Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 12/21/1993
AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL • TUESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1993 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 N itchell Road COUNCILME BIERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson,Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcoch CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Community Development Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Council Recorder PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PROCLAMATION FOR MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. EVENT I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS IL OPEN PODIUM III. MINUTES A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY. NOVEMBER 16. 1993 B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1993 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST B. BENTEC EXPANSION by Bentec Engineering. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the Office Zoning District on 1.58 acres; Adoption of a Resolution Approving Site Plan Review for Bentec Engineering and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Bentec Expansion for Bentec Engineering. Location: 13050 Pioneer Trail. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the Office Zoning District and Resolution for Site Plan) • C. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF EDEN PRAIRIE FORD City Council Agenda Tuesday, December 21, 1993 Page Two D. RECEIVE PETITION AND ORDER FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR WEST 82ND STREET, I.C. 93-5341 (Resolution) E. APPROVAL OF PROPOSAL BY FOX. McCUE & COMPANY TO SERVE AS THE CITY'S INDEPENDENT AUDITORS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEIVIBER 31. 1993 F. BREAM TOWNHOUSES by Bream Builders. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review on 6.71 acres and Zoning District Amendment in the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 6.71 acres; Adoption of a Resolution Approving Site Plan Review for Bream Townhouses and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for Bream Townhouses. Location: West of Dell Road and North of Pioneer Trail. (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 6.71 acres and Resolution for Site Plan) G. AWARD BID FOR 1ST PHASE OF MILLER PARK PLAY STRUCTURE IL RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL (located at the NW corner of County Road 4 and Highway 5) L RESOLUTION APPROVING REFINANCING OF SUPER VALU MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS J. RESOLUTION APPROVING REFINANCING OF ROIT RIVETT CORPORATION (SUPER-8 HOTEL) MUNICIPAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS ' K. RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO, 1 FOR SINGLETREE LANE TRUNK WATERMAIN. I.C. NO. 93-5337 L. APPROVE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND PLANS FOR CSAH 62 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. SHADY OAK RIDGE 4TH ADDITION by Joe Ruzic. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.28 acres and Preliminary Plat of 2.28 acres into 4 lots. Location: Northwest corner of Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Continued from November 16, 1993 City Council Agenda Tuesday, December 21, 1993 Page Three B. BENT CREEK RESIDENTIAL by Bent Creek Development Corporation. 40 Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 34.72 acres, PUD Concept Review on 58.8 acres for 111 housing units, PUD District Review with waivers on 58.8 acres for 111 housing units, Rezoning from Rural to RM 6.5 on 10.2 acres for 20 twinhomes, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 34.72 acres for 61 single family homes, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 13.13 acres for 30 single family homes, and Preliminary Plat of 58.8 acres into 91 single family lots and 20 twinhome lots. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution for PUD Concept Review; and Ordinance for PUD District Review and Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5, Rezoning from Rural to Rl- 9.5 and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) C. SUMIVIERFIELD by the Rottlund Company. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public to Medium Density Residential on 19.59 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential on 3.03 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium Density Residential on 2.5 acres, PUD Concept Review on 38.14 acres, PUD District Review with waivers on 38.14 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.53 acres, Rezoning from Public to RM-6.5 on 19.59 acres, Preliminary Plat of 38.14 acres into 78 lots and 1 outlot for 180 multi-family units. Location: Dell Road and Highway 5. (Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public to Medium Density Residential; Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential; Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium Density Residential; Resolution for PUD Concept Review; Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers; Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5; Ordinance for Rezoning from Public to RM-6.5; and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VIE. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS A. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE REGULATING USE OF PUBLIC PARKS VIII. PETITIONS REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. REOUEST BY INTERSTATE COMPANIES FOR A LAND ALTERATION PERMIT AT ROWLAND ROAD AND SHADY OAK ROAD • B. TRAFFIC CONCERNS ON NORTH LUND ROAD (Ronald Pashina) IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS. COMMISSIONS & COMMITTEES X. APPOINTMENTS City Council Agenda Tuesday, December 21, 1993 Page Four XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Approval of 1994 Enterprise Fund Budgets 2. Discussion on Combining Building Code Board of Appeals and Board of Appeals & Adjustments C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS. RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Recommendation to Change Oven Skating Hours at Community Center 2. Recommendation to Provide Position at Community Center to Supervise Open Skating 3. Cash Park Fees for 1994 4. Request to Increase Garden Plot Rental Fees to Cover Costs ilk 5. Gift Book D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 1. Resolution Awarding Contract for 1994 Maintenance Materials and Water Treatment Chemicals. I.C. 93-5340 2. Resolution Awarding Contract for City Well No. 11 and 12, LC. 93-5337 3. Resolution Requesting.MetroDolitan'Council Authorization to Purchase Property for TH 212 Using Right-of-Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF) 4. Authorization to.Hire Appraisals for RALF Purchases for TH 212 F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY G. REPORT OF FINANCE DIRECTOR • XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL SDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1993 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Community Development Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Bob Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL Mayor Tenpas called the meeting to order at 7:35 PM. Jessen arrived late. A moment of silence was observed for Grant Hussey. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Pidcock added Items XI.A.1. Eden Prairie Foundation Event; XI.A.2. Burying of Power Lines South of Dell Road; XI.A.3. Request regarding Key to the City; XI.A.4. Loss of Two Former Members of Commissions; XI.A.5. Skateboarding Request: Jullie added Item IX.C.1. Proposed Swimming Pool at Oak Point Intermediate School: MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the agenda as submitted and amended. Motion carried unanimously. H. OPEN PODIUM There were no presentations made during this portion of the agenda. M. MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY. NOVEMBER 2. 1993 Pidcock noted that the rebate check she presented was in excess of$55,000, not $50,000. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of November 2, 1993, as submitted and amended. Motion carried with Harris abstaining. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST 11) B. 2ND READING OF ORDINANCE #43-93. AMENDING CITY CODE REGARDING USE OF BICYCLE WAYS AND RESOLUTION #93-214, APPROVING SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION City Council Minutes 2 November 16, 1993 C. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR MILLER PARK D. RESOLUTION #93-215, APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF WINDFIELD 4TH ADDITION E. RESOLUTION #93-216. APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF WINDFIELD 5TH ADDITION F. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO, 2 FOR CREEK KNOLLS. BLUFFS EAST 12. I.C. 52-194 AND I.C. 52-256 G. APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR BERGER DRIVE/LAKESHORE DRIVE.I.C.52-284 H. APPROVE AGREEMENT REGARDING STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS WITH CARL MANSON I. RESOLUTION #93-217. AUTHORIZING SOUTHWEST METRO TO PURCHASE UP TO 22 VEHICLES FOR USE IN ITS SMALL BUSINESS OPERATION J. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 FOR BOULDER WALLS AT MILLER PARK Councilmembers expressed concern about Item C. approving a change order for Miller Park. Lambert said it could not have been reserved from the fees. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve items A. - J. of the Consent Calen1110 as presented. Motion carried unanimously. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS A. SHADY OAK RIDGE 4TH ADDITION by Joe Ruzic. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 2.28 acres and Preliminary Plat of 2.28 acres into 4 lots. Location: Northwest corner of Rowland Road and Old Shady Oak Road. (Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Continued from October 19, 1993 MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to continue this item to the December 7th meeting per petitioner's request. Motion carried unanimously. Jessen arrived at 7:40 P.M. B. BREAM TOWNHOUSES by Bream Builders. Request for PUD Concept Review on 419 acres, PUD District Review on 6.71 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment in the RM-6.5 Zoning District on 6.71 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 6.71 acres into 11 lots. Location: West of Dell Road and North of Pioneer Trail. (Resolution for PUD Concept; Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment in the RM-6.5 Zoning District and Resolution for Preliminary Plat) Cal Smith, representing pro onent, addressed the proposal. Enger reviewed the recommendationa the Planning Commission and Staff. There were no comments from the audience. City Council Minutes 3 November 16, 1993 110 Councilmembers questioned what materials would be used for the building exteriors. Proponent and Staff described the materials to be used. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing, to adopt Resolution #93-218 for PUD Concept approval, and to approve the 1st Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to adopt Resolution #93-219, approving the Preliminary Plat; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. C. BENTEC ADDITION II by Bentec Engineering Corporation. Request for Zoning District Amendment within the Office Zoning District on 1.58 acres. Location: 13050 Pioneer Trail. (Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the Office Zoning District) Bruce Boyd, representing proponent, addressed the proposal. Enger reviewed the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Staff. There were no comments from the audience. Councilmembers expressed concern about proponent being allowed to begin excavation before the project was presented to the Planning Commission. Enger reviewed the sequence of events leading to the authorization of early excavation under the administrative approval clause in the zoning • ordinance. Councilmembers then discussed whether the administrative approval clause should be restructured to include restrictions for its use. The consensus was to retain the flexibility of the basic policy. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment; and to prepare an amendment to the Development Agreement. Motion carried unanimously. VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to approve the Payment of Claims as presented. Motion carried on a roll call vote with Anderson, Harris, Jessen, Pidcock, and Tenpas voting in favor. • VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS VIII. PETITIONS. REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. PETITION FROM THE RESIDENTS OF TOPVIEW ADDITION FOR PARK IMPROVEMENT Lambert reviewed the request from residents of the Topview Addition for improvements to Topview Park. The Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission and Staff have recommended that playground equipment which was left at the former Family Education Center be relocated to Topview Park and that the request for a skating rink be denied. There were no comments from the audience. Councilmembers expressed concern about the availability of skating facilities for residents. Lambert City Council Minutes 4 November 16, 1993 said the policy is to have skating facilities available within a roughly two-mile radius and S experience has shown that such facilities should have a warming house and a hockey rink in addition to a skating rink. There is not enough room at this location for such a facility. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Jessen, to direct Staff to relocate the playground equipment from the old Family Education Center to Topview Park in 1994 and to deny the request for a skating rink at Topview Park. Motion carried unanimously. B. REQUEST BY BEV AND BRAD AHO FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ON PROPERTY AT 12742 GORDON DRIVE Jullie noted that, after several months of working with Staff, no mutually agreeable resolution in terms of assigning costs for the drainage improvements has been reached. Dietz reviewed the details of the request and the discussions Staff has had with the Aho's over the months. Dietz noted that the area in question is considered wetlands and that the City has no easements over the wetlands area of the property. Brad Aho, 12742 Gordon Drive, described the drainage problem on his property and said his wife and he were not aware of this situation when they bought the property in 1991. He said there is an open culvert on his property that could be a hazard for children. Councilmembers' concerns included whether there was a possible public health problem caus contaminants from the runoff, the extent to which the problem reduces the usability of the A. property, and the effect that correcting this problem would have on adjoining properties and wetlands. Dietz said it is difficult to quantify the health issues; however the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has said they are not aware of any public health concerns associated with runoff from this type of area. MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Anderson, to deny the request for City participation in the costs to correct the drainage problem on the Aho property because the situation was not caused by any action taken by the City nor does it cause a direct and complete lack of use of the property. Motion carried 3-2 with Pidcock and Tenpas opposed. Council directed Staff to remedy the problem with the open culvert on the property. IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS. COMMISSIONS &COMMITTEES X. APPOINTMENTS XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS 1. Eden Prairie Foundation Event • Pidcock was concerned that Councilmembers donating their services at a dinner for the Eden Prairie City Council Minutes 5 November 16, 1993 411 Foundation might represent a violation of the Opening Meeting law. Pauly said it would be considered a social event. 2. Burying of Power Lines South of Dell Road Pidcock asked Staff to check out the situation regarding burying power lines in the area south of Dell Road. 3. Request regarding Key to the City In response to Pidcock's question, lessen said this has been resolved. 4. Loss of Two Former Members of Commissions Pidcock asked if the widows of the two former Commission members Gerald Hoppe and Howard Kaerwer had been sent condolence messages from the City. Jullie said they had. 5. Skateboarding Request Pidcock said she had received a number of requests from youth who would like to have a place to skateboard. The consensus was that no special facility should be provided; however, the trails can be used for skateboarding. B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER 1. Set Monday. December 13, 1993. 7:00 PM. for a Joint Meeting of the City Council. Planning Commission, and Parks. Recreation & Natural Resources Commission to discuss planning for downtown MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to set Monday, December 13, 1993, at 7:00 P.M. for a joint meeting with the Planning and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commissions regarding downtown Eden Prairie. Motion carried unanimously. C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Proposed Swimming Pool at Oak Point Intermediate School Lambert reviewed the School District's request for City support for their proposed swimming pool at the Oak Point Intermediate School. He said the Parks Commission voted 6-1 last night to recommend support of the proposal as a way to alleviate some of the problems with crowding in the other pools in the City, with the understanding that this would not be in lieu of the recreational pool that is in our master plan. • Councilmembers asked for clarification regarding what was being requested and what the maintenance costs will be. Lambert responded that the School District wants concept approval from the City and an agreement to continue negotiations on the proposal. Lambert said the projections indicate about $100,000 per year for revenue with about $130,000 in operating expenses. City Council Minutes 6 November 16, 1993 MOTION: Jessen moved, seconded by Harris, to continue the negotiations with the School Dile on the proposed swimming pool at Oak Point Intermediate School. Motion carried unanimously. XII. OTHER BUSINESS XIII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION TO ADJOURN: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Tenpas closed the meeting at 9:10 p.m. • v • MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1993 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER--Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Douglas Tenpas, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, H. Martin Jessen, and Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Mayor Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. He was the only councilmember present. Assistant to the City Manager Dawson was present on behalf of the City staff for the meeting. DECLARATION OF A LACK OF QUORUM AND CONTINUATION OF ITEMS LISTED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE REGULARLY-SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING FOR DECEMBER 7, 1993 Acting Mayor Anderson declared that all public hearings scheduled for the regular meeting tonight were being continued to the Council's December 21, 1993 meeting. M. DESIGNATION OF HEARING OFFICIAL Acting Mayor Anderson designated the Assistant to the City Manager to conduct and take comments for the public hearing listed on the meeting agenda. IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. Resolution Approving Refinancing of SuperValu Municipal Industrial Development Bonds Assistant to the City Manager Dawson opened the public hearing for consideration of refinancing $1,000,000 of municipal industrial development bonds (MIDBs) issued for the SuperValu, Inc., project in 1979. He announced that any comments to be made would be summarized and presented as part of the public record to the City Council when it subsequently considered this matter. • No person made any comment about the proposed resolution for this refinancing. V. ADJOURNMENT There being no one wishing to speak by 7:40 p.m., the meeting was adjourned at that time. • Respectfully submitted, Craig W. Dawson • Assistant to the City Manager • • DATE: a,_. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA L I ri .i" pretria SECTION: �,: Consent Calendar 12-21-93 EPARTMENT:411 ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance - Pat Solie Clerk's License Application List IV.A These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsrbble -for the licensed activity. NEW 1994 ON SAtE LIQUOR & SUNDAY LIQUOR Courtyard by Marriott RENEWAL LICENSES FOR 1994 ON SALE LIQUOR & SUNDAY LIQUOR 3.2 BEER ON SALE Applebee's Restaurant Cedar Hills Golf Park Bent Creek Golf Club, Inca Lion's Tap Chi-Chi 's Mexican Restaurante Pizza Hut, Inc. Ciatti 's, Inc. Residence Inn by Marriott. Great Mandarin Restaurant . Signature Beef X Grill, Inc. The Green Mill Restaurant Half Time Restaurant & Sports Bar 3.2 BEER OFF SALE 4111 Kabuki Restaurant Ma Ma D's of Eden Prairie • Brooks Superette #51 Minnesota Steakhouse Cub Foods Olympic Hills Corporation Jerry's New Market Stars Restaurant Lion's Tao PDQ Food Store ON SALE WINE & STRONG BEER & 3.2 BEER ON SALE Superamerica #4159 Superamerica #4269 Bakers Square Superamerica # 4441 . Beijing Chinese Restaurant Tom Thumb Store #275 Davanni's Pizza Tom Thumb Stone" #269 Detello's Pizza & Pasta Jade Fountain II - CIGARETTE Lunds Deli Style Restaurant .14 Mr. Q's Vietnamese Cuisine Applebee's Restaurant Pannekoeken Griddle & Grille Bent Creek Golf Club The Gui-Lin Restaurant Brooks Superette continued Action/Direction: -- • _ 12-21-93 page 1 'DATE: elaz CITY COUNCIL AGENDA aderi , _ prairie SECTION: Consent Calendar 12-21-93 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ,: . ITEM NO. F p At4Solie C1Prk'c I icPncP Annlieatinn I ict IV.A • These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the activity.i censed i CIGARETTES (Continued) CONTRACTORS (MULTI-FAMILY & COMt4.) Chi-Chi's Mexican Restaurante J. W. Anderson & Associates_ Ciatti's, Inc. Bachmans, nc. Courtyard by Marriott Construction Details Corp. Cub Foods The fends er Company Great Mandarin Restaurant Fotomark, Inc. Jerry's New Market G. L. Contracting Lion's Tap Genuine Construction, Inc. MaMa D's of Eden Prairie Hunerberg Construction Co. { Olympic Hills Corporation McGough Construction Co., Idc. PDQ Food Store Richard A. Olson Contracting, ,inc Tom Thumb Store #275 Riverview Construction Tom Thumb Store #269 Superior Fire Protection HEATING & VENTILATING • GAS FITTER Climate Engineering Company- Countryside Heating & Cooling Services Conrad Mechanical Contractors . Practical Systems Countryside Heating & Cooling Dronen's Heating & Air Contiitio i:g PLUMBING (19931 Practical Systems City View Plumbing & Heating UTILITY INSTALLER (1993) Gene's Sewer & Water Action/Direction: 12-21-93 page 2 DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 0 SECTION: 2nd Reading 12-21-93 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development -. Don Uram BENTEC EXPANSION Requested Council Action: • 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Amendment within the Office Zoning, District on 1.58 acres. • Adoption of a Resolution Approving Site Plan Review for Bentec Engineering. • Approval of a Supplement Developer's Agreement for Bentec Expansion. 40 Action/Direction: • BENTEC EXPANSION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNFSOTA ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNFSOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING WITHIN A PARTICULAR ZONING 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, MINNFSOTA, 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 zoning of the land be amended within the Office District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the zoning of the land shall be, and hereby is amended within the Office District, and the legal description of land in such District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and is amended accordingly. SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1,entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire 1111Pity Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Supplemental Developer's Agreement dated as of December 21, 1993, entered into between Bentec Engineering Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie. 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 16th day of November, 1993, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 21st day of December, 1993. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on S z Exhibit A Bentec Expansion . Legal Description Lots 11 and 12, Block 3, Yorkshire Point, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that part taken for U.S. Highway No. 169-212. • • 3 BENTEC EXPANSION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN LAND WITHIN ONE 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 amendment of the zoning.on land located at 13050 Pioneer Trail within the Office Zoning District, subject to the terms and conditions of a Supplemental Developer's Agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. • ATTEST: /s/ John D. Frane /s/Douglas B. Tenpas City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the • . (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) 9 BENTEC EXPANSION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 411111 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR BENTEC EXPANSION FOR BENTEC ENGINEERING WHEREAS, Bentec Engineering has applied for Site Plan approval of the Bentec Expansion on 1.58 acres for construction of a 1,230 sq. ft. building on property located at 13050 Pioneer Trail, to be amended within the Office Zoning District by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on November 16, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its November 8, 1993, Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its November 16, 1993, meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIO OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Bentec Expansion for construction of a 1,230 sq. ft. building, based on plans dated November 5, 1993, between Bentec Expansion, and the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the City Council on December 21, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Bentec Expansion • SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT This supplement to agreement, made and entered into as of OECEMBER 21, 1993, by BENTEC ENGINEERING CORP., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City"; Whereas, Developer and City made and entered into a Developer's Agreement dated March 3, 1981, for office use of the Property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and, Developer's Agreement dated August 7, 1993 amending said Developer's Agreement; and, Whereas, the parties desire to further amend the Developer's Agreement's for the Property referred to therein with respect to Developer's amended request for a 1,200 sq. ft. building addition, site plan review and Zoning District Amendment within the Office District; Now, therefore, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance amending the zoning of the Property within the Office District, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1111 1. The Developer's Agreement shall be and hereby is supplemented and amended in the following respects: A. Paragraph 1. shall be amended to read as follows: "Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated November 5, 1993, reviewed and approved by the City Council on November 16, 1993, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. B. The following paragraph 10 shall be added: "10. Developer and City acknowledge that the six (6) proof of parking spaces proposed for the Property, depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, are designated for use by the office building and that said spaces are not required to be constructed at this time. However, said spaces may be required to be constructed in the future, if it is determined by City, in its sole discretion, that it is necessary. At such time as City, in its sole discretion, may determine that it is necessary for all, or a portion of, said six (6) proof of parking 411 spaces to be constructed in order to accommodate the office use, the following shall occur: A. City shall notify Developer in writing of the need to construct all, or a portion, of said six (6) proof of parking spaces. B. Within six (6) months of receipt of written notice from City, Developer agrees to have completed construction of all, or a portion of, said six (6) proof of parking spaces, as determined by City, in the located as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 2. Developer agrees to all the terms and conditions and accepts the obligations of"Developer" under the Developer's Agreement, as amended and supplemented herein. • 7 • DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar December 21, 193 EPART'MENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Engineering Division Jeffrey Johnson/Al Gray Final Plat Approval of Eden Prairie Ford - 1TE, G v Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: * Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Eden Prairie Ford subject to the following items: 1. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$448 2. Receipt of proof of filing with Hennepin County of Variance Order h93-21. The effect of this action will allow Eden Prairie Ford to consolidhte their three mcissting parcels into one single parcel, containing the car dealership and the storage lot. Overview: lel The City Council approved the preliminary plat June 15, 1993, with the approval of the supplement to the Developer's Agreement following on July 20, 1993. • December 7, 1993 Item No. IV.C.1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF EDEN PRAIRIE FORD WHEREAS, the plat of Eden Prairie Ford has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for Eden Prairie Ford is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated . B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on December 21, 1993. • Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • December 7, 1993 Item No. IV.C.2 DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar December 21, 1993 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Engineering Division Receive Petition and Order Feasibility Study for Rod Rue/Alan Gray West 82nd Street Improvements, LC. 93-5341 IV.D Recommended Action: Approve resolution receiving petition and order feasibility report for improvements to Wes 82nd Street. Overview: Centex Homes petitioned for improvements to West 82nd Street, which is adjacent to their Hawthorne of Eden Prairie development. Financial Issues: Other residential properties along the north side of West 82nd Street will benefit from its improvement. There could be a City share of improvement costs depending on the amount of assessments to homesteaded properties on the north side of West 82nd Street. This will be determined through the feasibility study. 1111 - December 7, 1993 Item No. IV.D.1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RECEIVING PETITION AND ORDERING FEASIBILITY REPORT WHEREAS, a petition has been received and it is proposed to make the following improvements: I.C. 93-5341 - West 82nd Street Improvements and assess the benefitted properties for all or a portion of the cost of the improvements, pursuant to Minnesota Status, Chapter 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: That the proposed improvements be referred to the City Engineer for study with the assistance of S.R.F., and that a feasibility report shall be prepared and presented to the City Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to the scope, cost assessment and feasibility of the proposed improvements. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on December 21, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • December 7, 1993 Item No. IV.D.2 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MIN:NESOTA PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT To The Eden Prairie City Council : 4111 The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City Council to consider making the following described improvement(s): (General Location), X Sanitary Sewer West 82nd Street from Dell Road to proposed X Watermain Cascade Drive (see Attached) X Storm Sewer X Street Paving and Sidewalks Other • Street Address of Other • Legal Description of Names of Petitioners Property to be Served (Must Be Property Owners) Outlot A, Hawthorne of Eden Prairie Centex Real Estate Corporation DA..4.14 &tviwok • • • (For City Use) • Date Received . Project No. Council Consideration 411/ JTD' ✓ . qa 1(:� ta'!a -( i i at.(1a lit- \ - . . . • s ' , / - i - -,:,:, : - -1 :. • fa1(fl�taiii ( f �Yaa�{ f \ ^t 1 r--- r � _....... i l 1 }t �.�Fj 1 � � i, LI(f= t�Ill R i41<}rai i 1 ii' . —...'' (J)// tJ.1Y1 ii s.. I �i, alII gI flfS t(t3; �t f i AM , '. /I �� <- fr- 1111 -1 ►s i. a a} i 1 L ; la aii I -` '1 ei- i: I Igo/ - „^7' ,i. 'el` • — • i 1 C pp t ay t ` r .- 1 I 4 N y 1} 1 :yam i il:Y.i y � j �ruswrer.;' 17,41 g 1 (, 4_ :,.:.„ .1... . , , ,, ,,,1 ,i. . 1e .( 1' ei. r / � ' ig I. 1/ Y :! ill'sNI* MI° i!ii 4,\Zi' 4 / / i :.:418 .--\N., - J •4 ,1 aIt cif ! 1 .:•t F t` ., wo i i Will 1a 1 ill I re,-/fr :/ :&t1 \ \i' I 2 q / .! / //te. - .4,7t ,, ip, j • i Z \\\ t.1 [7... --\[ I, [ j1) • 1 - i SDI --\YIP (.... .I -- -- / - \ It: Ilk- ‘ t ,..:14 . t‘ill•:4\_,--..'c:111* ,\!....4..\, ,. :33 • I ' P 4 - t. ® .\ / .,,,,;:\ \_..1.1.... -1 m /y (5 ( `3IIT'� c r w 1� l = ' .. ,,------` - Its• ?— ‘:i 1! .:1 01101 ,'1 ... 4 Ix 4.1I,Z• ' • r __ - i • . !, iiii: a. t, \ 1 II+ ',1'"- ---4 ----- , iiii 1E 1 r ii !, ~1` --'--i ,`-,a_, i ft y t • .4 illi,-it r 9 e I- ;1. 144 141 I . ii„. .„ „! iip IL.. , .4. _____.. . i IN �E\ g' © t , . t Illirlir f1:1 f III Fi .1 it ',I,1 1n 4. 3 _. _-... ;i t >. L' 'J L 'J l' 'J 1 — 1 snit _I__- • • � g `17 111 ' III it i 11 i !!i 5 i.i i ;1..a 31 r _.: r� III�'�I i' ���1�1 2112 Tµ1A Yii ill tf Ili p j iC li S SSi(t1 L, • r l; illoz at( aas■ tat 1. 1;Ti1i i 1 I i,.•,.1 El .i i`1 it 1141; i 1�i !llUllU11 ' . •. iii _ .. .,44 " I {����������� �� ��I 111 III' �� ..7 V.TD . 4, -7..-.:f.."2„.':,..,,:......:: DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DecemberIt, 1993 4 . leSECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance -- E City Manager's Office Services for Independent Audit for Fiscal Year IV 1993 Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Council accept the proposal of Fox McCue & Company, P.A. to provide independent audit services of the City's financial operations for the 1993 Fiscal Year (Jan. 1-Dec. 1):, Overview: State statutes require that the City's finances be audited annually by an independent party. Fox McCue& ` Company has provided the audit for Eden Prairie for several years. The firm's familiarity with the City's_ operations has made the audit economical, and this continuity has saved countless hours of staff time in working with an audit firm. Financial Considerations: „Itfox McCue & Company estimates its fee will be between $34,000 and $36,000, plus direct expenses. e cost for this audit will be allocated among the General and other funds. The 1994 proposed budget includes $27,500 in the General Fund for its share of the audit. Supporting Information: * Proposal from Fox McCue & Company, P.A. NOT ES: -V C FOX MCCUE & COMPANY, P. A . Certified Public Accountants JOHN E. FOX, C.P.A. WILLIAM M. McCUE,C.P.A. JOHN J. BRAND, C.P.A. DAN C. KIND, C.P.A. November 22, 1993 Mr. John Frane, Finance Director City of Eden Prairie 8.080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230 Dear Mr. Frane: We are pleased to submit this proposal to serve as the City's independent auditors for the year ended December 31, 1993. The scope of the audit has changed over the last few years to include not only the audit examination of the City's annual financial statements, but audits of funds received via federal grant programs and compliance testing of internal control structure and laws and regulations applicable to federal assistance programs. We are familiar with the City's financial operational procedures and personnel, having served as your independent accountants for the last fifteen years. During those first seven years I was in charge of the engagement, while John Brand has served as the engagement executive the last eight years. Just recently, John Brand left our Firm to seek a career in computer network communication marketing. I would again supervise the engagement and be assisted by Ed Fogarty, an experienced governmental certified public accountant who recently joined our Firm, as well as Curt Koepp and Lisa Helt, two experienced staff accountants who have past experience in performing the City's audit. Based upon a preliminary estimate of 1993 City financial activity and the corresponding audit time required to perform the audit and compliance procedures, and assist your staff in audit report preparation, we estimate the total time to be approximately 710 hours and the total fee to range from $34,000 to $36,000 plus any out-of-pocket • expenses. 250 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE / EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 n Eden Prairie (612) 944-6166 Fax 944-8496/ Belle Plaine 873-4228 CT-1 iQ93 As part of the audit engagement we would be available for any meetings that you, Carl Jullie, or the City Council might desire. We would also be available to meet with the City Council at the completion of the audit to review the audited financial statements, the evaluation of internal control structure, and our financial comments letter which highlights trends and important issues in the various funds. Primary fieldwork is expected to be performed in April or May, with delivery of the completed reports by June 15, 1994. Interim audit procedures (such as compliance testing and evaluation of the internal control structure) would be arranged in early January to ensure timeliness of the audit report issuance in June. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal to continue serving as the independent auditor for the City of Eden Prairie. If you have any questions or desire further information, please contact us. We will be happy to discuss the nature of the engagement and the degree of our qualifications. Sincerely, EIJLQJ William M. McCue • cc: Carl Jullie City Manager • - - -- - -. --- __r.. _ DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL December 15, 1993 RESOURCES COMMISSION AGENDA FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect SECTION: Consent Calendar - DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Recommendation to ITEM NO. IV.;G Parks, Recreation & Award Playground Bids for Miller Park Natural Resources RECOMMENDATION: The park, recreation and natural resources staff recommends awarding the contract for Phase I play equipment for Miller Park to St. Croix Recreation Company for $55,000. OVERVIEW: The concept design for the playground at Miller Park was based on a transportation theme,and will be the first handicapped accessible playground in the city. The play equipment specified . incorporates the transportation theme and integrates all abilities through imagination on the same piece of play equipment, not just "like sensations" on different parts of the playground. Specifications were written to include the equipment, delivery costs and installation. Bids were advertised and opened December 14, 1993. Three lids were received with the following results: Pacific Playground, Inc. $61,871 Reese Recreation Products $61,650 St. Croix Recreation $55,000 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Bond referendum funds budgeted for playground equipment will be used to pay for the F playstructure. Installation will begin as soon as the ground thaws and completed prior to June 1, 1994. BPC:mdd millerbid/barbara60 JIAction/Direction: December 21/93 1 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 41 SECTION: Consent Calendar 12-21-93 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Engineering Division Finial Plat Approval of Jeffrey Johnson Prairie Village Mill i� Al Gray /7 Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: * Adopt the Resolution approving the final plat of the Prairie Village Mall With the following conditions: • 1. Receipt of Engineering fee in the amount of$1,080. 2. That the Owners provide the City with the documents detailing the agreements between the parties concerning cross-access to the Blockbuster Video and the parking requirements. 40 Overview This proposal is the subdivision of the Prairie Village Mall located at the northwest corner of klighway 5 and County Road 4, for the proposed construction of the Blockbuster Video to be located within the southeast corner of this property. The City Council approved the preliminary plat of July 1, 1993 for Resolution No. 93-141. The Developer's Agreement and second reading of Ordinance No. 29-93, Zoning District Amendthest was approved August 3, 1993. Variances were granted on this property through the Board of Appeals and details are contained within the final Order No. 93-27. • H. 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL WHEREAS, the plat of Prairie Village Mall has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL: A. Plat approval request for Eden Prairie Ford is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. SC. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on December 21, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • ��,. � Lkl I IEf( m (p �, 1 111 149.52 A •• g - EAST 738.4 .:WAY r� 1 99.83I 8 85 6 S. 93•. 1 40 - '10'1 3 �. �Yg II 25 58 - 112.58� 110 IIS.65 �•�,� 1. 100.29 M 31.42 ]0 ]0 r90• 1 $� I3 S 6 �. r. S W a T•20 7i./2 I n 0 6'� (34) �� _+ ( 13) r = 1.10 1 0 ,N $0(2)- (4) - (6) - (f) 3) . 142_[� Io 9 = $ (f•) $ 124 Z ', '•. bl 24 ( I`i)_ (14) = EAST 1 , 1�'' I5 � 60 ;, '(33) � � §$ 160.65 -t I (z4) 7 J 12''s3 �ou3- II2 2-- -SHELDON 705 39 Si R :07.12 110 M (12) EAST,,, (23) :� J. . \ 110 135 CAST 217.42 A 1 41 94'4. 80 80 $ a r I 2 3 4... TN `• la: ,.. §8 , (32) 6 $' N�,S.'�.� ~ 2 �� '�(25)? (26)� (27)? L4 9 (25) (1 1) I..:, s g (7) �^ (22) (28) e� i... : (29): (30) 110'. r 22 EAST 1n518'E' �' i� V 1. 60 = ; r+ b 8 (31) § 'ay 660.16 17 l35 of 1 1 I (26); S rli ( 10) F,',r0 4 (8) , >F- - I 161:12 a (30) 175 0 243.3 4142 ~_ 100.03 j- -I I OUTIOT A :w a•.,: r.a 46se a a 2`r,•:... i Ili 2 (33) ,•12.l0 • (27) •„2 .,' 121713 • •{b• , 1 it . .�t 40 N I 6• .4) • (29) § .o - , 1 11 19' ••13 165 • 1 1 (28)28) • t i�i 14, ;P' m� i f�4 b DOC NO 5526339 '� 03.14 11-\ AREA OF PROPOSED PLAT la 0' �.-2. 's,+• ;,ga .%• IA ,^Ib .56.65 233. • 81 it.2 1N�� 589.32 23 E _ R'� '`' V OUTLOT A x 1116_07 " 1 118.95 102.`� • Vv4°16938°•2.30•, RT 1 I� 8 ' 'S TS•493.5 $- I t_•: �. • a77 41:•10.21• n I I1 \�\� • ppppCC NNpp o, 1831285 OS•3•07. I gel-_• 580.6 ti 11A1i(11AY -'•.. 5{ -?99 3 --- - �• ti• ' I '7lii � ♦, 332.43 376.05 N ---- 303-15 251.07 • o- I r•• (4() `p n c �1 T '� / DOT R•229I.8J 7 ' - i!��'�"' �ig I• .. , ��JO ti •'•• 201.54 • U•150 4 �_� .......... 1 , I ri:-.-...1... \ :<• N88.53'I I•E C BRG•N89.55.41•E ,n 07,66 MA„- 1 . 1 : : 27-44 . 301 4� ltiT3 ,fl... 2197 +r 7%79.•. ■ •ry �/ iOA 1': �,s,? 072, ,rr 1• TOO 122.�2 178.5=a,�•7S 5 C d7.3 C•102.89; .',,.. .:1'•'Pr I•• 17.89 ,„i ICEL 212 P 27- PARCEL 212 N o(35)(�1 (33) - 203.99 194 44 �� SS• ; . I00 --a` J' `�.�. 6 PARCEL (31) (32) ' 21 ,- � 8+ .(lthreNv'LL 1411. .) UITCHEL`: .., ISs 3/ s2 M Ili C' : I �•, 3•' �1 N n 0 L t• 40 • 211 x Io, g .` ' 1�,' '= ESTATES _ .a ?•ss•04 r 4- 194('s tt. ' (2) �7�oet'_ 11.51 J �` (34) a•• I �il�® .���� _ ~ ESTATES LAKE a� '� W 410. 1 D s9 1 1 r "�� ,7.: i i 9 it S IERREY PINE OP er 122.43 i (40) ' 2 .r DL A n-- ® AND : 'i!' ,r,1 ""• ht-n k tr l� o . (3) ,p ly 12 ,i •J� (24)2"' �1Z5�14.19'S6•w (38 15 '0(39)53 1` 1 ^• aDl .,1 II:'m.46 • S ' S,• 4 •37,69 302,99 (4 1) 1 33 33 1 :1 r' 117.23 .(2?ii(30) ' ,Q ���� 1 , `'J1 • 1 61.59 W � .2. n19 ▪ S� .30.21• 7�. f . 362,75 � � 2 88'44'S8'w r ~ C D1991507^ W 97 ,•41 c 3 IS2.7S��y_ 1'. c 126.II N•SG 1 1 � • S69?1'11• 5 4• �1 tr',,;., (I) • a 144.42 y ....y?: Alt. ,17 101 �41 �• � (80) `�' ` 3�,•n .41• •-41 .. 61.ae obN v KlM;EGL�N ^' s 1 (2) (5) ,���� �'� �� ‘'• S88'44•se•w- 3q® A®®Vbg S723E ,r� ( 1 �+ :- 1;_, ,3I �r 65./ 119 1 174.I w� ,j 1),Ir I (23) ; 291 } x $;; �.' -• . i 2e'j 94 I 90 cc (43)• i 1 . PRAIR! ACL'(YC o j 4 i44 1 f \�ip 1 1 1W I (24)t t 7 '" A ♦x:,' t. •'} 2706.76 RES i k 9b • '1 ' b'1< r alY11. ep CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: adorn (JrairIG SECTION: Consent Calendar December t6, .1993 "= DEPARTMENT: I1'EM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Resolution authorizing refinancing of Finance $1 ,000,000 MIDB's for SuperValu IV. I . • Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution authorizing the refinancing Overview: The original bonds were issued in 1979. • Amok Action/Direction: Member introduced the following resolution and • moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (SUPERVALU INC. PROJECT), SERIES 1993; AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS AND THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the City), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.165, as amended (the Act), to issue its revenue bonds to refund, in whole or in part, bonds previously issued by the City under the authority of the Act. 1.02. The City has previously issued its Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Super Valu Stores, Inc. Project), dated, as originally issued, January 1, 1979 (the Prior Bonds), in the original principal amount of $1,000,000, all of which remain outstanding on the date hereof. The Prior Bonds were issued for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction and betterment of one or more executive office buildings located at 11840 Valley View Road in the City (the Facility) on behalf of SUPERVALU INC. (formerly known as Super Valu Stores, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the Company). 1.03. The Company has proposed that the City issue its revenue bonds (the Revenue Bonds), pursuant to the authority of the Act, to refund the Prior Bonds. 1.04. At a public hearing, duly noticed and held on December 7, 1993, on the proposal to issue the Revenue Bonds, all parties who appeared at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal to issue the Revenue Bonds and interested persons were given the opportunity to submit written comments to the City Manager before the time of the hearing. 1.05. The following documents relating to the refunding and the financingCity have been submitted to the and are now on file in the office of the City Finance Director: (a) an Indenture of Trust (the Indenture) to be entered into between the City and the First Trust National Association (the Trustee); (b) a Loan Agreement (the Loan Agreement) to be entered into between the City and the Company; (c) a Bond Purchase Agreement (the Bond Purchase Agreement) to be entered into between the City, the Company and Piper Jaffray Inc. (the Underwriter); and (d) an Official Statement (the Official Statement) to be used by the Underwriter in connection with the offer and sale of the Revenue Bonds. Section 2. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) the City is a duly organized and existing body corporate and politic and a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. (b) the refunding of the Prior Bonds, the issuance and sale of the Revenue Bonds, the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement and any other documents authorized hereby to be executed by officers of the City and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Bond Purchase Agreement and any such other documents and all other acts and things required under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to 40 make the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Bond Purchase Agreement and any such other documents and the Revenue Bonds valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terms are authorized by the Act; (c) it is desirable that a series of Revenue Bonds to be entitled Industrial Development Revenue Refunding Bonds (SUPERVALU INC. Project), Series 1993 in the aggregate principal amount of $1,000,000 be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture, under the provisions of which a pledge of and security interest in the City's interest in the Loan Agreement and the payments thereunder (except for certain expenses and indemnification) will be granted to the Trustee as security for the payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Revenue Bonds; (d) the loan payments contained in the Loan Agreement are fixed, and required to be revised from time to time as necessary, so as to produce income and revenue sufficient to provide for prompt payment of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Revenue Bonds when due; and -2- • 411 (e) under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.162, and as provided in the Loan Agreement and Indenture, the Revenue Bonds are not to be payable from nor charged upon any funds of the City other than the revenue pledged to the.payment thereof; the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no holders of the Revenue Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay any of the Revenue Bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City; the Revenue Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City; and each Revenue Bond issued under the Indenture shall recite that the Revenue Bonds have been issued under the Act and that the Revenue Bonds, including interest thereon, are payable solely from the revenue pledged to the payment thereof and that no Revenue Bond shall constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation. (f) the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement and the other agreements contemplated thereby to which the City is a party, including without limitation the Indenture, will not conflict with, or constitute on the part of the City a breach of, or a default under, any existing (i) law, or (ii) provisions of any legislative act, constitution or other proceeding establishing or relating to the establishment of the City or its affairs or its resolutions, or (iii) agreement, indenture, mortgage, lease or other instrument to which the City is subject or is a party or by which it is bound. (g) no public officer of the City who is authorized to take part in any manner in making the Loan Agreement or any contract contemplated thereby has a personal financial interest in or has personally and financially benefitted from the Loan Agreement or any such contract. (h) There is not pending or overtly threatened any suit, action or proceeding against or affecting the City before or by any court, arbitrator, administrative agency or other governmental authority that will materially and adversely affects the validity, as to the City, of the Loan Agreement, any of its obligations thereunder or any of the transactions contemplated thereby. 10 -3- Section 3. Approval of the Issuance of the Revenue Bonds and Execution of Documents and Revenue Bonds. • 3.01. The issuance of the Revenue Bonds for the purpose of refunding the Prior Bonds and the proposal of the Underwriter to purchase the Revenue Bonds on the terms set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement are hereby approved. The City shall proceed forthwith to issue the Revenue Bonds in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture, which terms are for this purpose incorporated in this Resolution and made a part hereof. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to prepare and execute the Revenue Bonds as prescribed by the Indenture and deliver them to the Trustee, together with a certified copy of this Resolution and other documents required by the Indenture, for authentication and delivery to the Underwriter. 3.02 The forms of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement referred to in Section 1.05 are hereby approved. The Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement, substantially in the form submitted but with such variations, insertions and additions as the City Attorney may hereafter approve, are directed to be executed in the name and on behalf of the City by the Mayor and the City Manager. Copies of all of the documents shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided therein. The Mayor and City Manager are also authorized and directed to execute such other documents and dosing certificates as may be necessary or desirable to carry out the transaction and the issuance of the Revenue Bonds, upon review and approval thereof by the City • Attorney. 3.03. As provided in the Bond Purchase Agreement, the Revenue Bonds will be offered for sale by the Underwriter to the public by means of the Official Statement. The City approves the distribution of the Official Statement to prospective purchasers of the Revenue Bonds. The City has not participated in the preparation of the Official Statement, has made no independent investigation with respect to the information contained therein and shall have no liability for the sufficiency, accuracy or completeness of such information as contained in the Official Statement. 3.04. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence of the Mayor or City Manager, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed by such other officer of the City as, in the opinion of the City Attorney, is authorized to execute such documents. 3.04. The Mayor and the City Clerk are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Underwriter and bond counsel certified copies of all -4- • proceedings and records of the City relating to the Revenue Bonds, and such other 1110 affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Revenue Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officers' custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. Adopted on the 7th day of December, 1993. Mayor Attest City Clerk 40 • -5- The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly • seconded by Member , and, upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was approved and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. • -6110- ), er2 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 0 DATE: adart nr iiria SECTION: Consent Calendar December 16, 1993 41IkEPARTIVIENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Finance Resolution authorizing refinancing of IV.J. ; $1 ,038,000 MIDB's for Rott-Rivet (Super 8 Motel) • Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution authorizing the refinancing Overview: The original bonds were issued in 1984. • • 1101 • Idak Action/Direction: RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT OF NOTE THIS RESOLUTION, made and adopted as of the 21st day of December, 1993, by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City"). WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, the City previously executed, delivered and issued its $1,300,000 Commercial Development Revenue Note (Rott-Rivett Developers Project), No. R-1, dated November 28, 1984 (the "Note"); and WHEREAS, the Note was originally issued to First Edina National bank, a national banking association (the "Original Holder"); and WHEREAS, the Original Holder has sold, transferred and assigned the Note to PSB Credit Service, Inc. (the "Holder"); and WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Note were loaned by the City to Rott-Rivett Developers, a Minnesota general partnership (the "Borrower"), pursuant to that certain Loan Agreement dated as of November 28, 1984, by and among the City and the Borrower (the "Loan Agreement"); • and WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Holder have requested that the City agree to amend the Note and the Loan Agreement as herein set forth and, essentially, to "refund" the Note. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the amendments of the Note and the Loan Agreement in the forms attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively, are hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and the City Manager of the City are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver, for and on behalf of and in the name of the City, the Amendment of Note and the Amendment of Loan Agreement and Related Documents in the form attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and the City Manager of the City are hereby further authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver, for and on behalf of and in the name of the City, such further agreements, documents and instruments as are necessary to effectuate the amendment of the Note and the Loan Agreement as herein set forth and to "refund" the Note, including, without limitation, the preparation, execution and submission of IRS Form 8038 in the form prepared by Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., as Bond Counsel. • Adopted in regular session of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, held this 10 21st day of December, 1993. Mayor of the City of Eden Prairie ATTEST: City Clerk MPLS:13031 • EXHIBIT A AMENDMENT OF NOTE • THIS AMENDMENT, made as of the dayof December, 1993, byand amongthe CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the "Municipality"), ROTT-RIVETT DEVELOPERS, a general partnership organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the "Borrower"), and PSB CREDIT SERVICES, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the "Holder"). WITNESS ETH : WHEREAS, the Municipality previously executed, delivered and issued that certain $1,300,000 Commercial Development Revenue Note (Rott-Rivett Developers Project), No. R-1, dated November 28, 1984 (the "Note"); and WHEREAS, the original holder of the Note was First Edina National Bank (the "Original Holder"); and WHEREAS, the Original Holder sold, transferred and assigned the Note to the Holder, and WHEREAS, the outstanding principal balance of the Note as of January 1, 1994, will be $1,037,982.50; and WHEREAS, the Borrower, the Municipality and the Holder desire to amend the Note as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, and further in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, the Municipality, the Borrower and the Holder hereby agree to amend the Note as follows effective as of January. 1, 1994: 1. . The last paragraph on page 1 and carrying over to the top of page 2 of the Note is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following shall be substituted therefor: "The Note Rate shall be 7.50% per annum." 2. The first sentence of the second full paragraph on page 2 of the Note is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following shall be substituted therefor: "Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, if at any time the Holder receives notice of a Determination of Taxability (as defined in the Agreement hereinafter referred to) with respect to the interest paid or payable on this Note, the rate of interest hereon shall be automatically increased as of the Date of Taxability (as defined in the Agreement) to an annual rate equal to 11.50%." 3. The date of "1994" is hereby deleted from the last sentence of the last paragraph on page 2 of the Note. • 4. Monthly payments due pursuant to subsection (b) on page 1 of the Note shall be calculated and paid on the basis of the 7.50% interest rate. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Note shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its original terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Municipality, the Borrower and the Holder have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the day and year first above written. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, .MINNESOTA • By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager ROTT-RIVETT DEVELOPERS • BY: Its: By: Its: PSB CREDIT SERVICES, INC. By: Its: MPIS:13008 EXHIBIT B AMENDMENT OF LOAN AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS • THIS AMENDMENT, made as of the day of December, 1993, by and among the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota(the "Municipality"), ROTT-RIVETT DEVELOPERS, a general partnership organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the"Borrower"), HARVEY ROTT, RONALD J. RIVETT and EDEN PRAIRIE SUPER 8 MOTEL, INC. (individually or collectively, as the context requires, the "Guarantors"), and PSB CREDIT SERVICES, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the "Holder"). WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, the Borrower previously executed and delivered that certain Loan Agreement dated as of November 28, 1984, by and among the Municipality and the Borrower (the "Loan Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Municipality previously executed, delivered and issued that certain $1,300,000 Commercial Development Revenue Note (Rott-Rivett Developers Project), No. R-1, dated November 28, 1984 (the "Note"); and WHEREAS, the original holder of the Note was First Edina National Bank (the "Original Holder"); and • WHEREAS, in connection with the issuance of the Note, the Borrower executed and delivered the Mortgage (as defined in the Loan Agreement) and the Assignment of Rents (as defined in the Loan Agreement); and WHEREAS, in connection with the issuance of the Note, the Guarantors executed and delivered the Guaranty (as defined in the Loan Agreement); and WHEREAS, the Municipality assigned to the Original Holder certain of the Municipality's right, title and interest in and to the Loan Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Original Holder sold, transferred and assigned the Note to the Holder and, in connection with such assignment, also assigned to the Holder all of the Original Holder's right, title and interest in and to the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage, the Assignment of Rents and the Guaranty; and WHEREAS, on the date hereof, the Municipality, the Borrower and the Holder amended the Note pursuant to that certain Amendment of Note (the "Amendment of Note"); and WHEREAS, the Municipality, the Borrower, the Guarantors and the Holder desire to amend the Loan Agreement and the documents related thereto as herein set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, and further in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree to amend the Loan Agreement and the documents related thereto as follows effective as of January 1, 1994: 1. All references to the "Note" in the Loan Agreement, the Mortgage, the Assignment of Rents, the Guaranty and the documents related thereto shall hereafter mean and refer to the Note, as amended pursuant to the Amendment of Note. 2. From and after the date hereof until the Note is paid in full, the Borrower shall pay to the Municipality an annual fee equal to 0.125% of the outstanding principal balance of the Note as of the last day of each calendar year. Such annual fee shall be due and payable by the Borrower to the Municipality on or before December 31 of each year, commencing December 31, 1994. 3. The Guarantors hereby consent to the Amendment of Note and the provisions thereof. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Loan Agreement and the documents related thereto shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its original terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Municipality, the Borrower, the Holder and the Guarantors have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, • MINNESOTA By: HARVEY ROTT Its: Mayor By: RONALD J. RIVETT Its: City Manager EDEN PRAIRIE SUPER 8 MOTEL, INC. ROTT-RIVETT DEVELOPERS By: By: Its: Its: PSB CREDIT SERVICES, INC. By: MPLS:13017 Its: -2- DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 410 • SECTION: Consent Calendar December 21,1993 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Approve Change Order No. l for Singletree Engineering Division Lane Trunk Watermain, LC. 93-5337 K Recommended Action: Recommend approval of Change Order No. 1 to Metro Utilities. Financial Issues: The change order includes $14,032.00 for a storm sewer under Bachman's driveway which is a project development cost for the site and should be funded through the proceeds of the sale, of the Teman property. The other $13,112.20 of this change order is for watermain changes Ask associated with the water tower construction and Singletree Lane trunk watermain which vtle ger be funded through the Utility Trunk Fund. 10 Item No. K, 1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 December 1, 1993 411 Project: Singletree Lane Trunk Watermain Improvements City Project No. 93-5337 RCM Project 10175.02 To: Metro Utilities, Inc. You are hereby directed to make the changes noted below in the subject contract. NATURE OF CHANGE TO CONTRACT 1. Add Items 1-4; for installation of inlet to stormwater detention pond 400'+ east of Prairie Center Drive and Singletree Lane. 2. Add Items 5-7; for installation of outfall from water tower overflow to existing RCP stub. 3. Add items 8-9; add additional hydrants and sand bedding to trunk watermain. 4. Add Item 10; for removing and disposing of rubble along the route for installation of trunk watermain. 5. Add Item 11; for furnishing and installing 36" and 42" trash guards and rip rap. ADJUSTMENTS TO CONTRACT QUANTITIES AND COSTS • ADD the following quantities and costs to the contract. 1. 24" RCP CL N LF 106 $37.00 $3,922.00 2. 42" RCP CL IV LF 42 $95.00 $3,990.00 3. 42" RCP FES EA 1 $1,950.00 $1,950.00 4. 60" Dia. Manhole Complete EA 1 $2,150.00 $2,150.00 5. Connect to existing storm LS 1 $750.00 $750.00 sewer stub 6. 15" RCP CL V LF 109 $30.00 $3,270.00 7. 36" Dia. manhole complete EA 1 $1,690.00 $1,690.00 8. Hydrant EA 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 9. Sand bedding TON 341 $4.20 $1,432.20 10. Removal and disposal of rubble LS 1 $2,970.00 $2,970.00 11. Furnish and install 36" and 42" LS 1 $2,020.00 $2.020.00 trash guards and rip rap Total ADD $27,144.20 Contract Amount $126,745.00 Increase Resulting from this Change Order $27,144.20 Total Contract Value Including this Change Order $153,889.20 • The Above Changes are Approved: RCM ASS TE , IN . CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By By Date: The Above Changes are Accepted: METRO UTILITIES, INC. ,N)a'N94'0' 11110 TAT K. 3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar 12-21-93 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. IV L Public Works Approved Cooperative Eugene A. Dietz Agreement with Hennepin County and Plans for CSAH 62-I.C.52-103 • Recommended Action: • Adopt Resolution approving the cooperative agreement No. PW45-15-93 with the City of Minnetonka and the County of Hennepin for County State 8 Highway#62 and Approve the final plans for the roadway between TH101 and CSAH 4. The effect of this action will be to advance the project to construction. Although concern has been expressed from residents in the past regarding this project, the City Council has approved the project at each point along development. The plans are consistent with previously approved conceptual plans. The City of Minnetonka approved the final plans and the construction cooperative agreement on December 13, 1993. Overview: The townline road project has been constructed in multiple phases--the most recent segment completed in 1993 between Baker Road and Eden Prairie Road. During this process there have been ntrs public meetings and for a time period during the design development phase, a resident committee was actively involved in the process. The most active and vocal citizens along the roadway reside in Minnetonka and consequently the City of Minnetonka has gone through a more stringent public meeting process than we have in Eden Prairie. However, the resultant project has been improved an t e final plans are consistent with the conceptual plans approved by the City of Eden Prairie. Due to the changed regulations for wetland intrusion, there are wetland mitigation sites both in Eden, Prairie and in Minnetonka for the project. The majority of mitigation sites occur in Minnetonka because that is where the majority of the intrusion occurred. However, two sites in Eden Prairie will be utilized for mitigation purposes--the property owned by Hennepin County at the SW corner of Baked Road and, Townline Road will be utilized and converted to wetland; and approximately 1.3 acre of upland in the area adjacent to Purgatory Creek, west of Sheffield Lane will be converted for mitigation putposes as well. 110 CIS Financial Considerations: Duringthe time frame that the project wasgoingto be constructed in 1988, the estimated Citycost was p sec co tru approximately $800,000. Due to the changes in the design during the preliminary design development phase (prompted in a large part by the City of Minnetonka) the City of Eden Prairie share arose to an estimated $1,600,000. The current cost estimate results in a cost to the City of Eden Prairie of $1,282,000. I have had discussions with Hennepin County and am confident that the estimated cost for right of way acquisition will be less than the $210,000 shown in the estimate and I would expect that the total cost would be approximately $1,200,000. Of the estimated cost, approximately$229,000 is for Engineering and construction costs associated with utility improvements which will be paid for from the Utility fund. Both cities agreed that signals at the intersections of Scenic Heights/Chatham Way and Woodland Road/Ginger Drive would be highly desirable for traffic flow and safety. The signals do not meet warrants and the City of Eden Prairie share of approximately $82,000 will come from our road fund, which is a general fund source of revenue. The balance of the City of Eden Prairie's share is expected to be paid for through sale of Municipal State Aid Bonds. Supporting Information: Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the Construction Cooperative Agreement. The final plans are available in the Engineering Division and will be available at the Council Meeting on December 21st. 41 (2) CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. FINAL PLAN APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR CSAH 62 BETWEEN CSAH 4 and TH 101 WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Public Works has prepared plans for the construction of CSAH 62 between CSAH 4 and TH 101 along the corporate boundary between the City of Eden Prairie and the City of Minnetonka WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie approved the layout plans for said improvement of CSAH 62 and the final plans are consistent with the layout plans; WHEREAS, a Construction Cooperative Agreement has been prepared which identifies the maintenance and financial obligations for the construction of said improvements; and WHEREAS, the improvements contemplated in this project are important to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that said final plans and Construction Cooperative Agreement #PW45-15-93 for County 410 project 7419 are hereby approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on December 21, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL ( 3) Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 County Project No. 7419 County State Aid Highway No. 62 City of Minnetonka City of Eden Prairie County of Hennepin CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of 19 , by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Minnetonka, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Minnetonka" and the City of Eden Prairie, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Eden Prairie"; the two Cities hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Cities". 4111 WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The County and the Cities have been negotiating to bring about the improvement of that portion of County State Aid Highway No. 62 (Townline Road) between TH 101 and County State Aid Highway No. 4 (Engineer's Stations 10+00 and 149+67) as shown on the County Engineer's plans for County Project No. 7419, which improvement contemplates and includes grading, drainage, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous base, bituminous surfacing, bituminous trails, board fence, traffic signals at the intersections of County State Aid Highway No. 62 with TH 101, Scenic Heights/Chatham Way and Woodland Road, bridges Nos. 27Al2 and 27A13, landscaping, wetland mitigation and other related improvements; and WHEREAS, The above described project lies within the corporate limits of the Cities, and WHEREAS, The County Engineer or its agents have heretofore prepared an engineer's estimate for the above described project in the sum of Twelve Million Five Hundred Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Nine Dollars and No Cents ($12,500,529.00) . A copy of said estimate (marked Exhibit "A") is attached 4111 hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and -1- -)/ Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 410 CSAH 62; C.P. 7419 WHEREAS, The Cities have indicated their willingness to participate in the construction costs of said project in accordance with the cost distribution represented in said Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, To ensure continuity with the County's existing network of traffic signal systems the County will furnish the controllers, control equipment and control cabinets to be installed as a part of said project; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 162.17, Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I That the County or its agents will advertise for bids for the work and construction of the aforesaid project, receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit 4111 prices specified in the bid of such bidder, according to law in such case provided for counties. The contract will be in form and will include the plans and specifications prepared by the County or its agents, which said plans and specifications are by this reference made a part hereof. II The County will administer the contract and inspect the construction of the contract work contemplated herewith. However, the City Engineers of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. III The Cities agree that the County may make minor changes in the plans or in the character of said contract construction which are reasonably necessary to cause said construction to be in all things performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. It is further agreed by the Cities that the County may enter into any change orders or supplemental agreements with the County's contractor for the performance of any additional construction or construction 4111 occasioned by any necessary, advantageous or desirable changes in plans, -2- 1 (s.) 4111 Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 CSAH 62; C.P. 7419 within the original scope of the project. Said changes may result in an increase or decrease to each Cities cost participation estimated herein. The Cities shall have the right to review changes to the plans and specifications which affect the Cities' cost participation prior to incorporation into the project. IV The Cities agree to grant right of way to the County over those lands owned by each City that are a part of the required right of way for said project. Said right of way shall be granted at no cost to the County. The County or its agents will acquire all land, rights of way, right of way permits and/or easements required for the construction of said project. A temporary roadway connection to CSAH 62 will be provided to Baney Court within the existing Baney Court right of way as part of this project. 4111 The County intends to sell the County-owned property north of CSAH 62 and between Scenic Heights Drive and Baney Court. In order to assure the elimination of the temporary Baney Court roadway connection in the future, the County agrees that it will include conditions of sale in any purchase agreement with a buyer that requires financial assurance that the buyer will construct a City-approved street connection from Baney Court to Scenic Heights Drive or Creekridge Court and remove the temporary roadway connection from CSAH 62 to Baney Court by December 31, 2000. In the event the County does not sell the subject property, the County hereby agrees that it will construct that City-approved street and remove the temporary connection by December 31, 2000. The final cost of all additional rights of way, right of way permits and/or easements required for the construction of said project plus all costs incurred by the County in acquiring said rights of way, right of way permits and/or easements, excluding County personnel costs, shall be apportioned 50 percent to the County, and 50 percent to the City of Minnetonka for those properties within the City of Minnetonka and shall be apportioned 50 percent 4111 to the County and 50 percent to Eden Prairie for those properties within the City of Eden Prairie. -3- ��I Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 4111 CSAH 62; C.P. 7419 Additionally, all land required for wetland mitigation sites outside the proposed right of way for this project shall be apportioned 50% to the County and 50% to the City in which said mitigation site exists. The City will receive credit for its mitigation sites and the County will receive credit for its mitigation sites. It is agreed that the value of the sites currently owned by the County and the Cities are essentially equivalent in value and therefore shall be provided by each agency at no project cost (See Exhibit "B" for locations) . The right of way costs incurred as described herein shall include all acquisition costs including, but not limited to, any and all damages occurring to any person or persons, including private utilities, in relocating or removing or adjusting main conduits or other structures located in or upon the land taken and within the present right of way; or damage in procuring such right of way, whether such damage is caused by the County or the Cities in the performance of such contract with respect to the improvement of County State Aid Highway No. 62 as shown on the plans for County Project No. 7419. 1111 Damages, as used in this section, pertains to acquisition costs allowed by Minnesota Statute Chapter 117 and does not abrogate the meaning of the language set forth in Section XX of this Agreement. The County will periodically, as parcels are acquired, prepare and submit to each City itemized accounts showing right of way and acquisition costs incurred by the County. Each Cities' share of said costs shall become due and payable within thirty (30) days after submittal . The estimated right of way expenses described herein are indicated in said Exhibit "A" attached hereto. V Minnetonka and Eden Prairie shall each reimburse the County for its respective share in the construction cost of the contract work for said project and the total final contract construction cost shall be apportioned as set forth in the Division of Cost Summary in said Exhibit "A" attached hereto. It is further agreed that the Engineer's Estimate referred to on Page 1 of this agreement is an estimate of the construction cost for the contract work on said project and that the unit prices set forth in the contract with 1111 -4- )/� (I) 4111 Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 CSAH 62; C.P. 7419 the successful bidder and the final quantities as measured by the County Engineer shall govern in computing the total final contract construction cost for apportioning the cost of said project according to the provisions of this paragraph. VI In addition to payment of each City's proportionate share of the contract construction cost, each City also agrees to reimburse the County for its respective proportionate share of the preliminary engineering costs for the project. Said City's respective share of preliminary engineering costs shall be equal to ten percent (10%) of the amount computed as each City's respective share of said contract construction cost using the successful bidder's unit prices and the estimated quantities contained in the contract at the time of award. VII In addition to the aforesaid payments by each City for its proportionate share of contract construction and preliminary engineering costs, the City 4110 also agrees to reimburse the County for the City's proportionate share of the construction engineering costs for the project. Said City's share of construction engineering costs shall be equal to eight percent (8%) of the final amount of the City's share of said contract construction cost. VIII In addition to the payment by the Cities for their proportionate share of contract construction costs the Cities also agree to reimburse the County for their proportionate share of the costs of the County supplied traffic signal control cabinets and equipment. Said proportionate shares of the County supplied materials shall be equal to the proportionate share of contract signal work at the corresponding intersections. An estimate of the Cities' shares of County supplied materials is incorporated into said Exhibit "A". It is further agreed that said estimate of the costs of County supplied materials is an estimate and that the actual quantities of materials as determined by the County Engineer shall govern in computing the total final apportionment of cost participation by the Cities in the County supplied materials. The County intends to supply the traffic signal cabinets, controllers and control equipment for the project. -5- C8� Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 4110 CSAH 62; C.P. 7419 IX - Within sixty (60) days after an award by the County to the successful bidder, each City shall deposit with the Hennepin County Treasurer, ninety percent (90%) of its estimated share in the contract construction and Force Account work and one hundred percent (100%) of its share in the preliminary engineering costs for the project. Said estimated shares shall be based on actual contract unit prices for estimated quantities shown in the plans. Upon the completion of the project and submittal to each City of the County Engineer's Final Estimate for the project showing the respective final share in the contract construction and construction engineering costs for the project, each City shall deposit with the Hennepin County Treasurer the remainder of its respective share of the contract construction cost and one hundred percent (100%) of its share in the construction engineering costs. In the event the County Engineer or his staff determines the need to amend the contract with a supplemental agreement or change order which results in an increase in the contract amount, each City hereby agrees to remit within III thirty (30) days of notification by the County of said change an amount equal to ninety percent (90%) of its estimated share as documented in the supplemental agreement or change order. The remaining ten percent (10%) is to be paid to the County upon the completion of the project and submittal to each City of the County Engineer's Final Estimate for the project showing each Cities' final share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the • project. Upon payment of the Final Estimate to the successful bidder by Hennepin County, any amount remaining as a balance in the deposit account will be returned to the appropriate City; likewise any amount due the County by either City upon payment of the Final Estimate by the County shall then be paid by the appropriate City as its final payment for the construction and engineering cost of this project. X The County Engineer will prepare monthly progress reports as provided in the specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to each City upon request. • -6- �Lf.G 4111 Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 CSAH 62; C.P. 7419 XI All records kept by the Cities and the County with respect to this project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. XII The County reserves the right not to issue any permits for a period of five (5) years after completion of the project for any service cuts in the roadway surfacing of the County Highways included in this project for any installation of underground utilities which would be considered as new work; service cuts shall be allowed for the maintenance and repair of any existing underground utilities. XIII It is agreed that each City shall , at its own expense, remove and replace all their respectively owned signs that are within the construction limits of 4111 this project. Removal and replacement operations shall be coordinated with the construction activities through the County's Project Engineer. The City of Minnetonka shall install , or cause the installation of an adequate three wire, 120/240 volt, single phase, alternating current electrical power connection to the traffic control signals and integral street lights included in the contract at the sole cost and expense of the City of Minnetonka. Further, the City of Minnetonka shall provide the electrical energy for the operation of the said traffic control signals and integral street lights at the sole cost and expense of the City of Minnetonka. XIV The Cities agree that any Municipal licenses required to perform electrical work within their respective corporate limits shall be issued to the Contractor or the County at no cost to the Contractor or the County. Electrical inspection fees shall not be more than those established by the State Board of Electricity in the most recently recorded Electrical Inspection Fee Schedule. XV 4111 The Cities shall not revise by addition or deletion, nor alter or adjust any component, part, sequence, or timing of the aforesaid traffic control -7- 21q C0°) Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 4111 CSAH 62; C.P. 7419 signals, however, nothing herein shall be construed as restraint of prompt, prudent action by properly constituted authorities in situations where a part of such traffic control signals may be directly involved in an emergency. XVI Upon completion of the project, the County, at its expense, shall place the necessary signs and each City, at its expense, shall provide the enforcement for the prohibition of on-street parking on those portions of County State Aid Highway No. 62 constructed under this project recognizing the concurrent jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Hennepin County. Any modification of the above parking restrictions shall not be made without first obtaining a resolution from the County Board of Commissioners permitting said modification. XVII Upon completion of this project, the County shall thereafter maintain and 4111 repair said traffic control signals all at the sole cost and expense of the County. Further, the County, at its expense, shall maintain 110 volt power to the line side of the fuse in the base of the signal poles for the integral street lights. Minnetonka, at its expense, shall maintain the fuse, the luminaire and the wire to the load side of the fuse in the base of the signal poles at the intersections of County State Aid Highway No. 62 with TH 101, Woodland Road and Scenic Heights Drive. XVIII It is understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed herein, all bituminous trails, water distribution system improvements, sanitary sewer system improvements, board fence, and all trees and shrubs included in said improvement shall become the property of the City within which they lie and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement required thereafter shall be the responsibility of the City of ownership. It is further understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed herein, the street identified as Boulder Creek Circle, shall become the property of Minnetonka and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement required thereafter shall be performed by Minnetonka at 4111 its own expense. -8- ?-14‘) 1111 Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 CSAH 62; C.P. 7419 It is also further understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed herein, that the County shall reconstruct those portions of existing Townline Road between the cul-de-sac located right of Station 190+27 and Chatham Way and also between Ginger Drive and North Eden Drive. Said reconstruction shall consist of minor pavement repair, overlaying the existing roadway surface and paving the existing gravel shoulders. Townline Road will then become the south frontage road. Upon completion of said reconstruction, the County shall transfer jurisdiction of said south frontage road to the City of Eden Prairie and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement required thereafter shall be performed at its own expense. It is further understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed herein, all maintenance required for the two (2) wetland mitigation sites located near Baker Road and Heathbrook Drive shall be performed by the City of Eden Prairie at its own expense. (See Exhibit "B" for locations.) 411/ Additionally, all maintenance required for the three (3) wetland mitigation sites being referred to as the Schroeder property, the Purgatory Creek Site (city owned parkland) and the Railroad Site (Outlot A, Glenmoor Parcel) shall be performed by the City of Minnetonka at its own expense. (See Exhibit "B" for locations) . It is further understood that neither the County, its commissioners, officers, agents or employees, either in their individual or official capacity, shall be responsible or liable in any manner to Minnetonka and Eden Prairie for any claim, demand, judgements, fines, penalties, expenses, action or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of negligent performance of the hereinbefore described frontage road, lighting, bituminous trail , water distribution and sanitary sewer maintenance, board fence, wetland mitigation site and all trees and shrubs, existence, restoration, repair or replacement by the Cities, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under any contract let by the Cities for the performance of said work; and the Cities each agree to defend, save and keep said County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from all claims, S demands, judgements, fines, penalties, expenses, actions or causes of action and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, -9- P`W (a) Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 CSAH 62; C.P. 7419 witness fees, and disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) arising out of negligent performance by the Cities, their officers, agents or employees. XIX The City of Minnetonka hereby approves the floodplain/wetland mitigation measures included in the project plan and agrees that, after compliance with required procedures, it will grant, with appropriate stipulations, all permits required by the City of Minnetonka ordinances. XX It is further agreed that each party to this agreement shall not be responsible or liable to the other or to any other person whomsoever for any claims, damages, demands, judgements, fines, penalties, expenses, actions, or causes of actions of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the negligent performance of any work or part hereof by the other as provided herein; and each party further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of 4111 whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance of its own work as provided herein. XXI It is further agreed that any and all employees of the Cities and all other persons engaged by the Cities in the performance of any work or services required or provided herein to be performed by the Cities shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the Cities, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of 1111 -10- 7/� (/3) 4111 Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 CSAH 62; C.P. 7419 Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the Cities. XXII The construction plan for this project will contain provisions for an interim improvement to T.H. 101. However, it is the intent of the Cities and the County to continue discussions with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the purpose of reaching an agreement which will provide funding for the permanent improvement to T.H. 101 essentially as shown on Hennepin County Layout No. 7 for County Project No. 7419 dated December 18, 1990, and previously approved per resolution by both cities. In the event said discussions identify and provide funding, the permanent improvements to T.H. 101 will be constructed. Therefore, it is understood that the Cities, by ill/ approval of this agreement, also approve the permanent improvement to T.H. 101 according to said Layout No. 7. XXIII The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set forth herein. 4111 _11_ (it) Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 410 CSAH 62; C.P. 7419 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused- this agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY NN 0 KA CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE By � By Mayor Mayor Date DEA /3 . ��q,' Date And f0JJ..lA ` oifvw And Manager Manager Date << . IS) )61633 Date COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTEST By By Clerk of the County Board Chair of its County Board Date Date And Upon proper execution, this agreement Director of Public Works will be legally valid and binding. By Date Assistant County Attorney Date APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By By Assistant County Attorney Transportation Division Engineer Date Date 4110 -12- (is) • • • 09-Dec-93 . PRE - CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NUMBER 7419 CSAH 62 NOTES ITEM TOTAL % COST % COST % COST ESTIMATED COS"EDEN PRNRIE EDEN PRAIRIE MINNETONKA MINNETONKA HENN.CO HENN-CC 1 Concrete Curb and Gutter-Excluding Medians $181,300 25.00% $45,325 25.00% 545,325 50.00% $90,650 2 Concrete Driveway Aprons 10,220 25.0096 2,555 25.00% 2,555 50.00% $5,110 3 Drainage Assessed to Municipalities 483,800 N/A 161,650 N/A 322,150 0.00% - BituminousTrais 125,000 37.50% 48,875 37.50% 46,875 25.00% $31,250 4 Landscaping-Trees and Shrubs Only 365,000 33.33% 121,667 33.33% 121,687 33.33% $121,667 Board Fence 250,000 20.00% 50,000 60.00% 150,000 20.00% $50,000 Board Fence-Between Woodland Road&Boulder Creek Drive 15,000 0.00% - 100.0096 15,000 0.00% - Bridge-West Crossing-100'Long 517,000 0.00% - 0.00% - 100.00% $517,000 5 Bridge-West Crossing(Diference Between 100'&125'Bridge) 48,924 20.00% 9,385 60.00% 28,154 20.00% $9,385 8 Special Grading and Retaining Walls 911,000 20.00% 182,200 60.00% 548,600 20.00% $182,200 7 Traffic Signal atTH101 52,000 25.00% 13,000 25.00% 13,000 50.00% $26,000 8 Traffic Signal at Scenic Heights/Chatam Way 82,000 50.00% 41,000 50.00% 41,000 0.00% - 8 Traffic Signal at Woodland Road 82,000, 50.00%, 41,000 50.00% 41,000, 0.00%; - '`` Subtotal of Construction Items :$3,121,244 $714,656 :$1,373,326 51,033,261 Plus 10%Preliminary Engineering 208,798 10.00% 71,466 10.00%_ 137,333 - Plus 8%Construction Engineering 187,039 8.00% 57,173 8.00%, 109,868, - Municipality Utility Improvements 443,000 191,400 251,600 - 9 Prelimiwy Engineering-Municipal Utiity Imp. 29,557 PER AGMT 22,062 PER AG MT 7,495 - Construction Engineering-Municipal Utiities 35,440 8.00% 15,312 8.00% 20,128� Right of Way Eden Prairie 420,000 50.00% 210,000 0.00% - 50.00% 210,000 Right of Way Minnetonka 180,000 0.00% - 50.00% 80,000, 50.00% 80,000 10 Land for Wetland Mitigation - Schroeder Property 120,000 0.00% - 50.00% 60,000 50.00% 60,000 Balance of Construction Items 7,795.451 0.00% 0 0 - 100.00% 7,795,451 Subtotal Estimated Project Cost 512,500,529 ,..$1,282,068 :.i.$2,039,748 $9,178,713 Credits to Cities-Eng.Study by SRF Per Agm't No.PW 19-15-90 (52.666) (52.666) . Total Estimated Cost-Cities $1,229,402' $1,987,082' See page 2 of Exhibit`A'for notes HENNEPIN COUNTY AGREEMENT NO PW 45-15-93 EXHIBIT'A' PAGE 1 OF 2 PROJECT NO.7419 • _ ._ P:\7419\PCSTEST. NOTES 411/ 1) All Concrete Curb and Gutter required for the project, excluding that which is required for the Medians, will be apportioned 50% to the County and 25% to each of the Cities, irrespective of where the Curb and Gutter is constructed. 2) All Concrete Driveway Aprons required for the project will be apportioned 50% to the County and 25% to each of the Cities, irrespective of where the Concrete Driveway Aprons are constructed. 3) Based upon ratio of contributing flow. 4) Roadside Landscaping $330,000; Landscaping for Wetland Mitigation Sites $35,000. 5) The additional Bridge cost is calculated to be 20% of the total cost of all items above the substructure required to construct Bridge No. 27A13. 6) The cost of the Special Grading and Retaining Walls is based on the difference in Excavation and Retaining Wall quantities between the "Previous Preliminary Profile by Others" as shown in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and the plan profile (lower profile) . For the purposes of computing costs, 72,500 cu. yds. of Common Excavation and 31,050 sq. ft. of Retaining Wall will be multiplied by the unit prices for these items bid in 4111 the contract. 7) Permanent Span Wire Signal Installation - includes Controller. 8) Permanent Signal - includes Controller. 9) Actual costs per Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to Agreement No. PW 46-66-92 with HNTB. 10) Other Mitigation Sites include: In Minnetonka the sites are: Purgatory Creek and Railroad Site (Outlot A, Glenmoor Parcel) transferred to the County from Minnetonka in exchange for the Minnetonka Mills Gravel Pit site. In Eden Prairie, the sites are: Heathbrook Drive Site (Eden Prairie owned) and the Baker Road Site (County owned) . See Exhibit "B" for locations. Hennepin County Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 24110 Project No. 7419 (/7) 2iiWe • . a" EII,,. 1'ii��, „.•P;: '27'11�•'�! Sid x�•;` ,.il,. I'_;o:II j;'., -t `1..- t--. `• �ti• -'.(r4.:;-" '-�',I' co 1c. 0 4t 1�, I / I ••t4o_ ...J.—tit' 1•r �-� � '-DWI � • 1,;�° deE(I th ',1 �• k. ��ou� �'�- t� a •r. JJJ,,,Iyyy • ,. )l •ty }! .� t�, .er L' 's_ • 't,1�11 I ..`!. i . f •. I e,1 .M i•l.�'t' •I� 31 I a I' �w1: I,..., t/' �4, tl�l . ,•tc:0\^•. f:�l !`69+ .,r 1r,. .4 (1.. :.+4 Z 7 •dt L 1 4 U, ='••' `.i 'l; t,. • [yo•1y 11 11�3et,,f, . r'•• ' r• `CP< ert • »...\ 4. t: 1�(,1p1� - r`... • S� ;1. f�e` ; d ry` :\• \�,�.') .' di P :jkili" —Li ["-" --�7.^�.-0 lf��•I{°•$4 .,• t , • °1 .- -tr. • �� • rf• �I lenit 1 ` W • /�. M,. ?„t• < rea,� 7_. a✓,.. ~0.•I�,1/1`.11•.! d yr / jam,.-1:. r• g,��,7vt`-I t, ,:�!' -- p_4t •' �8 y lay r'�. 4'..'2 t4(,y. :-�I.,t;)'�� ,.IN J! �'• • r" / �. •(�k ... IT. ts,s. '( ;.a.. ytr. • ` • a C �•j f ;; 1pc Q`s#.�a, >�✓bri ,•�.1• F ,.. • ..., .1• r . t 1 .t _Z-- 1 ��. t 1 t�"7lit �tY `'l•,p.r �I :•k.i �%-��' 1. r?1�`'.Sli 2 ;/ 1 �',R'.. • pr�; �1 R • jCr ( frl//-•i Ia1 � }1f1 r �.Y�q ��7 tyl 't'7;`13g' a, i 11 `�-' l p f:- + •. a a FD'-..,� �.'t��r-- e1,41411 , �r t 41'l ! 1( ,, try,.. �'-• ty 1.j �„-�:: " 4r 1.�`L.�1 �` t,,-)/ f t• • ••• /".4•,� ' ? 1••••' 1 ,\a' ,i1!,rq:' ,4 11 It_ -Je•�► ems. `•,s::l'� I11 ),i al l�s•�•1'1114,`., tp ( •� . 1• 1•1�•1 i 'v 1 -7�,1 %iff ds�.y ••I �� �e �A d • r �� a .1�� -(� � 'ii• • • • I .i, •' a' ••0 ,).. I 1 Ye •:,�i,' 1.}; 1 '20, C^; I ••"' :Y r411 • 1-•4 v - 111, 1t t i ' I 1 6,'e . i Iv: t•' ,1 ••,.` :i a v4 r'r '!}C. /-'a 2 4' N ,, ,1 ,`Jalt ,. ; It y_l( tp t i : " M1 . 4 lac '(kgir. Pa ,2.rtite- 1 ' I, .tc 1t ... ,I,! tl ttt~;1. I� _ N * i, 1 •1 aa•.. iil9:1 i : ' � ' 1('�-•s41 .t. .� / �j!.. { • F 1�, •�..1 I •,! •1,,I�v-' , • 7 T •••it y ....'t Q /,4 t • 1a) +• ;,�, , -,:% 4'.: �1 ha, 0. / ,,r� pB (� all s. 1� .y a1 ';11#I.I 1 • • � 'g 1• r_ 1... Q a w �• ~ a •, k;,•N:..... .,;.L.,..:, ,/ ,'`• i ler J 1I H' 1 '( )1 !_ 3'�,'1 iy•• ~ ?•'' '.;=-: t1j ; .. �t C ,'• ' .�S:itr •� �( 'F CO .) 11 454. �1: i•i, ••:..IS* • �f.''1 r 1; •1 g • 1 • ' Ir ,1. " )ri,. .. .(3q-s . 1 , ' • • ,, ;. ia •�. • t• 11 11 ! 1 > , : `Q � ' J . i � ; y1 Il r I 1Iait ! , 71 ;. 1 �I t01)11 , ' 'I, r', i ' ' .'. 11 •i I 1? ! ': ! .•' I v. ! 11l ,'' 111..E•:0 E '11` a1, '). iP.1 ,yiI . ,.. `' 1 . ;1 1 ' ' .�h� • . W , a`11 /1 :., ''pl. . 1 * s•' J `'P ' • • LI 4 • • • 1= 1�•r,..,t..1�•! ty:>•`, alh.t •1 1• '1):r,- - C' `1 tAlt �11`w1;'� p l�~ . •1'1• •rn • c y • 1• Q t O NI. �p,In .•p. , I / U. k 1 N W /' I I• -tr 1V 1 [�Lv ): f1 'I..I i'! ,irX 11l,I1 ¢ U III')tti ' co `(e' 1 j'' ( t. J , I :')II ;'!9`l'.:�I {IQ < ' alxrl '1 1`1 �lj mil 11l I '11• •t• 1 ' I' 1,,1�''ry r I` -i1 • y I ;,;p-.PM NI,I3 N y<� s•: x, J r,;, 11'@.. l4 a . _�, r I 111';' r I o •.'1',I , Q uu u: S . EFil < .1 ID +- • I. ,x,,,,* •�Ir. • n „ 1(1.1,,• .! •I,Ld 4•ill I ,•t •;N 1 , ► fir), y • 11 •'•.. ."�'` N '! 7`.r:' ! o i I 1 1 • �? ...�� .-,•• .'_-..,I k I, .1'1. 1• l' '1+' 'W 1 q= .1 ' 1' 1•, • y':�`r•� \i`a-•�••`,+.��.I��•.-Icy,. d. i \ 'i i 1 .I�il•J�Ili' � • • (/8) . .• • CITY OF MINNETONKA 14600 MINNETONKA BLVD. MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55345 I, Elizabeth L. Norton, being the duly appointed City Clerk of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Minnetonka City Council at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of December , 19j3 . 61''''‘) a.A6f41'49� ELIZAB H L. NORTON, CITY C ERK • Date: December 14, 1993 SEAL • C/9J RESOLUTION NO. 93-9646 11111, RESOLUTION APPROVING CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. PW 45-15-93 BETWEEN HENNEPIN COUNTY, THE CITY OF MINNETONKA, AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 62 (TOWNLINE ROAD) BETWEEN TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 101 AND COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 4 (EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD) COUNTY PROJECT NO. 7419 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01. The City of Minnetonka has received Construction Cooperative Agreement No. PW 45- 15-93 from Hennepin County as it pertains to the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway No. 62 (Townline Road) between Trunk Highway No. 101 and County State Aid Highway No. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) , County Project No. 7419. 1. 02. Hennepin County has requested that the City of Minnetonka approve said agreement. Section 2. Council Action. 2.01. That said agreement be in all things approved. 2.02. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to sign Construction Cooperative Agreement No. PW 45-15-93 between Hennepin. County, the City of Minnetonka, and the City of Eden Prairie for the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway No. 62 (Townline Road) between Trunk Highway No. 101 and County State Aid Highway No. 4 (Eden Prairie Road) , County Project No. 7419. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Minneto a, Minnesota on this 13th day of December, 1993. _qq - T 1��61 f :ER' " 'T, MAYOR • (zoj RESOLUTION NO. 93=9646 Page two • ATTEST: 0414r Eli eth L. Norto , City Clerk Action on this resolution Motion for adoption: Hise Seconded by: Anderson Voted in favor of: 1 nrkP, A11Pndorf, Anderson, Schneider. Hise. Hanus . Bergstedt Voted against: Abstained: Absent: Resolution adopted. • I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota at a duly authorized meeting held on the 13th day of December, 1993. C.:(7 Off • Eli eth L. Norton, City Clerk • 110 ( 2'!) • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: - SECTION: Public Hearings 12-21-93 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. V-A Community Development Chris Enger Shady Oak Ridge 4th Don Uram Addition REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action: • • Continue until the January 18, 1994 meeting at the request of Mr. Joe tic, e proponent. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Public Hearings 12-21-93 aDEPARTM NT. ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Community Development =x ` Chris Enger Bent Creek Residential Michael D. Franzen REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council is requested to take action on the following: • Adopt a Resolution changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 34.72 acres. • Adopt a Resolution for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 58.8 acres. • Adopt an Ordinance for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers_On 58.8 acres. • Grant 1st Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 10.2 x Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 34.72 acres, and Rezoning from Rural to R14.5 on 13.13 acres. • Adopt a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 58.8 acres into 91 single family loti and- = • twinhome lots. • Approval of an early grading permit for the twinhome portion of the project. The effect of the Council action allows the development of 20 twinhome lots, 61 R1-13.5 single illy lots and 30 R1-9.5 single family lots. This project was first reviewed by the Planning Commission at the September 27, 1993. The Planning Commission recommended that the project be continued to allow the Developer to work on plan revisions including reducing tree loss, reducing wetland impacts, increasing flood protection, and reducing traffic. ,r. At the October 22, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting, the Developer presented a revised devel plan which included two cul-de-sacs instead of a through street, reduced the tree loss to 29%, greater building setback from the wetland and flood plain areas and a storm water pretreatment plan. '; The Planning Commission voted to approve the Bent Creek Proposal at the October 22, 1993 OVERVIEW In 1972 the City Council approved the Edenvale Planned Unit Development. This site was designatedfilk or 771 multi-family units. The number of units approved for the current proposal is for 111 units. There are 20 twinhome units located adjacent to Valley View Road opposite the apartment x buildings. The middle portion of the project would be zoned R1-13.5 for 61 housing units. 'lie northwest portion would be zoned R1-9.5, which is the same zoning as the area directly to the west. PRIMARY ISSUES 1. What is the impact of the proposal of the site's natural features? Tree loss on this project is 294b. The City's goal is to keep tree loss less than3fil' ." �9e project uses large lots in the heavily wooded areas and transfers density to the open areas one site. Front yard setback waivers, restricted'building pads, (i.e. Fairfield West) and cul ;ems are needed to help preserve trees. All wetlands on site are Army Corps of Engineers regulated'wetlands. Na fill is ; these wetland areas. 2. Should Howard Lane be extended=from Valley View Road to Edenvale Boulevard or can it 1 two cul-de-sacs? The Developer first proposed a through street connection from Valley View Road to Eaden° ale Boulevard. After a continuance from the Planning Commission, the Developer returnee witha two cul-de-sac plan which helps preserve trees and reduces traffic;impa on both Iwal+ Boulevard and Valley View Road. The City has a policy of no unnecessary cul-de-sacs and to make through-street i s practical and feasible. Exceptions to this have been due to either differences in land ut.or- preserve site features. The original PUD did not contemplate a crossing of the current light rail authority property. The original PUD depicted a connection of Haward Lane'to Golf View Drive for traffic distribution for 686 units. Since the density is reduced, the need mute. traffic is not as critical. There is also no existing right-of-way on the Golf Course., ` . " property would have to be condemned, purchased, and constructed by the City and the beef to may not be assessable. The use of two cul-de-sacs also helps presence trace and miii " traffic impacts on Valley'View Road and Edenvale Boulevard. 3. What sidewalk or trail connections are proposed for this project? A S foot wide concrete sidewalk is proposed along one side of the road through p x.t. There will be a sidewalk crossing of the light rail authority`property. 4. How will the site or City be impacted by the issuance of an early permit q e ion? The Developer is'requesting an early grading permit to grad the twinhome potion((the -Y project which is adjacent to the apartment building and Valley View Road. ere ato significant trees that would be impacted by the grading. The Developer would like to construction on the NURP pond, and a contractor is willing,to take the excess dirt. Since " of the environmental issues regarding grading occur on the Worthen end of the situ, which is more heavily wooded, and immediately adjacent to residential, the grading of the Ioc poron of the site seems a reasonable request. SUPPORTING INFORMATION • Staff Report of September 24, 1993 Y • Staff Report of October 22, 1993 " • Planning Commission Minutes of September ?, 1993 • P mmi Sion Minu of October 25 1993 lannxng Co s ter , • Letters from Neighbors Z. • • Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment • Resolution for PUD Concept Review • Resolution for Preliminary Plat • • Action/Direction: _ • • • 1 - • • 3 BENT CREEK RESIDENTIAL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BENT CREEK RESIDENTIAL FOR BENT CREEK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Bent Creek Residential for Bent Creek Development Corporation dated October 21, 1993, consisting of 58.8 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 21st day of December, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk i BENT CREEK RESIDENTIAL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF BENT CREEK RESIDENTIAL FOR BENT CREEK DEVELOPMENT 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 Bent Creek Residential PUD Concept by Bent Creek Development 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 November 16, 1993 and continued on December 7, 1993; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, • Minnesota, as follows: 1. Bent Creek Residential by Bent Creek Development 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 October 21, 1993. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated October 25, 1993. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 21st day of December, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • S Exhibit A Bent Creek Residential Legal Description Outlots C and D, Edenvale 2nd Addition Outlot B, Edenvale 8th Addition • • BENT CREEK RESIDENTIAL CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, 1VIINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING 111E 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 Bent Creek Residential for Bent Creek Development Corporation 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: 34.72 acres located at North of Valley View Road and west of Bent Creek Golf Course from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 21st of December, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • 7 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION • APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1993 7:00 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMSSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer,Ken Clinton, Cynthia Clish,Katherine Kardell, Doug Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D.Franzen, Senior Planner; Jan Nelson, Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE—ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman Doug Sandstad. All members were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Clish,to approve the Agenda as published. Motion passed 7-0. III. MINUTES MOTION: Schlampp moved, seconded by Clinton,to approve the minutes of the September 27, 1993 meeting as published. Motion passed 6-0,with Bauer abstaining. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BENT CREEK RESIDENTIAL by Bent Creek Development Corporation. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 34.72 acres,Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 58.8 acres for 111 housing units,Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 58.8 acres for 111 housing units,Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 10.2 acres for 20 twinhomes,Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 34.72 acres for 61 single family homes and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 13.13 acres for 30 single family homes and Preliminary Plat on 58.8 acres into 91 single family lots and 20 twinhome lots. Location: North of Valley View Road and west of Bent Creek Golf Course. • Continued Item from October 11, 1993. Mark Ecklo,President of Bent Creek Development Corporation,reviewed the changes made in the project in response to concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and neighborhood S PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 OCTOBER 25, 1993 residents. He said the most significant change in the plan is to have two cul-de-sacs instead of a through street. This and other changes helps to cut down the tree loss to 29%. The roadwak the northern cul-de-sac was moved away from the existing neighborhood to the west and sou resulting in an increased buffer area. Franzen stated the revised plan is a reasonable use of the property for the following reasons: there is a low tree loss of 29%;no wetlands are proposed to be filled with the project; the City benefits from pre-treatment of storm water from 120 acres of land; the reduction in PUD densities from 771 to 111 units is a better relationship to the adjoining single family areas. He said Staff recommends approval based on plans dated October 21, 1993 and subject to the conditions in the Staff Report dated October 22, 1993. He noted that the conditions outlined include conservancy easements on several of the lots and the requirement that,prior to release of the final plat, developer shall apply for building permits on lots 4 through 15,Block 3 in the proposed R1-9.5 area so that Staff may inspect the grading limits and building footprints to assure compliance with the tree preservation plan as proposed by the developer. Marge Olberg, 6741 Vermar Terrace, expressed appreciation for the effort put in on the plan changes. Paul Seeling, 6895 Jeremy Court, was pleased that the developer met with the residents to discuss their concerns. Dale Sheveland, 14852 Hickory Court, was pleasedwith the cul-de-sacs and asked if the house pads that back up to Hickory Court are in the same location as before. The developer said th. building permits will be pulled so that no house would be larger than the proposed size. Sheveland expressed concern about how the residents of the project will deal with the storm runoff from the existing property in the area. Ecklo said the builders will have to create a swail at the property lines to allow for storm water runoff. Franzen distributed a letter from Paul Bulver, 6749 Vermar Terrace, a copy of which is attached to these minutes, expressing his approval of the changes made to the project and thanking the Commission, Staff and the developers for their suggestions and efforts that produced a much improved plan. MOTION : Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton,to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bent Creek Development Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 34.72 acres based on plans dated October 21, 1993 and subject to the Staff Report dated October 22, 1993. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton,to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bent Creek Development Corporation for Planned Unit Development Concept Review based on plans dated October 21, 1993 and subject to the Staff Report dated October. 1993. Motion passed 7-0. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3 OCTOBER 25, 1993 MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bent Creek Development Corporation for Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 58.8 acres based on plans dated October 21, 1993 and subject to the Staff Report dated October 22, 1993. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bent Creek Development Corporation for Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 10.2 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 34.72 acres and Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 13.13 acres based on plans dated October 21, 1993 and subject to the Staff Report dated October 22, 1993. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION 6: Kardell moved, seconded by Clinton, to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Bent Creek Development Corporation for Preliminary Plat of 58.8 acres based on plans dated October 21, 1993 and subject to the Staff Report dated October 22, 1993. Motion passed 7-0. • • EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES • MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 7:00 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tim Bauer, Ken Clinton, Cynthia Clish, Katherine Kardell, Doug Sandstad, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner. STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Theresa Pendroy, Substitute Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -- ROLL CALL Bauer was absent. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chairman, Doug Sandstad. IT. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Clinton moved, seconded by Clish to approve the Agenda as published. Motion passed 6-0. III. MINUTES MOTION: Schlampp moved, Clinton seconded to approve the meeting minutes for July 1993; July 26, 1993; August 9, 1993; and August 23, 1993. Motion passed 6-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS BENT CREEK RESIDENTIAL by Bent Creek Development Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 58.8 acres for 111 housing units, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 58.8 acres for 111 housing units, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 10.2 acres for 20 twinhomes, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 34.72 acres for 60 single family homes, Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 13.13 acres for 31 single family homes and Preliminary Plat of 58.8 acres into 91 single family lots and 20 twinhome lots. Location: North of Valley View Road and west of Bent Creek Golf Course. Franzen noted the proposal was initially envisioned for a total of 771 multiple family housing units. The current proposal is 111 units of which 20 are twin houses and 91 are single family homes. The benefits of the reduction of density are the overall reduction of traffic in the area and a better transition to the existing single family homes to the west of the development. The City will benefit from pretreated storm water as well as an additional 60 acres of unpretreated drainage in the development. The Staff is concerned with the high percentage of tree loss being 39% and the proximity of the building pads. Currently the building pads are within 10 feet of the 100 year flood elevat. which is well past the recommended 2 foot minimum. The Staff would suggest a minimun 1 // foot setback bets. ,n the building pad and the 100 year ,od elevation. The developers are aware of these issues and are currently working on resolving them. Franzen introduced the developers. The developers reviewed the project with visuals. It was noted the development was broken into 3 phases. In the first phase the homes would be double lots in the value range of$200- $225,000 lots. Phase 2 would be$280 - $325,000 single family lots and Phase 3 would be mid to upper $200,000 single family lots. Dividing the development in such a way would blend the homes with the already established homes in the area. The main thorough-way would connect Edenvale Blvd. and Valley View Road. Paul Bulver, 6749 Vermar Terrace, expressed concern over the loss of trees. He suggested one way of tree replacement would be to place pine trees along the back of the lots for privacy. Carrie Lueneburg, 6725 Vermar Terrace supports this idea. Bulver was not clear as to where the water level of the wetlands behind his home would meet with his property. Bulver was also concerned about the traffic on the proposed road becoming a "bypass" from Edenvale Boulevard to Valley View Road. Bulver suggested the developer re-route the road. Other residents concerned about the traffic flow are Blair Wachutra, 6625 Harlan Drive; Marge Olberg, 6741 Vermar Terrace. Mike Pollock, 6640 Harland Drive, stated deer currently pass through the woods and wetlands behind his home. The proposed development would interfere with the deer movement. Pollock is concerned that if the development were to be built it would leave the deer with no way out of the area. Pollock suggested the City research the deer movement and the affects the development would have on it. Dallas Nord, 6733 Vermar Terrace, is not comfortable with the proposed drainage system into the wetlands and would like to see a better plan for street run off. Wende Bergson, 6835 Jeremy Court South, explained one of the main reasons her and her husband purchased the home they currently live in is for the view. Their home is located on one of the highest points of the City and overlooks the woods and wetlands. She is not comfortable with the 39% tree loss and had wanted to know the percentage of the trees that are 12 inches or larger in diameter that will be removed. Bergson suggested the developer study this further to avoid the removal of a large percentage of trees. Curtis Evert 14832 Hickory Court, would like to see larger lots thereby maintaining a lower level of tree loss. Scott Otis, 6709 Vermar Terrace, is concerned about the economic affect the twin homes would have on the value of his property if he were to place it on the market 2 or 3 years from now. Otis also questioned how long it would take to complete all 3 phases of the development. The developer stated all 3 phases will be completed within a 24 month period. Schlampp suggested the developer replan the wetland drainage to eliminate street run off into the wetlands. Kardell stated the 39% tree loss is unacceptable; and the building pads should be placed within 10 feet or more of the 100 year flood elevation point. Clinton suggested the developer research further the traffic of the proposed road and the affect it would have on Valley View Road and Edenvale Boulevard, possibly re-routing the road. 4111 Franzen stated one of the solutions might have been to transfer all of the densities to the east side of tracks and take down all of the trees next to the Golf Course and put all the density in and 2 /z don't develop on the west side which might be at 60% tree loss where the better trees. Lot sizes are 19.5 to match up to existing zoning. It was never intented for affordable housing. If density transfer preserves the trees, is one thing, but the plan isn't successful for density transf. If developer is not in position to make plan changes by the 11th, then it will be continued to October 25 and Staff will send out notices. MOTION: Schlampp moved, Clish seconded, for a continuance to the October 11, 1993 meeting. Motion passed 6-0. . i3 DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA cdarr PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL October 26,' 1993 prairtm RESOURCES COMMISSION AGENDA FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Parks, Recreation & Supplemental Staff Report to 10/22/1993 Planning Natural Resources Staff Report for Bent Creek Residential RECOMMENDATION: The park recreation and natural resources staff recommend approval of this project based on the October 22, 1993 Planning Staff Report and this supplemental memorandum. BACKGROUND: This property is part of the 1972 Edenvale PUD which approved 771 lots and a roadway connection across the golf course linking to Golf View Drive. The plan has been revised a number of times balancing the development opportunities, concerns of the surrounding neighbors, city codes and the preservation of natural resources. Currently, 11 housing units are planned on 58.8 acres. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this project at the October 25, 1993 meeting. ISSUES: Tree Preservation: This project has a 29% tree loss, which is lower than the "average" tree loss and the City's goal of 30%. Items the developer is proposing in order to save significant trees are as follows: 1. Construction of two cul-de-sacs, rather than a through street. 2. Density transfer from the wooded areas into open areas. • 3. A conservation easement over lots that have high concentrations of significant trees. 4. Lots with high concentrations of significant trees will need to apply for building permits before final plat is approved due to the restricted building pads. 5. PUD waivers for front yard setbacks are requested in order to save trees. These items are typical efforts used in other projects to save significant trees. Tree replacement for this project is calculated at 670 caliper inches and will be installed by the developer according to City requirements. Wetland Impacts and Storm Water Treatment: The proponent is required to follow all of the Army Corp of Engineers and Riley Purgatory • Creek Watershed District regulations. Permits to these agencies will be submitted after Council approval. The PCA's best management practices and sump manholes will be used as required by the City Engineering Department. Supplemental Staff Report to Bent Creek October 26, 1993 Page 2 Pedestrian Systems: The developer will install a 5' concrete sidewalk along each cul-de-sac and within an outlot, giving residents access to the Hennepin County Regional Trail System. The sidewalk will be installed concurrent with road construction. BPC:mdd • Action/Direction: 1101 • /s Minutes - PRNR Commission Monday, November 1, 1993 this year with the understanding that the Optimist Club must follow the ordinances in place next year. Motion passed unanimously. V. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. Bent Creek-Cross summarized the Bent Creek residential development proposal. Ron King, representing the developer, reviewed the process the developer followed to bring the project to its present design. He indicated they originally tried to design a development with a through street according to City regulations; however, that resulted in over 40% tree loss. The existing development proposes two cul-de-sacs and has reduced the tree loss from 40% to 29%. This design requires a variety of setback variances to protect some trees and stay out of the wetlands. Brown asked for the total amount of variances on the 13 lots abutting the future light rail corridor. King indicated that the total variances would be 70 feet in that location, therefore, those lots would have an 80 foot setback from the future light rail corridor, rather than the 150 foot City standard. Brown indicated that if light rail ever comes in the future, he would not want to • own a home only 80 feet from the rail line. King stated that he believes the developer would notify all buyers of potential future light rail. He reminded the Commission that by transferring density from the wooded lots to this area, they have no choice but to make smaller lots. King stated that the variances are reasonable considering what they are trying to save. The site is very difficult to develop and he majority of the grading will take place installing the road system to serve the development no matter what type of development occurs. Brown asked why even try to develop such a site? "If we allowed everyone all these variances we wouldn't have anything left in Eden Prairie." Curt Evert, resident from Hickory Court, indicated that he had a concern early on, especially with the original proposal. He stated that he believes the developer has done a good job in the northwest corner to develop the area to be compatible with what is adjacent to it; however, he too questions whether the property is developable without destroying the majority of the natural resource. Richard stated his major concern is the amount of variances required and after walking the property has difficulty envisioning the number of lots shown on the plan actually being developed on the site. He agrees that the revised plan is an improvement over the first one and that it saves the majority of the significant 4 /6 Minutes - PRNR Commission Monday, November 1, 1993 trees; however, the vast majority of the trees on this property are not considered "significant." He believes the property will be destroyed-with the proposed plan. King noted that development is proposing the same size lots as are developed across the street at 9.5. Cross pointed out that the reason the Planning Department recommended the through street was for safety reasons. The Planning Department always recommends through streets whenever possible for good access by public safety vehicles, as well as for transportation reasons. Hilgeman stated that she believes that too much emphasis is placed on the economic benefit of developers at the expense of the loss of natural areas in Eden Prairie. The City ends up giving up its natural features. Lambert pointed out that although the developer will preserve 71% of the significant trees everyone should be prepared for massive tree loss on this site because the vast majority of the trees on this site are not counted as "significant." He also pointed out that this piece of property has been on the Guide Plan as medium density residential for nearly 20 years, and the Commission and City Council must consider what alternative type of development could occur on this site. Would a five to six story condominium or apartment building be preferable to the single family residential that is being proposed? Eden Prairie is a developing community that has many unique natural areas that will eventually be developed. The best we can do is identify the most valuable and preserve the those and try to work within the development rules to allow careful development of the remaining natural areas. If the majority of the significant trees and the wetlands can be preserved, as well as a portion of the natural hills and valleys, Eden Prairie will be far ahead of most developed communities. MOTION: Moved by Lynch, seconded by Hilgeman, to approve the request of the developer according to the October 22nd Planning Staff Report with the exception of item#6 under the request "rezoning from Rural to R-9.5 on 13 acres for 30 single family homes." Bowman indicated that it is more of a variance issue than a tree preservation issue and, although, he has an easier time of accepting variances within a development that has under a 30% tree loss, he believes the number of variances and the amount of the variance is significant in this case. Brown stated that the 13 lots that have the five foot front yard variance and the 75 foot rear yard variance is the main issue that causes his concern with this proposal. 5 /7 Minutes - PRNR Commission • Monday, November 1, 1993 Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Moved by Richard, seconded by Brown, the Commission deny the request to rezone the 13.13 acres from rural to R-9.5 for 30 single family homes due to the number of significant variances requested. Motion passed unanimously. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Amendment to the City Code Regulating Use of Bicycle Ways - Lambert reviewed the reason for the request for the amendment. MOTION: Moved by Brown, seconded by Kube-Harderwijk, to approve the proposed amendment to the City Code Regulating Use of Bicycle Ways. Motion passed unanimously. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Water Quality Improvement Project - Lambert reviewed the Engineering Department application for a water quality improvement project grant to complete a diagnostic/feasibility study for Round Lake, Mitchell Lake and Red Rock Tab:, This will check the water quality of these three lakes since they were connected through he chain of lakes project. MOTION: Moved by Kube-Harderwijk, seconded by Brown, to approve the grant application for the Clean Water Partnership Grant. Motion passed unanimously. B. Gift Book - Helling described the "Gift Book" as a list of ideas that could be provided to community service clubs that are often looking for projects that would benefit the community. It is not intended to promote or "sell" these ideas to the public for projects. Kube-Harderwijk indicated that she really appreciated having this project list. Hilgeman stated that one of the first things that she asked when she became a Commission member was for this type of a gift book so individuals, neighborhood groups or community service organizations would have an idea of what park improvements, etc. would cost. MOTION: Moved by Kube-Harderwijk, seconded by Hilgeman, to recommend authorization to publish the "Excellence Through Giving" book and to provide it to local public service groups and to make it available to potential contributors upon request. Motion passed Unanimously. • C. Tax Forfeited Lands - Lambert reviewed the lands that the City can acquire for parks and ponding. Parcels are adjacent to other land acquired for a future 6 /SI STAFF REPORT • TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner • DATE: October 22, 1993 SUBJECT: Bent Creek Residential APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Bent Creek Development Corporation LOCATION: North of Valley View Road, West of Bent Creek Golf Course REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on 34.72 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 58.8 acres for 111 housing units. 3. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 58.8 acres for 111 housing units. 4. Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 10.2 acres for 20 twinhomes. 5. Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 34.72 acres for 61 single family homes. 6. Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 13.13 acres for 30 single family homes. 7. Preliminary Plat of 58.8 acres into 91 single family lots and 20 twinhome lots. 1 • /7 \---- `-...../ ././. /, — Yr' • '4.--- .4 . ., / / r • o P :V I/'44 41111.11/4‘,w.' 441 k\;"1:41i""1"31 i la .. • , ............ .-'-'-' ("al - .:, %• • .., .., .. _ . . .... . . . . • ' .... ,./ 11""triii,v S 11111111111° s* 7 \ .•••...... It .••••,... 011121761volfrow. as„,litA4i.... ii. - .. ; . -;;,,'." 1 a 211 tr_q. .(..' 4W '../11j!%*.; 41/ ."6..., • ‘.. 'Y • 9.) .. . 63 MI islift.* ' \ ...:,...................,.........../x.. .... .. •_, A 111 41111111M 1• *::::::::::AW:::::::::::::''.7: ratio , ,0• . Alikois,,:iii ,wia. rs, ap 5.3 .., i100 tn N...m, 11, = ,i... i yn,siii n • ... 411100‘. .i' ** 4 ell l& leti • X ..- 4-viiiik % ,,,,,. . *IP ., li 1,,t . i ................................... ....... •••""--•- • A4 4w • • traitlikliilla ro ..; , 1 4:14) si , voi rt -- • _._ 11,N, refilk .. be s'( ...... I It t • t Pr 4 •P•:.; • • vpo•• . . . , ED• 11 : • •••••• oed B ____ ...... ...... ••••• ,.-• . . en t ........• •.. 111 • • C " • • ... . • \\ • .}:. re F ........-• . ,........ * . x ...... 1 • . 0 - • bdivi I. .....••••••••• •••"••••-•-"• , sion iiipwritt ......................... , .. .-....................................:.........-..... N • , . . - . , . . . 0 . - . .. • 41%-.%.*:.•••.'...:..-..-.:..-..-...........-.:.- Ito .. ! .................... .,0 ay 11117k*. . --- -..vo lig _ .____ _ ... ------- NTEIBURY • IMP 'I it,... oto144$ ,- isilikil-n . ifilirLs1,147: II im killitriG 11177.1-iR A ' . ( t# 141 scis 0 4111 • . P44 s #. • I. ..? '9 4/.1/ ••1‘ ' •1 o . 't• :•••, c t. ••• > •,A#4 I v.. Li 0.----, . - , al vi— ''.41".• ' pl • 411 . - • , • C 7FEbrER it- ( 4 I" 1 • : 111111 g.. ea .. 1 r I IP " tc-.A , . PRAIRI: ..i E ,...,„AR,A . ,„,„,, ,,,, ,,,, r -r r .it,b°16 ...‘. . 11111WP --I .:.:... b .AA- ,::•_:--.-: 0 11111Ni i ge ..... • 'I, , jib 0 Millik • • • ...`C,' .•.:1,-,. --1 ... 4A100 -v,' :a 0 :71 fri IIIPrill./ cc,. a; \ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIW 11.111.1.1111111111111W ••V ,A•li• .. I c ••- T VP40 41fol._ • 13, . Staff Report Bent Creek Residential • October 22, 1993 BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the September 27, 1993 meeting. After presentation by the proponent, neighborhood input, and Commission discussion, the Commission continued the item and directed the Staff and proponent to work on plan revisions regarding the following issues; tree preservation, wetland impacts, flood protection, and traffic. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE This project requires a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential on approximately 35 acres for the land area to be zoned R1-13.5, which is east of the Light Rail Authority property and north of the twinhomes. Requests for the Comprehensive Guide Plan Changes are evaluated based upon the impact on the City's land use balance, impact on the site's natural features, impact on City infrastructure including roads and utilities, and impact on surrounding land uses. Approximately 35 acres is removed from the medium density land use category. In terms of the Comprehensive Guide Plan balance, this loss is offset by other City approvals from low density residential to medium density residential. At 10 units per acre, the 350 units are possible. In the • last 2 years, the City has approved 2 Comprehensive Guide Plan changes, one for Jamestown Villas and one for Centex Deerfield. The combined number of housing units approved is 372 multifamily units. The impact on the sites natural features is less with the proposal for low density residential than if the property was developed in conformance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan or the approved Planned Unit Development densities. The Jamestown Villa project (10 units/acre) for example, requires a relatively flat site and has very little open space. Using this plan on a site that has more topographic relief, wetlands, and trees, it is doubtful that those features could be retained. This project will not have an impact on City infrastructure since the sewer and wateb lines adjacent to the property were sized based upon the original guide plan density. The overall road system benefits from a reduction in density from 771 to 111 units. The project as proposed has a better visual relationship to the adjoining properties since densities and unit types are similar. 2 • ZI Staff Report Bent Creek Residential October 22, 1993 TREE PRESERVATION The Planned Unit Development Concept uses density transfer to preserve significant trees by planning large lots in areas of the highest concentration of the best trees, and concentrating density in the open areas of the site. Even though the PUD Concept plan presented at the last meeting depicted a 39% tree loss, that plan proposed two large lots (lot 28 - 2.88 acres and lot 29 - 2.15 acres), which preserved 5 acres of forest and 1635 inches of significant trees on the highest point on the property. The developer made the following plan changes to help reduce tree loss. 1. Use of two cul-de-sacs instead of the through street. 2. Density transfer on the west side of the light rail authority, eliminating one lot, and relocating six other lots. Front yard setback waivers from 30 to 25 feet for the R1-9.5 zoning area. 3. Agree to abide by restricted grading limits and house pads (i.e. Fairfield West). Developer has further agreed as part of the final approval by the City Council to 410 apply for building permits on Lots 4-15, Block 3 in the proposed R1-9.5 zoning area. These changes reduce tree loss from 39 to 29%. An additional 2 acres of total forest canopy preserved. Tree replacement required is 670 caliper inches. Conservancy easements to preserve remaining trees are required on Lots 4-15, Block 3, Lot 15, Block 4 and Lots 26, 27, and 28, Block 2. WETLAND IMPACTS All on site wetlands are Army Corps of Engineers regulated wetlands. The Army Corps regulates the physical alteration of such wetlands including fill, excavation, or reshaping. No physical alteration is proposed for any of the wetlands within this project. The Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District also regulates wetlands according to the State Wetlands Preservation Act. If wetlands are filled, they must be mitigated with a one-to-one replacement. The wetlands on-site have been verified by the Watershed District and no fill is proposed, therefore no mitigation is required. A goal of Eden Prairie's Comprehensive Guide Plan is to preserve natural features. To that end, the City has worked to preserve wetlands to the greatest extent possible through proper land use 3 ZL Staff Report Bent Creek Residential • October 22, 1993 and site planning. With this proposal, the reduction in density of 771 to 110 units allows greater flexibility in the siting of units so that wetlands on site would not be physically altered. The granting of setback waivers by the City helps preserves wetlands which benefits the City and the new neighborhood. At the last meeting, a concern was raised that although no physical alteration of the wetlands was proposed with this development, new drainage patterns would affect the quality or value of the wetland. Since these are Army Corps Wetlands, with no physical alteration, the Army Corps does not have jurisdiction to require pretreatment ponds. The City has required pretreatment of storm water leaving development sites before discharge into lakes, creeks, and rivers. The Department of Natural Resources requires pretreatment of storm water before discharge into DNR regulated wetlands. This project does not pretreat each individual wetland, but in terms of pretreatment of water before discharge into Purgatory Creek, this project not only pretreats 58 acres of this site, but 60 acres of currently unpretreated land outside of the boundaries. The two wetlands on the western border of the site opposite Vermar Terrace currently receive unpretreated storm water. The normal water level in the wetlands will be maintained. Sump manholes (which collects • sediment) will be installed prior to all wetlands to remove sediment. Considering that the City benefits from 120 acres of land being pretreated before discharge into Purgatory Creek and that the developer could (but has not elected to) fill wetlands, provided mitigation, are reasons for Staff support of the storm sewer treatment as submitted. FLOOD PROTECTION The previous Staff Report recommended a minimum 30 foot setback from building pads to the 100 year flood elevation for homes next to wetlands. The revised plan meets this recommendation by changing building pad location and flood storage elevations. TRAFFIC The last meeting identified concerns over short-cutting of traffic to Edenvale Boulevard, difficulty of making left turns into and out of the project and direct driveway access to Edenvale Boulevard. The two cul-de-sac plan will eliminate cut-through traffic to Edenvale Boulevard. If the road was a through street, traffic would not have been routed through an existing neighborhood. Only 4 • 23 • Staff Report Bent Creek Residential October 22, 1993 the new neighborhood would be impacted. The City has a policy of no unnecessary cul-de-sacs and to make through street connections where practical and feasible. Exceptions to this have been due to either differences in land use or to preserve site features. The original PUD did not contemplate a crossing of the current light rail authority property. The original PUD depicted a connection of Howard Lane to Golf View Drive for traffic distribution from 486 units. Since the density is reduced, the need to distribute traffic is not as critical. There is no existing right-of-way on the Golf Course. The property would have to be condemned, purchased, and constructed by the City. The benefits may not be assessable. The plan has been revised to eliminate direct driveway access to Edenvale Boulevard. Every street intersection along Valley View Road or Edenvale Boulevard experiences delays making left-hand turns either in the morning or the evening. Edenvale Boulevard and Valley View Road are designed as collector roads with the primary emphasis on the movement of through traffic. Since the number of units proposed within the project is low, it would not meet the requirements necessary for construction of turn lanes or a traffic signal. • REZONING TO RM-6.5 - TWINHOMES All of the lots meet the minimum street frontage, lot size, square footage and setback requirements of the RM-6.5 zoning district. REZONING TO R1-13.5 All lots meet the minimum lot size requirement. Side yard setback waivers on all lots from 25 feet to 20 feet and reduced street frontages less than 85 feet on some lots, are requested. This helps cluster density into the open areas of this site as a trade off for larger and fewer lots in the wooded areas. REZONING TO R1-9.5 These lots meet the minimum requirements for 70 feet of street frontage and 9500 square foot minimum lot size. A 25 foot setback waiver on all lots is requested to help preserve trees. Lots abutting the light rail authority do not meet the 150 feet lot depth requirement as required by City Code. Although technically this is not a railroad, the current interpretation is to treat it the same. The first interpretation was made on Fairfield's 9 and 10 with the requirement of tree replacement to be used as a visual buffer. With this project, the Developer proposes tree replacement as mitigation for the lesser lot depth. • 5 2 � Staff Report • Bent Creek Residential October 22, 1993 UTILITIES City sewer and water is available to this site. SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS The Park and Recreation and Natural Resources Staff is recommending a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk from Valley View Road to Edenvale Boulevard. The sidewalk crosses the Light Rail Authority through Outlots B & C. The sidewalk must be built before homes are constructed on any of the lots adjacent to outlots B & C. CONCLUSION The plan as proposed is a reasonable use of the property for the following reasons: 1. The project has a low tree loss of 29%. 2. No wetlands are proposed to be filled with the project. 411 3. The City benefits from pretreatment of storm water from 120 acres of land. 4. Reduction in PUD densities from 771 to 111 reduces traffic and is a better visual relationship to the adjoining single family areas. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff would recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Planned Unit Development Concept, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat based on plans dated October 21, 1993 and the recommendations of the Staff Report dated October 22, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. B. Provide detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 6 2� • Staff Report Bent Creek Residential October 22, 1993 2. Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the proponent shall stake the proposed construction - tree preservation, limits with the snow fence and notify the City 48 hours in advance of grading. 3. Prior to release of the final plat the developer shall apply for building permits on lots 4 through 15, Block 3 in the proposed R1-9.5 area so that Staff may inspect the grading limits and building footprints to assure compliance with the tree preservation plan as proposed by the developer. 4. PUD Waivers are granted as follows: A. Street frontage less than 85 feet for lots 6, 10, Block two; and lots 46, 48, 49, Block One. Street frontage less than 55 feet for lots 28, 29, Block one. B. Side yard setback from 25 feet to 20 (combined, but 10 feet minimum) for lots 21 - 51, Block one and lots 1 - 30, Block two in the proposed R1- • 13.5 area. C. Lot size waiver less than 13,500 feet for lots 39, 41, 46 Block one in the R1-13.5 area. D. Front yard setback from 30 to 25 for lots 1 - 15, Block 3; and lots 1 - 15, Block 4 in the proposed R1-9.5 zoning area. E. Lot depth less than 150 feet abutting Hennepin County Light Rail Authority for lots 3 - 11, and 15, Block 4 in the proposed R1-9.5 zoning area. 5. Outlot A is to be dedicated to the City for the existing wellhouse. 6. Street names must conform to City system. 7. Developer is responsible for a final lift on Howard Lane. 8. Conservancy easements are required on Lots 4 - 15, Block 3; Lot 15, Block 4; and Lots 26, 27, 28, Block 2. 411110 STAFF REPORT • TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: September 24, 1993 SUBJECT: Bent Creek Residential APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Bent Creek Development Corporation LOCATION: North of Valley View Road, West of Bent Creek Golf Course REQUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 58.8 acres for 111 housing units. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 58.8 acres for 111 housing units. 3. Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 10.2 acres for 20 twinhomes. 4. Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 34.72 acres for 60 single family homes. 5. Rezoning from Rural to R1-9.5 on 13.13 acres for 31 single family homes. 6. Preliminary Plat of 58.8 acres into 91 single family lots and 20 twinhome lots. 111 Z7 /5 . • ; / •:1R :fit: a •/4 o b......-%:::i::::::::i: ii:ii:i:1::::i::::::::::::: • oar :::.:.:.::.ii::..., ;:. .:, ::!::•::.. 1:i::::: :::: i. � Fes -. Z- i::.• 1:i:i::.:::. ,,,,.. •'•,••'•: :•.....::::::: / , P" 'I'S' 'is ,..: 1 ::.::::.:•::::.:.• . .'/ z K.HAR // ' l •*i1r11..e1S•1-M•t•1:1‘,:,.ti.,•:•- 0 eP'A'•)1-'T_cBIRtCtHt-tEt.p.t,4E-p 1.1-,".t..t,Pia..- . : -'7••2 ivLiii.i.p. e •I S 1„1 TRATF D RO. Ni _ - • 14 ,,t -♦.®, 1 to _-... i.m.CHARM LA., Weft . \-r-kTh..... . 1131 . .••• '' OA VIIII a .� •ii. i •:1:•? j HOLLY ROAD i . .'‘. 11141S:1 } am AIMIS i gallair W. .,. ' 0. 1411;t: ...'..1".8 AP ogrit* �� 1WIM IIW coZ R4_,• 4 -..4 V..'i4:141VII 7. t ."' 4 i 1 1 .13 -us r441110� - ' i .Q ROWN DRNE47i . & -.1/ SI** .-,.. 7040:.:1,., 4. - :S7 , .fit A (/) 4...all • u.A 4 ** 1 .1 g 1 ift it . cc rig It ,i, -1* V*" 1 -m—Nor .44. I 0 - - 4,. ' 101P , AV H I,i .. .. .4 1P44 . • Ill .s., ......: I/ ot iI y. '•110.'�j k 1 yr C 44^' • ••••••-•-al z• rr1 1,. NIII .1 =....._11, .:.:. 4.17, rI,) ;ICJ) wo LW . � ' �. • GLEPISH11 / C .—� �• �\` 4 V t 111111111t 1 5?, - illiih, . „. .1' S __mill, 1,..- . .. 1 ,� O• ��� SOP / Staff Report Bent Creek Residential September 24, 1993 BACKGROUND Staff has been working with the Developer for several months evaluating different development scenarios in order to strike a balance between development of the property, preservation of site features, and City code. The plans that you received a week ago are detailed enough to take an action on the project. However, considering the size, complexity, environmental features and neighborhood concerns, the public hearing should be used for presentation, neighborhood comment and Planning Commission direction. Based on Commission direction on land use and other issues, the developer and staff would return to the Planning Commission in two weeks with solutions, and a detailed Staff Report with recommendations. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN The Comprehensive Guide Plan depicts this site as medium density residential and low density residential area. The medium density residential guided area is 45.67 acres is located east of the Hennepin County Light Rail Authority and adjacent to the Golf Course. Since the Guide Plan permits a density up to 10 units per acre, a total of 456 housing units would be possible. The area west of the Hennepin County Light Rail Authority is 13.13 acres and guided Low Density 411) Residential for up to 2.5 units per acre, or 33 housing units. 1972 EDENVALE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT In 1972 the City Council approved the Edenvale Planned Unit Development. This Planned Unit Development depicted a density of 15.6 units per acre for the land east of the Hennepin County Light Rail Authority or a total of 686 units. The PUD depicted a density of land 6.5 units per acre west of the Hennepin County Light Rail Authority or a total of 85 units. The total number of units approved for the PUD was 771 units. DENSITY AND IMPACT ON SURROUNDING USES If this site was developed according to the Guide Plan Densities or the approved PUD between 456 to 686 units are possible east of the Hennepin County Light Rail Authority property. To develop the land would require either apartments or condominium buildings such as Parkway Apartments (10 units per acre) or Eden Place Apartments (16 units per acre). It would be difficult to create an appropriate transition to the existing lower density areas to the west of this site. s 2 z9 • Staff Report Bent Creek Residential September 24, 1993 The area west of the Hennepin County Light Rail Authority could be a range of 33 to 85 units. Single family homes are likely at 2.5 units per acre or less, however, greater densities generally are attached housing. A density of 6.5 units per acre could be 4, 6, and 8 unit attached buildings. It would be difficult to create an appropriate transition to the low density areas to the west. Therefore, a reduction in density from the Comprehensive Guide Plan and/or the approved PUD to a density of approximately 1.9 units per acre would transition better to the densities in the areas to the west (single family), which are approximately 2 units per acre. TRAFFIC AND ACCESS The approved Planned Unit Development for the property relied on a road connection from Howard Lane to Golf View Drive. If the project was developed either according to the Guide Plan or the approved Planned Unit Development Concept, a road connection to Golf View Drive would be needed to help distribute traffic out of the area. The extension of Howard Lane to Edenvale Boulevard would be an alternative way of providing two access points to the property. A density of 1.9 units per acre would not require a third access. Access across the Hennepin County Light Rail Authority property is acceptable. Warren Porter, of the Hennepin County Light Rail Authority has indicated that an on-grade crossing would be acceptable, provided that the City assumes the financial cost of constructing future signal crossing protection in the future when light rail is constructed. The reduction in number of units results in a decrease in traffic from 7,710 daily trips to 1,110 daily trips. This reduction in traffic is beneficial to the overall area. GRADING AND TREE LOSS The grading and tree loss plan depicts a tree loss of 36%. After Staff review according to City Code, additional trees would be lost due to construction increasing tree loss to 39%. It has been a goal of the City to encourage development proposals to meet a 30% tree loss on the project. A 30% tree loss is the average tree loss calculated for all projects in the community. The City Staff and the developer are continuing to work on revisions to the plan to shift density out of the wooded areas, find different locations for building pads or modify the grading plan to meet this objective. Some of the lots on steep slopes have little or no useable rear yard. For these lots, a 30 feet level area behind the homes is recommended. 4111 .30 Staff Report Bent Creek Residential • September 24, 1993 STORM WATER QUALITY The storm water quality plan for this project is to direct all storm water runoff into a large NURP basin in the twinhome portion of the project. The NURP pond is sized to pretreat water not only from this 58 acre project, but 60 additional acres of not pretreated watershed which drains through this site. WETLAND IMPACTS There are several Army Corps Wetlands on the property. The grading plan does not propose any fill or alteration of the wetlands. These wetland areas will be used for water storage. Some of the wetland areas which have no natural outlet will have an outlet into the storm sewer system proposed within the street right-of-way. These outlets are necessary to preserve existing vegetation around the edge of the wetlands and to ensure that no adjoining houses would be flooded. FLOOD ELEVATIONS OF WETLANDS AND NURP POND Staff has recently received information on flood elevations for wetlands (to be used for flood storage) and the NURP pond. Although the proposed building pads meet City code for a 2 foot minimum elevation above the flood elevation, many of the lots have no backyard. In some cases, the 100 year flood elevation is within 10 feet of the buildings. The Staff would suggest a minimum setback of 30 feet from the rear building pad to the 100 year flood elevation. CONCLUSION The reduction in density, reduction in traffic, and a storm water quality plan are beneficial to this site, the surrounding area, and the community. Modifications to the project including, but not limited to, density transfer, change in building pad locations, and grading limits should be able to reduce tree loss further on the project. The Staff is comfortable in general with the type, and density of land uses proposed, but is concerned about the impact on natural vegetation and proximity of homes to the 100 year flood elevation. After presentation from the Developer, neighborhood input, the Planning Commission should identify issues and give general direction to the Developer for plan revisions and recommend a continuance until the October 11th meeting. 4 411 3I :::1,.'•...•:...::::: :: IA*i.:::::ili4i:iii4iliiii.41::41i:iii ./.\:/ . .. 4,/ Z / .. :` TAi1 F f� : ;� o. s;-:*•"1.!::.•• i::iiiiIiii:ii::::: ::Iiii •./ C WM •��__• . ./ .IRCH— _!BLAND-_ . . _ / _ S / , STRATFORn Rf). _ . 11-ir. ,,,, amv4- ... . ,06 4 gm 0-4,t4. .., • .o ,e... ,,,,,,, .,, ,,,,,._ ,. ..,,,,,,„ , . r,.... L.,iP ttoA?it,„„„s„- . .,„ • .. 1aVs•%I%.0' 2 , -1••). taWA g.l' lf L ' � CHARING • rii'" _ _ .. C,iiCi ` . tr III,. •� " i ‘� 4 % � :i. i ,i: HOLLY ROAD .air i 4 U } 44414I IVaisb,*/* 0 ,i, / yr ,,,,, :,,,,•. . .... „ • viivripa..' .. _ lim pl , �' vI► �,„„,8,,i,„, O � ia III I Z. ME Ato 4 -16 v • .... . - - -- .. it , i 1 •Ab,-."q44*Ity * ...% 7 AO , c(4 1 1 (AI ►� i1 - ' 4,s #, '� 0,„T.T,. ipgf 11R1O1W1N DRIVE —,,....... a1w,n a,: ,r. „_A,li .... -- . wilAcipgcsio (0 $. 1101 ________ #'-d7,444v Walliiiir ,. i, v• a 1014P , % ika 1 ( 11 A 411 .I . 4?:' Oler , ' V '':40 '��. ST HILL ROAD ��� I 4 : g / "tafirt di 4-4 -z 44, Olt Z • , sa, is �• GLENSI11 El/ zia? v•1' `�! : �. \ agitT, . r...p.* ..ii, .. x 1 ix. _sit_ I. 1 ')•. • .. 0‘\,.\ 4•14 41 7 7 ••.• • '. / •• , • /i 14•r)Li. - 3z.. ,` / /I 1 om r - r-.; e d _ Ian 7...- , .:::::::/•:::::::::;;;;;•::;::;:;:;;;;;;;ii;;;;;;;;:. :::::::::i:::*i:i. ? E •-• ••••:•:•:•:•::::::::::::: 4legalfaz - filk 7' , •:•::::::::i::::::::•> ..., iii . . .; Walli 14.HAR `' ' a; . _ .. `�1 _ � BIRCH-- - a";ii • / 41111111 c! / •I STR TFORD RD. no x ittel4t,. i lai p., i Illik • k*4 06 gill II 0 /,' ri° tik OA% \ e'f•V " -' At2.1-rcu4 % A. - / _ = P - • • CHARWO IFIl'r' 111 11 ,, .v : 011) NV ... - >, UK tI� . ter ' • ~�' ';'i = I HOLLY lie .-'i 1/44.7.: ilPit el 85 ROAD : ;111 V*. . 111WV ii.' ,•,IIIP *CO 111 . 7 R 1111 " 4 _ 0,i . ..t , 44,1p. elst„.4.44, _wit.„7,112.0...,., , / z — 0 I - --1 , vi a-.,.. ..,:-Iitoi v. _t.„4th_ lai w4p - 41,,,,,,, NI / •./w III Vitil* VIAII .. 416 1 4.1 r___ -....... w ill 4-7 ,, A , ROWN DRNE ., t 'S Val 1-1-61".6,_ 1_!____ I Olg Lii3 a 411ii11/ _. I,: �' lir tab J ff� ,a.ik i,� g4,,,,--*.16 •,j.ft,I I, '• / ' c0 . / , , , IIe S7 HILL ROAD K' e. # / : co ir tifritr kiii v..idivrt., 0-- r ....... , „_10 . 1 • . . , .: \c,;4000 ,11,,t..„... _...... t ,......0 .. ..,. ,N. ........, .., ow, z 1 . .3_\_11,4,11.1.. ,........7 % i , .__ _ GLEf'�SFii 1 , c/0•401.1 • Ali.�11� a . AV i ) \\‘ . e 'A ‘ out 7 . . - 1 _ 1 :\ so.z . , -10 ..„,„„,,, .I... , .0 . .\ 1 , •10, \\ 1 R. 1". 1 • It . \ . ri p. 4 • lirr : • /ie. .i. --"\. .&__ .. T 0, .„ / .... . . y. - Plan = IkR s- it D - I P 0 ent Paul J. Bulver 6749 Vermar Terrace Eden Prairie. MN 55346 October 25. 1992 Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie City Planning Department Re: Bent Creek Development The developers reviewed the revised plan for the Northwest part of Bent Creek with the Vermar Terrace neighbors on October 6, 1993. The new plan is a significant improvement that addresses the major concerns--and the new plat saves more trees, does less earth moving since the on grade rail crossing does not have to be made, the lots are larger, and I believe the wetlands will be better preserved. I wish to thank the EP Planning Committee for their suggestions made at the last meeting that resulted in a much improved plan. Also, thanks to the City Planners that were able to incorporate these suggestions in the new plat, and the developers that were amenable to implement these changes. • Sincerely: • 3L/ 4111 DATE: September 24, 1993 TO: All Interested Parties FROM: Curtis E. Evert, 14832 Hickory Ct., Eden Prairie, MN RE: Bent Creek Woods Development Corporation and their development known as Bent Creek Woods I am writing in response to a notification that I received recently regarding the proposed residential subdivision which will be known as Bent Creek Woods. As you know, the area runs roughly north and south from Edenvale Blvd. along the existing rail line to Valley View Road. In the north part of the subdivision the development is on the west side of the railroad bed and crosses over to be on the east side of the railroad bed about one-third of the distance south of Edenvale Blvd. I have lived in Eden Prairie since 1977 and have watched with great interest as the city has developed and its population has increased. I am not now, nor have I ever been, against development in Eden Prairie as long as the comprehensive guide plan has been followed and the development met with general4111 practices which Eden Prairie has imposed. However, this particular development troubles me. The area that is most troublesome to me is the northwest corner of this proposed development. This is an area that has a great deal of trees and onsight wetlands. It is an area that has never been built on and I would characterize it by saying that it is what old Eden Prairie was all about with a very wooded and rolling terrain. I have personally walked this area many times in the past, and I will be amazed if any developer can come into that area and build the type of housing that they are talking about and not completely destroy the woods and topography that now exists in that area. In their effort to preserve the wetlands and deal with the steeply sloped terrain the developer will, by necessity, have to remove a great deal of the significant trees in the area. I would like to think that the planning commission, the parks and recreation department, and the city council would have great concern that an area such as this would be developed in the manner in which is being proposed. It is my understanding that the southern two-thirds of this development is actually being developed below what medium density housing would allow. I would like to propose an alternative solution to what is presently being suggested. Would it not make 4111 3 5- 1111 sense to have the density increased in the southern two-thirds of this development, where the impact on the trees and -natural terrain of Eden Prairie would not be as greatly impacted, and exchange that higher density development for a lower density development in the north one-third. I am suggesting that an R144 development take place in that area. By reducing the density in this area perhaps the character of the area could be retained, and the trees and wetlands would be less severely impacted than is presently being proposed. Also, the wooded and rolling terrain which is clearly Eden Prairie could also be maintained to a much greater extent. Again, I am not opposed to the proper development of Eden Prairie and I never have been. But I feel very strongly that this particular area is really what Eden Prairie is all about, and I simply cannot sit by and let the development as it is currently proposed take place without voicing my concern. I appreciate the difficult task that your office has in measuring all sides of these debates, but I am hopeful that you will understand the importance of what is about to be done to this area of Eden Prairie. I may be reached at 937-9247 or my office at 831-3121 if you would care to discuss this matter further. 4110 Sinc Curtis E. Evert 4110 3' -C:y',klri CITY COUNCIL,AGENDA 'ems b r SECTION: Public Hearings - 11-.9 h ' ` 1 DEPARTMENT: ► s N f i f - VACommunity Development < '-.P.` -' ;Y " Chris Enger � Michael.D. Franzen , '' s REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: a - tom:1K, , The City Council is requested to take action on the fillow.tg ,- x # V x • Adopt a Resolution changing the Comprehensive9 Guide Plan f ►� c R , , ` Density Res itinl on 19.39 acres,,from NeII ► to�od'C:o i s l O '° r { Residential on 3.03 acres, from Office to M��,,,�, Deasity Re dnui l 2. .a � het � `��` G;. 4 • Adopta Ration for Planned Unit Devel t C �vr.e 3$.1 i a � 0 Adopt an n , l4., ,,:-:::,- ,:: • Ordinance for Planned Unit Dever i ri ct evier �sl sr . k acres. K • Grant 1st Reading of an Ordinance for.Reao `�Rend 0 �:9 K r'. Rezoning from Public to RA'I-6. 'on 19.59 acres ' �` r • Adopt a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of .34°acres Into 78 tots'iliaI� ot� 4 i, :-4 The effect of the Council action allows the development of 180�p Alt- tt , ;: :.„f . s This project was first reviewed by the=P1a ring Com att.' C N i it9 J ''''.,.',Of*,,,- • 4.4,4,4‘,. Commission returned the Development Plans to the p • •:. :. �° tiEt � ' �' r , December 13th meeting. The Commission 0 directed the Developer to work with t transition and screening, .to complete the uired items in the Staff R rt � . ; gP l g'- fi, ,, ` x ,, trails, wetland planting plan and Highway.5 planting bulgy: At the December 13, 1993:meeting, the Planning Comma isSion zvi wve a revised=, . - j , �. which contained the same number of units, (180,) ,, but had'a different mix.-of u , Smaller ,+ E ; � ; were placed closer to the residential areas in exchange urge n8 l �;� R fear r:tuildi s close�to ,� ` revised plan reduced the amount of wetland fill from 2 acre to 11�ate. The _ r felt that this was an improvement over the original plan and helps to City work to s Y f i'r additional affordable housing. Residents who attended the meeti were comfortablet�i the . 4 - ' revisions, but felt that there were too many units adjacent to the wetland. St,„,,,Ifi # The41: 'Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to approve the SUM. ., it rfi..1.4 Projebt. ' .E N �u '.f- .may k .. s h�� �,p ice+ - - A� ' 4 � � g µ OVERVIEW- j �, Originally this site was,guided Industrial and Open Spaces; The site was I Ge , Rii- F . ��,' Rural. In 1990, the City approved a Comprehensive t ukJ .Plan Change,.Pitt) C o . , , , Change for the Assembly of God Church. The Guide Plan was changed to Ne+i 3 -0� Offfice and Public. The PLTD included a convenience gas Station,.restaurant Off r A ?'ad�ehe .� �� ,, Attachment A.)' The Bening was changed to Public for th$ Church only. Re onnm ► Of i Commercial would not occur until specific development, , were available of they :' i:::::,:it" ,410 , ,i;:: The current request is for a reguiding of the property tt i ium Density Reside , , ,, _$,,. 1;,, rx Y $ s,,p RM-6.5 zoning district to allow 180 units at a net density of i a units per acre a«� §` � `�� :_ 4:8 units per acre. The RM-6.5 zoning district would itll iw up to 6.7 tiinita.'per acme easam4 ; 180 unit plan is a mixture of twinhomes, 4-unit townho 6-unit tdominitfmn b 8at � condominium buildings. , / - .- - 't d y' • �, �`+ Dal siive'GuideP to � y ,- . 41. i d the the om�hen "Reaions-to der the are as density }$ ` ghwry 3 b a gs visual relation ship to the areas to-the�.« i_ ;:::.. 1 r% i'9 :f }c-x � ' 0 The project provides for a variety of•:,.,_____.;ustf�e�e � ,' T P Provi es r tment of st tl v . ; 4 replacement of ��Y - a" '§!5 p eg 'L'- • s iS • The'project-hi*a.28% tree loss -the •hi6 µ' • The church proposal had 1/4 acre of-wetland fill bait ws i � . �� ` was prx+ t• t hWetl ds t. � t The church project was not requ ! t i t �` all stone water disc Thar 11to wl 'ace. • x • Traffic by'this •project •is`less`than if`the property��had Church and: ommerc 1, Industrial a a l d+ 'fi , 2.., Are there sidew�, trails,..and•park d involved with'� ' • The.Developer Will be r vonsible for c an 8 foot� . . F wetland area, 1 addition,:t will be 5-fit rude, ° i pact,which allow residents walk fib; tl Rr sand the p �� i The wetted•w be c ted to the City. ,- N :• -, 3.. What' proposal<l ve on the sites natural feat s7. -,, x , Tree loss is c at 2 % which is consistentwith the f � � l08$ There 1s`t14 acre of R►etland fill which i3; edttc fib t1s t orgl Wetland mi is 1/2 acre. A zone will'be • .,- b�9;atio i cons '+ ncy, li 11 i� �, �� . within which the trail and low land plantings woad be 4. - Are't ere Plannednit Development Waivers*k 'pith % '�`,'�:- 4• � r -'' � dal � � � 'F Planned Unit-Development pment Waivers€ r lot,s a1 to retlt�t�ts-ln the "�.�Zoning I�lstt3t�. � siZe,atEd ��� r `���,� �� �" � �.:me "- ' : townhi3uuses common among townlleme p in Eden Prairie 5 i P Y S tar.�PUD'waivers The project could be de loped wit .. .. would.result in an inefficient use of t e property and Increase, .,inc_ , n w'tr wetland fill. ,�'� t • . 3a ' x SUPPORTING INFO TION ;• • Staff Report of December 10, 19�93 A e,s r •Ask A Staff Report of November 19, 1993 , P Commissiontes of November 22, l � r , (' 5 ` �R� . �"�`y ��R� g. ^..����� Y � �► - Resolution for Comprehensive Guide Plan �� 44,11: • ' - 'Resolution for•PUI3 Cat Review; • Resolution for Preliminary Plat s � 0� � • • Letters from Concerned Citizens '� p r' i F/ Actlon/Dlrection • J 1, $ U, • A e �� r " ar a NF •. .,.. :. . ,.,, .i...:... . . ,,,. .,,,..,-,,.. ': ..„:-.',,,..',:.--..7:.i,-..._.:,-:-...i:,,,.:i'..",,,'..,-,-_,:::.,.-t.-.:1•:::',..:,,,,..,;,.-:,.:,,:,:,...,':.,,'-'1,-..1:-,.:,-: 1-H.--'7,..:::..,..:ill,19-r,F,:,,,,3:41;'....:';',;:.'''';,-,'...''',....1.'.*:!..',;;-:-`:•-...:':::i---':.;:',..:f.,.•:-.,!,:ve.:;..•,,,i3,:..,- -1,„;1,i':-.0';":;!,..,. r t 3 • " - FA T/p ie �T .+"aaa� ..:fit`�'r � Ai ;434 s r sf'7 fch ;! #mot"` 4C a az - ' a ▪ # x ..., .., :" • '' --,4A,'-w.,',14:`,;',..!4,,,,'-:;''';',I.:'▪,-4'•'-=...0110 • � ;i ` eat b fr -y dd , b y . yx Vr' ' �. $ �x -- ______ ___ __) ..Li — 1 j V - 184th AVE. (DELL ROAD) — , r.„....i. . __4______, s• _ , ../z"---,r. ---- , -sN, ,,.._.....,_.„_, , I . 1 • , • , ,...., 0 1 • N- .1 go 1.0, .•-•..,.---.ail; , ! /* i t ad t .,‘..,.....•.,r \\'•"----______.—______-_--(iI 1I.I- I.\1\ / IIYIU/5. - ; it 11!,-i4-.)//.'7..a1`•-';..I/d 3 ' _ I— l- -= — .rl PA-)i•\ ---. .--.. -"-- .--_ 1 ._ 1 -. gr. \----).-. -M11.1 \ . ____)/' i•We 7 ' 1*,.t.•••• "I stii - --- - '-' • ' , __---- F7.7 . X•-i.. --' \e- ,, / \ • / me rni) .. .. ..-.4'' -'. - -- ,.--- ,. ; \ ..... '-' -/".__Tillt.,.._,„_'•.__-=-:-_----_----;--..17---_ :.„- ,A if II11-- .• , " )///.e:.,./..-.-.-.-..=,--:_-:-,--.T--------,—._—..:-.".?.•.---4-•.,-r-,:.:i-‘-i7.7•1••+--..,-•,-i4 ' -•;1-.,•„--.,,-m-..?;.3•-,----.,-.,.-.,:..-.-,,-—_=...7-.,----=__--_-------:- , t 1 - , - - c \\ /4 / > ,. . 'i '-.-.;..„-..-._-.---.--•-.--:-----.-..•-..-•.-„•.,•---_.,.--_.-...---..-•--,„2.?5i --.„.,-,•... ,./.. „„...." /, , „.•••,_ . ..---• • . ,, //-/7,._ __ ____.-„,....._...... / 13 * • \ V 1•/ . i",..-,-?. ..1; 4....-.. _-=--___---__„ ,./ , 4-• - 7 ---7------ 4 ' /-;. . ''.:": \- // r.- ----- — '-- ..,...:',' .• 4,—\‘)-(-- ,/ I r•-1-1\\ -- ' :4. •`..\j .f.° /////d)(/// ••..----- . I ). , 1 '-'7, •,./';•/. it/1(71\111-1-"/* //,//,;/ I ,•--• ''::L / .'"••• / ,4'!I I 11,r,,, 1..1/..........., 1/// i.tiC - ;.-Z, '.'/ARE ----- / ' fij, , '1‘‘ , , --',-;',',, ,. -,c.t. • •\ - \ • x / 7/1g''' •it\\ r=::.-- 7;-?// arf.2 ./i•([1- 1 (/' / ,il ‘k\l‘ 1 / ' i ..-------,---,_ : 'Iloilo E • \ 1 ,,. . ,ii ....., _.....---- --IA( ..\/ ///////1 / „.„--- ,..,03.7 ''., . , / // , „,•••-- . .777-----....... ....,__...-- / , • , •// ,/ ..„.„ ') 4 .'• I .,, , -( ._/.,-' .. A ,• i pi, .,,,/ ,,, -----_------ ;/1i ir/- ////,;ii/y i 7.1 ,i•••,1 '1 , , #..0\x . 3' 1 li It '/ ....e.. .-....... , - ,/ / //T/• /1/ , //.././//,/, .\ ( et y 0.-/ f. tr-----9, i..--!" - ,'" /, h. ....),.... _ 771.• ,,,,, , :::j.,....7/./.5,/,/ri .7 —"ti." -I— t s• ,.4. , ,.et ,.. 4 ' :.•17'.17'. ': ;1::':(71.1-1 S ';.gill 911 9 9til (44/11/:1///;/44/fi."4r/1/..."..;II 1 ;I?! pt • 51 /.. 1 •( ( " /ki.t1,...A.ya. 1.1,• I .'..(././.. t /.. 1'140.'2'444 /4;.:i 1 \ 7'3 . itti ...\1 i ei„ fp i- /if • 4,,, is. . , It ._,.. ./.„ , t,. z ,„ ., ,,,, .,,,,,,.., ,,/1. cfr, /,\ • ii. :, ...../1-1 ,... : ....,,• 1; 4 iv rYT '\ ?"‘, 1 !Piiiiil V/ — - : -— - i--'---g--.. yj• '.!., ii • \ \ ... ‘4'• \ I 1 1////j/ /fa / I. R . ? '' ItrIt E 5 r., ,.; e lb ' . , ,,..4„.., e 3 • , I, :.r,,,„ . , ,.... z i ir izt ... v.-v. : •Pl 4 ! - 1 1 ' 4"- 1 .. )1 1,41111 11/0/1/ a :•• 2 7 g ., ..,..!.g. ,..4*..., Hq . ., • / vi i , i i ‘ I , 0 : a I 7:1!•- ',,,,:,.,:. g I ..... , z t ..i*i...,-,-,....: 1111 .1 4 it. .', 4....." ! ',1-•; . ,.. i ..,.., ‘‘......-. 1 k \ • : I iii \ i:•PI )\' ' \.1 I',//oil'7 1 :I...,T.' -- • ..cn if). 1, •\244, , ----- ---- Nil; /1 / , \,‘A / i , 1,//4 it/ "g____, _- -.. ,_- "*.'-::—r I— .;, 4,, m olio 3 ‘‘••1 \ / i•k, I/VI , , al. . 1 Ail 1 ,.. I _ ta • n I i A 1 6 - lir, 1 2 • . :, -,/• •'/ ; ',.i ,/i.. /is 1 , 1 • , g n . 1114q4 Io ,. .t „ • . / - It '1 1', ' i ,,etr /..w../. ,, , , ail / \ i• • I. j • -,,,,,\\i •/7 /.' ' .. /) r -'•-•=•-s-- i V;',.., 1 4,,ge,. • ' , - 'Y'./%7 -E, , trr•a;1 . t ss,s, 14,1,. Pr" , , ,4 1,..,.' ,7) ,,• CO . ... .., \,..-.• ,43.."...... _./._ ... • zs.,‘... , i • ., '1 Wril ' ' ''' ,,,,I ' ill •' ' iI l ---' t 1 I ' 1 , •"I•••,gjj 1 1, tY, , , .... --M3- - 4 . 4,ti rjr ri, - / ' ' , largo N.1 ,. \,.,_.., , ...._, : , 0 . ,, 2, „„, ....- 71- 5( Y.Y,x , . pie:. _eikot _ 4, \ \\ i4,\ tl 1 cc-r„, ..•••••--•••-•......\\,\......_.........///// JIS BATTY 13. ASSOC,,IATES •ARCHITECTS • SITE PLAN IINCIDII CREEK PK WY, PAPNAL,MN 55430 . -GRADING PLAN SEE UTILITY PLAN FON STORM DRAINAGE PLANS DOME• EDEN Pt 47/ s EDEN PRAIRE ASSEMBLY OF GOD SUMMERFIELD io 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 Summerfield for Rottlund Company 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: 19.59 acres from Public to Medium Density Residential; 3.03 acres from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential; 2.5 acres from Office to Medium Density Residential; all located at Dell Road and Highway 5. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 21 st of December, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk • S SUMMERFIELD • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT OF SUMMERFEELD FOR ROTTLUND COMPANY 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 Summerfield PUD Concept by Rottlund Company 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 December 21, 1993; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Summerfield by Rottlund Company, 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 December 16, 1993. 3. That the PUD Concept meets the recommendations of the Planning Commission dated December 13, 1993. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 21st day of December, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Summerfield • Exhibit A Legal Description Park One Fourth Addition (Beddor Parcel), except that part thereof lying south of the north line of MNDOT right of way Plat No. 27-49, according to the U.S. Govt. Survey thereof and located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. • • 7 SUMMERFIELD CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF SUMMERFIELD FOR ROTTLUND COMPANY BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Summerfield for Rottlund Company dated December 16, 1993, consisting of 38.14 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 21st day of December, 1993. Douglas B. Tenpas, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk S S EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES S MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1993 7:00 p.m. City Center Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road COMMISSION MEMBERS: Douglas Sandstad, Chairman; Tim Bauer, Kenneth E. Clinton, Cynthia Clish, Katherine Kardell, Edward Schlampp, Mary Jane Wissner. STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa-Marie Gualtieri STAFF MEMBERS: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner; Kathy Hengel, Substitute Recording Secretary I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Doug Sandstad. A moment of silence was observed in memory of Grant Hussey. H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Clish moved, seconded by Kardell to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 7-0-0. • III. MINUTES The minutes from the November 8, 1993 meeting have been included in this week's packet for your review and action. MOTION: Clish moved, seconded by Schlampp to approve minutes as written. Motion carried 7-0-0. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SU MERFIELD by The Rottlund Company. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public to Medium Density Residential on 19.59 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential on 3.03 acres, Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium Density Residential on 2.5 acres, PUD Concept Review on 38.14 acres, PUD District Review with waivers on 38.14 acres, Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.53 acres, Rezoning from Public to RM-6.5 on 19.59 acres, Preliminary Plat of 38.14 acres into 78 lots, and 1 outlot for 180 multi-family units. Location: Dell Road and Highway 5. • 1 9 Minutes - EP Planning Commission Monday, November 22, 1993 • 1. Franzen presented the following background information. Originally, this site was guided Industrial and Open Space. The site was also zoned I-General, R1-22, and Rural. In 1990, the City approved a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, PUD Concept, and zoning change for the Assembly of God Church. The Guide Plan was changed to Neighborhood Commercial, Office and Public. The PUD included a convenience gas station, restaurant, office and a church. The zoning was changed to Public for the church. 2. Don Jensen of Rottlund Homes, made the presentation of the current proposal for this property for 180 units including; Villas (back to back), Row housing/side by side with 2 car garages, and Rambler/Town Home for empty nesters. Don presented both a Site/Grading Plan, Landscape Plan, as well as providing overheads for clarification of this project. Some of the primary issues were: - Change the Guide Plan to Medium Density Residential. - The hardwood trees (primarily oak) to the north will be saved. The trees along ' the edge of the wetland on the southeast corner of the site will also be saved. The wetland area is not designated as a shoreland area, and is not controlled by - the shoreland ordinance or the DNR. 1/2 acre of fill is proposed within the wetland area for which 1/2 acre of mitigation is proposed. Sandstad asked if there was an intention to add greenery landscaping as recommended in the Staff Report. There really isn't significant trees shown now in the presentation. Jensen added that on Saturday afternoon, November 20, 1993 a group of the neighborhood people gathered and invited Rottlund Homes to attend. There was a fair amount of concern regarding the elevation of the units, especially for the walkouts. How close will pedestrian trail came to housing - closest home is 20'. Drainage - the project provides two NURP ponds to pretreat storm water before discharge into the wetland area. Don Jensen stated that any development of this land will have a visual impact on the surrounding land uses. The current plan depicts a transition in building size from smaller two and four unit buildings wrapping around the edge of the wetland to 12 unit buildings near the Dell Road Highway 5 intersection. With the exception of a few single family homes directly abutting the property on the north end, the majority of the view of the multiple family units would be across the wetland area at a considerable distance. To help mitigate the view of the project, additional screening is suggested. Rottlund concurs 2 /0 Minutes - EP Planning Commission Monday, November 22, 1993 • with Staff to add more plant material around the wetland. They will pull the buildings apart so they don't look so massive. Tim Witten presented the following designs for the buildings: Witten stated: - There are 8 combinations of A and B units. Some single/mostly double garages. The 4 unit buildings are 2 story, slab on grade. - The buildings will be in brown tones with separate entrances. The townhomes will be$120,000-$180,000 homes with 2 baths, 2 car garage and an enclosed 4-season porch. Sandstad asked if there had been any thought to designing units for the disabled? Witten replied no. Sandstad asked if buildings would be built as shown on the elevations. Witten replied yes. Witten should exterior material boards for Lapp siding with a brick entrance. Sandstad asked for clarification of the Southerly entrance if the median acts as a right in and a right out. Clinton asked if there had been a traffic study? Jensen replied that a traffic study was not requested since the traffic generated was less than the Church. The existing p connects with the current walkway. Clinton also asked about the different elevation l, the berms if they are intended to cover the visibility of all ground level doors and windows. 3. At this time Sandstad closed the presentation and opened the discussion to the public. The first speaker, Julia Foote, pointed out that the meeting began at 7:00 p.m., however the City Notice stated 7:30 p.m. as the scheduled meeting time. Consequently many people missed a good portion of the presentation. Don Jensen agreed to repeat their presentation and address changes from the neighborhood meeting. - Will pull the buildings facing North further back. - NURP ponds will pretreat storm water before discharge into the wetland. - Separated buildings to look appropriate as a single building (20' between them). - Will "beef" up the plant area to provide additional screening along the wetland. 4. Franzen presented background information from the Staff Report. Originally this property was Guided Industrial. In 1990 the City approved a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, a PUD concept and a zoning change for the Assembly of God church. The Guide Plan was changed to Neighborhood Commercial, Office and Public. The P included a convenience gas station, restaurant, office and a church. 3 !/ Minutes - EP Planning Commission Monday, November 22, 1993 S The 1993 would change the Comprehensive Guide Plan to Medium Density Residential for 180 multiple family units. Adding 180 multiple family units increases the percentage of multiple housing in Eden Prairie by 1%. Franzen summarized the differences in plans: 150,000 sq. ft. Church and a 1,000 car parking lot Smaller residential buildings. Wetland Fill; Church 1/4 acre, Multiple Family 1/2 acre. Church tree loss 37% - this project 28%. - Residential has less impact on local traffic. Church proposal - no pretreatment of stormwater, this project has two NURP ponds. Schlampp stated that the City will need an easement to allow for maintenance of the NURP ponds. All ponds dedicated or provide an easement of access. 1. Donna Yonchak Kathie Carr 18138 Settlers Way 18110 Settlers Way Both are residents of the Jamestown development. They are here to request that any buildings have an exterior access for the utility rooms to the fire sprinkler system. Their experience was to have lock boxes installed and access keys for 110 people. Don Jensen responded that these buildings will have an exterior access to the fire system. 2. Julia Foote, 7603 Kimberly Lane, presented a petition from the people on Ridge and Eileen Streets. She would like to see an open line of communication neighbors/City/Rottlund. Her primary concerns were: • Density - too congested with 180 units. • Transition from single to multiple units destroys views they paid for. • Impact on wetland - remaining wild life has retreated. • Traffic • Property values will be reduced. Her recommendations were: • Area and pond (natural cresting of wetlands) be preserved • Development should be set back farther from wetlands • Zoning be restored to single family, 1/2 acre lots • Summerfield development density should be reduced to preserve these wetlands. 411 /z Minutes - EP Planning Commission Monday, November 22, 1993 • She added that on Saturday, November 20, 1993, 25 neighboring families met 1 hour before meeting with Jensen of Rottlund homes to discuss concerns. They favor single family zoning. 3. Michael Mueller, 7571 Kimberly Lane said this is an emotional issue, it came as an abrupt shock that a development of this size could be built in our backyard. His concerns were: - Wetlands and wildlife encroached. - Prepared to accept church at this site - one building, heavy use 1-2 days per week. - Need for severe grading of proposed project. - Doesn't like view, particularly of 2-story units. - Dogs may present a problem to wild life. - Objects to 2 Northern-most units/too close. 4. Mike Neely, 7579 Kimberly Lane said his concerns were: - Traffic concern for kids safety, he has 11 and 2 year old. - Heavy rains of last summer, there is concern for flooding. - View of 180 units. 5. Mark Heyer, 7587 Kimberly Lane said his concerns were: - His is closest home, most impacted. - Invested in home based on current zoning and paid $16,000 for lot premium. 411 - Rottlund never disclosed that they controlled this property. - 4-plex is now 200' from his home. 6. Jeff Rotschafer, 7576 Eileen Street stated his concerns were: - This is a significant change affecting the edge of the wetland and vegetation in the center. - The number of single car garages will mean on-street parking. -Pedestrian traffic-number of feet from porches/decks to walking paths impacts privacy. - Supports building on the ridge. - Preserve wildlife. 7. Lynn Wilde, 7546 Kimberly Lane said her concerns were: - 3 years ago the church came forward and contacted all the residents regarding their • intentions. We had to negotiate with Rottlund and spend $15,000 of City money for access. - There are no convenient parks for children. - Adding 180 units is too dense. 8. David Miller, 7483 Kimberly Lane stated his concern was: - Rottlund intends to put housing on a steep embankment. 9. Jim Stover, 7538 Kimberly Lane stated his concern was: 5 i3 Minutes - EP Planning Commission Monday, November 22, 1993 • - Disappointed with builders, concerned by their lack of cooperation in plan changes. 10. Steve Johnson, 7450 Kimberly Lane stated his concern was: - High School kids drive 35-40 miles per hour through this area, concern for children. Sandstad asked if the 1990 traffic study show a change in traffic patterns on Dell Road? 11. Clint Cutler, 7626 Kimberly Lane stated his concerns were: - Studies statutes in his job. Would like time to study the wetland, state and federal statutes/laws pertaining to this area. - DNR permit is needed for fill and storm sewer. The Army Corp. goes beyond the DNR's requirements, has a local and a National requirement. DISCUSSION of PLANNING COMMISSION: Schlampp stated that mitigated area (over 1/2 acre) is already wetland. Rottlund is not really providing mitigation. Bauer stated that there appears to have been too little an opportunity for the community to meet and was recommending continuance. His primary concern of building a church in this area was the traffic and voted no on this project. He would vote for this plan based on less traffic, it provides affordable and has less site impact. Sandstad stated the 1990 minutes show a motion for the City Council to do a further review of - traffic and asked Staff to provide an updated. Clish said she concurs with Bauer and added if the neighborhood had an opportunity to view all the information available demographics, would show there will be few children in this neighborhood. She felt the neighborhood needs further opportunity to review and meet with the developers. Kardell said she concurs with Bauer and Clish. She would like the developers to look again at the 4 northern most units to see if there are any other options for the placement and size of these units. Eden Prairie does need to address the need for mixed and multiple housing. This project transitions gradually. Most of the traffic would be near the intersection. She would vote to approve tonight, based on the information presented. Schlampp said he would like to scale back the housing around the wetlands to reduce the wetland fill. Clinton stated that he is in favor of the project based on site impacts and affordable housing but felt a continuance was needed to revise plans according to the Staff Report. 4110 ,I Minutes - EP Planning Commission Monday, November 22, 1993 Wissner stated she concurs with other board members and likes the affordable housing that this project will bring Eden Prairie. Sandstad stated that he would like to see wetland fill eliminated. He added that plan changes to reduce densities raises the cost of housing. Don Jensen apologized for not getting out to the neighborhood soon enough. This was an error judgement. He asked if since Commission was in general support of the project, could it be published for the December 21, 1993 meeting. The Commission responded yes. MOTION: Clish moved, seconded by Clinton, to continue Rottlund's request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Changes, a PUD Concept Review and Rezoning for the Summerfield subdivision. Motion carried 7-0-0. V. MEMBERS' REPORTS VI. CONTINUING BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS • VIII. PLANNERS' REPORTS IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Wissner moved, seconded by Clish to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. • 7 /� STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: December 10, 1993 SUBJECT: Summerfield - 2nd Report APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: The Rottlund Company LOCATION: Dell Road and Highway 5 REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public to Medium Density Residential on 19.59 acres. 411 2. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood P Commercial to Medium Density Residential on 3.03 acres. 3. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium Density Residential on 2.5 acres. 4. PUD Concept Review on 38.14 acres. 5. PUD District Review with waivers on 38.14 acres. 6. Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.53 acres. 7. Rezoning from Public to RM-6.5 on 19.59 acres. 8. Preliminary Plat of 38.14 acres into 78 lots and 1 outlot for 180 multi-family units. S /6 al --.)tli-Ki 1E -; .' 1 reir . is IN „Ilisurn„ livi zi IN .- 401. fri At. ataxia _ cm I. ..; ' lu r�r, c *OMow a •Adi iti`i,..J At ita — 00 .4: MI m mor mi -..,.... I ar - os rk rol .mac kb • Uem 141iiisam 'y IF Eillt ._:::e:,:llIllublc ..,,s.:lu:.,,. saii saiptik.itiv E."IIII i Sw ., _ - ,Ncy, v., ..., 1 0 or ..4 6 A pr ;417 ' .,,elp — *se: i's alrifV,w ikt;5100 (P _ III et ., :.i • in 7 0- pvP . ‘l4 . lc% . en,- _ ijk �' IF iv •• Gti 7 TWILLIAMS OREN( 1.1111Vr;WWW;41Pr.- EVEtA- .A JUIN ialt 1 1 :{i- eitiv • kaigiv. t:-.)- 01C: xkk ;-P 'AA* • I 0 \ sad .-:TA t �R v•pt 2. 2 , pi NI U DIA 11 � , / . CT.• o se 0� tit* ce Am -k- A % VIM ADD (_____ . ..... �El �1 WZ_ .. ILI Lai "ha -:.r. • P.. LTj_....--- .4I • c Summerfield • co Q ZI Q • HWAY 5 t3HtRE.! ./ '� ' I Z� _ �i '►1.JAMEST'TWN 'v =_t A4, �O-1.n mi _n 1m`-_< aR . CASC•DE Will 2m DR GORGE `. i I- J , ;•11 4iiC•:'.FS Cl 3 � m 3 r DEl-7,1:1 7 �Z . • Staff Report Summerfield December 10, 1993 BACKGROUND The Planning Commission considered this item at the November 22, 1993 meeting. The Planning Commission gave conceptual support to the project but directed the Developer to continue working with the neighborhood and to modify the plan according to the following recommendations of the November 22, 1993 Staff Report. 1. A buffer along the edge of the wetland area. 2. A landscape screening buffer along Highway 5. 3. A modified grading plan with 3 to 1 slopes. 4. A modified trail plan with connections to the wetland trail. PLAN REVISIONS The site plan has been revised in the following ways: 1. Buildings 1 through 12 on the north side of Sumner Lane have been shifted to the west to place more of the units directly behind the wooded hill to make them less visible from the Ridge subdivision to the north. 2. A landscaping buffer has been provided along the north property line to screen buildings 11 and 12 from the nearest residential units. 3. Eight additional housing units have been added along the southern part of the wetland. 4. The four 4-unit buildings adjacent to Highway 5 have been changed to two 4-unit buildings which pulls some units farther away from the wetland. 5. The 8-unit villa and 4-unit villa have been combined into one 12-unit building (#74) and reposition parallel with Highway 5. 6. The previous plan on the west side of Blackbeard Court had three 4-unit buildings. The current plan has two 4-unit buildings. 7. The previous plan directly east of Sumner Lane had two 4-unit buildings. The current plan has two 6-unit buildings. • /?3 Staff Report Summerfield • December 10, 1993 8. Wetland fill has been reduced from 1/2 acre to 1/4 acre. Wetland mitigation is provided for 1/2 acre which will meet the new regulations after the first of the year. 9. A wetland edge planting plan has been provided. A permanent conservancy easement running along the edge of the wetland area of at least 35 feet back from the wetland will be granted in favor of the City. The bituminous trail and plantings will be within this easement. No alteration of the vegetation or grades may occur after the easement has been established. 10. A landscape buffer plan has been provided along Highway 5. SITE PLAN The total number of units on the property remains the same at 180 units. There is a different mix of unit types on the property by transferring density away from the residential areas to provide a better transition to the residential areas to the north and across the wetland area. Transition is a requirement of the site plan review section of the City code. The combination of smaller buildings, increased setback, and landscape buffering provides transition. The average building setback to the wetland is 79.70 feet. The average setback to the wetland in the Ridge subdivision to the north is 73.60 feet. The average single family setback around the entire perimeter of the pond is 84.63 feet. The average setback in the Donnay's multi-family project on the north side of the wetland is a 250 feet. The reason for the larger setback is that the buildings are a slab on grade. To construct this unit closer to the wetland would have significantly altered the slopes. Donnay could have built walk-out townhome units closer to the wetland with minimal slope alteration, but that was not part of the product-line they were offering. Staff feels that the proposed setback to the wetland is comparable to existing setbacks. The wetland planting plan should provide a better visual relationship to the wetland than the existing single family home areas for which no wetland planting plan was required. WETLAND PLANTING PLAN The edge of the wetland area is one of the unique features on the property. The mass planting plan has 2 inch, Quaking Aspen, Red Maple, and River Birch; and mass plantings of low land shrubs such as Arrowwood, Redoshier Dogwood, Alder, and Highbush Cranberry. These plants and tree types naturally occur near wetlands. The plantings will provide a pleasant i 3 /9 Staff Report • Summerfield December 10, 1993 experience walking along the trail, provides some visual screen of the-townhomes and creates habitat for birds and animals. A conservancy easement is shown on the plan at varying distances back from the wetland area but maintains a 35 foot average. Ten feet of this area would be used for the trail and the remaining 25 feet would be used for planting. To accomplish this mass planting plan, and maintain the conservancy easement area, the retaining walls shown on the grading plan on Sheet 5 must be located closer to the townhome units outside of the conservancy area. These retaining walls vary between 4 to 14 feet in height. Mass plantings of trees and lowland vegetation will be placed in front of the walls to screen to soften the view from the wetland area. HIGHWAY 5 SCREENING PLAN There is an existing power line easement along Highway 5 which restricts plant material height to 35 feet. The landscape plan in these areas relies upon small shade trees and mass plantings of shrubs (8 to 12 height at maturity). Areas outside the easement area, are mass planted with 12 foot high conifers and 5 inch shade trees. TRAILS Trails are shown on the plans with the exception of a connection from Sumner Lane to the wetland trail plan. This will occur between buildings 12 and 13. GRADING All slopes have been modified to a 3 to 1 maximum slope as previously recommended in the last Staff Report. Retaining walls proposed within the project will be constructed out of a masonry material. Any retaining wall over 4 feet in height will require a building permit from the building department. UTILITIES The utility plan has been modified as recommended in the previous Staff Report to place fire hydrants at a 250 foot spacing. CONCLUSION Staff feels that the plan meets the previous direction of the Planning Commission to work with the adjoining neighborhood to create a better transition and to meet the recommendations of the Staff Report regarding slopes, wetland edge planting and Highway 5 screening. • 4 Zo Staff Report Summerfield December 10, 1993 The plan as proposed is a reasonable use of the property and helps justify the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan for the following reasons: 1. The Site Plan provides for a gradual increase in density from the low density areas to the north to Highway 5. Smaller buildings around the edge of the wetland area is a better visual relationship to the areas to the north. 2. The project provides for a variety of housing, life style choices, and affordable housing. 3. The project provides pretreatment of storm water before discharge into the wetland area. 4. The project meets the requirements of the Wetlands Preservation Act for a 2 to 1 replacement of wetland fill. 5. The project has a 28% tree loss whereas the church proposal was 37%. 6. The church proposal had 1/4 acre of wetland fill but was not required to mitigate since it was approved prior to the Wetlands Preservation Act. 1111 7. The church project was not required to have pretreatment ponds. This project pretreats all storm water before discharge into the wetland area. 8. Traffic generated by this project is less than if the property had been developed for a Church and Commercial; or Industrial as originally guided. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Staff would recommend that the project be approved based upon revised plans dated December 6, 1993 subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated December 10, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent shall: A. Modify the grading plan to relocate the retaining walls outside of the proposed conservancy easement area. B. Modify the site plan to depict a pedestrian sidewalk from Sumner Lane to the wetland trail. 5 2/ Staff Report • Summerfield December 10, 1993 2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: A. Submit detailed erosion control and wetland mitigation plans for approval by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. 4. Planned Unit Development Waivers are granted for lot size less than 13,000 sq. ft. and street frontage less than 90 feet. 5. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall stake the proposed construction limits with snow fencing, and notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. 6. Conservancy easements are required to protect the trees along the north property line, along the southeast corner of the site, and the edge of the wetland area. 7. The wetland outlot shall be dedicated to the City. • 6 Z STAFF REPORT • TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Community Development FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner DATE: November 19, 1993 SUBJECT: Summerfield APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: The Rottlund Company LOCATION: Dell Road and Highway 5 REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Public to Medium Density Residential on 19.59 acres. 2. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Density Residential on 3.03 acres. 3. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to Medium Density Residential on 2.5 acres. 4. PUD Concept Review on 38.14 acres. 5. PUD District Review with waivers on 38.14 acres. 6. Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.53 acres. 7. Rezoning from Public to RM-6.5 on 19.59 acres. 8. Preliminary Plat of 38.14 acres into 59 lots and 1 outlot for 180 multi-family units. 23 Staff Report Summerfield November 19, 1993 BACKGROUND Originally, this site was guided Industrial and Open Space. The site was also zoned I-General, R1-22 and Rural. In 1990, the City approved a Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, PUD Concept, and zoning change for the Assembly of God Church. The Guide Plan was changed to Neighborhood Commercial, Office and Public. The PUD included a convenience gas station, restaurant, office and a church. (See Attachment A.) The zoning was changed to Public for the church. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE The Planning Commission should decide if there are compelling reasons for a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Comprehensive Guide Plan changes are evaluated based on the following criteria: 1. Impact on the Comprehensive Guide Plan balance. 2. Impact on surrounding uses. 3. Impact on site features. 4. Impact on infrastructure including roads, sewer, water, and storm sewer. IMPACT ON COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN BALANCE A change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan to Medium Density Residential for 180 multiple family units would not appreciably affect the comprehensive guide plan balance. The City is approximately 56% single family (8,573 units) and 44% multiple (6,798 units). Adding 180 multiple family units increases the percentage of multiple in the community by 1%. When the Comprehensive Guide Plan was changed to Neighborhood Commercial in 1990, it was based on a need for commercial in the area and that the impacts on adjoining residential land uses to the north was minimal and mitigated. Converting commercial land to multiple would not appreciably affect the provision of daily retail goods and services in the area. The Comprehensive Guide Plan defines a service area for Neighborhood Commercial as one to one and one-half miles. Within this service area, there is 100,000 square feet of commercial at the Highway 4 and Highway 5 intersection, plus 30,000 square feet of planned Neighborhood Commercial south of Highway 5 on Dell Road. There is also additional Neighborhood • 2 2 `f Staff Report Summerfield November 19, 1993 Commercial 1 mile to the west in the City of Chanhassen. Therefore, this area is well served by Neighborhood Commercial uses. The Guide Plan Change to Office was to create a transitional use between commercial and single family. The two-story office building (30,000 square feet) would be quiet on the weekends and would not remove any of the significant vegetation. In addition, the Comprehensive Guide Plan shows 322 acres of land available for Office use in the community. The loss of 2 acres of office would not appreciably change the Guide Plan balance. IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING USES The impacts on the surrounding land uses are traffic and visual. If the site had developed I- General, a 250,000 square foot building could be built which would generate 244 PM peak hour trips. A neighborhood commercial area with convenience gas, restaurant, and office would generate 268 peak hour trips. The current proposal for 180 units, would generate 180 peak hour trips. Therefore, the residential project generates less traffic and has less impact on Dell Road. The design of Dell Road was originally based upon Comprehensive Guide Plan uses in effect at the time the road was designed. The road was designed based on the Guide Plan for Commercial, Office and Church. . Any development of this property will have a visual impact on the surrounding land uses. The Church (150,000 sq. ft. - 50 ft. high with 1,000 cars of parking) was located at the high point on the property. It was not possible to construct a berm for screening. The approved plan used plant materials to create a partial screening. The office and commercial areas along Dell Road were screened by trees along the north edge of the property. The current plan depicts a transition in building size from smaller two and four unit buildings wrapping around the edge of the wetland to 12 unit buildings near the Dell Road Highway 5 intersection. The size of the twinhome building is comparable in size to single family homes in the Ridge Addition, to the north. The four unit buildings are comparable in size to the Donnay's Third Addition which consists of four and eight unit buildings on the north side of the wetland area. With the exception of a few single family homes directly abutting the property on the north end, the majority of the view of the multiple family units would be across the wetland area at a considerable distance. To help mitigate the view of the project, additional screening is suggested. (See landscape section.) IMPACT ON SITE FEATURES The project will impact natural features. Approximately 1/2 acre of wetland is proposed to be 3 • Staff Report Summerfield - November 19, 1993 filled and mitigation is proposed. The wetland area on this site is 14.65 acres and 3% is proposed to be filled. There is 1113 caliper inches of significant trees on site. A total of 316 inches or 28% would be lost due to grading and construction. The City's goal is to remove no more than 30% of the significant trees. All of the significant trees abutting the single family areas to the north will be saved. The trees along the edge of the wetland on the southeast corner of the site will be saved. The majority of the tree loss is adjacent to Highway 5. IMPACT ON INFRASTRUCTURE There is sanitary sewer, and City water is available adjacent to the site. There is adequate capacity in both lines to serve the project as proposed. The project will be pretreating storm water through NURP ponds prior to discharge into the wetland area. PUD CONCEPT PLAN • The PUD Concept Plan is 180 multiple family units. The gross density is 4.72 units per acre inclusive of the wetland. The net density is 7.5 units per acre. The RM-6.5 Zoning District permits a density of 6.7 units per acre. Since density is calculated on a gross acreage basis, the project meets the zoning requirement. The following is a building profile: • iiiipimpjmiTypgginmiggiisiggpNgsgimigigNi 12 UNIT 6 72 • 8 UNIT 1 8 4 UNIT RAMBLER 12 48 4 UNIT VILLA 10 40 2 UNIT 6 12 The PUD Concept proposes a transition in densities with 2 and 4 unit buildings along the edge of the wetland area which faces single family and low density multiple. The density transitions from 4 units per acre adjacent to the wetland to 11 units per acre, adjacent to Highway 5. • 4 • Ze Staff Report Summerfield November 19, 1993 COMPARISON OF APPROVED PUD CONCEPT WITH CURRENT PROPOSAL CURRENT PROPOSAL APPROVED PROPOSAL Saves all trees along north property line Saves all trees along north property line and wetland and wetland 28% Tree Loss 37% Tree Loss 1/2 acre Wetland Fill 1/4 acre Wetland Fill 1/2 acre Wetland Mitigation No Mitigation Required 180 housing units 150,000 sq. ft. 50 ft. tall church, Residential looking buildings 2 story 30,000 sq. ft. office building, Traffic Generation - 180 peak hour trips 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant, 3,000 sq. ft. convenience gas Traffic generation - 268 peak hr. trips The current PUD proposal impacts trees less, but the slopes and wetland more than the approved plan. The Church and parking lot were located farther away from the wetland, disturbed less of the slope and proposed tree plantings on the slopes to soften the views from adjacent uses. 4111 The current proposal has 26 units along the slopes. The relationship to the single family homes to the north is better than the approved plan. The two-story office building was located 60 feet from the north property line whereas the nearest residential structure is 100 feet. The office proposal had parking within 30 feet of the north property line and there is no parking proposed between the buildings and the north property line. Portions of the two-story office building would be visible from homes immediately to the north in the Ridge Addition. Units 9 through 12 would be visible to some of the immediate residential homes to the north, however, this four-unit building is in approximately the same location as the office building. A way to mitigate the views of the 4-unit building from the residential areas to the north is to provide a mass planting of conifer trees in the area shown on Attachment B. The approved PUD Concept plan proposed a greater number of plant materials to soften the view along the regraded slopes and edge of the wetland area. The landscape plan as proposed is weaker by comparison and would benefit from additional plant materials. SITE PLAN Access to this site is off Dell Road using the two existing curb cuts. The first entrance off Highway 5 is a right-in right-out entrance only and the second entrance is a full intersection 5 S 27 • Staff Report Summerfield November 19, 1993 access which would allow left turns in and out of the property. - The buildings as proposed meet the minimum setback requirements from public roads. An interior private road is provided for the balance of the project. A 25 foot minimum setback is required to allow enough room for parking of a vehicle behind the building without encroaching into the road. The private road is 28 foot wide and is the same width as a residential road. The amount of parking required for this project is based upon a City Code requirement for one- garage space and one open space per unit or a total of 360 spaces. Since some of the parking spaces obstruct spaces within the garages, a 2 1/2 stall credit is given for a 2 car garage and a 1 1/2 stall credit is given for a one car garage. Using these standards, a total of 385 parking spaces are provided. In addition, 60 guest parking is required at a ratio of one parking space for every three units. Total guest parking provided is 62 units. Staff feels the parking meets City Code. TRAFFIC The amount of traffic generated by this proposal would be 1800 daily trips and 180 trips during • the peak hour. This is less traffic generated than the approved plan which was 3,000 daily trips and 268 peak hour trips. It is also less than the original zoning of the property as I-General which, if developed, for a 250,000 sq. ft. building (to City Code) would generate 1500 daily trips and 244 peak hour trips. PRELIMINARY PLAT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS The minimum requirements for a RM-6.5 multiple family lot is 90 feet of street frontage and 13,000 square feet of land area. Planned Unit Development waivers are requested as follows: 1. Street frontage and lot size less than 13,000 square feet for Lots 1 - 44, Block 1, and Lots 1 - 8, Block 2. 2. Street frontage waivers less than 90 feet for Lots 1 -52, and Lots 61, 62, 63, 64, and 67, Block 1. Requests for Lot size and street frontage waivers are common in townhome projects because of the clustering of housing units. The City has granted lot sizes and street frontage waivers, less than City requirements for all townhouse projects. • 6 Z 8/ Staff Report Summerfield • November 19, 1993 GRADING AND TREE LOSS The entire site will be graded to accommodate the project as proposed. Tree'loss is calculated at 316 inches or 28%. This compares favorably with the average tree loss for residential projects of 30%. Tree replacement would be 119 inches. All of the existing trees along the north property line and existing trees along the edge of the wetland area of the southeast corner of the property are being saved. Tree loss is concentrated in the area adjacent to Highway 5 and a retaining wall is used to preserve most of the trees within that area. The regraded slopes should not exceed 3 to 1. The purpose of this requirement is to minimize erosion and to allow for maintenance of the slopes. There are two areas on site where slopes exceed this requirement. One is adjacent to Highway 5 and the other area is adjacent to the wetland area in the southeast corner. The staff would recommend revising the grading plan to meet this standard. WETLAND FILL AND MITIGATION The Wetland Preservation Act recommends that wetland fill be avoided. If wetland fill cannot be avoided, then mitigation is required at a one to one replacement. Approximately 1/2 acre of 1110 fill is proposed within the wetland area for which 1/2 acre of mitigation is proposed. The original PUD concept for this property had approximately 1/4 acre of wetland fill for which no wetland mitigation was required since the project was approved prior to the Wetland Preservation Act. It is possible to eliminate the wetland fill on the property but would require the removal of housing units. The wetland fill could be considered reasonable based upon the following circumstances: 1. The original plan had 1/4 acre wetland fill but was not be required for mitigation. 2. The original project could have been built without pretreatment of storm water whereas the current proposal pretreats storm water. 3. Tree loss is 28% which meets the City's objective of 30% tree loss maximum. 4. The gross site density of 4.7 units per acre is low and the site provides a transition to the single family areas to the north. ARCHITECTURE The site plan depicts a mix of different building types on the property. All of the buildings will 7 29 III Staff Report Summerfield November 19, 1993 use common exterior materials, roof lines, and colors. The staff would suggest different color schemes and exterior materials for the three primary building types. The maximum height of structure allowed in the RM-6.5 District is 40 feet. The maximum height of the building proposed is 32 feet. LANDSCAPING The caliper inch requirement is 930 inches. Tree replacement required is 119 inches. The landscape plan meets these minimum requirements. Since there is a difference in densities between this project and the residential areas to the north, and that 12 unit villas are located close to Highway 5, additional landscaping is needed. The Staff suggests a mixture of 10 to 12 foot conifers and 3 to 5 inch shade trees along Highway 5. Along the edge of the wetland area, the Staff would suggest a mixture of low land plant materials that are typically found along the edge of wetland areas with some other shade trees along the slopes. (See Attachment B.) SIDEWALKS. TRAILS. PARK DEDICATION There is an 8 foot wide bituminous trail proposed along the edge of the wetland area. In III addition, 5 foot wide concrete sidewalks are proposed along the public road and the private loop road. There should be a connection between the sidewalks and the proposed trail along Highway 5 and the wetland trail. The wetland area should be dedicated to the City. This was a requirement of the previous Developer's Agreement for the property. UTILITIES City sewer and water is available immediately adjacent to this site. A lift station is proposed to be built in approximately the center of the site. A access easement will be required over the private road to the lift station. Fire hydrants are required at a 250 foot spacing and any buildings greater than 8500 square feet are required to be sprinkled according to the fire code. STORM WATER QUALITY The project provides two NURP ponds to pretreat storm water before discharge into the wetland area. 41) 30 Staff Report • Summerfield November 19, 1993 EAW The threshold for Environmental Assessment Worksheet is 375 housing units. This project proposes 180 units and no EAW is required. SHORELAND ORDINANCE The wetland area is not designated as a shoreland area in Eden Prairie and provisions of the shoreland ordinance are not applicable. STEEP SLOPE REVIEW This site is subject to steep slope review since there are slopes which exceed 12 percent and have a 30 foot vertical change. The City Code does not prohibit the development on steep slopes, rather the development on steep slopes must be done in a sensitive way which minimizes erosion and preserves site features. The project is required to use the PCA Best Management Practices for controlling erosion. Tree io loss on the property is 28% which meets the City's goal of a maximum of 30% tree loss. A 3 to 1 slope for maintenance purposes is recommended. The previous project was approved which included the alteration of the slope to accommodate a 1,000 car parking lot and 150,000 square foot church. Staff feels that alteration of the slopes is similar to the approved grading and should not be an erosion problem. FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE The flood plain ordinance requires structures to be built a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year flood elevation for the property. This proposal meets this requirement. CONCLUSION The change in land use on the property will not have a appreciable affect on the Comprehensive Guide Plan balance for residential land uses. The neighborhood will still be adequately served by existing or planned Neighborhood Commercial uses . The decision on the Comprehensive Guide Plan change is more a question of the impact on the surrounding land uses and impact on the site features. Traffic impacts of this proposal is less than the approved PUD Concept and the original zoning of the property as I-General. . 2 31 Staff Report • Summerfield November 19, 1993 The original proposal had a 1,000 car parking lot, 150,000 square foot 50 foot tall church and a gas station, restaurant, and office building. The commercial and office areas would not be visible from the residential areas, but the church and the parking areas would be. Since the church and the parking area sit on the plateau, it was not possible to construct a berm, therefore, plant materials were required as mitigation, however it would take many years to grow into an effective screen. The current proposal has more buildings, but smaller and a residential character. Adding landscaping to the proposal as recommended in the Staff Report will provide a partial screen of the housing units. The plan as proposed does provide a gradual transition in building sizes from the wetland area to Highway 5. Most of the views of the multiple family project are long range views across the wetland area, however, there are some short-range views immediately from the residential areas to the north for which additional tree planting mitigation would be necessary. The site plan has less tree loss, but more wetland fill. Since the tree loss meets the 30% loss goal, and since wetland mitigation is proposed, the impact on site features could be considered reasonable. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The CommunityDevelopment Staffpresents the PlanningCommission with the following P alternative courses of action: I. If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have been provided for a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan then one option would be to approve the Guide Plan Change, PUD Concept, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat based on plans dated November 15, 1993, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated November 19, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent shall: A. Modify the landscape plan to provide additional plant materials as depicted on Attachment B. B. Modify the site plan to depict a pedestrian sidewalk access to the trail along the wetland area and to the trail along Highway 5. to 3Z Staff Report Summerfield • November 19, 1993 C. Provide exterior material, samples and color boards for three different schemes. D. Modify the utility plan to provide fire hydrants at a spacing not to exceed 250 feet. E. Modify the grading plan for 3 to 1 slopes. 2. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed erosion control and wetland mitigation plans for approval by the watershed district. B. Submit detailed storm water runoff utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. 4. Planned Unit Development waivers are granted for lot size less than 13,000 sq. ft. and street frontage less than 90 feet. 5. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall stake the proposed construction limits with the snow fencing and notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading. 6. Conservancy easements are required to protect the trees along the north property line and in the southeast corner along the edge of the wetland. 7. The wetland outlot shall be dedicated to the City. II. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan to Medium Density, but believes that the impacts on the surrounding land uses and site features are high, then one option would be to continue the project and direct the proponent to make the following plan changes: 11 S .�3 41) Staff Report Summerfield November 19, 1993 1. Modify the site plan for less density along the edge of the wetland area to eliminate wetland fill. 2. Revise the landscape plan to provide a visual buffer to the residential areas to the north and to provide a buffer for the housing units along Highway 5. III. If the Planning Commission believes that the proponent has not provided compelling reasons for change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan, then one option would be to recommend denial of the project as proposed. • • m.SUMMER S 12 3y __(:::: ._ .___ . ) __ V " 184th AVE. (DELL.ROAD) ----__.__. - ...• ' ._, ----, ''••N -C--.-_-'-:- ... -............. . ( c• OW/2---7.- 7.1:----- '''''='1:•---=`i --, II • . _. :‘. • . ;s,. : 4: , ; ... 1 'i. 1 2-- -----)......„ 1,1 .. / • t 1 • I i: , V I - il 1„..',,, , I:Ai i Li' 3 I ,1; 01 li LI ft ., .=, ,•v il 1 1/ : 1 R1 § /.,•'/ MI 11) - "..' j__,. ,,,/,:. ' i _________ .\ I4----M2:------:- TS /I I / 14 ° j I /7/f— 4• I \ I IIPI\ - -------------- 1 • ____.)7 ' i'*5.i' • (.y...--- 4.• -- . .• -"'N / \ .. • "la- -----_V . 4, :" rr-,•11 - ...4,_II If _ - ; z; ; \• .‘ • .. ..., ''," •----... - • ., •. . ' ,-X • "T. •v,L,,-------1-z----.;---="-:.-----7--.------ • k —L------ -_---_--- -.7 ,e. . ei6, ..... ------••• ....,- , , • y , ' ./. • i /7'7._-_-;t ___/ 17.-- .f '_7.-- __:-__• ----- ,..,==•;,-.-----: ...• , 7•• " . ' • , • ,• .„...-• „........z!..„......4_ .....,-.:-----__,-:::: ;.,.•.„ ,,, I ....lb --- (\,...- !N 44• /..,/1,,--- ;!).. .; ..... ::..._ .-.--::.'" " \ 44, /1, //,': •-•---.....=, '-'-'' A Z.,---r...=:: -''- ..-- :.' '1, ....,'`7-r—. ',...,;:1;4:,,,..T.i.t.:---_.. -: ..:. ,.7.- ,- .• _____ls • . \ ' '/•• • ..--'- ---;•*ij/r A....•ff•-- - . ' , -":„.--' -r------4.- ‘ //• re--.-•. -•••-'-40/ •":----z--------Ng ‘ ' '." l' ^ • .4' / // f7-- ---.-----, it..• •-• ‘ • ////////ii,- - "---------' / I I r-\ .....• •": ,./ ,• ,4 •••••• /ii, / # i '• i > * -• ..,,,./ ;,'Ph. .itic11-1--•*7/ /•''.0/ ----- ‘ r ( 1 i . ------, , , 711 , ,, ,r . .... / - .•?Vitrllii(is 1 -1---/.‘-- .--- ., iI ->41r• / ipi gy , •,,,,',/,-,. I, . ,---(:-.--- ........- 1 .%) x . I 11 • ' , l' \ rf'Pry ,/ n1 (/ i 4-1 i - I• ‘,,,s ( _\______ _ ''' ,,,-, tf.j.%. / ;i .1 III i I it 21 t,'.---- -----:-.------=:-:::: 1, -N_____,,,r..,-----''' ......- ,„..ir ,. -- , 1,001" , 01 :.• 1 ,,,,:, ,• 1- -:.--- .,./ A.z.:. ••//:14,////.•,/ y. /..,. , ‘,.,„,w.•_, . __.------ .. ../: .,.....-..„. .4•,/•.,,./ 1 3• 1't• ii (I'. gZ.7,1 'A"-- -// 4— /1/riy / 1 yl ;::' •\ ( r4.,`'0/ 1 v------eill•-;;;%. 11 i •4< •/1',/ -.... ,1 ....›•,, ___,; r./../- /iv. (4, ,„..,,..,-;(, /,.•,• ,:•••••!e. '''' '•• . 4 ,/„ss / zfl. I.,/,' . ,I t /4V? ii/X// 41 /11 ' : ::, fi7 :21-77-71i; ! •.terp,., /1 / __ / \-1, 'pii lit , t .'(/ /i////ill_ le \ • , : 1..', , tlsinC,1 ///' . 1 j/F.I.:(.• ,a i• • . li i 1104a i /f;' i \ a j11:11 . .../ ?"• ;I 4.k. "i •' ,i ;4' ..1'1( X'., lif ifri / . i 1 tt v, e # m ' F. 3 2 . g...,1 . ,, ,', m../ /-- • LI -5! 6 i ;,! . 0 .1 •._ I •,7i 4 r ) . .t/.. \, i „ :1 , ,, a, A i " % • i 7:l' ° . tilt. 4z.F.;...'.-;-..7•:: 4:2 i 1 1 1 ,1 /thil! /bp 1 hi,iiiiii, ../"./////,. ii 11 4 1: kia 111.4. . ..-,-' , 1 . \\\f. \\i‘ ) 4:///, ,,/ • , 311 , •Iiir d v \ 1 . ,//10 ' i ifiiir i g :IIF-' i 2 .'2.,..: ,.,..,,.:(.:3:,:: '• -, -1 .*C":' • .. ).*. 4. .•„ s, 4 ,i /%1\ )4.1 • °' '. . i , i ill .!../• / ;, /., \A,.1) , %la;„II__ _ __\ -—7... Ti i' • .7.• . /. '1,} / 1) t no 'I , i--e , ,. 1 . • . k 1 si n . i ! 1 4,a,! i, •• • .,'/ ; ./:;. ,(I,. ii. .. 4 . _ illier....„-;;.? it t 1 ; G •-a i .,... i 0 • a i •:.11 s-a .•.,...s• 1111, ''', •:, ./• ' • i I g. •%% 1.4,:. --ih ( _.....,_.: • \ 1111' 7.-- .,•' Z .•.,‘ ,, I I F d ,/e- fr r -7-\-- (v 1/,,, , (1- 4V. i• ' )1 Is, 4 f i ir, .. \`...-• ., ' • 0 i ; s% 'd>) , -'. iiii. ' ii 2 1 —44)....- • „ ', it‘ -, • ,110/11 0 1,, - .,..44 , ,i„,,: ilz •11,10, , ,i„---, ., , lle' alet.**IL' •'ti I rrAoill -! W.rA‘t F 7. ! /Mills I JIB BATTY & ASSOCIATES •ARCHITECTS . SITE PLAN eINGikU Cli•OIC PKVVy.. Fowls,.MN 55430 . GRADING PLAN SEE UTILITY PLAN FOR!TOFU ORAINFOU PLANS ) 35---- .,EDEN PRAIRE ASSEMBLY OF GOD EDEN PF PAR.. -rIE 2ND ADDITION I t I PARK ONE 3RD ADDITION IT 0, - - DELL ROAD _100.00_ »7.00 r•00 1 r. ,.. ' 11111111111 I; , h INS �� ■i■ :va m :1 ' 4 •� t • .1 tau � uiir i■I --- .S, 9� /1 , _ m NN ZIM \ 10&,. = 0 es-1 ri 4�=mo . \, / r 2►P Z id) A 1 ..s . i' • V 1 . s,; , map WItil e,_Nr :-- --\'‘ 7, 117 ; 1 'Al'.111r"ild 'I II 'is '/ . ' 11M-0) -sk,, , I g I . ‘ I" Ailt rift __; ''I %WI /I' I AO /*WM- ...-ti I Mf.1 illit ' ( Jo -rs;-'1;z'W-T''' —i__—__ 44 1 .*Si %Ai \ \\ 12- ,.-051.0 / Z. 0 1 t, N, O 1 ,,,., , /..4 !.itt1.10/.4 . -.. , .. ' /i\. \ ..‘ , , ., , ., , ‘,_, ,,,,, 1 1 n 44,,,, 2 I I !Waif 111111-"tillge Ik‘kk ° 2 I •-'' 1 ;111 .:-.1 etW, - i aliali �.► 10 d 1 : ii i ' IIll AT ,�„1 ',t,lr ;. i7 �r -- �\Tt\r41*,..kel, trI g g \ •; A \ • � may o ran :, . o m W Y \ '. : \ "� m I.- i O sy`� \ .71 m \ \ --\ GAcLT ti tPE'••RF117t OW ' ATA11EJr 7 3C City of Eden Prairie City Offices Eder!, 8080 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 Arai` Phone (612) 949-8300 • TDD (612) 949-8399 • Fax (612) 949-8390 November 23, 1993 Bob Obermeyer Barr Engineering Company 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55437-1026 SUBJECT: Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Grading and Earth Moving Permit for Summerfield Development by Rottlund Homes Dear Mr. Obermeyer: Rottlund Homes requested that I write you a letter regarding the status of the Summerfield Addition since this item was being scheduled for the December 1st Watershed District Meeting. • The proposed 180 lot multiple family project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 22nd. The Planning Commission recommended that the project be continued for three weeks and directed the Developer to work on grading and landscaping changes and to allow time for the Developer to hold additional neighborhood meetings. If the Developer follows through • on the Commission's direction, I would expect the Planning Commission to approve the project at the December 13th meeting. The City Council will be reviewing this project at the December 21, 1993 meeting. If you need additional information or clarification, please call me at your convenience. / Sincerel yours, C 66(A/(Art/ Michael D. Franzen Senior Planner m:\riley • A Recycled Pape. 37 • November 22, 1993 To Eden Prairie Planning Commission Members: Attached to this letter are petitions signed by a significant majority of the residents in The Ridge and the homeowners living on Eileen Street just east of the proposed Summerfield Development. The concerns and alternatives referred to in the petitions represent the initial response of these families to the proposed Summerfield development. The concerns and alternatives are subject to change as discussions of the development project continue and as other options are explored and considered. We appreciate the opportunity to be involved in this planning process. Sincerely, Residents of The Ridge and Eileen Street • • 3 s1 We the interested homeowners in The Ridge and Eileen Street are opposed to the proposed Summerfield development by Rottlund for the following reasons: • 1. It is too congested with 180 families on a lot half the size of The Ridge but with more than twice the number of families. 2. It destroys the views that we all paid premiums for and betrays the trust that was placed in Rottlund and the City in their representations of the hillside and meadow remaining in its current state. 3. Most of the remaining wildlife has retreated to the trees, meadows and hillside that was to remain open with the proposed building of the church will be forced out. 4. Our property values will plummet due to the loss of view, congestion and change in the existing ambiance. We know this to be true because we ourselves would not have purchased our own homes if Summerfield, as proposed, had been built first. Indeed, Rottlund never would have built The Ridge as it presently exists. Therefore we propose that, in order of preference, the City and Rottlund consider: 1. For the area around the pond we would like to have the deed be restricted as a wildlife refuge. This area is very narrow and would appear very crowded and dense if built upon. Any 0 development that occurs should be on the terrace and set-back from the wetlands. The wetlands are currently in decline from silt run-off and existing development. 2. The zoning be restored to its original single family homes on half acre lots built up on the terrace and set back from the marsh with similar covenants as exist in The Ridge. If not, then: 3. The zoning remain as it is presently and the owner continues looking for a more suitable development. If not, then: 4. The Summerfield development be reduced from its proposed number of units, with all development confined to the top of the terrace, leaving the hillside, meadows and trees bordering the wetlands and Highway 5 undisturbed. Sincerely, „�r r� L .. <f�o6l<": lt.0 Lr1N^r-7 7570 VI;v:P j 5 4 (,Ylk4-11 F i, S S zi6 . LikAIVLSi-4 7 • 2 gi:Eall4kt . 75 3 g- 16nVAi )i61-P (JL 7 7y' ek..6e'v ! /,,,,e, ��r p f• 7-$ 71 /C *Iie> Lh e f - e-'v\nve , TS e.CLnNc-L.C.:• Zi,.1 i' ( /'v� 7� ��� 1� !' `.. J l „:t.JJ_ — -1 —,„ L l 3� We the interested homeowners in The Ridge and Eileen Street are opposed to the proposed • Summerfield development by Rottlund for the following reasons: 1. It is too congested with 180 families on a lot half the size of The Ridge but with more than twice the number of families. 2. It destroys the views that we all paid premiums for and betrays the trust that was placed in Rottlund and the City in their representations of the hillside and meadow remaining in its current state. 3. Most of the remaining wildlife has retreated to the trees, meadows and hillside that was to remain open with the proposed building of the church will be forced out. 4. Our property values will plummet due to the loss of view, congestion and change in the existing ambiance. We know this to be true because we ourselves would not have purchased our own homes if Summerfield, as proposed, had been built first. Indeed, Rottlund never would have built The Ridge as it presently exists. Therefore we propose that, in order of preference, the City and Rottlund consider: 1. For the area around the pond we would like to have the deed be restricted as a wildlife refuge. This area is very narrow and would appear very crowded and dense if built upon. Any development that occurs should be on the terrace and set-back from the wetlands. The wetlands are currently in decline from silt run-off and existing development. 2. The zoning be restored to its original single family homes on half acre lots built up on the terrace and set back from the marsh with similar covenants as exist in The Ridge. If not, then: 3. The zoning remain as it is presently and the owner continues looking for a more suitable development. If not, then: 4. The Summerfield development be reduced from its proposed number of units, with all development confined to the top of the terrace, leaving the hillside, meadows and trees bordering the wetlands and Highway 5 undisturbed. Sincerely, e/v 75 4(i cjorti LA, 9 � I441/4 I//i n) 7587 Kl vn k .y 24%, ( :/ff P. ti7i q i '37/ Evenexttlay vb.— 67, 71042 V_ E • jail/ � /4'9//2./ 0-( �. 7rp.3s Ki mom(- Lv.. Uri `\ N� GO - -t"17 Z(o Icvt7oherG We the interested homeowners in The Ridge and Eileen Street are opposed to the proposed Summerfield development by Rottlund for the following reasons: . 1. It is too congested with 180 families on a lot half the size of The Ridge but with more than twice the number of families. 2. It destroys the views that we all paid premiums for and betrays the trust that was placed in Rottlund and the City in their representations of the hillside and meadow remaining in its current state. 3. Most of the remaining wildlife has retreated to the trees, meadows and hillside that was to remain open with the proposed building of the church will be forced out. 4. Our property values will plummet due to the loss of view, congestion and change in the existing ambiance. We know this to be true because we ourselves would not have purchased our own homes if Summerfield, as proposed, had been built first. Indeed, Rottlund never would have built The Ridge as it presently exists. Therefore we propose that, in order of preference, the City and Rottlund consider: 1. For the area around the pond we would like to have the deed be restricted as a wildlife refuge. This area is very narrow and would appear very crowded and dense if built upon. Any development that occurs should be on the terrace and set-back from the wetlands. The wetlands are currently in decline from silt run-off and existing development. 2. The zoning be restored to its original single family homes on half acre lots built up on the terrace and set back from the marsh with similar covenants as exist in The Ridge. If not, then: 3. The zoning remain as it is presently and the owner continues looking for a more suitable development. If not, then: 4. The Summerfield development be reduced from its proposed number of units, with all development confined to the top of the terrace, leaving the hillside, meadows and trees bordering the wetlands and Highway 5 undisturbed. Sincerel-7 fc-� '7 3; >75417 Kirnb Gw 7 Slo 3 I<'pnlaCh. 7 Sio 3 g i rn lace-L Lk‘.„ IC7 KirnbjLh, • _ 804 l Evan,er- Wa.� 7 / We the interested homeowners in The Ridge and Eileen Street are opposed to the proposed Summerfield development by Rottlund for the following reasons: 1. It is too congested with 180 families on a lot half the size of The Ridge but with more than twice the number of families. 2. It destroys the views that we all paid premiums for and betrays the trust that was placed in Rottlund and the City in their representations of the hillside and meadow remaining in its current state. 3. Most of the remaining wildlife has retreated to the trees, meadows and hillside that was to remain open with the proposed building of the church will be forced out. 4. Our property values will plummet due to the loss of view, congestion and change in the existing ambiance. We know this to be true because we ourselves would not have purchased our own homes if Summerfield, as proposed, had been built first. Indeed, Rottlund never would have built The Ridge as it presently exists. Therefore we propose that, in order of preference, the City and Rottlund consider: 1. For the area around the pond we would like to have the deed be restricted as a wildlife refuge. This area is very narrow and would appear very crowded and dense if built upon. Any • development that occurs should be on the terrace and set-back from the wetlands. The wetlands are currently in decline from silt run-off and existing development. 2. The zoning be restored to its original single family homes on half acre lots built up on the terrace and set back from the marsh with similar covenants as exist in The Ridge. If not, then: 3. The zoning remain as it is presently and the owner continues looking for a more suitable development. If not, then: 4. The Summerfield development be reduced from its proposed number of units, with all development confined to the top of the terrace, leaving the hillside, meadows and trees bordering the wetlands and Highway 5 undisturbed. Sincerely, yL t 2rerIthLot4.2 +�S6lener ub.. fRaln_ S 3o t 8vedier Why /"7 z 1'--- i/z c --1811q after Way LAAL =��Civv- 1$.275 6vener Lab; (,c 'i C J. l$114 ater2r tb • ,bt_ 8j S 6✓cner j 741so Kt►mber[A j L n- 1.417(214. " Everitt' 7�f5a 1Ci mb Lh. Cr`N'�t-�J tgs,f9 Eva�er►.�,1ay �xct�v34 ati� c 7023 f4tnixrt,43 L� qZ We the interested homeowners in The Ridge and Eileen Street are opposed to the proposed Summerfield development by Rottlund for the following reasons: 1. It is too congested with 180 families on a lot half the size of The-Ridge but with more than twice the number of families. 2. It destroys the views that we all paid premiums for and betrays the trust that was placed in Rottlund and the City in their representations of the hillside and meadow remaining in its current state. 3. Most of the remaining wildlife has retreated to the trees, meadows and hillside that was to remain open with the proposed building of the church will be forced out. 4. Our property values will plummet due to the loss of view, congestion and change in the existing ambiance. We know this to be true because we ourselves would not have purchased our own homes if Summerfield, as proposed, had been built first. Indeed, Rottlund never would have built The Ridge as it presently exists. Therefore we propose that, in order of preference, the City and Rottlund consider: 1. For the area around the pond we would like to have the deed be restricted as a wildlife refuge. This area is very narrow and would appear very crowded and dense if built upon. Any development that occurs should be on the terrace and set-back from the wetlands. The wetlands are currently in decline from silt run-off and existing development. 2. The zoning be restored to its original single family homes on half acre lots built up on the terrace and set back from the marsh with similar covenants as exist in The Ridge. If not, then: 3. The zoning remain as it is presently and the owner continues looking for a more suitable development. If not, then: 4. The Summerfield development be reduced from its proposed number of units, with all development confined to the top of the terrace, leaving the hillside, meadows and trees bordering the wetlands and Highway 5 undisturbed. Since ely, r d.(.ln.fl A V -) GEC 2 , 757 i K i►nisex� 7y59 r �� q�. • l'` $'1/ r.cl,o 4' 1 zs l � /7` ' irhf • /n 74s3 ivnb¢ kj 75m3 m�rc ‘47171 749/ ivlL vil AeLz U A 9sza ' L,�/ � d. e` /.;: 0'v/1 7531 Kt r bwLA/ V3 We the interested homeowners in The Ridge and Eileen Street are opposed to the proposed Summerfield development by Rottlund for the following reasons: 1. It is too congested with 180 families on a lot half the size of The Ridge but with more than twice the number of families. 2. It destroys the views that we all paid premiums for and betrays the trust that was placed in Rottlund and the City in their representations of the hillside and meadow remaining in its current state. 3. Most of the remaining wildlife has retreated to the trees, meadows and hillside that was to remain open with the proposed building of the church will be forced out. 4. Our property values will plummet due to the loss of view, congestion and change in the existing ambiance. We know this to be true because we ourselves would not have purchased our own homes if Summerfield, as proposed, had been built first. Indeed, Rottlund never would have built The Ridge as it presently exists. Therefore we propose that, in order of preference, the City and Rottlund consider: 1. For the area around the pond we would like to have the deed be restricted as a wildlife refuge. • This area is very narrow and would appear very crowded and dense if built upon. Any development that occurs should be on the terrace and set-back from the wetlands. The wetlands are currently in decline from silt run-off and existing development. 2. The zoning be restored to its original single family homes on half acre lots built up on the terrace and set back from the marsh with similar covenants as exist in The Ridge. If not, then: 3. The zoning remain as it is presently and the owner continues looking for a more suitable development. If not, then: 4. The Summerfield development be reduced from its proposed number of units, with all development confined to the top of the terrace, leaving the hillside, meadows and trees bordering the wetlands and Highway 5 undisturbed. Sincerely, 74+03 KtrnlaeXU1 f.", , (cxehice, i7,1,_,z5rizzi) I1i &&� [o 1 1 K en h.a.r(,ci abbklawitj V� 1 740 7 /4 mh�lt�CrV. 4.4a.{ 721-"Al yy We the interested homeowners in The Ridge and Eileen Street are opposed to the proposed Summerfield development by Rottlund for the following reasons: • 1. It is too congested with 180 families on a lot half the size of The Ridge but with more than twice the number of families. 2. It destroys the views that we all paid premiums for and betrays the trust that was placed in Rottlund and the City in their representations of the hillside and meadow remaining in its current state. 3. Most of the remaining wildlife has retreated to the trees, meadows and hillside that was to remain open with the proposed building of the church will be forced out. 4. Our property values will plummet due to the loss of view, congestion and change in the existing ambiance. We know this to be true because we ourselves would not have purchased our own homes if Summerfield, as proposed, had been built first. Indeed, Rottlund never would have built The Ridge as it presently exists. Therefore we propose that, in order of preference, the City and Rottlund consider: 1. For the area around the pond we would like to have the deed be restricted as a wildlife refuge. This area is very narrow and would appear very crowded and dense if built upon. Any development that occurs should be on the terrace and set-back from the wetlands. The • wetlands are currently in decline from silt run-off and existing development. 2. The zoning be restored to its original single family homes on half acre lots built up on the terrace and set back from the marsh with similar covenants as exist in The Ridge. If not, then: 3. The zoning remain as it is presently and the owner continues looking for a more suitable development. If not, then: 4. The Summerfield development be reduced from its proposed number of units, with all development confined to the top of the terrace, leaving the hillside, meadows and trees bordering the wetlands and Highway 5 undisturbed. Sk c rely, (74,30 E,Ceek, 9-) eifSz. E:(� 17(dijUk 9Y9- 9 -y y/ G <<n ) W te- y3y- o0S3 .� -a7i -- 93 5'-y _1 E;, (7S- 444( F3 - 73 '%3v-/bic Cs‘t3 c; titi �z. -�� t-' (3 14 - '73CL( • �, t Gam, t ,/e t (75,t3 ; 41.116-44-1 -0.1-41/Wirl 93'.) q 1 'Mg 7 _ 3 , 73 -3-17/3_, *(7.1.73 " /�/ 04 cl cl�t ' C'ems.�= YYL�t�,Lc Cr. 9 3 4— 51 t 3 citeep) ,u '� ( 5 o39.3 - c ,i z We the interested homeowners in The Ridge and Eileen Street are opposed to the proposed Summerfield development by Rottlund for the following reasons: 1. It is too congested with 180 families on a lot half the size of The Ridge but with more than twice the number of families. 2. It destroys the views that we all paid premiums for and betrays the trust that was placed in Rottlund and the City in their representations of the hillside and meadow remaining in its current state. 3. Most of the remaining wildlife has retreated to the trees, meadows and hillside that was to remain open with the proposed building of the church will be forced out. 4. Our property values will plummet due to the loss of view, congestion and change in the existing ambiance. We know this to be true because we ourselves would not have purchased our own homes if Summerfield, as proposed, had been built first. Indeed, Rottlund never would have built The Ridge as it presently exists. Therefore we propose that, in order of preference, the City and Rottlund consider: 1. For the area around the pond we would like to have the deed be restricted as a wildlife refuge. This area is very narrow and would appear very crowded and dense if built upon. Any • development that occurs should be on the terrace and set-back from the wetlands. The wetlands are currently in decline from silt run-off and existing development. 2. The zoning be restored to its original single family homes on half acre lots built up on the terrace and set back from the marsh with similar covenants as exist in The Ridge. If not, then: 3. The zoning remain as it is presently and the owner continues looking for a more suitable development. If not, then: 4. The Summerfield development be reduced from its proposed number of units, with all development confined to the top of the terrace, leaving the hillside, meadows and trees bordering the wetlands and Highway 5 undisturbed. (?'Sfi8 Erne,. S • Sincerely, -S7G, Eilecpu, �i r 7GZy • -5S"5 G-(L.EE-✓' Sf L t cite-.eiv.S'— 17 • /n �b/✓' b / C t\J(.6 e i r� / I- �' i `�C I1� L/ ! ` BVN (7G3L l CtiULLL - 9y4- 2 8 (.) TL$ edezo ) y6 We the interested homeowners in The Ridge and Eileen Street are opposed to the proposed 0 Summerfield development by Rottlund for the following reasons: 1. It is too congested with 180 families on a lot half the size of The Ridge but with more than twice the number of families. 2. It destroys the views that we all paid premiums for and betrays the trust that was placed in Rottlund and the City in their representations of the hillside and meadow remaining in its current state. 3. Most of the remaining wildlife has retreated to the trees, meadows and hillside that was to remain open with the proposed building of the church will be forced out. 4. Our property values will plummet due to the loss of view, congestion and change in the existing ambiance. We know this to be true because we ourselves would not have purchased our own homes if Summerfield, as proposed, had been built first. Indeed, Rottlund never would have built The Ridge as it presently exists. Therefore we propose that, in order of preference, the City and Rottlund consider: 1. For the area around the pond we would like to have the deed be restricted as a wildlife refuge. This area is very narrow and would appear very crowded and dense if built upon. Any . development that occurs should be on the terrace and set-back from the wetlands. The wetlands are currently in decline from silt run-off and existing development. 2. The zoning be restored to its original single family homes on half acre lots built up on the terrace and set back from the marsh with similar covenants as exist in The Ridge. If not, then: 3. The zoning remain as it is presently and the owner continues looking for a more suitable development. If not, then:, 4. The Summerfield development be reduced from its proposed number of units, with all development confined to the top of the terrace, leaving the hillside, meadows and trees bordering the wetlands and Highway 5 undisturbed. Sincerely, o/kw, M. 93y-6-57V is-4,i-, el(i-efrn Sf. it,Q rpm.� � `r'3 s!iI,P -76oc) c((.,4,„ 14- �rLs/L E 1t u Irve.i 9 41-1-o‘67_ 7 4,a 3 r=, (x:" S't çz' ''' 7 l _/" -7 ' 9'3'7-8 7y'1 1 SO! E! 1-cer-, S1-, x ' 11.,3q,PA.La4f\te -(i) ci Li 1 4)69 1 --7re c ,(,,,,, g • _ ►eL M G 9c7 -GQg5 97 . tate 4q - ,2")53-- -14P-fr C-71- � c73 zi a77 (0/L7 ct- 7174:24-ce w 237 —/D ',2, 74-l6 v Gd4t7 Gt: . 005 adZ 2 -7`46-P, Cv l6 L C f. 31-1- 9--9 -71-ts, C�,is Ct. (3%, Y7 4_4,.c 11 S November 15, 1993 • Mr. Michael Franzen -- City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Franzen, • Regarding the proposed Summerfield Project by the Rottlund Company, I wish to express the following concerns. As on owner of a Rottlund Jamestown Villa located directly across Hwy 5, I am concerned about the resale ability and value of our units, at least until such time that Summerfield is sold out. It is no secret that, when all other factors are equal, the consumer prefers new construction, I believe that current taxpayers should be afforded some consideration. My second concern is the aesthetic value of such a large multi unit complex being built directly on the highway. There must be a minimum of 16 buildings and no hill to hide them as was done in the case of Jamestown Villas. In addition with 188 units the increase in traffic and congestion would be phenomenal. Hwy 5 is already beyond capacity. 411 My major concern is the City of Eden Prairie allowing the construction of such a complex by a builder who has been less than above board with at least nine of the owners of Jamestown Villas. As a result of Rottlunds attempts of cut costs and failure to notify those that had already signed purchase agreements, the Jamestown board of directors is currently working with legal consul to negotiate an equitable settlement for those nine homeowners. As one of those owners, I would be glad to further discuss details of the situation, but feel it must be with the boards approval. However, as a consumer, I would strongly discourage anyone from purchasing from Rottlund. Should you have any questions, I maybe contacted at 938-9110 days or 934-8475 evenings. Sincerely yours, Kathie Carr 18110 Settlers Way Eden Prairie, MN 55437 cc/ Community Development Department City of Eden Prairie • 99 Mark and Wendy H er November 16, 1993 7587 Kimberly Lane Eden Prarie, MN 55346 934-1219 Dear Sirs/Madam: We strongly object to the rezoning of the residential project on Dell Road and Highway 5. When we built our house we were told by the Rotlund Co. that this area was a nature preserve and would NEVER be built on, except for a church and an office complex on top of the hill. As a matter of fact we paid a $16,000.00 premium for our lot just for the view we would have. We have invested everything we have into our home and were not intending to look out our bedroom window and see a housing project adjoining right up to our property. As you see, there is lots of wild life that live back there. It is hard to find a place in the city where you have family's of deer, fox, pheasant, ect. as a back drop to your property. I ask you to PLEASE keep the zoning currently in place for what it was intended for. Sincerely, 1171 Mark A. Heyer S City of Eden Prairie Eder" City Offices prairoim 7600 Executive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 •Telephone (612) 937-2262 TDD (612) 937-8703 November 8, 1993 Don Jensen Rottlund Homes 5201 E. River Road #301 Fridley, MN 55421 SUBJECT: Summerfield Development Items Dear Mr. Jensen: The Staff Development Review Committee met at 2:00 p.m. Thursday, November 4th to review the land development application for Summerfield. The following are items to be addressed prior to the Planning Commission Meeting on November 22nd. These are preliminary comments and other details may appear in the final Staff Report. 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change The change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan to medium density requires that the compelling reasons be identified for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The land development application lists five questions to be answered by the proponent. For this proposal, the two key questions are the impact on surrounding uses and impact on the site features. Retaining the existing trees in the northwest corner of the site provides a natural transition between the proposed multiple family and single family areas. Directly east of the woods, however, there is an open site line with abutting single family homes within which substantial plantings of trees should occur to provide a visual buffer to reduce the offsite impact. For the balance of the site, the large wetland area provides distance between homes on the north and the east of the wetland area. The plan has a significant impact on the site's natural features. The Staff estimate is for a 70% tree loss and there is approximately 1/2 acre of wetland fill. Experience has shown that tree loss in excess of 30% has not received support from the Planning Commission or Parks Commission and the plans should be revised to meet this goal. The Staff has looked at ways of relocating units on the property to save more of the significant trees but has not been successful due to the tightness of the plan and the number of units proposed. The City has approved fill in wetland areas provided rm� Recycted Paper mitigation, when there are no other alternative reasonable ways of developing the 0 property. The approved plan did not have wetland encroachment, and since it is likely that the neighborhood will not support the project on the basis of wetland encroachment, the plan should be modified to avoid wetland fill. 2. Sidewalks, Trails, Park Dedication The plan should be revised to show an eight-foot wide bituminous trail around the edge of the wetland above the normal water mark. A ten-foot wide area must be graded and a bituminous trail constructed by Rottlund Homes. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk will be required to be constructed by Rottlund Homes along the public loop road. A five- foot wide concrete sidewalk should also be constructed along the private loop road with a connection to the trail along the wetland area. The wetland area should be dedicated to the City. This is a contractual requirement of the Developer's Agreement that runs with the land. The City had obtained dedication of the balance of the wetland area from other projects. 3. Grading, Slopes and Erosion Control Graded sloped areas should not exceed three to one. The areas along the edge of the wetland at 2 1/2 to 1 slopes, and the 1 1/2 to 1 slope on the east property line should be revised to meet this standard. In addition, there should be a level area at the bottom of the slope above the wetland area to allow room for erosion control during site IIconstruction. 4. Public Road Design Due to the amount of traffic generated and since there is only one full intersection access into the project, the public loop road should be a 60 foot right of way with a 32 foot road surface. 5. Minor Plan Changes or Additional Information Needed A. Indicate the caliper inches and species on the existing condition survey sheet for the trees on the eastern property line adjacent to the wetland. B. The setback to all structures off the public road should be a minimum of 30 feet. Setback to private driveways from structure should be a minimum of 25 feet. C. The narrative should indicate that there are variances from the minimum lot size requirement in the RM-6.5 zoning district of 13,000 square feet and 90 feet of street frontage. There should be a table listing each lot with sizes and frontages. D. Provide color scheme and exterior material boards for all building types. One 411 copy for City staff is sufficient. Copies of the 12 unit buildings should be provided for the Planning Commission. 52 E. In the narrative, the zoning should indicate 5.53 acres along Dell Road currently zoned Rural but PUD approval for a gas convenience store, restaurant, and office. Aik The remaining areas, not including the wetland, is zoned and guided Public. The lip wetland is zoned Rural, but guided Public. F. Conservation easements will be required over all tree saved areas. G. The narrative should include a traffic comparison from the approved PUD Concept Plan for Commercial and Church to this project and indicate a general traffic distribution for AM and peak hour traffic. H. In the narrative, state that the current EAW threshold is 375 multiple family units. I. The wetland section in the narrative is confusing and should simply state that there is 1/2 acre of fill and 1/2 acre of mitigation required to be approved by the Watershed District, DNR and Army Corps of Engineers. J. Eliminate the reference to wildlife. K. For the Planning Commission packet, provide 10 sets of full size folded plans and 10 sets of 8 1/2 x 11 reductions. If the plans are not readable at this size, 11 x 17 will be acceptable. L. On sheet 6 and 7, referring to the landscape plan, a calculation of the caliper inch requirement based on total square footage (includes garage) and tree loss and tree replacement calculations are needed. Buildings adjacent to Highway 5 need additional conifers and shade trees for visual and noise buffers. 10 to 12 foot high conifers and 4 to 6 inch shade trees are recommended. The City code does not consider River Birch or Crab Apples as meeting the caliper inch requirement. M. The housing section in the narrative should provide a profile indicating the number of two unit, four unit, eight unit and 12 unit buildings with average square footages per unit and anticipated cost. N. The narrative should include calculation of the NURP pond sizes. O. Hydrant spacing should be 200 to 300 feet apart within the project. P. Any buildings over 8500 feet must be sprinkled. Q. All existing drainage utility easements must be vacated. R. Access easements must be provided to the lift station. 3 • 53 S. All retaining walls on the project in excess of 4 feet in height will require a • building permit. The City currently requires a masonry construction for retaining walls. Please make plan changes and provide the additional information by November 15, 1993. Sincerely yours, Michael D. Franzen Senior Planner a:\Rottlund S S 4 • DATE: 015 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA erJan 12-21-93 Prainc SECTION: DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: • ITEM NO. FINANCE DEPT PAYMENT OF CLAIMS VI CHECKS NUMBER 17161 thru 17545 • apction/Direction: DECEMBER 21,1993 VI 17161 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO NOVEMBER 93 DISABILITY INSURANCE PREMIUM 1962.73 17162 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 11-26-93 75136.63 7163 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS 1200.00 64 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO OF AMERIC NOVEMBER 93 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 2585.94 65 CARGILL SALT DIVISION SALT-SNOW & ICE CONTROL-STREET DEPT 53.00 17166 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 17167 VOID OUT CHECK 0 0.00 17168 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 17169 VOID OUT CHECK 0 0.00 17170 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 17171 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 17172 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 17173 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 17174 VOID OUT CHECK - 0.00 17175 VOID OUT CHECK 0,00 17176 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 17177 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 17178 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT PAYROLL 11-26-93 148.57 17179 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 11-26-93 280.00 17180 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SVC PAYROLL 11-26-93 225.69 17181 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 SERVICE 3639.46 17182 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PAYROLL 11-26-93 32.00 17183 MN DEPT OF REVENUE PAYROLL 11-26-93 4.00 17184 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 11-26-93 50.00 17185 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 11-26-93 25.00 17186 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 11-26-93 39512.86 17187 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 11-26-93 206.00 17188 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 11-26-93 SAVINGS BONDS 500.00 4089 GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY PAYROLL 11-26-93 7414.00 90 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 29.20 91 GTE DIRECTORIES ADVERTISING-COMMUNITY CENTER 76.68 17192 JASON-NORTHCO L P #1 DECEMBER 93 RENT-LIQUOR I 5816.17 17193 SUPPLEES 7 HI ENTER INC DECEMBER 93 RENT-LIQUOR STORE II 5033.16 17194 WELSH COMPANIES DECEMBER 93 RENT-LIQUOR STORE III 5891.72 17195 P C EXPRESS CONFERENCE-SENIOR CENTER 30.00 17196 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 66.83 17197 J A PRICE AGENCY REIMBURSEMENT-SEWER BACKUP-7315 SUNSHINE D 500.00 17198 JOY BREKKE REFUND-GOLD FOILED SHIRTS CLASS 6.00 17199 JOANNE EGNOR REFUND-SESAME STREET LIVE TRIP 8.00 17200 MARLYS & JOHN FRITZKE REFUND-MALL OF AMERICA TRIP 15.00 17201 ANN JENSEN REFUND-MALL OF AMERICA TRIP 7.50 17202 ANNETTE MILLER REFUND-EXERCISE CLASS 18.00 17203 LAVONE SCHAEFER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00 17204 DEBRA SINCLAIR REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 24.00 17205 LORRAINE WALLACE REFUND-MALL OF AMERICA TRIP 7.50 17206 PETTY CASH CHANGE FUND FOR PURGE AWARD COMPETITION- 200.00 ADMINISTRATION DEPT 17207 MN PARK SUPERVISORS ASSN MEETING EXPENSES-PARK MAINTENANCE 20.00 17208 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY COLORED COPY PAPER-CITY CENTER 489.45 17209 DELEGARD TOOL CO HALOGEN LAMPS/RATCHET TIE DOWNS/INFLATOR 232.89 GAUGE/TAPE/POWER EXTRACTOR/SWITCH- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 17210 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 211 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY CAR WAX & POLISH/BRAKE SHOES/IDLE ARM/ 3729.44 STABILIZER/HEATERS/SWITCHES/AIR/FUEL & HYDRAULIC FILTERS/BALL JOINTS/HALOGEN 15517142 12-21-93 1. VI LAMPS/ALTERNATOR/CONNECTORS/DE-ICER/SPARK PLUGS/FITTINGS/BLADES/BEARINGS/ROTORS/ BELTS/DISTRIBUTOR & CAPS/SPLASH GUARDS/ VOLT REGULATOR/DUCT TAPE/HOSE ENDS/SOCKET/ IGNITION COIL/JETTER REPAIR KIT/TIE STRAPS-FIRE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/ UTILITIES DIVISION 17212 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 12-3-93 7065.61 17213 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 12-3-93 3791.53 17214 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-CITY HALL/SENIOR CENTER/ADAPTIVE 60.35 RECREATION/STREET MAINT/FORESTRY DEPT 17215 DAVE DELLUGE 2 MULTIPLEXORS-WATER DEPT 1922.35 17216 MN DEPT OF REVENUE DECEMBER 92 SALES TAX 816.75 17217 NORTHERN STATES POWER SERVICE-STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION-7591 340.26 ATHERTON WAY 17218 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 34.00 17219 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 10517.35 17220 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER 15976.25 17221 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 4028.80 17222 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 661.55 17223 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 7302.00 17224 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELEC:T'RIC CO-OP SERVICE 63.10 17225 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER LICENSE-COMMUNITY CENTER CONCESSION STANDS 372.00 17226 U S POSTAL SERVICE 1994 BULK THIRD CLASS & PRESORTED FIRST 150.00 CLASS PERMIT FEES-CITY HALL 17227 AMERICAN RED CROSS CONFERENCE-AQUATICS SUPERVISOR 30.00 17228 UNIVERSITY OF ST THOMAS SCHOOL-WATER DEPT 945.00 17229 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA CONFERENCE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 1100.00 17230 AMERICAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SET OF FEDERAL LAWS & REGULATIONS-WATER 112.00 DEPT 41031 MINNETONKA C NOTES ENTERTAINMENT-HOLIDAY DINNER-SENIOR 100.00 PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 17232 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE BOLTS/TAGS/MARKER PENS/BULLETIN BOARD/ 340.48 BATTERIES/STUD FINDER/BULBS/HOSE CLAMPS/ PRUNING SHEARS/BUSHINGS/THERMOPANE WINDOW/ TAPE/RADIO/BRUSHES/SCREWDRIVERS/ANCHORS/ SHELF SUPPORTS & BRACKETS/V-BELTS/PAINT/ BOLTS/NUTS & WASHERS/CEMENT PATCH/DRAWER CATCHES/WIRE WHEEL/FUSES/GLUE/WOOD PATCH/ SPRAY BOTTLES-STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT/ COMMUNITY CENTER 17233 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 3920.56 17234 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 2388.32 17235 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 37130.43 17236 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER PULLEY/ROPE/HOOKS/ANCHORS/SCREWS/OUTLET 878.87 STRIP/SNOWMELT/FILE/VELCRO/TOGGLES/PAINT/ BATTERIES/BRACKETS/DOOR STOP/BULBS/TAPE/ LOCK/SCREWDRIVER/SWITCH/MAILBOX/BRUSHES/ PAINT PADS-FIRE DEPT/STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT/FORESTRY DEPT/ORGANIZED ATHLETICS/ FACILITIES DEPT/UTILITIES DIVISION 17237 PATRICIA BLANKENSHIP REFUND-KIDS KORNER CLASS 4.92 17238 JENNIFER BODNER REFUND-KIDS KORNER CLASS 4.92 17239 MARY BOYCE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 21.00 •007840 12-21-93 2. VI DECEMBER 21,1993 17240 CARRYN BROICH REFUND-KIDS KORNER CLASS 4.92 17241 SANDRA FREY REFUND-KIDS KORNER CLASS 4.92 17242 CATHERINE GOBLE REFUND-EMERGENCY WATER SAFETY CLASS 26.00 mm43 SHARON HART REFUND-KIDS KORNER CLASS 4.92 44 MAUREEN HENDERSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 21.00 17245 JEROME JANZEN REFUND-KIDS KORNER CLASS 4.92 17246 BARBARA JOHNSON REFUND-KIDS KORNER CLASS 4.92 17247 JEAN KLINCH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 21.00 17248 CHERYL LARSON REFUND-KIDS KORNER CLASS 4.92 17249 JEANNE MEYER REFUND-KIDS KORNER CLASS 4.92 17250 WENDY MEYERS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 21.00 17251 CHRISTINE WATT REFUND-ADULT TRIP/SENIOR HOLIDAY LUNCHEON 31.50 17252 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-OUTDOOR CENTER FLYER 158.82 17253 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING EXPENSES-CITY STAFF 105.00 17254 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC ZAMBONI BLADES/HOCKEY NETS/SPREADED TOWEL! 837.16 GASKET/FACING/DISCHARGE PRESSURE GAUGES/ BRUSH-COMMUNITY CENTER 17255 BROADWAY AWARDS PLATE & ENGRAVING-COMMUNITY CENTER 19.48 17256 G T LAWN SERVICE OCTOBER 93 MOWING SERVICE-PLEASANT HILLS 265.00 CEMETERY 17257 HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERVICES QUARTERLY SECURITY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 921.75 AGREEMENT-SENIOR CENTER/LIQUOR STORE II 17258 DAN JELEN REIMBURSEMENT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLASS 19.00 A & CLASS C LICENSE 17259 MOTEL MORA EXPENSES-SPECIAL POLICE CASE 80.94 17260 NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY PRESSURE REGULATORS-WATER DEPT 1740.00 17261 SO HENNEPIN REGIONAL PLANNING 3RD QUARTER 93 SERVICE-COMMUNITY SERVICES 3225.00 DEPT iiii62 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION & EXCISE TAX- 940.97 YOUTH RECREATION SUPERVISOR r' 63 PAULINE KACHER REFUND-AFTON ALPS SKI TRIP 9.00 17264 FEIST BLANCHARD CO BEARING/HUB CAPS/SEALS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 151.86 17265 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN CONFERENCE-FINANCE DEPT 500.00 17266 MLA COMMERCIAL INTERIORS 101 STACKING CHAIRS-CITY CENTER 14994.56 17267 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 17268 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 17269 WONDER WEAVERS STORYTELLING/MAGIC PERFORMANCE-SPECIAL 130.00 TRIPS/FEES PAID 17270 IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS INC SERVICE-DELL ROAD 1931.35 17271 RICHARD KNUTSON INC SERVICE-GEORGE MORAN DRIVE/MILLER PARK 158408.83 PAVEMENTS/UTILITIES & APPURTENANCES 17272 METRO UTILITIES INC SERVICE-SINGLETREE LN TRUNK WATERMAIN 33953.00 IMPROVEMENTS 17273 NODLAND CONSTRUCTION CO SERVICE-CREEK KNOLLS/VILLAGE KNOLLS 2ND 41898.28 ADDITION 17274 RYAN CONTRACTING SERVICE-RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS 20926.12 17275 A U S COMMUNICATIONS INC PHONE SYSTEM WIRING-CITY CENTER 153.83 17276 ACME TYPEWRITER INC SHREDDER REPAIR-SPECIAL POLICE CASE 80.00 17277 AEC ENGINEERS & DESIGNERS TANK INSPECTION & EVALUATION OF GROUND 7462.69 STORAGE RESERVOIR-WATER DEPT 17278 AFFIRMED MEDICAL SERVICES INC 1ST AID SUPPLIES-CITY CENTER 95.72 17279 AIRSIGNAL INC PAGER SERVICE-ASSESSING DEPT/POLICE DEPT/ 194.62 FIRE DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER/SPECIAL POLICE CASE 411180 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO UNIFORMS-COMMUNITY CENTER/TOWELS & MATS- 262.90 LIQUOR STORES 28962082 12-21-93 3, VI 17281 AMERICAN PAYMENT CENTERS DROP-BOX SECURITY CABINET-UTILITY BILLING 623.47 17282 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC SUBSCRIPTION/PUBLICATIONS/COMPUTER 759.00 SOFTWARE-WATER DEPT 17283 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC BATTERIES-FIRE DEPT 9.43 *84 KEN ANDERSEN TRUCKING SERVICE-DISPOSAL OF WILDLIFE-ANIMAL 79.89 CONTROL DEPT 17285 ANDERSONS GARDEN EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 87.88 17286 ANIMAL HUMANE SOCIETY DONATION-ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT 500.00 17287 APCO AFC INC RADIO FREQUENCY COORDINATION LICENSE FEE- 175.00 POLICE DEPT 17288 ARMOR SECURITY INC RE-PROGRAMMED SECURITY ALARM-OUTDOOR CTR/ 489.93 REKEYED CYLINDER & INSTALLATION-COMMUNITY CENTER 17289 DON ATKINS HAY BALES-PARK MAINTENANCE 312.50 17290 AUDIOVISUAL INC PANASONIC CONTROLLER FOR AUDIO VISUAL 603.75 CABLE CAST SYSTEM-CITY CENTER 17291 B & S TOOLS SCALERS/AIR TOOL REPAIR/SANDBLASTING 244.89 HELMET/REPLACEMENT LENS/WRENCH-WATER DEPT 17292 BACHMANS EXPENSES-CITY CENTER 53.16 17293 BACONS ELECl'RIC CO PHOTO EYE/SEALS-WATER DEPT 107.50 17294 PATRICIA BARKER SCHOOL-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 47.00 17295 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC LAMPS/BATTERIES/WINDSHIELD SOLVENT/TIRES- 1133.25 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 17296 BEST COPIERS OF EAGAN INC COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY CENTER 760.00 17297 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 105.49 17298 DAVID BLACK MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER ADMINISTRATION 39.75 17299 BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE-WATER PLAN UPDATE 172.92 17300 BLEVINS CONCESSION SUPPLY COMPANY THERMOSTAT/CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES- 937.11 COMMUNITY CENTER 301 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON NOVEMBER 93 KENNEL COSTS-ANIMAL CONTROL 229.00 DEPT 302 E H BOECKH CO SUBSCRIPTION-ASSESSING DEPT 144.00 17303 BOYD OIL DISTRIBUTING OIL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 2196.32 17304 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION SERVICE-FLOOR TILE TEST-CITY CENTER/ 1246.50 MILLER PARK SANITARY SEWER/DELL RD/CREEK KNOLLS CUL-DE-SACS 17305 BRW INC SERVICE-DELL ROAD CONSTRUCTION 1396.64 17306 BSN SPORTS MATS-SUMMER SKILL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 373.06 17307 NATHAN BUCK VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 206.25 17308 BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL INC WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE-LIQUOR STORE I 84.99 17309 C & H DISTRIBUTORS INC FURNITURE DOLLY-WATER DEPT 102.14 17310 C-TECH SYSTEMS REFUND-OVERPAYMENT SIGN PERMIT 40.00 17311 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS CUSHIONS/REPLACED PAGERS TONE REEDS/ 2237.38 DECEMBER 93 MAINT AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 17312 CAREER DYNAMICS CALENDARS/BINDERS-WATER DEPT 36.34 17313 CARGILL SALT DIVISION SALT-SNOW & ICE CONTROL-STREET DEPT 7536.59 17314 CARGO PROTECTORS INC PADLOCKS-WATER DEPT 266.98 17315 JIM CARLSON LEASING CO PASSENGER VAN RENTAL-ACCESSIBILITY PROGRAM 41.28 17316 CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT CO SWEEPER/BROOM-PARK DEPT 6696.72 17317 CASH REGISTER SERVICE & SALES CASH REGISTER REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 25.00 17318 CEDAR COMPUTER CENTER INC 4 COMPUTERS/4 MONITORS-PARK & RECREATION 8151.90 DEPT 17319 CENTEX HOMES REFUND-OVERPAYMENT BUILDING PERMIT 27.00 17320 CENTRAIRE INC FURNACE REPAIRS-OUTDOOR CENTER/RILEY LK 326.15 PARK BLDG/REPLACED THERMOSTAT & FAN .360616 12-21-93 4. VI CENTER-CUMMINS GRILL HOMESTEAD 17321 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS LAWN MOWER AIR FILTERS/PAINTBLADES/WING 119.89 BOLTS/WASHERS-WATER DEFT 17322 JAMES G CLARK DECEMBER 93 CAR ALLOWANCE-POLICE DEPT 200.00 17323 CLUTS OBRIEN STROTHER ARCHITECTS SERVICE-REMODELING OF E P CITY CENTER/ 9879.94 4110 PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR MAINSTREET IMPROVEMENTS 17324 CO2 SERVICES CARBON DIOXIDE/CYLINDER RENTAL-COMMUNITY 106.47 CENTER 17325 COMMERCE NOAA NCDC SUBSCRIPTION-WATER DEPT 66.00 17326 COMPRESS AIR & EQUIPMENT CO AIR COMPRESSOR RENTAL-FIRE DEPT 1491.00 17327 CONCEPT MICRO IMAGING MICROFICHE READER REPAIR-ADMINISTRATION/ 327.48 IMAGING PAPER-ENGINEERING DEPT 17328 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS LANYARD FOR SAFETY HARNESS/TRAFFIC VESTS- 518.74 WATER DEPT 17329 CONTINENTAL LOOSE LEAF INC 3 RING BINDERS-POLICE DEPT 335.48 17330 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIP INC CO2 SENSOR-BLDG INSPECTIONS DEPT/DUST 209.11 MASKS-PARK MAINTENANCE 17331 COPIES NOW PRINTING-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT/SPECIAL 168.67 POLICE CASE 17332 COPY EQUIPMENT INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT 367.33 17333 CORNER HOUSE INTERAGENCY CENTER 94 CORNER HOUSE SERVICES & FEES-POLICE 2270.00 DEPT 17334 CORPORATE GRAPHICS ICR DISPATCH CARDS-POLICE DEPT 1923.08 17335 CLIFF CRACAUER MILEAGE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 169.00 17336 CSC CREDIT SERVICES INC CREDIT CHECKING SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 10.00 17337 CUB FOODS EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 215.31 17338 CUMMINS DIESEL SALES INC STARTERS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 212.47 17339 CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC RETAINERS/DRILL BITS/ADHESIVEBRASS KEYS- 292.04 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE iii340 JAMES CURTIS REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 49.70 41 CUSTOM HEADSETS INC HEADSET EARMOLD-POLICE DEPT 34.90 42 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 6808.06 17343 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-CITY CENTER 121.15 17344 GREG DAWYDUK HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 138.00 17345 DAY CO CONRETE REFUND-HYDRANT METER DEPOSIT 300.00 17346 DEM CON LANDFILL INC NOVEMBER 93 WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINT 98.00 17347 EUGENE DIETZ NOVEMBER 93 CAR ALLOWANCE-ENGINEERING DEPT 200.00 17348 DATAFILE FOLDERS/LABELS/GUIDES-FINANCE DEPT/ 709.45 BLDG INSPECTIONS DEPT 17349 DONS SOD SERVICE SOD-STREET MAINTENANCE 10.38 17350 MICHAEL DORN REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 3.69 17351 DRISKILLS NEWMARKET EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT/SPECIAL 43.54 TRIPS/ADAPTIVE RECREATION 17352 DRISKILLS NEWMARKET EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 65.10 17353 DRISKILLS NEWMARKET EXPENSES-SPECIAL POLICE CASE 31.56 17354 DRISKILLS NEWMARKET EXPENSES-KIDS KORNER PROGRAM/COMMUNITY 204.69 CENTER CONCESSION SUPPLIES 17355 DYNA SYSTEMS SCREWS/NUTS & BOLTS/TERMINALS-UTILITIES 386.97 DIVISION 17356 EDEN PRAIRIE FLORIST EXPENSES-SPECIAL POLICE CASE 80.18 17357 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT EXPENSES-CONFERENCE/PICNIC/FIRE PREVENTION 3361.08 17358 E P GROCERY EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT/SPECIAL POLICE CASE 108.96 17359 E P PHOTO FILM/FILM PROCESSING-FIRE DEPT 151.06 3178848 •21-93 5. VI DECEMBER 21,1993 17360 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DIST 272 GYM RENTAL-FALL SKILL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 125.00 17361 CITY OF EDINA NOVEMBER 93 WATER TESTS-WATER DEPT 340.00 362 EGGHEAD SOFTWARE COMPUTER SOFTWARE-FINANCE DEPT/ADAPTIVE 1205.59 RECREATION DEPT 363 EKLUNDS TREE & BRUSH DISPOSAL NOVEMBER 93 BRUSH DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT 285.00 17364 ELIM SHORES FOOD FOR PROGRESSIVE DINNER-SENIOR 55.00 PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 17365 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC OXYGEN SENSOR-SEWER DEPT 137.70 17366 JEFFREY ELWELL BOILER LICENSE FEE/MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CTR 65.00 MAINTENANCE 17367 CHRIS ENGER DECEMBER 93 CAR ALLOWANCE-COMMUNITY 203.25 DEVELOPMENT DEPT 17368 EPR INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 49.84 17369 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC MANHOLE COVERS-SEWER DEPT 389.79 17370 RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 253.00 17371 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE-CITY CENTER 21.07 17372 FACILITY SYSTEMS CORNER CONNECTING KIT-CITY CENTER 117.58 17373 FAUVER COMPANY HYDRAULIC MOTORS FOR SPINNERS-EQUIPMENT 356.95 MAINTENANCE 17374 FEED RITE CONTROLS INC CHLORINE-WATER DEPT 975.89 17375 FIDELITY PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-PARK PLANNING DEPT 327.11 17376 FILTRATION SYSTEMS INC FILTERS-WATER DEPT 161.13 17377 FLEET MECHANICAL SERVICES VEHICLE REPAIR/SPRING & SEAL ASSEMBLIES/ 487.99 KING PIN STUDS/PLASTIC SEAT/GASKET- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 17378 FLOYD SECURITY 1ST QTR 84 SECURITY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 436.65 AGREEMENT-CUMMINS GRILL HOMESTEAD/LIQUOR STORE I 411,79 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 54.78 80 SUE FORSTER MINUTES/POSTAGE-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL 277.50 COMMISSION 17381 TRACEY FOSSE MILEAGE-FINANCE DEPT 8.00 17382 JOHN FRANE EXPENSES/DECEMBER 93 CAR ALLOWANCE- 235.43 FINANCE DEPT 17383 FRANKLIN QUEST CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-ADMINISTRATION DEPT 251.13 17384 G & K SERVICES UNIFORMS/TOWELS/MATS-STREET MAINT/PARK 901.43 MAINT/UTILITIES DIVISION 17385 GAB BUSINESS SERVICES INC LIABILITY INSURANCE 3159.90 17386 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG INC FREON TANKS-COMMUNITY CENTER 788.14 17387 STEVEN P GEIGER PH D SERVICE-PSYCHOLOGICAL SUPPORT-SPECIAL 1445.00 POLICE CASE 17388 GLADWIN MACHINERY & SUPPLY CO POWER BAND SAW-PARK MAINTENANCE 2209.68 17389 TIMOTHY GLOMSKI HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 690.00 17390 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SVC TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 447.50 17391 W W GRAINGER INC INDUSTRIAL MOTOR/MOTOR FANS/SNOW SHOVELS/ 304.85 DUCT TAPE/HAND SANITIZER-WATER DEPT/CITY CENTER 17392 ALAN GRAY EXPENSES/AUGUST/SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER/ 1124.78 NOVEMBER & DECEMBER 93 CAR ALLOWANCE- 17393 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC SERVICE-COLUMBINE RD/BRAXTON DR/MILLER PK/ 5906.98 RILEY LK PK/RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS/VILLAGE KNOLLS 2ND ADDITION 17394 HARMON GLASS COMPANY WINDSHIELD/REAR WINDOW/SAFETY SHEET- 525.80 EQUIPMENT MAINT/PARK MAINT .95 THE HARRIS BILLINGS CO CONCEALED LOCK/BARREL NUTS/SCREWS- 10.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 2433444 12-21-93 6. VI 17396 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF OCTOBER 93 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT 798.92 17397 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEES-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT 1915.00 17398 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OCTOBER 93 BOARD OF PRISONERS-POLICE DEPT 3592.01 17399 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE ATHLETIC APPRECIATION DINNER-SPECIAL 900.00 EVENTS PROGRAM 00 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEES-ENGINEERING DEPT 231.50 01 D C HEY COMPANY INC COPIER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS-BUILDING 166.95 INSPECTIONS DEPT/PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 17402 HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORP REFUND-HYDRANT METER DEPO_S_IT 300.00 17403 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT 365.23 17404 INLAND TRUCK PARTS CO J-JOINT KITS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 57.88 17405 IACP NET-LOGIN SVCS 1994 INFORMATION EXCHANGE NETWORK FEE- 800.00 POLICE DEPT 17406 INTL CONFERENCE OF BLDG OFFICIALS UNIFORM FIRE CODE MANUALS-BUILDING 235.55 INSPECTIONS DEPT 17407 GARY JASPERS REIMBURSEMENT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLASS 19.00 A & CLASS C LICENSE 17408 JUSTUS LUMBER CO PREHUNG DOORS/JAMBS/DEAD BOLT LOCKS & 3310.72 INSTALLATION-HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM 17409 KENNEDY LEASING FINAL PAYMENT-10 PASSENGER VAN-YOUTH 9999.62 RECREATION SUPERVISOR 17410 KENS FRESH MEAT EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 20.62 17411 PAM KLOOS EXPENSES-SPECIAL TRIPS PROGRAM/KIDS 52.49 KORNER PROGRAM 17412 KOSS PAINT & WALLPAPER INC STAIN-CITY CENTER 27.67 17413 JILL KUYAVA VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 198.00 17414 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR LUBRICANT/DOOR REPAIRS-PARK BLDG/ 167.72 COMMUNITY CENTER 17415 LAKE REGION VENDING SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 1332.54 416 ROBERT LAMBERT NOVEMBER & DECEMBER CAR ALLOWANCE-PARK & 400.00 RECREATION DEPT 17 CINDY LANENBERG MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT 55.75 17418 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD OCTOBER 93 LEGAL SERVICE-$12913/OCTOBER 25602.03 93 TEMAN & BACHMANS LEGAL SERVICE-$1981/ NOVEMBER 93 INTERSTATE DIESEL LITIGATION- $1414/NOVEMBER 93 PROSECUTION SERVICE- $9292-POLICE DEPT 17419 L MCI T LIABILITY INSURANCE 663.35 17420 LEEF BROS INC COVERALLS/MATS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 179.76 17421 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC NOVEMBER 93 SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 1414.91 17422 F B LEOPOLD COMPANY INC SURFACE WASH NOZZLE CAPS-WATER DEPT 1408.85 17423 LINHOFF CORPORATE COLOR FILM/FILM PROCESSING/BATTERIES-HUMAN 63.60 RESOURCES DEPT/POLICE DEPT 17424 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC HYDRAULIC RAMS/SNOW PLOW WINGS/BUSHINGS- 2465.55 STREET DEPT 17425 M-V THERMOGAS CO-CHASKA PROPANE CYLINDERS-OUTDOOR CENTER 158.00 17426 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTING-NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH NEWSLETTER- 282.22 POLICE DEPT 17427 MARRIOTT CORPORATION REFUND-OVERPAYMENT CIGARETTE & SUNDAY 212.00 LIQUOR LICENSE 17428 GEORGE MARSHALL BURIAL SERVICE-PLEASANT HILLS CEMETERY 50.00 17429 MASYS CORPORATION DECEMBER 93 COMPUTER SOFTWARE & HARDWARE 1429.70 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 5887714 •21-93 7, VI DECEMBER 21,1993 17430 SUE MCCARVILLE NEWSLETTER COPY PAPER-COMMUNITY Cl'R MAINT 15.68 17431 MCNEILUS STEEL INC STAINLESS STEEL TUBING-PARK MAINTENANCE 155.49 gili32 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-POOL LESSONS/CONCESSION STAND 44.25 SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 433 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/ACTIVITY 169.70 CAMP/SENIOR CENTER/POOL LESSONS 17434 MENARDS DUCT TAPE/MARKERS/WASHERS/VISE GRIP/ 983.16 LETTERS & NUMBERS/TREATED TIMBERS/MAILBOX/ ROUTER BIT/HAMMER/PRY BAR/SCREWS/CONCRETE MIX/PAINT/PAINT BRUSHES/PLYWOOD/PORTABLE LAMPS/SHELF SUPPORTS/SANDPAPER-STREET MAINT/EQUIPMENT MAINT/PARK MAINT/OUTDOOR CENTER/CITY CENTER 17435 METRO LEGAL SERVICES INC TRACT SEARCHES-HOUSING REHABILITATION 80.00 PROGRAM 17436 METROPOLITAN MECHANICAL BOILER REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 271.76 17437 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM NOVEMBER 93 SAC CHARGES 73507.50 17438 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM JANUARY 94 SEWER SERVICE 106237.00 17439 MID-AMERICA POWER DRIVES CUSHION VALVES/COUPLERS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 696.75 17440 MIDAS BRAKE & MUFFLER EXHAUST PIPES/GASKETS/CLAMPS/HANGER- 317.10 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 17441 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP ASPHALT-STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT 1373.80 17442 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 359.25 17443 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 1033.75 17444 MIDWEST MACHINERY INC GASKETS/SEALS/REMOVED & INSTALLED PUMP 212.08 DRIVE SHAFT/ALIGNED TIMING MARKS & TIGHTENED PUMP MOUNTING BOLTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 411145 HERMAN MILLER INC 5 PANELS-CITY CENTER 1208.83 46 MINNCOMM PAGING PAGER SERVICE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT/ 150.08 WATER DEPT 17447 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 584.36 17448 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS LETTERHEAD/ENVELOPES-CITY COUNCIL 218.91 17449 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSN DUES-POLICE DEPT 130.00 17450 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY FIRE EXTINGUISHER RECHARGING-FIRE DEPT 167.51 17451 MERSC DUES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 170.00 17452 MINNESOTA EXTERIORS INC WINDOW INSTALLATION-HOUSING 692.00 REHABILITATION PROGRAM 17453 MN ICE ARENA MGRS ASSN SIGNS-COMMUNITY CENTER 15.00 17454 MN PARK SUPERVISORS ASSN DUES-PARK MAINTENANCE 20.00 17455 MINNESOTA STATE TREASURER NOVEMBER 93 BUILDING SURCHARGES 7214.37 17456 MINNESOTA TROPHIES & GIFTS ENGRAVED PLAQUE-FIRE DEPT 8.31 17457 MINUTEMAN PRESS FLUORESCENT LABELS-BLDG INSPECTIONS DEPT 255.60 17458 MISCO INC GLARE SHIELD-SAFETY DEPT 66.60 17459 MOORE MEDICAL CORP 1ST AID RESCUE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 232.00 17460 WM MUELLER & SONS INC SAND-SNOW & ICE CONTROL-STREET DEPT 3781.01 17461 NATIONAL RECREATION & PARK ASSN DUES-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 18.00 17462 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIBUTOR CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 528.79 17463 JAN NELSON MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL 300.00 17464 NEW HAVEN MFG CORP TIME CLOCK MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-POLICE 116.00 DEPT 17465 NORDIC TRUCK PARTS INC DIESEL ADDITIVE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 54.32 17466 NORTH STAR CHAPTER DUES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 70.00 S67 NORTH STAR ICE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 264.87 68 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF RESIDENTIAL LISTING- 53.63 PUBLIC INFORMATION 20177746 12-21-93 8, VI 17469 NYSTROM PUBLISHING CO CITYS SHARE OF WINTER ADAPTIVE RECREATION 274.82 BROCHURE 17470 OHLIN SALES INC FLASHLIGHT BATTERIES-FIRE DEPT 171.76 17471 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC CHAIN HOOKS-PARK MAINT/TRUCK CHAINS- 572.97 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 41072 OPM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER REPAIR-WATER DEPT/LASER PRINTER- 1688.88 RECREATION DEPT 17473 DAN OTTEN MILEAGE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 9.25 17474 PAPER WAREHOUSE NAPKINS/TABLE COVERS/DECORATIONS/FORKS- 39.46 17475 PARK AUTO UPHOLSTERY SEATS RE-COVERED-FIRE DEPT 180.00 17476 J C PENNEY UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 79.82 17477 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INC SERVICE-COMPARABLE WORTH PROFILES-HUMAN 30.00 RESOURCES DEPT 17478 CONNIE L PETERS MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER ADMINISTRATION 20.25 17479 PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE-INTERSTATE PROPERTIES LITIGATION- 103.37 ROWLAND ROAD 17480 PITNEY BOWES INC 1ST QTR 94 POSTAGE 181( PHONE METER RENTAL- 149.61 POLICE DEPT 17481 AARON PITTS BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 82.50 17482 PLANT FLANGED EQUIPMENT CO SLUDGE BLOW OFF VALVE SEAL KIT-WATER DEPT 293.17 17483 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC AIR COMPRESSOR HOOK-UP-FIRE DEPT 129.35 17484 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING ENVELOPES-POLICE DEPT 50.43 17485 PRAIRIE VIEW FRAMING CO PICTURE FRAMING-POLICE DEPT 89.55 17486 THE PROMOTION GROUP JACKETS-SAFETY INCENTIVE PROGRAM 141.06 17487 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC NOVEMBER 93 WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE- 514.71 COMMUNITY C R/LIQUOR STORE II/WATER DEPT 17488 RAINBOW FOODS EXPENSES-OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAMS 32.63 17489 REACH EQUIPMENT DEFLECTORS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 372.75 17490 RIEKE-CARROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC SERVICE-ROWLAND RD STORMWATER MGMT PLAN/ 31285.72 WATER TOWER/TRUNK WATERMAIN Asig91 ROGERS SERVICE STARTER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 56.92 92 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY CENTER/FIRE DEPT/ 684.03 STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT/YOUTH PROGRAM SUPERVISOR/RECREATION ADMIN/ADAPTIVE RECREATION/FORESTRY DEPT/ORGANIZED ATHLETICS/COMMUNITY CENTER/SPECIAL POLICE CASE 17493 SANCO INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEFT/ 606.48 COMMUNITY CENTER 17494 SBS SOFTWARE CO FACILITY SCHEDULING SOFTWARE & SUPPORT- 591.07 CITY CENTER 17495 KEVIN SCHMIEG AUGUST/SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER/NOVEMBER & 1000.00 DECEMBER 93 CAR ALLOWANCE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 17496 WILBUR W SCHULTZ VOLLEYBALL/BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 662.25 17497 SETON NAME PLATE COMPANY SAFETY CARDS-SAFETY DEPT 41.47 17498 SHAKOPEE VALLEY PRINTING PRINTING-COMMUNITY PROGRAM BROCHURE 5425.31 17499 SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE 51.61 17500 ALAN SHILEPSKY CONSULTING INC COMPUTER SOFTWARE CONSULTATION SERVICE- 52.50 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 17501 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS INC SWEATERS/SWEATSHIRTS/RUGBY SHIRTS/CAPS- 681.60 POLICE DEPT 17502 STEVEN R SINELL EXPENSES/DECEMBER 93 CAR ALLOWANCE- 207.00 ASSESSING DEPT 637230 21-93 9. VI DECEMBER 21,1993 17503 SISINNI FOOD SERVICES INC EXPENSES-CITY HALL 4.15 4i7504 ERIC SIT TAE KWON DO INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 598.08 05 W GORDON SMITH CO PROPANE/V-BELTS-STREET MAINT/WATER DEPT 69.94 06 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION EXTRACTOR/TAPS/SCREWDRIVER/CIRCUIT TESTER 76.32 EQUIPMENT MAINTTENANCE 17507 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC SHOE POLISH/DISH DETERGENT/EXTENSION CORD/ 67.53 SUPER GLUE/SNOW BRUSHES-POLICE DEPT 17508 SNYDER DRUG STORES INC POWER BOARD/GREETING CARDS-SENIOR PROGRAM/ 6.42 AQUATIC FITNESS PROGRAM 17509 SOUTHWEST FIRE LEAGUE DUES/HOT SPOTS SHOW-FIRE DEPT 550.00 17510 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSI CITYS SHARE 1ST QTR 94 OPERATING BUDGET 6083.06 17511 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-SKATING RINKS 72.25 17512 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 1122.00 17513 SPORTIME TAPE/HOOP HURDLE STANDS/HOOPS-PRESCHOOL 92.66 PLAYGROUND PROGRAM 17514 SPORTS WORLD USA RACQUETBALL STRINING-COMMUNITY CENTER/ 34.50 UNIFORM LETTERING-PARK RANGER DEPT 17515 SPS COMPANIES FITTINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 10.39 17516 SPS OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT/UTILITIES DIV 900.61 17517 THE STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 344.32 17518 STERLING GROUP INC AERIAL PHOTOS/REAL ESTATE SERVICE- 329.97 MARKET CENTER SITE 17519 RENEE STEWART-HESTER MILEAGE-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 14.00 17520 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EQ GUN SCRUBBER/MAGAINES/CLEANING BRUSH- 138.87 POLICE DEPT 17521 SUCCESSORIES EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION POSTERS-HUMAN 164.59 RESOURCES DEPT 22 T W SULLIVAN & CO JACKETS-POLICE DEPT 29.00 23 MICHELE SUNDBERG 1ST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 341.35 524 SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS PUBLICATIONS-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 92.00 PROGRAM 17525 SUPERIOR PRODUCTS MFG CO SHOPLIFTER MIRROR-LIQUOR STORE I 71.38 17526 TARGET STORES GIFT CERTIFICATES-SAFETY INCENTIVE PROGRAM 45.00 17527 TIE SYSTEMS INC OF MN TELEPHONE SYSTEM-CITY CENTER 65405.00 17528 TKDA & ASSOC INC SERVICE-CITY FACILTIIES RECONSTRUCTION 8254.44 ADJACENT TO MITCHELL TH212 17529 TRACY/TRIPP FUELS WINTER BLEND FUEL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 4844.53 17530 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO HELIUM/OXYGEN/ACETYLENE/ARGON-EQUIPMENT 285.65 MAINT/FIRE DEPT 17531 U S CAVALRY NOMEX FLIGHT GLOVES-POLICE DEPT 32.20 17532 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-FIRE DEPT 45.67 17533 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT/ANIMAL CONTROL DEPT 727.90 17534 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC CLEANING SUPPLIES/ICE MELTER PELLETS- 386.73 WATER DEPT 17535 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS/NUTS & BOLTS/GLOVES/ 1079.91 WASHERS/TERMINALS/CONNECTORS/BATTERY CLAMPS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 17536 BRENDA UTING MILEAGE-SENIOR PROGRAMS 37.58 17537 VESSCO INC FEEDER SWITCHES/LIME SLAKER FEED BELT- 513.41 WATER DEPT 17538 TRIA VIKESLAND MILEAGE-ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROGRAM 86.15 17539 VISION ENERGY PROPANE CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 424.83 4540 WATER SPECIALTY OF MN INC LIQUID CHLORINE-COMMUNITY CENTER 239.30 41 WATERPRO SUPPORT GASKETS/CURB BOX KEYS/5/8X3/4 11786.02 1000 GAL METERS/5/8X3/4 100 GAL METERS/ 2 IN 1000 GAL METERS/COPPERHORNS/SOLDER 10540771 12-21-93 10. vi SWIVELS/METER REPAIRS/TOUCH PADS-WATER DEPT 17542 WBCS TYPESETTING FLYER-OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAM 60.00 17543 WEST WELD ELECTRODES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 351.26 544 WRIGHT LINE INC EASEL BINDERS/SHELVING UNIT & 10742.56 INSTALLATION-CITY CENTER 45 YALE INC AIR COMPRESSOR REPAIR/INSTALLED SHAFT 544.09 SEAL KIT-WATER DEPT 17546 ZACKS INC WINDOW SCRAPERS-WATER DEPT 18.77 17547 JIM ZAIC 0 MEETING EXPENSES-BLDG INSPECTIONS DEPT 15.00 17548 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 1ST AID SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 151.44 16902 VOID OUT CHECK 1137.16- 16971 VOID OUT CHECK 1165.00- 16994 VOID OUT CHECK 921.76- 17008 VOID OUT CHECK 32.00- 17057 VOID OUT CHECK 80.44- 17067 VOID OUT CHECK 1853.10- _17091 VOID OUT CHECK 179.99- 651367 $1058578.00 o • •2_21_93 11. DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL 411 RESOURCES COMMISSION AGENDA ,.. ► 21)11443 FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of PRNR SECTION: Consent Calendar DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.. Parks, Recreation & Recommended Revisions to the City Code v i i, Natural Resources Regulating Use of Public Parks RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommend the Council approve the proposed amendment to City Code, Chapter 9.04, relating to the Rules and Regulations at Public Parks. This revision would allow the Police Department to enforce the tennis court and basketball court rule signs that have been posted for several years: • Individuals using courts must wear tennis shoes. • Limit play to one hour, if others are waiting. • Scheduled City and Physical Education classes have priority use. • No bikes, roller skates, skate boards or dogs on court. • No unauthorized private lessons. • BACKGROUND: In recent years, the City has experienced a number of problems with individuals using in-line skates to play hockey on tennis courts. The City has had to resurface the courts at Staring Lake Park almost on an every other year basis due to damage caused by hockey games where in-line skates and hockey sticks have cut through the colored surface and allowed water to penetrate, The backboards at Staring Take Park have also been destroyed by individuals using them to practice slapshots with pucks. There is still money in the budget proposed for 1994 to pave the hockey rink at Forest Hills School/Park in order to accommodate in-line skate hockey games in the community. Hopefully, by providing a place for this type of recreational use we will reduce the incidents of damage to other courts. This change in the ordinance will also allow our park rangers to enforce the existing court rules. BL:mdd skate/bob Attachments: Ordinance No. -93 keceAction/Direction: tuber 7, 1993 I. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. -93 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9 ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES" BY AMENDING SECTION 9 . 04 BY ADDING "I" TO SUBD. 2 AND BY ADDING "AC" THROUGH "AH" TO SUBD. 4 WHICH RELATE TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PUBLIC PARKS RELATING TO THE USE OF TENNIS COURTS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9 .99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS : Section 1. City Code Section 9 . 04 is hereby amended by adding I . to Subd. 2 to read as follows : "I . "Roller skates" means roller skates, in- line skates, or roller skis . " Section 2. City Code Section 9 . 04 is hereby amended by adding AC. through AH. to Subd. 4 to read as follows : 110 AC. Use a tennis court or basketball court while not wearing tennis shoes . AD. Play continuously upon a tennis court or basketball court for more than one hour while others are waiting to use the court . AE. Fail to vacate any court which is scheduled for use by a City or physical education class . AF. Use a bicycle, roller skates, skateboard or scooter, or allow a dog to be, on a tennis or basketball court . AG. Give or take a private lesson on a tennis or basketball court without prior authorization. AH. Play hockey on a tennis or basketball court. Section 3 . City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 9 . 99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. • Section 4 . This ordinance shall become effective from and 1 /7Iq3 2. after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the • City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 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 . City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1993 . C:\wp51\rap\ep\ord\tennis • /a/-7/y3 Minutes - PRNR Commission 4Ipronday, December 6, 1993 B. Recommend Revisions to City Code Regulating Use of Public Parks. Lambert: his wife watched a group of adults skating and playing hockey on a basketball court and shooting pucks into the backboard at Staring Lake Park. The police were called and there was nothing done, as there are no rules on the books to enforce. We need the attached revision to the City Code Regulating Use of Public Parks so there is something on the books. Popovich Lynch: wanted to clarify that a misdemeanor is punishable by $700 &/or 30 days. Kracum: had difficulty grouping playing basketball for more than one hour with doing damage to a court - this is not the same level of infraction. Will the rangers and officers have discretion on how they enforce this law? Hilgeman: where do you draw the line? Are you going to give a two-year-old riding with training wheels a misdemeanor? How do you distinguish between tennis vs. basketball use? Does this include baseball? Brown: this means that we can post rules? Lambert: yes, this would allow us to enforce the rules that have been posted for many years. Kube-Harderwijk: who will monitor/determine what games are not intended? Bremer: how realistic is this? The police are busy, will they really come down to enforce this code? Kracum: has some concern over the language used, needs to be modified. MOTION: Kracum moved to approve the Recommended Revisions to the City Code Regulating Use of Public Parks. Motion seconded by Brown. Motion passed 6-0. Richard: the bottom line is that if kids want to play roller blade hockey bad enough, they will find a place to do it. Pat had spoken with a representative for a portable roller blade court. Cost is $4-5,000, and it would take 2-3 men 15-45 • minutes to set up. This company is sending Pat a video which he will get to Lyndell Frey. Lambert: prefers to set-up a permanent rink and not commit man hours running around to set-up a portable rink on a regular basis. DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 411 _ SECTION: Petitions & Requests December 21, 1993 DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Engineering Division Alan D. Gray Interstate Companies Land Alteration Permit , A Recommended Action: Approve a land alteration permit for grading of Interstate Companies property in accordance with the proposed grading plan and erosion control plan subject to the following: • Interstate Companies submit to the Director of Planning and receive his approval of a planting plan for 364 caliper inches of tree replacement. • Interstate Companies pay a permit fee of$500 and provide to the City a restoration bond or letter of credit in the amount of$12,000. • Interstate Companies provide to the City a bond or letter of credit equal to 150% of the estimated cost of the tree replacement. • Interstate Companies receive permit from the COE for wetland alterations. • Overview: The Interstate property is currently guided for medium density housing. This 18 acre site contains 8.76 acres of wetland regulated by the COE and the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District under the State Wetland Act. Developable upland areas are concentrated at the north and south of the property. Reconfiguration of the wetlands is requested to enhance the utilirttion of the upland acreage. The proposed grading is consistent with the type of grading necessary to accommodate development of the site for medium density residential. Trees removed for grading are at elevations or locations which preclude preservation when developed as guided. The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has approved the grading and erosion control plan. COE issued a permit fora similar grading plan in 1991 and it is anticipated they will permit.t plan. City staff has reviewed the grading and erosion control plan and find them to be technically feasible and in conformance with City ordinances and policies. • . December 7, 1993 Item No. VIII.A.1 DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SECTION: Petitions & Requests December 21,.1993, r , DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1TF,M NO. Engineering Division Alan D. Gray Interstate Companies Land Alteration Permit . A Primary Issues: Residents adjoining the Interstate have been notified of Interstate's request and several have called to discuss the proposal with City staff. They are concerned with future development plans for the property. The most common concern is regarding traffic congestion at Rowland Road and Shady Oak Road. These issues will be studied and addressed at the of development Interstate Commies desire to proceed with the reconfiguration of the wetlands on the site under current wetland regulations. If the permit is delayed beyond December 31, 1g93, final wetland mitigation will be required under new State Wetland Rules and the developable acreage. . ... of the property may be reduced. Financial Issues: The City has. assessed this property for RowlandRoad Improvements.: The bbasisfforassessment is the properties ability the to develop and benefit from the improvements. • 4.6 December 7, 1993 Item No. VIII.A.2 MEMORANDUM • TO: Alan Gray, City Engineer FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Stuart Fox, City Forester Jeff Cordes, Forestry Technician DATE: December 16, 1993 SUBJECT: Review of Tree Inventory and Calculation of Tree Replacement for Galameau Land Alteration Permit Staff has reviewed the tree inventory for the Galarneau Land Alteration Permit and have verified that 1206 caliper inches of trees exist on the property. There are 734 caliper inches of shade trees, mostly Oak, and 472 caliper inches of conifer trees, the majority of which are Pine and Spruce. The developer is asking that the "Farmstead shelterbelt" of pines not be considered as significant trees. The code does not make this distinction, it defines a significant tree as a deciduous hardwood measuring 12 inches in diameter or greater or a coniferous tree measuring 8 inches in diameter or greater. The removal of trees without mitigation would not be consistent with City code. These trees are a significant site feature and the loss of these trees changes the visual character of the site. While it is true that over time the stand of trees will decline, but this is • no different than a natural occurring forest where the stronger trees outlive the weaker ones. The 61 inch Cottonwood is considered a healthy tree according to code, since less than 40% of the trunk has been damaged. The tree should remain in the inventory as a tree to be replaced. The grading plan indicates that 52 percent or 632 caliper inches would be lost due to grading. Tree replacement is calculated at 440 caliper inches. The Developer has submitted a tree replacement plan for 440 inches. Tree replacement trees according to City Code shall be no less than 3" diameter for shade trees, and no less than 7 foot height for conifers. The code requires that replacement trees be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed and shall include approved species as required by code. The code does not permit willow, birch, hawthorne, crab apple or amur maple as replacement trees. The plan should be revised to meet code for acceptable replacement trees for this site including oak, linden, maple, pine and spruce. Some of the conifers on site could be relocated and used as a credit for tree replacement. Considering that the property is adjacent to residential, the Staff would suggest that the majority of trees be planted along Old Shady Oak Road and Rowland Road. Prior to the grading permit issuance, the Developer must provide a revised tree replacement plan for 440 caliper inches and a security amount equal to 150% of the cost of installation of the tree replacement plan. The City will retain the security amount for one full growing season after planting. m:\galameau V 7T A. 3 • December 2 , 1993 Dear Mayor Tempas : I am writing to you not as a single concerned citizen but as an appointed spokesman for the Eden Prairie neighborhoods of Cherokee Trail , Rasberry Hill , and Bryant Pointe . This Tuesday December 7 the City Council will be considering the granting of a grading permit for the Galarneau Property off Old Shady Oak Road . We are asking that you deny the grading permit at this time . Our neighborhoods are not opposed to development we just want to insure that any development will meet certain quality, safety, environmental , traffic and esthetic requirements . Although the granting of a grading permit without an approved building plan is not illegal it certainly is unusual . The City Planner informs us this approach to development happens probably less than 10% of the time . Two years ago we were upset that the developer was using this approach with little or no input from the neighborhood. We compiled over 50 signatures on a petition opposing the granting of the grading permit . We called and talked to most of the City Council members and were prepared to speak at the City Council meeting scheduled for December 17 , 1991 . At the last minute (December 13 , 1991 ) they withdrew their request for a grading permit and engaged the City of Eden Prairie in a lawsuit shortly thereafter. Now its 2 years later and their heavy handed fast shuffle approach is still the same . • We would like to see this project developed through the normal process and with the high standards that the City of Eden Prairie is famous for. The normal process as described by the City Planner is : 1 . ) Developer draws up a building plan. 2 . ) City Staff reviews the plan. Staff recommendations incorporated into plan. 3 . ) Neighborhood meeting for input to proposed plan. 4 . ) Public hearing with planning commission. 5 . ) Planning commission approval . . 6 . ) City Council meeting/Public hearing . 7 . ) Grading starts . This allows for 3 opportunities for neighborhood input prior to any grading being done . 11111 -K.-W. A. 1 The City code section 11 . 55 subparagraph:- 1B states "The Council desires to insure maintenance of the natural vegetation and topography, to encourage protection and preservation of the natural environment , to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to urban development of wooded areas which provides for minimal tree loss . " Although they have a plan for tree replacement , why bulldoze everything now and create a large acreage of dirt , mud and blowing dust? How long will this mud bowl sit as an eyesore before a plan is approved and buildings built? We will be present at the upcoming City Council meeting to present our thoughts . We implore you to deny the grading permit at this time and lets all work together through the normal process to develop a project everyone can be proud of . Sincerely, • Steven J . Yungner i TREE ANALYSIS AND REPLACEMENT PLAN •FOR THE INTERSTATE PROPERTY Over the last two years•, and particularly the last three months, extensive analysis and invento have been conducted of the vegetative patterns on the "Interstate" property. The purpose of these stud has been to create a plan, consistent with development of the property, to preserve as much of the valuable vegetation, trees, and natural conditions as possible. -- Approximately half of the site, in the center portion, consists of a wetland. An extensive wetlands mitigation and preservation plan has been drafted and approved by the 9 Mile Creek Watershed District, and approval is pending at the Army Corps of Engineer level. The tentative response of the Army Corps of Engineers is that the plan is well within their criteria and should receive their approval. The existing trees have been surveyed and their value assessed, and a grading plan has been devised to save as many trees as possible that will have long term benefit to the property, while permitting the property to be developed. The trees fall into two general groups. The first group are all of the significant natural trees on the property. The second group are pine trees planted in an unnatural fashion known as a "shelter belt" on a hill in the middle of the northern portion of the property. SIGNIFICANT NATURAL TREES In the first category, the most recent adjusted tree inventory and caliper inch count is as follows: Oak: 17 trees totalling 407 inches • Maple: 3 trees totaling 57 inches Linden: 1 tree totalling 27 inches Ironwood: 1 tree totalling 12 inches Cottonwood: 3 trees totalling 93 inches (including 61 inch cottonwood in the north central portion of the site) Spruce: 3 trees totalling 27 inches Pine: 15 trees totalling 111 inches Totals: 43 trees totalling 734 inches. For trees in the first category, tree preservation under the revised grading plan dated November 30, 1993 is as follows: Total caliper inches to be preserved 574 inches (78%) Total significant trees saved 25 (58%) This tree preservation program more than exceeds the guidelines of the City and complies with the City tree ordinance. • THE SHELTERBELT OF PINE TREES The second category of trees, the "shelter belt trees" in the northern portion of the property, All technically covered trees under the City's ordinance, are not valuable trees. They are not native to the site and they have been planted too close together so that the root systems of the trees are choking each • A . � • • other. The trees will not survive long term and under the existing conditions cannot be expected to survive more than a very few years even if left in their natural state. In addition, they are in a location that must be graded in order to develop the property. The challenge with these trees is to find a solution . that will enable appropriate development of the property and actually enhance the long term development of trees on the overall site. This stand of trees includes 50 pine trees with 472 total caliper inches. When added to the other significant natural trees, these pines represent 39% of the total caliper inches of trees on the property and 54% of the number of trees on the property. On a pure statistical basis, the calculations for tree preservation, including the farmstead trees is as follows: The number of "significant" trees saved = 25 of 93 (27%) The number of caliper inches preserved = 574 of 1,206 (48%) Although the farmstead pines are covered under the City's ordinance, they are not valuable and a tree replacement program will do more for the long term development and preservation of the area than will an attempt to preserve these trees. Development of the property for any purpose is impossible if those trees are preserved. Therefore, the "farmstead" trees should not be considered in the tree preservation calculations. The effort should be to replace them, and to save other trees on the site. REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Although the farmstead shelter belt trees should not be saved, they should be replaced with healthy • trees in locations on the property where they will thrive and grow over the years. Under the City's tree replacement ordinance, the total required replacement is: 632 divided by 1206 times 1.33 times 632. This calculation results in 440 caliper inches of replacement. The tree replacement ordinance requires replacing the existing pine shelter belt with 147 trees. The proposed plan is to replace them with a variety of species, increasing the ecological diversity on the property. These trees would be placed in locations that would permit them to grow and be healthy and contribute to the long term benefit of the City. New trees, properly placed, would be of immeasurably greater value than the existing clump of pines. The replacement trees.will be placed along the edges of the wetland areas to enhance the wetland and provide some screening from surrounding properties and as can be accommodated within proposed development plans to further screen proposed developments. CONCLUSION Every effort has been made to save and preserve significant, natural trees on this site. A plan has been developed to deal with the shelterbelt pine trees which will actually accentuate the natural beauty of the parcel by replacing them with other more diverse, long living trees. This should accomplish more than the minimum goals set out in the Eden Prairie City Ordinance. • 49926-1 Page 2 of 2 Al DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL December 21)1993 411/ RESOURCES COMMISSION AGENDA FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of PRNR Tic_ SECTION: Director of PRNR DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Parks, Recreation & Proposal to Change Open Skating & Open X r' e 1 Natural Resources Swimming Hours at Community Center RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommend the City Council approve changing the format of open skating and open' swimming hours on Friday and Saturday evenings to be as follows: Previous Schedule Proposed Schedule Skating - 8:00 - 11:00 p.m. 8:00 - 9:45 p.m. - all ages 10:00 - 11:00 p.m. - adult, parent/child only Swimming - 7:30 - 11:00 p.m. 7:30 - 9:45 p.m. - all ages 10:00 - 11:00 p.m. - adult, parent/child only 0 BACKGROUND: The attached memorandums from Dave Black, Operations Supervisor; and Jim Clark, Chief of Police, provide support information for staff making the recommendation to change the public skating and public swimming format on Friday and Saturday nights. This change will coincide with the City ordinance regarding the 10:00 p.m. curfew for persons under age 15 and is designed to reduce the problems that have generally occurred between 9:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. Over the past few months a number of parents have indicated to staff that they have serious concerns about leaving their children at the Community Center when there is no off ice supervision. The Operations Supervisor and our Chief of Police suggest limiting the last hour of open skating to individuals 18 years of age or older, or children accompanied by parents. This change along with the request for funding a building supervisor on Friday and Saturday nights will, hopefully, alleviate parent concerns and make an immediate impact on the increasing number of problems - , that have occurred at that facility in recent months. BL:mdd Action/Direction: tuber 7, 1993 Is • MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources THROUGH: Laurie Helling, Manager for Recreation Services FROM: Dave Black, Operations Supervisor DATE: November 12, 1993 SUBJECT: Open Skating Problems on Friday & Saturday Nights at Community Center BACKGROUND: The staff at the Community Center has been aware of problems developing with behavior of youth who hang around EPCC during public skating sessions. Many of these individuals are 15 years old or younger and are not accompanied by a parent or guardian. Most of the problems have been minor in nature where it is mostly kids showing off among their friends. • There has been a recent trend which has developed in which there is use of bad language, horsing around, pushing and even a fist fight, along with inappropriate behavior toward young children who are using the facility with their family. There are about 2 to 3 dozen youths who are making it difficult for families to use the open skating times for what there were designed for, as well as creating a fear for parents who drop their kids off for open swimming or skating who are 12 years old or younger. Almost every week I get a call from a concerned parent and last week end staff confiscated a co2 pellet pistol which was brought into the ice arena during open skating by a 15 year old male who was skating during open skating. I have been working with Chief Clark from police to improve behavior at EPCC from these youths. Chief Clark is in the process of supplying a park ranger to assist in patrolling EPCC. It has been brought to my attention that a curfew law exists which we can better comply to at EPCC if there is an alternation in the open skating and open swimming hours on Friday and Saturday evenings. Attached is a copy of the City Ordinance regarding curfew being at 10:00 p.m. for persons under the age of 15 years old. • There has also been an increasing amount of high school aged youth requesting the use of the ice arena for broomball ice rentals. Most of these requests lead to a game where there are a • lot of unsupervised youths hanging around the building making it even more intimidating for families to feel comfortable during week end evening open sessions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends changing the format of open skating and open swimming hours on Friday and Saturday evenings to be as follows: Previous Schedule Proposed schedule skating 8:00 - 11:00 p.m. 8:00 - 9:45p.m. all ages 10:00 -11:00 p.m. adult, parent/child only swimming 7:30 - 11:00 p.m 7:30 - 9:45 p.m. all ages 10:00 - 11:00 p.m. adult, parent/child only For adult skating or swimming it is important to have a distinct gap in the schedule whereas the ice is resurfaced and the pool cleared so staff can usher out for 10:00 p.m. ride pick up. The defmition of adult for open skating or swimming should be 18 years of age and above. Any one under 18 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or guardian. Staff recommends that the policy for renting ice at EPCC state that the responsible person be at least 21 years of age and be in attendance for the entire length of time that the ice is rented. This would help to control the amount of unsupervised youth who pony up with a class mate who happens to be 18 years old and can sign for the ice time and isn't in a position where they can supervise their piers. . ATTACHMENTS: Community Center Ice Rental Policy City Curfew Ordinance • 11111 �a-7-93 • • City of Eden Prairie C UNITY CENTER `'' " Gleu rain... alley View Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55346-3677 • Telephone (612) 937-8727 :t.._ Community Center Ice Rental Policy -- The procedure for renting ice at the Eden Prairie Community Center is as follows: 1. You must be 18 years or older to rent ice. Also all groups using Ice Arena must have at least one adult supervising their group. The adult is responsible for the behavior of the participants and persons watching in the Arena. Eden Prairie Community Center is an alcohol free and smoke free facility. Persons with alcohol on their breath are not allowed to participant in ice rentals. The Eden Prairie Police will be called on any questionable occurrence. Group is subject to forfeiture of money and ice time if a violation in privilege occurs at anytime before or during the rental. 2. A non refundable $30.00 down payment for each hour rented is required. Ice is rented on a first come first serve basis, meaning the first person that puts money down. 3. The remaining balance, is due in full before the persons or group takes the ice. 41). 4. All ice rentals arc not final until full payment has been received. 5. If the rental is by a hockey group, full AIiAUS certified equipment is required to be worn at all times. 6. If the rental is by broomball group, hockey helmets are required by all participants at all times. I the undersigned have read and understand the above ice rental policy. I agree to abide by these procedures. Name of Group/Individual Renting Ice Time (Print Namc) Address City State Zip Code Drivers License Date of Birth Signed Date 42- /7-93 • *,•. . ro,ryri,d r,i,,,, Subd. 3. Dumping on Public Property. It is unlawful for any person to throw or deposit on public property any nails, dirt,glass or glassware, cans, discarded cloth or clothing, metal scraps, garbage, leaves, grass or tree limbs, paper or paper products,shreds or rubbish,oil,grease or other petroleum products or to empty any water containing salt or other injurious chemical thereon. It is a violation of this Section to place or store any building materials or waste resulting from building construction or demolition on public property without first having obtained a written permit from the Council. " Subd. 4. Snow or Ice on Public Property. It is unlawful for any person not acting under a contract with the City to dump snow or ice on public property except as permitted on streets pursuant to Section 6.06, Subdivision 5. Subd. 5. Continuing Violation. Each day that any person continues in violation of this Section shall be a separate offense and punishable as such. Subd. 6. Condition. Before granting any permit under any of the provisions of this Section, the Council may impose such insurance or bonding conditions thereof as it, considering the projected danger to public or private property or to persons, deems proper for safeguarding such persons and property. Such insurance or bond shall also protect the City from any suit, action or cause of action arising by reason of such obstruction. SECTION 9.35. CURFEW. Subd. 1. Curfew - Minors. A. It is unlawful for any minor person under the age of fifteen (15) years to be or loiter upon the streets or public places between the hours of 10:00 o'clock P.M. and 5:00 o'clock A.M. B. It is unlawful for any minor person age fifteen (15) years and under the age of eighteen (18) years to be or loiter upon the streets or public places between the hours of midnight and 5:00 o'clock A.M. Subd. 2. Curfew -Parents and Guardians. It is unlawful for any parent, guardian, or other person having the legal care or custody of any minor person to allow or permit such minor person to be or loiter upon the streets or public places in violation of this Section unless such minor is accompanied by a person of lawful age having such minor person in charge. Subd. 3. Curfew - Places of Amusement, Entertainment or Refreshment. It is unlawful for any person operating or in charge of any place of amusement, entertainment or refreshment, or other place of business to allow or permit any minor person to be or loiter in such place in violation of this Section unless such minor is accompanied by a person of lawful age having such minor person in charge. This Subdivision shall not be construed to permit the presence at any time of any person under age in any place where his presence is otherwise prohibited by law. Subd.. 4. Exceptions. Such curfew shall not apply to any students under the age of eighteen (18)years who are lawfully attending, going to or returning from school, church or community-sponsored athletic, musical or social activities or events. • SECTION 9.36. ABANDONING A MOTOR VEHICLE. It is unlawful for any person to abandon a motor vehicle on any public or private property without the consent of the person in control of such property. For the purpose of this Section, a "motor vehicle" is as defined in - Minnesota Statutes, 1990, Chapter 169,and the term "abandon" means to permit to remain thereon for a continuous period in excess of forty-eight (48) hours. 9-31 %c- -9_3 SECTION 9.30. DISORDERLY CONDUCT GENERALLY. • It is unlawful for any person in a public or private place, knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that it will or will tend to alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke any assault or breach of the peace, to do or permit upon premises owned or controlled by him the following: (1) engage in brawling or fighting; (2)disturb an assembly or meeting not unlawful in its character; or, (3) engage in offensive, obscene or abusive language or in boisterous and noisy conduct tending reasonably to arouse alarm,anger or resentment in others;or, (4)-willfully and lewdly expose his person or the private parts thereof or procure another to so expose himself;behave in an open or gross licentious or lascivious manner; or perform any act of public indecency; or, (5)voluntarily enter the water of any lake, river • or City public swimming pool between the hours of 10:00 o'clock P.M.and 8:00 o'clock A.M. except with specific permission or enter such water without being garbed in a bathing suit sufficient to cover his person and equal to the standards generally adopted and accepted by the public; or, (6) cause the making or production of an unnecessary noise by shouting or by any other means of mechanism including the blowing of any automobile or other vehicle horn; or (7) use a flash or spotlight in a manner so as to annoy or endanger others; or, (8) drink or display any intoxicating liquor or non-intoxicating malt liquor in or about any premises where such drinking or display is prohibited by law; or, (9) cause defacement, destruction or otherwise damage to any premises or any property located thereon; or, (10)strew, scatter, litter, throw, dispose of or deposit any refuse, garbage or rubbish unto any premises except into receptacles provided for such purpose; or, (11) fail or refuse to vacate or leave any premises after being lawfully requested or ordered, whether orally or in writing, to do so by the owner or person in charge thereof or by any law enforcement agent or official provided,however, that this provision shall not apply to any person who is the owner or tenant of the premises involved nor to any law enforcement or other government official who may be present thereon at that time as part of his official duty, nor shall it include the wife, children, employee or tenant of such owner or occupier. SECTION 9.31. DISORDERLY CONDUCT ON SCHOOL GROUNDS AND IN SCHOOL BUILDINGS. Subd. 1. Defacement of School Buildings. It is unlawful for any person to make with ink, paint, chalk or other • substance or post handbills on, or in any other manner deface or injure, any school building or structure used or usable for school purposes. It is unlawful for any person to mark, deface, or injure fences, trees, lawns, or fixtures appurtenant to or located on the site of such buildings, to post handbills on such fences, trees or fixtures, or to place a sign anywhere on any such site. Subd. 2. Breach of Peace on School Grounds. It is unlawful for any person to willfully or maliciously make or assist in making on any school grounds adjacent to any school building or structure any noise, disturbance or - improper diversion or activity by which peace, quiet and good order shall be disturbed. ySubd. 3. Offensive Language and Conduct. It is unlawful for any person to use offensive, obscene, or abusive language or engage in boisterous or noisy conduct tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others on any school grounds or in buildings or structures. Subd. 4. Improper Conduct While School in Session. It is unlawful for any person to, in any school room or in any building or on the grounds adjacent to the same, disturb or interrupt the peace and good order of such school while in session. It is also unlawful for any person not in immediate attendance in such school and being in such building or upon the premises belonging thereto to conduct or behave himself or herself improperly. It is also unlawful for any person upon the request of a teacher of such school or the person in charge thereof to leave said building or premises to neglect or refuse so to do. Source: City Code Effective Date: 9-17-82 X. Subd. 5. Loitering and Improper Presence on School Grounds. It is unlawful for any person to loiter on any school grounds or in any school building or structure or to fail to or refuse to vacate or leave school premises after III . 9-29 /a-7- ei3 6, being lawfully requested to do so orally or in writing by school personnel or any law enforcement agent or official. It is unlawful for any person to appear on school property after being given written notice by school personnel or any law enforcement agent or official to stay off school property for any designated,reasonable length of time. Source: Ordinance No. 28-86 Effective Date: 2-19-86 SECTION 9.32. DISORDERLY CONDUCT -NOISY PARTIES. Subd. 1. It is unlawful for any person or persons to congregate on any private lands because of, or participate in, any party or gathering of people from which noise emanates of a sufficient volume or of such nature as to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of other persons. Any owner or person in lawful possession or control of such private lands who has knowledge of the disturbance and fails to immediately abate said disturbance shall be guilty of a violation of this Section. ✓ Subd. 2. It is unlawful for any person or persons to congregate on any private lands of another because of or participate in, any party or gathering of people in the absence of the owner of said private lands being present without first having obtained written permission from said landowner. Such written permission shall at all times be in the possession of one or more persons at the site of such congregation. The document containing the written permission must bear the signature of the landowner and date of the permitted use. Failure to display written permission upon request shall be considered prima facie evidence of an absence of permission from the owner. Subd. 3. A violation of Subdivision 1 or 2 of this Section shall give a police office the authority to order all persons present other than persons identifying themselves as the owner or person in lawful possession of control of such land to immediately disperse. Any person who shall refuse to leave after being ordered to do so by a police officer shall be guilty of a violation of this Section. SECTION 9.33. SLEEPING AND LOITERING IN STREETS OR PUBLIC PLACES. • Subd. 1. Definition. The term "loiter," as used in this Section, means and includes (1) obstruction of free and unhampered passage of pedestrians or vehicles; (2).interfering with any person lawfully on the premises by obstructing passage; or, (3) refusing to move on when so requested by a peace officer when such peace officer reasonably makes such request to preserve or promote public peace and order. Subd. 2. Unlawful Acts. A. It is unlawful for any person to loiter upon public property except parks. B. It is unlawful for any person to sleep upon streets or in or upon public buildings or structures. SECTION 9.34. OBSTRUCTIONS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. Subd. 1. Obstructions. It is unlawful for any person to place, deposit,display or offer for sale any fence, goods or other obstructions upon,over, across or under any public property without first having obtained a written permit from the City Manager or his designee, and then only in compliance in all respects with the terms and conditions of such permit, and taking precautionary measures for the protection of the public. An electrical cord or device of any kind is hereby included, but not by way of limitation, within the definition of an obstruction. Subd. 2. Fires. It is unlawful for any person to build or maintain a fire upon public property except as otherwise authorized by the City Code. • • 9-30 • /2 -7 -93 • MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Lambert Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Jim Clar Chief of Pol e DATE: November 15, 1993 SUBJECT: Community Center In response to recent concerns regarding disorderly conduct at the Community Center, I attended during open skate/swim this past Friday and have the following observations: • The majority of the crowd is made up of Middle School aged children, the remainder a mix of ages. • A group of 15 to 20 youngsters (Middle School age) frequent the building 11111 with no purpose other than a place to loiter. For the most part, they are irresponsible and out of control with no respect for authority. • There is a growing sense of lack of security and a general unsafe atmosphere—from parents and staff. (I believe that the recent "gun" case and thefts have contributed to that perception.) In addition, the unaware or infrequent visitor is left with a feeling of anxiety as he/she walks through during open skate/swim. Youngsters run through the Center unchecked and unsupervised; left to push, shove, and become mischievous, at times leading to criminal activity. • A number of parents came up to me to tell me they will no longer let their children come to the Center. Conclusion: The image of the Center is plagued by the perception and reality created by unsupervised and disrespectful groups of children. Left unchecked, I am certain that it will lead to a hesitation on some parts of the community to use the facility. % -7-93 g, Community Center November 15, 1993 • Page 2 Resolution: Short Term — Hire and assign Park Ranger with defined goals to, remove trouble makers and assure a safe environment. The Park Ranger will be selected specifically for this assignment. He/she will be supported by an assigned Police Officer to make "spot" visits (in progress). A firm but fair approach should be taken, with violators of law cited or arrested, and loitering discouraged. Long Term — • Examine staffing and create supervisor position for evenings/ weekends with no maintenance expectations. • Hire seasonal Park Ranger or Security person for Community Center, • as needed. The position should not be permanent and the person should have specific talents that would contribute to the resolution of known problems. • Develop and post "house rules"; i.e., no loitering, no smoking, etc., etc. • Change open skate/swim hours to end no later than 10 p.m. This will be more consistent with curfew. I believe that if we take immediate action, we can restore confidence that the Community Center is an enjoyable/safe place to visit. JGC:sm • /a- 7- 9_3 9 • MR. DOUG TEMPAS, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL CITY CENTER EDEN PRAIRIE MN. MAYOR TEMPAS I WAS READING THE ARTICLE IN THE CITY PAPER ON THE PROBLEMS AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER DURING OPEN SKATING. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION. I SURVEYED OTHER COMMUNITIES SEVERAL YEARS AGO ABOUT THE LENGTH OF TIME DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES HAD FOR OPEN SKATING. BLOOMINGTON IN A WEEKEND HAD 6 HOURS OF OPEN SKATING. EDEN PRAIRIE HAS 24. OUR YOUNG PEOPLE ARE GOOD KIDS, BUT AS A PARENT YOU KNOW THAT PUTTING THAT MANY KIDS IN ONE PLACE FOR THREE HOURS IS LOOKING FOR TROUBLE. OTHER COMMUNITIES DO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY LIMIT OPEN SKATING TO AN HOUR. OUR YOUNG PEOPLE COME AND SKATE FOR AN HOUR AND HANG OUT FOR 2 HOURS. THIS IS NOT A GOOD COMBINATION. EDEN PRAIRIE HAS 24 HOURS A WEEKEND OF OPEN SKATING. THE CLOSEST TO US IN TIME IS EDINA WITH 16. MOST ONLY HAVE ABOUT 6 TO 8 HOURS OF OPEN SKATING. THE MAINTENANCE COST GO WAY DOWN, AND THE ICE RENTAL COST COME CLOSE TO BREAK EVEN IF YOU REDUCE THE OPEN SKATING TIME TO ONE HOUR. PEOPLE WILL SKATE AND NOT JUST USE THE CENTER TO HANG OUT. BOB KERSHAW 14030 FOREST HILL RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN. 55346 937-8535 • MEMORANDUM X r. C • TO: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources THROUGH: Laurie Helling, Manager of Recreation Services FROM: Dave Black , Operations Supervisor DATE: November 27, 1993 SUBJECT: Create a Part Time Position at the EPCC to Supervise Open Skate BACKGROUND There have been many problems in conjunction with Friday & Saturday evening open skate with regard to behavior. These problems are due to unsupervised children ages 10 - 15 hanging out at the Community Center and doing very little skating. In the short term the police have been very helpful in attempting to create a safe and friendly atmosphere for families and users. The cost of assigning a police officer is quite high, yet the ilk need for professional supervision with a security background is necessary to keep the facility VP clear of trouble-makers so the programs can be conducted as they were designed. Presently the police supply a person hired as a park ranger to assist in curbing these problems for the short term. REQUEST Staff requests approval of a part-time staff position within the Community Center budget entitled "Building Security" to work every Friday and Saturday evening from 7:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. The position would warrant a wage range of between $8.00 - $10.00 per hour. The annual cost would be between $3,200 - $4,160. This position would begin in Spring of 1994 when the park ranger position terminates. Upon approval, staff will work out details with the Human Resources Department in creating a job description and post this position. cc: Natalie Swaggert, Director of Human Resources & Community Services Jim Clark, Chief of Police 42-hlg3 411 MR. DOUG TEMPAS, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL CITY CENTER EDEN PRAIRIE MN. MAYOR TEMPAS I WAS READING THE ARTICLE IN THE CITY PAPER ON THE PROBLEMS AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER DURING OPEN SKATING. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION. I SURVEYED OTHER COMMUNITIES SEVERAL YEARS AGO ABOUT THE LENGTH OF TIME DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES HAD FOR OPEN SKATING. BLOOMINGTON IN A WEEKEND HAD 6 HOURS OF OPEN SKATING. EDEN PRAIRIE HAS 24. OUR YOUNG PEOPLE ARE GOOD KIDS, BUT AS A PARENT YOU KNOW THAT PUTTING THAT MANY KIDS IN ONE PLACE FOR THREE HOURS IS LOOKING FOR TROUBLE. OTHER COMMUNITIES DO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY LIMIT OPEN SKATING TO AN HOUR. OUR YOUNG PEOPLE COME AND SKATE FOR AN HOUR AND HANG OUT FOR 2 HOURS. THIS IS NOT A GOOD COMBINATION. EDEN PRAIRIE HAS 24 HOURS A WEEKEND OF OPEN SKATING. THE • CLOSEST TO US IN TIME IS EDINA WITH 16. MOST ONLY HAVE ABOUT 6 TO 8 HOURS OF OPEN SKATING. THE MAINTENANCE COST GO WAY DOWN, AND THE ICE RENTAL COST COME CLOSE TO BREAK EVEN IF YOU REDUCE THE OPEN SKATING TIME TO ONE HOUR. PEOPLE WILL SKATE AND NOT JUST USE THE CENTER TO HANG OUT. BOB KERSHAW 14030 FOREST HILL RD. EDEN PRAIRIE, MN. 55346 937-8535 411 Minutes - PRNR Commission Monday, December 6, 1993 C. Reports of Community Center Manager. 1. Recommendation to Change Open Skating Hours at Community Center. 2. Recommendation to Provide Position at Community Center to Supervise Open Skating. Dave Black: presented background information for staff making recommendation to change the public skating and public swimming format on Friday and Saturday nights. This change will coincide with the City ordinance regarding the 10: 00 p.m. curfew for persons under age 15 and is designed to reduce the problems that have generally been occurring between 9:30-11:00 p.m. Over the past few months a number of parents have indicated to staff that they have serious concerns about leaving their children at the Community Center when there is no off ice supervision. The Operations Supervisor and the Chief of Police suggest limiting the last hour of open skating to individuals 18 years of age or older, or children accompanied by parents. This change along with the request for fundin a building supervisor on Friday and Saturday nights 411. should hopefully alleviate parent concerns and make an immediate impact on the increasing number of problems. Brown: as you know I love to skate, and I have quit going to open skating for these very reasons. Is it up to the PRNR to monitor this disorderly conduct law? Page 9-30 regarding "loitering", should we add some language to give teeth to this enforcement? What authority does this staff person (new building supervisor) have? Two issues: 1) Hours - majority of problems occur between 10:00-11:00 p.m. and 2) Staffing - difficult to monitor language and running around of kids. Very concerned that parents wont drop off kids because the Community Center is getting a reputation as a hang out for "tough kids" . We need to nip this in the bud now. Lambert: the staff has been working with the police department on how to display the rules for the Community Center, who/how to call the police, and how to deal with the parents. They have hired an additional staff person to beef up the enforcement, and they are changing thee hours. They might need 2-3 people skating on the ice for 3 Minutes - PRNR Commission Monday, December 6, 1993 • open skating for a few nights to help initiate the new program. -- Hilgeman: changing the Center's hours is great. But to add staffing is a $4,000 charge, and we just approved to close the Center Care due to lack of finances. I know this isn't a perfect world, but can't we fine the offenders rather than increase the fees of open skating? MOTION: Brown moved to approve the change in hours for public skating and swimming on Friday and Saturday nights, and to for approval to hire a part-time staff person as building supervisor on Friday and Saturday nights. Motion seconded by Hilgeman. Motion passed 5-0. IX. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Richard moved to adjourn the meeting. Brown seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Hengel Recording Secretary 1206Park • 14 LI DATE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA • PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL • RESOURCES COMMISSION AGENDA ' 23 lq , pir FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of PRNR .- -- SECTION: Director of PRNR DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Parks, Recreation & Cash Park Fees for 1994 X I' e3 Natural Resources RECOMMENDATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PARK FEES: Although, land values have increased in the southwest part of Eden Prairie in the last two years, it is extremely difficult to pin down an average increase in value. Staff believe that a very conservative estimate would be to recommend a park fee for residential development of$900 per unit for 1994. This would be equivalent to charging 10% of raw land valued at$22,500 per acre. RESIDENTIAL PARK FEES BACKGROUND: • In 1992 cash parks fees were set at$840 per unit for all residential development. The cash park fees are determined by a formula based on 10% of the fair market value of unimproved land that has access to water and sewer for development (within the MUSA line). The fees are determined by the number of units that would normally be developed as low density residential, or 2% units per acre. As an example, $840 per unit would be equivalent to land valued at $21,000 per acre($840 x 2.5 = $2,100 x 10 = $21,000). It would be very difficult to find any developable land within the MUSA line, that has access to sewer and water, that could be purchased for under $25,000 per acre. Staff has recommended a cash park fee based on a conservative estimate of land values in Eden Prairie. RECOMMENDATION FOR COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL. DEVELOPMENT PARK FEES: It is important for the City of Eden Prairie to be competitive in all of our fees with other municipalities; therefore, City staff would recommend the Council consider a fee based on 5 of land valued at$1.50 per square foot. This is a very conservative estimate of the average land cost, and would total a fee of$3.250 per acre for 1994. That fee would be competitive with the 1993 fees for Eagan, Burnsville, Apple Valley and Plymouth. COMMERCIAL, OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL PARK FEES BACKGROUND: The existing commercial, office and industrial land is charged at$2,965 per acre and has been since January 1992. In the past, the City Council has been very conservative in charging the 40 cash park fee based on a percentage of land value for commercial, office and industrial development. The existing fee is based on 5% of land valued at$59,300 per acre, which equals about $1.36 per square foot. Commercial, office and industrial land in Eden Prairie averages,. closer to $2.50 per square foot; however, the range is probably anywhere from $2.00 a square la/7193 I Cash Park Fees for 1994 November 22, 1993 ' io ., ., , Page 2 foot to$10.00 per'square foot. Land selling for$2.50 per square foot equals$108,900 per� . Five percent of that value would be $5,445 per acre. That fee would be rather steep compared ` to most other municipalities. . -- - -'-''' 411_ , BL:mdd cashfees/bob L" Action�h'ection: • December 7,1993lir 1993 PARK DEDICATION SURVEY S 1. Eden Prairie (formula based on 10% of land value or cash equivalent). Residential $840/unit Commercial/Industrial $2,965/acre *No credit for trails 2. Maple Grove (formula based on 10% of land or cash equivalent). Basic single family residential $638/unit Commercial $3,064/acre Industrial $2,058/acre 3. Eagan (formula based on 10% of land value or cash equivalent). Basic single family residential $800/unit Commercial/Industrial $3,200/acre (also charges a separate water quality fee) 4. Burnsville Residential land $512/unit 5% of land/cash (divided by units) Commercial $3,500/acre 4111 Industrial $2,000/acre 5% of land/cash 5. Apple Valley (formula based on 10% of land or cash equivalent). Residential $2,000/acre $1,000/unit (divided by units/acre paid at time of building permit - 2 units/acre = $1,000) Commercial/Industrial 5% of land value/acre • (range $1,000-$5,000/acre) 6. Lakeville Residential $650 + $150 = 800/unit Commercial/Industrial $2,500/acre 5% of current market value 7. Plymouth (formula based on 10% of land value or cash equivalent). *1992 figures. Basic single family residential $860/unit Commercial/Industrial $3,500/acre (Plymouth pays developers to build trails.) 4111 *Eden Prairie requires developers to build trails along roads as part of their transportation plans. No cash credit is given. This leaves more money for park acquisition and development. a�//9.3 -. Minutes - PRNR Commission Monday, December 6, 1993 S E. Senior Center Financing. Brown wanted to know who set the $10 limit on petty cash, could it be raised to $25? The decision for a $10 limit is the recommendation of the auditor to City Council. Use of petty cash is being discouraged, prefer that requisition system be used for better tracking. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Cash Park Fees for 1994. Lambert: EP did not re-evaluate these fees last year, recommend that it be done this year. Have been fairly conservative with their estimates, the Cash Park Fee does not keep up with the value. EP is trying to stay in line with what other communities are charging. Richard: this looks good, with the land values that we have we should be at the top or near the tc of the scale. The law is universal across the state, a reasonable percentage (fee) of the land is to be available to justify the cost of new/replacement parks. EP's land is also more valuable than many of the other suburbs. Brown: What do Edina and Minnetonka charge for their Case Park Fees? Not the same comparison as neither Edina o Minnetonka have much of a park system. He recommends that if an increase is passed this year that it also be reviewed for increase every year. MOTION: Popovich Lynch moved to increase the Cash Park Fees for 1994 for residential development to $900 per unit and for Commercial, Office and Industrial Development to $3 ,250 per acre. Motion seconded by Kube-Harderwijk. Motion passed 6-0. • u . CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION AGENDA Decemberli,. 1993 • FROM: Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks & Natural Resources SECTION: Director of PRNR - DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Parks, Recreation & Rental Fee Recommendation for Community Natural Resources Garden Plots X ' BACKGROUND: For the past 15 plus years, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Department has provided land for Eden Prairie residents to plant gardens. Starting at Round Lake Park, the site has changed four times, moving to Franlo Park, the old City Hall site (Pioneer Park), and currently the gardens are on located land leased from the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). During this time period, the fees charged for rental of garden plots has not changed significantly. Currently, the fees are as follows: • 20x30 foot garden is $8.00 • 30x60 foot garden is $12.00 14) • Residents 65 and older receive a $2.00 discount on plot fees CURRENT OPERATING COSTS: The 1993 costs for operation of the garden plots are as follows: • Fertilizer $200.00 • Spring/Fall Plowing & Discing 160.00 • Layout/Staking of Plots 360.00 • Stake Cost 40.00 • Water Hauling for 3 Tanks 400.00 • Cleanup at Season End 60.00 • Land Lease to MAC 40.00 Grand Total $1,300.00 When you take a look at the total area that is prepared and used for gardens it equals 1.5 acres, or 66,600 square feet. Using simple division, the cost to prepare the gardens equals $.02 per square foot of garden that is prepared. The current fees that are charged for garden plots yields revenue to the City at 1.3 cents per square foot, which leaves a shortfall of seven tenths of a cent in relation to the actual cost to operate and maintain the garden plots. In checking with other communities, the going rate in terms of cost per square foot of gardens is between$.04 and $.06 per square foot. These figures are based on the garden plots available to the public aki in Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Richfield. The staff contacted the adjacent communities of lir Chanhassen, Burnsville, Edina, Eagan, Plymouth, and Bloomington, only to find out that these communities do not have community gardening programs for their residents. /. RECOMMENDATION: • The staff would recommend that the garden fees be increased to cover the actual and. maintenance costs for the community gardens, which would be 2C per square foot. Thus wc i mean that a 24x30 garden would rent for $12/season and a 20x6a plot would r+ for. $24/season. In addition, the staff would recommend that the $2.0 discqunt still apply for residents 65 and over for the 1994 gardening season. SAF:mdd plotfees/stuart60 40 Action/Diredion: December 7, 1993 110 Minutes - PRNR Commission Monday, December 6, 1993 C. Recommendation to Increase Fees for Garden Plots to Cover Costs. Lambert: has received calls from gardeners that some plots are rented and never used, tall weeds run wild. If we were to increase the rental fees the plots would pay their own way. Hilgeman: she has always thought the charge was not enough. Kube-Harderwijk: she paid $12 for a 15'x20' fifteen years ago in Roseville. These proposed prices are very fair. Have you asked gardeners their position regarding fertilizer? Some/many may not want a blanket fertilizer applied to their plot - you could save money by not fertilizing. MOTION: Popovich Lynch moved to approve the Recommended to Increase Fees for Garden Plots to cover costs. Seconded by Hilgeman. Motion passed 6-0. • • 3 , D TE: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ►,► DeCOSI fy� 11 /4 FROM: Laurie Helling, Manager of Recreation Services SECTION: Reports of Director of PRNR DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. Parks, Recreation & Gift Book )X I. C 5i Natural Resources INTRODUCTION: Staff was instructed by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources to develop a publication that would highlight park and facility needs not funded in the general budget. Upon publication, Excellence Through Giving would be shared with community businesses, service organizations and clubs at their request. BACKGROUND: For quite some time, donors in our community have asked how they can best contribute to the PRNR Department. With that request in mind, staff gathered input from other PRNR staff members, and their suggestions were included in the draft version of the gift book, Excellence Through Giving. The gift book highlights donation opportunities for facilities, programs,youth scholarships, parks and volunteer programs. A city-endorsed recognition program is:also 40 included in this document. REQUEST: Staff requests authorization to publish and present Excellence Through Giving to local service; organizations and potential contributors upon request. CLOSING COMMENTS: Staffs intention is to provide community supporters the opportunity to contribute to the PRNR Department. Excellence Through Giving offers a cross section of tax-deductible gift suggestions to enable individuals, service organizations and corporations the opportunity to finance a program or facility of their choice. Attachment: Gift Book (draft copy) PRNR Commission Minutes of November 1, 1993 Action/Direction: cember 7, 1993 Minutes - PRNR Commission • Monday, November 1, 1993 Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Moved by Richard, seconded by Brown, the Commission deny the request to rezone the 13.13 acres from rural to R-9.5 for 30 single family homes due to the number of significant variances requested. Motion passed unanimously. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Amendment to the City Code Regulating Use of Bicycle Ways - Lambert reviewed the reason for the request for the amendment. MOTION: Moved by Brown, seconded by Kube-Harderwijk, to approve the proposed amendment to the City Code Regulating Use of Bicycle Ways. Motion passed unanimously. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Water Quality Improvement Project - Lambert reviewed the Engineering II/ Department application for a water quality improvement project grant to complete a diagnostic/feasibility study for Round Lake, Mitchell Lake and Red Rock Lake. This will check the water quality of these three lakes since they were connected through he chain of lakes project. MOTION: Moved by Kube-Harderwijk, seconded by Brown, to approve the grant application for the Clean Water Partnership Grant. Motion passed unanimously. B. Gift Book - Helling described the "Gift Book" as a list of ideas that could be provided to community service clubs that are often looking for projects that would benefit the community. It is not intended to promote or "sell" these ideas to the public for projects. Kube-Harderwijk indicated that she really appreciated having this project list. Hilgeman stated that one of the first things that she asked when she became a Commission member was for this type of a gift book so individuals, neighborhood groups or community service organizations would have an idea of what park improvements, etc. would cost. MOTION: Moved by Kube-Harderwijk, seconded by Hilgeman, to recommend authorization to publish the "Excellence Through Giving" book and to provide it to local public service groups and to make it available to potential contributors upon request. Motion passed Unanimously. • C. Tax Forfeited Lands - Lambert reviewed the lands that the City can acquire for parks and ponding. Parcels are adjacent to other land acquired for a future is/7l53 ` ' NNW!: ce ech gh • GIFT 1300K CITY OF EI)EN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION e" NATI:RAL RESOtiRCES /4//q3 • I1 •:.',', ',.,.!.'' ' ' r .. ,' , ', ,, ' ' ' : ', ', , - . , :'.^' ''''': ' ..7";-,';*.''...1'1.''.: ''...:". --.1--1,•'',0"-k-j..;`''''-:i -• ..+ � I '{ d 7.' a , . ,4,. ....,„4„,... 4.4:::,•.7... ..4,,,... ...„..,:..,:44,... .„ze.:47., :.: ,. „..:,,, ,4,,. . ,. ,.. ...,...:;,.,, , .,.. . ., „ ,.. :4, •,;.....„,..4...4 . 4,4 4., 4,,. 4,:ti.,..,,... e.,.. .4,, . 1 4 • 4: .., 4 : .•....-4,,•,4•47,.- • R .w . '- t i II } • J r \ c\). _ 4-- • • .A. 41110 I • 11 /q3 6. • PARKS AR I~' C) P PEOPLE Eden Prairie's park and recreation system represents the foresight of our predecessors, who purchased and designated land for future leisure use. Much of the finest lakeshore and creek valley property in the City has been preserved for all to enjoy. More than 1,100 acres of wooded and scenic terrain plus 600 acres of developed parkland are included in the park and open space system. We inherit this public trust and are responsible for the parkland and facilities so future generations may continue to enjoy these treasured legacies. With your support, we can carry on the fine tradition set forth by previous Eden Prairie leaders by enhancing the development of one of the finest park systems in Minnesota. 0 Excellence Through Giving provides individuals, service organizations and corporations with a wide variety of opportunities to make a commitment to Eden Prairie parks, facilities and programs. Each volunteer hour, every dollar contributed and all the many services provided through this catalog can improve the park and recreation system, making Eden Prairie a better place for everyone—now and in the future. Robert A. Lambert Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources i-1/7 93 7 • EXCJLLENCE THR () ITGH GIVING a-n Prairie residents and businesses the City provide an idea books that they !lave always supported their park could share with their members to generate ov system. However, in our fast growing ideas for giving. community, acquisition of new parkland has had priority over the development of Excellence Through Giving offers a cross existing parks. Many service organizations section of tax-deductible gift suggestions to and individuals have often asked what they enable individuals, service organizations and can do to improve amenities within the corporations the opportunity to finance a park system. program or facility of their choice. Through this special catalog, you may make a personal Some of the finest facilities within our park contribution by financing the entire or par- system have been provided through generous tial cost of a catalog item or by volunteering donations from Eden Prairie service organiza- your time and talents. Let your gift be a tions. Several of these groups have suggested personal legacy to Eden Prairie's future. t '. 1 • y..1 .lam` 4/q3 1. • i , ; -: • \., , . l _-- t .i' FACILITIES � v / \ ` \ v .I-- tearless Lions, Scarecrows and Wizards OUTDOOR aren't only found in Oz.These swim CENTER lesson participants also can be seen splashing 12-15 passenger p g van;used model in presentable about the Community Center's pool. condition and roadworthy is acceptable $5,000 In addition to lessons, more than 136,000 Lined curtains to hang from wooden rods,new or donated 1,000 people used the pool for recreation last year. Overhead projector 400 Another 64,000 laced up to skate on the Wood router tool for making signs 50 Small power tools for wood shop, facility's ice rink, while more than 6,000 including cordless drill,grinding wheel, nature lovers visited Staring Lake's Outdoor saber saw,etc.;used items acceptable 50 Center. Other well-used community facilities include the Senior Center and the Staring SENIOR CENTER Lake Amphitheatre. Ceramics kiln $2,000 Hand tools,work benches,small power tools to complete workshop 1,500 Bunn'0'Matic with hot water hookup 865 COMMUNITY CENTER Sewing projector 400 Sewing machine 400 Security camera for racquetball hallway $5,000 Treadmill 2,000 Nordic Track 1,899 Enclosed bulletin board for lobby 1,000 STARING LAKE AMPHITHEATRE Enclosed bulletin board for new arena 1,000 Traveler curtain , $2,000 Portable sound system 700 Electric keyboard and synthesizer 1,500 Rowing machine 699 Floodlights 1,000 Cotton candy machine 600 Follow spotlights(2) 1,000 each Popcorn machine 500 Speaker/sound system(2) 1,000 each Hot dog warmer 500 Xylophone 1,000 Sno-Kone machine 400 Curtain for backdrop 800 19"color television set for training and Mirrors for makeup area 600 meeting room use 400 Road case 600 Video cassette recorder for meeting room use 400 Bass drum and stand 500 Portable coat racks(2) 75 each Miscellaneous drum equipment 500 30"x 8'laminated folding tables (5) 85 each Banners to hang from theatre 400 • Orange 12"-15"cones for rinks(3 dozen) 60 Curtains or partition for dressing area 200 22"stacking chairs(12) 30 each Speaker stands(4) 100 each 2 • PR () GRA MS 1p :. om art to zambonis, the park and recrea- ADAPTIVE ,-on system offers a wide variety of classes Accessible van $36,000 'Count Me In'puppet package 3,740 and programs for people of all ages. So whether TDD for Community Center 1,200 your interests lie indoors or out,from Gershwin Adjustable basketball hoop 300 to figure skating, there's a program foryou. Gymnastic mats 200 g g p gr Aerosling,portable and adaptable swing 180 Earth ball 150 RECREATION Activity tray 140 Safe-hockey 140 410 Indoor batting cages(2) $1,500 Puff polo 100 Pitching machines(2) 1,500 Head floats for adaptive swim lessons 90 Basketball frames on portable stands(2) 1,300 Big Red Button 80 padding for frames 200 Croquet set 50 Archery equipment 1,000 Bocce ball set 50 Bats baseballs,softballs and helmets 800 12-foot parachute 40 Golf nets,including frames,mats and balls 800 Big Bounce 40 Air hockey table 700 Dycem pad 36 Table soccer 500 Bean bag chair 30 Indoor soccer goals,free standing(2) 500 Tennis racquets(12) 20 each Badminton equipment 400 T-Handle one-handed scissors(2) 16 each Indoor tennis net 400 Dual looptraining equipment for ice arena 250 scissors(8) 10 each Floor hockey equipment 200 Small loop-to-loop scissors(6) 9 each Volleyball equipment 175 Various playground balls(12) 4 each AQUATICS Pool inflatables 5600-3,000 t I- Video camera 1,500 Resusci Anne 500 i -" Resusci Jr. 500 ', Resusci Baby 300 C V ` C9_, Pool basketball hoop 475 1 Emergency telephone(pool) 408 Water polo equipment 400 Water volleyball equipment 400 Aqua joggers(6) 50 each • 3 /0,/c3 AO , 0 The Parks, Recreation &Natural Resources Since its inception, the program has Department strives to make its programs and required additional funds annually as it classes available to all Eden Prairie youths. continues to serve more children each year. To accomplish this, a Youth Scholarship In 1993, allocated funds were almost Program was established in 1988 to help completely distributed by the end of May, families in need of financial assistance. with 93 scholarships awarded to 51 Eden Prairie youths. After meeting eligibility guidelines, scholar- ship recipients may attend one session of You can help ease the financial burden swimming lessons per season free of charge facing some families in our community by and receive $50 worth of programs during donating money to the Youth Scholarship one calendar year. Program. 1993 SCHOLARSHIP DISTRIBUTION • (JANUARY THROUGH MAY) Preschool Playground $52 Youth Baseball Karate Activity Camp $40 $100 Afternoon Playground :100 v. ,ii1i Afternoon Adventures f , * Gymnastics _,,,,,, , issi 1:114 Swimming ,,.. ' * r '? Miscellaneous Classes $1,009 .. $193 ts i0ii0iii0i'0000. '�O.ii "s''� Youth Trips $198 Skating $230 S , , --, 410 _. PARKS / esecret's out! We're not the only ones V ho know Eden Prairie is a great place to 've. '50 Fabulous Places to Raise Your Family" ranks our city as one of the best communities in the country. According to \ ✓': ` the authors, In Eden Prairie, the parks and C ' - ; , _ -\ preserves are vast and beautiful, offering ,... everything from bike trails to beaches." k GENERAL PARK NEEDS Play structure for community parks $100,000 HOMEWARD HILLS Shelters for community parks 100,000 Slide projector $450 Play structure for neighborhood parks 20,000 Sun shelters for neighborhood parks 15,000 Gymnastic equipment 200-400 Play structure for mini parks 10,000 Mjcrowave oven 300 Wildlife viewing blind for conservation parks 5,000 Video cassette recorder 250 Fitness station 3,000 Small refrigerator 250 Small self-contained sound system 1,600 Storage cabinet for VCR and TV 200 Information kiosks 1,000 Gymnastic mats 200 Park benches(fancy,6'long) 800 each Permanent picnic concrete tables 800 each MILLER PARK Bike rack(large) 700 Swing set 700 Scoreboards(8) 52,000 each Hand-held sound system 600 Spring animal play equipment 600 ROUND LAKE PARK Diggers play equipment 450 Vinyl clad picnic tables 400 each Fountain(cost will vary with design) $80,000 Bike rack(small) 850 Gazebo(shelter) Park benches(standard,6 long) 300 each (cost will vary with design) 60,000 Pedestal mount for barbecue grill 300 Tennis court viewing area 50,000 Trees(deciduous ornamental and evergreen) 250 each Scoreboards(6) 2,000 each Pedestal mount for barbecue grill(small) 150 Sailboats(2) 1,200 each Tulips and daffodils 50 per 100 Paddleboats(2) 400 each ADA rubber tiles 30/foot Water kayaks(4) 200 each Wetland boardwalks 20/foot Life preservers(25) 15-25 each 4111) Boat oars(10 pairs) 15-25 each 5 42/7b /0. 0 P L A . I . P .V. gib . • e donations of money or equipment Here are a few suggestions: ',` Are welcome, the gift of time can't be • Distribute programs or usher at the Staring measured in dollars and cents. Volunteer In Lake Amphitheatre Concert Series our Parks was established to encourage and • Collect trash throughout the park system support the efforts of volunteers who devote • Patrol and maintain existing trails their time and talents to Eden Prairie. • Remove brush, debris and trash from • Purgatory Creek . Being a V.I.P. can mean spending as little as • Build a trail gazebo at the end of Purgatory two hours assisting staff during an Easter Trail Egg Hunt, or it can mean lending a hand by • Assist with mass mailing and distribution building new segments to expand the walk/ of program flyers bike trail network. Exercise your green • Write and assemble basic guidebooks for thumbs and perform seasonal weeding and outdoor activities transplanting of plants and flowers through- • Assist with adaptive programs out the park system. Let your creative side • Volunteer for the Senior Transportation shine through and design displays for outdoor Program kiosks. The possibilities are as endless as your • Restore the Cummins-Grill Homestead talents and imagination. by using your carpentry, masonry, painting and electrical skills • Lend a hand at Cummins-Grill Homestead events 6. • Harvest your gardening talents while 1, -x:., restoring the Cummins-Grill Homestead ' peony garden, originally planted in the early 1920s • /a/%3 /-3 • S I N APPRECIATION No person was ever honored for what he be awarded for program involvement on a received. Honor has been the reward for large scale. what he gave. —Calvin Coolidge Mounted Certificates of Appreciation will be presented for financial contributions of r interest is important to us. Thank $1,000—$4,999, service that significantly ou for reviewing Excellence Through benefits the community, or outstanding • Giving. If you choose to donate a selected achievement that benefits or contributes item, complete the Donor Opportunity Form, to the community. found on the following page, and send it to the Gift Book Coordinator, or call 937-2262. A Laser-cut Plaque with suitable engraving Additional ideas for giving are welcome and will be given to honor financial contributions may be discussed with the coordinator. of more than $5,000, or for outstanding one- time contributions. All donations will be recognized through a five-level, City-endorsed program. For those deserving special recognition, a Key to the City will be presented. A Thank You Letter will be sent for mon- In order to avoid etary contributions conflicts of interest, of less than $1,000. the City of Eden Prairie reserves the Unmounted right to review all Certificates of donation requests. Appreciation or Participation will • 7 /�/743 i�, • DONOR OPPORTUNITY E_ ORI'I Company or Croup Name Contact or Individual Name Address City State ZIP Code Work Phone Home Phone I/We would like to make the following contribution: Quantity Description Unit Price Total Price escri p El Check is enclosed. C3 Thank you, but I/we will not be able to make a contribution at this time. El Please contact me/us. Please make checks payable to City of Eden Prairie and submit your contribution to: Gift Book Coordinator City of Eden Prairie • 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 8 • MAKE DIFFERENCE For several summers,Andy LeVoir, 13, has attended the summer- afternoon playground program with his brothers and other neighborhood children. "The City's Adaptive rl Recreation Services provided the • � support for this integrated oppor- ):.; tunity and insured that the experience would be successful,"said Marcia LeVoir,Andy's mother. In addition, Andy participates in Sports, Fun and Fitness, Explorers, Travel Club, various day camps and downhill Shelly Greening, 5, has taken swimming skiing through the South Suburban Adaptive lessons at the Community Center for two Recreation program, of which Eden Prairie is years. "They do a wonderful job of instructing the kids," said her mother, Mary Greening. "The lifeguards have been real encouraging. I think the swimming lessons here are outstand- ing! Sharpening the finer points of the American Crawl isn't the only lesson E Shelly has learned. "This experience �J really helps the self-confidence of . children," added Mary. Need proof? Just look at her face! • • a member. "We are proud of the services Eden The family that plays together... Stuart and Prairie Parks &Recreation provides all of our Mary Campbell await their turn on the children," added Marcia, "but we especially slide at Round Lake Park with children Stu, appreciate the adaptive and integration 10; Rose, 8; Martie, 5; and Marcy, 2. You may opportunities provided to enrich Andy's life! be hard pressed to find another Eden Prairie family that participates in Eden Prairie's park and recreation system as much as the Campbells. "Our children have learned to swim at the Community Center," said Mary. "The pool, ice rinks and racquetball courts have provided us with hours • ' of fun and recreation.We enjoy the \ y'� parks in the summer for swimming, picnics, soccer,baseball and fishing." During the winter, the family takes to the ice for hockey and figure skating. In addition, Mary works • If you've ever been to the Senior Center, at the Community Center's Center Care. you may have met Anthony (left) and Eva The quality of Eden Prairie's park system also Hirt, chatting with Peggy Thompson and played a part when the Campbells purchased her daughter Megan, 3.Active at the Center a home. "We have twice bought houses in for nearly 20 years, the Hirts enjoy playing Eden Prairie partially based on the fact that cards twice a week with other participants, they were near Round Lake Park and the bowling on Mondays, attending monthly Community Center," added Mary birthday celebrations and assisting Family Center staff during classes and snack time for children. "We love being with the little ones," said Eva. The Hirts also enjoy Eden Prairie \-, � parks and the Staring Lake , ,-' Outdoor Concert Series. / R \'a "It's fun to see people of all ages attending the concerts," Anthony said. • 10 A.2/7/93 /7, n Y. • Ten-year-old Meagan Kissil is all smiles Bowling, Sports, Fun 'N' Fitness and swim- during a quick trip down the slide at Staring ming, just to name a few. 'Meagan has Lake Park. 'Eden Prairie plays a dual role in activities, special events and opportunities the recreational development of our special- to make new friends just like her big sister," needs daughter," said Michele Kissil, Meagan's said Michele.The active 10-year-old also mother. 'When appropriate, Meagan is given 'has a sense of belonging, a sense of the opportunity to partake in any available community" through her participation in program. If needed, inclusion assistance is park activities. But actions speak louder provided." Meagan has participated in a full than words, and perhaps Meagan 'says it menu of activities, including ice skating, best." Her smiles and overall happiness tell Afternoon Playground, Tuesday Night the real story. • 11 is/7/ /�. Minutes - PRNR Commission Monday, November 1, 1993 Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Moved by Richard, seconded by Brown, the Commission deny the request to rezone the 13.13 acres from rural to R-9.5 for 30 single family homes due to the number of significant variances requested. Motion passed unanimously. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Amendment to the City Code Regulating Use of Bicycle Ways - Lambert reviewed the reason for the request for the amendment. MOTION: Moved by Brown, seconded by Kube-Harderwijk, to approve the proposed amendment to the City Code Regulating Use of Bicycle Ways. Motion passed unanimously. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Water Quality Improvement Project - Lambert reviewed the Engineering Department application for a water quality improvement project grant to complete • a diagnostic/feasibility study for Round Lake, Mitchell Lake and Red Rock Lake. This will check the water quality of these three lakes since they were connected through he chain of lakes project. MOTION: Moved by Kube-Harderwijk, seconded by Brown, to approve the grant application for the Clean Water Partnership Grant. Motion passed unanimously. B. Gift Book - Helling described the "Gift Book" as a list of ideas that could be provided to community service clubs that are often looking for projects that would benefit the community. It is not intended to promote or "sell" these ideas to the public for projects. Kube-Harderwijk indicated that she really appreciated having this project list. Hilgeman stated that one of the first things that she asked when she became a Commission member was for this type of a gift book so individuals, neighborhood groups or community service organizations would have an idea of what park improvements, etc. would cost. MOTION: Moved by Kube-Harderwijk, seconded by Hilgeman, to recommend authorization to publish the "Excellence Through Giving" book and to provide it to local public service groups and to make it available to potential contributors upon request. Motion passed Unanimously. • C. Tax Forfeited Lands - Lambert reviewed the lands that the City can acquire for parks and ponding. Parcels are adjacent to other land acquired for a future /9