments against said real property for street and storm sewer improvements shall be in the amount of $6,308.00. This figure was arrived at by as- signing to this property the sum of $1,577.00 for each of the four future developable parcels into which this prop- erty can be subdivided. 2. The total special assessments against said real property for sanitary sewer improvements shall be in the amount of $28,000.00. 3 . There shall be no special assessments against this prop- erty for water main or. lateral improvements. Mr. Ruzic (or a future owner of this property) shall be individ- ually responsible for the proper installation of munici- pal water service to this property from the planned and Mr. Jullie -2-December 31, 1992 existing municipal water system and facilities as may be necessary. 4. The city of Eden Prairie at its sole cost and expense shall cause an aesthetic and structurally sound retaining wall to be constructed on the City's right-of-way immedi- ately adjacent to this property to provide lateral sup- port for the existing terrain of this property. 5. Upon due and proper action by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie levying a total of $6,308.00 as a special assessment against this property for street and storm sewer improvements, Mr. Ruzic shall withdraw his objections to such special assessment and shall waive the rights to appeal such special assessment he may have pursuant to Minnesota statutes §429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of such special assess- ment . 6. . Provided that the special assessment for sanitary sewer improvements to this property are levied in an amount not to exceed $28,000.00, Mr. Ruzic shall not object to the same pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §429.061 and shall waive his rights to appeal such a levy pursuant to Minne- sota statutes §429.081 or otherwise challenge the amount or validity of such special assessment. (It is presently anticipated that the hearing on sanitary sewer and water main and lateral improvements special assessments shall be held in March, 1993.) 7. The City of Eden Prairie waives its rights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §429. 071 or otherwise to make any supplemental assessments or reassessments in regard to streets or utilities benefitting this property which would increase this property's liability for such special assessments, provided, however, that should this property be subdivided, the City may, upon proper application, equitably apportion among the various lots or parcels all then unpaid installments of special assessments. 8. The said special assessments for this property shall be due and payable in installments, the first of which shall be payable commencing with the ad valorem taxes due and payable in 1994. Mr. Ruzic's signature acknowledging his consent and agreement to the aforesaid terms and provisions is set forth below. • • • ---------------------------------------------~---- • • • Mr. Jullie -3-December 31, 1992 I trust that you will find this letter to be an accurate and complete recitation of the agreement. I am enclosing herewith a copy of this letter upon which I request that you acknowledge the City of Eden Prairie's acceptance and promptly return the same to me. Should you have any questions, please contact me. Yours very truly, SORENSEN & SORENSEN By: vl2Lf-r;:;£~ Donald J. Sorensen DJSjk Encl. cc: Mr. Joseph Ruzic Mr. Roger A. Pauly, City Attorney I, Joseph Ruzic, having read the foregoing letter and under- standing the terms of the agreement set forth therein and being knowledgeable of the facts of this matter and my legal rights in regard thereto, hereby acknowledge my consent and acceptance of said agreement. Dated: January ~, 1993 Joseph R ZlC I, Carl J. Jullie, in my capacity as City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, hereby acknowledge the consent and acceptance of the City of Eden Prairie to the agreement set forth in the above letter. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Dated: January ___ , 1993 By: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager • • • AGREEMENT THIS IS AN AGREEMENT made this _ day of , 1993. between the City of Eden Prairie. a municipal corporation ("City"). and Alan 1. Musech, and Julie N. Musech, husband and wife (tlMusech"). WHEREAS, Musech holds legal and equitable title to property within the City boundaries, legally described as Lot 2, Block I, Red Rock Lake 1st Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (tithe Property"); and WHEREAS the City installed sewer and water services currently available to the Property IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City shall have the right to require Musech, his heirs. successors, or assigns who acquire any right, title, or interest in the Property, to connect to the City sewer system and pay to the City a connection fee of $7,400.00 plus the Sewer Access Charges in effect during the calendar year for which connection is required: a. Whenever, in accordance with the guidelines of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in effect at the time, the septic system on the subject property fails to operate causing sewage back-up in the home, or the drainfield fails to percolate properly, or the well on the subject property either fails to yield an adequate supply of water, or the water quality fails to meet the then current EPA drinking water standards, and where none of the above-mentioned situations can be corrected by routine maintenance or repair; or b. twenty (20) years from the date of this Agreement; whichever occurs first. 2. In the event Musech transfers the Property, in any way, prior to the termination of this Agreement, Musech agrees to require the transferee to assume the burden of this Agreement as part of the consideration for transfer of the Property. Such assumption is to be made part of the warranty deed at the time of conveyance. 3. This Agreement shall be recorded against the Property with the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. 4. The parties to this Agreement intend that the burden of this Agreement shall run with the land and shall bind Musech and Musech's heirs, assigns and successors . 5. This Agreement shall terminate upon full payment to the City of the connection fee and Sewer Access Charges, as set forth in paragraph one (1) herein. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a Minnesota .: municipal corporation By ______________________ ___ . Douglas B. Tenpas Its Mayor By ______________________ ___ Carl 1. Jullie Its City Manager Alan J. Musech Julie N. Musech The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of ________ , 1993, by Douglas B. Tenpas and Carl J. Jullie, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) S5. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _________ , 1993, by Alan J. Musech and Julie N. Musech, husband and wife . Notary Public bs'ep'lmusech\agreeme2 • • • • • • -MEMORANDUM- TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works DATE: March 11, 1993 SUBJECT: Riverview Heights Erosion and Drainage Issues Since the second reading of the Zoning Ordinance for Riverview Heights is scheduled for the Council meeting March 16, 1993, this memo summarizes the issues in process that is anticipated for erosion control and drainage issues on the project. The Lower Minnesota Watershed District gave conceptual approval to the plan at its regular meeting on March 10. The attorney for the Watershed District intends to summarize what this conceptual approval consists of and we hope to be able to have it in the Council packet or distributed at the Council meeting on March 16 . There has been some discussion about the need for final plans being completed prior to second reading of the zoning ordinance. We have not operated in this fashion in the past and to change requirements at this stage could be a significant burden to the developer. However, we do intend to maintain the following controls: . 1. The Watershed District has given conceptual approval and has somewhat defined the expectations for the final design of the project. The grading permit for the project will be conditioned to require final Watershed District approval prior to construction commencing. 2. The developer has petitioned the City to do the final design and construction administration for the project. While we do not see this as a "blank check", we do expect to maintain control over the design process for the project. In summary, I believe that the conceptual drainage and erosion control plan is adequate for the project and that we have enough controls to develop the project and maintain high design standards for the project. EAD:ssa Dsk:CC.RIVERVW.HGT CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR I.C. 93-93-5320 (Riverview Heights) BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: 1. The owners of 100% of the real property abutting upon and to be benefitted from the proposed improvement have petitioned the City Council to construct said improvements and to assess the entire cost against their property. 2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, and upon recommendation of the City Engineer, said improvements are hereby ordered and the City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for said improvements in accordance with City Standards and advertise for bids thereon, with the assistance of H.T.P.O. 3. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish a copy of this resolution once in the official newspaper, and further a contract for construction of said improvements shall not be approved by the City Council prior to 30 days following publication of this Resolution in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on March 16, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • • • • • • RUG 20 '92 13:14 TO: 9-9415744 FROM:CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE T-018 P.02 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 100% PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNell...: The undersigned are all the fee owners of the real property described below and herein petition for the Eden Prairie City Council to proceed with making the following described improvements: Specify . Type General Location Sanitary Sewer . Watermain See attached' Exhi bit "A" & "B" - Storm Sewer 1111 1111 Street Paving 1111 1111 Other 1111 1111 Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the undersigned hereby waive any public hearing to ~e held on said improvements, and further state and agree that the total cost of said improvements shall be specially assessed against the property described below in accordance with the City's special assessment policieSl We further understand that the preliminary, estimated total cost for the said improvements is !E>3,G:oJ .. ~ i = Street Address or other Legal Description Names and Addresses of Petitioners of Property to be Served (Must b~ers of record) Robert T .. ~~ for Brown t.nterprl SE S 11480 River °ew Rd.-Eden Prairie /~~ V/ ==============~============================ (For City Use) Date Received: ,,N/lR. 'Ii IJfiS ProjCJ:t No.: 9::; -~o Coun::il Consideration: ________ -.:.. __ _ - .. ~­, SCALE SCALE: DATE REV . ....,-"),,) :; )0"-.- '7 10.100 aFt. ·.'" • "'"" '"-' \J I • '"-•• • IN . FE~ 1 INCH • 100 FEET NOVEMBER B. 1991 12/2/91.7/30/92.10/7, EXHIBIT liB" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: .. " . . -.. Tracts 1.. C and L through Q, Reg I stered Land Survey No. 547, HennepIn County, MInnesota; And that part of the South 1/2 of the Northeast l/~ of Section 35. Township 116, Range 22. Hennepin County, Minnesota. whIch lIes south of Riverview Road, wast ot Tract A, Reglsterad land Survey No. 547. east of Tract Q. Registered Land Survey No. 547 and northeasterly of Tracts H and N. Registered Land Survey No. 547. And that part of Governlant Lot 3. SectIon 35. Township U6, Range 22. Hennep I n County. HI nnesota. I y I no south of Registered Land Surveys No. 547 and 600 and lyIng west of a lIne described as beginnIng at the southeast corner of Tract F. saId Registered Land Survey No. 547; thence South 19 degrees 03 Itnutes 36 seconds ~est 820 feet lore or less to the north shorelIne of the MInnesota RIver and there terl' nat I ng • ............ / • • • -MEMORANDUM- TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager d FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works p"" . DATE: March 9, 1993 SUBJECT: Architect/Engineer Agreement for Reconstruction of Water Plant Facilities and Police Station Entrance Due to TH 212 Construction Staff recommends that the agreement with Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson and Associates, Inc., (TKDA) be executed for provision of architectural and engineering services to reconstruct our municipal facilities as a result of TH 212 construction. As part of the TH 212 construction process, the access to both the Police Station and the Water Plant will be deleted. This will require that a portion of the Water Plant be reconstructed to provide proper access for semi- trucks for material deliveries to the plant. This would also reconfigure the access to the Police Station facility. We did not interview firms other than TKDA for this process, since TKDA is the engineering firm for MnDOT as part of the TH 212 project. Maintenance of continuous access to our municipal facilities and scheduling will be critical in this process and it is our belief that they will be able to provide the best comprehensive service for the project. The contract for services has an estimated amount of $96,000. The payment will be at an hourly rate with the total amount not to be exceeded without prior authorization. While we expect to be fully reimbursed by MnDOT, we will not be reimbursed until completion of the negotiation process for damages and acquisitions. Due to the uncertainty of construction funding, the timing of TH 212 is a moving target. While this is not the most desirable arrangement, due to our need to maintain constant access, it is necessary to perform the reconstruction work in advance of the actual highway reconstruction project. Based on the best available information from MnDOT, we will try to schedule the work "just in time". Recommend that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute the agreement with TKDA. Final plans will be completed approximately May 1, 1994. In other words, they will maintain a consistent pace with the TH 212 project development process. cc: Ed Sorensen Jim Clark Dsk:CC:TDKA ARCHITECT -ENGINEER AGREEMENT Between THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA and lOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED for PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this _____________ day of ____________ _ THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 19, ____ , by and between __ :..:..:..:=--.:...:..~__=_ _______ --=-__________________ _ hereinafter referred to as the OWNER, and lOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, a corporation with a regular place of business at aaeet}\IXIIlDcB1t~Bai~, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, hereinafter referred to as TKDA. 1500 Meritor Tower; 444 Cedar Street; WITNESSETH: That the OWNER and TKDA, for the consideration hereinafter named, agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE The OWNER agrees to and hereby does retain and employ TKDA and TKDA agrees to perform Architectural and lor Engineering Services for the project, entitled: Reconstruction of Existing Municipal Facilities adjacent to Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie, Minnesota hereinafter referred to as the Project. The Project and those services to be performed hereunder are more particularly described in attached EXHIBIT A, a part hereof. ARTICLE 2. PERIOD OF SERVICE • • Compensation for TKDA'S services as provided elsewhere in this ,Aqreement has been agreed to in anticipation of an orderly and continuous progress of TKDA'S services through completion. In this regard, if the services covered by this ,Aqreement have not been completed within (X X X )(r)(OIiCt16X • ~tt;lJUI~JI.~$f!ltOt, through no fault of TKDA, any lump sum or maximum payment amounts shall be equitably adjusted. I the schedule dates shown in ARTICLE IV -SCHEDULE of the attached EXHIBIT A, TKDA.()WNER AGREEMENT JANUARY 1986 • • • ~\r ARTICLE 3. COMPENSATION TO TKDA A. Compensation to TKDA for services described in this !>greement shall be on a Lump Sum basis and/or an Hourly Rate basis as deSignated in the attached EXHIBIT A and as hereinafter described. 1. A Lump Sum method of payment for TKDA'S services shall typically apply to all or parts of aY«lrk scope where TKDA'S tasks can be readily defined and/or where the level of effort required to accomplish such tasks can be estimated with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The OWNER shall make monthly payments to TKDAwithin 30days of date of invoice based on an estimated percentage of completion of TKDA'S services. 2. An Hourly Rate method of payment for TKDA'S services shall typically apply to all or parts of a Y«lrk scope where TKDA'S tasks cannot be readily defined and/or where the level of effort required to accomplish such tasks cannot be estimated with any reasonable degree of accuracy. Under an Hourly Rate method of payment, TKDA shall be paid for the actual hours worked on the Project by TKDA technical personnel times an hourly bill- ing rate established for each employee. Hourly billing rates shall include compensation for all salary costs. payroll burden, general and administrative overhead and professional fee. A rate schedule shall be furnished by TKDA to OWNER upon request. In addition to the foregoing, TKDA shall be reimbursed at cost for the following Direct Expenses when incurred in the perfor- manceof the work: (a) Travel and subsistence. (b) Computer services. (c) Outside professional and technical services with cost defined as the amount billed TKDA plus 10%. (d) Identifiable reproduction and reprographic costs. The OWN ER shall make monthly payments to TKDA within 30 days of date of invoice based on computations made in accor- dance with the above charges for services provided and ex- penses incurred to date. accompanied by supporting evidence as required. B. The OWNER will pay the balance stated on the invoice unless OWNER notifies TKDA in writing of the particular item that is alleged to be incorrect within 15 days from the date of invoice, in which case, only the disputed item will remain undue until resolved by the parties. All accounts unpaid after 30 days from the date of original invoice shall be subject to a service charge of 1'12% per month, or the maximum amount authorized by law, whichever is less. I n addition, TKDA may after giving seven days written notice to the OWN ER, suspend services under this Agreement until TKDA has been paid in full for all amounts then due for services, expenses and charges. ARTICLE 4. EXTRA WORK If TKDA is of the opinion that any services they have been directed to perform are beyond the Scope of this Agreement, or that the level of effort required Significantly exceeds that estimated due to changed con- ditions and thereby constitutes extra work, they shall promptly notify the OWN ER of that fact. Extra work, additional compensation for same, and extension of time for completion shall be covered by a Supplemental !>greement entered into by both parties prior to proceeding with any extra work or related expenditures. ARTICLE 5. ABANDONMENT, CHANGE OF PLAN AND TERMINATION Either Party has the right to terminate this Agreement upon seven days written notice. In addition, the OWNER may at any time, reduce the scope of this Agreement. Such reduction in scope shall be set forth in a written notice from the OWNER to TKDA.ln the event of unresolved dispute over change in scope or changed conditions, this Agreement may also be terminated, upon seven days written notice as provided above. 2 In the event of termination, all documents, finished or unfinished. prepared by TKDA under this Agreement shall be made available by TKDA to the OWNER pursuant to Article 6. and there shall be no fur- ther obligation of the OWNER to TKDA under this Agreement. except for payment of amounts due and owing for work performed and ex- penses incurred to the date and time of termination. computed in ac- cordance with Article 3. In the event of a reduction in scope of the Project work. TKDAshali be paid for the Y«lrk performed and expenses incurred on the project work thus reduced and for any completed and abandoned work for which payment has not been made. computed in accordance with Article 3. ARTICLE 6. DISPOSITION OF PLANS, REPORTS AND OTHER DATA -. IV. the time of completion or termination of the work, TKDAshall make available to the OWNER. all maps. tracings. repons. resource materials and other documents pertaining to the work or to the Project. All such documents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by the OWNER or others on extensions of the Project or any other pro- ject. Any reuse without written verification or adaptation by TKDA for the specific purpose intended will be at OWNER'S sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to TKDA. In this regard, the OWNER will in- demnify and hold harmless TKDA from any and all suits or claims of third parties ariSing out of such reuse, which is not specifically verified. adapted or authorized by TKDA. ARTICLE 7. DOCUMENTS FORMING THE CONTRACT The contract documents shall be deemed to include this Agreement with all accompanying exhibits a part hereof. ARTICLE 8. OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. To permit TKDA to perform the services required hereunder, the OWNER shall supply, in proper time and sequence. the following at no expense to TKDA: 1. Provide all necessary information regarding its requirements as necessary for orderly progress of the work. 2. Designate in writing. a person to act as OWNER'S representative with respect to the services to be rendered underthis !>greement. Such person shall have authority to transmit instructions. receive instructIons, receive information, interpret and define OWNER'S --policies with respect to TKDA'S services. 3. Furnish. as required for performance of TKDA'S services (ex. cept to the extent provided otherwise in EXHIBIT A), data prepared by or services of others, including without limitation, core borings, probings and subsurface exploratIons, hydrographic and geohydrologic surveys, laboratory tests and inspections of samples. materials and equipment;appropriate professional interpretations of all of the foregoing; environmental assessment and impact statements; property. boundary, ease- ment, right-of-way, topographic and utility surveys: property descriptions; zoning, deed and other land use restriction; and other special data not covered in EXHIBIT A. 4. Provide access to. and make all proviSions for TKDA to enter upon publicly and privately owned property as required to per- form the work. S. Act as liaison with other agencies to carry out necessary coor- dination and negotiations; furnish approvals and permits from all governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project and such approvals and consents from others as may be necessary for completion of the Project. 6. Examine all reports. sketches. drawings. specifications and other documents prepared and presented by TKDA. obtain advice of an attorney, insurance counselor or others as OWNER deems necessary for such examination and render in writing. decisions pertaIning thereto within a reasonable time so as not to delay the services of TKDA. TKDA-OWNER AGREEMENT JANUARY 1986 7. Give prompt written notice to TKDAwhenever OWNER observes or otherwise becomes aware of any development that affects the scope of timing of TKDA'S services or any defect in the work of Construction Contractor(s), Consultants or TKDA. a Initiate action, where appropriate, to identify, remove and.br en- capsulate asbestos products or materials located in the Project area prior to accomplishment of any work contemplated under the Project. 9. Provide such accounting, independent cost estimating and in- surance counseling services as may be required for the Project, suCh legal services as OWNER may require or TKDA may reasonably request with regard to legal issues pertaining to the Project including any that may be raised by Contractor(s), such auditing service as OWNER may require to ascertain how or for what purpose any Contractor has used the moneys paid under the construction contract, and such inspection services as OWNER may require to ascertain that Contractor(s) are com- plying with any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, code or order applicable to their furnishing and performing the work. 10. Provide "record" drawings and specifications for all existing physical plants or facilities which are pertinent to the Project. 11. Provide other services. materials. or data as may be set forth in EXHIBIT A. B. TKDAshall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of information furnished by the OWNER. If TKDA finds that any information furnished by the OWNER is in error or is inadequate for its purpose, TKDA shall promptly notify the OWNER. ARTICLE 9. OPINIONS OF COST Opinions of probable project cost, construction cost, financial evalua- tions. feasibility studies. economic analyses of alternate solutions and utilitarian considerations of operations and maintenance costs provided for in EXH IBIT A, a part hereof, are to be made on the basis ofTKDA'S experience and qualifications and represent TKDA'S best judgement as an experienced and qualified design professional. It is recognized, however. that TKDA does not have control over the cost of labor, material, equipment or services furnished by others or over market conditions or contractors' methods of determining their prices, and that any evalua- tion of any facility to be constructed, or acquired, or work to be performed on the basis of TKDA'S cost opinions, must of necessity, be speculative until completion of construction or acquisition. Accordingly, TKDAdoes not guarantee that proposals. bids or actual costs will not substantial- ly vary from opinions. evaluations or studies submitted by TKDA to OWNER hereunder. ARTICLE 10. CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES OWN ER acknowledges that it is customary forthe architect or engineer who is responsible for the preparation and furnishing of Drawings and Specifications and other construction-related documents to be employed to provide professional services during the Bidding and Con- struction Phases of the Project. (1)to interpret and clarify the documen- tation so furnished and to modify the same as circumstances reveal- ed during bidding and construction may dictate, (2) in connection with acceptance of substitute or or-equal items of materials and equipment proposed by bidders and Contractor(s), (3)in connection with approval of shop drawings and sample submittals, and (4) as a result of and In response to TKDA'S detecting in advance of performance of affected work inconsistencies or irregularities in such documentation. OWNER agrees that if TKDA is not employed to provide such professional ser- vices during the Bidding (if the work is put out for bids) and the Con- struction Phases of the Project, TKDA will not be responsible for, and OWNER shall indemnify and hold TKDA (and TKDA'S professional associates and consultants) harmless from all claims, damages,losses and expenses including attorneys' fees arising out of, or resulting from, 3 any interpretation, clarification. substitution acceptll'lC8. shop draw-• ing or sample approval or modification of such dQCUlfttJl!ll3tlon issued or carried out by OWNER or others. Nothing containecainthis paragraph shall be construed to release TKDA (or TKDA'S professional associates or consultants) from liability for failure to perform in aecordance with professional standards any duty or responsibility which TKDA has undertaken or assumed under this Agreement. ARTICLE 11. INSURANCE TKDA shall procure and maintain insurance for proteaon f,rom claims against it under workers' compensation acts, claillls It!Ir damages because of bodily injury including personal injury, SdlIeSS or disease or death of any and all employees or of any personG8'ler than such employees, and from claims against it for damagesll!eCause of injury to or destruction of property including loss of use resilling therefrom. Also, TKDA shall procure and maintain professionalilllbility insurance for protection from claims arising out of performam::etlf professional services caused by any negligent act, error, or omissiCllltbl' which TKDA is legally liable. However. TKDA hereby states 1liliiii the OWNER acknowledges. that TKOA has no professional liability (errors and omis- sions) or other insurance. and is unable to reasonalllY obtain such in- surance. for claims arising out of the performance or Uilililre to perform professional services, including but not limited to1he preparation of reports, designs. drawings and specifications. rela¥ld to the investiga- tion. detection. abatement. replacement, modification, removal or disposal of (1) pollutants or of (2)products. materialsCll' processes con- taining asbestos. Pollutants herein under (1 ) above meamng any solid. liquid. gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminal1l_ including smoke. vapor. soot. alkalis. chemicals and hazardous or toxiC. waste. Waste in- cudes materials to be recycled. reconditioned or recl3tmed. According- ly. the OWN ER hereby agrees to bring no claim for negligence. breach of contract. indemnity or other cause of action against TKDA. its prin- cipals. employees. agents and consultants if such claim in any way • arises out of the actual, alleged or threatened discttarge, dispersal. release or escape of pollutants. orthe investigation ofc«remedial work related to such pollutants or asbestos in the Project, j10e OWN ER fur- ther agrees to defend. indemnify and hold TKDA and I~~ orincipals. employees. agents and consultants harmless from anysuc. ~ ::lotlutant or asbestos related claim that may be brought by third partie;:;3S a result of the services provided by TKDA pursuant to this Ag~nt. Not- withstanding the above, the OWNER shall not be prohiblllo irom bring- ing suit against TKDA for its alleged negligence. breadll:of contract or other cause of action arising out of its professional services rendered in connection with the design and construction of poIabIItwatersystems. storm water systems and sewerage systems includinglllOse receiving industrial waste pre-treated in accordance with EPA standards nor is the OWNER required to idemnify and hold harmless TKDA for claims and suits brought against it by third parties arising QUlClIfsuch profes- sional services. Certificates of insurance will be provided to theOWNERupon request. ARTICLE 12. ASSIGNMENT This Agreement, being intended to secure the perSOflllllseNice of the individuals employed by and through whom TKDA performs work hereunder. shall not be assigned, sublet or transferredllIithout the writ- ten consent of the OWNER. ARTICLE 13. CONTROLLING LAW This Agreement is to be governed by the laws of the ~cf Minnesota. ARTICLE 14. NON-DISCRIMINATION TKDA will comply with the proVisions of applicable federal. state and local statutes. ordinances and regulations pertaining 10: human rights and non-diSCrimination. TKDA-OWNER AGREEMENT JANUARY 1986 • "7 32> • • • ARTICLE 15. SPECIAL CONDITIONS A. Add the following paragraph t~ Article 6: ".-. -- In-the event electronic copies ot documents are made available to the OWNER pursuant to the-foregoing paragraph, the OWNER acknowledges that the useful life of electronic media such as magnetic tapesilmllor.floppy disks may be limited because of deterioration -of the media-or obsolescence of ttie ~computer hardware:...and/or: softwar.e ~ystems. I ,Therefore. TKDA_ makes no representation that such media will be fully usable beyond 30 days from date of delivery to OWNER. 8. Replace Article 8A(8) with the following: c. 8. Initiate action, where appropriate, to identify and investigate the nature and exi~nr of asbestos and/or pollution in each Project and to abate and/or remove the same as may be required by federal, state or local statute, ordinance, code, rule, or regulation now existing or hereinafter enacted or amended. For purposes of this Agreement, "pollution" and "pollutant" shall mean any solid, liquid; gaseous or-thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, alkalis, chemicals and hazardous or toxic waste. Hazardous or toxic waste means any substance, waste, pollutant or contaminant now or hereafter included within such terms under any federal,' state' or local statute, ordinance,code, rule or regulationjQw:exlsting or hereinafter enacted or amended. Waste further includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed. If TKDA encounters, or reasonably suspects that it has encountered, asbestos or poliutioiHn a Project, TKDA shall cease activity on the Project and promptly notify the OWNER who shall proceed as set forth above. Unless otherwise specifically provided in the "Authorization for Professional Service$~t!he services to be provided by TKDA do not include identification of asbestos or pollution and TKPA has,~np duty to identify or attempt to identify the same within the area of any Project. '-" ~ ,:5 C·, -:.;cnc: _ .=.sasc. :0:.:. Replace the second paragraph of Article 11 with the following: Also, TKDA shall procure and maintain professional liability insurance for protection from claims arising out of- performance of professional services caused by any negligent act, error or omission for which TKDA is legally liable. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA lOLTZ ANDERSON ASSOCIATES, INCO OWNER By By By By 4 TKDA.QWNER AGREEMENT JANUARY 1986 EXHIBIT A -SCOPE OF WORK FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING MUNICIPAL FACILITIES ADJACENT TO MITCHELL ROAD IN EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA FOR THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. GENERAL • The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOn proposes to reconstruct existing TH 5 as a multi-lane, divided highway with a diamond interchange at its intersection with • Mitchell Road. The roadway construction will affect existing City of Eden Prairie facilities, including the Water Treatment Plant, Well No.1, Fire Station, Public Works Garage and the Police Station. This scope of work involves the Water Treatment Plant, Well No.1 and the Police Station only. B. WATER TREATMENT PLANT 1. The primary access to the Water Treatment Plant will be eliminated by the proposed roadway construction. MnDOT will include in the TH 212, Stage 2 project, the design and construction required to provide a new primary access to the facility. That project will include: a. Grading b. Paving c. Drainage d. Watermain Relocations e. Storm and Sanitary Sewer Relocations A-I ~'8q • • • • C. 2. This project will include the preparation of preliminary plans. estimate of probable construction costs and Construction Documents for additional work required to restore full function to the Water Treatment Plant. The design and Construction Documents will be prepared to provide for continuous operation of the plant. Work will include: a. Garage and dock modifications. including an approximately 20' x 24' addition with extensions to the existing dock. Lighting. electric service and ventilation as required. b. Modification of electrical and telephone utilities, including the relocation or replacement of existing transformers and service lines to the structure which conflict with other construction at the site. c. Relocation of the carbon dioxide tank. d. Relocation of pneumatic lime conveyor pipes. e. Provide a watermain frol11 tl1eJr~atlTl~Tltplant to a new watermain to be constructed on Technology Drive. WELL NO.1 Well No.1 will be eliminated by the proposed roadway construction. This project will include the preparation of preliminary plans, estimate of probable construction costs and Construction Documents for the replacement of this facility, including: 1. A new well of equivalent capacity to the existing well (2 MGD) 2. A new well house and pump with required heating, ventilation and controls -----. -.. .--. 3. This does not include raw water piping beyond the well site limits 4. Abandonment of existing well D. POLICE STATION The existing entrance to the Police Station will be changed from full access to a right- in/right-out only in MnDOT's roadway reconstruction project. This project will include the preparation of preliminary plans, estimate of probable construction costs and Construction Documents for the relocation of the full access entrance to a location about 300 feet south of its present location and the construction of vehicular access between the two existing parking areas. Work will include: 1. Grading 2. Paving A-2 3. Drainage 4. Light pole and electric heater relocations II. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY TKDA A. PART I -PLANS 1. Preliminary Design Phase Upon receipt of authorization to proceed, TKDA shall: a. Consult with the OWNER to confIrm the general scope, extent and character of the Projects. b. Advise OWNER as to the necessity of OWNER'S providing or obtaining from others data or services of the type(s) described under Agreement Articles 8A(3) and 8A(10), and act as OWNER'S representative in connection with any such services. Possible special services by others which may be required would include: • 1) Geotechnical: Soil borings, analysis and foundation recommendations in the vicinity of the new well. • 2) Property Easement or Right-of-Way Surveys: Property survey at the new well site. c. Review plans and data available for the existing facilities. d. Obtain measurements of existing conditions at the Water Treatment Plant loading dock as necessary to design and detail the addition to the dock. e. Conduct field surveys as necessary to confirm horizontal and vertical data at the Police Station and along the watermain routes to Technology Drive. f. Coordinate utility relocations with private utility company owners. g. Assist City Staff in the selection of a site for the new well. h. Conduct field surveys as necessary to develop a site plan at the new well and pumphouse location. • • • • • 1. Prepare preliminary design documents for each of the Projects, consisting of final design criteria, preliminary drawings, outline specifications, opinion of probable construction costs, and findings and recommendations; and review with OWNER. j. Provide technical assistance to OWNJ:::R for _OWNER/MnDOT right-of-way acquisition negotiations. 2. Final Design Phase ()n the basis of the approved Preliminary Design Phase documents, TKDA shall: a. Advise OWNER as to the necessity of OWNER'S providing or obtaining from others, additional data or services of the type(s) described under Agreement Articles SA(3) and SA(10), and act as OWNER'S representative in connection with any such services. No special services by others are anticipated beyond those identified above as being required during the Preliminary Design Phase. b. Prepare for incorporation in the Contract Documents final drawings and specifications setting forth in detail the requirements for the construction of the Projects. c. Assist the OWNER in connection with the OWNER'S responsibility for filing documents required for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. d. Develop a construction schedule for each of the Projects and coordinate the schedule with MnDOT's roadway reconstruction schedule. It is understood that all facilities need to be maintained to provide continuous operation. e. Advise OWNER of any adjustments to the latest opinion of probable construction cost caused by changes in extent or design requirements of the Projects and furnish a revised opinion of probable construction cost based on the drawings and specifications. f. Prepare for review and approval by OWNER, his legal counsel and other advisors contract agreement forms, general conditions, supplementary conditions, bid forms, invitations to bid and instructions to bidders, and assist in the preparation of other related documents. OWNER'S standard documents will be used wherever possible. g. Submit five (5) copies of the above documents and of the drawings and specifications to the OWNER for review purposes. Make minor revisions and adjustments following OWNER'S review. A-4 3CJ~· B. PART II -CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION l. Bidding Phase During the Bidding Phase, TKDA shall: a. Reproduce final Bidding Documents and related contract forms for bidding and construction purposes. b. Assist OWNER in obtaining bids for four (4) separate prime contracts. c. Respond to bidder's technical questions, prepare clarification addendums and conduct pre-bid meeting with interested bidders. d. Prepare bid tabulations. e. Assist OWNER in evaluating bids and in assembling and awarding contracts. 2. Construction Phase -General Services During the Construction Phase, TKDA shall provide the following general services: a. Consult with and advise OWNER and act as OWNER'S representative as provided in the Contract Documents. b. Attend and assist OWNER with pre-construction conference to be attended by the Contractor, OWNER and others as may be requested by the OWNER. c. Provide Resident Project Representative as appropriate to the various stages of construction to observe as an experienced and qualified design professional, the progress and quality of the executed work of Contractor and to determine in general if such work is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. d. Provide Construction Staking Services. e. Review and approve (or take other appropriate action with respect to) Shop Drawings (as that term is defined in the Contract Documents), samples, and other data which Contractor is required to submit, but only for conformance with the design concept of the Projects and compliance with the information given in the Contract Documents. Such reviews and approvals or other action shall not extend to means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction or to safety precautions and programs incident thereto. A-5 • • • • • • f. Issue all instructions of OWNER to Contractor; issue necessary interpretations and clarifications of the Contract Documents and in connection therewith, prepare change orders as required: have authority, as OWNER'S representative, to require special inspection or testing of the work. g. Based on TKDA'S periodic on-site observations as an experienced and qualified design professional, determine payments to Contractor in such amounts; such recommendations of payment will constitute a representation to the OWNER, based on such observations and review, that the work has progressed to the point indicated, that, to the best of TKDA'S knowledge, information and belief, the quality of such work is in accordance with the Contract Documents. h. Conduct an inspection to determine if the Projects is substantially complete and a final inspection to determine if the work appears to have been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents and if the Contractor has fulfilled all of his obligations thereunder, so that TKDA may recommend, in writing, final payment to Contractor and may give written notice to OWNER and the Contractor that the work is acceptable (subject to any conditions therein expressed). 1. TKDA shall not have control or charge of and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, for acts or omissions of the Contractor, Subcontractors or any other persons performing any of the Work, or for the failure of any of them to carry out the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. j. Prepare a set of reproducible record drawings showing those changes made during the construction process, based on marked-up prints, drawings and other data furnished by Contractors to TKDA and which TKDA considers significant. C. PART III -ADDITIONAL SERVICES If authorized in writing by OWNER, TKDA shall furnish or obtain from others Additional Services of the types listed below which are not considered as normal or customary services. Additional Services shall be compensated for on an Hourly Rate basis as defined in Agreement Article 3, a part hereof, and such compensation shall be over and above any maximums or lump sum amounts set forth in the Agreement. 1. Registered land or right-of-way surveys, right-of-way mapping; plats: legal descriptions; land appraisals, negotiations and/or related services. 2. Soil borings and laboratory tests for design purposes; field and/or laboratory tests taken during construction to determine compliance with the Contract Documents. A-6 3. Providing analyses of OWNER'S needs and programming the requirements of the Projects; Investigations involving detailed consideration of operations, maintenance and overhead expenses; providing Value Engineering during the course of design; the preparation of cash flow and economic evaluations, rate schedules and appraisals; assistance in obtaining financing for the Projects; detailed quantity surveys of material, equipment and labor. 4. Preparation of applications and supporting documents for governmental grants. loans or advances in connection with the Projects; preparation or review of environmental assessments and impact statements; review and evaluation of the effect on the design requirements of the Projects of any such statements and documents prepared by others; and assistance in obtaining approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the anticipated environmental impact of the Projects. 5. Services resulting from significant changes in extent of the Projects or its design including, but not limited to, changes in size, complexity, OWNER'S schedule, or character of construction or methods of financing; and revising previously accepted studies, reports, design documents or Contract Documents when such revisions are due to causes beyond TKDA'S control. 6. Furnishing the services of special consultants for other than the normal civil, structural, mechanical and electrical engineering and normal architectural design incidental thereto; providing renderings or models for OWNER'S use; and providing data or services of the types described in Agreement Article 8A(3) when OWNER authorizes TKDA to provide such data or services in lieu of furnishing the same in accordance with Agreement Article 8A(3). 7. Services in connection with change orders provided such change orders are required by causes not solely within the control of TKDA; services after the award of each contract in evaluating substitutions proposed by Contractor(s); and in making revisions to Drawings and Specifications occasioned thereby, and services resulting from significant delays, changes or price increases occurring as a direct or indirect result of material, equipment or energy shortages. 8. Additional or extended services during construction made necessary by: a. Contractor's schedule; delays in construction caused by inclement weather, strikes or material shortages or unavailability. b. Significant amount of defective or neglected work of Contractor; default by Contractor. c. Work damaged by fire or other causes during construction. A-7 • • • • • • • d. Significant substitutes proposed by Contractor; unreasonable number of claims submitted by Contractor or others. e. Observations during any guarantee period, and related services. 9. Preparation of operating and maintenance manuals; protracted or extensive assistance in the utilization of any equipment or system (such as initial startup, testing, adjusting and balancing); and training personnel for operation and maintenance. 10. Preparing to serve or serving as expert witness in connection with any legal or arbitration proceeding. 11. Additional services in connection with the Projects, including services normally furnished by OWNER and services not otherwise provided for in the Agreement, and this EXHffi IT A, a part hereof. ITL COMPENSATION A. PART I -PLANS AND PART II -CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION B. Compensation to TKDA for services provided under Part I and II of this EXHIBIT A shall be on an Hourly Rate basis as defined in Agreement Article 3. If it appears at any time that charges for services rendered under Parts I and II will exceed an estimated amount of $96,000, TKDA agrees that it will not perform services or incur costs which result in billings in excess of such amount until it has been advised by the OWNER that additional funds are available and its services can continue. The $96,000 estimated amount is based upon the following: 1. Water Treatment Plant Reconstruction and Watermain $ 37,500 2. Well No. I Replacement $ 24,000 3. Police Station Access $ 3,500 4. Construction Phase $ 25,000 5. Direct Expenses $ 6,000 PART III -ADDITIONAL SERVICES Compensation to TKDA for any Additional Services authorized by the OWNER, shall be on an Hourly Rate basis as defined in Article 3 of the Agreement. A-8 IV. SCHEDULE TKDA shall proceed with the performance of the services called for in a uniform and continuous manner in an effort to meet the following schedule: Written Authorization to Proceed from OWNER Complete Preliminary Plans and Construction Cost Estimates Complete Final Plans Provide Construction Phase Services A-9 March 17, 1993 July 1, 1993 May 1,1994 June 1, 1994 to December 1, 1995 • • • • • • • ME~'10RANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources ~ DATE: March 9, 1993 SUBJECT: Change Order No. 5 Eden Prairie Community Center Ice Arena Addition Attached to this memo is a March 1, 1993 letter from Del Erickson, architect for the Community Center addition project, explaining the change orders included in Change Order No. S. Also attached is a copy of Change Order No.5 totalling $3,926. The major cost in the change order is the $1,776 recommended to be paid for the brick allowance. This basically is the difference in the invoice cost between the allowance for bricks and the actual cost for the bricks ordered for the site. Staff were not satisfied with the color of the bricks originally planned for this project and when we finally settled on an acceptable color, we were not told that the bricks were a higher cost. The architect has checked the invoice from the supplier and determined that the actual cost to the contractor was $1,776 above the brick allowance. Staff recommend paying the actual cost, but not the overhead and profit requested. City staff support the change orders totalling $3,926. BL:mdd change/l , 1 I· " . ,.. ,", :. cJc~_~AN.O~ .. ~ .• I~. :~~ON ARCHITECTS . a -' ,.... 7415 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. MINNEAPOLIS MN 55426 . 612 -544-8370 March I, 1993 Bob Lambert City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Eden Prairie Community Center Addition Comm . No . 9 I I 7 Dea, Bob: Enclosed herewith, is unsigned Change Order No.5 for above project. Items on the Change Order are for extras and changes we have previously discussed and provided copies of proposals from Shingobee. Two items have changed from our letter of December 24, 1992 as fol lows: I. Fire Dampers -5516.00; Contractor argues that larger dampers • could not be used because of sleeving requirements thru precast. We have negotiated a lower cost of $350.00 based on no dupl ication of labor and reduction of cutting one opening. See attached correspondence. 8. Brick allowance -$2,256.00 We have been unsuccessful in getting brick company to change their cost from quoted price of $729.00 plus tax. Based on specifications regarding allowances, you are required to pay difference between allowance and invoice cost. Unfortunately we were not aware of this cost during brick selection, however, subcontractor has paid for material and he is entitled to payment. We recommend and approve change order amount of $1,776.00 the difference in invoice cost between allowance of $730/M and actu~1 cost of $776/M for 38,600 brick per 12/4/92 letter. Mark- ups are not approved as an allowance extra. I am copying Keith McDonald regarding the foregoing. Change Order No.5 should be final. Cost items which are not resolved or finaled include gas cost for temporary heat, bonus for completion as adjusted by lost revenue trlru December 30, 1992, freon loss during refrigeration construction, and additional work by plumber and electrician which have been bi I led to owner . • • • • Bob Lambert March I, 1993 Page 2 We are meeting with contractor and your staff on friday 3/5/93 to discuss completion of punch I ists, problems, and mechanical and refrigeration systems. Please cal I me with any questions. Very truly yours, DELANO ERICKSON ARCHITECTS ~~ Del Erickson, AlA DDE/se enclosures cc: Keith McDonald Ron Brune CHANGE ORDER AlA DOCUMENT G701 Distribution to: OWNER 0 ARCHITECT 0 CONTRACTOR 0 FIELD 0 OTHER 0 PROJECT: Eden Prairie Comm. Ctr Addition (name, address) 16700 Va I I ey View Road CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: Five (5) Eden Prairie, MN INITIATION DATE: March I, 1993 TO (Contractor): ~hingobee Bui Iders 279 Medina St. N. Loretto, MN 55357 ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: 91 17 CONTRACT FOR: Construction L CONTRACT DATE: May 21, 1992 You are directed to make the follOWing changes in this Contract: No. Item ,AT:~:' ":1 2/4/92 Rev I se fire dampers :t§::t~~~;~J'~',E'i' ,,' ;~~ n:x~~n~~~~~s c~~~7n~ HS7 ',k'c ,v., ;.<J~1,~, ", Add impact clips -cel ling .. ' . '.. .. . ~l2~,'. >.. Cut and cap gas pIpe ' .' -"~~':""":";-;;: ."Caulk control J'olnts', .::,~,~;:", ;-,. '~:":~::f,,,,.,,. ~:~_G'~i'6:,;,·,'F':-Add foam sea I ant . ",,> ' ;';:K::'~M',;'~~{r ' ~~~:~i~o~!:~ :e~2:ounter:f. .il .•. ;'("'O," "' /13/93 Pa i nt ex i st i ng shower ~~~" :'i/15/93 Install thumb turn hardware 'G-16 Add ra I I at mezzan i ne 12/4/92 Total' Insulate PRV exterior in I ieu of interior Brick allowance Add Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Amount $ 350.00 500.00 No change HS Lkr 50.00 HS Lkr 200.00 125.00 200.00 275.00 100.00 200.00 150.00 No change No change 1,776.00 $3,926.00 Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original (Contract Sum) (fiJlririlMrI M'~;i-,(Jn4li<i.rj was. • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ Net change by previously authorized Change Orders ...•...•........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ The (Contract Sum) «(;M~~~dMMn4.{.wGtJ!il) prior to this Change Order was .,........ $ The (Contract Sum) (fiJ./aMle6IIM..f"Wuirl tMtf will be (increased) (UclrU~d) (u!lb(lrI~d) by this Change Order .....................•.......•.............. . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 1,898,200.00 158,242.53 2,056,442.53 3,926.00 2,060,368.50 • • The new (Contract Sum) <'cpi~M~II,MMr,n"fWc;t<is,(),including this Change Order will be , '. $ The Contract Time will be (iW:"t'l9'~ (fd,ori"sM) (unchanged) by ( ) Days. The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is Delano Erickson Architects Shingobee Builders ARCHtTECT CONTRACTOR Address Address By __________________________ __ By ________________________ __ DATE DATE AlA DOCUMENT CiOl CHANCE ORDER • APRil 197A EDITION AIA~· © 1978 THE AMERICI\N INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECT'), li55 NEW YfH!1( AVE .. N.W .. W:\t;HINGT()N. DC lOOO(l December 18, 1992 Authorized: City of Eden Prairie OWNER Addre~s BY ______________________ __ DATE G701-1978 • • • • DEC-4-92 SAT 16 14 December 4, 1992 Delano }~rickson Architects 7415 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Attn: Mr. Del Erickson Re: Eden Prairie Community Center Dear Mr. Erickson: P _ a 1 '&hin~bee dr e DL.-I 2::08 L-I VI (f The following is the incremental cost wilh regard to the brick. The cost of the brick was $.776, the allowance was $.730. 38,600/cach x .046: Subcontractor Overhead, 10%: Subtotal: Subcontractor Profit, S%: Sublotal: Gen1 Contractor Overhead & Profit, 10%: Total: 51,776.00 -11J...QQ 51,953.00 __ 211..00 52,051.00 205.00 52,256.00 Please issue a change order to reflect this change. I apologize for the delay in this. The request was misplaced, and not noticed until invoiced by Steenberg-Watrud. Sincerely, Keith 1. McDonald Vice President KJM/sam cShin,scbcc r>uildcrll. Inc. r.9 S '!c::ina &Icel Po. Be" 6 Lorct.to. 'IN '7iY;7 (612) 4'19·!3CO Ger<;f31 C...",lraclC'r 4. Ccrhftuclion Hene~Cl!)Cnt 4 Dai'3n;Build ( DDD UNDER Il?LEIN Ma ~~ [[J ONOHUE CO. OTl-IER MASONA'r' PROOUClS MAlHOFI'ICE 5205SIA.TEHWV. 169NOQ1H. PlYMCvrn.MN55442 (61%)_ (fAX)05G<)720 ElXllMlloma • 12785 ElX lAKE RQAt)(CO. 1>0. I). ELK mllER. MN 55330 (612) AA.l...a6OO" (fAX) 441-6992 SWANSON BIOS. orner 301 WEST7eTH smea. 3l00MINGTON. MN 5S42O (61%)""""", (fAX) ~97 OA¥.DALE SHOWROOM 3151'HAOl.£f ..AVe. N .• sr. PAULMN 551:28 (61%)~ QUOTATION . , ~. ,. . ~., ':,' . " DATE: 3/16/92 PROJECT: EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY ICE ARENA ADDITION ARCHITECT~ CLUTS, O'BRIEN STROTHER 7520 MARKET PLACE DRIVE "EDEN PRAIRIE, MN"' 55344-·1 ATTN:' . DAN" 0' BRIEN We quote you the following prices of Full Carl?ads (unless otherwise specified) E O. B. __ .:..-_________ _ Freight Allowed to_--'J"-!O=!.!B"..S"'I""T""E'--___________ Subject to acceptance within_.::.3~0 __ days from date. GLEN GERY" ,'" •. ' REDFIELD OXFORD IRONS POT TYPE:. F.B.S ..... 7" ',.' GRADE:-S.W~·· ". MEETS ALL. REQUIREMENTS FOR ASTM C-216 UTILITY (4X4X12) $729/M + Tax -----------.. _--. Prices are based on freight rates now in effect. 'and subject to change without nOlice. Any increase in freight rates 10 be added to above prices. Carload prices subject to tariff minimum rates. This quolation is subject to .t~rms and conditions on the back hereof and which are made part of this quot:uion. ~uotation based on ___ TR.J.AJ.i.U).CAK ___ rate. WUNDER-KLEIN-DONOHUE CO. Minimum carloads _________ lbs. Tariff Jefl' Shea • • • • -MEMORANDUM- TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer ~ FROM: Mary Krause, Project Engineer ~~ DATE: March 11, 1993 SUBJECT: Agency Construction Agreement with MnDOT for Fairfield West Sanitary Sewer The Centex Corporation currently is developing the Fairfield West area. Part of the utility work involved with this project is a sanitary sewer crossing under the .. : .!> proposed TH-212 alignment. Requirements to serve the project area for sanitary sewer call for installation of the pipe at minimum grades and depths. This profile of the sanitary sewer intersects the proposed profile of TH-212. The sanitary sewer designed this way would need to be relocated at the time of TH-212 construction. Centex Corporation and MnDOT have recognized that a preferred alternative to this would be to design and build the sanitary sewer at depths accommodating TH-212 construction now. To accomplish this, plans and cost estimates have been prepared for the sanitary sewer installation of depths accommodating TH-212 construction. MnDOT has agreed to participate in paying for the costs associated with the deeper sanitary sewer installation in the amount of $14,555.00 through a Construction Agreement with the City. The City will, in turn, agree to credit Centex Corporation for the same amount, based on actual final quantities for this work. MK:ssa Dsk:CC.MNDOT.AGR CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 93- AGENCY CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR FAIRFIELD WEST SANITARY SEWER WHEREAS, it will be of future benefit to MnDOT to construct the sanitary sewer between Fairfield West, and the MWCC interceptor at an elevation below future TIl 212 elevations; and WHEREAS, an Agency Construction Agreement has been prepared which identifies the financial obligations of MnDOT for constructing the sanitary sewer at a lower elevation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that said Agency Construction Agreement is hereby approved and the Mayor, Director • of Public Works, Director of Finance and City Attorney are authorized to execute • the agreement on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on March 16, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • 405 • • • Prepared by Utilities Agreements Unit Payable ($14,555.00) ,-1-' • ...: •.. --". _ '.1.:"""':" .. _~_ S.P. 2762-08 (T.R. 212) T.H. 212 between Dell Road and Co. Rd. 4 in Eden Prairie -Agreement No. 70573 AGENCY CONSTRUCITON AGREEMENT TIllS AGREEMENT. made by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation hereinafter referred to as the "State", acting by and through its Commissioner of Transportation and the City of Eden Prairie hereinafter referred to as the "City"; and WHEREAS, the State is proposing construction of future T.R. 212 between Dell Road and County Road 4 in Eden Prairie, and the City is proposing to construct a sanitary sewer; and WHEREAS. it will be of future benefit to the State to have the sanitary sewer main constructed at a lower elevation than originally planned to accommodate future T.H. 212 construction by the State; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to allow the City's developer to connect the sanitary sewer to the City sewer system; and WHEREAS, the City's extra cost of said lowering of sanitary sewer installation is in the amount of Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Five and No/IOO Dollars ($14,555.00); and The City agrees to submit to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) the plans and specifications for the construction or reconstruction of its sanitary sewer .. Agreement No. 70573 facilities covered by this agreement and to obtain, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 115.07, subd. 1 and Minn. Rules pt. 7001.1030, subps. 1 and 2C, either a pennit or written waiver from the MPCA for that work to be perfonned by others pursuant to this contract. When MPCA issues that pennit or waiver, the City will promptly furnish the Minnesota Department of Transportation a copy of that permit or waiver so that the work may be performed by the developer's contractor. The City is advised that pursuant to Minn. Rules pt. 7001.1040 a written application for the pennit or waiver must be submitted to the MPCA at least 180 days before the planned date of the sanitary sewer facility construction or reconstruction. WHEREAS, the City has requested reimbursement of said Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Five and No/IOO Dollars ($14,555.00) for the extra cost encountered; and • WHEREAS, State law requires a' written agreement between the State and the • City setting forth their separate responsibilities in accomplishing the agency construction work; and PLAN CHANGES If a change in plan or character of work is required to complete the construction work satisfactorily, the City and the State or their authorized representatives shall agree to such change before entering into a supplement to the Developers construction contract. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by the parties hereto as follows: -2-• " .... Agreement No. 70573 • SECTION I The Developer's contractor will complete the construction of the sanitary sewer and connect to the City's sanitary sewer system. SECTION II That the extra value of the sanitary sewer work performed by the Developer is in the sum of Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Five and No/IOO Dollars ($14.555.00) and that the State will receive the benefit of said construction and will be enriched thereby to the extent of said sum. SECTION III -PLANS AND ESTIMATES Attached hereto. marked Exhibit A and made a part hereof. are comprehensive • and detailed plans for the Agency Construction Work. The Agency Construction work is to be constructed in accordance with Exhibit A. Also attached. marked Exhibit B and made a part hereof is an estimate of the costs for the agency construction portion of the project. The final amount due the City by the State will be based on the necessary final quantities as agreed upon by the City and the State. SECTION IV -MISCELLANEOUS Staking Location and Elevation. Within the limits of the proposed trunk highway right of way, the Developer shall stake the location and elevation of the proposed facility, and such location and elevation shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the actual construction. • -3- Agreement No. 70573 Bad.fIlling. All sanitary sewer installations within the proposed future roadways shall be completed in advance of the highway contractor's operations. In backfilling the excavation, there shall be no substitution for material removed unless specifically authorized by the City Engineer. Rejected material shall be disposed of outside. the proposed highway right of way as directed by the City Engineer. All material replaced in the excavation shall be properly mechanically compacted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Drainage and slopes shall be satisfactorily restored. : Indemnification The City will indemnify, save and hold hannless the State and all of its agents and employees of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, or causes of action of whatsoever nature or character arising out of or by reason of the perfonnance or nonperfonnance of the inspection to be perfonned by the City and further agrees to defend at its own sale cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising hereunder by virtue of the perfonnance or nonperfonnance of the inspection to be perfonned by the City. Approved bv Council. Before this Agreement becomes binding and effective, it shall be approved by resolution of the City Council and shall also receive the approval of such State offices as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation. -4- • • • .' • • • S.P. 2762-08 Agreement No. 70573 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Agreement by their duly authorized officers and caused their respective seals to be hereunto affixed. (CITY SEAL) By ____________________ __ Mayor By ____________________ __ City Director of Public Works By ____________________ ___ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recommended for Approval: District Engineer Director, Pre-Letting Services Section Approved as to fonn and execution: Special Assistant Attorney General State of Minnesota -5- CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Director of Finance By ____________________ _ By ____________________ __ City Attorney By ____________________ ___ STATE OF MINNESOTA Commissioner of Transportation By ____________________ __ Director, Office of Technical Support Approved: Commissioner of Administration By ____________________ __ Authorized Signature .. , Description -.. _----.. -- 8" PVC 24'-26' Deep Less 14'-16' 8" PVC 26'-28' Deep Less 14'-16' Dewatering For Pipe Installation Extra Depth Manhole Construct Drop Section S.P. 2762-08 (T.H. 212) Agreement No. 70573 EXHIBIT B Estimated Unit Quantity LF 225 LF 255 LF 480 LF 10 LF 3.7 Unit Price 12.00 13.00 15.00 60.00 200.od· Total Agency Costs Plus 10% Contingency Total -6- y \\ • Amount 2,700.00 3,315.00 7,200.00 600.00 140.00 $14,555~'OO 1.456.00 $16,011.00 • • • • • -MEMORANDUM- TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician DATE: March 11, 1993 SUBJECT: After-the-Fact Grading Permit for Bent Creek Golf Course The Bent Creek Golf Club is requesting City Council approval of an after-the-fact grading permit to allow the regrading of their practice range. Late last fall the golf club began regrading their practice range to lengthen the existing range, realign the direction of ball flight away from the abutting Village Greens Townhomes, and to add additional tees and practice areas. When the City was made aware of the golf course grading without a permit, the Engineering Department contacted Robert Larson to install erosion control measures to protect adjoining properties from sediment impacts. The Engineering Department began working with Robert Larson, to develop a plan to correct an existing drainage flooding problem within the Village Greens Townhomes immediately adjacent to the driving range. The plan that was developed involves construction of a diversionary berm to intercept and hold drainage within the driving range and installation of a small diameter outlet pipe to control the rate of runoff leaving the driving range and golf course site and outletting to the Village Greens Townhomes. Robert Larson will be at the March 16, 1993 City Council meeting to present the project and be available to answer any questions that the City Council may have. Recommend approval of an after-the-fact grading permit for Bent Creek Golf Course provided the golf course obtain a grading permit from the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District and agree to complete construction of and maintain a storm water detention facility to control the rate storm water is discharged toward Village Greens Townhomes. JJ:ssa Dsk:CC.BENT-CRK • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. Riverview Heights 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 RI-22 District and be placed in the RI-13.5 District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the RI-22 District and shall be included hereafter in the RI-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions ofland in • each District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation n and Section 11.99, nViolation a Misdemeanor n are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of March 16, 1993, entered into between Hustad Development, a Minnesota Corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, and that certain Owner's Supplement to Developer's Agreement, between Brown Enterprises, a Minnesota Partnership, and the City of Eden Prairie, dated as of March 16, 1993, which Agreement and Owner's Supplement are hereby made a part hereof. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 8th day of December, 1992, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 16th day of March, 1993. ATTEST: .ohn D. Frane, City Clerk Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on -------------------------- Exhibit "A" LEGA'L' OEseR I PT ION: . Trlcts ~, C Ind L through Q, Regllt,red Land Sur"y No. 5~7, Hann.pln County. Mlnn.sota; And 1hit p,rt of tn, soutn 1/2 Of the Northelst l/~ of Siction 35,' TONnshl1' 116. Range 22. Hennepin County. Hlnn.lo11. Mhtch 11ta south of Rlvlrylew Ro.~. N.st of Trlct ~ Reglster.d L.nd Survey No. 5~7. "st of Trlct a, Registered land SUrvey No. 547 Ind northe,sterly of Tracts M Ind N, Reg lat.r.d Lind survey No. 5 .. 7. ' . . .. • • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS OF ORDINANCE NO. AND ORDERING TIlE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, an Ordinance was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 8th day of December, 1992 and continued on the 19th day of January, 1993; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of that Ordinance, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than • non-pareil, or six-point type, as defined in Minnesota Statute, Section 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during • regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on March 16, 1993. ATTEST: Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor John D. Frane, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Riverview Heigh. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFRERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at South of Riverview Road, from the RI-22 to Rl-13.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. • ATTEST: lsi John D. Frane City Clerk IslDouglas B. Tenpas Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the ________ _ (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) • • DEVELOPER'S AGREElVlENT RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of March 16, 1993, by Hustad Development, a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for PUD Concept Review, PUD District Review, Rezoning from R1-22 to R1-13.5 and Preliminary Plat into 19 single family lots and one outlot for construction of 19 single family homes, all on 11.00 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No._-_, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. • PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials reviewed and approved by the City Council on January 19, 1993, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein . • 2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. STREET, UTILITY, EROSION CONTROL, PLANS: Prior to release by the City of any final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems, storm sewer, and erosion control for the Property. In lieu of preparing plans, Developer may petition for public improvements. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. LAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND TREE REPLACEMENT: Prior to any construction or development on the Property, Developer agrees to apply to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a land alteration permit for the Property. Tree loss is calculated at 25 % or 1114 inches. Tree replacement is 370 inches. Developer agrees to implement the tree replacement plan concurrent with site development as depicted on Exhibit B . 5. STORM WATER QUALITY, CONSTRUCTION OF STORM SEWER & PONDS: The. storm sewer piping and ponding areas shall be finally designed and generally conformed to Exhibit B (attached). These features are all subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and shall generally include the following features: • The storm sewer for the project shall be designed for the critical "IOO-year storm event" . • The ponding area shall be designed to "NURP" design standards and sized for the full drainage area tributary to it, including this development. The hydraulic capacity of the pond shall be based on the 100 year storm event. Treatment capacity may be evaluated based on a 10 year storm event. • The staging plan for construction of the ponding area and storm sewer shall be finally approved by the City Engineer and shall be strictly adhered to. This shall include qualified inspection on the job site during all controlling aspects of construction and grading. • A 15 inch storm sewer is generally shown on Exhibit B along the east boundary common to the Property and a parcel known as the Schlamp property shall be constructed at the sole expense of the developer. This shall include catch basins in Riverview Road and full restoration. This work shall be closely coordinated with the City to allow past erosion problems on the Schlamp property to b~ corrected at the City'S expense concurrently with the construction of the stor~ sewer for the project. • As shown on Exhibit B and to the extent permissible by regulatory agencies, the developer shall create the ditching necessary for the outfall of the pond to occur on the westerly alignment. 6. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL DESIGN & IMPLEMENTATION: The developer recognizes the sensitivity of the soil type and slope configuration and hereby agrees to the following: • The bounding amount for the land alteration permit has been determined to be $100,000.00 • Four inches of top soil shall be provided for all disturbed areas of the project site. Top soil borrow shall be provided if salvaged topsoil is insufficient. • As depicted on Exhibit B, wood fiber blanket shall be used in restoration on all 3: 1 or steeper slopes shown --subject to the final approval of the City Engineer. • The balance of disturbed areas on the construction site shall include a netting (to be approved by the City Engineer) in addition to seed and mulch. • • • • • The grading, stonn sewer and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the lower Minnesota Watershed District for their review and approval prior to final approval of the plans by the City Engineer. • Prior to building pennit issuance, on each individual lot, the developer and/or home builder shall cause to be designed an individual grading and restoration and erosion control plan for each home site. The restoration shall show, at a minimum, all disturbed areas fully sodded, no seeding being a1lowed. In addition, silt fence, hay bale check dams and interim seeding will be reviewed on a case by case basis for the home sites. 7. ACCESS TO LOT 8, CONSTRUCTION OFDRIVEW A Y ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY: The City of Eden Prairie agrees to grant a easement for access to Lot 8 of the property, but subject to the following conditions: • At some point in the future, if the City determines to build a street on the City owned property over which this driveway shall be constructed, the easement shall be extinguished upon the reconstruction and relocation of the driveway to take access from the new street facility.· • The easement shall be conditioned to allow the City owned property to be utilized for a trailway for access to the low lying area adjacent to the Minnesota River. The City will construct a trail or sidewalk adjacent to and east of the driveway. The exact location of the sidewalk shall be field verified and approved by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources . • The developer, property owner and/or homebuilder shall coordinate the use of the City owned property for access to Williams Pipe Line facility. This could include a shared construction of the driveway in which Williams Pipe Line could choose to increase the design thickness to minimize the future disruption of the facility during use by their company or authorized agents. In the alternative, the easement shall recognize that Williams might be allowed by the City to take access through this City owned property and repair any damage that may be created. Further, the driveway shall be designed either with curb and gutter or with an "inverted crown" to channel the water to the storm sewer system and thereby minimize erosion damage. 8. CONSERV ANCY EASEMENTS: Prior to release of the final plat, Developer shall provide the City with evidence of recording of a conservancy easement where shown on Exhibit B. The conditions of such conservancy easements shall be as described in Exhibit D. Said conservancy easements shall also be depicted as utility and drainage easements on the final plat. 9. COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS: Prior to release of a final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit to and obtain the City's approval of covenants and restrictions, regulating stonn water run-off and erosion control over Lots 4-12, Block I as depicted in Exhibit B. Covenants and restrictions shall require all structures to have roof gutter systems which connected to stonn sewers adjacent each lot. CONSERVATION/SCENIC EASEMENT • THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT, made this 16th day of March, 1993, by and between Hustad Development, a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "grantor," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City"; WHEREAS, Grantor is the fee owner of land located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said land hereinafter referred to as "the Property"; and, WHEREAS, Grantor has marketable title to the Property, free and clear of all liens, mortgage, and encumbrances, except: WHEREAS, Grantor has platted the Property into a subdivision entitled Riverview Heights; and, WHEREAS, Grantor and City wish to enter into an agreement which will grant to City a conservancy/scenic easement for conservation and preservation of the terrain and vegetation, and to prohibit certain destructive acts thereon, over that portion of the subdivision as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises contained herein, it is agreed by the parties as follows: • 1. Grantor hereby conveys to City and its successors and assigns an easement in, under, on, and over the conservancy/scenic easement area, hereinafter referred to as "the easement area, Ii and City hereby accepts such conveyance. 2. The following terms and conditions shall apply to the easement area: A. B. C. D. E. The easement area shall be preserved predominantly in its natural condition. No trees, shrubs, or other vegetation shall be planted upon the easement area and no trees, shrubs, or other vegetation shall be removed from the easement area without the prior written consent of the City. No building, road, sign, billboard, utility, or other man-made structure shall be placed in the easement area without the prior written consent of City. No trash, waste, or other offensive material, soil, or landfill shall be placed upon or within the easement area without the prior written consent of the City. No change in the general topography of the easement area landscape, including, but not limited, to excavation, dredging, movement, or removal of soil, shall be allowed without the prior written consent of the City. The duration of the easement is perpetual. • • • • 3. F. With respect to the easement area, Developer represents and warrants as follows: 1) That Developer has not used, employed, deposited, stored, disposed of, placed or otherwise allowed to come in or on the easement area, any hazardous substance, hazardous waste, pollutant, or contaminant, including, but not limited to, those defined in or pursuant to 42 U.S.C. SS 9601, et. seq., or Minn. Stat., Sec. U5B.Ol, et. seq. (such substances, wastes, pollutants, and contaminants hereafter referred to as "Hazardous Substances"); 2) That to the best of Developer's knowledge, Developer has not allowed any other person to use, employ, deposit, store, dispose of, place or otherwise have, in or on the easement area, any Hazardous Substances; 3) That to the best of Developer's knowledge, no previous owner, operator or possessor of the easement area, deposited, stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise allowed in or on the easement area any Hazardous Substances; Developer agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City, against any and all loss, costs, damage and expense, including reasonable attorneys fees and costs, resulting from or due to the release or threatened release of Hazardous Substances which were, or are claimed or alleged to have been, used, employed, deposited, stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise located or allowed to be located, in or on the easement area by Developer, its employees, agents, contractors or representatives. Grantor agrees to maintain the easement area subject to the provisions stated herein. 4. This easement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties, their successors, and assigns. 5. Nothing contained herein shall impair any right of City now held or hereafter acquired to construct or maintain public utilities in or on the easement area. OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS • THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of March 16, 1993, by and between Brown Enterprises, a Minnesota partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF EDEJ.~ PRAIRIE, hereinafter referred to as "City": For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance No. _-_, changing the zoning of the Property owned by Owner from the Rl-22 District to the Rl-13.5 District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of March 16, 1993, by and between Hustad Development, a Minnesota Corporation, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. 2. 3. If Hustad Development, fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the rezoning of the Property to the Rural District. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the Property. • If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. • .-illibit "A" LEGA'L" OEseR I PT ION: . Tracts ~, ClAd L tnrouv~ Q, R8g,,1Irtd Land Sur'IY Ho. 5~7, Henn.pln County. Mlnnls01a: And 1h.t p~rt of tn. soutn 1/2 ot th. Horthta,t l/~ of Siction 35, TONnshlp 116. Range 22. Hlnnepln County. Htnnaao1a. whIch Ires louth of Rlvlrvl.w ROI~t MIst of Tract ~ Aegls1lr.d Land Survey No. 5~7. ..st at Trlct a, Re;lstlrtd land SUrvey No. 5~7 and northeasterly of Tracts M and '" R.g I starld Lind Survey Ho. 5 .. 7, " . . .. • • • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MlNNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. CARMODY VILLAGE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CARMODY VILLAGE FOR CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Carmody Village for Centex Real Estate Corporation dated February 19, 1993, consisting of 27.2 acres, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 16th day of March, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. CARMODY VILLAGE A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPl\1ENT CONCEPT OF CARMODY VILLAGE FOR CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION 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 Carmody Village PUD Concept by Centex Real Estate Corporation 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 March 16, 1993; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1993. 1. Carmody Village by Centex Real Estate Corporation, 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 February 19, 1993. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated February 22, 1993. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of March, Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • • • Exhibit A • Carmody Village • • L~G,4L DESCRIP TION Tr::ct A: T.~e Scuthwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15. Township 116. Range 22. Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part of said Southwest Quarter of the Scutlieast Quarter lying northeasterly end nortlierly of the following described line: CCr.1r.1enc:'ng at the northeast corner of said Southwest Cuarter of the Southeast Cuerter; thence North BB deqrees 57 minutes 00 seconds West, assumed bearing along the north line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter. a distance of 7020.00 feet, to the point of beginning of the line to be cescr/bed; thence South 35 deqrees 39 minutes 29 seconds East. a distance of 7211.52 feet; thence South 88 degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds Eest. a dist::nce of 3eO.00 feet to tl7e east line of said Southwest Quarter of the Scu theast Quarter and said line there terminating. Cutlot A. DEER CREEK TWO, acccrding to the plat of record thereof, Hennepin C.;un ry. Minnesota. ( STAFF REPORT TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: FEE OWNER: LOCATION: REQUEST: (- Planning Commission Chris Enger, Director of Community Development Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner February 19, 1993 Carmody Village Centex Homes Thomas and Grace Carmody North of Anderson Lakes Parh."Way at the Carmody Drive Intersection 1. PUD Concept Review on 27.15 acres 2. PUD District Review on 27.15 acres 3. Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 4. Preliminary Plat of 27.15 acres into 18 lots and 4 outlots and Street Right-of-Way • • • • • Staff Report Cannody Village February 19, 1993 BACKGROUND This site is guided Medium Density Residential on approximately 20 acres and Public Open Space on approximately 7 acres. According to the Guide Plan, up to 400 units would be possible on this site. PUD CONCEPT The PUD Concept depicts 18 buildings totaling 184 units on 27.15 acres at a density of 6.78 units per acre. The RM-6.5 Zoning District has a maximum density of 6.7 units per acre. This is a Planned Unit District Review waiver. If consideration is given to a transfer of density off the flood plain which is not buildable, then the waiver seems reasonable. Waivers are required for building setback from the Public Street to 25 feet. The setback to 25 feet is only at the comer of the buildings and the average setback exceeds the 30 foot minimum requirement in the RM-6.5 Zoning District. A waiver is also required for private street A. Historically, the City has permitted private streets in multiple family projects as part of Planned Unit Developments. Due to the private road, nine of the proposed buildings, fronting on the private street will not have frontage on a public street which is a waiver from the City requirement. A public road could be built, however, it would spread buildings farther apart and encroach into the wooded slopes adjacent to Purgatory Creek on land to be dedicated to the City. All of the lots meet the minimum dimensional and square footage requirements of the RM-6.5 Zoning District except the comer lots which are less than the 90 feet required by code. The plan code be revised to meet this requirement but would result in unusual shapes to the lots which would make building contractors with setbacks more difficult. Since the site plan saves site features and density is low, this waiver is reasonable. SITE PLAN -PRELThflNARY PLAT The parking requirements for mUltiple family units are two spaces per unit with one enclosed or a total of 368 spaces. Some of the units have double car garages and some of the units are single car garages. When a parking space blocks a garage space, the City gives a 25 % credit for the parking space outside because the garage space is technically obstructed. The parking credit for this project is 2.5 spaces for a double car garage and driveway and 1.25 credit spaces for a single car garage and driveway. This would provide 299 parking spaces. On the site plan there are an additional 69 free standing parking spaces which brings the total up to 368 parking spaces. 2 GRADING This site can be characterized as having an upper area adjacent to Anderson Lakes Parkway and a lower area adjacent to Chestnut Drive. The upper area adjacent to Anderson Lakes Parkway will be cut approximately 7 feet across the entire area while the lower area near Chestnut Drive would be filled approximately 7 feet. Grading on this project is concentrated in areas away from the steep slopes adjacent to Purgatory Creek. The amount of tree loss is 243 inches or 4 % • There are 6,940 inches on this site most of which is preserved adjacent to Purgatory Creek on the 6.8 acres of land proposed for Park dedication. SHORELAND ORDINANCE This site is adjacent to Purgatory Creek which is classified as a general development water. The shoreland area is defined as 300 feet of the center line of the creek, or the land would extend to the flood plain. The project meets the requirements of the shoreland ordinance. PURGATORY CREEK MASTER PLAN In 1975 the City commissioned a study of Purgatory Creek in Eden Prairie. As a result of the study, several development lines were identified including the 100 year Flood Plain where no building could occur; a conservancy line where no building should occur, and the transition area • where you could build, but building must be located in such a way as to preserve site features. • The preliminary plat drawing indicates that by heavy doted line the conservancy area. The conservancy area is generally everything north and east of this line. No building or grading is proposed within this area. The remainder of the site is within the transition area which is a build with care area. Since the buildings have been clustered, the impact on the land is minimal. A measure of this would be the fact that tree loss is only 4 %. LANDSCAPING-TRANSITION The amount of landscaping requirement is based upon a caliper inch requirement according to building square footage and transition to the lower density single family areas across Anderson Lakes Parkway to the south and west of the project. The plan as proposed meets the minimum caliper inch requirement according to building square footage, however, the landscaping along Anderson Lakes Parkway must be modified in order to provide a better transition. Attachment A indicated where additional shade and conifer trees of larger sizes should be planted which will help the transition. Tree plantings must be located so as not to block sites at driveways or street intersections. ARCHITECTURE A typical building elevation has been submitted to give an idea as to the height, shape and mass of the building. Since there are four unit, eight unit, ten unit, and twelve unit buildings, there 3 • • • • will be some variety in size of the buildings. Because of the number of units in the project, the Staff would suggest that an exterior material board and color scheme be developed for the project. There should be a minimum of four different material and color schemes. This will add visual interest and variety to the project. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS AND PARK DEDIC A TION The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department is recommending five foot wide concrete wide sidewalks on one side of the public street through the project. In addition, 6.87 acres of land primarily on the east side of Purgatory Creek would be dedicated to the City. STORM WATER OUALITY -WETLAND MITIGATION Storm water runoff will be routed through a NURP pond on the very north end of the project prior to discharge into Purgatory Creek. A wetland mitigation area is also proposed for filling a small wetland area on the northwest side of the public street within the project. UTILITIES Sewer and water service is available to this site and will be extended along public street A to serve the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the request for PUD Concept Review on 27.15 acres, PUD District Review on 27.15 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 27.15 acres and Preliminary Plat of 27.15 acres into 18 lots and 4 outlots and road right-of-way based on plans dated February 19, 1993 and subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent shall: A. Provide landscape plan revisions according to Attachment A. B. Provide an exterior materials board and color scheme of at least four different types. 2. Prior to final plat, the proponent shall: A. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility and storm water runoff plans by the City Engineer. Provide detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review 4 3. Apply for and receive a building height variance from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. 4. PUD waviers are approved as follows: A. Density from 6.7 to 6.78 units/acre. B. Front yard setback from 30-25 feet. c. A private street. D. Street frontage less than 90 feet for a comer lot. E. Lots frontage on a private street without public street frontage. 5 • • • • -' .--.'-~. :-... -$.: ...... ( .... ~ .. .-' -. -.... '~';.'~'- \ "' " ' . ,\ ' .. -" ." . .:.- Monument. , in a Low Shrub Bed, ,,\ ') med by Overstory oeciduous ;!s and Flanked by'Red.~e • . . ',' ';-./. " .. -:'" .... -.,\ .- • , I (~ ....... " .. ','" ". TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission ·---.Mayor and City Council Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect February 26, 1993 Supplemental Staff Report to February 19, 1993 Planning Staff Report for Carmody Village Issues on not covered in the Planning Staff Report are as follows: PARK DEDICATION: Approximately 6.78 acres of land will be dedicated to the City as a requirement of development in lieu of cash park fees. This land encompasses part of the Purgatory Creek valley and City ownership will protect the steep slopes, vegetation and character of the creek Valley. Creek • corridor trails will also be located through this property. The dedicated land includes a beautiful • oak knoll overlooking the Purgatory Creek Recreation area on the southeast side of the creek. This knoll has the potential for a small parking lot to serve as a trail access into the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. ACCESS TO PURGATORY CREEK RECREATION AREA FROM THE WEST SIDE: An access point to the Purgatory Creek Recreation area from the west side has always been a part of the overall master plan for the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. The access point would include a parking lot to accommodate six cars and a trail connection to the loop trail through the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. The developers of this site have agreed to grade a parking lot on the north end of their property to accommodate six cars. Outlot C will then be dedicated to the City to allow ownership of the parking lot. The property owners have indicated an intent to donate Tract B sometime in the future. RECOMlVIENDATION: The parks, recreation and natural resources staff recommend approval of this project based on the Planning Staff Report and this supplemental memo. BPC:mdd carmody/barb • \~Jrt~~(b~~ ~~ ~ IIIQn .. ' Y : ~ ~ "U"~...--=---)( ~-----=--- '-........ ....... ..... Trall- >. B Car Parking-... \ \ -~ --.......0, '\\ '. . , \ j\ '*. II. ,---------------------Park Entry --------------Trail .------20 Car Parking ./ '- Concept Plan .-:r ("6 -r Purgatory Creek Recreation Area Entry ."':--1."'9" 6-r - _ I lJr-;:===::::~\ no"h ':..:..-OJ 'x ." 0.:....- \. MEMORANDUM: TO: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner AI Gray, City Engineer DATE: February 24, 1993 SUBJECT: Traffic Study Information on Carmody Village Based upon input from the neighborhood regarding traffic impacts on Carmody Lane, the Planning Commission asked the City Staff to review in more detail on how traffic from the Carmody Village project would effect surrounding roadways especially Carmody Drive. Attachment A represents a 1991 traffic count map from the Engineering Department. This map indicates traffic flows on major collector roads serving the area such as Anderson Lakes Parkway, Mitchell Road and Staring Lake Parkway. No traffic numbers are available for any of the adjoining smaller residential streets. • The Carmody proposal is 184 units. At 10 trips per day, this would be 1840 trips or 184 cars • in the peak hour in the morning and in the evening. If this project was developed at the maximum density allowed according to the Guide Plan (10 units per acre) 2700 trips per day would be possible, 270 trips would be peak hour. The road connection between Chestnut Drive and Anderson Lakes Parkway, allows some of the traffic to travel in alternative directions to and from the site. Since this site is approximately half way between Mitchell Road and Anderson Lakes Parkway, approximately 50% of the traffic would go towards Mitchell Road and 50% of the traffic would go towards 169 during the peak hour. Neighborhood residents expressed concern about the amount of traffic on Carmody Drive. Carmody Drive is a minor residential collector road with 60 feet of right-of-way and 32 foot road surface. This is slightly larger than the typical residential street which is 28 feet wide. Carmody Drive is designed to carry traffic out of the immediate surrounding neighborhoods onto the major collector roads serving the area. It is difficult to assign how much of the traffic at any point during the day out of the Carmody Project to Carmody Drive. A destination point in this area would be the park facilities at Staring Lake. The most direct route to Staring Lake would be to take Anderson Lakes Parkway to Staring Lake Parkway. A less direct route would be to take Carmody Drive or Cumberland through the adjoining residential neighborhoods to Mitchell Road to Staring Lane. Since Staring Lake is not a major destination such as a work trip or a commercial trip, we might expect only 1 • • • • a small number of vehicles from Carmody Village to utilize Carmody Drive between ALP and Mitchell Road. The neighborhood suggested alternatives such as offsetting Carmody Drive from the Carmody Village Projects with existing Carmody Drive. The offset intersection may be characterized as follows: • The offset design increases conflict points along Anderson Lakes Parkway reducing overall safety. • There is no reason to believe the offset design will reduce traffic volume of Carmody Drive between ALP and Mitchell Road. • The offset design will impair future use of traffic control such as signalization. The Planning Commission suggested deceleration and acceleration lanes at the Carmody Drive entrance. Between Mitchell Road and Flying Cloud Drive, there are no deceleration or acceleration lanes. Anderson Lakes Parkway is 36 feet wide. If a car is making a left hand tum, there should be sufficient room to by-pass that vehicle. Sight vision distance is considered acceptable, however it will be important that any of the plant materials put within the front yard areas be set back far enough from the intersection so as not to create a blockage of the site lines. This will be accomplished by City Staff working with Centex stake plant materials to allow proper vision. Since the amount of units being proposed on this property is approximately 113 less than what is possible according to the guide plan, that major destination points for AM and PM traffic will be Mitchell Road and Flying Cloud Drive, that there are multiple ways of getting to Staring Lake, suggest that the traffic increases on Carmody Drive will be minimal . 2 Flying Cloud Airport M. A. C. 4L CREYflElD CT. .z. PENDLETON CT. 43. BRITTANT WAT 44. EDIHBURGH ClR. 45. COLONY CT. 46. HOPORT DR. . 47. BROWNFARIoI ClR. 48. SALOl CT. '9. BRANCHING HORN 50. DEVCNS~[RE PL. 5L WlIABLEDON CT. • • • . . 1 Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Monday, March 1, 1993 F. Carmody Subdivision Cross explained that this is a PUD for multiple family units. Dan Blake from Centex reviewed the development plans. Centex is proposing 184 two-story town home units on 27 acres. They have agreed to dedicate 6.87 acres as parkland in lieu of park fees, and have an area for a small parking lot, either as an easement or dedication to the City. There will be a 4% tree loss and a lot of landscaping in the transition area from single family homes to the townhomes. A discussion followed regarding the collective ponds, run off and build up over the years, and Lambert stated that City Engineering has accepted these plans, and the Watershed District must approve them prior to final approval. Kube-Harderwijk questioned what the houses would be sold for, and Blake stated his guess would be mid-$60,000 to low-$70,000 for the smaller units, and approximately $90,000 for the larger units. This project is very much geared toward first time home buyers . In response to Brown's question regarding the one exit to Anderson Parkway, Blake responded that the neighbors are somewhat concerned about traffic in that area, but the City has assured him that the site is not going to have a significant impact on traffic. 400 units would be allowed on this site, but they are proposing only 184 units. Lambert commented that there will actually be two exits from the project, and Blake confirmed that there would be an exit to Anderson Parkway and another street connecting to Chestnut, and indicated that the City Staff will be preparing additional information on the streets. Blake also confirmed that a sidewalk will connect to the Anderson Lakes Parkway sidewalk. Richard raised a question regarding the parking lot. Lambert explained that the majority of people coming into Purgatory Creek Conservation Area will be pedestrian, that those people driving to the trail would have a six-car parking lot and on-street parking on Chestnut Trail, and that the parking lot will have trail connection to the Purgatory Creek trail. Lambert commented that this is the first time land would be taken in lieu of park fees. Carmody has also indicated they will, at some time in the future, gift additional land to the City as part of the Purgatory Creek area. This is not 8 Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Monday, March 1, 1993 a requirement, but the creek valley and oak knoll areas would be a great addition to the Purgatory Creek Conservation Area and worth much more than the park fees. MOTION: Kracum moved to recommend approval of the Carmody Village subdivision as per Planning Staff recommendations of February 18, 1993, as supplemented by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission recommendation of February 26, 1993. Motion seconded by Kube-Harderwijk an passed 7-0. VI. OLD BUSINESS None. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Revisions to Floodplain Regulations Cross reviewed the memorandum of February 17, 1993, regarding revisions to the Flood Plains Regulation and indicated it is an overall restructuring of the format. MOTION: Hilgeman moved to recommend approval of the Flood Plains Revisions to the City Council. Motion seconded by Richard and passed 7-0. B. School District Lease of Community Center Lock Room Lambert reviewed and summarized the February 19, 1993, memorandum and lease agreement. Kracum indicated it is a well written lease. Motion: Richard moved to recommend approval of the School District Lease Agreement for the Community Center Locker Room. Hilgeman seconded and motion passed 7-0. C. Election of Commission Chair and Vice-Chair for 1993-1994 Richard stated that he wanted to commend everyone on their excellent 9 • • • • • • FREEBURG/PERKINS/FELTL ADDmON CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FREEBURG/PERKINS/FELTL ADDITION FOR FREEBURG/PERKINS/FELTL BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl Addition for Freeburg/Perkins/FeltI dated and revised February 17, 1993, consisting of 3 acres, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 16th day of March, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk ( STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: TIIROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: FEE OWNERS: LOCATION: REQUEST: ( Planning Commission Donald R. Uram, Planner Chris Enger, Director of Planning February 19, 1993 Freeburg/Perkins/Felt1 Addition Freeburg/Perkins/F eltl Pearl Freeburg, Clayton Freeburg and Jim and Raynell Perkins 7010 Willow Creek Road 1. Preliminary Plat of approximately 3 acres into 3 single family lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. LOCATION MAP • • • • • • Staff Report Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl Addition February 19, 1993 BACKGROUNDnllSTORY Please refer to the Staff Reports to the Planning Commission dated June 10, 1988 and May 19, 1989 for information regarding the background and history of the proposed project. CURRENT STATUS The proponents are requesting the resubdivision of the approved RLS into 3 single family lots. The purpose of their request is to allow for the reconfiguration of the lot lines from the previously approved proposal to meet their current site planning needs. Resolution No. 89-41, dated June 16, 1989, approved the registered land survey for the Freeburg/Perkins Addition. The Developer's Agreement dated May 1, 1990 outlined the specific Developer responsibilities for the implementation of the approved RLS. As part of the 1989 review process, the Board of Appeals denied the requested variances at the July 17th meeting. The proponent appealed the Board's decision and the City Council approved the appeal at the August 1, 1989 meeting . Based on these City'S actions, the approved RLS for three lots is currently in effect. Although the proponent did not file the RLS with Hennepin County, the proponent has the legal right to file the RLS. All variances that were approved related specifically to the approved RLS. City code requires that all variances be used within a one year time period or they become null and void. With the City approval of the RLS, these variances have been used within the one year time limitation. If the proponent were to file the previously approved RLS and requested a building permit in accordance with the previous approval and the Developer's Agreement, the City would be obligated to issue. In summary, there is an approved RLS which subdivides RLS 1371 into three buildable lots. Tract B of the previous approval is a buildable lot and a building permit could be requested. The proponent has not decided to proceed with the filing of the RLS because they feel that the current request is an improvement. CURRENT PROPOSAL The current proposal includes the resubdivision of the approved RLS into three new lots. These lots range in size from a minimum of 31,600 sq. ft to a maximum of 54,200 sq. ft. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the RI-22 Zoning District with the exception of frontage 2 starr Report Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl Addition February 19, 1993 on a public street. The reconfigured lot lines are oriented in a north-south direction to better utilize the visual aspects of the Bryant Lake and the existing slopes on the property. With this development, the proponents are proposing to remodel both existing homes. As part of the project, the driveway to access Lot 1 which currently runs in front of the existing home on Lot 2 will be relocated along the north property line. The relocation of this driveway provides direct access to Lot 1 and to Lot 2 when Lot 3 develops. The proponent must submit cross access easements and covenants regarding the maintenance of the proposed driveway. GRADING Grading on the project site will be done in two phases. The first phase will include the relocation of the driveway along the north property line and the remodeling of the existing homes on lots 1 and 2. Minimum grading around the existing house pads will be necessary to allow for the proposed additions. More significant grading is required for the new driveway along the north property line. Based on the driveway design and the topography, the driveway has a grade differential from a low point of 870 to a high point of 888 (18 feet). To do this grading without • removing all of the trees, a series of retaining walls are required. As designed, there is a • maximum of 4-foot retaining wall on the southside of the driveway and a 14-foot wall on the north side. Staff recommends that a modular concrete type retaining wall be constructed. A wall over 4-feet in height requires a building permit. To ensure the completion of the driveway, the driveway must be constructed as part of the first phase of the project. A performance bond will be required by the City to ensure that a hard surfaced driveway is constructed. A tree inventory was done that depicted 1,676 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. The current proposal indicates a tree loss of 346 caliper inches. Based on this number, a tree replacement of 95 caliper inches is required. The plan indicates 55 caliper inches of evergreen trees. A revised plan must be submitted depicting 95 caliper inches of plant material. UTILITIES The Willow Creek area developed without sanitary sewer and water service. All of the homes in this area are developed with private wells and septic systems. The approximate locations of the existing septic systems for Lots 1 and 2 are within 40-60 feet of the ordinary high water mark. City code requires a 100 foot setback for septic systems from the ordinary high water mark. To comply with City code, the proponents are required to 3 • • • • Staff Report Freeburg/Perkins/Feltl Addition February 19, 1993 relocate the existing septic system to the future drain field sites as shown on the plan. The proposed septic system on Lot 3 meets the City code requirement for setbacks. VARIANCES Due to the location of the property adjacent to Bryant Lake which is a Recreational Development water, a number of shoreland variances are required. The shoreland ordinance requires that: 1. Minimum lot size 5 acres. 2. Minimum width at the building line -300 feet. 3. Minimum width at the ordinary high water mark -150 feet. 4. Minimum setback from the ordinary high water -100 feet. The current plan indicates 10 shoreland variances. In order to meet the lot size requirement, a parcel would have to be 15 acres in size to subdivide. The lot size of the parcel prior to subdividing is approximately 3 acres. None of the lots abutting Bryant Lake along the east side of Willow Creek Road meet the lot size requirement. Additional variances are caused by the width of the lots at the building line. Again, no adjacent lots meet the existing requirements for lot width. The proposed lot widths of this project are as large or larger than those existing along Willow Creek Road. The width at the Ordinary High Water Mark for Lot 3 is the only lot which does not meet the 150-foot width requirement. This variance could be eliminated by the elimination of lot frontage along Bryant Lake. However, lot frontage along Bryant Lake adds value to the property and does not create any significant deviation to the shoreland esthetics. Finally, Lots 1 and 2 are the lots which do not meet the setback requirements from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The original house was not subject to these requirements and the home on Lot 2 was built and approved by the City in 1975 and met the requirements at that time. The proposed home on Lot 3 meets the 100 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark. Variances similar to these were granted with the approval of the previous proposal . 4 Staff Report Freeburg/Perkins/Felti Addition February 19, 1993 1 Lot Size 2 Lot Width 3 Lot Width at OHW 4 Setback 5 Frontage 5 acres 1.04 300 ft 220 150 ft 100 ft 80 ft 90 ft ° A variance is also required for the accessory structure next to the Lake. 1.24 .72 170 120 145 40 ft ° 70 In addition, the RI-22 Zoning District requires frontage on a public street. Lots 1 and 2 do not have any frontage on a public street, while Lot 3 only has 70 feet. A minimum of 90 feet is required. PLAN COMPARISON Lot sizes compared to the approved RLS are similar. The old RLS had lot sizes of 36,000, 46,200 and 52,000 sq. ft. while the new plat has lot sizes of 31,600, 45,500, and 54,200 sq. ft. The new lots are oriented north-south which keeps the building pad off of the top of the hill. Other advantages to the new proposal include the elimination and abandonment of the septic systems adjacent to the lake. The new proposal requires that the septic systems be relocated to their future drain field site location. Also, the current proposal will demolish the existing garage adjacent to Willow Creek Road and the existing shed next to the lake on lot 3. It will also entail the remodeling of the existing house on lot 1 and the cleanup of the yard area. Based on the advantages of the new approval with no distinct disadvantages as compared to the old plan, Staff is recommending approval of the new proposal. 5 • • • • • • Staff Report Freeburg/Perkins/FeltI Addition February 19, 1993 RECOl\1l\1ENDA TIONS If the Planning Commission feels that the current proposal will have less of an impact on the overall project site, on Bryant Lake, and on the adjacent neighbors, then the appropriate action would be to recommend approval of the preliminary plat of approximately 3 acres into 3 lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals subject to revised plans dated February 17, 1993, Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review proponent shall submit a revised tree replacement plan which depicts a total of 95 caliper inches of tree replacement. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed building plans for review and approval for the additions on lot 2 and the remodeling of the structure on lot 1. B. Notify the City at least 48 hours in advance of grading . C. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. 3. Prior to grading permit issuance: A. Submit details for the hard surfaced driveway and the retaining walls. B. Stake the construction limits with erosion control fence and snowfencing to protect the trees in the area. 4. Apply for and receive variances from the Board of Appeals for shoreland variances and lot frontages on a publicly dedicated street. If the Planning Commission does not feel that the current proposal is better than the approved plan, the alternative would be to deny the request with the understanding that the proponent can file the previously approved RLS . 6 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: l'HROUGH: DATE: PROJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Planning Commission Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner Chris Enger, Director of Planning May 19, 1989 Freeburg/Perkins Addition 7010 Willow Creek Road Cl ayton Free bu rg ,. FEE OWNERS: Raymond Freeburg, Raynell Perkins, and Clayton Freeburg REQUEST: Registered Land Survey of approximately 2.9 acres into 3 tracts, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Background/History Please first refer to the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 10, 1988, for information regarding the background and history of the proposed project. Site Plan/R.L.S. ! ! .. _-_. i I • Changes to the plan in response to additional utility information provided by the proponent, included an increase in lot size for Tract C from 32,000 to 36,000 square feet, due to the relocation of the eastern lot line. This change was made so that the existing septic system would be included on the parcel. No other changes have been made to the proposed subdivision. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the Rl-22 zoning district with, the exception of frontage on a publicly dedicated street. A 20- foot easement has been submitted which would provide access to Tracts A and C. Tract B would access Willow Creek Road. i .• ,-•. , ' I=AREA{\ LOCATION MAFe • • • r r Freeburg/Perkins Addition 2 ~1ay 19, 1989 Resolution #868 adopted by City Council on July 9, 1974, cited the following reasons for denying the request to subdivide the property into 3 building sites: 1. Ordinance #93, Chapter 12, as amended, requires each property to abut a 2. public road to better serve the occupants therein. Since the June la, 1988, Staff Report, two subdivisions have been approved with private roads with characteristics such as the Freeburg/Perkins Addition. The Red Rock Shores subdivision abutting Mitchell Lake has a private road providing access to 6 single family lots. The reasons behind the granting of the private road is that it provided a better site plan, saved additional trees and natural site features, and allowed for larger lots than what could be accomplished with a public road. The Creekview Addition also has a private road providing access to two single family lots. This road was approved because of its ability to save additional natural site features such as slopes and trees. A public road could be extended to service the 3 lots within the Freeburg/Perkins Addition; however, it would result in mass grading and tree loss and would not serve the public benefit. The two homes which are benefiting from the road easement are already existing. Tract S, the proposed location of the new home would have access to Willow Creek Road. The topography of the land lends itself to two building sit~s--and is more in conformace with the neighboring plat and the restrictions thereon. The proponent has submitted a prototype building pad designed to work with the contours of the existing property. The two homes currently existing will not result in any additional grading or land alteration. The proposed building plan indicates a tuck-under design home with no attached garage, thus requiring grading for only that portion of the building pad placed on the hillside. Although the plans depict a 50-foot building pad which was recommended for purpose of analysis in the previous Staff Report, the proponent will be required to submit a more detailed grading plan showing all grading which may be expected with the construction of a single family home. This plan shall be submitted prior to City Councll review. Any deviation from the proposed grading plan at time of building permit issuance will require both Planning Commission and City Council review. A tree inventory has been submitted by the proponent for Tract C. There are a total of 854 caliper inches of significant trees on-site with a calculated tree loss of 355 caliper inches, or 41.6%. Based upon this figure, a tree replacement plan depicting 196 caliper inches is required. The proponent shall submit a detailed tree inventory for the entire property which is expected to reduce the percentage of tree replacement required. In response to the question: "Is there a restriction applicable to the Freeburg/Perkins property that the lot size be a least one acre in size pursuant to covenant or furtherance of a general plan?" Freeburg/Perkins Addition 3 May 19, 1989 The Court judgement dated May 13, 1977 stated that: • "The Freeburg/Perkins property is not subject to any restriction requiring lot size to be not less than one acre." The City Councils decision reflected in Resolution #868 was made prior to and without the benefit of the court judgement of May 13, 1977 • 3. Failure to subdivide said tract into 3 parcels would not cause an exceptional undue hardship and deprive the applicant of substantial property ri ght. According to the history of the proposed project, deeds were given to Raynell Perkins and Clayton Freeburg in 1973 for Tracts Band C. If the subdivision had been approved at the time of the earlier request, it could have been accomplished without variances except for road frontage. Since that time, the City has adopted the Shoreland Ordinance, which creates 8 of the 11 variances being requested. The denial of the proposed subdivision deprives the applicant of the use of his 52,000 square foot lot, apparently owned since 1973, for a single family home. Shoreland Ordinance The minimum requirements for single family homes on abutting lots, without PUbliC. sewer include the following: 1. Minimum lot size - 5 Acres. 2. Minimum width at building line -300feet. 3. Minimum width at O.H.W. -150 feet. 4. Minimum setback from O.H.W. -100 feet. The following chart indicates how the revised Tracts A, B, and C respond to the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance. Required Tract A Tract B Tract C 1. 5 ac. 1.06 ac.* 1.19 ac.* 0.83 ac.* 2. 300 feet 268 feet* 270 feet* 195 feet* 3. 150 feet 350 feet 80 feet* 225 feet 4. 100 feet 110 .feet 200 feet 75 feet* * -Items which will require a variance. As indicated, a total of 8 variances will be required from the Shoreland Ordinance. If the project had been approved when originally submitted, the Shoreland Ordinance would not have been in effect and the variances would not be required. • • • • Freeburg/Perkins Addition 4 May 19, 1989 Conclusions In the report dated June 10, 1988, Staff concluded the following: 1. 2. "The proponent, in order to subdivide the property as proposed, and according to current City Code requirements will be requesting a total of 12 variances from the Board of Appeals. This includes 9 shoreland variances and 3 variances which are required because of the lot frontage requirement on a publicly dedicated street." The current plan indicates 8 shoreland variances. In order to meet the lot size requirement, a parcel would have to be IS acres in size. The lot size of the parcel prior to subdividing is approximately 3 acres. None of the lots abutting Bryant lake along the east side of Willow Creek Road meet the lot size requirement. Additional variances are caused by the width of the lots at the building line. Again, no adjacent lots meet the existing requirements for lot width. The proposed lot widths of this project are as large or larger than those existing along Willow Creek Road. The width at the Ordinary High Water Mark for Tract B is the only lot which does not meet the ISO-foot width requirement. This variance could be eliminated by the elimination of lot frontage along Bryant Lake. However, lot frontage along Bryant Lake adds value to the property and does not create any significant deviation to the shoreland esthetics. Finally, Tracts A and C are the lots which do not meet the setback requirements from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The original house was not subject to these requirements and the home on Tract C was built and approved by the City in 1975 and met the requirements at that time. Mr. Freeburg's home on Tract B meets the requirement of the Shoreland Ordinance in regards to setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark with a setback of approximately 200 feet. "The lots meet the minimum requirements of the Rl-22 zoning districts; however, the size of the lots, and the setbacks from the lake, vary greatly from what is existing in the neighborhood. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 41,333 square feet (0.95 acres) with a 95-foot setback from the lake as compared to an existing average lot size in the area of 60,144 square feet (1.38 acres) and a setback of 182.5 feet. The City Council in Resolution #868 cited the incompatibility of the 3-lot subdivision with the existing neighborhood as one of their reasons for the denial of the 3-lot subdivision." The average lot size of the proposed R.L.S. is 44,733 square feet, or 1.03 acres. Existing lots within the area average approximately 60,144 square feet, or 1.38 acres. The difference between the averages is approximately 15,411 square feet. In this particular case, 2 of the lots proposed exceed the size of the smallest. lot abutting Bryant Lake along the east side. Thus, the lots proposed would not be the smallest in this particular area. In regards to building setbacks from Bryant Lake, 2 of the setbacks are based upon homes which are currently existing and met the requirements of the zoning district when built. Based upon the proposed plan, the house setback for Tract B is a minimum of 200 feet which exceeds the average setback of homes in the area. As this information indicates, the lots which are being proposed are not significantly out of character with the existing neighborhood. r Freeburg/Perkins Addition 5 May 19, 1989 3. "In order to review this project, Staff must have complete and accurate~ information to evaluate all aspects of the project. As stated in the letter of May 18, 1988, Staff requested additional information from the proponent. The proponent has not submitted the requested information." In the minutes dated June 13, 1988, Staff and Planning Commission stated that the minimum information which must be submitted for review purposes included: 1) an overall grading plan depicting a 50- foot building pad, 2) a tree inventory, 3) utility locations. This information has been submitted for Staff review. A typical grading plan has been submitted which indicates a 50-foot housepad with a tuck-under design. The proposed plan indicates minimal grading designed primarily to show drainage around the house. Staff would recommend that the grading plan be further detailed. The plan does not currently indicate an attached garage. According to the proponent, the existing garage at the base of the hill is proposed to be utilized. Once a specific home is designed, Staff recommends additional review to determine conformance with the approved plan. If any deviation exists between the proposed grading plan and the approved grading plan causing more impact, the proponent must return to the Planning Commission and City Council for review. A tree inventory has been submitted which indicates a total of 854 caliper inches of significant trees on-site. A tree loss of 355 caliper inches has been calculated. Staff recommends that the proponent provide a detailed tree inventory for the entire site t. reduce the amount of tree replacement required. A tree replacemen plan must be submitted prior to Council review. The utility locations shown on the plan indicate that the minimum State requirements are being met for Tract B. In a memo, dated January 14, 1974, from Marty Jessen, former Director of Parks and Community Services, stated that information provided by the Department of Natural Resources indicated that the proposed Shoreland Management Regulations may require an approximate lot size of 20,000 to 40,000 square feet without sewer, building setbacks of 75 to 100 feet, and a sanitary sewer setback of 50 feet. Based upon the assumed regulations in 1974, all three lots would meet the minimum requirements of the shoreland management regulations. A permit for the septic system for Tract C was inspected and approved September 9, 1975. There is no permit information existing for the septic system on Tract A. Because the septic systems for Tract A and C are both setback approximately 70 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark, they would have to be relocated according to the current minimum State standards if they were to fail. 4. "Finally, an alternative exists for the development of the property which would reduce the number of variances required and make the lot sizes more consistent with the existing neighborhood. By eliminating the lake frontage of Tract B, the number of variances could be reduced from 12 to 9 and Tracttt A and C could be increased in size. An easement could be placed over portion of Tract C for lake access for Tract B." • • • r r Freeburg/Perkins Addition 6 May 19, 1989 Summary By eliminating the lake frontage for Tract B, 3 of the proposed 8 variances could be eliminated. As indicated in the previous Staff Report, an easement could be placed over a portion of Tract C for lake access for Tract B. The Planning Commission and proponent may wish to consider this alternative. Based upon the current analysis, it appears that the proposed subdivision would not be significantly out of character with what is existing in the adjacent neighborhood. Staff has indicated that if the proper procedures had been followed in the early 1970's, this project could have been approved without variances except for lot frontage. Currently, the majority of the variances being requested are Shoreland Ordinance which would be required of any lot located along Willow Creek Drive. Information which has been submitted including the grading plan and tree inventory has indicated that the proposal would not seriously alter the natural characteristics of the site or shoreland area other than that expected with the construction of a single family home. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If the Planning Commission feels that the proposed R.L.S. has merit, appropriate action would be to recommend approval of the proposed R.L.S. of approximately 2.9 acres into 3 tracts, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, subject to plans dated April 25, 1989, and May 8, 1989, the Staff Report dated May 19, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Submit a revised grading plan detailing all grading expected. B. Submit an overall tree inventory for the entire project site. Tree replacement will be based upon the revised tree inventory. 2. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed building plans for review. B. Notify the City at least 48 hours in advance of grading. C. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 3. Apply for, and receive, variances from the Board of Appeals for shoreland variances and lot frontages on a publicly dedicated street. If the Planning Commission feels that the number of variances are excessive, and that the proposed development is incompatible with the existing neighborhood, then the appropriate action would be for denial • STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: l'HROUGH: DATE: PROJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: FEE OWNER: REQUEST: Background Planning Commission Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner Chris Enger, Director of Planning June 10, 1988 Freeburg/Perkins Addition 7010 Willow Creek Road Clayton Freeburg Raymond Freeberg, Raynelle Perkins, and Clayton Freeburg Registered Land Survey of 2.84 acres into three lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. This site is currently designated on the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan for Low Density Residential land uses. Surrounding designations to the north, south, and east are also for Low Density Residential. Bryant Lake, classified as a Recreational Development Water, is located to the south'and west of the subject property. Specific land uses in this area include the Willow Creek Addition, zoned Rl-22 to the east and south, and R.L.S. #875 and R.L.S. #1421, zoned Rl-22 to the north. The proponent is requesting an R.L.S. to divide the property into three single family lots to allow for the construction of one single family home. History • The following is a brief history of the Freeburg/Perkins property and their involvement with the City of Eden Prairie and Hennepin County leading to the court judgement of May 13, 1977: ." n1Zr.. ,', , AREA LOCATION MA. • • • ~~reeburg/Perkins Addition 2 June 10, 1988 1) July 25, 1973 -City Assessor with written administrative approval divide the Freeburg/Perkins land into 3 lots designated parcels A, B, and C. No Notice of Application for the division or of a hearing on the application was ever published or served upon anyone having an interest in the lots in Willow Creek subdivision or other nearby properties. Nor was any hearing held. The division was not approved by the City Council. 2) Deeds dated August 14, 1973, indicate conveyance of Parcel B to Raynelle Perkins and Parcel C to Clayton Freeburg. Deeds denied by Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. 3) Building permit issued April 23, 1974, for Parcel B • . 4) April 30, 1974, Council adopted a resolution dividing the Freeburg/Perkins ------=------land into two lots without making findings supporting the granting of a variance. No published or mailed Notice of Hearing had previously been gi ven • 5) On an unknown date following April 30, 1974, City executed R.L.S. 1371. Two tracts, A and B, were created. Ei}-.-,_",,-June 25, 1974, -City Council--rescinded dividing the Freeburg/Perkins property following motion: its resolution of April 30, 1974, into two lots and adopted the 7) 8) 9) That a new resolution be formed denying the request for division into 3 lots and approving the division into 2 lots, both fronting on the public road. July 9, 1974 -City Council adopted a resolution denying subdivision of the Freeburg/Perkins property into 3 lots but approving a 2-lot subdivision. July 12, 1974 -Stop on building permit. May 27, 1975 -City Council approved a division of Freeburg/Perkins property into two lots. No notices were mailed or variances given. The court, on May 13, 1977, found that action taken on May 27, accordance with City Ordinances and invalid. The following Conclusions Of Law: 1975, was not in are the court's 1) Freeburg property is not subject to any private restriction requiring lot size to be not less than 1 acre. 2) The Freeburg/Perkins property has not been subdivided by valid municipal action. In summary, the court judgement dated May 13, 1977, declared that the Freeburg/Perkins property was not subdivided by valid municipal action. Because of this, the proponent is proceeding to the Planning Commission with a request for an R.L.S. to subdivide the property into three single family parcels. In the attached letters dated August 23, 1985, and August 7, 1987, from Richard F. Rosow, City Attorney, to Clayton Freeburg, proponent, the court judgement was explained and the proper procedures for proceeding with the subdivision of the property was discussed. Freeburg/Perkins Addition 3 June 10,. 19.88 Site Plan/R.l.S. This property is currently zoned Rl-22 which was zoned by Ordinance 111-6, in November of 1969. The minimum requirements of the Rl-22 zoning district include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Minimum lot size -22,000 squa-re--feet. Lot width -90 feet. Lot depth -125 feet. Fr.ont yard setbac-k--: --30 feet~ Side yard setbacks -15 feet. Rear yard setback -25 feet. All of the lots meet the mi nimum --requi reme-fits of the Rl-22 zoni ng di stri ct wi th the exception().f_ front~ . .9~_on_a_publ icly dedicated street or street that has received legal status as such. Tracts A and C of the proposed R.L.S. are the locations of two existing homes while Tract B would be the location of a new home. Access to this subdivision is provided by Willow Creek Road which is a 2,800-foot long cul-de-sac in addition to a 20-foot wide private road easement to provide access to Tracts A and C. If the subdivision is approved, this easement shall be filed with Hennepin County. Based upon the submitted R.l.S., Tract B is the only lot having Jrontage on Willow Creek Road. In the Rl-22 zoning district, 90 feet of frontage on a publicly dedicated street is required. A variance for street frontage • will be required for all three lots. In addition, because the proposed SUbdivision. is by registered land survey and does not indicate easements as on a plat, the proponent will be required to file separate drainage and utility easements as required by the Engineering Department. lots sizes within the subdivision range from a minimum of 32,000 square feet for Tract C t6· a maximum of 56,000 square feet for Tract B. The average lot size is 41,333 square feet. Overall density of the proposed R.l.S. is approximately 1.05 units per acre. Adjacent lots, located to the north and south of this proposal average approximately 60,144 square feet or 1.3 acres. The minimum lot size within the adjacent area is 38,115 square feet and the maximum lot size is 82,764 square feet. Resolution 868 (see Attachment A), adopted by the cites the following reasons for denying the request t~r'~_e_.building sites: City Council on July 9, 1974, to subdivide the property into 1. Ordinance No. 93 (Chapter 12) as amended, requires each property to abut a public road to better serve the occupants therein. 2. The topography of the land lends itself to two building sites, and is more in conformance with the neighboring plat, and the restrictions thereon. 3. Failure to subdivide said Tract into 3 parcels would not cause an exceptional undue hardship and deprive the applicant of substantial property right. Based upon these reasons, the Ci ty Council . approved the di vi 5i on of the property. into two building sites both fronting on a public road. • • • , Freeburg/Perkins Addition 4 June 10. 1988 .Sho~eland-Ordinance The Shoreland Ordinance. No. 82-18 and effective 9-17-82, is designed to "provide standards and criteria for the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of protected waters in order to preserve and enhance the quality of service waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands and provide for a wise utilization of water and related land resources and thereby promote and protect-the public health, safety, and welfare." Bryant Lake is classified as a Recreational Development Water on the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan. The requirements for single family homes on abutting lots, without public sewer include the following: 1. -2~' .. 3. 4. 5. Minimum lot size - 5 acre~. Minimum width at building line -300 feet. Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Mark -150 feet. Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Mark -100 feet. Minimum setback to septic tanks and soil absorption systems -100 feet. The following chart indicates how Tracts A, B, and C, respond to the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance: Required Tract A Tract B Tract C 1. 5 ac. 0.83 ac.* 1.29 ac.* 0.74 ac.* 2. .300 feet 268 feet* 246 feet* 140 feet* 3. 150 feet 350 feet 133 feet* 225 feet 4. 100 feet 84 feet* 160 feet 40 feet* 5. 100 feet No data No data No data * -Items wh.i ch wi 1 1 require a variance. The proponent will be required to apply for, and receive, 9 shoreland variances from the Board of Appeals to allow for the subdivision and subsequent construction of a single family home on Tract B. No data has been provided regarding the minimum setbacks of the septic tanks to the O.H.W. so it cannot be determined by Staff as to whether or not there is enough room on the project site to accomodate an additional septic system or whether the existing systems meet Code requirements. Grading/Utilities There are two existing homes located on Tracts A and C which would not require any additional grading or utility work. However. because of the slopes on Tract B. it appears that a Significant amount of grading work would be required to allow for the development of the home and the proposed septic and well system. No information has been submitted by the proponent regarding the grading of the home site or utility placement. Staff has inspected the site with the proponent and observed a number of large oak trees on Tract B which would be subject to tree replacement if removed. The proponent has not provided information regarding any Significant vegetation on this site. Freeburg/Perkins Addi tion 5 June 10, 1988 The following is a partial list of the information which has not been submitted the proponent as requested in the May 18, 1988, (see Attachment B) letter: bY· 1. General description of the request or proposal. -2. Variances requested. 3. Shoreland Ordinance/Floodplain restrictions (if applicable). 4. Existing vegetation (identify significant trees to be removed). -- 5. Wetlands, creeks, and ponds (type of wetland, determination of public or private waters, shoreland classifications, depict Ordinary High Water Mark and 100-year flood elevation). 6. Easement locations and type. 7. Locations of existing and proposed utilities. In regards to septic systems, the State of Minnesota requires that there be a 100- foot minimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark, a 20-foot minimum setback from the building and a 10-foot minimum setback from the property line. A well must be setback a minimum of three feet from a building, five feet from a property line, 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark, and 50 feet from the septic tank. In order to evaluate the proposal, the plans must show the existing and proposed utility locations. In addition, the proponent has indicated a 30-foot building pad with no proposed grading. A 50-foot building pad is the recommended standard for reviewing buHding pad grading. At a minimum, additional information which must be submitted fn-order to eval uate thi s development proposal incl udes an overall grad; ng plan, utility locations, and the locations and sizes of any significant vegetation • Conclusions • Staff has evaluated the proposal as submitted and has concluded the following: 1. 2. The proponent, in order to subdivide the property as proposed, and according to current City Code requirements will be requesting a total of 12 variances from the Board of Appeals. This includes 9 shoreland variances and 3 variances which are required because of the lot frontage requirement on a publicly dedicated street. The proponent has not provided any substantiation for the variances which he would be requesting. The lots meet the mlnlmum requirements of the Rl-22 zoning districts, however, the size of the lots, and the setbacks from the lake, vary greatly from what is existing in the neighborhood. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 41,333 square feet (0.95 acres) with a 95-foot setback from the lake as compared to an existing average lot size of 60,144 square feet (1.38 acres) and a setback of 182.5 feet. The City Council in Resolution 868 cited the incompatibility of the 3-lot subdivision with the .---. _._-----"ex-,st,"rig neighborhood as one of their reasons for the denial of the 3-1ot 3. 4. subdivision. In order to review this project, Staff must have complete and accurate information to evaluate all aspects of the project. As stated in the letter of May 18, 1988, Staff requested additional information from the proponent. The proponent has not submitted the requested information. Finally, an alternative exists for the development of the property WhiCh. would reduce the number of variances required and make the lot sizes more consistent with the existing neighborhood. By eliminating the lake frontage of Tract B, the number of variances could be reduced from 12 to 9 and Tracts A and C could be increased in size. An easement could be placed over a portion of Tract C for lake access for Tract B. ~~q • • • Freeburg/Perkins Addition 6 June 10, 1988 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If the Planning Commission feels that an alternative may have merit, Staff would recommend that the plans be returned to the proponent for revisions based upon Staff recommendations and Commission concerns. If the Planning Commission feels that the number of variances is excessive, that adequate information has not been provided to support the development proposal, and that the proposed R.L.S. is incompatable with the existing neighborhood, then the appropriate action would be for denial • . '...i ,-~ .... ' .. ,.1 • -. ' .- II ~ <1 !-. __ . ___ ~_' _____ >r-'-r-' I ~ 1/2 $ection Map of Area I I i I j'. L.f. 5 , .I • • .... . " " .. - ". I ••• ... : t· .. · .... .. -.. . !! .... .... 3 ! ... ... .... "'. eo .... , f::~ c. ... • • city council Minutes 16 August 1, 1989 captain Clark stated that hunters were calling regarding a Metro Goose Hunt which was proposed and recommended that a decision be reached in a timely manner. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to direct the Committee to be prepared to regort to the Council by the first meeting in September. Motion carried unanimously. , Bob Bjorkland, 5705 Duncan Lane, Edina, stated that he would be willing to serve on this committee or help in any way possible. Darril Peterson, 18700 Flying Cloud Drive, asked if it would be possible to have a landowner permit for goose hunting. Mayor Peterson recommended that this issue be addressed at the committee level first. C. ordinance No. 28-89, Changing Mayoral Term from Two to Four Years Mayor Peterson left the room during this discussion. Jullie reported that an Ordinance had been drafted to change the Mayoral term from 2 to 4 years. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 28-89, changing the Mayoral term from 2 to 4 years, beginning in 1990. Motion carried 3-0-1. Mayor Peterson absent. VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. FREEBURG/PERKINS ADDITION by Clayton Freeburg. Appeal from the Decision of the Board of Appeals for a Registered Land Survey of 2.84 acres into 3 lots with variances within the RI-22 Zoning District. Location: 7010 Willow Creek Road. Jullie reported that the Board of Appeals & Adjustments had denied the request for the variances. The Board of Appeals & Adjustments considered its role to be a technical one and believed that the issues related to these variances were subjective in nature and would best be handled by the City council. Peterson stated that although this was not an official public hearing, he would accept brief comments from the neighbors. ( city council Minutes 17 August 1, 1989 stu Nolan, 7020 willow Creek Road, stated that he believed that this was not a good plan and that this proposal • adversely affected his property. Knowland asked that t Council postpone a decision if the Councilmembers had not actually seen the site. Peterson stated that he had visited the site and understood the propos~l. Peterson added that he had voted in favor of the proposal originally and would support the issuance of the variance:s,as'requested. Pidcock stated that she also had visited the site and would support the issuance of the variances. Tenpas stated that he did not believe this to be the best proposal for the property and would not support the variances. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to reverse the decision by the Board of Appeals & Adjustments and grant the variances as requested. Motion carried 3-1. Tenpas voted "NO". B. Parade Permit Application for Project Concern -Walk for Mankind • Jullie reported that staff was concerned about the city' ability to ensure a well-run event due to lack of personnel and other resources available at this time. Peterson asked if the problem was the lack of off-duty police officers available for hire to adequately cover this event. Chief Wall replied that the applicant expected the City to provide the officers. Wall added that Staff usually preplanned for the major events of this kind and adequate Staff was not available. Seventeen points would require that police officers be present. Wall added that the last event was not well organized and that this specific points needed to be staffed by qualified personnel. Wall noted that this was not considered an emergency situation and he could not require the officers to work over-time. Tenpas asked if the group itself could provide volunteers to man the majority of the points. captain Clark replied that in the past there had been no consistency shown in planning this walk. Clark added that Staff had attempted to use volunteers the first year and the majority of them did not show up. Clark was concerned about the City's liability. • • • • RI::GISTERED LAND SURVEY 1'40. __ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON AN ASSUMED DATUM EGAN, FIELD a NOWAK, oOENOTES IRON MONUMENT SURVEYORS SCALE IN FEET: ~~ i i I-, .•.. />I.E Corner" "T 0 50 100 150 200 250 ~ ~ of Gov't L.t :::i " S, Sec. II, ___ == _____ ~ Z ..... _ ••••••• II ____ .!~-~: T.II6, R. n ] '-~ ___________ ~~ ~ I~:;; ). ""vi~ ~ !2J C> , U , , ~.~/ l L. . ... ..... -BENCH ~RK: INC. , : ... .. , ..... .... :., E:: / ~~:.: Top 1'1' if'on ntonUJllent on the east line of TrOlct 8, Re~ist~red land SurvPy 'II~ -0 ..... :- " .0 0.0 ... 0 .. ~ ':: , ... rf .. l. •••• e' ,.: ..... : I, , , , , I , I ' , , I ...... / .-N./·04'OO"E. tD3.n : ..... '- : ... / I No. 1371. elf'valion A~~.67 frrt, N.G.V.D. (19291. SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS Approved RLS for 3 Lots ff, STATE OF (N](N](g~©U~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS -1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILENO. February 16, 1993 Mr. Don Uram Planning Department city of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: TRACTS A AND B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1371, VARIANCE REQUEST AND PRELIMINARY PLAT, BRYANT LAKE (#27-67P), CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Uram: We have reviewed the site plans dated 1/6/93 (received 1/26/93) and variance requests for the above-referenced project (Section 11, Tl16N, R22W). Variances from the city's shoreland ordinance standards for minimum lot size, minimum lot width and structure setbacks from Bryant Lake • are requested in order to divide a parcel with two existing homes • into three lots. Based on the information we received, DNR Metro waters recommends that the city deny the variance requests and the subdivision plan as they are currently proposed. Some specific points for the city's consideration follow: 1. Bryant Lake has a Recreational Development shore land classification. The city ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 5 acres, a minimum lot width of 150 feet at the ordinary high water mark (OHW) and 300 feet at the building line, and a structure setback of 100 feet from the OHW, for unsewered riparian lots. The proposed subdivision and development proposal would require major variances for all of these standards. 2. It appears that extensive topographic and vegetative alterations are proposed in areas with steep slopes, which is inconsistent with current state shoreland standards. 3. The extent of the proposed improvements to the structure on lot 2 is not clear, however, if the value of the improvements is greater than 50-percent of the value of the existing structure, all current standards should be met. It appears that SUbstantial improvement would be made to a structure that is currently non-conforming (since it meets a 40 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark versus the required 100 foot setback), thus exacerbating the non-conformity. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • • • • Mr. Uram February 16, 1993 Page Two 4. Hardship must be demonstrated to justify approval of a variance request. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: A. The proposed use is reasonable. B. It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns" and economic ccnsideraticns alone de not consti tuta practical difficulty. C. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. D. The problem must not be created by the landowner. E . The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The courts have said that the applicant has a "heavy burden of proof" to show that all the prerequisites to the granting of a variance are satisfied. This is because a variance allows property to be used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance. The Department should be advised of the action taken on this request within 10 days of final action and copies of the official record should be forwarded to this office if the variance request is not denied. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. sincerely, ceil strauss Area Hydrologist cc: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD Bryant Lake (27-67P) file February 8, 1993 937-2262 STUART H. NOLAN 7020 Willow Creek Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 (612) 829-8295 Mr. Donald Uram, City Planner City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Feltl Preliminary Plat and Grading Plan Dear Don: Thank you for sharing this information with me last Friday. Since then I have had an opportunity to walk this site and compare it to the proposed plan. I feel strongly that many more significant trees are being lost due to the new driveway than is necessary. Your report notes that 177 caliber inches of significant • trees are being lost due to this driveway. The most distressing part of this is that • most of these trees abut my property line and I have actually marked each of them with red yarn. I also took the liberty of marking three more significant trees that are being lost close to the existing house on proposed Lot 1 because I think that loss is also unnecessary. I suggest that this plat is being rushed too fast and that enough thought has not been given to it to minimize environmental impacts. Since the existing garage is due to be removed, I would suggest that the driveway enter through that area and then be put through the site with more environmental considerations. Additionally, previous documentation of RLS No. 1371 indicate it to be 2.84 acres; however, this plan shows it to be 3 areas. I request that you verify the exact size of this survey and let me know. As you know, I have additional concerns but thought that these were the proper ones to raise ~t this time. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. J\ S aDt H. Nolan / cc: Jim and Rayn~lle Perkins Peter Larson • • • 1\ nesota Department of Transport on Metropolitan Division Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Vallev Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Vallev, Minnesota 55422 J J January 27, 1993 Mr. Chris Enger Director of Planning City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 1371 Willow Creek Road Eden Prairie Dear Mr. Enger: Reply to Telephone No. _.:::..59::...::3=---.:::..85::..:3:..=3'--___ _ We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find this plat acceptable for development and have no comments. This property does not abut the existing or proposed trunk highway system and does not require state comment unless it meets requirements of the pamphlet Mn Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review program 4410.7800. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 593-8533. Sincerely, \ ')J" C' (' , -\., ~~ A ,~~'I-C-W William A. Sirois Senior Transportation Planner cc: Dotty Rietow, Metropolitan Council Les Weigelt, Hennepin Co. Engineer Peter Tulkiki, Hennepin Co . All Equal Opportullity Employer Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Monday, March 1, 1993 C. Freeberg/Perkins/Feltl Addition Cross explained the project and introduced Mrs. Freeberg. Mrs. Freeberg then explained that the project was approved several years ago, but was never filed. The City recently asked them to make some changes to the plans. The current plan has a couple of things different from first plan; the septic tank will be moved away from the lake, an old building near the lake will be torn down, and the house that will someday be built on the third lot can be built farther away from the lake. Cross explained that in the current plan, the lot lines will be going in a more north/south direction and the building will be taken off the top of the f)f'operty making it less visible. Cross also explained the process the original plan had gone through of being denied by the Board of Appeals and that the City Council later waived the variances. Cross indicated the project could get a permit now, but the current plan is better than the existing plan. • Cross indicated that there would be a 20% tree loss, and that the trees would be replaced. Hilgeman asked for clarification of the amount of tree loss, stating that the May 19, 1989, memo indicated a 41 % tree loss. Cross explained that this is the first time the trees have been counted and that the 20% figure • is accurate. Hilgeman commented that the current plan isn't a great plan, but that it is a better plan that the original plan, which they could go ahead with if they wanted to. Cross stated that the Staff agrees the second plan is the better plan. Brown commented that this situation is a great example of the inability to understand the rhyme or reason of variance allowances, and indicated that he also would like to have variances discussed in the future. Mrs. Freeberg stated that she felt the City has a great staff looking out for them because the City Staff encouraged them to make the changes. lynch indicated that the Park Commission's role is to ask some of the tough questions the City Staff can't ask and Richard explained the problem the Commission has been having with variances to ordinances. MOTION: Hilgeman moved to recommend approval of the current Freeberg/Perkins/Feltl Addition plan as per Staff recommendations of February 19, 1993. lynch seconded and motion passed 7-0. As a postscript, Hilgeman stated that the Commission notes that this project has more than 10 shoreline variances. • • • • ST. ANDREW LUTHERAN CHURCH CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF ST. ANDREW LUTHERAN CHURCH FOR ST. ANDREW LUTHERAN CHURCH BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of St. Andrew Lutheran Church for St. Andrew Lutheran Church dated February 19, 1993, consisting of 59.70 acres, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 16th day of March, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk ST. ANDREW LUTHERAN CHURCH CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF ST. ANDREW LUTHERAN CHURCH FOR ST. ANDREW LUTHERAN CHURCH 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 St. Andrew Lutheran Church PUD Concept by St. Andrew Lutheran Church 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 March 16, 1993; • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, • Minnesota, as follows: 1993. 1. St. Andrew Lutheran Church by St. Andrew Lutheran Church, 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 February 19, 1993. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated February 22, 1993. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th day of March, Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • Exhibit A • St. Andrew Lutheran Church Lot 1, Block 1, Technology Campus, Hennepin County, MN • • ST. ANDREW LUTHERAN CHURCH 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 St. Andrew Lutheran Church for St. Andrew Lutheran Church 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 of the Plan as follows: 4.8 acres located • at Technology Drive, South of Highway 5 adjacent to Purgatory Creek from Industrial to • Church. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 16th of March, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • • • STAFF REPORT TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: FEE OWNER: LOCATION: REQUEST: ( Planning Commission Chris Enger, Director of Community Development Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner February 19, 1993 St. Andrew Lutheran Church St. Andrew Lutheran Church and MTS MTS Technology Drive, South of Highway 5, Adjacent to PJ.LT'g:l'tory Creek 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Indu'!:.trial to Church on 4.8 acres. 2. PUD Concept Review on 59.70 acres . 3. PUD District Review with waivers for building height on 59.70 acres. 4. Rezoning from Rural to Church on 4.8 acres. 5. Preliminary Plat of 59.70 acres into three lots and one outlot. Staff Report St. Andrew Lutheran Church February 19, 1993 BACKGROUND This st. Andrew Lutheran Church site was approved for two commercial sites as part of the 1982 MTS System Corporation Magnetics Control Company concept plan. (See Attachment A.) On site A, is the existing MTS Building and expansion which was approved approximately four years ago. Sites E and F totaling 8,000 square feet were for supporting commercial uses. The 1982 PUD must be amended from Commercial to Church with this development proposal. SITE PLAN The site plan depicts the construction of 85,000 square foot Church to be constructed in several phases on approximately 4.5 acres. The site is large enough to accommodate the parking for the first phase, however, in subsequent phases, the Church will have to rely on a shared parking agreement with MTS. The use of shared parking off site is a waiver which can be granted by the City Council as part of the Planned Unit Development District Review process. The Church meets the minimum setback requirements for the Public Zoning District. Parking • is provided at a ratio of 1 per 3 seats in the largest worship area, or a total of 892 parking • spaces. There is enough parking between both sites to meet this requirement. GRADING The building will be located as to minimize grading and preserve all of the significant trees on site. There will be some Aspen, Poplar and Boxelder trees which will be lost due to construction, however, these are not required to be replaced according to City ordinance. PUD DISTRICT REVIEW There are two Planned Unit Development waivers which are required in order for this project to be built as proposed. One is the shared parking agreement for parking off-site with a zero lot line setback to parking. The City is comfortable with the shared parking because the peak parking demands of the Church and MTS are at different times. A Parking Agreement document should be prepared for the City review and recorded at Hennepin County. The second waiver to permit a building height up to 150 feet. The City previously granted a height of 200 feet for the Wooddale Church (125 feet for building, 75 feet for spire). This Church is located in an industrial area off of Highway 5 and the impact of the increase in height above the 30 feet permitted by code for building plus 25 feet for spire would be minimal considering the large setbacks to property lines. • • • • Staff Report St. Andrew Lutheran Church February 19, 1993 LANDSCAPING Landscaping required for this project is based upon a caliper inch requirement according to building square footage and screening of the parking areas. The caliper inch requirement for this building is 375 caliper inches. The landscape plan depicts a total of 219 caliper inches, therefore, the plan must be modified to provide an additional 156 caliper inches. In addition, the parking areas are visible from Highway 5 and Technology Drive. Parking can be screened from Highway 5 by raising the berm along that frontage. It will be difficult to screen parking areas from Technology Drive since a wetland area comprises the entire 50 foot setback to parking. Staff would recommend that the first row of parking be removed which would provide a 20 foot horizontal area for shade, conifer and shrub plantings. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE Architectural information has been provided which shows detailed building elevations for the first phase and a massing diagram for subsequent phases. This allows the City to view the height, scale and mass of the building. The building is proposed to be constructed out of face brick and glass, in accordance with the City code. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS AND OPEN SPACE There is an existing eight foot wide bituminous trail on the north side of Technology Drive. There should be a five foot wide concrete sidewalk connection from the Church to the trail. The 3.5 acre outlot adjacent to Purgatory Creek is proposed to be dedicated or gifted to the City. SHORELAND ORDINANCE The shoreland ordinance is defined as that land within 300 feet of the center line of Purgatory Creek. This site is within the shoreland area of Purgatory Creek and is subject to shoreland regulations. The project as proposed meets the minimum size and square footage and dimensional requirements for a church site. However, since the Church is within 300 feet of the center line of the Creek, a height variance must be processed for building height over 30 feet within a shoreland area. The Board of Appeals must review and recommend approval of the shoreland height variance. Staff Report St. Andrew Lutheran Church February 19, 1993 STORM WATER QUALITY Wetland areas have been identified and mitigation approved by the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District for a limited amount of fill in a wetland. In addition, storm water runoff in the parking areas will drain into a NURP pond before discharge into Purgatory Creek. LIGHTING It is recommended that the lighting standards for the MTS Site be used on the Church Site in order to provide continuity. This would be 30 foot high downcast cutoff luminars. In addition, since is as part of the downtown area, lights at the entrance driveways should be similar to Wal- Mart, which is a 20 foot high light standard with globe lighting. ST AFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff would recommend approval of the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Industrial to Church, PUD Concept Review, PUD District Review with waivers, Rezoning from • Rural to Church and a Preliminary Plat of 59.7 acres into 3 lots and 1 outlot based on plans • dated February 19, 1993 subject to the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to review by City Council, the proponent shall: A. Modify the landscape plan to provide an additional 156 caliper inches. B. Revise the landscape plan to remove the first row of parking and plant with conifers and shrubs in order to screen parking. Provide a berm along Hwy 5 to screen parking. 2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. • • • • Staff Report St. Andrew Lutheran Church February 19, 1993 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: A. Submit plans for review by the Fire Marshall. 4. Apply for and receive the Shoreland Height Variance from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments . LlJ·?S , .... Purgatory Creek Recreation Area • • l1nesota Department of Transpo. lion Metropolitan Division Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Reply to • Telephone No. _-=-59:0,.::3=---=85::..;::3=3 ___ _ March 1, 1993 Mr. Chris Enger Director of Planning City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Site Plan for the construction of St. Andrews Church Dear Mr. Enger: We are in receipt of the above referenced plan for our review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find this plat acceptable for development with consideration of the following comments: Noise levels exceed state noise standards. The city and the developer should be aware that Mn/DOT will not provide any type of noise abatement for new development adjacent to existing highways. We suggest every effort be made in the design of the proposed development to minimize any impact this might have on it. The ditch south of TH5 that flows easterly to Purgatory Creek must be perpetuated. Additionally, a permit from Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed and the Corps of Engineers will be required. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 593-8533. Sincerely, William A. Sirois Senior Transportation Planner cc: Les Weigelt, Hennepin Co. Engineer Peter Tulkiki, Hennepin Co. All Equill Opportunity Employer • • • • • PHONE NO. NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS -1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 551~~ENO. 772-7910 February 10, 1993 Mr. Don Uram Planning Department City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: ST. ANDREW LUTHERAN CHURCH, PUBLIC WATER PURGATORY CREEK, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Uram: We have reviewed the site plans dated 1/21/93 (received 1/26/93) and variance request for the above-referenced project (S.15, T.116N, R.22W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. A variance from the city's shoreland ordinance building height standard is requested. Since the current state shoreland standards specifically exempt churches from height standards, we would not obj ect to the granting of this variance if hardship is demonstrated. Since the City's current shore land ordinance includes all types of structures in its height restrictions, it is important that the condition of hardship be demonstrated before granting a variance. 2. The proposed plan does not indicate the details of how stormwater will be managed. We do note that a sedimentation basin is shown on the plans, and presume this will be sized (utilizing NURP standards) to handle the fully developed site, including the additional parking area to be shared with MTS (or located such that the basin can be enlarged for the future neighboring development) . 3. We would object to having any untreated stormwater routed to Purgatory Creek. It appears that there are wetlands on the site that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consul ted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in wetlands . In addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District in AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Don Uram (st. Andrews Church) February 10, 1993 Page 2 accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. 4. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. 5. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is required. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments . Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: USCOE, Joe Yanta Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD Eden Prairie shore land file • • • • • Mr. Chris Enger City Planner City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55437 832-2600 Legal Advisor: Popham. Haik. Schnobrich & Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis. MN 55402 333-4800 February 4, 1993 The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the St. Andrews Lutheran Church in Eden Prairie. The following policies and criteria of the District are applicable for this project: 1. 2. In accordance with Section E(2) of the District's revised rules and regulations, a grading and land alteration permit from the District is required. A detailed grading plan showing both existing and proposed contours must be submitted to the District for review. A detailed erosion control plan outlining procedures to control sedimentation from leaving areas altered on the site must be submitted to the District for review and approval. 3. A stormwater management plan for the project must be submitted for review and approval. Stormwater from the site must be discharged to a water quality facility, designed to meet N.U.R.P. standards, prior to reach~ng Protected Waters. 4. The wetland areas on the site meet the definition of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act and the wetland limits have been field staked. The no net loss requirements of the Conservation Act must be met by the development proposal. 5. The 100-year frequency flood elevation of Purgatory Creek adjacent to the site ranges from Elevation 827 MSL at T.H. 5 to Elevation 824 MSL at Technology Drive. Any filling within the calculated floodplain of the creek must be consistent with the District's floodplain encroachment criteria. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this development at an early date. If you have any questions or request additional information, please give me a call at 832-2857. BCO/kmh c: Mr. Ra¥ Haik Mr. Fr~tz Rahr 23\27\053\ANDREWS.LTR ~i_~er7~V~ ~/ L~tt,rJ;fli.:! ~1:5 rt c. Obermeyer J B r Engineering C ~any gineer's for the D~strict Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Monday, March 1, 1993 D. St. Andrew Lutheran Church Cross explained that the St. Andrew Lutheran Church is a 85,000 square foot church on 4.8 acres next to Purgatory Creek. This project requires two variances -one for height and one to allow shared parking with MTS. The project does meet the minimum setback requirements, will have a sidewalk connecting the church to the existing sidewalk on Technology Drive, and will meet NURP standards. Lynch asked if the project will overlap the wetland area because of the church entrance, and Cross indicated that it will overlap. Richard asked if it is possible to require or at least encourage additional landscaping because of the landscaped Purgatory Creek water conservation area. Lambert responded that the City can't require more than the ordinance requires. The City could review the church's landscape plan with them to see what their plans are. Richard stated that he would like to suggest the church have a program where a landscape memorial is set up with donated memorials. Lambert commented that the City can only encourage that type of a landscape program and suggest types of landscape materials, and that he felt it would be inappropriate to • change the landscape ordinance because of the church plan. Cross stated that • the City could require that trees be planted on berms. Kracum commented that what he felt Richard was suggesting was recommending a subtle change from the church to the Purgatory Creek area. Lambert explained that the northern end of the Purgatory Creek conservation area is not going to be all natural; it will have very formal landscaping, and there will be formal landscaping along Technology Drive, between the church and the Purgatory Creek recreation area. Lambert commented that since Technology Drive a direct line between the Government Center and the downtown area, the City could ask developers in that area to have their landscape plans tie into the landscaping plan along Technology Drive. A discussion was held regarding the height of the church and whether variances will be granted to other developers in that area. MOTION: Lynch moved to recommend approval of the St. Andrew Lutheran Church proposal per Staff recommendations of February 19, 1993 and with the suggestion that Staff works with the church regarding landscaping. Hilgeman seconded and motion passed 7-0. Brown asked if the first row of parking would be removed and Cross responded that it would. I \ n. ::::. y ''- • • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAmIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. NORMANDY CRFST RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NORMANDY CREST FOR ASSOCIATED INVESTMENTS, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Normandy Crest for Associated Investments, Inc. revised and dated February 17, 1993, consisting of 5.4 acres, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 16th day of March, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 4 r1 ' I' 11.0 STAFF REPORT TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANTI FEE OWNER: LOCATION: REQUEST: Planning Commission Chris Enger, Director of Planning Donald R. Uram, Planner February 19, 1993 Normandy Crest Associated Investments, Inc. South of Pioneer Trail and West of Normandy Crest 1. Rezoning from Rural to RI-13.5 on 2.09 acres 2. Preliminary Plat of 5.5 acres into 8 lots and 2 outlots ;:::: 1-'------.,1'" LOCATION MAP t+Y"f '7 ROAD ... ... u u i: a: ... l-on en t3 t3 • • • • • • Staff Report Normandy Crest February 19, 1993 BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts a low density residential land use for this site as well the surrounding properties to the northeast and to the south. Franlo Road Park is located directly to the west of the project. This site is currently zoned Rural. PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat depicts a subdivision of approximately 5.5 acres into 8 lots and 2 outlots. A zoning district change from Rural to Rl-13.5 is proposed on 2.09 acres. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the District with the exception of frontage on a public street for lots 2 and 3. Lots 2 and 3 have 58 foot and 55 foot frontages caused by the design of the cul- de-sac with a 90° curve. A variance for lot frontages less than the 85 foot minimum is required. Lot sizes within the subdivision range from a minimum of 13,800 square feet to a maximum of 23,200 square feet. The average lot size is 17,713 square feet. These lots are consistent with those developed in the area. ACCESS Access into the project is provided by the extension of Lee Drive and ending in a cul-de-sac. This results in a cul-de-sac length of approximately 1100 feet. City code allows a maximum cul- de-sac length of 500 feet. Including the Prairie Bluff Subdivision to the south, Lee Drive will serve 23 lots. Staff did an analysis of the feasibility of connecting Lee Drive in January 1992 (see attached Memo). In summary, the analysis indicated that it is possible from an engineering standpoint to connect Lee Drive. However, other factors included land use, circulation concerns, and neighborhood desires must also be taken into consideration. If the City does require the extension of Lee Drive to the north property line, the road would not be connected until the properties along Pioneer Trail developed. There are currently no proposals for development in this area. Considering that only 4 or 5 lots would be served by the Lee Drive extension, it will also be a very expensive road to construct. Staff anticipates that Lee Drive could not be connected without some City cost participation. Not requiring a road extension does not prohibit the development of these properties in the future. It is possible to provide access by the extension of a cul-de-sac from the west ( see attachment A). There is also the possibility that Hennepin County will take the property directly to the north for storm water mitigation as part of the County Road 18 expansion plans. If this Staff Report Normandy Crest February 19, 1993 happens, Lee Drive could not be extended. For these reasons, staff recommends that Lee Drive end in a cul-de-sac as shown on the proposed plan. GRADING Elevations on this site range from a high point of 846 along the north property line to a minimum of 814 which is the location of the existing house on Outlot A. The plan is designed so that all grading will take place within the single family portion of the project. The sight slopes down in all directions from the high point located along the north property line. Plans indicate a maximum cut of 14 feet off of the high point and minimal fill throughout the remainder of the site. UTILITIES Water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer service are available to this project. Water service will be provided by the connection to an 8 inch water line within Lee Drive and extended to the end • of the cul-de-sac. Sanitary sewer will be connected to an existing manhole located in the • southeast comer of the project site within the Normandy Crest right-of-way and extended throughout the project site. The proponent is extending both sanitary sewer and water to the northwest comer of the project site to provide service to the remaining properties in the area. This will also allow for the elimination of a temporary lift station within the existing Lee Drive multiple family development to the northwest (See attached Engineering memo.) Storm water runoff is designed to be collected within a catch basin system in the cul-de-sac and discharged to the holding pond to the north. This holding pond is designed to handle storm water runoff in this area and from Pioneer Trail. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Plans indicate two outlots on the remaining portion of the project. Outlot B is designed to accommodate the future County Road 18 frontage road and will be sold to the County for this purpose. Outlot A is reserved for future development. Although this property and adjacent properties are guided for low density residential, Staff anticipates that some other land uses will occur in this area. Examples include multiple family, or some sort of commercial/retail. Any type of development will require review through the land development process and would include such things as a guide plan change, zoning district change and site plan approval. • • • • Staff Report Nonnandy Crest February 19, 1993 PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS There is an existing 5 foot concrete sidewalk along the west side of Lee Drive and along the south side of this property to Franlo Road Park. With the previous development, a 10 foot easement along the north property line was acquired for the sidewalk. Typically, when a sidewalk goes between houses, a 40 foot outlot is required to provide for distance between the sidewalk and the houses. Because this sidewalk is on a 10 foot easement, Staff recommends that house on Lot 1 be located as far to the north as possible for privacy purposes. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the request for zoning district change from Rural to Rl-13.5 on 2.09 acres and a preliminary plat of 5.77 acres into 8 lots and 2 outlots based on revised plans dated February 17, 1993 subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated February 19, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the plan to reflect evergreen trees along the proposed frontage road for screening purposes. B. Revise the utility plan to indicate an additional catch basin in the southeast corner of the project. 2. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water runoff, utility plans and erosion control plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. B. Provide detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review and approval by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. B. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading . Staff Report Normandy Crest February 19, 1993 4. When Lot 1 develops, locate the house pad as far north as possible to allow for additional distance between the sidewalk and the proposed house. 5. Any development on Outlot A will be required to follow the Land Development Application process. • • • I JASPER LANE 2. HORSESHOE TRAIL 3. BRITTANY WAY 4. EDINBURGH CIRCLE ,. COLONY COURT 6 NEWPORT DRI't'E 7. BROWN FARM CIRCLE 8. SAL.£M COURT 9. DEvONSHIRE PLACE O. WIMBLEDON COURT I. GREYFIELD COURT iSf~~~ .......::=:.......... 88. A880TT CT aa. PAINTERS RIDGE INGTON CIR • •• •• • .. I CI" 82.MISTY .. OJ:lNING LAN • 83.CANAOIAHS LANDIN, -84. BARN SWAi...L.OW ORC TI16N 36131 R22't11-;-R2IW I 8 115N _____ ~~ ______________________________ _I----... ee. MORN 103. PARKER CRIVE .------------.:.~~~:_---l~~~~ ~:~~JONCI~~~ • • • • • • • • • • • 8 <Xl C\I o o o C\I 8 AREA TRAIL SYSTEM MAP 186.CHAPMAN POINT I 7. HOLl..,ANC CIRCL! o o C\I 9 o o v o 10 TO: Department Heads FROM: Donald R. Uram Mary Krause SUBJECT: Lee Drive Road Connection DATE: January 6, 1992 MEl\-IO Staff is evaluating the feasibility of connecting Lee Drive between the Mark Charles Additions and the Prairie Bluff subdivision. In the Staff Report for the Prairie Bluff subdivision dated May 8, 1987, staff indicated that the Lee Drive connection would provide good access and circulation for traffic within this area. As a result, staff has been recommending that when the vacant land develops, Lee Drive should be extended. Staff is currently reviewing a land development proposal for the Briggs property which is located directly to the north of the Prairie Bluff subdivision. The design of the Briggs subdivision is • dependent upon Lee Drive. Because of this, it is necessary at this time to determine whether • or not Lee Drive should be connected. In making this decision, five factors should be take into consideration: 1. Should neighborhoods with different zoning classifications and land uses be connected? The Mark Charles Additions are zoned RM-6.5 and developed with townhouse style units. Prairie Bluff is zoned R1-13.5 and developed with single family homes ranging in price from $170,000 to $260,000. The proposal for the Briggs property is also for single family homes zoned R1-13.5. There are also three single family homes located on Co. Rd. 1 whose properties would be involved in any road extension. The remaining vacant parcels in this area are guided Low Density Residential. 2. Are the access and circulation concerns strong enough to require the road connection? From the south, Lee Drive is currently 1,000 feet long and terminates on the Briggs south property line. To serve the Briggs property with a cul-de-sac, the road would have to be extended another 200 feet. To connect to Lee Drive to the north, a road extension of approximately 900 feet is necessary. From the north, Lee Drive is currently 1,200 feet long. To access the three adjacent • parcels with a cul-de-sac, the road would have to extended another 200. • • • 3. There is an existing private drive (Arrowhead Drive) in the Mark Charles subdivision which connects to Lee Drive 250 feet from the end. Technically, Lee Drive remains a 1,200 foot cul-de-sac although another access is provided by the private drive. If the private drive is considered a legitimate access, the Lee Drive cul-de-sac would only be 250 feet long plus whatever is necessary to access the adjacent parcels. How should access be provided to the three parcels which front on Co. Rd. I? If Lee Drive was connected, access could be provided to each of the properties from the rear. The development of these properties could then occur. It appears that a total of 3 or 4 lots could be subdivided from the three existing parcels. To connect Lee Drive, a road extension of approximately 900 feet is necessary (see Attachment A). If Lee Drive is not connected, the development of these parcels can still occur with the extension of cul-de-sacs from both ends (see Attachments B and C). A meeting with the three property owners would help to clarify their position on the road connection/extension. 4. How would the road connection affect utility services for the adjacent properties? By connecting Lee Drive as a through street, the existing sanitary sewer and watermain utilities could be connected. This would be beneficial in the following ways: a. b. The lift station located at the terminus of north Lee Drive could be eliminated and replaced with a gravity sewer system . The watermain could be looped providing continuous water flow without dead ends in the water system. If Lee Drive is not connected at this time, provisions should be made so that these utilities could be connected at some future date. s. Is the road connection feasible given the existing topography? Street grades for the road connection would be 6 % or less which meets applicable City standards. Construction of the connecting road would require both cut and fill sections up to a maximum of six feet. Storm sewer, sanitary sewer and water service would be coordinated with the street design. The connection of Lee Drive has always been considered when the properties in this area developed. The City needs to determine the feasibility of this connection based on the differing land-uses, neighborhood concerns, the length of any resulting cul-de-sacs and the development of the remaining vacant properties . '.'~-.: .. ~ . "'," c::= ______ ,.... _____ _ 41 .. . . :0' . .. 17: ..... 5~~· ~ 0: < a. c < o 0: ~ 0--z 4( a: u. ."'. .:~ 1- '~iTJi 3 \ • Overall Road System • Attachment A • ;;; .... • ~ 0: < c.. C < o 0: . 0- ="" z < 0: U. 'I lJ.l·'" 1"1 .06' . "C m o 0: o c m ~ u. OveraliRoad ystem Attachment S- l\1EMORANDUM • TO: Donald Uram, Planner FROM: Rod Rue, Engineering f vJf DATE: February 5, 1993 SUBJECT: Lift Station on Lee Drive The lift station at the end of Lee Drive was built strictly as a temporary solution. It allowed the most easterly units of the Mark Charles development to be constructed at that time rather than waiting for a sewer extension from the east. The intent was to remove the lift station when Lee Drive was extended and sewer was provided from the east. With the current development proposal, the street is not proposed to be extended. However, a sewer and water extension to the west must be provided in order to get the sewer closer to the • temporary lift station. The lift station could then be removed when the last two parcels get developed or the City chooses to pursue the correction. MEMOUFr.RR:" • • • • ~wh~\i)©lf£ ~DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE NO. METRO WATERS -1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 5510F~ENO. 772-7910 February 10, 1993 Don Uram Planning Department city of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: NCru1ANDY CREST, PRELHUNARY PLAT REVIEW, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Uram: We have reviewed the site plans dated'1/6/93 (received 1/26/93) for the above-referenced project (NE 1/4, NE 1/4, S.36, T.116N, R.22W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. The project site does not contain or appear to involve any public waters or public waters wetlands; therefore, no DNR public waters permit is required. 2. No DNR floodplain or shoreland concerns were noted. 3. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. 4. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is required. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772- 7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist c: Joe Yanta, USCOE Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed Distri/it Mr. Chris Enger City Planner City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co. 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55437 832-2600 Legal Advisor: Popham. Haik. Schnob rich & Kaufman 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 333-4800 February 4, 1993 The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley-purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted to the District for the Normandy Crest Subdivision in Eden Prairie, The following policies and criteria of the District are applicable for this project: 1. In accordance with Section E(2) of the District's revised rules and regulations, a grading and land alteration permit from the District is required. A detailed grading plan showing both existing and proposed contours must be submitted to the District for review. 2. A detailed erosion control plan outlining procedures to control sedimentation from leaving areas altered on the site must be submitted to the District for review and approval. 3. A stormwater management plan for the project must be submitted for review and approval. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this development at an early date. If you have any questions or request additional information, please give me a call at 832-2857. Bco/kmh c: Mr. Ray Haik Mr. Fritz Rahr 23\27\053\CREST.LTR ~ceT!i-arrJtf} R ert~~ermeyerf Barr Engineering Company Engineer's for the District • • • • • HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 PHONE: (612) 930-2500 FAX (612) 930-2513 TDD: (612) 930-2696 February 1, 1993 Chris Enger, Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: RE: Proposed Plat -Normanday Crest CSAH 1, Southwest quadrant of CSAH 18, approx. 400' west of CSAH 18 Section 36, Township 116, Range 22 Hennepin County Plat No. 2041 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: -For future improvements to the CSAH IjCSAH 18 the developer should dedicate the 100' right of way corridor, measured from the west line of Outlot A, shown on Attachment 1. -No direct access from this plat to CSAH 1 will be permitted by Hennepin County. -All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to driveway removal, drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for utility permit forms. -The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County ri ght of ';Jay. Please direct any response to Les Weigelt. Sincerely, d'~4)~ Thomas O. ~nson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TOJjLOW: lw HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer ~ LINE OF THE NE1/4 OF TH'-NEl/4 OF SEC. 36 _, -. 7 3 811.16 / ·55:-:1: ---~~r-----Tf~/'~2;;5:;6:-.' ----=.;-::.~-.....~ ~ ~ " 1\ ,--I -- 6 23,200 SF SF 268 * 780.00 o ~ fll;:::. 50 1 .... /- () !"2' -;7 "'- 60 !J.= 6 22 138" I _.R= 416.85~. L= 46.40 -II L!") r-- If') \.C1 - o o . L() '" ,.. W = co N -Lt') .,... o Z 74,500 SF \. '\ [ I S89 43 1 2 3~O w o _ 0. ,--, o -V \,,1 ) 1- .to L(')N Nin ,,-,... LOO' ,..1 o Z 172 == 1-(\1 JTI r---" ...._ \.) I 'r (J) l·J 0.: rJI IIIF u l.-V 1-- (..J • . -,. -.--~-":--.~ .. , .. • • • Unapproved Minutes Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Monday, March 1, 1993 E. Normandy Crest Cross reviewed and explained the February 19, 1993, memorandum. A sidewalk from a driveway to Franlo Road Park has a 10 foot easement instead of a 40 foot outlot, which is not up to current standard. Richard asked if the Staff is uneasy about this matter, and Lambert responded that they know it is going to be a problem in the future. The City would like the Commission to point out to the developer that the garage side of the house should be put on the trail side of the property and suggest the developer put in landscaping to screen the trail from the lot. Lynch asked if there had ever been a case where the City requested the developer and selling agent to sign a document indicating knowledge of the situation, and Cross stated that it is usually the second or third owner that has a problem. MOTION: Brown moved to recommend approval of the Staff recommendation on Normandy Crest to advise developers about the trail's location and the Normandy Crest Subdivision request. Lynch seconded and motion passed 7-0. 7 • • • MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Planner DA TE: March 12, 1993 SUBJECT: Revision to Section 11 :45 Flood Plains Regulation In October of 1989, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) notified communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program that revisions to their flood plain ordinances are required to meet new Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations. Failure to revise the ordinance would result in the loss of eligibility for the sale of flood insurance for the community. Eden Prairie has comprehensive flood plain controls in place, but some criteria is now being added to meet the intent of the model ordinance approved by both FEMA and the DNR. This criteria includes: • New Minnesota Statute references. • A Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation increased from l' above to 2' above the 100 year flood elevation. • Removal of duplicated requirements referenced under separate sections of the City Code. • Overall restructuring of the format. The City submitted the final draft revision to the DNR in February of 1991. In January of this year, the DNR indicated that the revised ordinance meets the Federal and State requirements, and that adoption by the City Council is required by April 15, 1993. The Planning Commission has reviewed the draft ordinance and recommended approval to the City Council. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE, CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.45 ENTITLED "FLOOD PLAINS REGULATION" THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section I. City Code Chapter 11, Sec. 11.45, as written is hereby repealed. Section 2. to read as follows: City Code Chapter 11, Sec. 11.45 shall be and hereby is amended SECTION 11.45. FLOOD PLAINS REGULATION. Subd. 1. Statutory Authorization, Purpose and Disclaimer. A. Statutory Authorization. The Legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103 F.OOl-.165 and Chapter 462 delegated the authority to local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Minnesota Statutes, Section 103F. 165 further stipulates that communities subject to recurrent flooding must participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. B. Statement of Purpose. The City hereby finds and declares that lands adjacent and contiguous to Riley Creek, Purgatory Creek, Nine Mile Creek, Lower Minnesota River, and lakes situated within the City are, or may be, subject to periodic flooding resulting in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. It is, therefore, the purpose of this section to guide and regulate the orderly development of such lands and thereby minimize public and private losses, and to insure maintenance of needed natural water storage areas and water courses, and their shorelines and adjacent vegetation and topography, and thereby to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare. It is also the purpose of this Section to maintain the City'S eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by Minnesota Statutes. C. Warning of Disclaimer of Liability. This Section does not imply that areas outside of the flood plain or land uses permitted within the flood plain will be free from flooding and flood damages. This Section shall not create liability on the part of the City or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damage that results from reliance on this 1 • • • • • • Section, the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Eden Prairie, Zoning Map of the City of Eden Prairie or any administrative decisions made thereunder. Subd. 2. General Provisions. A. Adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Map. In order to comply with State and Federal law , the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Eden Prairie, dated January 17, 1986, developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is hereby adopted by reference. The Flood Insurance Rate Map may be used for flood insurance requirement determinations only. It must not be relied upon for information as to actual conditions, such as the non-likelihood of flooding of particular lands, since it contains inaccuracies. B. Lands to Which Section Applies. This Section shall apply to all lands within the flood plain district within the jurisdiction of the City. Subd. 3. Definitions. 1. Accessory Use or Structure - a use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Basement -any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level. Flood - a temporary increase in the flow or stage or a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas. Flood Plain -the channel or bed proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by a regional flood. A flood plain shall be determined without reference to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Flood Plain District -That area encompassed within flood plains in the City. Floodway -the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plain which are reasonably required to carry or store a regional flood discharge. Obstruction -any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, dredged spoil, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, stockpile of sand or gravel or other material, or matter in along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, lake bed, or regulatory flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of flow, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by floodwater . 2 8. Regional Flood - a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in magnitude of a 100-year recurrence interval. 9. Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation -The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than two feet (2') above the regional flood elevation (the crest or highest elevation of a regional flood) plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway. 10. Structure -anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground or on- site utilities. 11. Any term not defined in this Section shall have the meaning as defined elsewhere in this Chapter. Subd. 4. Conflict With Other Regulations And General Compliance. A. B. The Flood Plain District as Overlay District. The flood plain district shall be considered an overlay of other districts provided by this Chapter 11. The uses permitted in this Section shall be permitted only if not prohibited by any other provision of the Code. The conditions and limitations imposed by this Section shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, other provisions of the Code, and where this Section is more restrictive, the provisions of this Section shall apply. Compliance. No structure or land within the flood plain district shall hereafter be used, placed, located, extended, converted, altered, filled or excavated except as provided in this Section. Subd. 5. Authorized And Permitted Uses. A. Authorized Uses in the Flood Plain District With a Permit. The following uses of land may be authorized in the flood plain district by obtaining a permit from the City. Such uses must comply, and may be authorized only on condition that they shall comply, with the Use and Construction Standards contained in Subd. 6 hereof. 1. Any use of land which does not involve a structure, a habitation, an addition to the outside dimensions to an existing structure or an obstruction to flood flows such as fill, or excavation pursuant to Subd. 5. A. 3. hereof, or storage of materials or equipment. 2. Storage of materials or equipment if readily removable from the flood plain within the time available after a flood warning in accordance with a plan approved by the Council, or if not subject to major damage by floods and firmly anchored to prevent flotation, provided however, the storage of materials that are, in time of 3 • • • • • • 3. flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. Filling or excavation pursuant to a valid permit or permits issued by the managers of a Watershed District formed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103 D or any similar law having jurisdiction over the flood plain and/or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 4. Placement, building, or alteration of, or addition to, a structure on that portion of a flood plain which has been filled to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. 5. Public Facilities and Services. 6. Railroad tracks, roads, streets, and bridges. 7. Structural works for Flood Control structures authorized by the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105. 8. Docks, moorings, boat storage, swimming floats, skijump storage, diving towers, buoys or markers, permitted on or in a lake or other waters pursuant to Section 11.50 of the Code. Subd. 6. Use And Construction Standards. A. Structures. 1. 2. 3. All structures, including accessory structures and additions to existing structures, shall be constructed so that the basement floor, or first floor if there is no basement, is at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation must be no lower than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and shall extend at such elevation at least 15' beyond the limits of the structure constructed thereon. Structures shall be constructed or placed to prevent flotation which may result in damage to other structures and/or restrictions of bridge openings and other narrow sections of water-courses. Public facilities and services shall be flood-proofed in accordance with the Building Code, unless situated above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. 4 B. Parking Lots. Parking lots may be at elevations lower than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation, provided however, for such facilities to be used by employees or the general public there must exist and be operating a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth greater than two feet or be subject to flood velocities greater than four feet per second upon occurrence of a regional flood. C. Railroad tracks, roads, and bridges shall be elevated to or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation where failure or interruption of these facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. D. Private On-Site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems. No private on-site sewage treatment or water supply system shall be constructed within a flood plain. E. Filling or Excavation. Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall be properly protected by the use of rip-rap, vegetative cover or other acceptable method. A slope shall not be steeper than one (1) foot vertical elevation for each three (3) feet of the slope measured horizontally. F. All Uses. 1. Uses that do not have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation to lands outside of the flood plain shall not be permitted unless granted a variance in accordance with this Chapter. Such a variance, shall limit the period of use or occupancy of the use and may be only granted after a determination that adequate flood warning time and local emergency response and recovery procedures exist. 2. No use shall result in the pollution of, or detriment to, surface or ground water. 3. No use shall result in an obstruction to, or be incompatible with, preservation of those natural land forms, vegetation and adjacent marshes and wet areas contiguous to watercourses in the City which are principal factors in the maintenance of constant rates of water flow. 4. No use shall be permitted which results in development of land or water areas reasonably necessary to temporary withholding of excessive runoff of surface water, or of land and water areas which provide groundwater infiltration, and which development will or may decrease the capacity of such areas to withhold such surface waters, or to provide such ground water infiltration. 5. Service facilities such as electrical and heating equipment shall be installed at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or adequately flood proofed . 5 I L /1"; ~,·!O • • • • • • Subd. 7. Permit Required. A. A Permit issued by the Council shall be secured prior to the construction, addition, or alteration of any building or structure; prior to the use or change of use of a building, structure, or land; prior to the change or extension of a nonconforming use; and prior to excavation or the placement of an obstruction within the flood plain district. B. Upon receipt of an application for a permit within the flood plain district, the City shall require the applicant to furnish sufficient site development plans and a hydrologic/hydraulic analysis by a qualified registered engineer specifying the nature of the development and whether the proposed use is located in the Flood Plain and the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the site. Procedures consistent with Minnesota Rules 1983 Parts 6120.5600 (Technical Standards and Requirements For Flood Plain Evaluation) and 6120.5700 (Minimum Flood Plain Management Standards For Local Zoning Ordinances) shall be followed during the technical evaluation and review of the development proposal. C. When filing the application, the applicant shall pay non-refundable fees in amounts which have been determined by the Council and fixed by resolution. A copy of such resolution shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk-Treasurer and uniformly enforced. D. The City shall submit one copy of all information required by Subd. 7. A. of this Section, for their review and recommendations, to the Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist and the Watershed District having jurisdiction over the land which is the subject of the application, at least 20 days prior to the granting of a permit by the Council and to the City's Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and Planning Commission prior to the granting of a permit by the Council. The City shall notify the respective Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist within ten (10) days after a permit is issued. Subd. 8. Certification of Floor Elevations. The applicant shall submit a certification by a registered professional engineer, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this Section. The Director of Inspections shall maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) for all new structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in the flood plain district. Subd. 9. Severability. If any subdivision, clause, provision, or portion of this Section is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Section shall not be affected thereby. 6 Section 3. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions • Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 4. publication. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the __ day of , 1993 and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the __ day of , 1993. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the __ day of _____ , 1993. 7 • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, l\1INNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. FLOOD PLAINS REGULATION AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, l\1INNESOTA, AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.45 ENTITLED "FLOOD PLAINS REGULATION". THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, l\1INNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: Effective Date: ATTEST: lsi John D. Frane This Ordinance amends City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.45 relating to Flood Plains Regulation. This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. • City Clerk IslDouglas B. Tenpas Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on --------------------------------- (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) • Existing Code SECTION 11.45. FLOOD PLAINS REGULATION. Subd. 1. Declaration of Policy and Purpose. A. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby found and declared that lands adjacent and contiguous to Riley Creek. Purgatory Creek. Nine Mile Creek and Lower Minnesota River are. or may be, subject to periodic flooding resulting in loss ofIife and property, health and safety hazards. disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. It is, therefore, the purpose of this Section to guide and regulate the orderly development of such lands and thereby minimize public and private losses, and to ensure maintenance of needed natural water storage areas and water courses, and their shorelines and adjacent vegetation and topography, and thereby to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare. B. Specific Purposes. In addition to this policy, the specific intent of this Section is to: 1. Reduce danger to health by protecting surface and ground water supplies from the impairment which results from incompatible land uses by providing safe and sanitary drainage. 2. Reduce the fmancial burdens imposed on this community and the individuals therein by floods and overflow of water on lands. 3. Permit and encourage planned development land use which will not impede the flow of flood water, or cause danger to life or property. 11-42 • • • • • • 4 . Permit and encourage land uses compatible with the preservation of the natural vegetation and marshes which are a principal factor in the maintenance of constant rates of water flow throughout the year. 5. Avoid fast run-off of surface waters from developed areas to prevent polluting materials such as animal feces, motor oils, paper, and sand, salt, garbage and other debris, sediment. and foreign materials from being carried directly into the nearest natural stream, lake or other public waters. 6. Encourage a suitable system of ponding areas to permit the temporary withholding of rapid water run-off which presently contributes to downstream flooding and general water pollution giving preference to areas which contribute to the groundwater infiltration and recharge, thereby reducing the need for public projects to contain, store, and control such runoff. 7. Through proper planning provide sufficient land area to carry abnormal flows of storm water in periods of heavy precipitation, and to prevent needless expenditures of public funds for storm sewers and flood protection devices. 8. Prevent the development of structures in areas unsafe for occupancy by reason of danger from flooding, unsanitary conditions or other hazards. 9. Prevent the placement of obstructions which restrict the right of public passage and use of the bed, bank and water of any creeks, marshes or watercourses within the City. 10 . Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 Maintain the City's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Source: Ordinance No. 37-85 Effective Date: 4-17-86 Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: 1. "Channel" -Any natural or artificial watercourse which confmes and conducts water flowage, either continuously or periodically as measured by the ordinary high water marks of the watercourse. 2. "Commissioner" -The Commissioner of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota. 3. "Equal Degree of Encroachment" - A method of determining the location of encroachment lines so that the hydraulic capacity of flood plain lands on each side of a stream are reduced by an equal amount when calculating the increases in flood stages due to flood plain encroachments. 4. "Flood" - A temporary rise in stream flow or stage that results in inundation of the land areas adjacent to, but other than, the channel. 5. "Flood Frequency" -The average frequency, statistically determined, for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equaled or exceeded. 11-43 Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 6. "Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)" -An official map of a community on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. Source: Ordinance No. 37-85 Effective Date: 4-17-86 7. "Flood Plain" -The area adjoining a watercourse which has been, or hereafter may be, covered by the Regional Flood. 8. "Floodway" -The channel of the watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plains which are reasonably required to carry and discharge the regional flood. 9. "Flood Proofing" - A combination of structural provisions, changes or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages. 10. "Obstruction" -Any storage of material or equipment, dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, road, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, culvert, building, wire, fence stockpile. refuse, fill, deposit from clearing or trees or vegetation, structure or matter in, along, across, or projecting, in whole or in part, into the flood plain. 11. "Reach" - A hydraulic engineering term to describe longitudinal segments of the stream influenced by a natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a stream between two consecutive road crossings would most typically constitute a reach. 12. "Regional Flood" - A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota, and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the l00-year recurrence interval. 13. "Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation" - A point not less than one foot above the water surface profile associated with the regional flood plus any increases in flood heights attributable to encroachments on the flood plain. It is the elevation to which uses regulated by the Section are required to be elevated or flood proofed. 14. "Structure" -Anything that is built, constructed or installed, whether of a temporary or permanent character. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 Subd. 3. Adoption of Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map. The Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Eden Prairie, dated January 17, 1986, developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is hereby adopted by reference and made a part hereof. Subd. 4. Lands Subject to This Section. 11-44 Source: Ordinance No. 37-85 Effective Date: 4-17-86 • • • • • • A. Land Subject to This Section. This Section shall apply to all lands within the City designated in the official flood plain profile. Where the official flood plain profile does not designate otherwise, it sball apply to all areas within 100 feet of the nearest bank of a channel or a watercourse. B. Establishment of Flood Plain. The flood plain shall be all lands within the jurisdiction of the City which are subject to flooding, and which lie below the elevation shown on the official flood plain profile (hereinafter called the "profile"), in the City Hall. The profile, together with all explanatory matter thereon, or attached thereto, is hereby adopted by reference, and declared to be a part of this Section. The profile shall be on file in the office of the City Engineering Department, and shall be open to inspection by the public during normal business hours of the City Hall. C. Elevation. The elevation of the flood plain as shown on the profile shall be the governing factor in locating flood plain boundaries. Subd. 5. Flood Plain Uses. A. Flood Plain Uses. No land use shall be changed, nor shall any obstruction be changed in its use, or be constructed, erected, added to, altered, placed or done wholly or partly in the Flood Plain or within 100 feet of the nearest bank of the channel of a watercourse unless a written permit is first obtained pursuant to this Section. B. Standards and Conditions for Issuance of Permits. No permit shall be issued unless the following provisions are complied with: 1. A contiguous parcel of property of sufficient width, but in no case less than SO feet from the nearest bank of the channel, as the case may be, shall be subjected to a perpetual easement in favor of the City for the purposes of: widening, deepening, sloping, improving or protecting the bed, banks and flood plain for hydraulic efficiency. Said land may be dedicated to the City upon mutual agreement between the landowner and the City. In either case, there shall be granted to the City the right of ingress to and egress from said strip of lands with men, equipment and material where considered appropriate. Said easement shall also provide that the owners of the area shall not make, do or place any obstruction or structure of any kind, on, or in, such easement area, or raise the level of the easement area in any way without first receiving a permit from the City. 2. No permit shall be issued for any obstruction or use which, acting along or in combination with existing or anticipated future uses or obstruction, will, or may, unduly decrease the capacity of the channel or flood plain of the creeks, or the capacity of any drainage ditch, facility, area or system, or the channel of any tributary to the water courses, or unduly increase flood heights, or which otherwise will, or may result in danger to persons or property. Consideration of the effects of a proposed obstruction or use shall be based on the reasonable assumption that there will be an equal degree of encroachment extending for an entire reach on both sides of the stream. In addition to the provisions of this Section. any proposed work in the City which will change the course, current or cross-section of the water, bed or banks of any watercourse, shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105 and other applicable statutes. 3. No permit shall be used which will result in the placing of any obstruction which restricts the right of public passage and use of the channels, banks and watercourses in the City, except that special permits may be issued for obstructions approved by the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District as to Riley and Purgatory Creeks, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District as to the Nine Mile Creek, and the Lower Minnesota Watershed District as to the Minnesota River, and used for water 11-45 management, in which case adequate provision shall be made for portaging and passage of watercraft. 4. No permit shall be issued which will result in an obstruction detrimental to the protection of surface and ground water supplies. s. No permit shall be issued which will result in an obstruction or use incompatible with preservation of those natural land fonns, vegetation and adjacent marshes and wet areas contiguous to watercourses in the City which are principal factors in the maintenance of constant rates of water flow in said creeks throughout the year. 6. No permit shall be issued which results in development of land or water areas reasonably necessary to temporary withholding of excessive runoff of surface water, or of land and water areas which provide groundwater infiltration, and which development will or may decrease the capacity of such areas to withhold such surface waters, or to provide such ground water infiltration. 7. 8. No permit shall be issued for any fill proposed to be deposited in the Flood Plain, unless shown to have some beneficial purpose, and the amount thereof must not exceed that necessary to achieve the intended purpose, as to which the filled land will be put, the kind of fill, and the final dimensions of the proposed fill or other materials. Such fill shall be protected against erosion in the manner required by the permit. No fill shall be placed on the area dedicated to public use, or subjected to an easement in favor of the City pursuant to Item 1 of this Subparagraph B. Nothing in this Item 7 shall be construed to require the City to grant a permit upon the showing of some beneficial use if in the opinion of the City the proposed use is not sufficiently beneficial to justify its costs, both direct and indirect, specifically if such filling will materially increase the possibility of flooding downstream. No permits for garbage and solid waste disposal sites in the Flood Plain shall be issued. 9. No permit shall be issued unless the proposed use or obstruction has received the approval of all governmental bodies having jurisdiction over such use or obstruction, including the appropriate watershed district, as the case may be, if said approval is required by the statutes, City Code, rules or regulations applicable to such governmental bodies, and to such use or obstruction. 10. No permit shaH be issued unless the proposed use or obstruction confonns to the land use plans and planning objectives of the City for the area in which the use or obstruction is to be done or placed. . 11. No permit shall be issued within the Floodway of the Lower Minnesota River Watershed District as delineated by the "encroachment line" shown for that portion of the District within the City - except for those activities specifically permitted by said District and by Statewide Criteria for Management of Flood Plain areas of Minnesota (Minn. Reg. NR 88). C. Utilities, Railroad Tracks, Streets and Bridges. Public utility facilities, roads, railroad tracks, and bridges within the Flood Plain shall be designed to minimize increases in flood elevations, and shall be compatible with City Comprehensive Drainage Plan. They shall also be designed, and evidence thereof shall be submitted to the City, to adequately provide for storm water runoff and sediment control. D. Flood Control Works. No permit for any flood control structure or similar work will be issued unless in compliance with the land use development plans of the City. Also, any proposed flood control structure 11-46 • • • • • • or work which will change the course, current or cross-section of the water, bed or banks of any watercourse in the City shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter lOS. Subd. 6. Additional Restrictions in Flood Plain. In addition to the requirements set out in Subdivision 4 of this Section, no permit shall be issued for any structure or storage of materials and equipment wholly or partly in the Flood Plain unless the following requirements are met: A. Structures. 1. Structures shall have a low flood damage potential, and specifically no residential structures will be permitted within the delineated Flood Plain. 2. The structure or structures, if permitted shall be constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood waters. (a) Whenever possible, structures shall be constructed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the direction of the flood flow, and, (b) So far as practicable, structures shall be placed approximately on the same flood flow lines as those of adjoining structures. 3. Structures shall be firmly anchored to prevent flotation which may result in damage to other structures andlor restrictions of bridge openings and other narrow sections of watercourses. 4 . Service facilities such as electrical and heating equipment shall be installed at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area or adequately flood proofed. 5. The finished fill elevation shall be at least one foot above the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area, and shall extend such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond the limits of any structure or building erected thereon. Where existing streets, utilities or other conditions make compliance with the foregoing impossible, the City may authorize other techniques. Structures shall be elevated as provided herein, but may in special circumstances be otherwise elevated or protected as provided in Subparagraph B of Subdivision 8 of this Section to a point above the regulatory flood protection elevation. 6. Commercial and industrial structures must be constructed with no first floor or basement floor below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Accessory land uses for such structures, such as yard, railroad tracks and parking lots may be at low elevations as provided for in the permit to be first obtained. B. Storage of Materials and Equipment. 1. The storage or processing of materials that are in time of flooding buoyant, flammable, explosive, or could be injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. 2. Storage of other material or equipment may be allowed if not subject to major damage by floods and firmly anchored to prevent flotation, or readily removable from the area within the time available after flood warning. Subd. 7. Administration, Application for and Issuance of Permits • 11-47 A. Permit Required. A permit issued by the City pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall be applied for and obtained prior to the construction, erection, additional alteration or installation of any improvement, building, structure, obstruction or portion thereof, within any part of a Flood Plain or within 100 feet of the nearest bank of the channel of a watercourse. B. Application for Permit. Application for a permit shall be made by the owner or owners on forms provided by the City. A copy of the application shall be filed with the City Manager, or his designate. The application shall be accompanied initially by the following, where applicable; plans, drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the lot or plot; existing or proposed structures andlor obstructions; the location of the foregoing in relation to the channel and Flood Plain; and such other information as the City Manager may reasonably request. C. Application Fee. When filing the application, the applicant shall pay non-refundable fees for a permit request and variance request in amounts which have been determined by the Council and fixed by resolution. A copy of such resolution shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk-Treasurer and uniformly enforced. D. The City Manager shall submit a copy of the application to the appropriate watershed district, and to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. E. The City Manager shall submit a copy of the application to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission for its recommendation on the environmental impact of the proposed construction, and to the Planning Commission and City Planner for their report and recommendation. F. The application for permit, together with staff reports and the comments and recommendations from the Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission, and Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the Council for action. Comments from the appropriate Watershed District and the Department of Natural Resources shall be forwarded to the Council within sixty (60) days. G. Certificate of Compliance. Upon completion of any work or project pursuant to a permit granted pursuant to this Section, and prior to the use of occupancy of the land or structures, applicant is required to submit written certification signed by a duly registered professional engineer, architect, land surveyor, or other qualified person designated by the Council at such time as the building application is approved. Said Certificate of Compliance shall certify that all permitted improvements, buildings, and structures, including, but not limited to fmished fill and building floor elevations, flood prooting, or other flood protection measures, have been completed in compliance with the permit including a notice of public hearing on said permit application. H. Notices of All Public Hearings. Notices of all public hearings for variances or permits shall be submitted to the Commissioner of Natural Resources at least ten (10) days prior to the date of said hearing. The Commissioner of Natural Resources shall be notified of all decisions on variances and special permits within ten (10) days of such action. Subd. 8. Variance Standards. A. Variances. Variances from the strict language of this Section may be granted by the Council only when (1) such variance is determined to be in the public interest, or (2) where strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. However, no variance shall have the effect of permitting a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood protection elevation for the land under consideration. The Council shall grant variances only pursuant to the provisions of this Section. 11-48 • • • • • • B. Procedure for Considering Variance Applications. Upon receiving an application for a variance, the Council, prior to rendering a decision thereof, may require the applicant to furnish such of the following additional information as deemed necessary by the Council for determining the suitability of the particular site for the proposed use: 1. Surface water drainage plans and flood proofmg measures. 2. A valley cross-section showing the channel and flood plain of the watercourse, elevation of land areas adjoining each side of the channel and flood plain, cross-section areas to be occupied by the proposed development, high water information, all land forms, and adjacent marshes and wet areas. 3. Plans (surface view) showing elevations or contours of the ground; location and elevation of streets, water supply, sanitary facilities; photographs showing existing land uses and vegetation upstream and downstream; and soil types. 4. Profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel and flow line of the watercourse. 5. Specifications for building construction and materials, flood proofing, filling, dredging, grading, channel improvement, storage of materials, water supply (including withdrawal and discharge of ground and surface water), and sanitary facilities. 6. Such other information, data and plans as may be requested by the Council to determine compliance with this Section and the effects of the proposed activity on the flood plains, watercourses, and adjoining lands in the area. Subd. 9. Factors and Conditions Upon Which Decisions May Be Based. A. Factors. In passing upon a permit or variance application, the Council shall consider all relevant factors specified in this Section, and also consider the following factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by obstructions. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, unsanitary and nuisance conditions. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development reasonably anticipated in the future. The irrevocability of the proposed use, and its consequent costs in terms of accommodating possible uses of a more beneficial nature which may arise in the future. 11-49 9. The relationship of the proposed use to the City's overall plan, flood plain management program, and water management program. 10. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. 11. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters are expected at the site. 12. Such other factors which are relevant to the purpose of this Section. B. Conditions. Upon consideration of the factors listed above and the purposes of this Section. the Council may attach such conditions to the granting of permits or variances. as the case may be, as deemed necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Section. Such conditions may include. but are not limited to. the following: 1. Modification of waste disposal and water supply facilities. 2. Limitation on period of use and operation. 3. Imposition of operational controls. surface. and deed restrictions. 4. Requirements for construction of channel modifications, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. 5. Conditions to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. 6. Flood proofing measures which shall be designed consistent with the factors associated with the regional flood. The Council may require that the applicant submit a plan or document certifying the flood protection elevation and associated flood factors for that particular area. 7. Permit suspension in the event the work performed does not conform to the provisions of the permit or the approved plans and specifications for the work authorized; provided that written notice of the permit suspension shall be given by the City Manager. or his designate. Said notice shall state the nature of the correction required. Upon correction of the violation, the permittee may resume work in accordance with the permit. Subd. 10. Nonconfonning Structures or Obstructions; Lapse; Destruction. A. A structure or obstruction or use of the same which was lawful before adoption of this Section but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Section may be continued subject to the following conditions: 1. No such obstruction or structure or use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in any way without complying. in all respects, with this Section. 2. If such use is discontinued for twelve consecutive months, any subsequent use of the structure or obstruction shall comply in all respects with this Section including. but not limited to. the obtaining of all required permits. 3. If any nonconforming structure or obstruction is destroyed or damaged by any means. including floods. to the extent that the cost of repairing or restoring such destroyed or damaged nonconforming structure or obstruction would be 50 percent or more of the Assessor's Market 11-50 '-./0 .. ~ -' • • • • • • Value for tax purposes at the time of damage, then it shall not be reconstructed except in full compliance, in all respects, with the provisions of this Section including, but not limited to, the obtaining of all required permits. Subd. 11. Right of Passage. It is unlawful for any person, without a permit obtained pursuant to this Section, to place any obstruction in any watercourse in the City or to obstruct, in any way, the passage of watercraft or to interfere, in any way, with the use by the public of the beds, banks, waters or channels of any watercourse, except obstructions placed by the appropriate Watershed District and used for water management, in which case adequate provision shall be made for portaging and passage of watercraft. Subd. 12. Removal of Obstructions. A. Natural Obstructions. The City shall have the right of reasonable entry upon lands, for the purpose of ingress and egress to the flood plain, the bed, banks and waters of any watercourse and within 100 feet of the bank of a channel to remove any natural obstructions such as, but not limited to, trees, debris, litter and silt. B. Artificial Obstructions. Any artificial obstruction of the beds, banks, waters or channels of any watercourse, on the Flood Plain or within 100 feet of the bank of a channel not made pursuant to a permit or existing prior to the adoption of this Section may be ordered by the City Manager to be removed by the owner of the adjoining land within the time specified by the City Manager in its written order personally served upon or mailed to such owner. If the owner shall fail or refuse to remove the obstruction within said time, or if the owner cannot be found or determined, the City may remove such obstruction and the cost thereof shall be paid by the owner on demand, or may be assessed against the land, and collected in the same manner as prescribed by law for levy and collection of ad valorem real property taxes . Subd. 13. Civil Penalties. Every obstruction or use placed or maintained in the flood plain in violation of this Section is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and creation thereof may be enjoined and the maintenance thereof abated by appropriate judicial action. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent, remedy or remove any violation. Subd. 14. Amendments of Flood Plain Map and Profile. A. The flood plain designation on the Flood Plain and profile shall not be removed from any areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the areas to be so removed are filled to an elevation at or above the flood protection elevation, provided that any areas so removed are contiguous to other lands lying outside the Flood Plain. B. All amendments must be submitted to the Council and the Commissioner of Natural Resources and approved by both prior to adoption. Subd. 15. Enforcement. The City will avail itself to technical assistance available through the appropriate Watershed District and its staff in determining enforcement procedures for this Section. Subd. 16. Authority. This section is adopted pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes 1969, Chapter 104. Subd. 17. Interpretation. In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Section they shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, prosperity, and general welfare. It is not the intention of this Section to interfere with, or abrogate or annul any covenant or other agreement between parties, or any other Chapters of the City Code; provided, however, where this Section imposes a greater restriction upon 11-51 61i the use or improvement of any premises other than those imposed or required by other statutes. City Code provisions. rules. regulations or permits of the City. State. or appropriate Watershed District. or by coveomts or agreements. the provisions of this Section shall govern. Subd. 18. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. This section does not imply that areas outside the Flood Plain District or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This Section shall not create liability on the part of the City or any employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Section or any action taken or decision lawfully made hereunder. Source: Ordinance No. 276 Effective Date: 2-28-75 (Section 11.46 through 11.49. inclusive. reserved for future expansion.) • • • ~.F:CH lS.19~)3 :32583 32584 • 2585 .2586 32587 32588 32589 32590 32591 :32592 32593 32594 32595 32596 32597 32598 32599 32600 32601 32602 32603 32604 32605 32606 32607 32608 32609 • 32610 2611 32612 32613 32614 32615 32616 32617' 32618 32619 32620 32621 32622 32623 32624 32625 32626 32627 32628 32629 32630 32631 32632 32633 32634 32635 • 2636 2637 COOKIES BY DEB EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL UNITED PARCEL SERVICE POSTAGE-ENGINEERING DEPT RICHARD ANDERSON CONFERENCE ADVANCE-CITY COUNCIL H MARTIN JESSEN CONFERENCE ADVANCE-CITY COUNCIL CARL J JULLIE CONFERENCE ADVANCE-ADMINISTRATION DEPT PATRICIA PIDCOCK CONFERENCE ADVANCE-CITY COUNCIL MINNEGASCO SERVICE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 02-19-93 SAVINGS BONDS FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 02-19-93 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 02-19-93 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER PAYROLL 02-19-93 CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER PAYROLL 02-19-93 CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 PAYROLL 02-19-93 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PAYROLL 02-19-93 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG FEBRUARY 93 UNION DUES MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC MARCH 93 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM MEDICA CHOICE MARCH 93 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 02-19-93 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 02-19-93 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLLS 02-05-93 & 02-19-93 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA MARCH 93 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 02-19-93 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 02-19-93 EAGLE WINE CO WINE GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR .JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO LIQUOR MINNESOTA CROWN DISTRIBUTING INC WINE PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE & LIQUOR PRIOR WINE CO WINE QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO LIGUOR & WINE WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE THE WINE COMPANY WINE STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRIBUTION OF FORFEITURE FUNDS STATE FUND MUTUAL INSURANCE RETURN OF STOLEN FUNDS TO RIGHTFUL OWNER PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT JEANNES TRAVEL INC CONFERENCE AIRFARE-FIRE DEPT CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM JANUARY 93 SAC CHARGES MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER JANUARY 93 BUILDING SURCHARGES NABR CONVENTION CONFERENCE-LIQUOR STORES BUSINESS HEALTH SERVICES CONFERENCE-SAFETY DEPT STATE TREASURER/STATE OF MINNESOT LICENSE FEE-SEWER DEPT MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENC CONFERENCE-SEWER DEPT MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH SCHOOL-WATER DEPT CAREER PRESS PUBLICATIONS-ADMINISTRATION DEPT SUSAN ALSHOUSE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS GAIL CASSADY REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP IVY LAMOREAU REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP SHARON LENIJI' REFUND-ct1S SKI TRIP E W MCDONALD REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP CHERYL MILLER REFUND-DISNEY ON ICE SHOW 33540478 5/3 11.98 10.77 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 22986.30 400.00 73236.23 7267.00 280.00 225.69 2780.00 32.00 1270.00 18607.80 42740.39 50.00 25.00 1200.00 237.00 235.00 36714.18 1119.75 17814.33 33567.11 27.93 632.20 23626.01 5750.59 13122.26 70.00 154.50 100.00 200.00 92.20 46.10 3841.59 63.12 586.00 26.00 20790.00 2903.40 350.00 15.00 15.00 280.00 900.00 60.35 22.00 21.00 21.00 21.0C 21.0C 36.00 MARCH 16,1993 32638 KATHRYN NEITZEL REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP 21.00 32639 KATHRYN NORDBY REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP • 32640 DANA SHEEHAN REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP 32641 ANNETTE SIECZV~REK REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP 21.00 32642 KATHRYN SMITH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00 32643 KRISTIE TOUSIGNANT REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 :32644 DEB WILSON REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP 21.00 32645 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 16232.45 :32646 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION & EXCISE TAX-594.45 UTILITIES DIVISION 32647 FEI ST BLANCHARD CO POWER STEERING PUMP/OIL SEALS/FLASHERS/ 483.03 WHEEL NUTS/BRAKE PADS/ROTOR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 32648 JASON NORTHOO L P #1 MARCH 93 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 5721.17 32649. WELSH COMPANIES MARCH 93 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 6434.10 32650 WELSH ())MPANIES MARCH 93 RENT-CITY HALL 24083.86 32651 MIKE BOSACKER ())NFERENCE ADVANCE-POLICE DEPT 101.29 32652 BOB OLSON CONFERENCE LODGING/ADVANCE-POLICE DEPT 121. 29 32653 MN DEPT OF COMMERCE NOTARY PUBLIC COMMISSIONS APPLICATIONS-280.00 POLICE DEPT 32654 MN POLICE & POLICE OFFICERS ASSN ())NFERENCE-POLICE D~PT 75.00 32655 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES ())NFERENCE-CITY ())UNICL/ADMINISTRATION DEP 100.00 32656 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-CITY HALLIWATER DEPT/FIRE DEPT/ 88.99 ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM/SENIOR CENTER 32657 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY ())LORED PAPER-PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 254.31 32658 CITY OF MINNETONKA ())NFERENCE-CITY COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATION DEP 100.00 32659 IRENE BEILKE REFUND-DEFENSIVE DRIVING CLASS -32660 WARRREN & DONNA ())LEHOUR REFUND-SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM 32661 TANYA STADNICK REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 1 .,4 32662 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS REPLACED INTAKE GASKET-EQUIPMENT MAINT 9.06 32663 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPTIWATER 486.97 DEPT 32664 IMPERIAL INC EQUIPMENT PARTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 253.05 32665 PAM KLOOS EXPENSESITOYS-CENTER CARE PROGRAM 138.29 32666 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC SERVICE-ROWLAND RD/FLYING CLOUD DR/LEONA 4487.86 RDITRUNK WATERMAINITECHNOLOGY DR 32667 RooT-O-MATIC SEWER SVC SEWER SERVICE-EATON BLDG/POLICE BLDG 728.20 32668 TURNQUIST INC PAPER TOWELS-FACILITIES DEPT 1685.94 32669 MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSN ())NFERENCE-ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM 15.00 32670 MN PARK SUPERVISORS ASSN ())NFERENCE-PARK MAINTENANCE 20.00 32671 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSN ())NFERENCE-ORGANZIED ATHLETICS PROGRAM 44.00 32672 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-STREET DEPT 80.00 32673 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSN ())NFERENCE-RECREATION & AQUATIC FITNESS 294.00 DEPT/ADAPTIVE RECREATION DEPT 32674 IPMA-MINNESOTA CHAPTER ())NFERENCE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 24.00 32675 SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION ())NFERENCE-PLANNING DEPT 10.00 32676 tiTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY OONFERENCE-PARK MAINTENANCE 105.00 32677 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE FEBRUARY 93 FUEL TAX 394.80 32678 tITI DISTRIBUTING ()) OONFERENCE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 70.00 32679 GAYLA BELL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 32680 KAY BERGMANN REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP 21.00 32681 WILLIAM BIERDEN REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP 21.00 32682 WILLARD DALUGE REFUND-LIVING TRUSTS CLASS .g 32683 SCARLET ENG REFUND-ADAPTIVE SWIMMING LESSONS 32684 ANDY FORDE REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP 21.00 6384545 5/~A' " 1..-' ~:..~.RCH 10-,1993 32685 MICHAEL & SONIA HOPPE REFUND-SPIRIT MOUNTAIN SKI ADVENTURE 264.00 .2686 MOLLY NETZER REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP 21.00 .2687 LOUIS & SIMONE ODENWALD REFUND-SPIRIT MOUNTAIN SKI ADVENTURE 264.00 32688 DARLENE SEPPHAN REFUND-CMS SKI TRIP 21.00 32689 SHARON SHETTING REFUND-eMS SKI TRIP 21.00 32690 TONG TE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 32691 LINDA TOSKEY REFUND-eMS SKI TRIP 21.00 32692 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER PROGRAM BROCHURE 3370.00 32693 DAVID OLSON DOCUMENT COPIES-ENGINEERING DEPT 33.00 .32694 DELEGARD TOOL CO WRENCHES/DRILL BITSIVISE GRIPIBATTERIES/ 411. 26 WATER NOZZLE/PLIERS/DISC PADSIDRILL DRIVER-PARK MAINT/EQUIPMENT MAINT 32695 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTERPRISES INC MARCH 93 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 4902.49 32696 MINNESOTA UC FUND 4TH QUARTER 92 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 1107.57 32697 INTL ASSN OF CHIEFS OF POLICE INC CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 360.00 32698 HIGH PLAINS INSTITUTE CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 125.00 32699 POSTAGE BY PHONE SYSTEM POSTAGE-POLICE DEPT 2000.00 32700 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 18.56 32701 AT&T SERVICE 189.69 32702 AT&T SERVICE 509.08 32703 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 63.10 32704 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 35383.95 32705 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 1518.90 32706 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 156.95 32707 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 6861.63 32708 .JOHNSON BROTHERS LIGUOR CO LIQUOR I~ WINE 10696.86 .2709 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 261.00 . 2710 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR & WINE 13482.76 32711 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 1595.73 32712 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO LIQUOR & WINE 4882.07 32713 THE WINE COMPANY WINE 154.50 32714 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER . 7097.92 32715 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER & MIX 5637.85 32716 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 121.40 32717 HARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 3875.14 32718 MII:WEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 348.65 32719 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MIX 448.45 32720 POGREBA DISTRIBUTING INC BEER 191.00 32721 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER & MIX 11280.80 32722 S M HENTGES & SONS INC SERVICE-ROWLAND RD & OLD SHADY OAK ROAD 55365.99 32723 ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC HORNIROD WIPER/SNAP RINGS/O-RINGS-158.47 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 32724 ADVANCED GRAPHIC SYSTEMS INC PRINTER CARTRIDGES-POLICE DEPT 47.87 32725 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO UNIFORMS-FACILITIES DEPT/STREET MAINT/ 1480.50 PARK MAINTIEQUlMENT MAINT/COMMUNITY Cl'R/ UTILITIES DIVITOWELS & MATS-LIQUOR STORES 32726 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSN DUES-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT 377.0C 32727 AMERICAN RED CROSS WORKBOOKIRESCUE MANIKIN RENTALIVIDEQ-197.0::: POOL LESSONS 32728 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGNS-STREET DEPT 180.1E 32729 KEN ANDERSEN TRUCKING WASTE DISPOSAL-ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT 53.2f 32730 OON ANDERSON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 399.0( .2731 NICOLE ANDERSON FIGURE SKATING INSTRUCl'OR-AFTERSCHooL 112.5C CONNECTION· PROGRAM/FEES PAID 32732 ANDERSONS GARDEN EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 24.2£ 17611232 5 f::4 <6 . .~-"....)- ~.ARCH 1(3.1993 32733 ARA SERVICES INC FOOD SERVICE OPERATIONS-E P CIVIC CENTER 1213.47 32734 ARMOR SECURITY INC QUICK RELEASESIREKEYED CYLINDER-POLICE .7 BLDG/PARK MAINT :327:35 ASPEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY MUFFLER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 298.77 32736 ASTLE FORD INTL INC POWER STEERING PUMP/FILTERS/SEALSIWASHERS/ 1150.10 NUTS & BOLTS/SPEED CONTROLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 32737 B & STOOLS SOCKETSITHREADED SHAFTIBEARING SEPARATOR/ 239.41 PARTS TP~Y-EQUIPMENT MAINTIUTILITIES DIV 32738 BACONS ELECTRIC CO STARTER PARTS & REPAIR-WATER DEPT 170.05 32739 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC BATTERIESIHEADLAMPSIMUFFLER CLAMPS/SPARK 511.97 PLUGSIWINDSHIELD SOLVENT-EQUIPMENT MAINT 32740 BAUER BUILT TIRE & SVC TIRE REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANE 311. 79 32741 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC SIGNS/ACRYLIC SHIELDSIWHEELS/SPACERS/AXELS 666.95 32742 PATTY BESSER VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 576.00 32743 DAVID BLACK MILEAGEIBRooMBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 67.25 32744 BLEVINS CONCESSION SUPPLY COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 469.19 32745 BOYD HOUSER CANDY & TOBACCO CO CANDY-POOL LESSONS 135.90 32746 BOYD OIL DISTRIBUTING HYDRAULIC OILIMOTOR OIL/GREASE-EQUIPMENT 489.68 MAINTENANCE 32747 BRAUN INTERTEC ENGINEERING INC COLIFORM-WATER DEPT 100.00 32748 OORIS BROWN SERVICE-WATER COLOR INSTRUCTOR-SENIOR 120.00 CENTER 32749 PAUL J BROWN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 416.00 32750 NATHAN BUCK VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 848.00 32751 BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL INC WASTE DISPOSAL-LIQUOR STORE 84.99 32752 BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE PUBLICATIONS-FACILITIES DEPT Ifo 32753 CARGILL SALT DIVISION SALT-SNOW & ICE CONTROL-STREET DEPT 11 . 32754 CARLSON COUNSELING & CONSULTATION FEBRUARY 93 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE-HUMAN 1 . 0 RESOURCES DEPT 32755 CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT CO PINSILINKSIMOWER KNIVES-PARK MAINT/ 267.10 EQUIPMENT MAINT 32756 CARSONITE INTL CORP TESTING RODS-WATER DEPT 102.37 32757 CARTRIDGECARE INC PRINTER CARTRIDGES-CITY HALL 124.61 32758 CEDAR COMPUTER CENTER INC PRINTER ENVELOPE TRAY-POLICE DEPT 89.14 32759 CENTRAIRE INC HUMIDIFIER & COMPRESSOR REPAIR-POLICE 177.75 BLDG/DRAIN LINE CAPPED-EATON BLDG 32760 CLASSIC POOLS PLUS INC CHEMICALS-POOL & COMMUNITY CENTER MAINT 291. 75 32761 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC ADAPTER KIT/FLYWHEEL CLUTCH/GASKET SET/ 511.94 CLUTCH PACKIBEARINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 32762 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC SHIFTER DOME-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 40.94 32763 CLUTS OBRIEN STROTHER ARCHITECTS SERVICE-E P CIVIC CENTER 106656.18 32764 ROBERT COLE VAN DRIVER EXPENSES-SENIOR PROGRAMS 13.85 32765 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS GLOVES/APRONS-UTILITIES DIVISION 373.11 32766 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC LENSES-WATER DEPT 76.64 • 32767 COPY EQUIPMENT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT 71.6~ 32768 OOTTINGTON MARTI INC FEBRUARY 93 SERVICE-AIRPORT EXPANSION 3150.00 32769 CO2 SERVICES TANK RENTAL-COMMUNITY CENTER 35.00 32770 CROWN MARKING INC DESK SIGN-COMMISSION MEMBER 18.98 32771 CUB FOODS EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 71.64 32772 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC SEAL BUTTITAGSIWIRE TIES-EQUIPMENT MAINT 97.38 32773 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 1741.50 32774 DALOO CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT .~ 32775 DATA CAL (x)RFDRATION WORDPERFECT CHARTS/GRAPHS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 32776 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT (X) BATTERY REPAIR-WATER DEPT 120.70 12363914 5/"0C ~.RCH 16.1993 :32777 CRAIG W DAWSON EXPENSESIHILEAGE-ADMINISTRATION DEPT 65.00 .2778 DECORATIVE DESIGNS MARCH 93 SERVICE-CITY HALL 50.30 2779 MARCEL DEKKER INC DRINKING WATER PROCESSING UNIT-WATER DEPT 76.91 32780 DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY-CAIS AIR TANK LICENSES-FIRE STATIONS 40.00 32781 EUGENE DIETZ FEBRUARY 93 CAR ALLOWANCE-ENGINEERING DEPT 200.00 32782 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET EXPENSES-CITY HALL/COMMUNITY CENTER/ 132.50 SENIOR CENTER 32783 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET EXPENSES/CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-74.57 COMMUNITY CENTER/KIDS KORNER PROGRAM 32784 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 98.72 32785 DUKART GARAGE DOOR SERVICE REPAIRED & REPLACED DOOR TRANSMITTERS-147.80 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 32786 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 1325.54 32787 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION DEPT 32.00 32788 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT SCHOOL LODGING-FIRE DEPT 187.00 32789 EDEN PRAIRIE FORD BRACKET/CONTROL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 82.25 32790 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST 272 STAGE PLATFORMS RENTAL-COMMUNITY CENTER/ 35.00 ROOM RENTAL-ADULT PROGRAMS 32791 EKLUNDS TREE & BRUSH DISPOSAL FEBRUARY 93 BRUSH DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT 636.00 32792 EMED COMPANY INC WRITE-ON MINI TAGS-WATER DEPT 332.98 32793 EPR INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 38.77 32794 EQUITY TITLE REFUND-OVERPAYMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 86.99 32795 ESI COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE JACKS MOUNTEDIWALL SPEAKERS & 814.32 INSTALLATIONIPOWER SUPPLY-POLICE DEPT 32796 RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 252.00 32797 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE-CITY HALL/SW METRO TRANSIT-TO BE 99.97 .2798 REIMBURSED FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION POSTAGE-POLICE DEPT 15.50 32799 FITNESS WHOLESALE WRIST WEIGHTS-FITNESS CLASSES 80.30 32800 FLOYD SECURITY 2ND QUARTER SECURITY MAINTENANCE 76.68 AGREEMENT-CUMMINS GRILL HOMESTEAD 32801 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 113.22 32802 G & K SERVICES TOWELS-PARK MAINT/COVERALLSIHATSIHOP 595.86 HEADS-WATER DEPT 32803 G L CONTRACTING INC WATERHAIN REPAIR-WATER DEPT 2881.96 32804 GARDNER HARrMARE CO REPLACED LOCK/CYLINDER REKEYED/PULL/PUSH 137.44 PLATE-COMMUNITY CENTER 32805 GENESIS COMPUTERS INC REPLACED PRINTH~POLICE DEPT 145.00 32806 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SVC TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTIWATER DEPT 932.07 32807 W W GRAINGER INC TESTER/FLASHLIGHTSIBAND SAW MOTOR/SWIVEL 291.13 CASTORS-SAFETY DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINT 32808 U S POSTMASTER POSTAGE-VALUATION NOTICES-ASSESSING DEPT 4256.62 32809 HACH COMPANY CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 1603.00 32810 MICHAEL HAMILTON BROOMBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 51.00 32811 HANDICAPPED DRIVING SYSTEMS INC REPLACED SIDE ENTRY STEP-EQUIPMENT MAINT 260.47 32812 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC SERVICE-MILLER PARK 12492.10 32813 HARDY J HARTFIEL COMPUTER SOFlWARE INSTRUCTOR-SENIOR 78.00 PROGRAMS 32814 HAZELDEN FOUNDATION COUNTER ACTS-POLICE DEPT 397.47 32815 HEAVENLY HAM EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 65.00 32816 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION DEPT 41. 75 32817 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEES-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT/ 337.83 .2818 ENGINEERING DEPT/FORESTRY DEPT HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF JANUARY 93 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT 303.99 32819 D C HEY COMPANY COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-FIRE DEPT 170.32 3013533 -:J\-J3~·b ~.RCH 16.1993 32820 STEVEN HIGLEY VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 288.00 32821 HOFFERS INC PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 18. 32822 HOLHSTEN ICE RINKS INC TAPEIBOLTS/FREONILEAK DETECTOR KIT-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CENTER 32823 CARTER HOLMES BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 32.00 32824 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERVICES SECURITY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-600.25 SENIOR CENTER/LIQUOR STORE 32825 HUTTON CHEMICAL DEGREASER/FLOOR CLEANER-EQUIPMENT MAINT 287.66 32826 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT 104.14 32827 NATL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVAT PUBLICATIONS-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 30.00 PROGRAM 32828 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL INC EMERGENCY GENERATOR REPAIR-CIVIL DEFENSE 973.94 DEPT 32829 DEAN R JACOBS EXPENSESIMILEAGE-ASSESSING DEPT 20.50 32830 CARL JULLIE CONFERENCE EXPENSES-ADMINISTRATION DEPT 447.49 32831 JUSTUS LUMBER CO PLYWOOD/SCREWSIWASHERS/STUDSIDOORINAILS/ 390.50 CARPENTER SHIMS/SOLVENT-PARK MAINTIWATER DEPT 32832 CHRISTINE KASPER SKATING INSTRUCTOR-AFTERSCHOOL CONNECTION 202.50 PROGRAM/FEES PAID 32833 ELYCE KASTIGAR MILEAGE-AQUATIC & FITNESS PROGRAM 71.00 32834 MARK KOTTKE BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 42.00 32835 JEFF KOVASH VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 304.00 32836 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY GLOVES/GERMICIDAL CLOTHS-WATER DEPT 457.96 32837 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR DOOR REPAIRS-FIRE STATION 156.13 32838 LAKE REGION VENDING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 779.04 32839 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES INC LIGHT SWITCHIWATER PUMP/CORE EXCHANGE-2116 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 32840 ROBERT LAMBERT FEBRUARY 93 CAR ALLOWANCEIDUES-PARK & 3 . 0 RECREATION DEPT 32841 LAMETTRYS COLLISION PAINT & REPAIR VEHICLE-EQUIPMENT MAINT 433.45 32842 WARREN GORHAM LAMONT EMPLOYEE LAWS & REGULATIONS-HUMAN 389.04 RESOURCES DEPT 32843 CINDY LANENBERG SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 87.00 32844 BECKY LESKE MILEAGE-RINK MONITOR 62.65 32845 L M CIT LIABILITY INSURANCE 2237.13 32846 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD NOVEMBER 92 LEGAL SERVICE-$13103IDECEMBER 33669.44 92 LEGAL SERVICE-$12151/JANUARY 93 PROSECUTION SERVICE-$8414-POLICE DEPT 32847 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC FEBRUARY 93 SERVICE-$1346-FLYING CLOUD 5200.12 LANDFILL/FEBRUARY 93 LEGAL SERVICE-$3853- AIRPORT EXPANSION 32848 DAVID LINDAHL COPIES-HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM 7.00 32849 LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC DICTATING MACHINE REPAIR-ADMINISTRATION 56.13 32850 LOGIS 1993 FINANCIAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 9860.00 32851 LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICE 1993 SO HENNEPIN SHARE-A-HOME OFFICE FUND 500.00 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPT 32852 M-V THERMOGAS CO-CHASKA PROPANE GAS-OUTDOOR CENTER 297.00 32853 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC O-RINGS/CABLE/CABLE TIES/COUPLINGSIHANDLE/ 192.48 BUSHINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 32854 MASYS CORPORATION MARCH 93 COMPUTER HARJPfARE & SOF'IWARE 1476.70 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 32855 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC TOWING SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 3.~ 32856 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-CITY HALLIPOLICE DEPT/SENIOR PROGRAMSIPOOL LESSONSIRECREATION ADMIN 6213795 ::;-/2 :~ \..,./ .:;; ~ MARCH 16.1993 32857 MCGRAW-HILL INC BOOKS-PARK PLANNING DEPT • 2858 MCNElLUS STEEL INC . 2859 MENARDS STEEL PLATE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PLYWOODIPARTICLE BOARD/TREATED TIMBERS/ TAPEIROPEIBLADES/CABINET HAR~ARE/STUDS/ :32860 32861 32862 32863 32864 32865 32866 32867 32868 32869 32870 32871 .32872 32873 32874 32875 ~32876 2877 .2878 32879 32880 32881 32882 32883 32884 32885 32886 32887 32888 32889 32890 32891 32892 METRO SALES INC METRO SYSTEMS METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM MI DLAND EQU I PMENT CO MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS HN POLICE & PEACE OFFICERS ASSN HN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS R E MOONEY & ASSOCIATES INC WM MUELLER & SONS iNC MUNICILITE CO NUTS & BOLTS/FIBERBOARD/CEDAR SIDING/ PAINT ROLLER/DOOR CHIME/PLIERSIWRENCHES/ SHELF BRACKETS-POLICE DEPT/STREET DEPT/ PARK DEPT/COMMUNITY CTR/LIGUOR STORES DEVELOPER-POLICE DEPT BOOKCASE-RECREATION SUPERVISOR APRIL 93 SEWER SERVICE STEEL PLATE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SNOW REMOVALrSTREET DEPT OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS-FINANCE DEPT/ LABELS-CITY HALL DUES-POLICE DEPT EMPLOYMENT ADS-POLICE DEPT PAINTIRUST PROTECTION/THINNER-WATER DEPT SAND-SNOW & ICE CONTROL-STREET DEPT SPOTLIGHTIMOUNTING BRACKETSIHANDLE-FIRE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINT NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL TRAINING MANUAL-POLICE DEPT NDEITA INSTRUCTORS MANUAL-FITNESS CLASSES DENNIS NESBITT QUIT SMOKING PROGRAM-BLDG INSPECTIONS DEPT NORTH STAR ICE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES NORTHERN HYDRAULICS INC COUPLINGSIREDUCER BUSHING/PRESSURE GAUGES/ SAFETY CHAIN/OUTLET POWER BLOCK/PLUGS/ ALUMINUM SLEEVES-WATER DEPT NORTHLAND BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS FAX MACHINE TONER-POLICE DEPT NYSTROM INC LOCKER HANDLE-POLICE DEPT PAPER WAREHOUSE PLATES ITOOTHPICKS/CUPS/FORKSINAPKI NS/ TABLE COVERS-MARTIN LUTHER KING EVENT/ PROGRAM SUPERVISOR/SENIOR PROGRAMS/ PARAGON CABLE MPLS PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER JERRY PARNHAM PARSONS TECHNOLOGY PEAK STAFFING INC PEDERSON SELLS EQUIPMENT CO INC J C PENNEY INTERIM PERSONNEL SERVICES CONNIE L PETERS PITNEY BOWES INC PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC RECREATION ADMINISTRATION NARCH 93 SERVICE-SENIOR CENTER PHYSICAL EXAMS-POLICE DEPT HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID COMPUTER SOFTWARE-POLICE DEPI' MINUTES-HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMITTEE COUPLINGS/BRACKETS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT SERVICE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER ADMINISTRATION POSTAGE METER RENTAL-CITY HALL 32893 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN REPLACED PHOTOCELL ON ROOF-PUBLIC WORKS BLDGIREPLACED MOTION SENSOR-HOMEWARD HS PKIREPAIRED POOL LIGHTS-COMMUNITY CENTER SKIDS/NUTS & BOLTS/SCRAPERS/SAWIBLADES/ FILE/PLATE-FACILITIES DEPT/PARK MAINT/ EQUIPMENT MAINT/COHMUNITY CENTER LETTERHEAD-COUNTERACT PROGRAM-POLICE DEPT/ PRINTING-SENIOR CENTER NEWSLETTER 411a2894 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING 16470427 5/3F 124.78 106.28 1007.41 86.48 280.10 149813.00 220.11 1073.00 831.94 465.29 2707.96 600.00 184.50 751.51 1055.73 518.55 135.41 29.95 23.18 23.20 112.29 253.04 191.70 37.27 121. 79 3.29 92.00 235.00 34.00 45.00 200.15 355.39 1092.75 20.75 150.17 632.80 231.50 857.00 M..A.RCH 16.1993 32895 PRESERVE REXALL DRUG 1ST AID SUPPLIES/EXTENSION CORDS/KEY TAGS 53.06 & RINGS-LIQUOR STORE 4.0 32896 J A PRICE AGENCY INC BOILER & MACHINERY INSURANCE-E P CIVIC CTR 32897 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP IN VALUING DIVERSITY CONFERENCE-CITY HALL 11565.00 32898 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC RECYCLING SERVICE-LIQUOR STORE 52.00 32899 R & R SPECIALTIES INC BOARD BRUSH-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CENTER 47.84 32900 REACH EQUIPMENT BLADE GUIDES/PLOW EDGES/DEFLECTORS-522.73 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 32901 CITY OF RICHFIELD CITYS SHARE INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR SOUTH 989.50 HENNEPIN ADAPTIVE BOARD 32902 RITZ CAMERA FIU1-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 46.82 32903 ROBERTS COMPANY INC BUNKER PANTS/SUSPENDERS-FIRE DEPT 37.78 32904 ROGERS SERVICE ALTERNATORS REPAIRED-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 163.71 32905 ROOT-O-MATIC SEWER SERVICE SANITARY SEWER LINES REPAIRED-STREET DEPT/ 430.25 PARK DEPT 32906 PAUL RYAN HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 503.00 32907 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/STREET MAINT/ 395.09 AQUATIC & FITNESS PROGRAM/COMMUNITY CTR/ RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 32908 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT/ 713.59 COMHUNITY CENTER 32909 DENNIS SCHIt1t1EL VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 192.00 32910 RON SCHWARTZ VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 320.00 32911 SUSAN SCOTT BROOt1BALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 17.00 32912 SIMPLICITY SYSTEMS INC COMPUTER SOFTWARE-ENGINEERING DEPT 127.15 32913 W GOROON SMITH CO GAS-WATER DEPT 18.15 32914 SNAP ON TOOLS CORPORATION AWL/AIR DRILLIWRENCHES-EQUIPMENT MAINT/ 31: SEWER DEPT 32915 SOFTWARE ETC DISKETTE FILES-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT 32916 SOKKIA MEASURING SYSTEMS SURVEYING EQUIPMENT-ENGINEERING DEPT 14947.22 32917 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COt1t1 LEGAL PUBLICATIONS-MILLER PARK 173.16 32918 SOUTHSIDE ELECTRIC INC INSTALLED WIRING FOR EXHAUST FAN-HOUSING 255.00 REHABILITATION PROGRAM 32919 SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT BUS SERVICE-SENIOR PROGRAMS 75.00 32920 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COt1t1ISSI 2ND QUARTER 93 OPERATING BUDGET 5775.76 32921 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-CITY HALL/COMMUNITY CENTER 143.10 32922 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC LEGAL PUBLICATIONS-CITY HALL 279.09 32923 MARY F SPILLES VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 448.00 32924 SPORTS WORLD-USA WHISTLES-COMMUNITY CENTER 15.96 32925 SPS OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPTIUTILITIES DIV 206.10 32926 STEEL STRUCTURES PAINTING COUNCIL DUES-WATER DEPT 65.00 32927 CHRISTER STENSTROM REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 55.66 32928 RENEE STEWART-HESTER SERVICE-DEVELOPED GIFT CATALOG-RECREATION 38.00 ADMINISTRATION DEPT 32929 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ DOOR OPENING TOOLS/IRRITANT FOR DEFENSE/ 587.78 STROBE TUB/IGNITION OVER-RIDE SYSTEMS/ DASHLIGHTS/IGNITION SECURITY SYSTEMS/ FLASHLIGHT REPAIR-POLICE DEPTIEQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 32930 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET COVERITENSIONERIDISTRIBUTOR CAPIROTOR/ 229.70 WIPER MOTOR-EQUIPMENT MAINTIWATER DEPT 32931 SUNSET PRINTING & ADV SPEC CO FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 286.51 32932 TAPE DISTRIBUTORS OF MN VHS TAPES-POLICE DEPT 1.~ 32933 TARGET STORES POLAROID FILN-POLICE DEPT/STORAGE BOXES/ FILES/CASSETT CASE/FILE CABINETIWATER TOYS-AQUATIC & FITNESS PROGRAM 4323915 jC/&; :32934 THIRTY-THREE MINUTE PHOTO INC FILM/FILM PROCESSING-BLDG INSPECTIONS 446.85 DEPT/SAFETY DEPT/POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER .2935 TNEMEC COMPANY INC PAINT-WATER DEPT 835.41 2936 TRI -STATE PUMP & CONTROL INC WELDING HOSE & PIPE-PARK MAINT 173.55 32937 TWIN CITY AREA LABOR DUES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 200.00 32938 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO OXYGEN/ACETYLENEIHELIUM-EQUIPMENT MAINT 104.68 32939 U S WEST COMffiJNICATIONS REFUND-OVERPAYMENT FOR AGENDA & MINUTES 60.00 32940 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT/ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT 368.95 32941 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 109.48 32942 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC NUTS & BOLTSIWASHERS-PARK MAINT/EQUIPMENT 94.41 MAINTENANCE 32943 USAGUATICS FINAL PAYMENT FOR REPLACEMENT OF DIVING 300.00 TOWER-COMMUNITY CENTER 32944 URBAN WETLAND MGMT COALITION DUES 2000.00 32945 RONALD VEITH REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 67.47 32946 VICTORIA REPAIR & MFG TUBING/ANGLES/FLAT STEEL PLATE-WATER DEPT 321.00 32947 TRIA D VIKESLAND MILEAGE-ADAPTIVE REC~EATION PROGRAM 86.13 32948 TIM WAGNER HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 147.00 32949 KATIE WALKER FOR JOINT POWER ORGANIZATION-I494 1305.00 CORRIDOR COMMISSION 32950 JEFF WALZ SERVICE-COVER DESIGN FOR COMMUNITY CENTER 95.00 PROGRAM BROCHURE 32951 WATER SPECIALTY OF MN INC SIGNS/CLEANING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 213.04 32952 WATERPRO PRESSURE REGULATORSIMETERS/FLANGE KITS-7397.31 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCEIWATER DEPT 32953 WBCS TYPESETTING-COMMUNITY CTR PROGRAM BROCHURE 664.00 32954 THOMAS E WEKO MILEAGE-AQUATICS & FITNESS PROGRAM 40.25 .2955 SANDRA F WERTS MILEAGE/EXPENSES-SENIOR PROGRAMS 62.28 2956 WEST WELD ELECTRODES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 193.40 .2957 LOIS N WILDER SERVICE-MEMOIR WRITING INSTRUCTOR-SENIOR 180.00 PROGRAMS 32958 WATER TECHNOLOGY SUBSCRIPTION-FACILITIES DEPT 63.00 32959 ZAHL EQUIPMENT CO DUST CAP-WATER DEPT 131.88 32960 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 1ST AID SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/STREET MAINT/ 289.19 PARK MAINT/COHMUNITY CENTER 32961 EARL ZENT TRAINING EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 125.00 32962 ZIEGLER INC PINIHOLDER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 166.54 32963 MITCH ZWOLENSKY BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 328.00 32351 VOID OUT CHECK 32.27- 32366 VOID OUT CHECK 487.09- 32425 VOID OUT CHECK 254.24- 32439 VOl D OUT CHECK 136.47- 32518 VOID OUT CHECK 4487.87- 32521 VOID OUT CHECK 588.70- 32558 VOID OUT CHECK 1885.94- 869624 $1007914.63 • 5/3 t-/ I· • • • TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: l\1EMORANDUM: Mayor and City Council Carl Jullie, City Manager Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources ~ March 8, 1993 Comments from DNR, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and Property Owners Regarding Trapping Ordinance Attached to this memo are letters from John Parker, DNR Regional Wildlife Manager; Tom Larson, Director of the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area for the US Fish and Wildlife Service; and Sever Peterson, a property owner and farmer in Eden Prairie. Each of these letters express concern over the revised Trapping Ordinance for a variety of reasons. The major concern is that the leg hold trap is the most effective way to control a variety of animals that can become a nuisance if there is no other means to control their numbers. Mr. Peterson has indicated that he was not aware that the City Council was considering a ban on leg hold traps, and he is concerned that this ordinance may have a negative impact on his business and how he manages his property. Mr. Peterson has requested an opportunity to express his concerns prior to the 2nd reading of the revised Trapping Ordinance. BL:mdd comments/l MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Stuart A. FOX~ager of Parks and Natural Resources DATE: March 11, 1993 SUBJECT: Revised Version of City Trapping Ordinance At the Janaury 19, 1993 City Council meeting (minutes attached) the Council made a revision to the proposed Trapping Ordinance and eliminated the usage of leg hold traps as the ordinance was written. With the elimination of usage of leg hold traps, the staff would recommend that the permitting provision of the Trapping Ordinance also be removed, since the type of traps that would be used (cage or box type live traps) would permit the release of non target animals. This revision is based on discussions with the City Manager, City staff, and members of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. The staff would highlight the following changes of the ordinance: 1. Trapping is permitted (Subd. 3) only in areas where discharge of firearms is allowed as outlined by City Code Section 9.40. (map attached) 2. Permitted traps (Subd. 4) that could be used are restricted to the use of cage or box type live traps. 3. There are no provisions for obtaining the City permit to do trapping since only live type traps are now permitted. 4. In the motion it was moved that "signs would be posted to warn of the location of traps. " The staff is unclear what type of signage was intended by this proposed change, and didn't include language outlining signage since only live traps were proposed. With the exception of these three revisions (#1-3), the ordinance is the same as proposed at its first reading, and the staff submits the reviewed ordinance to the City Council for their review. SAF:mdd 515 • • • I I sF ~ • ~ ~ '" . ~ ~ 't. ' u C ( '. ~ \ '-"'<£UUlO ~ ~~/I . ...: .... ~~?J. ~~ I 3 ~~ V,)u ~ ~'~c..MxY>~:: -/. _ .e. t _ Ni \ ~ \\ r.;::::, "- FIREARMS REGULATION AREA (9.40) ~c --.....~~ HI ~ .. f~I" (0 .um!:~. ~ · - • \0 • • • • • • ' ..... , .. .. ~ .. .. ,~ . .: .. :, City Council Minutes 5 January 19, 1993 MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Pidcock, to: - 1) Close the public hearing; 2) Approve 1st reading of the ordinance for rezoning; 3) Adopt Resolution #93-23, approving the preliminary plat; and 4) Direct Staff to prepare a Developer's Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAThfS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Jessen, to approve the Payment of Claims as presented. ~Iotion carried on a roll call vote, with Anderson, Harris, Jessen, Pidcock, and Tenpas voting "aye." VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. 1st Readin2 of Trappin2 Ordinance Jullie summarized the committee findings and recommendations regarding wildlife management within- Eden Prairie and explained the stipulations of the proposed ordinance. Charlotte Cozzetto, 14220 Towers Lane, and Linda Hatfield, Issues Coordinator of the Friends of Animals and Their Environment (FATE), both members of the committee, and Richard Laybourn, a resident of Bloomington who worked in Eden Prairie, expressed their concerns about the dangers and cruelty of leghold traps allowed by the proposed ordinance. Raymond Rau 11973 Chesholm Lane, spoke in favor of leghold traps. Council members asked about substituting another type of trap for leghold traps. Rau explained that leghold traps could be reused, whereas others could not, which made the use of other traps much more expensive for trappers. During further discussion, Councilmembers expressed strong feelings about the negative impacts of leghold traps, particularly in an urbanized area, noting that Eden Prairie was still in transition from rural to urban in parts of the City. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the 1st Reading of the Wildlife Management Ordinance with the following changes: a) No leghold traps would be allowed; b) the boundaries for trapping would be the same as those allowed for hunting; and c) signs would be posted to warn of the location of traps. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Tenpas declared a recess at 9:35 p.m.; the meeting was reconvened at 9:45 p.m. - 51'7 • • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY , MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDL~ANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 BY ADDING SECTION 9.12, A PROVISION REGULATING THE TRAPPING OF ANIMALS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. The Eden Prairie City Code shall be amended by adding thereto a Section 9.12 which reads as follows: SECTION 9.12. TRAPPING OF ANIMALS. Subd. 1. Policy. This Section reflects the City's policy of managing wildlife while maintaining the natural habitat of the area. This policy includes the City's desire to mitigate the exposure of people and domestic animals to traps. Public education concerning the various species living in the area and their habits is the preferred method of minimizing any conflict between humans and wildlife. The city recognizes, however, that even with a knowledgeable and sensitive citizenry, circumstances arise where trapping becomes a necessary method of control. Subd. 2. Definitions. A. "Trap" means any mechanical device, snare, artificial light, net, bird line, vehicle or contrivance used to trap, catch, snare, kill or otherwise restrain the free movement of any animal, wildlife or bird. B. "Trapping" means setting, laying, or otherwise using a trap to catch, snare, kill or otherwise restrain the free movement of animals, wildlife or birds. Subd. 3. Restricted Area. Trapping shall be conducted only in the areas permitted for the discharge of firearms as specified in Section 9.40, Subd. 3(A)(l)(a-c) herein. Subd. 4. Permitted Traps. Trapping is restricted to the use of cage or box-type live traps. Subd. 5. Sales. The sale of any leg hold, spring or snare trap in the City is prohibited. Any person engaged in the selling of traps within the city shall post a copy of this Section at the location where the business license is displayed. Subd. 6. Release of Animals. Animals may be released from captivity only with the express permission of the owner of the property upon which any release shall take place . 1 '-("" :,c . D Subd. 7. Exceptions. This section shall not apply to: A. Quick-kill trapping if the traps are designed only to kill rats, mice, gophers or moles. B. Trapping by persons using cage-type live traps outside of the permitted area for trapping animals causing damage to property. C. Trapping by employees or duly authorized representatives of the city, county, state or federal government acting within the course and scope of their employment. D. Trapping for fakoning purposes by falconers licensed by the Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. E. Trapping by persons using a net for trapping and relocating Canadian geese under a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 5.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. publication. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the ___ day of , 1993, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said Council on the day of _________ , 1993. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of _________ , 1993. tas\ep\epcode'citycode 2 511 • • • • Eden Proirie Mayor ond City Council Members Eden Proirie City Hall Eden Prai ri e, MN 55344 Morch 9, 1993 Deor Mayor and EP Counci I Members, It has been brought to our attention through the news, that EP is proposing a ban against trapping animals in the city of Eden Prairie. As agricultural property owners, we have a considerable interest in this proposed ban. We view our lond os 0 heritoge and as on invest,ment, ond we monage this lond for the most benefical return within the framework ond rules laid out by the following government organizotions: MDNR, MPCA, USFW, ASCS, and HCD. We attempt to grow crops under optimum conditions provided by enviroment in conjunction with our own efforts; we work within the ecological system of all natural flora and fauna. This means that many acres of land are committed to habitot and food in order to protect other crop ocres. This hobitot is provided for 011 types of wildlife ot 0 considerable expense to the form and in turn, these animals are harvested in the correct time ond manner just os ony other managed renewable resource. • It has been our observotion--as part of the 4th generation on our family farm here in Eden Proirie--that there is just os much wildlife todoy os there was fifty years ago. In fact, we believe there is more wildlife and thi s growth in the number of wi I doni mo Is hos occurred in 0 trappi ng ond • hunting enviroment. ' Even nature itself teaches us that life has its checks and balances; that being humon gives us certain odvantages over the other creatures. We must use this odvantage wisely or we will suffer the consequences. We hove the ability to make use of our natural resources ond to preserve wildlife and other forms of life that assist us and make our life more meaningful and useful. It seems the ban on trapping has nothing to do with public safety, but is rather on animal rights issue. The public should not be trespassing on private property, nor should their dogs or cots be doing so. We believe thot the City Council should follow the recommendations of Eden Prairie's own citizens committee. This committee recommended certain controls as to where trapping should and could occur. As we understand it, the MDNR has hod on opportunity to odvise the Eden Proirie Citizens Committee regarding trapping. We support this MDNR input for managemont and control of Minnesoto wildlife porticulorly as it relates to nuisonce situations. On our form here in Eden Proirie, we hove 0 continuous chronic problem with nusionce deer, rocoons, woodchucks, beover ond blockbirds. The legal trapping and hunting seosons ore extremely importont in the control of these ond other onimols on our form to prevent their populotions reoching nuisonce levels. Nuisonce permits ore not on occeptoble solution because by definition they are odditionol hordships: Le. it con toke numerous phone colls ond written requests ond one to two weeks of time to get the nuisonce removol permit. By thot time there will hove been toto 1 destruction of crops in most situotions. We consider the consequences of this ordinonce to be: 1. Destruction of yords, gordens ond but1ding foundotions 2. Animols killed on the rood with the potentiol for personol injury 3. Destruction of ogriculturol crops 4. The reluctonce of the DNR to ossist Eden Prairie in manoging the wildlife problems thot will be coused by this ordinonce 5. More problems for the City Council 6. Property owners will lose the right to protect their 10nd, homes ond products ond will olso lose the full use of their 10nd ond the onimols they feed, protect ond mointoin 7. All citizens will lose one more freedom ond gain more government control over their lives We hove noticed that your proposed trapping bon exempts the tropping of mice ond moles ond other assorted smol1 animols. The nusionce these onimols can be ond the domage they can do, it is for less thon the destruction thot deer, racoons, beover, woodchucks ond blockbirds do to our form ond crops. We osk you, as city council members, to reconsider this bon on tropping ond opprove your own committee's recommendotions. Eden Prairie has large open oreas of lond, forests, lokeshore, creeks, riverbonks and ogriculturol lond thot lie within its borders; these ploces hove provided for extensive bird ond onimol growth even with tropping ollowed. To mointain this growing population of animals, hunting and tropping should be al10wed to continue as per the committee's recommendations. As primary producers, ecologists, sportsmen ond citizens, we support the committee's recommendotions as logicol, ethical and moral given the suburban/rural setting of Eden Prairie. We feel our form operotion would be unoble to survive under this ordinonce, and we I.-now it would be a finonciol hordship. We osk thot you would pleose reconsider and adopt the plan recommended by the citizens' committee which we understand is on acceptoble compromise to al1 offected parties. Respectfully submitted, Sever Peterson • • • • • • United States Department of the Interior Mr. Bob Lambert FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge 3815 East 80th Street Bloomington. :Ylinnesota 55425-1600 March 5, 1993 Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Lambert: I am writing in response to the recent actions of the Eden Prairie city council regarding trapping. -• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency responsible for managing the National Wildlife Refuge System, considers trapping not only a effective tool for furbearer population control and habitat management, but also a legitimate recreational activity. A series of public meetings were conducted during the master planning for the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. One aspect of the discussions involved recreation. Trapping was discussed and considered to be an historic use and a desirable permitted activity within the refuge in the future. Refuge operations currently include trapping within areas where a sufficient amount of refuge land is controlled and a harvestab1e surplus of a given species exists. Each year prior to the trapping season population trends of furbearers and habitat components are monitored and evaluated to ascertain if trapping is needed to meet various objectives. A nuisance animal control program is sometimes implemented within or outside of the regular trapping season. Most nuisance control is for beaver that are plugging drainage ditches or water control structures. The proposed ordinance appears to ban certain types of trapping within the entire city of Eden Prairie. The passage of such an ordinance into law would essentially eliminate the most effective tool refuge managers have to meet refuge objectives. We propose that any ordinance limiting trapping exempt the Minnesota River bottoms. This would provide both public and private land managers the full spectrum of management techniques to meet their objectives and needs. 7~)~ Thomas J. Larson. Refuge Manager DNP WILDLIFE SECTION TEL: 612-297-4961 Feb 26,93 10:23 NO.004 P.02 or • t!f. STATE OF ~~rn$©lf'~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LA.FAYElTE ROAD, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155-4037 • OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER ONR INFORMATION (612) 296·61S7 February '23, 1993 Douglas Tenpas, Mayor City of Eden Prairie Ci ty Offices . 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mayor Tenpas, eo-6~ <1(----1 y ~~ On behalf of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, I would like to respond to recent actions of the Eden Prairie city council regarding trapping. Many developing suburban communities are eventually confronted by the trapping "problem", as is currently the case in your community. Typically, the problem is stated as one of public safety, but the advocates of trapping bans frequently are motivated by other • agendas, especially animal rights. We believe it is critically important to distinguish these agendas. The safety of trapping is a legitimate concern of the public and its local governments. However, by means of existing state laws and rules, we contend that modern trapping methods and equipment pose virtually no risk to humans, and only slight risk to unleashed or otherwise uncontrolled domestic animals. The few reported instances of safety problems invariably involve illegal activities, which are by definition already controlled by law or ordinance. In fact, a recent exhaustive national review of medical and other records conducted by the New York State Department of Envirorunental Conservation produced only two leg-hold trap injuries to humans in the past 10 + years. In both cases, the traps were illegally set. Your current direction (banning leg-hold traps) will not result in increased public safety, but will unnecessarily constrain the legal trapping of furbearers by licensed trappers, under state law. It appears that this direction is motivated by an animal rights agenda, and not a public safety agenda. To us, this is a very important point. The majority of Minnesotans, as evidenced in their laws, behaviors, and confirmed by recent opinion polls, do not support the animal rights agenda. Specifically, a recent Star Tribune/WeCO-TV opinion poll reported a clear majority of Minnesotans (62%) found the killing of animals for fur to be acceptable. Additionally, a recent national poll conducted • . AN EaUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . DN2 WILDLIFE SECTION TEL: 612-297-4961 Feb 26.93 10:23 NO.004 P.03 • • • Douglas Tenpas February 23, 1993 Page two by USA Today found that 80% of US citizens support legal hunting. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has adopted a Wildlife Management and Welfare Position Statement (attached) to define the Department's positions relative to the Clnimal rights controversy. We believe these positions are consistent with and reflective of the majority viewpoint in Minnesota. Consequences of Eden Prairie's banning of leg-hold (and perhaps other traps legal in Minnesota) may be" several. In effect, by eliminating the ability of the Department to manage wildlife by currently acceptable, legal methods, the city of Eden Prairie is assuming responsibility for wildlife management and associated problems. The MN DNR utilizes legal harvest as its primary and preferred wildlife management tool. Although harvest control of furbearing animals to reduce nuisance problems is not always sufficient at the local level, it is nevertheless an important tool in the control of furbearer problems. Banning the use of leg-hold and other legal traps in Eden Prairie essentially eliminates the Department's major wildlife management tool. The DNR is increasingly involved in resolving wildlife problems in urban areas, but is reluctant to provide nuisance animal removal permits in areas where legal harvest is unnecessarily restricted . Additionally, the leg-hold trap ban will prevent individual property owners in Eden Prairie from using otherwise legal trapping methods for the removal of animals on their land, either for recreation or nuisance control. Finally, the provision in the proposed ordinance to allow certain government agencies and individuals an exemption is illogical in the stated context of public safety. If public safety is in fact compromised by the use of leg-hold and other traps, it matters little who is utilizing these methods. Your proposed ordinance still allows these methods. We realize that this is not a significant issue in itself; legal trapping in Eden Prairie is already limited, and the effects of a leg-hold trap ban probably would not be major for any of the involved parties. However, the basis of this ordinance (animal rights) may have significant precedence to future wildlife management issues in Eden Prairie, especially white-tailed deer control. The same logic used in your proposed trapping ordinance, if applied to deer management, could virtually preclude both the Department's and Eden Prairie's ability to manage burgeoning deer populations. Deer do in fact represent a significant public safety risk (vehicle accidents), in addition to other problems of crop and ornamental vegetation damage . [!tJR IJJILDLIFE SECTION TEL: 612-297-4961 Feb 26.93 10:23 No.004 P.04 Douglas Tenpas February 23, 1993 Page three In summary, we recognize your public safety authority and concerns, but believe that your proposed ordinance addresses issues of animal rights, not public safety. We do not think public safety will be in any way improved by a leg-hold trap ban. We urge the council to reconsider this issue. Department staff arc available, at your request, to provide additional information or testimony. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 4$/~ Roger Holmes, Director Division of Fish and Wildlife Att. cc: Tim Bremicker H. Martin Jessen Patricia Pidcock Richard Anderson Jean Harris 5~5 • • • • • • TO: Eden Prairie City Council FROM: Eden Prairie Planning Commission Review of Housing Goals RE: DATE: March 10, 1993 Reason for review: The commission undertook the review of Eden Prairie's housing goals in order to act on the discussions last summer at our joint meeting. At that time we agreed to look more aggressively at housing issues, identifying community concerns and suggesting priorities for the Commission and Council to consider. Before suggesting anything for your consideration, we felt it was important to review the current plan. We learned a great deal from the review process and found much to be proud of, yet there is work still to be done. Findings: We are impressed with the community spirit of those who drafted our housing goals, years before Eden Prairie began to grow from a small town to a metropolitan suburb. These housing goals provided a framework that has given us one of the most diverse housing stocks of any comparable suburb. Eden Prairie can boast a population with a variety of income levels that contributes to the stability and richness of community life. Though we can be proud of our accomplishments so far, we must keep in mind that Eden Prairie has yet to build 35 % of its potential housing units. As those units are built, this Planning Commission hopes to continue the tradition established by previous commissions, and encourage the development of housing that will sustain a diverse, stable community. We would also like to commend the Planning Department staff for their efforts to meet the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Current Housing Goals are Being Met: Housing statistics reported by the Community Development staff indicate goals from the 1982 Housing Plan are being met or exceeded. (See staff memo dated January 22, 1993.) Recommendations: The Planning Commission recommends setting the following priorities ' to encourage long-term social and economic stability for our community and to and enhance the economic diversity of Eden Prairie. The Planning Subcommittee and Commission will continue to work with staff to help accomplish these recommendations. 1. Reaffirm or validate existing housing goals. 2. Continue to encourage and facilitate low-income housing projects. 3. Institute proactive methods to encourage developers to submit plans for moderate priced housing. 4. Establish plans to maintain Eden Prairie's existing housing base. 5. Define moderate priced housing. * Housing Goal Review: See attached. * Current working definition of Moderate Cost Housing: Housing which is affordable to those with incomes above the level that qualifies them for state and federal housing assistance, and those with incomes at or below the median income for the metro area. The low end is 80% of median or $85,000, and the high end is 100% of median or $125,000. Eden Prairie Planning Commission Housing Goals and Policies Review Review Subcommittee Report 3/10/93 1993 Review of Housing Goals 1. Encourage a variety of housing types and costs for different living and working environments through innovative architecture and land use mixes. Summary: Thanks to the diligence and foresight of the City Council, Planning Commissions, and staff over the past 10 years, Eden Prairie has an unusually diverse housing stock compared with similar suburbs. Of Eden Prairie's 16,500 housing units, approximately 55% are single family and 45% are multiple family (includes both owner occupied and rental housing). See staff memo, 114/93 for comparison information. Review Committee Report: • Status -Current Objectives Met • Recommended Future Action • Continue to ensure lower priced housing stock is enlarged. • • Encourage development projects that integrate living and working • environments. For housing that will be possible in the downtown area project associated with the recent land purchase will provide ready access to both jobs and services. 2. Attempt to provide lower cost, non-subsidized housing through construction of multiple family units and manufactured housing. Summary: About 20% of the housing units in the city (excluding apartment units) are multiple family units. The city has the second highest percentage of rental housing among comparable suburbs. Housing costs in Eden Prairie for both owner occupied and rental units are high relative to comparable suburbs. Review Subcommittee Report: • Status -Current Objectives Met • Recommended Future Action • Determine median values of owner-occupied, single family homes and median values of owner occupied multiple family units to verify the assumption that multiple family housing costs are lower than single family costs. • Verify the assumption that there is an unmet demand for moderate cost housing through data available in the assessment data base and the multiple listing service. • • Find ways to encourage high density, single family or multiple family, owner occupied or rental, development, in Eden Prairie's remaining • • • 3. 4. undeveloped land. Utilize PUD approach to evaluate specific projects. Summary: The planned unit development process has been used extensively in Eden Prairie, with great success. Staff reports pun's provide flexibility to create the best possible project, minimize environmental impacts, and vary standard subdivision designs. Review Subcommittee Report: • Status -Current Objectives Met • Recommended Future Action • Consider changing community development practices to further lower the cost of development by encouraging use of cluster lots, smaller lots, and discouraging cuI de sacs. • Encourage development of neighborhoods using the neo-traditional planning practices. Neo-traditional refers to those techniques that are transit friendly, encourage community formation, and discourage isolation and automobile dependence. Prepare annual housing unit estimates and forecasts to determine level of infrastructure needed to accommodate future growth, and to monitor housing development compared with stated goals in Comprehensive Plan. Summary: Staff prepares housing unit estimates and adjusts housing forecasts annually. This information is published in the Eden Prairie community profile. Current projections indicate about 8,000 to 9,000 housing units are left to be developed, primarily in the southwest. We still have the opportunity to influence the development of about 35 % of the housing yet to be built in Eden Prairie. Review Subcommittee Report • Status -Current Objectives Met • Recommended Future Action • Continue to encourage a diversity of housing stock throughout Eden . Prairie. Pay special attention to the southwest comer of Eden Prairie where most future housing units will be built. 5. Encourage low income and elderly housing developments throughout Eden Prairie and provide quality services required by residents. 6. See number 6 below. Use full authority of the city's Housing and Redevelopment Authority to support development of low income and elderly housing projects. - 2 - Summary: The city has done an excellent job providing affordable housing units through the use of a variety of programs. (See staff report 114/93 for details.) Staff is alert to changes in funding available that encourages low-income residents to settle • in the community. Eden Prairie leads its suburban counterparts in providing low-income rental housing. At 9% of total housing, Eden Prairie's low-income housing proportion ranks second of those surveyed, but still has long lists of people waiting for housing. Eden Prairie's elderly housing is full, and there are no waiting lists at this time. The oldest of the baby-boomers are in their mid-forties and will begin impacting the demand for elderly housing in about twenty years. Staff will need to plan for options such as clusters of single-story homes with shared amenities. There should be an emphasis on integrating housing for the elderly into neighborhoods to encourage intergenerational activities. Review Subcommittee Report • Status -Current Objectives Met • Recommended Future Action • Investigate the acquisition of property that can be used for low income housing, both owned and rented. • Use subsidies such as tax increment financing wherever possible to place "Section 8" renters in market rate housing. • Encourage the maintenance and improvement of existing housing through • programs such as the Deferred Loan Program. • Evaluate the Deferred Loan Program to determine the need for more funding as demand increases. Develop plans to secure additional funds as needed. 7. Exchange access to housing revenue bonds for low income and elderly housing projects. 8. • Summary,' The city can be proud of it success using MHFA (Minnesota Housing Financing Agency) Revenue Bonds to make provide low-income and elderly housing across Eden Prairie. (See staff report 114/93 for list of projects and locations.) Review Committee Report • Status -Current Objectives Met • Recommended Future Action • Continue using Housing Revenue Bonds for apartment projects built in the future. Seek ways to impact rent costs as appropriate. Currently, rents are only slightly below market rate. Lower development costs of low income and elderly development by reducing fees and offer support of development costs with: • CDBa Funds • Tax Increment Financing - 3 -~d/I • • • • 9. 10. • Other possible means See 9. Determine if current ordinances, subdivision regulations, and building codes are adding unnecessarily to the cost of development. Summary: Staff has made progress in this area with fast tracking non controversial projects and encouraging smaller lot sizes as appropriate. (see staff report for details) Review Subcommittee Report: • Status -Current Objectives Met • Recommended Future Action • Continue to encourage the reduction of development costs where appropriate to increase the supply of affordable housing. • Though today we are providing a diverse housing stock, a concerted effort be made to ensure some of our remaining land goes to lower cost housing. • Encourage developers to present plans that offer creative, single family and multi-family housing at low or moderate cost. Investigate or consider a Community Development Corporation Summary: Community Development Corporations must be non-profit organizations separate from cities, and are less able to meet the goals of influencing housing intended here. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) is in a position to influence Eden Prairie's housing goals and ought to be empowered and encouraged to take action. Review Subcommittee Report: • Status -Current Objectives Met • Recommended Future Action • No further action required. 11. Investigate the possibility of: • mobile home parks • manufactured housing Summary: We have no mobile homes, but we do have a few homes that could be defined as manufactured housing. State law requires us to allow manufactured housing though high land costs prohibit development of these types of housing. To encourage either would require the city to in some way subsidize land costs. Review Subcommittee Report: • Status -Current Objectives Met • Recommended Future Action • No further action required. - 4 -5.30 12. Apply for demonstration projects. Summary: The staff has worked in partnership with various groups and agencies to • develop innovative projects unique to Eden Prairie and the region. Review Subcommittee Repon: • Status -Current Objectives Met • Recommended Future Action • Continue to take advantage of demonstration projects as they present themselves. 13. Prepare materials and conduct public meetings on innovative housing techniques. Summary: To date public discussion of land use and housing plans have taken place primarily with the various commissions in regard to particular development proposals. Council and commission members are to be commended for their openness to public questions and concerns. Just 35% of Eden Prairie's land is left for development. A whirlwind of development over the past 15 years has created a thriving city of 40,000 concerned citizens. To make the best possible decisions about this remaining land, we would be wise to pro- actively seek the advice of Eden Prairie residents outside of the traditional public hearing process. Some resident concerns can be identified from the City Survey • results. Review Subcommittee Report: • Status -Current Objectives Met • Recommended Future Action • As appropriate, seek out citizen input representing groups that may include the following: Chamber of Commerce EP Mall Merchants EP Commissioners/Advisory Committees EP Schools Homeowners/Neighborhood Groups EP Law Enforcement • Seek ways to identify city needs related to land use Housing costs Housing availability Transit issues Telework centers City amenities Diversity City personality • Communicate Eden Prairie land use accomplishments Existing planning goals Development achievements - 5 - • • • Recommendations Today's housing mix Similarity/difference with other communities Invite citizen participation 1. Institute proactive methods to encourage developers to submit plans for moderate priced housing. 2. Establish plans to maintain Eden Prairie's existing housing base. 3. Define moderate priced housing . - 6 - TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Mike Franzen, Senior Planner David Lindahl, Planner January 22, 1993 EDEN PRAIRIE HOUSING GOALS & POLICIES • The following is a list of all housing goals and policies found in the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan. The attached report includes a summary of the goals and a status report on what the City has done to implement them. o Encourage a Variety of Housing Types and Costs for Different Living and Working Environments Through Innovative Architecture and Land Use Mixes. o Attempt to Provide lower Cost, Non-Subsidized Housing Through Construction of Multiple Family Units and Manufactured Housing. o Utilize PUD Approach to Evaluate Specific Projects. o Prepare Annual Housing Unit Estimates and Forecasts to Determine Level of Infrastructure Needed to Accommodate Future Growth, and To Monitor Housing Development Compared with Stated GOals.· Comprehensive Plan. o Encourage Low Income and Elderly Housing Developments Throughout Eden Prairie and Provide Quality Services Required by Residents. o Use Full Authority of the City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority to Support Development of Low Income and Elderly Housing Projects. o Exchange Access to Housing Revenue Bonds for Low Income and Elderly Housing Projects. o Lower Development Costs of Low Income and Elderly Development by Reducing Fees and Offer Support of Development Costs with CDBG Funds, Tax Increment Financing, and Other Possible Means. o Determine if current ordinances, subdivision regulations, and building codes are adding unnecessarily to the cost of development. o Investigate or Consider a Community Development Corporation. o Investigate the Possibility of Mobile Home Parks and Manufactured Housing. o Apply for Demonstration Projects. o Prepare Materials and Conduct Public Meetings on Innovative Housing Techniques. • • • • HOUSING GOALS 0 POLICIES 0 PROGRAMS City of Eden Prairie 1992 o Encourage a Variety of Housing Types and Costs for Different Living and Working Environments Through Innovative Architecture and Land Use Mixes. o Attempt to Provide lower Cost. Non-Subsidized Housing Through Construction of Multiple Family Units and Mamifactured Housing. o Utilize PUD Approach to Evaluate Specific Projects. STATUS: Eden Prairie has planned for a variety of residential housing to provide both ownership and rental housing opportunities to a wide range of people. The City has about 16,500 housing units as of 1992, with 55 % single family and approximately 45 % multiple family. The 1992 figure includes the following breakdown by housing unit type: Single Family 9,110 644 Condominium 950 Quadraminium 464 Townhome 1,143 Apartment 4,141 TOTAL 16,452 Eden Prairie compares well with other communities around the metro area in the amount of rental housing it has developed. The table below compares the percentage of rental vs. owner-occupied housing, median rents, and median values of owner-occupied housing in Eden Prairie and nine other metro area communities: Eagan 35% 65% $555 $104,300 Eden Prairie 32% 68% $618 $121,600 2 Minnetonka 29% 71% $121,000 Edina 28% 72% $634 $156,700 Plymouth 26% 74% $578 $127,400 Woodbury 26% 74% $615 $109,700 Apple Valley 16% 84% $532 $101,100 Chanhassen 15% 85% $446 $124,400 Maple Grove 13% 87% $637 $96,000 Of all the communities compared only Eagan has more rental housing than Eden Prairie. Eden Prairie has the fourth highest median rent and value of owner-occupied housing behind Maple Grove, Edina, Minnetonka, Chanhassen, and Plymouth. Bloomington was the only community of the seven west-southwest communities compared that had lower median rents and home values than Eden Prairie. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process has created residential neighborhoods with a variety of housing styles, architecture, prices, size, and lot sizes. Most residential developments (259) in Edilll Prairie have occurred through the PUD process. PUD's allows flexibility to vary from stand~ subdivision design to create the best possible project while minimizing potential environmental impacts. Other reasons for using the pun approach to land development include: • Encourages a more creative and efficient approach to the use of land in the City. • Allows variety in the type of environments available to the people of the City. • Encourages more efficient allocation and maintenance of privately controlled common open space through the distribution of density of population and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible. • Provides the means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than is provided under the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances while preserving the health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the City and its inhabitants. The table below compares median sale price of both single and multiple family units for most of the same communities compared earlier. Eden Prairie had the fourth highest median sale price for single family, and third highest for multiple family. 3 • • Blommington $160,250 $77,500 $143,000 $76,183 Eden Prairie $138,250 $81,588 Woodbury $131,500 $71,250 Minnetonka $131,125 $96,750 Eagan $125,700 $67,450 Apple Valley $112,500 $92,856 Maple Grove $101,750 $65,850 o Prepare Annual Housing Unit Estimates and Forecasts to Determine Level of Infrastructure Needed to Accommodate Future Growth. and To Monitor Housing Development Compared with Stated Goals in Comprehensive Plan. STATUS: HRA staff prepares housing unit estimates and adjusts housing forecasts annually. This information is published in the Eden Prairie Community Profile. The table below shows housing unit estimates since 1970 and forecast ranges from 1995 -2010: 1970 1,685 1980 6,220 1985 9,196 1990 15,585 1992 16,452 1995 17,774 -18,440 2000 19,973 -21,300 2005 22,195 -24,183 2010 24,422 -25,000 Encourage Low Income and Elderly Housing Developments 1hroug1uJUl Eden Prairie and Provide Quality Services Required by Residents. 4 53~ ------------------------- o Use Full Authority of tile Oty's Housing and Redevelopment Authority to Support Development of Low Income and Elderly Housing Projects. STATUS: • The City has a variety of affordable housing units and programs available to the public. A total of 1, 140 housing units have been developed, financed, or rehabilitated for low-income persons with City HRA involvement. This includes 495 low-income project-based rental units, 447 low-moderate income rental units, and 198 owner-occupied units. Project-based units refer to low-income rental units where owners receive public subsidies that stay with the units to make them affordable. The following table lists all the low-income subsidized rental apartment projects in Eden Prairie: Project-based Section 8 Contract - Windslope Apts. 168 Mixed Use expires in 2017. Rent based on 30 % of income. Project-based Section 8 Contract - Briarhill Apts. 126 Mixed Use expires in 1997. Rent based on 30 % of income. Edenvale Apts. 35 Mixed Use Project-based Section 8 Contract. Rent based on 30 % of income. Edendale Retirement Elderly Project-based Section 8 Contract - Residence 61 (62 & older) expires in 2004. Rent based on 30% of income. Project-based below market rents Sterling Ponds 56 Elderly (through 2005) for persons with (55 & older) incomes less than 60170% of median income for metro area. Project-based below market rents on Elim Shores Apts. 13 Elderly 13 of 64 units. Affordable to (62 & older) incomes less than 80% of median. All other units at market rates. Tenant-based Section 8 Certificates Section 8 Rental Housing 36 Mixed Use and Vouchers supplied by Metro Assistance HRA allow low income tenants to pay 30 % of income toward rent. TOTAL RENTAL UNITS 495 The Section 8 Rental Housin2 Assistance Pro2ram is administered by the Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority (MCHRA) for Eden Prairie. This is a tenant-based progra. which means that tenants receive subsidies directly from the housing authority through the issuance Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers. This allows holders of Certificates and Vouchers to live in 5 53? • • • market-rate apartment buildings by having part of their rent paid through the Program. Certificate and Voucher holders pay 30 % of their income toward rent with the balance paid by the Metro HRA. Thirty- six units are currently rented to persons with Certificates or Vouchers in Eden Prairie . The Section 8 income limits as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are show below. These limits are revised about once every 1.5 years. All housing programs receiving federal assistance must use these limits. 1 $27,000 $22,750 $17,850 2 $30,900 $26,000 $20,400 3 $34,750 $29,250 $22,950 4 $38,600 $32,500 $25,000 5 $41,700 $35,100 $27,350 6 $44,800 $37,798 $29,600 7 $47,850 $40,300 $31,600 The table below shows how Eden Prairie compares with other suburban communities in the amount of project-based low-income rental housing it has developed. Eden Prairie has the highest percentage of low-income rental housing units (9 %) as a proportion to its total rental housing than all other communities compared. Only Bloomington and Edina have more low-income rental units developed, and Bloomington has over twice as much housing and is about fifteen years ahead of Eden Prairie in its stage of development. This indicates that although Eden Prairie should continue to strive to develop more low-income housing as per its goals, it appears to be ahead of many other suburban communities in this regard. Eden Prairie 9% 2.9% 448 Edina 8.6% 2.4% 507 Minnetonka 6.3% 1.8% 370 Bloomington 5% 1.5% 543 Apple Valley 3.9% .6% 72 Eagan 2.7% .9% 177 Plymouth 2.5% .6% 129 Maple Grove 1.9% .2% 32 6 5:;'~ Chanhassen 0% 0% o * Low-income units include Section 8 project-based and CDBG fmanced projects only. Other programs that provide or maintain low-income housing in the City include: the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program, the Scattered Site Housing Assistance Program, the Minnesota Cities Participation Program, and the Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME) Program. These programs, which are described below, are administered by the City of Eden Prairie HRA, except the HOME Program which is administered by Senior Community Services. The Housina: Rehabilitation Proa:ram provides loans up to $10,000 to lower-income homeowners for energy and safety related repairs. The primary goal of this Program is to: • Improve and preserve the City's aging housing stock. • Help keep residents in their homes. Typical repairs include a new roof, connection to sewer or water, furnace repair, or insulation. Repayment occurs when the homes are sold or after thirty years, whatever comes first. Applicants must meet certain income requirements to be eligible. About forty-two units have been improved since ~ Program began in 1980. This Program is funded through the Community Development Block GrJI' Program. The Scattered Site Housina: Assistance Pro2ram, which was discontinued in 1991, provided first-time buyers assistance in purchasing homes in various areas of Eden Prairie. Program goals were as follows: • Increase the supply of affordable, habitable dwellings. • Promote home ownership. • Recover funds originally committed to a project and use for other affordable housing programs. The City helped six first-time buyers who met certain household income limits, in purchasing homes in Eden Prairie. Low-interest loans ranging from $10,000 to $21,OQO were provided by the City to write-down mortgages enough to make them affordable. Like the Housing Rehabilitation Program, these funds will be recovered in full when the homes are sold. The Program was discontinued in 1991 when the City began administering the MHFA first-time buyer Program which provided the same form of assistance as the Scattered Site Program. Program funding was made entirely through Community Development Block Grant Program. The City's HRA recovered $21,000 from the sale of a Scattered Site home in 1991. These funds have been placed in a housing trust fund for future rental housing projects. The Minnesota Cities Participation Proa:ram (MCPP) , was developed in 1991 by the MinnesA Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). MHFA designates funds to participating cities to provide 17 interest financing to lower-income first-time home buyers. The goal of the Program is to promote home 7 • • • ownership to lower-income persons. Twelve buyers were assisted in 1991, and six have purchased homes so far in 1992. Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME), this program provides chore and maintenance services to seniors sixty and older who live in Eden Prairie. Recipients pay for services on a sliding fee scale basis. Contributions to the cost of services based on clients ability to pay. The primary goal of this Program is to help elderly home owners maintain independence by remaining in their homes. Senior Community Services Agency of Hopkins administers this program. The City has been funding this Program since 1985. The table below is a summary of housing programs administered or funded by the City of Eden Prairie HRA. Scattered Site Housing Assistance (Single family/townhouse ownership) Housing Rehabilitation Deferred Loan Program Minnesota Cities Participation Program (MCPP) Household & Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME) 5 42 16 135 (through 1991) TOTAL OWNERSHIP UNITS 198 Mortgage write-down using City Family CDBG funds. Program discontinued in 1991. Low/no-interest loans provided by Family City to low-income home owners for energy and safety related improvements. Low-interest mortgages provided by Family State Housing Finance Agency to 60& older lower income -first time home buyers. Home repair, maintenance, and chore services provided to seniors on a sliding fee scale basis. o Exchange Access to Housing Revenue Bonds for Low Income and Elderly Housing Projects. STATUS: The City HRA has issued tax exempt Housing Revenue Bonds (HRB) to many market rate apartment projects in Eden Prairie. MHFA requires projects receiving Housing Revenue Bonds to have 20% of the total units within a project designated for persons with incomes less than 80% of median income for the metro area. The following apartment projects in Eden Prairie have received Housing Revenue Bonds. Baypoint Manor I 23 I 114 8 o o Eden Commons 39 196 Elim Shores 13 64 Fountain Place 98 490 Lakeview 27 136 Olympic Ridge 29 143 Parkway 73 365 Preserve 15 77 Park at City west 58 288 Quail Ridge 22 108 Tanager Creek 36 182 TOTAL RENTAL (HRB) UNITS 447 2,233 Lower Development Costs of Low Income and Elderly Development by Reducing Fees and Offer supp. of Development Costs with CDBG Funds, Tar Increment Financing, and Other Possible Means. Determine if current ordinances, subdivision regulations, and building codes are adding unnecessarily to the cost of development. STATUS: The HRA staff is now examining ways to develop additional low-income rental housing and starter single family attached/detached housing in Eden Prairie. Some methods being considered, include: Tax Increment Financing-Interest Rate Reduction Program, land acquisition, Housing Revenue Bonds, allowing higher densities, and promoting creative subdivision design. Staff also is considering ideas for ways to reduce the cost of housing as outlined in a recent HUn publication called "Affordable Housing Development Guidelines for State and Local Government." Some methods described in this publication include: • • • • Fast-tracking non controversial routine projects. This City does this now when possible. Examining statutes to find whether certain projects can be approved administratively or without Planning Commission/City Council review. Developer carrying costs increase when projects are prolonged -pricing out affordable housing. Developer and City should try to defuse opposition from special interest groups and create greater awareness and understanding of the need for affordable housing. Compact land use patterns and encourage small-lot subdivisions. Smaller lots decrease tA amount of land needed and reduces linear footage of streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, an~ utilities and produces savings in site preparation costs. This has been done in Eden Prairie with 9 Set, • • o the 9.5 district and cluster lots. • Consider developing pinwheel, cottage, Z, and Zipper subdivision configurations in ways to ensure privacy and relieve sense of overcrowding . Staff ordered another new HUD publication which includes testimony from city officials around the country that incorporated some of the development guidelines described above, and other creative methods used by various cities to reduce the cost of developing affordable housing. This document will be reviewed to determine if there is any application to Eden Prairie. Investigate or Consider a Community Development Corporation. The City HRA functions as a Community Development Corporation. o Investigate the Possibility of Mobile Home Parks and Manufactured Housing. o o There are no mobile home developments in Eden Prairie. However, State Statutes require that manufactured housing be allowed to be placed on land if it meets other applicable zoning regulations. Eden Prairie requires mobile homes to meet current residential standards. High land costs in Eden Prairie inhibit the development of mobile homes. Apply for Demonstration Projects. Prepare Materials and Conduct Public Meetings on Innovative Housing Techniques. Many innovative housing techniques have been presented to the City's Commissions and Council for their consideration and over the years. Most have been introduced and implemented by private developers, but with extensive City involvement. This is how most of the City's low-income housing projects have developed, where a private developer introduces a plan but needs federal, state, or HRA assistance to implement it. In some cases City Staff has created innovative ways to address a particular housing problem. The Scattered Site Housing Assistance Program is an example of this. Staff developed the concept and began implementation after receiving approval through a public hearing process. City Staff also introduced a smaller single family lot size zoning district in the early 1980's to help stimulate the development of starter housing. Other innovative housing techniques implemented in Eden Prairie include: o Sterling Ponds Elderly Apartments - a unique financial arrangement was used to develop this project using City Community Development Block Grant funds to acquire the site, TIF, and housing revenue bonds to finance construction. o Cluster Lots have been used quite extensively by several developers and builders in Eden Prairie including Centex and Zachman Brothers. o Zero-Lot Line -developments have occurred in many areas of the City. wp51 \housing\general\goals. 8 • Last revised: January 19, 1993 MEMORANDUM 10 • • • ME.i."\fORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources~ DATE: March 2, 1993 SUBJECT: Acquisition of Final Neighborhood Park Approximately one year ago staff reported that the City had to purchase three neighborhood parks in order to complete the neighborhood park system plan for our community. Staff had recommended acquiring a park on the east end of Rice Marsh Lake to serve the residents north of 212 and west of Mitchell Lake, one park to serve the residents south of County Road 1 and west of Cedar Forest development, and a neighborhood park to serve existing and future residents south of County Road 1 and west of Spring Road. RICE MARSH LAKE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK: Centex and Pentom are jointly proposing development of the remaining undeveloped land north of the 212 corridor between Rice Marsh Lake and Miller Park. This land includes the site designated for a neighborhood park -on the west side of Rice Marsh Lake. The developers have worked with City staff in proposing a plan that would provide the neighborhood park dedication in lieu of park fees for this subdivision. City staff believe that this subdivision, or a modification of this subdivision, will provide the necessary parkland to serve the neighborhood park needs in that area. CRESTWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD PARK: In 1992 the City Council authorized purchase of approximately 12 acres of land on the west side of Dell Road, south of County Road 1 for the purpose of a future neighborhood park that would serve the residents south of County Road 1 and west of the Cedar Forest neighborhood. The City has entered into a contract for deed for that parcel. CEDAR FORESTIHILLTOP NEIGHBORHOOD PARK: The Cedar Forest neighborhood and the Hilltop neighborhood are not presently served by a neighborhood park. The majority of the Hilltop neighborhood is within the service area of Pioneer Park; however, due to the barrier of Pioneer Trail, most families would not feel comfortable sending young children across that road to that park . Acquisition of Final Neighborhood Park March 2, 1993 Page 2 Option #1 City staff completed an analysis in 1991 of the possible neighborhood park locations south of County Road 1 and west of Eden Prairie Road. Staff recommend the first priority location as a 10 acre site owned by Doug Swanson, 16580 Valley Road. The City Council authorized staff to obtain an appraisal of the site and negotiate with Mr. Swanson for the acquisition of that property. The appraisal indicated a current value of approximately $230,000. The site is being assessed at $106,500. Mr. Swanson believed the property will be worth approximately $400,000 within five years and would like to wait until water and sewer is available to the property and sell it at that time, closer to the $400,000 figure than the $230,000 figure. The Swanson property does have a house and a barn on the property. Either building could be modified to serve as a park shelter. The improvements required of either building would be anywhere from $30,000 to $75,000, depending on which building and the extent of the improvements. City staff believe that the Swanson property could be acquired for an amount somewhere between $275,000 and $350,000. The property would require significant grading to develop, but would have two usable buildings on the site. The property would be in the northern one-third of the service area; however, it would be located in the center of the highest • density of the service area. The majority of the homes south of Riley Creek will most likely • remain on relatively large lots due to the steep topography in that area. Option #2 As Mr. Swanson is not very excited about selling his property at this time, City staff continued to look at other sites in the service area. The second option for a neighborhood park is the property owned by Don Atkins, located at 9580 Eden Prairie Road just south of Riley Creek on the west side of Eden Prairie Road. Mr. Atkins' property contains approximately 9.7 acres. The northern boundary is Riley Creek, the eastern boundary is Eden Prairie Road. This property is located in the center of the service area. The Park and Open Space System Plan depicts acquiring land approximately 100 feet on either side of Riley Creek for a trail corridor when the adjacent property is developed. This site would not only make an adequate neighborhood park to serve this area, but could also serve as a trail head for the creek corridor trail. Mr. Atkins operates his business from this site and would intend to do so for at least another five years and perhaps as long as ten years. He is willing to consider selling the site to the City if he would have the right to utilize his property for up to ten years or whenever water and sewer is developed to the site, which ever comes first. Staff would anticipate having to remove all of the existing buildings on the Atkins property in order to develop a satisfactory park. City staff believe that the demand for neighborhood park facilities to serve this area will • substantially increase once water and sewer are provided to this area. Staff believe that it is critical to acquire the land now and be able to develop the park once water and sewer is available and people begin to subdivide their property in this service area. 541.\ • Acquisition of Final Neighborhood Park March 2, 1993 • • Page 3 At this time, City staff request direction from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and the City Council as to whether the City should pursue negotiations with Mr. Swanson and bring back Mr. Swanson's best offer on his property, or if we should pursue other options such as the Atkins property. BL:mdd • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources ~ DATE: February 26, 1993 SUBJECT: Eden Prairie Land Trust Correspondence Attached to this memo is a February 25th letter from Betty McMahon, Chair of the Eden Prairie Land Trust. This letter responds to the City Council request to clarify the expectations of the Land Trust regarding City support of the Land Trust. FUND RAISING COMMITTEE: The Land Trust requests City staff to provide the EPLT with recommendations regarding potential individual corporate/foundation and public funding opportunities and to publicly support the Eden Prairie Land Trust efforts regarding fund raising. • PUBLIC RELATIONS: • The Land Trust requests that staff participate in public relation events that are general in nature given at least a one week notice. !he Land Trust also request the staff to provide historical natural resources and ecological information as needed. City staff can provide any records that are available regarding the sites and in most cases will be able to provide a staff person to participate in public relation events when a specific request for attendance is provided. I don't believe it is the intent of the EPLT that City staff are in attendance at every event sponsored by the EPLT; however, when there is reason for a City staff person to be in attendance staff should be able accommodate that request. MEMBERSHIP: The EPLT requests the City staff to publicly encourage volunteer involvement m the organization. OPERATIONS COMMITfEE: The EPLT is requesting that City staff facilitate and participate in meetings with governmental officials as needed, provide legal research and information as needed and donate the services of a contractual staff person to prepare materials for monthly meetings and prepare minutes. They are also requesting that key staff participate in the monthly meetings of the EPLT . If the City is to comply with these requests, the City will have to budget an annual operating budget for the EPL T. If the City Council wishes to support the EPLT in this fashion, the Council should indicate a willingness to do so and request the EPL T submit a budget request for • 1993. The EPLT is asking the City Council to also consider providing office space for a desk, file and bookcase, as well as copying privileges. If the City Council chooses to support this request, City staff believe there would be space for a desk, file and bookcase in the history room in the new City Hall. If the Council wishes to authorize the use of the copy machine and provide an educational fund for EPLT members to attend fund raising seminars or the Land Trust Alliances National Rally, etc., those cost estimates should be submitted in a budget request by EPLT. The Eden Prairie Land Trust is also requesting the City Council to consider sharing the "carrying costs" to reimburse the Tandem Corporation for additional delays for the development of the Mitchell Lake Woods for one additional season. The estimated cost is between $50,000 and $100,000 to delay one more construction season. These requests should be considered at the next City Council meetings. BL:mdd landtll • • • • • Bob Lambert Director February 25, 1993 Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources City of Eden Prairie 250 Prairie Center Drive Suite 250 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Bob: As requested, the following are a few suggestions regarding the working relationship between the Eden Prairie Land Trust and the City of Eden Prairie. A brief description of the EPL T is provided, followed by a list of suggestions on how the City could assist those efforts. Please review these with the City Council and advise us regarding their action. FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE Private Contributions. Raise funds from individuals through donations, memberships and specialized campaigns. Corporate/Foundations. Hire a professional fundraiser, monitor activities of the fundraiser, identify additional corporate and foundation funding opportunities, raise funds and write grants, as needed. Public Funding/grants. Identify potential funding sources, develop contacts and procedures to secure funds from the federal, state, Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, Hennepin and Suburban Regional Park Systems and Eden Prairie. Identify and obtain professional assistance to secure funds. Lobby for public funding at the State Legislature. 15907 S. Lund Rd. Eden Prairie. MN 55346 Phone 612-934-9094 Staffing assistance needed: Provide staff, such as Bob Lambert and Laurie Helling, to meet with EPL T with recommendations regarding potential individual, corporate/foundation and public funding opportunities. Support EPL T efforts publicly. PUBLIC RELATIONS Media. Continue working relationships and establish new ones with key print, radio and television media; develop press releases and other public relations materials; organize letter writing campaigns; identify key activities to be publicized; solicit probono agency purchase agency services and monitor agency activities; create identity materials. Rallies. Organize media events, such as "Eden Prairie Kids Woods Walk u and other events to keep Eden Prairie Land Trust activities visible. Tours and Education. Educate both adults and children concerning the historic and ecological value of the woods. Conduct meetings, develop class projects with teachers and act as the research arm which can develop materials to be used by other committees. Staffing assistance needed: Support the efforts of the EPL T publicly. Participate in public relations events that are general in nature, given at least 1 weeks notice. Provide historical, natural resources and ecological information, as needed. . MEMBERSHIP Phoning. Contact committee members for events and meetings. Mailing. Develop and distribute fliers, newsletters, meeting notices and other materials. Recruitment. Promote the project for membership and volunteer assistance .. Staffing assistance needed. Support the efforts of the EPL T publicly and encourage volunteer involvement in the organization. 2 • • • • • • OPERA TlONS COMMITTEE Governmental Relations. Establish ongoing relationships with key officials, i.e., city council members, county commissioners, Metropolitan Council members, Hennepin Parks/Suburban Hennepin Parks commissioners, Eden Prairie Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commissioners, state legislators, congressmen and senators and local Eden Prairie commissioners. Outreach. Identify, contact and secure support of environmental advocacy organizations. Seek their expertise in the areas of fund raising, legislative, legal, public relations, technical research support, etc. as well as their membership support. Encourage joint fundraising efforts along with joint pUblicity opportunities. Staffing assistance needed: Support the efforts of the EPL T publicly. Facilitate and participate in meetings with governmental officials, as needed. Provide legal research and information, as needed. Donate the services of a contractual staff person to prepare materials for monthly meetings and prepare minutes. Key staff could participate in the monthly meetings of the EPL T. Additional assistance requested: Provide office space for EPL T desk, file and bookcase. Provide copying privileges. Provide an educational fund for representatives of the EPL T to be used for fundraising seminars, the Land Trust Alliance's National Rally, etc .. Share in the "carrying costs" resulting from delaying Tandem's development of the Mitchell Lake Woods until after the City Council acts on the Natural Resources Study Committee's recommendations. A recent meeting with Jim Ostenson indicated that carrying costs (undocumented, at this time) could range between $50,000 to $100,000 to delay one more construction season. Ways the EPL T may be able to assist the City: In addition to providing research, 3 5 I ' ~O educating citizens regarding natural resources, fundraising and enhancing the visibility of open space areas, the EPL T can act as a "neutral party" and provide an additional alternative for landowners who are preservation-minded but do not want to work with the City. CC: Carl Jullie 4 Sincerely yours, ~ !A[)7L~L:Jc ~:tt~ Mc~ahon ivY-.- Chair • • • • • • -MEMORANDUM- TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager FROM: Alan D. Gray, City Engineer DATE: March 11, 1993 SUBJECT: Surface Water Management Utility As part of our continued consideration of a Surface Water Management Utility staff has discussed the coordination of water quality management programs with our Watershed Districts. Over the past twenty years the Districts and the City have shared responsibilities in surface water management with regard to both quantity and quality: • • The Districts have planned and constructed the trunk water management systems such as the Chain-of-Lakes storm sewer. Once these trunk facilities are constructed they are turned over to the City for ownership and maintenance. The City has planned, designed and constructed all storm water facilities within the smaller sub-watershed considered the lateral system. The City owns and maintains all public storm water facilities. • Both the Districts and the City have reviewed grading plans and monitored erosion control at construction sites. The District resources in this area have been limited. City and District staff have coordinated activities to avoid overlap. We anticipate a continued partnership with our Districts in the future as we continue to upgrade our storm water management facilities with increased emphasis on water qUality. We anticipate that the financial resources of the City and the Districts will be coordinated in the following ways: • All maintenance of facilities will continue to be performed by the City. Districts do not plan to hire maintenance staff and purchase equipment, land and buildings for maintenance activities. The City can undertake maintenance more effectively since staff and equipment can be utilized for both surface water facilities and other systems. • Districts will continue to design and fund construction of the larger trunk elements of the system. These facilities will be identified in the updated 509 plans being prepared by the Districts. Surface Water Management Utility March 11, 1993 Page 2 of 2 • The City will continue to design and construct the systems which collect and treat storm water and convey it to the systems constructed at District expense. • The City will retrofit older lateral collection systems with treatment facilities such as sump catch basins or small NURP ponds. Several of the Cities which share our common Watershed Districts such as Bloomington and Chanhassen have storm water utilities. The Districts view utilities as stable funding sources to ensure effective maintenance of storm water management facilities. As the standards for surface water quality are increased and improved facilities for treatment are constructed, increas~ maintenance will be critical to system effectiveness. ADG:ssa Dsk:CC.WATER.QTY • • •