Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 04/17/1990 TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1990 6:00 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS COMMUNITY SURVEY ******************************************************************************* AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 1990 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7:30 PM 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas 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 Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Roberta Wick PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, October L. 1989 Page 817 B. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 13, 1990 Page 850 C. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, March 20, 1990 Page 875 D. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, April_ 3 1990 Page 886 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Page 903 B. Overnight Policy for Outdoor Center Page 904 C. Resolution No. 90-114, Giving Approval to a Change of Name Page 906 of Grantee from Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. to KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. D/B/A Paragon Cable and 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 19-90 Changing Name of Grantee City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,April 17, 1990 D. Approve Plans and Specifications for East/West Frontage Road Page 909 south of T.H. 5 and East of Dell Road), I.C.. 52-177 Resolution No. 90-1077- ( E. Approve Su lement No. 2 to Agreement No. 64918 for Final Design Page 910 Services .P. 1002-44 and 2701-28 (T.H.5 I.C. 52 Resolution No. 909) F. Receive 100% Petition for Streets and Utilities in the Burnett Page 923 and Nelson Ad itd ions aird-Order Preparation of-Flans and Specifications, I.C.. 3L-199 (Resolution No. 90-110) G. Approval of Final Plat of Alpine Two, the future site of a Page 924 proposed Chi-Chi's Restaurant (located at the N.W. corner of Commonwealth Drive and Prairie Center DrivT Resolution No. 90-105 H. Consider reduction of Special Assessment at 6268 Chatham lity Page 927 I. COUNTRY GLEN 2ND ADDITION by Coffman Development. 2nd Reading Page 928 of Ordinance No. 48-89, Rezoning from the Rural District to the R1-13.5 District; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Country Glen 2nd Addition; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-94, Authorizing Summary of Drdinance No. 48-89, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: East of Duck Lake Road, west of Claycross Way and Country Road (Ordinance No. 48-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-94 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) J. CENTURY BANK BUILDING by KKE Architects, Inc. 2nd Reading of Page 934 Ordinance No. 8-90-PUD-3-90, Rezoning from the C-Reg District to the PUD-3-90 C-Reg-Ser District and PUD District Review; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Century Bank Building; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-95, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 8-90-PUD-3-9D, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of Resolution No.90-96, Site Plan Review. Location: Southeast corner of Viking Drive West and Highway #169. (Drdinance No. 8-g0-PUD-3-9D - Rezoning and PUD District Review; Resolution No. 90-95 - Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-96 - Site Plan Review) K. EDEN SQUARE (TOWER SQUARE BANK) by Robert Larsen Partnership, Page 945 Tnc 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90, Rezoning within the C-Reg-Ser District and PUD District Review; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Tower Square Bank; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-97, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-98, Site Plan Review. Location: Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive (Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90 - Rezoning and PUD District Review; Resolution No. 90-97 - Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-98 - Site Plan Review) L. Proclamation Proclaiming April 3D, 1990 as Gene Schurman Day in Eden Prairie City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,April 17, 1990 M. BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION by Hustad Development. 2nd Reading of Page 954 Ordinance NoT0-90-PUO-5-90, Rezoning from the Rural District to the RM-6.5 District and PUD District Review; Approval of Oeveloper's Agreement for Bluffs East 7th Addition; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-99, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 10-90-PUO-5-90, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-100, Site Plan Review. Location: Northwest corner of County Road 18 and Bluff Road. (Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90 - Rezoning and PUD Oistrict Review, Resolution No. 90-99 - Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-100 - Site Plan Review) N. McDONALOS by McDonald's Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance Page 962 No. 3-90-PUD-7-90, Rezoning within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning Oistrict and PUD Oistrict Review; Approval of Developer's Agreement for McDonalds; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-101, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 13-90-PUD-7-90, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of Resolution No. 9O-102, Site Plan Review. Location: East of Highway #169, north of Prairie Center Drive. (Ordinance No. 13-90-PUD-7-90 - Rezoning and PUD District; Resolution No. 90-101 - Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-102 - Site Plan Review) 0. BOULDER POINT TOWNHOMES by David Carlson Companies, Inc. 2nd Page 969 eat ding of Ordinance No. 14-90, Rezoning from the Rural Oistrict to the RM-6.5 Oistrict; Approval of Oeveloper's Agreement for Boulder Point Townhomes; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-103, Authorzing Summary of Ordinance No. 14-90, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-104, Site Plan Review. Location: South and west of Twin Lakes Crossing, northwest of Staring Lake Parkway. (Ordinance No. 14-90 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-103 - Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-104 - Site Plan Review) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 1990 AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Page 976 NO. 1 AND AMENDMENT TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX E—NLTREMEMT bISTRICTS 11 4 5 6 ANO 7 (Resolution No. 90-115) B. TREE OROINANCE. 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 17-90, Amending Page 1002 Eity Code Chapter 11 entitled "Land Use Regulations (Zoning)" by adding an Environmental Preservation Regulations Section which will regulate tree removal, damage, or destruction in all districts, among other things. C. ISSUANCE OF $2,740 000.00 IN REFUNDING BONDS FOR EDEN INVESTMENTS PARTNERSHIP V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 1003 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & CDMMUNICATIONS 1 City Council Agenda - 4 - Tues.,April 17, 1990 VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS A. Human Rights & Services Commission - Report on Child Care Page 1004 enter Siting Criteria IX. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOAROS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Councilmembers B. Report of City Manager C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planning E. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources 1. Minnesota Department of Health Letter Regarding Riverview Page 1005 Spring F. Report of Director of Public Works 1. Award Contract for 1990-91 Materials Bid (Maintenance Materials WaterIreotment Chemicais , I.C.. 52-191 (Resolution No. 90-111) 2. Award Contract for 1990 Bituminous Seal Coating, I.C.. 52-192 (Resolute NNo. 90-112) 3. Award Contract for 1990 Street Striping, I.C.. 52-193 esolut—o�n No.-0-113) 4. Discussion of Alternatives - Graffiti Bridge Page 1008 G. Report of Finance Director XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT I { EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL UNAPPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1989 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES A. Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday. September 12. 1989 MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the minutes of the September 12, 1989 Special Assessment Hearing as published and amended. CORRECTION: Page 9, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, should read: was unique because it had not received that same benefit. Motion carried 4-0-1. Peterson abstained. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Eden Prairie Soccer Club Proposal B. Policy on Cancellation of Refunds , 1 City Council Minutes 2 October 3, 1989 C. Mini Rinks/Skatina Rinks D. Willow Park Improvements E. Community Center Membership Policy Change Request F. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 34-89 to Regulate Snowmobile Operations G. Lease for Winter Storage of Public Works and Parks Maintenance Equipment H. Grading Permit for Proposed Expansion of Jubilee Church I. Martin Luther King. Jr. Celebration J. Final Approval for $5.985.000 for Multi-Family Housing Bonds for Prairie Village Apartments (Sterling Ponds) Resolution No. 89-213 K. Clerk's License List MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Items A through K on the Consent Calendar as published. 1 ITEM C Pidcock believed that the skating rinks were a positive activity for children and would like to see a few more rinks opened. Peterson stated that the usage of the rinks would be monitored. Lambert added that the two rinks which had been petitioned would be maintained and monitored this season. Pidcock stated that the City had been criticized because it did not maintain the facilities as well for the children as it did for the adult activities. Pidcock added that she would like to see more done for the youth and especially to reconsider opening the two rinks which had been eliminated. Anderson stated that the City had tried the mini-rinks in the past with little success. Anderson concurred with 1 Staff's statements that maintenance was difficult. Peterson believed that Staff was making a sincere effort to improve the facilities available and would continue to j monitor them. Peterson requested that the City Council and the Parks, Recreation, & Natural Resources Commission be given reports of the monitoring process. Pidcock asked if the other two rinks could be done on a trial basis. Lambert replied that the 3rd rink at Outlot C of Amsden Hills Second Addition had not been petitioned, 71 City Council Minutes 3 October 3, 1989 was not on City property, and unless the neighbors did petition for the project Staff recommended that this project not be done. Pidcock stated that residents would not think about the rink until winter was actually here. Tenpas stated that the neighbors did understand the problem about getting the maintenance vehicles to the water. Motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING (Continues from September 12, 1989) Resolution No. 89-199 - Approving 1989 Special Assessment Rolls Dietz referred to Exhibit A, Item I.C. 52-132, which showed that the two vacant lots on Franlo Road had the lateral sewer and water assessments deferred with interest as discussed at the September 12, 1989 meeting. Dietz reported that Item I.C. 52-147 had originally had 3 items continued. It was later determined that the first yy two parcels noted on the revisions had been erroneously classified as homesteaded properties. Mr. Brown and Mr. Wendt had indicated they believed the front footage calculations prepared by Staff to be incorrect; however, upon further investigation it was determined that Staff's calculations were correct as originally proposed. Dietz reported that the front footage for the Wagner property had been recalculated. The original deferment amount was approximately $12,000. The amount to be deferred had been reduced to $6,149. Dietz stated that the reduction in the assessment was calculated based on the fact that if the right-of-way for Scenic Heights Road were extended across the Wagner property the northern portion, or approximately 324 feet, would not receive benefit and, therefore, should not be assessed. Based on this figure the total frontage to be assessed would be 500 feet, which reduced the total assessment from the original amount of $15,590.08 to the current figure of $9,460.00. Dietz stated that this proposal had been presented to Mr. Wagner on the telephone. Steve Wagner, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated that until the past Friday, Staff had not notified him of the proposal. Wagner requested that this item be continued for an additional 30 days to allow him adequate time to thoroughly investigate the legalities of this issue. Wagner believed that the assessment was still too high and, based on conversations and a recommendation from the ZIJ City Council Minutes 4 October 3, 1989 t City of Minnetonka, wanted time to consider having an , t outside appraiser evaluate this item at a cost shared with the City. Peterson asked if the City were under any time constraints. Dietz replied that the assessments had to be filed with Hennepin County by October 9, 1989. Dietz added that Mr. Wagner had been given the figures on Friday. Wagner replied that he had not been given exact figures and had only been told on Friday that the assessment would be prorated. Dietz believed that the original $15,000 assessment would be of benefit to the property. He added that without utilities the property was farmland. Property in this area was currently selling for approximately $40,000 per acre. Dietz further believed that Staff had made a good faith effort to reach a compromise on this item and did not believe that another 30 days would prove beneficial in reaching an agreement. Dietz noted that the appeal process was an option for Mr. Wagner. Dietz believed that the assessment of $9,460 was a reasonable assessment for this parcel. Pidcock asked for an opinion from the City Attorney. City Attorney Pauly replied that the appeal process was an option for Mr. Wagner and that the appeal should be filed within 30 days of this hearing. Harris asked if within the 30-day period the City could consider this item further and make corrections if so determined. Pauly replied that the assessments would be certified as adopted by the City. He added that the landowner can preserve the rights for review by a court appeal. Pauly stated that this would not preclude the City from determining if errors had been made. Peterson stated that the Council had to either approve or adjust the assessment amounts at this meeting in order to be certified for the 1989 assessment roll. Tenpas stated that this item could be held over for the 1990 assessment roll. Pauly noted that interest would not begin until January 1, 1991 if the assessment were held over until 1990. Tenpas stated that he appreciated the Staff's efforts to reach a compromise; however, he was unclear on the benefit or detriment to the property. Tenpas recommended further review during a 30-day interim. Dietz stated that if the assessment were approved and certified, the City would at least have something on record; if the assessment was not certified by October 9, 1989, nothing could be assessed until 1990. Dietz added that a correction could be made if an error was found zac1 City Council Minutes 5 October 3, 1989 after the assessment was certified, but if no assessment was certified at this time, the assessment could not be made until 1990. Wagner believed that it would only be common courtesy for the City to allow him adequate time to determine if this assessment amount was a fair amount and time to get a second opinion. Wagner added that he did not wish to get into a legal battle with the City. Dietz stated that the assessment figures had not changed by more than $1,000 from the time of the feasibility hearing which was held last fall. Jullie asked Pauly that if Mr. Wagner had an appraisal done prior to the 30-day limit for an appeal, could a correction be made to the assessment if necessary. Pauly replied yes. Anderson believed that because Staff agreed that another 30 days would actually be available to Wagner to substantiate the need for a correction he would support approval of the assessment as proposed. { Dietz reported that I.C. 52-149 had a correction: the Nelsons had connected to the watermain and, therefore, the deferment was changed from the deferment column for 1995 to be assessed in 1990. Dietz stated that on the supplement page under trunk, sewer and water, both the Michabee and the Nelson properties should be deferred with interest until development. Dietz stated that under lateral exclusion, the Northwest Racquet Club had purchased the property and the exclusion was being picked up by the club. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 89-199 approving the 1989 Special Assessment Rolls to include Staff recommendations. Tenpas asked Pauly for clarification that Wagner would have 30 days to try to justify a modification to the assessment roll before beginning the appeal process. Pauly replied that this was correct. Wagner requested that he be provided with a copy of the information which had been provided to the Council regarding the assessment. Motion carried 4-0-1. Peterson abstained. / City Council Minutes 6 October 3, 1989 B. ,SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE by Mr. USHOT. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 94.8 acres with Shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Preliminary Platting of 94.8 acres into 175 single-family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 94.8 acres as part of a 450-acre phased action E.A.W for construction of residential development. Location: South of State Highway #5 and west of Mitchell Lake. (Ordinance No. 37- 89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-210 - Preliminary Plat; Resolution No. 89-211 - Finding of No Significant Impact for EAW) Jullie reported that notice of the public hearing had been mailed to 18 surrounding property owners and published in the September 20, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Jack Buxel, representing the proponent, presented the plans for the 95-acre site and the topography of the property. The tree inventory showed that the vast majority of the property was open, with the trees being clustered in a stand and along the knoll. There would be 3 basic market types of homes with the most expensive homes being developed along the lakeshore, then a tier of lots approximately 15,000 square feet, and the third tier approximately 13,500 square feet. A trail would be { provided to connect the City's trail systems. The south point, 100 feet of lakeshore, and 1/2 of the north knoll would be dedicated to the City. This dedication on the south bay would complete the park for the City and would allow the City to control the bay area. This dedication would also allow for preservation of the trees and the knoll. Two lots would share a driveway to save additional trees. The proposed tree loss would be 22%. The replacement of the trees would occur mainly along Highway 5 along with a sound abatement berm. The total project consisted of 174 lots. The lakeshore lots did not meet the minimum shoreline ordinance of 40,000 square feet; however, the proponent believed that because of the dedication of the property to the City and the remainder of the lakeshore property, it would meet the objective of the ordinance. Buxel said that out of the 5000 feet of lakeshore, approximately 2600 feet would be dedicated to the City. A connection to Dell Road would also be made. Lee Johnson, representing the proponent, stated that he did not agree with the City on two points. Johnson believed that the sequential staging of development should be modified. He believed that the development construction work should be able to be done concurrently with the highway construction. Johnson did not believe that the Final Plat was the proper place to have the controls for development. City Council Minutes 7 October 3, 1989 Enger reported that this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 12, July 10, August 14, and finally on September 11, 1989. The plans had gone through revisions during this process. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for zoning district change with shoreland variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments based on the plans submitted September 11, 1989. The additions to the Staff Report recommendations were that: 1. The design of the fence to be reviewed by and meet EPA standards. 2. The developer should work with City Staff as to the design and the aesthetics of the fence. 3. The maintenance of the temporary road shall be the responsibility of the developer. The Planning Commission approved the proposal with a 4-0-0 vote. Enger reviewed the main points presented in a summary memo from Senior Planner Mike Franzen dated September 28, 1989. Enger emphasized that according to the Southwest Area Study no more than 100 units would be allocated for this project and 250 units total for the entire lA Section. Enger stated Staff recommended that a fair way to determine the number of units for each developer was to prorate the number of units based on a per acreage allotment at approximately 1 unit per acre. Based on this calculation US Homes which had 96 acres could be allocated 100 units until Dell Road was completed. The 1st Phase would have 55 units and the 2nd Phase would consist of 45 units when the temporary connection was made to Dell Road; however, because Dell Road was not extended into this area presently, it would require that Dell Road construction be completed. Enger noted that cooperation was required of the developer for the frontage road construction to connect to Highway 5. This would require that some grading would be necessary within the project prior to the completion of Highway 5 and the intersection of Dell Road. Enger stated that Staff was concerned about the control the City would have if based on occupancy as Johnson recommended as to who the City would deal with regarding Final Plats, the builders or homeowners. The builders and homeowners would need to be made aware of the restrictions on the parcels. Enger stated that if a special document could be prepared and the number of units was limited, this could be a workable situation for US Homes. The final details for this recommendation had not been worked out at this time. Lambert reported that the major issues for this project were trees and trails. Lambert viewed the plan positively as it provided an extension to Miller Park, preserved a City Council Minutes 8 October 3, 1989 significant number of trees, and provided an 8-foot trail • connection. The Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources Commission recommended approval unanimously at its September 18, 1989 meeting based on the September 15, 1989 Staff Report. Tenpas asked when Dell Road would be completed. Dietz replied that the bid opening was scheduled for March 1990 and that the intersection could be completed in December 1990. Tenpas then asked when the loop with Scenic Heights Road would be completed. Dietz replied that County Road 4 needed to be improved before Dell Road was completed. Dietz added that Hennepin County was reluctant to make any commitments on County Road 4. Tenpas stated that this could mean that the completion of Dell Road could be 4 to 5 years away. Dietz replied yes. Tenpas asked if a temporary outlet could be made to County Road 4. Dietz replied that if the marketing of these homes progressed as expected, the City would probably be pressured to do something prior to 1993. Harris asked for further details on the recorded document to be filed on these lots. Enger replied that the proponent and Staff had discussed the possibility of construction of a few units with special recorded documents because additional parties other than the City y and the developer could be involved in the Final Plat process. These documents would allow for the construction of model homes and would also apply to the subdivision proposed by Tandem Properties. Enger noted that Staff recommended that these special recorded documents be allowed for no more than 10 units. Harris was concerned about this because more than one developer was proposing development in this area at the same time. Enger recommended that no occupancy permits be issued until significant completion of the intersection of Highway 5 and County Road 4. Peterson was concerned about control by certificates of occupancy because residents had been known to move into homes without these certificates. Peterson was concerned that an orderly, staged development in the best interest of the City had not been agreed upon at this time. Johnson replied that he believed that an agreement was close to being reached. Johnson added that an interim proposal was to install a turn lane onto Highway 5 at Dell Road prior to the full upgrading of the intersection. Johnson recommended that no building permits be allowed until completion of the turn lane and that the permits be limited to 10 until the intersection was totally upgraded. Johnson requested that 55 lots be platted with 10 building permits being issued, but no occupancy permits issued. Peterson was concerned that once 55 lots were final platted, what control the City would have to limit the • ?au City Council Minutes 9 October 3, 1989 j 11, amount of construction. Peterson noted that this area was special because of the contingency for improvements prior to development. Johnson replied that occupancy could not take place prior to utilities and paved streets being provided. Enger stated that an agreement was close. The issue was actually the degree of control desired by the City. Enger ! recommended approval of the preliminary plat of all lots, and approval of a final plat with 55 lots but a covenant with the final plat to include construction on only 10 lots. A brief recess was held to allow Staff and the proponent arrive at an acceptable solution regarding platting and permits. Enger reported that the consensus was that a Final Plat be granted for 55 lots, that the Final Plat not be released by the Engineering Department to Hennepin County until the proponent had determined which 10 lots would be sold to the builders, and the restrictive covenants which would preclude building permits from being issued until the Dell Road intersection had been completed on the remaining 45 lots. Enger added that no occupancy permits would be issued for the 10 lots until the Dell Road intersection was completed. Pidcock asked what would happen if Dell Road were not completed as anticipated. Enger replied that only the Dell Road intersection was being considered. Enger added that the risk was that of the developer and if the improvements were put off indefinitely the developer would need to return to the City Council. Randy Capeski, Box 243, Afton, Minnesota, stated that he owned property adjacent to this development. Capeski asked for clarification on the alignment of Dell Road and who would be responsible for the construction. Dietz explained the location of the alignment for Dell Road and added that the first section of construction was the responsibility of MnDOT; the City of Eden Prairie would be responsible for the next section, for which a feasibility study was being prepared by Staff. Dietz clarified that the construction would not go through Capeski's property. Dietz recommended that Capeski come into the City offices and discuss this further with Staff. Jim Ostenson, partner of Tandem Properties, stated that he was in agreement with the proposal this evening and the allocation of the building permits. Ostenson stated that he was concerned about the future development of this whole area and the timing of the development. He added that the land can only be partially developed, yet sewer City Council Minutes 10 October 3, 1989 and water would be installed and assessments would begin. All of the landowners had petitioned the City to have the improvements made. Ostenson was concerned that the !$ frontage road would be constructed, the maximum number of pp units developed, and the remainder of the property would f. be sitting with assessments and taxes accumulating and not be allowed to develop. Ostenson stated that he would like to see the City look at alternative ways to connect Scenic Heights Road and Dell Road. Ostenson believed that this portion of Eden Prairie was being held hostage by other government bodies. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 37-89 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 89-210 for Preliminary Plat approval. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 89-211 Finding No Significant Impact for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations, that the Final Plat be approved for 55 lots, that the recording of the lots not be released by the Engineering Department until the proponent determined which 10 lots would be sold to builders, that restrictive covenants be placed on the remaining 45 lots until the completion of the intersection of Highway 5 and Dell Road, and that no occupancy permits be issued for the 10 lots until completion of the intersection of Highway 5 and Dell Road. Motion carried unanimously. Peterson commented that the City appreciated the proponents' dedication of the property for the parks and trails to the City and the cooperation of the proponent. C. SCHROERS PUD by BDD Partnership. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment for the relocation of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Line to include an additional 32.2 acres of property, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 129.8 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 129.8 acres with waivers, Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 24 acres and from Rural to R1-13.5 on 8.2 acres, Preliminary City Council Minutes 11 October 3, 1989 Platting of 129.8 acres into 77 single-family lots, 3 outlots, and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 129.8 acres as part of a 450-acre phased action E.A.W. for construction of a residential development. Location: North of Rice Marsh Lake, just east of the Chanhassen-Eden Prairie City limits. (Resolution No. 89-215 - Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution No. 89-216 - PUD Concept for Schroers PUD; Ordinance No. 40-89-PUD-8-89 - PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-217 - Preliminary Plat; Resolution No. 89-218 - EAW Finding of No Significant impact) Jullie reported that official notice of the public hearing was mailed to 7 property owners and published in the September 27, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Don Patton, representing the proponent, stated that the proposal had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at four separate meetings and also reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. Patton said that the project was very complex and that the plans had been revised in accordance with the recommendations of Staff and the Planning Commission. Patton believed that this project would be important to the City for the location of Dell Road and stated that a portion of this parcel would be dedicated for the construction of Dell Road. Patton stated that the Zoning District requests had been changed for the R1-9.5 to 13.9 acres with 40 lots and the R1-13.5 zoning to 18.9 acres with 40 lots. Because of the above-referenced changes the Preliminary Plat request was for a total of 80 lots, not 76 lots as originally proposed. Patton presented a brief history of the location of the MUSA Line. He stated that the proponent could have requested to develop areas within the MUSA Line; however, it had chosen to develop the property outside the MUSA Line, which was adjacent to Dell Road. Mike Black, representing the proponent, presented the plan details for the project. The proponent would be requesting a variance from the Shoreland Ordinance for smaller lot frontages along Rice Marsh Lake, and proposed to offer in trade the dedication of Outlot B to the City for park land and a public trail system. Outlot A would be platted for future development. Berming along the northern boundary would be approximately 6 feet high to provide a transition between the industrial area and the single-family units and the berms along Dell Road would be approximately 4 to 8 feet high to provide a buffer for the single-family units. Black stated that the tree inventory had been completed for Phase I. The depth of the lots along the Rice Marsh lakeshore had been increased based on the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Black City Council Minutes 12 October 3, 1989 noted that the berming issue adjacent to DataSery was critical and the details were yet to be determined. Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this item at the June 12, July 10, August 14, and September 11, 1989 meetings. The Planning Commission had voted for denial of the project at the September 11, 1989 meeting with a 4-0 vote. Enger noted that the majority of discussion centered on the MUSA Line change because the Planning Commission believed that without an expansion of the MUSA Line, the development could not proceed as proposed. The Planning Commission did make suggestions on all of the requests so that if the City Council decided to approve the MUSA Line change that the project could proceed with the zoning and platting requests. The State Law only required that the Planning Commission had reviewed the zoning and platting issues in a Public Hearing process and did not require that positive action be taken. Enger reviewed the reasons for denial which were outlined in the September 11, 1989 Planning Commission minutes. Enger reviewed the possible MUSA Line issues which had been outlined in the Planning Staff Report dated September 8, 1989. Enger stated that the City needed the cooperation of the Tandem and the US Home projects to construct the frontage road in this area. Enger noted that the recommendation of Staff and the Southwest Area Study regarding phasing of this project did not agree with that which was being proposed by the proponent at this time. Dick Feerick, representing the proponent, stated that Mr. Schroers and his two sons were available to answer questions. Feerick stated that this was an infill piece of property. Feerick said that the Metropolitan Council supported the development of Highway 212 and Highway 5 and that Dell Road would serve as a collector road between these two major roads. Feerick believed that Metropolitan Council would look favorably on a minor amendment for under 40 acres, which was what would be presented. Feerick believed that Dell Road was needed for the logical development of this area. Feerick noted that to be allowed to continue working with the Metropolitan Council the proponent needed a supportive decision from the City of Eden Prairie. He added that a private property owner could not go to Metropolitan Council on its own without the support of the City. Feerick believed that the phasing issues could be worked out with Staff. Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation, & Natural Resources Commission did not make a recommendation regarding the MUSA Line expansion. Peterson asked the proponent to address the issue of possible further requests for expansion of the MUSA Line. 2 City Council Minutes 13 October 3, 1989 Patton presented the Council with a construction schedule. Patton added that the proponent would like to begin construction in 1990. This 32.8 acres of property would be developed first and then the Jacques/Delegard parcel. Peterson asked what was proposed for development further to the west. Patton replied that the proponent would return to the Council at a later date with additional phases. Feerick stated that as a logical sequence of development would need to be substantiated to the Metropolitan Council, an additional request for 30 acres could be done in 1992 and another 30 acres in 1995. Feerick added that the City Staff and Council would be in control of further phasing. Tenpas believed that other developers within the MUSA Line would be handicapped if this proposal was approved due to the restricted number of homes allowed. Ostenson, representing Tandem Properties, replied that Tandem Properties would be the first development along Highway 5. Ostenson added that it was important to have the cooperation of all the land owners in this area to make the road, water, and sewer connections. Ostenson believed that if Dell Road were to be extended that it would only be fair to allow development of this property because of assessments, whether it was inside or outside of the MUSA Line. Peterson asked what the current inventory was for developable lots and how the addition of these lots would affect development within the MUSA Line. Enger replied that Staff suggested that a development rights trade be negotiated so that the proponent would forego its right to develop its land holdings in Section lA of the Southwest Area Study for the right to develop this 32.8-acre parcel. The cap for unit development in this area is 250 units at this time. Peterson asked the proponent if this type of trade would be acceptable. Feerick replied yes. Anderson asked the exact location of the lots to be involved in the trade. Enger replied that the lots were to be within Section lA of the Southwest Area Study. Anderson asked if a letter of agreement for the land trade was available at this time. Enger replied that a letter from the attorney representing the mortgagees only stated that they were considering the request. Pidcock questioned if it would not be appropriate to have a letter of agreement regarding a 16-acre land trade in hand before taking action on this proposal. Feerick replied that it would helpful in dealing with the Metropolitan Council if the City's position was known on the issue of the MUSA Line Change first. City Council Minutes 14 October 3, 1989 Peterson believed that the benefits for a MUSA Line change as noted in the Staff Report were significant. Peterson asked if there could be precedent-setting issues that the Council was not aware of. Enger believed that all the issues were addressed in the Staff Report. Tenpas believed that this was a unique parcel in that the City's trunk sewer line was outside the MUSA. Anderson asked how much extra traffic would be added to Highway 5 by this proposal. Enger replied approximately 800 trips. Anderson then asked if there would be any adverse affect for the water and sewer lines. Dietz replied that the watermain would not be available until August 1990. Anderson asked if this would put an extra strain on the City. Dietz replied no, not once the Highway 5 project was completed. Harris believed that a sufficient case could be presented to the Metropolitan Council. Harris added that the information regarding the 16-acre trade should be included in the presentation to the Metropolitan Council. Peterson stated that the proponent would have to impress upon the Metropolitan Council the importance of this trade. Peterson believed that the risk would be for that of the proponent. Peterson added that he would like more assurance that the City would not be pressured next year to extend the MUSA Line again or to increase the amount of lots allowed for development. Patton replied that the phasing after this proposal would be to develop within the MUSA Line. Tenpas believed that the MUSA Line should match the trunk sewer line. Peterson stated that this would represent too large of an amendment and would probably not be approved by the Metropolitan Council and secondly that the City would lose control regarding requests for further development. Mr. Schroers, 8080 184th Avenue West, explained the history of the MUSA Line from his involvement starting in 1946. Schroers believed that since the MUSA Line had been changed once it should be able to be changed again. Anderson asked the price range of the homes. Patton replied that the homes would be constructed by New Concept Homes and would be priced between $125,000 and $200,000. Anderson was concerned about the size of the home on a Ri- 9.5 lot. Anderson believed that a $125,000 home on a Ri- 9.5 lot defeated the purpose of R1-9.5 zoning. Anderson further believed that it was important to provide affordable housing. City Council Minutes 15 October 3, 1989 Peterson asked how many square feet could be built in a house for $125,000. Bob Bjorkland replied that the houses 1. would be approximately 1300 to 1600 square feet in floor space. He added that it would be difficult to construct a quality home priced below $125,000 on these lots. Tenpas stated that the land cost factor for Eden Prairie needed to be taken into consideration in the price range of the homes. Patton stated that the proponent had been requested to install sidewalks, which increased the price of the lots. Patton added that if the City's requirements were lessened the cost of the lots could be reduced. Peterson stated that in Eden Prairie a $125,000 home was a 1' starter home. He added that 1300 to 1600 square feet was not a large home. Anderson stated that he would like to see a footprint plan 1 for the houses. Anderson was concerned that this section of the City would be concentrated with R1-9.5 housing. He added that the R1-9.5 zoning seemed to be concentrated in the western and northern sections of the City. Anderson believed that careful placement of the R1-9.5 zoning needed to take place in order to provide a good mix. Peterson asked Enger if the Planning Commission would like to review the plans again if the MUSA Line change were approved by the Council. Enger replied no. Randy Capeski, Box 243, Afton, believed that the MUSA Line expansion would not be in best interest of the City. Capeski was concerned about the increase in traffic. He believed that this should be continued until it was determined exactly what would be done with Dell Road. Capeski was concerned about who represented the private landowners in this area. Peterson recommended that Capeski meet with Staff to discuss these issues further. George Bentley, 10800 Fieldcrest Road, believed that in the long term the MUSA Line should be moved all the way to the City limits; however, this was not appropriate at this time. He believed that the MUSA Line was an arbitrary line. Bentley believed that Dell Road needed to be constructed and assessments were necessary to accomplish this. He added that upgrading County Road 4 needed to be addressed as soon as possible and that the City needed to take a strong position; however, the entire development of this area should not be contingent on the upgrading of County Road 4. Bentley commented that regarding the R1- 9.5 zoning issue, many of the lots in the Preserve area were Zoned R1-13.5 but through density transfers were developed as R1-9.5 or less. 31 City Council Minutes 16 October 3, 1989 Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had discussed the possibility of a trail along the Lakeshore and accepting land in lieu of park fees. He added that the City would obtain permits needed to construction an 8' asphalt trail. Lambert believed that this was a valuable piece of property for Cash Park Fees. The proponent would be getting credit for the land dedication to the City for the trail by having the lot frontage sizes reduced from the requirement of the Shoreland Ordinance. The Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission recommended approval of the development proposal with the condition that the Cash Park Fees be reduced by $100 at the park fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance as a credit for the strip of land for trails. Enger stated that the proponent still needed to provide Staff with information on a number of items, including a revised buffer plan for the lots in the northern section and an architectural variety plan for the R1-9.5 area. Enger noted that it was important that the proponent adhere to the phasing schedule outlined in the Staff Report. Enger added that the Council needed to consider if an 80 lot trade would be acceptable for the Southwest Area Study. He noted that the Planning Commission in general had concurred that a full trade as originally proposed by the proponent would be favorable, and further that the case presented by the proponent to the Metropolitan Council should be able to support a full 32- acre trade. Enger stated that this development would set a precedent for development of the remainder of the Schroers property. Peterson asked if the three remaining issues could be resolved during a short break. Enger replied that the proponent had agreed to provide the architectural variety plan and revised buffer plan; however, the remaining issue was the phasing schedule. The proponent currently planned to request 10 occupancy permits by the fall of 1990; however, according to the Southwest Area Study, no final platting of lots was to occur prior to the completion of improvements of the intersection of Trunk Highway #5 and County Road #4, which was not expected to be completed until late 1990. Pidcock stated that the Council had just approved the issuance of 10 occupancy permits for the Shores of �. Mitchell Lake Project. Enger replied that what had been approved was the issuance of 10 building permits for the fall of 1990, with no occupancy permits issued prior to the completion of the Dell Road intersection. Enger noted that this accelerated program had been approved because of the need for the frontage road.- (,3n City Council Minutes 17 October 3, 1989 Tenpas asked if this proposal would accelerate the extension of Dell Road. Enger replied that it accelerated the need for extension of Dell Road further south than would otherwise be necessary. Enger added that with or without this proposal Dell Road would be extended south of the US Homes development. Dietz stated that Dell Road needed to be a City project in this area because the right-of-way was on other private property. Dietz added that the schedule for construction would be part of the feasibility study. A brief recess was taken for Staff and the proponent to discuss further the phasing schedule. Enger reported that the proponent had agreed to accept a similar plan as US Homes in that no occupancy permits would be issued, 10 building permits would be issued, and final plat would not be released until restrictive covenants had been filed on the balance of 70 lots. He added that this would further be contingent on approval of the MUSA Line change by the Metropolitan Council. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 89-215 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 89-216 for PUD Concept for Schroers PUD. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 40-89-PUD-8-89 for PUD District and Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 89-217 for Preliminary Plat approval. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 89-218 for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Finding of No Significant Impact and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Staff recommendations City Council Minutes 18 October 3, 1989 and further conditions that no occupancy permits be issued until 1991, that 10 building permits may be issued in 1990, the balance of the permits to be issued upon completion of the intersection at Dell Road and County Road 5. Enger asked the Council if it chose to recommend support of the 80 lot trade as outlined in the Staff Report dated September 8, 1989, Item 4. The Council concurred that this recommendation should become part of the developers agreement. Motion carried unanimously. D. NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE by New Horizon Child Care. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural and Public to C-Reg- Ser on approximately 2 acres, and Site Plan Review on approximately two acres for a day care center. Location: North of Prairie Center Drive, east of Arby's restaurant. (Ordinance No. 38-89 - Rezoning) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been mailed to 6 adjacent property owners and published in the September 20, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Mr. Peterson, representing the proponent, stated that this was a pilot project for Homart Development. The daycare center inside the mall would be moved outside and the Kids Club would be constructed inside the mall and an extensive promotion program was planned. The proponent would like to complete the project as soon as possible so that the Kids Club could be ready for this holiday season and, therefore, was requesting an early grading permit and early foundation construction permit. Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this item at its September 11, 1989 and recommended approval unanimously based on the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report. Enger stated that regarding the early grading permit and foundation work, this same proponent had requested an early permit in May 1989 and all requirements were met. Harris believed that daycare services were needed in the community. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. UJ4 City Council Minutes 19 October 3, 1989 MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 38-89 for rezoning; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to grant an early grading and foundation permit, with the understanding that the proponent is proceeding at its own risk. Motion carried unanimously. E. TECH 10 by Hoyt Development Company. Request for Zoning District Change, from Rural to I-2 on 5.6 acres, Preliminary Plat of 5.6 acres into one lot, Site Plan Review of 5.6 acres for construction of a 73,367 square foot office warehouse. Location: 74th Street and Golden Triangle Drive. (Ordinance - No. 39-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-212 - Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of this public hearing was mailed to 6 property owners and published in the September 20, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Bob Smith, representing the proponent, presented the plans for 73,367 square-foot office/warehouse complex. A tenant had signed a 20 year lease agreement for the building. The potential tenant had 52 employees. 90 parking spaces would be provided with additional proof-of-parking. Mass grading would occur on the site with 479 caliper inches of trees being removed. The tree replacement would take place on both Tech 9 and Tech 10. Three loading docks would be located on the north side of the building. Berming would be placed close to the building to reduce the mass appearance. The lighting proposed would match that of the existing Technology Park projects. Because of the tenant's wish to obtain occupancy in December the proponent was requesting an early grading permit, a foundation permit, and a shell permit. The proposal was in compliance with all zoning requirements. Enger reported that this issue was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its September 11 and September 25, 1989 meetings and recommended approval of the project with a 4-0-0 vote subject to the recommendations outlined in the September 8, 1989 Staff Report. Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed this item at its October 2, 1989 meeting and recommended approval of the proposal unanimously. • City Council Minutes 20 October 3, 1989 Dietz reported that the proponent had a debt of approximately $30,000 to the City for the design of the creek crossing for Golden Triangle Drive and out like to • have a stipulation attached to the Developer's Agreement. Smith replied that he would have to defer this item to Mr. Hoyt. Peterson replied that the issuance of early permits could be contingent on this matter being cleared up. • Tenpas asked for further details on what had occurred. • Dietz replied that as Vantage Companies owned the property to the north of the creek and the Hoyt Companies the property to the south, it appeared that the only way to accomplish a crossing of the creek was for this to be a City project and apply assessments. During the design phases, which were extensive, Hoyt and Vantage came to an agreement to do the project themselves. Engineering costs had been incurred and the bills had been paid by the City, and the City would like to be reimbursed. Tenpas asked why only Hoyt would be held liable for the costs. Dietz believed that monies were held in joint tenancy between Hoyt and Vantage for these costs. Dietz added that this was a petitioned project. Jullie added that there was a dispute during the design process; however, there is still a legitimate bill which needs to be addressed. Tenpas believed that the responsibility should be partly • Vantage's as well as Hoyt. Dietz replied that an escrow account was established between Hoyt and Vantage. Smith stated that there was litigation in progress regarding Golden Triangle Drive and urged the Council not to allow the $30,000 to influence a decision on this project. Peterson believed that this was an appropriate time to have the issue resolved. Tenpas asked if this would come as a complete surprise to Hoyt. Dietz replied that he had had conversations with Hoyt regarding this issue; however, he probably would be surprised that it might be a condition of approval of this project. Peterson recommended that this item be resolved prior to 2nd Reading. Anderson asked if any of the flood plain would be filled. Smith replied that a small area would require fill and that this had the approval of the Watershed District. There were no further comments from the audience. F 6.7 I City Council Minutes 21 October 3, 1989 A t MOTION: t. Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 39-89 for ! Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. i MOTION: : Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 89-212 for Preliminary Plat Approval and direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council conditions that prior to 2nd Reading an agreement be reached regarding the resolution of the $30,000 debt. Tenpas asked City Attorney Pauly if this was a legitimate action. Pauly replied that he did not know enough about the details to give an answer at this time. Peterson r asked if the wording of the motion was acceptable. Pauly 1 replied yes. {yy Motion carried unanimously. I i V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve Payment of Claims No. 54330 through No.54671. ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas, and Peterson all voting "AYE". VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. RED ROCK SHORES by Scenic Heights Investment. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 13-89, Zoning District Change from R1-22 to R1-13.5 on 22.97 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Red Rock Shores; Approval of Land Alteration Permit for Red Rock Shores; and Adoption of Resolution No. 89-214, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 13-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 22.97 acres into 20 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way. Location: East of County Road #4, north and east of Lake Shore Drive. (Ordinance No. 13-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-214 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) Jullie reported that this was a 2nd Reading for the Red Rock Shores proposal. He added that the proponent had signed the Developer's Agreement and Staff would recommend li approval. City Attorney Pauly stated that the proponent had signed the agreement; however, there was a recommended change to Item 1 of the Developer's Agreement. The paragraph should read: "Developer shall develop the property in , a3'? • City Council Minutes 22 October 3, 1989 conformance with the materials revised and dated June 15, 1989, reviewed and approved by the City Council on June 20, 1989, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modification as provided herein and 1 further subject to and as modified by the provisions of a land alteration permit relating to the property." Pauly noted that both Item VI.A and B. should be considered together. The materials presented in the Council package related to the Developer's Agreement, the 2nd Reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and Resolution for Final Plat approval, and the approval of a land alteration permit. Pauly believed that the proponent was in agreement with the City regarding the Developer's Agreement and the rezoning and final plat items; however, the land alteration permit had been signed with two sections stricken. The sections stricken were Section 7 which related to the tree replacement and the last paragraph of Section 9, which related to security for the trees addressed in Section 7. Pauly stated that the proponent believed that the City did not have the authority to impose the requirement that the trees be replaced on the property, and if the City did have the authority to require the replacement of the trees, it did not have the authority in respect to the building pads as opposed to the streets and utilities. George Hoff, attorney representing the proponent, stated that at the last review of this project by the Council, two issues were discussed: zoning and subdivision approval. The zoning was approved without conditions and the subdivision approval was adopted subject to land swaps being arranged and a land alteration permit being obtained subject to the City's tree policy. The proponent received a Developer's Agreement and signed that agreement without reservation with the exception of one typographical error. The signing of the agreement was consistent with what the Council had directed. There were no impediments based on the record before the Council todate in respect to the rezoning that did not now have R1-22 zoning. Hoff stated that the only issue which remained unresolved was the Land Alteration Permit. The proponent had excised Section 7, which parroted the tree policy of the City (which was not in ordinance form). Hoff understood the land alteration permit to prescribe that the proponent would in good faith perform all grading and restoration of the site, would post an $11,000 bond, and would not damage any trees outside of the construction zone. Hoff stated that City Attorney Pauly was correct that it was the proponent's position that the City was without authority to impose the tree policy through the land alteration permit. The standards of judgment of the land alteration permit and on which a denial could be based included �c�Z City Council Minutes 23 October 3, 1989 whether a safety risk were present, undue destruction of vegetation occurred, proper methods for restoration were not used, and the land was not zoned for proper use. Hoff noted that no safety risk was present, additional conditions were agreed to limit the amount of construction traffic in the area, and the property was zoned for appropriate use. Hoff noted that half of the property was already zoned R1-22. Hoff believed that the Land Alteration Permit's purpose was to cover regulations for land alteration for development reasons. The Land Alteration Permit stated that destruction of vegetation outside the construction area was not permitted and would be considered undue destruction of vegetation; Hoff added that the proponent agreed with this condition. Hoff said that as he had previously discussed with Staff and the Council, he did not believe that the City had the authority to enforce the Tree Replacement Policy based on State Statue #462.358, which stated the sole authority for subdivision regulations. The Tree Replacement Policy was not in ordinance form at this time. Hoff requested that the Council approve the rezoning based upon the execution and submission of the Developer's Agreement as developed by Staff, executed by the proponent, and tendered to City Attorney Pauly; that the Land Alteration Permit be approved as amended by the proponent with the exclusion of Section 7 referencing the Tree Policy; and that the Final Plat be approved in its present form. Dietz reported that the grading plan submitted by the proponent dated May 11, 1989 did not show the Strawberry Hills portion of the subdivision, the plan did show some of the grading necessary on the individual lots and an asterisk with a notation that stated that initial grading on lots pads 1 through 6, Block 2, and 1 and 2, Block 3, would be graded to allow for custom homes, street right- of-way to be graded only. A new grading plan was submitted for Council review at the June 20, 1989 meeting, which depicted the Strawberry Hill subdivision, some of Red Rock Shore Estates, and removed the grading on the individual lot pads. Staff understood that the proponent did not propose to do the initial grading on the lot pads; however, in all of the other projects to date a grading plan is submitted and approved which shows the ultimate grading of the site, such that Staff would have a master plan of how the development would occur. The Land Alteration Permit makes reference to both the June 23, 1989 and the May 11, 1989 plans. Staff was asking that the proponent submit as part of the Land Alteration Permit an overall grading plan, which would be a Master Plan as to how the land would be ultimately developed. The addition of language to the Developer's Agreement was City Council Minutes 24 October 3, 1989 t. intended to recognize that the grading plan dated June 15, 1989 was not the ultimate plan for the site and that a master plan would be required. j Pauly asked Dietz how Staff determined the grading on individual lots. Dietz replied that when a building permit was requested, Staff reviewed the permit, which included a lot survey and grading plan, for conformance to the master grading plan. Pauly then asked if there were separate grading plans issued for individual lots. Dietz replied no, the grading plan for the overall site was the typical way to see the grading of the site. Pauly stated that the overall grading plan for the site carried the authority to grade the individual lots. Dietz stated that 1 this was correct. Stuart Fox, City Forester, reported that the Tree Replacement Policy was based on information from the US Forestry Department and Agriculture Department. A 20% random survey of the site was conducted. The tree inventory was 968 trees, with 3022 diameter inches total for the one acre surveyed. Fox stated that the entire site had been traversed. Based on the site review and the survey the tree inventory for the entire 5.2 acre site was 5,034 trees over 1" in diameter for a total of 16,650 diameter inches. Fox then reviewed the Staff report prepared by the Planning Department, which depicted a tree loss of approximately 1,041 diameter inches of significant trees, or those of 12 inches or better in diameter. Fox showed the Council a plan which depicted the areas to be impacted by the road construction or by building pads. The area to be disturbed by construction activity totaled 1.9 acres. Based on the calculations the total tree loss would be 1,843 trees, 5,664 diameter inches. Sixty-one trees, or a total of 1,024 diameter inches would be considered significant. These figures were within 20 diameter inches of the original estimates. The original count did not include trees under 12 inches in diameter. The proposed replacement request was for 462 diameter inches, which represented only 8% of the total trees which could be removed from the site. Peterson asked Fox if there were any state or national standards to support the formula for replacement calculations used by Staff. Fox replied that the method used to determine the tree loss was a common method used in forestry practices. Pauly asked Fox if the estimated tree loss for the entire 5.2-acre site was to be 5,034 trees over 1 inch in diameter. Fox replied yes. Pauly then asked if the total diameter of the trees would be 16,650 inches. Fox replied yes. Pauly asked if this amount represented the amount of destruction to the trees resulting from the development of 7LJQ • City Council Minutes 25 October 3, 1989 the site. Fox replied yes. Pauly asked if the total number of trees to be lost due to construction was estimated at 1,843 trees over 1 inch in diameter, which represented a total of 5,664 caliper inches. Fox replied yes. Pauly then asked Fox if he had an opinion of the effect of the tree loss on the surrounding properties. Fox replied that the existing subdivision to the south would be affected by the removal of these trees. Fox added that the winds from the north, which were now currently blocked by the existing tree cover, would be channeled to the homes to the south. A significant amount of the canopy would be removed. Pauly then asked Fox to identify the area on the map. Fox showed the location of the 20-foot-wide canopy of trees in relation to the subdivision to the south. The print being used was dated April 18, 1989, prepared by Ron Krueger & Associates, for the Red Rock Shores Subdivision. Pauly noted that the print was color-coded and asked Fox for an explanation. Fox replied that the green area depicted the extent of the wooded area as indicated by the developer. He added that the orange area was the tree area to be lost due to construction of the roads or building pads. Pauly asked Fox if the destruction of the 1,084 trees would result in the undue destruction of the environment and, therefore, would cause harm to the environment. Fox replied that the loss of the trees would change the wind patterns in this area. Pauly asked Fox if he would consider this harmful to the environment. Fox replied yes. Pauly asked Fox if he would consider the removal of the 1,084 trees to be undue destruction of vegetation. Fox replied yes. Hoff asked Fox if the proponent had received a copy of this report. Fox replied no. Hoff asked Fox when the report was prepared. Fox replied Friday, September 29, 1989. Hoff then asked Fox if he was aware that this was a matter in controversy. Fox replied yes. Hoff asked why the report had not been presented to himself, or the proponent. Fox replied that the report was submitted through the Planning Department and Director Chris Enger. Hoff asked Fox if he had recommended that the report be submitted to the proponent. Fox replied no. Hoff asked what type of trees were located on the site. Fox replied oaks, red oaks, sugar maples, etc. Hoff asked if these were not considered deciduous trees which lost their leaves in the winter. Fox replied this was correct. Hoff asked if the loss of the leaves did not cut down on the amount of wind blockage significantly during the winter. Fox replied that it did affect some of the blockage; however, by opening up the corridor the amount of blockage would be reduced significantly. Hoff asked if the wind blockage effect was reduced when the leaves from the trees I were lost. Fox replied yes. Hoff asked Fox what the property was zoned. cul � City Council Minutes 26 October 3, 1989 ( Tenpas stated that he did not wish to make light of the wind issue; however, he did not consider this to be of vital importance to this proposal. Tenpas requested that the presentation move forward. Hoff concurred with Tenpas that this was a non-issue; S however, Staff believed that it was an issue and proved S,' undue destruction of vegetation. Hoff believed that this was proceeding along the lines of a "Swanson hearing". Pauly replied that this was a proceeding designed to have issues become part of the record. s Peterson stated that he did not agree that this was a non- issue item, it was an issue which related to land alteration. Peterson noted that Hoff had stated at the beginning of the presentation that this was a legal issue. Peterson believed that a good- faith effort had been made i by City Staff to work with the proponent to make 1 modifications, which have not been acceptable to the s proponent. Peterson did not believe that more questions or cross-examination were necessary in this setting. Peterson was prepared to ask for the court's opinion regarding the City's authority to enforce the Tree Replacement Policy. Hoff asked Peterson if he was stating that he did not have the right to cross-examine Staff any further on this issue. Peterson replied that he the right to do this; however, he believed that this should take place in a legal setting. Pauly recommended that Hoff should be allowed to ask further questions. Hoff stated that the Chair viewed the cross-examination as supercilious. I Peterson replied no. Hoff asked Fox again if he knew what the property was ; zoned. Fox replied that he did not know. Hoff then asked if one of the notations in the Land Alteration permit standards was the underlying zoning and use of the property. Fox replied that he did not know. Hoff asked Fox if he had read the Land Alteration permit standards prior to preparing his report. Fox replied that his report was prepared as a supplementary report. Hoff asked Fox if he would disagree that the property was zoned R1- 22. Fox replied that he did not know the zoning. Hoff then asked if he understood R1-22 zoning to be residential I zoning. Fox replied yes. Hoff asked Fox is it was not q necessary to provide a road and utilities to serve residential properties not previously developed. Fox e replied yes. Hoff asked Fox if in providing the roads and ,t utilities in a heavily wooded area the result would be the loss of some trees. Fox replied yes. Hoff asked Fox if the construction of homes and building pads resulted in "- 1. the destruction of some trees. Fox replied yes. Hoff then asked Fox if the construction of roads, utilities, 1 City Council Minutes 27 October 3, 1989 and house pads, would be considered a permitted use within that zoning district. Pauly replied that City Forester Fox might not know the answer and should only answer if he was sure of the response. Fox believed that the requirements would be outlined in the Developer's Agreement. Hoff restated the question to Fox: would the development of a residential project in a heavily wooded area result in the destruction of some trees. Fox replied yes. Hoff asked if that was true of this particular site outlined in green on the exhibit. Fox replied yes, with the proper clearance. Hoff asked Fox if it was correct that he believed that the property owners to the south would be impacted as a result of northern winds. Fox replied yes. Hoff asked Fox if to his knowledge the property owners to the south had any easement or any other type of interest in real-estate to grant them the right to maintain the trees on the proponent's property. Fox replied not to his knowledge. Pauly asked Hoff if his referral to the rights of the property owners to the south was direct or through the . City's Land Alteration permit code. Hoff replied directly. Pauly asked Hoff if he disputed the City's authority to control land alteration. Hoff replied that he did not dispute the City's authority to issue Land Alteration Permits nor did he dispute that the City was obligated to follow the standards as set forth in that portion of the City Code. Hoff believed that the standards were clearly stated. Hoff asked Fox in respect to the tunneling effect, would the roadway being constructed run in a direction from northwest to southeast. Fox replied yes. Hoff asked Fox if the total number of trees in the entire area was 5,034. Fox replied yes. Hoff asked how large an area this covered. Fox replied 1.9 acres. Hoff then asked how many residential lots would be created in the green area. Fox replied 6 lots. Hoff asked if the 6 lots were located on the 1.9 acres. Fox replied that 1.9 acres of property would be disturbed. Hoff asked Fox if 1,843 trees would be disturbed in the wooded area. Fox replied that he would need to refer to his memorandum. Hoff asked Fox if the environmental harm would be the wind destruction to the property to the south. Fox replied that was one consideration; there were several others. Harris questioned what this line of questioning had to do with the City's Tree Replacement Policy. She added that the City Council would continue to support the current Tree Replacement Policy as written. tt Peterson questioned if it was appropriate to continue the public hearing discussion along these lines. Hoff replied that a Swanson hearing meant that what would happen in a • q City Council Minutes 28 October 3, 1989 court of law was limited to the record before this Council. Hoff added that he did not have prior knowledge of this tree report memorandum, and, therefore, had done a cold cross-examination of Mr. Fox, which he did not believe was fair to himself or the proponent. Hoff stated, if City Attorney Pauly would agree that this was not to be considered a Swanson hearing and the issue on this matter was not closed with respect to the Tree Replacement Policy and undue harm to the environment, he would be willing to conclude after one additional question to Mr. Dietz. Pauly replied that he was interested in hearing the points to be made before going to court. Pauly added that he would not concede that this was not a Swanson hearing and believed that Hoff should continue with questions. Hoff stated that he did not view this as a Swanson-type hearing due to the failure on the City's part to provide the necessary underlying documentation. Hoff asked Dietz for clarification on the Land Alteration Permit: was the plan as submitted to Staff incomplete. Dietz replied yes. Hoff then asked Dietz if the need for additional information had been submitted to Ron Krueger & Associates prior to this meeting. Dietz replied that Staff had met with a representative from Ron Krueger & Associates last Thursday and had requested that the grading plan include all of the contemplated grading to take place on the site for both road and utility construction and home construction. Hoff stated that he did not know the impact of this at this time. Hoff asked if the City was requesting only that a master grading plan be submitted. Dietz replied yes, and added that the two separate plans needed to be combined into one master plan so that Staff could see the individual grading for the pads as well as the road and utility grading to take place. Hoff asked Dietz if Staff was aware that the proponent would not be doing the grading on the individual lots. Dietz replied that it was noted on the May 11, 1989 plan that the grading would be done by others. Hoff stated that he would like to comment on the findings and requested a copy. Pauly stated that a memorandum dated September 27, 1989 from Stu Fox had been provided to the City Council and attached to this was a summary of the value of trees and forest lands and which spoke in general of the urban forest. Pauly asked Fox for an opinion as to whether the values expressed in the memorandum would be present in the forests under consideration. Fox replied that the values of the forest on the Gilk property would be similar to those described in the memorandum. $ Pauly asked Dietz to clarify the reference to the Strawberry Hill project as being encompassed in this plat. G�i q • City Council Minutes 29 October 3, 1989 f Dietz replied that at the initial public hearings on June t 6, 1989, the Council reviewed 3 separate projects for this area. The projects were Red Rock Estates, Strawberry Hill, and Red Rock Shores. Dietz added that during the interim the proponent for Red Rock Shores had purchased the Strawberry Hills property and, therefore, the preliminary plat reviewed as Strawberry Hill would now be part of the Final Plat for Red Rock Shores. Pauly then asked if the original property for Red Rock Shores consisted of 19.77 acres and the property for Strawberry Hill 3.2 acres, making the total plat now 22.97 acres. Dietz replied that he did not know the exact figures and referred that question to Director of Planning Enger. Enger replied that the figures as stated were correct. Pauly noted that a copy of the material which had been provided to the City Council was available at this meeting and to the public at any time during the meeting. Pauly referenced pages 2832 through page 2935 from the Council i. packet. Hoff asked Fox how many trees would be removed in the development of the residential project zoned as R1-22. Fox replied that the number of trees to be removed over 1 inch in diameter would be 1,843. Hoff then asked Fox if the lots were developed as single-family homes, would it be possible to replace the trees lost on the lots in question. Fox replied not as they exist. Hoff asked if Fox would recommend replanting the trees in another area of the plat. Fox replied that the recommendation was to replace the trees in the entrance areas, outlot areas, and steep slope areas based on the requirements of the City's Tree Replacement Policy. Hoff then asked if the replacement would take place away from the heavily wooded area. Fox replied yes. Hoff asked if some of trees would actually be replaced on a site not part of this plat. Fox replied that was not being recommended in this case and without looking further at the site he could not make a determination. Pauly believed that Hoff had implied that by virtue of platting and/or zoning a property owner had the right to alter the land. Pauly asked Dietz if he understood the City Code to allow for such rights without a Land Alteration Permit. Hoff believed that this would require a legal opinion from Dietz. Hoff did not believe that the Land Alteration Permit section of the Code was relevant. Pauly believed that Hoff had argued previously that by virtue of zoning and plat approval the City did not have the authority over land alteration. Hoff replied that his point had been that if the City Code provision were interpreted in plain English, the City Code talked about undue destruction of trees based upon the underlying zoning of the property. Hoff added it would be necessary b4c l City Council Minutes 30 October 3, 1989 ( to remove trees to develop the property in question with el R1-22 zoning. Hoff believed that "undue" was the key word. Pauly did not see any reference to "undue". 1 Pauly read and reviewed the "Findings, Conclusions, and Decision". Pauly noted that this draft had been prepared based on approval of rezoning and platting. Pauly stated that regarding Item 4 it was the proponent's contention that there would be no grading other than for the streets and the utilities. Pauly suggested that this argument would be similar to the argument that a storm sewer would l only apply to the water which rushes down the streets and not that which flows off the property which was developed. Pauly emphasized the conclusion stated on Page 3, "The functional, aesthetic, and economic values of trees enhance not only the land on which they are grown, but 1 adjacent lands and neighborhoods as well.". Regarding Item 7, Subsection 2, Pauly stated that the word "undue" would not necessary qualify all harm to the environment. I Pauly requested that a new paragraph be added as Item 8 to read as follows: "The destruction of the 1,843 trees by the alteration of the property will cause undue destruction of vegetation and trees on the property and will cause harm to the environment." Pauly added the addition would address the criteria of the City Code. The remaining paragraphs would be renumbered. Pauly stated that the a correction should be noted in the Decision I Section, "herein" should be changed to "therein". f Hoff stated that there was no reference shown that the City had a conservancy easement nor fee or other ownership j interests in the property. He added that there had been no recommendations shown to develop this property in i. accordance with zoning without destruction of some vegetation. Hoff questioned the finding that the trees should be replaced on the property in light of Fox's testimony that it would be difficult to replace all of the a trees on the property. He added that Senior Planner, Mike i Franzen, had also made reference in other meetings that the trees would have to be replaced off-site. Hoff believed that the Council needed to view the intention of the Land Alteration Permit as a whole in which it dealt with the utilization of the property as contemplated in 1 zoning. Hoff believed that the way the Land Alteration j8181 Permit was signed, undue destruction of vegetation would be avoided with the provision of construction limits. d Hoff requested that the Land Alteration Permit be issued as submitted by the proponent with the amendment. Pauly described the Swanson case, as containing criteria for subdivision of property in Bloomington, which was ( based on language close to that of Eden Prairie's ordinance. He added that the Swanson case went before the Supreme Court because of a denial by Bloomington of a YUG City Council Minutes 31 October 3, 1989 request for subdivision of property based on tree lose and harm to the environment. The Supreme Court upheld the decision by Bloomington to deny the subdivision. Peterson asked Pauly if the motions prepared in the Agenda packet were properly worded and would cover all the necessary items. Pauly replied yes and added that the order of approvals should be to approve the rezoning: the Developer's Agreement with the amendment to the first paragraph, first sentence, to read: and further subject to and as modified by the provisions of the Land Alteration Permit relating to the property; the adoption of Resolution No. 89-214; the adoption of Resolution No. 89- 206; and the adoption of the Findings, Conclusions, and Decision as presented to the Council with amendments suggested by the City Attorney. Tenpas asked the proponent if the dispute was the amount of trees to be replaced or the bonding required by the City. Hoff replied that the proponent did not believe the City had the authority to require the replacement. Hoff added that the original objection was that because the . proponent was not developing the building pads himself; as a compromise position only the trees in the road right- of-way would be replaced by him. Pidcock stated that she did not agree that the City did not have the authority to enforce the tree replacement policy. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 13-89 for Zoning District Change. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson approval of Developers Agreement for Red Rock Shores subject to modifications as referred to during the proceedings. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 89-214 Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 13-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt the Finding, Conclusions and Decision RE: Land Alteration Permit for Zti / City Council Minutes 32 October 3, 1989 Red Rock Shores as amended during the proceedings. Motion carried unanimously. B. Final Plat Approval for Red Rock Shores (located east of Eden Prairie Road and South of Scenic Heights Road (Resolution No. 89-206) NOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson adoption of Resolution No. 89-206 granting Final Plat approval for Red Rock Shores. Motion carried unanimously. VII. PETITIONS. REOUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Three Appointments to the Citizens Advisory Committee for T.H. 212 (C.A.C.1 MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to nominate Sidney Pauly, Anne Boline, and Jim Ostenson to the Citizens Advisory Committe for T.H. 212. Motion carried unanimously. X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members B. Report of City Manager C. Report of City Attorney III D. Report of Director of Planning E. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources F. Report of Director of Public Works 3 1. NSP Undergrounding proposal MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to continued this item to the October 12, 1989 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. G. Report of Finance Director XI. NEW BUSINESS citfi City Council Minutes 33 October 3, 1989 XII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 AM. l E47 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL UNAPPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 1990 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City 1 Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as published and amended. ADDITIONS: ADD Item X.A.1, Report on the National League of Cities Convention. ADD Item X.A.2, Resolution RE: Landfill Expansion. ADD Item X.A.3, Graffiti Bridge. ADD Item X.A.4, Earth Week and Flag Pole at Community Center. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES A. Special City Council Meeting held Wednesday. February 21, 1990 MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Minutes of the Special City Council meeting held Wednesday, February 21, 1990 as published and amended. CORRECTION: Page 4, Planning Commission Appointments, Motion should read: seconded by Pidcock.... ']J' City Council Minutes 2 March 13, 1990 f Motion carried 4-0-1. Peterson abstained. t III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Policy on Personal Flotation Devices C. Village Greens Petition to Eliminate Sidewalk Requirement D. Authorization to Use Funds from Book Sale For Microfilming Historical Documents E. Policy on Acquisition of Historical Artifacts F. Policy on Removing Snow and Ice from Sidewalks G. January 1990 Financial Report H. Yard Waste Facility Siting I. Award of House Sale J. Cost Participation w/MnDOT for Improvements to Trunk Highway No. 5. I.C. 52-135 (Resolution No. 90-54) K. Declaring Costs. Ordering Preparation of a Special Assessment Roll for Modern Tire Company Property Fire Protection System and Set Hearing Date (Resolution No. 90- 55) L. Settlement Agreement for Patricia Nelson Special Assessment Appeal (I.C. 52-109) M. Final Plat Approval of Fairfield 2nd Addition (located west of County Road No. 4 and north of Pioneer Trail) Resolution No. 90-59 N. Approval of Transfer of Ownership for Parkway Apartments (Resolution No. 90-64) 0. SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE by MR-USHOT. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 37-89, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5, with variances reviewed by the Board of Appeals; Approval of Developer's Agreement and Supplement to Developer's Agreement for Shores of Mitchell Lake; and Adoption of Resolution No. 90-66, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 37-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: South of Highway No. 5, west of Mitchell Lake, east of Dell Road (extended). (Ordinance No. 37-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-66 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) City Council Minutes 3 March 13, 1090 j P. Roger's Auto Body - Extension of time for Developer's Agreement to 3/15/91 Q. EDEN PRAIRIE SERVICE by Rosewood Construction for Aspen Park Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Office to Community Commercial on 1.5 acres; Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on approximately 37 acres for consideration of a 3,300 square foot Auto Service Center. Location: Northwest corner of Fuller Road (extended) and Highway 5 (Resolution No. 90-49 - Denial of Request) R. Receive Petition for Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements on White Tail Crossing and Trotters Path. and Order Feasibility Study. I.C. 52-194 (Resolution No. 90-62) S. Receive 100% Petition for Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements within Bluffs East 7th Addition and Order Preparation of Plans and Specifications. I.C. 52-195 (Resolution No. 90-63) T. Approval of Agreement for City Communication System with E. F. Johnson t! MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Items A through T on the Consent Calendar. ITEM C Harris asked if the City was going to extend the sidewalk. Dietz replied that the residents in the Village Green development had filed a petition requesting that the interior sidewalk system not be required as originally planned. He added that $15,000 had been placed in escrow and it was Staff's recommendation that the sidewalk along Golf View Drive be extended and the remainder of the interior system not be required. Pidcock believed that the possible future needs of the neighborhood should be considered and in the future it was possible that more small children would live in this neighborhood. Dietz replied that the developer had placed a number of trees in the right-of-way which would need to be removed. He added that this was a quiet street and the majority of property owners did not want an interior sidewalk system. ITEM K Peterson asked for further detail regarding the Fire Protection System for Modern Tire. Dietz replied there ?Ia City Council Minutes 4 March 13, 1990 was a provision in Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes which allowed cities to assess for a fire protection system. The procedure would be that a special assessment hearing would be held as soon as the appeal period had run, the contractor would be paid, and the amount would be collected with taxes. ITEM L Pidcock asked Dietz what the original amount of the assessment. Dietz replied that the original assessment had been approximately $12,800 and had been reduced by $5,500. Motion to approve the Consent Calendar carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS } A. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL. PHASE II by International School of Minnesota, Inc. Request for Zoning District Amendment with the Public Zoning District on approximately 38 acres, Site Plan Review on approximately 38 acres for construction of a 27,640 square foot addition. Location: South of Crosstown #62, north of Bryant Lake, west of Nine Mile Creek. (Ordinance No. 4-90 - Zoning District Amendment) Continued from February 20, 1990 Council meeting Jullie reported that this item had been continued to allow i. time to resolve issues related to screening and drainage on the adjoining property of Mr. Poupard. Tracy Whitehead, representing the International School, stated that she had met with Mr. Poupard as requested by the Council at the last meeting. An engineer had been hired to investigate the drainage issue and had determined that a drainage problem did not exist. Whitehead stated that since the time of the July 1987 superstorm sod had been added, curb and gutters were placed on the road, and an additional catch basin had been installed. Regarding the landscape issue Whitehead reported that a landscape architect had been hired and it was recommended that 22 arborvitae trees be planted shoulder to shoulder to correct the headlight and screening issue. Whitehead stated that Mr. Poupard did not view this as an acceptable solution and the International School recommended that an additional 12 trees. Whitehead said that the International School wanted to be a good neighbor and • would request approval of Phase II. Peterson asked Enger if Staff had been involved in the meeting between the proponent and the International School. Enger replied that Staff had discussed the issues Z'6 City Council Minutes 5 March 13, 1990 1 with each party individually and had developed a separate analysis. Staff's conclusion was that while additional evergreens would help, it would not completely solve the problem with headlights. Enger added that Staff had recommended the construction of a fence; however, the i International School preferred to use trees. I Gerald Duffy, representing Mr. Poupard, stated that Mr. Poupard shared the City Staff's view that a fence would be j a preferable alternative to the trees. Duffy added that Mr. Poupard's first choice was that an earth berm be constructed. Duffy said that Mr. Poupard was willing to try the solution as presented by the International School; however, if it did not work to the satisfaction of Mr. Poupard, he would return to the City for further action. Mr. Poupard stated that prior to the road being constructed he looked down over the edge of his property and presently he looks up at the road. Poupard was concerned that a grading plan had not been filed prior to the construction of the road. Pidcock asked City Attorney Pauly to respond to the letter presented at this hearing by the International School's attorney. Pauly stated that he had just received the letter and would need to further review the provisions of the Site Plan Ordinance. Pauly added that he did not believe that the language in the Developer's Agreement addressed Mr. Poupard's claims. Peterson asked Pauly if it would be his recommendation not to take action on this item this evening. Pauly replied yes. Harris asked for clarification on how the headlights were affecting Mr. Poupard's property. Duffy replied the , headlights from the cars turning in and out of the 1 International School as well as the headlights from cars stopping at the signal on County Road 62 shined into the ? Poupard home. Duffy noted that another problem was the traffic signal light on County Road 62 was changing constantly. Duffy stated that he would reserve the right to review the response from the International School's attorney, as this was not part of the information presented to him. James Steilen, attorney representing the International School, stated that Mr. Poupard had said that he was willing to try the solution as presented by the International School. Steilen said that it was important i that the school begin construction immediately to meet S September 1991 deadlines for completion. Steilen City Council Minutes 6 March 13, 1990 requested that the Council consider taking action on this item this evening. Anderson believed that it was important for the City to discuss the trail easement situation and further believed that a condition of the Developer's Agreement should be that the International School negotiate at trail easement with the City of Eden Prairie. Peterson asked Anderson if he believed that a condition of the Developer's Agreement was sufficient. Anderson replied that the City's intent was to continue attempt to gain a trail easement in this location needed to become part of the official records. Anderson emphasized that it had always been the City's intent to obtain a trail in this location. Harris asked the proponent on the status regarding completion of the Final Plat. Whitehead replied that the Final Plat would be ready for Staff approval within a week. Whitehead added that the request was that the International School not be granted an occupancy permit until the Final Plat was completed. Anderson asked Whitehead the school's position regarding the trail easement. Whitehead replied that the owners of the school were in town at this time and recommended that a representative from the City should discuss the trail easement with them. Whitehead added that at this time it was the school's position that it did not want a trail through its property. Anderson asked if the school's objection to a trail easement had been clearly stated during the proceedings with Hennepin Parks. Whitehead replied that proceedings had been started for a friendly condemnation when the personnel for the Hennepin Parks underwent a complete change and the decision to stop the proceedings was made by the new Parks administration. Anderson asked Whitehead if the International School would be willing to negotiate with the City of Eden Prairie regarding a trail easement. Whitehead replied that the International School did not want a trail on its property. Harris recommended that Staff be directed to talk directly with the owners of the International School regarding a trail easement. Peterson recommended that Councilmember Anderson participate in those negotiations. Anderson stated that he would like to work with Staff on this issue because he believed that it was very important to the City to have a trail connection in this location as had always been the intention. City Council Minutes 7 March 13, 1990 Harris asked if it would be realistic to expect the Final Plat to be filed within 10 days. Enger replied that a Preliminary Plat had been approved and a Final Plat was to be filed immediately. Enger noted that the filing of the Final Plat was now 18 months overdue. He stated that the Final Plat would require review by the City's Engineering Department before being brought to the City Council. Whitehead stated that a preliminary draft would be ready for the Staff review within 10 days. Dietz replied that the Final Plat would have to be filed with the County and this could not be completed within 10 days. Peterson recommended that the proponent be required to file the Final Plat with the County prior to 2nd Reading. Whitehead requested that a grading and foundation permit be granted early to allow construction to begin immediately. Tenpas asked Duffy if he agreed with the comments by Attorney Steilen. Duffy replied no and added that he disagreed with some of the contents of the letter presented to the Council this evening. Duffy stated that because of the Final Plat had not been filed the driveway was not placed as originally agreed upon. Duffy added that the onus should not be placed on Mr. Poupard; the ( language in the Developer's Agreement should guarantee Mr. Poupard that adequate screening be provided. Peterson asked Duffy it was his intent that the screening of the property as proposed with arborvitae be included in the Developer's Agreement or to include other alternatives. Duffy replied that the Developer's Agreement could include language which would list several alternatives, with the Developer being allowed to choose the least expensive; however, if the screening accomplished by this method was not sufficient, then the developer would be required to take the next alternative. City Attorney Pauly asked Duffy if Mr. Poupard was claiming that this development was creating an additional burden on his property, which would require the screening and berming. Duffy replied that any additional development on this site would affect the lack of visual screening due to the increase in traffic. Duffy added that it was not Mr. Poupard's intention to impede the International School. He requested that the language be very clear in the Developer's Agreement to provide Mr. Poupard with adequate screening. Pauly asked Duffy if he could quantify what the impact to Mr. Poupard's property would be due to the proposed development. Duffy replied that he could not present exact figures; however, the increase in students would result in an increase in traffic. Duffy requested that the language in the CI,lO City Council Minutes 8 March 13, ln90 Developer's Agreement be clear that the recommendation for the arborvitae to be used as screening was that of the International School, and that if this alternative did not prove successful in providing Mr. Poupard with adequate screening that the International School would be required to take additional measures. Harris believed that part of the problem from the headlights was caused by the traffic on County Road 62 and questioned if the best in screening could eliminate the problem. Duffy replied that Hennepin County had constructed a berm to screen the Poupard property from the j headlights; however, the International School removed that j berm to construct its driveway. Duffy believed that the International School should be required to replace the screening and berming which it chose to remove without notifying Mr. Poupard. Whitehead replied that it was at the City's request that the International School changed its road design and moved the driveway. Whitehead added that she did not know why Mr. Poupard had not been informed of the change. Whitehead stated that she was not aware of a particular berm being removed and did not believe that the International School could be held responsible for the traffic light on County Road 62 and its affect on Mr. Poupard's property. She added that the International School would be responsible to screen the Poupard property from the school's traffic. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 4-90 for Zoning District Amendment. Peterson asked Pauly if there would be any legal impediments which could result from taking action tonight. Pauly replied that it appeared from the information presented earlier that Mr. Poupard would like the requirement that a berm be provided as part of the condition for approval of the proposal and the International School is not in favor of this as a condition. Whitehead stated that Staff was not recommending the construction of a berm as part of its recommendations. Whitehead added that Staff had indicated that the construction of a berm in the necessary location to provide screening would destroy approximately 7 large oak trees. Pauly stated that in light of this information, he City Council Minutes 9 March 13, 1')90 ( could find no other reason not to take action on this item 1 at this time. Motion carried 4-1. Anderson voted "NO". MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations and Council Condition that prior to 2nd Reading the Final Plat be filed with the County, negotiations for a trail easement be included in the Developer's Agreement, and the screening be provided with the arborvitae as proposed. Anderson asked Pauly to clarify why the requirement for the arborvitae screening could be included in the Developer's Agreement and a requirement for a trail easement could not be included. Pauly replied that the proponent was in agreement with the screening requirement, but was not in agreement that a trail be placed on the (stl2vp10H but was not in agreement that a trail be placed on the property. Anderson stated that this proposal had been fast-tracked over a year ago to allow the school to meet schedules and at that time the Council believed that a trail system would be provided because the International School had agreed to cooperate with the County. Anderson believed that the International School wanted to the City to cooperate and make exceptions for its benefit; however, he did not see the International School willing to reciprocate and cooperate with the City on an issue which was important to the City's trail system. Anderson added that this was why he was voting in opposition to the proposal. Peterson stated that he had voted in favor of the proposal with the belief that the International School would enter into good faith negotiations with the City regarding a trail easement prior to 2nd Reading. Peterson added that if this was not the case at the time of 2nd Reading he would reserve the right to change his vote at that time. Harris stated that she had added as a Council condition that the negotiations for a trail easement begin prior to 2nd Reading and also believed that this would be done in good faith. Tenpas asked if it would be possible to include language for the Developer's Agreement that the International School be responsible for adequate screening for the Poupard property and that if the first attempt with the arborvitae did not work that the International School would be responsible for additional screening. Pauly replied that this would be within the City's prerogative. Harris stated that this would be adding a modifier to the W57 City Council Minutes 10 March 13, 1t090 motion which she was uncomfortable with. Tenpas replied that it appeared that this was the only time of the year when the screening was an issue and he wanted to make sure that this issue did not return to the Council. Duffy noted that Staff had concurred that the arborvitae might not work. It had been Staff's recommendation to provide a fence, which had been Mr. Poupard's second choice, with the first being to replace the berm which had been removed. Duffy did not want the Staff's recommendation and Mr. Poupard's recommendations to be lost in this process. Pauly recommended that any recommendation for further remedy of the screening be a condition of further review by the City Attorney to determine the City's authority to require such additions. He added that if it was determined to be within the City's authority the language would be included in the Developer's Agreement prior to 2nd Reading. The Council concurred with this recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. Anderson noted that he voted in favor of the motion at this time because of the clarification of the Council conditions. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to grant an early grading and foundation permit with the understanding that the proponent would be proceeding at its own risk. Motion carried unanimously. B. VACATION NO. 90-02 - RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CORRAL LANE (Resolution No. 90-56) Jullie reported that notice of this Public Hearing had been published in the February 21, 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News and mailed to owners of affected property owners. Richard O'Brien, 15709 Cedar Ridge Road, recommended that Item IV.A be considered at the same time as this item because they are connected. O'Brien noted that several residents were in attendance to discuss concerns regarding both items. Peterson asked Jullie why the two items were separated. Jullie replied that the vacation of Corral Lane was a public hearing and that under normal conditions the Final Plat for Sandy Pointe would have been addressed under the Consent Calendar; however, because of prior knowledge of some concerns by the residents it had been placed under the Resolution section of the agenda. Jullie believed 769 City Council Minutes 11 March 13, 1990 that the proponent could address the issues of concern by the neighbors. Jim Zachman, the proponent, stated that the Final Plat was exactly the same as the Preliminary Plat which was approved in November of 1989. He added that the dispute and item of concern was how to solve a surveying error. There was a gap in the property designated as Outlot C. A decision would be determined by the courts if the depth of Outlot B would be increased or if the land would become part of the Eden Hills parcel. Zachman did not believe that this should have any affect on Final Plat approval. Jullie asked Zachman to address the payment to the property owners. Zachman replied that he had agreed to pay the Eden Hills Homeowners Association $30,000 at the time the Final Plat was recorded, not at the time of filing, and this condition had been accepted by the association. Zachman stated that he would like the City to police the $30,000 payment through a stipulation in the Developer's Agreement. Kent Barker, 15801 Cedar Ridge Road, asked how the proponent could include in the plat property that he did not own. Barker referenced a letter dated March 13, 1990 from the Eden Hills Homeowners Association to the City from the Eden Hills Homeowners Association to the City which outlined its concerns. The Homeowners Association would object to any Council action which would undermine its rights of ownership. Barker noted that the Homeowners Association had been assured that the County Attorney's office was fully aware that the ownership of this 30-foot piece of property was not clear at this time. Zachman stated that he was not claiming ownership of the property. He added that he was working with the County Attorney's office and merely wanted to have the Final Plat recorded at this time; and the ownership of the property would be determined through a court hearing process. Peterson stated that it appeared that the proponent had had conversations with City Attorney Pauly regareing these issues and believed that this item would not have appeared on the Agenda if the City Attorney believed that any action on the part of the Council would jeopardize or prejudice any court hearing regarding ownership of the property in question. Pauly asked City Engineer Gray if there was a discrepancy over the rest of the Plat. Gray replied no. Pauly asked Gray if any of the City's rights-of-way or easements go across the contested strip of property. Gray replied no. Pauly stated that the mere platting of property did not change in any way ownership interest. Pauly noted that an City Council Minutes 12 March 13, 1990 easement interest holder was not required to sign the plat, only the fee owner. Pauly noted that the procedure being recommended this evening was based on a recommendation from the Examiner of Titles. Pauly stated that the payment issue could be made a condition of the Developer's Agreement. Peterson asked Pauly if the Council could take action on both the vacation of Corral Lane and the Final Plat approval for Sandy Pointe without hindering the Homeowners Association position regarding ownership. Pauly stated that these proceedings would not determine title of the property. Robert Gartner, 15701 Cedar Ridge Road, was concerned that the Homeowners Association would lose access to its recreation lot if the vacation of Corral Lane took place. Dietz replied that a small portion of the road would go across the property in question. Jullie replied that this across the property in question. Jullie replied that this would not result in the Homeowners Association being denied access to its property. Pauly asked if access would be available even if a third party owned the property. Jullie replied that there would be access over land which was not in dispute. Gray replied that a trail ( would be provided in place of a street and access would still be available for the Homeowners Association. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-56 to vacate a part of the right-of-way for Corral Lane. Motion carried unanimously. C. ORDER IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. I.C. 52-166 (Sanitary Sewer. Watermain. Street and Drainage Improvements in Summit/Meadowvale/Red Oak Drives Neighborhood) Resolution No. 90-61 Jullie reported that notice of this public hearing was mailed to 67 surrounding property owners and published in the February 28 and March 7, 1990 issues of the Eden Prairie News. Dietz presented the plans for project I.C. 52-166. The project was the result of a petition from the residents in the neighborhood to provide utilities and street improvements to the area. The street would be 28 feet wide. The exact location of the storm sewer outlots had not been determined at this time and further study was taking place. The proposal had an alternate for the City Council Minutes 13 March 13, 1990 construction of sidewalks. The sidewalk would continue all along Summit Drive and Red Oak Drive based on a request by the residents to complete the sidewalk loop. The cost of the project was $404,140. The assessment would consist of 57 lots at $7,090 per lot unit. This assessment included $14,000 for the additional sidewalk at $247 per lot unit. Easement acquisitions for utilities were not included in the figures for the feasibility study and these costs could be added if necessary. Dietz added that the cul-de-sac in the northeast end of Summit Drive would require an easement for the construction of the terminus. The cost of the storm sewer would be approximately $201,860, to be assessed at $3,364 per lot unit for 60 lots. The cost of the watermain would be approximately $166,190 at $3,022 per lot unit for 55 lots plus the trunk sewer and water assessments. An alternate plan had been developed at a lower cost which resulted in a savings of approximately $400 per lot; however, this plan would be more disturbing to the neighborhood and would result in the lose of additional trees. Four lots would be assessed at a one-half lot unit cost because of the irregular shapes. Red Rock View would be assessed for 6 lot units for utilities and 7 lot units for streets. Dietz presented the assessment roll and recommended that the utilities be subject to the Exclusion Policy. Bids were scheduled to open in April, substantial completion in September, and the Special Assessment Hearing would take place in August 1991. The taxes would appear on the 1992 tax statements. Anderson asked Dietz if these were the last homes with septic tanks in this area. Dietz replied that approximately 29 lots in this area had septic tanks. Anderson then asked how long after the City provided sewer to an area did the residents have to hook up to the City's system. Dietz replied that it could be established that hook up would be required within 2 years. Dietz added that currently the policy was that an existing septic system could not be repaired if City sewer were available and the resident would be required to hook up at the time the system failed. Anderson believed that a time limit should be established to require hook up especially when homes were close to a lake. Dietz stated that Staff had been requested by the Metropolitan Waste Commission to establish a comprehensive sewer policy plan which was presently being reviewed by the Building Department. He added that inspection of all on-site systems was part of the recommended proposal. Dan Dineen, 15607 Summit Drive, stated that it appeared that the storm sewer systems did not connect to anything. He added that a water drainage problem existed currently in the area. Dietz replied that these were not the final plans. Dietz added that curb and gutter would be City Council Minutes 14 March 13, 1990 installed in the cul-de-sac area. Dineen requested that further review of the drainage problem be done. Dietz replied that this would be done during the final design process. Dineen stated that he was not in agreement with the sidewalk proposal. Dietz stated that the sidewalk would connect to Red Rock Shores subdivision which would allow a connection to the trail at County Road 4. Peterson asked Dietz the rational for the additional sidewalk. Dietz replied this was based on a petition received from some of the residents in the area. Claude Johnson, 8740 Red Oak Drive, stated that the septic systems in the area do not drain toward the lake. Johnson added that he had been told that he would have 5 years before connection would be required and did not believe that it would be fair to change the rules now. Anderson replied that he was concerned about a potential problem. Johnson stated that he was opposed to the additional sidewalk proposed. He added that he was concerned about the liability issues involved. Johnson did not see the need for the sidewalk because the neighborhood was self- contained. Bob Maier, 15603 Summit Drive, stated that there was a drainage problem currently on his property. Dietz i emphasized that these were not final plans and that the issue would not be overlooked at the time of final design. Don Harasyn, 15811 Summit Drive, supported the 2nd alternative plan to reduce the costs. Harrison questioned how often access would be necessary to the backyards. Harrison noted that homes in this area were mainly walkouts and the septic systems were located in the backyards and questioned why the service connection costs would be less by going into the street. Harrison supported the sidewalk system as proposed but recommended consistency in rational for the placement of sidewalks in neighborhoods. John Hoffer, 8711 Meadowvale Drive, stated that he had acquired 40 signatures on the petition for the sidewalks and supported the plan as shown. Catherine Holmbeck, 16050 Summit Drive, stated that she did not see a need for the sidewalk between Summit Drive and County Road 4. Hombeck was concerned about the extra burden of shoveling the sidewalk in the winter and liability. f There were no further comments from the audience. t �G� City Council Minutes 15 March 13, 1990 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution NO. 90-61 ordering the Improvements and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for I.C. 52-166. Peterson asked if direction was going to be given to Staff regarding the sidewalks. Dietz replied that based on the discussions this evening it appeared that the sidewalk presented in green on the plan would be acceptable to the majority of the neighborhood residents; however, the sidewalk presented in orange was not fully supported. Peterson believed that it was important to hear comments I from more of the residents in the neighborhood before a determination was made regarding the sidewalk issue. Dietz stated that he was an advocate of sidewalks especially in neighborhoods with young children. Dietz added that from a safety aspect the sidewalk would make sense. Pidcock noted that sidewalks were much harder and more costly to install after a neighborhood was fully developed. Dietz stated that the City did not have an ordinance which required that the sidewalks be shoveled and in fact the City plowed some sidewalks in heavily traveled areas or close to schools. Dietz presented the Council with a letter from a Mrs. Woods which stated objection to the project. Peterson believed that the neighborhood should be polled regarding the sidewalk issue. Anderson believed that the main concern should be the safety of the children in the neighborhood. Claude Johnson stated that on Red Oak Drive there were no young children. Peterson noted that this situation could change in the future. Pidcock believed that the sidewalk was a safety issue. The Council concurred on strong support of the installation of the sidewalk system as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. D. JAMESTOWN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT by Tandem Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 5.59 acres and from Low Density Residential to Medium Density City Council Minutes 16 March 13, 1990 Residential on 12.16 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 60.79 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 60.79 acres with waivers, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 17.7 acres and Rural to R1-22 on 15.7 acres, Preliminary Plat of 60.79 acres into 17 townhouse lots, 58 single family lots, 2 outlots and road right-of-way, Environmental Assessment Worksheet Review on 60.79 acres. Location: South of Highway No. 5, east of West 184th Avenue (Ordinance No. 3-90-PUD-1-90 - PUD District Review and Rezoning) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been mailed to 10 surrounding property owners and published in the February 28, 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Jullie added that this hearing was necessary because of an error in the original legal description of the properties to be zoned R1-13.5 and R1-22 as published in the newspaper. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 3-90-PUD- 1-90 for PUD District Review and Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. E. McDONALDS by McDonald's Corporation. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District on 1.4 acres with waiver for parking setback, Site Plan Review on 1.4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 8.2 acres into 2 lots for construction of a fast food restaurant. Location: East of Highway #169, north of Prairie Center Drive. (Ordinance No. 13-90-PUD-7-90 - PUD District and Zoning District Amendment; Resolution No. 90-51 - Preliminary Plat) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing had been mailed to 29 surrounding property owners and published in the February 28, 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Ray Schleck, representing the proponent, presented the plans for a McDonald's restaurant in the Tower Square Shopping Center. The building elevations had been changed to match the rest of the center. Schleck added that the proponent had worked with Staff to resolve the signage and landscape issues. Enger reported that Planning Commission reviewed this item at its February 12, 1990 meeting and recommended approval City Council Minutes 17 March 13, 1990 on a 7-0-0 vote. He added that all issues had been resolved. Anderson was concerned about the maintenance of the facility. He noted that there were significant differences in upkeep from one facility to another. Schleck replied that the maintenance was the responsibility of the owner-manager. Anderson asked if this facility would have franchise ownership. Schleck replied yes. Schleck added that McDonald's had very high standards and inspections were made regularly. Tenpas stated that McDonald's restaurants were basically kept very clean. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 13-90-7- 90 for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: ( Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 90-51 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations, with the addition of the Council's concern for proper maintenance of the facility. Motion carried unanimously. F. VACATION NO. 90-03 - DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS IN WELTER PURGATORY ACRES 2ND (Resolution No. 90-57) Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the February 21, 1990 issue of the Eden Prairie News and mailed to affected property owners. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-57 to Vacate the Drainage and Utility Easements. Motion carried unanimously. G. VACATION NO. 90-04 - RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PART OF WEST 184TH f AVENUE (Resolution No. 90-58) t City Council Minutes 18 March 13, 1990 t Jullie reported that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the February 21, 1990 issue of the Eden 4 Prairie News and mailed to affected property owners. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-58 to vacate the right-of-way. Motion carried unanimously. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Payment of Claims No. 57782 through No. 58122. ROLL CALL VOTE: 1. Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas and Peterson all voting "AYE". VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. SANDY POINTE by Sandy Pointe Development. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 41-89, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5; Approval of Developer's Agreement and Supplements to Developer's Agreement; and Adoption of Resolution No. 90- 70, Authorizing Summary of ordinance No. 41-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. Location: North of Pioneer Trail, east of Corral Lane, southwest of Red Rock Lake (Ordinance No. 41-89 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-70 E - Authorizing Summary of Publication) Reference the discussion under Item IV.B. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 41-89 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: �. ti Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Development Agreement and Supplements of the Development Agreement; and Resolution No. 90-70 Authorizing Summary of P the Rezoning Ordinance for Publication. Motion carried unanimously. B. Final Plat Approval of Sandy' Pointe (located north of Corral Lane and southwest of Red Rock Lake) Resolution No. 90-60 City Council Minutes 19 March 13, 1990 MOTION: 1 ) Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution l No. 90-60 for approval of the Final Plat of Sandy Pointe. Motion carried unanimously. C. Resolution Relating to Development District No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6 and 7; ti Calling for a Public _Hearing on the Adoption of Amendments 1 to the Development Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans Therefor (Resolution No. 90-65) MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 90-65 which lists proposed amendments to the Tax Increment Financing Districts and to set April 17, 1990 for the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously. D. DEAN SWANSON ADDITION by Dean E. Swanson. Request for Preliminary Platting of .97 acres into two single family lots within the R1-22 Zoning District with variances for lot size and structure setback. (Resolution No. 90-53 - Preliminary Plat) MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution No. 90-53 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. E. EDENVALE INDUSTRIAL PARK. 8TH ADDITION (aka: Bergin Auto Body) by James Bergin. Request for Preliminary Platting of 4.7 acres into 1 lot and 1 outlot with lot frontage variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Location: Northwest corner of Corporate Way and Martin Drive. (Resolution No. 90-50 - Preliminary Plat) Anderson asked if there were low lands involved on this parcel. Enger replied not in this area. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution No. 90-50 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. F. EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER. 8TH ADDITION (aka: Eden Square/Tower Bank Square) by Robert Larsen Partnership, Inc. Request for Preliminary Platting of 8.2 acres into 2 lots. Location: East of Highway #169 and north of Prairie Center Drive. (Resolution No. 90-52 - Preliminary Plat) City Council Minutes 20 March 13, 1990 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 90-52 approving the Preliminary Plat. Motion carried unanimously. VII. PETITIONS. REOUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Appeal Board of Appeals & Adjustments Decision on Variance Request No. 90-04, and set Hearing for March 20, 1990 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to set March 20, 1990 to review Variance Request No. 90-04 of the Board of Appeals & Adjustments. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of members to the Landfill Advisory Committee (Continued from February 20, 1990 Council meeting) Pidcock placed into nomination the following for appointment to the Landfill Advisory Committee: Sidney Pauly, Jerri Coller, Tom Brandabur, George Butzow, Glenn Wilson, Al Lange, Al Lyng, Virginia Gartner, Robert Cox, Doug Tenpas, Patricia Pidcock, and alternates Dick Coller and Mark Thompson. Motion carried unanimously to approve the nominations. X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Councilmembers 1. Report on National League of Cities Convention in Washington DC Harris complimented Mayor Peterson on his report about the convention. Harris stated that the convention dealt with national trends and big city issues. The convention offered an opportunity to meet with State representatives. Harris thanked Representative Pauly and Councilmember Pidcock for arranging special meetings and introductions. Harris believed that this meeting was very unique and different from the previous year. Pidcock stated she and Councilmember Harris had met with Kathy Michelle from Rep. Frenzel's office to discuss the landfill issue. Rep. Oberstar and his staff member Tom Reagan also spent time discussing the landfill issue. Tom Reagan recommended an adoption of a Resolution regarding Vag City Council Minutes 21 March 13, 1990 landfill which was presented to the Council. Pidcock believed that the meetings were very worthwhile. Pidcock stated that she and Councilmembers Tenpas and Harris had met with Gordon Hoff to discuss the landfill and the possibility to obtain demonstration money for Highway 212. Pidcock added that the data needed to be turned in by next week. 2. Resolution opposing Expansion of Flying Cloud Landfill MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to adopt Resolution No. 90-72 opposing the expansion of the Flying Cloud Landfill. Peterson asked if this resolution had been prepared by City Staff personnel. Pidcock replied that City Attorney Pauly and City Manager Jullie had helped draft the resolution. Peterson asked if the toxicology experts retained by the City had indeed concluded that there would be a health hazard for residents within 750 to 2,000 feet of the proposed expansion limits or if the research was still ongoing. Jullie replied that in the experts deposition he had made mention of similarities between this landfill and the one located in Ottawa and that there could be potential for health hazards. Peterson wanted to stress that a definite conclusion had not been reached. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Graffiti Bridge Harris reported that she had had a telephone conversation and had received a letter from a representative of Totes Incorporated which manufactures "Graffiti Gear". The corporation wanted to sponsor a graffiti contest, for which the winner would receive a scholarship. The winning design would be prominently displayed and celebrities would be brought in, with the possibility of a mural being done. Totes Incorporated was willing to participate in the preservation of the bridge and would like to discuss this issue further with the City, School Board, and the Chamber of Commerce. Harris believed that Eden Prairie would receive a lot of publicity. Tenpas believed this would be a great idea. Peterson asked if by agreeing to this it would mean that the City had agreed to keep the bridge. Harris replied no. (7v City Council Minutes 22 March 13, 1990 Jullie asked if Totes Incorporated would carry the responsibility for the administration of the contest. Harris replied that Totes Incorporated would take full responsibility. Anderson stated that it would need to begin very soon in order to be able to reach the school children before school let out for the summer. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to approve the concept of a contest to be sponsored by Totes Incorporated. 4. Earth Week Anderson reported that the Committee would finalize plans on Thursday evening. He added that the school had already planned some very interesting programs. Anderson stated that he had wanted to place the Tree City Flag at the Community Center and it was noted that the center did not have a flag pole. Anderson believed that it would be appropriate to have a flag pole and requested that Staff look into the price of a flag pole. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock to direct Staff to investigate the cost of a flag pole. Motion carried unanimously. B. Report of City Manager C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planning E. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources 1. Riley Lake Park Acquisition Lambert reported that when the grant was applied for in 1987 a plan for the park was presented to Mrs. Jacques. The original plan was rejected by Jacques due to her concern about the location of the ballfields and the location of the property line. Plan 2 reflected a change in the property lines and the removal of the ballfields. Jacques concern then related to the location of the boat launch at the north end of the park. Plan 3 evolved, changing the location of the boat launch to the southern end of the park. At this time Jacques requested a significant amount of screening between the park and her home. The State voiced a concern regarding Plan 3 because the City did not have a definite plan to purchase the • City Council Minutes 23 March 13, 1990 additional property to the south for the boat launch. Plan 4 depicted an expanded parking area. Plan 5 showed 2 ballfields reintroduced. Jacques had finally arrived at a price of $21,333.33 per acre for the property; however, she noted 10 conditions for the sale. Condition 1 related to an objection to the elbow configuration of the property to the north. Lambert noted that this would eliminate the City's ability to provide adequate screening between the park and the Jacques home as earlier requested. Lambert added that the Stated had noted that if any facilities were taken away, the grant would be invalid. Lambert believed that if the City gave up a portion of the property this would be a major concession; if anything the City should be attempting at acquire additional land. As presently planned the City was only acquiring a 30 acre park on a 300 acre lake. Condition 2 was a firm commitment by the City not to move the boat launch to the north at any time in the future. Lambert noted that this would require a commitment for the City to acquire additional land to the south. Condition 3 was that Jacques would have final approval of the design. Lambert believed that this would be a grave mistake. Condition 4 was for Jacques to preserve the right to maintain a farm road access to the property to the north. Lambert stated that this would be restrictive to the City's plans. Condition 5 was a request to be allowed to rent the farm land for the remainder of 1990. Pidcock asked if a time limit had been established for the maintenance of the farm road. Lambert replied no. Condition 6 requested that the City pay the "Green Acres" taxes. Pidcock stated that the payment of taxes was the responsibility of the seller, not the buyer. Condition 7 was a request to store the farm equipment. Condition 8 requested that Jacques be notified prior to any building removed. Condition 9 stated that Jacques provided no warranty on the buildings. 712 City Council Minutes 24 March 13, 1990 Condition 10 stated that the City may retain $42,837.50 of the total purchase price pending clearance of the title of approximately 2.37 acres. Lambert recommended that the City Attorney be authorized to make an offer based on the Council's decisions regarding the 10 conditions. He added that the City needed to proceed before March 30th. Harris asked what would happen if Jacques was unable to get clear title. Lambert replied that the City would need to negotiate to buy from another party. Lambert added that the State's position was that the City either begin condemnation proceeding or enter into a purchase agreement. Anderson stated that the City had been involved in this process for a long time and the price continued to increase. He believed that the City needed to proceed now into serious negotiations. Anderson added that Mrs. Jacques was not in the business of planning parks and roads and should therefore, not be permitted to determine the final plans. Anderson believed that the park should be planned in the best interest of the total population of the City not one individual. Anderson further believed that once the City purchased the property it should be { able to develop the property as it sees fit. Peterson stated that a considerable amount of Staff's time and City funds had been invested already. He added that the City had a professional planner on staff to determine the final design for the park and did not agree with the request by Jacques to have final approval. Pidcock concurred. Peterson stated that regarding the 0.8-acre, he recommended that the screening take place on the Jacques 0.8-acre and that she be obligated to maintain the screening. Peterson believed that the wording of "never moving the boat launch" should be changed or removed. Harris believed that the location of the boat launch was a safety issue. Lambert stated that it was necessary to have the boat launch located as far away from the swimming area as possible. Lambert added that it could be 10 years or more before the City would be able to acquire the property to the south. He noted that the location of the boat launch to the south would not be as good as the location to the north. Harris believed that this part would have high intensity use. Tenpas asked what would need to be changed to move the boat launch to the north. Lambert replied that the park plan would need to be changed. Riley Lake Road would not • • City Council Minutes 25 March 13, 1990 be in the location as currently presented. Lambert added that if the boat launch were located to the north it would of vital importance to heavily screen the area along the northern property line. Pidcock asked how much time would be involved if this were to go through a condemnation process. Pauly replied that a "quick-take" process could begin within 60 days. Tenpas asked how much a condemnation process would cost the City. Pauly replied that appraisers and commissioners would cost approximately $20,000 to $30,000. • Pidcock believed that it would be in the best interest of the City to reach an agreement and enter into a purchase agreement. Tenpas stated that he was comfortable with the purchase price per acre; did not see the 0.8-acre as a problem; the wording in Condition 2 should be changed to eliminate the word "never"; concurred with the rest of the Council regarding Condition 3 that Jacques should not be granted final approval of the plans; on Condition 6: the taxes should be paid by Jacques; Conditions 5 and 7 were liability issues for the City; Conditions 8, 9, and 10 were fine as presented. Tenpas further recommended that • the wording in Condition 2 be changed to reflect that the City would make every effort possible to keep the docks from the northern location. Lambert recommended that the word "never" be removed and it be noted that the City would try to purchase the necessary parcels to the south. Peterson recommended that Condition 4 be worded to set a time limit of May 1991 and believed that Condition 6 could be negotiable. MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve negotiations for a final purchase agreement based on the revision of the Conditions as noted during the discussion above. F. Report of Director of Public Works G. Report of Finance Director XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:45 PM. EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL UNAPPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1990 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John Frane, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members were present. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the Agenda as published and amended. ADDITIONS: ADD Item X.A.1., Recent Legislative Moves on Waste Facilities and Discussion Regarding Lobbyists. ADD Item X.A.2., Summary of Outside Trash Storage. ADD Item X.A.3., Car Dealerships in Eden Prairie. ADD Item X.D.1., Proposed School Building Construction. Motion carried unanimously. II. MINUTES A. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 6, 1990 Change Page 6, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, to read "..this project would meet..". MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 6, 1990, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. • G�J f City Council Minutes 2 March 20, 1990 B. City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 20, 1990 MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Motion carried with Anderson abstaining. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. SCHROERS PUD by Burl Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 40-89-PUD-8-89, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 and R1-9.5; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Schroers PUD and Owners' Supplement to Developer's Agreement; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-69, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 40-89-PUD-8-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. (Ordinance No. 40-89-PUD-8-89 - PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-69 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) C. Set Date for Workshop for Board of Review Process for Tuesday. April 3, 1990 at 6:00 PM D. Award Bid for Cushman Turf Truckstar E. Continuance of Bids for Two Rotary Mowers MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve Items A - E on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BOULDER POINTE TOWNHOMES by David Carlson Companies, Inc. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 13.65 acres, Site Plan Review on 13.65 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13.65 acres into 53 lots for construction of a 52 unit multi-family residential development. Location: South and west of Twin Lakes Crossing, northwest of Staring Lake Parkway. (Ordinance No. 14-90 - Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-68 - Preliminary Plat) City Manager Jul lie stated that notice of this Public Hearing had been mailed to 24 surrounding property owners and was properly published in the Eden Prairie News. Gw 5 City Council Minutes 3 March 20, 1990 David Carlson, the developer of the property, addressed the proposal. He noted that it is only a 50-unit development at this time. Director of Planning Enger reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this item at the February 26th meeting and recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat, PUD Development, and Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5, subject to the recommendations of the Staff report dated February 23rd. The Commission added Item 6 to the Staff recommendations to require that all perimeter landscaping shall be installed at the beginning of the project. He said they were con- cerned about the buffering of the project to surrounding properties. He said the original Planned Unit Development designated this area for a range of density between 42 and 92, with any units beyond 42 subject to a detailed review of the site and architectural plan and subject to several performance criteria. Enger noted that it will be a townhome association with private roads. He then summarized the recommendations of the February 23rd Staff Report. Peterson asked if this item had been reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission. Enger said he was quite sure it had been reviewed and he assumed it had been approved subject to the recommendations of the Planning Staff. Anderson said he noted there was a significant amount of grading on this project and asked how it lined up with the adjacent properties to the south. Enger replied that the grade change to the south is about 12 feet. Jerry Backman, engineer for the project, said that this property is lower than the adjacent property. Anderson said he was concerned that individual projects do not take into consideration the grading plans for adjacent developments. Enger said they match the grading to the south and that there is somewhat of a knoll in the center of the property line. He said they are tapering down from that knoll and that there will be a 3:1 slope from the top to bottom. Anderson asked what the view of the houses will be for people walking around the lake. Enger said they would see the back of 21-3 duplex units. He said there will be a short distance of boulder retaining wall about 75 feet wide and 4 feet high. Anderson asked if you would see backyards or frontyards. Enger replied it would be backyards. Anderson asked if there would be any restrictions as to what owners could put in their backyards in this project. He said it is a park and he was concerned about what would be seen when people walked around the lake. He also asked what will happen to the large group of oak trees on the property. Enger said a portion of those trees will be removed for Street "C", but that is located in an area where there are two dead trees. He a7/ City Council Minutes 4 March 20, 1990 said they had asked the developer to remove a unit that was planned in the location of the remaining oak trees, and that was done. Enger said the townhouse association should have control over the backyard I storage and that the homes that would be directly visible from Staring Lake do have sloped backyards. Carlson said the townhome association bylaws would specify no outside storage at all. He said there is more control here than in the single family homes next door. Anderson said he is concerned with the loss of a significant amount of trees even though this seems to be a pretty good project. Pidcock said she was concerned about the outside parking. Carlson said there is additional parking scattered throughout the site. Pidcock asked how many stalls were planned. Carlson said there were 12 stalls and that parking along the street would be allowed for guests. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to close the Public Hearing and to approve 1st Reading of Ordinance No. 14-90 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adopt Resolution No. 90-68 approving the Preliminary Plat and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Anderson said he is concerned that the closest lot to the lake area is 35 feet from the road. He said he would feel more comfortable if he knew there were some tight restrictions on what they can put in their backyard. He asked if there were decks included on the homes. Carlson said there will be decks and that they pay particular attention to construction materials used on the decks because of the appearance from the lake. Peterson suggested that Enger pay attention to the issues raised by Anderson and that the Association bylaws be monitored. Motion carried unanimously. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) YEAR XVI (Resolution No. 90-67) Jullie stated that notice of this Public Hearing was published in the ( March 7th issue of the Eden Prairie News. He said all of the requests for funding were reviewed by the Human Rights & Services Commission on March 12th. He said the recommendations of the Commission were City Council Minutes 5 March 20, 1990 summarized in the March 15th memo to the Council. He said the major difference in this year's funding proposal request related to the Scattered Site Housing program. He said HUD has determined that the program as it now is administered constitutes an income payment rather than acquisition assistance. He said that finding of ineligi- bility is being appealed; however, those funds may still need to be repaid to HUD. City Attorney Pauly referred to the March 13th letter to Mr. Leonard D. Brod, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney from Joseph A. Milan of Mr. Pauly's firm which enclosed a letter that Mr. Milan suggested be sent to Thomas Feeney, Manager of the local HUD office. He said the letter reasserted the objections to the finding of ineligibility and requested that HUD reconsider the finding. Peterson asked if Tom Johnson is pursuing this on behalf of the county or what the relationship is. Pauly said Mr. Milan and other staff members produced the suggested letter as it seemed more appro- priate to go through the county channels. { Pidcock asked how many other municipalities have similar programs. Pauly said he was not sure. Assistant Planner David Lindahl said to his knowledge no other community has quite this approach to this program; however, several communities have expressed interest in this approach. Tenpas asked if HUD's interpretation precludes us from approving the funding for this year. Pauly said that if HUD's view prevailed we would have more money to refund back to HUD. Lindahl said that if the funds were approved for this year, it would have to be on the basis of a contingency fund. Harris asked for an explanation of the $5,000 for Adaptive Recreation and what was happening regarding the 15% county-wide cap. Lindahl said HUD regulates the county and will not allow more than 15% of the overall allocation to be expended for public service activities. He said the county does not require cities to follow the same guide- lines so Eden Prairie has allocated 25-30% for public service in the past few years. He said we will have to maintain the percentage for 1989 which was 30%. Jim Nicolai, Administrator of the GMDCA, and Beth Timm, Adaptive Recreation Coordinator, were present to answer questions. Mr. Nicolai said they appreciated the continued support the Council has given to the child care sliding fee program. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson, to close the Public Hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 90-67 approving the proposed program for use of Year XVI CDBG funds. Motion carried unanimously. 779 City Council Minutes 6 March 20, 1990 V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve Payment of Claims Nos. 58123 - 58457. Peterson questioned No. 58434 and Jullie said he would check into it. ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion carried unanimously with Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas and Peterson voting "aye." VI. ORDINANCES 8 RESOLUTIONS VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Hearing to Appeal Board of Appeals 8 Adjustments Decision on Variance Request No. 90-04 Jullie said Mr. & Mrs. Nelson have appealed the decision of the Board of Appeals 8 Adjustments decision on Variance Request No. 90-04. He said they wish to add a deck on the side of their house which would result in a 20-foot setback rather than the 30-foot setback required by code. Mr. Zachman, the builder, described the situation that resulted in the present situation regarding the Nelson's deck. He said he thought the proposed 12 X 18 foot deck along with the six-foot evergreen trees proposed would be an improvement to the neighborhood. Enger said the Planning Staff checks the surveys submitted by the builder to make sure the setbacks are conformed with. In this case the setbacks were conformed with; however, they noticed that the back of the house was on a front yard setback. They wrote on the survey "No Deck" and returned the survey to the builder. He said the house could have been sited differently so that the living side was toward the more usable portion of the yard, Harris asked Enger to review how the house could have been sited to avoid the problem. Enger reviewed the position of the house and how it might have been arranged on the lot. Tenpas said the builder was the one who made the mistake, not the homeowners. He said he thought the neighbors across the street would prefer a deck since there is a sliding glass door. Anderson asked Enger what the smallest practical deck size is. Enger Enger replied that it's a relative thing and that an 8 X 10 deck can be used for some purposes. S Peterson said he would be comfortable with a compromise size for the deck. Anderson said he would go along with an 8-foot deck with plantings. City Council Minutes , 7 March 20, 1990 MOTION: Anderson moved that the request for variance be approved with the stipulation that it be an 8-foot deck and that the trees be 8-foot conifers. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Tenpas said he didn't think the neighbors would be able to tell the difference between a 12-foot and a 10-foot deck. Peterson said he was concerned with the issue of precedence since what is permitted in this case is a 2-foot deck. Tenpas said he thought it was unusual for a house to front on three streets. Peterson said he thought that did not create a hardship since the streets were there when the home was purchased. Pidcock said she had great sympathy for the Nelsons and she was concerned that this not happen again. Tenpas asked the Nelsons if 10 feet would work for them. They said it would. MOTION: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock, to approve the request with a deck size of 10 X 18 feet and with three 8-foot conifers to be planted. Motion carried unanimously. Vlll, REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Councilmembers 1. Recent Legislative Moves on Waste Facilities and Discussion Regarding Lobbyists Harris said she would like to have some discussion about the actions last Friday on local authority and solid waste facilities. Pauly said the Waste Management bill was heard by the Environ- mental Committee in the Senate last Friday. He said that bill had the provision that deals with waste processing facilities. He said a provision was inserted that essentially takes away from any local control the siting of waste facilities which would L'U 4 City Council Minutes 8 March 20, 1990 include disposal facilities. He said that provision takes away local authority and would take away Eden Prairie's authority with regard to any zoning or regulatory issues of Flying Cloud Landfill. He said it was his understanding that the provision was recommended by the county in order that they would be able to properly dispose of certain types of garbage such as yard waste. He said he recommended that it be modified to exclude landfills. Pauly said a further amendment was introduced that states that any landfill or expansion of a landfill that has received the approval of the Metropolitan Council as of the date of epproval of the Flying Cloud EIS and which will receive county approval is exempt from further local approval. He said the House version of the bill contains neither of those two provisions. Harris said she was very concerned about the local authority in decision-making issue. She said she would like to place before the Council the option of having a lobbyist represent the City during this period in order to have direct access to the legis- lators as well as a direct link back to the City. Pidcock said she was going to suggest the same thing. Tenpas asked if the legislator introducing the amendment was being directly lobbied by BFI. Pauly said in regard to the second amendment he was. Peterson asked Harris if she had a particular lobbyist in mind. She replied that she did not, but she thought that first the Council should decide whether to have one. Peterson said he thought that Mr. Merritt is well known and is very conversant with the issue. Tenpas said he would like the option of consulting with Senator Storm and Rep. Pauly as they know the people over there and might be able to suggest someone who could be more effective. Harris said she would agree. Anderson asked if Merritt would know what is going on. Peterson said he would suggest that two councilmembers volunteer to meet with Senator Storm and Rep. Pauly and others, and the Council would then authorize those two councilmembers to make a decision. MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Tenpas, to appoint Dr. Harris and Mrs. Pidcock to meet with Senator Storm and Rep. Pauly to determine an appropriate lobbyist. 682 City Council Minutes 4 March 20, 1990 Tenpas said he would like to see some consideration of the term of this lobbyist as he might not be opposed to this person doing some additional work on the landfill issue. Peterson said it might be appropriate to ask whichever lobbyist is chosen to draft an agreement outlining the scope of the effort. Pauly said some agreements are on a set fee and others are on an hourly basis. He said more typically they are so much per month or so much for the session. Peterson said perhaps Mr. Pauly or Mr. Rosow should be in the meeting with the two councilmembers. VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried unanimously. 2. Summary of Outside Trash Storage Harris said the Council had asked Staff at an earlier meeting to took at regulation of outside trash storage and she would like to know where that stands. Enger said Staff has contacted other communities and there are none that require inside storage of trash. He said many do require outside screening of trash. He said Staff is proceeding along the lines of requiring inside storage of trash. He said they have met with the Public Safety Department and the Building Dept. regarding health codes and are beginning to draft standards for requiring inside storage. Harris said she would like to know the status of any legal actions in which the City is currently involved. Pauly said he had undertaken to gather that information, and he would have it ready the Friday after next. 1 3. Car Dealerships in Eden Prairie ]] Peterson said he wanted to discuss Mr. Enger's memo regarding the Ford dealership near Menards. Enger said the City Code does not permit outside display of more 1 than 10% of goods for sale or lease. He said this precludes the traditional form of car dealerships. He said the Code would ip also preclude boat dealerships with outside display, and other similar types of dealerships with outside displays. Enger said the Ford dealership is being proposed next to Menards, which he thought was a good place for it; however, his concern is • City Council Minutes 10 March 20, 1990 that what happens on that site, if it is approved, will be the standard for any other car dealerships in town. He said they are willing to prepare additional information or standards for such projects if the Council would so desire. Anderson said he would like to see the state of the art as far as {, car dealerships are concerned. Pidcock said she could see no reason to deviate from our standards of the past. Tenpas said he would agree with Anderson that we should take a look at the state of the art. Harris said she thought we should maintain the standards for which we are known. Enger said Mr. Brauer is involved in this on behalf of Mr. Berme!, the agent in the sale of the property. He said the Staff does not have an ability to negotiate at this point as Mr. Brauer has said they believe the Council is in favor of this dealership. Peterson asked if theyare proposing the traditional type P P 9 of auto merchandising. Enger said the layout is traditional. Peterson said he thought the Council had expressed a unanimous decision that we have standards and that we are not inclined to deviate from them. Enger said he believes when one dealership comes in, there will be four or five others after it. He said, while this site is rela- tively easy to deal with regarding the issue of outside storage, none of the other suggested sites is easy to deal with. B. Report of City Manager C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planning 1. Proposed School Building Construction Enger said the School wants to put two concession buildings at the High School, and he doesn't feel it is a big enough deal to go through the site plan ordinance. He showed pictures of the two buildings. Enger said they plan to suggest the School contact the neighbors nearest the proposed building sites and show them the pictures and the plans. !, BSq City Council Minutes 11 March 20, 1990 Anderson said he thought painting the buildings in earth tones would be better than white. Enger said he would expect them to be painted the same color as the stadium entrance. E. Director of Parks, Recreation 8 Natural Resources F. Report of Director of Public Works G. Report of Finance Director Xl. NEW BUSINESS Pauly referred to his letter of March 15th to Paul Anderson and Mr. Anderson's reply to him dated March 19th. He reviewed the eight points outlined in his letter to Mr. Anderson. He said Mrs. Jacques is adamant about not locating the public boat launch on the northerly 2/3 of the lakeshore property. He said it would appear that it wouid be possible to realign the launch to the southerly portion of the park and move the beach area to the north. Jullie showed drawings of the proposed park development. Tenpas asked what the probability was of acquiring the additional land. Jullie said it will eventually happen. Tenpas said he would like to suggest that we start the process again to investigate acquiring the addi- tional land. Anderson asked where we are with the railroad track. Jullie said we have had no official word on abandonment. Pauly said one approach would be to try to get some type of time limit so that at some time the provision would be stricken. Peterson asked Juiiie if he had talked to Mr. Lambert about the response and the alternatives proposed. Jullie said Mr. Lambert's recommendation has been to have full flexibility; however, the plans worked out with the boat access on the southerly portion will work and the State will approve it. Pidcock said she thought we should make a proposai to Mrs. Jacques with the boat launch on the southerly portion and with a time period for the restriction. XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: / Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 PM. • • GOJ EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1990 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and Douglas Tenpas 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 Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation do Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Roberta Wick. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All members present PROCLAMATION FOR DISABILITY AWARENESS WEEK Jeffrey Seale accepted the proclamation on behalf of the Eden Prairie Advisory Committee for Persons with Disabilities. This was presented by Mayor Peterson. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris, to approve the agenda as published and amended. ADDITIONS: Pidcock added to Reports of Council Members, X-A, six items: 1) Discussion of sewer backup, 2) removal of trees at Wooddale Baptist Church, 3) deer buried at the MnDOT building, 4) barking dogs, 5) cars without licenses, and 6) city manager review. Jullie added under VI, Ordinances and Resolutions, Resolution No. 90-77 amending Resolution #90-56 regarding vacation of Corral Lane; on Item X.C., a brief report on a landfill issue; and under X.E., Riley Lake Park Acquisition. Motion carried 5-0. 2�(� City Council Minutes 2 April 3, 1990 II. MINUTES No minutes for approval at this time. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List B. Resolution No. 90-73 Proclaiming Earth Day 1990 and Earth Week in Eden Prairie. C. Recommendation to Reject Bids for Two Rotary Mowers D. Recommendation to Accept Bids for Backstops at Carmel Park and Flying Cloud Fields E. Recommendation to Accept Bids for Turf Sweeper F. Chain-of-Lakes Plaque G. Approve Plans and specifications for Summit/Meadowvale/Red Oak Drive Streets and Utilities and Order Advertisement for Bids. I.C. 62-166 Resolution No. 90-81 H. Receive 100% Petition and Order Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Sanitary Sewer through Delegard Property. I.C. 52-197 Resolution No. 90-82 I. Receive 100% Petition and Order Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Sanitary Sewer through Loscheider property. I.C. 52-198 Resolution No. 90-82 J. Final Plat Approval of Dean Swanson Addition - Located at the Northeast Corner of West Staring Lane and Ridge Road. Resolution No. 90-74. K. Final Plat Approval of Schroers 1st Addition - Located South of Highway 5 on the Western Border of Eden Prairie, Resolution No. 90-75. L. Approve Revocation of State Aid Street Designation for Research Road and Part of Mitchell Road. Resolution No, 90-78 M. Approve Establishment of State Aid Street Designation for Duck Lake Trail, Duck Lake Road. Edenvale Boulevard. part of Valley View Roads Franlo Road, part of Mitchell Road, Twin Lakes Crossing, and Staring Lake Parkway. Resolution No. 90-79. 2E7 City Council Minutes 3 April 3, 1990 N. EDEN PLACE CENTER, by Prairie Entertainment Associates of Eden Prairie (Frank's Nursery and Crafts). 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 6-90-PUD-2-90, Rezoning from within the C-Reg-Ser District to PUD-2-90-C-Reg-Ser; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Eden Place Center; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-93, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 5-90-PUD-2-90 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; and Adoption of Resolution No. 90-92, Site Plan Review. (Ordinance No. 5-90-PUD- 90-92, PUD and Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-93, Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90- 92, Site Plan Review) 0. PHILLIPS 66. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 11-90, Rezoning within the Commercial Highway District; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Phillips 66 and Owners' Supplement to Developer's Agreement; Adoption of Resolution *90-87, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 11-90 and ordering Publication of Said Summary; and Adoption of Resolution No. 90-86, Site Plan Review. (Ordinance No. 11-90, Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-87, Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90- 86, Site Plan Review) P. CHI CHI'S RESTAURANT, By Lariat Companies. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 12-90-PUD-6-90 Rezoning within the Commercial Regional Service District to PUD-2-90- Commercial-Regional-Service; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Chi Chi's; Adoption of Resolution No. 90- 89, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 12-90-PUD-6-90 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; Adoption of Resolution of 90-88, Site Plan Review. (Ordinance No. 12-90-PUD-6-90; Resolution No. 90-89, Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-88, Site Plan Review) Q. ALPINE CENTER, By Lariat Companies. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 47-89-PUD-10-89, Rezoning from Office to PUD-10-89-Commercial-Regional-Service; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Alpine Center; Adoption of Resolution No. 90-91 Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 47-89-PUD-10-89, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary; and Adoption of Resolution No. 90-90, Site Plan Review. (Ordinance No. 47-89-PUD-10-89, Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-91, Authorizing Summary and Publication; Resolution No. 90-90, Site Plan Review) f G City Council Minutes 4 April 3, 1990 MOTION Motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item N was made by Pidcock, seconded by Harris, approved unanimously. ITEM N: On this item Enger reported that the City has continued to get calls on the condition of the rear of Ciatti's regarding trash pick-up and the unfinished status of the landscaping. The status of several items regarding this shopping center were as follows. The trash was picked up every day in the morning an weekly visits to the site show that the area was clean. This situation should be permanently resolved with the construction of the shopping center. One solution may be to have the trash enclosure built as the first portion of the construction. Second, was the finishing of the landscaping behind Ciatti's. It should have been completed when construction was finished on Ciatti's. Some trees had been planted but no finish grading or sodding installed. There has been an irrigation system installed. The restoration in the wooded area and the sodding of the berm directly behind Ciatti's should be able to be completed within 60 days. The partnership owners were not being cooperative on that and the Council might want to consider what additional guarantees might be reasonable. The City usually has good compliance in situations like this when it has a cashier's check or a letter-of-credit. Enger discussed the issue of sidewalk location. The current plans show the exact location and he suggested that it be placed concurrent with and prior to completion of the shopping center. The sidewalk would require a five-foot easement from the shopping center as not all of it would be on City property. For the landscaping in general, there should be a time limit for completion. It should be no longer than six months after the completion of the shopping center. Harris said that she would like to pursue guarantees of compliance with a cashier's check or a letter of credit on this issue. Tenpas asked for clarification of the ownership of this property. Was Ciatti's an owner or tenant, and were there two separate corporate entities involved in developing the site? Also when the Frank's project came through didn't the Council address that screening l�9 i 4 City Council Minutes 5 April 3, 1990 1. t ( problem? Part of the building of the Frank's addition 1 was going to alleviate that problem. s Enger replied that the property was in one ownership and was now being divided. Brody and Margolis owned it. Frank's Nursery and Crafts would purchase a lot 1 which would be split off at the boundary of its building. } f Tenpas said that it should be made clear that the trash e problem is Ciatti's and the landscaping and other issues were to be dealt with through the partnership. I Anderson said he would like to see the City place a # deadline which would be before winter sets in. . Eighteen months was far too long to have the situation continue. Peterson asked if it wasn't reasonable to expect that 1 the landscaping should be completed in the property ' i behind Ciatti's and that the rest of the landscaping F should be concurrent with the Frank's Nursery portion of it. Then the only unanswered question was whether to build the Ciatti's trash enclosure before 1 construction of the Frank's portion. 1 Enger said that to build it out of order might be quite E expensive. At some point that trash enclosure would be completed. Staff questioned whether the proponent's plan was good enough given the complaints Council had 1 received. y Peterson asked Enger if filling in the old berm cut were done next week, would there be access for trash vehicles into the Ciotti facility? Enger replied that it would be a problem because there wouldn't be a hard surface access. i Harris said she thought that if the sodding and planting were done on the existing berm now it would go a long way to alleviating the unsightliness. Would this be completed before winter sets in at Frank's? i Paul Strother of Cluts, O'Brien, Strother Architects said that what was under consideration was actually two projects -- Frank's and the rest of Eden Place Center. It's possible two contractors would be involved although it's likely there would be only one. It's the developer's intention that upon approval, Frank's will g complete drawings. The partnership's drawings were currently under way and as soon as possible, bids would be received and construction started on both parts. I I' I City Council Minutes 6 April 3, 1990 The center portion is contingent upon the viability of Frank's. Once that viability was established, it would start. In terms of timing, he said that plans were anticipated to be done in mid-April. Frank's plans would be done in mid-April. It would take two to four weeks to receive bids and construction could start in about a month. With that kind of timetable the project would be complete by the fall season so that the landscaping could be in place. Mr. Strother stated that early work on the trash enclosure would be difficult to do because of footing work and excavation. It would all have to come together at one time. That part could be first to be completed and would speed things up about a month or so. Anderson asked if the berm on the back side could be done by winter. Strother replied that the back will be done last but could be done by freeze-up. Pauly said either a letter-of-credit or a bond or some other security could be used as a guarantee. However, if this work was not accomplished by fall, it was unlikely that the city could cause it to be accomplished by fall because it couldn't start something at freeze-up. John Winston spoke for Frank's. He said he didn't want to have Frank's punished for the actions of the previous developer or the manager of Ciatti's. Frank's was willing to do whatever was reasonable. He wanted reasonable time limits to get it done. Harris assured Winston that the intent was not to penalize Frank's but rather try to address an incompletion which had existed for many months. It appeared that sodding and plantings on the existing berm would go a long way to alleviating the problem. She said she was comfortable with putting some parameters that would insure completion of the plantings on the existing berming. Mayor Peterson recapped the two issues -- the plantings behind Ciatti's and the problem of the trash -- and said he believed 60 days was a reasonable time and some sort of financial guarantee would be requested. The only unresolved question was whether the trash would be managed better, and if not, to find other vehicles to [ insure compliance. ( 69t City Council Minutes 7 April 3, 1990 Tenpas asked when the hard surface was scheduled to be completed. If it's not completed by fall, then can the City require a bond? Pauly said it would create difficulty because a bond was always a front-end technique. It's not feasible to require it later in the process. Anderson stressed again that he would like to insure that the timetable would be met. Peterson asked Pauly if the Council could appropriately pass the second reading at this time with the Council's stipulations. Pauly inquired from Enger as to the status was of the developer's agreement. Enger replied that the developer's agreement was complete and in the Council packet this evening. It did not include the provisions in the tone being talked about this evening. If the Council didn't do anything prior to building permit issuance, a bond or some kind of guarantee would need to be presented before the building permit would be issued to guarantee the remainder of the landscaping. The current form of the bonds did not give a minimum start time; he suggested using a letter- of-credit, not a bond, because a letter-of-credit is easier to go after. Secondly, the landscaping should be completed within six months after the completion of the building. Anderson asked the status of the original bond. Enger replied that there was a bond on the landscaping. Several attempts had been made to get the landscaping behind Ciatti's completed. Part of the difficulty was that without cooperation, the City would have to go through legal procedures which are time-consuming and expensive. Peterson suggested that this item be continued for two weeks to allow for some discussion between Pauly, Enger, and the owners to modify the agreement. 1. MOTION Harris moved that this item be continued to April 17 with instructions to staff and the City Attorney to meet with the owners to adddress the issues. Motion seconded by Tenpas. Enger asked how the Council would feel about granting approvals contingent upon the developer meeting those concerns. Ms. Harris said she would feel comfortable with that and would amend her motion to so reflect. tLZ i 1 City Council Minutes 8 April 3, 1990 ( Amended motion is approval contingent upon resolution of the issues. Tenpas agreed. Motion approved unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS J j. A. MINNESOTA VIKINGS INDOOR PRACTICE FACILITY, by Kraus l Anderson Construction Company. Request for Planned Unit Development District Review on 15 acres with waivers, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 4 acres, Preliminary Plat of 15 acres into 1 lot for construction of an indoor football practice and training complex. Location: 9520 Viking Drive. A continued public hearing. (Ordinance #15-90-PUD-8-90, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 90-84, Preliminary Plat) I Jeff Diamond, Assistant General Manager for the Minnesota Vikings, spoke for the proponent. There are till three major reason for pursuing the project: (1) The i Vikings are obliged to offer their facility to one of 1 the Super Bowl teams in 1992 in conjunction with , Minnesota's Super Bowl bid. The current bubble is not acceptable. (2) The bubble is ten years old and is at R the end of its useful life. (3) The Vikings wish to g have their training camps here instead of in Mankato and need a proper facility for that purpose in Eden Prairie. 1 1 Gary Tushie from Tushie-Montomgery Associates spoke about the essentials of the project. He showed architect's drawings of the planned facility with surrounding landscaping. i Enger said that the Planning Commission reviewed this item at its October 23 meeting and made recommendations for approval to the Council. The Planning Commission further recommended the use of the metal panel exterior material based on the following: (1) That 20% of the building was below grade, as proposed. (2) That the natural features along the west and east elevations helped to block the view of the building. (3) That metal was common and unique to the indoor practice facilities because of the height, size, and structural requirements. The Planning Commission further I recognized the following as mitigating measures for the height variance request: the relationship to other j buildings in the area which included the office tower I located directly to the east; second the location near I-494; third, the building was tucked into the hill to ( reduce the impact on the south and east building I 7 1 i City Council Minutes 9 April 3, 1990 elevations; fourth, there were natural the features of e hills and trees which helped to block the view. This would be the largest metal building in Eden Prairie and the Planning Commission was trying to make recommendations in such a way that it did not set a j precedent for other proposals for a metal building. The Staff report of October 20 recommended approval subject to the following: That the land use and building was unique to the Minnesota Vikings and would not create a precedent for industrial buildings, and , they had provided adequate justification for landscaping, height, and exterior building materials as !I requested. Prior to the Council review the proponent would submit building materials, colors and samples. t Tushie discussed the details of the design of the building which would be a white or light-colored I building. i Enger continued by saying prior to final plat the 1 proponent shall submit detailed storm water runoff and 1 erosion control plan for review by the Watershed District and the City Engineer. In the wooded area there would be a large amount of tree removal and replacement; the Planning Commission decided the Vikings could be granted relief from a portion of the replacement criteria because replacement that much j plant material would be tight on the site. 1 Since that time recommendations from the Park and j Recreation Commission would have the Vikings comply 1 fully with the policy. The change in the roof is in 1 line with Planning Commission recommendations. 1 ,@ Enger asked the proponent if the existing bubble would 9 be taken down and what the use of the three-quarter 1 field would be. He also asked how many players would be there during training camp and how does that affect parking on the site. Lambert gave the report of the Park and Recreation Commission. The Commission reviewed the proposal on November 6 and had two main concerns: (1) On the east side of the building there was a one-to-one slope and 1 there was some concern about the water coming off the building on to such a slope. (2) In relation to the 333 trees, the Parks Commission concurred that the total should not be reduced less than 744 caliper inches. It recommended to approve the proposal on a 5-0 vote subject to including the additional 204 caliper inches located somewhere on the site. AI City Council Minutes 10 April 3, 1990 Diamond addressed the parking space issue. There were 104 spaces but during training, over half the players are from out of town and would be bussed from local hotels, so parking should be no problem. Anderson asked Enger if a 40-foot hill was going to be taken down. Enger replied this was correct. Anderson asked what will be seen from the north side of the building. Mr. Tushie replied that the roof will be buffered by the grade change and the trees. Mr. Anderson asked if the roof would be white. Mr. Tushe replied that it will be a light color. Mr. Anderson asked if the color of the roof was open to discussion. Enger suggested that the elevations were repre- sentative of what would be seen and the color will be very important. He would suggested that Council might want to see the roof color before it was installed. Mr. Anderson suggested the proponent talk with staff on this. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION Harris moved to close the hearing and approve the first reading of Ordinance #15-90-PUD-8-90. Pidcock seconded. Motion carried 5-0. Harris moved adoption of Resolution 90-84 approving the preliminary plat and direct staff to prepare development agreement incorporating Commission and staff recommendations and most specifically addressing Anderson's concerns. Pidcock seconded. Motion carried 5-0. B. ROUND LAKE VIEW ADDITION, by Zachman Development Company. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-9.5 on 4.55 acres, and Preliminary Platting of 15.31 acres into 15 single family lots, 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: Northwest quadrant of Valley View Road and Duck Lake Road. (Ordinance #16- 90. Rezoning and Resolution No. 90-85, Preliminary Plat) Jullie said that notice of this public hearing was property announced and mailed out to surrounding property owners. PS 1 City Council Minutes 11 April 3, 1990 Bob Smith representing Zachman Development Company presented the plans for the area which included three different concepts that had been reviewed. He requested Preliminary Plat Approval of the project for 44 lots, and rezoning of approximately four-and-one- I half acres of property at this location consisting of 15 lots in phase one. The remaining 10 acres of the site would remain in the possession of Rose Pavelka, s the fee owner of the property, and would also remain unzoned to maintain the green acres status of the property. Additionally her property came out to the center of Duck Lake Road and it was proposed that Duck i Lake Road would be platted with the proper dedicated a public right-of-way. A 40-foot wide outlot for a walkway had been identified. A bituminous walkway I would be installed on the outlot. Sidewalk would be installed on the entire project as the street was ' installed. One of the concerns was the double fronted ; lots on Duck Lake Road because the road was approximately 6 feet lower than the proposed back yards. A slight berm separating Duck Lake Road from the proposed house pads would be provided. One of the concerns of one of the residents of the Muirfield Addition was the amount of storm water runoff on the west side of the property. Smith pointed out one-third of the water would be directed into a swale and the rest into the street into catch basins. The proposal includes the planting of one tree per lot. A landscape plan had been submitted on Phase One. Enger said that the Planning Commission reviewed this 1 item at its March 12 meeting and recommended approval on a 7-0 vote subject to the recommendations of the y staff report of March 9 and plans dated February 28. 1 Lambert said the Parks Commission reviewed this at the March 19 meeting and recommended approval on a 4-0 vote per the staff report. Anderson asked if the City will provide the trail to the school and maintain it. Lambert replied that the developer would install a trail on the property. The City will construct a trail from that trail into the i school park site. This would be done this year. Anderson also asked if it would be better to put I boulevard trces in this area rather than one tree per lot because the lots are so close. Dietz said that the boulevards get congested with gas, electric and telephone lines so more right of way would be needed. 29‘ I City Council Minutes 12 April 3, 1990 Anderson said he would like to begin looking at the advantages of trees for the environment. Dietz said an alternative would be to put them on a setback to the street, but they would be on private property in that case. Lambert pointed out the difficulty of maintaining trees when salt is put on them in the winter. Smith said that the plan to place them within five feet of the property line would make them look as much as possible like boulevard trees. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION Anderson moved that the public hearing be closed and that the first reading of Ordinance 16-94 for rezoning be approved. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion carried 5-0. Anderson moved that Resolution 90-85 be adopted approving the preliminary plat and direct staff to prepare a developer's agreement incorporating the Commission and staff recommendations. Seconded by Pidcock. Motion carried 5-0. C. Approve Special Assessment for a Fire Sprinkler System at 9051 Flying Cloud Drive I.C. 52-181 Resolution No. 90-76 Jullie said that notice has been properly published for this item. This is for a sprinkler system special assessment. Our codes require us to go through this process to help facilitate and encourage the installation of fire-suppressing systems. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION Pidcock moved that the public hearing be closed and that the Council adopt Resolution No. 90-76 approving a Special Assessment for a Fire Sprinkler System at this address. Tenpas seconded. Motion carried 5-0. V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Pidcock moved to approve the Payment of Claims. Roll call vote: Tenpas, Pidcock, Harris, Anderson, and Peterson all voted AYE. ?97 City Council Minutes 13 April 3, 1990 VI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS Dietz presented a Resolution No. 90-77 to amend and action done on March 13 (Resolution #90-56) regarding vacating a part of the right-of-way for Corral Lane. A portion of the right-of-way will revert to the west side of the roadway instead of the east side of the roadway as originally planned. MOTION Pidcock moved that Resolution #90-56 be amended and that it be made Resolution #90-77. Anderson seconded. Motion carried 5-0. VII. PETITIONS. REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. Request for Liquor License from Bent Creek Golf Club, Inc. DBA: Edenvale Golf Course Jullie reported that Edenvale Golf Course had submitted an application for on-sale liquor license and while the City had not been able to complete the background investigations, preliminary results reveal no concerns. ( He recommended granting the liquor license subject to verification of these findings. MOTION Pidcock moved to grant the request for liquor license for Bent Creek Golf Club, Inc. Harris seconded. Motion carried 5-0. VIII.REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS IX. APPOINTMENTS XL REPORTS OF OFFICERS. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members 1) Discussion on sewer backup Pidcock said she received a call on a sewer backup on Dell Road and the people in the cul-de-sac on Beacon Circle who have suffered significant amount of damage to their property from that backup. They were pleased at the letter that was set out from Mr. Dietz, and they were also asking that if the city has no liability for what happened, who does? There was an impact on these people should they ever want to sell as they will 797 City Council Minutes 14 April 3, 1990 have to file a real estate disclosure telling of the backups. She requested that the staff investigate if there were miscalculation9 on the installation of that storm sewer. She asked if it were possible to send out a notice in utility bills explaining what can cause backups to occur. Dietz had given direction to his staff to check that line to make sure that there weren't flaws in there. It was possible to send stuffers with the utility bills, but then the bills would go in an envelope rather than the postcard. 2) Removal of treeas at Wooddale Church Pidcock then asked Mr. Enger if he knew anything about the removal of trees at the Wooddale Baptist Church's parking lot. Enger replied that those trees are all within an approved area of removal for future phases. Some of them came out a little bit early because they needed some fill for the phase being worked on now. The church was not allowed to remove all the trees immediately as it had originally wanted to do, but all the trees were covered in an approval for eventual removal. 3) Deer buried at MnDOT facility �- Pidcock asked about the deer buried in the MnDOT building on Bryant Lake Drive. Staff reported that the action has been taken to inform MnDOT that it cannot bury the road kills on that property in Eden Prairie. 4) Barking Does Pidcock asked if anything can be done about dogs that are continually barking? Jullie said that the procedure is to contact the police and send the animal control officer out. Jullie also said that it's easier to get results when more than just one neighbor complains. 5) Unlicensed Cars Pidcock asked if somebody would investigate cars without licenses. She has heard of cars in the Willow Creek neighborhood parked on private property without licenses. �9q City Council Minutes 15 April 3, 1990 6) City Manager Review Pidcock asked when the Council would be doing the City Manager review. Jullie said it has been about a year since the process was last done. Harris said she would like the specific goals they spoke about included in this review. Jullie said he could have material ready the first meeting in May. B. Report of the City Manager 1) Set Study Session for April 17. 1990 MOTION Anderson moved, seconded by Tenpas, to set a special work session 6:00 p.m. , April 17, to discuss community survey. Motion approved 5-0. C. Report of City Attorney 1) Status of Landfill Matters Mr. Pauly said that today Woodlake Sanitary Services had responded to the City's motion for summary disposition of its application for permit to expand Flying Cloud Landfill. That motion made by the City was on the basis that the PCA required approval of the FAA because of the proximity of Flying Cloud landfill. Woodlake's reponse was filing an action for declaratory judgment in the Minnesota Court of Appeals to have that rule declared unconstitutional. We also had been advised that in Woodlake's brief to the law judge it would be seeking a variance from PCA rules. There is a variance procedure although there are no standards for the variance in the PCA rules. That motion was to be heard on April 9. • Tenpas asked if there was any update on how the lobbyist is doing at the Capitol. Pauly said that Mr. Jerich had been talking with various people in the Senate primarily, and a letter had been prepared for the mayor's signature to be sent to each of the senators calling attention to the two new provisions in the amendments to the Waste Management Act and the fact that they would erode local government authority. Rep. Pauly had also distributed a letter to the various senators. 9uo City Council Minutes 16 April 3, 1990 Tenpas asked for the lobbyist to provide a periodic update. Pidcock agreed that this was appropriate. Harris asked Pauly about a city that was trucking its waste to Wisconsin and if this was not allowed. Pauly said he heard of a similar situation in New York. In that particular case the local authority was upheld so this case may be similar. Mr. Pauly said he'd look into it. D. Report of the Director of Planning E. Director of Parks. Recreation do Natural Resources 1) Acquisition of Riley Lake Park Property Lambert called attention to the draft of the purchase agreement. He had met with Mrs. Jacques and her attorney and, having gone over the issues, Lambert believed that there was agreement. Basically the final purchase price is $494,933.00 based on buying 23.2 acres at $21,333.33 an acre. The City would buy 20.8 acres first and that will be $443,000.00, leaving a 1.4-acre parcel to which there isn't clear title. All the other issues are settled. The City agreed not to put a boat launch in the northern 500 feet of property for at least 15 years and that it would make its best effort to acquire those parcels to the south and put the boat launch there. Regarding her use of the road through the barnyard, she can use that until the City needs it. If need be, the City would grade in a similar road on her property line. The City agreed that it would notify her prior to removing any of the buildings; 30 days would be sufficient. Anderson asked about the additional plantings. Lambert replied that the City would provide a landscape area along the boundary. Plantings will be on City property as she wanted. MOTION Anderson moved to approve the contract with Mrs. Jacques on the Riley Lake property. Pidcock seconded. Motion carried 5-0. F. Report of Finance Director QO City Council Minutes 17 April 3, 1990 G. Report of Public Works Director 1. Award Contract for City Street Sweeping. I.C. 52- 190 Resolution No. 90-80. Dietz reported that bids were opened for a street sweeping project and two were received. The low bid of $22,000 was from ASTECH and the second bid was Clean Sweep at $22,380. Dietz explained in a memorandum why the contract should be awarded to Clean Sweep despite the fact that it was $380 higher. MOTION Harris moved adoption of Resolution *90-80. Pidcock seconded. Anderson asked if there were any potential for legal problems. Dietz said they were possible but believes there are sound reasons in the interests of the City to award the contract to Clean Sweep. Harris and Peterson agreed with this. Motion carried 5-0. XI. NEW BUSINESS X11. ADJOURNMENT Pidcock made the motion to adjourn. Motion seconded by Anderson. Motion carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. • • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST April 17, 1990 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) PLUMBING Armstrong Subway, Inc. Main Line Plumbing, Inc. Bernu Companies Marty's Plumbing & Excavating Giesen Construction McGuire Mechanical Services, Inc. Metro Building & Painting Co. Frank Motzko Plumbing Sturdy Construction No. St: Paul Plumbing SuperAmerica Group, Inc. Larry Olson Plumbing CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) HEATING & VENTILATING All-Pro Builders, Inc. EAC, Inc. Aqua Leisure, Inc. Architects Plus, Inc. PRIVATE KENNEL Home Enhancers, Inc. Howard Construction Eugene Swanson (9440 Eden Prairie Road) Al Jones Construction John Klingelhutz Company PEDDLER LeGran Homes, Inc. Eric S. Loosbrock Const. David Bacon (discount books) �. Darley G. March Jami Blouin (cleaning services) McGraw Landscaping Oennis Gerger (discount books) Midwest Fence & Mfg. Co. Reliable Builders, Inc. Valley Pools, Inc. TEMPORARY BEER Optimist Club of Eden Prairie GAS FITTER (4-28-90 & 4-29-90) C. 0. Carlson Air Conditioning Main Line Plumbing, Inc. These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. CiLt Pat Solie Licensing • 903 MEMORANDUM p#, TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources 4 DATE: April 10, 1990 SUBJECT: Overnight Policy for Outdoor Center The existing City Code allows use of parks until 10 p.m. On occasion we have had requests for youth groups to hold an overnight experience at the Outdoor Center. We have also had requests for adult groups to be able to stay beyond the 10 p.m. park curfew. The major reason for the park curfew is noise from the park that may disturb adjacent residential neighborhoods. Staff believe that there may be some rationale to consider certain circumstances where overnight use of the Outdoor Center is permitted and extension of the 10 p.m curfew is also permitted within a defined policy. The parks, recreation and natural resources staff recommend allowing limited overnight use of the facility and extended use beyond the curfew within the following policy on a trial basis: 1. Groups would be allowed to stay beyond the 10 p.m. curfew only if the group stays inside the Outdoor Center after 10 p.m. This may be difficult to guarantee, especially during summer months, and if this becomes a problem the City may restrict this to winter months only (November-March). There should also be an additional fee for staying beyond 10 p.m., as it is difficult to get staff to come back after 10 p.m. to close the facility. 2. Overnights will be restricted to use of the facility indoors after 10 p.m. and limited to no more than 24 people, with an adult supervisor to child ratio of 1-8. 3. A flat charge for use of the Outdoor Center is $25, plus $5 per hour after the first hour. This fee would get rather expensive for a 13-14 hour overnight use by a church group, Boy Scouts, Campfire Girls, etc.; therefore, staff would recommend the fee based on $15, plus $5 a hour for the amount of time spent at the Outdoor Center before 10 p.m., plus a flat charge of an additional $25 from 10 p.m. until 9 a.m. the following day. The group shall be out of the building by 9 a.m. and shall have cleaned up the building by that time. qoy (For example, a group using the building from 5 p.m. on Friday f` until 9 a.m. on Saturday would be charged $60). Fifty dollars would be the minimum charge. 4. Overnights would be limited to Eden Prairie based, non-profit groups such as churches, schools, Boy Scouts, Campfire Girls, etc. This service would not be available to individual families for overnights or for individuals that may live in Eden Prairie, but want to have a church from outside the community use the facility for this purpose. Although the City staff do not recommend that the City get into the "camping business" we do feel that a limited amount of overnight use of this facility could accommodate a need for some groups within the community and as long as the users of this facility do not abuse this by causing a conflict with the adjacent residential neighborhoods, staff would support this use of this recreational facility. BL:mdd overnite/9 40; l CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-114 RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL TO A CHANGE OF NAME OF GRANTEE FROM ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC. TO KBL CABLESYSTEMS OF THE SOUTHWEST, INC. D/B/A PARAGON CABLE WHEREAS, Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. ("RCTSI") is the current grantee under the cable communications ordinance ("Franchise") of the City of EDEN PRAIRIE , Minnesota ("City"); and WHEREAS, RCTSI desires to change its corporate name to KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., d/b/a Paragon Cable ("KBLCSI") and has requested the City's approval of the name change; and WHEREAS, RCTSI does not intend to make any changes to its ownership struc- ture or to the control of its operations, but desires only to change its name; and WHEREAS, KBL Cable, Inc. ("KBLC") and KBLCOM Incorporated ("KBLCOM") are the guarantors of RCTSI's obligations under the Franchise pursuant to a Consent Agreement and Guaranty of Performance given to the City; and WHEREAS, the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission ("SWSCC") reviewed the request for approval of RCTSI's name change and found no reason to disapprove of the request, provided KBLC, KBLCOM, and KBLCSI first acknowledge and agree in a • a writing acceptable to SWSCC's member cities that KBLCSI is the corporate suc- cessor of RCTSI for all purposes under the Franchise and that KBLC and KBLCOM reaffirm their status as guarantors of KBLCSI's obligations under the Franchise; and a. WHEREAS, the City joins in the foregoing findings of SWSCC. (4v6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City hereby consents to and approves the change of the name of the grantee under the Franchise from Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. to II KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., d/b/a Paragon Cable, provided KBLCOM Incorporated, KBL Cable, Inc., and KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. first file with the City an Acceptance and Consent in a form and substance acceptable to the City. 2. The City declares that as of the time of this Resolution, the Fran- chise and all agreements entered into by RCTSI in connection therewith shall remain in full force and effect, except that KBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc. shall be deemed to have been substituted as grantee and shall be obligated as RCTSI's successor in interest to perform all of RCTSI's duties and obliga- tions thereunder. Passed and adopted this day of , 1990, by the.City of { CITY OF By Its Attest: City Clerk -2- 9a,7 • ORDINANCE NO. /9-90 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NOS. TO CHANGE THE NAME OF GRANTEE THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. That Article I, Section 2, Paragraph J of said Ordinance be amended to read as follows: J. "Grantee" is Aesere-6eblesyseems-ef-the-fieuebweeeT ineT [CBL Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a Paragon Cable. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption and publication, provided that it shall become effective only if all of the Cities of Eden Prairie, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield adopt an ordinance similar to this Ordinance within sixty (60) days after the adoption of this Ordinance. Passed and adopted this day of , 1990, with a second reading day of , 1990. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA By Its Mayor And Its City Clerk • 9a8 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-107 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer, with the assistance of Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, Inc. has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-177 - (T.H. 5 South Frontage Road) and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public inspection in the City Engineer's office, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for three weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that • bids shall be received until 10:00 A.M., Thursday, May 10, 1990 at City Hall after which time they will be publicly opened by the Deputy City Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, May 15, 1990 at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 7600 Executive Road, Eden Prairie. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 17, 1990. • Gary D.Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk '309' CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 90-109 RESOLUTION APPROVING Supplement No. 2 to Agreement No. 64918 between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation and the City of Eden Prairie. WHEREAS, the State and City agree that additional work is required to complete the final design services for TH 5 from CSAH 4 to CSAH 17; and WHEREAS, the State and City desire to continue the services of the City's Consultant to accomplish this additional work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Supplement No. 2 to Agreement No. 64918 between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation and the City of Eden Prairie is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to sign said Supplement No. 2 on behalf of the City. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on April 17, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk • 9w CONSULTANT AGREEMENTS UNIT AGREEMENT NO. 64918-2 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR FINAL DESIGN SERVICES Supplement No. 2 to Agreement No. 64918 between The State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation and The City of Eden Prairie S.P. 1002 (T.H. 5) In Eden Prairie and Chanhassen Sit 64918-2 INDEX SUBJECT PAGE NO. Parties to the Agreement 1 Explanation and Justification 1 Revision 1.0 - Services to be Provided by the City 1 Revision 2.0 - Time Schedule 2 Revision 3.0 - Payment to the City 2 Status of Original Agreement 3 Approvals 4 Signatures 5 9Ia 64918-2 THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City of Eden Prairie, hereinafter referred to as the "City". Barton Aschman Associates, Inc. is referred to herein as the City's Consultant. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS the State and City entered into Agreement No. 64918 and Supplement No. 1 for final design services, and WHEREAS the State and City agreed that additional work is required to complete said services, and WHEREAS the State and City desire to continue the services of the City's Consultant to accomplish this additional work. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: REVISION 1.0 - SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY Section 2.0 of Agreement No. 64918 is hereby amended and modified by the addition of: 2.85 The additional services to be provided by the City and its Consultant are as defined in the attached Exhibit "A". - 1 - 9►S 64918-2 REVISION 2.0 - TIME SCHEDULE Section 5.0 of Agreement No. 64918 is hereby amended and modified to read as follows: 5.21 The City's Consultant shall complete all work and services required under the terms of this agreement by July 31, 1990. REVISION 3.0 - PAYMENT TO THE CITY Section 6.0 of Agreement No. 64918 is hereby amended and modified to read as follows: 6.11 The State shall pay to the City as compensation in full for the services performed by the firm of Barton Aschman Associates, Inc., the City's Consultant, under this agreement the lump sum amount of $476,100.00. In addition, the following entities shall pay the following amounts as compensation for the services performed by the City's Consultant: 1. Southwest Coalition $75,000.00 2. City of Chanhassen $74,395.00 3. City of Eden Prairie $50,000.00 4. City of Chaska $20,000.00 5. City of Waconia $15,000.00 6. County of Hennepin $10,000.00 (( 7. County of Carver $10,000.00 - 2 - ' 3 64918-2 The total compensation to be paid to the City's Consultant shall be $730,495.00. Notwithstanding any term or condition contained in this agreement to the contrary, the City shall have no obligation to do anything or perform any act until and unless the State and all of the other entities make the payments as required by this paragraph. In the event that either the State or any of the entities fail to make the payments set forth above, then the City's obligations under this agreement shall be rendered void and unenforceable. 6.21 If it appears at any time that the City's Consultant will exceed a total estimated payment of $730,495.00 the City's Consultant agrees not to perform any services that would cause that amount to be exceeded unless the City's Consultant has been advised by the City that additional funds have been encumbered, a supplemental agreement has been issued and that work may proceed. It shall be the responsibility of the City to originate all requests for additional encumbrances, compensations and for supplemental agreements. . STATUS OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT Except as amended and modified herein, the terms and conditions of Agreement No. 64918 shall remain in full force and effect. - 3 - 9i5 i I • } 64918-2 ! APPROVALS , Before this supplemental agreement shall become binding and effective, it shall receive the approval of such State officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation. • I - 4 - 9tfo 64918-2 • IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this contract to be duly ( executed intending to be bound thereby. APPROVALS CONTRACTOR: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: (If a corporation, two corporate officers must execute.) By (Authorized Signature) By Title Title Date Date • As to form and execution by the ATTORNEY GENERAL: By By Title COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION: Date By (Authorized Signature) Date • COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE: By (Encumbrance Center Authorized Signature) Date - 5 - rA11Itil U A Summary - Supplemental Agreement Request No. 2 TN 5 Final Design and R/W Preacquisition (S.P. 2701. S.P. 1002) Item 1 - Estimated Direct Salary Costs $27,209.95 Item 2 - Overhead (1.8578) 50,550.65 Subtotal $77,760.60 Item 3 - Net Fee (10%) 7,776.06 • Item 4 - Direct Expenses 6,200.00 Total Barton-Aschman $91,736.66 Item 5 - Subconsultants Archaeological Research Services $ 700.00 Shenehon-Goodlund-Taylor, Inc. 10,000.00 Universal Evaluation Services 18,200.00 Total Subconsultants $28,900.00 Total Supplemental Agreement $120,636.66 • • • • • 411 • XHIBIT -A FINAL DESIGN AND R/W SERVICES (S.P. 2701, S.P. 1002) SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 2 ATTACHMENT A TASK 1 Supplemental archaeological/historic investigation and report for parcel 208 (Hennepin County). Request made by C. Hoffstedt of MnDOT for environmental assessment documentation. Item 1 - Estimated Direct Salary Costs: Hourly Job Classification Hours Rate Total Principal Associate 4 31.00 $ 124.00 Subtotal $ I24.00 Item 2 - Overhead (1.8578) $ 230.37 Subtotal $ 354.37 Item 3 - Net Fee $ 35.44 Item 4 - Estimated Direct Expenses 25.00 Item 5 - Subconsultant 700.00 TOTAL S 1,114.81 TASK 2 Alternative wetland mitigation plan for grading within wetland :2 (refer to page 42 of EA) prepared. Field review of mitigation plan conducted with DNR. Recommendations have been made. • Item I - Estimated Direct Salary Costs: Hourly Job Classification Hours Rate Total Principal Associate 6 31.00 $ 186.00 Senior Associate 20 24.50 490.00 Associate 16 16.45 263.20 Technician 24 12.65 303.60 • Clerical 2 10.00 20.00 Subtotal • S 1,262.80 Item 2 -. Overhead (1.8578) $ 2,346.03 Subtotal S 3,608.83 Item 3 - Net Fee S 360.88 Item 4 - Estimated Direct Expenses 285.00 TOTAL S 4,254.71 t.AtllbI ii 'i'' 1 . i ( TASK 3 i Design and prepare special concrete pavement jointing layouts for S.P. 2701 and S.P. 1002. This effort required from pavement-type determination I received April 3, 1989. 3a. Redesign existing bituminous approaches to existing bridge No. 10009 in Carver County to concrete design. Previously shown as a 1925 LF exception area on staff-approved layout. Item 1 - Estimated Direct Salary Costs: , Hourly i Job Classification Hours Rate Total Principal Associate 80 31.00 $ 2.480.00 Senior Associate 120 24.50 2,940.00 Associate 225 16.45 3,701.25 Technician 330 12.65 4,174.50 Clerical -- 10.00 .. Subtotal $13,295.75 Item 2 - Overhead (1.8578) 524,700.84 Subtotal - $37,996.59 { Item 3 - Net Fee $ 3,799.66 Item 4 Estimated Direct Expenses 3,040.00 TOTAL $44,836.25 TASK 4 Design and prepare construction plans for pavement edge drains and subgrade drains throughout project length. (The final soils letter dated June 7, 1989, recommended installation of drain tile throughout the project.) Item 1 ,- Estimated Direct Salary Costs: Hourly Job Classification Hours Rate Total Principal Associate 48 31.00 $ 1,488.00 Senior Associate 80 24.50 1,960.00 Associate 160 16.45 2,632.00 Technician 180 12.65 • 2,277.00 Clerical -- 10.00 .. Subtotal f 8,357.00 Item 2 - Overhead (1.8578) $15,525.64 Subtotal $23,882.64 ( qao • Item 3 - Net Fee $ 2,388.26 Item 4 - Estimated Direct Expenses 1 900.00 TOTAL $28—,170.90 TASK 5 Prepare surcharge design for approach to proposed bridge 010010 in Carver County S.P. 1002-57 (refer to foundations memo dated June 23, 1989). Item 1 - Estimated Direct Salary Costs: Hourly 1 Job Classification Hours Rate Total 1 Principal Associate 24 31.00 $ 744.00 Senior Associate 40 24.50 980.00 Associate 60 16.45 987.00 Technician 80 12.65 1,012.00 Clerical -- 10.00 - Subtotal $771175 Item 2 - Overhead (1.8578) $ 6,916.59 Subtotal $10,639.59 Item 3 - Net Fee $ 1,063.96 ( Item 4 - Estimated Direct Expenses 850.00 TOTAL $12,553.55 TASK 6 Package and administrate landscaping contract documents for separate bid letting (S.P. 2701 and S.P. 1002). Decision to separate landscaping contract made November 8, 1989 by Golden Valley office. Item 1 - Estimated Direct Salary Costs: Hourly Job Classification Hours Rate Total Principal Associate 4 31.00 S I24.00 Senior Associate -- 24.50 -- Associate 8 16.45 131.60 Technician 12 12.65 151.80 Clerical 4 10.00 40.00 Subtotal $ 447.40 Item 2 - Overhead (1.8578) S 831.18 Subtotal $ 1 in tAHltl t /-'z • Item 3 - Net Fee $ 127.86 Item 4 - Estimated Direct Expenses 100.00 TOTAL $ 1,506.44 SUBCONSULTANTS - RIGHT-OF-NAY TASK 7 The following represents second appraisals as required by state guidelines on affected properties along S.P. 2701-34 and S.P. 1002-51, 55, 57 in Hennepin and Carver'Counties. State approved second appraiser: Universal Evaluation Services 12951 Koeper Avenue Shakopee, MN 55379 Parcel Number Fee 202C (Hennepin) 2,200 205 (Carver) 1,800 208 (Hennepin) 2,400 202A (Hennepin) 2,000 2066 (Combine with 205 Carver) 800 205 (Hennepin) 2,000 207 (Hennepin) 2,000 Total as of 12/19/89 13,200 Therefore: 13,200 - 5,000 (contingency estimated supplemental No. 1) $8,200 Universal Evaluation Services Additional second appraisals - $ 8,200 Carver County appraisal contingency $10,000 Total $18,200 TASK 8 Appraisals of 18 partial takings in Carver County are expected to exceed Shenehon-Goodlund-Taylor, Inc. budget. This budget shortfall is attributed to complex access control issues regarding frontage roads in the Hennepin County segment, land use and potential service station damages which • normally are difficult to appraise. Total $10,000 4a;. • CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESDTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-110 RESOLUTION RECEIVING 100% PETITION, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS & PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR I.C. 52-199 UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS BURNETT AND NELSON ADDITIONS BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council: 1. The owners of 100ii of the real property abutting upon and to be benefited from the proposed improvements have petitioned the City Council to construct said improvements and to assess the entire cost against their property. 2. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, and upon recommendation of the City Engineer, said improvements are hereby ordered and the City Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for said improvements in accordance with City Standards and advertise for bids thereon, with the assistance of H.T.P.O. 3. Pursuant to M.S.A. 429.031, Subd. 3, the City Clerk is hereby directed to publish a copy of this resolution once in the official newspaper, and further a contract for construction of said improve- ments shall not be approved by the City Council prior to 30 days following publication of this Resolution in the City's official newspaper. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on April 17, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL • John D. Frane, Clerk t. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-105 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF ALPINE TWO WHEREAS, the plat of ALPINE TWO 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 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for ALPINE TWO is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated APRIL 12, 1990. 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 City Council on APRIL 17, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk C aay CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPORT ON FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician •��� DATE: April 12, I990 SUBJECT: ALPINE TWO RESOLUTIDN NO. 90-105 PROPOSAL: Lariat Companies, the developers, have requested City Council approval of the final plat of Alpine Two. Located at the northeast corner of Prairie Center Drive and Commonwealth Drive in the South Half of Section I4, the plat contains 3.99 acres to be divided into two lots. Lot 1 is the proposed site for the future Chi-Chi's Restaurant and Lot 2 will be developed at a future date. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council February 20, 1990 per Resolution No. 90-47. Second reading of Ordinance No. 12-90-PUD-6-90, Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service Zoning District, was finally read and approved at the City Council meeting held April 3, 1990. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report was executed April 3, 1990. VARIANCES: All variance requests not originally granted through the Planned 1 Unit Development District Review must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: All municipal utilities and walkways will be installed throughout the plat in conformance with City Standards and the require- ments of the Developer's Agreement. All roadways necessary to service this property are currently in place. Prior to release of the final plat the Developer shall provide the City Engineer with detailed construction plans of the proposed City watermain connection between a Commonwealth Drive and Crystal View Road that will be bisecting this property. 1 Prior to release of the final plat the plat shall be revised to include standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of each lot. !! P{ i qa5 • • Page 2 of 2 ALPINE TWO April 12, 1990 • RESOLUTION NO. 90-105 PARK DEDICATION: The requirements for park dedication are covered in the Developer's Agreement. BONDING: Financial security must be provided to ensure construction and --i stallation of the proposed City-owned watermain in conformance with City Code and the Developer's Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Alpine Two subject to the requirements of this report, the Developer's Agreement and the following: • 1. Street lighting fee in the amount of $890.00 2. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $399.00 3. Revision of plat to include standard drainage and utility easements. 4. Receipt of detailed plans and specifications for the proposed of extension of City watermain. JJ:ssa t cc: Ed Flaherty, Lariat Companies Lee Madden, Sieger Architects Marty Campion, Clark Engineering 4 • 9A6 - MEMORANDUM - . TO: Mayor and City Counci FROM: Eugene A. Dietz DATE: April 5, 1990 RE: Lot 5, Block 1 Chatham Woods 6268 Chatham way PID# 05-116-22-21-0016 Over the years, several lots in the Chatham Woods area have gone tax forfeit due to two factors. First of all, special assessments for the improvements to the subdivision were quite high and approached $18,000. Additionally, some of the lots have severe soil problems connected to them such that the combination of the selling price of the lot, special assessments and soil corrective work made the parcels uneconomic. This problem has escalated due to interest and penalties on the special assessments which have been accumulating to the point that special assessments now stand at $29,370 for this lot. I have been approached by a potential buyer of the above captioned lot with an offer to resolve the issue. After discussion with the Assessor and City Manager, I would propose to reduce special assessments to $22,000. The basis for this recommendation is as follows: 1. We have a recent sale in the area for a buildable lot of $42,500. 2. Piling to construct a home on the lot is estimated to cost $20,000. 3. The minimum bid that Hennepin County has set for the lot is $10,000 of which we would get $9,000 toward special assessments (90%). The total cost for the lot would be approximately $43,000 -- piling costs, special assessments and that money which would go to Hennepin County -- which is approximately the value that we estimate an improved lot in this neighbor- hood to be worth. With this reduction, it m� allow the lot to built on and we can at least get a reasonable return on our special assessments at this point. We could "sit" on the lot and eventually the land prices in Eden Prairie would probably get to a point where specials could be paid and the extra building costs could he absorbed and theoretically without loss to the City. However, that could take many years. This reduction seems a reasonable alternative. If Council concurs, I will make necessary arrangements with Hennepin County to reduce the pending special assessments. EAD:ssa 923 COUNTRY GLEN 2ND ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE #48-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the R1-13.5 District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the R1-13.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each • District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and 'efinitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for iolation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of April 17, 1990, entered into between Coffman Development, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 19th day of December, 1989, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of April, 1990. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of A Exhibit A That part of the Northeast is of Northwest h of Section 5-116-22, describ- ed as follows; Commencing at a point in West line of Northeast h of Northwest is of said Section 5; distant 295.5 feet North of Southwest corner of said tract; then North along said West line 493.7 feet; thence East parallel with South line of said tract 375 feet; thence South parallel with West line of said tract 493.7 feet thence West 375 feet to point of beginning, ALSO West 425 feet of North 165.5 feet of South 295.5 feet of Northeast i of Northwest is excepting road, Section 5, Township 116, Range 22, ALSO Outlot B, Country Glen, ALSO Lot 4, Block 4, Country Glen • • I Country Glen 2nd Addition DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1990, by COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 6.7 acres and Preliminary Plat of 6.7 acres for development of 14 single family lots and road right-of-way, situated in Hennepin County,. State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #48-89, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of the Property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated December 14, 1989, reviewed and approved by the City Council on December 19, 1989, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as 1 provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 1. 3. Prior to release by the City of any final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems, storm sewer, and erosion control for the Property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or 1 cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. Prior to any construction or development on the Property, Developer agrees to apply to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a land alteration permit for the Property, which will include mitigation of tree loss for 248 caliper inches of trees, among other conditions and requirements. goo 1 5. Prior to any issuance of any permit for grading or building on the Property, Developer agrees to submit to the Chief Building Official and to obtain the Chief Building Official's approval of plans for removal, sealing, or demolition of existing structures, wells, and septic systems on the Property. Prior to such removal, sealing, or demolition, Developer shall provide to the City a certified check in the amount of $1,000.00 to guarantee the restoration of the Property to grade. City agrees to return said certified check to Developer after the removal, sealing, or demolition on the Property is completed and after it is verified by City that the structures, septic systems, and wells have been properly removed, sealed, or demolished, and that the Property has been restored to grade. 6. Concurrent with utility and street construction on the Property, Developer agrees to provide for connection to public sanitary sewer and watermain to service the existing house on Lot 1, Block 2, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer further agrees that, at such time as the existing private utilities require repair or replacement in order service the existing house on said Lot 1, Block 2, Developer shall connect said existing house to the public utilities as provided above. 7. Concurrent with utility and street construction on the Property, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, a five- ( foot wide concrete sidewalk in the following locations: 1 A. Within the right-of-way along the east side of Duck Lake Road adjacent to Lots 1 and 8, Block 1, and adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. B. Within the right-of-way along the north side of Country Road adjacent to Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 1, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer further agrees that said sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 93 • COUNTRY GLEN 2ND ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-94 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 48-90 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 48-90 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on 17th day of April, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 48-90, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than non-pareil or six-point type, as defined in Minn. State. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 48-90 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on the 17th day of April, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 9�a /f Country Glen 2nd Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 48-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.9, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summarv; This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located east of Duck Lake Road, west of Claycross Way and Country Road from the Rural District to the R1-13.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1990. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) C 93 Century Bank Building CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 8-90-PUD-3-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the C-Reg District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 3-90-C-Reg-Ser District (hereinafter "PUD 3-90-C-Reg-Ser"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of April 17, 1990, entered into between Century Bank Building Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited 3rtnership, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's .Agreement") and that certain supplement to the Developer's Agreement, dated as of April 17, 1990, entered into between , and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Supplement") . The Developer's Agreement and Supplement contain the terms and conditions of PUD 3-90-C-Reg-Ser, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD 3-90-C-Reg-Ser is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD 3-90-C-Reg-Ser is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD 3-90-C-Reg-Ser are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD 3-90-C-Reg-Ser is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the lnad shall be, and 'iereby is removed from the C-Reg District and shall be included hereafter in he Planned Unit Development 3-90-C-Reg-Ser District, and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, ubdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 6th nd ordered published ataa regula of r meetingthe City d lCouncil ofd said pCity ted aon the 17th day of April, 1990. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1990. 9�S EXHIBIT A • Century Bank a P.U.D CONCEPT AMENDMENT Outlots C,D,E: GOLDEN STRIP Lot 1, Block 2, Lot 1, Block 3; GOLDEN STRIP 2ND ADDITION Lot 1, Block 1, Lot 1, Block 2, Lot 1, Block 3, Outlots A,B,C,D; GOLDEN STRIP EAST Lot 1, Block 1, Outlot A; CROSSROADS CENTER Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1; VIKING DRIVE WEST All in Hennepin County, Minnesota. P.U.D. DISTRICT REVIEW, ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT, SITE PLAN REVIEW Lot 1, Block 1; VIKING DRIVE WEST Century Bank Building DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1990, by CENTURY BANE BUILDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City": WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment of 109.68 acres to the Southwest Crossing Planned Unit Development Concept, Planned Unit Development District Review on 109.68 acres, with waivers, Zoning District Amendment from Commercial Regional to Commercial Regional Service on 2.48 of said 109.68 acres, and Site Plan Review of 2.48 of said 109.68 acres for construction of a 33,650 sq. ft. bank/office building, all said 109.68 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, said 2.48 acres hereinafter referred to as "the Property"; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #8-90- ( ID-3-90, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of the Property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated January 31, 1990, reviewed and approved by the City Council on February 6, 1990, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official and obtain the Chief Building Official's approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining walls. Developer acknowledges and agrees that the materials to be implemented shall include a masonry finish and that the materials shall be compatible with those implemented on the adjacent land within the overall Southwest Crossing Planned Unit Development. . 1 1 Upon approval by the Chief Building Official, Developer agrees to / construct, or cause to be constructed, said retaining walls, as approved by the Chief Building Official, concurrent with the 7 grading, street, and utility construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems, storm sewer, and erosion control for the Property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 5. Prior to any grading or construction on the Property, Developer agrees to apply to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a land alteration permit for the Property. 6. Prior to any grading or construction on the Property, Developer agrees to submit tot he Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of a revised landscape plan which provides for additional coniferous plantings for mitigation of a ten (10) ft. setback to parking, as discussed in Item #12, below. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, said revised landscape plan, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 7. Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading, construction, or building, on the Property, Developer agrees to remove the outdoor advertising sign located within 400 feet of the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the underlying Southwest Crossing Master Agreement, dated July 10, 1984, page 4, Item #2, which states: "Outdoor Advertising Signs. Upon issuance of a permit for construction of a building, structure or other improvement upon a lot, parcel or site within or part of the Property, the Developer or its assigns shall cause any outdoor advertising sign which then exists within 400 feet of the boundary line of any lot, parcel or site for which a building permit is issued subsequent to the date hereof, to be removed and shall not relocate or reinstall such sign or any other outdoor advertising sign on the Property." 8. Developer has submitted to the City, and obtained City's approval of samples of exterior building materials, samples of lighting standards, including lighting to be implemented on the structure, 1 and sign details, including locations of all signs. 1 Q 1 i / s. 3 • 1 • Developer and City acknowledge and agree that all such exterior building materials, lighting standards, and sign details, as . approved by the City, are considered to be compatible with the Design Framework Manual for the overall Southwest Crossing Planned Unit Development. Developer agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, said exterior building materials, lighting standards, and sign details, as approved by the City Council, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. Any change from the City Council approved materials and plans shall be compatible with the Design Framework Manual for the overall Southwest Crossing Planned Unit Development and shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall implement, or cause to be implemented, such changes, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 9. Developer has submitted to City, and obtained City's approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property. Security to guarantee said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the Property, per City Code requirements. If, after completion of construction of said mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by City, in its sole discretion, that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then City shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to revise the mechanical equipment screening in order to ;met Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until any such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed by Developer. 10. Developer and City acknowledge that the 30 proof of parking spaces proposed for the Property, depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, are designated for use by the bank/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 30 proof of parking spaces to be constructed in order to accommodate the bank/office use, the following shall occur: A. City shall notify Developer in writing of the need to construct all, or a portion, of said 30 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 30 proof of parking spaces, as determined by City, in the location as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 11. City hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the Commercial Regional Service District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD 3-90: A. Waiver from side yard setback requirement of 17.5 feet adjacent to the I-494 exit ramp to allow a 10 ft. side yard setback. Developer agrees to provide additional coniferous landscape materials within said setback area to mitigate said waiver, as discussed in item #8.D., above. B. Waiver from maximum structure height requirement of 30 feet to allow for a structure height of 50 ft. • • 9110 Century Bank Building OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN CENTURY BANK BUILDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1990, by and between , a , hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, hereinafter referred to as "City": For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance #8- 90-PUD-3-90, changing the zoning of the Property owned by Owner from the Commercial Regional District to the PUD 3-90-Commercial-Regional-Service District, as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of , 1990, by and between Century Bank Building Limited Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows: 1. If Century Bank Building Limited Partnership fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the rezoning of the Property to Commercial Regional. 2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns of the Property. 3. If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement. 4. Owner acknowledges that the 2.48 acres upon which the Century Bank Building is to be constructed, the Property, is part of the overall Southwest Crossing Planned Unit Development, consisting of 109.68 acres and that said 109.68 acres, including the 2.48 acres discussed herein, is subject to the findings and conclusions of the 1985 BRW Traffic Study for the Major Center Area of the City, hereinafter "the Study." Owner further acknowledges that the Study has assigned 73 P. M. Peak Hour Trips to the 2.48-acre site for the Century Bank Building use based on uses proposed in the approved Southwest Crossing Planned Unit Development Concept. City and Owner acknowledge that the amount of traffic from the Century Bank Building use will be considerably higher, or 219 P. M. Peak Hour Trips. Owner acknowledges and agrees, therefore, that the remaining development within the overall Southwest Crossing Planned Unit Development lands shall take the 219 P. M. Peak Hour Trips into account, and that it will be necessary for future land uses within said Planned Unit Development to have a lesser amount of traffic generation during the P. M. Peak Hour in order to comply with the findings and conclusions of the Study. CENTURY BANK BUILDING CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-95 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 8-90-PUD-3-90 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY 1 WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 8-90-PUD-3-90 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on 17th day of April, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 8-90-PUD- 3-90, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published' once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than non-pareil or six-point type, as defined in Minn. State. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 8-90-PUD-3-90 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on the 17th day of April, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk q7A Century Bank Building CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 8-90-PUD-3-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.9, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located at the southeast corner of Viking Drive West and Highway #I69 from the C-Reg District to the PUD 8-90-C-Reg-Ser District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ( \TTE8T: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1990. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) 943 CENTURY BANK BUILDING CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #90-96 A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR CENTURY BANK BUILDING LTD PARTNERSHIP FOR CENTURY BANK BUILDING WHEREAS, Century Bank Building Ltd Partnership has applied for site plan approval of Century Bank Building for construction of a 33,653 square foot building on 2.48 acres on property located southeast corner of Viking Drive West and Highway #169, to be zoned PUD-3-90 C-Reg-Ser by Ordinance #8-90-PUD-3-90 adopted by the City Council on April 17, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its January 08, 1990 Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its February 06, 1990 meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Century Bank Building Ltd Partnership for Century Bank Building for construction of a 33,653 square foot building, based on plans dated January 31,1990, subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement between Century Bank Building Ltd. Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, and the City of Eden Prairie, dated April 17, 1990, for said bank. ADOPTED by the City Council on April 17, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk TOWER SOUARE BANK l CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 9-90-PUD-4-90 111 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be amended within the C-Reg-Ser District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 9-90-PUD-4-90 District (hereinafter "PUD 4-90 C-Reg-Ser"). 1 Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of April 17, 1990, entered into between Eden Square Center Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The teveloper's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD 4-90 C-Reg- ,er and is hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD 4-90 C-Reg-Ser is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD 4-90 C-Reg-Ser is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD 4-90 C-Reg-Ser are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD 4-90 C-Reg-Ser is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and ' hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in ( the Planned Unit Development 4-90 C-Reg-Ser District, and the legal $. descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for f 'iolation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby t. Adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 6th day of February, 1990, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of April, 1990. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1990. gat; EXHIBIT A Tower Square Bank Legal Description Lot 1, Block 1, Eden Prairie Center 6th Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. • lLifi • Tower Square Bank DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1990, by EDEN SQUARE CENTER PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota general partnership, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment for 9.58 acres to the Eden Square Planned Unit Development Concept, Zoning District Amendment within the Commercial Regional Service on 1.4 of said 9.58 acres, and Site Plan Review of 1.4 of said 9.58 acres for construction of an 8,000 sq. ft. bank/office building, all said 9.58 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #9-90- PUD-4-90, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated January 19, 1990, reviewed and approved by the City Council on February 6, 1990, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems, storm sewer, and erosion control for the Property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. Prior to any grading or construction on the Property, Developer agrees to apply to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a land alteration permit for the Property. qta 5. Developer has submitted to the City, and obtained City's approval of samples of exterior building materials, samples of lighting standards, including lighting to be implemented on the structure, and sign details, including locations of all signs. Developer and City acknowledge and agree that all such exterior building materials, lighting standards, and sign details, as approved by the City, are considered to be compatible with the Design Framework Manual for the overall Eden Square Planned Unit Development. Developer agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, said exterior building materials, lighting standards, and sign details, as approved by the City Council, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. Any change from the City Council approved materials and plans shall be compatible with the Design Framework Manual for the overall Eden Square Planned Unit Development and shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall implement, or cause to be implemented, such changes, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 6. Developer has submitted to City, and obtained City's approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the Property. Security to guarantee said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the property, per City Code requirements. If, after completion of construction of said mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by City, in its sole discretion, that the constructed screening does not meet the Code requirements to screen said equipment form public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then City shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to revise the mechanical equipment screening in order to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until any such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed by Developer. 7. Developer and City acknowledge that the nine (9) proof of parking spaces proposed for the Property, depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, are designated for use by the bank/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. CFI9 At such time as City, in its sole discretion, may determine that it is necessary for all, or a portion of, said nine (9) proof of parking spaces to be constructed in order to accommodate the bank/office use, the following shall occur: A. City shall notify Developer in writing of the need to construct all, or a portion, of said nine (9) 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 nine (9) proof of parking spaces, as determined by City, in the location as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. L 91 TOWER SOUARE BANK CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-97 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 9-90-PUD-4-90 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on 17th day of April, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD- • 4-90, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden • Prairie News in a body type no smaller than non-pareil or six-point type, as defined in Minn. State. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 9-90-PUD-4-90 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. i ADOPTED by the City Council on the 17th day of April, 1990. {� Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: • John D. Frane, City Clerk 9 Tower Square Bank CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 9-90-PUD-4-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFRERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows amendment of the zoning of land located north of Prairie Center Drive, east of Highway #169, within the Commercial Regional Service District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. \TTEST: /s/ John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1990. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) 9>j,2 TOWER SOUARE BANK CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #90-98 A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR EDEN SQUARE CENTER PARTNERSHIP FOR TOWER SQUARE BANK WHEREAS, Eden Square Center Partnership has applied for site plan approval of Tower Square Bank for construction of an 8,000 square foot building on 9.58 acres on property located Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive, to be zoned C-Reg-Ser by Ordinance #94 90-PUD-3-90, adopted by the City Council on April 17, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its February 06, 1990 Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its March 13, 1990 meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Eden Square Center Parntership for construction of an 8,000 square foot building, based on plans dated January 19, 1990, subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement between Eden Square Center Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, and the City of Eden Prairie, dated April 17, 1990, for said bank. ADOPTED by the City Council on April 17, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk tb‘3 BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 10-90-PUD-5-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 10-90-PUD-5-90 District (hereinafter "PUD 5-90 RM-6.5"). Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of April 17, 1990, entered into between Hustad Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement") . The Developer's greement contains the terms and conditions of PUD 5-90 RM-6.5, and is hereby .,lade a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD 5-90 RM-6.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD 5-90 RM-6.5 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code that are contained in PUD 5-90 RM-6.5 are justified by the design of the development described therein. D.. PUD 5-90 RM-6.5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development 5-90 RM-6.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and efinitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for 46y Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby 47 adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 20th day of February, 1990, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of April, 1990. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1990. 965 EXHIBIT A Bluff E. 7th Addition Guide Plan Change • That part of Outlot D, BLUFFS EAST SIXTH ADDITION described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Outlot D; thence South 86 degrees 14 minutes 58 seconds West 613.42 feet; thence North 3 degrees 45 minutes 02 seconds West 90 feet; thence North 86 degrees 14 minutes 5B seconds East 218 feet; thence North 3 degrees 45 minutes 02 seconds West 45 feet; thence North 86 degrees 14 minutes 5B seconds East 4OB feet to the East line of said Outlot D; thence South 0 degrees 15 minutes 2B seconds West 135.5 feet to the point of beginning. P.U.D. Concept Amendment and District Review All of Bluffs West 6th Addition; and All of Bluffs East 4th Addition; and All of Bluffs East 5th Addition; and All of Bluffs East 6th Addition; and All of Creek Knolls, except Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, Lots 5 through 7, Block 2, and Lots 1 through 5, Block 3, in said Creek Knolls. according to the recorded plats thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Zoning District Change and Site Plan Review / That part of Outlot D lying east of a line described as commencing at the southeast ( corner of said Dutlot D; thence South B6 degrees 14 minutes 5B seconds West 613.42 feet to the point of beginning of line to be described; thence North 3 degrees 45 �. minutes 02 seconds West 145.00 feet; thence North 23 degrees 47 minutes 27 seconds 'West 256.33 feet to the north line of said Outlot D and there terminating, also, the South 35.00 feet of Outlot E, Bluffs East Sixth Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. Preliminary Plat Outlot D, and the South 35.00 feet of 0utlot E, Bluffs East Sixth Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof. lglble7 Y - Bluffs East 7th Addition F DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1990, by HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 1.7 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 186 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, on 186 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 7.2 acres, Preliminary Plat of 7.2 acres into 25 twin home lots, and Site Plan Review on 7.2 acres for residential development, all said 186 acres situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #10-90- PUD-5-90, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated February 14, 1990, reviewed and approved by the City Council on February 20, 1990, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to release by the City of any final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems, storm sewer, and erosion control for the Property. P Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. Concurrent with and as part of the final plat for the Property, Developer agrees to dedicate to Hennepin County all of Outlot B, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, for purposes of highway right-of-way for County Road #18. 5. Developer and City acknowledge that Outlot A of the Property is intended to be developed at some time in the future as single family residential units. It is further acknowledged that Outlot C is intended to be utilized as an overflow parking 6. Prior to any construction or development on the Property, Developer agrees to apply to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a land alteration permit for the Property, which will include mitigation of tree loss for 87 caliper inches of trees, among other conditions and requirements. 7. Prior to issuance by City of any permit for building on the Property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of the following: A. Three building elevations to be implemented on the Property for review. Said elevations shall include architectural details, including colors, textures, and locations of all materials to be utilized on the exterior of the structures. B. A bond for purposes of securing landscaping for 298 caliper inches to be planted on the Property in accordance with City Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that said bond is in addition to any bonding which may be required for tree loss as discussed in item 6., above. Upon approval by the Director of Planning for said elevations, Developer agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, said building elevations, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. City hereby grants the following waivers to City Code requirements within the Commercial Regional Service District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for the Property and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD 5-90: A. Waiver from required 55 ft. lot width at street frontage to allow lesser lot width at street frontage for Lots 5, 6, 18, and 19, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and from required 90 ft. lot width at street frontage to allow lesser lot width at street frontage for Lots 13, 14, and 15, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. B. Waiver from maximum length of cul-de-sac of 500 ft. to allow a cul-de-sac length of 680 ft. as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, as trade-off for elimination of direct access to Bluff Road for any lot on the Property. 951 BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-99 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 10-90-PUD-5-90 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on 17th day of April, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD- 5-90, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. • B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than non-pareil or six-point type, as defined in Minn. State. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in • the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 10-90-PUD-5-90 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on the 17th day of April, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 959 Bluffs East 7th Addition CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 10-90-PUD-5-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.9, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: • Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located north of Bluff Road, west of County Road #18 from the Rural District to the PUD 5-90- RM-6.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. • ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1990. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) 9� 1 ff BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION E CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #90-100 A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR HUSTAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR BLUFFS EAST 7TH ADDITION WHEREAS, Hustad Development Corporation has applied for site plan approval of Bluffs East 7th Addition on 12.15 acres for construction of 25 townhouse units on property located northwest corner of County Road 18 and Bluff Road, to be zoned RM-6.5 by Ordinance #10-90-PUD-5-90 adopted by the City Council on April 17, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its January 22, 1990 Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its February 20, 1990 meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Hustad Development Corporation for Bluffs East 7th Addition for construction of 25 townhouse units, based on plans dated February 14, 1990, subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement between Hustad Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, dated April 17, 1990, for said townhouse development. ADOPTED by the City Council on April 17, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 461 f McDonald's 1 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE # 7-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING HY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the zoning for the land be amended within the Commercial Regional Service District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the zoning for the land shall be, and hereby is amended within the Commercial Regional Service District, and the legal descriptions of land in said District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall e, and are amended accordingly. SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of April 17, 1990, entered into between McDonalds Corporation and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 13th day of March, 1990, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of April, 1990. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 44a p EXHIBIT A Legal Description - PUD District Review/Zoning/Site Plan That part of Lot 1, Block 1, EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER 6TH ADDITION, according to the plat on file and of record thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the most northerly corner of said Lot 1, Block 1, said corner being cannon with Flying Cloud Drive; thence South 51°-36'-15" East, assumed bearing, along the northerly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 268.74 feet to the northeasterly corner • of said Lot 1; thence southerly, along the easterly line of said Lot 1, Block 1, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the northeast, having a central angle of 00°-09'-16", radius of 651.00 feet, and arc length of 1.75 feet, the chord of said curve bears South 00°-17'-43" East; thence westerly, on a non-tangential curve, concave to the north, having a central angle of 104°-46'-43", radius of 15.00 feet, and arc length of 27.43 feet, the chord of.said curve bears South 76°-37'-02" West; thence North 50°-59'-37" West, tangent to the last described curve, a distance of 31.87 feet; thence westerly, along a tangential curve, concave to the south, having a central angle of 92°-25'-57", radius of 47.92 feet, and arc length of 77.31 feet; thence South 36°-34'-26" West, a distance of 261.09 feet; thence North 53°-30'-53" West, a distance of 172.10 feet to the northwesterly line of said Lot 1; thence North 36°-29'-07" East, along said northwesterly line, a distance of 314.65 feet; thence northeasterly along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 3759.72 feet, central ( angle of 00°-19'-32" and arc length of 21.37 feet to the actual point of beginning. • • 96 S McDonald's/Eden Square DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1990, by 4 McDONALD'S CORPORATION, a corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment, Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District on 1.4 acres, Site Plan Review on 1.4 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 8.2 acres into two lots for construction of a fast food restaurant, all 8.2 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #13-90- PUD-7-90, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, id maintenance of said Property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated March 9, 1990, reviewed and approved by the City Council on March 13, 1990, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to release by the City of any final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems, storm sewer, and erosion control for the Property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. Prior to any construction or development on the Property, Developer agrees to apply to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a land alteration_ permit for the Property. 5. Developer has submitted to City, and obtained City's approval of exterior materials for the structure on the Property. Approved samples of said exterior materials are on file at the City offices. Developer acknowledges that the particular exterior materials approved by City are considered compatible with the overall Planned Unit Development for the Property and are coordinated with other structures within the overall Eden Square Planned Unit Development. Developer agrees, therefore, that in the event Developer considers changing any such exterior material, Developer shall submit such change to the Director of Planning for review. The Director of Planning shall determine whether such change is compatible with the overall Eden Square Planned Unit Development and whether such change would require additional review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Developer agrees to abide by the Director's determination. 6. Developer has submitted to City, and obtained City's approval of a sign plan for the property, which includes one pylon sign 20 ft. high and 80 sq. ft. in area, one 36 sq. ft. monument sign on the east side of the structure adjacent to the private drive and a condition that no wall signs are permitted on the west side of the structure. Approved signs are depicted in Exhibit S, attached hereto. Developer agrees that, in the event Developer considers changes to any detail of the sign plan as approved by City, Developer shall submit such change to the Director of Planning for review. The • Director of Planning shall determine whether such change is compatible with the overall Eden Square Planned Unit Development and whether such change would require additional review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Developer agrees to abide by the Director's determination. 7. Prior to issuance by City of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer agrees to apply to the City and to obtain the City's approval of a variance to City Code requirements within the Commercial Regional Service District which would allow the required side yard setback to parking requirement on the east side of the Property to be reduced from 10 ft. to 7.5 ft. adjacent to the internal roadway, all as depicted in Exhibit S, attached hereto. ff MCDONALDS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • RESOLUTION NO. 90-101 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 13-90-PUD-7-90 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 13-90-PUD-7-90 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on 17th day of April, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: • A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 13-90-PUD- 7-90, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than non-pareil or six-point type, as defined in Minn. State. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 13-90-PUD-7-90 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on the 17th day of April, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk McDonalds CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 7-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFRERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This ordinance allows amendment of the zoning of land located north of Prairie Center Drive, east of Highway #169, within the Commercial Regional Service District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ( ^TEST: /s/ John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1990. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.) k 9G'1 MCDONALDS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #90-102 A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR MCDONALDS CORPORATION FOR MCDONALDS WHEREAS, McDonalds Corporation has applied for site plan approval of McDonalds on 8.2 acres for construction of a fast food restaurant on property located east of Highway #169, north of Prairie Center Drive, to be zoned C-Reg-Ser by Ordinance #13-90- PUD-7-90 adopted by the City Council on April 17, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its February 12, 1990 Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its March 13, 1990 meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to McDonalds Corporation for McDonalds for construction of a fast food restaurant, based on plans dated March 9, 1990, subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement between McDonalds Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, dated April 17, 1990, for said restaurant. ADOPTED by the City Council on April 17, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor i. ATTEST: `III John D. Frane, City Clerk 9�� BOULDER POINTE TOWNHOMES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE #14-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and be placed in the RM-6.5 District. SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the RM-6.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended accordingly. SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and ( efinitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for .iolation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. SECTION 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of April 17, 1990, entered into between David Carlson Co., Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, which Agreement is hereby made a part hereof. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 13th day of March, 1990, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 17th day of April, 1990. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 9�9 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Outlot G, BOULDER POINTE, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. { 9?0 Boulder Pointe Townhomes DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1990, by DAVID CARLSON CO., INC., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat into 51 lots, all on 13.65 acres, for construction of 50 multiple family units, all said 13.65 acres situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;" NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #14-90, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows: pp 1. Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and dated March 1, 1990, reviewed and approved by the City Council on March 13, 1990, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided {' herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Prior to release by the City of any final plat for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems, storm sewer including the storm sewer discharge pipe into Staring Lake, and erosion control for the Property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 4. Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and obtain the Chief Building Official's approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading 9lr plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of construction to be used for said retaining walls. Upon approval by the Chief Building Official, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, said retaining walls, as approved by the Chief Building Official, concurrent with the • grading, street, and utility construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 5. Prior to grading and utility construction on the property, Developer agrees to obtain all necessary permits and approvals for construction of the storm sewer discharge pipe into Staring Lake, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 6. Prior to any construction or development on the Property, Developer agrees to apply to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a land alteration permit for the Property. 7. Prior to release of any permit for grading or construction on the Property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of the following: A. An irrigation system for the landscaping to be implemented on the Property. B. Homeowners' Association documents which provide for maintenance of the common area of the Property. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to implement, or causes to be implemented, those plans and documents listed above, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 8. Concurrent with site grading, Developer agrees to install the landscaping along the perimeter of the Property as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 9. Developer acknowledges that all structures on the Property shall be located a minimum of 25 ft. from the curb of the street. 13'12 BOULDER POINTE TOWNHOMES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-103 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 14-90 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 14-90 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on 17th day of April, 1990. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 14-90, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden 3 Prairie News in a body type no smaller than non-pareil or six-point type, as defined in Minn. State. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text.of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 14-90 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said • publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on the 17th day of April, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Boulder Pointe Townhomes CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 14-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.9, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located south and west of Twin Lakes Crossing, northwest of Starring Lake Parkway from the Rural District to the RM-6.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ( 1TTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of 1990. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) C BOULDER POINTE TOWNHOMES CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #90-104 A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR DAVID CARLSON CO. INC., FOR BOULDER POINTE TOWNHOMES WHEREAS, David Carlson Co. Inc. has applied for site plan approval of Boulder Pointe Townhomes on 13.65 acres for construction of a 50 unit multi-family residential development on property located south and west of Twin Lakes Crossing, northwest of Starring Lake Parkway, to be zoned RM-6.5 by Ordinance #14-90 adopted by the City Council on April 17, 1990; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its February 26, 1990 Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its March 13, 1990 meeting; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to David Carlson Co. Inc., for Boulder Pointe Townhomes, for construction of a 50 unit multi-family residential development, based on plans dated March 1, 1990, subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement between David Carlson Co. Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, dated April 17, 1990, for said residential development. ADOPTED by the City Council on April 17, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk 1 9')S After some discussion, Councilmemb- introduced the following resolution and .ved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. " 0- f,j RESOLUTIO 'ELATING TO D ELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND T. INCREMENT INANCING DISTRICTS NOS. 2, 3, 4, 6 AND 7; ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPM P •GRAM AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS TH" FOR • BE IT RESOLVED by the y Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "C'ty"), as .flows: Section 1. . 1.01. On -ptember 22, 1981, this .uncil designated under Minnesota Stat es, Sections 469.124 to 46' 34, as amended, certain land within he City as Development Distric . 1 (the "Development Distr t") and adopted a Development Program- therefor. The De -lopment Program was subsequently amended by this Council on 'arch 30, 1982 and May 17, 1983 (as so amended, the "Original ?gram") . Pursuant to the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act, innesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended (the "Act"), this Council has established Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (collectively, the "Districts") within the Development District and has adopted and in some cases amended Tax Increment Financing Plans therefor (as originally adopted or, if amended, as so amended, the "Original Plans") on the dates indicated below: Tax Increment Date of Adoption Tax Increment Date of District No. or AmeridnPnt District No. Adoption 2 3/20/82; amended 5 5/17/83 5/17/83 3 11/16/82; amended 6 8/16/83 5/17/83 4 3/15/83; amended 7 4/17/84 5/17/83 1.02. It has been proposed that the City further amend its Development Program (the "Program Amendment") in order to undertake additional development activities and to amend the Original Plans (the "Plan Amendment") to provide a means of financing the capital and administrative costs to be incurred by the City in undertaking the development activities authorized by the Program Amendment. The Program Amendment has been transmitted to the planning agency of the City, which has determined that the Original Program as amended and supplemented by the Program Amendment (as so amended and supplemented, the "Program") conforms to the general plan for the development of the City. 1.03. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.126 and 469.175, the adoption of the Program Amendment and Plan Amendment is for the consideration of this Council. On April 17, 1990, this Council conducted a public hearing on the desirability of adopting the Program Amendment and the Plan Amendment. Notice of the public hearing was duly published as required by law in the Eden Prairie News, the official newspaper of the City on March.11, 1990. 1.04. Members of the Board of County Commissioners of Hennepin County, the Board of Education of Independent School District No. 272 and the Board of Education of Independent District No. 287 were given an opportunity to meet with the City and comment on the Plan Amendment. At least 30 days before the public hearing the City provided the county and the school district boards with information on the fiscal and economic implications of the Plan Amendment. Section 2. Adoption of Program Amendment. On the basis of the proposed Program Amendment prepared by officers of the City and the information elicited from consultation with the planning agency and at the public hearing referred to in Section 1.03, it is hereby found, determined and declared: 2.01. The Council hereby ratifies and confirms its determination that there is a need for new development in the area of the City encompassed by the Development District to provide employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the state. The Program Amendment proposes that the City undertake certain additional public highway, street, water system and park improvements to encourage the development of land in the Development District. The Council hereby finds that the proposed development activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Program Amendment would improve the Development District by encouraging private development of property therein, thereby increasing employment and the tax base of the City and overlapping tax jurisdictions. It is in the best interests of the City to adopt the Program Amendment. 2.02. Upon review of the Program, the information elicited from the planning agency and at the public hearing, and on the basis of the findings made in Section 2.01, this Council hereby adopts the Program Amendment and orders that it be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk. Section 3. Approval of Plan Amendment. On the basis of the Plan Amendment and the information elicited at the public hearing referred to in Section 1.03, it is hereby found, determined and declared: 1n I 3.01. The Plan Amendment provides the means to finance the costs of the additional public highway, street, water system and park improvements to be undertaken pursuant to the Program Amendment. The Original Plans, as amended and supplemented by the Plan Amendment (as so amended and supplemented, the "Plans") contain a statement of objectives for the improvement of the Development District, a statement as to the development program i for the respective District and a statement of the property within the Development District which the City intends to acquire. The Plans also estimate the capital and administrative costs of the Development District, the amount of bonded indebtedness.to be incurred, the sources of revenues to finance or otherwise pay public costs of the respective District, the captured net tax capacity of the respective District at completion and the duration of the District. The Plans also describe and identify the development activities to be undertaken or expected to be undertaken in each District. The Plan Amendment further contains an estimate of the impact of the proposed tax increment financing on the net tax capacities of all taxing jurisdictions in which the each District is located. All the captured tax capacity is necessary for the objectives of each District. 3.02. This Council hereby finds that the proposed development of the Development District to be encouraged pursuant to the Program Amendment would not, in the opinion of this Council, occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that therefore the use of tax increment financing is necessary. Improvements to the street and highway access, traffic flow and the water supply are necessary in order to permit additional development to occur within the Development District. 3.03. This Council hereby finds that the Plans conform to the general plan for the development of the City as a whole. r Under the general plan for the development of the City the Districts are zoned so as to permit the uses proposed by the Program Amendment. 3.04. This Council hereby ratifies and confirms that the Plan Amendment will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of each the Districts by private enterprise. The development activities contemplated in the Program Amendment would provide an opportunity for a significant increase in employment opportunities in the City and enhance the tax base of the City. 3.05. Upon review of the Plans, the information elicited at the public hearing and on the basis of the findings in Sections 3.01 to 3.04, this Council hereby approves the Plan Amendment. Section 4. Filing. The Finance Director/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the Program Amendment and the Plan Amendment with the Commissioner of Revenue as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 2. Mayor Attest: • • Finance Director/Clerk l Cfi9 MEMORANDUM APRIL 4, 1990 TO: EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE RE: SUGGESTED RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF EXTENDED TIF PROGRAM: I. RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE TIF DISTRICT TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND URGES THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT OF APPROXIMATELY $8,600,000, BECAUSE OF THE NEED TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT QUICKLY, THERE HAS BEEN NO INVOLVEMENT OR SUFFICIENT TIME TO MAKE A STUDIED REVIEW BY AREA OWNERS, THE CHAMBER, OR OTHER INTERESTED GROUPS, THERE IS NO CONSIDERED BASIS UPON WHICH THE CHAMBER CAN SUPPORT THE SPECIFIC PROJECTS OR PRIORITIES RECOMMENDED BY CITY STAFF. 2. RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHAMBER STRONGLY RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINT A TASK GROUP OF CITIZENS WITH A VARIETY OF PERSPECTIVES TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO REVIEW THE TIF PROJECT SCHEDULE, EVALUATE, REVISE WHERE NECESSARY, AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL. v1Uv • • 1990 AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 and 1990 AMENDMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NOS. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 APRIL 17, 1990 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA • 981 I. INTRODUCTION A. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City") has determined there is a need for the development of an area of the City designated as Development District No. 1 (the "Development District"), and has adopted a development program therefor, dated September 22, 1981 and subsequently amended on March 30, 1982 and May 17, 1983 (as so amended, the "Original Development Program"), for development of the Development District. It is now necessary to amend the Original Development Program to provide for further actions to be taken in furtherance of development in ' the Development District. The actions to be taken by the City pursuant to this 1990 Amendment to Development Program (the "Program Amendment") are necessary to secure the development of the property included in the Development District at this time and in a manner which will best meet those needs. In order to finance the capital and administration costs to be incurred by the City in connection with the Development District, the City adopted, and in certain cases modified, on the dates indicated below tax increment financing plans (the "Original Plans") for the following Tax Increment Districts (collectively, the "Districts"): Tax Increment Date of Adoption Tax Increment Date of Adoption District No. or Modification District No. or Modification 2 3/20/82; modified 5 5/17/83 5/17/83 3 11/16/82; modified 6 8/16/83 5/17/83 4 3/15/83; modified 7 4/17/84 5/17/83 It is now necessary to amend the Original Plans by the following Program Amendment to provide a means of financing the capital and administrative costs to be incurred by the City in undertaking the development activities authorized by the Program Amendment. The amendment of the Original Plans will authorize additional expenditures to be financed with tax increment revenues and the acquisition of additional property only; it will not authorize the incurrence of additional bonded indebtedness or change the boundaries or the legal duration of any of the Districts. a f The Program Amendment and the Plan Amendment are l adopted by the City Council of the City pursuant to the Development District Act, now codified at Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 to 469.134, as amended, and the Tax Increment Financing Act, now codified at Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended. B. Definitions. Each of the terms defined in this Section 8 or Subsection 1.1 of the Original Program shall for all purposes of the Program Amendment and the Plan Amendment 3 have the meanings given to them therein, except as provided otherwise below: "Bond Resolution" means any and all resolutions, ordinances, trust indentures or other documents under which any Tax Increment Bonds are sold, issued or secured. "Capital and Administrative Costs" means the total amount expended and to be expended by the City on Development Activities as provided in this Program. "Captured Tax Capacity" means, with respect to a District, that portion of the Tax Capacity in excess of the Original Tax Capacity as adjusted from time to time, if any. "Development Activities" means all actions taken or to be taken by the City in establishing, implementing and carrying 1 out the Program. "Development District" means Development District No. 1 of the City. "Districts" means, collectively, Tax Increment Districts Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the City. "1990 Project" means the Development Activities 3 authorized by this Program Amendment, as described in Section C of Part II hereof. "Original Plans" means, collectively, the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Districts as adopted and as supplemented and amended by the City Council of the City as described in Section A hereof. "Original Program" means the Development Program for Development District No. 1 adopted by the City Council of the City on September 22, 1981, as subsequently amended on March 30, 1982 and May 17, 1983. _2_ "Original Tax Capacity" means, with respect to a District, the assessed value of all taxable property in a District as most recently determined by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State of Minnesota as of the date of certification thereof by the Hennepin County Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177 or as thereafter adjusted and certified by the Hennepin County Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177. "Outstanding" when used with respect to the Tax Increment Bonds, means Tax Increment Bonds which have not been paid, redeemed or discharged in accordance with their terms or the terms of a Bond Resolution. "Parcel" means a lot, parcel or tract of plat of land comprising a single unit for purposes of assessment for real estate tax purposes, as of the date of adoption of the respective Original Plan. "Plan Amendment" means the 1990 Amendment to the Plans contained in Part III hereof. "Plans" means, for the Districts, the Original Plans as amended and supplemented by the Plan Amendment and as further amended or supplemented by the City Council pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Act. "Program" means the Original Program as amended and supplemented by the Program Amendment and as further supplemented and amended from time to time by the City Council of the City. "Program Amendment" means the 1990 Amendment to the Development Program contained in Part II hereof. "Tax Capacity" means, with respect to a District, the assessed value, gross or net tax capacity, as applicable, of all taxable property in a District as determined from time to time pursuant to state law. "Tax Increment" means, with respect to a District, that portion of the ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable real property in a District from time to time which is allocable to the Captured Tax Capacity of such property. -3- azu II. 1990 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 A. Statement of Objectives. The objectives sought to be accomplished by the City in establishing and carrying out the Development Activities and in financing the Capital and Administrative Costs, as specified herein, are set forth in Subsection 1.4 of the Original Program. • B. Property To Be Added To Development District. No property is to be added to the Development District as part of the Program Amendment. C. Development Activities. The Development Activities are contained in Section 1.5 of the Original Program and are amended to include the 1990 Project, described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. D. Land Use Considerations. The public facilities described in Section C are financially feasible and compatible with long-range development plans. Acquisition of rights-of-way and easements for the improvements described in Section C will provide impetus for private development within the Development District. E. Environmental Controls. It is presently • anticipated that the Development Activities proposed in the Development District as set forth in this Program Amendment will not present major environmental problems. All municipal actions, public improvements and private development will be carried out in a manner that will comply with applicable environmental standards. F. proposed Re-use of Property. It is proposed that the property identified for acquisition in Section G hereof will be used as rights-of-way or easements for the public improvements described in Section C. • G. List of Additional Parcels To Be Acquired in Whole or in Part Within the Development District. proiect Number PID's Involved 2 14-116-22-34-0003 14-116-22-34-0005 14-116-22-34-0013 3 12-116-22-24-0002 6 14-116-22-32-0004 14-116-22-32-0274 -4- Project Number PID's Involved 7 14-116-22-13-0023 14-116-22-13-0037 14-116-22-13-0038 8 14-116-22-11-0002 14-116-22-11-0003 14-116-22-11-0004 14-116-22-11-0005 14-116-22-11-0006 14-116-22-11-0007 14-116-22-11-0008 14-116-22-11-0009 14-116-22-11-0010 14-116-22-11-0011 14-116-22-11-0012 14-116-22-11-0013 14-116-22-12-0010 14-116-22-14-0021 11 15-116-22-21-0004 15-116-22-12-0001 15-116-22-11-0005 15-116-22-14-0003 15-116-22-14-0004 14-116-22-23-0007 14-116-22-23-0008 14-116-22-23-0011 All properties identified above which are to be acquired within the Development District No. 1 are further identified by location on the map attached as Exhibit B. H. Estimated Cost of 1990 Project. Estimated costs associated with the 1990 Project are provided below. The budget has been provided by City staff. -5- JL'� ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Acquisition, Relocation and Demolition/Site Clearance $ 1,142,000 Public Improvements $ 8.761,000 Professional Services Planning design, engineering, appraisals, etc.) $ 1,192,000 Contingency 817,000 Administration (5%) 564.000 Total $12.476.000 The elements and the costs of the 1990 Project shown above are estimated to be necessary based upon the best engineering and cost information now available. It is anticipated that the elements and the costs of the 1990 Project shown above may decrease or increase, but that the total costs will not exceed the amount shown above. I. Effect of Program Amendment. Except as amended and supplemented by this Program Amendment, the Original Program remains in full force and effect and its provisions apply to the provisions of this Program Amendment, except to the extent amended or supplemented hereby. \_ -6- 10 Proiect Number PID's Involved 7 14-116-22-13-0023 14-116-22-13-0037 14-116-22-13-0038 8 14-116-22-11-0002 14-116-22-11-0003 14-116-22-11-0004 14-116-22-11-0005 14-116-22-11-0006 14-116-22-11-0007 14-116-22-11-0008 14-116-22-11-0009 14-116-22-11-0010 14-116-22-11-0011 14-116-22-11-0012 14-116-22-11-0013 14-116-22-12-0010 14-116-22-14-0021 11 15-116-22-21-0004 15-116-22-12-0001 15-116-22-11-0005 15-116-22-14-0003 15-116-22-14-0004 14-116-22-23-0007 14-116-22-23-0008 14-116-22-23-0011 All properties identified above which are to be acquired within the Development District No. 1 are further identified by location on the map attached as Exhibit B. H. Estimated Cost of 1990 Proiect. Estimated costs associated with the 1990 Project are provided below. The budget has been provided by City staff. -5- III. PLAN AMENDMENTS A. Statement of Objectives. For each of the Districts, see Section 1.4 of the Original Program. B. Development Program. See the Program, comprising Sections 1.2 through 1.12 of the Original Program and the Program Amendment. C. Parcels. To Be Included in the Districtsb No parcels are proposed to be added to or deleted from any of the Districts. D. Parcels To Be Acouired. Section G of the Program Amendment identifies the parcels to be acquired by the City in connection with the 1990 Project. None of the parcels are located in any of the Districts. E. Recent Development Activity. Since the Development Activities described in Subsection 8.5 of the Original Plan for District No. 7, the City has not entered into contracts for Development Activities. F. private Development.. Since the most recent dates of adoption or modification, respectively, of the Original Plans for each of the Districts, the City has approved, or is in the process of considering approval of, the following private development projects therein: District No. Number Market Ki.D$ Value 1 24 Commercial $58,415,300 2 Industrial 13,043,000 246 Dwelling Units 5,878,000 2 1 Commercial 3,019,200 3 196 Dwelling Units 7,762,000 4 1 Commercial 875,500 5 2 Commercial 6,417,300 6 1 Commercial 5,185,000 7 16 Commercial 25,050,800 _7_ 1 G. Estimated Capital and Administrative Costs of the 1990 Proiect. 1. Estimated Cost. The estimated Capital and Administrative Costs of the 1990 Project are set forth in Section H of the Program Amendment. 2. Capital Proceeds. The capital proceeds of the Project, comprising the proceeds of sale of property, are expected to be $0. 3. Capital and Administrative Costa. The Capital and Administrative Costs of the 1990 Project, comprising the total costs expected to be incurred in carrying out the 1990 Project by the City less the Capital Proceeds thereof, is expected to be $12,476,000. H. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs. 1. In General. All Capital and Administrative Costs of the 1990 Project will be paid from Tax Increment derived from the Districts. The City reserves the right to levy special assessments to finance in whole or in part the costs of the 1990 Project. 2. Bonded Indebtedness To Be Incurred. No indebtedness evidenced by Tax Increment Bonds will be incurred { in connection with the 1990 Project. The City reserves the right to issue Special Assessment Bonds to pay, if necessary, costs of the 1990 Project. I. Determination and Use of Tax Increment. 1. Characteristics of Districts. Each of the Districts is an "economic development district" within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 12. 2. Captured Tax Capacity. It is estimated that the Captured Tax Capacity of all taxable property in each of the Districts, upon completion of the Development Activities in accordance with the Plans, will be approximately as follows: Original Tax Current Tax Captured Tax District No. , Capacity Capacity Capacity 2 $19,380 $164,927 . $145,547 3 8,406 279,432 271,026 4 224 45,641 45,417 5 42,059 336,248 294,189 6 4,180 172,040 167,860 7 300,230 1,173,254 873,024 -8- 93 3. Tax Increment Collections. It is estimated that the Tax Increment to be received each year for the duration of the Districts is as follows: District No. 1990 1991 1992 1993 2 $147,000 $ -- $ -- $ -- 3 273,700 273,700 273,700 -- 4 45,900 45,900 45,900 -- 5 297,100 297,100 297,100 -- 6 169,500 169,500 169,500 -- 7 881,700 881,700 881,700 881,700 4. Apportionment of Costa. Tax Increment from each of 1 the Districts will be used to pay costs of the 1990 Project. Unexpended tax increment revenues on deposit in the debt service and other funds relating to the City's Tax Increment Bonds, in the approximate aggregate amount of $3,300,000, will be applied to such costs. In addition, it is now estimated that Tax Increment will be applied to such costs in the following amounts from the following Districts: District No. Portion of Estimated Costs 2 $ 147,000 3 821,100 4 137,700 5 891,300 6 508,500 7 3,526,800 Such apportionment is merely an estimate, is subject to change and is not intended to limit the ability of the City to apply Tax Increment from a particular District for authorized expenditures as it deems in the best interests of the City. In no event will the payment of costs of the 1990 Project be used to extend the legal duration of a District as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 1(e). 5. Use of Captured Tax Capacity and Tax Increment. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2, the City hereby determines that it will use 100% of the Captured Tax Capacity of property located in the Districts, and 100% of the Tax Increment to be derived therefrom, for the entire duration of the Districts as necessary to pay Capital and Administrative Costs. -9- q90 J. Impact of Tax Increment Financina on Other Taxing jurisdictions. The taxing jurisdictions encompassing the Districts will continue to receive taxes as if the Original Tax Capacity of the Districts were unchanged. While this precludes the jurisdictions from receiving tax increases due to the Development Activities, inflation or other development of the taxable property in the Districts, as the following table indicates, the Captured Tax Capacity of the Districts comprises a very small portion of the Tax Capacity of these jurisdictions. Total Captured Percent of Taxing Tax Tax Total Tax Jurisdiction Capacity(1) Capacity(1) Capacity Hennepin County $1,039,443,380 $1,078,200 0.10% I.S.D. No. 272 56,206,739 1,078,200 1.92% City of Eden Prairie 55,681,400 1,078,200 1.94% Joint I.S.D. No. 287 910,039,949 1,078,200 0.12% (AVTI) (1) Adjusted for Fiscal Disparities. If the Plan Amendment were not adopted, the levies for the City, School District No. 272, Joint School District No. 287 and the County would be reduced in 1990 by the apportionment of tax increment revenues from the funds established for the City's Tax Increment Bonds. In addition, in 1990 through 1993, the levy for those taxing jurisdictions would constitute a smaller percentage of their tax capacity because tax capacity would be increased by the adjusted captured tax capacity. The estimated impact of adopting the Plan Amendment, assuming that the taxing jurisdictions' levies in dollars remain constant in 1990 through 1993, expressed as an increase in the percentage which the levy is of tax capacity, is as follows: Taxing Jurisdiction 1991 1992 1993 City 1.596♦ 0.421% 0.202% District #272 3.208 0.465 0.224 District #287 0.005 0.001 0.001 County 0.123 0.035 0.017 Total 4.932% 0.922% 0.443% If the Captured Tax Capacity would not have occurred but for the Development Activities of the City, the impact on other taxing jurisdictions would be insignificant. gi -10- • g91 1 The effect of the Plan Amendment is to delay the termination of the Districts until Tax Increment from the Districts, apportioned as now estimated in Section I(4) hereof, has paid the Capital and Administrative Costs of the 1990 Project. K. Effect of Plan Amendment. Except as amended and supplemented by this Plan Amendment, each of the Original Plans remains in full force and effect and its provisions apply to the respective provisions of this Plan Amendment, except to the extent amended or supplemented hereby. This Program Amendment and this Plan Amendment were adopted by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota on the day of April, 1990. Mayor Attest: City Clerk -11- EXHIBIT A 1990 PROJECTS 1. Traffic Signals: a. Prairie Center Drive at Franlo Road b. Prairie Center Drive at Columbine Road c. Prairie Center Drive at Singletree Lane d. Prairie Center Drive at West 78th/Technology Drive e. Prairie Center Drive at Plaza Drive f. Valley View Road at Plaza Drive g. Mitchell Road at Technology Drive h. Flying Cloud Drive at Fountain Place i. Valley View Road at I-494 ramp terminals j. Prairie Center Drive at I-494 ramp terminals 2. Medcom Boulevard (Joiner Way to Franlo Road): grading, surfacing, concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer and right-of-way. 3. West 78th Street (Prairie Center Drive to CSAH 18): grading, surfacing, concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer. 4. Technology Drive (Prairie Center Drive to TH 169): grading, surfacing, concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer. 5. Valley View Road (Flying Cloud Drive to Nine Mile Creek): grading, surfacing, concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer and watermain. 6. Columbine Road (Prairie Center Drive to Primrose Lane): grading, surfacing, concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer and right-of way. 7. Singletree Lane (Eden Road to TH 169): grading, surfacing, concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer and right-of-way. 8. Leona Road (Flying Cloud Drive to West 78th Street): grading, surfacing, concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer and right-of-way. 9. TH 212 (I-494 to Mitchell Road) - Cooperative Agreement with MnDOT): storm sewer, utilities and trails. 10. Water Systems Improvements: a. Elevated storage (2MG) b. Distribution (20" watermain west of Prairie Center Drive) A-1 11. Street Lighting: a. Prairie Center Drive e. Valley View Road b. Technology Drive f. West 78th Street c. Singletree Lane g. Columbine Road d. Eden Road h. Plaza Drive 12. Purgatory Creek Park Improvements: dredging, grading, plaza and parking area surfacing, fountains and trials. 13. Intersection Capacity improvements from 1985 "Prairie Center Drive/ County Road 18 Traffic Study" a. Bryant Lake Drive at Valley View Road b. Prairie Center Drive at Valley View Road (East TH 169) c. Prairie Center Drive between Viking Drive and 78th Street d. TH. 169 additional through lane at Prairie Center Drive e. Valley View Road at Washington Avenue A-2 931 \\ I I Ifit 1Sid I 1 l I n r ' O o -L- I. E C• ` 1 . l .__ li . r —ter- 7 Imoi \ , li^1 :CO)., . *, ciiiii4 •--\ i 1 ®-3. 1\V_te r • . _91 �y k *'-i,n 4 -'. ,,, ,..,, f hoc•) �; JJ �� (/� °? JL• .ice: VilMill iy` it ,, ivp, sr/". i ' v� . ' 4.---. .1-::-••• - il i ti_ :4 Ili . i YI X ___P. , • !•,./ • .. Ti> (14 ,..... , ,..) '. '' •i 7.. 4---'• *.._ -e_ • fl 995 • 3 I II Ii I • II l - II 1 o II II I CASE LOS V/C w I I I F 1.31 > I I I II E 0.98 • y III E 0.98 • w IV E 0.98 V C 0.79 • >Y1k of • 9RY.,1 Construction of new \ \ bridge required \ \ \ �9/1/F \ ii(ti it \ ,,. .,. ., . • I � j II . , 1 i 1 jIPROVEMENTS 11 I FIGURE 5 ► I I ► ► T,�y PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE' 1 1 I e COUNTY ROAD 18 AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN II II r ii�i tlltt 13a. --new 996 \\ \ F 90 \\ \� i // / 13 h. '0 )).,..4, \ '/ 0. 2 (9 , CASE LOS I'll ....2-'''. ,. \ I F III F\ IV F` V F `1 '` ' II ► 1 11 1I Willi �Op,O v" // //. \� i 39 2 /I OO RO � 0 / i/,i, CASE LOS V/C / J I F 1.6Z i II E 0.95 I ( Q ' III E 0.91 a ' �/ IV E 0.98 V D 0.85 I �' I [J NEW CONSTRUCTION I FOR GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS I I I FIGURE 8 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE/ I I COUNTY ROAD 18 AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN 11 I I 1 Mr MOM 1 13 b ate.tiro 1 1 \ \ \ 1 /3c. RIVE t ' V\L 4G __- I — 1\i1� CA T OS V/C .. '/� 1\� \1, I F 1.12 t \ \ II E 0.95\\\ I III D 0.88 \ IV D 0.89 1 \ \ \ V B 0.68* l \;\ *LOS D, V/C = 0.82 IN AM PEAK HOUR E \ \ j l 1 ' 11 It ► I � • W I II o � II f cciI II o I I � cc I II l H I II SSE LOS V/C I 0. I NEW CONSTRUCTION I F 1.A 6 0.57 I I �\801 1 FOR GEOMETRIC III A II I IMPROVEMENTS IV C 0.70 OFF V A 0.44 i l l{ _ RAMP FIGURE 7 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE/ COUNTY ROAD 18 AREA 1,494 I ITV TRANSPORTATION PLAN I II IIIF Mat Ulan Rare hARa50ut INN ti < 1I1 -.• . ►-494 1 /J e . 111 ' I I III I I II I I,It,..tiltIi E.B. RAMP 1I1` —_ — II I I 7 11 I I CASE LOS V/C I I I F 1.32 w II E 0.97 • > I I I I in C 0.76 IV D 0.83 o I I 11 I V A 0.58 w I Z I II w IU WLE I H a. I I I I NEW CONSTRUCTION I I I I I FOR GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS CASE LOS V/C I I I I I F 1.43 Ill I I ty. / ..-- II D 0.88 V \ . IV E 0.94 01I1Ik tltlt .. /�j i V C 0.72 j // FIGURE 8 T 81N SI/ PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE/ 14. /� COUNTY ROAD 18 AREA // /i i TRANSPORTATION PLAN n 4111II ,Itltlt 11 I I I Mi NUM I1 I I = 0•we lognesoia � 9g 1 II - I IIt /3 d. II; (. ' I I I` I II II • I II I ;_ Ii II i Il I1I Ir 1 I IIII Ite .\I tI+I+I PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE},:..1 ` _—_ _ _ - - —_ • Il III_. CASE LOS V/C j I I I ( I F I.66 ?`' I II D 0.89 ;1I 1I1. III D 0.89 1 I IV D 0.89 V C 0.73 � 1" II I, Ii '<1I III; II IIEi II I I ': 0 NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR GEOMETRIC I III` IMPROVEMENTS III FIGURE 9 i I PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE' COUNTY ROAD 18 AREA I I I TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1 II 1i II I I1 /I\ IDa() =111EIr MI / 3e. III I • ,IlI�� tit I, —-------='" L/ WASHINGTON AVE. Jf'---._-- — _ �I41+ij'ItItI I D I I I CASE LOS V/C I I F 1.19 1 i I 1 I II D C.83 0.73 II I 1 III C IV C 0.73 I 11 V A 0.56 i/ 11 II W.B. RAMP � 10{ tltl .. -tIt o • - CASE LOS V/C Ill O , I F 1.49 I II E 0.97 1 I ' w III A 0.52 IV A 0.52 I I y V A 0.34 I1 II l Q J 7 II , I I CO. ROAD 18 II , III II I I 0 NEW CONSTRUCTION I I 1 FOR GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENT • • I I I FIGURE 12 III t1t PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE/ COUNTY ROAD 18 AREA I E.B. RAMP TRANSPORTATION PLAN III III* MEM I � ~. I AWN I _ /001 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE 2. ORDINANCE #90- 3. TREE PRESERVATION - APRIL 6, 1990 4. LETTER FROM GEORGE HOFF RE: EDEN PRAIRIE TREE PRESERVATION 5. VALUE OF TREES / FORESTED LAND /ooa MEMORANDUM C TO: City Council FROM: Donald R. Uram, Planner THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: April 6, 1990 SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Ordinance BACKGROUND • On June 20, 1988, a meeting of the Developers' Forum was held to discuss builder suggested revisions to the Tree Preservation Policy. Approximately 15 developer/builders attended this meeting at which a show of hands unanimously supported the following revisions to the Eden Prairie Tree Preservation Policy: 1. That the surety requirements be lowered from 250% to 150% for tree replacement. 2. That flexibility be included in the original computation of tree loss in the area of the proposed building pads recognizing that individual house designs and retaining walls will try to save as many trees as possible. 3. Eliminate the requirement for a 100% replacement of the first 100 caliper inches of tree loss and increase the percent at which 100% tree replacement occurs from 60% to 75%. On September 6, 1988, the City Council, with Bentley motioning and Harris seconding, moved to have the City prepare a Tree Preservation Ordinance that included the revisions suggested by the Developers' Forum (see Attachment A). Staff has been working on the ordinance while at the same time administering the policy for 56 projects. RECENT ACTIVITY A final draft of the Tree Preservation Ordinance was completed by the City Attorney on January 8, 1990. A tentative meeting schedule was set up which would have allowed for the adoption of the Ordinance by February 20, 1990. Prior to a Public Hearing, Staff wanted to extend the courtesy of reviewing the proposed ordinance with representatives from the 1 Developers' Forum. The first meeting between City Staff and 8 representatives from the Developers' Forum was held on January 30, 1990. Initial comments from Developers and City Staff's response are as follows: DEVELOPERS 1. How does the land alteration permit required by the ordinance relate to preliminary plat approval? The ordinance suggests that the City Council would have to hold a separate hearing to approve a land alteration permit. This would add additional time to the development review process. CITY Staff recommends that the ordinance be changed to reflect the approval of a land alteration permit concurrent with the approval of the preliminary plat. This change to the ordinance should occur prior to second reading by the City Council. DEVELOPERS 2. The surety requirement for 150% of the cost of tree replacement is excessive. This figure should be reduced. CITY Historically, surety amounts for landscaping have equalled 150% of the cost of trees. Staff maintains this recommendation considering that a reduction in the surety amount would make any attempt to cash the surety extremely difficult. Staff has experienced problems in the past with trying to cash-in on small surety amounts. DEVELOPERS 3. No specifications were included within the ordinance for transplanting wilding trees. CITY The City Forester developed specifications for transplanting wilding trees with the Red Rock Shores' development proposal. If these specifications are included within the ordinance, Staff is recommending that wilding trees not exceed 25% of all replacement trees. This limit is set due to the relatively low survival rate of transplanted wilding trees (less than 50%). 2 IG�Ju�8 DEVELOPERS :. 4. The ordinance does not allow replacement trees to be planted on individual lots. CITY The ordinance does not preclude tree planting on individual lots, however, it is not recommended as one of the first chosen locations because -of maintenance problems during completion of homes on all of the lots. If the developer chooses to use individual lot plantings, Staff recommends that a maintenance schedule be included as part of the land development responsibility. DEVELOPERS 5. The ordinance does not address the issue of tree preservation. CITY The City ordinance was written specifically for tree preservation purposes. Since the development of the Tree Preservation Policy, there has been a reduction in significant tree loss from approximately 50% to the current average tree loss of approximately 27%. The Tree Preservation Ordinance is "designed to provide an incentive to good site planning by rewarding less tree removal with lower tree replacement." At the January 8th meeting, it was agreed that another meeting would take place within two weeks. The Developers' Forum indicated that they would provide a written response addressing concerns. The Developers were not ready for the follow-up meeting until February 20, 1990. Staff anticipated that the response from the developer's would be directly related to the proposed ordinance, however, a different approach was taken. Rather than making suggestions to improve the proposed ordinance, the Developers' Forum proposed the development of a new ordinance. A summary of their proposal is as follows: 1. A tree inventory would be done as is currently required. 2. Within a single-family residential subdivision, tree replacement would be limited to trees removed within the street right-of-way only. The developer would delineate construction limits and no trees would be replaced if removed within the construction zone. Trees removed outside of that zone would be charged to the developer at $100 per caliper inch. 3 ioo C 3. There would be a requirement for one, 3" tree to be planted on an newly subdivided lots. 4. Total tree replacement would be based on tree loss within the road right-of-way or one, 3" tree per lot, whichever is greater. 5. Tree replacement would not be required for commercial, industrial, or multiple family projects. 6. The ordinance should include flexibility in plan design to save trees. This would include such things as cul- de-sacs longer than 500 feet, flag lots, and the possibility of using an 8 to 10 percent street grade. 7. The surety amount would equal 125% of the cost of trees requiring replacement. After all replacement trees have been planted, the surety amount would be reduced to 40%. 8. After the final tree replacement inspection has occurred, all dead or diseased trees would be replaced and the surety released. A comparison of the current Tree Preservation Policy and the Developers' proposal for replacement of either tree loss within the road right-of-way or one, 3" tree per lot follows: The City has currently reviewed 56 development proposals requiring tree replacement, 11 of these have required 100% replacement (see Attachment B) . The 45 projects that have not required 100% replacement have averaged a 26.9% tree removal. The average replacement per project has been 303 caliper inches for a total of 10.254 caliper inches. Since the development of the policy, 29 projects have provided 150% surety for tree replacement. The surety amounts range from a minimum of $1,064 to a maximum of $125,250. The average surety amount is $26,469. Based upon an average project size of 32 lots, and an average cost per caliper inch of $59.29, the average cost per lot for tree replacement has been $623.22. The developers have proposed tree replacement within the road right-of-way or one, 3" tree per lot, whichever is the greater. Considering that the right-of-way is approximately 25% of the area that the City reviews in regards to tree loss, a total replacement of 2,566 caliper inches would be required. Using one, 3" tree per lot, a total of 2.787 caliper inches would be required to be replaced. Based on these figures, the average surety amount would be approximately $7,000.00. The difference between what the Developers' Forum representatives are proposing and the City's current policy is a 75% reduction in both tree replacement and surety amounts. 4 IJU'U In addition, Mr. George Hoff, attorney, has submitted a revised ordinance following the same format as the City's but has changed it to one "which puts an emphasis on appropriate design within the zoning classification instead of a punitive measure for those property owners with wooded parcels" (see Attachment C). In his letter, Mr. Hoff states that "the City's proposal is overreaching," "the imposition of the tree regulations could well constitute a taking of the property," and "the proposal by the City does not seem to provide incentive for the tree preservation they espouse." The highlights of this revised ordinance are: 1. Tree replacement and the tree replacement formula have been eliminated. 2. The tree preservation ordinance requires that for each new lot created, the developer plant one 3" tree. The Developers' Forum and Mr. Hoff have chosen not to respond to the proposed Eden Prairie Tree Preservation Ordinance but to develop a set of ideas for a new tree preservation ordinance. These ideas would have the effect of either reducing the amount of tree replacement by approximately 75% (Developers' Forum) or eliminating tree replacement altogether as suggested by Mr. Hoff. CONCLUSION The City's experience with the Tree Preservation Policy includes: 1. Under the direction of the City Council, the Tree Preservation Policy was developed as an objective method to review all development proposals. Because a set of quantifiable standards have been written, it allows the City the opportunity to review all development proposals on an equal basis. 2. Tree replacement continues to be a choice a developer has when designing subdivisions. If the developer chooses not to replace trees, alternatives exist. These alternatives include a reduction of the density of the site plan resulting in less tree removal, alternative site plans or land uses, and alternative zoning districts such as the R1-44 Zoning District. This district is designed specifically to "reserve appropriately located areas for single family living on large lots where vegetation, slopes, water bodies, or other significant natural features are best reserved through large lot development." This zoning district has yet to be used as an alternative to tree replacement. 5 3. The Tree Preservation Ordinance is designed to provide an incentive to good site planning by rewarding lower tree removal with less tree replacement. Since the adoption of the policy in 1986, a reduction in significant tree loss within single family residential development proposals from approximately 50 percent to a current average of approximately 27 percent has occurred. Over 50 projects have been reviewed utilizing the Tree Policy. 4. The Tree Preservation Ordinance requires a tree inventory. This inventory is used in the design of the subdivision and has worked well in preserving trees. The Developer's Forum has also agreed that the tree inventory is an essential item regarding the design of development proposals. The Tree Preservation Policy was adopted by the City Council because trees are a disappearing natural resource. Efforts toward tree preservation during development were not as good as they could be and because of the Tree Preservation Policy, have gotten better. Beginning with the tree policy; local involvement from individual developers and the Developer's Forum, the City has gained broad and extensive experience with more than fifty development projects. The City's experience from these projects is a 30% increase in tree preservation. Staff recommends that the Tree Preservation • Ordinance be adopted with any revisions directed by the City Council to be made prior to second reading. TREEORD.DRU:mmr 1 6 ORDINANCE NO. 17-90 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.55 BY AMENDING THE TITLE THEREOF AND SUBDS. 1, 2, 3 AND 5 THEREOF RELATING TO LAND ALTERATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION REGULATIONS; AND AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 12.04, SUBD. 5. C. RELATING TO APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISIONS; AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTIONS 11.99 and 12.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 1. is amended by amending the title thereof and amending Subd. 1 to read as follows: "SEC. 11.55. MINING OPERATION, LAND ALTERATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION REGULATIONS. Subd. 1. Declaration of Policy and Purpose. A. Commercial mining and land alterations are now being and for some time have been conducted in certain places in the City. Such acts are inherently accompanied by noise and dust, often create hazardous conditions and result in lasting disfigurement of the places where they are carried on and thus tend to inter- fere with the existing land uses in nearby areas, to discourage further permanent development of the surrounding properties, to impair adequate planning or municipal development, and to dimi- nish the public health, safety and general welfare. It is, therefore, desirable to regulate both existing operations and any further extension of such mining operations and land alterations in the City. • B. It is hereby found that tree removal, damage, and destruction are now, and for some time have been, occurring in certain areas within the City. Such acts tend to endanger the natural character of the land from which the trees have been removed and surrounding lands, and to diminish and impair the public health, safety, and general welfare. The Council desires to protect the integrity of the natural environment and finds that trees do so by providing for better air quality, scenic beauty, protection against wind and water erosion, and natural insulation for energy preservation. Further, the Council finds that trees protect privacy and provide enhancement of property values. It is therefore the further purpose of this Section to provide regulations relating to the cutting, removal or killing of trees, with the consequent damage and destruction of the wooded and forested areas of the the City, to promote the orderly development of such areas and thereby minimize public and private losses; to insure maintenance of the natural vegetation and 1 ATTACHMENT A Ioo topography; to encourage protection and preservation of the natural environment and beauty of the City; to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to urban development of wooded areas which provides for minimal tree loss and mitigation of tree removal resulting from development; to provide an objective method to evaluate a development's impact on trees and wooded areas and identify whether and how the impact may be reduced; to provide incentive for creative land use and good site design which preserves trees while allowing development in wooded areas with mitigation of tree removal and destruction; and to provide for enforcement and administration thereby promoting and pro- tecting the public health, safety and welfare." Section 2. City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 2. is amended to read as follows: "Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Caliper Inches" - The length of a straight line measured through the trunk of a tree 12 inches above the ground. B. "Canopy of a Tree" - The horizontal extension of a tree's branches in all directions from its trunk. C. "Drip Line of a Tree" - An imaginary vertical line which extends from the outermost branches of a tree's canopy to the ground. D. "Developer" - The owner of the land or person who is the applicant for alteration of the land. E. "Diameter" - Wherever this term is used in reference to the measurement of a tree it shall mean a tree's trunk as measured 4.5 feet above the ground. F. "Impounded Waters" - Any water kept on public or private property within the City in such a manner that more than 500 gallons of water are above the natural surface of the surrounding ground. The word "water" or "waters" as used in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to include any and all liquid substances. G. "Land" or "Parcel of Land" shall mean and include an entire lot as defined in Section 11.02 of the Code on or within the boundaries of which land alteration has occurred, or is to occur. H. "Land Alteration" - Any excavating, grading, clearing, filling or other earth change which may result in the movement of more than 100 cubic yards of earth, or any alteration of land of more than one foot from the natural contour of the ground on any 2 IUU�� contiguous 200 square feet of ground, any cutting, removal or killing of more than 10% of the significant trees on any land within a period of five years, or any destruction or disruption of vegetation covering an area equal to or greater than 10% of any parcel of land, or any other significant change in the natural character of the land. I. "Mining Operations" - Any artificial excavation of the earth within the limits of the City operated for the commercial exploitation of earthly deposits removed therefrom and creating a depression or depressions exceeding in any one place 200 square feet of surface area, the bottom or lowest point of which shall be 2 feet or more below or lower than the level of the adjoining unexcavated land. J. "Root Zone of a Tree" - The area under a tree which is at and within the drip line of a tree's canopy. K. "Significant Tree" - Any deciduous hardwood tree (except Elm, Willow, Boxelder, and Aspen) measuring 12 inches in diameter or greater, or a coniferous tree measuring 8 inches in diameter or greater. L. "Tree Trunk" - The stem portion of a tree from the ground to the first branch thereof. Any term used in this Section and not defined in this Section shall have the meaning as otherwise defined in the Code." Section 3. City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 3 is amended to read as follows: "Subd. 3. Permit Required. It is unlawful for any person to use land for, or to engage directly or indirectly in, land alteration or mining operations unless such person shall first have applied to and obtained from the Council, in the manner hereinafter provided, a permit authorizing the same, provided, however, that no permit shall be required by any person making any excavation in conjunction with a building (i) for which there has been issued an appropriate building permit, and (ii) which is to be constructed (a) upon land for which a permit for land alteration under this Section has previously been issued, and (b) in accordance with such permit." Section 4. City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 5 is amended to read as follows: "Subd. 5. Application For Land Alteration Permit, Fees, Council Action, Bond yi A. Form of Application. Application for a permit for land alteration shall be made in writing to the Council. The applica- 3 tion shall set forth the location and plan for the proposed land alteration. The application shall also include: 1. The name and address of the person applying for the permit. 2. The name and address of the owner of the land subject to the land alteration. 3. The estimated period of time within which the land alteration will be conducted. 4. A topographic map of the land on which the proposed land alteration is to occur having a scale of one inch equals 50 feet and showing ground elevation contours at 2 foot intervals. The map shall show: (a) The land as it exists prior to the proposed land alteration and a minimum of 100 feet of land abutting the land. (b) The proposed ground elevation contours at 2 foot intervals of the land when the land alteration is completed. (c) A regrading, drainage, and planting plan, if appropriate for the land. (d) The location and size of building pads. 5. A statement relating to the proposed use of the land including the type of building or structure situated thereon or contemplated to be built thereon. 6. A tree inventory certified by a registered land surveyor, landscape architect or forester depicting: (a) The size, species, condition, and location on the land of all significant trees. On large wooded sites, forest mensuration methods may be used to determine the total diameter inches of trees outside the area of the proposed land alteration. (b) Significant trees which will be lost due to the proposed land alteration. Significant trees shall be considered lost as a result of: (i) grade change or land alteration, whether temporary or permanent, of greater than one (1) foot measured vertically, affecting 60% (as measured on a horizontal plane) or more of the tree's root zone; (ii) utility construction (i.e. sewer, water, storm sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV) resulting in the cutting of 60% or more of the tree's roots within the root zone; (iii) mechanical injury to the trunk 4 low.3- of a significant tree causing loss of more than 40% of the bark; or, (iv) compaction to a depth of 6 inches or more of 60% or more of the surface of the soil within a significant tree's root zone. (c) The number, type and size of trees required to be replaced pursuant to this Section. (d) The location of the replacement trees. B. Permit Fees for Land Alterations. A fee in an amount determined by the Council and fixed by resolution must be paid at the time of making the application. In the event the application for a permit is denied, the fee shall be returned to the appli- cant. C. Council Action on a Land Alteration Permit Application. Within a reasonable time after receipt of an application that conforms with the requirements of this Subdivision and payment of the application fee, the Council shall approve or deny issuance of a permit. The Council may approve the permit subject to con- ditions stated on the face of the permit, and in all cases, the time period within which the land alterations are to be completed shall be stated on the face of the permit. Approval, denial, or approval subject to conditions of a permit shall be based upon the following factors: 1. Whether, and the extent to which, the land alterations �. may create any safety risks to surrounding persons or property or exacerbate any existing risk. 2. Whether, and the extent to which, the land alterations may cause any harm to the environment including, but not limited to, noise, dust, erosion, undue destruction of vegetation, and accumulation of waste materials and pollutants. 3. Whether the physical characteristics of the land, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, suscep- tibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage or retention, are such that the land is not suitable for alteration or the use contemplated. 4. Whether the land alteration or proposed use is likely to cause substantial environmental damage. 5. Whether the land alteration or the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public. 6. Whether adequate plans have been made for restoring the land upon completion of the land alteration. 5 7. Whether there is a substantial likelihood that the applicant will be able to comply with the rules and regulations of Subd. 7 of this Section. 8. Whether the land proposed for the land alteration is zoned for the use to which the land shall be put after the land alteration is completed. 9. Approval or the issuance, of a permit for land alteration shall be further subject to and conditioned upon compliance by the Developer with the following: (a) Developer Required to Replace Lost Trees. A Developer shall replace significant live trees lost or reasonably anticipated to be lost as a result of grading, building upon, or any other land alteration of, the land immediately or in the future, by the Developer, his agent, successor in interest, or any other person to whom or by whom all or any part of the land may be sold, graded, built upon, or altered by planting that number of trees ("replacement trees") determined in accordance with the following formula: A = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees Lost as a Result of the Land Alteration B = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees Situated on the Land. C = Tree Replacement Constant (1.33) D = Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches) ( (A/B) x C ) X A = D EXAMPLE A = 337 B = 943 l C = 1.33 D = 160 ( (337/943) x 1.33 ) x 337 = 160 1 q�{ (b) Location of Replacement Trees. Replacement trees shall be planted in one or more of the following areas on the land: 1. Restoration areas including steep slopes. 2. Outlots or common areas. 3. Puffer zones between different land uses and/or activities. 6 IWaL • 4. Project entrance areas. (c) Sizes and Types of Replacement Trees. Replacement trees must be no less than the following sizes: 1. Deciduous Trees - No less than three caliper inches. 2. Coniferous Trees - No less than 7' high. On steep slopes (i.e. greater than 3:1) deciduous trees may be 2} caliper inches and coniferous trees may be 6 feet in height. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed and shall include those species shown on the following table: Deciduous Trees Norway Maple - Acer platanoides cultivars - 'Cleveland' Red Maple - Acer rubrum cultivars - 'Northwood', 'Firedance' Silver Queen Maple (seedless) - Acer saccharinum 'Silver Queen' Sugar Maple - Acer saccharum cultivars - 'Green Mountain' River Birch - Betula nigra Hackberry - Celtis occidentalis Green Ash - Fraximus pennsylvanica cultivars - 'Kindred', 'Newport', 'Bergeson', 'Marshall's Seedless', 'Patmore', 'Summit' Ginkgo - Ginkgo biloba (male only) Honeylocust - Glenditsia tricanthos inermis Kentucky Coffeetree - Gymnocladus dioicus Ironwood - Ostrya virginiana Robusta Poplar - Poplus x Robusta Siouxland Cottonwood - Poplus detoides x Siouxland White Oak - Quercus alba Swamp White Oak - Quercus bicolor Pin Oak - Quereus palustris Northern Red Oak - Quercus rubra American Linden - Tilia americana Littleleaf Linden - Tilia cordata cultivars - 'Glenleven', 'Greenapire' Redmond Linden - Tilia americana 'Redmond' Coniferous Trees Balsam Fir - Abies balsamea White Fir - Abies concolor 7 European Larch - Larix decidua Black Hills Spruce - Picea glauca 'Densata' Austrian Pine - Pinus nigra Ponderosa Pine - Pinus ponderosa Norway Pine - Pinus resinosa Scotch Pine - Pinus sylvestris White Pine - Pinus strobus Douglas Fir - Pseudotsuga menziesii Canadian Hemlock - Tsuga canadensis Colorado Spruce - Picea pungens (d) Time to Perform. Replacement trees shall be planted not less than 18 months from the date of issuance of the permit. (e) Dead or Unhealthy Trees. Any replacement tree which is not alive or healthy one (1) year after the date that the last replacement tree has been planted shall be removed and a new healthy tree of the same size and species shall be planted in place of the removed tree. A new healthy tree of the same size and species shall be planted in place of any replacement tree missing one (1) year after such date. Planting shall occur not later than the first fall or spring following such year. Trees planted in place of removed trees shall consist of "certified nursery stock" as defined by Minnesota Statutes, S18.46. (f) Agreement to Replace Trees-Security. A Developer shall, prior to the approval of, or issuance of a permit for, any land alteration in connection with which trees are required to be replaced by the provisions of this Section enter into such writ- ten agreement or agreements with the City in such form and in such substance as shall be approved by the City Manager whereby the Developer shall undertake to comply with the provisions and conditions imposed by this Section or in connection with any such approval or issuance of a permit and shall provide security for the performance of its obligations to comply with such provisions and conditions. The security may consist of a bond, letter of credit, cash or escrow deposit, all in such form and substance as shall be approved by the City Manager. The amount of security shall be 150% of the estimated cost to furnish and plant the replacement trees ("estimated cost"). The estimated cost shall be at least as much as the reasonable amount charged by nurseries for the furnishing and planting of the replacement trees. The estimated cost shall be subject to approval by the City. In the event the estimated cost submitted by the Developer to the City is not approved by the City the City shall have the right in its sole discretion to determine the estimated cost. • 10oaf\1 The security shall be maintained at least for one (1) year after the date that the last replacement tree has been planted. Upon a showing by the Developer and such inspection as may be made by the City, that portion of the security may be released by the City equal to the estimated cost of the trees replaced and which are alive and healthy at the end of such year. Any portion of the security not entitled to be released at the end of such year shall be maintained and shall secure the Developer's obliga- tion to remove and replant replacement trees which are not alive or are unhealthy at the end of such year. Upon completion of the replanting of such trees the entire security may be released. D. Duty to Obtain Bond or Letter of Credit Prior to Issuance of Land Alteration Permit. The Council may make its approval of the issuance of a land alteration permit contingent upon applicant posting a bond or letter of credit in addition to the security for replacement of trees of not less than $25,000.00 in such form and amount as the Council shall determine within ten (10) days of said approval and prior to commencement of any land alteration." Section 5. City Code Section 12.04, Subd. 5. C. is amended to read as follows: "C. No plan will be approved for a subdivision - (i) which covers an area subject to soil erosion or periodic flooding, or which has poor drainage, unless the subdivider agrees to make improvements which will, in the opinion of the City Engineer, make the area safe for occupancy, and provide ade- quate street and lot drainage, (ii) unless there has been compliance with Section 11.55 of the Code, or (iii) if the Council makes any of the following findings: (1) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with applicable general and specific plans, including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and zoning regulations. (2) That the design or improvement of the pro- posed subdivision is in conflict with applicable development plans. (3) That the physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. (4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (5) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmen- tal damage. 9 10010 (6) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. (7) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements on record or to easements established by judgment of a court." Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Sections 11.99 and 12.99 are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated ver- batim herein. Section 7. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1990, and finally read and adopted andordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1990. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1990. 10 ,00a P TREE PRESERVATION-APRIL 6.1990 100%REPLACE 45 75%REMOVAL TOTAL CAL.IN. CAL.IN. % %REPLACED PROJECT CAL.IN. REMOVED %OF TOTAL REPLACED REMOVED OF TOTAL ( 1 ALPINE ESTATES t.253 222 t7.9% W 23e% 1.2% 2 AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE 4,027 1,163 36.1% 667 4.0% 17.3% 3 BAYPOINTII 092 268 27.0% 96 35.8% 9.7% 4 BELL OMB 20.383 4,04 20.0% 1,078 26.5% 6.3% 5 BLOSSOM RIDGE 238 III 48.2% 76 4A%L, 32.1% 6 BLOSSOM RIDGE 2ND 1.478 624 35.510 247 47.2% 18,7% 7 BLUESTEMMILLS 1,400 320 21.8% 92 21.1% 6.2% BLUFF'S EAST 6TH 348 226 64.7% 193 60.0% 55.8% 8 BLUFF'S EAST6TH 657 276 42.0% 154 559% 23.5% ID BLUFF'S EAST 7714 263 67 33.1% 36 KO% 14.6% I I BLUFF'S WEST 7714 7.072 2171 222% 315 37.6%1 10.6% ID BLUFF'S WEST 8TH' . 701 239 34.1% 106 46.3% 15.5% 13 BRYANT POINTE 5,058 2036 10.1% 1,064 63.3% 21.3% 14 BOULDER POINT TOWNHOMES 354 120 33.9% 64 46.1% 16.3% I6 BURNETT ADDITION 1.213 387 30.3% 148 40.2% 12.2% I1 CARDINAL RIDGE 11352 3,775 33,3% 1,670 44.2% 14.7% 17 CHEYENNE PLACE 4,45 856 16.5% 211 24.0% 4.5% 15 COUNTRY GLEN 2ND 690 332 56.3% 24 74.8% 42.1% 19 OEER CREEK 2ND 915 97 10.8% 14 14.1% 1,5% 20 EDEN CREEK 792 210 24.5% 74 353% 8.4% 21 EDENVALE2,ST 578 132 22.9% 40 30.5% 7.0% 22 EDEN PLACE CENTER 465 205 4.1% 120 50.6% 25.8% 23 ELIM HOME, 372 226 00.0% 183 50.8% 48.1% 24 FAIRFIELD(PHASE 1) 2.935 799 27.2% 259 38.2% 8.8% 25 FARM 2ND ADDITION 1,263 30 29% 1 3.0% O.1% ' 26 JAMESTOWN 8,086 1,820 22.5% 46 29.9% 6.7% 27 MINNESOTA VIKINGS 1320 502 37.9% 253 50A% 18.1% 26 MOORHEAD ADDITION 359 123 34.3% 64 45.0% 15,6% 29 NELSON ADDITION 297 W 33.3% 4 4.3% 14.0% 30 RED ROCK RANCH 8,656 2.625 33.0% 1,241 43.9% 14.5% 31 RED ROCK SHORES 3,110 717 23.1% 220 30.7% 7.1% 32 ROUND LAKE VIEW 561 96 16.7% 21 22.2% 3.7% 33SANDY POINTE 64 98 16.7% 21 22.2% 3.7% 34 SHADY OM RIDGE 2ND 089 409 41.4% 302 64.6% 31,2% 35 SHORES OF MITCHELL LAKE 694 1,052 220% 318 29.3% 6.4% • ( 36 STARRING LAKE 2ND 380 14 37.9% 73 606% 18.1% • 37 STARRWOOD 1,139 421 37.0% 207 46.2% 18.2% . 30 TECH PARK 7TH 1,64 48 31.2% 203 41.5% 12.9% . 39 TIMBER BLUFF'S 12,34 2,015 14.4% 430 21.0% 3.8% 40 TIMBER CREEK NORTH 3,207 390 122% 83 16.2%` 2.0% 41 TOPVIEW ACRES6TH 1,074 135 12.8% 23 11.7% 2.1% 42 WESTDN BAY 1.529 303 23.6% 113 31.3% 7.4% 43 WYNDHAM CREST ' 5,176 1,41 31.9% 700 42.4% 13.5% 4 WYNDHAM NOB 2ND 2.125 582 47.4% 212 36.4% 10.0% 45 ZACHMAN BROS.2ND 256 157_ 01.3% 57 36.3% 22.3% TOTALS 127,591 33.338 12087 AVERAGE(PER PROJECT) 2,635.4 740.0 26.1%1 286.61 30.7% 10.1% PROJECT(100%REPLACEMENT 1 ALPINE CENTER 92 02 100.0% 92 100.0% 1000% 2 CARMEL5TH61TH 42 42 100.0% 3 GLENSHIRE 346 315 100.0% 344 100.0% 100.0% 4 INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL W 99 1000% 5 LARIAT CENTER 62 62 100.0% 62 100.0% 100.0% 6 PRESERVE SOUTH 257 257+ 100.0% 257 100.0% 100.0% 7 SCHROER'S PUD 4 4 100.0% 64 100.0% 100.0% .8 TREE FARM 430 i _ 6 WELTER'S PURGATORY ACRES 396 390 100.0% 396 100.0% 100.0% ; 10 WOODLAND PONDS 40 540 100.0% 540 100.0% 100.0% I I WYNDHAM NOB 120 120 100.011 120 100.0% 100.0% -1 TOTALS 174 2371 MW5 l . ATTACHMENT B PROJECT COMPARISON CAL.IN. TOTAL BOND B0ND AMOUNTS REPLACED COST AMOUNT COST PER CAL.IN. COST PER COST PER 1 ALPINE ESTATES LOTS ACRES CAL.IN PER LOT L0f 54 22200 $5A00 IN 6.36 $66.67 ACRE 2 BELL 0N(S(PHASE I) 532 S14,033 $21,OS0336 949176 I630.e2 3 BLOSSOM RIDGE 30 26.55 $26.39 17J3 5447.A 67 26.200 $9.3W 5 3.1 m6.56 BLOSSOM II 247 612.709 f19.050 14 s92.54 13,a0 s1.2a0.00 3t000.00 5 BLUESTER RIDGEHILLS 6.32 351.42 17.64 s907.14 $2.069.49 6 BLUESTEM HILLS STH 17e 66.000 59.000 64 31.6 533.71 42 52.333 a3.500 2.10 195.75 $161.67 7 BLUFF'S EAST 6TH 2.60 at5000 a 13.650 f'A.47S tb 12.e3 SSS.66 6161.67 1W 13 e BLUFF'999E677TM 466 660.00 16.62 21,050.00 51.96A6 6 BOULDER POINTE ,63 f9.760 514,670 II a.66 S60.W la.e2 655 $21.333 $32.000 370579.57 62.096.$4121 5 10 BRYANT POINTE 52 530.43 9..57 6676.57. ,670.52 II CARDINAL RIDGE 12e 553.000 025,290' 37 20.71 53924 57.5, $1.951.76 52.014.52 12 CARMEL 6THa7TH 2120 $93,600 a125.250 37 23.1 536.2a 42 92.400, $3.20057.51 A.250.72 $$147.60 13 CHEYENNE PUCE 27 16.27 557.1a 1.76 56e.66 2t1 512.686 f19.000 7e 3627 St47.60 • H DEER CREEK 240 b60.03 276 St6e.66 $570.96 IS DEENYALE 2/ST 97 s5.000 67.600 31 16.5 151.55 112 $3.900 56.650 6,22 2327,79 3473..1 16 FAIRFIELO IFWASE I) 16 7.30 600,35 4.22 5327.7e t7 GLEHaHIRE 2e6 229.000 $u.5oo 6e 30 $odas .. $eo3.a1 345 217,100 $25,950 45 13.9 27 5380.00 s2e6.67 10 SHADY OM RIDGE 2ND S97.07 7.67 53e0.00 $1.23032 IS STARRING LAKE 2ND 576 $33.333 650.000 27 10.1 s57.67 21.33 21.234,56 21.745.18 9 6709 61,064 1 ' 20 STARRW000 3 25 576.12 6.1M $56,14 656A6 21 TIMBER CREEK NORTH A7 �}••� $7t600 43 25 272,2 601 156 s11.530 570.000 40 $A ILA $e56d6 22 TOPVIEW ACRES 23 St.665 $2.500 �'3.7 a7239 3.93 6277.50 6150..00 23 WELTER'S PURGATORY ACRES 6 533.7 $72.39 4.63 62TT.50 $516.00 24 WESTON BAY 398 627.3H flt.0t9 96 � 201 520,000 230,000 1M.50 24.33 $433$284.32 f445.49 25 WOODLAND PONDS49 V.6 $90,00 1.02 6651.0 51.6et.00 38.WYNOHMI CREST 540 $32.a0p 566.600 a9 26 $60.00 11.02 921 $46.000 $69,000 6540.22 51.620.00 27 WYNDLW7A NOB 25 27.7 3955 36N $1.640,00 51,660.65 120 64.530 56.945 14 2e WYNDHAM NOB 2N0 212 $9.210 913.616 2'w $43.64 6.17 $33071 6334.60 29 ZACHIAAN BROS.2N0 16 27.52 $64.00 3.17 6224.63 $729.00 a3.ae ss.47z 16 s $6aa9' TOTALS 10,254 $510,421 6767,610 6..2 i2�.06 a72229 026 seta u,7ts.e7 352.2 u6.o73.2eI 660,226.2p AVERAGE(PER PROJECT) 353.e 617,631 EL2:3 32.0 20.1 636.26 121I 6623.22, 61,062.29 ' • 'Qua R LAW OFFICES HOFF & ALLEN 300 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE _;ORGE C HOFF' SUITE 250 TED A.ALLEN EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55344-5381 RED WING OFFICE THOMAS G.BARRY,JR. MN WATS 14300-247.3002 120 BROAD STREET PATRICIA E.KUDERER FAX NUMBER(612)941-7968 RED WING,MN 55066 JORUN GROB MEIERDING (612)941-9220 (612)388-3867 PAULA A CALLIFS *also admitted in Wisconsin March 16, 1990 • Eden Prairie Developers' Forum c/o Bill Gilk 6680 Shady Oak Road Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344 Re: Eden Prairie Tree Policy Our File No: 2826-001 Gentlemen: { Please find enclosed with this letter a modification of Eden Prairie's proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance. What I have done is make changes to the Eden Prairie proposal and kept it in the •- same form. The deletions are shown by strike outs and additions by underlining. For your meeting with City officials next Tuesday, you may want to have a "clean" copy which would not show the strikeouts and underlining. If so, just let us know before your meeting. Over all, the change in the Ordinance is one which puts an emphasis on appropriate design within the zoning classification instead of a punitive measure for those property owners with wooded parcels. The preamble language found at Subd. 1.8 has been altered substantially to shift the emphasis to prohibition of "unnecessary" destruction of vegetation. The major regulatory changes are the following: 1. That the issuance of a permit is conditioned upon the developer demonstrating that the land alteration proposed destroys the fewest trees possible for the type of zoning allowed. 2. Regardless of the appropriateness of design, the developer will have to plant one new 3" diameter tree for each lot, regardless of destruction of existing vegetation. 1009s5 ATTACHMENT C Eden Prairie Developers' Forum c/o. Bill Gilk March 16, 1990 Page Two 3. That the City is given 90 days within which to approve or deny a permit. If the permit is not acted upon within that time it shall be deemed approved. 4. That the determination on the issuance of the permit may be subject to whether or not substantial environmental or "general welfare" damage is going to be done, however, allowed use under the current zoning must be taken into account. 5. That a permit for land alteration and a subdivision may be denied in the event that maximum tree preservation through appropriate design is not achieved, taking into account the density of development allowed by guiding and zoning of the property. I feel the foregoing changes are appropriate and in keeping with the City's authority to regulate the cutting of trees. Eden Prairie is a Statutory City and thus all authorization for its regulations must have a statutory basis. In my view, regardless of what the City calls their ordinance, it is in effect a form of subdivision regulation. Minnesota cities are authorized to adopt subdivision regulations by Minn. Stat. §462.358. That Statute grants broad ranging authority to the City to mandate design requirements which are appropriate for the community. It also contains specific statutory authorization for the dedication of parks (or fees in lieu thereof), streets, storm sewers and other public necessities. There is no statutory authorization which would allow a city to require that a developer plant a tree for each tree (or portion thereof) removed as part of a lawful development permitted by the property's zoning. Consequently, absent express statutory authorization, the City's proposal is overreaching. Thus, the redraft which we have done utilizes the City's design review authority. While in my view not necessary, the offer of planting a 3" tree is an appropriate compromise measure. Additionally, for those property owners with heavily wooded parcels, the imposition of the tree regulations could well constitute a taking of property. The Minnesota Supreme Court in the case of Pratt vs. State. Department of Natural Resources, 309 N.W.2d 767 (1981) , stated: "...but where the regulation is for the benefit of a governmental enterprise, where a few individuals must bear the burden for a public use, then a taking occurs." Id. at 773. ioaz l 1 Eden Prairie Developers' Forum c/o.. Bill Gilk March 16, 1990 Page Three When this standard is applied, a taking will occur when there has been a substantial and measurable decline in market value as a result of the regulation, as opposed to the property owner having to show a denial of all reasonable use. /g.; McShane vs. City of 7'aribault, 292 N.W.2d 253 (Minn. 1980). Under the City's' proposed ordinance, the statement 'of purpose indicates that the prohibition against the removal of trees on private property is for a specific "public enterprise," preservation of a park like setting for the City as a whole. The substantial diminution in value of properties would be shown by the property owner's increased cost of developing the property for lawful purposes in the manner allowed by its zoning. Finally, the proposal by the City does not seem to provide incentive for the tree preservation they espouse. The developer, not a home builder, is required to post appropriate financial security for the destruction of trees by those who build homes. What this means, of course, is that a home builder can go in and destroy trees without consideration of the replacement cost because it is being borne by the developer. Obviously, mature, large trees cannot be replaced. If the City is indeed concerned about preservation of existing mature stands of trees, they should provide equal incentive to all persons who may have to remove trees as part of their development activity. I hope that the foregoing is information useful to you. Sincerely, • Geoige C. Hoff HOFF & ALLEN GCH:lp . Enclosure ORDINANCE NO. 89- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.55 BY AMENDING THE TITLE THEREOF AND SURDS. 1, 2, 3 AND 5 THEREOF RELATING TO LAND ALTERATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION REGULATIONS; AND AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 12.04, SUED. 5. C. RELATING TO APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISIONS; AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTIONS 11.99 and 12.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 1. is amended by amending the title thereof and amending Subd. 1 to read as follows: "SEC. 11.55. MINING .OPERLTION, LAND ALTERATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION REGULATIONS. Subd. 1. Declaration of Policy and Purpose. A. Commercial mining and land alterations are now being and for some time have been conducted in certain places in the City. Such acts are inherently accompanied by noise and dust, often create hazardous conditions and result in lasting disfigurement of the places where they are carried on and thus tend to interfere with the existing land uses in nearby areas, to discourage further permanent development of the surrounding properties, to impair adequate planning or municipal development, and to diminish the public health, safety and general welfare. It is, therefore, desirable to regulate both existing operations and any further extension of such mining operations and land alterations in the City. • B. It is hereby found that tree removal, damage, and destruction arc now, and for °one time have been, occurring in natural e haraete�.a e€ the }and €rem--»:�ie}t tie—trees Have beep► removed and curreundieg-landej—and to diminish and impair the te-public Health, sa€ety, and-general wel€are The - '' rg i'_e the atura1 ment and fin th t trees dose r 7 ate 'ems' n, nd• natural insulation for energy pre&e vatien, Further, the Ceanei} €finds that Tees protect privacy and previdc enhaneemeat of property valued. It is therefore the €erther purpecc of this Section to provide regal-atiens-r with--the—eensegdent-Damage and dcctruet e€ the •-�. €erest-ed-a , of su eh ,r nd thereby-minimise--pub}fie-and--private insure -*- f t;e natu eneeurage protcotie _t; n _f th mcnt appreaeh ur-ban-develepi en-t-e€ wooded areas which provides for minimal tree loos -and mitigation of tree removal rcculting from 1 I OU2\) 3 development, to provide an objcotive method to evaluate a develepmenta-s impact n t- o and-„ dod d :dent y whether •wacvvrcc�acrr csc cr and how the impact may be reduced; to provide incentive for dccign which preserves trees while a-1-1-ew-ing-development in wooded areas with mitigation of tree removal and destruction, and to provide for enforcement and a'- et=rat i on thereby promoting- - a oteot - the ub : heal�� cafcty and welfare," It is hereby found that tree removal, damage, and destruction are now, and have been occurring within the City. The City recognizes, however, that some of the destruction has been as a natural and necessary part of the City's continued development for residential and commercial purposes and necessary public services and conveniences to serve the residents of the City. The Council finds that the preservation of existing trees is a benefit to public health, safety and welfare by providing a variety of economic, aesthetic and environmental benefits, including reduction of air pollution, soil stabilization, scenic beauty and enhancement of property values. The random and unnecessary cutting of natural vegetation unrelated to the orderly commercial and residential development of the City undermines the public health, safety and welfare and does not enhance the continued growth of the City. It is therefore the purpose of this section to provide regulations which will minimize unnecessary cutting of existing vegetation. to encourage protection and preservation of the natural environment and the resourceful and prudent approach to urban development of wooded areas. Section 2. City Code Section 11.55 Subd. 2, is amended to read as follows: "Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Caliper Inches" - The length of a straight line measured through the trunk of a tree 12 inches above the ground. B. "Canopy of a Tree" - The horizontal extension of a tree's branches in all directions from its trunk. C. "Drip Line of a Tree" - An imaginary vertical line which extends from the outermost branches of a tree's canopy to the ground. D. "Developer" - The owner of the land or person who is the applicant for alteration of the land. E. "Diameter" - Wherever this term is used in reference to the measurement of a tree it shall mean a tree's trunk as measured 4.5 feet above the ground. F. "Impounded Waters" - Any water kept on public or private property within the City in such a manner that more than 500 gallons of water are above the natural surface of the surrounding 2 IU02W ground. The word "water" or "waters" as used in the preceding sentence shall be deemed to include any and all liquid substances. G. "Land" or "Parcel of Land" shall mean and include an entire lot as defined in Section 11.02 of the Code on or within the • boundaries of which land alteration has occurred, or is to occur. H. "Land Alteration" - Any excavating, grading, clearing, filling or other earth change which may result in the movement of more than 100 cubic yards of earth, or any alteration of land of more than one foot from the natural contour of the ground on any contiguous 200 square feet of ground, any cutting, removal or killing of more than 10 20% of the significant trees on any land within a period of live two years, or any destruction or disruption of vegetation covering an area equal to or greater than 10% of any parcel of land, or any other significant change in the natural character of the land. I. "Mining Operations" - Any artificial excavation of the earth within the limits of the City operated for the commercial exploitation of earthly deposits removed therefrom and creating a depression or depressions exceeding in any one place 200 square feet of surface area, the bottom or lowest point of which shall be 2 feet or more below or lower than the level of the adjoining unexcavated land. J. "Root Zone of a Tree" - The area under a tree which is at and within the drip line of a tree's canopy. K. "Significant Tree" - Any deciduous hardwood tree measuring 12 inches in diameter or greater, or a coniferous tree measuring 8 inches in diameter or greater, which is healthy, not damaged or diseased. L. "Tree Trunk" - The stem portion of a tree from the ground to the first branch thereof. Any term used in this Section and not defined in this Section shall have the meaning as otherwise defined in the Code." Section 3. City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 3 is amended to read as follows: "Subd. 3. Permit Required. It is unlawful for any person to use land for, or to engage directly or indirectly in, land alteration or mining operations unless such person shall first have applied to and obtained from the Council, in the manner hereinafter provided, a permit authorizing the same, provided, however, that no permit shall be required by any person making any excavation in conjunction with a building (i) for which there has been issued an appropriate building permit, per a  h sash 3 1002, Section 4. City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 5 is amended to read as follows: "Subd. 5. Application For Land Alteration Permit, Fees, Council Action, Bond A. Form of Application. Application for a permit for land alteration shall be made in writing to the Council. The application shall set forth the location and plan for the proposed land alteration. The application shall also include: 1. The name and address of the person applying for the permit. 2. The name and address of the owner of the land subject to the land alteration. 3. The estimated period of time within which the land • alteration will be conducted. 4. A topographic map of the land on which the proposed land alteration is to occur having a scale of one inch equals 50 feet and showing ground elevation contours at 2 foot intervals. The map shall show: (a) The land as it exists prior to the proposed land alteration and a minimum of 100 feet of land abutting the land. (b) The proposed ground elevation contours at 2 foot intervals of the land when the land alteration is completed. (c) A regrading, drainage, and planting plan, if appropriate for the land. (d) If the developer is also going to be constructing homes upon the property. the location and size of building pad. 5. A statement relating to the proposed use of the land including the type of building or structure situated thereon or contemplated to be built thereon. 6. A tree inventory certified by a registered land surveyor, landscape architect or forester depicting: (a) The size, species, condition, and location on the land of all significant trees. On large wooded sites, forest mensuration methods may be used to determine the total diameter inches of trees outside the proposed construction limits. (b) Significant trees which will be lost due to the proposed land alteration. Significant trees shall be considered 4 ILO lost as a result of: (i) grade change or land alteration, whether temporary or permanent, of greater than one (1) foot measured vertically, affecting 60% (as measured on a horizontal plane) or more of the tree's root zone; (ii) utility construction (i.e. sewer, water, storm sewer, gas, electric, telephone and cable TV) resulting in the cutting of 60% or more of the tree's roots within the root zone; (iii) mechanical injury to the trunk of a significant tree causing loss of more than 40% of the bark; or, (iv) compaction to a depth of 6 inches or more of 60% or more of the surface of the soil within a significant tree's root zone. (c) The number, type and size of trees required to be replaced pursuant to this Section. (d) The location of the replacement trees. B. Permit Fees for Land Alterations. A fee in an amount determined by the Council and fixed by resolution must be paid at ' the time of making the application. In the event the application for a permit is denied, the fee shall be returned to the applicant. C. Council Action on a Land Alteration Permit Application. W t#tin a— easenab'a t;me- after receipt e€ an appiieatinn--t-hat a permit. Within a reasonable time after receipt of an application that conforms to the requirements of this subdivision, but in no event longer than ninety (90) days, and payment of the application fee, the Council shall approve or deny the permit. If the Council fails to take action approving or denying the permit within ninety (90) days. the permit shall be deemed approved and shall be issued forthwith by the City. The Council may approve the permit subject to conditions stated on the face of the permit, and in all cases, the time period within which the land alterations are to be completed shall be stated on the face of the permit. Approval, denial, or approval subject to conditions of a permit shall be based upon the following factors: 1. Whether, and the extent to which, the land alterations may create any safety risks to surrounding persons or property or exacerbate any existing risk. 2. Whether, and the extent to which, the land alterations may cause any harm to the environment including, but not limited to, undue noise, dust, erosion, undue destruction of vegetation, and accumulation of waste materials and pollutants. 3. Whether the physical characteristics of the land, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage or retention, are such that the land is not suitable for alteration or the use contemplated. 5 I0p2Z 4. Whether the land alteration or proposed use is likely to cause substantial environmental damage, taking into account the use for which the property is guided and zoned. 5. Whether the land alteration or the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, taking into account the use for which the property is guided and zoned. 6. Whether adequate plans have been made for restoring the land upon completion of the land alteration, taking into account the use for which the property is guided and zoned and the actual construction which is done on the property pursuant to City permit or authorization. 7. Whether there is a substantial likelihood that the applicant will be able to comply with the rules and regulations of Subd. 7 of this Section. 8. Approval or the issuance, of a permit for land alteration shall be further subject to and conditioned upon compliance by the Developer with the following: (a) Developer Required to Replace Lost Trees. A antiei__t_d to be-leet-as a result e€a--�z grad#ng-r-btu#ld#ng sgsnr-eE any other land alteration of, the land immediately or in the etherrper L 1 L L l l _rt the l_nd r._ _ 1te y br 1 t' th_L L of ���-P3de�-r-�ly#}t H�p^ii,-es vzc iov sj=-�)xBs cxal g--crsC��TI®ox vx trcco ("replacement tr-oea") determined in a000rdanoc with the i 7ifiat n^ B - Total Diameter Inohca of Signifioant Tracts Siteat_d th_ nA C - Trcc Replacement Constant (1.33) r ..Le _a€ Di met_. -_L__l ( (A/B) x C ) x A - D EXAMPLE A - 337 B - 943 C - 1.33 D - 160 ( (337/543) x 1.-33 ) x 337- - 160 (b) Leeati..^ _f yleglaeement '£reel ReplaeementtEels ah_l l L_ p l a_L 1. Restoration areas including ctcep alopcc. 6 2. 9ut-beto-er eae-r 3. Bu€€er sonee between di€€erent land uses and/or aotivitico. _ 1. Project cntranoc arego. .Lai The developer shall demonstrate that the land alteration proposed (i.e. subdivision design. house location) destroys the fewest trees possible for the density and type of development allowed by the comprehensive guide and zoning for the property. u For each new lot created, the developer shall be required to plant one three inch diameter tree of a type listed herein on the lot. If the lot is heavily wooded and the planting of a tree would not enhance the value or aesthetics of the lot. the tree shall be planted at such other location within the subdivision as the City designates. (c) Sizes and Types of Replacement Trees. Replacement trees must be no less than the following sizes: ---- - - --1. Deciduous Trees - No less than three caliper inches. ---- 2. Coniferous Trees - No less than 7' high. On steep slopes (i.e. greater than 3:1) deciduous trees may be 2 1/2 inches in diameter and coniferous trees may be 6 feet in height. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed and shall include those species shown on the following table: Deciduous Trees Norway Maple - Acer platanoides cultivars - 'Cleveland' Red Maple - Acer rubrum cultivars - 'Northwood', 'Firedance' Silver Queen Maple (seedless) - Acer saccharinum 'Silver Queen' Sugar Maple - Acer saccharum cultivars - 'Green Mountain' River Birch - Betula nigra Hackberry - Celtis occidentalis Green Ash - Fraximus pennsylvanica cultivars - 'Kindred', 'Newport', 'Bergeson', 'Marshall's Seedless', 'Patmore', 'Summit' Ginkgo - Ginkgo biloba (male only) Honeylocust - Glenditsia tricanthos inermis Kentucky Coffeetree - Gymnocladus dioicus Ironwood - Ostrya virginiana 7 White Oak - Quercus alba Swamp White Oak - Quercus bicolor Pin Oak - Quereus palustris Northern Red Oak - Quercus rubra American Linden - Tilia americana Littleleaf Linden - Tilia cordata cultivars - 'Glenleven', 'Greenspire' Redmond Linden - Tilia americana 'Redmond' Coniferous Trees Balsam Fir - Abies balsamea White Fir - Abies concolor European Larch - Larix decidua Black Hills Spruce - Picea glauca 'Densata' _ _ _ Austrian Pine - Pinus nigra Ponderosa Pine - Pinus ponderosa — — Norway Pine - Pinus resinosa Scotch Pine - Pinus sylvestris White Pine - Pinus strobus Douglas Fir - Pseudotsuga menziesii Canadian Hemlock - Tsuga canadensis Colorado Spruce - Picea pungens (d) Time to Perform. Replacement trees shall be planted not less than 18 months from the date of issuance of the permit. (e) Dead or Unhealthy Trees. Any replacement tree which is not alive or healthy one (1) year after the date that the last replacement tree has been planted shall be removed and a new healthy tree of the same size and species shall be planted in place of the removed tree. A new healthy tree of the same size and species shall be planted in place of any replacement tree missing one (1) year after such date. Planting shall occur not later than the first fall or spring following such year. Trees planted in place of removed trees shall consist of "certified nursery stock" as defined by Minnesota Statutes, 118.46. (f) Agreement to Replace Trees-Security. A Developer shall, prior to the approval of, or issuance of a permit for, any land alteration in connection with which trees are required to be replaced by the provisions of this Section enter into such written agreement or agreements with the City in such form and in such substance as shall be approved by the City Manager whereby the Developer shall undertake to comply with the provisions and conditions imposed by this Section or in connection with any such approval or issuance of a permit and shall provide security for the performance of its obligations to comply with such provisions and conditions. The security may consist of a bond, letter of credit, cash or escrow deposit, all in such form and substance as shall be approved by the City Manager. The amount of security shall be 150% of the estimated cost to furnish and plant the replacement trees ("estimated cost"). The 8 estimated cost shall be at least as much as the reasonable amount charged by nurseries for the furnishing and planting of the replacement trees. The estimated cost shall be subject to approval by the City. In the event the estimated cost submitted by the Developer to the City is not approved by the City the City shall have the right in its sole discretion to determine the estimated cost. The security shall be maintained at least for one (1) year after the date that the last replacement tree has been planted. Upon a showing by the Developer and such inspection as may be made by the City, that portion of the security may be released by the City equal to the estimated cost of the trees replaced and which are alive and healthy,at the end of such year. Any portion of the security not entitled to be released at the end of such year shall be maintained and shall secure the Developer's obligation to remove and replant replacement trees which are not alive or are unhealthy at the end of such year. Upon completion of the replanting of such • trees the entire security may be released. D. Duty to Obtain Bond or Letter of Credit Prior to Issuance of Land Alteration Permit. The Council may make its approval of the issuance of a land alteration permit contingent upon applicant posting a bond or letter of credit in addition to the security for replacement of trees of not less than $25,000.00 in such form and amount as the Council shall determine within ten (10) days of said approval and prior to commencement of any land alteration." Section 5. City Code Section 12.04, Subd. 5. C. is amended to read as follows: "C. No plan will be approved for a subdivision - (i) which covers an area subject to soil erosion or periodic flooding, or which has poor drainage, unless the subdivider agrees to make improvements which will, in the opinion of the City Engineer, make the area safe for occupancy, and provide adequate street and lot drainage, (ii) unless there has been compliance with Section 11.55 of the Code, or (iii) if the Council makes any of the following findings: (1) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with applicable general and specific plans, including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan and zoning regulations. (2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is in conflict with applicable development plans. (3) That the physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. 9 100ao� (4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (5) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. (6) That the design of the proposed subdivision does not maximize preservation of significant trees as defined in Section 11.55 of this Code for the type and density of development allowed by the guiding and zoning of the property. {Fr} (7) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. {ay- (8) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements on record or to • easements established by judgment of a court." Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Sections 11.99 and 12.99 are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1989, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of 1989. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1989. Etl-tree-ord.rev 10 IUUZ€ PREPARED BY: Stuart A Fox April 1988 VALUE OF TREES/FOREST LANOS }} In 1972, the Society of American Foresters initiated an Urban Forestry Working Group. That body put together the following statement: "Urban forestry is a specialized branch of forestry that has, as its objective, the cultivation and management of trees for their present and potential contribution to the physiological, sociological, and economic well being of urban society. Inherent in this function is a comprehensive program designed to educate the urban populace on the role of trees and related plants in the urban environment. In its broadest sense, urban forestry embraces a multi-managerial system that includes municipal watersheds, wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation opportunities, landscape design, recycling of municipal wastes, tree care in general, and the future production of wood fiber as a raw material." If we examine this statement and expand on the ideas that are presented within it, the value of the urban forest in relation to today's society, its attitudes, perceptions, and expectations become evident. Many people tend to place trees into three categories: sensory, instrumental , and symbolic. Trees, as sensory features, would include the landscape, ornamental value, sound, and/or visual screening, all of which tend to soften the hardness of the urban setting. Instrumental values of trees include the shade they provide, protection of the environment (soil, slopes, etc.), fruits, shelter, and recreation. For a tree to have symbolic value, it is generally regarded in light of some recognizable feature such as a particular neighborhood, i.e., "Kings Forest", or social when specifically planted to help improve the character of a neighborhood that lacks trees. While these three categories are simple, they do not expound on many areas of value related to the urban forest. I feel it would be helpful to examine urban trees considering the following areas: Uses and Benefits of the Urban Forest Many people in the city look to their trees for shade, beauty, and increased property val ues. These benefits are taken for granted but addi tional uses and benefits are there, many of them not known to urban residents. The first of these benefits that trees provide is CLIMATE AMELIORATION (improvement). Trees can affect the climate of a yard area by modifying solar radiation, which results in the modification of various climatic conditions. Plants can change the yard/home environment by: Intercepting summer sunlight preventing the heat up of lawns, roofs and hard surface areas such as driveways. Reducing the ambient summer temperature through loss of water (transpiration) by tree leaves. Channel cool breezes during the summer to ventilate warm areas and buildings. Shield buildings from high winds, which infiltrate poorly insulated walls or windows during periods of cold temperature. 100a g. Reduce wind turbulence, especially during winter snowstorms, which improves driving visability conditions and affects snow drifting in yards and roadways. Additional wind break benefits include: minimizing wind erosion, reduction of destructive wind velocities, and improve yard and parkland conditions for other plants, people, and animals. Trees not only intercept sunlight but also intercept rainfall. A tree canopy can slow the descent of intense rainfall during a thunderstorm lessening the chances for soil erosion. Slowing runoff increases the rate of infiltration into the soil based on tree cover type, soil organic matter, topography, and intensity and type of precipitation. The second major area where trees enhance the urban environment is in the area of ENGINEERED USAGE. One of the major uses in this area is noise abatement or sound attenuation. The foliage of trees has the ability to absorb, deflect, and even reflect sound depending on the type of tree/plant, the climatic conditions, the type of sound (intensity, decibel level, etc.), and relationship between a sound source and the receiver of the sound. Plant height and foliage density are additional factors in determining the effectiveness of a plant to modify sound levels. A second area that is being studied further is the ability or the role of trees in reducing air pollution. It has been shown that trees reduce the amount of airborne particles near factories by interception, however, reduction of gaseous pollutants needs further study to draw solid conclusions. r 'he last area of engineering usage for trees is glare reduction. Trees planted along roadways or adjacent to homes can effectively cut sun or car headlight glare making it easier for drivers to see the road during daylight hours, or reducing the nuisance glare that strays into homes from car headlights during night time hours. Because trees are dynamic, they have wide reaching applications when you consider ARCHITECTURAL USES. Since woodlands by themselves are areas of great beauty and diversity, trees will compliment homes built within a woodland rather than detract for its design. Whether planted or naturally occuring, trees can enrich any site when you consider that they can be used to define spaces, provide screening, create privacy, and accent the style and form of any building. These uses center around a tree's color, shape, form, texture, and line; in other words, the esthetics of a tree or plant. Being dynamic, a tree's appearance changes with the seasons and throughout their lives. In addition to architectural uses, trees also have a wide variety of ESTHETIC USES. Trees and plants produce shadow patterns that constantly change throughout the day and year. The rustling sounds and sight of wind blown leaves can be a real pleasure to experience while walking or sitting. Woodland areas, as building sites, are very desirable because of the natural architectural potential to compliment any structure built within the confines of the woods. In short, trees have ARCHITECTURAL USES which include both existing and planted trees. They can be used to define spaces, for screening, to create privacy and accent lines and form of a home or building. Many of these uses center around 1c0zG(9 the various esthetics of plants including their colors, textures, lines, size, shape, form, and growth rate. The role of a tree can be singular or collective since it is our perception of them which judges their effectiveness in the landscape. Since trees are dynamic their appearance changes from season to season and throughout their lives which enables us to enjoy and utilize them in our landscapes for decades. In many ways, ESTHETIC USES of trees are the same as architectural uses; however, there are many subtle additions when you consider a tree's esthetic value. First, if you plant enough trees, you can, over time, create a "natural forest." The mass planting of trees within parklands or farmland plantations can create the beauty of a woodland forest over a period of years. Additional esthetic conditions that trees give us are; the sounds created by wind blowing through leaves and needles at different velocities, the shadow patterns of trunks, branches, and leaves on a sunny day, the birds and animals associated with various trees and plants, and bring interest and beauty with flowers and fruit clusters at various times of the year. While the list of uses is rather lengthy, there are a few ADDITIONAL USES which include recreation and educational values. Trees provide places for kids to play, observe, and learn about nature. They are indicators of history and climatic events, and they can evoke memories of other times, places, or feelings, in people who encounter them. Trees have physical beauty, familiar sounds, are interesting to touch, and fragrance. It would be very different indeed if trees were not present in our cities and towns. The value and benefits of trees in the area of RECREATION and WILDLIFE have been known for many years. This is documented by the large number of urban residents who seek the woodlands and the activities and pleasures they offer. Unfortunately, too many people become dependent on the urban park for their woodland contact and don't realize the differences and contrasts that are present between urban and rural forest areas. The urban forest is especially accessable to the elderly, very young, the handicapped, and those too poor to travel outside their neighborhood or city. Combine this convenience factor with the new emphasis on health and physical activity, and parklands and nature preserves serve a rather substantial population of those living in urban areas. Use of the urban forest can be active or passive, involve structured activities or random unprepared visits and activities. In short, the uses and potential uses of a park within the urban forest is unlimited. Economic Values of Urban Trees While all the previous uses and benefits of trees are important when they meet or exceed our expectations we must realize that trees also have economic value. This value can be calculated in five different ways - maintenance cost, replacement cost, wood product value, preservation cost, and shade tree/property value. Each method can be used to establish a relative value of a tree; however, it is necessary to determine which scenario represents the best use for the tree. For example, a large oak tree 25 inches in diameter that was located in a park might cost $300 to prune every 5 years, and if it has been pruned 3 times, the maintenance cost would be $90D. Replacement cost on the tree would not be feasible since the tree is too large to be replaced with one of similar size. The estimated wood product value of the tree is approximately $1,500 since it contains 3 veneer quality logs in its trunk. Value based on preservation costs for the tree would be little or none since no formal measures would be taken to protect the tree from potential lightning or wind damage. While the tree is large and magnificent 't has nominal value with regard to being an asset toward the property value. Since there are a considerable number of trees in the park, it is their sum total which gives value to the property and a single tree represents only a small portion of the tree/property value. Therefore, in this example, the best use value would be the wood products value of $1,500. However, if you placed the same tree on a single family lot, with a home, it would have a different value. Appraisal Method Value Comoared with Park Value Maintenance Costs $ 900 Same Replacement Costs $1,600 Higher-could be replaced with 8, 3- inch trees @ 200 each Wood Product Value $2,000 Same Preservation Costs $5,000 Higher-cost of lightning protection and cabling Tree/Property Value $9,000 Higher In this scenario, the tree has its highest value as an asset to the value of the property. This method of valuation was developed by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) which was formed by members from five agency/professions which work with trees. They included the International Society of Arboriculture, American Society of Consulting Arborists, National Arborists Association, American Society of Nurserymen, and the Associated Landscape Contractors of America. The result of their work was to establish a value for trees based on its contribution to the value of the property on which it is located. The method of valuation takes into consideration the tree specie, its condition, and location of the tree, and multiplies the percentage factor for each of these criteria times the base value of a tree based on its diameter/base value. It needs to be noted that while it requires extensive knowledge and experience of trees to apply this method properly, it is an easily documented fact that a home with a treed lot sells for a higher price than an equivalent home on a lot void of trees. Tree value to property is also recognized by the Internal Revenue Servie since casualty losses are deductible from a person's taxable income. Casualty loss of trees can include storm, fire, flood, accident, and vandalism. The test of this type of loss is that it was a loss of property due to a sudden identifiable event which results in partial or total destruction. An appraisal of the property before and after the event is usually necessary to cocument such a loss. The urban forest is of high value to its residents. The uses and benefits that trees represent to those who use and observe them is sometimes over-simplified or ignored, but that does not reduce their importance. We all need to be reminded that trees are silent giants that need our care and efforts if they are to remain healthy and an instrumental part of our urban environment. We all enjoy the benefits they offer and need to be aware of their needs and requirements to remain healthy. After all, it was the Lorax in a Or. Seuss' book who said, "I am Lorax. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues. And I'm asking you sir, at the top of my lungs, unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." This is an important message that we need to remember. If we value and enjoy trees in the urban environment, they are going to need our help. uozlZ APRIL 17.1990 58780 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 3/23/90 1757.00 58781 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 3/23/90 11424.43 58782 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 186.00 °8783 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 3/23/90 56111.73 784 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00 _s785 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 3/30/90 4859.00 58786 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 194.76 58787 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION PAYROLL 3/23/90 1588.04 58788 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PAYROLL 3/23/90 32.00 58789 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG MARCH 90 UNION DUES 1033.00 58790 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 3/23/90 29485.49 58791 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 3/23/90 25.00 5E1792 NORWEST BANK HOPKINS PAYROLLS 3/9/90 & 3/23/90 1060.00 58793 UNITED WAY PAYROLL 3/23/90 219.50 5B794 PETTY CASH - POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 33.30 58795 STATE OF MINNESOTA LICENSE-WATER DEPT 10.00 5E1796 AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSN CONFERENCE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEFT 625.00 58797 UNITED AIRLINES CONFERENCE-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 624.57 58798 INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGIN -INSTALLATION & MAINTENANCE MANUAL-SIGNS 54.00 DEPT 58799 BERNARD Y & DONNA M HAMILTON RIGHT OF WAY-MITCHELL RD & RESEARCH RD 3177.00 58800 VIRGIL A SEIFERT RIGHT OF WAY-MITCHELL ROAD 1000.00 58801 MN CRIME PREVENTION OFFICERS ASSN DUES-POLICE DEPT 50.00 58802 BIRTCHER WELSH APRIL '90 RENT-CITY HALL 2I351.32 58803 SUPPLEE'S 7 HI ENTER INC APRIL '90 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 4448.33 58804 JASON-NORTHCO PROP LPN1 APRIL '90 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 6983.36 58805 AT&T SERVICE 325.77 58806 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 68.65 58807 AT&T CREDIT CORPORATION SERVICE 93.67 'f1808 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 8542.91 309 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 55.25 38810 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 13200.40 58811 U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 266.02 58812 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 315.58 58813 JAN BROUGHTON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 39.00 58814 MARY LOU CARNEY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 58815 MARY JANE DUGAN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.00 58816 LINDA GRENGS REFUND-KIDS KORNER 24.00 $8817 ANNE GUTTMAN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 58818 ANN HALL REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS LESSONS 6.20 58819 MARGO HARVEY REFUND-DRAWING CLASS 30.00 58820 ROBIN JANZEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 58821 MARILYN JENSEN REFUND-DRAWING CLASS 30.00 58822 CAROL JONES REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 27.00 58823 BONNIE KNAPP REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00 58824 DAWN KORTUEM REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 58825 ANDREA MEEKER REFUND-LIFEGUARD TRAINING CLASS 30.00 58826 PEGGY MITCHELL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 58827 MELISSA MOESCHL REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 27.00 58828 BETTY MORAN REFUND-DRAWING CLASS 30.00 58829 SHARI MOULDER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 58830 ANNE ROBERTS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 16.50 58831 JACOB SCRIVER REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 19.00 58832 KIM SPEAR REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 12.00 58833 EAGLE WINE CO LIQUOR 1310.41 •7095019 003 • APRIL 17.1990 58834 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 4741.23 5BB35 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO LIQUOR 8696.16 4336 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 4074.72 ..8837 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 1329.99 58838 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 1490.50 58839 AT&T SERVICE 832.25 58840 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL 34.53 58841 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON -SERVICE-HAMILTON RD/COUNTY RD 4 & PIONEER 8401.78 -TRAIL WATER MAIN/CEDAR RIDGE SOTRM SEWER/ RED ROCK SHORES 58842 GENERAL ELECTRODYNAMICS CORP 2 TRUCK SCALES-STREET DEPT 2417.32 58843 JOSEPH T MENGEL PH D FEBRUARY '90 SERVICE 2750.00 58844 SANCO INC -CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT/ 193.20 COMMUNITY CENTER 58845 MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY -VIDEO FILMS-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION/ 15.00 SENIOR PROGRAMS 58846 WATER PRODUCTS CO -1 4" 1000 GAL COMPOUND METER-$2532.35/ 2849.69 -GENERATOR/GATE VALVE/KEYS/FITTING-WATER DEPT 58847 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-SUMMER BROCHURE-COMMUNITY CENTER 3350.00 58848 PETTY CASH-EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 38.88 58849 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENC PERMIT FEE-SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION 1 5B850 B DALTON BOOKSELLER LAW DICTIONARY-POLICE DEPT 29.951.95 I 58851 SIGN-TIFIC SIGN-POLICE DEPT 58852 MINNEGASCO SERVICE 4979.11 58853 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 5771.49 58854 JEAN CHAFFEE -REFUND-OLD LOG THEATRE TRIP-SENIOR 2.00 PROGRAMS ;855 LOUIS DOUGHTY -REFUND-OLD LOG THEATRE TRIP-SENIOR 2.00 PROGRAMS 58856 GERRY GRIER -REFUND-OLD LOG THEATRE TRIP-SENIOR 2.00 PROGRAMS 58857 RALPH GRIER -REFUND-OLD LOG THEATRE TRIP-SENIOR 2.00 PROGRAMS 5BB58 VIOLET LAPPIN -REFUND-OLD LOG THEATRE TRIP-SENIOR 2.00 PROGRAMS .58859 HELEN RICHTER -REFUND-OLD LOG THEATRE TRIP-SENIOR 2.00 PROGRAMS 58860 VIOLA WAGNITZ -REFUND-OLD LOG THEATRE TRIP-SENIOR 2.00 PROGRAMS 58861 LARRY WALLACE -REFUND-OLD LOG THEATRE TRIP-SENIOR 2.00 PROGRAMS 58862 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER LICENSES-POOL OPERATION 330.00 58863 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSN CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 85.00 58864 NATIONAL HIGHWAY INSTITUTE CONFERENCE-ENGINEERING DEPT 140.00 58865 MN DEPT OF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 58866 TEENER'S THEATRICAL DEPOSIT-COSTUME RENTAL-SOCIAL EVENTS 75.00 58867 TEENER'S THEATRICAL COSTUME RENTAL-SOCIAL EVENTS 75.00 58868 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 4500.00 58B69 HALVERSON CANDY CO EXPENSES-EASTER EGG HUNT-SOCIAL EVENTS 400.00 5BB70 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 334.44 58871 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 2922.80 58872 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO WINE 4293.95 1873 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 4935.66 ,d874 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 729.46 1 1 7098961 1003A • APRIL 17.1990 58875 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 1528.12 58876 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-CITY HALL 57.25 58877 MCPOA CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT 50.00 3878 MN HISTORICAL SOCIETY -CONFERENCE-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL 82.00 COMMISSION 58879 ALL AMERICAN BOTTLING CORP MIX 126.55 58880 BEER WHOLESALERS INC BEER 2504.35 58881 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO BEER 7003.05 58B82 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER 17926.95 58883 HOME JUICE PRODUCTS MIX 70.80 58884 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 14463.79 58885 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO MIX 581.06 5B886 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MIX 539.38 58887 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BEER 21573.65 58888 CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE CITY'S SHARE OF MUNICI-PALS BANQUET 43.75 58889 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER LOG SPLITTER RENTAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 137.80 58890 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 254.90 58891 AIRLIFT DOORS INC DOOR REPAIR-PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING 140.20 58892 ALEXANDER BATTERY NORTH BATTERIES-POLICE DEPT 115.08 58893 AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSN DUES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 140.00 58894 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO -UNIFORMS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT/POLICE 1411.94 -DEPT/FACILITIES DEPT/ANIMAL CONTROL/SEWER -DEPT/STREET DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/ PARK MAINTENANCE/COMMUNITY CENTER 58895 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO BOND PAYMENT 1479.00 58896 ANDERSON'S GARDEN EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 22.50 58897 ARMOR SECURITY INC -2ND QUARTER '90 SECURITY SYSTEM-OUTDOOR 155.10 CENTER OPERATIONS 43898 ASSOC P/S COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS DUES-POLICE DEPT 50.00 { 3899 ASSOC OF TRAINING OFFICERS OF MN DUES-POLICE DEPT 15.00 58900 ASTLEFORD INTL INC -1.1UFFLER/STRAP/STEERING GEAR-$800.06/DRIVE 916.27 GEAR/HOSE/SWITCH-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 58901 B & S TOOLS -FILE SET/PRY BAR/PULLER SET/PLIERS/ 848.80 -SCREWDRIVERS/HYDRAULIC JACK-$730.00- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 5B902 BACHMAN'S EXPENSES-CITY HALL B3.00 58903 BARTLEY SALES COMPANY INC -COIN BOX KEY/ROTOR/FLIPPER HORN-COMMUNITY 25.50 CENTER '58904 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -SIGNALS/SPARK PLUGS/WINDSHIELD WASHER 660.92 -FLUID/BATTERIES/HOSE CLAMPS/MIRROR HEADS- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 58905 BENJAMIN'S RESTAURANT EXPENSES-MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION 242.27 5B906 ARIK BERGLUND BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 21.00 58907 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY SERVICE-CITY HALL 686.00 58908 BIG A AUTO PARTS - CHANHASSEN -REBUILT ENGINE-$1157.00/HOSES/PLATES/ 2164.96 -HEATERS/SCREWS/OIL SEALS/ROTORS/MANIFOLD -GASKET/BRAKE DISC PADS/CLAMP/FILTERS/ BRAKE DRUMS/GASKET SEALER-EQUIPMENT MAINT 58909 BLACK & VEATCH SERVICE-UPDATE OF 1986 WATER MASTER PLAN 15017.62 58910 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY -FILM/FILM PROCESSING-ENGINEERING DEPT/ 260.7E -ASSESSING DEPT/POLICE DEPT/OUTDOOR CENTER/ PLANNING DEPT 58911 BRISSMAN KENNEDY INC -VACUUM CLEANER WITH ACCESSORIES-•210.00/ 225.00 VACUUM REPAIR-FACILITIES DEPT 3912 LEE BRANDT HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 286.00 9191034 • APRIL 17.1990 58913 BROOKS FOOD MARKET EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 9.73 58914 BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL INC MARCH '90 WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE 1711.02 ( 915 BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE SUBSCRIPTION-FACILITIES DEPT 48.06 A916 BUSINESS CREDIT LEASING INC MAY '90 COPIER RENTAL-FIRE DEPT 182.75 58917 BUSINESS MACHINES SALES & SVC -TYPEWRITER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS-POLICE 804.00 DEPT 58918 CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-RILEY LAKE PARK ACQUISTION 975.00 58919 CENTRAIRE INC -REPAIRED GAS LEAK/REPLACED FLAME SENSOR/ 2317.40 -2ND QUARTER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-PARK MAINTENANCE/FACILITIES DEPT 58920 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS PULLEY/SPRING/HANDLE/ROPE-FORESTRY DEPT 24.65 58921 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC -BRAKE SHOES/WHEEL CYLINDERS/BRAKE DRUMS/ 377.85 SEALS/SEAL KITS/BEARINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 58922 CLUTCH & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC BRAKES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 53.32 58923 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINT/FIRE DEPT 420.00 58924 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC MARCH '90 INSURANCE CONSULTANT 560.00 58925 COUNTRY VILLAGE MINNESOTA FABRICS -MATERIALS FOR ICE SHOW COSTUMES-COMMUNITY 17.26 CENTER 58926 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC TURF TRUCKSTER-PARK MAINTENANCE 9895.00 58927 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS INC MARKING TAPE-FIRE DEPT 250.00 58928 D & K PRINTING PLUS INC SIGNS-SENIOR PROGRAMS 29.75 58929 DALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT/ 158.17 COMMUNITY CENTER 58930 DAN & DAN'S MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING-ATHLETIC COORDINATOR 279.00 58931 DATAAGE SOLUTIONS INC -COMPUTER PROGRAMS & MAINTENANCE CONTRACT- 5485.00 FIRE DEPT 58932 DAY-TIMERS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 16.23 '9933 DELEGARD TOOL CO -CABLE TIES/ADHESIVE/RUST REMOVER/ADAPTOR/ 400.52 1 -KING PIN/SILENCER BAND/CURRENT TESTER- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 58934 DENISON MAILING SERVICE POSTAGE-ASSESSING DEPT 225.75 58935 EUGENE DIETZ MARCH '90 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 200.00 5B936 MITCHELL J DEAN MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 12.50 58937 PAULA DUNNUM AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 300.00 58938 E P PHOTO FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT 185.76 58939 EDEN INCENTIVES & PROMOTIONS INC PROOFS/SCREENS/ART WORK-POLICE DEPT 433.25 .58940 DEB EDLUND MINUTES-PLANNING COMMISSION 125.00 5B941 E&S INSULATION CO ADHESIVE/WALL COVERING-FIRE DEPT 59.15 58942 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC GLASS CASES-SAFETY DEPT 37.50 58943 EMPRO CORPORATION SEATS-FACILITIES DEPT 83.23 58944 FABRI-TOP INC COUNTER TOPS-PARK MAINTENANCE 320.00 58945 FARMINGTON FORD-MERCURY 5 SEDANS-POLICE DEPT 65278.00 58946 FAIRCHIELD MARKETING ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 350.00 58947 FBS CAPITAL MARKETS GROUP EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT 3.75 58948 FEIST BLANCHARD CO -WIRE LEADS/BELTS/BRAKE SHOES/BRAKE PADS/ 1213.82 -WHEEL CYLINDERS/BEARINGS/LAMPS/CLUTCH -ASSEMBLY/CARBURETOR/TIE RODS/THERMOSTATS/ -POLE PLUGS/FLASHERS/CABLE TIES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 58949 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES BRACE BANDS-PARK MAINTENANCE 15.25 58950 FLAHERTY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION ENGINE GENERATOR REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 23.00 5B951 FORD MO10R CREDIT CO -MAY '90 COPIER INSTALLMENT PAYMENT-POLICE 300.00 DEPT 952 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 1514.58 A953 JOHN FRANE MARCH '90 EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT 200.00 9489525 1005 APRIL 17.1990 58954 MICHAEL D FRANZEN MILEAGE-PLANNING DEPT 26.50 1 58955 SUNNY FULLER VOLLEYBALL & BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 474.00 i, 58956 GINA MARIA' PIZZA -EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT/FIRE 51.50 ( DEPT W8957 JOSEPH GLEASON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 380.00 58958 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD WATER CUPS-FITNESS CENTER 29.50 1 58959 CHARLES A GOBLE EMERGENCY TECHNICIAN BAGS-FIRE DEPT 165.00 58960 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC MARCH '90 SERVICE-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 1923.00 58961 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVIC TIRES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 1000.59 58962 W W GRAINGER INC -DECIBEL METER/GAS LEAK DETECTOR/CEILING 888.30 -FAN/AC AMP METERS/SAW BLADES/MIRRORS/ -BEARINGS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT/FIRE -DEPT/FACILITIES DEPT/STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 58963 ALAN GRAY MARCH '90 EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 200.00 58964 LEROY GUBA HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 300.00 58965 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC INSTALL FIXTURES-PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING 695.54 58966 HANCO CORPORATION VALVES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 94.72 58967 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC -SERVICE-BLUFF RD/COUNTY RD 4 & PIONEER 16082.89 -TRAIL WATER MAIN/CEDAR RIDGE STORM SEWER/ -RED ROCK SHORES/WHITE TRAIL CROSSING CUL- DE-SAC/BLUFFS E 7TH ADDITION/STARING LK PK 58968 HCI CONNECTING POINT -2 COMPUTERS-$6100.0O/PRINTER-$1850.00- 7950.00 FIRE DEPT 58969 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT FEBRUARY '90 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT 442.49 58970 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -FEBRUARY '90 BOARD OF PRISONERS-POLICE 1510.25 DEPT 58971 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 1540.00 2 '9972 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC -COMPRESSOR OIL/ACRYLIC SHEETING-ICE ARENA- 756.43 COMMUNITY CENTER 58973 HOPKINS PARTS CO SEATBELT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 21.55 58974 IAPMO DUES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 35.00 58975 IBM CORPORATION MAY '90 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 424.32 58976 ILLINOIS THEATRICAL FABRIC-ICE SHOW COSTUMES-COMMUNITY CENTER 15.75 58977 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST K272 -ROOM RENTAL-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS/WASTE 2851.02 DISPOSAL-SENIOR CENTER 58978 INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES INC EQUIPMENT REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 43.80 •58979 INSTY-PRINTS -PRINTING-ANNUAL REPORT/OFFICE SUPPLIES- 565.35 POLICE DEPT 58980 RONALD A JERICH & ASSOCIATES SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 5000.00 58981 JOHNSON CONTROLS PILOT ASPIRATOR/COUPLING-WATER DEPT 450.15 58982 JUSTUS LUMBER CO -STUDS/PLYWOOD/LUMBER/TREATED LUMBER- 773.62 FACILITIES DEPT/POLICE DEPT/PARK MAINT 58983 TIM KAHLOW BASKETBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 270.00 i. 58984 DAN N KANTAR -SOCKETS/SCRAPER/WRENCH/U-JOINT ADAPTER- 310.05 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 58985 KNOX RUBBER STOPPER-PARK MAINTENANCE 4.28 58986 KUSTOM ELECTRONICS INC 2 RADARS-POLICE DEPT 3920.00 58987 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY STORAGE CABINET-SAFETY DEPT 542.65 '. 58988 ROBERT LAMBERT EXPENSES/DUES-PARK & RECREATION DEPT 140.00 58989 SHARON LANE SERVICE-UTILITY BILLING 141.00 58990 CINDY LANENBERG MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT 50.00 58991 LANDCO/HANSEN EQUIPMENT INC WIPER/PACKING/O-RINGS-PARK MAINTENANCE 33.09 58992 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES CONFERENCE-COUNCILMEMBERS 75.00 3993 LEEF BROS INC MATS-LIQUOR STORE 40.80 5022614 I003D 1 APRIL 17.1990 58994 LAGERQUIST CORPORATION REPAIR ELEVATOR GATE LOCK-COMMUNITY CENTER 283.00 .58995 MARK LOUIS KARATE INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 78.00 l996 PAUL MARAVELAS EXPENSES/MILEAGE-HISTORICAL INTREPRETATION 33.25 a8997 MASTER LOCK COMPANY KEY BLANKS-POLICE DEPT 11.32 58998 MASYS CORPORATION -MAY '90 COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 1295.00 AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 58999 MBA DESKTOP PUBLISHING PLUS -TYPESETTING-RECREATION ADMINISTRATION/ 1573.95 SENIOR PROGRAMS 59000 MCKAY FLOOR COVERING CARPETING & INSTALLATION-PUBLIC WORKS BLDG 1043.00 59001 MCGRAW-HILL PUBLISHING COMPANY BOOK-PARK PLANNING DEPT 64.90 59002 MEDICINE LAKE TOURS BUS SERVICE-ADULT PROGRAMS 200.00 59003 MENARDS KENNEL PANEL-POLICE DEPT 49.99 59004 MERLINS HARDWARE HANK -HANDLES/STAIN/PHONE/NUTS & BOLTS/SCREWS/ 73.43 -DETERGENT-FIRE DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE/ COMMUNITY CENTER 59005 METRO PRINTING INC -OFFICE SUPPLIES/BUSINESS CARDS/FORMS- 850.00 POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT/PLANNING DEPT 59006 MID-CO SECURITY SYTEMS INC -APRIL '90 SECURITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 329.17 POLICE DEPT 59007 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 145.20 59008 MILHOFF STEEL PRODUCTS CORP ROLLER REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 225.00 59009 MINNEAPOLIS HEALTH DEPARTMENT BLOOD TESTS-POLICE DEPT 110.80 59010 MINNCOMM PAGING -APRIL '90 PAGER SERVICE-FIRE DEPT/ 146.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 59011 MINNESOTA CITY MANAGEMENT ASSN DUES-ADMINISTRATION 40.00 59012 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY -EXTINQUISHER-FACILITIES DEPT/SMOKE 190.50 EXTRACTOR REPAIR-FIRE DEPT i "9013 MINNESOTA MAYORS ASSOCIATION DUES-COUNCILMEMBER 10.00 /014 MOSTCA CONFERENCE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 125.00 590I5 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 281.80 59016 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER 114.70 59017 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 216.30 59018 MSP AIRPORT NEWS ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 49.00 59019 NATIONAL INSTITUTE DUES-PARK MAINTENANCE 80.00 59020 NATIONAL SCREENPRINT -T-SHIRTS-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS/NEIGHBORHOOD 2014.34 OUTREACH PROGRAM 59021 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 805.80 59022 JAN NELSON MINUTES-CITY COUNCIL 150.00 59023 DENNIS NESBITT MILEAGE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 41.00 59024 BETH NILSSON SKATING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 539.20 59025 NORTH STAR CHAPTER OF IC80 DUES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 45.00 59026 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE-COUNTY RD 4 & HIGHWAY 5 24268.00 59027 NORTHLAND BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS DICTAPHONE REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 69.00 59028 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO -LENSES & DOOR/TAPE/FUSES-FACILITIES DEPT/ 405.27 STREET LIGHTING DEPT 59029 NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA N A BOND PAYMENT 337.50 59030 NORWEST INVESTMENT SERVICES INC EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT 73.25 59031 OFFICE PRODUCTS OF MN INC -SWITCH/CABLES-FINANCE DEPT/UTILITY 101.00 BILLING 59032 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC CHAIN LINKS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 69.57 I 59033 DAN OTTEN MILEAGE-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 31.00 59034 PATRICIA'S FRAME SHOP FRAME/BRASS PLATE-POLICE DEPT 72.61 59035 J W PEPPER OF MPLS SHEET MUSIC-ART & MUSIC 103.20 '036 NANCY LEE PETERSON AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 353.25 .9037 PETRAM MARKETING FLUSH EQUIPMENT REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINT 105.00 3720330 �o03€ • APRIL 17.1990 59038 THE PINK COMPANIES -CASTERS-POLICE DEPT/2 FILE CABINETS- 648.00 FACILITIES DEPT '9039 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC INSTALL HAND DRYER-COMMUNITY CENTER 93.30 040 PRAIRIE HARDWARE PROJECTOR LAMP-FIRE DEPT 30.89 59041 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -KEY CHAINS/KEYS/SIGNS/CRESCENT WRENCH/ 48.16 -HANDLE/EXTENSION CORD/LOCK/PLUG/LOCK SET- COMMUNITY CENTER 59042 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -TESTER/OUTLET COVER/RECEPTACLE/BIRD SEED/ 304.88 -SCREWS/SANDING BELTS/HEATER/HANGERS/ -CARPET TRIM/CAULKING/LOCKS/PAINT THINNER/ -PAINT BRUSHES/ROLLER FRAMES/ROLLER COVERS/ -SAW BLADES/GLASS/RODS/NUTS & BOLTS/ANGLE -IRONS/BRACKETS/WASHERS/PAINT/RUST REMOVER- PARK MAINTENANCE 59043 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -BATTERIES/SCREWS/VARNISH/PAINT BRUSHES/ 61.58 SANDPAPER/HOOKS/CLAMP/ANCHORS-POLICE DEPT 59044 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -SCREWS/SCREWDRIVER BITS/ROPE-SEWER DEPT/ 6.70 WATER DEPT 59045 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -WRENCH/PAPER PLATES/PAPER TOWELS/CARPET 51.01 CLEANER-STREET DEPT 59046 GERALD F PRODOEHL SCHOOL-STREET DEPT 175.95 59047 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN CHAIN/FILTER/CHARGER/CUTTERS-FIRE DEPT 207.79 59048 PRAIRIE VILLAGE MALL MERCHANTS ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORE 185.00 59049 PRAIRIE VILLAGE PET HOSPITAL SERVICE-ANIMAL CONTROL 49.60 59050 PRENTICE HALL INC BOOK-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 45.07 59051 PSQ BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS INC TELEPHONE SERVICE-CITY HALL 213.00 59052 R & R SPECIALTIES INC -SPREADER CLOTH/OIL FILTER/ZAMBONI BLADES 87.65 SHARPENED-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CENTER '053 RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS OF MN -CASH REGISTER TAPE/PROGRAM LOTTERY KEYS- 199.70 LIQUOR STORES 59054 RIDGE DOOR SALES & SERVICE INC ROLLERS-FACILITIES DEPT 19.80 59055 MICHELLE M ROGERS SERVICE-PLANNING DEPT 360.00 59056 S&S ARTS & CRAFTS -MOLDS/CRAFT SUPPLIES-NEIGHBORHOOD 54.60 OUTREACH PROGRAM 59057 SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION -TOWELS/CARBURETOR CLEANER-EQUIPMENT 191.25 MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE 59058 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO -OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/POLICE DEPT/ 131.17 • COMMUNITY CENTER/STREET DEPT 59059 JOHN SAMS MILEAGE-ASSESSING DEPT 8.25 59060 SANCO INC -CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT/ 608.53 COMMUNITY CENTER 59061 EUGENE E SCHURMAN EXPENSES-ENGINEERING DEPT 18.20 59062 SEARS -WRENCHES/PLIERS/SCREWDRIVERS/2 TOOL 2619.14 CABINETS-•1986.90/SAW BLADES-FIRE DEPT 59063 SHADY OAK PRINTING PRINTING-FORMS-ENGINEERING DEPT 72.40 59064 SHAKOPEE FORD INC -WHEEL ALIGNMENT/CARBURETOR REPAIR/POWER 531.38 STEERING LEAK REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 59065 J L SHIELY COMPANY GRAVEL-STREET MAINTENANCE 1227.60 59066 SIGN-TIFIC SIGNS-POLICE DEPT 221.50 59067 JIM SIMCHUCK CONFERENCE-STREET DEPT 14.00 59068 TODD SKATRUD MILEAGE/CONFERENCE-FIRE DEPT 157.96 p 59069 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -WRENCHES/SOCKETS/SCREWDRIVER/RATCHET 146.80 WRENCH-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 59070 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC -EMPLOYMENT ADS-ASSESSING DEPT/COMMUNITY 140.10 CENTER 893096 wcV • APRIL 17.1990 59071 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC -LEGAL ADS-PLANNING DEPT/ADVERTISING-SOLID 1939.10 WASTE MANAGEMENT/LIQUOR STORES 372 THERESA SPANDE EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 60.00 D9073 STARS RESTAURANT EXPENSES-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 86.41 59074 STATE OF MINNESOTA WHEEL LOAD SCALE INSPECTION-POLICE DEPT 70.00 59075 STATE SUPPLY COMPANY CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT 468.60 59076 R STUART CO INC -2 HEAT ALERT UNITS-POLICE FORFEITURE- 778.00 DRUGS 59077 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET -PIPE ASSEMBLY/DAMPER/HOSES/KNOB/LAMP 401.45 -ASSEMBLY/HEAD LIGHT/BRACKETS/LENS/GASKETS/ -FUEL PUMP/FAN SHROUDS/SENSOR KIT- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 59078 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC WASTE DISPOSAL-OUTDOOR CENTER OPERATIONS 86.23 59079 SUN ELECTRIC CORPORATION -REPAIR & UPDATE COMPUTER CIRCUIT 408.50 -INTERROGATOR/PARTS & REPAIR OF BATTERY CHARGER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 59080 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC LIGHT BULBS-LIQUOR STORE 12.15 59081 TARGET STORES CAMERA/FILM/BATTERY-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 104.97 590B2 TEENER'S THEATRICAL -FABRIC/TRIM-ICE SHOW COSTUMES-COMMUNITY 23.81 CENTER 59083 VAL TRADER AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 225.00 59084 TV FANFARE ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 449.28 59085 TWIN CITY SCALE COMPANY WHEEL LOAD SCALE REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 75.00 59086 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-FIRE DEPT/8UItDING INSPECTIONS 413.10 59087 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 49.80 5908B UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC -WASHERS/NUTS & BOLTS/CABLES-EQUIPMENT 826.27 MAINTENANCE 089 USA TODAY ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 34.00 .090 VACUUMS OR DUST VACUUM CLEANER-LIQUOR STORE 199.00 59091 VIKING LABORATORIES INC CHLORINE CYLINDERS-POOL OPERATIONS 185.00 59092 VOSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY BALLASTS/LIGHT BULBS-FACILITIES DEPT 85.44 59093 WAFTA DUES-FIRE DEPT I241.00 1 59094 CLARK WALKER SOFTBALL ASSISTANT/FEES PAID 96.00 j 59095 WATER PRODUCTS CO 30 5/8X3/4 100 GAL METERS-WATER DEPT 1376.70 59096 YOUNGSTEDTS INC WHEEL ALIGNMENTS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 177.70 59097 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 1ST AID SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/COMMUNITY CTR 130.60 ' 58607 VOID OUT CHECK 2392.00- 58622 VOID OUT CHECK 8501.78- 58669 VOID OUT CHECK 1125.00- 58683 VOID OUT CHECK 15.90- 58718 VOID OUT CHECK 192.80- -222437 $522881.42 • 100gG MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Human Rights & Services Commission THROUGH: Natalie Swaggert, Director SUBJECT: Child Care Site Selection Review DATE: April 12, 1990 The Human Rights & Services Commission has completed a preliminary study on the location of child care centers in Eden Prairie as requested by the City Council. As part of their research the Commission reviewed the Minnesota Department of Human Services Child Care Center Requirements, the MIS Report on Local Initiatives for Child Care and several additional national reports produced by a variety of resources including the Department of Planning, Zoning Institute, State Universities, and State and City planning departments. As a result of their research and discussions the Commission made several observations: o Child care issues are social issues not easily addressed. o Child care centers are located to serve the needs of the parent (convenience, proximity to home or office and on normal transportation routes). o Child care centers tend to be an interim land use. Control of adjacent land uses is complicated as a result. The Commission feels strongly that our community has child care issues which need to be addressed and that the City has an important role to play. At this time the Commission believes the important most pressing issue is the availability of affordable child care. The Commission is willing to pursue further research in this area if the Council wishes. The following report summarizes the Commissions findings and recommendations. -1- loe,1 Page Two Human Rights & Services Commission Child Care Site Selection Report Issue 1: Day Care Center Site Selection 1. The Comission generally supports State of Minnesota requirements. (NOTE: Does Minnesota have a State law that prevents pre-emptive rules at the local level?) 2.. The Comission supports the location of present child care centers - intent is to make child care centers accessible and available (desire is not to impede or obstruct). 3. The Commission would like to assist in the planning process by reviewing plans for proposed child care centers. Areas of importance: a) Safe drop off and pick up of children; including school bus accessibility. b) Entrance and exit contained on the Center site, (no shared drive way) 4. The Commission would like the setback requirements to be reviewed. Setback requirements should be established for both the center and for the play area, -- consideration should be given to safety, noise, traffic generated dirt, etc. Setbacks should vary for collector roads, freeways, feeder routes, etc... (ie. increased setback from major commutor routes). Such setback requirements would help to address concerns about proximity to airborne emissions from automobiles and gasoline service stations. k • Issue 2: Day Care Affordability 1. The Comission believes the primary child care concern that the community needs to address is the affordability of daycare in Eden Prairie as well as the 'availability' of and 'access to' child care subsidy funds. 2. The Comission would like to look at opportunities to encourage creative solutions to reducing child care costs such as: a) Employer programs b) Corporate sponsored child care centers c) Consortium sponsored child care centers d) City administered child care funds (CDSG, Grants, foundation funds, etc.) e) Use of developers' impact fees f) Church sponsored child care programs 1 NJS:pb ccdaycar 1JC'1P MEMORANDUM ( TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources/A(. DATE: April 9, 1990 SUBJECT: Minnesota Department of Health Letter Regarding Riverview Spring Attached is a March 30, 1990 letter from Gerald Smith, Public Health Engineer from the Minnesota Department of Health, recom- mending that Riverview Spring be sealed and not available to the public for their use. The Safe Drinking Water Act includes a section on the responsi- bility of the State Department of Health to check on non community water supplies that are providing water to the public on a regular or transient basis. Both Riverview Spring and Miller Spring fit into the description of "piped water for human consumption." Although the Minnesota Department of Health consistently warns t against springs as a safe water supply because they are susceptible to contamination from outside sources, the major reason for recom- mending closing Riverview Spring is due to the construction of the outlet "below grade." The State also cites that the outlet is in an uncovered pit and a storm water catch basin is only 2 to 3 feet from the water outlet, making it directly subject to flooding and contamination. Mr. Smith indicated that the City could decide to improve the construction of Riverview Spring, but also reminds the City of the liability the City would be assuming from any water borne outbreak that could be traced back to that spring. The Health Department is suggesting the City seal this spring as soon as possible. City staff concur with the State of Minnesota Department of Health for the reasons cited in the March 30th letter, as well as the following reasons: 1. The nitrate level in Riverview Spring has always been consis- tently higher than that found in Miller Spring. Riverview Spring has measured between 7 and 9 parts per million, while Miller Spring generally measures between 3.5 and 6 parts per million. 2. The City does not own a sufficient amount of land in the Riv- erview Spring area to safely develop a reconstructed outlet away from the road and contaminates from the road, or provide safe off-road parking. /005 Although the number of users of Riverview Spring is significantly less than users of Miller Spring, the City can still expect a high number of complaints from citizens that rely on Riverview Spring for drinking water. Staff would recommend installing a sign explaining the reason for the closure at the time the spring is closed. BL:mdd spring/9 • ( /{,l(/f0 minnesota department of health ( division of environmental health 925 s.e.delaware st. p.o box 59040 minneapolis 65459-0040 (612)627.5100 March 30, 1990 Mr. Carl Jullie, City Manager City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie City Hall 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Dear Mr. Jullie: Subject: Riverview Park Water Suoaly Source. Eden Prairie. Minnesota On March 13, 1990, Ms. Carol Kephart of this office observed what appeared to be a water supply located off of Riverview Road. During her inspection of the area, Ms. Kephart observed persons filling containers with water from this source, i.e., spring. The outlet from this water source is poorly constructed with the outlet below grade in an uncovered pit and a storm water catch basin only 2 to 3 feet from the water outlet with the drain of the pit directly connected to the storm sewer. This construction makes the water outlet subject to flooding and contamination. In addition, springs and other similar water supply sources by their nature are more susceptible to contamination from outside sources. There also can be dramatic changes in the water quality within a short period of time. The potential chemical and bacteriological contamination of spring water supply sources make it necessary to regard such sources as unsafe for drinking water or food preparation. For these reasons this water supply source should be sealed and not available to the public for their use. As owner of this water supply you are reminded that you could be held liable should anyone become ill from drinking water from this water supply source. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 612/627-5178. Sincerely yours,.144-4-4-494 s� Gerald G. Smith, P.E. Public Health Engineer Section of Water Supply { and Well Management GGS:fd an equal opportunity employer (P+'i - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Eugene Dietz Director of Public Works • OATE: March 30, 1990 RE: Graffiti Bridge Study The report that has been supplied to you regarding the alternates for the graffiti bridge is fairly straight forward. However, some of the intangibles were not easily addressed by the BRW study. If it is important to retain a graffiti billboard, I strongly urge alternate A-1. The "magic" of the existing structure is that a significant number of people have to drive through the facility on a daily basis (at a slow rate of speed) and are able to see the daily changes. If this structure were to be moved to Edenvale Park, it will be visible, but no one will drive through it and the "magic" will be gone. The alternate for leaving the south abutment in place will only defer the problem for the period of time that it takes Hennepin County to develop some LRT plans. Hennepin County admits that will be a long term issue, but the County has gone on record recommending that the entire structure be removed and I believe that it will likely become a problem as we try to negotiate the details for constructing Valley View Road. In order to construct Valley View Road, it was proposed that a timber retaining wall be constructed to protect the NSP transmission poles on the north side of the roadway. Changing that timber retaining wall to a concrete wall and installing a railing for safety will provide the best visibility and a superior position from which to negotiate when dealing with Hennepin County. Frankly, encouragement of Graffiti in any form looks a lot like a trip to Abilene. But I do recognize the public sentiment regarding this issue and if we are to have a graffiti billboard in town, I believe alternate A-1 does the best job of meeting the variety of criteria of the interests involved. EAD:ssa cc: Carl Jullie, City Manager • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sandra F. Werts, Recreation Supervis DATE: April 11, 1990 SUBJECT: Historical and Cultural Commission Recommendation Regarding Graffiti Bridge The Historical and Cultural Commission reviewed the Feasibility Report on the Graffiti Bridge alternatives prepared by BRW in response to its earlier recommendation to the City Council. The Commission wishes to thank the Council for recommending further study. During the discussion of the graffiti bridge options, which occurred at the Commission's regular meeting on April 5th and at a special meeting on April 10th, additional options were raised in addition to those recommended in the BRW report, which the Commission recommends should be studied. The option favored by the Commission was not put forth in the study. This option, which the Commission would like to recommend to the Council for further study, would include the retention of both wing walls. The south wall would be retained in place as in Alternate A, Option 2 of the BRW study. The north wing wall would be moved to the north side of the newly constructed roadway, and a walking path with railings would be constructed to span the walls, therefore, retaining the true feel of a bridge. It is the understanding of the Commission that representatives of Totes, Inc. have been in touch with people in the community about the potential for corporate funding. The Commission believes this potential funding merits consideration of the more expensive preservation options. The Commission intends to continue working with City officials and staff to explore this source, and the Commission expects to receive some type of firm commitment in the foreseeable future. In view of this, the following motion, which passed unanimously at the Historical and Cultural Commission's April 10th meeting, is forwarded for your consideration: MOTION: Whereas consideration of the BRW, Inc. engineering study has led to further options, and whereas the Commission believes there are funding alternatives available to finance the newly identified option; therefore, the Historical and Cultural Commission recommends that the City Council defer a decision on the graffiti bridge until its first meeting in May. If a delay by the City Council is not an option, the Commission requests consideration of the following order of priority: /OA 1. Retain both wing walls and widen bridge to span road (new alternative). 2. Leave south walls in place (BRW - Alternative A, Option 2). 3. Preserve in place (BRW - Alternative C). 4. Relocate bridge to Valley View Road between Round Lake and Community Center (new alternative). 5. Relocate bridge to high school entryway (new alternative). 6. Relocate to Edenvale Park (BRW Alternative B). • 7. Total removal and build "graffiti wall" (BRW - Alternative A, Option 1). SFW:mdd graffiti/3 it /0/0 April 17, 199,0 Mr.Stuart Fox Manager of Parks and Natural Resources City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie,MN 55344-3677 Dear Mr.Fox Thank you for the opportunity to share my experience and knowledge about the values and benefits of urban trees. Regarding my background,I am currently an Urban Forester with the U.S. Forest Service(State and Private Forestry),and a Graduate Student at the University of Minnesota developing a community forestry inventory system. 1 have gained experience in municipal forestry operations while working as the urban forester for LaGrange Park,IL,a suburb of Chicago,and while working as a member of the Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee. I became very familiar with issues regarding values and benefits of urban trees while coauthoring the Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee report to the Legislature titled "Minnesota's Community and Urban Forests: Opportunities and Recommendations." In the process of writing the report,I became quite aware of the fundamental importance of urban trees,particularly their value in terms of increased quality of life for communities. The following presents several of the values of urban trees grouped according to four major categories(physical and ecological benefits,aesthetic values,economic benefits,and social benefits). I.Physical and Ecological Benefits: A.Climate Amelioration * "Trees,shrubs,and grass ameliorate air temperature in urban environments by controlling solar radiation(Grey and Deneke 1986). Mature trees,because of their larger size and leaf mass,ameliorate the climate more than smaller trees. Hence,it is important to preserve larger trees to maximize benefits from trees associated with climate amelioration. •One study found that the air-conditioning needs for a mobile home in an oak woodland was 75 percent less than the air-conditioning needs of a mobile home located in an open area(DeWalle 1978). *Bernatsky(1982)found 65 to 80 percent of the solar energy striking wooded areas in the summer to be dissipated through evapotranspiration (a tree's natural cooling process). In contrast,a city without vegetation will heat the air with 60 percent • of the incoming solar radiation. 1 Values of Urban Trees •Winkler et al.(1981)found a 5 degree heat island effect(differential between temperatures in the heart of the city and the countryside)in the Twin Cities in July. Due to the presence of this documented heat island effect,there is a need to preserve existing trees and plant more trees to reduce demands for air-conditioning. B.Ecological Values •Franks and Reeves(1988)suggested a method to assess dollar values of trees based on their value as a function of an ecosystem. Use of this system to assess values of trees can be of significant importance for land-use planners,because it allows land- use planners and other agencies to obtain a realistic estimate for the value of trees based on an ecological perspective. The system uses factors such as the trees significance in soil, nutrient and water conservation, animal usage, and habitat characteristics. C.Stormwater and Erosion Control • Trees are important elements in the hydrologic cycle. Trees intercept precipitation and reduce losses associated with runoff and soil erosion. Rowntree (1986)found that trees and other vegetation will catch rain and will reduce storm runoff by 17 percent,thus avoiding property damage from flooding. •According to Grey and Deneke(1986)"plants reduce water-caused soil erosion with their roots,and by increasingwater absorption through the incorporation of organic matter." Construction represents an impact on the environment that causes a significant increase in soil erosion. Trees and other vegetation that remain during construction can reduce soil erosion and loss. D.Comfort Values • Brown and Cherkezoff (1989) have conducted a study to determine the "comfort value"of a tree. Comfort value is the"value of a tree or trees in terms of the thermal comfort it creates for people." Essentially,the study attempts to quantify what we already know,people associate trees with thermal comfort: we seek shady parking spots in the summer,we walk on the side of the street lined with trees on a hot day,and we sit in the shade rather than in direct sunlight to stay cool. • Properly placed trees can control unwanted solar radiation in the form of glare and reflection control(Grey and Deneke 1986). *Properly located trees can lessen noises and sounds. Trees in masses represent the most effective means of noise abatement. Not only can they reduce sound,but by screening the source of noise,trees can have a psychological effect that reduces sound (Grey and Deneke 1986). *Trees can reduce air pollution. Certain plants absorb specific air pollutants. Wind turbulence in trees can help disperse gaseous pollutants. Further, trees can remove airborne particles such as dust,pollen, smoke,and sand(Grey and Deneke 1986). 2 Values of Urban Trees 11.Aesthetic Values; "'People prefer trees. In studies by Ulrich(1986),people prefer scenes that show environments with vegetation and other natural elements, to scenes lacking vegetation. In fact,people living in environments with natural features are generally more satisfied with their living conditions,than those without(Schroeder 1989). • Trees provide a variety of aesthetic values, including: providing pleasant scenery,personal enjoyment and appreciation of trees;screening unpleasant views and odors;accenting the architectural design of buildings;and providing landscapes that can promote tourism. ' Trees can be used to screen out unpleasant sites, or enhance buildings aesthetically(Grey and Deneke 1986). Trees can provide privacy by screening views. For example,"Trees and shrubs enframe views,soften architectural lines,enhance and compliment architectural elements,unify divergent elements,and introduce a naturalness to otherwise stark settings"(Grey and Deneke 1986). Because trees are living and growing features in the landscape,their beauty changes with the seasons,and is dynamic and ever-present. • It is important to note the importance people place on mature trees. Schroeder(1989)noted that a California study found that people preferred larger trees rather than smaller trees,simply because smaller trees were"less aesthetic and provided less shade." III.Economic Benefits; A.Increased Property Values * Increased property values represent one of the many economic benefits provided by trees. Studies have found property values to increase from 5 to 27% depending on the number and quality of trees(ICMA 1988,Hobaugh 1985). • Anderson and Cordell(1985) found that lots with trees were shown to sell quicker than lots without trees. Also, the higher value of these lots lead to higher property assessments which boost municipal property tax revenues. * Studies regarding the value of wooded vs. open lots found that the average selling price of houses with"no tree cover"was$51,108;the average selling price of comparable houses with"good tree cover"was$60,614--a selling price 18 percent higher than the house on the lot with no tree cover(Morales et al. 1983). 'Most public expenditures(sidewalks,streets,sewers,etc.)represent investments that depreciate over time. Trees represent an investment that appreciates in value (MSTAC 1990). 3 Values of Urban Trees B.Energy Savings • •Well-located shade trees could reduce the energy needed for air-conditioning a home by up to 30 percent and for a small business by 8 percent(Akbari et al. 1988). •Windbreaks could reduce home heating costs by up to 25 percent(DeWalle and Heisler 1988). C.Estimated Tree Value •Ebenreck(1989)estimated the following yearly values for an"average"fifty- year-old tree: air-conditioning-473,soil erosion and stormwater control--$75,wildlife shelter--575,and air pollution control--550. The total value in 1985 dollars was 5273. A value of 557,151 was also estimated for the total value of the tree during its lifetime (compounded at five percent for fifty years). IV.Social Benefits A.Social Values •Schroeder(1989)found that people attach importance and a priority to trees. In fact,in a survey of people living in a Chicago suburb,"99 percent of the respondents thought parkway trees were an asset to the community." •Getz et al.(1982)found that"Detroit residents ranked park and street trees second only to education programs for receiving additional funding." *Studies indicate that trees help reduce stress associated with urban settings by creating feelings of relaxation and well-being(Ulrich 1989). • Hospital surgery patients looking out the window at trees had fewer complications,needed less medication,and had shorter hospital stays than people whose rooms faced buildings(Ulrich 1984). B.Wildlife Habitat •A diverse community of both flora and fauna in the urban environment must be maintained. Not only does the diversity contribute to the overall health of the urban ecosystem,hut,it represents an important indicator of the city's habitability for humans (Majerus 1988). •Trees in cities provide a habitat for a variety of wildlife species. People benefit from urban wildlife interaction. In fact,studies indicate that people want to observe wildlife in cities. Greater than one-half of Americans participate in observing,feeding, and photographing wildlife(Tylka 1987). 4 { Values of Urban Trees C.Recreational Values • Wooded areas such as parks, greenbelts, and parkways provide many opportunities for urban recreational activities including: picnicking,walking,bike riding, exercise and wildlife observation. • Ariola and Wilson (1982) discuss the importance of natural, undeveloped space for recreation. In fact,they caution planners that residual or undeveloped open space must also be considered in planning because this space may also provide recreational benefits which cannot be obtained in more formal parks or open spaces. Many studies have been done and reports have been written on each of the values and benefits of urban trees that have been presented. The literature in support of the many values associated with urban trees is abundant. Please note the importance and difference between the value of large,mature trees and smaller trees. True,both large and small trees have many benefits. Yet,to get the maximum benefits associated with trees(shade,beauty,wildlife,increased property value, etc.),large,mature trees are more desirable and thus,preferred. Much time and energy, as well as good growing conditions are nerpgcary for a tree to reach large size and maturity. Generally,it will take many years for individuals to reap the benefits of newly planted trees. Trees definitely enhance the quality of life for individual living in urban areas in a wide variety of ways. Very simply,these values can be aesthetic,economic,environmental,or social. Ordinances that promote tree preservation represent the means by which these values can be assured for urban residents both now and in the future. Thank you for letting me share this information with you. Please let'me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, �f La, P , Lisa L.Burban Urban Forester,U.S.Forest Service(State and Private Forestry) Graduate Student,University of Minnesota 5 Values of Urban Trees Literature Cited Akbari,H., J. Huang, P. Martien, L. Ranier,A. Rosenfeld, and H. Taha. 1988. "The impact of summer heat islands on cooling energy consumption and CO2 emissions". Publication Number LBL-25179. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Berkeley, CA. 12 pages. Anderson, L M. and H. K. Cordell. 1985. "Residential property values improved by landscaping with trees." Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 9:2-166. Ariola,T. M.and D.Wilson. 1982. "Recreation benefits of residual open space:a case study of four communities in Northeastern New Jersey." Environmental Management 6(6):471484. Bernatsky, A. 1982. "The contribution of trees and green spaces to a town climate". Energy and Buildings 5:1-10. Brown,R.D.and L.E.Cherkezoff. 1989. "Of what comfort value, a tree?". Journal of Arboriculture 15(7):158-161. DeWalle,D.R. 1978. "Manipulating urban vegetation for residential energy conservation." Proceedings,First National Urban Forestry Conference. Washington,D.C. SUNY ESF Publication 80-003. pages 267-283. DeWalle, D. R. and G. M. Heisler. 1988. "Use of windbreaks for home energy conservation." Agriculture,Ecosystems,and Environment. 22/23:243-260. Ebenreck,S. 1989. "The values of trees." In Shading Our Cities.A Resource Guide for Urban and Community Forests. Ed. by G. Moll and S. Ebenreck. Island Press, Washington D.C.333 pages. Franks,E. C. and J.W. Reeves. 1988. "A formula for assessing the ecological value of trees." Journal of Arboriculture 14(10):255-259. Getz, D. A., A. Karow, and J.J.Kielbaso. 1982. "Inner city preferences for trees and urban forestry programs." Journal of Arboriculture 8(10):258-263. Grey,G.W.and F.J.Deneke. 1986. Urban Forestry. John Wiley and Sons,New York. 299 pages. Harris,R.W. 1983. Arboriculture. Prentice-Hall,Inc.,New Jersey.687 pages. Hobaugh, M. E. 1985. "How a tree increases home values." Pennsylvania Forests 75 (4,485):14,18. International City Management Association. 1988. 'Trends in urban forestry." Baseline Data Report 20:1,Washington,D.C. 18 pages. 6 Values of Urban Trees International Society of Arboriculture. 1988. Valuation of Landscape Trees.Shrubs.and Other Plats. ISA.50 pages. Majerus, K. A. 1988. "Urban Forest Management: Guidelines for Planning and Administration' University of Illinois,Department of Forestry. Urbana,IL. 46 pages. Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory Committee. 1990. "Minnesota's Community and Urban Forests: Opportunities and Recommendations." A Report to the Minnesota Legislature. 35 pages. Morales,D.J.,F.R.Micha,and R.L.Weber. 1983. Two methods of valuating trees on residential sites." Journal of Arboriculture 9:21-24. Rowntree,R.A.1985. 'Ecological values of the urban forest.' Proceedings,Third National Urban Forestry Conference. Orlando, FL. American Forestry Association. Washington,D.C.pages 22-24. Schroeder,H.W. 1989. "Aesthetic perceptions of the urban forest: a utility perspective! Journal of Arboriculture 15(12):292-294. Tylka,D. 1987. "Critters in the city:a pioneering concept" American Forests 93(9,10):61- 64. Ulrich,R.S. 1984. "View through a window may influence recovery from surgery." Science 224:420-421. Ulrich, R.S. 1986. "Human responses to vegetation and landscapes." Landscape and Urban Planning 13:29-44. Ulrich, R.S. 1990. 'The role of trees in human well-being and health." Proceedings, Fourth Urban Forestry Conference. St.Louis,MO.pages 25-30. Winkler,J.A.,R.H.Skaggs,and D.G.Baker. 1981. Effect of temperature adjustments on the Minneapolis-St.Paul urban heat island.Journal of Applied Meteorology 20:1295- 1300. 7 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-111 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement: I.C. 52-191 (1990-1991 Maintenance Materials and Water Treatment Chemicals) bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works recommends award of Contract as follows: 1. MnDOT 2341 Mix Commercial Asphalt Co. $105,000.00 2. Class 5 Aggregate J.L. Shiely Company $ 14,080.00 3. Class 2 Aggregate J.L. Shiely Company $ 10,560.00 4. Quicklime Cutler-Magner Company $171,470.00 5. Ferric Sulfate Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. $ 61,9B1.70 t 6. Liquid Chlorine DPC Industries, Inc. $ 29,000.00 7. Liquid Carbon Dioxide Koch Carbon Dioxide $ 5,300.00 8. Polyphosphate DPC Industries, Inc. $ 22,440.9D as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a Contract with the above named suppliers for the amounts listed in accordance with the specifications thereof approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the Director of Public Works. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 17, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor and City Council Members THROUGH: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Design Engineerfa DATE: April 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Summary of Bids 1990-91 Maintenance Materials and Water Treatment Chemicals Bids were received on April 12, 1990 for our annual contracts for street maintenance materials and water treatment chemicals. Attached is a summary sheet indicating the unit prices for these materials and chemicals. Resolution No.90-111 shows the material or chemical, the recommended supplier and an extension of the unit price multiplied by the estimated amount of material to be purchased. Most of the bids are straight forward, however, the following bid items need further explanation: CLASS 5 AGGREGATE - Four bids were received with the apparent low bidder being Midwest Asphalt Corporation. However, the material that they proposed to supply is a blend of recycled concrete and bituminous mixture. The material may have its uses, but for our purposes (gravel road surfacing, shouldering and base material for patching), the virgin aggregate best suits our needs. Therefore, we recommend award of the Class 5 aggregate bid to J.L. Shiely Company. FERRIC SULFATE - Four bids were received with the apparent low bidder being Van Waters b Rogers, Inc. However, a $7.50 pallet charge needs to be added to each ton of chemical delivered thereby making their bid $218.80. In addition, the bid from Tennessee Chemical Company included a separate freight charge ($57.40 per ton) which makes their total bid $220.40 per ton. Therefore, we recommend award of the ferric sulfate bid to Feed-Rite Controls, Inc. based on their bid being the lowest. RWR:ssa it W H Q 2 6 N 01 •f� C N b " n n o N N 0V. 0 Z O m CC.)CC 1.1 RC O� 0 0 0 0 4.) 00 N 0'CI VW M J z o o 0 4 10 O D N N J S N » LI pp W •'+ $ 0 0 0 elU FC CV W S a' T y • u �n a a I. N 2 •/' N 1N/1 0 10C CO"' N JN T•1 a N U O M O C W N= V N N C O N T Ci b t0 6 VI N fry V 0 .... M * O. C K I.Z O 0 0 0 0; ID O Z r .+ r•• .r S cs M M b f. 0• O- O F. 'W 11 M 11 'M 1111 0 11n 1L!) C 1„C) 0 of n m 4. N N N N N N V' tr'1 Z N vb. 4• N d C • •C N • • C4.+. C > u 0 C •.. • 2 1.4JO �6i V '4 '4 • 3 •- d L. LL 00 • J W ~• V V/ 01 14 ♦.1 141 0. U N U U .0 U U V C N) d ••• d C U r E EE •X d .. o L .- u C• •p L C i U 4) L • C 8 0 U 1•I @ • d 44 O S O. 0 0. i 14 01 U 0 4) Cl N • 41 N @ 0. L L Cl C C C .0 .0 C 0 C q J C EE N d L L V •.- O i O N Y d i M d Q 6 6 C O V Y •" 0 Y C DN i Y V 4, C -X 01 L U • V U O L N 'O. V N V1 40 1d4 1,1 q q 4/ L 0 0 N /0 0 L N C O r64 O d L = O S d d ^ L d N ••- L L U C 01 d d C. p- a• L H 40 4.1 H L L O C . 41 C T X L L to C: L a+ V V 44 46 d d 0 344. N IC L U C O d d d YV0-- L al V d 4- .c C d = d H 6 se E N .X 44 •e C C •o = O V H d y sN W d C C Y4/ N N O O .0 d TI II C O - Z OV CC VI I- ? 3 Q CO u Li La W W 0S S •-• ^) Y J = S CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-112 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR 1990 SEAL COATING WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement: I.C. 52-192 (1990 Bituminous Seal Coating) bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the Oirector of Public Works recommends award of Contract to ASPHALT SURFACE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (ASTECH) as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in a Contract with ASPHALT SURFACE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $187,002.92 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the Director of Public Works. ADDPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 17, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John 0. Frane, City Clerk 1 - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Design Engineer SUBJECT: Summary of Bids for Improvement Contract 52-192 (1990 Bituminous Seal Coating) Sealed bids were received at 10:00 A.M. on Thursday, April 12, 1990 for the above referenced improvement. Three bids were received and are tabulated as follows: BID BIDDER SECURITY BIO AMOUNT Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp. 5% $187,002.92 Allied Blacktop Company 5% $193,431.53 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 5% $200,865.13 The budget for seal coating is approximately $190,000. Our intention is to increase the project in order to maximize the seal coating area and still remain within budget. Recommend award of Improvement Contract 52-192 to Asphalt Surface Technologies Corporation in the amount of $187,002.92. RWR:ssa 1. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-113 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR 1990 STREET STRIPING WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement: I.C. 52-193 (1990 CITY STREET STRIPING) bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works recommends award of Contract to AM STRIPING SERVICE COMPANY as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in a Contract with MA STRIPING SERVICE COMPANY in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $14,4513.130 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the Director of Public Works. ADDPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on April 17, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk 1 a - MEMORANDUM - TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager Eugene A. Oietz, Director of Public Works FROM: Rodney W. Rue, Design Engineer '(A)R SUBJECT: Summary of Bids for Improvement Contract 52-193 (1990 City Street Striping) Sealed bids were received at 10:00 A.M. on Thursday, April 12, 1990 for the above referenced improvement. Two bids were received and are tabulated as follows: AAA Striping Service Company E14,458.80 Oeneson Striping, Inc. $14,940.50 Recommend award of Improvement Contract 52-193 to AAA Striping Service Co. in the amount of $14,458.80. RWR:ssa • 2