Docstoc

approved

Document Sample
approved Powered By Docstoc
					                           MINUTES
                   MINNETONKA CITY COUNCIL
             REGULAR MEETING, MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2004

1.   CALL TO ORDER.

     Mayor Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

2.   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

     All joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.

3.   ROLL CALL.

     Councilmembers Jan Callison, Al Thomas, Tony Wagner, Bob Ellingson,
     Brad Wiersum, and Karen Anderson were present. Councilmember Terry
     Schneider arrived at 10 p.m., between items #14A and the reordered item
     #13A.

4.   APPROVAL OF AGENDA.

     City Manager John Gunyou reviewed the items in the addendum:
         • Item #9B – Water treatment plant bids - A revised paragraph 3
           was provided for the staff report.
         • Item #10H – Bebeaus Deerwood Trails plat – Staff recommended
           renumbering condition #7 to 1.d so that brush removal becomes a
           condition to release the final plat. Anderson suggested the
           reference be to piles, in the plural.
         • Item #13A –Charter amendments – Because Schneider would be
           able to join the meeting late, the recommendation for this item
           changed from postponing it to another meeting, to holding the
           continued public hearing and adopting the ordinance.
         • Item #14B – Crosby Cove development – Several letters were
           provided that arrived after the agenda packet was distributed. Also,
           staff recommended changes to three conditions to add a new
           option for the trail to go through the Crosby Cove project rather
           than along Crosby Road.

     Callison moved, Thomas seconded a motion to accept the agenda with
     the addendum. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

5.   APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

     Callison moved, Wiersum seconded a motion to approve the minutes of
     the March 15, 2004 Minnetonka City Council meeting as submitted.
     Callison, Thomas, Ellingson, Wiersum, and Anderson voted “yes.” Wagner
     abstained. Motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES               PAGE 2             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


6.    SPECIAL MATTERS:

      A.    Citizen’s award for life saving.

            This item was taken out of order, after item #6B. Thomas presented
            the information concerning Jeff Seel rescuing his neighbor, Pam
            Sperling, during a house fire. Fire Chief Joe Wallin told Seel that
            the paid-on-call Minnetonka Fire Department represents neighbors
            saving neighbors, and Seel followed in that tradition with his
            actions. Wallin presented a plaque to Seel.

      B.    Recognition of 2004 Citizenship Academy Graduates.

            The following 2004 Citizenship Academy Graduates were
            recognized:

            Present:
                  Rudy Allebach                Ken Bush
                  Kyle Gallagher               Dave Griepp
                  Roger Lillemo                Bob Lueben
                  Carole McConnell             Suzette Meakins
                  Bill Sperber                 Wendy Steinmetz

            Not present:
                  Ellen Cabacungan             Andrea Fiterman
                  Christopher Gilson           Dewey Hassig
                  Michael Hupp                 Sally McNamee
                  Coral Moore                  Lisa Nixon
                  Bunny Robinson               Maria Ruud
                  Renata Sperber

            Anderson thanked the attendees for their time commitment to learn
            more about their city government.

      C.    Recognition of an Environmental Leadership Award presented
            at the 2004 Road Salt Symposium.

            Wiersum provided information about the Environmental Leadership
            Award the City of Minnetonka received for reducing their use of
            sand and salt on the roadways. Public Works Director Brian
            Wagstrom’s efforts were recognized on behalf of the department.

      D.    Proclamation designating the month of April 2004 as Child
            Abuse Prevention Month.

            Ellingson read a proclamation proclaiming April 2004 as Child
            Abuse Prevention Month in Minnetonka.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 3             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


      E.    Proclamation designating the week of Sunday, April 18, 2004
            through Sunday, April 25, 2004 as Days of Remembrance.

            Wagner read a proclamation designating the week of Sunday, April
            18, 2004 through Sunday, April 25, 2004 as Days of Remembrance
            in Minnetonka.

      F.    Proclamation designating the month of June 2004 as GLBT
            Pride Celebration.

            Anderson read a proclamation designating the month of June 2004
            as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transsexual Pride Celebration in
            Minnetonka.

7.    REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER & COUNCIL MEMBERS.

      Gunyou reviewed the schedule of upcoming City Council and Board of
      Review meetings.

      Callison reported on the grand opening of the Minute Clinic in the Carlson
      Center.

7.    CITIZENS WISHING TO DISCUSS MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA.

      No one spoke.

9.    BIDS AND PURCHASES:

      A.    Award of contract for the construction of water treatment plant
            #16.

            Gunyou provided the staff report for this item.

            Wiersum moved, Callison seconded a motion to award the bid for
            the construction of water treatment plant #16 to Bor-Son
            Construction in the amount of $7,439,246.70 including the base bid
            and alternates #1 and #2. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      B.    Award of contract for the purchase and integration of electrical
            controls for water treatment plant #16.

            Gunyou introduced this item, and noted the change to the staff
            report from the addendum.

            Thomas moved, Wagner seconded a motion to award In Control,
            Inc. the contract for purchase and installation of the electrical
            controls and systems integration portion of the water treatment
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                 PAGE 4             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            plant #16 project in the amount of $224,650. All voted “yes.” Motion
            carried.

10.   CONSENT AGENDA (Items Requiring a Majority Vote):

      A.    Claims for council authorization – March 22, 2004.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to approve the March
            22, 2004 claims list, including checks numbered 180903 through
            181169 totaling $834,376.17. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      B.    Claims for council authorization – April 12, 2004.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to approve the April
            12, 2004 claims list, including checks numbered 181170 through
            181559 totaling $1,049,389.74. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      C.    Approval of an Amendment to Easement at 5920 Green Oak
            Drive and authorizing its execution.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to authorize the
            mayor and city manager to execute the Amendment to Easement at
            5920 Green Oak Drive. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      D.    Resolution accepting plans and specifications and authorizing
            the advertisement for bids for the 2004 Pavement
            Rehabilitation Program.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to adopt Resolution
            No. 2004-025 accepting plans and specifications and authorizing
            the advertisement for bids for the 2004 Pavement Rehabilitation
            Program, Project No. 4424. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      E.    Resolution approving an agreement for traffic signals on
            CSAH 62 in the vicinity of I-494.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to adopt Resolution
            No. 2004-026 approving an agreement for traffic signals on CSAH
            62 in the vicinity of I-494. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      F.    Approval of contract for public works maintenance services.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to approve the State
            of Minnesota Income Contract for public works maintenance
            services subject to the approval of the city attorney. All voted “yes.”
            Motion carried.

      G.    Ordinance amending City Code §1020.020 regarding loitering.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 5             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004




            This item was pulled from the consent agenda by audience
            member Maureen Hackett, 4919 Arlington Drive. Hackett thought
            that ten minutes was too brief a time to constitute loitering. City
            Attorney Desyl Peterson explained that the ordinance was in
            response to complaints the police department has received at 7-Hi
            Shopping Center. Peterson said that the ordinance would only be
            enforced where signs were posted, and property owners of private
            property open to the public would typically post those signs.

            Wiersum moved, Callison seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance
            No. 2004-10 amending City Code §1020.020 regarding loitering.
            All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      H.    Preliminary and final plat to divide one lot into two lots at
            15509 Excelsior Boulevard for Gary D. Bebeau.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to give preliminary
            and final approval to Bebeaus Deerwood Trails. Approval is based
            on the finding that the proposal meets the required standards and
            ordinances.

            Approval is subject to the following conditions:
            1)    The following items must be completed before the city
                  releases the final plat:
                  a.     Pay the park dedication fee of $2,375.
                  b.     Submit an electronic CAD file of the final plat in
                         microstation or DXF.
                  c.     Submit the following documents for the city attorney’s
                         approval:
                         (1)     Title evidence that is acceptable to the City of
                                 Minnetonka attorney. Title evidence must be
                                 current within thirty days before release of the
                                 final plat.
                         (2)     A 34-foot private driveway easement between
                                 the street right-of-way and Lot 1. The
                                 easement must state the maintenance
                                 responsibilities of each owner. The minimum
                                 driveway width must be as required by the fire
                                 marshal.
                         (3)     Private utility easements across Lot 1 to
                                 provide services to Lot 2.
                         (4)     Private utility easement across Lot 2 to provide
                                 services to Lot 1, if required.
                  d.     All brush piles must be removed from the property.
            2)    The following must be submitted to the city before issuance
                  of a building permit:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                 PAGE 6              MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                   a.     A grading plan for the vacant lot, subject to staff
                          approval.
                   b.     A tree preservation plan for the vacant lot, subject to
                          staff approval. Tree protection fencing must be
                          installed. The sewer and water services must be
                          shown to minimize impact to the significant trees.
                   c.     The installation and maintenance of a temporary rock
                          driveway, erosion control, tree protection, and wetland
                          protection fencing for each lot must be installed,
                          subject to review and approval of the city’s
                          environmental resources coordinator.
                   d.     A copy of the recorded plat and any easements or
                          covenants required to be recorded.
                   e.     A hookup fee for sanitary sewer and water.
                   f.     A letter from the surveyor stating that boundary and
                          lot stakes have been installed as required by
                          ordinance. If the grading for proposed streets has not
                          been completed, the planning director may approve a
                          time extension to this requirement.
                   g.      Any proposed home on Lot 1 must maintain at least a
                          97-foot setback from the north lot line.
            3)     During construction, the streets must be kept free of debris
                   and sediment, and the tree protection fencing, and erosion
                   control fencing must be maintained.
            4)     Trees must be planted to compensate for significant trees
                   removed from each site that would be outside of the building
                   pad and driveway area. The trees must be primarily species
                   native to the area. They must be at least 2 1/2 inches in
                   diameter for deciduous trees and 6 feet tall for coniferous
                   trees. The property owner or original developer must replace
                   the required trees if they die within one year after installation.
            5)     Compliance with all preliminary plat conditions, especially
                   the specific conditions for release of the plat; and
            6)     Unless the city council approves a time extension, the final
                   plat must be recorded within one year of council approval of
                   the final plat.

            All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      I.    Final approval of the DAMICO ADDITION plat at 4401 Wilson
            Street for Paul and Angelina D’Amico.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to approve the
            DAMICO ADDITION final plat that was received on February 24,
            2004, subject to the following conditions:
            1)    Compliance with all preliminary plat conditions, especially
                  the specific conditions for release of the plat; and
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                 PAGE 7             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            2)     Unless the city council approves a time extension, the final
                   plat must be recorded within one year of council approval of
                   the final plat.

            All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      J.    Items concerning improvements to Gro Tonka Park at 3201
            Beverly Place for the City of Minnetonka.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to:
            1)    Approve the site and building plans for the public building
                  and shelters at Gro Tonka Park at 3201 Beverly Place,
                  subject to the following condition:
                  a.     The site must be developed and maintained in
                         substantial conformance with the following plans,
                         unless modified by the conditions below:
                         • Overall Landscape Plan dated February 3, 2004.
                         • Building elevations dated March 1, 2004.
            2)    Adopt the Resolution No. 2004-027 approving a conditional
                  use permit for recreational facilities in a wetland buffer area
                  at Gro Tonka Park for the City of Minnetonka.

            Approval is based on the finding that the proposal meets the
            required conditional use permit standards and is subject to the
            following conditions:
                   a.    The location of the trail, in relation to the wetland,
                         must be maintained in substantial conformance with
                         the Overall Layout Plan dated February 3, 2004.
                   b.    A seed mixture acceptable to the city’s environmental
                         resources coordinator must be used on all non-
                         impervious areas within 16.5 feet of the wetland.
                   c.    The following work must be completed before starting
                         any site work:
                         (1)      Install for staff approval erosion control and
                                  tree protection fencing. The fencing must be
                                  maintained throughout the construction
                                  process.
                         (2)      If required, submit copies of Purgatory Creek
                                  Watershed District and Department of Natural
                                  Resources approval of the wetland buffers.
                                  The city may require revisions to the approved
                                  plans to meet the district’s requirements.
                   d.    The city council may reasonably add or revise
                         conditions to address any future unforeseen
                         problems.
                   e.    Any change to the approved use that results in a
                         significant increase in traffic or a significant change in
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                 PAGE 8             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                          character would require a revised conditional use
                          permit.
                   f.     The applicant must agree to the above conditions in
                          writing.

            All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      K.    Items concerning a proposed Discount Tire Store at 17790
            State Highway 7 in the Seven-Hi Shopping Center for Discount
            Tire Company.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to:
            1)    Adopt the Resolution No. 2004-028 approving a conditional
                  use permit for an auto-related business at 17790 State
                  Highway 7 in the Seven-Hi Shopping Center for a discount
                  tire company. Approval is based on the finding that the
                  proposal meets required conditional use permit standards.

                   Approval is subject to the following conditions:
                   a.     No unlicensed and inoperable vehicles may be stored
                          on premise.
                   b.     All repair, assembly, disassembly, and maintenance
                          of vehicles must be conducted within the closed
                          building.
                   c.     There must be no public address system or business
                          related noise audible from adjacent residential
                          property lines.
                   d.     No sales, storage, or display of used automobiles
                          may occur on the site.
                   e.     A separate sign permit application must be submitted
                          for staff review. Any proposed sign must meet
                          conditions outlined in the Seven-Hi sign covenants.
                   f.     Record this resolution with the county before the City
                          of Minnetonka issues a building permit.
                   g.     The city council may reasonably add or revise
                          conditions to address any future unforeseen
                          problems.
                   h.     Any change to the approved use that results in a
                          significant increase in traffic or a significant change in
                          character would require a revised conditional use
                          permit.
                   i.     The applicant must agree to the above conditions in
                          writing.
            2)     Approve the minor amendment to the Seven-Hi master
                   development plan for an auto-related business at 17790
                   State Highway 7. Approval is based on the finding that the
                   proposed façade change meets all site and building plan
                   standards. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 9             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                   a.     Construction and development must be in substantial
                          conformance with the following plans unless modified
                          by the conditions below:
                          • Site Plan dated stamped February 4, 2004
                          • Building Elevations date stamped January 20, 2004
                          • Floor plans date stamped January 20, 2004
                   b.     Building materials and colors must compliment the
                          existing building.
                   c.     A separate sign permit application must be submitted
                          for staff review and approval. Any proposed sign must
                          meet the conditions outlined in the Seven-Hi sign
                          covenants.

            All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      L.    Temporary sign at the intersection of Williston and Minnetonka
            Boulevard (city property) for the Minnetonka Chamber Choir.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to approve a
            temporary sign for April 13, 2004, through April 23, 2004, at
            Minnetonka Boulevard and Williston Road (city property) for the
            Minnetonka Chamber Choir. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      M.    Resolution establishing a new precinct (Ward 4, Precinct H).

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to adopt Resolution
            No. 2004-029 establishing a new precinct (Ward 4, Precinct H). All
            voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      N.    Final approval of the OAK HAVEN plat at 14593 and 14629
            Lake St. Extension for Shane Walgamuth.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to approve the OAK
            HAVEN final plat that was received on March 15, 2004, subject to
            the following conditions:
            1)      Compliance with all preliminary plat conditions, especially
                    the specific conditions for release of the plat; and
            2)      Unless the city council approves a time extension, the final
                    plat must be recorded within one year of council approval of
                    the final plat.

            All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      O.    Final approval of the DYVIG ADDITION plat for a two-lot
            subdivision at 13418 Excelsior Boulevard for Thomas L. Dyvig.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 10            MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to approve the
            DYVIG ADDITION final plat that was received on March 30, 2004,
            subject to the following conditions:
            1)    Compliance with all preliminary plat conditions, especially
                  the specific conditions for release of the plat; and
            2)    Unless the city council approves a time extension, the final
                  plat must be recorded within one year of council approval of
                  the final plat.

            All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

11.   Items requiring Five Votes:

      A.    Items concerning improvements to Libb’s Lake Beach at 16600
            Park Lane for the City of Minnetonka.

            Callison moved, Thomas seconded a motion to:
            1)     Approve the site and building plans for the public building at
                   Libb’s Lake Beach, subject to the following conditions:
                   a.      The site must be developed and maintained in
                           substantial conformance with the following plans,
                           unless modified by the conditions below:
                           • Overall Layout Plan dated February 3, 2004.
                           • Building elevations dated March 1, 2004.
                   b.      The following work must be completed before starting
                           any site work:
                           (1)    Install for staff approval erosion control and
                                  tree protection fencing. The fencing must be
                                  maintained throughout the construction
                                  process.
                           (2)    If required, submit copies of Minnehaha Creek
                                  Watershed District and Department of Natural
                                  Resources approval. The city may require
                                  revisions to the approved plans to meet the
                                  district’s requirements.
            2)     Adopt Resolution No. 2004-030 approving the following
                   multiple variances for improvements to Libb’s Lake Beach
                   for the City of Minnetonka:
                   a.      Shoreland setback variance from 50 feet to 22 feet for
                           a public building;
                   b.      Floodplain setback variance from 35 feet to 11 feet for
                           a public building;
                   c.      Shoreland setback variance from 50 feet to 45 feet for
                           the parking lot – north;
                   d.      Shoreland setback variance from 50 feet to 45 feet for
                           the parking lot – south; and
                   e.      Floodplain setback variance from 20 feet to 4 feet for
                           the parking lot – north;
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES              PAGE 11            MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                  Approval is based the following findings:
                  a.      Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship
                          because of the following circumstances that are
                          unique to this property:
                          (1)     The city is proposing to use the property in a
                                  reasonable manner. The proposed
                                  improvements are consistent with the “park”
                                  designation of the property in the city’s
                                  comprehensive plan.
                  b.      The variance would be consistent with the spirit and
                          intent of this ordinance for the following reasons:
                          (1)     The proposed improvements reduce existing
                                  non-conforming setbacks, increasing both
                                  shoreland and floodplain setbacks.
                          (2)     The proposed improvements decrease total
                                  hardsurface coverage on the site.
                  Approval is subject to the following conditions:
                  a.      The site must be developed and maintained in
                          substantial conformance with the Overall Layout Plan
                          dated February 3, 2004.
                  b.      The following work must be completed before starting
                          any site work:
                          (1)     Install for staff approval erosion control and
                                  tree protection fencing. The fencing must be
                                  maintained throughout the construction
                                  process.
                          (2)     If required, submit copies of Minnehaha Creek
                                  Watershed District and Department of Natural
                                  Resources approval. The city may require
                                  revisions to the approved plans to meet the
                                  district’s requirements.
                  c.      This variance will expire December 31, 2005, unless
                          the city has issued permits for the project covered by
                          this variance.
            3)    Adopt Resolution No. 2004-031 approving a conditional use
                  permit for concrete fishing platforms below the ordinary high
                  water mark at Libb’s Lake Beach for the City of Minnetonka.
                  Approval is based on the finding that the proposal meets the
                  required conditional use permit standards and is subject to
                  the following conditions.
                  a.      Development must be in substantial conformance with
                          the Overall Layout Plan dated February 3, 2004.
                  b.      The following work must be completed before starting
                          any site work:
                          (1)     Install erosion control measures for staff
                                  approval. Erosion control must be maintained
                                  throughout the construction process.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 12             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                          (2)     If required, submit copies of Minnehaha Creek
                                  and Department of Natural Resources
                                  approval. The city may require revisions to the
                                  approved plans to meet the district’s
                                  requirements.
                   c.     The city council may reasonably add or revise
                          conditions to address any future unforeseen
                          problems.
                   d.     Any change to the approved use that results in a
                          significant increase in traffic or a significant change in
                          character would require a revised conditional use
                          permit.
                   e.     The applicant must agree to the above conditions in
                          writing.

            All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

12.   INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES.

      A.    Ordinance amending City Code Section §915.031(2) regarding
            public safety alarms.

            Peterson provided a brief staff report. At the suggestion of Wiersum
            and Anderson, Peterson will clarify the wording regarding the
            requirement to meet all three criteria.

            Wiersum moved, Ellingson seconded a motion to introduce an
            ordinance amending City Code Section §915.031(2) regarding
            public safety alarms. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      B.    Ordinance rezoning 3864 Hopkins Crossroad from B-1, Office,
            to B-2, Limited Business, for a car wash.

            Callison moved, Thomas seconded a motion to introduce an
            ordinance rezoning 3864 Hopkins Crossroad from B-1, Office, to B-
            2, Limited Business, for a car wash at 3864 Hopkins Crossroad and
            refer it to the planning commission. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      C.    Ordinance rezoning up to five wetlands as part of a water
            quality improvement project for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed
            District and the City of Minnetonka.

            In response to Callison’s question, City Engineer Lee Gustafson
            said that pond #564 had been deleted from the project and would
            not be presented for further consideration by the council.

            Callison moved, Wiersum seconded a motion to introduce an
            ordinance rezoning five wetlands as part of a water quality
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 13            MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            improvement project for the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and
            the City of Minnetonka and refer it to the planning commission. All
            voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      D.    Ordinance rezoning 4701 and 4717 Williston Road from R-1,
            Low Density Residential, to PUD, Planned Unit Development,
            to subdivide 2 lots into 5 single-family lots for Michael J.
            Leuer.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to introduce an
            ordinance rezoning 4701 and 4717 Williston Road from R-1, Low
            Density Residential, to PUD, Planned Unit Development, to
            subdivide 2 lots into 5 single-family lots for Michael J. Leuer and
            refer it to the planning commission. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

13.   PUBLIC HEARINGS:

      A.    Proposed amendments to the city charter:
            1.   Incompatible offices
            2.   Emergency purchases
            3.   Official means of publication

            This item was taken out of order when Schneider arrived at 10 p.m.
            It was discussed after item #14A.

            Peterson presented the staff report. Anderson invited additional
            public comment during the public hearing. Hearing none, she
            closed the hearing at 10:02 p.m.

            Schneider moved, Callison seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance
            No. 2004-13 amending Minnetonka City Charter Sections 2.05,
            6.05, 3.07, 3.09, 4.04, 6.06, 10.02, 11.06, and 12.06 regarding
            incompatible offices, emergency purchases, and the official means
            of publication. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

14.   OTHER BUSINESS:

      A.    Items concerning a proposed development of 25 single-family
            homes at 2201 Crosby Road (Cargill property) for Keith Waters
            & Associates, Inc.

            Anderson explained the process for consideration of this item.
            Planning Director Geoff Olson presented the staff report.

            In response to Anderson’s questions, Olson explained the area of
            the conservation easement. Anderson, noting that conservation
            easements typically cover areas that could not be developed,
            commended the developer for conserving land for other reasons.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES               PAGE 14             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004




            Peterson clarified that the homeowner’s association would be
            responsible for maintenance of the conservation easement area
            and would establish an endowment fund. If the homeowner’s
            association failed to do that, the city could complete the work and
            assess the costs against the property. Peterson clarified that the
            agreement was still being drafted. She noted that some initial work
            would be needed on the property before entering the maintenance
            phase.

            In response to Anderson’s question, Gunyou said that staff must
            approve the resource management plan before a grading permit is
            issued. Peterson said that documentation of the conservation
            easement and endowment would be public information and would
            be recorded on the title of the properties to give notice to buyers.

            In response to Callison’s question, Olson said that the homeowners
            would maintain the sidewalk until it is connected to the city’s Loop
            Trail System, at which time the city would assume maintenance
            responsibilities. The sidewalks are designed for internal circulation
            but would be public.

            Also in response to Callison’s question, Community Development
            Director Ron Rankin said that the requirement for the EDA to
            monitor the use of the accessory units should be included in the
            stipulations.

            In response to Wiersum’s question, Olson said that details of the
            conservation berm and ornamental vegetation where the trail exist
            on the property haven’t been finalized.

            In response to Wagner’s question, Rankin said that the accessory
            units can count toward the city’s affordable housing units to the
            extent that their tenants and rent meet affordable housing criteria.
            Rankin said that the Metropolitan Council is intrigued by this new
            concept. The units will be monitored through an annual survey.
            Anderson clarified that the proposed trail would provide better
            access to Linner Park, and it would use an existing street.

            Keith Waters of Keith Waters & Associates, 6216 Baker Road,
            spoke as the applicant. He reviewed the history of the property, and
            described the proposed project.

            Steve Apfelbaum of Applied Ecological Services, Broadhead, WI,
            provided information about conservation plans for the site, as well
            as the project’s goal to connect people to people, and people to the
            land.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES               PAGE 15             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            Waters then explained the village green concept planned for the
            project and the design of the homes. He noted the potential uses
            for the accessory units and the safeguards to ensure that the
            spaces were used for those purposes.

            Joshua Wert, 15611 Sheridan Spur, spoke on behalf of the
            neighbors to the north of the property. They have two issues with
            the project:
                • The location of house #9.
                • Mr. Cargill’s approach to the trail covenant. They felt that he
                    had not made sufficient efforts to work out a compromise
                    with them, and they questioned the city involvement in a
                    condemnation.

            Wert suggested that the project was close to being a win:win for the
            developer, the neighbors and the city, and asked the city council to
            provide leadership for the final decisions.

            In response to Callison’s question, Wert offered no solution, but
            said that the neighbors were not seeking to be bought out of their
            interests in the trail covenant.

            Ellingson asked for clarification from Wert on their concerns about
            house #9 and the trail. Wert said that they could have supported a
            house at location #9 if there were other houses in that area. He
            also said that some of the neighbors supported alternate routes for
            the trail.

            Anderson asked staff to show the plan of how the property could
            have been subdivided without variances. Olson indicated that far
            more lots could be developed near the neighbors.

            Kean Meyer, 2113 Sheridan Hills Road, supported the plan to place
            the trail on Sheridan Hills Road, and asked about funding for the
            trail. Gustafson said that there would not be a sidewalk along
            Sheridan Hills Road because the traffic volume is low. He said that
            additional park board and city council discussion would occur
            before the final connection to Linner Park. Anderson said that the
            proposed plan benefited the interests of the neighborhood.

            Gunyou noted that previous plans to place the trail behind houses
            were abandoned because of neighbor concerns and the adjacent
            wetland. The current plan calls for a connection to Linner Park
            using the neighborhood street. He said that the neighbors could
            petition the city if they want a sidewalk.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                 PAGE 16             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            In response to Ellingson’s question, Meyer said that his comfort
            level was higher with the new trail location. He said that the issue of
            the trail covenant was an issue with his neighbors.

            Ray Friedrich, 15630 Sheridan Spur, suggested an alternate route
            for the trail through White Pine Drive.

            The public comments were closed, and the council discussed the
            project.

            Anderson was pleased with the overall quality and scope of the
            development. It honors the city’s commitment to protect and
            enhance Minnetonka’s environment.

            Callison asked for staff’s reaction to Friedrich’s trail location option.
            Gunyou said that the city always tries to place trails off the street
            whenever possible to separate users from traffic. He said that the
            developer views this trail as an asset to the development, and that
            the city tries to install trails with new developments.

            Anderson noted that Friedrich’s route to the north would not work
            because there was no through connection. She noted that the
            proposed trail has been planned for a number of years, and the
            neighbors along Friedrich’s route would have had no notice of an
            alternative trail route.

            Callison did not understand the neighbors’ concerns about house
            #9 given the overall benefits of the project and its reduced impact to
            the site. The trail is desired within the development. She supported
            the project and said that it was a positive development.

            Ellingson applauded the village green concept, and said there was
            a similar, successful green space on Maywood Lane. Ellingson has
            a trail behind his property and said that it provides a great way to
            meet neighbors. He suggested that most users would be residents
            of the neighborhood. He did not hear a reason for the neighbors’
            opposition to the trail, and thought it would be a wonderful addition
            to the neighborhood.

            Wiersum asked if the friendly taking would set precedent, and
            wanted to do what was fair and right. Peterson had consulted with
            an attorney with considerable condemnation experience. That
            attorney was not aware of another similar circumstance. Peterson
            and the consulting attorney felt that there was a public purpose—
            the trail. The challenge would be to establish a value for the
            neighbors’ intangible interest on property not owned by them. She
            said that a market approach would be used to establish some
            monetary value.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 17             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004




            In response to Wiersum’s question, Peterson said that the city has
            used eminent domain many times—often for streets, which are
            similar to trails. She did not recall an instance over the past 20
            years where the city used condemnation to acquire land for a trail,
            but said that the city has used friendly condemnation to help
            property owners who needed a tax benefit. She said that the city
            prefers to negotiate with property owners.

            Wiersum found the project to be unique, distinctive, and desirable.
            He liked its amenities, the village green concept, and the life cycle
            housing option. Wiersum could not see a reason to ask the
            developer to relocate house #9. He noted that Cargill could move
            the studio to that location now if he met the setback requirements.
            Wiersum supported the trail, and said the new location was
            superior to the previous route. The project offers lots of wins. He
            wished there was a solution other than the friendly taking, but
            supported the project.

            Thomas concurred with the comments of the other council
            members. He was excited about the environmental and open space
            protections. He agreed with Anderson’s comments about what the
            project could have looked like. Thomas said that the development
            was very good and protected the site’s environmental features. He
            supported the trail, and said that trails are a benefit not available in
            his neighborhood. In this case, buyers would know of the trail and
            view it as a great asset. Thomas supported the project.

            Wagner also agreed with the previous council comments,
            especially about how the project could have been developed. The
            project would protect green space, wetlands, and was sympathetic
            to the concerns of the neighbors. He noted that the neighbors
            offered no solution to make everyone happy. Wagner thought that
            everyone would win with the project, and was excited about the
            protections it offers. He asked that the accessory units be watched
            closely to ensure that they are not converted to additional living
            space for the main homes.

            Anderson supported the project and saw it as a win:win. She
            viewed the impact of house #9 as minimal, especially in view of
            what could have been. She noted that the condemnation would be
            of Mr. Cargill’s property, not the property of others, and it would be
            undertaken at his request. Anderson suggested that the value that
            the trail adds to the other properties be considered when values are
            established for the friendly taking. She was excited about the
            project.

            Wiersum moved, Wagner seconded a motion to
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES               PAGE 18             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            1)    Adopt Ordinance No# 2004-11 rezoning 2201 Crosby Road
                  from R-1, Low Density Residential, to PUD, Planned Unit
                  Development, and adopting a master development plan with
                  the following:
                  a.      Wetland setback variances from 20 to 10 feet for the
                          public street;
                  b.      Wetland buffer variances from 50 to 30 feet from the
                          preserve wetland, and from 25 to 10 feet for the
                          driveway for Lot 21; and
                  c.      Final site and building plans;

            This ordinance is based on the following findings:
                   a.    The proposed use is consistent with the existing land
                         uses on adjacent properties.
                   b.    The rezoning is consistent with the guide plan
                         designation.
                   c.    The plans protect wetlands on the site; and provide
                         large private open spaces through permanent
                         conservation easements and platting of outlots.
                   d.    The proposed development would not have an
                         adverse impact on neighborhood traffic or property
                         values.

            This rezoning is subject to the following conditions:
                   a.    The site must be developed and maintained in
                         substantial conformance with the following plans,
                         unless modified by the conditions below:
                         • Site plan date-stamped January 16, 2004
                         • Building elevations date-stamped January 16, 2004
                         • Grading plan date-stamped February 18, 2004
                         • Landscaping plan date-stamped January 16, 2004
                         • Utility plan date-stamped February 18, 2004
                         • Preliminary Plat date-stamped February 18, 2004
                         • Ecological Restoration and Management Plan date
                           stamped January 16, 2004
                         • Construction and Restoration Schedule date
                           stamped January 16, 2004
                         • Tree Protection Plan date-stamped January 16,
                           2004
                         • Wetland Buffer date-stamped February 18, 2004
                   b.    The following must be completed before the City of
                         Minnetonka issues a grading permit or before starting
                         any site work:
                         (1)     The installation and maintenance of a
                                 temporary rock driveway, erosion control, and
                                 tree and wetland protection fencing for each
                                 lot, subject to review by the city’s environment
                                 resources coordinator.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES            PAGE 19             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                       (2)   Final site, grading, drainage, utility, and erosion
                             control plans must be approved by city staff.
                             Final plans must include the following
                             revisions:
                             (a)      A berm with ornamental shrubs must be
                                      included along the north side of the
                                      public trail in the northeast corner of the
                                      site.
                             (b)      Use an 8-inch water main looped
                                      section between Crosby Road and
                                      Sheridan Hills Road. Use a 6-inch water
                                      main elsewhere.
                             (c)      Cut an 8-inch x 8-inch tee at Crosby
                                      Road.
                             (d)      Remove sanitary sewer and water main
                                      from Outlots E and F areas. Loop water
                                      main around loop street and run sanitary
                                      sewer in the streets.
                             (e)      Provide individual services to each lot.
                             (f)      Sanitary sewer services must be 6
                                      inches and water services must be 1 1/2
                                      inches.
                             (g)      A 300-foot maximum spacing on
                                      hydrants.
                             (h)      There must be no curb boxes in
                                      driveways.
                             (i)      The low floor elevation of all homes
                                      must be a minimum of 2 feet above the
                                      100-year flood elevation of adjacent
                                      storm water treatment areas and/or
                                      wetlands.
                       (3)   If the developer is constructing any public
                             improvements, the developer must submit a
                             signed agreement with the city. This
                             agreement must guarantee that the developer
                             will complete all public improvements and meet
                             all city requirements. This agreement must
                             include an escrow to ensure that the developer
                             completes all public improvements and
                             complies with all city regulations. This escrow
                             must be a letter of credit or cash deposit or
                             other form acceptable to the city attorney. The
                             amount must be 150% of the estimated cost of
                             the improvements or 125% of the cost if based
                             on actual bids.
                       (4)   Submit a letter of credit, cash escrow, or other
                             form acceptable to the city attorney for the
                             estimated cost to comply with grading permit
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES             PAGE 20            MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                              requirements. The city will not release the letter
                              of credit or cash escrow until the developer
                              submits as-built drawings and a letter certifying
                              that the grading has been completed according
                              to the plans approved by the city. The amount
                              must be 150% of the estimated cost of the
                              improvements or 125% of the cost if based on
                              actual bids.
                       (5)    Submit a letter of credit or cash escrow, or
                              other form acceptable to the city attorney for
                              the estimated cost to restore the wetlands. The
                              amount must be 150% of the estimated cost of
                              the improvements or 125% of the cost if based
                              on actual bids.
                       (6)    Submit a final landscape plan, tree mitigation
                              plan, restoration plan, and irrigation plan for
                              staff approval.
                       (7)    Submit a soils report and pavement
                              recommendation for street construction.
                       (8)    Fence all trees and vegetation to be preserved
                              and install erosion control measures for staff
                              approval.
                       (9)    Submit a construction management plan for
                              staff approval.
                       (10) Submit copies of the watershed district permit.
                       (11) The applicant must eliminate the deed
                              restriction prohibiting a public trail and must
                              then deed or dedicate a public trail easement
                              to the city in the location shown on the
                              approved plans. Alternatively, the applicant
                              must execute a development agreement with
                              the city agreeing to remove the restrictive
                              covenant to the extent possible and to pay all
                              of the city's costs in condemning a public trail
                              easement. The trail easement must be 15 feet
                              wide and the paved portion must be 8 feet
                              wide. The applicant is responsible for grading
                              and paving the trail per staff recommendation.
                  c.   The following must be completed before the City of
                       Minnetonka issues a building permit:
                       (1)    The installation and maintenance of a
                              temporary rock driveway, erosion control, and
                              tree and wetland protection fencing for each lot
                              must be installed, subject to review and
                              approval of the city’s environmental resources
                              coordinator.
                       (2)    A hookup fee for sanitary sewer and water.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES             PAGE 21             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                       (3)     A letter from the surveyor stating that boundary
                               and lot stakes have been installed as required
                               by ordinance. If the grading for proposed
                               streets has not been completed, the planning
                               director may approve a time extension to this
                               requirement.
                       (4)      A copy of the recorded plat and any
                               easements or covenants required to be
                               recorded.
                  d.   The low floor elevation of all homes must be a
                       minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation
                       of adjacent storm water treatment areas and/or
                       wetlands.
                  e.   A minimum of six “village green” units must be built
                       with accessory apartments. All other “village green”
                       units, plus the two “remote site” units must include
                       rough-in work for accessory apartments, as approved
                       by staff, at the time building permits are issued for the
                       houses. All house plans are to include plans for
                       completing the accessory apartment.
                  f.   All signs for the development must meet city code,
                       including obtaining sign permits.
                  g.   The floor area ratio and hard surface coverage each
                       may not exceed 50% of the site area.
                  h.   Construction must begin by December 31, 2005,
                       unless the planning commission grants a time
                       extension.
                  i.   During construction, the streets must be kept free of
                       debris and sediment, and the tree and wetland
                       protection fencing and erosion control fencing must
                       be maintained.
                  j.   The maintenance of the stormwater ponds will be the
                       responsibility of the homeowners association under
                       the stewardship program.
                  k.   The homeowners’ association may not restrict the
                       renting of the accessory apartments. Each year, the
                       homeowner’s association shall report to the city
                       manager the number of accessory apartments
                       completed and the nature of their occupancies (family
                       member, third party, etc.) so the city can determine
                       how the accessory apartments help meet housing
                       goals.
                  l.   The homeowners association must maintain the
                       sidewalks and the loop trail. The city will take over
                       maintenance of the loop trail when it is connected to
                       the rest of the system.
                  m.   A restrictive covenant in a form satisfactory to the city
                       attorney is to be recorded to reflect guidelines and
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES               PAGE 22             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                          requirements that apply to the continuing availability
                          of the accessory apartments.
            2)    Adopt Ordinance No. 2004-12 changing a wetland overlay
                  district boundary for the Cargill Property Development at
                  2201 Crosby Road. This ordinance is based on the following
                  findings:
                  a.      The proposed fill will require the overall restoration
                          and quality enhancement of the wetland.
                  b.      The wetlands within the project will ultimately have
                          higher functions and values.
                  c.      The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), as assigned
                          by the Wetland Conservation Act, recommends
                          approval of the wetland fill and replacement plan
                          application.
            Approval is subject to the following conditions:
                  a.      Obtain a grading permit as part of the wetland
                          restoration.
                  b.      Must be developed per the plans dated February 9,
                          2004.
                  c.      Must meet the criteria required by the WCA.
            3)    Approve the Wetland Conservation Act replacement plan
                  and adopt Resolution No. 2004-032 approving a wetland
                  alteration permit at 2201 Crosby Road for Keith Waters and
                  Associates. This resolution is based on the following
                  findings:
                  a.      The proposed fill will require the overall restoration
                          and quality enhancement of the wetland.
                  b.      The wetlands within the project will ultimately have
                          higher functions and values.
                  c.      The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), as assigned
                          by the Wetland Conservation Act recommends
                          approval of the wetland fill and replacement plan
                          application.
                  Approval is subject to the following conditions:
                  a.      Obtain a grading permit as part of the wetland
                          restoration.
                  b.      Must be developed per the plans dated February 9,
                          2004.
                  c.      The plan meets the criteria required by the WCA.
            4)    Give preliminary approval to the Cargill plat, date-stamped
                  February 18, 2004.
                  Approval is subject to the following conditions:
                  a.      Complete the following before final plat approval:
                          (1)    Show the following on the final plat:
                                 (a)    At least ten-foot-wide drainage and
                                        utility easements next to any existing or
                                        proposed public street rights-of-way and
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES             PAGE 23              MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                                       at least seven-foot-wide drainage and
                                       utility easements along all other lot lines
                              (b)       Minimum of 30-foot-wide drainage and
                                       utility easement must be dedicated over
                                       sewer and water lines outside of the
                                       public right-of-way.
                              (c)      Provide a 20-foot-wide drainage and
                                       utility easement between Lots 16 and
                                       17, and Lots 17 and 18.
                              (d)      Utility easements over existing or
                                       proposed public utilities, as determined
                                       by the city engineer.
                              (e)      Outlots I, J, and D must be combined
                                       into one outlot.
                              (f)      Outlots A and B must be combined into
                                       one outlot.
                              (g)      Outlot G must be platted as right-of-way
                                       for the public street.
                       (2)    If the developer is petitioning the city to
                              construct the public improvements, the city
                              council must order the improvements.
                       (3)    Submit evidence of watershed district approval.
                       (4)    Pay the city a park dedication fee of $2,375 per
                              lot, less the value of the trail paving.
                  a.   The following items must be submitted to the City of
                       Minnetonka before the city releases the final plat:
                       (1)    An engineering/utility inspection fee.
                       (2)    An electronic CAD file of the final plat in
                              microstation or DXF.
                       (3)    The applicant must eliminate the deed
                              restriction prohibiting a public trail and must
                              then deed or dedicate a public trail easement
                              to the city in the location shown on the
                              approved plans. Alternatively, the applicant
                              must agree in writing to cooperate with the city
                              in a condemnation of the trail easement and to
                              pay all of the city's costs in obtaining the
                              easement. The applicant is also responsible for
                              grading and paving the trail.
                       (4)    If the developer is constructing any public
                              improvements, the developer must submit a
                              signed agreement with the city. This
                              agreement must guarantee that the developer
                              will complete all public improvements and meet
                              all city requirements. This agreement must
                              include an escrow to ensure that the developer
                              completes all public improvements and
                              complies with all city regulations. This escrow
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES           PAGE 24             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                             must be a letter of credit, cash deposit, or other
                             form acceptable to the city attorney. The
                             amount must be150% of the estimated cost of
                             the improvements or 125% of the cost if based
                             on actual bids.
                       (5)   The following documents for the city attorney’s
                             approval:
                             (a)    Title evidence that is acceptable to the
                                    city attorney. Title evidence must be
                                    current within thirty days before release
                                    of the final plat.
                             (b)    Provide restrictive covenants to be
                                    recorded against the individual lots with
                                    the plat. The covenants must include the
                                    conditions below that have not been met
                                    as of the release of the plat. These
                                    covenants must first be submitted for
                                    the city attorney’s approval.
                             (c)    Conservation easements over the areas
                                    identified on the preliminary plat and a
                                    drawing of the easements.
                             (d)    Documents establishing a homeowners’
                                    association. The association must be
                                    responsible for trimming boulevard
                                    trees, maintaining sidewalks,
                                    maintaining any common areas, the
                                    required drainage pond and any other
                                    required drainage improvements
                                    approved by the city. Maintenance will
                                    include, but not be limited to, the
                                    periodic removal of sedimentation at the
                                    base of the pond and any adjacent
                                    drainage ditches, keeping a vegetative
                                    cover within the ditches and pond, and
                                    removing any blockage of the swale or
                                    culvert that may impede the drainage of
                                    the site, as approved with the building
                                    permits, and adhering to a conservation
                                    management plan approved by the city’s
                                    environmental resources coordinator.

                                    Maintenance of the conservation
                                    easement must be paid through the
                                    homeowners' association fund, which
                                    would require an annual fee for each
                                    dwelling. The homeowners’ association
                                    documents must specify the 19 lots on
                                    which accessory apartments would be
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES               PAGE 25              MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                                         allowed. The homeowners’ association
                                         may not restrict the renting of the
                                         accessory apartments.
                                  (e)    Establish a stewardship plan and fund
                                         agreement for the long-term
                                         maintenance of the conservation
                                         easements within the plat. The
                                         establishment and terms of the fund is
                                         subject to the city attorney’s approval.
                                         The terms of the fund must specify who
                                         is responsible for maintaining the
                                         conservation easements and buffer
                                         areas, and who is responsible for fiscally
                                         managing the endowment.
                                  (f)    Provide declaration and restrictive
                                         covenants over all mitigated wetland
                                         areas per the WCA.
                          These documents must be recorded with the final
                          plat, and a drawing of any easements must be
                          attached to the easement deed.
                  b.      The conservation easements and transition areas
                          must be maintained in accordance with a stewardship
                          plan and fund agreement approved by the city.
                  c.      Submittal of a street lighting plan subject to review
                          and approval of staff.
                  d.      The city must approve the final plat within one year of
                          preliminary approval or receive a written application
                          for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be
                          void.
            5)     Adopt Resolution No. 2004-033 approving a conditional use
                   permit for accessory apartments for the Cargill property
                   division at 2201 Crosby Road. Approval is based on the
                   finding that the proposal meets the required conditional use
                   permit standards and is subject to the following conditions:
                  a.      Record this resolution with the county.
                  b.      The homeowner’s association documents must
                          specify the 19 lots on which accessory apartments
                          would be allowed.
                  c.      Each home must meet the conditions outlined in
                          Section 300.16.3.e. of the zoning ordinance.
                  d.      Six homes must be constructed with finished
                          accessory apartments.
                  e.      The city council may reasonably add or revise
                          conditions to address any future unforeseen
                          problems.
                  f.      Any change to the approved use that results in a
                          significant increase in traffic or a significant change in
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 26           MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                          character would require a revised conditional use
                          permit.
            6)     Adopt Resolution No. 2004-034 approving a conditional use
                   permit for a recreational facility (sidewalk) within a buffer
                   area for the Cargill property development at 2201 Crosby
                   Road. Approval is based on the finding that the proposal
                   meets the required conditional use permit standards and is
                   subject to the following conditions:
                   a.     Record this resolution with the county.
                   b.     The sidewalk must be constructed per the grading
                          plan date-stamped February 18, 2004.
            7)     Approve the development agreement which allows the city to
                   acquire a public trail easement through the Cargill property
                   at the developer’s expense.

            All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

      B.    Items concerning a 14-lot subdivision at 2511, 2531, and 2545
            Crosby Road for Paragon Designers and Builders.

            Anderson reviewed the process for this item, and Olson provided
            the staff report. He also reviewed the information in the addendum,
            and recommended that the city council include those changes with
            their approval.

            In response to Callison’s question, Olson said that the developer
            intended to limit access to the outlot to residents of the
            development.

            Callison asked if there were any ordinances that could be used to
            pursue additional tree preservation and minimize grading. Peterson
            said that the tree ordinance provides that the city may require a
            property to be rezoned to PUD to save trees. That ordinance does
            not provide standards and the enforcement provisions are
            somewhat weak. Peterson did not think the grading issues were
            sufficient to merit denying the project. She said that when a
            developer meets the city’s ordinance standards, such as lot size,
            providing streets, and is not requesting variances, the city has few
            options. She noted that the development would not require any
            variances.

            In response to Ellingson’s questions about Outlot A, Olson said that
            the park dedication fees had been reduced in exchange for the trail
            easement. Peterson said that the city can require a portion of
            property to be dedicated for park purposes. The value of that
            property should equal the burden the project creates for the city
            through needs of the new residents. She noted a court case
            involving the city of Bloomington where park dedication fees of up
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 27             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            to ten percent were upheld because they were not automatic, and
            were calculated on a case-by-case basis. Peterson said that staff
            had not analyzed the value of the outlot. Peterson said that the trail
            could be fenced so there would be no public access to the outlot.

            Wiersum asked what would happen if the city denied the project.
            Peterson said that the developer could try to work with staff on
            another layout, or the developer could sue the city.

            Gunyou reported that about one month earlier staff tried to work
            with the developer on a more creative plan. The developer
            responded by threatening to sue the city. The developer continued
            to be uncooperative over the past month.

            In response to Anderson’s question, Olson said that the water
            connection to Gray’s Bay was characterized by the Minnesota
            Department of Natural Resources (DNR) as a wetland, and not as
            shoreland. He said that a native vegetation buffer would be
            required along that wetland as required by ordinance. Olson said
            that the developer was aware of this requirement.

            At Anderson’s request, Olson reviewed the area of the conservation
            easements.

            Wiersum noted that if the council failed to decide on the project at
            this meeting, the project would be deemed to have been approved
            because the deadline would have been reached. He noted that if
            the council denied the project, litigation could result and that would
            take time. Wiersum asked about the city’s leverage given that the
            developer was not cooperative.

            Gunyou compared this project with the previous Cargill project.
            Staff worked with the Cargill developer for almost a year. There
            were many changes made during that time, and a very high quality
            project was achieved. Gunyou said that was not the case with this
            project. The developer refused to engage in discussions about
            alternatives to his proposal.

            Wiersum said that the Cargill development was exciting. This
            development would be nice, but he was not as comfortable with its
            fit with the neighborhood.

            Schneider said that during his tenure on the city council he had
            experience with projects that resulted in litigation. He noted that
            when projects are litigated, the city loses its ability to place
            reasonable conditions on the property and has to do what the
            courts require.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES               PAGE 28             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            Zvi Liebovich, 3550 Fairview Lane, Minnetonka, spoke as the
            applicant. He noted that the project did not require any variances.
            He had agreed to add nearly 100 trees to compensate for the tree
            loss. He felt that he had tried to compromise, and said that he had
            met with the neighbors. The development was in keeping with the
            character of the neighborhood, and with Minnetonka, with the lots
            being one-half acre or greater in size. He said that the new property
            owners should have the same rights as existing property owners to
            remove trees. Liebovich said that this project would generate less
            hard surface than the Cargill project.

            Liebovich reported on his conversation with Jim Ramstad. He said
            that Ramstad was pleased with the 20-foot conservation easement,
            and that the trees along Crosby Road would not be cut.

            Liebovich said that he had received the new trail option at 4:45 p.m.
            that day, and had not had time to review it. He said that option
            would require a different easement from an adjacent property
            owner. He felt that the new trail option was not safe because there
            was not sufficient access to Outlot A for emergency vehicles due to
            the narrow crossing at the culvert. He also felt that the new trail
            option would pose security concerns.

            Liebovich was willing to do the rough grading of the trail on Crosby
            Road with the development, or to escrow the funds for use when
            the trail is approved. He noted the presence of his attorney, Bruce
            Malkerson, and Ken Adolph, his engineer.

            In response to questions from Wagner and Anderson, Olson
            clarified that all trees on Outlot A, and outside the grading limits
            would be protected. Trees in areas six and seven would not be fully
            protected.

            In response to Anderson, Liebovich said that he was aware of the
            requirement to provide a buffer along the wetland, and said that he
            would preserve all of the trees on Outlot A.

            In response to Ellingson, Liebovich said that the homeowner’s
            association would own Outlot A, and it was unlikely that they would
            all agree to sell it because it would be an asset to them.

            Wiersum asked about the feasibility of establishing the amount to
            escrow for the trail. Liebovich was confident that a value could be
            established. Wiersum asked for staff’s opinion. Gustafson said that
            the city has used escrow accounts on other occasions. Gustafson
            said that staff prefers to construct trails concurrent with the
            development because it puts buyers on notice and the developer
            has input on the landscaping.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES               PAGE 29             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004




            Gunyou clarified that the pedestrian bridge to Outlot A could be
            constructed to support a squad car, similar to the bridge at Shady
            Oak Beach.

            Schneider said that if the trail construction were postponed until the
            road upgrades, it might further the goal of protecting and preserving
            trees. The trail and road could be integrated with the trees through
            some shifting. He would like to consider that option if it would
            provide greater flexibility.

            Paul Rustad, 2532 Crosby Road, said the neighbors’ concerns
            were the loss of trees along Crosby Road, and the trail. The bridge
            at the culvert was narrow and created safety concerns related to
            visibility. The road beyond the culvert is very narrow, in some
            places only 15 feet wide, and serves six driveways. He did not feel
            that the section of the road beyond the culvert would accommodate
            vehicles, trail traffic, and the occasional fisher.

            Rustad questioned the trail crossing at the headwaters area, and
            thought that motorcycles might use the trail. Rustad presented a
            petition signed by 32 homeowners representing 100% of the
            neighborhood. The petition opposed the trail because:
               • It would change the character of the neighborhood and make
                    it less safe.
               • No environmental impact study had been completed of the
                    trail impact to the Gray’s Bay Dam.
               • The proposed path for the trail is inherently dangerous.
               • More quality trees will be lost.

            Anderson asked for Rustad’s reaction to the new trail option.
            Rustad said the new plan would be better for some neighbors and
            worse for others. He remained concerned about traffic through the
            neighborhood.

            In response to Anderson’s request, Gustafson said that the plans to
            upgrade Crosby Road did not include replacement of the culvert.
            Replacement of the culvert was scheduled about five to six years
            ago, but was eliminated when a structural analysis indicated that its
            condition was quite good. Gustafson said that Crosby Road would
            be reconstructed to the culvert, but there would just be a mill and
            overlay after the culvert. The width of the road in that area would
            not change.

            In response to Anderson’s question, Gustafson said that he was not
            aware of flooding along that section of the road. Anderson noted
            that though the street was narrow, it only served seven homes.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 30             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            Bruce Schultz, 2420 Crosby Road, agreed with Rustad’s
            comments. He urged the council to remove the requirement to
            rough grade the trail with the development pending a final decision
            on the trail. He suggested that the trail be allowed to pass or fail on
            its own merits.

            Jason Litchie, 2526 Crosby Road, said that the road that serves the
            seven homes is under water every year. He viewed the
            development and the bike path as issues, and strongly opposed the
            trail. He respected the applicant’s ability to develop his own land,
            but suggested additional traffic studies. He was concerned about
            the project’s impact to the character of the neighborhood, and said
            removal of 48 percent of the trees was not acceptable. He also
            opposed a monument sign for the new development.

            Litchie said that the neighbors reached out to the developer, and
            appreciated that some trees were added. He did not know if 97 was
            an appropriate number, but did not think it was. He asked who
            suggested the conservation easement. He asked the council to do
            something if it could do so within the law. He said that it would
            dishearten him if the project were approved. He noted that some of
            the neighbors moved to the area before the trail was proposed, and
            felt that they would not have moved there given a choice.

            Gunyou said that staff requested the conservation easement.

            Jennifer Mullin, 2612 Crosby Road, noted that all of the proposed
            homes would be walkouts. She suggested that walkouts require
            more grading, and thought that trees could be saved with a different
            design. Mullin also said that she spoke with a DNR representative
            who said that the connection to Gray’s Bay would be viewed as a
            navigable waterway because it could be used by small boats. As
            such, the property lines would be at the end of the wetland,
            reducing the area of the development. She suggested that the city
            comply with Ord. Section 300.27 concerning final plat approval.
            Mullin said that 97 trees would not replace the 400 trees being
            removed.

            Gunyou responded that walkouts typically require more grading, but
            that the city does not control the design of homes. Olson clarified
            that the DNR hydrologist for this area said that the waters were a
            wetland, not navigable waters. Callison said that Ord. Section
            300.27 would not apply because the applicant was not seeking
            building and site plan approvals. Peterson said that staff must rely
            on the expertise of the hydrologist assigned to our area.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 31            MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            Bruce Malkerson, spoke as the attorney for the applicant. He
            offices at 1750 Pillsbury Center South, Minneapolis. Malkerson
            said:
                • His client would be willing to rough grade the trail with the
                   development or escrow funds to do the work with the road
                   upgrade. They were willing to install signs to advise potential
                   buyers of the planned trail, and could also provide notice
                   through recording documents on the title, and including
                   information in their sales brochures and purchase
                   agreements.
                • The project is unique. The applicant must purchase the
                   property by April 19, 2004, and has no right to an extension.
                   Staff pulled this item from a planning commission agenda so
                   it was a month behind schedule. If the city council’s thought
                   was to deny the project to do further negotiations, that would
                   not be possible with this applicant.
                • The applicant invested time and money to create a project
                   that meets all the ordinance requirements. The applicant
                   could have enhanced the value of his property with a project
                   that required variances, but he needed to follow the letter of
                   the law due to the time constraints.
                • To deny the project would be illegal, and potentially
                   unethical.
                • There was nothing wrong with his client not pursuing a PUD
                   development. Malkerson’s March 3 letter to Peterson
                   outlined why he thought it would be illegal for the city to
                   impose PUD requirements on the project. His client could
                   not wait to go through what he viewed as an amorphous
                   process during which the council could have denied the
                   project for any reason.
                • The applicant wanted to develop single-family homes. More
                   trees could have been saved with higher density housing.
                   The forester said that most of the trees being removed were
                   not of the highest quality, and the 97 trees that would be
                   planted would be of top quality.
                • He felt it was unfair to characterize his client as
                   uncooperative on this project or any others.

            Ellingson noted that under its ordinance, the city had authority to
            require rezoning of property to preserve trees. Malkerson agreed
            that’s what the ordinance said on its face, but said that his March 3
            letter stated why he felt that would be illegal. He said that the law
            was clear that the city could not make PUD zoning mandatory. He
            said that every property owner had the right to know what they can
            do with their property.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 32             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            Anderson said that the city can use the ordinance provisions to
            work in good faith with developers. The city can offer options with
            the clustering of buildings to provide more open space. There was
            not an opportunity to work with this developer.

            Mullin presented the city council with information from the DNR web
            site about the classification of the waterway.

            The public comments were closed, and the council discussed the
            project.

            Anderson said that if the project was approved, she would prefer
            the new alternative for the trail.

            In response to Wagner’s question, Peterson said that an additional
            easement was needed for only one of the trail options.

            In response to Schneider’s question, Olson said that the areas with
            potential to preserve more trees were areas 1, 6, and 7.

            In response to Wagner’s question, Gunyou said that the city first
            tried to work with the developer as staff did on the CoPar
            Development to save more trees through lot reconfigurations. The
            developer subsequently refused to consider any additional options.

            Callison said that the development meets the requirements of the
            ordinance overall, but it disappointed her. The grading was
            extreme. Based on the city attorney’s opinion, the city council
            needed to honor its ordinances and approve the project. There was
            no alternative. She was pleased with the new trail option, and
            suggested that it be pursued. She did not want to create false
            hopes that the trail would not be built by postponing the rough
            grading.

            Thomas felt that the trail issue should be decided. He liked the new
            option. He was disappointed with the development, but said that it
            meets the ordinance requirements. He thought it would be nearly
            impossible to oppose the project and win. While the project meets
            the ordinance requirements, it does not meet or exceed
            expectations. The project will be plain and unexciting. Thomas was
            disappointed with the tree loss and the grading. He thought more
            could have been done with the site, and he was not happy with the
            outcome.

            Wagner agreed with Thomas and Callison. He did not think
            anything could be gained by denying the project. He suggested that
            the city council use this project as it discusses tools for future land
            use decisions. Wagner was concerned about grading now since the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES               PAGE 33             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            road will be reconstructed next year. He suggested waiting to
            minimize tree loss. Wagner liked the new trail option.

            Gunyou suggested a third option for the trail - expanding the
            roadway. This could be discussed prior to consideration of the final
            plat. Olson said the developer has one year from preliminary
            approval to seek final plat approval.

            Wiersum asked about the city’s options if the developer didn’t agree
            to the internal trail option. Gunyou said that the land dedication
            could be required of the developer, but noted an easement would
            be needed from the adjacent neighbor.

            Peterson reported that she spoke with the adjacent neighbor that
            day. He was open to discussing options for the trail link.

            Wiersum said that he would support the project with regrets. He
            had hoped for more flexibility from the developer. With no required
            variances, the city had few options. Wiersum said that he could not
            agree to eliminate the trail—that would not be the right decision for
            all Minnetonka residents. He suggested deferring trail grading until
            the trail location was known. He thought the neighborhood would
            embrace the trail once it was built. He found the new trail option
            more attractive, but would also support escrowing the money. He
            said that getting right-of-way for a bridge was an option.

            Ellingson, noting Malkerson’s comments about his client’s interest
            in the property ending on April 19 if he could not close on the
            transaction, asked if the applicant would sue if the city denied the
            project. Malkerson said that his client would have to close on the
            transaction or walk away. He could close without the approval, but
            that would not be wise. Malkerson said that he rarely threatens
            litigation, but there have been successful cases brought by
            developers to collect damages. He said that he was not saying that
            he would sue.

            Schneider concurred with the general discussion. He was
            disappointed that there was not more creativity. He saw some
            potential for saving more trees in certain areas. He thought the new
            trail location would address the general safety concerns and
            provide a needed link. Schneider said that the city was within its
            rights to require both easements. The southerly trail route made
            more sense from the perspective of safety and protecting the
            environment.

            Due to its visibility from Crosby Road, Schneider suggested the
            possibility of purchasing Lot 1 with open space dollars. If the city
            was not willing to pay for the lot, Schneider questioned requiring the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                PAGE 34             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            developer to bear that cost. He said that the only reasonable trail
            option would be to require both routes and vacate one after the final
            route was determined.

            At 11:58 p.m., Schneider moved, Wagner seconded a motion to
            extend the meeting to 12:30 p.m. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

            Wagner asked if the council could approve variances for Lots 1 and
            2 in Block 2 to allow the building pads to be shifted to save trees.
            Gunyou said that the developer did not wish to consider any
            variances. Peterson also noted that no public notice had been
            given of possible variances.

            Callison concurred with Schneider’s suggestion to purchase
            property to preserve trees. She said that a decision would not be
            needed that night.

            Gunyou noted that this property was not on the city’s priority list for
            open space preservation. Assistant City Manager Geralyn Barone
            added that it might be considered for conservation development,
            but due to its location and lack of public access, it would not have
            been considered for funding.

            Gunyou said that the property did not meet the criteria established
            by the council for open space preservation. He agreed that there
            was some funding flexibility in the priority list, but staff would
            strongly recommend against this acquisition. He questioned the
            public value.

            Anderson thought that acquisition of one of these lots would set a
            terrible precedent. She said that the city hopes to achieve its goals
            through cooperative negotiations. To pay for this property would
            send a dangerous message.

            Anderson said that she would love to deny the project. She hates to
            be threatened to approve it because the city is required to do so
            legally. She did not think the project was the right thing to do.
            Through her experience with the city, she knows that litigation is
            lengthy and costly. She noted a case involving the city that was
            decided for the developer where the developer got to not only
            develop as he wished, but also at a higher density.

            Anderson said that some projects do not proceed because they are
            not financially feasible. She said that the developer would have the
            option to renegotiate. She challenged the developer again to work
            with the city to create a more environmentally sensitive
            development that honors the site’s topography and trees. She
            thought that would result in a project of higher value. She noted the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES                 PAGE 35             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


            similarities of this property with the Cargill property and the different
            results.

            Schneider suggested that the council could express its support for
            variances to the individual property owners to preserve additional
            trees. This would enhance the value of their properties. With
            council concurrence, he suggested that this be referenced in the
            minutes. Anderson supported that. She liked the new trail option.

            Wiersum suggested that the city council look at its ordinances to
            pursue more flexibility to conserve the council’s vision of
            Minnetonka.

            Peterson suggested additional language to condition 1.b(6) in the
            addendum.

            Schneider moved, Wagner seconded a motion to
            1)    Approve the Crosby Cove preliminary plat, dated December
                  18, 2003. Approval is based on the finding that the
                  preliminary plat would meet the required standards and
                  ordinances. Approval is subject to the following conditions:
                  a.     Complete the following before final plat approval:
                         (1)    Show the following on the final plat:
                                a)      At least ten-foot-wide drainage and
                                        utility easements next to any existing or
                                        proposed public street right-of ways and
                                        at least seven-foot-wide drainage and
                                        utility easements along all other lot lines.
                                b)      Utility easements over existing or
                                        proposed public utilities, as determined
                                        by the city engineer.
                                c)      Drainage and utility easements over
                                        storm water ponds, as determined by
                                        the city.
                         (2)    Pay the city a park dedication fee of
                                $26,125.00, unless the city council decides to
                                require the dedication of a trail easement from
                                the proposed public street over proposed
                                Outlot A.
                         (3)    Submit evidence of watershed district approval.
                                The city may require revisions to the
                                preliminary plat to meet the district’s
                                requirements.
                         (4)    If the developer is petitioning the city to
                                construct the public improvements, the city
                                council must order the improvements.
                         (5)    A problem of gap and overlap of existing legal
                                descriptions on the property must be resolved,
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES             PAGE 36            MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                              subject to approval of the city right-of-way
                              specialist.
                       (6)    Provide a 12-foot-wide public trail easement
                              from the proposed public street bulb between
                              Lots 5 and 6 to the southwesterly point of
                              Outlot A, unless the city council decides the
                              bike trail should be adjacent to Crosby Road.
                              The exact location of the trail easement must
                              be approved by the city council at the time of
                              final plat approval
                  b.   The following items must be submitted to the City of
                       Minnetonka before the city releases the final plat:
                       (1)    An engineering/utility inspection fee.
                       (2)    An electronic CAD file of the final plat in micro
                              station or DXF.
                       (3)    If the developer is constructing any public
                              improvements, the developer must submit a
                              signed agreement with the city. This
                              agreement must guarantee that the developer
                              will complete all public improvements and will
                              meet all city requirements. This agreement
                              must include an escrow to ensure that the
                              developer completes all public improvements
                              and complies with all city regulations. This
                              escrow must be a letter of credit or cash
                              deposit. The amount must be 150% of the
                              estimated cost of the improvements or 125% of
                              the cost if based on actual bids.
                       (4)    The following documents for the city attorney’s
                              approval:
                              a)      Title evidence that is acceptable to the
                                      city attorney. Title evidence must be
                                      current within thirty days before release
                                      of the final plat.
                              b)      Conservation easements generally
                                      located over the perimeter trees outside
                                      the grading limits, over wetlands, over
                                      wetland buffers, and over the trees on
                                      Outlot A. The exact location is subject to
                                      staff approval. The easements and
                                      drawings must be recorded with the final
                                      plat.
                              c)      Documents establishing a homeowners’
                                      association. The association must be
                                      responsible for maintaining any common
                                      areas, common drives, the required
                                      drainage pond and any other required
                                      drainage improvements approved by the
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES             PAGE 37              MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                                        city. Maintenance will include, but not be
                                        limited to, the periodic removal of
                                        sedimentation at the base of the pond
                                        and any adjacent drainage ditches,
                                        keeping a vegetative cover within the
                                        ditches and pond, and removing any
                                        blockage of the swale or culvert that
                                        may impede the drainage of the site, as
                                        approved with the building permits. The
                                        homeowners’ association is also
                                        responsible for snow removal of all
                                        driveways and the southerly cul-de-sac
                               d)       Provide restrictive covenants to be
                                        recorded against the individual lots with
                                        the plat. The covenants must include the
                                        conditions below that have not been met
                                        as of the release of the plat. These
                                        covenants must first be submitted for
                                        the city attorney’s approval.
                               e)       Provide declaration and restrictive
                                        covenants over all mitigated wetland
                                        areas per the WCA.
                       These documents must be recorded with the final
                       plat, and a drawing of any easements must be
                       attached to the easement deed.
                  c.   The following must be completed before the City of
                       Minnetonka issues a grading permit or any site work
                       is started:
                       (1)     A construction management plan must be
                               submitted for staff approval. The plan must
                               include installation and maintenance of a
                               temporary rock driveway, erosion control, and
                               tree protection fencing for each lot. The items
                               listed in the construction management plan
                               must be installed and inspected by the city’s
                               environmental resources coordinator.
                       (2)     Submit a letter of credit or cash escrow, or
                               other form acceptable to the city attorney for
                               the estimated cost to restore the wetland. The
                               amount must be 150% of the estimated cost of
                               the improvements or 125% of the cost if based
                               on actual bids.
                       (3)     Final grading, drainage, and erosion control
                               plans must be submitted for staff approval. If
                               the developer is building the streets and
                               utilities, the developer must submit final street
                               and utility plans for staff approval. The street
                               and utility plans must include the following:
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES               PAGE 38           MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                              a)       Addition of 4-foot sumps at catch basin
                                       103 and 101.
                               b)      All homes to be served off new sewer
                                       and water lines in Crosby Cove. (The
                                       new street.)
                               c)      All existing unused services must be
                                       abandoned.
                               d)      Redesign of the street to include a 50-
                                       foot tangent between the reverse
                                       curves.
                       (4)      A letter of credit or cash escrow for 150% of
                               the estimated cost, to comply with grading
                               permit requirements and restore the site, must
                               be submitted to the city. The city will not
                               release the letter of credit or cash escrow until
                               the developer submits as-built drawings and a
                               letter certifying that the utilities, road, and
                               grading have been completed according to the
                               plans approved by the city.
                       (5)     Fence all trees and vegetation to be preserved
                               and install erosion control measures for staff
                               approval.
                  d.   The following must be submitted to the city before the
                       city issues a building permit:
                       (1)     A grading and tree preservation plan for each
                               lot, subject to staff approval.
                       (2)     The installation and maintenance of a
                               temporary rock driveway, erosion control, and
                               tree protection fencing for each lot must be
                               installed, subject to review and approval of the
                               city’s environmental resources coordinator.
                       (3)      A copy of the recorded plat and any
                               easements, covenants, and any other
                               homeowners’ document required to be
                               recorded for the development.
                       (4)     All required hookup fees for sewer and water.
                       (5)     A letter from the surveyor stating that boundary
                               and lot stakes have been installed as required
                               by ordinance. If the grading for proposed
                               streets has not been completed, the planning
                               director may approve a time extension to this
                               requirement.
                       (6)     The trail on the south side of Crosby Road
                               must be rough graded per city approval, or the
                               funds escrowed with the city, at the city’s
                               option, unless the city council decides at the
                               time of final plat approval that the trail should
                               be over Outlot A.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES             PAGE 39             MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                   e.   All structures must meet the minimum setback and
                        height requirements. Lowest floor elevation of all of
                        the homes must be 935.0 in Block 1 and 933.5 in
                        Block 2.
                  f.    The proposed retaining wall at Lot 2, Block 1, must be
                        built outside of the right-of-way.
                  g.    Grading activity associated with home construction on
                        Lot 5, Block 2, must not impact the critical root zones
                        of the oak trees to the east. A retaining wall may need
                        to be installed to protect these trees from grading
                        activity associated with home construction.
                  h.    The conservation easements must be maintained
                        according to a conservation plan approved by the city.
                  i.    During construction, the streets must be kept free of
                        debris and sediment, and the tree protection fencing,
                        and erosion control fencing must be maintained.
                  j.    All existing structures must be removed from the site.
                  k.    Trees must be planted to compensate for significant
                        trees removed from each site that would be outside of
                        the building pad and driveway area. The trees must
                        be primarily species native to the area. They must be
                        at least 2 1/2 inches in diameter for deciduous trees
                        and 6 feet tall for coniferous trees. The property
                        owner or original developer must replace the required
                        trees if they die within one year after installation.
                  l.    Additional trees must be planted per the landscape
                        plan date-stamped March 3, 2004, subject to staff’s
                        approval.
                  m.    Any docking of boats in the wetland is subject to the
                        Lake Minnetonka Conservation District.
                  n.    If the homeowners’ association abandons the
                        snowplowing service for the individual driveways and
                        cul-de-sac, the cul-de-sac must be removed and
                        restored to a standard 26-foot right-of-way at the
                        expense of the homeowners’ association.
                  o.    The city must approve the final plat within one year of
                        preliminary approval or receive a written application
                        for a time extension, or the preliminary approval will
                        be void.
                  2)    Adopt Ordinance No. 2004-14 changing wetland
                        overlay district boundaries at 2545 Crosby Road for
                        Paragon Designers and Builders. This ordinance is
                        based on the following findings:
                        a.      The proposed fill will require the overall
                                restoration and quality enhancement of the
                                wetland.
                        b.      The wetland will ultimately have a higher
                                function and value.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES               PAGE 40           MEETING OF APRIL 12, 2004


                          c.     The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), as
                                assigned by the Wetland Conservation Act,
                                recommends approval of the wetland fill and
                                replacement plan application.
                          Approval is subject to the following conditions:
                          a.    Obtain a grading permit as part of the wetland
                                restoration.
                          b.    Must be developed per the plans dated
                                December 18, 2003.
                          c.    Must meet the criteria required by the WCA.
                    3)    Approve the Wetland Conservation Act replacement
                          plan and adopt Resolution No. 2004-035 approving a
                          wetland alteration permit at 2545 Crosby Road for
                          Paragon Designers and Builders. This resolution is
                          based on the following findings:
                          a.    The proposed fill will require the overall
                                restoration and quality enhancement of the
                                wetland.
                          b.     The wetland will ultimately have a higher
                                function and value.
                          c.     The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), as
                                assigned by the Wetland Conservation Act
                                recommends approval of the wetland fill and
                                replacement plan application.
                          Approval is subject to the following conditions:
                          a.    Obtain a grading permit as part of the wetland
                                restoration.
                          b.    Must be developed per the plans dated
                                December 18, 2003.
                          c.    Must meet the criteria required by the WCA..

             Callison, Schneider, Thomas, Wagner, Wiersum and Anderson
             voted “yes.” Ellingson voted “no.” Motion carried.

15.   APPOINTMENTS and REAPPOINTMENTS: None.

16.   ADJOURNMENT.

      Thomas moved, Wiersum seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at
      12:12 a.m. All voted “yes.” Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,


Kathleen Magrew
City Clerk