HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 02/01/2000 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/FORUM
TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 1,2000 5:00-6:55 PM, CITY CENTER
HERITAGE ROOM II
CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ronald Case,Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and
Nancy Tyra-Lukens
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
City Manager Chris Enger,Parks&Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Safety
Director Jim Clark,Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Asst. City Engineer Rod Rue,
Community Development and Financial Services Director Don Uram,Management Services
Director Natalie Swaggert, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER—MAYOR JEAN HARRIS
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. STRATEGIC PLAN STATUS AND DIRECTIONS FOR 2000
IV. IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY"CHANGING FACES, CHANGING
COMMUNITIES, STUDY CIRCLES" •
V. OTHER BUSINESS
VI. COUNCIL FORUM
A. Shoveling of Snow on Sidewalks—Lori Walker
B. Friends of Birch Island Woods—Jeff Strate,Rita Krocak,Mary Jo Bailey,
and Terry Picha
VII. ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 1,2000 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ronald Case,Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and
Nancy Tyra-Lukens
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Safety
Director Jim Clark, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and
Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City
Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen
I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
IV. MINUTES
A. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 18,2000 •
B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 18, 2000
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
B. CAM ADDITION by Carlston Inc. Request for Planned Unit Development
Concept Review on 10 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with
waivers on 10 acres, Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10 acres, and
Preliminary Plat on 10 acres into 17 lots. Location: 18230 and 18120 West 82"a
Street (Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning Change)
C. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BEARPATH
TOWNHOMES 9TH ADDITION
D. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BRAXTON
WOODS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 1,2000
Page 2
E. APPROVE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY
CODE CHAPTER 11 AND ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION AND ADOPT WETLAND PLAN
F. AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF LAND FROM SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
AGREEMENT FOR LOT 2,BLOCK 2,BELL OAKS 1ST ADDITION
G. APPROVE INVESTMENT POLICY
H. AUTHORIZE CONTRACT WITH CONVERGENT COMMUNICATIONS
TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL VOICE AND DATA EQUIPMENT
I. AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR FLYING CLOUD
BALL FIELD ACCESS AND IMPROVEMENTS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS /MEETINGS
A. HORNELAND ADDITION by Liv Homeland. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 1.32 acres to the Ridgewood PUD,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 1.32 acres with waivers, Zoning
District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 1.32 acres, and
Preliminary Plat on 1.32 acres into 3 lots. Location: 8802 and 8804 Knollwood
Drive. (Continued from January 18, 2000) (Withdrawal Requested)
B. APPROVAL OF BUSINESS SUBSIDY POLICY(Resolution)
VII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS •
VIII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A STREET NAME
CHANGE FOR DELL ROAD SOUTH OF PIONEER TRAIL TO STABLE
PATH
B. ELIM HOMES, INC. PROJECT, RELATING TO A $1,000,000 HEALTH
FACILITY REVENUE NOTE; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
THEREOF PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 469
(Resolution)
IX. PETITIONS,REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
X. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 1,2000
Page 3
XI. APPOINTMENTS
A. APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY VICE CHAIR TO COMMUNITY
PLANNING BOARD
XH. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
1. Review of Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport
2. Boards and Commission Interviews
C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR
1. Establishment of Third Rink Task Force
D. REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL
SERVICES DIRECTOR
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR
F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR
G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
-rd"
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/FORUM
TUESDAY,JANUARY 18,2000 5:00-6:55 PM, CITY CENTER
HERITAGE ROOM II
CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and
Nancy Tyra-Lukens
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Safety
Director Jim Clark,Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and
Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, and
Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen.
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. INVESTMENT POLICY
Don Uram explained the proposed updated investment policy, which would reflect
current investment standards. These include safekeeping and custody, suitable and
authorized investments, investment parameters, and reporting.
The policy, as originally written in 1995, contained guidelines on how much of each asset
could be purchased. Because of limitations imposed by the policy, the City was not able
to purchase more than a fixed amount of securities from the same company. This has the
effect of reducing the City's overall rate of return. The new policy has investment
parameters that are more flexible. Uram said at some point the City may invest in
securities on the Internet.
Uram said he would put the policy into a format for presentation to the City Council for
adoption at the February 1 Council meeting.
IV. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS OPEN HOUSE
The Open House is on January 25 from 5:30-7:30 p.m., when Councilmembers,
Commission chairs and City liaisons will be available to share information and meet with
candidates.
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
January 18,2000
Page 2
The application period runs through February 11. Candidates will be interviewed by
Councilmembers on February 22. There was a discussion on how the Open House
should be run and on the recruitment process.
V. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS INTERVIEW PROCESS
Enger asked Council to decide if it is going to choose all commission chairs and vice
chairs. He suggested looking at desirable characteristics in general and then making
some appointments for chair and vice chair. Interview questions should be directed to
this purpose. If the Council appoints commission chairs, they could be made liaisons to
the corresponding boards.
Mayor Harris said the Council does not have to appoint the maximum number needed
after the first interview. Applicants should be screened carefully and make sure they
have the characteristics needed.
Questions will be sent to candidates ahead of time and they will be asked to bring written
responses with them. Some questions would be based on their responses and others
would be general questions asked of everyone. There would be specific questions for
each commission or board. The candidates for boards will be interviewed as a group,
except the "at large" candidates. Staff liaisons will be present for the interviews.
It was decided to have a Workshop night on February 21 dedicated to selecting board and
commission members. On February 22 Council will decide who would make strong
candidates for chairs and vice chairs. Persons selected should be contacted to see if they
would be willing to serve as chairs and if they are able to attend both the board meeting
and the commission meeting.
VI. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS APPOINTMENT PROCESS
A maximum membership of 7 and a minimum membership of 5 is required for 6 of the
commissions, and 7 is the required number for the Flying Cloud Advisory Commission.
A maximum of 9 and a minimum of 7 members are required for the three boards.
Mayor Harris has sent a letter to those members who have time left to serve on a
commission or board that is being discontinued or formatted under a new charter inviting
them to apply for positions on the new commissions or boards. However, those members
would not automatically be placed on a commission or board. Their applications would
be reviewed along with all others who have applied. Some of those who have served
previously may be selected, but Council is looking for people who are new to serve on
boards and commissions. The pool of available candidates should be increased. It was
agreed that a letter of invitation would be sent to those who have served less than two
terms.
Other methods of recruitment suggested were to invite applications from members of
various social and civic clubs,the Chamber of Commerce, homeowners' associations and
churches. Brochures,with applications enclosed,will be sent to them.
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES
January 18,2000
Page 3
Several notices will be in the newspaper about the Open House on January 25 when
applications can be filled out and submitted. The next week there will be a one-quarter
page ad about the boards and commissions. Applications can also be picked up at the
City Center.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Planning Review Process
A new format for the planning review process for controversial projects was
discussed. The neighborhood meeting, usually held by the developer, would be
combined with the Planning Board meeting, so that everybody would get details of
the project at the same time. People from the neighborhood will then understand
that the Planning Board is not making a decision that night about the project. The
Planning Board suggested this at the orientation session. This could be the prototype
for controversial issues.
Council members could be present as observers. It was recommended that the
meeting begin by having the Staff make a presentation on how the City views the.
project so neighbors get this message first, and Staff can control the meeting rather
than the developer. This also makes clear to the public the fact that the City is
obligated to bring development proposals to the Planning Board. This educational
tool should be included on every project.
It was recommended that guidelines be developed to determine what would cause a
project to be considered controversial, so if someone questions Council or Staff they
can be told what the guidelines are.
B. Task Force for Additional Indoor Skating Rink
Lambert referenced the Council Forum on December 21, at which representatives of
the Eden Prairie Hockey Association asked for a third indoor rink. Council
recommended appointing a task force to look into it. The Hockey Association has
asked Lambert how members of the task force are going to be appointed.
Thorfinnson pointed out that under the new structure task forces are appointed by the
Council. At the December 21 meeting it was recommended that members of the task
force should include representatives from the Hockey Association, City Council,
School Board, etc. Mayor Harris asked Lambert to look at that list and make
recommendations to the Council on other groups that should be included on the task
force.
VIII. COUNCIL FORUM
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.
3
Via,
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,JANUARY 18,2000 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher,Ronald Case,Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and
Nancy Tyra-Lukens
CITY COUNCIL STAFF:
City Manager Chris Enger, Parks & Recreation Services Director Bob Lambert, Public Safety
Director Jim Clark, Public Works Services Director Eugene Dietz, Community Development and
Financial Services Director Don Uram, Management Services Director Natalie Swaggert, City
Attorney Roger Pauly and Council Recorder Peggy Rasmussen
I. ROLL CALL/CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Harris called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Butcher added Item XII.A.1.,Report on the Eden Prairie Foundation.
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to approve the agenda as published
and amended. Motion carried 5-0.
IV. MINUTES
A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY,JANUARY 4, 2000
Thorfinnson made a correction on page 5, under his report. It should read " . . .
the fourteen State Representatives and Senators . . ." and in the next sentence "the
representatives and senators to provide funding . . ." Case made a correction on
page 7, the eighth paragraph, which should read "Case also requested a review of
long-term objectives at the Market Center area." Butcher corrected paragraph
twelve to read" . . .the City's role and fiscal commitment to social services . . ."
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Butcher, to approve the minutes of
the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, January 4, 2000, as published and
amended. Motion carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 2
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
B. ANDREAS II by Andreas Properties II, LLC Request for Zoning District
Amendment within the I-2 Zoning District on 2.74 acres, Site Plan Review on
2.74 acres, and Preliminary Plat on 2.74 acres into one lot. Location: 15180
Martin Drive. (Ordinance No. 1-2000 for Zoning District Amendment and
Resolution No. 2000-12 for Site Plan Review)
C. PURGATORY CREEK ESTATES 2ND by Post Construction Company.
Request for Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 on 3.08 acres and a Preliminary Plat
of 3.08 acres into 7 lots. Location: Wilderness Cove and Sunnybrook Road.
(Ordinance No. 2-2000 for Zoning District Change and Resolution No. 2000-
13 for Release of Exhibit E)
D. APPROVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3-2000
AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 11.40 AND 11.70 REGARDING
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SIZE
E. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-14 AUTHORIZING THE DISPOSAL OF
TAX-FORFEITED LAND
F. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-15 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
SETTLERS RIDGE 4TH ADDITION
G. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-16 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
STAHL ADDITION
H. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-17 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
SCENIC HEIGHTS OFFICE ADDITION
I. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
PURGATORY CREEK ESTATES 2ND ADDITION
J. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-19 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
BEARPATH TOWNHOMES 8TH ADDITION
K. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2000-20 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION
FOR THE 2000 HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING
GRANT
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to approve Items A-K on the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 3
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS
A. CSM/STARICEY OFFICE CENTER by CSM Equities, LLC. Request for
Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 13.13 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 8.4 acres, Zoning District
Amendment within the I-5 Zoning District, and Site Plan Review on 8.4 acres.
Location: Flying Cloud Drive and Crosstown Circle. (Resolution No. 2000-21
for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD District Review and
Zoning District Amendment)
Enger said official notice of this public hearing was published on January 6, 2000,
in the Eden Prairie News and sent to 24 property owners.
Mark Dahlin of CSM Equities made the presentation. The project is an 83,012-
square-foot office-warehouse building located in the Research Addition off Flying
Cloud Drive, on an 8.4-acre site. They propose 348 parking spaces.
Jesse Symynkywicz, ROK Systems, said there are existing wetlands, trees and
topography to deal with. There are four wetlands on the property. A portion of
the low-quality wetlands will be filled and replaced with moderate-quality
wetlands. Moderate-quality wetlands along the north and south of the property
will be expanded. They will use a native grass-seed mix rather than turf in the
wetland buffer. Of the existing trees, 10 percent are oak and 90 percent are
cottonwood. About 50 percent of these will be saved. The required tree
replacement is 681 diameter inches. Due to the amount of land needed for
wetland buffer and wetland replacement, it is not possible to fit all of the
replacement trees on site, and they are proposing off-site replacement of 503
diameter inches.
Bruce Johnson, designer of the project from CSM Equities, said there are two
accesses to the site off Flying Cloud Drive. The building materials meet the
exterior material requirements for an office structure. A series of recesses would
provide access to the building.
Uram said the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the project at its
December 13 meeting. The waivers requested are for parking setback from 75
feet to 41.75 feet to protect the woodland and wetland, and to increase allowable
office use from 50 percent to 75 percent.
Mayor Harris asked if any members of the audience wished to address the
Council on this proposal. There were none.
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to close the public hearing;
and adopt Resolution 2000-21 for PUD Concept Amendment; and approve 1st
Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District
Amendment in the I-5 Zoning District; and direct Staff to prepare a Developer's
Agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations, and a Council
3
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 4
condition for preparation of a TDM plan prior to issuing the Developer's
Agreement. Discussion followed.
Tyra-Lukens said she would like to add a condition that Council be shown the
plan for additional trees being planted off-site and how they will be monitored by
City Staff. Thorfinnson accepted this as a friendly amendment to his motion.
Case inquired if there is the potential for the NURP pond to overflow into the
existing southeast wetland in the event of a heavy rainfall. The developer said
that could happen but the property would still receive water from across the road
that will run from the north wetland to the south.
Case said in.the future he would like to see how a wetland fits into the context of
the larger area surrounding the property. Enger said Council approved the second
reading of the PUD ordinance amendment, which includes a section requiring a
developer to submit land use information within 1000 feet of a PUD. This project
was already in the process before this was required.
Motion as amended carried 5-0.
B. HORN-ELAND ADDITION by Liv Homeland. Request for Planned Unit
Development Concept Amendment on 1.32 acres to the Ridgewood PUD,
Planned Unit Development District Review on 1.32 acres with waivers, Zoning
District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 1.32 acres, and
Preliminary Plat on 1.32 acres into 3 lots. Location: 8802 and 8804 Knollwood
Drive. (Resolution for PUD Concept Amendment, Ordinance for PUD
District Review and Zoning District Amendment and Resolution for
Preliminary Plat)
•
Enger said official notice of this public hearing was published on December 9,
1999, in the Eden Prairie News and sent to 76 property owners.
Liv Homeland, 8804 Knollwood Drive, presented the project. She is requesting
permission to divide two lots (8802 and 8804 Knollwood Drive) into three,
creating a third lot below the bluff area. She showed an aerial photo of the site.
The third lot can be developed now that sewer and water are available for that
site, and there is direct access to it. The proposed lot would be about 20,000
square feet. Seven out of twelve significant trees would have to be removed, and
she said this has been the primary issue raised. A second issue was setting a
precedent for dividing a lot, and a third was concern about changing a Planned
Unit Development.
Ken Adolph, an engineer with Schoell and Madson, showed a drawing of the
planned lot and home. He said seven significant pine trees would have to be
removed, but some existing trees south of the house would provide a buffer and
between 15 and 18 new trees would be planted on the site.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 5
Uram explained the history of the property. It is part of the original Centex
Midwest Inc. The 1978 Ridgewood West PUD included approximately 88 acres
and 176 single-family homes. It was amended in 1982 to create Ridgewood West
Two, a 64-acre PUD that included a Guide Plan change from Low Density to
Medium Density with 168 single-family cluster homes and 168 condominiums.
The Planning Commission recommended 6-0 to deny the project, for the
following reasons:
• The existing large lots are a density transfer for the existing Ridgewood
cluster lots and provide a transition between the cluster lots and the large lots
to the south.
• The subdivision is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and
the approved Planned Unit Development.
• The existing lots have a lot frontage waiver on Knollwood Drive.
• When the existing lots were subdivided, access from the south was not
anticipated. Street frontage to the south was created by the Jenkins and
Starrwood Additions.
• There is a high percentage of tree loss.
Mayor Harris asked if anyone wished to address the Council.
Bart Wear, 8788 Flesher Circle, distributed a copy of a letter he sent to the
Planning Commission listing the reasons he objects to the proposal. Three single
lots would disrupt two planned communities—Ridgewood Circle and the Jenkins
Addition. There would be significant loss and damage to the environment
because of the loss of trees. Because this is a sloping lot he is concerned that
more trees would be affected during construction. The land is very vulnerable to
erosion and may be eroded by the moving of dirt during construction. Also, lots
in the Jenkins Addition are larger than five acres and property values are
significantly higher. Development of the two lots into three would lower the
value of surrounding properties. He also thought there would be a safety issue
because of blind access to the property. The private driveway would be very
steep, making it difficult to see a car coming out of it. The project is not in the
best interests of Eden Prairie.
Bob Seitz, 8811 Flesher Circle, said when he bought his lot in 1988 he was told
by the City of Eden Prairie it would not allow the 25-foot easement across the
road to be turned into a driveway. This proposed development would directly
impact his property.
Karen Sell, 8796 Flesher Circle, said she has a petition signed by 32 persons
living on Flesher Circle, and other signatures from adjacent properties. She
mentioned the variances and waivers being requested are significant and there is
no hardship in this case. Knollwood was part of a Planned Unit Development,
and this proposed development would change the PUD.
5
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 6
Scott Daniel, 8097 Flesher Circle, expressed concern about removing the trees.
New trees would require many years to grow.
Larry Berger, 8780 Flesher Circle, said he is concerned about losing the natural
area and trees now on the lots,which provide a place for wildlife to live. He was
primarily concerned about setting a precedent in dividing the two lots into three.
Mayor Harris asked for Council opinions.
Tyra-Lukens said concerns have been expressed about the loss of trees, erosion
of the land and safety issues. The overriding issue for her, however, is the
precedent that would be set. If the City started changing established PUDs, no
one could be sure that there would not be future changes in PUDs. She believes
the PUDs should remain as they are, and for this reason she is opposed to the
project.
Case said this is really about people trusting that the neighborhood would remain
as it is. He could find no compelling gain that would justify changing it. He
would vote against the project.
Thorfinnson said if this PUD was being formed now, one of these two large lots
would probably have been put in a conservation easement to protect the bluff.
That is what is being done along the bluffs in the southwest area of the City.
Butcher said she agrees with the other Councilmembers. There are places in the
City where there are lots large enough to subdivide, and should be taken on a
case-by-case basis. In this case, changing the density from cluster homes to
single family homes would not be a good idea and she would not support it.
Mayor Harris said this is a beautiful piece of land. Council must consider the
benefits to be gained and Councilmembers have found it difficult to identify
benefits that would accrue from the division of this property as it is proposed.
The tree mass is an amenity to those on Knollwood Drive and Flesher Circle.
There are three lots that need to have variances and so she would find it difficult
to support the request. Mayor Harris explained that reasons for the denial must
be established, so the public hearing will be continued until February 1, 2000.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to continue the public
hearing to February 1, 2000; and direct Staff to prepare findings supporting a
denial of the PUD Concept Amendment, PUD District Review with waivers,
Zoning District Amendment, and Preliminary Plat. Motion carried 5-0.
C. ELIM HOMES, INC. PROJECT, RELATING TO THE PROPOSED
ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000,000.
Official notice of this public hearing was published on December 16, 1999, in the
Eden Prairie News.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 7
Uram said that Elim Homes was reviewed at a previous Council meeting.
Minnesota Statutes require that the City conduct a public hearing on the proposed
issuance of its revenue bonds for the purpose of financing approximately $1
million of construction of a corporate office facility for the benefit of Elim
Homes, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. The proceeds of the revenue
bonds will b.e loaned to the Borrower to finance the construction of a corporate
office facility at the southeast corner of the intersection of Office Ridge Circle
and Valley View Road. A vote on the issuance of the bonds will be held at the
next Council meeting on February 1.
Mayor Harris asked if anyone present wished to address the Council on this
public hearing. No one did.
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 5-0.
D. APPROVE FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY
CODE CHAPTER 11 AND ADOPT WETLAND PLAN
Enger said that official notice of this public hearing was published on December
2, 1999, in the Eden Prairie News.
Leslie Stovring, from the City's Engineering Department, explained the key
points in the ordinance and the Wetland Plan. The ordinance does not cover
existing development, but would cover new PUDs. The Wetland Plan was
completed tb develop a strategy for ranking and assigning value to known
wetlands and water bodies, and to establish development review guidelines,
priorities for wetland protection/management projects and to identify potential
educational programs. The Plan goals and strategies were established through a
working Task Force.
The department looked at maps to determine where there are wetlands and
stormwater ponds. There are 478 wetlands, 15 lakes and 44 non jurisdictional
stormwater basins. There are eight types of wetlands and two cranberry bogs in
Eden Prairie. A developer would now have to provide information on wetlands
and water-quality testing if within 25 feet of a wetland. Additional erosion
control would be required if wetland buffer were disturbed, etc. A buffer strip
evaluation would have to be provided as well as a landscaping plan. The
developer would be required to hire a consultant to study the buffer and verify
that it is growing the way the developer said it would grow. The developer
would have to provide easement over the wetland and the buffer. The boundaries
of the buffer would have to be marked with monuments. In the buffer area,
building, paving, mowing filling, dumping and fertilizer would be prohibited.
Stormwater ponds being used for wetland mitigation would have to have a buffer
around them.also. Also built into the ordinance is the ability for Staff to review
the site plan and recommend alternate buffers which would have to be approved
by the Council. A MinRAM AM Database will allow the City to access data on the
wetlands.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA.
January 18,2000
Page 8
Stovring was asked how the ordinance would be enforced. She said a two-year
guarantee is required of the developer that the buffer and wetland will be
preserved. At the end of the second year the developer will have to provide a
written report, and that will be the City's main method of checking up on the
developer. By that time residents would be living in the development and could
see if the developer is abiding by the ordinance requirements.
Dietz said there are nine exceptional quality wetlands. The City may check high
and exceptional wetlands annually, and will deal with the others if calls come in
about them.
The next step that is required by the Watershed Districts is a local Water
Management Plan. This ties in wetlands, lakes, streams, ponds and stormwater.
Work on the Plan will likely start this spring and take two years to complete.
Tyra-Lukens said Council is glad to see this ordinance and Wetland Plan
completed. •She expressed appreciation for the work of the task force in its
preparation.
Butcher asked how many other cities use a plan like this one. Stovring said it is
required in the metro area,but not all cities have finished their plans. Many cities
already have them.
Mayor Harris asked if anyone wished to address the Council on this public
hearing. No one did.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfmnson, to close the public hearing;
and approve first reading of an ordinance to amend City Code Section 11 through
adoption of Section 11.51 — Standards for the Protection of Wetlands; and by
reference adopt the Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan
(November 1999); and approve submittal of the Wetland Plan to the three
watershed districts and the Board of Water and Soil Resources for approval.
Motion carried 5.
E. VACATION 99-09: VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DRAINAGE
AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN SETTLERS RIDGE 3RD ADDITION
(Resolution•No. 2000-22)
Enger said official notice of this public hearing was published on January 6,
2000, in the Eden Prairie News. Enger said the property owner has requested
this vacation to remove underlying right-of-way and easements from the property
enabling the combination and replatting into Settlers Ridge 4th Addition. All
needed right-of-way and easement dedications will be included in the new plat.
The vacated portion of Overland Trail will be owned and maintained by the
property owners within the new plat.
Mayor Harris asked if anyone wished to address the Council. No one did.
MOTION: Butcher moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to close the public
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 9
hearing; and adopt Resolution 2000-22 vacating the right-of-way and drainage
and utility easements as described in the resolution. Motion carried 5-0.
F. VACATION 00-01: VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PART OF
TECHNOLOGY DRIVE AND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 15, T116, R22W (Resolution No.
2000-23)
Enger said official notice of this public hearing was published on January 6, 2000,
in the Eden Prairie News. Enger said the property owner, Southwest Metro
Transit Commission, has requested vacation of that part of public right-of-way
and easements encompassed within the plat of Southwest Station, approved by the
City Council December 21, 1999. This vacation will clear the property of
underlying encumbrances. Replacement easements have been dedicated on the •
approved plat.
Mayor Harris asked if anyone wished to address the Council. No one did.
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to close the public hearing;
and adopt Resolution No. 2000-23 vacating the right-of-way and drainage and
utility easements as described in the resolution. Motion carried 5-0.
VII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS •
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Case, to approve Payment of
Claims as submitted. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Butcher,
Case, Thorfinnson, Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting"aye."
VIII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
IX. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
X. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION
1. Update on Solicitation of FAA Support for Changes to MAC
Ordinance 51 and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Flying
Cloud Airport—Tom Heffelfinger
Tom Heffelfinger, Chairman of the Flying Cloud Airport Commission,
reported on the trip to Washington, D.C. regarding amendments to
Ordinance 51 that the Advisory Commission has recommended. He
received authorization from the Council to represent Eden Prairie in
meetings with the representatives of the FAA to evaluate if they may
support the revisions to Ordinance 51. He was accompanied on the trip by
representatives of MAC, other members of the Advisory Commission and
Scott Kipp, Senior Planner.
C
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 10 •
The group met with Louise Mallot, the FAA's Deputy Administrative
Assistant for Policy. It is out of this agency that approvals for operations
at airports would be addressed. Mallott and her staff were very
responsive. They were in favor of the concept that was being proposed
and made a promise to work with the group to make it happen. Mallott
said she would not comment regarding the proposal,but that the group had
properly identified the nighttime issue. This would require a Part 161
study,which the Flying Cloud Advisory Committee submitted to the FAA,
and Part 161 criteria would be applied to the Ordinance revisions. FAA
prefers voluntary compliance of the nighttime curfew, rather than
mandatory, and Mallott asked the Commission to seek some voluntary
compliance. Heffelfinger said he believes the FAA has never acted on
Part 161, so if this proceeds all the way through the process, it may be the
first one the FAA has the opportunity to rule on.
They also met with Congressman Oberstar. His basic position was that he
wondered if the localization of this issue would override the national and
international concern with airport usage. He would also prefer voluntary
compliance. Congressman Ramstad was not in Washington but the
delegation met with one of his legislative aides. Congressman Ramstad
wrote and said he is interested in the matter and asked to be kept informed.
The delegation met with Jeff Alcott of the FAA. Alcott also expressed a
preference for voluntary compliance and is willing to work with the group,
but is concerned about setting a precedent. As a result, the delegation
could not predict what the FAA would decide.
At a sub-caucus of the Advisory Commission they thought the ordinance
should be amended to include a stopgap measure of a voluntary curfew
during the period that Part 161 is being studied. If it is rejected or not
pursued, they hope to feach a voluntary agreement that would achieve the
curfew goals of the MAC and Advisory Commission without having FAA
approval. There is a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Wednesday
night, January 26,to discuss the voluntary curfew issue.
The other issue concerns the draft EIS. The FAA has expressed
reservations on the environmental aspects of the revision of Ordinance 51,
and until it is approved the restrictions cannot be put in. The reference to
Alternative E in the EIS only contains one of four parts of the revisions to
Ordinance 51. There was agreement that those four provisions are
necessary. Heffelfinger said he does not want to present the draft EIS at
the public hearing on February 9 if all four parts are not presented. Jeff
Alcott from FAA will be attending the public hearing.
•
Mayor Harris thanked Heffelfinger for his report. She asked if the
approval process on the draft EIS can go forward. Heffelfinger said the
FAA approval process would take approximately one year. MAC wants to
• go ahead with approval of the EIS and expansion of Flying Cloud Airport.
/40
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 11
It is a question of whether the EIS approval process should be stopped.
Another question would be whether to take out of the draft those parts that
require Part 161 approval. That is why a voluntary curfew is being
proposed. One year of experience with the voluntary curfew will give an
idea of whether this will work.
Gary Schmidt, from MAC, said the Airports Committee will make the
draft EIS as compatible as possible and will work toward agreement. It is
possible agreements could be in place prior to the public hearing. They
need'to find out if they can get voluntary curfew agreements from
transients who use the airport. In surveys MAC has done, they have
identified only a couple of air carriers from whom agreement would be
needed. The FAA is reluctant to allow mandatory noise restrictions until
it has completed the Part 161 study. This will set a precedent.
Case expressed concern that nighttime noise may not be alleviated because
of the voluntary aspects being discussed. He asked what would be done
about compliance if the volunteer curfew doesn't work, after trying that
for a year or two. The goal was to have a similar noise footprint to the
present one, and the compromise is the noise ordinance.
Scott Kipp said they are still obtaining comments from the draft EIS and
will prepare Staff comments for the next Council meeting.
Heffelfinger said he hoped Councilmembers who are available would
attend the public hearing on February 9, at 7:00 p.m. at Hennepin
Technical College. Pauly said if more than two members of the Council
attend it would have to be published as an open meeting.
XI. APPOINTMENTS
XII. • REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
1. Report on the Eden Prairie Foundation- Councilmember Butcher
Butcher serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the Eden Prairie
Foundation. The mission of the Foundation is to support Eden Prairie
organizations and improve the quality of life of its citizens. This year they
plan to award $45,000 in grants, $5,000 in scholarships and $1,000
honoraria to the Eagle Scouts. Butcher invited any organization that has a
need fitting the mission to submit a grant proposal for consideration by the
Foundation. Butcher invited everyone to attend a ball on February 26 at
Bearpath Country Club to benefit the Foundation.
•
I I
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 12
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
1. Management and Use Plan for Historic Sites
Enger said the City owns several historic properties: the Douglas/More
Property, the Cummins/Grill House and Riley/Jacques House. Staff, with
input from the Heritage Preservation Commission, should develop several
optional uses for each of the historic sites for recommendation to the
Community Program Board. Recommendations from the Community
Program Board and City Staff, consistent with the City's Strategic Plan,
should be made to the City Council by June 1, 2000. This needs to be a
comprehensive effort. Council would direct members of the Staff to be
involved as resource groups in the review of each historic site. The HPC
should review these facts and make recommendations to staff.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher, to direct the City Staff to
work with the Community Program Board and the Heritage Preservation
Commission to develop recommendations for the future use of the
Douglas/More Property, the Cummins/Grill House and Riley/Jacques
House. The analysis of the properties should take into account their
historic significance, potential adaptive re-use, operations, maintenance,
programming, all costs, and financial sustainability over time. Motion
carried 5-0.
Lambert said he would like direction regarding the existing renter of the
Douglas/More Property until a decision is made regarding the future status
of the property. The renter is the daughter of Mr. More and is only able to
pay $200 per month rent. Lambert recommended not changing the status
of the renter until we know the future status of the property, which would
be at least until June 1.
Mayor Harris said it seems reasonable to let the current renter stay. Enger
said it is a good idea to keep the person in the house until a decision is
made on the future status of the property.
Two representatives of the Heritage Preservation Commission said they
would be willing to assist in any way they can as volunteers.
C. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2000-24 Approving Greenway Planning Grant
Application
Lambert said Staff is requesting that Council approve the grant application
and the resolution required for the grant application for Phase II of a Creek
Corridors Management Plan. Phase II will provide the actual site plans
and management practices recommended for preserving these sites and
providing the public reasonable access to enjoy these public properties.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 13
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to adopt Resolution
No. 2000-24 approving application for a Metro Greenways Planning Grant
that will provide 50% of the funding for Phase II of the Creek Corridors
Management Plan. Motion carried 5-0.
2. Round Lake Water Quality
Lambert referenced the report Barr Engineering submitted to the City
Council last year for proposals to improve the water quality of Round
Lake. The said improvements would cost $900-$1,000,000. Council
directed Staff to talk to several governmental agencies to see if there are
other options. Those Lambert has talked to agreed the Barr report
described the quickest improvement possible. However, they also said
they are reluctant to rely on mechanical means to improve the lake and
maintain it. They suggested there might be less radical means to improve
water quality. Water quality in Round Lake is at the point the City will
have to make a decision very soon on whether or not we are going to
maintain a beach at Round Lake. Lambert would strongly recommend
continuing evaluation and making efforts to accomplish the necessary
changes. It may be a longer process than Barr Engineering suggested. In
the meantime Lambert suggested the following:
(1) In the near future Leslie Stovring is expected to recommend that the
City appoint another citizens' task force to develop a Water-
Management Plan for Eden Prairie. They will look at the City's entire
water system. It is suggested the task force review the Barr report and
make recommendations on what the City can do to address the
problem at Round Lake.
(2) Shorten the swimming season at Round Lake to six weeks, from mid-
June to August 1.
(3) Apply for a relocation permit to relocate the geese.
(4) If the City is going to keep Round Lake as a swimming beach, prior to
the summer of 2001 the City should install a canvas curtain, pump in
fresh water behind that curtain from a park well, and treat the water
with copper sulfate to kill algae. An aerator would be taken to the
beach area to run at night to keep geese out. That would keep it in
swimmable condition for the entire summer.
(5) Put up a chain-link fence around the beach area and try to train the
geese to stay out of that area by using a dog occasionally to chase the
geese away.
Lambert believed the whole project would cost around $50,000. To keep
Round Lake as a swimmable lake, Council would need to decide at this
meeting if they want to go ahead with the above suggestions in order to
get everything installed by June 2001.
Mayor Harris said she has very serious reservations about opening Round
Lake for swimming this slimmer, as it is a health hazard.
!3
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 14
Lambert said the lake is just in marginal condition. It could be open for
six weeks,from mid-June to August 1.
Enger said he understands if the beach were not open this summer, the
savings would roughly offset the cost of construction. Lambert said he
could obtain cost estimates and bring them to the Council.
Lambert said Bob Obermeyer from Barr Engineering thought that at the
Council Workshop, the representatives from Barr had not felt they had an
opportunity to fully explain their program and what the other options
might be. It was suggested that a meeting be set up at Barr Engineering
offices, with representatives from the PCA, Barr Engineering and several
City Councilmembers, to discuss this further, and for the Council to tell
Barr what direction to take.
Mayor Harris said there are three decisions to be made.
1. Whether Council wants to have the beach open to swimming for six
weeks, or close the beach this summer. Council agreed it should be
closed.
2. Whether Council wants to accept Staff recommendations to do cost
estimates and come back to Council to approve work to be done in
2001.
MOTION: Thorfirmson moved, seconded by Case, to accept Staff
recommendations and obtain cost estimates. Motion carried 5-0.
3. The invitation for several City Councilmembers to attend a meeting at
Barr Engineering and hear more discussion.
Mayor Harris said she didn't know if two or three members of the
Council could give direction to Barr. Council agreed it would be better
to have Barr Engineering come to another Workshop for further
discussion, and Mayor Harris directed Staff to put it on the agenda for a
future Workshop.
D. . REPORT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCIAL
SERVICES DIRECTOR
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTOR
F. REPORT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES DIRECTOR
G. REPORT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
1L}
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
January 18,2000
Page 15
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS
A. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
Mayor Harris said Council Forum will be held the first and third Tuesdays of the
month from 6:30-6:55 p.m. in Heritage Room II. This will be scheduled time
following City Council workshops and immediately preceding regular City
Council meetings. If you wish to visit with the City Council and Service Area
Directors at this time, it is important that you notify the City Manager's office by
noon of the meeting date with your request.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved adjournment. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at
9:30 p.m.
•
•
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Consent Calendar February 1,2000
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development Clerk's License Application List ITEM NO..
&Financial Services/ V.A.
Gretchen Laven
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity.
New Liquor License—New Ownership
M& S Food Service Inc
Dba: Halftime Restaurant
Renewal Licenses for 2000
Commercial Kennel
Anderson Lakes Animal'Hospital
Private Kennel
Evelyn Bone
Kimberly Donahue
Marsha Engstrom
Carol& Steven Gross
Vincent Strom
Solid Waste Collector
BFI Waste Systems of N.A.
•
February 1, 2000 - 1 -
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 02/01/00
SECTION: Consent Agenda
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Community Development
Donald R. Uram Cam Addition
Scott A. Kipp
Requested Action
Move to:
• Approve 2nd Reading of the Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers and
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10 acres; and
• Approve the Developer's Agreement for Cam Addition.
Synopsis
This project is for 17 single-family lots, located at 18230 and 18120 West 82nd Street.
Attachments
1. Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change
2. Developer's Agreement
•
CAM ADDITION
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. -2000-PUD- -2000
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING
CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER,
AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND,
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the
"land")is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the
Rural and be placed in the R1-13.5 Zoning District =2000-PUD-_-2000 (hereinafter "PUD-
_-2000-R1-13.5").
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain
Developer's Agreement dated as of February 1, 2000, entered into between Carlston
Incorporated and Manley Brothers Construction Incorporated, and the City of Eden Prairie,
(hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and
conditions of PUD-_-2000-R1-13.5, and are hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD-_-2000-R1-13.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive
Guide Plan of the City.
B. PUD-_-2000-R1-13.5 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City
Code that are contained in PUD- -2000-R1-13.5 are justified by the design of
the development described therein.
D. PUD-_-2000-R1-13.5 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its
construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without
dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is
removed from the Rural Zoning District, and placed within the R1-13.5 Zoning District and shall
be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-=2000-R1-13.5 and the legal
descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1,
subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated
verbatim herein.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and
publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the
16th day of November 1999, and finally read and adopted and ordered published in summary
form as attached hereto at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 1st day of
February,2000.
ATTEST: •
Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk Jean L.Harris,Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on
3
CAM ADDITION
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
SUMMARY OF
ORDINANCE NO. -2000-PUD- -2000
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING
CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER,
AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99,
WHICH,AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This ordinance allows rezoning of land located at 18230 and 18120 West
82nd Street from the Rural Zoning District to the R1-13.5 Zoning District. Exhibit A, included
with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Jean L. Harris,Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.)
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
CAM ADDITION
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of February 1, 2000, by Carlston, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation, and Manley Bros. Construction, a Minnesota corporation hereinafter
referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "City.:
WITNES SETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept
Review on 10 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 10 acres,
Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 10 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 10 acres into
17 lots and one outlot, legally described on Exhibit A(the"Property");
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. for
Planned Unit Development Concept Review, Ordinance No. for Planned Unit
Development District Review and Zoning District Change, and Resolution No. for
Preliminary Plat,Developer agrees to construct, develop and maintain the Property as follows:
1. PLANS: Developer agrees to develop the Property in conformance with the materials
revised and dated October 1, 1999, reviewed and approved by the City Council on
November 16, 1999, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and
modifications as provided herein.
2. EXHIBIT C: Developer agrees to the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set
forth in Exhibit C.
3. STREET AND UTILITY PLANS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for the
construction of streets and utilities for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City
Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's written approval of plans for streets, public
sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer. Plans for public infrastructures shall be of a plan
view and profile on 24 x 36 plan sheets consistent with City standards. A permit fee of
five percent of construction value shall be paid to City by Developer. The design
engineer shall provide daily inspection, certify completion in conformance to approved
plans and specifications and provide record drawings.
Prior to release of a final plat for any portion of the Property, Developer shall pay an
operating and maintenance fee for the temporary lift station in the amount of$30,000.00
to the City. If a temporary lift station is not needed based on an alternative location for a
gravity sanitary sewer outlet that is approved by the City Engineer, the operating and
maintenance fee will not be required.
5
4. GRADING,DRAINAGE,AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS:
A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer agrees that the
grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the
release of a land alteration permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and
obtain the City Engineer's written approval of a final grading and drainage plan
for the Property. The final grading and drainage plan shall include all wetland,
wetland buffer strips, wetland buffer strip monument locations, water quality
ponds, storm water detention areas and other items required by the application for
and release of a land alteration permit. All design calculations for storm water
quality and quantity together with a drainage area map shall be submitted with the
final grading and drainage plan. Prior to release of the grading bond, Developer
shall certify to the City that the water quality pond conforms to the final grading
plan. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property, Developer shall
complete implementation of the approved plan
Developer shall employ the design professional who prepared the final grading
plan. The design professional shall monitor construction for conformance to the
approved final grading plan and City erosion control policy. The design
professional shall provide a final report to the City certifying completion of the
grading in conformance the approved final grading plan and City erosion control
policy.
B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a grading permit,Developer
shall submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's written approval of
an erosion control plan for the Property. The erosion control plan shall include all
boundary erosion control features, temporary stockpile locations and turf
restoration procedures: All site grading operations shall conform to the City's
Erosion Control Policy labeled Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Prior to release of the grading bond, Developer shall complete implementation of
the approved plan.
Developer shall remove any sediment that accumulates in the existing and/or
proposed sedimentation pond during construction. Developer shall provide pre-
construction and post construction surveys for evaluation by City.
5. GRADING IN THE WOODED AREAS ON SITE: Prior to grading within any of the
wooded areas on the Property, delineated on Exhibit B, Developer shall submit to the City
Forester and receive the City Forester's written approval of a plan depicting construction
grading limits on the Property. Prior to the issuance of any land alteration permit, Developer
shall place a construction fence on the approved construction grading limits. Developer shall
notify the City and watershed district 48 hours in advance of grading so that the construction
limit fence may be field inspected and approved by the City Engineer and City Forester.
Developer shall maintain the construction limit fence until written approval is granted by the
City to remove the fence.
6
6. PRETREATMENT PONDS: Prior to issuance of the land alteration permit for the
Property,Developer shall submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's written
approval of plans and design information for all storm water quality facilities to be
constructed on the Property.
Developer shall complete implementation of the approved storm water quality facility
plan prior to issuance of any occupancy permit for the Property.
Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the Property,Developer shall provide
to the City Engineer proof that the pond size has not diminished from the original design
volume because of sedimentation, erosion or other causes, and that the pond has been
restored to its original volume if the pond size has diminished.
7. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by the City of any permit for grading or
construction on the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and
obtain the Chief Building Official's written approval of detailed plans for the retaining
walls identified on the grading plan in Exhibit B.
These plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method
of construction to be used for the retaining walls. •
Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved retaining wall plan in
accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto, prior to issuance
of any occupancy permit for the Property.
8. REMOVAL/SEALING OF EXISTING WELL AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS: Prior to
issuance by City of any permit for grading or building on the Property, Developer shall
submit to the Chief Building Official and to obtain the Chief Building Official's written
approval of plans for demolition and removal of existing septic systems and wells on the
Property, and restoration of the Property.
Prior to such demolition or removal, Developer shall provide to the City a deposit in the
amount of $1,000.00 to guarantee that Developer completes implementation of the
approved plan. The city shall return to Developer the $1,000.00 deposit at such time as
the Chief Building Official has verified in writing that the Developer has completed
implementation of the approved plan.
9. PLANS FOR INDIVIDUAL HOME CONSTRUCTION: Prior to building permit
issuance for each residential structure on each parcel of the Property, a Certificate of
Survey for such parcel shall be submitted for review and written approval by the Building
Department. The Certificate of Survey shall include a certification by the builder that
construction of the residence is consistent with this Agreement and all exhibits attached
hereto, and shall further contain the following information:
A. Topography with 2 foot contour intervals for existing and proposed grades.
Topography must be field verified.
7
B. Location of structures with finished floor elevations.
C. Retaining walls,type,height, and type of details.
D. Location of sewer,water, gas and electric lines.
E. Method of erosion control.
F. Detailed grading plans.
G. No construction or grading within any conservancy easement area.
H. Location of wetland buffer strip monuments.
10. STRUCTURE SETBACKS FROM 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION: All
permanent structures which will abut existing wetlands, wetland buffer strips, or storm
water pretreatment ponds must have a minimum setback of 15 feet from the 100-year
flood elevation as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto.
11. TREE LOSS - TREE REPLACEMENT: There are 1,863 diameter inches of
significant trees on the Property. Tree loss related to development on the Property is
calculated at 521 diameter inches. Tree replacement required is 194 caliper inches. Prior
to the issuance of any grading permit for the Property, Developer shall submit to the City
Forester and receive the City Forester's written approval of a tree replacement plan for
194 caliper inches.
This approved plan shall include replacement trees of a 3-inch diameter minimum size
for a shade tree and a 7-foot minimum height for conifer trees. The approved plan shall
also provide that, should actual tree loss exceed that calculated herein, Developer shall
provide tree replacement on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis for such excess loss.
Developer agrees to complete implementation of the approved tree replacement plan
prior to building permit issuance.
12. CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF EXISTING
TREES, WETLAND, AND WETLAND BUFFER AREA ON THE PROPERTY:
Prior to release of the final plat for any portion of the Property, Developer shall submit a
Conservation Easement for review and written approval by the Director of Parks and
Recreational Services, for the area delineated on Exhibit B.
Prior to the release of the first building permit for the Property, Developer shall submit
evidence to the Director of Parks and Recreational Services, that the approved
Conservation Easement has been filed in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar of
Titles' Office.
Prior to the release of the first building permit for the Property,Developer shall install all
wetland buffer strip monuments for the Property.
13. DEDICATION OF OUTLOT: Developer agrees that, prior to release of the final plat
for the Property, Outlot A as depicted on Exhibit B, attached hereto, shall be dedicated to
the City for park purposes in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C,
attached hereto.
14. TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC: Concurrent with the construction of the public road to
the west limits of the Property,Developer shall construct a bituminous temporary cul-de-
sac at the end of the road as depicted in Exhibit B. Developer shall post a sign at the end
of the road indicating that the cul-de-sac is temporary and that a future road extension is
planned.
15. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: The city hereby grants the following waivers to City
Code requirements within the R1-13.5 Zoning District through the Planned Unit
Development District Review for the Property as Depicted in Exhibit B and incorporates
said waivers as part of PUD
1. Public cul-de-sac length of 525 feet. Code maximum is 500 feet.
2. Front yard structure setback of 25 feet for Lots 6 through 11, Block
1, City Code requires 30 feet.
16. DEVELOPER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS CONTRACTORS: Developer agrees
to release, defend and indemnify City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and
agents from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, complaints, loss, costs
(including attorneys. fees), damages and injunctions relating to any acts, failures to act,
errors, omissions of Developer or Developer's consultants, contractors, subcontractors,
suppliers and agents. Developer shall not be released from its responsibilities to release,
defend and indemnify because of any inspection,review or approval by City.
1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
February 1, 2000
SECTION: Consent Calendar
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Public Works Final Plat Approval of Bearpath Townhomes 9th
Engineering Services Addition I�.0
Randy Slick
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Bearpath Townhomes 9th
Addition
Synopsis
This proposal is a replat of Outlot H of Bearpath Townhomes. The plat consists of.23 acres to
be divided into three townhome lots.
Background Information
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council November 21, 1993. Second Reading of
the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer's Agreement was completed on
December 21, 1993.
Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions:
• Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$280.00 •
• The requirements as set forth in the Developer's Agreement
Attachments
Drawing of final plat
RS:ssa
1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
BEARPATH TOWNHOMES 9T11 ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Bearpath Townhomes 9th Addition has been submitted in a manner
required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the
Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
A. Plat approval request for Bearpath Townhomes 9th Addition is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat
dated February 1, 2000.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution
to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing
provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 1, 2000.
Jean L. Harris,Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
2
Z - ; _ Ec Z u; } C C
- F., `c1.am mu
U 5 _ O 5 a nl 'Eta .3.'
mu
E a z U
=
o al �F_ l ^la N « _ s. _
i -4 1. ;f4-. 43 I '2 ift0 : i I 1
i a t o E •L. 'n Z i
e5 = olE z u ; 'o i 2 5 f =
W e T T. =o ;au r. T u F _ e 3
E. 2 ET: ;gal
3 .S t i n Y i u - w - - Z ~
= a o r z < z z a
F i - _ _ PIP'
U E = wl = 1. q �.
w u _ $ 7.t pt �. m o i c
c tl 1w..E L i g= 2 3 c_ i = u c z
x O l O 3 n ;. Oq f c`o E a Z f E i T it e,
m' < ^21 W T �p E u utli O L ii :Z a c 1- 0 i ,3. O
al _11111 p _ C Z Z ii aid.
`, u W =O - r ¢ Z of G S LL : Y of T.
= L c O O - - n K M A. } _ O tl 4 -wl
I!:
` 3 W=O Ra wum w
0 IA
144,1„, t 001313 M,CZ,LI.lOS
1. h
-Ma At.mal.l05
2 OO9B
r
IF
. , g I- o
F-- 2 8
z M.£L,Ll.10S Z g p
*- `•1 5g —
al re
-- in0 0v
F- , z
•J: O m
0
W'98 M.£L,LL1USks, i
Li H
Cr.:
Lii
Lij
4111411
3 -
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
February 1, 2000
SECTION: Consent Calendar
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Public Works Final Plat Approval of Braxton Woods
Engineering Services V ID,
Randy Slick
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Braxton Woods
Synopsis
This proposal, located south of Pioneer Trail at Braxton Drive and north of Cedarcrest Drive.
The plat consists of 21.09 acres to be divided into 32 single-family lots, right-of-way dedication
for street purposes, and one outlot.
Background Information
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council May 18, 1999. Second Reading of the
Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer's Agreement was completed on July 6,
1999.
Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions:
• Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$1,392.00
• Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of$6,053.40
• Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of$2,557.35
• Satisfaction of bonding requirements for the installation of public improvements
• Execution of Special Assessment Agreement for trunk utility improvements and
future construction of permanent sanitary sewer lift station
• The requirements as set forth in the Developer's Agreement
• Provide a list of areas (to the nearest square foot) of all lots, outlots and road right-of-
ways certified by surveyor
• Prior to release of final plat,Developer shall submit and receive approval of plans and
design information for all storm water quality facilities
• Prior to release of final plat, Developer shall submit a reciprocal, joint access and
maintenance agreement for shared driveway for Lots 6 and 7, Block 4 and adjacent
parcel to the east. •
• Revision of plat to include drainage and utility easement over proposed NURP pond
within Outlot A
• Prior to release of final plat,Developer shall submit easement documents which cover
the storm sewer outlet pipe to creek
Attachments
Drawing of final plat
I
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
BRAXTON WOODS
WHEREAS, the plat of Braxton Woods has been submitted in a manner required for platting
land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes
and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and
requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL:
A. Plat approval request for Braxton Woods is approved upon compliance with the
recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated February 1, 2000.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution
to the owners and subdividers of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing
provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on February 1, 2000.
Jean L.Harris,Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
Kathleen A.Porta, City Clerk
•
0 .
s
of
3z' W 7 S
2 / � 4ii fig `�'zs L
I,� a1$ Fri i° i..3 \`y�e/F+'
O I Ci; h8 I't JY k
V pm /f 0i\
CE -!',�-- .1 _'C'- �7 ' SE: "tug"" _, ^ •5
/yw J7/ 1 — .65 t`•** 075
225.1
tom m s.l`3`3
/ 64 R.475.02 1 p $.i,,,i o%s,
/ / - w YQ „ ql3 e.0 1,J%',A F14
gq' .. S: og et,
rgu I
Q '• %� W Ilk I.j p__f •}3 Py
9 cft
7 I !JL I.4 N s , r EW W
.16 \
__SZ 5 �; Li
a ii _ i / I/a`g ~I ,I__ —
0 =#I11' �1��1 cis /mi �� M1 g t�
) ,( /m>
T '� 1 r
11•
I / / a°
O s & ati
kr fir!/ p `"� .,
c o 1 1 _.W_ F9 • p.<
s
m 2 14 —_" -i 11 M'r«,N • et• . y zi
ht
a:l a—T \ \ t
o \ C'\ I\ \`_ l. `:
r �� .. 1 3 \ LJ \ I) `' �.N �
11.114 \ \\ I y \ (i // \ M 1 �j
I ` \ ✓i 9�
z 1 / s cs1
44, / .I^ C . 11 N ill
a s I / C I °` Nat 8 3
I a; 1 I r���f'� �': I.
L.
g. x I ''_ Sri.Zµ,”, „.�1�629&j 9'�, E.,,FFE w 1110't!
_ {�"' S rra"0 •S_ 50o,i1 I ;:0
14.
-N�J.� '' I . I m
IatI
I
3
ps `%
3
us W a
z k
V $ L . 'r<suk
A ax
-- •
Q N _ �- . x-°sAO.ax
u I^,ej�
V h j 4d%f�• Y S
R +
j%li s ° 3 ' x+
l 1a 1.-'�•
.......\
ffiI - NO=°5°y'1;['-prtO.P - ; 55 .yi.0--.15'1t lyN\
_ 1\ i\-
CC o sam c \\ 71111
Q\1 \ 14 w1 itd`%.
< \\CI) X` W.
1A a` c�K j0 , '
.-z— :\\ \ \ -- —0 \
p per\\ -.\\ ) �2.1'� -1n sY3
Oc8 g \\ a\ - e `"
Ofi E - -. \.-''a'pp0 »sue' y°\ \ -d5-0 W f' ;F
071
-11A91 W/p -. 1u e 1, 1 \
ma \1g aia w 1ffi 1 5 i�
N Y c= \i• Da �i% Ir L'c 17,Yre 17
can
\\ - ,n\Qb 'Al p 1- 'Ib
613 r� \ Ni. % al 8 1- .l r-af°..5x
E E <%.."104 3 • µ'so' IS r 1roP r d
E E g1.9icy to \\ N i ,?I re > to l' l 2
\ - ' + TI- �
i
C.) ^ \\ �.Y'4T g/ 'it?. I.a:.....lei w rozs
tit
I „' loe •:.t_. 574' i'l 1 (I), k
SV
11
1 /
L ' i� 'SR7 = 1gga.e �` ` ��
2N
yl
inn" l•i �Jo -
• Ja ,\ . ai /
. \ \
1 t. W i D 'x`I. ,t\ ``4.r
i 1 `a$ffi V .1 9.\\ ip\\
s I i S r_ 'Ali
„7 .\\\ s`\ im5i
€ I di " ♦♦ ♦\ ve.Jyis'fi n<-I et s 8 I bx 8 ~ r$•p:`♦\ m aalr_-)v..�"1"
x �I S��I' -_ ` `— LnT Na a. 1
q I -
--+1-- $_ >I -'�n - i (Kali.A.K Na 96.49 W
.; 0.0� 8 99.1
j
Qr-I - /2$" $ .ns� jg ',
1 yZo' ZN
4os8 1 s.a TS°2'gY
W
U
Ci F
0 + i
0
2 ? 's1.
3g
E E
Q gg6 G1 E
CZd N 72125.25 \ --\
0 . 1. ��
d'J7'33J7' L451.66 R0{75. •62 2"2 [ �'�
8 CEQ4RptE5T DRIVE w ,,,,�.9��''"�°�r off,
m E 9,
N
Y
w g tn11u, 2
1
Rg 1-. iA l l N
il 8 SN 0
f ^yy 1 239L41�A�..% a
. C".r_ \S
44, % 1`I'~21 /0\
1
CaI S# i
\ n Y 1 !I // \
CI \ I I rIf //
I \ f,°�g . NO k % \ o, /
•
) 0 IV, " Y° e° /
I , e,1� WmA O` b tFrNS ra ab.a2 Wh
43
_O - t--
e� m ycJ Iir
11
%
7.lz r, l rR• won r sy
�
5 r _i"` r 'Qrx G76F$ c V ''19 i
rj ! k d 1W re I __ — r--_ — AiQSoE 8 yO ( _/I !/=^ R '0 rrI rI
r i r In � I _%Ji x Y i ,rr jr r �rrAlrN7j 1
p
• I 11
� m 4rS '--ic./ cy—__ r r� �R J L- ; fi At I, ret
r \ OY�i ao �__ i i r i "gf
_ r r
a ,rtl_ r
rsr�sr .i ca _-._/ f r v.
III „ _ ? r rf -`°r=CC
` .— '—�` wb„-__ter L`_ 1
1 1,-,-...._ f�A NI r R7.--.'"--
`` R a
s y,1_- 3° ii xrrf- to %8i le , r _w'rrr A e
u 'I 8 '�-s',ssev,.L:__ �I M ,r`R Wr ,r 'y�7o�g
ot-I sus "-�a°u?` of rr _ l8
x / _ N
5 " I ;`o `Y•� r ar 41.i4..r�n,2__ — r r.6
32
T 1 ,• ry r5�
0 1 Jri
e I !it' -
5 or-1 - , •.sue _ _
1 8 Y$ •srr -1°4$.5y"�
"'ia35
S—
2
S
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
February 1,2000
SECTION: Consent Agenda
SERVICE ITEM DESCRIPTION:
AREA/DIVISION: Comprehensive Wetland Protection ITEM NO.:
Public Works &Management Plan and Standards
Leslie Stovring for the Protection of Wetlands U l
Requested Action •
Move to: - Approve 2nd reading of an Ordinance amending City Code Section 11 through
adoption of Section 11.51 —Standards for the Protection of Wetlands
- Adopt the Resolution approving the Summary Ordinance for publication
- Adopt the Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan
Synopsis •
The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to promote the general health, safety and welfare of its
residents by both conserving and protecting wetlands. The intent of the ordinance is to avoid the
alteration and destruction of wetlands and their associated buffer strips. Through the ordinance,the
City can balance the need to preserve and protect natural resources while considering the rights of
property owners.
Background
The first reading for the Ordinance was on January 18, 2000. Since that time, a number of non-
substantive editorial revisions and definition clarifications have been made to the ordinance. One
key revision was the allowance of accessory structures within the Structure Setback area. This
would include items such as play equipment, storage sheds, and fences.
Attachments
• Section 11.51, Standards for the Protection of Wetlands
{
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. -2000
AN OEDTNANCR OF THE CITX OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,AMENDING CITY CODE
CHAPTER 11,LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING),BY ADDING SECTION 11.51 RELATING
TO ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF WETLANDS AND
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99,WHICH AMONG
OTHER THINGS CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. City Code Chapter 11 as amended by adding Section 11.51 entitled"Standards for
the Protection of Wetlands"adopted as follows:
SECTION 11.51. STANDARDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF WETLANDS
Subd. 1. Preamble
This Code hereby incorporates by reference the Wetlands Conservation Act[Minn. Stat. 103G.221 et
seq. (herein after referred to as the WCA)] and any future amendments adopted by the legislature. All
wetlands, as defined in Section 11.51, Subd. 3 of this Code, including those governed by the
Department of Natural Resources, are covered by this Code. In unique situations where the physical
characteristics of a specific parcel of land preclude the strict enforcement of these regulations,
alternatives to these standards are established in Section 11.51, Subd. 7 of this Code.
Subd. 2. Purpose
Through the adoption and enforcement of this Code,the City shall promote the general health, safety,
and welfare of its residents by both conserving and protecting wetlands and requiring sound
management practices as provided for in the WCA when development occurs in the vicinity of
wetlands. It is the intent of this ordinance to avoid the alteration and destruction of wetlands. Through
the implementation of this Code,the City seeks to accomplish the following purposes:
1. Balance the need to preserve and protect natural resources and systems with both the rights of
private property owners and the need to support the efficient use of developable land within the
City;
2. Promote water quality by maintaining the ability of wetlands to recharge ground water and receive
the discharge of ground water, to prevent soil erosion, and to retain sediment, nutrients and
toxicants in wetland buffer strip areas before it discharges into community wetlands, lakes and
streams,thus avoiding the contamination and eutrophication of these water features;
3. Reduce human disturbances to wetlands by providing a visual and physical transition from
surrounding yards; and
4. Provide wildlife habitat and thereby support the maintenance of diversity of both plant and animal
species within the City.
•
Subd.3.Definitions.
The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated. Terms not defined shall
have the meaning as stated in Section 11.02:
"Applicant"—The"Applicant-means the-per-son-applying-to-be-gin-a-developments the City-T-
B. "Bog"—A"Bog"is a Type 8 Wetland as defined by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Circular 39.
C. "City Manager"—The"City Manager" means the City Manager or his/her designee."
D. "City Wetland Map"—The"City Wetland Map"is referenced as"Figure 2—Wetland,Lake and
Stormwater Pond Locations" and is part of the Comprehensive Wetland Protection &
Management Plan(1999)prepared by the City. The City Wetland Map may be amended from
time to time as wetland, lake and stormwater pond conditions change. The City map adopted by
this ordinance shall be prima facie evidence of the location and classification of a wetland.
E. "Development Application" — "Development Application" includes but is not limited to
applications for Land Development, Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, rezoning,
platting or land alteration.
F. "Hydroperiod"—The extent and duration of inundation and/or saturation of wetland systems.
G. "MinRAM"— The Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology (MinRAM) as referenced in
Minnesota Rules 8420.0540, Subpart 10(G). MinRAM is a field tool used to assess wetland
functions on a qualitative basis. Functions include floristic diversity and integrity; wildlife
habitat;water quality protection; flood&stormwater attenuation;recreation, aesthetics,education
& science; fishery habitat; shoreline protection; groundwater interaction; and commercial uses.
H. "NURP Pond" — A stormwater pond constructed to meet National Urban Runoff Program
requirements.
I. "Public Value Credit(PVC)"—Wetland replacement credit that can only be used for the portion
of wetland replacement requiring greater than a 1:1 ratio of wetland fill to wetland replacement.
J. "Setback"—The minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest edge of the
wetland buffer strip.
K. "Scientific or Natural Area"—"Scientific or Natural Area"means an area designated by local,
state or federal action as providing unique qualities such as recreational, scientific or educational
uses. This would include,but is not limited to areas that:
• have resources restored for specific purposes, such as water quality improvement, wetland
mitigation or wildlife habitat,
• have a direct hydrologic association with a designated trout stream,
• border the Minnesota River,
• Are recognized as an Outstanding Resource Value Water(Minn.Rules Chapter 7050),
• are within an environmental corridor identified in a local water management plan,
• are part of a sole-source aquifer recharge area,
• provide endangered species habitat, or
• have biological communities or species that area listed in the Natural Heritage inventory
database.
L. "Structure"—A"Structure"means a Structure as defined in Section 11.02, 56 of this Code.
Page-2--
3
M. "Vegetation, Native" - Plant species indigenous to or naturalized to the State of Minnesota,
excluding noxious weeds as defined and designated pursuant to the "Minnesota noxious weed
law",Minnesota Statutes, Sections 18.76-18.88, as amended from time to time.
N. 'Wetland"-Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is
usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this
definition,- wetlands-must:
• have a predominance of hydric soils;
• be inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions; and
• under normal circumstances support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation.
O. "Wetland Buffer Strip" -An area of vegetated ground cover around the perimeter of a wetland
that, either in its natural condition or through intervention,has the characteristics of a Buffer as
defined in Section 11.02, 7, "Buffer".
P. "Wetlands, Exceptional Quality" - Exceptional Quality wetlands have an exceptional floristic
diversity and integrity function,based on the results of MinRAM. They contain an abundance
of different plant species with dominance evenly spread among several species. Such wetlands
may support some rare or unusual plant species. Invasive or exotic plant species are either absent
or limited to small areas where some disturbance has occurred. These wetlands exhibit no
evidence of significant man-induced water level fluctuation.
Q. "Wetlands, High Quality" - High quality wetlands have a high floristic diversity and integrity
function,based on the results of MinRAM, and are still generally in their natural state. They tend
to show less evidence of adverse effects of surrounding land uses. Exotic and invasive plant
species may be present and species dominance may not be evenly distributed among several
species. There tends to be little evidence of water level fluctuation due to storms and their
shorelines are stable with little evidence of erosion. They show little if any evidence of human
influences resulting in higher levels of species diversity,wildlife habitat and ecological stability.
R. "Wetlands,Moderate Quality"-Moderate quality wetlands have a moderate floristic diversity and
integrity function,based on the results of MinRAM. They have a slightly higher number of plant
species present than low quality wetlands, often with small pockets of indigenous species within
larger areas dominated by invasive or exotic species. Their relatively greater species diversity
results in slightly better wildlife habitat. They exhibit evidence of relatively less fluctuation in
water level in response to storms and less evidence of shoreline erosion than low quality wetlands.
They also exhibit relatively less evidence of human influences and therefore, tend to be of a
higher aesthetic.quality than low quality wetlands.
S. "Wetlands, Low Quality"-Wetlands included in this category have a low floristic diversity and
integrity function,based on MinRAM, and have been substantially altered by agricultural or urban
development that caused over-nitrification, soil erosion, sedimentation and water quality
degradation. As a result of these factors these wetlands exhibit low levels of plant species
diversity; overcrowding and dominance of such invasive species as reed canary grass and purple
loosestrife; and a related reduction in the quality of wildlife habitat. These wetlands may also tend
to exhibit extreme water level fluctuations in response to storms and show evidence of shoreline
erosion. These wetlands do provide for water quality and serve an important role in protecting
water quality downstream.
T. "Wildlife Habitat"-Plant communities that support wildlife in a natural,undomesticated state.
—Paged
LI
U. "Yard"—That portion of a lot not occupied by a Structure. Yard does not include any wetlands
or wetland buffer strips on the property.
V. "Yard-Front"—The portion of a Yard extending across the front of the lot between the side lines
of the lot and lying between the front line of the lot and the nearest line of a building.
W. "Yard-Rear"—The portion of a Yard between the rear lines of the building and the rear line of the
lot, foi the full width-ofthe lot.
X. "Yard-Side"—The portion of a Yard between the building and the side lot line, and extending
from the front lot line to the furthest extent of the rear lot line.
Subd. 4. General Provisions — Identification, Delineation, Mitigation, Testing and Reporting
Requirements.
A. This Code shall apply to all lands containing wetlands and lands within the setback and wetland
buffer strips required by this Code. Wetlands shall be subject to the requirements established
herein, as well as restrictions and requirements established by other applicable Federal, State, and
City ordinances and regulations. These wetland protection regulations shall not be construed to
allow anything otherwise prohibited in the zoning district where the wetland is located. This
Code establishes four wetland classifications as defined in Section 11.51, Subd. 3 of this Code;
Exceptional Quality, High Quality,Moderate Quality, and Low Quality.
B. The presence or absence of a wetland on the City Wetland Map does not represent a definitive
determination as to whether a wetland covered by this Code is or is not present. Wetlands that
are identified during site specific delineation activities but do not appear on the City Wetland Map
are still subject to the provisions of the Code. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to determine
whether a wetland exists on a subject property or within the setback from a wetland on an adjacent
property.
It is the responsibility of the Applicant to delineate the wetland boundary of wetlands on the
subject property("Wetland Delineation Report"). An Applicant shall not be required to delineate
wetlands on adjacent property. However, an Applicant shall be required to review available
information, including but not limited to the City Wetland Map, County Soil Survey Map, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Maps, and visual information such as the presence of wetland
vegetation and hydrologic evidence which can be viewed from the subject property, to estimate
the wetland boundary.
C. Written documentation identifying the presence or absence of wetlands on the property,including
any wetland delineation and wetland buffer strip vegetation evaluation,must be provided to the
City by the Applicant with the Development Application. It is the responsibility of the Applicant
to contact the City to obtain a wetland or water body identification number and any information
regarding the documented wetland, including any existing MinRAM information, for inclusion
in any documentation provided to the City by the Applicant. All Wetland Delineation Reports
and Wetland Buffer Strip Vegetation Evaluation Reports must be provided to the City for
evaluation during development review. The Applicant must also contact the City to obtain a
water body identification number for any existing or proposed stormwater or NURP pond within
the Development.
D. A MinRAM functional assessment(Version 1.0 or newer)must be completed by the Applicant
for wetlands which are not identified on the City Wetland Map or for wetlands for which the
Applicant's wetland information is significantly different in function, size or position from the
Page-4--
S
City's assessment. The functional assessment must be submitted to the City with the Wetland
Delineation Report.
E. Water quality testing results must be provided by the Applicant for any Development Application
involving a wetland buffer strip of less than 100 feet for wetlands of exceptional quality which
contain standing water during the growing season. One water sample must be collected from the
surface water(within the upper 12 inches of water) and analyzed by an accredited laboratory for
pH, conductivity, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, total dissolved solids, total
suspended solids and chlorides. The water quality testing results must be submitted to the City
with the wetland delineation report.
F. For Development Applications involving wetland filling or draining, the Applicant must provide
written documentation to the City with the Development Application regarding the avoidance and
minimization efforts used to avoid or minimize impact upon the wetland. Conceptual wetland
replacement plans for any proposed impacts that would require replacement under WCA or U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers regulatory programs must also be provided to the City by the Applicant
at this time. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to contact the City to obtain a wetland
identification number for use in the replacement plan report for any replacement wetlands
constructed within the City.
G. If the Applicant disputes whether a wetland exists or its classification, the Applicant has the
burden to supply detailed information supporting the Applicant's assertion. This includes,but is
not limited to, historical aerial photography, topographic, hydrologic, floristic and/or soil data
deemed necessary by the City or Local Governmental Unit(LGU)under the WCA to determine
the jurisdictional status of the wetland, its exact boundary and its classification.
H. Wetland Buffer Strip Vegetation Evaluation and Wetland Delineation Reports supplied by the
Applicant shall be prepared by a qualified wetland delineator in accordance with current state and
federal regulations. Wetland delineators must satisfy all certification requirements that are
established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil
Resources or, in the absence of such certification, are determined by the City Manager to be a
qualified wetland delineator.
Subd. 5. General Standards
The following standards apply to all lands that contain and/or abut a wetland or a wetland buffer strip:
A. Structures intended to provide access to or across a wetland shall be prohibited unless a permit
is obtained in conformance with Minnesota Statutes and applicable state rules and regulations.
- B. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Urban Best Management Practices shall be followed
to avoid erosion and sedimentation during the construction process. In addition, the Applicant
shall follow the regulations set forth in City Code Section 11.55, Subd. 6.
C. The manner in which storm water is routed through a natural wetland will be designed in
accordance with the following hydroperiod standards to avoid water level fluctuations to the
wetland during storm and snow-melt runoff events. The standards have been adapted from the
State of Minnesota's Storm-Water Advisory Group's"Storm-Water and Wetlands: Planning and
Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Potential Impact of Urban Storm-Water and Snow-Melt
Runoff on Wetlands". Scientific or Natural Areas and Bogs shall be governed by the Exceptional
Quality Wetland Standards stated below.
Hydroperiod Standard Exceptional High Quality Moderate Low Quality
Quality Wetlands Quality Wetlands
Wetlands Wetlands
Storm Bounce Existing Existing plus 0.5 Existing plus 1.0 No limit
feet feet
Discharge Rate Existing Existing Existing or less Existing or less
Inundation Period for Existing Existing plus 1 Existing plus 2 Existing plus 7
1 & 2 year day days days
precipitation event
Inundation Period for Existing Existing plus 7 Existing plus 14 Existing plus 21
10 year precipitation days days days
event& greater
Run-out control No change No change 0 to 1.0 feet 0 to 4.0 feet
elevation (free flowing) above existing above existing
run out run out
Run-out control Above Above Above Above
elevation (landlocked) delineated delineated delineated delineated
wetland wetland wetland wetland
D. Where a wetland buffer,strip is required, the Applicant shall:
(i) Before the City releases the final plat or, if there is no plat approval involved, the first
building permit for the entire subject property, submit to the City Manager and receive the
City Manager's approval of a conservation easement for protection of the approved wetland
buffer strip. The easement must describe the boundaries of the wetland and wetland buffer
strips, monuments and monument locations and prohibit any Structures,paving,mowing,
introduction of non-native vegetation, cutting, filling, dumping, yard waste disposal,
fertilizer application or removal of the wetland buffer strip monuments within the wetland
buffer strip or the wetland.
(ii) Before the City releases the first building permit for the entire subject property,
(a) submit evidence to the City Manager that the approved easement document has been
recorded in the Hennepin County Recorder's/Registrar of Titles' office,
(b) submit a duplicate original of the easement document executed and acknowledged and
otherwise in form and substance acceptable for filing with the Hennepin County
Recorder/Registrar of Titles office and,
(c) install the wetland monumentation required by Section 11.51, Subdivision 8 of this
ordinance.
E. All Yards shall be sodded or seeded and mulched. All open areas within the wetland buffer strip
shall be seeded and/or planted in accordance with Subdivision 9 (C). All sodding, seeding or
planting must be completed prior to removal of any erosion control. If construction is completed
after the end of the growing season, erosion control shall be left in place and all disturbed areas
shall be mulched to protect these areas over the winter season. Variances for sod outside of the
wetland buffer strip areas, in accordance with City Code Section 9.71 shall be considered on a
case by case basis.
•
Page-6--
1
Snbd. 6. Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks
A. For a Lot of record or a Development Application approved by the City Council after February
1,2000,the Applicant shall maintain a wetland buffer strip around the perimeter of all wetlands
and all stormwater or NURP ponds which are constructed as part of a wetland mitigation plan or
Public Value Credit as part of an approved wetland mitigation plan. The setback and wetland
buffer strip provisions of this Code shall not apply to a Lot of record as of February 1, 2000 or
for Development Applications for which site plans,preliminary plats, final plats or planned unit
development plans have been approved by the Community Planning Board or City Council prior
to this date. The City does however, strongly encourage the use of a wetland buffer strip and
setback on all lots in the City.
B. Wetland buffer strips and structure setbacks shall apply regardless of whether or not the wetland
or stormwater pond is on the same parcel as a proposed Development Application. For parcels
in which the wetland or stormwater or NURP pond is on an adjacent parcel, the setback and
wetland buffer strip requirements for the parcel shall be reduced by the distance between the
property line of the parcel and the wetland or stormwater pond on the adjacent parcel. This
provision in no way reduces or eliminates any other setbacks required by the City Code or any
other law or regulation.
C. The Applicant shall establish and maintain wetland buffer strip vegetation in accordance with the
requirements found in Section 11.51, Subd. 9. Wetland buffer strips shall be identified within
each Lot by permanent monumentation approved by the City Manager in accordance with Section
11.51, Subd. 8.
D. Alterations, including but not limited to building, paving, mowing, introduction of non-native
vegetation, cutting, filling, dumping,yard waste disposal or fertilizer application, are prohibited
within the wetland buffer strip. However, non-native vegetation, such as European buckthorn,
purple loosestrife and reed canary grass, may be removed as long as the wetland buffer strip is
maintained to the standards required by the City. Alterations would not include plantings that
enhance the native vegetation or selective clearing or pruning of trees or vegetation that are dead,
diseased or pose similar hazards.
E. For roadways or other Structures where the City determines that there is no practical alternative
except to be aligned either adjacent to or across wetlands, additional wetland filling to create a
wetland buffer strip shall not be required. Trails that are intended to serve an interpretive function
are also exempted from the wetland buffer strip requirement. All other areas and Structures,
including roadways and trails shall meet the setbacks and wetland buffer strip standards
established in Table 1 below. The use of a meandering wetland buffer strip to maintain a natural
appearance is encouraged.
F. An existing structure, driveway or parking area would be considered a legal nonconforming
structure if a later WCA delineation shows that the wetland is closer than the required setback.
d,„
• `t
•
Table 1 -Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks
Exceptional High Moderate Low
Wetland Buffer Strip (Minimum Width) 50' 50' 25' 25'
Structure Setback(from Wetland Buffer Strip) 15' 15' 15' 15'
Total Minimum Distance from Wetland 65' 65' 40' 40'
* The wetland buffer strip width for stormwater ponds utilized as mitigation credit shall be
measured from the Ordinary High Water Level(OHWL) of the pond.
Subd. 7. Alternative Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks With Extraordinary Management
Measures
A. Recognizing that there are instances where, because of the unique physical characteristics of a
specific parcel of land, alternative wetland buffer strips may be necessary to allow for the
reasonable use of the land,the alternative wetland buffer strip standards set forth below may be
applied based on an assessment of the following:
(1) Undue hardship would arise from not allowing the alternative, or would otherwise not
be in the public interest,
(2) Size of the parcel,
(3) Configuration of existing roads and utilities,
(4) Percentage of parcel covered by wetlands,
(5) Configuration of wetlands on the parcel, and
(6) Results of the water quality testing provided pursuant to Subdivision 4 (E).
B. The appropriateness of using the alternative standards will be evaluated as part of the review of
the Applicant's Development Application. An Applicant must receive City Council approval to
use the alternative standards. The alternative used must be within the spirit and intent of this
Code.
C. In instances where alternative wetland buffer strip standards are approved for a wetland, the
Applicant will be required to apply extraordinary management measures during and for two years
after construction to control erosion, sedimentation and nutrient loading which may affect the
wetland. Dual-silt fencing is the recommended measure. Dual silt fencing will be considered
properly installed if the up-slope fence is installed on the undisturbed edge of the wetland buffer
strip and the down-slope fence is installed 5 to 6 feet into the unscarified wetland buffer strip. Silt
fence must be placed outside of the wetland. An Applicant must demonstrate that alternatives to
the recommended measures to control erosion, sedimentation and nutrient loading will limit
dissolved phosphorus concentration to one milligram per liter (mg/1) or less. Extraordinary
management measures that may be permitted in conjunction with and up-slope from the above
wetland buffer strip and setback requirement include,but are not limited to, measures that add
redundant protections to normally required Best Management Practices.
D. Where alternative wetland buffer strip standards are approved,wetland buffer strips and structure
setbacks shall meet the standards established in Table 2 below.
9
Table 2-Alternative Wetland Buffer Strips and Setbacks,With Extraordinary Measures
Exceptional High Moderate Low
Wetland Buffer Strip(Minimum Width) 35' 30' 15' 10'
Average Wetland Buffer Strip Width 50' 45' 20' 15'
Structure Setback(from Wetland Buffer Strip) 15' 15' 15' 15'
Total(Average)Distance from Wetland: 65' 60' 35' 30'
E. An Applicant shall be responsible for submitting with the Development Application all of the
necessary information to document that the proposed extraordinary construction and stormwater
management practices will meet or exceed the performance of the required wetland buffer strips
and setbacks. An Applicant also has the burden of proving that the purpose and objectives of this
Code will be met through the use of these Extraordinary Management Practices.
Subd. 8. Monumentation
A monument is required at each Lot line where it crosses a wetland buffer strip and shall have a
maximum spacing of 200 feet along the edge of the wetland buffer strip. Additional posts shall be
placed as necessary to accurately define the edge of the wetland buffer strip. If no wetland buffer strip
is required,monuments shall be placed at the wetland boundary. The monument shall consist of a post
and a wetland buffer strip sign. The post shall be of a material approved by the City Manager, such as
a fiberglass reinforced composite post with a maximum size of 4 inch by 4 inch(4"x 4"). The sign
shall be mounted flush with the top of the post and shall state"Wetland Buffer:No Mowing Allowed"
or"Wetland Buffer:Vegetation Clearing Limit". The post shall be mounted to a height of a minimum
of four feet above grade set at least 42 inches in the ground. The bottom of the post must be fitted with
an anchor attachment that would expand upon attempted removal. Monuments may be waived in
unusual circumstances where the City determines that such signs would not serve a practical purpose.
Subd. 9. Wetland Buffer Strip Vegetation Performance Standards
A. Where acceptable natural vegetation exists in wetland buffer strip areas, the retention of such
vegetation in an undisturbed state is required unless an Applicant receives approval to replace
such vegetation. A wetland buffer strip has acceptable natural vegetation if it:
(i) has a continuous,dense layer of perennial grasses that have been uncultivated or unbroken
for at least 5 consecutive years, or
(ii) has an overstory of trees and/or shrubs with at least 80 percent canopy closure that have
been uncultivated or unbroken for at least 5 consecutive years, or
(iii) contains a mixture of the plant communities described in(1) and(2) above,that have been
uncultivated or unbroken for at least 5 consecutive years.
B. Notwithstanding the performance standards set forth above in Subdivision 9 (A), the City
Manager may determine existing wetland buffer strip vegetation to be unacceptable if
Page-9-
0
(i) it is composed of undesirable plant species(including,but not limited to common buckthorn,
purple loosestrife, leafy spurge and/or noxious weeds as defined by Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 18.76-18.88), or
(ii) has topography that tends to channelize the flow of surface runoff, or
(iii) for some other reason it is unlikely to retain nutrients and sediment.
C. Where wetland buffer strips, or a portion thereof, are not vegetated or have been cultivated or
otherwise disturbed within 5 years of the permit application, such areas shall be re-planted and
maintained. The wetland buffer strip plantings must be identified on the Development
Application. The wetland buffer strip landscaping shall be according to each of the following
standards:
(i) Wetland buffer strips shall be planted with a seed mix containing 100 percent perennial
native vegetation, except for a one-time planting of an annual nurse or cover crop such as
oats or rye.
(ii) The seed mix to be used shall be broadcast at a minimum rate of 30 pounds per acre. The
annual nurse or cover crop to be used shall be applied at a minimum rate of 20 pounds per
acre. The seed mix shall consist of at least 12 pounds pure live seed(PLS)per acre of native
prairie grass seed and 3 pounds PLS per acre of native forbs. Native prairie grass and native
forb mixes shall contain no fewer than five(5)native prairie grasses and fifteen(15)native
forb species. The Minnesota Department of Transportation Mix for prairie sedge and prairie
meadow areas,Mixture 25A Modified(25B or 26B) or other alternative pre-approved by
the City Manager can be used to meet these requirements. Applicants may obtain from the
City a set of Native Wetland &Buffer Area Seeding Guidelines for wetland buffer strips
that meet City requirements.
(iii) Native shrubs may be substituted for native forbs. All substitutions must be pre-approved •
by the City Manager. Such shrubs may be bare root seedlings and shall be planted at a
minimum rate of 60 plants per acre. Shrubs shall be distributed so as to provide a natural
appearance and shall not be planted in rows.
(iv) Any groundcover or shrub plantings installed within the wetland buffer strip are independent
of landscaping required elsewhere by the City Code.
(v) Native prairie grasses and forbs shall be seeded or planted by a qualified contractor. The
method of application and determination of the contractor's qualifications shall be made by
the City Manager. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to have the contractor and method
used approved by the City Manager prior to planting or seeding.
(vi) No fertilizer shall be used in establishing new wetland buffer strips, except on highly
disturbed sites when deemed necessary to establish acceptable wetland buffer strip
vegetation and then limited to amounts indicated by an accredited soil testing laboratory.
Determination of proper accreditation shall be made by the City Manager.
(vii) All seeded areas shall be mulched immediately with clean straw at a rate of 1.5 tons per acre.
Mulch shall be anchored with a disk or tackifier.
(viii)Wetland buffer strips(both natural and created), shall be protected by erosion control during
construction in accordance with Section 11.51, Subd. 7.
(ix) The erosion control shall remain in place until the area crop is established.
'I
D. The Applicant shall establish and maintain the wetland buffer strip vegetation in accordance with
the requirements found in this Code. During the first two full growing seasons, the Applicant
must replant any wetland buffer strip vegetation that does not survive. After two full growing
seasons,if the condition of the wetland buffer strip changes,the Applicant shall not be required
to reestablish the wetland buffer strip to meet the standards contained in Section 11.51, Subd. 9.
The Owner shall be responsible for reseeding and/or replanting if the wetland buffer strip changes
at any time through human intervention or activities.At a minimum the wetland buffer strip must
be maintained as a"no mow"area.
Subd. 10. Encroachment in Required Setback and Wetland Buffer Strip Areas
A. Wetland buffer strips must be kept free of all Structures. Wetland buffer strips must not be mown
except as pre-approved in writing by the City Manager for maintenance practices. The
acceptability of the proposed maintenance practices shall be made by the City Manager.
B. No more than ten percent(10%)of the Structure Setback area may be occupied by any Structures.
C. Variances/Waivers
(i) Only variances meeting the standards and criteria set forth in Section 11.76, Subd. 1 and
waivers approved pursuant to Section 11.40, Subd. 8 for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) process shall be granted. All variance requests must be made to the Board of
Adjustments and Appeals. All waiver requests must be made to the Community Planning
Board and the City Council.
(ii) Variances or waivers shall not be granted which would circumvent the intent and purposes
of Section 11.51.
Subd. 11. Performance Bond Required.
If a Development Application requires landscaping or construction of a wetland buffer strip no work
shall begin and no permits shall be issued until the Applicant files with the City Manager a performance
bond, cash escrow or letter of credit with a corporation approved by the City Manager, as surety
thereon, or other guarantee acceptable to the City Manager and in an amount determined by the City
Manager as set forth below:
A. Amount-The amount shall be for no less than one and one-half(1 Y2)times the amount estimated
by the City Manager as the cost of completing said wetland buffer strip landscaping. The
performance bond must cover two complete growing seasons following completion of the
development and must be conditioned upon complete and satisfactory implementation of the
approved wetland buffer strip landscape plan and final inspection of the wetland buffer strip by
the City.
B. Submittals—The Applicant shall provide one copy of a signed contract with an environmental
consultant to monitor compliance and certify final completion of the wetland buffer strip
requirements after the end of the second full growing season after completion of the development.
C. Form of Application—The performance bond, cash escrow, letter of credit or other guarantee
acceptable to the City Manager shall be posted within 10 days of approval of the Development
Application and prior to the commencement of the Development or the preparations thereof.
1--
Section 2—Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 103G.2243,the City Council adopts a Local
Comprehensive Wetland Protection and Management Plan which has been prepared under the
requirements of Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8420.
Section 3—City Code Chapter 1,entitled"General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the
entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, entitled "Violation a
Misdemeanor"are hereby adopted in their entirety,by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4-Effective Date -This Ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the
day of ,2000 and finally read and adopted and ordered published
at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of
2000.
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk ' Jean L. Harris,Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of ,2000.
•
Page-1`2-
)3
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
H ENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 6-2000
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA,AMENDING
CITY CODE CHAPTER 11,LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING),BY ADDING
SECTION 11.51 RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF WETLANDS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99,WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS CONTAIN
PENALTY PROVISIONS.
The following is only a summary of Ordinance No. 6-2000. The full text is available for public
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk:
The ordinance amends City Code Chapter 11 by adding Section 11.51, which establishes
standards for the protection of wetlands, including establishment of wetland buffer strip
requirements and wetland buffer planting guidelines. The ordinance incorporates, by reference,
City Code Chapter 1 and City Code Section 11.99, which contain definitions and provisions
relating to penalties.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
)1.1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 6-2000 AND
ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 6-2000 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie held on the 1st day of February, 2000;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS, DETERMINES, AND
ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
A. Ordinance No. 6-2000 is lengthy and/or contains charts.
B. The text of the summary of Ordinance No. 6-2000, attached hereto as Exhibit A,
conforms to M.S. § 331A.01, Subd. 10, and is approved, and publication of the
title and summary of the Ordinance will clearly inform the public of the intent and
effect of the Ordinance.
C. The title and summary shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body
type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type.
D. A printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any
person, during regular office hours, at the office of the City Clerk, and a copy of
the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City offices.
E. Ordinance No. 6-2000 shall be recorded in the Ordinance Book, along with proof
of publication,within twenty(20) days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on February 1, 2000.
Jean L.Harris,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
15
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
February 1,2000
SECTION: Consent Calendar
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: S.S.A. 89-06 ITEM NO.:
Engineering Division Release of Land from Special Assessment
Jim Richardson Agreement for Lot 2,Block 2,Bell Oaks lst
Addition v �
Requested Action
Move to authorize the Release of Land from Special Assessment Agreement and
authorize the Mayor and City Manager to sign the release.
Synopsis
On September 7, 1999, the City Council authorized Resolution 99-157 whereas the property
owners could pay a sum of $3,800.00 to the City and receive a Release of the Special
Assessment Agreement for Riverview Road. We are in receipt of$3,800.00 as payment/release
for Lot 2,Block 2, Bell Oaks 1st Addition.
Background
In May, 1989, the City entered into a special assessment agreement with Bell Oaks Company
regarding the levying of special assessments for street and utility for improvements. This work
remains a pending project tentatively scheduled for the year 2001. However, due to the
prolonged time frame of the project, the pending assessment has created difficulties during sales
of homes subject to the assessment agreement. To provide an alternative solution, Council
adopted Resolution No. 99-157 on September 7, 1999, which allows pre-payment of the pending
assessment. This is the first occasion that a pre-payment and release of the agreement has been
requested.
RELEASE OF LAND
This Release of Land is executed by the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal
corporation("City"), and is dated as of February , 2000.
FACTS
1. A certain Agreement Regarding Special Assessments ("Agreement") dated
May 30, 1989,was executed by and between the City and Bell Oaks Company, a Minnesota Limited
Partnership, which Agreement was filed as Document No. 5552564 with the Hennepin County
Recorder on July 11, 1989.
2. The special assessments contemplated by the Agreement have not been levied. The
City is willing to accept the sum of$3,800.00 in full payment of all special assessments contemplated
by the Agreement against any property against which the Agreement has been filed.
3. Old Republic Title Company has paid to the City the sum of$3,800.00 on a count of
the Agreement for the benefit of Lot 2,Block 2,Bell Oaks 1st Addition(hereinafter the"Property").
THEREFORE, the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereby releases
the Property from all obligations and conditions set forth in the Agreement Regarding Special
Assessments dated May 30, 1989, filed as Document No. 5552564 with the Hennepin County
Recorder on July 11, 1989. This Release of Land shall not release or discharge the Property from
the lien of any special assessments levied by the City except those contemplated by the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the City of Eden Prairie has executed the foregoing instrument.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
A Municipal Corporation
By By
Jean L. Harris Christopher M. Enger
Its Mayor Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2000, by Jean L. Harris and Christopher M. Enger, the Mayor and City
Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Richard F.Rosow,Esq.
Lang,Pauly, Gregerson&Rosow,Ltd.
1600 Park Building
650 Third Avenue South
Minneapolis,MN 55402-4337 ep\bell oaks\release of land.form
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
February 1, 2000
SECTION: Consent Calendar
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Financial Services Investment Policy VG .
Donald Urarn
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt the 2000 Investment Policy
Synopsis
In 1995, the City Council adopted an investment policy written to guide the City's investment
decisions. Staff is proposing an update to the policy to reflect current investment standards and
guidelines for municipalities including:
• Safekeeping and Custody
• Suitable and Authorized Investments
• Investment Parameters
• Reporting
Attachments
1. Investment Policy
2. 1995 Investment Policy
I
City of Eden Prairie
Investment Policy
I. Policy
The City of Eden Prairie will consolidate cash balances from all funds and invest in a manner
that will provide the highest investment return with minimum risk while meeting the daily cash
flow demands and conforming to all federal, state and local regulations governing the investment
of public funds. Investment income will be allocated to the various funds based on their
respective participation and according to generally accepted accounting principles.
II. General Objectives
The primary objectives, in order of priority, of investment activities are safety, liquidity, and
yield:
1. Safety- Safety of principal is the foremost objective of the investment program.
Investments will be undertaken in a way that seeks to ensure the preservation of capital in
the overall portfolio.
2. Liquidity- The investment portfolio will remain sufficiently liquid to meet all operating
requirements that we may reasonably anticipate. This is accomplished by structuring the
portfolio so that securities mature concurrent with cash needs.
3. Yield-The investment portfolio will be designed with the objective of attaining a market
rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles. Return on investment is of
secondary importance compared with the safety and liquidity objectives described above.
III. Standards of Care
1. Prudence-The standard of prudence to be used by investment officials will be the
"prudent person" standard and will be applied while conducting investment transactions:
"Investments shall be made with judgment and care,under circumstances then prevailing,
which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence exercise in the management of
their own affairs,not for speculation,but for investment, considering the probable safety
of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived."
2. Ethics and Conflicts of Interest- Officers and employees involved in the investment
process will refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper
execution and management of the investment program.Employees and investment
officials will disclose any material interests in financial institutions with which they
conduct business. They will further disclose any personal financial/investment positions
that could be related to the performance of the investment portfolio. Employees and
officers will refrain from undertaking personal investment transactions with the same
individual with whom business is conducted for the City.
3. Delegation of Authority-Authority to manage the investment program is granted to the
Community Development and Financial Services Director and derived from Minnesota
Statutes 118A.02, Investment of Public Funds. The Community Development and
Financial Services Director shall establish written procedures and internal controls for the
operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy. Procedures
should include references to: safekeeping,investment accounting,repurchase agreements,
wire transfer agreements, and collateral/depository agreements.
4. Investment Committee-An Investment Committee will meet quarterly to review the
performance of investments and review the investment strategy. This committee will be
made up of the following individuals:
• City Manager
• Community Development and Financial Services Director
• City Council Representative
IV. Safekeeping and Custody
1. Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions -All financial institutions and
broker/dealers who want to become qualified for investment transactions must supply the
following as appropriate:
• Audited financial statements
• Proof of National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) certification
• Proof of state registration
• Completed broker/dealer certification
• Depository contracts
The purchase of all investments must be from institutional brokers.
2. Internal Controls The Community Development and Financial Services Director is
responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to
ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss,theft or misuse. The internal
control structure will be designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives
are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that(1) the cost of a control
should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and(2)the valuation of costs and
benefits require estimates and judgments by management.
3
V. Suitable and Authorized Investments
1. Investment Types—All investments made by the City will be in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes. Authorized investments include but are not limited to:
• Governmental bonds,notes,bills,mortgages (excluding high-risk
mortgage-backed securities), and other securities,which are direct obligations or
are guaranteed or insured issues of the United States,its agencies, its
instrumentalities, or organizations created by an act of Congress.
• General obligation of any state or local government with taxing powers which is
rated "A" or better by a national bond rating service.
• Revenue obligation of any state or local government with taxing powers which is
rated "AA" or better by a national bond rating service.
• General obligation of the Minnesota housing finance agency which is a moral
obligation of the state of Minnesota and is rated "A" or better by a national bond
rating agency.
• Commercial paper issued by United States corporations or their Canadian
subsidiaries that is rated in the highest quality category by at least two nationally
recognized rating agencies and matures in 270 days or less.
• Time deposits that are fully insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
or bankers acceptances of United States banks.
2. Collateralization - To the extent that funds deposited are in excess of available federal
deposit insurance, the government entity will require the financial institution to furnish
collateral security or a corporate surety bond executed by a company authorized to do
business in the state.
The following are the allowable forms of collateral in lieu of a corporate surety bond:
• U.S. government treasury bills, treasury notes, treasury bonds.
• Issues of U.S. government agencies and instrumentalities as quoted by a
recognized industry quotation service available to the government entity.
• General obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers
which is rated"A" or better by a national bond rating service, or revenue
obligation securities of any state or local government with taxing powers which is
rated "AA" or better by a national bond rating service.
• Irrevocable standby letters of credit issued by Federal Home Loan Banks to a
municipality accompanied by written evidence that the bank's public debt is rated
"AA" or better by Moody's Investors Service,Inc., or Standard&Poor's
Corporation.
• Time deposits that are fully insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
14
The amount of the collateral computed at its market value will be at least ten(10)percent
more than the amount on deposit plus accrued interest at the close of the business day.
3. Repurchase Agreements-Repurchase agreements consisting of collateral allowable as
an investment may be entered into with any of the following entities:
• A financial institution qualified as a"depository" of public funds of the
government entity.
• Any other fmancial institution which is a member of the Federal Reserve System
and whose combined capital and surplus equals or exceeds $10,000,000.
• A primary reporting dealer in United States government securities to the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York.
• A securities broker-dealer licensed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 80A, or an
affiliate of it, regulated by the securities and exchange commission and
maintaining a combined capital and surplus of$40,000,000 or more, exclusive of
subordinated debt.
VI. Investment Parameters
1. Diversification -The investments will be diversified by:
1. Limiting investments to avoid over concentration in securities from a specific
issuer or business sector(excluding U.S. Treasury securities).
2. Investing in securities with varying maturities.
3. Investing a portion of the portfolio in readily available funds to ensure that
appropriate liquidity is maintained in order to meet ongoing obligations.
2. Maximum Maturities-The City will attempt to match its investments with anticipated
cash flow requirements.Unless matched to a specific cash flow, the City will not directly
invest in securities maturing more than five(5) years from the date of purchase. Reserve
funds and other funds with longer-term investment horizons may be invested in securities
exceeding five (5)years if the maturities of such investments are made to coincide as
nearly as practicable with the expected use of funds. The intent to invest in securities with
longer maturities will be disclosed to the City Council.
VII. Reporting
1. Methods - The Community Development and Financial Services Director will prepare an
investment report quarterly, including a summary that provides an analysis of the current
investment portfolio. This summary will be prepared in a way that will allow the City to
ascertain whether investment activities during the reporting period have conformed to the
investment policy. The report will be provided to the City Manager and the City Council.
5
The report will include the following:
• Listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting period.
• Yield to maturity of investments as compared with applicable benchmarks.
• Listing of investment by maturity date.
• Percentage of the total portfolio which each type of investment represents.
2. Performance Standards-The investment portfolio will be managed in accordance with
the parameters specified within this policy. The portfolio should obtain a market average
rate of return during a market/economic environment of stable interest rates.
3. Marking to Market-The market value of the portfolio will be calculated quarterly and a
statement of the market value of the portfolio will be issued.
City of Eden Prairie
by:
its:
Dated: , 2000
•
Acknowledged
by:
its:
Dated: , 2000
b
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MLNNESOTA
INVESTMENT GOALS AND GUIDELINES
OBJECTIVES:
1. Preservation and safety of principal.
2. Maintain necessary liquidity.
- . 3. Maximize the rate of return within the stated guidelines.
PERFORMANCE:
1. The goal of the investment fund is to provide the best available rate of return while
remaining consistent with the objectives of the preservation and safety of principal and the
maintenance of liquidity.
GENERAL STATEMENT:
All cash and investments will be maintained in a single cash and investment pool, accounted for in
a separate agency fund. Interest revenue will be allocated to each investing fund consistent with fund
• ownership.
A competitive bid process shall be conducted before Eden Prairie invests any surplus resources. If
a specific maturity date is required, either for cash flow purposes or for compliance with maturity
guidelines, bids will be requested for instruments which meet the maturity requirement. If no
specific maturity is required,a market trend analysis will be conducted to determine which maturities
would be the best.
•
Competitive bids will be obtained from firms and local offices located in the Minneapolis/ St. Paul
area. Any person/firm submitting a bid must be a qualified bank or licensed to transact business in
Minnesota as a broker-dealer/agent according to Minnesota Statutes 80A.04.
Minnesota Statutes 475.66, Subd. 6 requires Eden Prairie to provide each broker with information
regarding the City's investment restrictions. Prior to conducting any business with or for the City,
the broker must acknowledge these investment restrictions and agree to conduct investment
transactions in accordance with them.
•
AUTHORIZED SECURTIES:
All investments made by the City of Eden Prairie will be in accordance with Minnesota Statutes
471.56 and 475.66. Authorized investments include but are not limited to:
U.S.Treasury Obligations '
Federal Agency Issues
Repurchase Agreements(Repo's)
Money Market Mutual Funds
Mutual Funds investing exclusively in U.S. Treasury Obligations and Federal Agency Issues
Commercial Paper
Banker's Acceptance
ASSET MIX CONSTRAINTS
1. No more than 10% of the portfolio will be invested in any single issuer except the U.S.
Government or its agencies.
2. No more than 25% of the portfolio will be invested in obligations of any single Federal
Agency.
3. No more than 25%of the portfolio will be invested in any single Mutual Fund.
4. All of the securities purchased must mature or have a demand feature within 5 years, and a
modified duration of 7 years or less.
5a. Average maturity shall not exceed 3 years.
5b. The modified lower and upper limit duration of the portfolio will be not less than 3 years and
not more than 7 years.
REPORTING PROCEDURES
1. All purchases, sales and maturities of investments will be recorded in a timely manner.
2. A report of the City's investments and cash position will be submitted to the City Council
semi-annually. This report shall include the maturity date,cost of the security,current value
and the rate of return.
REVIEW AND RESPONSIBILITY
In view of the rapid changes within the capital markets, these guidelines will be reviewed at least
semi-annually by the Investment Committee which shall consist of the following members:
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Finance Director
Finance Operations Manager
Economic Development Manager
ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Public officials and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal
business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program,or which could
impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Investment officials shall disclose to the
City Manager any material financial interest in financial institutions that conduct business within the
City,and they shall further disclose any large personal financial/investment positions that could be
related to the performance of Eden Prairie's portfolio.
City en Prairie
2
by: IL-1
I-t -
it 1 Mayor
Dated: i/ , 1995
Acknowled ed
by:its: C�/�
i-
Dated: &/)(YeAbil--- / 7 , 1995
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: February 1,2000
SECTION: Consent Calendar
SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.
Financial Services Authorize contract with Convergent
Donald R.Uram Communications to supply and install
voice/data Equipment at certain City facilities. v'
Requested Action:
Move to: Authorize contract with Convergent Communications to supply and install voice/data
equipment necessary to utilize fiber optic network provided by KMC.
Synopsis:
The installation of voice and data equipment at the City Center,Water Plant and Maintenance Building
will allow the City to use the fiber optic network installed by KMC in 1999. Access to the fiber optic
network will improve the communication link between these buildings and allow for the full utilization
of the City's telephone and computer systems.
Background Information:
The original encroachment agreement with KMC stipulated the provision of fiber optics to City facilities.
The installation of the laterals necessary to serve these buildings has recently been completed. To take
advantage of the network,voice/data equipment needs to be installed at each of the sites to"light-up"the
fiber.
In accordance with the City's purchasing policy,equipment specifications were determined and published
in the Eden Prairie News. Written quotes meeting the specifications were received from three vendors
ranging from$17,288 to $18,660, a spread of$1,372. Convergent Communications, the City's phone
system provider submitted a bid for$17,940 or$652 above the low quote.
Considering the technical aspects of the existing phone system and the potential problems associated with
a disruption in service, Staff recommends authorizing the contract with Convergent Communications
because of their technical expertise and knowledge of the City's system.
Attachments:
Quote Tabulation
4
000
000
- 27
o O)
N o
EO ti -
,ji. T r c
o
E
c • a)
O o O
o
= o Q O
Z LQZ00 C
N N a)
C to' Efl' a)
W * a)
L
■. Q
L 0 W a)
CNI J
L r
N C) W ail a)
a)
Om N L4f) CO M I- L
O V �d9 fl.
C 0 ?r :.-
a)
o
IV G) ct d deL
W _� o
CO
{� •= OO O
a)
_c
OaW d cri Oi N '-0 co I` O O
O v EN= O 'EL0°
` y C� Efl , o
-I-. O
O r
■ V d- 'd' 'Kt 0 Ff3
c o
as to as
_ co
✓ c m 0 c F-
ca o = n
E U m * :
a)
L. a)
o L
N
d I— o O
> Z <,U
a
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: February 1,
2000
SECTION: Consent Calendar
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Authorization to ITEM NO:
Parks and Recreation Advertise for Bids for Flying Cloud Fields Access
Stuart A. Fox,Manager Parks& and Parking Lot Improvements Vct
Natural Resources
Requested Action
Move to: Authorize advertisement for bids for Flying Cloud Fields Access and Parking Lot
Improvements.
Synopsis
City staff has been working together with consultants at Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc. to
prepare plans and specifications for improvements at Flying Cloud Ballfields. Work includes
reconstruction of the parking lots, storm sewer, and installation of a temporary signal at County
Road 1 and Staring Lake Parkway. The estimated cost for these improvements is $1,300,000.
These improvements will be paid for using cash park fees.
Bids would be received in early March with construction on the project occurring in July and
August of 2000.
Background Information
The redesign of the parking area at Flying Cloud is to provide nearly 675 parking spaces around
the outside perimeter of the play field area. This would also provide upgrades of the existing
entry and exit points for the facility. These improvements would include bituminous surfacing
of the roadways and striping of parking areas. In addition, storm water runoff would be handled
through a series of drainage swales and directed towards an infiltration pond on the airport
property.
The improvements will nearly double the amount of available parking at the facility and improve
traffic flow at the entry and exit points.
SAF:mdd
H:VStuart 2000\Bidsfor Flying Cloud
r
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 02/01/00
SECTION: Public Hearings
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION:
Community Development ITEM NO.:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Donald R.Uram , A
Michael D. Franzen Homeland Addition
Requested Action
Move to: Close the Public Hearing and return the plans to the proponent without
prejudice.
Synopsis
This is a continued item from the January 18, 2000 City Council meeting. The City
Council directed staff to prepare findings for denial. Since the proponent is withdrawing
the project, the public hearing should be closed and the plans returned to the proponent
without prejudice.
Background
Staff is mailing out a notice to area residents advising of the request by Liv Homeland to
withdraw the project.
Attachments
1. Letter from Liv Homeland
LIV HORNELAND
8804 Knollwood Drive
Eden Prairie,MN 55347
Phone 612-934-5868
Fax 612-934-4162
Scott Kipp
Planning Dept.
City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Scott:
Per our earlier conversation, I am hereby withdrawing my petition for the Homeland Addition.
I appreciate the efforts of Staff, Planning Commission and Council in reviewing this project.
Please call me with any questions you may have.
•
Sincerely,
Liv Homeland
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: February 1,2000
SECTION: Public Hearing
SERVICE AREA: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.
Community Development Adoption of a Business Subsidy Policy
&Financial Services: •
V/Z ,3.
Don Uram
David Lindahl
Requested Action:
Move to:
Approve Resolution establishing a policy and criteria for awarding business subsidies per Minnesota Statute
116J.993-995.
Synopsis:
The 1999 Minnesota Legislature enacted Statute 116J.993-995 (attached) setting requirements for subsidies
allocated to businesses by state or local government agencies. The law is intended to stimulate public discussion
by local governments about what should be required from businesses in return for investments of public
resources.Business subsidies are required to meet a public purpose other than increasing tax base,i.e. new jobs
or job retention. The statute requires the City to hold a public hearing and adopt a policy and set of criteria
for awarding business subsidies prior to awarding any business subsidy.
A subsidy is defined as "state or local government agency grant, contribution of personal property, real
property,infrastructure,the principal amount of a loan at rates below those commercial available, any reduction
or deferral of any tax or any fee, any guarantee of any payment under any loan, lease, or other obligation, or
any preferential use of government facilities given to a business." Specific examples of business subsidies that
the City provides are the issuance of tax-exempt bonds and tax abatements for local businesses such as Elim
Homes,Inc. and ADC Telecommunications.
Attachments:
Resolution
Business Subsidy Policy
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
'HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.2000-
A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH
A BUSINESS SUBSIDY POLICY
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota(the "City"), as
follows:
WHEREAS,pursuant to the Minnesota Business Subsidies Act(the"Act"),Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995 the City is required to adopt criteria for awarding
business subsidies. This policy is intended to comply with the Act. Terms used in this policy are
intended to have the same meanings as used in the Act, and this policy shall apply only with
respect to subsidies granted under the Act if and to the extent required thereby.
WHEREAS,while it is recognized that the creation of good paying jobs is a desirable
goal which benefits the community, it must also be recognized that not all projects assisted with
subsidies derive their public purposes and importance solely by virtue of job creation. In
addition, the imposition of high job creation requirements and high wage levels may be
unrealistic and counterproductive in the face of larger economic force and the financial and
competitive circumstances of an individual business.
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,
MINNESOTA THAT:
•
The City Council of the City of Eden Prairie hereby adopts and establishes the following
Business Subsidy Policy.
With respect to subsidies, the determination of the number of jobs to be created and the wage
levels thereof shall be guided by the following principles and criteria:
A. Each project shall be evaluated on a case by case basis,recognizing its importance
and benefit to the community from all perspectives, including created or retained employment
positions.
B. If a particular project does not involve the creation of jobs,but is nonetheless found to
be worthy of support and subsidy, it may be approved without any specific job or wage goals, as
may be permitted by applicable law.
C. In cases where the objective is the retention of existing jobs, the recipient of the
subsidy shall be required to provide reasonably demonstrable evidence that the loss of those jobs
is imminent.
D. The setting of wage and job goals must be sensitive to prevailing wage rates, local
economic conditions, external economic forces over which neither the grantor nor the recipient
of the subsidy has control,the individual financial resources of the recipient and the competitive
environment in which the recipient's business exists.
E. Because it is not possible to anticipate every type of project which may in its context
and time present desirable community building or preservation goals and objectives,the
governing body must retain the right in its discretion to approve projects and subsidies which
may vary from the principles and criteria of this policy.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 1st day of February 2000.
Jean L.Harris,Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
Business Subsidy Policy
City of Eden Prairie,Minnesota
This policy is adopted for purposes of the business subsidies act(the"Act),which is Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995. Terms used in this Policy are intended to have the
same meanings as used in the Act, and this policy shall apply only with respect to subsidies
granted under the Act if and to the extent required thereby.
While it is recognized that the creation of good paying jobs is a desirable goal that benefits the
community, it must also be recognized that not all projects assisted with subsidies derive their
public purposes and importance solely through job creation. In addition,the imposition of high
job creation requirements and high wage levels may be unrealistic and counter-productive in the
face of larger economic forces and the financial and competitive circumstances of an individual
business.
With respect to subsidies,the determination of the number of jobs to be created and the wage
level thereof shall be guided by the following principles and criteria:
1. Each project shall be evaluated in a case-by-case basis,recognizing its importance
and benefit to the community from all perspectives, including created and retained employment
positions.
2. If a particular project does not involve the creation of jobs,but is nonetheless found to
be worthy of support and subsidy, it may be approved without any specific job or wage goals, as
may be permitted by applicable law.
3. In cases where the objective is the retention of existing jobs,the recipient of the
subsidy shall be required to provide reasonable demonstrable evidence that the loss of those jobs
is imminent.
4. The setting of wage and job goals must be sensitive to prevailing wage rates, local
economic conditions, external economic forces over which neither the grantor nor the recipient
of the subsidy has control, the individual financial resources of the recipient and the competitive
environment in which the recipient's business exists.
5. Because it is not possible to anticipate every type of project which may be in its
context and time present desirable community building or preservation goals and objectives, the
governing body must retain the right in its discretion to approve projects and subsidies which
may vary from the principles and criteria of the policy.
This policy was adopted by the City Council of the City Eden Prairie February 1, 2000 at a
public hearing held on the same date.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE:
SECTION: Payment of Claims February 1,2000
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Community Development and Payment of Claims •
Financial Services/Don Uram
Requested Action
Move to: Approve the Payment of Claims as submitted(roll call vote)
•
Synopsis
Checks 83373-83813
Wire Transfers 305-312 •
Background Information
Attachments
COUNCIL ('NPCK SUMMARY 25-JAN-2000 (16:40)
DIVISION TOTAL
N/A $18.95
CONTINGENCY $2,050.83
LEGISLATIVE $290.00
,LEGAL COUNSEL $17,717.47
CUSTOMER SERVICE $10',727.12
BENEFITS $12,875.69
FINANCE $72.00
. HUMAN RESOURCES $6,753.52
HUMAN SERV $10,050.00
RISK MANAGEMENT $537.78
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION $13,382.10
ENGINEERING $1,490.87
INSPECTIONS $409.75
FACILITIES $16,470.62 •
ASSESSING $223.65
' POLICE $199,669.91.
FIRE $9,761.41
ANIMAL CONTROL $1,175.77
PARK ADMIN $2,670.06
STREETS/TRAFFIC $8,394.72
•
PARK MAINTENANCE $5,483.84
PARKS CAPITAL $2,763.72
FLEET SERVICES $27,231.53
ORGANIZED ATHLETICS $2,566.97
COMMUNITY DEV $314.50
COMMUNITY CENTER $14,084.27
YOUTH RECREATION $1,879.23
SPECIAL EVENTS $216.78
ADULT RECREATION $2,129.46
RECREATION ADMIN $7.85
ADAPTIVE REC $34.77
OAK POINT POOL $76.50
ARTS $622.94
PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ $22,670.18
EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS $167,925.67
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM $20,649.34
CITY CENTER $6,414.75
PRAIRIE VILLAGE $64,673.79
PRAIRIEVIEW $66,029.59
CUB FOODS $164,345.79
WATER DEPT $69,795.13
SEWER DEPT $4,963.90 •
$959,622.72*
•
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 25-JAN-2000 (16
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT - VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
83373 $862.45 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83374 $6,850.55 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83375 $2,999.78 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83376 $624.75 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83377 $9,281.83 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83379 $96.50 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83380 $541.02 VINTAGE ONE WINES INC WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83381 $200.50 GR MECHANICAL PLUMBING PERMIT FD 10 ORG
83382 $19.00 LACHERMEIER, DALE -LICENSES & TAXES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL
83383 $20.50 NORBLOM PLUMBING CO. ' PLUMBING PERMIT FD 10 ORG
83384 $20.50 SMITH, PATRICK MECHANICAL PERMIT FD 10 ORG
83385 $2,697.14 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE RILEY LAKE
83388 $243.95 WHITE BEAR MECHANICAL INC MECHANICAL PERMIT FD 10 ORG
83389 $99.00 PRYOR RESOURCES SCHOOLS POLICE
83390 $1,699.76 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83391 $100.00 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MPLS BOND DEDUCTION FD 10 ORG
83392 $1,504.65 INTERNATIONAL'UNION OF OPERATI UNION DUES WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
83393 $438.33 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
83394 $53,778.47 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PERA WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
83395 $101.56 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT AS PERA WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
83396 $6,089.20 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83398 $337.19 SORENSON, TIFFANY SCHOOLS 'IN SERVICE TRAINING
83399 $7.30 STAR TRIBUNE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83400 $1,218.20 UNITED WAY UNITED WAY WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
83401 $312.54 SORENSON, TIFFANY, SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING
83402 $139.30 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3 •
83403 $1,189.80 BELLBOY CORPORATION WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83405 $6,486.85 DAY DISTRIBUTING . BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83406 ' $10,880.83 EAGLE WINE COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83409 $137.25 GETTMAN COMPANY MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83410 $208.33 GRAPE BEGINNINGS^ WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83411 $18,707.87 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83414 $9,449.09 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR'STORE CUB FOODS
83418 $1,295.09 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS •
LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
' 83419 $3,462.90 MARK VII BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83420 $250.26 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83421 $2,404.50 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83422 $131.70 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE . LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83423 $4,792.90 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83426 $341.30 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83427 $5,597.58 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83429 $911.47 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83430 $6,323.20 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83431 $602.13 WINE COMPANY, THE WINE IMPORTED • LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83432 $239.90 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83433 $340.00 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
83434 $100.00 AMERICAN EXPERIMENT CONFERENCE COUNCIL
83435 $118.30 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC BLDG REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83436 $185.00 MPCA CONFERENCE SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL
83437 $104.00 WARREN, KATHLEEN DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING
83438 $120.00 STATE TREASURER CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
83439 $195.00 UNIV OF MINN REGISTRAR ENGROO1 CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
83440 •$160.00 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
83441 $386.56 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83442 $263.14 WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE MN WASTE DISPOSAL LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
3
•
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 25-JAN-2000 (16
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT _ VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
83443 $24,975.00 CLOSED CIRCUIT SPECIALISTS INC OTHER EQUIPMENT LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83444 $57.00 GRAY, ALAN EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES
83445 $91.71 KRAEMERS HARDWARE INC COMMUNICATIONS SEWER LIFTSTATION
83446 • $17,717.47 LANG PAULY GREGERSON AND ROSOW LEGAL SERVICE LEGAL COUSEL
83447 $7.56 MENARDS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
83448 $1,263.77 MINN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CTR GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
83449 $809.79 MINNEGASCO GAS WATER WELL # 13
83450 $127.76 WALMART STORES INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POLICE
83451 $51.62 WOLF CAMERA INC PHOTO SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83452 $29.76 WRUCK, BEV MILEAGE AND PARKING COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN'
83453 $144.25 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR#3
83454 $12,997.59 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83456 $7,150.35 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO - MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83459 $4,725.20 MARK VII MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83460 $28.35 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1 •
83461 $1,079.55 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83462 $5,453.38 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83465 $5,331.60 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83466 $1,270.42 WINE MERCHANTS INC WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83467 $80.00 ANDERSON, KIM LESSONS/CLASSES FITNESS CLASSES -
83468 $20.00 GASLIN, JEAN LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
83469 $20.96 MINNCOMM PAGING COMMUNICATIONS WATER UTILITY-GENERAL
83470 $40.00 MINNESOTA DEPT OF COMMERCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COUNCIL
83471 $23.25 ROY, BARB LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS -
83472 $19.00 STOWE, TOM LICENSES & TAXES PARK MAINTENANCE
83473 $169.64 WASTE MANAGEMENT-SAVAGE MN WASTE DISPOSAL FIRE STATION #1
83474 $55.00 WILMOTH, STEPHANIE LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
83475 $82.50 WOOD, MARSHA LESSONS/CLASSES FITNESS CLASSES
83476 $52.00 YOUNG, MARIA LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
83477 $1,838.69 BACHMANS CREDIT DEPT CONTRACTED BLDG MAINT EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
83478 $927.01 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
83479 $5,993.24 SQUARE CUT FURNITURE & FIXTURES POLICE-WORK STAIONS
83480 $1,226.86 POSTMASTER POSTAGE WATER ACCOUNTING
83481 $110.00 MRPA CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
83482 $1,632.00 MRPA SPECIAL EVENTS FEES VOLLEYBALL
83483 $101.90 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83484 $130.38 BELLBOY CORPORATION MISC NON-TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83485 $1,040.10 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83486 $1,364.90 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83487 $11,642.05 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83488 $7,637.98 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83490 $1,014.95 MARK VII BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83491 $287.05 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83492 $70.20 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB. FOODS
83493 $213.70 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83494 $550.25 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83495 $6,468.25 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83496 $500.00 ARROWHEAD EMS CONFERENCE CONFERENCE FIRE
83497 $373.39 COQUI CLOTHING & UNIFORMS ICE SHOW
83498 $75.00 DUPONT, BRENT SCHOOLS POLICE
83499. $113,046.57 MEDICA CHOICE COBRA COSTS/REV BENEFITS
83500 $30.00 MINNESOTA GFOA DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING
83501 $52.34 MONFORTON, KATHY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG WINTER SKILL DEVELOP
83502 $1,600.00 MRPA DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING
83503 $2,149.98 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
y
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 25-JAN-2000 (16
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT - VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
83504 $990.00 SMITH & WESSON ACADEMY SCHOOLS POLICE
83505 $390.00 UNIV OF MINN REGISTRAR ENGROO1 CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
83506 $4,523.33 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83508 $3,187.57 WOLFF FORDING & COMPANY CLOTHING & UNIFORMS ICE SHOW
83509 $1,215.03 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR, BELLEVUE TELEPHONE SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL
83511 $284.07 CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83512 $17.83 ITS A KEEPER EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES
83513 $2,934.74 MINNEGASCO GAS FIRE STATION #5 .
83515 $36.23 NORTHERN STATES BOWER CO ELECTRIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS
83516 $78.12 RESPOND SYSTEMS* OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83517 $37.10 TOWN & COUNTRY FLORAL AND GIFT EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES
83518 $25:00 ATOM DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE
83519 $63.30 BOSEK, LYLE MILEAGE AND PARKING INSPECTION-ADMIN
83520 $206.03 DELEGARD'TOOL CO SMALL TOOLS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83521 $223.65 MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC OF REAL OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ASSESSING-ADMIN
83522 $25.00 MPSA DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS PARK MAINTENANCE
83523 $355.00 POSTMASTER POSTAGE ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT
83524 $7,260.45 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83526 $60.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LICENSES & TAXES PARK MAINTENANCE
83527 $100.00 GIORDANO, MARK ORGANIZED ATHLETICS FEES ICE ARENA
83528 $846.30 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83529 $17.00 MINNEAPOLIS, CITY OF TRANSPORTATION PRESCHOOL EVENTS
83530 $296.00 TARGET CENTER SPECIAL EVENTS FEES • PRESCHOOL EVENTS ,
83531 $1,459.75 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83532 $1,176.16 EAGLE WINE COMPANY WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83533 $1,441.33 GRAPE BEGINNINGS WINE DOMESTIC •
PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83534 $4,137.67 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83536 $7,024.75 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83538 $1,956.48 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83539 $374.64 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
. 83540 $99.45 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83541 $1,590.17 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83542 $75.00 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83543 $361.41 WINE COMPANY, THE WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83544 $960.80 WORLD CLASS WINES INC, WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83545 $36.80 ALL SAINTS BRANDS DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83546 $57.05 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83547 $1,515.56 BELLBOY CORPORATION OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83548 $29.95 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83549 $462.90 EAGLE WINE COMPANY WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83550 $8,625.30 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR#3
83551 $14.50 GETTMAN COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83552 $2,293.43 GRIGGS COOPER & CO •MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83553 $2,884.34 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83555 $489.78 LAKE REGION VENDING TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83556 $307.83 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83557 ' $2,260.66 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83558 $113.28 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING MISC NON-TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83559 $2,516.86 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE DOMESTIC LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83560 $36.50 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83561 $678.80 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE IMPORTED LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83562 $52.00 BARBER, JEFF SCHOOLS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83563 $8.00 BILLMYRE, MARGARET SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
83564 $50.17 BOSACKER, JOHN LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
83565 $5,561.17 CB RICHARD RT.T,IS UTILITIES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
5
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 25-JAN-2000 (16
(PCK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
83566 $15.00 CODE ADMINISTRATION & INSPECTI LICENSES & TAXES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83567 $3.75 FREY, KRISTIN LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
83568 $175.23 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG IN REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
83569 $28.00 GAYTHER, MAARIE ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
83570 $55.00 GOETSCH, ALEXA . LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
83571 $30.00 JARIZ, CHERYL ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
83572 $17.00 KAUL, BELA. LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
83573 $30.00 KLOCKNER, LINDA LESSONS/CLASSES SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
83574 $18.00 KUCERA, REVA SR CITIZENS/ADULT PROG FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
83575 $22.00 MANICOR, AMY LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
83576 $57.49 MANN, TRIA PHOTO SUPPLIES ARTS
83577 $37.00 MARSHALL, SUZANNE LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
83578 • $23.25 MCELVEEN, SUE LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
83579 $25.00 WARREN, KATHLEEN DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83580 $55.00 OSE, MARIJO LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
83581 $30.00 PEABODY, TERRY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
83582 $29.00 REYNOLDS, DAWN ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG WINTER SKILL DEVELOP
83583 $111.80 STAR TRIBUNE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING
83584 $30.00 THURSTON, PAMELA ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
83585 $100.00 UHLIG, BARNEY U. ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
83586 $35.00 UNIV OF WISCONSIN PRESS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ENGINEERING DEPT
83587 $60.00 WEHRS, BOBBI ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
83588 $90.00 WELF, JESSI ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
83589 $26.25 YASENCRAK, SANDY LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
83590 $120.90 .CRACAUER, CLIFF MILEAGE AND PARKING EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83591 $115.87 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES FITNESS CENTER •
83592 $87.70 ANDERSON, ROGER TRAINING SUPPLIES FIRE
83593 $1,873.93 ARCH PAGING COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
,83594 $72.00 BCA CJIS ID UNIT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FINANCE DEPT
' 83595 $335.00 COUNTRYSIDE HEATING MECHANICAL PERMIT FD 10 ORG
83596 -. $100.00 ELLISON, MALCOLM REFUNDS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
. 83597 $38.00 FIRE FINDINGS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE
83598 $196.51 GE CAPITAL - RENTALS GENERAL
83599 $326.90 GIRARD, JEFFREY ACCTS REC-CUSTOMER WATER DEPT '
83600 $200.00 HARRIS, JEAN TRAVEL COUNCIL
83601 $28.00 I;AGERQUIST, PAULINE LESSONS/CLASSES - ICE ARENA •
83602 $64.85 NESBITT, DENNIS MILEAGE AND PARKING INSPECTION-ADMIN
83603 $32.22 NILSSON, BETH OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ICE ARENA
83604 $200.00 ORDWAY MUSIC THEATRE SPECIAL EVENTS FEES ADULT PROGRAM .
83605 $50.28 OTTEN, DAN MILEAGE AND PARKING INSPECTION-ADMIN .
83606 $63.34 PETTY CASH OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ENGINEERING DEPT
83607 $25.00 PLEAA DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE
83608 $15.00 POLICE AND SECURITY NEWS DUES• & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE
83609 $326.64 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83610 $1,360.00 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA GOVT 0 CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
83611 $365.00 BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF KENNEL SERVICE ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT
83612 $1,000.00 ERICKSON ARCHITECTS TRAINING SUPPLIES POLICE
83613 $63.00 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
83614 $10.00 M SHANKEN COMMUNICATIONS INC MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83615 $225.00 MAPLE GROVE, CITY OF RESERVE EQUIPMENT POLICE
83616 $69.97 PETTY CASH RECORDING DOCUMENT FEE ENGINEERING DEPT
83617 $6,819.48 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83618 $230.90 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83619 $182.88 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83620 $690.06 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
6
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 25-JAN-2000 (16
•
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
83621 $1,386.01 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83622 $7,261.55 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83623 $225.14 AT&T TELEPHONE GENERAL
83624 $10.00 CODE ADMINISTRATION & INSPECTI LICENSES & TAXES ' WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83625 $166.56 FADDEN, TIMOTHY MILEAGE AND PARKING INSPECTION-ADMIN
83626 $1,504.65 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATI UNION DUES WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
83627 $273.00 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INSURANCE LIFE INSURANCE W/H FD 10 ORG
83628 $35.00 PAULSON, DEB ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG WINTER SKILL DEVELOP
83629 $13.54 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE
83630 $162.11 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT CASH OVER/SHORT FD 10 ORG
83631 $2,189.56 BELLBOY CORPORATION MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83632 $494.25 DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING COMPAN BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83633 $2,148.12 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83634 $5,553.21 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
• 83635 $468.90 GETTMAN COMPANY- MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83636 $38.44 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83637 $5,807.93 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
83639 $143.55 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS .
83640 $3,625.91 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83641 $645.93 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83642 $273.76 WINE MERCHANTS INC WINE DOMESTIC V PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83643 $326.57 ABM EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPA CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83644 $1,196.61 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EPCC MAINTENANCE
83645 $4,969.00 AERO DRAPERY AND BLIND FURNITURE & FIXTURES FIRE
83646 $99.00 AMERICAN MGMT ASSOC DUES.& SUBSCRIPTIONS HUMAN RESOURCES
83647 $602.50 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOC DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ENGINEERING DEPT
83648 $675.74 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI TRAINING SUPPLIES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL
83649 $442.35 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
83650 ' $60.00 APCO INTERNATIONAL DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS POLICE
83651 $132.74 ASPEN REACH EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83652 $2,185.16 BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PARKS-PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
83653 $1,244.68 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83654 $76.00 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
83655 $245.48 BRO-TEX INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83656 $5.81 BROADWAY AWARDS AWARDS RACQUETBALL
83657 $1,364.24 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
83658 $5,784.88 CARGILL SALT SALT SNOW & ICE CONTROL
83659 $13.19 CARLSON TRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83660 $117.50 CENTRAIRE INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
83661 $295.92. CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83662 $610.00 CLOSED CIRCUIT SPECIALISTS INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIQUOR STORE CUB FOODS
83663 $360.41 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83664 $39.96 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY SUPPLIES RISK MANAGEMENT
83665 $1,149.42 CONVERGENT COMMUNICATIONS SRVC TELEPHONE - GENERAL
83666 $56.92 CORPORATE EXPRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE V
83667 $1,464.94 CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POLICE
83668 $4,240.11 CURTIS 1000 OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER ACCOUNTING
83669 $365.30 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS INC - CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE
83670 $6,606.19 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83671 $1,843.61 CY'S UNIFORMS CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE
83672 $28.99 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE •
83673 $1,917.34 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO PROTECTIVE CLOTHING FIRE
83674 $351.52 DARTNELL CORPORATION, THE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS SEWER UTILITY-GENERAL
83675 $5,822.00 DLT SOLUTIONS INC. COMPUTERS GENERAL BUILDING FACILITIES
83676 $60.90 DON E WILLIAMS CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 25-JAN-2000 (16
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT _ VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
83677 $233.18 DRISKILLS NEW MARKET OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PRESCHOOL EVENTS
83678 $8,149.05 DRT TRANSPORT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83679 $1,178.34 DYNA SYSTEMS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83680 $224.18 EARL F ANDERSEN INC SIGNS TRAFFIC SIGNS
83681 $74.55 ECOLAB INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83682 $190.20 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ARTS
83683 $467.50 EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT N. GYM RENTAL ACTIVITY CAMP
83684 $168.25 EDINA SW PLUMBING CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS POLICE STATION
83685 $400.00 EDINA, CITY OF OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
83686 $6,725.01 EF JOHNSON CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
83687 $1,840.00 ELECTRIC SERVICE CO IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS TRAFFIC SIGNAL-MITCHELL RD
83688 $266.79 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
83689 $1,807.13 EMERGENCY APPARATUS.MAINTENANC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE
83690 $109.00 ENGINEERING CONTACTS EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES
83691 $8,175.00 -EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC
83692 $59.25 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE GENERAL
• 83693 $15,600.61 FACILITY SYSTEMS INC OFFICE EQUIPMENT FACILITIES-CITY CENTER REMODEL
. 83694 $398.99 FIBRCOM-MN COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
83695 • $490.00 FINLEY BROS INC BUILDING MATERIALS PARK MAINTENANCE
83696 $132.84 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSOCIATION 0 TRAINING SUPPLIES FIRE
83697 $882.91 FIRENET SYSTEMS INC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83698 . $26.77 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ANIMAL WARDEN. PROJECT
83699 $860.73 FORCE AMERICA EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83700 $55.38 FRANKLIN COVEY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE '
83701 • $573.43 G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83702 $111.87 G.C. PETERSON MACHINERY CO INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE
83703 $312.65 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
83704 $56.53 GINA MARIAS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL YEAR 2000
• 83705 $77.42 GRAFIX SHOPPE CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83706 $285.00 GREENMAN TECHNOLOGIES OF MN IN WASTE DISPOSAL EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83707 $69.50 HACH COMPANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83708 $483.00 HAMILTON, MICHAEL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES BROOMBALL
• 83709 $1,047.32 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON CONST TESTING-SOIL BORING LINCOLN LANE PAVING
83710 $1,498.00 HARMON INC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS SENIOR CENTER
83711 . $13,954.72 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC MOTOR FUELS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83712. $240.00 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83713 $150.00 HENDERSON, JOSH OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ADULT OPEN GYM
83714 $6,734.91 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S ACCT COMMUNICATIONS WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
83715 $300.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
83716 $2,965.90 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER-TAXP POSTAGE GENERAL
83717 $105.00 HOFFERS INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
83718 $89.71 HOIGAARD'S CUSTOM CANVAS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE
83719 $254.50 ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL - ICE ARENA
83720 $450.00 IND SCHOOL DIST #625 OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES IN SERVICE TRAINING
83721 $291.18 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC BLDG REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83722 $529.31 INFRATECH REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER UTILITY-GENERAL
83723 $1,494.16 INGRAHAM & ASSOC BUILDING RILEY LAKE PARK SHELTER "(GRANT
83724 $258.17 J H LARSON ELECTRICAL COMPANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TRAFFIC SIGNALS
83725 $2,033.06 JANEX INC CLEANING SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
83726 $1,095.00 JKW INTERNATIONAL INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE
83727 $3,202.84 JMK SALES CO INC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS FIRE STATION #2
83728 $900.00 KAY PARK-REC CORPORATION MACHINERY EQUIPMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY-PARK •
83729 $420.50 KEN ANDERSEN TRUCKING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT
83730 $776.46 KENS MEATS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL YEAR 2000
83731 $1,421.25 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC SMALL TOOLS POLICE-CITY CENTER
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 25-JAN-2000 (16
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT - VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
83732 $2,514.85 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE STATION #2
83733 $143.89 LAKELAND FORD TRUCK SALES EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83734 $519.49 LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83735 $4,469.60 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83736 $19.32 LYMAN LUMBER COMPANY BUILDING MATERIALS STREET MAINTENANCE
83737 $158.93 M R SIGN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE
83738 $685.00 MARTIN-MCALLISTER PHYSICAL & PSYCO EXAM HUMAN RESOURCES
83739 $186,666.06 MASYS CORPORATION COMPUTERS POLICE
83740 $35.94 MCGLYNN BAKERIES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL YEAR 2000
83741 $138.00 MEDTOX PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RISK MANAGEMENT
83742 $1,303.82 MENARDS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES SEWER LIFTSTATION
83744 $90.78 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
83745 $3,577.88 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SR CTR OPERATIONS
83746 $79.24 METRO SYSTEMS, SIGNS EPCC MAINTENANCE
83747 $242.27 METROPOLITAN FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83748 $754.82 MG INDUSTRIES CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83749 $22.00 MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASS PRINTING POLICE
83750 $28.00 MINNESOTA CONWAY CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE •
83751 $2,211.21 MINNESOTA VIKINGS FOOD SERVICE EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES
83752 $1,392.00 MITY-LITE INC OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS SR CTR OPERATIONS
83753 $238.97 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83754 $150.00 MULARKY, KIRSTEN TRAINING SUPPLIES FIRE
83755 $2,001.73 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES.
83756 $4,733.53 NETS CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS • WATER UTILITY-GENERAL
83757 $1,863.72 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT CO. MACHINERY EQUIPMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY-PARK
83758 $34.02 OHLIN SALES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EATON BLDG
83759 $239.48 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC SMALL TOOLS SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE.
83760 . $106.62 THE ICE MAN/CO2 SERVICES CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE
83761 $842.70 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE' CONCESSIONS
83762 $603.00 PITNEY BOWES INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT GENERAL
83763 $27.45 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN PRINTING FIRE
83764 $160.00 PRINTERS SERVICE INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
83765 $417.02 PROMOTION GROUP, THE SAFETY SUPPLIES RISK MANAGEMENT
83766 $131.85 PSC SUPPLY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE
83767 $127.80 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS SEWER LIFTSTATION
83768 $9.80 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE GENERAL
83769 $74.54 RADIO SHACK CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE
83770 $50.88 RAINBOW FOODS - CHARGES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
83771 $1,078.24 RAK INDUSTRIES OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINTENANCE
83772 $28,412.68 RMR SERVICES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER METER REPAIR .
83773 $48.80 ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83774 $65.98 ROGNESS SERVICE & SALES. REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
83775 $20.76 SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINTENANCE
83776 $96.00 SHOMER-TEC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL POLICE
83777 $10,775.64 SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON INC DESIGN & CONST . WM STREET,HIGHVIEW DRIVE & LAK
83778 $1,209.61 GOLD COUNTRY INC SIGNATURE CON REC EQUIP & SUPPLIES ATHLETIC COORDINATOR
83779 $347.18 SNAP-ON TOOLS SMALL TOOLS WATER METER REPAIR
83780 $642.83 SNELL MECHANICAL INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
83781 $1,250.00 SOUTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES
83782 $1,862.97 HOPKINS, CITY OF DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING
83783 $239.80 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING- EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES
83784 $154.05 SPORTS WORLD USA INC AWARDS RACQUETBALL
83785 $302.46 SPS COMPANIES EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83786 $5,313.20 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC DESIGN & CONST TRAFFIC SIGNAL-MITLL RD
83787 $151.20 STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO, THE CLEANING SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
9
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER 25-JAN-2000 (16
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT - VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM •
83788 $1,875.00 STOREFRONT/YOUTH ACTION INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HOUSING, TRANS, & SOC SVC
83789 $1,751.29 STREICHERS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENEAL POLICE
83790 $247.06 SULLIVANS UTILITY SERVICES INC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS EATON BLDG
83791 $325.00 SWEDLUNDS WASTE DISPOSAL OUTDOOR CENTER-STARING LAKE
83792 $462.89 THERMOGAS COMPANY MOTOR bU LS ICE ARENA
83793 $429.73 TIERNEY BROS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83794 $3,518.82 TKDA DESIGN & CONST WALLACE RD COLLECTOR LINE
83795 $203.39 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
83796 $867.37 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED CLOTHING & UNIFORMS FIRE
83797 $66.67 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83798 $912.85 US FILTER PERRIN PRODUCTS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83799 $250.84 US FILTER/WATERPRO EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER METER REPAIR
83800 $396.21 US OFFICE PRODUCTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
83801 $58.47 VOSS LIGHTING REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
• 83802 $10.00 W GORDON SMITH COMPANY, THE REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
83803 $4.94 W W GRAINGER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83804 $34.50 BURNSVILLE SANITARY CO WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINTENANCE
83805 $271.58 WATER SPECIALITY OF MN INC CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE
83806 $3,471.78 WATSON CO INC, THE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL CONCESSIONS
83807 $27.85 WESTBURNE SUPPLY INC - PLYMOUT REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
83808 $594.45 WM MUELLER AND SONS INC SAND •
SNOW & ICE CONTROL
83809 $34.46 WOLF CAMERA INC PHOTO SUPPLIES POLICE
83810 $514.05 WRIGHT LINE INC. FURNITURE & FIXTURES WATER ACCOUNTING
83811 • $8,113.71 YALE INCORPORATED CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
83812 $572.34 ZEP MANUFACTURING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS , EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
83813 $54.08 ZIEGLER INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
$959,622.72* .
•
•
•
•
10
COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY 28-JAN-2000 (09:32)
DIVISION TOTAL
DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS $2,054,154.91
EMPLOYEE PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS $292,052.03
PRAIRIE VILLAGE $15,930.41
PRAIRIEVIEW $19,316.07
CUB FOODS $45,265.65
WATER DEPT $6,202.85
$2,432,921.92*
•
1
• It
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
305 $120,543-63 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A FEDERAL, TAXES W/H ED 10 ORG
306 $61,046.92 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A EMPLOYEES SS E. MEDICARE FD 10 ORG
307 $61,046.92 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A EMPLOYERS SS & MEDICARE FD 10 ORG
308 $45,042.54 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE STATE TAXES WITHHELD ED 10 ORG
309 $582-00 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE SALES TAX PAYABLE FD 10 ORG
310 $90,505-00 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE SALES TAX PAYABLE FD 10 ORG
311 $1,351,654.91 FIRST TRUST NATL ASSOC INTEREST CITY CENTER DEBT FD
312 $702,500.00 NORWEST BANK MN N.A. INTEREST B & I PAYMENTS
$2,432,921.92*
•
r•
s
12
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
February 1,2000
SECTION: Ordinances &ResoIutions
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Public Works/Engineering Street Name Change
Jim Richardson Et A.
•
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt the 1st reading of an Ordinance changing the name of Dell Road, south
of Pioneer Trail (approximately 2000 feet to its intersection with the new alignment of
Dell Road),to Stable Path.
Synopsis
Dell Road is being realigned at Pioneer Trail to line up with Dell Road on the north side of
Pioneer Trail.
Background Information •
Dell Road presently has an offset at Pioneer Trail. With the Oakparke development this offset
will be eliminated. The alignment of the old portion of Dell Road will stay the same. There are
three single-family residents that will be affected by the name change. Consensus of the three
residents is to rename the road to Stable Path.
Staff is unaware of any conflict with the street name choice.
•
in"(
�I
V
PI oweet rim IL.,
I
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Eden Prairie City Council that the southerly portion of Dell Road
from its intersection with Pioneer Trail to approximately 2000 feet south of Pioneer Trail shall be
named:
STABLE PATH
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on February
1, 2000, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City
Council of said City on February 15, 2000.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
Published in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 2000.
M1-CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SAMPLE2doc
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 02/01/00
SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions
ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION:
Finance Department •Resolution Authorizing Issuance of$1,000,000
Donald R. Uram Health Facility Revenue Note
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt the resolution authorizing the issuance of a $1,000,000 Health Facility
Revenue Note for the Elim Homes, Inc.,project.
Synopsis
On December 21, 1999,the City Council adopted a resolution giving preliminary approval to the
issuance of up to $1,000,000 to pay for the costs of financing a new corporate office facility for
Elim Homes. Adoption of the current resolution gives final approval to the project and
authorizes the issuance of a$1,000,000 revenue note.
Attachments •
1. Resolution
1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,NIINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO A $1,000,000 HEALTH FACILITY REVENUE
NOTE; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE THEREOF PURSUANT TO
MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 469, AUTHORIZING THE
SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SAID PROJECT
TO THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION
OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.152 through 469.1651 (the "Act"), and a Resolution of the City Council of the City
of Eden Prairie (the "City") adopted on December 21, 1999, by appropriate action duly taken by
the City, and in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, the City has previously declared its
intention to provide financing for the acquisition,construction and equipping of a corporate office
facility for the Company(as defined hereinafter) located at the southeast corner of the intersection
of Office Ridge Circle and Valley View Road,Eden Prairie,Minnesota(the"Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City conducted a special public hearing on the Project and the proposed
financing on January 18, 2000, after fourteen (14) days' prior notice thereof as required by the
Act and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
WHEREAS, Elim Homes, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation(the "Company"), has
requested the City to issue its Revenue Note of 2000 (Elim Homes, Inc. Project) (the "Bonds").
in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $1,000,000 to provide funds to finance the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the City proposes to finance the Project under the Act by the issuance of the
Bonds of the City under this resolution; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City as follows:
Section 1. Definitions.
1.1. In this Resolution the following terms have the following respective meanings
unless the context hereof or use herein clearly requires otherwise.
Act: Minnesota Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.152 through 469.1651, as amended.
Assignment of Leases and Rents: the Assignment of Leases and Rents from the
Company to the Lender.
Assignment of Loan Agreement: the Assignment of Loan Agreement from the City
to the Lender.
Bond Counsel: the firm of Lindquist&Vennum P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota
or any other nationally recognized bond counsel experienced in tax exempt industrial
revenue bond financing selected by the Company and acceptable to the Lender and the
City.
City: the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, its successors and assigns.
Company: Elim Homes, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Construction Costs: all costs paid to construct and complete the Project, including,
but not limited to, site preparation costs, architectural fees, engineering fees and all costs
of labor, material and services paid or incurred by the Company.
Disbursing Agreement: the Disbursing Agreement among the Company, First
American Title Insurance Company, as disbursing agent, and the Lender.
Holder: any holder of the Note.
Improvements: the improvements, including tangible personal property, constructed
or installed by the Company in the Project in accordance with the plans and specifications.
Land: the real property described in Exhibit A attached to the Loan Agreement.
Lender: Bremer.Bank, National Association, its successors and assigns.
Loan Agreement: the Loan Agreement between the City and the Company, as the
same may be from time to time amended or supplemented in accordance with the
provisions hereof.
Loan Commitment: the commitment of the Lender to the Company dated
November 17, 1999.
7
3
Mortgage: the Mortgage, Assignment of Rents and Security Agreement given by
the Company, as mortgagor, to the Lender, as mortgagee, providing for the mortgaging
of the Mortgaged Property to secure payment of the Note and interest thereon.
Mortgaged Property: collectively, the Land and the Project.
Note: the Revenue Note of 2000 (Elim Homes, Inc. Project) to be issued by the
City as authorized by the Resolution.
Project: the acquisition, construction and equipping of a corporate office facility
in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
Project Costs: the costs of acquisition, construction and equipping the Project.
Resolution: this Resolution of the City.
Section 2. Findings. It is hereby found and declared that:
(a) By virtue of the Act, the City has been vested with all powers necessary and
convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of the Act and to
exercise all powers granted to it under the Act.
(b) Based upon representations made to the City by representatives of the
Company as to the nature of the Project, the real property and improvements described in
the Loan Agreement, the Disbursing Agreement and the Mortgage comprising the Project
constitute a "project" authorized by the Act.
(c) The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to submit the proposal for
the above-described Project to the Commissioner of Trade and Economic Development (the
"Commissioner"), requesting the Commissioner's approval and any approvals required by
Subdivision 6 of Section 469.154, Minnesota Statutes, and other officers, employees and
agents of the City are hereby authorized to provide the Commissioner with such
information as the Commissioner may require.
•
(d) The financing of the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project,
the issuance and sale of the Note, the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement and
the Assignment of Loan Agreement and the performance of all covenants and agreements
of the City contained in the Note, the Loan Agreement and the Assignment of Loan
Agreement and of all other acts and things required under the Constitution and laws of the
State of Minnesota to make the Note, the Loan Agreement and the Assignment of Loan
Agreement valid and binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terms, are
authorized by the Act;
4
(e) It is desirable that the Note in the maximum amount of $1,000,000 be
issued by the City upon the terms set forth herein, and that the City pledge its interest in
the Loan Agreement and grant a security interest therein to the Lender as security for the
payment of the principal of and interest on and all other amounts due under the Note;
(f) The payments required by the Loan Agreement are variable and are
required to be revised from time to time as necessary, so as to produce income and
revenues sufficient to provide for prompt payment of principal of and interest on the Note
when due, and the Loan Agreement also provide that the Company is required to pay all
expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project including, but without limitation,
adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or
property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied
upon or with respect to the Project and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement;
(g) As provided in the Loan Agreement, the Note is not to be payable from nor
charged upon any funds of the City other than the revenue pledged to the payment thereof;
the City is not subject to any liability thereon; no holder of the Note shall ever have the
right to compel any exercise of the taxing powers of the City to pay the Note or the interest
thereon, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City; the Note shall
not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the
City; the Note shall recite that the Note, including interest thereon, is payable solely from
the revenue pledged to the payment thereof; and the Note shall not constitute a debt of the
City within the meaning of any constitutional of statutory limitation;
(h) The acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project to be financed by
the Note to be issued by the City are as set forth in the Loan Agreement. The maximum
aggregate face amount of the Note is $1,000,000. The initial owner and manager of the
Project will be the Company; and
Section 3. Authorization and Sale.
3.1. Authorization. The City is authorized by the Act to issues revenue bonds and loan
the proceeds thereof to nonprofit corporations to finance the acquisition and construction of
"projects," as defined in the Act, and to make all contracts, execute all instruments and do all
things necessary or convenient in the exercise of such authority.
3.2. Preliminary City Approval. By preliminary resolution duly adopted by the Council
on December 21, 1999, this Council gave preliminary approval to the sale of a revenue obligation
pursuant to the Act and the loan of the proceeds to the Company for the financing of the Project
and authorized the preparation of such documents as may be appropriate to the Project. This.
Council hereby ratifies and confirms the preliminary resolution adopted on December 21, 1999
and fords that it remains in full force and effect.
5
3.3. Approval of Documents. Pursuant to the foregoing, there have been prepared and
presented to the Council copies of the following documents, all of which are now, or shall be,
placed on file in the office of the City Clerk:
(a) Loan Agreement;
(b) Assignment of Loan Agreement;
(c) Mortgage;
(d) Note;
(e) Disbursing Agreement; and
(f) Assignment of Leases and Rents.
•
The forms of the documents listed in (a) through (f) above are approved with such variations,
insertions and additions as are deemed appropriate by the parties and approved by the City
Attorney or Director of Finance.
Section 4. Authorization. Upon the completion of the Loan Agreement and the
Assignment of Loan Agreement approved in Section 3.3 hereof and the execution thereof by the
Company and the Lender, as the case may be, the Mayor and the City Manager shall execute the
same on behalf of the City and shall execute the Note in substantially the form approved in
paragraph 5.1 hereof on behalf of the City, and shall execute such other certifications, documents
or instruments as Bond Counsel or counsel for the Lender shall require, and which are approved
by the City Attorney, and all certifications, recitals and representations therein shall constitute the
certifications, recitals and representations of the City. Execution of any instrument or document
by one or more appropriate officers of the City shall constitute, and shall be deemed the conclusive
evidence of, the approval and authorization by the City and the council of the instrument or
document so executed.
Section 5. The Note.
5.1. Form and Authorized Amount. The Note shall be issued substantially in the form
presented to the Council and set forth as Exhibit A to this Resolution with such appropriate
variations, omissions and insertions as are permitted or required by this Resolution, in the total
• maximum principal amount of$1,000,000. The terms of the Note are set forth therein, and such
terms, including but not limited to provisions as to interest rate, dates and amount of payment of
principal and interest and prepayment privileges, are incorporated by reference herein.
5.2. Execution. The Note shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the
Mayor and the City Manager. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall
6
cease to be such officer before the delivery thereof, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and
sufficient for all purposes.
5.3. Mutilated, Lost and Destroyed Note. In case the Note shall become mutilated or be
destroyed or lost, the City shall cause to be executed and delivered a new Note of like outstanding
principal amount and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the mutilated
Note, or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note destroyed or lost, upon the holder's paying
the reasonable expenses and charges of the City in connection therewith, and, in case the Note is
destroyed or lost, its filing with the City evidence satisfactory to it of such loss or destruction.
5.4. Registration. The Note shall be registered on the books of the City, subject to the
conditions set forth in the form of the Note attached hereto as Exhibit A.
5.5. Delivery and Use of Proceeds. Prior to delivery of the Note, the documents referred
to in Section 3.3 hereof shall be completed and executed in form and substance as approved by the
City and an original, executed counterpart of each such document shall be delivered to the Lender.
• The City shall thereupon deliver to the Lender the Note in the total principal amount of
$1,000,000, together with a copy, duly certified by the City Clerk, of this Resolution and such
closing certificates as are required by Bond Counsel.
Upon delivery of the Note and the above items to the Lender, the Lender shall, on behalf
of the City, disburse the proceeds of the Note to the Company in reimbursement of, or to its order
for payment of, Project Costs pursuant to the provisions and subject to the conditions of the Loan
Agreement and the Disbursing Agreement.
Section 6. Modifications, Absence of Officers. The approval hereby given to the various
documents referred to above includes an approval of such modifications thereto, deletions
therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by the City
prior to the execution of the documents. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate
officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of
such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In the absence or disability of the Mayor,
any of the documents authorized by this Resolution to be executed may be executed by the acting
Mayor; in the absence or disability of the City Manager, any other officer of the City who, in the
opinion of counsel to the City, may execute such documents.
Section 7. Limitations of the City's Obligations. It is understood and agreed by the
Company and the Lender that no covenant, provision or agreement of the City herein or in the
Note or in any other document executed by the City in connection with the issuance, sale and
delivery of the Note, or any obligation herein or therein imposed upon the City or breach thereof,
shall give rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a charge against its general credit or taxing
powers or shall obligate the City financially in any way except with respect to the Loan Agreement
and the application of revenues therefrom and the proceeds of the Note. No failure of the City to
comply with any term, condition, covenant or agreement therein shall subject the City to liability
•
•
for any claim for damages, costs or other financial or pecuniary charges except to the extent that
the same can be paid or recovered from the Loan Agreement or revenues therefrom or proceeds
of the Note. No execution on any claim, demand, cause of action or judgment shall be levied
upon or collected from the general credit, general funds or taxing powers of the City. In making
the agreements, provisions and covenants set forth herein, the City has not obligated itself except
with respect to the Loan Agreement and the application of revenues hereunder as hereinabove
provided. The Note constitutes special obligations of the City, payable solely from the revenues
pledged to the payment thereof pursuant to the Loan Agreement and does not now and shall never
constitute an indebtedness or a loan of the credit of the City, the State of Minnesota or any
political subdivision thereof or a charge against the City's general taxing powers within the
meaning of any constitutional or statutory provision whatsoever. It is further understood and
agreed by the Company and the Lender that the City shall incur no pecuniary liability hereunder
and shall not be liable for any expenses related hereto. If, notwithstanding the provisions of this
Section, the City incurs any expense, or suffers any losses, claims or damages or incurs any
liabilities, the Company will indemnify and hold harmless the City from the same and will
reimburse the City for any legal or other expenses incurred by the City in relation thereto, and this
covenant to indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse the City shall survive delivery of and
payment for the Note. The liability of the Note is further restricted as provided in Section 469.162
of the Act.
Section 8. Tax Exempt Status of the Bonds. The City hereby designates $1,000,000 of
the Bonds as "qualified tax exempt obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code.
Adopted: February 1, 2000
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
Attest:
Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
•
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by
Councilperson , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon the Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 02/01/00
SECTION: Appointments
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: •
Community Development
Donald R. Uram Community Planning Board
Vice-Chair Appointment
Requested Action
Move to: Appoint Frantz Corneille of the Community Planning Board as the Vice
Chairperson.
Synopsis •
City Code provides for Council appointment of a Chair and a Vice-Chair to discharge the duties
of and conduct meetings of the Community Planning Board. This appointment will take effect
immediately and serve through March 31 or until a replacement is appointed.
Attachments
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 02/01/00
SECTION: Report of City Manager
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Chris Enger, City Manager -Review of Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport "7.1177,_ 1 , I.
Scott A.Kipp, Senior Planner
Requested Action
•
Move to:
• Adopt Staff Comments on Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport, and;
• Direct the City Staff to forward Comments on the Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport to the
Metropolitan Airports Commission and Federal Aviation Administration for inclusion into
the Public Hearing Record.
Synopsis
The City Staff have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the expansion of
Flying Cloud Airport and have prepared comments relating to this proposal for the purpose of
inclusion in the Public Hearing Record.
The MAC/FAA will conduct a Public Hearing on the Draft EIS at 7 p.m. on Wednesday,
February 9, 2000 in the auditorium at the Hennepin Technical College, 9200 Flying Cloud
Drive in Eden Prairie.
Background
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is proposing to expand the Flying Cloud Airport by
developing a new south building area on the airport, to increase the lengths of both existing
parallel runways, and to acquire land for approach protection. Runway 9R/27L will be
lengthened 1,220 feet to the west, with 120 feet removed from the east end for a total length of
5,000 feet. Runway 9L/27R will be lengthened 300 feet to the west for a total length of 3,900
feet.
Purpose of EIS
The purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is for the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to disclose the
environmental impacts of the alternatives under consideration. It also provides measures to
mitigate potential adverse'effects, and provides interested agencies and the public with the
information they need to participate in the joint state and federal review of the alternatives.
I
•
City Council Agenda 2/1/2000
Review of Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport
Page 2
EIS Schedule
The MAC/FAA will conduct a Public Hearing on the Draft EIS at 7 p.m. on Wednesday,
February 9, 2000 in the auditorium at the Hennepin Technical College, 9200 Flying Cloud
Drive in Eden Prairie.
The tentative schedule for the EIS process is as follows:
• Draft EIS and Beginning of Comment Period - January 7, 2000
• Draft EIS Public Hearing - February 9, 2000
• End on Draft EIS Comment Period - February 21, 2000
• Final EIS and Beginning of Comment Period - June 2000
• End of Final EIS Comment Period - July 2000
• Environmental Quality Board Determination
of Final EIS Adequacy - October 2000
• FAA Record of Decision - November 2000
Alternative Ordinance 51
The EIS includes a Noise Mitigation Plan and identifies the elements of Alternative Ordinance
51. However, the nighttime restrictions on stage II jets and maintenance run-ups portions of the
Ordinance will require a Federal Aviation Regulations Part 161 study. These restrictions cannot
be considered part of the EIS unless the FAA approves a Part 161 study. This study is underway
and will take approximately one year to complete. The EIS indicates voluntary compliance in
the interim.
To help clarify MAC's commitment to complete the Part 161 study and, if approved, implement
the mandatory restrictions contained in the Alternative Ordinance 51, it will provide a letter for
the public record at the Draft EIS Public Hearing. The letter will address MAC's intent to pursue
a Part 161 study and enter into voluntary agreements that address the restrictions with persons
operating jet aircraft at Flying Cloud Airport. These agreements will remain in place pending the
completion of the Part 161 study and will remain in effect in the event the Part 161 study is
denied by the FAA.
Attachments
1. Staff Comments on Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport, dated January 27, 2000
2. Draft EIS Executive Summary
STAFF COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS FOR FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT
January 27, 2000
Listed below are the staff comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
expansion of Flying Cloud Airport.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission is proposing to expand the Flying Cloud Airport by
developing a new south building area on the airport,to increase the lengths of both existing
parallel runways, and to acquire land for approach protection. Runway 9R/27L will be
lengthened 1,220 feet to the west,with 120 feet removed from the east end for a total length of
•
5,000 feet. Runway 9L/27R will be lengthened 300 feet to the west for a total length of 3,900
feet.
These comments will be provided to MAC and the FAA to be included in the Public Hearing
Record on the review of the EIS. As this review process continues, additional comments may be
forwarded to MAC.
Primary Findings
Alternatives
• MAC defines the environmental impacts of Alternatives C,D, and E as being identical
except for air quality, overflights of the refuge, and noise.
• Air quality impacts are stated as not significant and differences between alternatives minor.
MAC did not locate any air quality receptors near the approach end of runway 9R,which is
the runway proposed for greatest use. This could result in a greater on-airport impact than
indicated.
• Proposed mitigation for the impact from overflights of the refuge is to assign the northerly
parallel runway as the preferred runway for touch and go training. This is in conflict with the
Noise Mitigation Plan. The FAA control tower does not dictate specific runway use to pilots,
but rather directs them to the nearest runway. MAC needs to demonstrate how this proposed
runway assignment will be implemented and enforced.
• MAC states that all alternatives will have a significant adverse impact on residents within the
DNL 65+noise contour without mitigation. With mitigation MAC states that none of the
expansion alternatives would have a significant adverse noise impact compared to the No
Action Alternative. The land use maps show existing and future residential areas within the
2010 DNL 60 and 65 contours,but MAC does not indicate how these impacts will be •
mitigated. Consistent with the Noise Mitigation Plan,MAC should acquire the incompatible
undeveloped property on the east side of the airport.
Staff Comments on Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport
January 27,2000
Page 2
Economic
• The Economic Analysis (Table H-5) shows a Benefit/Cost ratio and Net Present Value
between the No Action Alternative and the expansion Alternatives,including Eden Prairie
impacts as follows:
Alternative B/C NPV
C 0.93 $-2.59 million
D 1.56 $ 22.7 million
E 1.59 $ 24.1 million
Including the$11.8 million required for south building area acquisition(which MAC
considers part of the No Action Alternative), the B/C is as follows:
•
Alternative B/C NPV
C 0.60 $ loss not provide
D 0.99 $ loss not provide
E 1.01 $ 800,000
For this last set of Benefit/Cost ratios,the acquisition of the south building area is the only
additional cost identified. MAC does not include Eden Prairie's lost revenue from the loss of
potential office/industrial development according to the approved guide plan for the
Charlson,Brown, Standal property.
• Of the approximate 280 acres of land acquisition proposed by MAC, 178 acres is included in
the No Action Alternative since MAC states this acreage will be needed regardless of airport
expansion for existing Safety Zones and the south building area. This acreage represents
approximately 64% of the total acreage to be acquired by MAC. Dissecting the land
acquisition reduces the impacts defined in the expansion alternatives.
• It appears that by removing the south building area acquisition from the expansion
alternatives,MAC is able to show economic benefit from an expanded airport.
• Under Capital Costs, it appears the cost of constructing the hangars by future tenants has not
been included.
• Under Capital Costs,the acquisition of incompatible undeveloped properties in the 2010
DNL 65 noise contour, and the insulation costs for incompatible existing homes within the
2010 DNL 65 and 60 noise contours need to be included. This is part of the approved Noise
Mitigation Plan.
• Under Benefits to Aircraft Operators,the benefits identified in the analysis could be captured
at the Downtown St.Paul Airport, therefore should not be considered.
4
Staff Comments on Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport
January 27,2000
Page 3
• Under Foregone Capital Costs at Other MAC Airports, MAC needs to include the loss to be
realized from improvements made at other reliever airports that can currently accommodate
the jet operations.
• MAC indicates a basis for the expansion of the airport is to divert corporate jets from MSP to
Flying Cloud. There is a direct relationship between this diversion, and the need for
acquisition and development of the south building area to base these aircraft. Therefore, the
acquisition of the south building area should be considered part of the expansion alternatives.
• The B/C analysis assumes a 23-year build out schedule by the City if MAC does not acquire
land. A 7-year build out schedule is realistic. Feasibility Studies for infrastructure
improvements are underway, land is inside MUSA, and Guide plan approvals received. Land
is ripe for development,but for MAC plans to expand Flying Cloud Airport.
• It is unclear how annual tax loss was computed to present value. However, tax revenue loss
would be forever if MAC acquires the land, and the discounted cost should reflect the
permanent loss.
• The reduced operating costs show a school district cost per pupil of$6,698. This is not an
accurate reflection in"cost avoidance",since it represents a very complex system of state
aids that are not attributable to an Eden Prairie economic analysis.
• Not enough detail has been provided to analyze if a complete airport system approach has
been accounted for in the B/C analysis under"Discounted Benefits". These items have a
significant impact on the B/C ratio,but supporting documentation in the EIS and technical
report appears incomplete. Minor assumption changes could alter the analysis significantly.
Compatible Land Use
• MAC's proposed mitigation for incompatible land use is for Eden Prairie to amend its
Comprehensive Plan. The Noise Mitigation Committee, including the Met Council
representative voted down this proposal. The Met Council adopted Eden Prairie's
Comprehensive Plan in 1980,prior to it revising the maximum runway length at minor use
airports to 5,000 feet(the basis for airport expansion). The approved Noise Mitigation Plan
states that MAC will acquire incompatible undeveloped properties or parcels within the 2010
DNL 65 noise contour, and insulate existing noise-sensitive structures within the 2010 DNL
65 and 60 noise contours concurrent with runway construction.
• MAC indicates that the Met Council's Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise
show single-family residential as a"conditional"use at DNL 60-65. This is not true.
Current guidelines show single-family residential as a"inconsistent"use at DNL 60-65. An
amendment to the guidelines is under evaluation by the Met Council,but has not been
approved. MAC should not apply standards that are not in place.
Staff Comments on Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport
January 27, 2000
Page 4
• There has been no Joint Zoning Board established to create and regulate state Safety Zones
for Flying Cloud Airport. The City of Eden Prairie declines to participate in a Joint Zoning
Board because of the potential liability and the issue of property taking. MAC needs to
discuss the requirements for, and application of Safety Zones, including there connection
with the use of state funding.
• There is no discussion regarding the acquisition of Safety Zone area on the east side of the
airport as MAC is proposing on the west side.
• The Charlson,Brown, Standal Comprehensive Guide Plan change approved by the Met
Council needs to be included as a"Connected Action"since the land use change is a direct
result of the proposal to expand Flying Cloud Airport.
Noise
• Alternative Ordinance 51 does not include all agreed upon recommendations of MAC's
Noise Mitigation Committee, namely the mandatory nighttime restrictions on stage 2 jets and
maintenance rumps. The FAA will not allow these restrictions without FAA approval of a
Part 161 study,which is currently underway. However, in developing the noise contours
MAC includes these restrictions and assumes full compliance through voluntary means.
• Table A.1-6 Runway Use Assumptions used to develop the noise contours indicate the
majority of single and twin engine piston aircraft have been, and will continue to use the
south parallel runway. This appears to conflict with current runway use patterns that show
the north parallel runway serving the majority of these operations. MAC has conducted
operational observations since 1993 as part of its annual Noise Monitoring Summary,which
show the majority of all single engine and twin engine piston aircraft favoring the north
parallel runway.
• The Area of Potential Effect(APE) for noise is identified within the DNL 60+c1RA noise
contour. The Scoping Decision identified the APE within the DNL 55+dRA noise contour.
This change assumed Met Council's approval of the proposed changes to its Land Use
Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise. This has not yet taken place.
• MAC indicates that all of the alternatives would have significant noise impacts of various
degree,but states"with the Noise Mitigation Plan,none of the expansion alternatives would
have a significant adverse noise impact on residential property." The land use maps show
residential areas within the 2010 DNL 60 and 65 contours,but MAC does not indicate how
these impacts will be mitigated. Consistent with the Noise Mitigation Plan,MAC should
acquire the impacted property on the east side of the airport.
Staff Comments on Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport
January 27, 2000
Page 5
Secondary Findings
Alternatives
• Expansion alternatives A and B that depend on use of declared distance have been
eliminated. Alternatives C,D, and E shift the primary runway an additional 120 feet to the
west while removing 120 feet from the east end. This results in a westerly extension of 1,220
feet vs. the 1,100 feet originally proposed. This shift will also shift the Safety Zones on the
west side of the airport.
• MAC should define the FAA classification of the airport before and after expansion. This
should include Design Group, including wing span criteria, and Approach Category,
including approach speeds.
• A MnDOT letter dated January 5, 1998 to MAC requested consideration of closure of at least
one of the current access locations to T.H. 212. No consideration of this request was found.
• The traffic analysis needs to address traffic to be generated from development of the
approved Office/Industrial and Residential land uses for the Charlson,Brown, Standal
property south and west of the airport.
Affected Environment
•
• The Area of Potential Effect(APE) includes Minneapolis-St. Paul International. As such,
MAC needs to address its goals and philosophy for the reliever system of airports including:
MSP corporate aircraft diversion policy, current and proposed capacity within the reliever
system, and financial debt considerations at the reliever airports.
Compatible Land Use
• The land use maps provided throughout the document are incorrect and should be revised.
The area between Spring Road and Eden Prairie Road needs to be shown as Low Density
Residential. Also, some areas shown as Public are guided Low Density Residential. Eden
Hills Golf Course shown as Public is actually guided Low Density Residential. Finally, a
portion of Public shown on the east side of the airport is actually guided Low Density
Residential. These changes may result in additional acreage and housing units receiving
impact from the airport expansion.
• Under Future Conditions—No Action Alternative,the document states that the land to be
acquired for the south building area is zoned residential and public open space. The property
is guided as Office/Industrial and should be revised. It also states the land to be acquired
underlying what would be existing Safety Zones A and B is zoned public open space. The
property is guided Low Density Residential and should be revised. These changes may result
in additional acreage and housing units receiving impact from the airport expansion.
1
Staff Comments on Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport
January 27,2000
Page 6
Construction Impacts
• MAC needs to include a grading plan for the expansion project, including any alteration of
the existing knoll for the shift in the MALSR lighting system. This was assured in the
Scoping Decision.
Endangered and Threatened Species
• A list of all"special concern species" should be provided.
Historical,Architectural and Archaeological Resources
• The determination of no adverse noise impact on the Cummins-Grill House property was
based on one week of monitoring in September 1999, and used to project the 2010 DNL
noise level. The projected 2010 DNL level for Alternative E is shown at 64.3 dBA. A level
of 65 dBA is considered significant impact. How would this projected noise level change if
the week of monitoring occurred in July,the typical month for the greatest number of
operations?
• Does the projected 2010 DNL level for Alternative E stated above include the additional
4,000 monthly overflights proposed for the north parallel runway as mitigation of the wildlife
refuge?
• It is stated the 25% increase in total aircraft activity projected, as a result of the airport
expansion is not considered a significant visual impact. What percentage increase would be
considered significant?
Induced Socioeconomic
• The development of private property on the west side of the airport will depend on the
extension of municipal sewer and water through the Safety Zone area shown to be acquired
by MAC. Since the property will no longer be available for development or special
assessments to help fund this required infrastructure, the additional cost will be borne by
adjacent property owners,potentially affecting the timing and demand for public services.
Light Emissions
• It appears that the shift in the MALSR lighting system may go beyond the wooded knoll to
the west. This may involve grading of the knoll itself and/or expose the strobe lighting
system to a significant population. MAC needs to provide greater detail,including a grading
plan, for the location of this lighting system as it relates to the elevation of the knoll to
accurately determine potential impact.
Staff Comments on Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport
January 27,2000
Page 7
Noise
• Determination of noise impacts on population and housing units depends on 1990 census
data,updated in 1996. MAC should supplement this data with current building permit data
from the City of Eden Prairie.
• A noise contour map comparing the No Action Alternative to Alternative E,with Mitigation
should be provided.
Wastewater
• Under Existing Conditions,the EIS needs to provide information regarding the condition of
all existing private septic systems to verify proper functioning, code compliance, and for
possible ground water contamination.
• The cost and timing to install municipal sewer and water needs to be addressed and included
in the No Action and expansion Alternatives.
Water Quality
• The EIS needs to discuss the Met Council's regional goal in reducing non-point source
pollution to the Minnesota River by 40% of 1980 levels and MAC's efforts to help meet this
goal at the Flying Cloud Airport.
. • No mention is made of the potential for erosion based on soil types located on and around the
airport and adjacent bluff.
• There is no discussion of the potential use and management of hazardous chemicals by
Flying Cloud Airport tenants over its extended history dating back to the 1940's. Such
chemicals may include DDT.
• Table U-5 suggests that Basin E will frequently overflow to an existing ravine resulting in
erosion and elevated TSS entering Staring Lake.
• The proposed capacity of four new detention ponds west of the south building area is unclear.
An outlet to Purgatory Creek is recommended.
• The EIS should indicate the condition of the abandoned and inactive underground storage
tanks.
Wildlife Refuge
• Proposed mitigation for the impact from overflights of the refuge is to assign the northerly
parallel runway as the preferred runway for touch and go training. This is in conflict with the
Staff Comments on Draft EIS for Flying Cloud Airport
January 27,2000
Page 8
Noise Mitigation Plan. The FAA control tower does not dictate specific runway use to pilots,
but rather directs them to the nearest runway. MAC needs to demonstrate how this proposed
runway assignment will be implemented and enforced.
Design, Art and Architectural Application
• The condition of a majority of the existing hangars on the field were build in the 1940's and
50's are in various levels of decay. MAC should acquire these hangars and redevelop with
new facilities.
• The document states that the south building area hangars will be visible to proposed
development to the south. Construction of the 20-foot berm identified in other sections of the
document needs to take place,however, is no guarantee that the hangars will be screened.
/0
EXPANSION OF FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT - DRAFT EIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scope of Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
The DEIS contains the evaluation of the impacts on the environment of the alternatives for
implementing the Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) Long-Term Comprehensive Plan and the no-action
alternative. These alternatives have been studied by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) and
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The DEIS also contains the measures proposed to mitigate
the potential adverse effects of the alternatives. The location of FCM is in the city of Eden Prairie in
Hennepin County, as shown on Figure ES-1, which is attached to the Executive Summary.
The Purpose of the Document
The purpose of this DEIS is to disclose the environmental impacts of the alternatives under
consideration, provide measures to mitigate potential adverse effects, and provide interested agencies
and the public with the information they need to participate in the state and federal review of the
alternatives.
•
This DEIS is both a state and federal document; it was prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Minnesota Environmental Review Program, and all portions
apply to each unless stated otherwise in the text.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The general purpose of the project is to implement the airport development plan that best satisfies the
year 2010 aviation needs of Flying Cloud Airport (FCM) and the Metropolitan Airports System, as
stated in the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide of the Metropolitan Council.
The specific purpose of the project is to implement the 1992 FCM Long-Term Comprehensive Plan
(LTCP) approved by the Metropolitan Council, which includes the following actions:
• acquire sufficient land to protect the airport from incompatible development
• provide sufficient hangar spaces to accommodate existing and future demand
• provide a runway with an effective length of 5,000 feet for takeoffs and landings to induce
appropriate general aviation aircraft to use FCM instead of the Minneapolis-Saint Paul
International Airport (MSP), and provide the associated taxiways and navigational aids,
consistent with FAA standards
• provide a parallel 3,900-foot runway , and
• revise MAC Ordinance 51 to allow maximum utilization of the 5,000-foot runway by general
aviation jet aircraft. (Ordinance 51 restricts use of FCM by jet aircraft to 20,000 pounds or less
maximum takeoff weight.)
FCM is classified as a general aviation Minor Airport in the Metropolitan Airports System (see Aviation
Chapter, Metropolitan Development Guide, Metropolitan Council, adopted December 19, 1996). The
Metropolitan Airports System (shown in Figure 2 in Appendix C) consists of
• Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport (MSP), the Major Airport which provides the
primary scheduled commercial airline passenger service in the region,
• St. Paul Downtown Airport, the Intermediate Airport which is the primary reliever airport for
MSP and provides service for the larger general-aviation business jets and smaller commercial
airline jets that require runways between 5,000 and 8,000 feet,
• Six Minor Airports including FCM. A Minor Airport is a secondary reliever airport for MSP and
provides service for business aircraft, flight training, air taxi, personal use and recreation, and
the military. It is to provide the facilities necessary to accommodate access to the state, the
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
1I
region and the nation, but its runway length cannot exceed 5,000 feet in accordance with
state law.
• Three special purpose airports serving recreational aircraft or waterborne aircraft (seaplanes).
The existing primary runway (Runway 9R/27L) is approximately 3,900 feet in length. This runway
length is inadequate to provide efficient general-aviation air taxi and business aircraft access to the
nation. The FAA has developed runway length design curves for business jet aircraft of approximately
40,000 pounds and less maximum gross takeoff weight (MTOW). These are Design Group II aircraft.
The minimum runway design length was derived from these design curves for 75 percent of the fleet
at a 60 percent useful load. When applying this curve data to conditions at FCM, a runway length of
5,500 feet is required. At FCM, however, the maximum length of runway is limited by state law to
5,000 feet. A 5,000-foot runway at FCM will therefore be less than what is needed for full utilization
under all conditions, by all of the light-to-medium size business jets represented by the FAA's design
charts. A listing of the light-to-medium size business jet aircraft is presented in Table ES-1. Assuming
effective utilization at 60% of load capacity, and factoring in the current airport access weight limits
under Ordinance 51, only 15 of 37 jets could effectively operate at existing FCM because of the
length of the runway and the conditions footnoted in Table ES-1. The Sabreliner 80 could possibly
also operate effectively but there is no record of its empty weight. With a 5,000-foot runway, 22 of
the jets could effectively operate at FCM under Ordinance 51 (20,000-pound takeoff limit), and 35 of
the jets could effectively operate at FCM if there were no weight restriction.
Six of the business jet aircraft types in Table ES-1 are currently based at FCM. Three of the six can
operate at full load on the existing 3,900-foot runway (Cessna 500, 501 and 525). The other three
(Cessna 550, Beechjet 400 and Beechjet 400A) are typically used to carry passengers and/or products
to east coast destinations such as New York, Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, as well as west coast
destinations such as Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. These based aircraft types must reduce
their weight (have less fuel and/or fewer passengers), especially during the summer months, in order
to ensure a safe takeoff. The 3,900-foot runway length at FCM requires that these based aircraft
stop at an airport with an adequate runway length to pick up additional fuel and/or passengers, when
making long distance trips. This intermediate stop is frequently made at MSP, which is inconsistent
with the purpose of a reliever airport. A December 1999 survey of three FCM Fixed Base Operators
(FB0s) found that on an average weekday there are 16 flights from FCM that pick up and drop off
their passengers at MSP, primarily because of the inadequate length of the runway. This results in 32
operations per day and over 8,300 per year at MSP.
The inadequate length of the existing primary runway at FCM also encourages businesses wanting
efficient access to the nation and located in the southwestern area of the region to base their aircraft
at MSP — which is inconsistent with the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide.
Policy 6 of the Aviation Chapter urges MAC to provide the facilities needed by general aviation
operators and to maintain all of its reliever airports at a high level of operational readiness. If
experience indicates that further inducements are necessary to encourage greater use of reliever
airports, the MAC should use financial inducements that would make it more economical to use the
reliever airports than the major airport. A 5,000-foot runway and additional hangar space are facility
improvements that operators at FCM have repeatedly stated are needed for the airport to have a high
level of operational readiness. These improvements would provide an inducement for business aircraft
to not use MSP.
A further inducement for business aircraft to not use MSP would be the relaxation of the 20,000-
pound weight limit on takeoffs in Ordinance 51. Although the provision of a 5,000-foot runway
would benefit existing based aircraft, Ordinance 51 prohibits the use of FCM by business jets with
takeoff weights greater than 20,000 pounds. The 1978 Ordinance 51 is outmoded for its intended
purpose of controlling jet noise. Advances in engine and aerospace technology since 1978 have
resulted in the production of jet aircraft that weigh more than 20,000 pounds when empty and emit
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
y
Table ES-1 Business Jet Utilization of 3,900'and 5,000'Runways
Can
BEW(2) MTOW(3) 3900'Rwy.(4) 5000'Rwy.(4) 60%of Full Effectively
No. Business Jet Make and Model Stage(1) (lbs.) (lbs.) MTOW(lbs.) MTOW(lbs.) Load(lbs.) Use
Existing
FCM?
1 CANADAIR 600W 3 23,385 41,400 34,000 37,500 34,194 No
2 CANADAIR CHALLENGER 604 3 26,630 48,200 36,500 41,750 39,572 No
3 CESSNA 500 CITATION I# 3 6,782 11,850 11,850 11,850 9,823 Yes
4 CESSNA 501 CITATION I# 3 6,782 11,850 11,850 11,850 9,823 Yes
5 CESSNA 525 CITATION # 3 6,000 11,850 11,850 11,850 9,510 Yes
6 CESSNA 550 CITATION II# 3 7,416 14,100 12,000 13,500 11,426 Yes
7 CESSNA 560 CITATION V 3 9,250 15,900 15,500 15,900 13,240 Yes
8 CESSNA 650 CITATION III 3 11,811 21,000 16,000 18,000 17,324 No
9 CESSNA 650 CITATION VII 3 11,770 23,000 17,000 20,000 18,508 No
10 CESSNA 750 CITATION X 3 19,376 35,700 23,000 30,000 29,170 No
11 DASSAULT FALCON 10 3 10,800 19,400 16,800 18,800 15,960 Yes
12 DASSAULT FALCON 200 3 18,800 32,000 25,200 28,800 26,720 No
13 DASSAULT FALCON 2000 3 20,735 36,000 27,600 32,000 29,894 No
14 DASSAULT FALCON 20-G 3 16,600 31,000 cannot use cannot use 25,240 No
, 15 DASSAULT FALCON 50 3 21,125 38,800 32,000 36,800 31,730 No
16 DASSAULT FALCON 900E 3 22,611 46,500 cannot use 37,800 36,944 No
17 ISRAEL 1124A WESTWIND 2 2 13,250 23,500 18,397 21,327 19,400 No
18 ISRAEL ASTRA SP 3 , 13,225 23,500 17,687 20,647 19,390 No
19 LEARJET 24F 2 7,130 13,500 13,500 13,500 10,952 Yes
20 LEARJET 25D 2 7,640 15,000 13,500 15,000 12,056 Yes
21 LEARJET31A 3 10,588 16,500 15,000 17,000 14,135 Yes
22 LEARJET 35A/36A 3 9,838 18,000 14.000 16,000 14,735 No
23 LEARJET 55C 3 12,622 21,000 16,000 18,000 17,649 No
24 LEARJET 60 3 14,038 22,750 16,000 19,000 19,265 No
25 MITSUBISHI MU 300-10 DIAMOND 3 8,248 15,780 14,052 15,780 12,767 Yes
26 RAYTHEON BEECHJET 400# 3 9,900 15,780 14,502 15,780 13,428 Yes
27 RAYTHEON BEECHJET400A# 3 10,450 16,100 14,858 16,100 13,840 Yes
28 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-1000 3 18,000 31,000 cannot use 28,000 25,800 No
29 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-F1A 3 11,600 21,450 19,200 21,450 17,510 Yes
30 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-F3A/RA 3 12,800 23,600 19,200 21,450 19,280 Yes
31 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-F400 3 12,800 23,600 19,200 21,450 19,280 Yes
32 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-700 3 12,845 25,500 19,600 21,700 20,438 No
33 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-800 3 14,720 27,400 20,400 23,200 22,328 No
34 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-800XP 3 16,270 28,120 cannot use 25,670 23,380 No
35 ROCKWELL SABRELINER 40 2 11,250 18,650 15,500 17,800 15,690 No
36 ROCKWELL SABRELINER 65 3 13,754 24,000 18,600 20,600 19,902 No
37 ROCKWELL SABRELINER 80 2 N.A. 23,300 19,200 22,000 ? ?
#-BASED AT FCM(10-99); N.A.-NOT AVAILABLE
(1)SOURCE:FAA ADVISORY CIRCULAR 36-1G"NOISE LEVELS FOR U.S.CERTIFICATED&FOREIGN AIRCRAFT'APPENDIX 3.
(2)BASIC EMPTY WEIGHT(BEW)INCLUDES STANDARD AIRCRAFT AVIONICS,PAINT,INTERIOR,SINGLE-POINT REFUELING,
THRUST REVERSERS,TRAPPED FLUIDS,UNUSABLE FUEL AND OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE.
(3)MAXIMUM TAKEOFF WEIGHT(MTOW)FROM AC 150/5300-13 AIRPORT DESIGN APPENDIX 13,AEROSPACE SOURCE BOOK AS
PUBLISHED BY AWST(JANUARY 11,1999),NC MANUFACTURERS DATA,JANE'S ALL THE WORLD'S AIRCRAFT,BUSINESS&
COMMERCIAL AVIATION(MAY,1990)AND FAA ADV.CIRCULAR 36-1G"NOISE LEVELS FOR U.S.CERTIFICATED&FOREIGN
AIRCRAFT,"APPENDIX 3.
(4)GENERALLY 7 to 15 DEGREE FLAPS,ANTI-ICE OFF,NO WIND CONDITION,AND DRY RUNWAY AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
CURVES USED(REFERENCING SHORTEST LENGTH WITHOUT INTERPOLATION).
NOTE: REQUIRED RUNWAY LENGTH ASSUMING APPROXIMATELY 85 DEGREES F,906'MSL,NO WIND AND 15 OR 20 DEGREES
FLAPS. LENGTH CALCULATED BASED ON MANUFACTURERS'STANDARD LENGTH REQUIREMENTS AT SEA LEVEL AND 59
DEGREES F AND ADJUSTED FOR OPERATING CONDITIONS USING A PLANNING FACTOR OF+0.5%PER DEGREE F ADDITIONAL
RUNWAY LENGTH ABOVE 59 DEGREES F AND+7%PER 1000 FEET ALTITUDE ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL(MSL).
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
13
less noise on takeoff than their older counterparts. Ordinance 51 is also difficult to enforce, since
aircraft are not weighed prior to takeoff; the takeoff weight is left to the judgement of the pilot based
on destination (amount of fuel), number of passengers and weather conditions. It would be relatively
simple to enforce a criterion based on the empty weight of the aircraft since it is published by the -
manufacturer of the aircraft.
The other existing parallel runway (Runway 9L/27R) is 3,600 feet in length. The proposed runway
extension to 3,900 feet would increase the capacity and improve the operation of FCM. The FAA
required length for a.General Utility 1 runway is 3,900 feet. Extending the runway and providing a
taxiway connection between Runways 9L and 9R would enable the tower to utilize both runways and
expedite departures of aircraft that require a 3,900-foot or less runway. The extension would be
constructed first, thereby satisfying the need to accommodate the existing aircraft requiring a 3,900-
foot runway during construction of the Runway 9R extension. It would also provide for these aircraft
when Runway 9R is closed for maintenance and snow removal.
Currently, there is no hangar space available at FCM. There is a waiting list of persons requesting
space; the waiting list has fluctuated between 50 and 100 spaces over the past several years.
Businesses with aircraft operating at MSP have told MAC staff they would relocate to FCM if hangar
space is available and the runway is lengthened to 5,000 feet.
The Metropolitan Council analyzed the demand and capacity of the reliever airport system in a 1990
Regional Reliever Airport Study and recommended needed improvements at individual airports based
on that analysis., The study recommended an expanded building area and extension of the primary
runway (Runway 9R-27L) at FCM. The Metropolitan Council also addressed the need for the
expanded building area and extension of the primary runway to 5,000 feet in its approval of the FCM
LTCP in April 1996 (see report in Appendix A.8). The Council stated that FCM...was one of the first
airports in the region and has had a more sophisticated mix of aircraft types than many of the other
general aviation airports. It is projected that the mix will be increasingly more sophisticated, and will
require improved services and longer runways. The Council further stated that...expansion at Flying
Cloud is critical to meet the demand from growth in the western suburbs — and cited the substantial
private development that has occurred/is occurring in Edina, West Bloomington, Minnetonka, Eden
Prairie, Chanhassen, Shakopee and Chaska. It also stated that the proposed expansion at FCM is in
keeping with other public infrastructure expansion recently completed or planned in the southwest
metro area — including 1-494, I-35W, Trunk Highway (TH) 5, TH 62 Crosstown Highway extension,
future TH 212 and the Lake Ann interceptor.
Another need for the proposed 5,000-foot runway is related to aircraft insurance policies. Insurance
policies for corporations operating aircraft for business purposes are generally written to require
operation on runways of at least 5,000 feet in length. Insurance companies have determined since
the 1970s that this length represents the least amount of risk for all concerned parties. Because of
this requirement, some transient aircraft that could utilize FCM must land and depart at other nearby
airports, such as MSP.
There is also a need to acquire land to protect FCM from incompatible development. There is vacant
land west and south of FCM that is owned by developers and proposed for residential development.
Close-in residential development is incompatible with long-term airport development plans and with
noise generated by normal aircraft operations.
Alternatives Considered to Meet Project Purpose and Need
When considering how to meet the purpose and need for the project, a number of alternatives were
analyzed. The project or proposed action is to develop a new south building area on the airport and to
increase the lengths of the existing parallel runways 9R/27L and 9L/27R. Runway 9R/27L is currently
3,900 feet in length and Runway 9L/27R is 3,600 feet in length. The east end of Runway 9R/27L
would be shifted 120 feet to the west and 1,220 feet would then be added for a total runway length
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
19
of 5,000 feet. The 120 feet of existing pavement at the east end of the runway would be removed in
order to provide an object-free area 600 feet in length off the east end of the runway. FAA standards
for a 5,000-foot runway require an area with this length to be free of objects that pose a safety _
problem for landing and departing aircraft. TH 212 and its fence would intrude about 120 feet into
this area if the runway were not shifted to the west.
Runway 9L/27R would be extended 300 feet to the west to a final length of 3,900 feet. No
extension of the existing crosswind Runway 18/36 is proposed.
The proposed action also includes the acquisition of approximately 76.1 acres of land and 24 acres of
avigation easements for approach protection in the expanded Minnesota Department of Transportation
(Mn/DOT) Safety Zone B for Runway 9R west of the airport (see Figure ES-2). Acquisition of the land
is in process in order to prevent residential development.
The proposed action also includes a new airport access road from County Road 4 to connect with the
new south building area. A berm approximately 20 feet in height may also be constructed south of
the building area, if needed to shield adjacent future development and views from below the bluff
from the airport. The proposed action is shown in Figure ES-2.
Four alternatives are under consideration in the DEIS for detailed analysis — Alternatives C, D, E and
No Action. The proposed action alternatives, Alternatives C, D and E, each contain restrictions on the
use of FCM by jet aircraft because of the existence of MAC Ordinance 51(see Appendix A.4 in this
DEIS), which was adopted prior to the issuance of the FAA regulation prohibiting such restrictions
without adequate analysis and public notice -- Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 161. (See
discussion of FAR Part 161 on page xii.)
Alternative C
Alternative C is the proposed action with the current restriction on use of the airport by jet aircraft to
those with 20,000 pounds or less maximum takeoff weight, as specified in existing Ordinance 51.
Alternative D
Alternative D is the proposed action with use of the airport by jet aircraft with 30,000 pounds or less
maximum takeoff weight. Alternative D would change the Ordinance 51 restriction of 20,000 pounds
or less maximum takeoff weight to 30,000 pounds or less maximum takeoff weight.
Alternative E (MAC Preferred Alternative)
Alternative E is the alternative proposed and preferred by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and
recommended by the FCM EIS Noise Mitigation Committee as a revision to Ordinance 51 along with
the FCM EIS Noise Mitigation Plan. The FCM EIS Noise Mitigation Committee was comprised of
representatives from MAC, FAA, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Metropolitan Council, Eden Prairie,
Bloomington, Shakopee and FCM users. Alternative E is the proposed action with use of the airport
by Stage III jet aircraft of 22,500 pounds or less basic empty weight; other jet aircraft would continue
to be restricted to 20,000 pounds or less maximum takeoff weight. The difference from Alternative C
is that Alternative E would revise Ordinance 51 to allow Stage III aircraft with no more than 22,500
pounds of basic empty weight to use the airport. Basic empty weight is essentially the weight of the
aircraft without fuel, pilot(s) and passengers.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative represents the course of action that would be pursued in the absence of
the implementation of the proposed action. It assumes the optimal use of the existing and planned
airport infrastructure and incorporates all improvements to the airport infrastructure currently
underway or funded. It is not intended to be a "do nothing" course of action with no impacts. There
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
t 5
would be an increase in aircraft operations compared with the 1996 existing condition, which would
result in adverse noise impacts.
The No Action Alternative would retain the existing runways and associated airfield and landside -
facilities. It includes all committed and funded capital projects for FCM in the 1998 and 1999 MAC
Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs). These CIPs contain projects of approximately 106.3 acres of
land acquisition to eliminate incompatible development within the existing state safety zones for
Runway 27L east of Eden Prairie Road, and land acquisition of about 72.4 acres to provide a buffer
zone for development south of the airport and provide land for the new south building area
development in the proposed action alternatives.
The connection of FCM to the Eden Prairie sanitary sewer and water system is also included in the No
Action Alternative and the proposed action alternatives. The No Action Alternative is shown in Figure
ES-3.
The No Action Alternative did not include the land acquisition for the buffer zone and new south
building area development in the formal scoping for the project (see Scoping Decision, March 1998).
The MAC subsequently determined that it would proceed with the land acquisition and, subject to
environmental review, development of the new south building area whether or not the runway was
expanded to 5,000 feet. MAC has received numerous requests for hangar space at FCM over the
past several years and the waiting list fluctuates between 50 and 100 spaces. No significant adverse
impacts from the acquisition of this vacant land have been identified. The environmental impacts
from the development of the new south building area and the operations of the additional based
aircraft are included under the proposed action alternatives because, in accordance with FAA
guidance, the No Action Alternative should only include actions that either have no significant adverse
impacts on the environment or the impacts have been previously reviewed in an environmental
document.
Alternatives Eliminated
There were two alternatives identified in scoping that are eliminated in this DEIS — Alternatives A and
B. Alternatives A and B would extend both parallel runways and utilize declared distances for some
arrivals and departures on Runway 9R/27L. The longer of the two runways (Runway 9R/27L) would
be extended 1,100 feet to the west for a final length of 5,000 feet; the existing length is 3,900 feet.
The other runway, Runway 9L/27R, would be extended 300 feet to the west to a final length of
3,900 feet; the existing length is 3,600 feet. No extension of the existing crosswind Runway 18/36
is proposed. A FAA-required safety area would extend 600 feet off the east end of Runway 9R/27L
and include a portion of TH 212 (see Figure ES-4). TH 212 and its fence intrude about 120 feet into
this area. This area must be free of objects that could pose a safety problem for landing and
departing aircraft. In order to maintain this 600-foot long area without moving the end of the runway
to the west, the east end of Runway 9R/27L would have to be striped for a distance of 120 feet, and
departures and landings on 9R and landings on 27L would have 4,880 feet (5,000 - 120) of available
runway. This is called a declared distance that pilots would have to observe for these operations.
Only departures on 27L would have the full 5,000 feet available.
As in the proposed action alternatives, the new south building area and access road would be
developed and land would generally be acquired for expansion of state Safety Zones A and B and
navigational aids at the west ends of the extended runways. The lights associated with the
• navigational aids include MALSR lights at the west end of the south parallel runway.
Alternative A would retain the current limitation on use of the airport to aircraft with not more than
20,000 pounds maximum gross takeoff weight and Alternative B would allow aircraft with not more
than 30,000 pounds maximum gross takeoff weight.
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
The only physical difference between Alternatives A and B and Alternatives C, D and E is the final
location of the west end of the extension of Runway 9R/27L-which would be 120 feet farther west
for Alternatives C, D and E than for Alternatives A and B.
Alternatives A and B are eliminated as a result of a November 19, 1997 FAA letter to MAC
commenting on MAC's proposed Airport Layout Plan (ALP) for Alternatives A and B. FAA stated that
the use of declared distances is allowable at "constrained" airports on a case-by-case basis.
However, FAA questioned the justification that FCM is constrained since there is no physical
impediment to shifting the runway 120 feet to the west and thereby achieving an unrestricted 5,000-
foot runway. It is noted that the 1989 FCM Master Plan had incorporated a 500-foot shift to the •
west to be consistent with the FAA standards at that time and received public opposition to the
proposed shift. MAC updated the Master Plan in October 1992 with no shift and the use of declared
distances. The controversial Master Plan was finally approved by the Metropolitan Council in April
1996. MAC submitted the ALP in August 1996 with declared distances, on the basis that FCM was
constrained by public opposition and the approved Master Plan. If either alternative C, D, or E is
approved, the ALP will be updated to show the 120-foot shift to the west, as already disclosed for
each of these proposed alternatives. This is a compromise with the general public, and satisfies
FAA's design standards.
MAC agrees with FAA that the use of declared distances should not be allowed except in very
unusual circumstances, and that FCM would be a safer airport without the use of striping and pilot
notification for declared distances. Also, the purpose and need for the proposed action is a runway
with an effective length of 5,000 feet, which could not be achieved by Alternative A or B.
The land acquisition costs for Alternatives A and B would be the same as for Alternatives C, D and E,
and the differences in environmental impacts would be those affected by the 120-foot shift, which
are not significant.
Evaluation of Alternatives
One primary purpose of the project/proposed action is to induce general aviation aircraft to not use
MSP. Alternatives C, D and E extend the existing 3,900-foot primary runway to 5,000 feet, which
can accommodate most of the light-to-medium size corporate jet aircraft fleet. As shown in Table ES-
2, Alternative E could effectively accommodate 32 of the 37 light-to-medium size corporate jet aircraft
- compared to 31 for Alternative D, 23 for Alternative C and 15 for No Action. Alternative E is
forecast to accommodate 24,440 business jet operations in 2010 compared to 23,644 for Alternative
D, 17,647 for Alternative C and 8,659-for No Action. Alternative E would therefore provide more
inducement for diversion from MSP than Alternatives C and D. Alternative C would provide much less
inducement than Alternative D. The No Action Alternative would not achieve the purpose and need
for the project since it would represent little change in the current situation.
The alternatives were examined for impacts in the following environmental categories:
Air quality, archaeological resources, biotic communities, bird-aircraft hazards, compatible land use,
construction impacts, coastal barriers, coastal zone management program, endangered and threatened
species, economic, energy supply and natural resources, environmental justice, farmland, floodplains,
historic/architectural and archaeological resources, induced socioeconomic impacts, light emissions,
noise, social, Section 4(f), solid and hazardous waste and wastewater impacts, visual impacts,
surface water quality, groundwater quality, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, and wildlife refuges.
Below is a summary highlighting some of the major findings. A matrix summarizing impacts of the
alternatives is on pages xiv, xv and xvi. More detail on the impacts of the alternatives is found in
Section V of the DEIS.
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
• Natural Environment — Impacts of the proposed action alternatives and the No Action Alternative
on the natural environment are not significant (air quality, biotic communities, endangered and
threatened species, floodplains, parks, recreation areas, water quality, wetlands, and wild and
scenic rivers).
• Economic — The development cost to implement the proposed action alternatives is $26.9 million
in 1999 dollars. The capital cost of the No Action Alternative is $22.8 million for committed
projects in the MAC 1998 and 1999 Capital Improvement Programs. The cumulative development
cost of FCM is $49.7 million. The impact of the alternatives on the Eden Prairie and School
District 272 199.8 tax base would be less than 0.1%. When considering direct and indirect
benefits and costs through the year 2022, Alternative C would have a benefit-cost ratio of 0.93,
Alternative D 1.56 and Alternative E 1.59 relative to No Action.
• Compatible Land Use — All alternatives would make some existing and planned residential land use,
incompatible with aircraft noise (DNL 65 and greater). Alternative C would make 14.8 acres of
existing residential and 68.5 acres of planned residential incompatible; Alternative D 23.5 and
80.8 acres, Alternative E 29.6 and 81.5 acres — compared to 11.3 and 21.8 acres for No Action.
• Noise — In terms of noise levels of Day Night Level (DNL) '65 and greater in 2010: Alternative C
would expose 25 dwellings (about 70 residents) to these levels, Alternative D would expose 30
dwellings (about 85 residents) and Alternative E would expose 39 dwellings (about 110 residents)
-- compared to 21 dwellings (about 59 residents) for No Action.
' • Social — The proposed action alternatives would displace 4 households and no businesses. The
No Action Alternative would not displace any households or businesses.
• Historic — The proposed action alternatives and No Action would not have an adverse effect on
historic properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
• Wildlife Refuge -- No significant adverse impact has been determined for any alternative; however,
the projected increase in flights less than 2,000 feet over the refuge in 2010 due to the proposed
action alternatives is more than 2,000 per month greater than the No Action Alternative.
• Bird-Aircraft Hazards -- The proposed action alternatives are projected to have about 3,600 more
flights than the No Action Alternative in 2010 over areas where birds congregate at elevations
less than 2,000 feet above ground level (AGL).
Mitigation
Noise
The significant adverse noise impacts of the proposed action alternatives could be mitigated by a
number of measures. The MAC established an FCM EIS Noise Mitigation Committee to determine
appropriate measures that would mitigate the impacts. The committee recommended a Noise
. Mitigation Plan to MAC and MAC approved the plan for inclusion in the DEIS for public review and
comment. The plan consists of the following 10 mitigation measures.
1. Preferential Use of Runways — When winds, weather or traffic conditions do not otherwise dictate
the use of the runways at FCM, the FAA tower will normally use the runways in the following
priority:
• The calm wind runway is 9R
• Arrivals — 9R, 9L, 27L, 27R, 36, 18
• Departures — 9R, 9L, 27L, 27R, 18, 36
• Jet Arrivals and Departures — 9R, 27L
2. Preferential Departure Routes — All departures on Runway 9R/27L will be encouraged to use
headings of 130 degrees clockwise to 230 degrees, unless precluded by other traffic or weather
considerations. Unless otherwise instructed by Air Traffic Control (ATC), turbojet aircraft
departing 9R/27L shall be encouraged to turn to the southerly headings after crossing the
departure end of the runway and attaining an altitude of 500 feet above ground level (AGL).
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
Table ES-2 Business Jet Utilization by Alternative
Able to Effectively Operate Under Alternative? _
No. Business Jet Make and Model Stage
No Action C D E
1 CANADAIR 600W 3 No No No No
2 CANADAIR CHALLENGER 604 3 No No No No
3 CESSNA 500 CITATION I# 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
4 CESSNA 501 CITATION I# 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
5 CESSNA 525 CITATION # 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
6 CESSNA 550 CITATION II# 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
' 7 CESSNA 560 CITATION V 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
8 CESSNA 650 CITATION III 3 No Yes Yes Yes
9 CESSNA 650 CITATION VII 3 No Yes Yes Yes -
10 CESSNA 750 CITATION X 3 No No Yes Yes
11 DASSAULT FALCON 10 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
12 DASSAULT FALCON 200 3 No No Yes Yes
13 DASSAULT FALCON 2000 3 No No Yes Yes
14 DASSAULT FALCON 20-G 3 No No No No
15 DASSAULT FALCON 50 3 No No No Yes
16 DASSAULT FALCON 900E 3 No No No No
' 17 ISRAEL 1124A WESTWIND 2 2 No Yes Yes Yes
18 ISRAEL ASTRA SP 3 No Yes Yes Yes —
19 LEARJET 24F 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes
20 LEARJET 25D 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes
21 LEARJET 31A 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
22 LEARJET 35A/36A 3 No Yes .Yes Yes
23 LEARJET 55C 3 No Yes Yes Yes
24 LEARJET 60 3 No No No No
25 MITSUBISHI MU 300-10 DIAMOND 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
II
26 RAYTHEON BEECHJET 400# 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
27 RAYTHEON BEECHJET 400A# 3 - Yes Yes Yes Yes
28 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-1000 3 No No Yes Yes
29 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-F1A 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
30 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-F3A/RA 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
31 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-F400 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes
32 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-700 3 No No Yes Yes
33 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-800 3 No No Yes Yes
34 RAYTHEON HAWKER 125-800XP 3 No No Yes Yes
35 ROCKWELL SABRELINER 40 2 No Yes Yes Yes
36 ROCKWELL SABRELINER 65 3 No Yes Yes Yes
37 ROCKWELL SABRELINER 80 2 ? ? Yes Yes
#-Based at FCM(10-99)
•
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
•
Note: All jet departures are currently restricted to headings of 130 degrees clockwise to 230
degrees, in accordance with a Letter of Agreement between Flying Cloud Air Traffic Control Tower
(ATCT) and Minneapolis TRACON (M98), unless precluded by other traffic or weather considerations.
3. Voluntary Nighttime Use Agreement — During the hours of 2200 to 0600 local time, pilots are
asked to voluntarily comply with the following restrictions:
• All aircraft operators are encouraged not to fly during the nighttime hours of 2200 to
0600 local.
• No training may be conducted in the traffic pattern from midnight to 0600 local time
(which allows pilots to maintain nighttime proficiency requirements according to FAR Part
91). Multiple training events by jet aircraft are prohibited.
• Intersection takeoffs are discouraged at all times. No intersection takeoffs from 2200 to
0600 local time.
To encourage compliance with these voluntary restrictions, MAC will take the following actions:
• Seek letters of agreement from commercial operators and turbine aircraft operators.
• Notify all operators of based aircraft of the voluntary restrictions.
4. Maintenance Runups — During the control tower's published hours of operation the tower shall
• direct traffic to the following preferred runup areas:
• Runway 18/36 at the "No Name" taxiway (taxiway abeam the VOR (very high frequency omni-
directional radio range))
• Whenever practical, aircraft will conduct engine runups so the nose of the aircraft is on a 360-
clockwise to 030-degree heading.
• Maintenance engine runups are discouraged from 2200 to 0600 hours local time.
MAC will develop criteria to encourage compliance with these measures.
5. Incompatible New Development — MAC will acquire the incompatible undeveloped properties or
parcels in the current Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan that are within the 2010 DNL 65 noise
contour approved by FAA.
6. Incompatible Existing Land Use — Existing noise-sensitive structures within the 2010 DNL 65 noise
contour approved by FAA will have an exterior to interior sound reduction of 25 dBA (decibels on
the A-weighted scale). Existing noise-sensitive structures within the 2010 DNL 60 noise contour
approved by FAA will have an exterior to interior sound reduction of 20 dBA. Any required
insulation to meet these levels will be funded by MAC and initiated concurrent with runway
construction. (The exterior to interior sound reduction of 20 dBA in the DNL 60 Noise contour is a
local criterion.)
7. Incompatible Infill Development and Reconstruction or Additions to Existing Structures -- Infill
development and reconstruction or additions to existing noise-sensitive structures within the 2010
DNL 65 noise contour approved by FAA will be constructed to meet an interior sound level of 45
dBA. Infill development is a vacant parcel(s) of land surrounded by developed land as defined by
the Aviation Policy Plan of the Metropolitan Council.
The city of Eden Prairie will be responsible for permitting the new construction.
8. Airport User Information -- MAC will provide readily accessible information on the noise abatement
measures and procedures to airport users via the Internet, brochures, toll free 24-hour phone
information lines, U.S. Terminal Procedures handbook and airport facility directories.
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
9. Noise Violation Process - Aircraft operations in violation of noise abatement procedures or
Ordinance 51, or that result in complaints, will be handled according to the following procedures:
a. The airport manager will talk with the complainant to gather information about the activity.
b. The airport manager will investigate the matter to determine if the aircraft is operating from the
Flying Cloud Airport.
c. The airport manager will try to identify and locate the aircraft and/or operator to talk with the
individual, issue a verbal warning, written warning, enforcement of Ordinance 51, or other
measures that may be available to the airport manager.
d. Results of the actions taken by the airport manager will be reported to the Flying Cloud Airport
Advisory Commission.
•
10. Compliance with Ordinance 51 - All pilots using Flying Cloud Airport are required to adhere to
Ordinance 51.
Proposed revisions to Ordinance 51.
in addition to the above mitigation measures, the FCM EIS Noise Mitigation Committee recommended
the following revisions to Ordinance 51:
1. Jet aircraft not meeting FAR Part 36 Stage III certification requirements will not use the
airport between the nighttime hours of 2200 and 0600 local time. (See Note below.)
2. Maintenance runs for all aircraft will not be permitted after curfew hours (2200 to 0600
• . local time). (See Note below.)
3. Scheduled airline and FAR Part 121 cargo operators are not permitted at the airport. (See
Note below.)
The FCM EIS Noise Mitigation Committee also recommended that Ordinance 51 be.revised to permit
the use of FCM by Stage III jet aircraft with a basic empty weight no greater than 22,500 pounds -
which is Alternative E in this DEIS. (Ordinance 51 currently restricts use of FCM by jet aircraft to
20,000 pounds or less maximum takeoff weight.)
Note: Ordinance 51 Revision No. 1 would prohibit Stage II aircraft from using the airport during
nighttime hours. This revision is subject to notice and analysis procedures contained in 14 CFR Part
161 prior to implementation. Revision No. 2 also may limit the total number or hours of Stage II or
Stage ill aircraft operations and may therefore be subject to applicable Part 161 requirements.
Revision No. 3 is a restriction in the existing Ordinance 51, in effect since 1978, and predates
legislation governing Part 161. it is not subject to a Part 161 analysis. This restriction was reiterated
by the Committee for public understanding of the role and use of the airport.
In general, FAA opposes provisions that restrict aircraft access to airports. FAA regulations, FAR Part
161, provide a potential means by which Stage Ii and Stage III aircraft could be restricted if Part 161
comprehensive notice, analysis, and approval requirements are met. A Part 161 analysis and notice
would have to be prepared by MAC for the proposed Revisions No. 1 and 2, and for any other
modifications to existing Ordinance 51 that could further restrict use of FCM by Stage II or III aircraft,
before they could take effect. Restrictions on Stage III aircraft require FAA approval.
The proposed mandatory restrictions are not considered as mitigation measures in this DEIS. Their
implementation depends on MAC successfully complying with Part 161 and would be implemented
separately under local actions by MAC. The Part 161 study is a process separate from the EIS
process but is being done in concert with the EIS. However, it is expected that there will be voluntary
compliance in the interim.
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Bird-Aircraft Hazards
No significant adverse impact has been determined for any alternative; however, the projected
increase in flights less than 2,000 feet over the refuge in 2010 due to the proposed action alternatives
is more than 2,000 per month greater than the No Action Alternative - and is more than 3,600 flights
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
Xrat
less than 2,000 feet AGL over areas where birds congregate than No Action. As mitigation it is
proposed to designate the north parallel runway 9L/27R as the preferred runway for touch-and-go
training flights. Based on past experience on the operation of the airfield, about 90% of the touch-
and-go operations on the parallel runways could use the north parallel runway 9L/27R. This would -
direct about 4,000 monthly overflights, made by piston aircraft (no jets), from the refuge to fly north
over Red Rock Lake and residential and park areas where fewer birds congregate. The increase in
piston aircraft flights would increase Alternative E (with all mitigation) sound levels by DNL 2.9 dBA
within the DNL 50-55 contour over some residences, compared to No Action. This is not considered
a significant noise impact.
Public Involvement
The involvement of the public and government agencies in the preparation of this Draft EIS began
with scoping. The FAA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and to conduct public scoping,
which appeared in the October 31, 1997 Federal Register. The Minnesota Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) published a notice of the proposed project, the availability of the Scoping Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Draft Scoping Decision, and the public scoping meeting and
comment period in the November 3, 1997 EQB Monitor. The Draft Scoping Decision described the
alternatives proposed for analysis and the issues and impact categories that were proposed for
detailed analysis and those not proposed for detailed analysis based on the information in the Scoping
EAW.
A public scoping meeting on the Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision for the preparation of the
Draft EIS was held on December 4, 1997 in Eden Prairie. The Scoping Decision was adopted by the .
Commission on March 16, 1998 and included the responses to comments on the Scoping EAW and
Draft Scoping Decision. The following is a summary of the substantive issues and concerns identified
in the Scoping Decision and subsequently in the preparation of the DEIS:
1. The effectiveness of existing MAC Ordinance 51 in controlling jet noise at FCM
2. The noise impact of the 2010 forecasts on existing and planned residential land uses
3. The accuracy of the forecasts in general and business jet nighttime operations in particular,
and the sensitivity of the forecasts on noise levels in residential areas
4. The benefits of the proposed project in relation to its direct and indirect costs
5. The impact on the water quality of receiving waters
6. Visual effects
7. No increase in existing noise, which means no expansion of the airport that would result in
additional aircraft noise
8. The effects of additional flights over the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
The primary issue is aircraft noise. The city of Eden Prairie and residents have been concerned about
aircraft noise since the introduction of business jets in the 1970's. They have wanted the airport to
be a place primarily for single- and twin-engine piston aircraft. Eden Prairie's concerns and
negotiations with MAC led to MAC's adoption of FCM Ordinance 51 in 1978 to control jet noise by
setting a limit of 20,000 pounds on the weight of jet aircraft at takeoff.
The MAC established two committees of affected agencies, municipalities, airport users and local
citizen groups to provide input and advice on the preparation of this Draft EIS — the Flying Cloud
Airport EIS Advisory Committee and the Flying Cloud Airport EIS Noise Mitigation Committee. The EIS
Advisory Committee is principally comprised of staff members and the Noise Mitigation Committee
was principally comprised of policy representatives. Representation on the committees is listed in the
chart on the following page.
The MAC also has periodically published and distributed newsletters to inform agencies and the public
on the progress of the study. In addition, MAC established a web page on the Internet.
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
Implementation Schedule
All land acquisition is in process and should be completed in the year 2000. Land acquisition for
implementation of the proposed action is underway because of rapidly increasing land values and _
impending development. Site preparation of the new south building area would begin after completion
of the environmental review process and land acquisition in 2000. Construction of the access road to
the new south building area, runway extensions, taxiways and navigation aids would begin in 2001
and could be completed in 2002. Construction of the new hangars could begin in 2001, but are the
responsibility of the airport tenants and subject to their schedule.
Part 161 Process and Schedule
FAA regulation FAR Part 161 provides a potential means by which Stage II and Stage III aircraft
could be restricted if Part 161 comprehensive notice, analysis, and approval requirements are met.
The Part 161 process includes an analysis of the anticipated or actual costs and benefits of the
proposed restrictions compared to those of alternative measures that do not involve aircraft
restrictions. The analysis includes both based and transient aircraft that could use the proposed
FCM expansion. An environmental assessment of the impacts from the proposed restrictions is
required. A Notice of the proposed restrictions together with the analysis is to be provided to
existing and known potential users of FCM, airport tenants, fixed base operators, interested
community groups, business organizations, FAA, Metropolitan Council and the city of Eden Prairie.
There is a minimum 45-day comment period and a public hearing may be held.
A Part 161 analysis and Notice would have to be.prepared by MAC for the proposed revisions to
existing Ordinance 51 that could further restrict use of FCM by Stage II or Stage III aircraft.
Restrictions on Stage Ill aircraft require FAA approval.
The Part 161 study is a process separate from the EIS process but is being done in concert with the
EIS process. The analysis and Notice is tentatively scheduled for completion and distribution in March
2000. Following the comment period MAC will submit the analysis and Notice and responses to
comments to FAA. FAA has a 180-day review period.
EIS Committees
Flying Cloud Airport EIS Advisory Committee Flying Cloud Airport EIS Noise Mitigation
Committee
MAC Airport Planner, Chair MAC commissioner, Chair
FAA Airport Planner Metropolitan Council member
EQB Planner City of Eden Prairie mayor
Mn/DOT Aeronautics Planner City of Bloomington appointee
Metropolitan Council Aviation Planner City of Shakopee appointee
Eden Prairie Planner US Fish and Wildlife Service staff
FCM Fixed Base Operator FAA Airports Division
Zero Expansion member ( Eden Prairie citizen FAA Air Traffic Control Tower at FCM
group opposed to FCM expansion)
Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission 2 FCM users — Grand Casinos, Inc. and TCB Air
member (members appointed by Eden Prairie) Inc.
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
•
•
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Existing 2010 Condition
Criterion Condition Alternative
No Action C D E
Air Quality
Maximum 1-hour CO concentration
1. from on-airport sources at sensitive 6.2 6.4 7.5 7.7 7.7
receptors (ppm); Standards:
30 ppm State; 35 ppm Federal
Maximum 8-hour CO concentration
2. from on-airport sources at sensitive 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.6 3.6
receptors (ppm);
State/Federal Standard = 9 ppm
Total CO emissions from on-airport 1,214 1,276 1,560 1,567 1,568
3. sources (tons/yr.)
Impact 62 284 291 292
• 4. Total SOx emissions from on-airport 0.45 0.58 0.90 1.04 1.05
• sources (tons/yr.)
Total off-airport roadway CO
5. emissions from airport-related traffic 185 165 194 198 198
(tons/yr.) •
Biotic Communities
6. Number of acres of wildlife habitat 0 74 74 74
displaced.
Bird-Aircraft Hazards
Number of monthly aircraft
7. operations less than 2,000 feet over 15,060 15,737 19,269 19,404 19,411
areas where birds congregate.
Compatible Land Use
8. Number of acres of incompatible
•
land use in DNL 65+ contour:
Existing 0 11.3 14.8 23.5 29.6
Planned 0 21.8 68.5 _ 80.8 81.5
9. Number of acres of residential land
use in DNL 60-65 contour:
Existing 10.5 186.6 366.5 398.7 '419.3
Planned 14.8 92.4 259.4 290.5 294.2
Economic
10. Estimated development cost. $22.8 $26.9 $26.9 $26.9
(millions)
Note: Cumulative cost is $49.7
million
11. Tax revenue lost (based on taxes
payable in 1999): •
City of Eden Prairie $10,788 $58,556 $58,556 $58,556
School District 272 $1,342 $4,922 $4,922 $4,922
1998 tax capacity lost. 0.0099% 0.054% 0.054% 0.054%
12. Ratio of direct and indirect benefits
to direct and indirect costs, through 0.93 1.56 1.59
the year 2022 relative to No Action.
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
xy/��
•
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Existing 2010 Condition
Criterion - Condition Alternative
No Action C D E
Endangered and Threatened Species
13. Number of endangered, threatened 0 0 0 0 0
or special concern species in (1 exists-
Minnesota that would be disturbed. bald
eagle)
Energy Supply and Natural Resources
14. Additional supply of local energy None None None None
needed to accommodate projected
demand.
Environmental Justice
15. Is there an adverse impact from •No No No No No
noise or relocation on low income
households?
16. Is there an adverse impact from No No No No No
noise or relocation on minority
households?
Floodplains
17. Number of acres of encroachment or 0 0 0 0
filling of floodplain.
Historic, Architectural and Archaeological Resources
18. Number of individual properties on or
eligible for the National Register that 0 0 0 0
would be adversely effected.
19. Number of known archaeological
sites potentially eligible for the 0 0 0 0
National Register 'that would be
disturbed.
Induced Socioeconomic
20, Is there an expected change in No No No No
development pattern?
21. Is there an expected change in Yes Yes Yes Yes
demand for public services? FCM will connect to Eden Prairie water and sewer
Light Emissions
22. Effect of airport lights on nearby Minimal No Less than Less than Less than
residents. Change. No No No
Action. Action. Action.
Noise
23. Number of houses within the year
2010 DNL 65+ noise contour: 0 21
Without mitigation 25 30 39
With mitigation plan _ 10 16 16
24. Number of houses within the year
2010 DNL 60-65 noise contour: 24 257
Without mitigation 461 510 523
With mitigation plan 256 307 321
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
•
•
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Existing 2010 Condition
Criterion Condition Alternative
No Action C D E
25. Number of schools, places of 0 0 0 0 0
worship and parks within DNL 65+
contour. •
Section 4(f)
26. Number of public parks and 0 0 0 0 0
recreation areas adversely effected. _
Social
27. Number of households that would be 0 4 4 4
displaced.
28. Number of businesses and 0 0 0 0
employees that would be displaced.
Solid and Hazardous Waste
28. Are there sufficient processing and
disposal facilities available to Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
accommodate the waste generated?
Water Quality — Surface Water
29. Will there be sufficient storage Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
capacity to accommodate runoff?
•
30. Will pollutant discharges to receiving No No No No No
waters exceed MPCA levels?
Water Quality — Groundwater
31. Potential for adverse impacts on Low Minimal Minimal Minimal Minimal
groundwater quality.
Wetlands
32. Number of wetland acres displaced. 0 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuges
33. Number of monthly overflights less 7,885 8,323 10,320 10,574 10,573
than 2,000 feet.
34. Number of acres of environmental
• education and wildlife recreation 0 0 0 0 0
activity adversely affected by noise
within DNL 60+ contour.
Flying Cloud Airport Expansion Draft EIS
��6
c hi C
E kI wT
ca - 20
V = u- G7
a a
E
„a
c -
a)
- E
c ..
0
.>
c
w
Z
1 g
Z S 9
3g GW yN 2.2. g _ 1 3 u i
L.
Gn
" � ��� ga , PQ 1 g
a g.
® w g a —
eq gg gI ? D it ' O
4,t W
� W y g ii Y. P.
Q
'2 Y y "
Z 11 z_ oF L/
0
Q .g z g C) sow go
i _ 1 i § "L.§ s' a a mZt a P
QQ
G c Z a fa
9 1 a n g1 i o
alg i € g 0
s
g Z 'e , I g Wg i
�G4 W Wg Igo s I x
l z9 - Nn;
2 �G 3
o
i 3 U 90
z
1 3
y En
I
�r _
z.,a �e
el 46,
Q.
Q
O -
Ne
U
c F
u_ T
CAI it'IV.+ ern..-n-s-,."'..a.,,,,..i.3'.
PUSCI ACAC CSV/GWSVM-2AC 72/1/Al 1391
I - } \ i / l M
r i
N 3..1...♦ ♦.a♦ Q
pli
0 2 =4
Q al. STATE SAFE ��0;'�.0;�
f' / i•ZZNy
_• (
i ,
c
t-Ta.. J1 �
2p IONEA
m �
To
E.
4 Al
1 L.-----i
m /..--E-4--17,
oa ' //l II /// I - \
�$ 11 I Ill II /i
ma '( o� flu p /
• iC v Ill/ n
1
a� '111 I - % � � /8 c
'! " . % ill/
/ of a
Q A, 4-----J i I ,r,__,,_,,,.r ,=..::,,,r,_._.,
a 11 _��_,'
0 ri/r-,-F
irt '
ll O 11 ' ow -- /
111 J J��/��,1,.1440,0 . .. c:_____D i
g a Q \ , ,witiii!iiir� dI ' O N N
UP
/ (f) A*$/°
70
n 2
3g, u11(1.1141 _
n o m o o m I ..�
m \ Wiz"
m t RPI Ih a
0
2DryE.
A1a \ �� `C
E \ •
STATE sVEMII ~'- ` =
C
0
o —�
nu,
cp
in
SAFFEn ZONE I — c -(�j
c 7..........„............„..... ./ii*-I-:_-1
E --' _;"'- c._ ''. -- \ --- /
\I w ra
CD 1-
CO I- 2 k' t ji?-'-- ( 8_ 5,... 0
cu
c) I C lam- it c
o
o
CL
I.
a) )
o
._.
•> r 3bS 31b1S
W :p
_ O
d� U NO2 g'CT
1 i 31bys o)'C
' \ ' 3N0z i C m
• o wa
A.
e/
_ ti 3 :���
Q. N /
• sy ,
oaf . ..
a ,, ,
w<:r,_z //u] -7< d
d _ IA
jjo
a � N-- a�Air
;'� d WW
PT 'i L •' 'l
S_ Y._C W af.,.. -Alt):_____j
AillT �ilk `: 1 : IQ W W m
k_,
S r O I hko .-m m ..
—�I (4 t•-• 0 ", .., lI lok
f ` - -j� , Ia
9p J QO
1�...
/ 3bss �` •uNaz
!-Q
t g. 1
1i ( / ______
O �,,e,: may` /
Jr.�. FIl c� t �, 'a
/fi ...... \ o <
'Oiii Oi�i� s a
fT('
I �/ i� -_ 4
elr� W
' , 1 *— „ill,:.
n---- _
r^�C w .u.i/i c.vc-S31SIIMOU�93�Q�^.NVitaRW
cat 1
- ti ny--� -n
al D
ca
1:::*��**pia:•.:**�� 0
C 1)i(
tea************
• _ EDEN PR.VPoE R0. _ r*****♦ �• L—, D
ATE SAF ***-* 1, r. O
ZON- •/ r,"
c �0 ' P . 70 - ,'
ig `2 =s• • N ! l\ -)\ Uv \ ZOryY :
.g rl ! I`
I /-7- \ ,,
O \ ` L4T'
,\\ Jj
ZONE J 1
m Y_ �/"
L______i
I \ �- i
M ' I I I \ I—..."
0a I i / I '' /
1 0 Ir
�S .1 I A ' / l Ill ll C' / /_
II
1 / I IIII1 i , E�
D
I ;m II 1 •� � ,,,=a
v i� 4j l I ;l y I -,V
d
I l ��Jllr 1
Yr
%
vi h D mll ' / (r)ia�rri 11ti I � y �% - cI
.1/ p -An �
0:1-"Lij
MIT
r0C1
rQ
•♦ min) . /4� I � Zm_ In/ �•/ J O(.)
...
�/ / �; ( . V�
,____K›:,,,..J
/ .
/ 1
.....„ ,
K s\
. / 1 � //
y "5 `T�2
a RPZ A -C C
ra
4 0 I-
S4Tig, ( 11)\
• o I ZONE 0
STAT S.F
m
rzt
`• \ - E , ZONE A I \ 3
fD
m ,✓rn
1 Z2,Az i N
o. E 2 3
i
al
'.+. , \ STAT !/- y-,cI
�\. J
3(p t \ f 1 E SAFETY ZONE 1 '~
C �-t tl
t i 1
°.' m ,� r i i ,;
.�Q. M� -- ' ) . - - I , tom-- 3
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SECTION: Reports of Officers DATE: 02/01/00
Office of the City Manager
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Office of City Manager Boards and Commissions Interview Schedule
Chris Enger
Requested Action
Move to : Set February 22, 2000, from 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the City Center for Boards and
Commissions interviews.
Synopsis
Staff requests that the City Council conduct Boards and Commissions interviews on
February 22. Dinner and orientation from 5:30 to 6:30, interviews from 6:30 to
approximately 9:30.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Reports of Director Parks and Recreation Services February 1,2000
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Establishment of Third ITEM NO:
Parks and Recreation Rink Task Force
Robert A. Lambert Director C • (.
Requested Action
Staff requests the City Council appoint members to a Citizens Study Committee to evaluate the
feasibility of a third indoor ice rink.
Synopsis
At the December 21st Council Forum representatives of the Hockey Association requested the
City Council provide direction on how to proceed with investigating the feasibility and options
available to obtain a third ice skating rink in this community.
At that meeting, the City Council requested staff make recommendations to the City Council for
the makeup of the a study committee. The Council suggested that the committee include
expertise in the area of architecture, construction, and financing. City staff had recommended
representatives from the Hockey Association, Figure Skating Club, the School District, the Parks
and Recreation Commission, and four citizens at large interested in general recreation.
Proposed Appointments
City staff would recommend the following additional appointments to this study committee:
1. Hockey Association Representative-John Schmelzle
2. Architecture - Michael DeVetter, CEO of Schrock & DeVetter Architects, for the new
high school additions, theatre, gymnasiums, as well as the architect for the Lifetime
Fitness facility in Plymouth.
3. Construction—Gary Kramer,President of Kramer and Sons Construction Company
4. Finance—Brian Holcomb, Owner Holcomb and Green
5. Figure Skating—Maggie Ashby,President Figure Skating Club
1
City Council Agenda 2/1/2000
Appointments to the Third Rink Study Committee
Page 2
6. School District Representative—Steve Schultz,Director of Student Activities
7. Parks & Recreation Commission Representative — Pat Richard (previous chair of the
Parks Commission)
8. Four citizens at large interested in general recreation
City staff that would be involved in working with the committee would be Lyndell Frey,
Manager of the Community Center; Joel Klute, Ice Arena Coordinator; and Laurie Obiazor,
Manager of Recreation Services.
Background
The purpose of the committee would be to determine the need for a third rink by comparing
trends over the last 10 years, compared to K-12 numbers over the same period and projecting
those same trends over the next 10 years.
The committee would also be responsible for determining the financial feasibility of constructing
a third rink, as-well as determining supporting needs such as additional parking, etc. This
portion of the study may require some funding to pay for an architect to review the schematic
plan and cost estimates based on today's construction costs.
The Committee should also determine the number of hours that could be guaranteed to be sold to
the Eden Prairie Hockey Association and the Eden Prairie Figure Skating Club, the amount of
revenue from those hours and how large a revenue bond those funds would cover, as well as how
much additional operational costs the City could expect by adding a third rink to the existing
facility. The committee should also determine if it is feasible to add a third rink to the existing
building and where additional parking might be located, if additional parking is needed on that
site. The committee should determine the impact upon the viability and sustainability of the
third rink on the existing two (2) City rinks.
The City Council also recommended that the committee meet with representatives from
Lakeville (School District, City and Hockey Association), to determine how that Association
operates an arena without public funding assistance.
Staff would recommend this committee hold its first meeting in February and attempt to provide
a final report to the City Council no later than June 1,2000.
a
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
February 1,2000
SECTION: Ordinances &Resolutions
SERVICE AREA/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.:
Public Works/Engineering Street Name Change
Jim Richardson c. A,
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt the 1st reading of an Ordinance changing the name of Dell Road, south
of Pioneer Trail (approximately 2000 feet to its intersection with the new alignment of
Dell Road), to Stable Path.
Synopsis
Dell Road is being realigned at Pioneer Trail to line up with Dell Road on the north side of
Pioneer Trail.
Background Information
Dell Road presently has an offset at Pioneer Trail. With the Oakparke development this offset
will be eliminated. The alignment of the old portion of Dell Road will stay the same. There are
three single-family residents that will be affected by the name change. Consensus of the three
residents is to rename the road to Stable Path.
Staff is unaware of any conflict with the street name choice.
t
f l oNE6e TRA/L.
cC D
tko
1