HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 10/01/1996 AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1996 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock,
Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and
Nancy Tyra-Lukens
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant
City Manager Chris Enger, Director of
Parks, Recreation & Facilities Bob
Lambert, Director of Public Works
Eugene Dietz, City Attorney Roger Pauly,
and Council Recorder Jan Nelson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. OPEN PODIUM
III. MINUTES
A. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY
COMMISSION MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17,
1996
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
B. SET CANVASSING BOARD MEETING FOR TUESDAY,
NOVEMBER 7, 1996, 5:00 PM, CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
C. RESOLUTION APPOINTING STUDENT ELECTION JUDGES FOR
THE NOVEMBER 5, 1996 GENERAL ELECTION
City Council Agenda
Tuesday, October 1, 1996
Page Two
D. FOUNTAIN PLACE APARTMENTS PROJECT PHASE I. Approval
of Resolution Authorizing and Approving Execution and Filing
of IRS Form 8038, and Amending the Interest Rate and Certain
Other Provisions of the Documents Relating to the $20,900,000
Series 1987 Multifamily Housing Bonds
E. DEN ROAD COMMERCIAL CENTER by City of Eden Prairie.
Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 1.76 acres.
Location: Den Road and West 78th Street. (Resolution for Site
Plan Review)
F. BENT CREEK COVE by Taurus Properties, Inc. 2nd Reading of an
Ordinance for PUD District Review on 2.5 acres and Zoning District
Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 2.5 acres and Approval of a
Developer's Agreement for Bent Creek Cove by Taurus Properties,
Inc. Location: Valley View Road and Howard Lane. (Ordinance for
PUD District Review and Zoning District Change)
G. ST. ANDREW'S BLUFF by Jasper Development Corporation of
Waconia. 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to
RM-6.5 on 4.3 acres, Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review
on 4.3 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for St.
Andrew's Bluff for Jasper Development Corporation. Location: Baker
Road at St. Andrew Drive. (Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to
RM-6.5 and Resolution for Site Plan Review)
H. MITCHELL BAY TOWNHOMES by Noecker and Associates. 2nd
Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from RM-2.5
and R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 1.5 acres, Adoption of a Resolution for Site
Plan Review on 1.5 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement
for Mitchell Bay Townhomes. Location: Terrey Pine Drive.
(Ordinance for Zoning District Change and Resolution for Site
Plan Review)
I. REALITY INTERACTIVE by Oppidan Investment Company. 2nd
Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers on
6.42 acres and Zoning District Change from Rural to 1-2 on 6.42
acres, Adoption of a Site Plan Review on 6.42 acres and Approval of
a Developer's Agreement for Reality Interactive by Oppidan
Investment Company. Location: Equitable Drive. (Ordinance for
PUD District Review and Zoning District Change and Resolution
for Site Plan Review)
City Agenda
A enda
Tuesday, October 1, 1996
Page Three
J. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CSAH 62/TH101/DELL
ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, I.C. 52-103
K. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF RESEARCH
ADDITION (located at the Southwest Corner of Flying Cloud
Drive and Washington Avenue)
L. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF MITCHELL BAY
TOWNHOMES (located south of Terrey Pine Drive adjacent to
Mitchell Lake)
M. RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BEARPATH
TOWNHOMES 5TH ADDITION
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS
A. KOPESKY ADDITION by Wayne Kopesky. Request for Rezoning
from Rural to R1-13.5 on 5.32 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.32
acres into 13 lots. Location: West 82nd Street. (Ordinance for
Rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5 and Resolution for Preliminary
Plat) Continued from August 20, 1996
: B. TIRES PLUS by Tires Plus. Request for PUD Concept Amendment
Review on 15 acres, PUD District Review on 1.15 acres, Zoning
District Amendment in the Commercial Regional Service District on
1.15 acres and Site Plan Review on 1.15 acres. Location: Eden
Road and Glen Road. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review,
Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District
Amendment) Continued from September 17, 1996
C. THE HILLS OF EDEN PRAIRIE by Venku Corporation. Request for
Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.84 acres, Site
Plan Review on 14.84 acres and Preliminary Plat of 14.84 acres into
38 lots. Location: Bryant Lake Drive (Ordinance for Zoning
District Change, and Resolution for Preliminary Plat)
D. CAMP EDENWOOD by Friendship Ventures. Request for Site Plan
Review on 2 acres. Location: Indian Chief Road. (Resolution for
Site Plan Review)
City Council Agenda
Tuesday, October 1, 1996
Page Four
VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE
NOVEMBER 5, 1996 GENERAL ELECTION
VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
X. APPOINTMENTS
XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION & FACILITIES
D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XII. OTHER BUSINESS
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/
ENVIRONMENTAL & WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY, 6:30 PM, CITY CENTER Heritage Room IV
OCTOBER 1, 1996 8080 Mitchell Road
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald Case,
Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Blankenship, Tarif Jaber, Sabina Kitts, Reed
Larson,Rodney Miller, Rick Morgan, and Gordon
Warner
COUNCIL/COMMISSION City Manager Carl J. Jullie,Assistant City
STAFF: Manager Chris Enger, Director of Public Works
Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Jan
Nelson
ROLL CALL
I. INTRODUCTIONS
II. PRESENTATION/STATUS OF WORK PLAN
A. Revisions to City Code Section 2.20
B. Overview of 1996/1997 Objectives Work Plan
III. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES REQUIRING CITY COUNCIL INPUT
A. Fertilizer Ordinance
B. Water Conservation Ordinance
IV. CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION
V. ADJOURNMENT
DRAFT 9/26/96
SECTION 2.20. ENVIRONMENTAL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Source: Ordinance No.20.94
Effective Daie:
Snbd.1. Establishment and Composition. The Environmental and Waste Management Commission composed •
of seven(7) members is hereby established for the purpose of advising the Council in all matters concerning the
environment and their potential impact on the quality of life within the City. These issues involve aspects of waste
management, water quality, water conservation, air quality, land use and other relevant environmental concerns.
Commission members shall either be residents of the City or employed within the City; however,at least five(5)
of the members must be residents of Eden Prairie. The members shall be appointed as follows: each member will
be appointed for a period of three(3) years each. A term shall continue until the member's successor has been
appointed and qualified.
Subd.2. Duties. The duties of the Environmental and Waste Management Commission are to advise the Council
concerning the following:
A. Review and make recommendations regarding the management of environmental wastes: solid; liquid
(including sewage); hazardous, radioactive; and other wastes; and review and make recommendations
related to resource recovery and recyclables.
B. The Commission will advise the Council on waste management and all other issues directly and indirectly
affecting the air, water and land quality of the City in an effort to strike a reasonable balance between
environmental preservation and development.
C. Establish programs to disseminate information to residents regarding aspects of waste management practices
within the community to those actions.
D. Make recommendations regarding ways to improve, restore and protect the water quality of City lakes,
wetlands and creeks to ensure compatible uses desired by area residents and to maintain a healthy
environment.
E. Develop a strategy that can be used by the City to reach the community regarding the importance of
environmental stewardship. Such strategy will make use of civic organizations, schools, churches and
provide speakers, facilitators and educators for environmental issues. The Commission will advise the
Council on selection of the annual Environmental Quality Award to Eden Prairie business that exemplify
a sound environmental ethic.
F. The Commission will work with and keep informed about actions and requirements made by other units
of local, state, federal agencies and their impact upon the City.
Source: Ordinance No.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
1996/1997 Objectives and Work Plan
The Environmental and Waste Management Commission is committed to the goals of environmental
stewardship, sustainability, and improving land and water resources within the City of Eden Prairie.
The Commission sees its mission as helping to integrate these goals into the local and regional
governmental decision-making process. The Commission recognizes that, in order to be successful,
it must seek partnerships with all levels of local and regional government, as well as private
organizations and Eden Prairie's citizens.
The Commission's principal objective for 1996/1997 is to increase its level of participation in the area
of assisting and advising City Council, staff and other Commissions on environmental and waste
management issues. The Commission will also seek to increase its level of interaction with other local
agencies and authorities (Watershed Districts, State DNR, and MPCA). The following is a list of
opportunities that the Commission will address.
WATER QUALITY
The Commission seeks to improve,restore and protect the quality of water in City lakes, wetlands
and creeks to ensure compatible uses desired by residents and to maintain a healthy environment.
Goals and work efforts include:
• Serve as a working committee to develop (with the aid of a consultant) a City Water
Quality Plan. Beginning with the Watershed Districts' approved 509 Plan, anticipated
areas to be addressed in the City Plan will include:
Major wetland delineation
Water resources and wetland inventory
Best management practices in design, maintenance and new construction
Influence of septic systems on water basins
Integration of ordinance and policy changes with public education
- Identify strategies to integrate policy and practice into new development
projects
- Development of a capital improvement and maintenance strategy and five-year
plan
• Develop policy and ordinance recommendations for implementation of a ground water
protection plan being developed for the City by the Hennepin Conservation District.
• Develop and recommend for adoption by City Council a lawn chemical ordinance--
specifically to reduce phosphorus loadings to lakes, creeks and river.
• Interface and provide assistance to City staff and other Commissions to minimize the
conflict between sustainable development and water quality goals for protection of the
City's water resources.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND PUBLIC EDUCATION
It is the goal of the Commission to offer its expertise to civic organizations, schools, churches
etc., and provide speakers, facilitators, and educators for environmental issues. In addition, the
Commission provides videos, public service announcements, and environmental updates for public
access cable television. The Commission will periodically evaluate the need for new cable
television, radio announcements and educational materials. The Commission will assist City staff
in developing methods for conveying information to Eden Prairie residents on matters of
environmental stewardship. Areas of particular focus will be:
• Water conservation
• Water quality
• Recycling
• Value of native plant landscaping, buffer strips and unmanaged woodland and
prairie
WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION
The Commission will assist in the design of the educational space and outdoor wetland and native
plant exhibits proposed for the new water treatment plant. Our goal is to provide an interactive
educational space that promotes the following issues: water conservation, water quality, the
hydrological cycle, recycling, native plant landscaping, and lawn alternatives. The space will be
used by Eden Prairie students and other interested parties.
RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
The recycling program in Eden Prairie has been working quite well on "auto pilot". However,
the Commission will review current ordinance requirements and investigate the possibility of
adding additional recyclables, a multi-family recycling requirement and a commercial
requirement. Additionally, the Commission will initiate a task force process involving citizens
and waste haulers to evaluate the current collection system and its impact on neighborhoods and
streets.
ONGOING ACTIVITIES
• Environmental Quality Award - to recognize businesses in Eden Prairie that are exemplary
in their processes and practices to minimize the environmental impact of their operations.
• BFI Community Clean Up/Drop Off Day - to facilitate community and yard cleanup by
offering free or low-cost disposal of bulky wastes, lawn debris, and recyclables. The
Commission also uses the occasion to distribute environmental education materials to
residents.
• Earth Day - the Commission will continue to play a role in Earth Day and other associated
events by promoting or sponsoring environmental fairs and educational events.
• Coordination with Riley, Purgatory, Bluff Creek Watershed District Citizen Advisory
Committee.
• Identify opportunities and seek co-funding for environmental and waste management
opportunities and outreach.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
1996/1997 WORK PLAN
PROJECT/ACTIVITY JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE COORDINATOR*/
SUPPORT
1.Water Quality ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Miller*/Jaber,
-Wetland Delineation Blankenship,Larson,
-Best Mgmt.Practices
-Interface w/C.C.&
Comm.
-Groundwater
-Development Issues
2.Lawn Chem.Ord. ** ** ** Morgan*/Kitts,Larson
3.Water Cons.Ord. ** ** ** ** Morgan*
4.Community Outreach Kitts*/Warner,
-Water Qual.Video Blankenship
-Env.Quality Award ** ** **
-Environmental ** ** ** **
Messages ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
-Buffer Strips
-Native Plant Land-
scaping(Woodland/
Prairie)
5.WTP Expansion ** ** ** ** ** ** Warner*/Larson,Jaber
6. Spring Clean-up Day ** Miller*/
7.Earth Day ** Jaber*/
8.Coord w/R-P-B-Crk ** ** ** ** ** ** Blankenship*/
Watershed District
9.Cofunding Opportun Jaber*/Blankenship
10.Recycling/Solid Waste Kitts*/Jaber,Miller
11.Update City Code ** ** Blankenship*/
Sec.2.20 t
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. -96
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING CITY
CODE CHAPTER 5 BY ADDING SECTION 5 .45 RELATING TO LICENSING OF
COMMERCIAL LAWN FERTILIZER APPLICATORS; AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER
9 BY ADDING SECTION 9 .14 RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS UPON THE USE OF
LAWN FERTILIZER; AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND
SECTIONS 5 . 99 AND 9 . 99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS .
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1 . City Code Chapter 5 is amended by adding Section
5 .45 to read as follows :
"SECTION 5.45. COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER APPLICATORS.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The City has reviewed studies and existing
data to determine the current and projected water quality of
various lakes within its community. The data indicate that
lake water quality may be maintained and improved if the City
is able to reduce the amount of phosphorus containing
fertilizer entering the lakes as a result of storm water
runoff or other causes . The purpose of this Section and
Section 9 . 14 is to provide regulations which will aid the City
in managing and protecting its water resources which are
enjoyed by its residents and other users .
Subd. 2 . Definitions. For the purpose of this section,
certain terms and words are defined as follows :
A. "Commercial Fertilizer Applicator" is a person who is
engaged in the business of applying fertilizer for hire.
B. "Fertilizer" means a substance containing one or more
recognized plant nutrients that is used for its plant
nutrient content and designed for use or claimed to have
value in promoting plant growth. Fertilizer does not
include animal and vegetable manures that are not
manipulated, marl, lime, limestone, and other products
exempted by Rule by the Minnesota Commissioner of
Agriculture .
Subd. 3 . License Required. It is unlawful for any person to.
engage in the business of commercial fertilizer applicator
within the City without a license from the City.
-1-
Subd. 4. Exclusions. This Section does not apply to persons
who apply fertilizer for normal and ordinary farming and
agricultural operations .
Subd. 5 . License Application Procedure. Applications for a
commercial fertilizer applicator license shall, in addition to
containing the information required by this Chapter, include:
A. Formula. A description of the formula (s) of the
fertilizer (s) proposed to be applied within the City.
B. Time of Application . A time schedule for application of
fertilizer (s) and identification of weather conditions
acceptable for fertilizer applications .
C . State Licenses . A copy of all licenses required of the
applicant by the State of Minnesota regarding the
application of fertilizers .
Subd. 6 . Conditions of License. Commercial fertilizer
applicator licenses shall be issued subject to the following
conditions :
A. Random Sampling. Commercial fertilizer applicators shall
permit the City to sample fertilizers to be applied
within the City. The cost of analyzing fertilizer
samples taken from commercial fertilizer applicators
shall be paid by the commercial fertilizer applicator if
the sample analysis indicates that phosphorus content
exceeds the levels authorized herein.
B. Possession of License . A commercial fertilizer
applicator license, or a copy thereof, shall be in the
possession of any person employed by a commercial
fertilizer applicator when making fertilizer applications
within the City.
C . Possession of Product Material Safety Data Sheet . A copy
of Product Material Safety Data Sheet of fertilizer used
shall be in the possession of a person employed by a
commercial fertilizer applicator when making fertilizer
applications within the City.
D. Possession of Labels . A copy of the label (s) , including
product chemical analysis of the fertilizer (s) to be
applied.
E. State Regulations . Licensees shall comply with the.
applicable provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1994, Chapter
18C, as amended, which is adopted by reference.
-2-
F . City Regulations . Licensees shall comply with all
applicable provisions of the City Code, including §9 . 14 .
G. Notice. At least 24 hours prior to applying fertilizer
that contains phosphorus, licensees must notify City of
the fertilizer application, the reason for applying
phosphorous (which may be only those set forth in City
Code Section 9 . 14) , and the amount of phosphorous
contained in the fertilizer to be applied. "
Section 2 . City Code Chapter 9 is amended by adding Section
9 . 14 to read as follows :
"SECTION 9 .14 . RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO THE USE OF
FERTILIZER.
Subd. 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this Section,
certain terms and words are defined as follows :
A. "Commercial Fertilizer Applicator" is defined in Section
5 . 45 .
B. "Noncommercial Fertilizer Applicator" is a person who
applies fertilizer during the course of employment, but
who is not a Commercial Fertilizer Applicator.
C . The definitions contained in Minnesota Statutes 1994, as
§103E. 005, Subd. 1, as amended, are adopted by reference.
Subd. 2 . Exclusions. This Section does not apply to persons
who apply fertilizer for normal and ordinary farming and
agricultural operations .
Subd. 3. No Commercial Fertilizer Applicator or Noncommercial
Fertilizer Applicator shall :
A. Time of Application. Apply fertilizer when the ground is
frozen or when conditions exist which will promote or
create runoffs or between November 30 and April 1 of any
year.
B. Fertilizer Content . Apply fertilizer, liquid or
granular, containing phosphorous or compound containing
phosphorous, such as phosphate, except :
1 . naturally occurring phosphorous in unadulterated
natural or organic fertilizing products such as
yard waste compost;
2 . upon newly established or developed turf and lawn
areas during the first growing season; or
-3-
3 . upon turf and lawn areas which soil tests confirm
are below phosphorous levels established by the
University of Minnesota Extension Services . A lawn
fertilizer application shall not contain an amount
of phosphorous exceeding the amount of phosphorous
and the appropriate application rate recommended in
the soil test evaluation.
C . Impervious Surfaces . Apply fertilizer to impervious
surfaces .
Phosphorus applied as lawn fertilizer pursuant to
subparagraphs 2 . and 3 . above shall be watered into the
soil to protect it from loss by runoff .
Subd. 4 . General Regulations. No person shall apply
fertilizer to natural water courses, public water basins,
wetlands or public waters below the ordinary high water level
of any thereof or within ten (10) feet of the upland side of
any thereof .
Section 3 . City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including
Penalty for Violation" and Sections 5 . 99 and 9 . 99 entitled
"Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by
reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 4 . This ordinance shall become effective from and
after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1996,
and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular
meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of
, 1996 .
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
, 1,996 .
-4-
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION
WORKSHOP MEETING
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 6:30 PM, HERITAGE ROOM IV
8080 Mitchell Road
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Ronald Case, Patricia
Pidcock, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr. and Nancy Tyra-
Lukens
COMMISSION MEMBERS: Carlo Amato, Kent Barker, Marge Bundgaard,
Tom Heffelfinger, Rob Kilpatrick, Alan
Nitchman, Gary Schmidt
COUNCIL/COMMISSION STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City
Manager Chris Enger, Senior Planner Scott
Kipp, and Recording Secretary Jan Nelson
ROLL CALL
All Councilmembers were present. Commission members Amato, Barker, Bundgaard, and
Nitchman were absent.
I. INTRODUCTIONS
H. PRESENTATION/STATUS OF WORK PLAN
A. 1996 Noise Monitoring Summary
Rob Kilpatrick distributed copies of the 1995 vs. 1994 Executive Summary of
Flying Cloud Airport Total Operations and Runway Use Comparisons. He noted
they have had a slight improvement in departures from runways further away from
populated areas.
B. Noise Abatement Program Implementation
Roy Furhman, representing the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC),
reviewed the noise abatement program that was started in 1991, and the signage
program that the MAC has started at the airport. He distributed copies of the signs
that are in use at the airport.
John Foggia, representing MAC, said the noise abatement plan tries to keep traffic
to the south side of the airport. They try to discourage nighttime operations. They
do noise monitoring but it is difficult to analyze the data. The signage program
was started in February and, at about the same time, they promoted the noise
abatement program to pilots and tower personnel.
I
CITY COUNCIL/FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES
September 17, 1996
Page 2
Harris asked what the difference is between simple and complex single engine
aircraft. Foggia said complex aircraft have gear that comes up and a variable pitch
propeller.
Case asked why operations dropped from 1997 to 1995. Foggia said there is a
general trend toward stagnation. Furhman said it is typical to see a variation of 5-
10% from year to year. Schmidt thought there is a trend to less travel, noting
there is more recreational flying here than commercial.
C. FCM Design Framework Manual
Kipp said the manual will be completed in the next month or so and they will be
going before the Planning Commission in two weeks. They are trying to establish
some kind of continuity guide for future airport development. MAC is not
required to follow the City's design ordinances, so they hope to get some
continuity and cooperation through this means.
III. IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES REQUIRING CITY COUNCIL INPUT
A. EIS Status
Schmidt said they are just getting underway with the environmental review. They
will enter into an agreement with the FAA. Since it is a federal review, the federal
agency has to be in control of the process. They will prepare a memorandum of
understanding which should be executed by October 1. We will hire a contractor
that will work for the FAA. They will hold pre-scoping meetings for community
groups and the City to try to identify the issues. It then goes to a scoping meeting
for the public. After that there is a formal process to develop a scoping document
that will probably take about six months, with the entire process taking 12-18
months.
Harris asked how the contractor will be selected. Schmidt said it will go through
an RFP process.
B. Ordinance No. 51
Kipp said there are issues that the Metropolitan Council and MAC have to work
out. The City Council endorsed conceptually the draft proposal to maintain
Ordinance 51 while working to develop alternatives to the ordinance. MAC has
not taken steps with the draft proposal. Kipp said the Advisory Commission set
up a Task Force to take a look at the issues involved with Ordinance 51.
Heffelfinger said he and Nitchman volunteered to serve on the Task Force, along
with Roy Furhman of MAC. The Task Force met and developed a mission to
define and establish an alternative measure to Ordinance 51 that will provide a
system for monitoring noise. Such alternative measures should be definable,
2
CITY COUNCIL/FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES
September 17, 1996
Page 3
enforceable and find a method of addressing concerns from all areas. He said there
will be a weight component and a component of noise reduction. They will look
at how other communities have tried to address this and how technology now
compares to that of 1978 when the ordinance was first drafted.
Harris thought it was admirable they were trying to define it more clearly.
Heffelfinger said they will look at the realities of aircraft today and airport usage.
He believes they will come back with more than a mere noise component, but will
also address safety concerns, needs of the FBO's and the needs of pilots.
Jullie asked if MAC has agreed at this time not to amend Ordinance 51. Schmidt
said there were two meetings between Eden Prairie and MAC. One of the
agreements that MAC staff agreed to provides continued enforcement of Ordinance
51 until we reach an alternative agreement. Enger asked if the MAC Board has
endorsed that agreement. Schmidt said they have not.
Pidcock asked if the MAC representative on the Task Force was appointed by
MAC. Schmidt said he is an advisor in a technical position only. Pidcock then
asked if the report of the Task Force back to MAC will be regarded as a viable
report. Schmidt said MAC has a lot of incentive to work something out.
Heffelfinger said one of the topics at their meeting yesterday was the enforcement
of any compromise that is reached. They had a discussion about needing the
endorsement of the Met Council and possibly obtaining a Court Order. He noted
they do not have the stamp of approval of the MAC Board.
IV. CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION
Harris thanked the Commission members and others for attending the meeting and for the
information they provided.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
3
EPA Tife
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 7:30 PM, CITY CENTER
Council Chamber
8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, Ronald
Case, Ross Thorfinnson, Jr., and Nancy Tyra-
Lukens
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant City
Manager Chris Enger, Director of Parks,
Recreation & Facilities Bob Lambert, Director of
Public Works Eugene Dietz, City Attorney Roger
Pauly, and Council Recorder Jan Nelson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Jullie added item XI.B.1. Workshop with School District. Pidcock added items XI.A.1.
Traffic from Hwy 212 onto Valley View Road and item XI.A.2 Southwest Metro.
Case added item XI.A.3. Sports Traffic.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Agenda as
published and amended. Motion carried unanimously.
II. OPEN PODIUM
III. MINUTES
A. CITY COUNCIL/TOLL ROAD MEETING HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 27.
1996
Pidcock said the name on page 3, paragraph 1, should be spelled "Adeel Lari".
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Minutes of the
City Council/Toll Road Meeting held Tuesday, August 27, 1996, as published and
amended. Motion carried unanimously.
B. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3,
1996
MOTION: Tyra-Lukens moved, seconded by Case, to approve the Minutes of the
City Council/Staff Workshop held Tuesday, September 3, 1996, as published.
Motion carried unanimously.
I
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September 17, 1996
Page 2
C. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1996
Pidcock said page 10, paragraph 1 should read "... I am going to cast my vote
against this tollway...."
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the Minutes of
the City Council meeting held Tuesday, September 3, 1996, as published and
amended. Motion carried unanimously.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK'S LICENSE LIST
B. FRASER HOMES LOT DIVISION- APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION AT
8751, 8761 & 8771 PRESERVE BOULEVARD
C. REQUEST FROM EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATION FOR
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF BY-LAW CHANGE
D. LIL'RED GAS PUMPS by Hiawatha Marketing, Inc. Adoption of a Resolution
for Site Plan Review on 1.49 acres and Approval of a Developer's Agreement for
Lil' Red Gas Pumps. Location: Southeast corner of Valley View Road and County
Road 4. (Resolution 96-157 for Site Plan Review)
E. DEN ROAD COMMERCIAL CENTER by City of Eden Prairie. 2nd Reading
of Ordinance 39-96 for Zoning District Change from C-HWY to C-REG-SER on
1.76 acres. Location: Den Road and West 78th Street. (Ordinance 39-96 for
Zoning District Change)
F. RESEARCH ADDITION by Research, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 37-96-
PUD-14-96 for Planned Unit Development District Review on 26.1 acres and
Zoning District Amendment in the 1-5 Zoning District on 26.1 acres and Adoption
of a Site Plan Review on 26.1 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Drive. (Ordinance
37-96-PUD-14-96 for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment
and Resolution 96-158 for Site Plan Review)
G. STARING LAKE TOWNHOUSES PHASE II by Pulte Homes. 2nd Reading
of Ordinance 38-96-PUD-15-96 for Planned Unit Development District Review on
35.58 acres and Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 35.58 acres and Adoption of
a Site Plan Review on 35.58 acres. Location: Anderson Lakes Parkway
(Ordinance 38-96-PUD-15-96 for PUD District Review and Rezoning and
Resolution 96-159 for Site Plan Review)
H. RESOLUTION 96-160 AUTHORIZING THE DISPOSAL OF TAX
FORFEITED LAND
2.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September 17, 1996
Page 3
I. RESOLUTION 96-161 DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND
SETTING HEARING DATE
J. RESOLUTION 96-162 APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR FRASER
CHARLSON (located south of Pioneer Trail and east of Yorkshire Circle)
K. RESOLUTION 96-163 APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR MITCHELL
VILLAGEIST ADDITION (located at the southeast corner of Mitchell Road
and Anderson Lakes Parkway)
L. APPROVE BIDS FOR PHEASANT WOODS PLAY STRUCTURE
Tyra-Lukens asked that item G be pulled and voted upon separately. Pidcock
asked if item K had been approved for an early grading permit. Enger said they
were granted an early grading permit.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve items A-F and
H-L on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve item G on the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-1, with Tyra-Lukens opposed.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/MEETINGS
A. TIRES PLUS by Tires Plus. Request for PUD Concept Review on 19 acres, PUD
District Review on 1.15 acres, Zoning District Amendment in the Commercial
Regional Service District on 1.15 acres and Site Plan Review on 1.15 acres.
Location: Eden Road and Glen Road. (Resolution for PUD Concept Review,
Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Amendment)
Jullie said we received a request from proponent to continue this to the first
meeting in October.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to continue the Public Hearing
to the October 1, 1996, meeting of the City Council. Motion carried
unanimously.
B. EDEN HILLS TOWNHOMES by Zachman Development Corporation. Request
for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.18 acres, Site Plan Review
on 5.18 acres and Preliminary Plat of 5.18 acres into 21 lots and road right-of-
way. Location: Franlo Road, west of Eden Commons Apartments, south of
Lund's Center. (Ordinance for Zoning Change, Resolution 96-164 for
Preliminary Plat)
Arne Zachman, proponent, reviewed the proposal to develop twin homes and
3
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September 17, 1996
Page 4
three-plexes on three single family lots and one empty lot.
Enger said the Planning Commission reviewed the project at the August 26, 1996,
meeting and recommended approval of the request on a 5-0 vote, subject to the
recommendations of the Staff Report of August 23. He said this proposal will have
to receive approval from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for two lots that
do not meet the minimum size. He noted Staff worked with various proponents to
develop a project on this property, and they believe this proposal compliments the
condominiums across the street.
Lambert said the Parks, Recreation &Natural Resources Commission reviewed the
project at the September 16, 1996, meeting and recommended approval on a 5-1
vote. The two issues discussed were the sidewalk and the problem with the fire
hydrant. The sidewalk will have to be moved to the back of a curb at one point.
He said Hilgeman voted no because of the way we have been administering our
tree ordinance. When dealing with homestead property we have not been doing a
tree inventory because we do not look at trees in someone's yard as forested trees.
Hilgeman thinks there should have been an inventory on this site and a replacement
figure developed for the project.
Case asked if, as a homeowner who had planted trees there, he would be held to
the rule of not cutting more than 10% of the trees in one year. Lambert said that
was correct. Case thought we should be consistent in our policy and view every
tree no matter who planted it. Lambert said we are administering it as City
Attorney Pauly advised us when he recommended we not count planted trees
against the tree replacement policy. Lambert said if we are going to do an
inventory we have to make a classification as to what are natural and those that are
planted.
A discussion followed regarding the disincentive of administering the policy that
way. Harris thought this is an issue we may want to revisit when we can review
both sides of the issue.
Zachman noted they prepared three layouts in order to save as many trees as
possible and they will also move many of the trees on the site. Case asked how
detrimental it would be to his development if all the planted trees were counted as
significant. Zachman said there would be about 30 trees that would be counted as
significant. They will lose 20 trees, but will be planting more than 100. Case was
concerned with setting precedent by not counting the planted trees as part of a tree
inventory, and he thought there will be more of these projects as we go forward.
Thorfinnson was concerned about approving the project when we don't know what
is happening. Harris said the question is whether we do the same type of inventory
on planted trees as we do on natural plantings. If we decide to do that, we will be
setting a new precedent.
Tyra-Lukens asked if they will keep the present retaining walls. Zachman said
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September 17, 1996
Page 5
they will. Tyra-Lukens asked how much of the tree loss on the property is the
result of grading changes and how much is from driveways and buildings.
Zachman reviewed their plan to move the trees on the property and noted all the
oaks and pines along the north and west of the property will stay.
Harris asked how much more time it will take to do a tree inventory. Lambert said
it would be up to the developer to hire someone, but it should be able to be
completed within 30 days or before 2nd Reading. The developer may already have
met the replacement requirement. Thorfinnson thought they have done a good job
of trying to maintain what is around the building; however it would be nice to
know how many trees are on the property. Case thought we want to know the
count, but also want to hold the project accountable to the tree replacement policy.
Charles Blesner, 18381 Cattail Court, said some of the trees are on his property
and many of the ash trees are partially dead. He was concerned that the project not
get hung up on an issue involving some older trees and many that are scrub trees.
He said he was told he needed no permit to cut down trees on his property since
the trees were not protected trees. Lambert noted if trees are in a bad condition
or already dead, they are not counted as tree loss. He said the ordinance specifies
that a permit is required to remove 10% or more of the vegetation on a piece of
property.
Case understood the frustration of the property owners, but there is the issue of
development of this property being used as a precedent for future developments in
southwest Eden Prairie.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to close the Public
Hearing; to approve 1st Reading of the Ordinance for Zoning District Change from
Rural to RM-6.5 on 5.18 acres; to adopt Resolution 96-164 for Preliminary Plat
Approval; and to direct Staff to prepare a Development Agreement incorporating
Commission and Staff recommendations, and with the condition that a tree
inventory be done on the property and that Staff review the development once the
trees have been inventoried to be sure the developer has met the requirements of
the City's tree replacement policy. Motion carried unanimously.
Zachman then requested an early grading permit.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to grant the proponent, at his own
risk, an early grading permit to begin grading after the tree inventory has been
completed and confirmed. Motion carried unanimously.
VI. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to approve the Payment of Claims
as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, with Case, Pidcock, Thorfinnson,
Tyra-Lukens and Harris voting "aye."
S
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September 17, 1996
Page 6
VII. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
VIII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A. RECEIVE 100% PETITION, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND
PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS, I.C. 96-5425 (Resolution 96-165)
As per the Engineering staff agenda report of September 17, 1996, Jullie said we
have received 100% petitions from two lot owners for construction of storm
drainage improvements, which will eliminate ongoing erosion problems across
these properties. The City will contract for these improvements and special
assessments will be levied against each property in accordance with City policies.
Any overage in construction costs and staff time for design and construction can
be covered by the City's Storm Water Utility Funds.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Thorfinnson, to adopt Resolution 96-165
receiving 100% Petition, Ordering Improvements and Preparation of Plans and
Specifications for Public Improvements under I.C. 96-5425. Motion carried
unanimously.
IX. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
X. APPOINTMENTS
XI. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCILMEMBERS
1. Traffic from Hwy 212 onto Valley View Road
Pidcock was concerned about a dangerous traffic situation that occurs
during the afternoon rush hour as cars exiting from Hwy 212 onto Valley
View Road wait in line along Hwy 212 to get to the exit ramp. She said
police were ticketing cars that form two lanes on the exit ramp, so they
started forming a line along the shoulder of Hwy 212 or actually stopping
on the highway. She thought this is much more dangerous than having two
lanes of traffic on the ramp.
Harris thought the exit ramp should be striped for two lanes further down.
She said there is a similar situation on Valley View at rush hours.
Dietz said this project has been identified in an earlier study in the Major
Center Area. They are in the throes of getting a traffic study done that will
identify a lot of areas that need capital improvements. He thought this
CO
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September 17, 1996
Page 7
should be a cooperative project with MNDoT. Pidcock asked if something
could be done with the Police Department. Dietz said they have been
passing on the shoulders and there have been accidents because of that.
2. Southwest Metro
Pidcock said Southwest Metro and other members of the Suburban Transit
Association have again retained the services of a lobbyist to lobby for the
opt-outs at the legislature.
3. Sports Traffic
Case said there is a problem with sports traffic on Pioneer Trail at the
Flying Cloud fields and also at the Miller Park fields at certain peak times.
He asked if we could hire a Park Ranger to direct traffic at peak times and
pay the extra salary by charging an additional sports fee for traffic control.
He thought it would be cheaper than traffic signals.
Dietz said there is now a right turn lane going into the Flying Cloud fields
and there is a project under construction for a southbound right-turn lane
into Miller Park. He said he will talk to the Police Department about this
issue as well as the Hwy 212 and Valley View issue.
Pidcock said she has observed pedestrians or cyclists trying unsuccessfully
to get across the road at these points. Case said he did not think four lanes
will solve that problem. Dietz said there will be trails on each side of the
road.
Tyra-Lukens asked if we have tried to work with the sports associations to
stagger the starting times. Lambert said we talked with the soccer, baseball
and softball associations in the spring, and they do stagger times; however,
in the fall the football and soccer players all leave when it gets dark, which
causes a bigger problem this time of the year. Case said there was a Park
Ranger out there last year. Lambert said there has been one at times this
year. He will talk to Jim Clark and see if we can get a more consistent
schedule.
Case asked if we should send this back to the Parks Commission to discuss
the fee for traffic control. Lambert thought this is an issue for the
associations, not the Parks Commission. We meet with the associations in
November to talk about issues and schedules, and we could talk about the
possibility of a fee at that time.
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
1. Workshop with School District
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September 17, 1996
Page 8
Jullie said the School District has requested we cancel next Tuesday's
workshop session. It will be rescheduled at a later date.
C. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PARKS,RECREATION & FACILITIES
1. Mighty Ducks Grant Proposal for Community Center Ice Arena
Renovations
Per the Staff Report of September 16, 1996, Lambert said Staff is
recommending we apply for a Mighty Ducks Grant for up to $50,000 for
improvements to the existing ice facility. This will help to accommodate
more children using the facilities. It would enable us to build walls at the
end of the bleachers for an enclosed secure area. We could also trade in
the 14-year old Zamboni while it is still worth something. The Hockey
Association would like to expand the team rooms in the Olympic-sized ice
arena as those are very small.
If we apply for and receive the grant, Lambert said the Hockey Association
has indicated they would be willing to fund 50% of the matching money we
must come up with. That would leave 25% for the City to fund for
improvements that would have to be made anyway.
Harris thought it sounds like a good deal.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Tyra-Lukens, to approve the Mighty
Ducks Grant Proposal for Community Center Ice Arena Renovations as per
the Staff Agenda Report of September 16, 1996. Motion carried
unanimously.
D. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
1. Increase Income Limits for the Housing Rehab Program
Per the Staff Report of September 17, 1996, Enger said the Housing,
Transportation and Social Services Board is recommending an increase in
the income limits for our Housing Rehabilitation Program from the current
65% of median income for the metro area, to 80% of that median. This
action will open up the loan program to more Eden Prairie homeowners and
will make it more consistent with the rest of Hennepin County. Funding
for this program comes from our annual allocation of Community
Development Block Grant Funds.
Harris asked if there has been any time when we have not been able to use
the CDBG funds, and, if so, could the funds be used for other services in
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September 17, 1996
Page 9
the City. Thorfinnson said we have funds that are being reused as loans are
paid back. Enger said we have not transferred money out of the housing
rehabilitation program even though it has been somewhat slow in some
years. He saw some needs going unmet because of the income limits.
Harris asked if we have ever run out of dollars. Enger did not believe we
have. We have monitored and limited the size of the loans. Thorfinnson
did not think anyone will be kept from using the program because the
income limits were raised.
MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Case, to increase the income
limits for Housing Rehabilitation Program from 65% of the median income
for the metro area, to 80% of the median, as per the Staff Report of
September 17, 1996. Motion carried unanimously.
E. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
F. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XII. OTHER BUSINESS
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Thorfinnson moved, seconded by Pidcock, to adjourn the meeting. Motion
carried unanimously. Mayor Harris adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
9
OP CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
eCJer1 SECTION: Consent Calendar 10-1-96
prairie
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.
Finance - Pat Solie Clerk's License Application List IV.A.
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity.
CONTRACTOR(MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) UTILITY INSTALLER
Best Buy Company Jacobsen Excavatimg
Eden Prairie Wash Leuthner Well, Inc.
Gilbert Construction Company
Ron Glocke Enterprises GASFITTER
Harris Contracting Company
Kohlenberger Companies Earl W. Day & Sons
The Rottlund Company, Inc. General Sheetmetal Corp.
Specialty Tool &Engineering Harris Contracting Company
Earl Weikle& Sons, Inc.
AMUSEMENT GAMES
PLUMBING
Sugarloaf of Minnesota
Harris Contracting Company
Leuthner Well, Inc.
Manship Plumbing &Heating
October 1, 1996 1
VPadanCITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Consent Calendar October 1, 1996
prairie
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution Appointing ITEM NO.
Finance Student Election Judges IV.e
Background:
Appointment of student election judges for the general election, November 5, 1996.
Action/Direction: Adopt the attached Resolution.
October 1, 1996 Page 1
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that the following students have
agreed to serve as election judges and are appointed for the General Election to be held November 5,
1996.
Caroline E. Anderson Brian J. Maddy
Kristina M. Anderson Natalie N. Mann
Alison E. Ashley Jennifer R. Mattke
Megan M. Beauvais Emily A. Menden
Melissa A. Bissonett Heather M. Muir
Allison H. Boie Stephen C. Nelson
Ali W. Bracken Kristin A. Nordby
Mychal B. Brosch Katherine M. Norman
Kris M. Brykovsky John Brendan O'Donnell
Ann M. Dorniden Jacob H. Oehig
Carrie L. Eckstam Robb D. Olson
Jennifer A. Freemyer Jodi A. Pasqua
Debra H. Frimerman Elizabeth M. Penney
Kristin N. Gettelman Bethany A. Peterson
Courtney E.A. Hein Lee R. Peterson
Adam S. Hupp Laura A. Sens
Dana L. Isensee Jeremy G. Shapiro
Ryan D. Iverson Adria Simmons
Jonathan Joannides Angela B. Solberg
Brandi M. Johnson Naomi C. Sorich
Cory D. Knudtson Amy M. Suggs
Andrew M. Kruse Gregory A. Tucker
Kara L. Liddell Erik D. Verle
Jennie Viland
ADOPTED BY by the Eden Prairie City Council on this 1st day of October 1996.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor
2.
Wacian
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
wairiearSECTION: Consent Calendar October 1, 1996
warn
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution approving ITEM NO.
Finance restructuring of the $20,900,000 Fountain Place IV. D.
I - 1987 Multi-family housing bonds
Background:
The resolution approves a restructuring of the interest rate on the bonds to a rate which floats
with an index and extends the maturity to December 1, 2018. In addition, the owners of the
project have agreed to accept Section 8 vouchers in up to 10% of the 490 units.
Action/Direction: Approve resolution
October 1, 1996 Page 1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION
AND FILING WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF A FORM
8038, INFORMATION RETURN FOR TAX-EXEMPT PRIVATE
ACTIVITY BOND ISSUES, WITH RESPECT TO THE $20,900,000
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BOND (FOUNTAIN PLACE
APARTMENTS PROJECT -- PHASE I) SERIES 1987 (THE "BOND");
APPROVING THE WAIVER AND CANCELLATION OF UNPAID BASE
INTEREST ON THE BOND; AMENDING THE INTEREST RATE
PROVISIONS SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A FLOATING RATE OF
INTEREST ON THE BOND AND THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON
THE FIRST DAY OF EACH MONTH; ELIMINATING ALL
REMARKETING PROVISIONS AND EXTENDING THE SCHEDULED
MATURITY DATE OF THE BOND; ADDING ACCRUED
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD DEFERRED INTEREST TO THE PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF THE BOND; ADDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS WITH
RESPECT TO THE EXERCISE OF REMEDIAL RIGHTS; AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF DOCUMENTS
AND INSTRUMENTS RELATING THERETO
WHEREAS, The City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "Issuer") has previously issued
its "$20,900,000 Multifamily Housing Revenue Bond (Fountain Place Apartments Project --
Phase I), Series 1987' (the "Bond"), pursuant to and in accordance with a Lender Loan
Agreement between the Issuer and Capital Realty Investors Tax Exempt Fund Limited
Partnership (the "Prior Bondholder") dated as of December 1, 1987; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer used the proceeds of the Bond to make a loan (the "Loan")
to Fountain Place Apartments Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the
"Original Developer"), to provide financing for a multifamily rental residential development
(the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project was conveyed by the Original Developer to CRICO of
Fountain Place Limited Partnership (the "Owner") by Quitclaim Deed on January 2, 1991,
with the Owner assuming the existing indebtedness on the Project; and
WHEREAS, Capital Realty Investors Tax Exempt Fund Ltd. (the "New Bondholder")
intends to acquire the Bond from the Prior Bondholder through a merger transaction; and
WHEREAS, the New Bondholder, at the time of its acquisition of the Bond, is willing
to forgive and forever discharge all Bond interest which was not paid when scheduled to be
due and has been deferred, and desires that the Issuer forgive and forever discharge all
corresponding unpaid interest accrued on the Loan; and
eaCORM1430ue2 ARESOWN'PI.AcEI
2
WHEREAS, the New Bondholder desires to delete all provisions pertaining to the
payment of Contingent Interest from the Bond, the Lender Loan Agreement and the Loan
Agreement, to amend the interest rate on the Bond to a rate which floats with the PSA Index,
and to provide for the payment of interest on the first day of each month; and
WHEREAS, the New Bondholder desires to eliminate all provisions for remarketing
from the Bond and to extend the maturity date of the Bond to a date not later than
December 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the New Bondholder desires to add to the principal amount of the Bond
and the Loan all unpaid Construction Period Deferred Interest accrued as of the date it
acquires the Bond; and
WHEREAS, immediately following its acquisition of the Bond, the New Bondholder
intends to convey the Bond to US Trust Company of New York, as Trustee (the "Trustee")
and, in connection with its acquisition of the Bond, the Trustee intends to credit enhance the
Bond, in a secondary market transaction, with a letter of credit; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the credit enhancement of the Bond it will be
necessary for the Issuer and the provider of such credit enhancement to agree to certain
intercreditor arrangements affecting the exercise of remedial rights under the Bond and
related documents and with respect to the Project; and
WHEREAS, Capital Apartment Properties, Inc., a Maryland corporation
("CAPREIT'), which will be an affiliate of the New Bondholder, has agreed to pay any
counsel fees incurred by the Issuer in connection with such transactions,regardless of whether
the New Bondholder actually acquires the Bond; and
WHEREAS, the credit enhancement of the Bond and the requested amendments to
the Bond will cause a reissuance of the Bond for federal income tax purposes; and
WHEREAS, a reissuance of the Bond will necessitate the filing by the Issuer with the
Internal Revenue Service of Internal Revenue Service Form 8038, Information Return for
Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bond Issues, in order to maintain the excludability from the
income of the holders thereof of interest on the Bond; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer is willing to execute and file a Form 8038 in connection with
and as a result of the addition of credit enhancement for the Bond, the elimination of all
accrued interest on the Bond and the Loan which was not paid when scheduled to be due and
has been deferred, the amendment of the interest rate provisions on the Bond and provision
for payment of interest on the first day of each month, the elimination of remarketing
provisions and extension of the Bond's maturity to a date not later than December 1, 2018,
the provision of intercreditor arrangements with respect to remedial actions under the Bond
and related documents and the addition of accrued Construction Period Deferred Interest to
the principal amount of the Bond and the Loan, all as described above; and
2 eaooaR1+55 CRI
3
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council of the Issuer(the"Council")
the proposed Form 8038, which is attached to and comprises a part of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the Council the proposed form of
Amendment to Lender Loan Agreement and Amendment to Loan Agreement, copies of
which are attached to and comprise a part of this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA:
1. That the filing of an Internal Revenue Service Form 8038 in connection with
the addition of credit enhancement for the Bond and the execution and delivery
of an Amendment to Lender Loan Agreement and an Amendment to Loan
Agreement, in form and content substantially as attached hereto, is hereby
authorized and that (subject to paragraph 3 below) upon execution of said
Form 8038 by , such form shall be mailed to the Internal Revenue
Service Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19255.
2. That the execution and delivery of an Amendment to Lender Loan Agreement
and an Amendment to Loan Agreement, substantially in the form and
substance of those attached hereto, and the taking of such other actions as have
been taken or as may be necessary or convenient in connection therewith is
hereby authorized and that upon execution and delivery of such documents by
such documents shall be binding upon the Issuer.
3. That the acts authorized in numbered paragraphs 1 and 2 immediately above
are to be effected only in the event of the acquisition of the Bond by the New
Bondholder or by an affiliate of, or by a party acting on behalf of an affiliate
of, CAPREIT.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of October, 1996.
THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,
MINNESOTA
By:
[Mayor]
Attest:
By:
Title:
3 cicoRPOOST+6I04RHsolIMPPLA C1
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 10-1-96
' SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR �
ITEM NO. — E
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger DEN ROAD COMMERCIAL CENTER
Scott A. Kipp
Requested Council Action:
The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action:
• Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review on 1.76 acres.
Supporting Reports:
1. Resolution for Site Plan Review
I
DEN ROAD COMMERCIAL CENTER
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR DEN ROAD COMMERCIAL CENTER
BY CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
WHEREAS, City of Eden Prairie has applied for Site Plan approval of Den Road Commercial Center on
1.76 acres for construction of a 13,051 sq.ft. commercial building, located at Den Road and West 78th Street
within the C-Reg-Ser District; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its August 26,
1996, Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its September 3, 1996,
meeting;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that site plan approval be granted to Den Road Commercial Center for the construction
of a 13,051 sq. ft. commercial building, based on plans dated August 26, 1996,presented by the City of Eden
Prairie.
ADOPTED by the City Council on October 1, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
2
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 10-1-96
SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR ,,//�-
ITEM NO. rV r,
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger BENT CREEK COVE
Michael D. Franzen
Requested Council Action:
The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action:
• Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change from R1-
13.5 to R1-9.5 on 2.5 acres;
• Approval of a Developer's Agreement.
Supporting Reports:
1. PUD District Review and Zoning Ordinance
2. Developer's Agreement
BENT CREEK COVE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 41-96-PUD-17-96
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 R1-13.5 District
and be placed in the Planned Unit Development R1-9.5 Zoning District 41-96-PUD-17-96 (hereinafter "PUD-17-96-
R1-9.5").
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement
dated as of October 1, 1996, entered into between Taurus Properties, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter
"Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-17-96-R1-9.5,
and are hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following fmdings:
A. PUD-17-96-R1-9.5 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City.
B. PUD-17-96-R1-9.5 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-17-96-R1-9.5 are justified by the design of the development described therein.
D. PUD-17-96-R1-9.5 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 R1-13.5
District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-17-96-R1-9.5 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.
2
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 20th day of August,
1996, 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 October, 1996.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on
3
BENT CREEK COVE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 41-96-PUD-17-96
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 Valley View Road and Howard Lane
from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 2.5 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A,
included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Jean L. Harris
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.)
Bent Creek Cove _
Exhibit A
Lertai ►-,. criptityil:
Cuttc.tt G, iEcienval:; ':2iiu Addition
and
That ; 't( of CutiI 1-1, Le nv:+Z r (. it.: f ur_scrir:-_ as fO ilU .s:
Beginning at the hilttheiilt COfne of Out ct t?, :+iCl r'L.cnvale 2rnd Addition; ilieri(:e
North 71 degrees 14 minutes.Ci lr: 'iC_UrlS �atii along f;c; north line said �LtI� e't
it diNtance of 85.00 feet; thence South 18 degrees 45 minutes 32 second.... Gust i(
dikiance of 90.00 feet; tE;enc a south 69 degrees 47 minutes 26 seconthi
distance of i2 f.b4 feet to tl;t'• southeast COr flee of:ii.id LJutlot 0; thence North I
OC1,re_e 43 minutes I I S:.coni..l:i East .:Jong ih.s cast lint of said Outlot G :( dkinnce Uf
103.90 feet to the ;loin: of beginning
S
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
BENT CREEK COVE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of October 1, 1996, by Taurus Properties, a Minnesota
Corporation,hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on 2.5 acres, PUD District Review on 2.5 acres, Zoning District Change
from R 1-13.5 to R 1-9.5 on 2.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 2.5 acres into 10 lots, situated in Hennepin County,
State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage
hereinafter referred to as "the Property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. 96-136 for Guide Plan Change,
Ordinance No. for Rezoning and PUD District Review, and Resolution No. 96-137 for Preliminary Plat,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as follows:
1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials reviewed and
approved by the City Council on August 20, 1996, revised and dated August 13, 1996, and attached
hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein.
2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at
such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and
conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. STREET 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 approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim irrigation systems and
storm sewer.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to implement the approved street and utility
plans prior to building permit issuance.
4. EROSION CONTROL PLAN:Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit,Developer shall submit to and
obtain City Engineers 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. Developer shall implement the Erosion Control
Plan approved by the City Engineer and notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance
(D
of grading so that the erosion control may be field inspected.
5. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the
City Planner, and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and
colors to be used on the buildings on the Property.
Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to construct, or implement, the approved
exterior materials and colors plan concurrent with building construction on the Property and in
accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
6. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City
Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The
approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials as
shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Developer shall furnish to
the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150% of the
cost of said improvements as required by City code.
Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan
concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and
conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
7. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: Solely to the extent depicted on Exhibit B, City grants the following
waivers toCity Code requirements within the R1-9.5 District through the Planned Unit Development
District Review for the Property, as shown on Exbit B, attached hereto,and incorporates said waivers
as part of PUD
A. Lot size less than 9500 square feet.
B. Street frontage less than 70 feet.
C. Density from 3.5 to 4 units per acre.
D. Side yard setback from 15 feet to 6 feet between buildings.
E. Shoreland lot size less than 13,500 square feet.
8. STORM WATER QUALITY: In lieu of constructing a NURP facility for the treatment of storm
water on the site,the Developer agrees to pay the City the cash equivalent of storm water treatment
facility construction prior to grading permit issuance. The payment amount shall be the equivalent
of 2% of the land value plus $1000.00 for each acre of impervious surface on the site. The City
shall deposit the payment in the storm water utility fund.
7
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
TAURUS PROPERTIES
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of October 1, 1996, by and between Associated
Investments, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE, hereinafter referred to as "City":
For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance No._ , changing the zoning of the
Property owned by Owner from the R1-13.5 District to the R1-9.5 District, and Resolution No.96-136 for Guide
Plan Change as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of October 1, 1996, by
and between Associated Investments, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows:
1. If Taurus Properties fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement within 24
months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the City's reconsideration and rescission of the
Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Guide Plan Review ... identified above, thus restoring the existing
status of the property before this project was approved.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns
of the Property.
3. If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring
that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 10-1-96
SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR ��
ITEM NO. -LV. �"-
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger ST. ANDREW'S BLUFF
Scott A. Kipp
Requested Council Action:
The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action:
• Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for Rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 4.3 acres;
• Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 4.3 acres;
• Approval of a Developer's Agreement
Supporting Reports:
1. Ordinance for Zoning District Change
2. Site Plan Review
3. Developer's Agreement
ST. ANDREW'S BLUFF
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND
FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance(hereinafter,the "land")is legally described
in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
SECTION 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and
be placed in the RM-6.5 District.
SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the
Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the RM-6.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land in each
District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended
accordingly.
SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire
City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
SECTION 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement
dated as of October 1, 1996,entered into between Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia and the City of Eden
Prairie, and which Agreement are hereby made a part hereof.
SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 3rd day of
September, 1996, 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 October, 1996.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on
2
ST. ANDREW'S BLUFF
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND
FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY 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 Baker Road at St. Andrew Drive
from Rural to RM-6.5 on 4.3 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A,
included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Jean L. Harris
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.)
3
St. Andrew Bluff
Exhibit A
Legal Description
That part of Lots 27, 28, 29, 31, and 32, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 225, Hennepin County, MN
according to the record plat thereof that lies southeasterly of the right of way of Baker Road.
•
ST. ANDREW'S BLUFF
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR ST. ANDREW'S BLUFF
BY JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF WACONIA
WHEREAS, Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia has applied for Site Plan approval of St.
Andrew's Bluff on 4.3 acres for construction of 10 multi-family units, consisting of one four unit building, and
one six unit building,located at Baker Road at St. Andrew Drive to be zoned RM-6.5 by an Ordinance adopted
by the City Council on September 3, 1996; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its August 12,
1996,Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its September 3, 1996,
meeting;
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that site plan approval be granted to St. Andrew's Bluff for the construction of 10 multi-
family units, based on plans dated August 27, 1996, between Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia and
the City of Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the City Council on October 1, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
S
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
ST. ANDREW'S BLUFF
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of October 1, 1996, by Jasper Development
Corporation of Waconia, a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF
EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,Developer has applied to City for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5, Site Plan
Review, and Preliminary Plat into 10 lots for construction of 10 multi-family units, all on 4.3 acres, situated in
Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the Property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance No. for Zoning District
Change,Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, and Resolution No. 96-147 for Preliminary Plat,
Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said Property as
follows:
1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and
dated August 27, 1996, reviewed and approved by the City Council on September 3, 1996, and
attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein.
2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer
at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements,
and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. STREET 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 approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, interim
irrigation systems and storm sewer.
A. PUBLIC PORTION OF UTILITIES: Developer agrees that the sanitary sewer and water
main located within the proposed 40 foot drainage and utility easement, and the 20 foot
drainage and utility easement for the water main located off-site of the Property, as
depicted in Exhibit B, will be publicly owned and maintained. Further, the Developer
agrees to construct these public utilities in accordance with City Specifications. All other
infrastructure facilities including sanitary sewer and water services into the individual
housing units, private driveways and storm sewer facilities will be privately owned and
maintained and provision for the maintenance of these facilities should be addressed
through the Homeowner's Association documents. The public portion of the sanitary
6
sewer and water main will be subject to a 5% engineering fee.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to implement the approved street and
utility plans prior to building permit issuance.
4. FINAL GRADING,DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN:
A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the
grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's
approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the Property. The final grading and
drainage plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and storm
sewers. 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.
Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building
construction.
B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall
submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's 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. Developer shall implement the approved plan
prior to, or concurrent with building construction.
5. CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF EXISTING WETLAND
FOR THE PROPERTY: Prior to the release of the final plat, Developer shall submit a
Conservation Easement, as depicted in Exhibit E, for review and approval by the Director of
Parks,Recreation and Natural Resources. Said easement shall include that part of the Property
shown as the Conservation Easement area on Exhibit B.
Developer agrees to depict the Conservation Easement on the final plat as a drainage and utility
easement. The drainage and utility easement should extend to the intersection of the Baker Road
right of way, as depicted on Exhibit B.
Prior to the release of the building permit for the Property, Developer shall deliver to the City
evidence of the recording of the approved Conservation Easement at the Hennepin County
Recorder's/Registrars Office.
6. PRETREATMENT PONDS: Prior to final plat approval on the Property, Developer shall
submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's approval of plans and design
information for all storm water quality facilities to be constructed, as depicted on Exhibit B_; and
receive City Engineer's approval of said plans.
Developer shall implement the approved storm water quality facility plan concurrent with
building construction.
7
Upon completion of the housing construction and before the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy,the Developer shall verify the original design volume of the treatment pond to ensure
that pond size has not diminished because of sedimentation/erosion and to restore original
volume if sedimentation/erosion has occurred.
Developer agrees that the storm sewer proposed within the Property will be privately owned and
maintained system and will be provide for maintenance of said system within the Homeowner's
Association documents.
7. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on
the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and obtain the Chief
Building Official's approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading
plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, and method of construction to be used
for said retaining walls, including the use of modular masonry material.
Upon approval by the Chief Building Official, Developer agrees to implement the approved
retaining wall plan, concurrent with the grading, street, and utility construction on the Property,
and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
8. ACCESS PERMIT: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall obtain from Hennepin
County, a permit for access on to Baker Road, and provide a copy of said permit to the City
Engineer.
9. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to the
City Planner, and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and
colors, and samples of said materials to be used on the buildings on the Property.
Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to construct, or implement,the approved
exterior materials and colors plan concurrent with building construction on the Property and in
accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
10. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to the City
Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The
approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials as
shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Developer shall furnish
to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150% of
the cost of said improvements as required by City code.
Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan
concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and •
conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
11. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City
Planner's approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property.
Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved irrigation plan
concurrent with construction and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C,
attached hereto.
12. TRUNK ASSESSMENTS: Developer acknowledges that the Property will be subject to trunk
sanitary sewer and water main assessments corresponding to an acreage amount of 2 acres to be
charged at the current rate of$4,300 per acre for a total amount of$8,600.
13. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-15: Developer has obtained approval from the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments for variances from City Code requirements within the RM-6.5 District for
minimum lot size on the Property as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said approval has
been granted through Final Order No. 96-15, attached hereto, and made a part hereof.
Developer agrees to comply with all requirements of said Final Order No. 96-15.
Developer agrees to file Final Order No. 96-15 of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on the
Property at the Hennepin County Recorder/Registrar prior to the building permit issuance. Prior
to the release of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to provide proof of filing
to the City.
•
ST. ANDREW BLUFF
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF WACONIA
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT,made and entered into as of October 1, 1996,by and between CLARA KOSKELA,
an Individual, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, hereinafter referred to as
"City":
For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance No. , changing the zoning of
the Property owned by Owner from the Rural District to the RM-6.5 District, Resolution No. for Site Plan
Review, and Resolution No. 96-147 for Preliminary Plat, as more fully described in that certain Developer's
Agreement entered into as of October 1, 1996, by and between Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, a
Minnesota Corporation, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows:
1. If Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's
Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the City's reconsideration
and rescission of the Rezoning, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat identified above, thus
restoring the existing status of the property before this project was approved.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns
of the Property.
3. If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring
that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
/0
ST. ANDREW BLUFF
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF WACONIA
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of October 1, 1996, by and between ANTIOCH
CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, a Minnesota non-profit corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, hereinafter referred to as "City":
For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Ordinance No. , changing the zoning of
the Property owned by Owner from the Rural District to the RM-6.5 District, Resolution No. for Site Plan
Review, and Resolution No. 96-147 for Preliminary Plat, as more fully described in that certain Developer's
Agreement entered into as of October 1, 1996, by and between Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, a
Minnesota Corporation, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows:
1. If Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's
Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the City's reconsideration
and rescission of the Rezoning, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat identified above, thus
restoring the existing status of the property before this project was approved.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns
of the Property.
3. If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring
that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: October 1, 1996
SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR
ITEM NO. '/1
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger MITCHELL BAY TOWNHOMES
Michael D. Franzen
Requested Council Action:
The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action:
• 1st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 and R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 1.5
acres;
• Approve a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 1.5 acres;
Supporting Reports:
1. Ordinance for Zoning District Change
2. Resolution for Site Plan Review
3. Developer's Agreement
I
MITCHELL BAY TOWNHOMES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND
FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY 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 RM-2.5 and$1-
22 and be placed in the RM-6.5 District.
SECTION 3. That the proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the
RM-2.5 and R1-22 District and shall be included hereafter in the RM-6.5 District, and the legal descriptions of land
in each District referred to in City Code Section 11.03, Subdivision 1, Subparagraph B, shall be, and are amended
accordingly.
SECTION 4. City Code Chapter 1, entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire
City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99, "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety, by reference,as though repeated verbatim herein.
SECTION 5. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement
dated as of October 1, 1996, entered into between Noecker and Associates and the City of Eden Prairie, and which
Agreement are hereby made a part hereof.
SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 3rd day of
September, 1996, 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 October, 1996.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on .
2
MITCHELL BAY TOWNHOMES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND
FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY 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 Terrey Pine Drive from RM-2.5 and
R1-22 to RM-6.5 on 1.5 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A,included
with this Ordinance,gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Jean L. Harris
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.)
3
Mitchell Bay Townhomes
Exhibit A
Legal Description
DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL A
The West 100 . 00 feet of that part of the Southwest Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter of Section 8 , Township 116, Range 22 ,
lying South of Highway; Also the West 100 . 00 feet of the
North 511 . 50 feet of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter Section 17 , Township 116 , Range 22 .
DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL B
The East 127 . 25 feet of Government Lot 1 Section 17 , Township
116, Range 22 .
DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL C
That part of the East 127 . 25 feet of the South Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter Lying Southerly of
Parcel 212-N as shown on MN/DOT Right of Way plat No . 27-50
Section 8 , Township 116 , Range 22 .
y
MITCHELL BAY TOWNHOMES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR MITCHELL BAY TOWNHOMES
BY NOECKER AND ASSOCIATES
WHEREAS,Noecker and Associates has applied for Site Plan approval of Mitchell Bay Townhomes on
1.5 acres for construction of 2 townhome buildings located at Terrey Pine Drive to be zoned RM-6.5 by an
Ordinance adopted by the City Council on September 3, 1996; and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its August 12,
1996,Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its September 3, 1996,
meeting;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that site plan approval be granted to Noecker and Associates for the construction of 2
townhome buildings,based on plans dated August 27, 1996,between Noecker and Associates, and the City of
Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the City Council on October 1, 1996.
Jean L. Hams, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
S
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
MITCHELL BAY TOWNHOMES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of October 1, 1996, by Noecker and Associates, a
Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential on.75 acres, Rezoning from R1-22 and RM 2.5 to RM 6.5 on 1.5 acres,
Site Plan Review on 1.5 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 1.5 acres into 4 lots, situated in Hennepin County, State of
Minnesota,more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter
referred to as "the Property;"
NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. 96-148 for Guide Plan Change,
Ordinance No. for Rezoning ,Resolution for Site Plan Review, and Resolution No. 96-149 for
Preliminary Plat, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said
Property as follows:
1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials reviewed and
approved by the City Council on September 3, 1996, revised and dated August 27, 1996, and
attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein.
2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at
such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and
conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. 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
approval of plans for, sanitary sewer,water, interim irrigation systems and storm sewer.
Developer agrees that the mainline sanitary sewer and watermain to be constructed within the
drainage and utility easement as shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto, shall be a public system, and
shall be constructed according to City specifications.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to implement the approved utility plans prior
to building permit issuance.
4. FINAL GRADING,DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN:
A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINGE PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the grading and
drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit
for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's approval of a final
grading and drainage plan for the Property. The final grading and drainage plan shall
include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and storm sewers. 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. Developer shall implement the approved
plan prior to, or concurrent with building construction.
B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall
submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's 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. Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or
concurrent with building construction.
5. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the Developer shall submit to the City
Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The
approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials as
shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Developer shall furnish to
the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150% of the
cost of said improvements as required by City code.
Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan
concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and
conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
6. FINAL ORDER NO. 96-17: Developer has obtained approval from the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments for variances from City Code requirements within the RM-6.5 District.. Said approval
has been granted through Final Order#96-17, attached hereto, and made a part hereof, and as shown
on Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Developer agrees to comply with all requirements of said Final Order No.96-17.
Developer agrees to file Final Order #96-17 of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals on the
Property at the Hennepin County Recorder/Registrar prior to the building permit issuance. Prior
to the release of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to provide proof of filing
to the City.
7. STORM WATER QUALITY: In lieu of constructing a NURP facility for the treatment of storm
water on the site, the Developer agrees to voluntarily pay the City the cash equivalent of storm
water treatment facility construction prior to grading permit issuance. The payment amount shall
be the equivalent of 2%of the land value plus $1000.00 for each acre of impervious surface on the
site. The City shall deposit the payment in the storm water utility fund.
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
MITCHELL BAY TOWNHOMES
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of October 1, 1996, by and between George and Kay
Moran, as individuals, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, hereinafter referred -
to as "City":
For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Resolution No.96-148 for Guide Plan Change,
Ordinance No._ , changing the zoning of the Property owned by Owner from the R1-22 and RM-2.5 District
to RM-6.5 District, Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, and Resolution No. 96-149 for Preliminary Plat
as more fully described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of October 1, 1996, by and between
Noecker and Associates, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, and City, Owner agrees with City as follows:
1. If Noecker and Associates, Inc., fails to proceed in accordance with the Developer's Agreement
within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not oppose the City's reconsideration and
rescission of the Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Guide Plan Review ... identified above, thus restoring
the existing status of the property before this project was approved.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its successors, and assigns
of the Property.
3. If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the transferee requiring
that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's Agreement.
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 10-1-96
SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR r/
ITEM NO.
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger REALITY INTERACTIVE
Scott A. Kipp
Requested Council Action:
The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action:
• Adopt 2nd Reading of an Ordinance for PUD District Review with waivers and Zoning District
Change from Rural to I-2 on 6.42 acres;
• Adoption of a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 6.42 acres;
• Approval of a Developer's Agreement
Supporting Reports:
1. Ordinance for PUD District Review and Zoning District Change
2. Site Plan Review
3. Developer's Agreement
r
REALITY INTERACTIVE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 40-96-PUD-16-96
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND
FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL
DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE
CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY
PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance(hereinafter,the "land")is legally described
in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be removed from the Rural District and
be placed in the Planned Unit Development I-2 Zoning District 40-96-PUD-16-96 (hereinafter"PUD-16-96-I-2").
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement
dated as of October 1, 1996, entered into between Oppidan Investment Company, and the City of Eden Prairie
(hereinafter"Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD-16-
96-I-2, and are hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD-16-96-I-2 is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Guide Plan of the City.
B. PUD-16-96-I-2 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-16-96-I-2 are justified by the design of the development described therein.
D. PUD-16-96-I-2 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction,marketing,
and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is removed from the Rural
District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development PUD-16-96-I-2 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 3rd day of
September, 1996, 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 October, 1996.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Jean L. Harris, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on
3
REALITY INTERACTIVE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 40-96-PUD-16-96
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 Equitable Drive from Rural to I-2
on 6.42 acres; subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this
Ordinance,gives the full legal description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Jean L. Harris
City Clerk Mayor
PUBL
ISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from City Clerk.)
1
REALITY INTERACTIVE
Exhibit A
PUD Concept Amendment
Edenvale 9th Addition,Edenvale Executive Center, Edenvale Executive Center Two, Edenvale
Executive Center Three,Anagram Park, Edenvale 22nd Addition, Edenvale 23rd Addition.
Guide Plan Change, PUD District Review, Rezoning, Site Plan Review
That part of Outlot B, Edenvale 9th Addition which lies easterly of a line drawn from a point on
the south line of said Outlot B, distant 1059.87 feet east of the southwest corner thereof: To a
point on the north line of said Outlot B, distant 817.04 feet east of the northwest corner thereof,
as measured along said lines.
Except the east 193.00 feet as measured at right angles to the easterly line of said Outlot B.
Preliminary Plat
Outlot B, Edenvale 9th Addition
5
REALITY INTERACTIVE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR REALITY INTERACTIVE
BY OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, Oppidan Investment Company has applied for Site Plan approval of Reality Interactive on
6.42 acres for construction of a 40,000 square foot office/warehouse, located at Equitable Drive to be zoned I-2
by an Ordinance adopted by the City Council on September 3, 1996; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its August 12,
1996,Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its September 3, 1996,
meeting;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF EDEN PRAIRIE,that site plan approval be granted to Oppidan Investment Company for the construction
of a 40,000 square foot office/warehouse,based on plans dated August 27, 1996,between Oppidan Investment
Company and the City of Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the City Council on October 1, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
REALITY INTERACTIVE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of October 1, 1996, by Oppidan Investment Company,
a Minnesota Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a
municipal corporation,hereinafter referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Office to
Industrial on 6.42 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment on 100 acres, Planned Unit
Development District Review with waivers on 6.42 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 6.42
acres, Site Plan Review on 6.42 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 20.5 acres into one lot and two outlots for
construction of a 40,000 sq. ft. office warehouse building on 6.42 acres, situated in Hennepin County, State of
Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage
hereinafter referred to as "the Property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Resolution No. 96-150 for Comprehensive
Guide Plan Change, Resolution No. 96-151 for P.U.D. Concept Amendment, Ordinance No. for P.U.D.
District Review and Zoning District Change, Resolution No. for Site Plan Review, and Resolution No.
96-152 for Preliminary Plat, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and
maintenance of said Property as follows:
1. PLANS: Developer shall develop the Property in conformance with the materials revised and
dated August 27, 1996, reviewed and approved by the City Council on September 3, 1996, and
attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein.
2. EXHIBIT C: Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer
at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements,
and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. FINAL GRADING,DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN:
A. FINAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Developer acknowledges that the
grading and drainage plan contained in Exhibit B is conceptual. Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for the Property, Developer shall submit and obtain the City Engineer's
approval of a final grading and drainage plan for the Property. The final grading and
drainage plan shall include all water quality ponds, storm water detention areas and storm
sewers. 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.
1
Developer shall implement the approved plan prior to, or concurrent with building
construction.
B. EROSION CONTROL PLAN: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, Developer shall
submit to the City Engineer and obtain City Engineer's 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. Developer shall implement the approved plan
prior to, or concurrent with building construction.
4. GRADING NEAR THE CONSERVATION AREA ON SITE: Developer acknowledges that
the Property contains a conservation easement for the protection of the Purgatory Creek corridor.
Prior to any grading of the Property, Developer shall submit to the City Forester and receive the
City Forester's approval of a plan depicting the construction grading limits on the Property.
Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, Developer shall place a construction fence at the
limits of the proposed grading, outside the conservation easement area, as shown on Exhibit B.
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.
5. PRETREATMENT PONDS: Prior to final plat approval on the Property, Developer shall
submit to the City Engineer and receive the City Engineer's approval of plans and design
information for all storm water quality facilities to be constructed, as depicted on Exhibit B; and
receive City Engineer's approval of said plans.
Developer shall implement the approved storm water quality facility plan concurrent with
building construction.
Upon completion of the building construction and before the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, the Developer shall verify the original design volume of the treatment pond to ensure
that pond size has not diminished because of sedimentation/erosion and to restore original
volume if sedimentation/erosion has occurred.
6. RETAINING WALLS: Prior to issuance by City of any permit for grading or construction on
the Property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and obtain the Chief
Building Official's approval of detailed plans for the retaining walls indicated on the grading
plan in Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Said plans shall include details with respect to the height, type of materials, and method of
construction to be used for said retaining walls.
Upon approval by the Chief Building Official, Developer agrees to implement the approved
retaining wall plan, concurrent with the grading, street, and utility construction on the Property,
and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
.7. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to the City
Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a final landscape plan for the Property. The
approved landscape plan shall be consistent with the quantity, type, and size of plant materials as
shown on the landscape plan as depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto. Developer shall furnish
to the City Planner and receive the City Planner's approval of a landscape bond equal to 150% of
• the cost of said improvements as required by City Code.
Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved landscape plan
concurrent with building construction on the Property, and in accordance with the terms and
conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
8. IRRIGATION PLAN: Developer shall submit to the City Planner and receive the City
Planner's approval of a plan for irrigation of the landscaped areas on the Property.
Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved irrigation plan
concurrent with building construction and in accordance with the terms and conditions of
Exhibit C, attached hereto.
9. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: Prior to building permit issuance, Developer shall submit to the
City Planner, and receive the City Planner's approval of a plan depicting exterior materials and
colors, and provide samples of said materials to be used on the buildings on the Property.
Upon approval by the City Planner, Developer agrees to implement the approved exterior
materials and colors plan concurrent with building construction on the Property and in
accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto.
10. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING: Developer has submitted to the City Planner,
and has received the City Planner's approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on
the Property.
Said mechanical equipment includes the gas meters, electrical conduit, and water meters in
addition to standard heating, ventilating, and air conditioning units. Security to guarantee
construction of said screening shall be included with that provided for landscaping on the
Property, per City Code requirements. Developer shall implement the approved mechanical
equipment screening plan concurrent with building construction.
If, after completion of construction of said mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by
the City Planner, in his sole discretion, that the constructed screening does not meet the Code
requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent land uses, then
City Planner shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to reconstruct the
mechanical equipment screening in order to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges
that City will not release the security provided until all such corrective measures are
satisfactorily completed by Developer.
11. SITE LIGHTING: Developer has submitted to the City Planner and has received the City
Planner's approval of site lighting for the Property, as depicted on Exhibit B. All pole lighting
9
shall consist of downcast shoebox fixtures not to exceed 20 feet in height, and shall match the
lighting standards currently being used within the Planned Unit Development. Developer shall
implement the approved lighting plan concurrent with building construction.
12. TRASH HANDLING: Developer acknowledges that all trash handling areas will be located
within the building, and that the placement of trash storage containers outside will not be
permitted.
13. TRAIL CONSTRUCTION: Prior to issuance of any Occupancy Permit for the building on the
Property, Developer shall assist in securing the installation of a trail and associated easement, as
outlined in Exhibit E, attached hereto.
14. PUD WAIVERS GRANTED: City hereby grants the following waivers to City Code
requirements within the I-2 District through the Planned Unit Development District Review for
the Property, as depicted in Exhibit B, and incorporates said waivers as part of PUD
A. Waiver from front yard parking setback requirement of 50 feet to allow for a front yard
parking setback of 25 feet.
B. Waiver from the 50% maximum office use to allow for office use not to exceed 75%.
C. Waiver from the 10 acre minimum lot size to allow for an outlot of 1.5 acres.
/a
REALITY INTERACTIVE
OWNERS' SUPPLEMENT TO
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN
OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY
AND THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of October 1, 1996, by and between
THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, a New
York corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Owner," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE,
hereinafter referred to as "City":
For, and in consideration of, and to induce City to adopt Resolution No. 96-150 for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Resolution No. 96-151 for P.U.D. Concept Amendment,
Ordinance No. for P.U.D. District Review and Zoning District Change, Resolution No. _
for Site Plan Review, and Resolution No. 96-152 for Preliminary Plat, as more fully
described in that certain Developer's Agreement entered into as of October 1, 1996, by and
between Oppidan Investment Company, a Minnesota Corporation, and City, Owner agrees with
City as follows:
1. If Oppidan Investment Company, fails to proceed in accordance with the
Developer's Agreement within 24 months of the date hereof, Owner shall not
oppose the City's reconsideration and rescission of the Guide Plan Change, PUD
Concept Amendment, PUD District Review and Rezoning, Site Plan Review, and
Preliminary Plat identified above, thus restoring the existing status of the property
before this project was approved.
2. This Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against Owner, its
successors, and assigns of the Property only if owner or any such successor or
assigns elects to develop the project identified in the plans submitted by Oppidan
Investment Company in connection with the Developer's Agreement.
3. If Owner transfers such Property, Owner shall obtain an agreement from the
transferee requiring that such transferee agree to the terms of the Developer's
Agreement.
4. Owner is executing this supplement to the Developer's Agreement for the sole
and express purposes of agreeing to the terms hereof and of consenting to the
execution of said Developer's Agreement; but by doing so Owner does not
assume any obligations of the Developer under said Developer's Agreement
unless Owner proceeds with the development of the property.
II
DATE: 10/01/96
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO: 1 ,J_
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 52-103
Engineering Division Approve Construction Cooperative Agreement for CSAH 62/TH101/Dell
Rodney W. Rue Road Improvements
Recommended Action:
Approve resolution approving construction cooperative agreement with Hennepin County and
the City of Minnetonka for construction of the CSAH 62/TH101/Dell Road intersection
improvement.
Overview:
This project is the last construction phase for the upgrading of CSAH 62 (from I-494 to TH101).
This project was actually part of the previously approved project (CSAH 4 to TH 101), but was
removed from that project due to a lack of committed State funds to finance MnDOT's portion.
The final plans for this project were approved on April 16, 1996 by Resolution No. 96-65.
Financial Issues:
This construction cooperative agreement defines the financial and maintenance obligations
between Hennepin County and the Cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka as they relate to this
project. Eden Prairie's share of the construction, engineering and right-of-way costs is estimated
at $282,648.91. This entire amount is proposed to be financed by State-Aid funds.
We hereby recommend approval of the resolution approving Construction Cooperative
Agreement No. PW40-15-96.
I
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR
CSAH 62/TH 101/DELL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Public Works has prepared plans for the
construction of CSAH 62/TH 101/Dell Road intersection along the corporate boundaries of the
City of Eden Prairie, City of Minnetonka and the City of Chanhassen;
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie approved the layout plans for said improvement of CSAH
62 and the final plans are consistent with the layout plans;
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has approved said final plans;
WHEREAS, a Construction Cooperative Agreement has been prepared which identifies the
maintenance and financial obligations for the construction of said improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that
said Construction Cooperative Agreement No. PW40-15-96 for County project 9423 is hereby
approved and the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the agreement on behalf
of the City of Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on October 1, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
2
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
County Project No. 9423
County State Aid Highway No. 62
City of Minnetonka
City of Eden Prairie
County of Hennepin
CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of
, 19 , by and between the County of Hennepin, a body
politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter
referred to as the "County", and the City of Minnetonka, a body politic and
corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as
"Minnetonka", and the City of Eden Prairie, a body politic and incorporated
under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Eden
Prairie"; the two Cities hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Cities".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, The County and the Cities, along with the Minnesota Department
of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "Mn/DOT", have been negotiating
to bring about the improvement of that portion of County State Aid Highway No.
(CSAH) 62 (a.k.a. Townline Road) between Trunk Highway (TH) 101 and Creek View
Trail , as well as and in conjunction with that portion of TH 101 between 210
feet north of Pleasantview Road and Creek View Trail as shown on the County
Engineer's plans for County Project No. 9423, hereinafter referred to as the
Project, which improvement contemplates and includes grading, drainage,
concrete curb and gutter, bituminous base, bituminous surfacing, traffic
signals with emergency vehicle pre-emption (EVP) system, and other related
improvements; and
WHEREAS, The above described Project lies within the corporate
limits of the Cities, and
WHEREAS, The County and Mn/DOT have prepared an Engineer's Estimate of
quantities and unit prices for the construction contract work of the above
described Project in the amount of One Million Nine Hundred Seventy Two
Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Four Dollars and Twenty Five Cents
($1,972,944.25) . A copy of said estimate is included in Exhibit "A" which is
attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and
- 1 - 41r
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
WHEREAS, Mn/DOT has determined that a portion of the construction costs
for said Project are eligible for federal and state funds with the remainder
of the construction costs eligible for municipal and county state aid funds;
and
WHEREAS, The Cities have expressed willingness to participate in the
construction cost of said Project and the operating cost of said signal ; and
WHEREAS, The County and Mn/DOT are negotiating a separate construction
cooperative agreement covering the above mentioned state funds for the
construction of said project; and
WHEREAS, To ensure compatibility with the County's existing network of
traffic signal systems the County will furnish the controller, control
equipment and control cabinet to be installed as a part of said project; and
WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties
hereto under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1992, Section 162.17,
Subdivision 1 and Section 471.59.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED:
I
Mn/DOT and the County will advertise for bids, receive and open bids for
the work and construction of the aforesaid project. Mn/DOT will enter into a
contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of
such bidder. The contract will include the plans and specifications prepared
by the County.
II
The County will administer the contract and inspect the construction of
the contract work contemplated herewith. However, the City Engineers of
Minnetonka and Eden Prairie shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his
staff at their request to the extent necessary, but will have no
responsibility for the supervision of the work.
- 2 - 44\-
1
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
III
The Cities agree that the County may make minor changes in the plans or
in the character of said contract construction which are reasonably necessary
to cause said construction to be in all things performed and completed in a
satisfactory manner. It is further agreed by the Cities that the County,
through Mn/DOT, may enter into any change orders or supplemental agreements
with the Contractor for the performance of any additional construction or
construction occasioned by any necessary, advantageous or desirable changes in
plans, within the original scope of the Project. Said changes may result in
an increase or decrease to each City's cost participation estimated herein.
Each City shall have the right to review any changes to the plans and
specifications as they relate to the their respective cost participation.
Each City Engineer shall have the right to approve any change orders or
supplemental agreements prepared by the County that affect the respective
City's share of the construction cost.
Each City further agrees that it will participate in the settlement of
any claims from the Contractor that involve project delays attributable to
delays in approval by the respective City for plan or specification changes
deemed necessary by the County Engineer or his staff. The amount of
participation by the respective City in any such claims shall be commensurate
with the percentage of delay directly attributable to their actions.
IV
The Cities agree to grant right of way to the County over those lands
owned by each City that are a part of the required right of way for said
project. Said right of way shall be granted at no cost to the County.
The County or its agents will acquire all additional rights of way,
permits and/or easements required for the construction of said project. Each
City shall reimburse the County for fifty (50) percent of the respective final
cost of all additional rights of way, permits and/or easements required for
the construction ofthat portion of said Project which lies within the
respective corporate limits of each City, plus all costs incurred by the
County in acquiring said rights of way, permits and/or easements, excluding
County personnel costs.
- 3 - r
S
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
The right of way costs incurred as described herein shall include all
acquisition costs including, but not limited to, any and all damages occurring
to any person or persons, including private utilities, in relocating or
removing or adjusting main conduits or other structures located in or upon the
land taken and within the present right of way; or damage in procuring such
right of way, whether such damage is caused by the County or the Cities in the
performance of such contract with respect to the improvement of County State
Aid Highway No. 62 as shown on the plans for County Project No. 9423.
Damages, as used in this section, pertains to acquisition costs allowed
by Minnesota Statute Chapter 117 and does not abrogate the meaning of the
language set forth in Section XVII of this Agreement.
The County will periodically, as parcels are acquired, prepare and submit
to each City itemized accounts showing right of way and acquisition costs
incurred by the County. Each Cities' share of said costs shall become due and
payable within thirty (30) days after submittal .
The estimated right of way expenses described herein are indicated in
said Exhibit "A" .
V
Minnetonka and Eden Prairie shall participate in the construction cost of
the contract work for said Project as set forth in the Division of Cost
Summary in said Exhibit "A". It is understood that the Engineer's Estimate
referred to on Page 1 of this Agreement is an estimate of the construction
cost for the contract work on said Project and that the unit prices set forth
in the contract with the successful bidder and the final quantities as
measured by the County Engineer and designated representatives shall govern in
computing the total final contract construction cost for apportioning the cost
of said Project according to the provisions herein.
VI
In addition to each City's proportionate share of the contract construc-
tion cost, each City also agrees to pay to the County a sum equal to eighteen
percent (18%) of the amount computed as the City's respective share of the
total final contract construction cost for the Project. It is understood that
- 4 -
(0
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
said additional payment by each City is its proportionate share of all
engineering costs incurred by the County in connection with the work performed
under this Agreement.
VII
The County will supply the traffic signal cabinet, controller and control
equipment (County Supplied Equipment) for the Project. Therefore, in addition
to the aforesaid proportion shares of contract construction and engineering
costs each City also agrees to reimburse the County for its respective
proportionate share of the costs of the County Supplied Equipment. Said
proportionate share of the County Supplied Equipment shall be equal to the
respective City's proportionate share of the contract signal work. An
estimate of each City's share of County Supplied Equipment is incorporated
into Exhibit "A". It is further agreed that said estimate of the costs of
County Supplied Equipment is an estimate and that the actual quantities of
equipment as determined by the County Engineer shall govern in computing the
total final apportionment of cost participation by each City in the County
Supplied Equipment.
The County will invoice each City separately for said County Supplied
Equipment. Payment shall be made to the County by each City for the full
amount due on said invoice within thirty (30) days of the invoice date.
VIII
Due to the use of federal funds on this Project, Mn/DOT will be
establishing an Agency Account to be used for payment of the contract
construction costs for said Project. Funds totalling one hundred (100)
percent of the estimated Contract amount, based on the bid of the lowest
responsible bidder, must be deposited into said Agency Account prior to the
award of the construction contract.
It is understood by the parties hereto that upon opening and tabulating
of the bids Mn/DOT will automatically transfer funds from the Cities'
respective municipal state aid accounts into said Agency Account. Said
transfers will be in amounts equal to one hundred (100) percent of the state
aid eligible portion of the Cities' respective shares of the contract
construction costs.
- 5 - d
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
IX
The above provisions only pertain to contract construction costs.
Therefore, upon opening and tabulating the bids the County will invoice each
City for one hundred (100) percent of the estimated respective City share in
the engineering costs for the Project and one hundred (100) percent of any
portion of each Cities' proportionate share of contract construction costs
either not eligible for Municipal State Aid (MSA) funding or for which the
respective City may choose to fund with means other than MSA. Said estimated
shares shall be based on actual contract unit prices for estimated quantities
shown in the plans. Each City shall , within thirty (30) days of said invoice,
deposit with the Hennepin County Treasurer funds totalling the amount of their
respective invoice.
In the event the County Engineer or his staff determines the need to
amend the construction contract with a supplemental agreement or change order
which results in an increase in the contract amount, each City hereby agrees
to (1) allow the transfer of MSA funds into the Agency Account for those
changes eligible for and for which the respective City desires to use
Municipal State Aid funding, and/or (2) remit within thirty (30) days of
notification by the County of said contract change an amount equal to one
hundred (100) percent of the estimated increase in the respective Cities'
shares for changes not eligible for MSA or for changes for which the City
desires to fund with any means other than MSA funds; both as documented in the
supplemental agreement or change order, and (3) remit within thirty (30) days
of notification by the County an additional amount equal to eighteen (18)
percent of the estimated increase in the respective Cities' share to cover
additional contract administration costs incurred by the County for the
additional work.
The remainder of the respective Cities shares in the contract
construction costs, which will not be funded with MSA funds, along with the
remainder of the City's respective share in the engineering costs shall be
paid to the County upon the completion of the Project.
X
Upon the completion and acceptance of the work provided for in the
construction contract let by Mn/DOT and the preparation by Mn/DOT of a final
estimate computing and determining the amount due the contractor performing
- 6 -
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
the work, the County shall determine and compute the total amount due the
County from each City as set forth hereunder, and based on the actual contract
unit prices and the final quantities as measured by the County Engineer and
designated representatives. The County shall apply on the payment thereof as
much as may be necessary of the aforesaid funds respectively deposited by each
City. If the amount found due from a City is less than the amount of the
funds deposited by that City, then, and in that event, the balance of said
deposited funds shall be returned to the respective City without interest. If
the amount found due from a City exceeds said amount of funds deposited by
that City, that City agrees to pay within thirty (30) days of invoice by the
County the difference between said amount found due and said amount of funds
deposited.
XI
All payments to the County must be postmarked by the date due or a late
penalty of one (1) percent per month, or fraction thereof, on the unpaid
balance will be charged to the respective City. The respective City shall pay
the amount due as stated on the statement, notwithstanding any dispute of such
amount. Should a disputed amount be resolved in favor of the respective City,
the County shall reimburse the disputed amount plus daily interest thereon
calculated from the date such disputed amount was received by the County.
Daily interest shall be at the rate of one (1%) percent per month on the
disputed amount.
XII
The County Engineer will prepare weekly progress reports as provided in
the specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to each City
upon request.
XIII
All records kept by the Cities and the County with respect to this
Project shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party
hereto.
XIV
The County reserves the right not to issue any permits for a period of
five (5) years after completion of the Project for any service cuts in the
roadway surfacing of the County Highways included in this project for any
installation of underground utilities which would be considered as new work;
- 7 - d_ r
9
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
service cuts shall be allowed for the maintenance and repair of any existing
underground utilities.
XV
It is agreed that each City shall , at its own expense, remove, and replace
their respectively owned signs that are within the construction limits of this
project. Removal and replacement operations shall be coordinated with the
construction activities through the County's Project Engineer.
XVI
Upon completion of said Project, the County, at its expense, shall place
the necessary signs and the Cities, at their expense, shall provide the
enforcement for the prohibition of on-street parking on those portions of
County State Aid Highway No. 62 constructed under this Project recognizing the
concurrent jurisdiction of the Sheriff of Hennepin County.
Any modification of the above parking restrictions shall not be made
without first obtaining a resolution from the County Board of Commissioners
permitting said modification.
XVII
It is understood and agreed that upon completion of any and all
improvements proposed herein, all street lighting, water distribution systems,
sanitary sewer systems, concrete sidewalk (except median sidewalk) , board
fence, landscaping elements, and bituminous paths and walks included in said
improvement shall become the property of the City within which it lies and all
maintenance, restoration, repair, replacement or other work or services
required thereafter shall be performed by the City of ownership at its own
expense.
It is further understood and agreed that upon completion of the improve-
ment proposed herein, those portions of the streets identified as Vine Hill
Road and Sunny Road reconstructed as a part of this Project shall become the
property of Minnetonka and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement
required thereafter shall be performed by Minnetonka at its own expense.
It is further understood and agreed that upon completion of the
improvement proposed herein, that portion of the street identified as Dell
- 8 -
/0
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
Road reconstructed as a part of this Project shall become the property of Eden
Prairie and all maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement required
thereafter shall be performed by Eden Prairie at its own expense.
Upon completion of the Project the County and Mn/DOT shall , at their own
cost and expense, retain ownership and maintenance responsibilities for those
portions of the roadway storm sewer drainage system functioning as catch basins
and associated lead pipes that are within or between the outermost curblines of
the County and State roadways and also those within the radius return limits of
intersecting municipal streets. All other components of the roadway storm
sewer drainage system, constructed as a part of this Project including but not
limited to all trunk lines regardless of their location within County or State
right of way, shall become the property of the City within which it lies and
all maintenance, restoration or repair required thereafter shall be performed
by the City of ownership at no cost to the County. All questions of
maintenance responsibilities that may arise shall be jointly resolved by the
City Engineer and the County's Operations Division Engineer.
Each City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its
elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees, from any
liabilities, claims, causes of action, judgements, damages, losses, costs or
expenses, including, reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or
indirectly from any act or omission of each City, its subcontractors, anyone
directly or indirectly employed by the, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or
omissions they may be liable for related to the ownership, maintenance,
existence, restoration, repair or replacement of the respectively City owned
improvements provided herein.
XVIII
The Cities agree that any municipal licenses required to perform
electrical work within their respective corporate limits shall be issued to
the Contractor or the County at no cost to the Contractor or the County.
Electrical inspection fees shall not be more than those established by the
State Board of Electricity in the most recently recorded Electrical Inspection
Fee Schedule.
XIX
Eden Prairie shall install , or cause the installation of an adequate three
- 9 - c
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
wire, 120/240 volt, single phase, alternating current electrical power
connection to the traffic control signals and integral street lights included
in the contract at the sole cost and expense of Eden Prairie. Further, Eden
Prairie shall provide the electrical energy for the operation of the said
traffic control signals and integral street lights at its sole cost and
expense.
XX
The Cities shall not revise by addition or deletion, nor alter or adjust
any component, part, sequence, or timing of the aforesaid traffic control
signals, however, nothing herein shall prohibit prompt, prudent action by
properly constituted authorities in situations where a part of such traffic
control signals may be directly involved in an emergency.
XXI
Upon completion of this Project, the County shall thereafter maintain and
repair said traffic control signal and EVP system installed as a part of this
Project, all at the sole cost and expense of the County. Further, the County,
at its expense, shall maintain 110 volt power to the line side of the fuse in
the base of the signal poles for the integral street lights. Eden Prairie, at
its expense, shall maintain the fuse, the luminaire and the wire to the load
side of the fuse in the base of the signal poles.
The EVP Systems provided for herein shall be installed, operated,
maintained or removed in accordance with the following conditions and
requirements:
1. Emitter units may be installed and used only on vehicles responding to an
emergency as defined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 169.01, Subdivision 5
and 169.03. Each City will provide the County Engineer or his designated
representative a list of all such vehicles with emitter units.
2. Malfunctions of EVP Systems shall be reported to the County immediately.
3. In the event said EVP Systems or components are, in the option of the
County, being misused or the conditions set forth herein are violated,
and such misuse or violation continues after receipt by the Cities of
written notice thereof from the County, the County shall remove the EVP
- 10 -
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
Systems. Upon removal of the EVP Systems pursuant to this paragraph, the
field wiring, cabinet wiring, detector receivers, infrared detector
heads, indicator lamps and all other components shall become the property
of the County.
4. All timing of said EVP Systems shall be determined by the County.
XXII
Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the
results thereof, to the extent authorized by the law, and shall not be
responsible for the acts of the other party and the results thereof. The
County's and each City's liability is governed by the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 466.
The County and each City each warrant that they are able to comply with
the foregoing indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance
program.
XXIII
It is further agreed that any and all employees of the Cities and all
other persons engaged by the Cities in the performance of any work or services
required or provided for herein to be performed by the Cities shall not be
considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or
might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Unemployment
Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while
so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence
of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any
of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the
obligation or responsibility of the County.
Also, any and all employees of the County and all other persons engaged
by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided
for herein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of
the Cities, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the
Workers' Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of
Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims
made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part
of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to
- 11 - !
s3
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the
Cities.
XXIV
In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of
the Cities so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Hennepin
County Engineer or his designated representative shall manage this Agreement
on behalf of the County and serve as liaison between the County and the
Cities.
In order to coordinate the services of Eden Prairie with the activities
of Minnetonka and the County so as to accomplish the purposes of this
Agreement, the Eden Prairie Director of Public Works or his designated
representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of Eden Prairie and serve
as liaison between the Cities and the County.
In order to coordinate the services of Minnetonka with the activities of
Eden Prairie and the County so as to accomplish the purposes of this
Agreement, the Minnetonka Director of Public Works or his designated
representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of Bloomington and serve
as liaison between the Cities and the County.
XXV
It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties
is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All
items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are
deemed to be part of this Agreement.
Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of
this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as
an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto.
XXVI
The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local
ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative
Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this
Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
- 12 -
iy
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year
first above written.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
(Seal) By:
Mayor
Date:
And:
Manager
Date:
CITY OF MINNETONKA
(Seal) By:
Mayor
Date:
•
And:
Manager
Date:
- 13 -
/5-
Agreement No. PW 40-15-96
CSAH 62; C.P. 9423
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ATTEST:
By: By:
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board Chair of its County Board
Date: Date:
APPR0V S TO FORM: And:
Assistant/County Administrator
I
By: ,., Date:
isi stant y;Atto ne
And:
Date: Director, Department of Public Works
and County Engineer
Date:
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
By: By:
Assistant County Attorney Transportation Division Engineer
Date: Date:
- 14 -
/(;
DIVISION OF COST SUMMARY
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 9423
CSAH 61 AT TH 101
S.P. 2736-41, S.P. 27-662-57
TOTAL HENNEPIN STATE
ESTIMATED COST MINNETONKA EDEN PRAIRIE COUNTY CHANHASSEN AND FEDERAL
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION $1,972,944.25 $104,146.35 $166,524.50 $585,614.57 0 $1,116,658.83
(SEE FOLLOWING SHEETS)
ENGINEERING 18,746.34(1) 29,974.41(1) 23,503.64
COUNTY SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT 10,000.00 1,900.00 1,900.00 6,200.00
RIGHT OF WAY 294,000.00 57,500.00 84,250.00 51,977.00 5,250.00 95,023.00
TOTALS $182,292.69 $282,648.91 $643.791.57 $5,250.00 $1,235,185.47
(2) (2)
(1) 18% OF MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(2) MONIES OBTAINED THROUGH SEPARATE AGREEMENTS.
DIVISION OF COST SUMMARY
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT NO. 9423
CSAH 61 AT TH 101
S.P. 2736-41, S.P. 27-662-57
TOTAL HENNEPIN STATE
ESTIMATED COST MINNETONKA EDEN PRAIRIE COUNTY CHANHASSEN AND FEDERAL
CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION $1,972,944.25 $104,146.35 $166,524.50 $585,614.57 0 $1,116,658.83
X (SEE FOLLOWING SHEETS)
t CD
J' :21 ENGINEERING 18,746.34(1) 29,974.41(1) 23,503.64
c COUNTY SUPPLIED EQUIPMENT 10,000.00 1,900.00 1,900.00 6,200.00
RIGHT OF WAY 294,000.00 57,500.00 84,250.00 51,977.00 5,250.00 95,023.00
cti
r* -s
o fD
a TOTALS $182,292.69 $282,648.91 $643.791.57 $5,250.00 $1,235,185.47
-t) (2) (2)
.sN z
(1) 18% OF MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION COST
(2) MONIES OBTAINED THROUGH SEPARATE AGREEMENTS.
O
1
r-to
On
MINNESOTA DOT
PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY DETAIL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
JOB NUMBER 960355 S.P. 27-662-57 CSAH 62 PAGE NO. 2
AUGUST 14, 1996
PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 4443058) AID NO.
ROADWAY PORTION (S.P. 2736-41) .
80x STP FUNDS
20x STATE FUNDS
TYPE CODE I 0 0 0
ITEM ITEM ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS PRICE AMOUNT
r •
2021.501 MOBILIZATION .52 LUMP SUM 60000.00 $31,200.00
2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPE D .52 EACH 3000.00 $1,560.00
2031.503 FIELD LABORATORY TYPE D .52 EACH 3000.00 $1,560.00
2101.511 CLEARING AND GRUBBING .52 LUMP SUM 8000.00 $4,160.00
0101.606 ROOT CUTTING 21 .00 LIN FT 4.00 $840.00
2102.501 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL 27 .00 SQ FT 1.50 $405.00
2102.502 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL 161 .00 LIN FT 0.50 $808.50
2103.507 DISCONNECT WATER SERVICE .50 EACH . 100.00 $350.00
2104.501 REMOVE.PIPE CULVERTS 22 .00 LIN FT 5.00 $1,130.00
2104.501 REMOVE WATER MAIN 106 .00 LIN FT 6.00 $6,366.00
2104.501 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER 4 .00 LIN FT 5.00 $230.00
2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 10 .00 SQ YD 6.00 $600.00
2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 1360 .00 SQ YD 2.00 $27,218.00
2104.509 REMOVE CASTING .70 EACH 50.00 • $35.00
2104.513 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) 25 .00 LIN FT 2.50 $632.50
2104.523 SALVAGE GATE VALVE .40 EACH 400.00 $560.00
2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION 6120 .00 CU YD 3.50 $214,221.00
2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION 335 .00 CU YD 4.00 $13,408.00
2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) 526 .00 . CU YD 7.00 $36,876.00
m I 0123.601 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) 3 .00 HOUR 100.00 $3,400.00
3 = 2130.501 WATER 1 .00 M GAL 30.00 $540.00
p- m 2131.502 CALCIUM CHLORIDE SOLUTION 393 .00 GALLON 1.00 $3,930.00
xro 2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 386 .00 CU YD 14.00 $54,110.00
y 2221.502 AGGREGATE SHOULDERING (LV) CLASS 5 15 .00 CU YD 16.00 $2,528.00
_ n 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE 139 .00 SQ YD 4.00 $5,596.00
2340.508 TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE 225 .00 TON 22.00 $49,610.00
cc 2340.510 TYPE 41 BINDER COURSE MIXTURE 228 .00 TON 20.00 $45,600.00
m 2340.514 TYPE 31 BASE COURSE MIXTURE 282 .00 TON 19.00 $53,599.00
C'< 2340.514 TYPE 41 BASE COURSE MIXTURE 378 .00 TON 20.00 $75,760.00
ro > 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT 278 .00 GALLON 1.50 $4,182.00
-. 0411.603 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL
2502.521 4" TP PIPE DRAIN 651 .00 SQ FT
4 .00 LIN FT 16.00
8.00 •$104,160.00
3 $368.00
2502.541 4" PE CORR PERF PIPE DRAIN 154 .00 LIN FT - 6.00 $9,240.00
�p 0502.601 4" PRECAST CONCRETE HEADWALL .70 EACH 100.00 $70.00
0504.602 RELOCATE HYDRANT & VALVE .20 EACH 1400.00 $5,880.00
0504.602 ADJUST GATE VALVE .40 EACH 125.00 $175.00
p 0504.602 1" CORPORATION STOP .70 EACH 100.00 $70.00
0504.602 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX .70 EACH 500.00 $350.00
BOX'a 0504.602 8" GATE VALVE AND
8554:602 ADJUppTCVvyyOpNDOX :88 EAC yySS:SS 8d80:88
A
9 0504.603 1" TYPE K COPPER PIPE 7.00 LIN FT 20.00 $14u.00
iii 0504.603 6" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 74.00 LIN FT . 20.00 $1,480.00
cb 1 0504.603 8" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 293.00 LIN FT 24.00 $7,032.00
cm 0504.603 10" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 721.00 LIN FT 28.00 $20,188.00
0504.605 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION 140.00 SQ YD 20.00 $2,800.00
0504.620 WATERMAIN FITTINGS 1600.00 POUND 1.70 $2,720.00
2506.503 RECONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE 4.20 LIN FT 200.00 $840.00
2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING 1.40 EACH 200.00 $280.00
2521.501 3" CONCRETE WALK 412.00 SQ FT 3.50 $1,442.00
1 2521.501 3.5" CONCRETE WALK 2946.00 SQ FT 2.00 . $5,892.00
2521.501 6" CONCRETE WALK 566.00 SQ FT 5.00 $2,830.00
2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B612 144.00 LIN FT 6.00 $864.00
. 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B624 2791.00 LIN FT 6.50 $18,141.50
M I N N E S 0 I A DO 1
PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY DETAIL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
JOB NUMBER 960355 S.P. 27-662-57 CSAH 62 PAGE NO. 3
AUGUST 14, 1996
ITEM ITEM ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS PRICE AMOUNT
2531.503 CONCRETE MEDIAN (DESIGN SPECIAL) 769.00 SQ YD 2 .00 $19,225.00
0533.603 RELOCATE CONCRETE MEDIAN BARRIER 555.00 LIN FT .50 $1,387.50
0533.603 TEMP PORTABLE PRECAST CONC BAR TYPE III 1639.00 LIN FT .00 $13,112.00
2535.501 BITUMINOUS CURB 389.00 LIN FT .00 $1,556.00
0554.602 IMPACT ATTENUATOR BARRELS 5.40 EACH 30 .00 $1,620.00
0554.602 RELOCATE IMPACT ATTENUATOR BARRELS 5.40 EACH 4 .00 $216.00
0554.604 IMPACT ATTENUATOR 3.20 ASSEMBLY 200 .00 $6,400.00
0554.604 RELOCATE IMPACT ATTENUATOR 2.20 ASSEMBLY 72 .00 $1,595.00
0557.603 SPLIT RAIL FENCE 540.00 LIN FT .00 $3,780.00
0557.603 WOOD FENCE 6' HIGH 725.00 LIN FT 2 .00 $14,500.00
0563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL 0.52 LUMP SUM 3500 .00 $18,200.00
0563.602 TYPE III BARRICADES 108.00 UNIT DAY .00 $216.00
0563.602 TYPE I BARRICADES/STEADY BURN LT 108.00 UNIT DAY .00 $108.00
0563.602 FLASHER TYPE A (LOW INTENSITY) 54.00 UNIT DAY .30 $16.20
0563.602 FLASHER TYPE B (HIGH INTENSITY) 54.00 UNIT DAY .00 $108.00
0563.602 FLASHER TYPE C (STEADY BURN) 54.00 UNIT DAY .90 $48.60
0563.602 REFLECT PLAST SAF DRUM W/DOWN ARROW 108.00 UNIT DAY .80 $86.40
0563.602 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 54.00 UNIT DAY 20 .00 $10,800.00
0563.602 48X24 INCH SIGN 270.00 UNIT DAY .50 $405.00
0563.602 48X48 INCH SIGN WITH SUPPORTS 270.00 UNIT DAY. . .00 $540.00
0563.603 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TEMPORARY 270.00 EACH .50 $405.00
!>,j 0563.603 MEDIAN BARRIER DELINEATOR 26.00 EACH .40 $140.40
C 0563.604 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS 108.00 SQ FT 1 .50 $1,890.00
0563.604 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS-SPECIAL 270.00 SQ FT 1 .00 $4,050.00
2564.531 F&I SIGN PANELS TYPE C 306.00 SQ FT 2 .00 $7,650.00
2564.541 DELINEATOR TYPE IXB (X4-2) 6.70 EACH 4 .00 $301.50
x m 0564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (ONLY) POLY PREFORMED 1.30 EACH 19 .00 $247.00
0564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LT ARROW) POLY PREFORM 17.30 EACH 19 .00 $3,287.00
Q m 0564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RT ARROW) POLY PREFORM 6.70 EACH 19 .00 $1,273.00
0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-PAINT 9529.00 LIN FT .05 $476.45
D 3 0564.603 8" SOLID LINE WHITE-PAINT 83.00 LIN FT .10 $8.30
-. C) 0564.603 4" BROKEN LINE WHITE-PAINT 462.00 LIN FT .50 $231.00
cn 8 0564.603 24" STOP LINE WHITE-PAINT 65.00 LIN FT .00 $195.00
3 = 0564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT 745.00 LIN FT .10 $74.50
m .c 0564.603 24" SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT 372.00 LIN FT .20 $1,562.40
0564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT 5897.00 LIN FT .15 $884.55
WCQ 0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-POLY PREFORMED 1940.00 LIN FT .25 $485.00
0 ig 0564.603 4" BROKEN LINE WHITE-POLY PREFORMED 462.00 LIN FT .20 $1,016.40
0564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-POLY PREFORMED 998.00 LIN FT .35 $349.30
0564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-POLY PREF 977.00 LIN FT .70 $683.90
= 0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY 1450.00 LIN FT .20 $290.00
0564.603 8" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY 83.00 LIN FT .50 $41.50
Z 0564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY 745.00 LIN FT .30 $223.50
P J564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY 682.00 LIN FT .60 $409.20
0564.60355666 SOLID
LWIINEKKYELLHLLIOW-EPOYYXYPREFORMED 3752.00 L11 IN FT .50 $1,674.0038450
42. 257 .501 CONIFEROUS TREEN5ROHTSB&BAL SYSTEM 11.60 TREESYS 87200.00 50 .00 $$2,320.00
2571.501 CONIFEROUS TREE 6' HT B&B 4.90 TREE 225.00 $1,102.50
Fri2571.501 CONIFEROUS TREE 7' HT B&B 8.10 TREE 250.00 $2,025.00
cb 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 1.75" CAL B&B 0.70 TREE 200.00 $140.00
2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" CAL B&B 17.00 TREE 225.00 $3,825.00
2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 6' HT B&B 0.40 TREE 125.00 $50.00
2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 1.5" CAL B&B '6.30 TREE 175.00 $1,102.50
2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 2.5" CAL B&B 0.70 TREE 200.00 $140.00
2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 18" HT BR 11.60 SHRUB 25.00 $290.00
2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 2' HT BR 11.90 SHRUB 30.00 $357.00
2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 3' HT BR 11.60 SHRUB 50.00 $580.00
2572.501 TEMPORARY FENCE 1890.00 LIN FT 3.00 $5,670.00
2573.501 BALE CHECK 167.00 EACH 6.00 $1,002.00
MINNESOTA DOT
PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY DETAIL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE, •
JOB NUMBER 960355 S.P. 27-662-57 CSAH 62 PAGE NO. 4
AUGUST 14, 1996
ITEM ITEM ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS PRICE AMOUNT
2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY 326.00 LIN FT 3.00 $978.00
2575.501 SEEDING 1.30 ACRE 200.00 $260.00
2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 500 69.00 POUND 2.50 $172.50
2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN 10858.00 SQ YD 1.50 $16,287.00
2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 11.40 TON 200.00 $280.00
2575.513 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 6 34.50 CU YD 30.00 $
1,035.00
00
2575.519 DISK ANCHORING 0.80 ACRE 100.00 $5,557.50
2575.523 WOOD FIBER BLANKETS TYPE REGULAR 4446.00 SQ YD 1.25
2575.531 COMMERCIAL FERT ANALYSIS 10-10-10 0.35 TON 350.00 $122.50
2580.502 TEMPORARY LANE MARKING 270.00 LIN FT 0.50 $135.00
2581.501 REMOVABLE PREFORMED PLASTIC MARKING 270.00 LIN FT 1.30 $351.00
CATEGORY TOTAL $1,028,579.10
•
1 N
•
X (=D
S =
cr 7
D5
_an
co O
c
m
m
AD ,
m
m
a
z
p
A
9
FT
MINNESOTA DOT •
PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY DETAIL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
JOB NUMBER 960355 S.P. 27-662-57 CSAH 62 PAGE NO. 5
AUGUST 14, 1996
NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 4443058) AID NO.
ROADWAY PORTION (S.P. 2736-41)
80X HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID
20x STATE FUNDS
TYPE CODE I 0 0 0
ITEM ITEM ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS PRICE AMOUNT
2021.501 MOBILIZATION .22 LUMP SUM 60000.00 $13,200.00
200.00
2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPE D .22 EACH 3000.00
2031.503 FIELD LABORATORY TYPE D .22 EACH 3000.00 • $660.00
2101.511 CLEARING AND GRUBBING .22 LUMP SUM 8000.00 $1,760.00
.00
0101.606 ROOT CUTTING 9 .00 LIN FT 4.00
2102.501 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL 11 .00 SQ FT 1.50 . $172.50
2102.502 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL. 69 .00 LIN FT 0.50 $346.50
2103.507 DISCONNECT WATER SERVICE .50 EACH 100.00 $150.00
2104.501 REMOVE PIPE CULVERTS 9 .00 LIN FT 5.00 $485.00
2104.501 REMOVE WATER MAIN 45 .00
6.00 $2,730.00
00 LIN FT
2104.501 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER 5.00 $100.00
2104.505 REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 4 .00 SQ YD 6.00 $258.00
2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 583 .00 SQ YD 2.00 $11,664.00
2104.509 REMOVE CASTING .30 EACH 50.00 $15.00
2104.513 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) 10 .00 LIN FT 2.50 $270.00
J"�! 2104.523 SALVAGE GATE VALVE .60 EACH ' 400.00 $240.00
N 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION 2623 .00 YD 3.50 $91,808.50
2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION 143 .00 CU YD 4.00 $5,744.00
2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) 225 .00 CU YD 7.00 $15,799.00
m i 0123.601 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) 1 .00 HOUR 100.00 $1,400.00
2130.501 WATER .00 M GAL 30.00 $240.00
cr168 .00 GALLON 1.00 $1,684.00
- CD 2131.5022 CALCIUMG CHLORIDE SOLUTION 165 .00 CU YD 14.00 $23,198.00
� 2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5
D 5 2221.502 AGGREGATE SHOULDERING (LV) CLASS 5 596 .0016.00 $1,088.008.00 SQ YD 4.00 $1,08 .00
_ 96 .00 TON 22.00 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS SURFACE $$2,39 .00
2340.508 TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE20.00 $19,540.00
s c 2340.510 TYPE 41 BINDER COURSE MIXTURE 97 .00 TON 20.00 $22,971.00
m -. 2340.514 TYPE 31 BASE COURSE MIXTURE 120 .00 TON
m'< 2340.514 TYPE 41 BASE COURSE MIXTURE 162 .00 TON 20.00 $32,460.00
01 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT 119 .00 GALLON 1.50 $1,792.50
o 0411.603 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL 279 .00 SQ FT 16.00 $44,640.00
2502.521 4" TP PIPE DRAIN 1 .00 LIN FT 8.00 $152.00
3 2502.541 4" PE CORR PERF PIPE DRAIN 66 .00 LIN FT • 6.00 $3,960.00
0502.601 4" PRECAST CONCRETE HEADWALL .30 EACH 100.00 $30.00
0504.602 RELOCATE HYDRANT & VALVE .80 EACH 1400.00 $2,520.00
0504.602 ADJUST GATE VALVE .60 EACH 125.00 $75.00
p 0504.602 1" CORPORATION STOP .30 EACH 100.00 $30.00
0504.602 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX .30 EACH 500.00 $150.00
-D 0504.602 8"881"" GATE EEVALVE EEAND BOX .660 EACH 650.006q0 $$g399y0.00
0504.602 ADJUSTTCURBLSTOPND BOX .20 FM 100.00 $120.00
1a 0.00
3 .00 LIN
C 0504.603 1" TYPE K COPPER PIPE .00 LIN FT 20.00 FT 20.00 $$60.00
0504.603 4" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 24.00 S3640.00
v' 0504.603 8" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 12 .00 LIN FT.00 LIN FT 28.00 $8,652.00
ccs 0504.603 10" WATER MAIN-DUCT IRON CL 52 306 .00 SQ YD 20.00 $1,200.00
0504.605 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION 68 .00 POUND 1.70 $1,164.50
0504.620 WATERMAIN FITTINGS .80 LIN FT 200.00 $360.00
2506.503 RECONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE ,00 EACH 2O0.00 $360.00
2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING 600 SQ FT 3.50 $120.00
2521.501 3" CONCRETE WALK 1 17 .7 .00 SQ FT • 2.00 $2 616.00
2521.501 3.5" CONCRETE WALK 2521.501 6" CONCRETE WALK 24 .00 SQ FT 5.00 $1,210.00
.00 LIN FT 6.00 ,524.00$372.00
2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B6126.00 $7,774.00
2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B624 119 .00 LIN FT
i
MINNESOTA DOT
PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY DETAIL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
JOB NUMBER 960355 S.P. 27-662-57 CSAH 62 PAGE NO. 6
AUGUST 14, 1996
ITEM ITEM ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION - QUANTITY UNITS PRICE• AMOUNT
2531.503 CONCRETE MEDIAN (DESIGN SPECIAL) 330.00 SQ YD 2 .00 $8,250.00
0533.603 RELOCATE CONCRETE MEDIAN BARRIER 238.00 LIN FT .50 $595.00
0533.603 TEMP PORTABLE PRECAST CONC BAR TYPE III 702.00 LIN FT .00 $5,616.00
2535.501 BITUMINOUS CURB 167.00 LIN FT .00 $668.00
0554.602 IMPACT ATTENUATOR BARRELS 2.30 EACH 30 .00 $690.00
0554.602 RELOCATE IMPACT ATTENUATOR BARRELS 2.30 EACH 4 .00 $92.00
0554.604 IMPACT ATTENUATOR 1.40 ASSEMBLY 200 .00 $2,800.00
0554.604 RELOCATE IMPACT ATTENUATOR 0.90 ASSEMBLY 72 .00 $652.50
0557.603 SPLIT RAIL FENCE 231.00 LIN FT .00 $1,617.00
0557.603 WOOD FENCE 6' HIGH 310;00 LIN FT 2 .00 $6,200.00
0563.601 .TRAFFIC CONTROL 0.22 LUMP SUM 3500 .00 $7,700.00
0563.602 TYPE III BARRICADES 46.00 UNIT DAY .00 $92.00
0563.602 TYPE I BARRICADES/STEADY BURN LT 46.00 UNIT DAY .00 $46.00
0563.602 FLASHER TYPE A (LOW INTENSITY) 23.00 UNIT DAY .30 $6.90
0563.602 FLASHER TYPE B (HIGH INTENSITY) 23.00 UNIT DAY .00 $46.00
0563.602 FLASHER TYPE C (STEADY BURN) 23.00 UNIT DAY .90 $20.70
0563.602 REFLECT PLAST SAF DRUM W/DOWN ARROW 46.00 UNIT DAY .80 $36.80
0563.602 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 23.00 UNIT DAY 20 .00 $
4,600.00
0563.602 48X24 INCH SIGN 115.00 UNIT DAY .50
0563.602 48X48 INCH SIGN WITH SUPPORTS 115.00 UNIT DAY .00 $230.00
0563.603 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TEMPORARY 115.00 EACH .50 $172.50
0563.603 MEDIAN BARRIER DELINEATOR 11.00 EACH .40 $59.40
N 0563.604 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS 46.00 SQ FT 1 .50 $805.00
0563.604 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS-SPECIAL 115.00 SQ FT 1 .00 $1,725.00
2564.531 F&I SIGN PANELS TYPE C 131.00 SQ FT 2 .00 $3,275.00
MI 2564.541 DELINEATOR TYPE IXB (X4-2) 2.80 EACH 4 .00 $126.00
?
= 0564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (ONLY) POLY PREFORMED 0.60 EACH 19 .00 $114.00
ET m 0564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LT ARROW) POLY PREFORM 7.40 EACH 19 .00 $1,406.00
43 0564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RT ARROW) POLY PREFORM 2.80 EACH 19 .00 $532.00
D 3 0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-PAINT 4084.00 LIN FT .05 $204.20
0564.603 8" SOLID LINE WHITE-PAINT 36.00 LIN FT .10 $3.60
n 0564.603 4" BROKEN LINE WHITE-PAINT 198.00 LIN FT .50 $99.00
c 0564.603 24" STOP LINE WHITE-PAINT 28.00 LIN FT .00 $84.00
mi 0564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT 319.00 LIN FT .10 $31.90
m`< 0564.603 24" SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT 160.00 LIN FT .20 $672.00
rn D 0564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT 2528.00 LIN FT .15 $379.20
0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-POLY PREFORMED 831.00 LIN FT .25 $207.75$435.60
m 0564.603 4" BROKEN LINE WHITE-POLY PREFORMED 198.00 LIN FT .20 $ 35.60
3 0564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-POLY PREFORMED 427.00 LIN FT .35 $449.45
cD 0564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-POLY PREF 419.00 LIN FT .70 $293.30
0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY 621.00 LIN FT . .20
8" LINE WHITE-EPDXY 36.00 LIN FT • .50 $18.00
SOLID
0564.6030
2.! 0564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY 319.00 LIN FT .60 $175.207
•0564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY 292.00 LIN FT
13 '05556644y.66600o3 2Z24EE"RRSOLIDggLINEKKYELLHLOW-PEPPOyyXY RREE pRRMM 160.00 gLQIN TFT .505g 5g11$7762gq0.00
25b5:511 ql FULLATCACTS ACONTROLEMU'.PSY OEMED 318 1R SIGFSYS 87500.34 513;125:00
A T
9 2571.501 CONIFEROUS TREE 5' HT B&B 5.00. TREE 200.00 $1,000.00
v, • 2571.501 CONIFEROUS TREE 6' HT B&B 2.10 TREE 225.00 $472.50
2571.501 CONIFEROUS TREE 7' HT B&B 3.50 TREE 250.00 $875.00
rn 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 1.75" CAL B&B 0.30 TREE 200.00 $60.00
2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" CAL B&B 7.30 TREE 225.00 $1,642.50
2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 6' HT B&B 0.20 TREE 125.00 $25.00
2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 1.5" CAL B&B 2.70 TREE 175.00 S472.50
2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 2.5" CAL B&B 0.30 TREE 200.00 $60.00
2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 18" HT BR 5.00 SHRUB 25.00 $125.00
2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 2' HT BR 5.10 SHRUB 30.00 $153.00
2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 3' HT BR • 5.00 SHRUB 50.00 $250.00
2572.501 TEMPORARY FENCE 810.00 LIN FT 3.00 $2,430.00
. 2573.501 BALE CHECK 72.00 EACH 6.00 $432.00
MINNESOTA DOT
PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY DETAIL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
JOB NUMBER 960355 S.P. 27-662-57 CSAH 62 PAGE NO. 7
AUGUST 14, 1996
ITEM ITEM ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS PRICE AMOUNT
2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY 139.00 LIN FT 3.00 $417.00
2575.501 SEEDING • 0.60 ACRE 200.00 $120.00
2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 500 29.00 POUND 2.50 $72.50
2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN 4653.00 SQ YD 1.50 $6,979.50
2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 0.60 TON 200.00 $120.00
2575.513 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 6 14.80 CU YD 30.00 $444.00
2575.519 DISK ANCHORING 0.30 ACRE 100.00 • $30.00
2575.523 WOOD FIBER BLANKETS TYPE REGULAR 1905.00 SQ YD 1.25 $2,381.25
2575.531 COMMERCIAL FERT ANALYSIS 10-10-10 0.15 TON 350.00 $52.50
2580.502 TEMPORARY LANE MARKING 115.00 LIN FT 0.50 $57.50
2581.501 REMOVABLE PREFORMED PLASTIC MARKING 115.00 LIN FT 1.30 $149.50
. CATEGORY TOTAL $440,398.65
y
X c •
D 5
- n
co O
s
m R.
CD
V m r
o-.. m
m
m ,
O
Z
O
.3
42.
i
ir .
I 1 ♦ 1. 1. ... J ., 1 N ., 1
PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY DETAIL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
JOB NUMBER 960355 S.P. 27-662-57 CSAH 62 PAGE NO. 8
AUGUST 14, 1996
NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 5001129) AID NO.
ROADWAY PORITON (S.P. 27-662-57)
100.00x HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID FUNDS
TYPE CODE I 0 0 0
ITEM ITEM ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS PRICE AMOUNT
2021.501 MOBILIZATION 0.05 LUMP SUM 6000 .00 $3,000.00
2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPE D 0.05 EACH 300 .00 $150.00
2031.503 FIELD LABORATORY TYPE D 0.05 EACH 300 .00 $150.00
2101.511 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 0.05 LUMP SUM . 800 .00 • $400.00
2102.501 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL 25.00 SQ FT .50 $37.50
7.50
2102.502 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL 150.00 LIN FT • .50
2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 1278.00 SQ YD .00 $2,556.00
2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION 1436.00. CU YD .50 $5,026.00
2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION 444.00 CU YD .00 $1,776.00
2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) 695.00 CU YD .00 $4,865.00
0123.601 STREET SWEEPER (WITH PICKUP BROOM) 2.00 HOUR 10 .00 $200.00
2130.501 WATER 3.00 M GAL 3 .00 $90.00
2131.502 CALCIUM CHLORIDE SOLUTION 453.00 GALLON .00 $453.00
2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE (CV) CLASS 5 500.00 CU YD 1 .00 $7,000.00
2340.508 TYPE 41 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE 185.00 TON 2 .00 $4,070.00
2340.510 TYPE 41 BINDER COURSE MIXTURE 185.00 TON 2 .00 $3,700.00
2340.514 TYPE 31 BASE COURSE MIXTURE 334.00 TON 1 .00 $6,346.00
2340.514 TYPE 41 BASE COURSE MIXTURE 278.00 TON 2 .00 $5,560.00
2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT 253.00 GALLON .50 $379.50
(fi 0411.603 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL .550.00 SQ FT 1 .00 $8,800.00
2502.541 4" PE CORR PERF PIPE DRAIN 50.00 LIN FT .00 $300.00
x = 2521.501 3" CONCRETE WALK 1449.00 SQ FT .50 $5,071.50
= 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB 8 GUTTER DESIGN B624 723.00 LIN FT .50 $4,699.50
o- g 0533.603 RELOCATE CONCRETE MEDIAN BARRIER 52.00 LIN FT .50 $130.00
74.:i5 0533.603 TEMP PORTABLE PRECAST CONC BAR TYPE III 152.00 LIN FT .00 $1,216.00
)'-: 5 0554.602 IMPACT ATTENUATOR BARRELS 0.50 EACH 50 .00 $150.00
0554.602 RELOCATE IMPACT ATTENUATOR BARRELS 0.50 EACH 4 .00 $20.00
(no 0554.604 IMPACT ATTENUATOR 0.30 ASSEMBLY 200 .00 $600.00
? c 0554.604 RELOCATE IMPACT ATTENUATOR 0.20 ASSEMBLY 72 .00 $145.00
m 0557.603 SPLIT RAIL FENCE 293.00 LIN FT .00 $2,051.00
m•< 0563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL 0.05 LUMP SUM 3500 .00 $1,750.00
cow 0563.602 TYPE III BARRICADES 10.00 UNIT DAY .00 $20.00
o m 0563.602 TYPE I BARRICADES/STEADY BURN LT 10.00 UNIT DAY .00 $10.00
m 0563.602 FLASHER TYPE A (LOW INTENSITY) 5.00 UNIT DAY ' .30 $1.50
. 3 0563.602 FLASHER TYPE B (HIGH INTENSITY) 5.00 UNIT DAY .00 $10.00
m 0563.602 FLASHER TYPE C (STEADY BURN) 5.00 UNIT DAY .90 $4.50
0563.602 REFLECT PLAST SAF DRUM W/DOWN ARROW 10.00 UNIT DAY .80 $8.00
Z 0563.602 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 5.00 UNIT DAY . 20 .00 $1,000.00
P 0563.602 48X24 INCH SIGN 25.00 UNIT DAY . .50 $37.50
0555666333.6660223 48X488 INCH SIGN
MWIITTHHESUTPPPORTS 25.005 UNIT DAYDAY .000 g$g3350.00
13
lE 05b3.6S3 MEDIAN BARRIERTDELINEATORMPORARY 23.S0 EACH .4S $16.25
•A 0563.604 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS 10.00 SQ FT 1 .50 $175.00
0563.604 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS-SPECIAL 25.00 SQ FT 1 .00 $375.00
2564.531 F&I SIGN PANELS TYPE C 23.00 SQ FT 2 .00 $575.00
2564.541 DELINEATOR TYPE IXB (X4-2) 0.50 . EACH 4 .00 $22.50
rn 0564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (ONLY) POLY PREFORMED 0.10 EACH 19 .00 $19.00
0564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (LT ARROW) POLY PREFORM ' 1.30 EACH 19 .00 $247.00
0564.602 PAVEMENT MESSAGE (RT ARROW) POLY PREFORM 0.50 EACH 19 .00 $95.00
0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-PAINT 833.00 LIN FT .05 $41.65
0564.603 8" SOLID LINE WHITE-PAINT 6.00 LIN FT .10 $0.60
0564.603 4" BROKEN LINE WHITE-PAINT 35.00 LIN FT .50 $17.50
0564.603 24" STOP LINE WHITE-PAINT 6.00 LIN FT .00 $18.00
0564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT 56.00 LIN FT .20 $117.60
0564.603 24" SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT 28.00 LIN FT
'
•
• MINNESOTA DOT
PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY DETAIL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE •
JOB NUMBER 960355 S.P. 27-662-57 CSAH 62 PAGE NO. 9
AUGUST 14, 1996
ITEM ITEM ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS PRICE AMOUNT
0564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT 530.00 LIN FT .15 $79.50
0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-POLY PREFORMED 155.00 LIN FT .25 $38.75
0564.603 4" BROKEN LINE WHITE-POLY PREFORMED 35.00 LIN FT .20 $77.00
0564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-POLY PREFORMED • 75.00 LIN FT .35 $26.25
• 0564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-POLY PREF 79.00 LIN FT .70 $55.30
0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY 109.00 LIN FT .20 $21.80
0564.603 8" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPDXY 6.00 LIN FT .50 $3.00
0564.603 4" SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY 56.00 LIN FT .30 $16.80
0564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY 51.00 LIN FT .60 $30.60
0564.603 24" SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPDXY 28.00 LIN• FT .50 $126.00
0564.604 ZEBRA CROSSWALK-WHITE POLY PREFORMED 55.00 SQ FT .30 $291.50
2565.511 FULL I ACT I CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM 0.12 SIG SYS 875020 .0000 $10,500.00
500.00
2571.501 CONIFEROUS TREE 6' HT B&B 2.00 TREE 25 .00 $750.00
2571.501 CONIFEROUS TREE 7' HT B&B 3.00 TREE 22 00 $750.00
2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" CAL B&B 1.70 TREE 22 .00 $175.00
2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 1.5" CAL B&B 1.00 TREE 3 .00 $240.00
2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 2' HT BR 8.00 28.00 EACHB .00 $156.00
2573.501 BALE CHECK 2575.501 SEEDING 0.10 ACRE 20 .00 $20.00
.50 $12.50
2575.502 SEED MIXTURE•500 POUND
50 5.007.00 SQ YD 50 $760.50
2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN . 0 TON 20 .00 $80.00
X m 2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 23.000 TO YD 3 .00 $690.00
S m 2575.513 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 63 .00 $10.00
Q' = 2575.519 DISK ANCHORING 0.10 TON 0.10 ACRE 10 .00 $35.00
- c� 2575.531 COMMERCIAL FERT ANALYSIS 10-10-10 2580.502 TEMPORARY LANE MARKING 25.00 LIN FT .50 $35.00
- 2581.501 REMOVABLE PREFORMED PLASTIC MARKING 25.00 LIN FT .30 $32.50
n •
CATEGO Y TOTAL $88,744.65
s
cno
=
c.
�p MMD
W
O @
A �
3+ •
Z
0
13
O •
J
f^}01
\/
I
MINNESOTA DOT
PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY DETAIL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
JOB NUMBER 960355 S.P. 27-662-57 CSAH 62 PAGE NO. 10
AUGUST 14, 1996
NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 5001129) AID NO.
ROADWAY (S.P. 142-010-11 & 142-020-26)
100x MINNETONKA MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUND
TYPE CODE I 0 0 0
ITEM ITEM ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT
NITE AMOUNT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS
2021.501 MOBILIZATION .06 LUMP SUM 6000 .00 $3,600.00
.00
2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPE D .06 EACH 300 .00 $180.00
2031.503 FIELD LABORATORY TYPE D .06 EACH 300 .00 $180.00
2101.511 CLEARING AND GRUBBING .06 LUMP SUM 800 .00 480.00
2102.501 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL 3 .00 SQ FT .50
2102.502 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL 21 .00 LIN FT .50 $2g$105.00
05.00
0411.603 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL 180 .00 SQ FT 1 .00
2521.501 6" CONCRETE WALK 21 .00 SQ FT .00 $1,050.00
2521.511 4" BITUMINOUS WALK 2016 .00 SQ FT .75 $15,124.50
2531.501 CONCRETE CURB 8 GUTTER DESIGN 8612 10 .00 LIN FT .00 $618.00
2531.501 CONCRETE CURB 8 GUTTER DESIGN B624 138 .00 LIN FT .50 $8,976.50
0533.603 RELOCATE CONCRETE MEDIAN BARRIER 7 .00 LIN FT .50 $180.00
0533.603 TEMP PORTABLE PRECAST CONC BAR TYPE III 21 .00 LIN FT .00 $1,704.00
0554.602 IMPACT ATTENUATOR BARRELS .70 EACH 30 .00 $210.00
0554.602 RELOCATE IMPACT ATTENUATOR BARRELS .70 EACH 4 .00 $28.00
0554.604 IMPACT ATTENUATOR .40 ASSEMBLY 200 .00 $800.00
0554.604 RELOCATE IMPACT ATTENUATOR .30 ASSEMBLY 72 .00 $217.50
0563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL 06 LUMP SUM 3500 .00 $2,100.00
J 0563.602 TYPE III BARRICADES 1 .00 UNIT DAY .00 $28.00
0563.602 TYPE I BARRICADES/STEADY BURN LT 1 .00 UNIT DAY .00 $14.00
X m 0563.602 FLASHER TYPE A (LOW INTENSITY) .00 UNIT DAY .3030 $2.10
0563.602 FLASHER TYPE B (HIGH INTENSITY) .00 UNIT DAY $14.00
s = 0563.602 FLASHER TYPE C (STEADY BURN) .00 UNIT DAY .90 $6.30
Q m 0563.602 REFLECT PLAST SAF DRUM W/DOWN ARROW 1 .00 UNIT DAY .80 $11.20
0563.602 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN .00 UNIT DAY 20 .00 $1,400.00
D 3 .00 UNIT DAY .5050 $52.50
_ 0563.602 48X24 INCH SIGN $70.00
0 0563.602 48X48 INCH SIGN WITH SUPPORTS 3 .00 UNIT DAY
c 0563.603 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TEMPORARY 3 .00 EACH .50 $52.50
m = 0563.603 MEDIAN BARRIER DELINEATOR .00 EACH .40 $21.60
m 0563.604 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS 1 .00 SQ FT 1 .50 $245.00
i D -0563.604 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS-SPECIAL 3 .00 SQ. FT 1 .00 $525.00
o m 0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-PAINT 86 .00 LIN FT .00 $43.05
o m 0564.603 24" STOP LINE WHITE-PAINT .00 LIN FT .00 $24.00
0564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT 63 .00 LIN FT .15 $94.80
-` 0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-POLY PREFORMED 6 .00 LIN FT .255 $16.00
0564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-POLY PREF 3 .00 LIN FT $27.30
2565.511 FULL I ACT T CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM .19 SIG SYS 8750 .00 $16,625.00
Z
2571.501 CONIFEROUS TREE 5' HT B&B 1 .70 TREE 20 .00 $3,340.00
2 -2571.501 CONIFEROUS TREE 6' HT B&B .00 TREE 22 .00 $2,025.00
'v '225577111.555011 CONIFEROUS TTREE 11777' HT B&B 1 .70 TTRREEEE 225 .00 $3,675.0062
.1E.
2571.552 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5�"CALLB8BB 2 :88 TREE 225.80 $5$850:00
0 2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 6' HT B&B .70, TREE 125.00 $87.50
2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 1.5" CAL B&B 1 .00 TREE 175.00 $1,750.00
v' 2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 2.5" CAL B8B .00 •. TREE 200.00 $200.00
�0 2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 18" HT BR 1 .70 . SHRUB 25.00 $417.50
rn 2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 2' HT BR 2 .00 SHRUB 30.00 $750.00
2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 3' HT BR •
1 .70 SHRUB 50.00 $835.OU
2575.513 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 6 4 .50 CU YD 30.00 $1,275.00
2580.502 TEMPORARY LANE MARKING 3 .00 LIN FT 0.50 $17.50
2581.501 REMOVABLE PREFORMED PLASTIC MARKING 3 .00 LIN FT • 1.30 $45.50
CATEGORY TOTAL $104,146.35
M i 1i Ii t U I $ UUI
PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY DETAIL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
JOB NUMBER 960355 S.P. 27-662-57 CSAH 62 PAGE NO. 11
AUGUST 14, 1996
NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 5001129) AID NO.
ROADWAY (S.P. 181-010-10 & 181-020-16)
100% EDEN PRAIRIE MUNICIPAL STATE AID
FUNDS
TYPE CODE I 0 0 0
ITEM ITEM ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT •
NUMBER DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS PRICE AMOUNT
2021.501 MOBILIZATION 0.08 LUMP SUM 6000 .00 $4,800.00
2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPE D 0.08 EACH 300 .00 $240.00
2031.503 FIELD LABORATORY TYPE D . 0.08 EACH 300 .00 $240.00
2101.511 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 0.08 LUMP SUM 800 .00 $640.00
2102.501 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL 55.00 SQ FT .50 $82.50
2102.502 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL 330.00 LIN FT .50 $165.00
0411.603 MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL 5450.00 SQ FT 1 .00 $87,200.00
2521.501 6" CONCRETE WALK 252.00 SQ FT .00 $1,260.00
2521.511 4" BITUMINOUS WALK 8394.00 SQ FT . .75 $6,295.50
2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B612 103.00 LIN FT .00 $8,976.50$618.00
2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B624 1381.00 LIN FT .50
0533.603 RELOCATE CONCRETE MEDIAN BARRIER 113.00 LIN FT .50 $282.50
0533.603 TEMP PORTABLE PRECAST CONC BAR TYPE III 334.00 LIN FT .00 $2,672.00
0554.602 IMPACT ATTENUATOR BARRELS 1.10 EACH 30 .00 $330.00
0554.602 RELOCATE IMPACT ATTENUATOR BARRELS 1.10 EACH 4 .00 $44.00
0554.604 IMPACT ATTENUATOR 0.70 ASSEMBLY 200 .00 $1,400.00
N^ 0554.604 RELOCATE IMPACT ATTENUATOR 0.40 ASSEMBLY 72 .00 $290.00
c,4 0557.603 WOOD FENCE 6' HIGH 345.00 LIN FT 2 .00 $6,900.00
0563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL 0.08 LUMP SUM 3500 .00 $2,800.00
m = 0563.602 TYPE III BARRICADES 22.00 UNIT DAY .00 $44.00
0563.602 TYPE I BARRICADES/STEADY BURN LT 22.00 UNIT DAY .00 $22.00
3 = 0563.602 FLASHER TYPE A (LOW INTENSITY) 11.00 UNIT DAY .30 $22.00$
30
6 = 0563.602 FLASHER TYPE B (HIGH INTENSITY) 11.00 UNIT DAY .00
•43 0563.602 FLASHER TYPE C (STEADY BURN) 11.00 UNIT DAY .90 $9.90
y 5 0563.602 REFLECT PLAST SAF DRUM W/DOWN ARROW 22.00 UNIT DAY .80 $17.60
-= (1 0563.602 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN 11.00 UNIT DAY 20 .00 $2,200.00
cn 0 0563.602 48X24 INCH SIGN • 55.00 UNIT DAY .50 $82.50
c 0563.602 48X48 INCH SIGN WITH SUPPORTS 55.00 UNIT DAY .00 $110.00
m 0563.603 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TEMPORARY 55.00 EACH .50 $82.50
•0563.603 MEDIAN BARRIER DELINEATOR 6.00 EACH .40 $32.40
" D 0563.604 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS 22.00 SQ FT 1 .50 $385.00
0i 0563.604 CONSTRUCTION SIGNS-SPECIAL 55.00 SQ FT 1 .00 $825.00
m 0564.603 4" SOLID LIME WHITE-PAINT I 1353.00 LIN FT .05 $67.65
0564.603 24" STOP LINE WHITE-PAINT 13.00 LIN FT .00 $39.00
A m 0564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-PAINT 993.00 LIN FT .15 $148.95
0564.603 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-POLY PREFORMED 100.00 LIN FT .25 $25.00
0564.603 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-POLY PREF 61.00 LIN FT .70 $42.70
0 -2565.511 FULL I ACT T CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM 0.19 SIG SYS 8750 .00 $16,625.00
-2571.501 CONIFEROUS TREE 5' HT B&B 16.70 TREE 20 .00 $3,340.00
13
i MIRROR 1 TREE 1: RI III :98 TREE 250:DU
�I: o� ti:8fi:00
A 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 1.75" CAL B&B 1.00 'TREE 200.00 • $200.00
9 2571.502 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" CAL B&B 26.00 TREE 225.00 $5,850.00
U, ' 2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 6' HT B&B 0.70 TREE 125.00 $87.50
cb 2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 1.5" CAL B&B , 10.00 TREE 175.00 $1,750.00
v) 2571.503 ORNAMENTAL TREE 2.5" CAL B&B 1.00 TREE 200.00 $200.00
2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 18" HT BR 16.70 SHRUB 25.00 $417.50
2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 2' HT BR 25.00 SHRUB 30.00 $750.00
2571.505 DECIDUOUS SHRUB 3' HT BR 16.70 SHRUB. 50.00 $835.00
2575.513 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 6 42.50 CU YD _ 30.00 $1,275.00
2580.502 TEMPORARY LANE MARKING 55.00 LIN FT 0.50 $27.50
2581.501 REMOVABLE PREFORMED PLASTIC MARKING 55.00 LIN FT 1.30 $71.50
• CATEGORY TOTAL $166,524.50
MINNESOTA-
DOT
PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY DETAIL CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE .
JOB NUMBER 960355 . S.P. 27-662-57 CSAH 62 PAGE NO. 12
AUGUST 14, 1996
NONPARTICIPATING PORTION (AID5001129) AID NO.
STORM SEWER .
100.00X HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID FUNDS
TYPE CODE I 0 0 0
ITEM ITEM ESTIMATED ITEM UNIT
NUMBER DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS PRICE AMOUNT
' 2021.501 MOBILIZATION 0.07 LUMP SUM 60000.00 $4,200.00
2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPE D 0.07 EACH 3000.00 $210.00
2031.503 FIELD LABORATORY TYPE D 0.07 EACH 3000.00 $210.00
2101.511 CLEARING AND GRUBBING 0.07 LUMP SUM 8000.00 $560.00
2501.515 12" GS PIPE APRON 1.00 EACH 100.00 $100.00
2501.515 12" RC PIPE APRON 1.00 EACH • 350.00 $350.00
2501.515 15" RC PIPE APRON 1.00 EACH 370.00 $370.00
0501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 12" PIPE APRON 1.00 EACH 200.00 $200.00
0501.602 TRASH GUARD FOR 15" PIPE APRON 1.00 EACH 225.00 $225.00
2503.541 12" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 1853.00 LIN FT , 25.00 $46,325.00
2503.541 15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 975.00 LIN FT 27.00 $26,325.00
2503.541 18" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 319.00 LIN FT 29.00 $9,251.00
2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN F 21.70 LIN FT 180.00 $3,906.00
2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN G 101.40 LIN FT 180.00 $18,252.00
t`o 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN H 63.40 LIN FT 160.00 $10,144.00
2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES PM-12 9.00 LIN FT 30.00 $270.00
2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 28.10 LIN FT 180.00 $5,058.00
m =
2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 66-4020 5.00 LIN FT 320.00 $1,600.00
�-
m 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY 48.00 EACH 300.00 $14,400.00
Cr m 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III 2.90 CU YD 50.00 $145.00
43 0563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL 0.07 LUMP SUM 35000.00 $2,450.00
D5
•
-= n CATEGORY TOTAL $144,551.00
c PROJECT TOTAL $1,972,944.25
m ESTIMATE TOTAL $1,972,944.25
D
N(IIII
0
- 3 • .
T 0
.7
Z
00
A •
9 •
r
,
1
MINNESOTA DO T 6:46 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 199E
PRELIMINARY DETAIL ESTIMATE FUNDING SUMMARY
CATEGORY FUNDING TABLE
JOB NUMBER 960355
ESTIMATE NUMBER 01
AND STATE PROJECT NUMBER 27-662-57 •
FUNDING SOURCE
EDNMSAF I HECSAFR I MINMSAF 1 STATE I STP
+ + + +
FUNDING AMOUNT (FUNDING AMOUNT 'FUNDING AMOUNT 'FUNDING AMOUNT 'FUNDING AMOUNT
+ + + +
TOTAL 1 TOTAL 1 TOTAL I TOTAL I TOTAL
+ + + + +
CATEGORY
001/PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 4443058) I $205,715.821 $822,863.28
+ + + + +
002/NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 44430 1 1 $352,318.921 I $88,079.731
+ + + + +
003/NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 50011 1 1 $88,744.651 1 1
004/NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 50011 1 1 1 $104,146.351 1
+ + + + +
005/NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 50011 1 $166,524.501 1 1 1
+ + + + +
006/NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID500112 1 1 $144,551.001 I I
ALL I $166,524.501 $585,614.571 $104,146.351 $293,795.551 $822,863.28
X cco (CONTINUED)
S =
Q' =
"_1 ALL
); E
-= n FUNDING AMOUNT
0
s m TOTAL
m ,c +
Y CATEGORY
w % 001/PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID •4443058) $1,028,579.10
A m 002/NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 44430 1 $440,398.65
+
003/NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 50011 I $88,744.65 .
Z +
Q 004/NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 50011 1 $104,146.35
tE 005/NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID 50011 1 $166,524.50
+
0 006/NON-PARTICIPATING PORTION (AID500112 1 $144,551.00
cin ALL 1 $1,972,944.25
-�
M I N N E S 0 T A . D 0 T 6:46 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1996
PRELIMINARY DETAIL ESTIMATE FUNDING SUMMARY •
PROJECT TOTALS FOR EACH FUNDING SOURCE
JOB NUMBER 960355
ESTIMATE . S. P. i1UMBER FUNDING SOURCE FUNDING AMOUNT
NUMBER
01 27-662-57 a SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM $822,863.28
HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID FUNDS (REG) $585,614.57
STATE FUNDS $293,795:55
EDEN PRAIRIE MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUNDS $166,524.50
MINNETONKA MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUNDS $104,146.35
01 27-662-57 $1,972,944.25
01 $1,972,944.25
01 • $1,972,944.25
$1,972,944.25
•
W X (iD
Q
D 5
_. C)
co co
m .
D
.m
m
0 m
J B
m
Z •
0
la
DATE: 10/01/96
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO: f.
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Engineering Division Final Plat Approval of Research Addition
Jeffrey Johnson
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Research
Addition subject to the following conditions:
• Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$2,620
Overview:
This proposal, located at the southwest corner of Flying Cloud Drive and Washington Avenue,
consists of 26.2 acres to be divided into two lots. The plat is a lot line rearrangement to allow
Research, Inc. to sell a portion of Lot 2 to the adjoining property.
JJ:ssa
cc: Tom Arneson, RLK Associates
6110 Bluestem Drive, Minnetonka, MN 55343
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
RESEARCH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Research 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 Research Addition is approved upon compliance with
the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated September
24, 1996.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this
Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing
provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on October 1, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
2-
in
•
s i It R- 4. 1! = a.: ! ^.i 'lit • ! = A IV
1- 11 lrji�silt Isi. i# iii'lyda fait 1 I i'-• i ill I i 1 t d a V)
(! .411i .11 T t t is ;II r !l a r It t s i iid!!
1 f 1 1
ii4.ni3i :if!s 1�1cl11ii1 1{11!sz� ;s �i s , , �� # � Irmo I vi
t - i -.ii -s ii!=_J i ill ; i w
30 -.toa.!lie:! j1 1.1.11 _i. !l sf. I )• 1; Pie t t !,1i 1 i FI
•i 0111111.101 d f ijiditd;� lil=1d;�j ii Z� i is-� 1 l �S - 'IIpil
i t ~
S. i= igiiriltlld1t111 ,111 _ Za{I;;i !! it it - I P , I Ii
1 f !� V
i tlti9: t_ lit_s i i tis sitiais2io ii ;!ili1:1111i1 -1,P![![ifil�i!1111 ftii if a= i- i ���}i j 3 ! 1 ! I
• FF i. s R.. f =11s iff =ij1' s !i
`ii s•ti ,..7. Iva.iT,11SiR MI:.1 1 i1 =ii rt1j s � s i ¢; 6 1�,1
}1 . "1 i.lit _1 1- 1 1 Ii .�'2 2'=i 1i 11i 11 hit: • 1 ; w
!i• :Sit!- !-' dl :.-1- - v: ! ! 11
!"^
! 1 ! !rr'1 -.ii�.aR#il C e1111 I1., ! 11 VI!
, It isdiallliitj?' •=i.iliS i�iie : liil li { I 11=t1 ! i Iiit s!l4il:ilsl1 j lt=ia *iiIJit1illoi_ii i- is •i i I. i 1 I ! s
r'-sill a III": 1td if it Ks t { 1 ;1! d j i- 131
1 1 €i , _, i111 1 : I
i- Iff=3r iii , Si1Ij� 'f i. .$If1i 4 j is� : ii . F l . i` s l iiiI
a i i' i !_i R :i;1•! � ti. :� 1 t ,;` 't d 1'•i ° 1- � ( _� 1 1 'r,:11 1le�RS ril!ii� I'il::1i!'?=f ti. . j t I 11i1 I t1!il Q 1- 1 0 s
•
II
1 _►tSSill_�t !}.�i6 ��1 1 i !i1 !E :l Ei ! Plot, 11 It ' 1`lot i Ii
1 I
: !lrilli!=iti 1iii ilj t 11I11t li• �� 1� i �1. ► /. !:f i 5 I tt i . r! f 11• 1 ma �� dll� U ; . } 1 11 i t'
r'
it
�. 1 +, - - - ----1
Pli11 , _
I • -- --------- RsKR'tf
t. 1
0.01
�\\ �1 ('r:, ::InV ld+�i.r)ldlll':;JtA) Gil 1.►�1�1 31.V1.:i AO fl�lt12! 3'JYLtdil {;I !.'.:;:lt�l � �i}
Z I ,
0 :
__ __
•
1 'ts ,s/ 4.:..:.1 1 wlsa 1,-
El '1 / , -l1..A'4� I f
i
i • F•ri'
:9 i I
66 1 a e 3
Qi i ! 1'`' Ns� E s T
a MM
`"11....., ..--o -, 4 l
. 1 .44i n.to ` _ _✓
li •ii 1 hi '• 1 /
xj 1 0 ►p»Z 1
1
191
U —1_ — dlg, ;
c1
1
Q,1 i<1 is 'y J
w 1' % o ; 1 tr!
,- 4I L ..
v •
1¢ v. O 1
rl'iM am., j•
i !it., lig . ' ,
•
e It 4 v:,.. •
71ib
_ EO
'41 1flq„�S'111is%"`
blat
e ` �: ATM;., .s-b v' ►,
•
it 01 • q�`,
e S
.t•, l
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
MITCHELL BAY TOWNHOMES
WHEREAS, the plat of Mitchell Bay Townhomes 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 Mitchell Bay Townhomes is approved upon compliance
with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated
September 24, 1996.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this
Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing
provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on October 1, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
2
DATE: 10/01/96
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA .--�-� Z.
ITEM NO:1-I/�
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Engineering Division Final Plat Approval of Mitchell Bay Townhomes
Jeffrey Johnson
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Mitchell
Bay Townhomes subject to the following conditions:
• Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of$250
• Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of$374
• Receipt of conservation easement for the protection of existing trees on the property
• Receipt of payment to Storm Water Fund in lieu of construction on-site NURP facility
• The plat should be revised to include a five-foot drainage and utility easement around the
outside perimeter of the plat.
Overview:
This proposal, located south of Terrey Pine Drive and adjacent to Mitchell Lake, consists of 1.5
acres to be divided into four townhouse lots for the construction of two duplex townhouse
buildings.
The preliminary plat was approved September 3, 1996. Second Reading of the Rezoning
Ordinance and approval of the Developer's Agreement is scheduled for the City Council meeting
October 1, 1996.
JJ:ssa
cc: Noecker & Associates
I
DATE: 10/01/96
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ITEM NO: TV
SECTION: Consent Calendar
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Engineering Division Final Plat Approval of Bearpath Townhomes 5th Addition
Jeffrey Johnson
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Bearpath
Townhomes 5th Addition.
Overview:
The preliminary plat was approved by City Council November 21, 1993 per Resolution No. 93-219.
Rezoning of the property and execution of the Developer's Agreement was done December 21, 1993.
JJ:ssa
cc: Hedlund Engineering
Ron Clark Construction
f
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
BEARPATH TOWNHOMES 5TH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Bearpath Townhomes 5th 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 5th Addition is approved upon
compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat
dated September 24, 1996.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this
Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing
provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on October 1, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
2
Sinelors Clartlflarte
SURVEY FOR : Ron Clark
DESCRIBED AS : Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, BEAR PATH.TOWNHomes 5Tk'ADDITION,C_ily of
Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota and reserving easements
of yecorn1-...N, —_--
902`
— — — — — — :16445'22'E 116.00T t 1$
t�l a 32.00 a 41.00
43.00 16.op e '
0
pock qos.� 16.00
.:06 10.00 27.00 o ra 0 i , -I T / 2....;
9o4 `y13.00 9� g COOP o a L _ � � _ q
64
►--i •-•. i_'1 prepeud 2� c
Proposed To60-Hose
Proposed Tam-Hose i3ce. rle Ia
',3
m„�, Toon-Hose t3Ce. 61e 0.00 5 _
RD6 • o•op t3q. 6le 16.00
clon m to _g411111 o
ivi
So
i2 un 2,wit, 6oreeo NI d Id 705
1 a8 D T Igd— $ same : 3!!.1-912 J I 23.00 s 22 00 --- —
`11- a AO coo.- I q '
al/C .�� I \: c111.1� S 21.00
\ 11•q 66.00 1 a / 1
✓ y j /
1 — 45'22'VI 116.00
i
glo•1 u
_� • goq.o — O
c107.7
Q,-- FOO'7`A > `;:.—-- 2&th—
LOT 2- LOT SO, FOOTAGE = 2, 752f
1 LOT 3 LOT SO, FOOTAGE = 3, 698th
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
..w.t.s.L2 I.ot a BENCHMARK.
Top of Foundation •qu•4 I912.G
Garage Floor •g11.2 912,2.
Basement Floor •902.E3 go3.a
Aprox. Sewer Service Elev.
Proposed Elev. - O N MIN. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
Existing Elev.
Drainage Directions •--► Front - House Side -
Denotes offset Stake - o Rear - Garage Side -
SCALE: 1 Inch • 30 Feet
JOB N0:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION
/IEDLLfND OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SURVEYED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION MID DOES NOT PURPORT TO
SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCROACIII ITS, EXCEPT AS 6NOH . BOOK:9eR 34$PAGE:
Planning Engineering Surveying `/'�� (\ /I C�r2
MI e1wIMIE give e11111.i1M,Commis in Dots —{_I,j�I� I FJ
11.,ww 11111 IN eln /� NES'ANL I CENSELNUMB SUR ER 1/376 CADD FILE: DWG.CHK. `
J CIo.k45
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: October 1, 1996
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO. V. a ,
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger KOPESKY ADDITION
Scott A. Kipp
Requested Council Action:
• Continue the Public Hearing until the February 4, 1997 City Council meeting as stated in the
attached letter from the Developer.
Background:
This item was continued from the July 16, August 6,August 20, 1996 City Council meetings. The proponent
and Engineering Staff continue to resolve a drainage issue with the property. It appears that a resolution to
the issue is close at hand,but will still require some time to finalize. Therefore,the proponent has asked that
this item be continued to the February 4, 1997 City Council meeting.
The October 1, 1996 City Council meeting marks the 120 day review period for the City to take action on
the Preliminary Plat. It also marks the maximum review period for action on zoning, since the project has
been continued for an additional 60 days.
As long as the proponent is requesting the continuance action,the review period remains open.
Supporting Reports:
1. Letter from proponent requesting continuance.
r
FEP 23 '96 14: 19 HTFO INC. FAX #(612) 829-7816 P. 1/1
1 Hansen Tharp Steven L. Pellinen, P.E. Paul A.Thorp,LS.
Inc. aurie A.Johnson, PE. Lloyd E.Pew, LS.
IPellinen Olson nc. Ted W.Anderson D. Daniel Thorp,L.S.
Jan Wager Anderson, LA. Dennis B. Olmstead, L.S.
Engineers.•Surveyors•Landscape Architects
September 23, 1996
City of Eden Prairie,MN
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344
Attn: City Council do Scott Kip
Subj: Kopesky Addition
We are hereby requesting that the public hearing for the above project be continued
to the February 4, 1997 City Council Meeting.
• The purpose of this delay is to address off site drainage issues at the northwest
corner of the project. We have been meeting with the adjoining property owner
with the goal of building a joint NURP pond.
Respectfully,
HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC.
Paul A. Thorp, L.
PAT/ms
•
Post-itb Fax Note .76 ———
71 Date t-To Sec)H
Cal From 1w + by
2
(612)829-0700 • 7565 Office Ridge Circle • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3644 • FAX (612)829-7806
r
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: October 1, 1996
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO. V.B.
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger TIRES PLUS
Michael D. Franzen
Requested Council Action:
• Continue the Public Hearing until the October 15, 1996 City Council meeting as stated in the
attached letter from the Developer.
I
SEP 26 '96 01:44Ph1 YAGGY COLBY ASSOC:IHTEc: P. 16N61NSEAS
AICNITSCT6
$UPVETOPs
40'
a
cf)1F'
September 26, 1996 LANOSCAP6 APCNITICTS
rLANN6Ps
Mr, Mike Franzen
City Planner
City Hall
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie,MN 55344-2230
Dear Mike:
Tires Plus Groupe, Ltd., hereby requests that the consideration of their site plan approval
be continued once again. Tires Plus would like additional time to consider the implications
of building and fire code issues on the project before it proceeds to final city council
action,
Thank you. ROCHESTER OFFICE:
Yours truly, 717 Third Avenue SE
YAGGY COLBY ASSOCIATES Rochester,MN 55904
507•a88-b464
&AA-at C . . , -o C.a.,l,�
Ronald L. Fiscus , }
Director of Planning Fax 507.288-5058
RLF/sm
#5088
MASON CITY OFFICE:
515-424.6344
Fax 515-424-0351
9-
EqualOonortunliy Employe
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 10-1-96
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS f
ITEM NO._Y. C,
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger THE HILLS OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Michael D. Franzen
Requested Council Action:
The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action:
• 1st Reading of an Ordinance for Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.84 acres;
• Adopt a Resolution for Preliminary Plat of 14.84 acres into 38 lots.
Background:
The Planning Commission first reviewed this item at the August 12, 1996 meeting. The Planning
Commission directed the developer to revise the plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan
and to provide a better transition to the Crowne Oaks development to the south. The item was continued
until the September 9,1996 meeting.
At the September 9,1996 meeting the developer presented plans with the following changes.
1. The request for Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Low Density Residential to Medium
Residential was withdrawn.
2. The number of units was reduced from 51 to 37.
3. Twelve units were removed from the wooded hill along the south property line adjacent to Crowne
Oaks.
4. Significant tree loss was reduced from 27%to 9%.
5. More tree mass is retained to provide a better transition to Crowne Oaks.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the revised plans. The Community Development
Staff recommend approval.
Supporting Reports:
1. Resolution for Preliminary Plat
2. Planning Commission Minutes dated 9-9-96 and 8-12-96
3. Staff Report dated 9-6-96 and 8-9-96
4. Correspondence
2
THE HILLS OF EDEN PRAIRIE
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF THE HILLS OF EDEN PRAIRIE
BY VENKU CORPORATION
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the preliminary plat of The Hills of Eden Prairie for Venku Corporation dated September 24,
1996, consisting of 14.84 acres into 38 lots, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to
be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and
amendments thereto, and is herein approved.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 1st day of October, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
3
Planning Commission
Monday, September 9, 1996
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Continued Item:
A. THE HILLS OF EDEN PRAIRIE by Venku Corporation. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential on 14.84 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.84
acres, Site Plan Review on 14.84 acres and Preliminary Plat of 14.84 acres into 51
multi-family units. Location: Willow Creek Road.
Franzen noted that at the last meeting the Planning Commission directed five items
to be worked on by the developer before this meeting. The developer has now
withdrawn the request for the Guide Plan Change project. The proposal is now at 2.5
units per acre. The number of units is reduced from 51 to 37, and 12 of those units
were removed from the wooded hill along the south property line adjacent to Crowne
Oaks. The significant tree loss has been reduced from 27 percent to 9 percent and the
tree mass is retained to provide a better transition to Crowne Oaks.
Dave Pavelka, owner and developer, indictaed that his attorney advised him to take
legal action to overturn the Commission's earlier decision, since it was based on a nine
page letter from the neighborhood which his client did not have an opprtunity to
review before the meeting or the opportunity to respond to at the meeting.. Pavelka
indicated that he did not agree with his attorney.
He reviewed the modified plans . Additional parking stalls were added for a total of
20. The retaining wall on the west side of Bryant Lake Drive was shown to improve
the site distance from the proposed intersection. The revised plan requires no wetland
fill. He explained they are the last area of Low Density Residential in the northeast
corner of Eden Prairie. They are interfaced with highways,businesses, industries and
public buildings. About 60 percent of their perimeter abuts something other than Low
Density Residential. He explained a chart he prepared which compares the
characteristics of the Hills and Crown Oaks Townhome Development. If the City is
going to use Crowne Oaks as the norm to judge the Hills, he wants to be sure it's a
desirable standard in total. He questioned the reasonableness of building more Dave
Carlson townhomes next to each other when the resale now is difficult.
He urged the Commission not to lower the amount of townhomes. When there are
fewer townhomes, the greater percentage of the construction money goes into site
development and less money is available to construct the townhome itself. They are
looking at a long term family type development and are not interested in reducing the
quality of each townhome. The site cleanup is 90 percent complete and heavy
equipment is needed to complete the last two percent. The developer will satisfy the
2
4
Planning Commission
Monday, September 9, 1996
environmental standards in order to close on the mortgage. There will be a
conservation easement on the high hill and the oak knoll, and at the entrance of the
Wooddale Church. There will also be a wetland conservation easement averaging 15
feet all the way around the wetland.
This plan will enable the Pavelka's to maintain ownership of the property they have
owned for 93 years and the only other option would be to sell the land. They could
also plot it and subdivide themselves or team up with a developer. The product
would then be different and they would not be able to match the tree loss figures and
the wetland statistics that the Hills of Eden Prairie offers.
Staff recommended approval according to the recommendations on page 3 and 4 of
the Staff Report.
Habicht asked if the variances would be required on all of the lots as they currently
exist. Franzen indicated that the variance would be required on all 37 lots. The
developer could take the end units and readjust the lot lines so all end units would
meet 45 feet for the width and 6000 square feet of land per unit.
Sandstad recommended the use of decorative posts to delineate the wetlands. The
developer indicated it would be no problem to do that.
The Public Hearing was opened.
John May, 7057 Crowne Oaks Road,made reference to comments stated by different
commissioners at the last meeting agreeing with their concerns about density. He
feels the density is still too high and feels the Hills should have a density of 1.46 like
Crowne Oaks with only 28 units. There was no mathematical formula to arrive at that
number but it would be better usage of the land and would spread it out. The high
density will also contribute to traffic congestion. This proposal should be treated the
same way that Crowne Oaks was handled three years ago. He would like to see a
plan that is consistent with the whole geographical area. There should not be two
different standards to go by to either approve or disapprove of a proposal. He
referenced the comment made that Dave Carlson townhomes are not selling.
According to a woman who is moving,the one problem that keeps coming up to the
Realtor in trying to sell is the traffic issue. He recommended that the Commission
have the developer come back with a proposal of 28 units and see what it looks like.
Dan Grote, 7061 Willow Creek Road,made reference to a letter dated September 5,
from John Baxter which indicates additional testing will be done on the waters and
3
S
Planning Commission
Monday, September 9, 1996
other environmental issues and will prepare a second report. He wanted to make sure
the City Engineer gets a look at these results before this project is approved.
Sandstad asked if the developer would be comfortable supplying the City Engineer
with a copy of the supplemental report on a volunteer basis. Pavelka indicated yes.
Ismail asked if the septic tank and well will be removed. Pavelka noted it will be
removed. When the house is removed there will be City sewer and water. Ismail was
concerned that the environmental report be as complete as possible because they are
very serious issues. Pavelka said they are very willing to have this complete and be
a matter of public record.
Wissner stated that all the comments from the residents are the same as heard by the
Commission three years ago from the Willow Creek residents when Crowne Oaks was
being developed. The proposed homes are adjacent to future ramp parking on the
Wooddale Church site. This site is a transition between public and low density uses.
She was comfortable with the reduction of units to 37 and doesn't believe this
development is going to overall make the traffic any worse than it already is. She was
comfortable with the plan at this point.
Habicht commented the developer's modified plan is a nice job of providing buffer to
the Crowne Oaks neighborhood. The clustering of units savies natural features and
justifies a little higher density in the north in light of the church's development plan.
It's a good plan with lower density in the south to higher density in the north. He
supported the plan.
Foote concurred with all of the commissioners' comments. He liked the low
percentage of tree loss and supported the project.
Ismail asked how wide the lanes are in the drawings marked A,B,C,D. Pavelka
replied 28 feet is the width of the lane and they have yet to name them. Ismail
indicated he was comfortable and supported the plan.
Clinton commented the developer has met all the legal requirements that the City put
before him. The Commission had the same issues before them between Willow Creek
and Crown Oaks three years ago. The physical transition is created by saving the
wetland, hills and the mass of trees. The developer has provided a plan to provide
transition which was not in the previous plan. He supported the project.
Sandstad noted the developer has done exactly what the Commission asked him to do
at the last meeting. The plan looks very good and he supported it.
4
Planning Commission
Monday, September 9, 1996
MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Wissner, to recommend to the City
Council approval the rezoning from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.84 acres, Site Plan
Review on 14.84 acres and Preliminary Plat of 14.84 acres into 37 multi-family units
based on plans dated August 23, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the
StaffReport dated September 6, 1996, with the addition of the requirement that the
Mike Franzen, will consult with the engineer on the results of the subsequent tests
on the property, and to delineate in a modest decorative way where the easement
runs. Motion carried 6-0.
5
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
•Page 3
C. THE HILLS OF EDEN PRAIRIE by Venku Corporation. Request for
Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
on 14.84 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.84 acres, Site
Plan Review on 14.84 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 14.84 acres into 51 multi-family
units. Location: Willow Creek Road.
Franzen introduced David Pavelka, representing Venku Corporation. Pavelka
reviewed the proposal to develop the property with 51 townhomes. He noted they
are expecting the people who rent these units to be empty-nesters or young, two-
income couples who desire to live somewhere that they don't have to maintain a home
and a yard. He described the various floor plans that will be available in the different
styles of units. He showed building renderings of what the units will look like. Since
these will be rental units, their goal is to have residents who will live there for
relatively lengthy periods of time. They have a tree loss percentage of approximately
27%, but they have designed the project to have the homes clustered in the center to •
preserve as many of the trees and natural site amenities as possible. This was also
done to lessen the impact of the traffic and protect the abutting neighborhoods to the
south. They have a two acre wetland and a high hill between the development and the
residential property which they believe will be an adequate buffer.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 4
Pavelka stated that Bryant Lake Drive has the capacity to handle the traffic which will
be generated by the development. He believed there was a need for townhome rentals
in Eden Prairie and the project was a viable one which would provide people access
to major roadways without having to drive through residential neighborhoods. He
stated that John Baxter of Schoell&Madsen,Ken Eidel, and Barb Krueger of Steven
Scott Property Management were present to answer any questions from the
Commission.
Franzen reviewed the staff report and stated that the proponents must provide the
Commission with"compelling"reasons why the Guide Plan should be changed. He
discussed the options for different site plans as identified in the Staff Report. He
noted that the proposed development would not adversely impact the traffic on
Bryant Lake Drive, and there is a sight problem at the curve in the road. There
would need to be some regional road improvements made to Bryant Lake Drive
intersections. There should also be a signal at the ramp from County Road 62 onto
Shady Oak Road, as this becomes very congested during rush hour traffic. The
project will require significant alteration to steep slopes and tree mass, and will have
to be done carefully to avoid damage to the natural features and surrounding areas.
Sandstad inquired how a Guide Plan amendment would affect Wooddale Church and
Franzen responded that a Guide Plan change would not impact the church property.
Guide Plan changes were based on density not the types of units proposed. Ismail
asked about the difference between this project and the project to the south. Franzen
responded that there was no Guide Plan change with that project but there was a
problem with transition between that development and the existing single family
residential neighborhood. There also was wetland area filled in the Crowne Oaks
project. The hill was also cut down 8' to improve the roadway at that time. Clinton
commented he believed 37 units would fit onto the property under the present
guiding.
The Public Hearing was opened.
John May, 7057 Crowne Oak Road, stated he represented all the twin home residents
(16) and some of the single family homeowners in the Crowne Oak development.
They have hired the law firm of Larkin Hoffinan, Daly & Lindgren to review the
project and assist them in raising the proper concerns. They have submitted a letter
dated August 9, 1996 from the law firm. They wished to recommend Alternative#3
in the Staff Report because this is the right plan for the property. The Guide Plan has
been in effect for twenty years and the City has the responsibility to carry out the
guidelines set forth therein. Zoning must be in conformance with the Guide Plan and -
the burden of the proponent is to show compelling reasons why there should be a
variance from the Guide Plan. The project is significantly more dense than allowed
by the Guide Plan and the City Code. They do not feel that the proponent has
demonstrated a compelling reason to change the Guide Plan. A plan could be
developed which meets the criteria of the Guide Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and
the City has an obligation to adhere to these standards. They believe that 3.5 units per
acre is too high, and requested the Planning Commission to consider Alternative#3.
J
PLANNING COMMIS,..ON MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 5
Mary Clay, 7041 Crowne Oaks Road, stated she represented the single family
homeowners in the neighborhood. They do not oppose the development of this
property and wished to compliment the Pavelka family for the cleanup job they have
done of the salvage yard area. She stated when they moved into this area it was
guided for low density and they feel that the proposed project does not comply with
the Guide Plan because the density proposed is too high. Crowne Oaks was
developed at a density of 1.5 units per acre. The proponents do not plan to put units
on all of the land in the development which will make the density actually higher than
the proposed 3.5 units per acre. She was concerned about the impact of the
development on the wetland, and the significant amount of tree loss which will occur
on the site. The knoll on the southwest corner will be taken down 20' which will
impact the transition. They feel that the building issues can be addressed by reducing
the density, leaving the transition intact, and increasing the lot sizes, which will
preserve more trees. Traffic is also a major concern, and there is the blind corner
which is also a problem. None of the 51 lots will meet the minimum lot size required
in the code, and they would like to see the project developed in conformance with the
Guide Plan.
Jim Deanovic, developer of Crowne Oaks, stated he did not see the hardship the
proponent was claiming. When he did his development,he reduced his density and
increased lot sizes. They should not have a variance granted because no hardship has
been demonstrated. He believed a better plan was needed.
Dan Grote, 7061 Willow Creek Road, stated they were pleased with the Crowne
Oaks development and felt that an exemplary job was done in creating this
neighborhood. The traffic from the proposed development would be exacerbating an
already dangerous situation as the roadways in this area need to be upgraded.
Significantly increasing the hardsurface coverage will impact the wetland areas
because of the increased runoff which will occur, and this will adversely impact
wildlife. He was opposed to the proposed development because he believed a much
better plan with less impact could be devised. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) says there is no problem from the spillage which occurred on the site, but
he was concerned about runoff from this area which may not have been properly
treated coming across the spillway and impacting his water supply. He does not have
City water but uses a well. He requested the Commission to adopt Alternative#3 as
he believed it was the best selection.
Donald Sorenson, 7121 Willow Creek Road, stated the major issue was that the
developer has requested a PUD designation which allows a developer to create a
development without going through the regular zoning requirements. A PUD has a
minimum area requirement of 15 acres, and the proposed project is only 14.84 acres,-
which means it does not qualify for the PUD designation without a variance. He
described the degree of the variances which have been requested by the proponent.
There are only four units in the entire development which would be unaffected by the
variances from ordinance standards. The proponent also has not proved or
demonstrated a hardship and is endeavoring to change the Guide Plan and zoning in
order to put more units on the site. He discussed the actual amount of land area
/0
PLANNING COMMISSIL_, MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
Page 6
within the proposed development which could be built upon and arrived at a figure
of 9.58 acres, which would make the density actually 13.5 units per acre which would
permit a maximum of 28 units to be constructed. He discussed the tree loss potential
which could result from the proposed development and noted the entire hill was
covered with trees. He discussed the grading and drainage plans and the amount of
natural vegetation which would be lost. He believed tree replacement would be
inadequate to compensate for the loss of the oak trees on the site. He was concerned
about the traffic and parking problems which would be created by the development,
and discussed emergency vehicle access and snow storage problems which would be
created by the configuration of the streets.
Sandstad stated the City of Eden Prairie has one of the toughest ordinances for tree
replacement in the State of Minnesota. He did not support the project because there
was no compelling reason to support the Guide Plan change. Foote concurred with
Sandstad, stating the Site Plan has significant problems and he believed the proponent
should be required to adhere to the same standards of similar projects in the area. He
did not support the Guide Plan amendment, and thought the density should be
reduced. Wissner concurred, and complimented the proponent on cleaning up the
property,but did not find any hardship demonstrated to support the requested Guide
Plan change. Ismail inquired if the proponent had met with the neighborhoods to
inform them of his proposed plans, and suggested that he should do so to determine
what plan would be acceptable to them. Ismail did not support the Guide Plan
amendment. Habicht concurred, noting there was too much development on too little
acreage. He encouraged the proponent to develop a plan with lower density and less
tree loss. He believed this could be a good concept if it were at a lower density.
Clinton stated he did not support the Guide Plan change and could find no reason to
support the project as proposed. He stated he would consider a plan with a lower
density and something that addressed the pollution on the site.
Sandstad commented that with a transfer of property a buyer expects to have an
environmental analysis done, and that has not been done in this case. John Baxter,
Schoell and Madson, stated he had done an environmental survey on the property and
the major problem was the gasoline storage tank area which had been addressed.
They did not test the car storage area because the fluids were left in the vehicles until
they were crushed, and that occurred in the area of the storage tank. During
construction the soils which are not used on the site will be taken off the site, cleaned,
and disposed of. There is spotty contamination but it is not to the degree that one
might suppose.
MOTION:Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to recommend denial of the request _ •
of Venku Corporation for Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density on 14.84 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural
to RM-6.5 on 14.84 acres, Site Plan Review on 14.84 acres, and Preliminary Plat of
14.84 acres into 51 multi-family units as submitted.
//
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Monday, August 12, 1996
-Page 7
Habicht commented that he thought perhaps the developer should have the
opportunity to revise the plans and resubmit them to be reviewed again. Franzen
commented that the Commission wanted to send a message to the proponent that they
wanted a lower density, and perhaps they should reconsider allowing the developer
to redesign the project and submit it for further review,rather than just denying it.
Sandstad commented he would continue it as long as the proponent understood that
he would have to comply with the guide plan. Pavelka stated he was unsure at this
point what he was going to do, He requested the Commission continue the project
to allow him to confer with staff to determine what he would need to do to comply
with the Guide Plan requirements. Sandstad withdrew his motion; Foote
withdrew his second.
MOTION:Sandstad moved, seconded by Foote to continue the request By Venku
Corporation for Hills of Eden Prairie to develop the property in conformance with the
Comprehensive Guide Plan, with an adequate transition to surrounding uses, with
minimal impact on natural features and minimal traffic impacts. Motion carried 6-0.
/;
L.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
DATE: September 6, 1996
SUBJECT: The Hills of Eden Prairie
APPLICANT/
FEE OWNER: Venku Corporation
LOCATION: Bryant Lake Drive between Wooddale Church and Willow Creek
Road
REQUEST:
1. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.84 acres.
2. Site Plan Review on 14.84 acres.
3. Preliminary Plat of 14.84 acres into 38 lots.
1
.../.. -
t.--..--.--
". It i \lillillikveirr I c,;'T.-41.4.4 I
---1
1,..-....-:i
f‘:
Etti 5 1 f-.7=S 11111111141111" ' A
\ ..-4° 4°413• c.1 114# pille
Nrompliply-
\ : ...... ..,,,,
. 7
...I. ...
. .
.16 ... /
..,..,- .,.
,:.... ., ............ ilir, !Apr
-p---71"*„„;
e No,
_:
SHADY SH
!ND
.1. ,
.--
.
• "..::.•:::::: ::•.H:. ....4'1 '.). .... .:- ifi.7;(37te: ....r,,,.....,..........
I MIMI. -tw o
.
.
• . ..
.
::::::.:•:•::.. •.. ::::
. . .
. .
PK. -
••:•:•: :::::::: . . : .. :•...
:•::::::•::::::::• ; .. ; :::
,rd
\„: . :-::::•:•:.:•: . ....
: .•::::•...:•:•: . : :::•
• •
/
saw Li C'a
272 " .2
Zi i:S AD1'
. , ----,,.'••. 4.::
7
L. (1 „ILE!. ::;.•;',-f.
it.P.:'...
_,/..: .:. : - •
P .t/
S .4
—
....4-.., •-;
PAR
.. . ...
. 1, . •-. . : : : . .6-, 10- .1 th
. •. . • •.
• "
: -:L.,://: " . •." ".:: :::.::: :.: ...-. ...
vi 000
rn 11/
:::./...........„......\i:\\
•
. . •
•
16....
..--,
v
WI'
17
. E".. -r•iy-:i.;-
• • . . •
. :•:: •.• :.:... . .
::•:.•..:: • ::::::- :. : :•.:: ..
••.,.. %hanski
. . , . . . .
. . . .
,_,....
. . . .
. . .
. . ,
•.-... IQ
.1 ; 0'N ':.:. _
. .
.:•.
abi. i..-0 :.:
•
. ..
:::::•::••:• . •
.::::'.1.:•
16
VIEW r
-.: ::-.'i
... ._
c,
2 '
- ,
WIL..`.;;.:*4 tf &
I
1111
7 /
.4
.4
1"-• ri
I P*RX
4 0 1
.:•!"::):;C:
7."4 Aar)
T
"..... -T•
/1 •A,
144
I /Li :f.P:::
/-•-. ''l •
4
t----.
- Staff Report
The Hills of Eden Prairie
September 6, 1996
BACKGROUND
This is a continued item from the August 12, 1996 meeting. The Planning Commission directed the
developer to revise the plan to be consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
PROJECT REVISIONS
1. The developer has withdrawn the request for Comprehensive Guide Plan change from Low
Density Residential to Medium Residential.
2. The number of units has been reduced from 51 to 37.
3. Twelve units were removed from the wooded hill along the south property line adjacent to
Crowne Oaks.
4. Significant tree loss has been reduced from 27%to 9%.
5. The tree mass is retained to provide a better transition to Crowne Oaks.
DEBRIS CLEANUP
As a condition of approval the developer will be required to remove remaining debris from the
autoyard use concurrent with the grading of the property and completed before the City will issue a
blinding permit. The developer has indicated that in order to close on the construction mortgage,the
cleanup will be required.
TREE CUTTING
Residents have expressed concern about the cutting of trees on the property. Since 1992,the City
Forester has required the removal of 16 diseased elm trees and 2 diseased oak frees. The developer
removed some willow trees next to the barn. The barn was a safety hazard. The owner removed the
barn because children from the surrounding area were playing inside of it.
VARIANCES
The initial application by the developer,prior to the public hearing notices,was for a Planned Unit-
Development,because the site was believed to meet the 15 acre PUD size requirement. Since the site
is surveyed at 14.84 acres and additional property could not be purchased to meet the 15 acre
requirement,the developer could not ask for lots size waivers, and had to request lot size variances.
The small lots are typical for all townhouse projects where there are three or more units attached
units. It is the center units,due to the common wall,which make it impossible to meet lot width and
size requirements. Small lots are also common with townhouses because large open areas are placed
in to one lot for maintenance purposes.
The developer could revise all of the end units to meet the lot width and lot size requirements which
would leave only 8 of the 37 units requiring variances.
An alternative plan would be to approve only twinhomes at the same density and number of units.
This would spread out the development and increase significant tree loss,increase tree mass loss, and
decrease transition
A better site plan with 9% significant tree loss, increase in tree mass saving, greater transition to
adjoining residential areas, and an average land area per unit of 17,471 sq. ft. are mitigating reasons
for the granting of the variances.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
•
The Staff would recommend approval of the zoning district change from Rural to RM-6.5, site plan
review, and preliminary plat based on plans dated September 6, 1996, subject to the
recommendations of the staffreport dated September 6, 1996,and subject to the following condition:
1. Prior to final plat approval,the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion control p ans for
review by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee.
B. Submit plans for review and approval by the Fire Marshal. •
C. Submit a final landscape plan and security for review.
a
3. Prior to grading on the property, the limits of construction shall be identified by a
protection fence to be approved by the City Forester and City Engineer at least 48
hours prior to grading.
4. Apply for and receive approval from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for lot
size less than 6000 square feet per unit and lot width less than 45 feet in the RM-6.5
zoning district.
4
17
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
DATE: August 9, 1996
SUBJECT: The Hills of Eden Prairie
APPLICANT/
FET.2 OWNER: Venku Corporation
LOCATION: Willow Creek Road
REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density on 14.84 acres.
2. Zoning District Change from Rural to RM-6.5 on 14.84 acres.
3. Site Plan Review on 14.84 acres.
4. Preliminary Plat of 14.84 acres into 52 lots.
1
-..._
tilil 1 k 4411111,. 1°"4" •:./.".
. ,-.1' ''..)
• • I
-.) #4vi NAH :.j Nrili :s, ••••', --"-' ill .4,... will.
4C1/13 rta)12* „ft E3us If-7,s s. A
... 27_, ,...
,...
ari--- -
fi/
. , 40
•-; •
'• .....$ -
...47. ..?... -•.t' _•-•-••
,.:... .,*
. .
:::::•:::•:•:•:•: . i I 4 4.;.7i.:,.4..7..1.f,,i.? AK
-:•:.:::7::::•:.:•:: •"--,HA
. .
. . .
• • - •:.:..
. . . . . . . . . .. . . .
. . . . . . . . .
• • " • • •••• • • • •
• • • • • - • • • • IN D •
• • • • • ••• • •••
•.:•: :•:•.••••:•: • • •:•:••
:::::•:•:•::::•:•: ' : ':::::
• : :•::•:•:••• . .•.•..
•:•:•::::::::.: : :•: :• PK. •-•—•----s._
: .*:::;:::::;:• H: .\
.01 y
, ..•
kap,ei 274 I
r It 70,
_
272 „ It
: ' la- ...ir •:: • 1 ---.., ,
.•• Li ii Aryt
S...."
: - : •: ::• IND.
_vie. . - : : • : .•
-.7;--14' • • • :.• fr Lig,. -%
. . " ifjOki- .
.•.• • •. . . .... .
.. ... .. .....
000
'''''/„..-----l'iff .:::* •1*••:::::::: •. i
...._
, • :„:: ::.::.. : . ::,.: :: :::,:
.. . . ..... ilk la
• "
dii 4w
iJ
• • -
: ••.••.-•.:. •?.••'••.:.
•;.:.••••:.•:••.:.....
.•...
•....•.•...•..•..
•...:••..••••..
la
•. ., .... . I
,......
:.r...
-
'fr!!!...tit:*4
___----------;
q‘ 44
I illy
A .
. ..,. i
iiiiiii
rs.:x
_....-,
if
JP 1 pARX
StA, -7;:e .:.%:•x;E: I
tj TECHNOL:--.'z'l rrs A40
4 ' • 1 /9 ::FC.• \
Staff Report
The Hills of Eden Prairie
August 12, 1996
BACKGROUND
This site is currently guided Low-Density Residential for up to 2.5 units per acre or a total of 37
units. The property is currently zoned Rural.
COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN CHANGE
The proponent is requesting a change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Low-Density
Residential to Medium-Density Residential on 14.84 acres. The development is 51 rental townhouses
at a density of 3.43 units per acre.
The Planning Commission must decide if there are compelling reasons for changing the
Comprehensive Guide Plan. The decision should be based upon surrounding land uses,transition,
impact on natural features,and traffic.
Reasons to consider the Comprehensive Guide Plan change are:
1. This is a transitional site adjacent to Highway 212 between the Wooddale Baptist
Church and lower density areas to the west and south.
2. The site plan provides an adequate transition between the low density residential land
uses to the west and south and this property.
3. The amount of traffic generated will not significantly impact Bryant Lake Drive.
4. The plan provides a type of housing not currently provided in the City.
Reasons to not consider the Comprehensive Guide Plan change are:
1. The project does not provide an adequate transition to the lower density areas to the
west and south.
2. The site plan significantly alters the steeps slopes and tree mass.
3. Traffic generated is higher than the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The intersection of •
Bryant Lake Drive and Valley View Road is at capacity and requires road
improvements.
2
Staff Report
The Hills of Eden Prairie
August 12, 1996
SITE PLAN
• The site plan shows 51 rental units at a density of 3.43 units per acre.
The minimum lot size in the RM-6.5 zoning district is 6500 square feet with 45 feet of street frontage.
None of the lots in this project meet these requirements. The reason for the variances are that a large
portion of the property containing trees and wetland are a part of one lot for common open space .
The average amount of land area per unit 12,675 square feet.
The amount of parking required is one enclosed space, one open space, and 1/4 quest parking space
per unit. The plan meets these requirements. There are 12 permanent parking spaces provided off
lane B for guest parking. In addition,the private drive may be used for guest parking as well. The
Fire Marshal requires that parking be posted for one side of the road and the other side of the road
be posted as a fire lane.
TRANSITION
The site plan review ordinance requires a transition where there are differences in densities. The
density of this project is higher than the adjoining areas. The density of Crown Oaks is 1.5 units per
acre.Residential lots to the west are 1 to 3 acres in size. The wetland existing vegetation,and a 200-
foot minimum setback to the closest structure on adjoining land can be an adequate transition.
GRADING AND TREE LOSS
There are a total of 2017 caliper inches of significant trees on the property. The majority of these
trees are oak. The city forester has calculated the significant tree loss of trees greater than 12 inches
in diameter at 27%. This is a total of 544 inches. Tree replacement is 196 inches.
There are large areas of tree mass on the property. The tree mass area in the northwest corner of the
property has the largest amount of significant trees. The tree mass area in the southeast corner has
a small amount of significant trees. The tree mass is mostly smaller oak trees. The tree mass
comparison , prepared by City Staff,shows total tree mass on the property and the tree mass that
would be retained as part of the project.
A general way to describe the impact of the development on the tree mass is that approximately 50% .
of the tree mass would be retained as part of the project. The largest tree mass area to be saved is •
in the northwest corner. The largest area of tree mass removal is around the cul-de-sac and lots 37-
49, adjacent to Crown Oaks. In order to provide a road at an 8%grade, the hill must be lowered
between 10 to 22 feet. This requires the construction of a 300 foot long two-tiered retaining wall
a
21
Staff Report
The Hills of Eden Prairie
August 12, 1996
varying between 11-24' in height.
There is no wetland fill.
UTILITIES
Sewer and water service can be extended into the property from Bryant Lake Drive. Storm water
will be collected from all of the private drives and directed toward the NURP pond adjacent to Bryant
Lake Drive. There is a storm sewer pipe which extends into the Wetland Basin 2 in the southwest
corner of the property, however, this is an outlet for the wetland in order to maintain the current
water level.
ARCHITECTURE
There are two unit types proposed, a one-story walk-out and a two-story. The staff would
recommend that the project be divided into neighborhoods each having a different color scheme.
LANDSCAPING
The landscaping required for this project is 240 inches based upon a caliper inch requirement
according to building square footage, and 196 inches of tree replacement. The landscape plan shows
387 inches. The landscape plan requires 49 additional inches.
The developer is proposing that part of the tree replacement include a transplanting of wilding oak
trees. While this is allowed by ordinance subject to the recommendation of the city forester,unless
the trees are transplanted to a permanent location in the late fall,the wilding trees are not expected
to survive.
SLOPED GROUND REVIEW
A steep slope is defined as a slope of over 12% and an elevation difference of 30'or more in a given
parcel. The hill in the southeast corner of the property and the hill in the northwest corner of the
property are classified as steep slopes. The City has permitted the development on steep slopes
throughout the community provided erosion in minimized,there is adequate foundations to build the
proposed structures, and minimizing the extent to which the development would alter the vegetation,
topography or other natural features of the land.
Approximately 50% of the steep sloped area would be disturbed on the property. The largest area
is around the southeast cul-de-sac affecting units 36-49. This is the area where the hill is cut
4
22-
.Staff Report
The Hills of Eden Prairie
August 12, 1996
approximately 20'and large retaining walls are used to match the grade on the adjoining properties.
The attached City Erosion Control policy indictes requirements to stabilize the slopes during and
after construction. Soil tests are required at the time of building permit for all building foundations.
The use of walk-outs helps reduce the impact on the slopes.
MPCA LEAK#8088
A report prepared by Schoell and Madson called Remedial Investigation, Pavelka Property,MPCA
League#8088 dated Feb. 24, 1995 indicates there was an existing 260 gallon above-ground tank on
the property. See attachment for location. The gasoline was removed from the cars when they were
brought into the yard and then stored in the tank. When the tank was emptied and removed, it was
still in good condition with no apparent leaks. There was some soil staining detected which is the
result of minor releases during the approximately 40 years of operation as a salvage yard.
Soil borings were taken to determine the extent of soil contamination and if the groundwater had been
impacted on the site. Six soil borings were used. Four monitoring wells were established on the
property to determine the extent of potential groundwater contamination. (See attachment).
The study concludes that there is a small amount of soil contamination near the former location of
the above-ground tank. The recommendation is to remove the contaminated soil. The study also
indicates the amount of contamination in the groundwater is minimal and no further action should be
needed.
The attached letter from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency dated July 7, 1995,indicates that
the Pollution Control Agency has determined that the investigation and/or clean-up has adequately
addressed the petroleum tank release at the Countryside Auto Yard. The letter also indicates that the
closure of the PCA file does not necessarily mean that all petroleum contamination has been removed
from the site, however,the staff has concluded that any remaining contamination, if present,does not
appear to pose a threat to public health or the environment.
SITE VISION DISTANCE
The existing site vision distance at the entrance from this project to Bryant Lake Drive does not meet
current City standards. Due to the location of the hill,NURP pond, and existing wetland, this is the
only location where access can be provided. The attached letter from Schoell and Madson indicates
how the site plan should be changed to provide a better site vision distance.
5
23
Staff Report
The Hills of Eden Prairie
August 12, 1996
TRAFFIC
The amount of traffic generated by this project is 510 trips per day with 51 trips in the peak hour.
The Guide plan traffic would be 370 trips per day with 37 trips in the peak hour. Bryant Lake Drive
has the capacity to handle additional traffic. The intersection at Valley View Road is at capacity and
requires additional turn lanes. There is no time frame currently identified for these improvements.
The intersection at Shady Oak Road is not at capacity. The entrance ramps to Highway 212 need
signals. The Engineering Department is working with the MnDOT to get the signals installed.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission should discuss and determine :
1. Arether compelling reasons for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
2. Has an adequate transition been provided between the higher density on this site and the
lower density uses.
3. Have the impacts on the natural features been minimized.
4. Does the amount of traffic generated create a significant impact on Bryant Lake Drive.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community Development staff present the following alternative courses of action for
consideration by the Planning Commission:
I. If the Planning Commission believes that compelling reasons have been provided for
changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan,that the site provides an adequate transition
to the surrounding areas, that the impacts on the existing site features, and traffic
impacts are small and mitigated, then one option would be to recommend approval of
the Comprehensive Guide Plan change from low-density residential to medium-density •
residential, zoning district change from Rural to RM-6.5, site plan review, and
preliminary plat based on plans dated Aug. 9, 1996, subject to the recommendations
of the staff report dated Aug. 9, 1996, and subject to the following condition:
a(1
1. Prior to review by the City Council,the proponent shall :
A. Revise the landscape plan to add 49 inches of trees.
2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion control plans for
review by the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion control plans for
review by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to building permit issuance,the proponent shall:
A. Pay the appropriate cash park fee.
B. Submit plans for review and approval by the Fire Marshal.
C. Submit a final landscape plan and security for review.
4. Prior to grading on the property, the limits of construction shall be identified by a
protection fence to be approved by the City Forester and City Engineer at least 48
hours prior to grading.
5. Apply for and receive approval from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for lot
size less than 6500 square feet per unit in the RM-6.5 zoning district.
II. If the Planning Commission believes there are compelling reasons for changing the
Comprehensive Guide Plan but are not comfortable with the site plan as proposed due
to impacts on the site's natural features, a need for a better transition to surrounding
land uses, and to minimize traffic impacts, then one option would be to recommend
revisions to the plan to reduce the site density.
III. If the Planning Commission does not believe there are compelling reasons for changing
the Comprehensive Guide Plan, then one option would be recommend that the
property be developed in conformance with the Comprehensive Guide Plan, with an
adequate transition to surrounding uses,with mimmimal impact on natural features,
and mimimal traffic impacts.
The staff would recommend Alternative #1.
Z
26
I MW-I
I
•
I
I / APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ACCESS ROAD
I
/ MW-2
c aS
/ • FORMER TANK LOCATION
WETLAND BASIN 2 \
(. .\ MW-6
•
•
' ® SB-4
MW-5
A FORMER HOUSE/OFFICE
U EB
ABANDONED WELL
30 0 30 90 \
J Scale n Feet \ SOIL BORING/WELL LOCATION MAP LEAK 8088
COUNTRY SIDE AUTO PARTS
LEAK
® DENOTES MONITORING WELL LOCATION \ I SCHOELL&MADSON,INC. \
_ ENGINEERS•SURVEYORS•PLANNERS
SOIL TESTING•ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
10380 WAYZATA BOULEVARD.SUITE 1
SB-a• DENOTES SOIL BORING LOCATION \ \ i MINNETONKA.MN Ss303
(610 396•7601 FAX C610 546-9065 /
® DENOTES ABANDONED HOUSE WELL
\
JOB NO.62389-001 FIGURE 2
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
IftIP
July 7, 1995
Mr. Dave Pavelka
8460 Montogomery Court
Eden Prairie,Minnesota 55347
RE: Petroleum Tank Release Site File Closure
Site: Former Auto Salvage Yard, 6908 Bryant Lake Drive, Eden Prairie
Site ID#: LEAK00008088
Dear Mr. Palvelka:
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)Tanks and Spills Section(T&S) staff has
determined that your investigation and/or cleanup has adequately addressed the petroleum tank
release at the site listed above. Based on the information provided,the T&S staff has closed the
release site file.
Closure of the file means that the T&S staff does not require any additional investigation and/or
cleanup work at this time or in the foreseeable future. Please be aware that file closure does not
necessarily mean that all petroleum contamination has been removed from this site. However,
the T&S staff has concluded that any remaining contamination, if present, does not appear to
pose a threat to public health or the environment.
The MPCA reserves the right to reopen this file and to require additional investigation and/or
cleanup work if new information or changing regulatory requirements make additional work
necessary. If you or other parties discover additional contamination(either petroleum or
nonpetroleum) that was not previously reported to the MPCA, Minnesota law requires that the
MPCA be immediately notified.
You should understand that this letter does not release any party from liability for the petroleum
contamination under Minn. Stat. ch. 115C (1994) or any other applicable state or federal law. In
addition, this letter does not release any party from liability for nonpetroleum contamination, if
present, under Minn. Stat. ch. 115B (1994),the Minnesota Superfund Law.
The monitoring wells for this site should be abandoned in accordance with the Minnesota _ •
Department of Health Well Code, Chapter 4725. If you choose to keep the monitoring wells,the
Minnesota Department of Health will continue to assess a maintenance fee for each well.
gq
520 Lafayette Rd.; St. Paul. MN 55155-4194; (612)296-6300; Regional Offices: Duluth•Brainerd•Detroit Lakes•Marshall•Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer•Pnntea on Recycled Paper
I
Mr. Dave Pavelka
Page 2
July 7, 1995
Because you performed the requested work,the state may reimburse you for a major portion of
your costs. The Petroleum Tank Release Cleanup Act establishes a fund which may provide
partial reimbursement for petroleum tank release cleanup costs. This fund is administered by the
Department of Commerce Petro Board. Specific eligibility rules are available from the Petro
Board at 612/297-1119 or 612/297-4203.
If future development of this property or the surrounding area is planned, it should be assumed
that petroleum contamination may still be present. If petroleum contamination is encountered
during future development work,the MPCA staff should be notified immediately.
For specific information regarding petroleum contamination that may remain at this leak site,
please call the T&S File Request Program at 612/297-8499. The "Leak/Spill and Underground
Storage Tank File Request Form" (T&S Fact Sheet#36) must be completed prior to arranging a
time for file review.
Thank you for your response to this petroleum tank release and for your cooperation with the
MPCA to protect public health and the environment. If you have any questions regarding this
letter,please call me at 612/297-8576.
Sincerely,
David Holst
Project Manager
Cleanup Unit I
Tanks and Spills Section
DH:kf
cc: John Frane, City Clerk,Eden Prairie
Spencer Conrad,Fire Chief,Eden Prairie
Greg Lie,Hennepin County Solid Waste Officer
John Baxter, Schoell and Madson,Inc.
Petrofund Staff, Minnesota Department of Commerce
aB
FROM :SCHOELL 8 MRDSON 612 546 9065 1996.08-07 09:33 $*686 P.02/03
Schoell & Madson, Inc.
Engineers • Surveyors - Planners
Sol/Testing • Environmental Services
10590 Wayzata Boulevard. Suite 'I Minnetonka. MN 55305-1525
Office 612-546-7601 Fax 612-546-9085
August 7, 1996
Mr. Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230
Subject: The Hills of Eden Prairie
Dear Mr. Franzen:
As requested, we have reviewed the sight distance at the intersection of the entrance
into The Hills of Eden Prairie and Bryant Lake Drive. The critical traffic movement would be
a vehicle leaving the development and turning north (left) on Bryant Lake Drive. The view
south is affected by the curve on Bryant Lake Drive and by vegetation and ground slope on
the north side of Bryant Lake Drive.
Bryant Lake Drive is posted for a 45 mph speed. However, on the northbound lane of
the curve south of the proposed entrance, the curve sign has a posted speed of 20 mph.
The 45 mph speed would seem to be high when compared to other similar streets in Eden
Prairie. The 45 mph posted speed with a 20 mph advisory speed on the curve is confusing
to motorists and very few actually slow clown to 20 mph_
Attached is a plan showing a proposed retaining wall on the north side of Bryant Lake
Drive. This wall, with a height up to six feet, along with clearing the vegetation and cutting
away the slope between the wall and edge of street would provide a 500 foot long sight
distance which is adequate for a 35 mph speed in Bryant Lake Drive. This is the greatest
sight distance possible without excessive grading and retaining wall construction_ As we
have discussed with Allan Gray, City Engineer, we are requesting that the City review the
speed limit on Bryant Lake Drive and consider reducing it to 35 mph. With the retaining wall
and grade changes, Bryant Lake Drive could be uniformly posted for 35 mph eliminating the
confusion to motorists and making it easier to enforce the posted speed.
Please contact us with any questions.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.eked/•,„„,,,azt •
Kenneth Adolf
KEA/cj
•
1036 ��� % �i'(///)/(/ .. ( . ( cur, i/ `—�� i'( ,irv' 1 )9O
• Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer
29
FROM :SCHOELL 8 MIaDSON 612 546 9065 1996.08-07 09:33 tt686 P.03/03
II
r`. l 1 _ r IkJ
Y
1 i1
n�, f
4:96)
Ir
w tim■ p r � xi8 .7; f
) 1
`/;;•ogrlier11111111.11F:.- 1, .f ta'•,$,-, - '--.1':z.=-. - '"*\ -41 -----%%ilikli I I >c
�. t,-_ 3: • 1 ,ui
if.: , • 9• 11!....?:zr, 1,-;rip.4111141111111411U • \ : •44;;,,,, • •
/i ]i /IJ
11/i!
• 'olr-ii • rellikik\t„:,,, -r". 4 '. ,J.1 % ...
:4110::
,... 4. i •
/ // / il / II I
)/', b• W .- - Ai 0 , , , / r,,T. i.°-
, , ,
, I
, ,/,
1// ;
f �___ -' , i-
,.). AY j:,,.. ..7 ,: ; , JI 1; i,.,,i,„ • :_ • , � 111
,,,...
,,,,r4i.,.
. r ,, (ir /71. 7
7' / I / I
Ili I
•7_ 1*". flff 44...- i f
, ligAil . ,,...›/.. *,,,,ii dr*.iir / i // / /I
9• if I / ' / ti ;: 03
4 litt.::"......4 • , ie.• /
i# // / / if 1....4 0.)
' 40 „frf
,. 14. , /
#r44 /*/ c` . ' -: 1.,,,,,:v /e, , i
. • rx.
i 8 5:3.4 '
omr
/fsil �i A? .�/�, /� /// ` J
.\bi Ir f/� , 1 ,/ / i ' \ I r I
dr/et, i J
�i' /
f Z .-/ '• A '///// ,2 .-il/ ri
/, i X
J /
`, i %% / -
C! / / // '
i =; . .
/ENG/62354/001/62354SUR Tue Aug 6 13: 07: 45 1996 ENGINEERING (JA)
30
JAM E P. HO HOKIN LARKT— HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, T D. RYAREANEKE
GERALD ItFFMAN CHRISTOPHER J.IWLRISTHAL
FRIEDEJAMEs C.ERICKSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW ILLIABRUCE
J.DDUGtAS
EDMIARD J.DRISCOLL WKJJAM HI GRIFFITH,JR.
JET R.N
NE N.FULLER PETER CO
ILL
L'E
JOHN O.FULLMER R J.MARTIN
LARRY D.MARTW
FRANK I.HARvEy 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER JANEE BREMER
CNERLES S.MOOE11 JOIN J.SiEFFENIAGEN
CHRISTOPHER J.OIETZEN 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH oAwEL w.VOSS
LNDA H.FISHER PHIUP G ALDER
THOMAS P.JAOLTIAAN BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431-1194 MICH,E.J.SMITH
MI(,IIAEL C.JACIGAN4 KMAN NUS R.INOE
JOIN E.OIEHL ANOREW F.PERRIN
JON s.SYNERZEwSKI TELEPHONE(612)835-3800 AN N M.METER
7110MAS J.FLYNN CHISTOPHER 0.JOFNSON
LAMES P.OLRN FAX(612)896-3333 DEIRDRE MEDLEY KVALE
T0001.FREEMAN RENEE L JAC SON
GERAL.D L SECK CHRISTOPMER K.LARUS
JOIN B.UIIDOUIST MARCY R.FROST
OAYLE NOUN COUGLAS M.RAILER
JOHN A COTTER' MARIEL E PIS.OIA
BEATRICEA.ROT)MEJLER
PALL B.PLUNKETT THOMAS F.ALEXANOFR
ALAN L.KILDOW DANIEL T.KADLEC
KATH.EEN M.PICOTTE NEVALAN
S M. WSEGREN
MICI WEL B.LEBARON KARIN M.NELSEN"
GREGORY E KORSTAD
GARY A.VAN CLEVE- L. NE NICHES
DANIEL L BOMES C.BRENTRE MOORE
C. ROBBINS
TIMOTHY J.McMANUS
TIMOTHY J.KEA NE CF COUNSEL
ALAN M.A DERSON
JACK F.DALY
DONNA L ROBACX D.KENNETH UNDGREN
MICHAEL W.SCIiEY ALLAN E.MULLIGAN
ROAN B.KREPS
WF R.ANDERSON
USA A. E BISHOP JOSEPH GRIS
USA A.GRAY
ALSO ADWITED IN MMSCONSH
-- ONLY ADMITTED NWASANGTON
August 9, 1996 DELIVERED VIA MESSENGER
Ken Clinton, Chair Randy Foote
Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie Planning Commission
9115 Victoria Drive 7603 Kimberly Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Eden Prairie, MN 55346
William M. Habicht, Esq. Dr. Ismail A. Ismail
Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie Planning Commission
9955 Bennett Place 14199 Green View Court
Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Eden Prairie, MN 55346
Katherine Kardell Douglas Sandstad
Eden Prairie Planning Commission Eden Prairie Planning Commission
7932 Timber Lake Drive 8921 Knollwood Drive
Eden Prairie,MN 55347 Eden Prairie,MN 55347
Mary Jane Wissner
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
8293 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
RE: Opposition of Crowne Oaks Residents to Comprehensive Guide Plan Change, Site Plan Approval
and Preliminary Plat for the Hills of Eden Prairie Townhouse Development(the Project)
Dear Planning Commission Members:
We represent residents of the Crowne Oaks development(also known as Peter Andrea 2nd Addition) •
(Crowne Oaks). The developer of the Hills of Eden Prairie Townhouse Development(the Project)has not-
satisfied its burden of demonstrating a compelling public policy basis for amending the Comprehensive
Guide Plan to allow for the Project. In addition, the site plan does not comply with the standards set forth
LARK HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, L'
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
August 9, 1996
Page 2
in the City Code for approval. Finally,the developer cannot prove legal hardship required to support the
requested variance from minimum lot size. Accordingly,we strongly urge the Planning Commission to
recommend denial of the development application submitted for the Project. The basis for our position is
set out in this letter.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Crowne Oaks Development
In 1993,the City of Eden Prairie (the City) approved the plat of Peter Andrea 2nd Addition,now known
as"Crowne Oaks." The development, as originally proposed, was for 30 twin home lots on 14.89 acres of
land. The Crowne Oaks site is comparable to the Hills of Eden Prairie. Crowne Oaks was significantly
down-scaled because of strong concerns regarding the effect of the Crowne Oaks project on residential
areas to the west; the lack of transition between projects; as well as the effect on environmentally sensitive
areas, such as wooded areas, steep slopes, and substantial alteration of the natural terrain. The Planning
Commission recommended, and the City Council approved, a preliminary plat containing 16 twin home
lots and 6 single-family home lots. This change resulted in a 30%reduction in allowed density. City staff
concluded:
The [Crowne Oaks] project preserves site features by:
1. Use of 1-acre lot sizes on steep slopes.
2. Higher density is concentrated on lesser slopes next to Bryant Lake Drive.
3. Use of a conservancy easement which protects grading,tree-cutting or building on
steep slopes.
4. Tree loss is 35%. The conservancy easement will protect the remaining 65%. . . .
Staff report dated August 20, 1993,page 6.
Residents of Crowne Oaks have met with City planning staff to express the similar concerns with regard
to Hills of Eden Prairie.
Hills of Eden Prairie Development
The developer has proposed construction of 51 rental townhome units on approximately 14.84 acres of
land. The project is proposed at a density of 3.44 units per acre. The resulting density is more than two
times the density of the adjoining Crowne Oaks development on a site containing similar characteristics. "
LARKI HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, L'
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
August 9, 1996
Page 3
None of the proposed lots in the Project meet the minimum lot size requirements for the RM-6.5 zoning
district. Therefore, the developer has filed an application for variances for these lots. The stated reason is
to "cluster units away from significant trees and wetlands" and to "retain as much of the site as possible
for common open space." However, the developer has not demonstrated legal hardship as required by
Minnesota Statutes and City Code. Further, the objectives which the developer cites as the basis for the
variances can be satisfied on larger lots without variances, and without changing the Comprehensive
Guide Plan.
The majority of the surrounding land uses are single-family residential, low-density attached residential,
or public open space. The surrounding land uses are at densities significantly below that proposed by the
Project.
The site changes in elevation approximately 60 feet, from 862 feet to 930 feet. In the southeast corner of
the site, the developer proposes to level an existing knoll by approximately 20 feet, destroying the natural
terrain which would otherwise serve as a transition between the Project and Crowne Oaks. Once the knoll
is leveled,the developer will build on steep slopes, in some cases in excess of 12%. This impact can be
avoided by developing larger lots consistent with the current Comprehensive Guide Plan designation.
The developer's "project narrative"dated July 19, 1996, states that the change in the Comprehensive
Guide Plan will allow"clustering of units within the site to minimize a site area impacted by
development. This protects significant areas of wetlands and woods. As such it has a positive impact on
the site."
It is our understanding that the developer,prior to Project approval,has removed significant and valuable
trees from the site. This does not have a positive impact on the site. This impact should not be further
exacerbated by approval of a Comprehensive Guide Plan change which allows for a two-fold increase in
density,thus requiring removal of a substantial portion of the remaining tree mass.
The developer's project narrative states that the Project will have minimal impact on City roadways.
However,traffic at the intersection of Bryant Lake Drive and Valley View Road currently exceeds
capacity. The developer has offered no justification for the 30% increase in daily trips that would result
from the change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
The developer's project narrative states that the Project provides an appropriate transition between
existing land uses and existing residential neighborhood. This statement is not supported in fact. The
Project proposes development on steep slopes,the removal of tree-massing, grading of an existing knoll.
on the southeast corner of the site, and development density significantly higher than surrounding land
uses. This Project cannot be said to be sensitive to or provide transition for existing land uses.
LARKP HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LT''
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
August 9, 1996
Page 4
DISCUSSION
A. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change
The Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act was adopted 20 years ago to provide for a metropolitan-
wide system of planning, zoning and public infrastructure. This system is designed to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the residents of the metropolitan area and to ensure coordinated,
orderly and economic development. Minn. Stat. § 473.851. Each plan contains objectives,
policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development,
redevelopment and preservation for all land and waters within the jurisdiction. Minn. Stat.
§ 473.859. Local plans must specify expected industrial and commercial development, planned
population distribution, and local public facility capacities upon which the plan is based.
Where a municipality implements policies for the regulation of land use, it is exercising its
legislative power. Denney v. City of Duluth, 202 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. 1972). As such, the
municipality has broad discretion to grant or deny changes to such policies and plans(emphasis
added). Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409 (Minn. 1981). The classification of land
use is presumed to be well planned and intended to be more or less permanent. The burden is
on the property owner seeking a change to show either some mistake in the original
classification or that the character of the neighborhood is changed to such an extent that no
reasonable use could be made of the property under its current classification. (Emphasis added.)
Id, Where there is no evidence that the classification of property is inconsistent with surrounding
property, the municipality will be upheld in denying a change in such classification. Parranto
Brothers. Inc. v. City of New Brighton,425 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. App. 1988). Recent cases have
emphasized even more the comprehensive plan aspect as a hedge against"special interest,
irrational ad hocery." Amcon Corporation v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66, 75 (Minn 1984)
In 1995,the Minnesota Legislature again underscored the importance of the comprehensive plan in
guiding land use decisions. The 1995 Metropolitan Land Planning Act provides that zoning must
be in conformance with the comprehensive plan (emphasis added). The Act states, "After
August 1, 1995, a local government unit shall not adopt any fiscal device for official control which
is in conflict with its comprehensive plan, including any amendments to the plan, or which permits
activity in conflict with Metropolitan System Plans, . . . ." Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1 (Laws
1995).
In sum,the Comprehensive Guide Plan protects the orderly development of the City by classifying
location of compatible land uses. It is presumed to be well-settled and the burden is on the
applicant to demonstrate significant changes in condition which warrant amendment. Zoning must
be in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The developer in this case has failed to satisfy
the burden of demonstrating a compelling public need to change the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
&11
LARK' HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, L"
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
August 9, 1996
Page 5
It is apparent that the only reason the developer has requested the change is to double the
development density on the Project site.
B. Site Plan Review
The developer's application fails to comply with the following standards required for site plan
approval set out at Section 11.03, subd. 6.E (references are to the City's Zoning Ordinance unless
otherwise noted):
1. Adherence to and consistency with the City's policies and objectives as reflected in
the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
The developer has failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating a compelling public need
for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan. The only reason to change the
Comprehensive Guide Plan is to increase development density. Such an increase has
substantial negative effects on environmentally sensitive site features and existing
residential land uses.
2. Adherence to and consistency with the City's code relating to zoning and
subdivision of land.
The City Code calls for the preservation of wetland and woodland areas as follows:
It is the policy of the City to preserve the natural wetland and
woodland areas throughout the City, and with respect to specific site
development,to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands and
wetlands which can be incorporated into the landscape plan. No
clear-cutting of woodland areas shall be permitted. . . .
Section 11.03, subd. 3.G.4(i).
The Project site plan is clearly contrary to this standard. The developer has already
removed substantial trees on the Project site. The proposed grading plan will significantly
alter the natural terrain, including natural transitions between land uses. Proposed tree
removal on site is in excess of 50%.
The zoning ordinance states that the purpose of the RM Multi-Family Residential District
is, among other things,to "preserve as many as possible of the desirable characteristics of •
the one-family residential district while permitting higher population densities; and to -
minimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the
construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them. . . ."
Section 11.15, subd. 1.
35
LARKI' HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LT
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
August 9, 1996
Page 6
The Project does not retain the desirable characteristics of the one-family residential
district because it alters the natural terrain, steep slopes, trees, and open space by
development of land at densities in excess of two times the surrounding land uses.
The Project does not minimize traffic congestion because it proposes a 30% increase in
project trips in an area that is at capacity in major intersections.
3. The preservation and enhancement of the natural and built environment, as well as
those modifications already affected by development and construction upon the
land, including the minimization of: tree loss, soil removal, wetland, flood plain,
lake and creek encroachment; and the maintenance of the general natural
topography or physical grade of the land consistent with that of adjoining
properties.
It is impossible for the developer to satisfy this standard based upon the proposed site plan.
The adjoining property was reduced in density by 30%for the very reasons cited in this
standard; that is, to minimize tree loss, soil removal, and the maintenance of the general
natural topography and physical grade of the land. Therefore, the current Project must be
held to a similar standard if it is to satisfy this finding of site plan review.
4. Maintenance of open space to provide a desirable environment both for occupants
of the site and the general public.
While the site plan maintains protected wetlands as open space, it develops the remainder
of the sites in such a way and density as to eliminate all other non-wetland open space.
5. Transitions where there are differences in land use,building mass,height, densities
and site intensity, in proximity to that which is the subject of the Site Plan and
Architectural Design. Transitions may be accomplished by increased set-backs,
berming, planting, larger lot sizes, lower densities, lower flood area ratios, and
smaller buildings.
It is clear that the Project does not meet this standard. The site plan eliminates transition
areas, most notably the knoll in the southeast corner of the site. Transitions would be
better-accomplished by increasing lot size, reducing density, retaining the knoll and natural
vegetation, and reducing building footprints.
C. Variance to Minimum Lot Size Requirement •
None of the lots in the Project meet the requirement for 6,500 square feet of lot area with 45 feet
of street frontage. (fig RM-6.5 lot size requirement at Section 11.03, subd. 1.B, p. 11-8a.)
•
LARKP T3OFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LT
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
August 9, 1996
Page 7
The stated reason for the variances is that a large portion of the Project site contains trees and
wetlands. This rationale does not demonstrate legal hardship as required by state and local law.
Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6 requires that the property owner demonstrate that the variance is
due to "undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration. . . ." "Undue hardship" means the property in question"cannot be put to a
reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls,the plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations
alone shall not constitute an undue hardship, if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the ordinance." Ii
The zoning ordinance has incorporated this standard at Section 11.76, subd. 1.
Similar to the rationale for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan,the only reason to grant the
variance is to reduce lot size, increase density, and maximize economic return on the Project. The
developers fails to meet the legal test of undue hardship because the property can be put to
reasonable use at lower densities while meeting the minimum lot size required by the zoning
district. Therefore, there is no need for lot variances.
The variance, if granted, will alter the essential of the locality by altering the natural terrain,
developing on steep slopes, eliminating transitions between land uses, and developing at densities
more than two times greater than surrounding residential land uses.
Based upon the strict standards for granting variances as contained in Minnesota statute and City
Code,the City must deny the requested variance.
See VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503 (Minn. 1983); Rochester
Association of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. 1978).
CONCLUSION
The Developer has failed to comply with the standards required for amendment of the Comprehensive
Guide Plan, approval of the Project site plan, and issuance of a variance to minimum lot size. The reasons
for denial of the above applications are set forth in detail in this letter and summarized below:
• The classification of land use is presumed to be well-planned and intended to be more or less
permanent. •
• The burden is on the property owner seeking a change to show either some mistake in the original
classification or that the character of the neighborhood is changed to such an extent that no reasonable
use could be made of the property under its current classification.
•
LARKIN 7OFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTr
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
August 9, 1996
Page 8
• The City has broad discretion to grant or deny changes to its policies and plans.
• The developer's application fails to comply with the Zoning Ordinance standards required for
approval of the Project site plan.
• Neighboring Crowne Oaks was significantly down-scaled because of strong concerns regarding the
effect of the Crowne Oaks project on residential areas to the west,the lack of transition between
projects, as well as the effect on environmentally sensitive areas, such as wooded areas, steep slopes,
and substantial alteration of the natural terrain.
• The Hills of Eden Prairie project should be held to this same standard.
• The density of the proposed Project is more than two times the density of the adjoining Crowne Oaks
development on a site containing similar characteristics.
• The developer has offered no justification for a 30% increase in daily trips that will result from the
change in the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
• The proposed Project cannot be said to be sensitive to or provide transition for existing land uses.
• The Project proposes development on steep slopes,the removal of tree-massing, grading of an existing
knoll on the southeast corner of the site, and development density significantly higher than
surrounding land uses.
• None of the proposed lots in the Project meet the minimum lot size requirements for the RM-6.5
zoning district.
• The only reason to grant the variance is to reduce lot size, increase density, and maximize economic
return on the Project.
• The developers fails to meet the legal test of undue hardship because the property can be put to
reasonable use at lower densities while meeting the minimum lot size required by the zoning district.
It is clear that there are serious deficiencies with the proposed Project from both a legal and planning
perspective. We strongly urge the Planning Commission to recommend denial of the change in the
Comprehensive Guide Plan, the proposed site plan, and the variance from minimum lot size. The
developer can make reasonable use of the Project site based upon the existing land use designation and in
conformance with the RM-6.5 district standards.
38
LARKII HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTr
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
August 9, 1996
Page 9
We request that this letter and the materials to which it refers be incorporated in the official record of
decision in this matter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
illam Griffith Jr. or
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & L DGREN, Ltd.
cc: Mayor and City Council
Chris Enger, Director of Community Development
Michael D. Franzen, Sr. Planner
John May
Leonard Neidig
0231584.01
39
COMMENTS CONCERNING THE HILLS OF EDEN PRAIRIE PROJECT
First off, I would like to say that I fully support Mr. Pavelka's position in clustering his units in
one area of the property in order to preserve the character of his exceptional property; leaving the
mature oaks on the hills and the wetland intact.
In the interest of alerting involved parties before planning for the Hills of Eden Prairie
progresses too far along, I would like to call attention to two parts of the current plan that could
be revised. Units 26-35, which face the marsh, are slated to be built 1-2 feet above the wetland.
If built, these units will wick moisture up their foundations creating an unhealthy living
environment. The second concern is that units 25 and 24 cut into a hillside of mature oaks that
stretch unbroken on Mr. Pavelka's property, Bryant Lake Regional Park, and adjacent
undeveloped hillsides.
The 40 foot tall hill covered with mature oaks on the west side of the property will be cut just
14 feet from its crown. I can not speak for Mr. Pavelka, but I know his family has not touched
this hillside, and he expressed concern that this would continue to be the case. It is an very
impressive stretch of contiguous mature oak forest.
A solution that I support is to fill the marginal wetland in the northeast corner of the property.
Some of this wetland is not on Mr. Pavelka's property, and it could be left intact. This wetland of
.43 acres holds little or no water, and is surrounded by the Hills of Eden Prairie, Woodale
Church's access road, and Bryant Lake Drive. I quote David Quammen, who writing about the
fragmentation of habitats, compared habitat to a fine Persian carpet. Let's say Bryant Lake Park
is a largely intact square of such carpet, with its resident deer and foxes. The .43 acre wetland is a
small shred of this carpet which has been cut completely around and mostly consists of frayed
edge.
If the development were allowed to encompass the northeast corner of the property, all
planned units may be accommodated on the property while avoiding disrupting the hillside and
allowing units 26 to 35 to be moved back.
The proposal is both to allow development in the northeast part of the property, and to move
the units 26-35 to at or above the 878 foot contour line. This puts the units 4 feet above the
marsh, which is more reasonable than the current proposal. If land between the 874 and 878 foot
contour lines were dredged, it would create double the wetland which was filled in the northeast
corner of the property, and therefore filling this wetland would be legal as well as providing a nice
stretch of open water in front of potential rental tenants in these units. This dredging would add
to the roughly two acres of marsh which house a very substantial population of wood ducks.
Another bonus to this plan is that it allows a larger buffer between the rental units and the
development on Crowne Oaks. Further, Mr. Pavelka would be able to leave the oak hillside
pristine. The cost would be cutting several cottonwoods in the northeast corner of the property,
which are not part of a forest, and near the current homesite. This should be under the acceptable
number of trees to cut. With utmost respect for Mr. Pavelka and his intentions, I provide this
alternative plan which should be more palatable to all parties involved. The neighbors will
appreciate it because moving the units back a bit will allow more of a buffer from the more closely
clustered rental units. I reiterate that I strongly applaud Mr. Pavelka in clustering the units. I can
not speak for Mr. Pavelka, but he may appreciate the fact he does not need to scar the hill to fit
the number of units on his property he desires. The Bryant Lake ecosystem would benefit by
remaining less fragmented. Deer bed down on the top of the hill in the western side of Mr.
Pavelka's property.
Ryan Molde
6961 Beach Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Phone : 941-6096
`i0
Jean Grote 7^61 Willow Greek Road Eden P. •irie, Mn. 5534-4
August 9, 1996
Michael Franzen
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344
Dear Mike,
This letter is written to voice my concern over yet another development the 14.8 acres called
Hills of Eden Prairie.
Two years ago we met when Crown Oaks was developed. You may recall the concerns we, as
neighbors on Willow Creek Road, had about the destruction of Bren hill and all the oaks and other
trees of size that were lost. The density of that project was too large . While it was scaled back
somewhat, it went ahead despite our protests. Today as I drive by and see what replaced the hill
and that stand of oaks, I am amazed that anyone considers this worthy of the losses.
The density of the new Venku project is outrageous! This is a wonderful piece of property with
marshes, hills, and trees that is about to be gutted to make room for 51 townhouses! Certainly
there must be a better plan. What about the wildlife that needs open space? Are we leaving any?
This proposed development would worsen an existing major traffic problem. If each of those
townhouses has 2 cars, there will be 102 cars moving in and out of traffic on a service road that is
already overloaded.
On Sunday mornings and many evenings, you can barely get past the church because of vehicles
and pedestrians. It's an accident waiting to happen. On weekdays, the service road is used as a
shortcut to get to and from Shady Oak Rd. without using 212. I encourage everyone to visit Bryant
Lake Drive during rush hour, say about 7:55 AM and watch the traffic. Not only are there too many
cars using this road, the speed at which they are driving is out of control.
Better yet, come at 5 PM and try to get on 212 going East. You will wait in a line that extends from
the metering lights all the way around the corner to Shady Oak. It is major undertaking to get
through the congestion coming out of the business area to the South .
We as citizens of Eden Prairie have got to get our heads together and find a way to compromise
with our natural environment, if it is not already too late. We can't just grade the hills and bulldoze
trees in the name of growth. It takes thought and planning. If developers weren't so anxious to use
every inch of land, the trees and terrain could remain, actually to their advantage.
We have been taxpayers in Eden Prairie for 13 years . We sought out this area because of the
natural beauty of the land and the wildlife. What I'm seeing is the disappearance of those things
that we value. We can't be so short-sighted. We need to understand this land is only for us to
borrow and enjoy, not to destroy. It's called quality of life.
I challenge you and the planning commission members to act on this proposal in a manner that
reflects the city's long range "Guide Plan" and the Met Council findings described in the attached
news article.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
9(_,a/vZi Acf-r-6
cc: Community Development Department
ul
•
Fdan Prairie News—Thursday,August 8, 1996
Quality-of-life atrisk?
.. Met Counc . .
il crunchingdata ongrowth` p opinions
..
■The region's residents government views on how to plan for vey a strong commitment to the re- facing the Twin Cities area.Only"so-
are expressing concern and manage that growth, the Metro vitalization and redevelopment of the cial conditions"is a higher priority.
Council last year initiated meetings central cities,believing the health of 4)Transportation also ranked high
abbut the Twin Cities' with various groups and associations the region is directly tied to prospects among issues, and it was mentioned
quality of life,.and Metro- as well as local units of government for economic success and social often in the local focus group session.
Council officials say in and around the seven-county-re- well-being in Minneapolis and St. Respondents don't like the amount of
gion.Earlier this year,the agency in- Paul. congestion they're encountering,even
growth may be a reason. vited public input through numerous 2)Respondents put a high prior- though the Twin Cities region has one
The Metropolitan Council last avenues,including open houses,corn- ity on neighborhoods and a sense of. of the lowest travel times to work of
week said Twin Cities-area people— munity focus groups like the one held community: They want a mix of the 25 largest metro areas in the coun-
expressing their opinions through sur in Eden Prairie on July 17 and a tele- housing costs and types so it's pos- .. try.They wantto the aii-
exprand focus groups of kind held phone survey. • sible to stay in their:community as' tomobile to maintain accessibility and
veys in Prairie the see the Findings of public preferences, their needs change. Many desire are anxious for improvement in tran-
recentlyreg high Eden Prity of life as being values and opinions reveal a region. close proximity to amenities,prima-„ ;sit services,as well as bike paths and
at risk,`and growth=related issues may-«ment that te for he high quality of life the. estmgly, the tel schools phoi en a survey of Counc lys,,according to'.the_Metro
be a reason. . - - region now enjoys is at risk,accord- 1,500 people reveals nearly half of "The stakes are high,"said Metro
After a year of research and ing to Metro,Council officials. respondents indicate a strong pref- Council Chair Curt Johnson. "The
months of gathering public input,the Though relatively few cite "growth" erencc for a small town and rural at- council is committed to developing a-
Metro Council is weighing the find-
as a problem per se,they said, many mosphere—even though most cur-. strategy that meets the needs of the
ings before making a final decision cite growth-related issues as the ba- rently don't live in small towns or region securing a thriving econo-
in late summer on a growth manage- sis of their concerns,including social rural areas. my,preserving a healthy environment,
ment strategy for the Twin.Cities issues, congestion and development 3) Respondents demonstrate a controlling public costs and building
metro area. patterns to name a fey+. strong commitment to (he environ- a stronger sense of community."
i Council planners say future Though council staff continue to ment and prudent use of land. Par- The growth management strategy
awth in the region is imminent,with
projected population increase of analyze the data,several key themes ticipants at the community focus will guide future decisions about land
aSQ000 more people by the year have emerged: groups in Eden Prairie and else- use and public investment in roads,
2020. i) Respondents, regardless of where,for example,said loss of open sewers and transit, and help shape
To tap public, business and local where they live in the metro area,con- space is one of two major problems future development. -
VOLKART M. & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Innovations in TeleBusinessTM Interchange Tower,Suite 63(1
600 South Highway 169
Nlinneapolis,Minnesota 55426
612 525 4900 Phone
6125254910 Fax
El EI
Ed 55 El August 16, 1996
fn
Mr. Michael D. Franzen
City Planner
City of Eden Prairie
City Center
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230
•
Dear Mr. Franzen:
On behalf of Leonard Niedig and myself, we want to thank you for your professional
assistance in our preparation for the planning commission meeting for the Pavelka hearing
August 12.
The tax paying citizens of Crowne Oaks remain solidly 100% against any development
which is not conforming to the comprehensive Guide Plan and that does not address
serious issues of grading, reducing the cut, preservation of trees, and important transition
issues.
We also wish to be informed of any new hearing dates proposed for the development of
this property. Please keep me informed of any plans prepared and proposed to the city
planner for review.
We have not been approached by anyone from the Pavelka group at this time regarding
any development plans for the property. We are willing to discuss any future plans for
development of the Pavelka property with the owners at mutually agreeable times.
Sincerely,
ohn F. May, Chairman
Crowne Oaks Neighborhood Committee •
7057 Crowne Oaks Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
#944-2971
LIS
August 19,1996
•
Ken Clinton, Chair
Eden Prairie Planning Commission
9115 Victoria Drive
Eden Prairie,MN 55347
Re:The Hills of Eden Prairie
Dear Ken,
As we broke from the planning commission meeting on Monday,we were not able to tell you what
direction we would go with the Hills of Eden Prairie Project. This letter is an up date, so that when we do
reconvene on September 9,you will know what to expect.
PLAN
1. We intend to resubmit a revised plan that retains the cluster concept which was presented. The
revised site plan will conform to the comprehensive guide plan low density limitation of 2.5
units/acre(14.84 x 2.5= 37 units). The details of the plan are now being worked on by the
engineers, Schoell and Madson,Inc.
2. It is our intent to eliminate all construction on the high hill in the South East cornefof the site.
(See the attached sketch). Our new tree loss figure is nine per cent(9%).
3. Another neighborhood meeting will be held when the plan is finalized.
SITE CLEAN UP
4. The site clean up is 98%complete. Heavy equipment is needed to complete the last 2%. This
work will be done with the earth moving equipment as the project begins. All objectionable
material will be removed from the site.
5. Even though there has not been a"change of ownership" to monitor the cleanup, in order to close
on our construction mortgage,we must satisfy the same environmental standards that a sale of
the property would have imposed.
VARIANCES
6. Until the day we made our first project submission to the planning staff,it was believed that we
had the 15 acres necessary for a PUD. In which case we would not have to apply for any lot size
variances and this would not be an issue at all. Our surveyor informed us that we had 14.84
acres.
Our belief that we had 15 acres was not unfounded, if you call the assessors office here in Eden
Prairie you will find that for 93 years we have been paying taxes on 15.3 acres.
L,I page 1 of 2
7. We have discussed the issue of variances at length with Mike Franzen, City Planner. He has
given us the following assurance. "The variances that we ask for are no different than those
granted by the city for all the town home construction done in Eden Prairie in the last 20 years.
The city would be in a hard legal position to deny the variances since they have such a long
history of granting such variances." All we ask for is the same standards and the same
considerations that others have been granted.
The smaller lot sizes are more than balanced by the larger common open spaces included in
the site plan.
THE LETTER
8. We regret not having seen the letter from the law firm of Larkin,Hoffman,Daly&Lindgren,
LTD dated August 9, 1996. until the day after the hearing. If we had seen the letter we could
have addressed its contents at the Planning Commission meeting.
One of the many statements from the letter we would challenge is:
"The developer,prior to Project approval, has removed significant and valuable trees from the site."
This simply is not true. We are told there is photographic evidence of this. We have asked the Crowne
Oaks spokesman,John May,to see the photos. He tells us that the city has the photos. We approached
the city to obtain the photos. The city was unable to locate the photos. The photos either do not exist or
we are being stonewalled. We are further bewildered because no one has asked permission to come on our
property to take any photos. What is so disturbing to us is that the inaccurate information contained in the
letter has the effect of giving you the exact opposite impression of what we are doing. We have made a
substantial effort to preserve large portions of the wooded area on our site and all of the.wetlands
Being denied access to the photos,we can only speculate.
A. We cooperate with the city in its diseased tree removal(Dutch Elm and Oak Wilt). Each year we pay
for the cutting of infected trees which are hauled away by the city.
B. An old barn existed on the site which was unsafe. When the property was a salvage yard there was
much vandalism by the children in the neighborhood. With the closure of the salvage yard we could not
monitor the property on a daily basis,so we chose to tear down the structure for public safety reasons.
Growing adjacent to and into the foundations of the buildings were several large trees which had to be
uprooted to complete the demolition work. These trees are still piled on the site in the vicinity of the old
barn site.
In any case,the tree count furnished the city was accomplished in 1994. According to the Crowne
Oaks spokesman the photos were taken in 1995. Any trees pictured were included in our tree count.
Should you have any questions regarding the Hills,please call. Any advance conversations may help trim
the long meeting hours.
Our family looks forward to your favorable consideration of our revised submission.
Si erel
Dave Pavelka
8460 Montgomery Court
Eden Prairie,MN 55347
937-8791
cc: Planning Commission Members
Mike Franzen,City Planner 45 page 2 of 2
•
96 Jul 19 12.50.04 F:1EtJG1623541001162354SUR
/ n
r t
a
• w .w .n
•
x A 4 ' II ao.a ■ pan
O.
•
\ ■.eaw
wa.a.t fs URA• ''\y
I .. I tM l� \ \ rw'nr� I I 1 UCLNO
I
�•• ■w.oe■�.t.R m.
• \\ \ \ I/ I I _— p —_ erw sir..oa
•
,..
~MP WNW Ian
In te• � �� �.0 r + '40
� \\ \ \\ I I i 1 ,._ ~ONO Warm
rtaltki4
/I
I 0 ♦.. / w+u.n�.►- I I — ■■.waa•.■ten a.m■
•
I p� � 11 444‘% ,/�,� 11\IA x 1
\ it.-4-, rig%
4-71111114
exam* I
4. Ai 1
t . ,-,,,.--L- ..-Ik x \
ww /- ,_", �7<1` �c.�_� ► : ce r1 _ _. #4,7.\-_IP r. hiegic i 0 0 III 0.0• •maks. Ott .
11
.------H 11 les •, 4'': • , Tfts... irici•i:enisx.- ....;-a---........,:-.--ii,,,:tli,„:‘, .
'‘.\ammo•••ammo AillAkAit• . . . ....i 4...-.7.0 ow iii .
\ sows ra, •-..
0/0 ,\ .4# , .rif , lis. .••••
\ N..
I - \./ • d �.,.. _�� . .a • _I - ,i1
// •� •
\� -/ r44\ /
4` '___-
St Penn
41 4
Alt x•na / I / I aaa • PORN gut
x•xa �■
X MA
•i 414 av — �. I
r■ Y
t• \ r� I ` ■ , 1; Ii �, �• t Ix
i \ — • ...,_ ,.... _... ., ,,)% ix vve s I 47 0
c 11E0610M• \ rear"Mg■+�+ I SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. 0!' tcoAcrMtLa+a '■`xa■ F..r3 w�iW
�rraaa- —�.alas -®- M,L,„ •'1`„'• `. VENKU CORPORATION ' ciAr 1 1 R151 Vie■a•r ■•■■.■•.A wr 001e■
w OR 1111/4•■'►a01 04.144.9041 •
DATE: JULY 1996
S.M.I. PROJECT NO. 62354-001 SHEET 6 OF 6 SHEETS
Daniel R Grote
7061 Willow Creek Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 944-5983
August 26, 1996
Mr Michael D Franzen, City Planner
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchel Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230
RE: The Hills of Eden Prairie
Dear Mike,
I have a note from Dave Pavelka saying that he intends to bring subject development
back to the Planning Commission, but in compliance with Guide Plan density. There is to be
another meeting of the neighbors on Wednesday evening and Dave will give us the details of his
revised plan. I can support a scaled back project that follows the Guide Plan and the Planning
Commission recommendations.
In the meantime, I remain concerned about the water quality in the aftermath of the
former Countryside auto salvage operation. To his credit, Dave had his engineers test for any
problems resulting from spilled gasoline at the site of his father's storage tank. While traces
were found, I accept the assessment that they do not constitute a health hazard.
However, I have read the entire report on file with the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. It deals only and perhaps exclusively with spills at the site of the old storage tank.
In no way does the report imply, nor should the Commission assume, that Schoell & Madson
undertook any comprehensive site review related to the property's prior use.
Since there is no arms length transfer of this land from prior use to the proposed
development, the City must represent the health and welfare of future residents and the
neighborhood. As I understand the PAC and DNR positions, the Pavelka property is too
small to warrant their direct participation, but local governments (presumably the City) are
to enforce the State's laws, standards, etc.
The PCA's"spills and tanks" people that Schoell & Madson reported to on the storage
tank do not get involved with the regulation or inspection of auto salvage operators. They did
however, refer me to another section dealing with water quality from the perspective of"non-
point sources". The head of this section is Dale Thompson (PCA#296-5897) and his contact
person for this type of inquiry was (until very recently) one Mike Trojan. I think that that Mike
was replaced by another Mike, Mike Findorf(PCA#296-6062) but I was never able to reach
him for confirmation of his role within the PCA.
I think that it would be in order to have the City Engineer contact the PCA people who
inspect and regulate auto salvage operations. We should obtain a copy of their standards and
any guidelines which they might have for what needs to be tested when salvage operations
cease. The City needs to take a pro-active position to protect its citizens, both current and
prospective, from any possible health hazard.
I have reasonable doubts about water quality today and think that a broader based
testing program needs to be completed prior to any re-development being approved for the
Pavelka property.
cc: David Pavelka
Community Development Department
GUIDANCE FOR INVESTIGATION AND REMEDIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE
SALVAGE FACILITIES
PURPOSE
This document provides information on characterizing, investigating,and remediating
contamination at motor vehicle salvage yard facilities(MVSFs). Data used in developing this
document was collected during the investigation component of the MVSF Program conducted by
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)in 1994 and 1995. Results of these
investigations are summarized in Motor Vehicle Salvage Facilities-A Report on the MPCA's
Evaluation, Assessment and Outreach Effort(MPCA, 1995),Motor Vehicle Salvage Facility
Environmental Compliance Manual(MPCA, 1994),Results of Mercury Sampling at Automobile
Salvage Facilities(MPCA, 1995,unpublished), and Results of Runoff Sampling at Motor Vehicle
Salvage Facilities(MPCA, 1996,unpublished).
SUMMARY OF MVSF EVALUATIONS
A Motor Vehicle Salvage Facility(MVSF) is defined as"an establishment or place of business
that is maintained, operated, or used for storing, keeping, buying, dismantling, crushing, or
selling wrecked, scrapped, ruined, or partially dismantled motor vehicles where the parts, motor
vehicle hulks, or other scrap mateEial stored is equal in bulk to ten or more vehicles."(MPCA,
1994). As of 1995, MPCA had identified 435 facilities in Minnesota which fit the above
definition.
Site evaluations were completed for most of the identified facilities. Included in the site
evaluations was information pertaining to size of a facility,number of vehicles processed, site
history,methods of operation including drainage,storage,and disposal of automotive fluids and
parts,operator licenses, site physical characteristics(e.g. soil type, nearest surface water),and
evaluators rating of operator knowledge of environmental issues. Each facility was visited by a
MPCA or county employee. This information was compiled into an electronic database.
The evaluations revealed a wide distribution of operational practices. The MVSF industry is
largely unregulated except for requirements pertaining to certain special wastes,management of
hazardous waste and Storm Water Runoff Permits. Although Storm Water Runoff Permits are
required under the 1987 Clean Water Act, only 44 percent of evaluated facilities had obtained
this permit.
BACKGROUND
At a typical MVSF,vehicle fluids are drained and vehicles are dismantled for parts and then
crushed. There is a wide range of methods utilized in dismantling,fluid and parts storage,and •
crushing at individual MVSFs. Listed below are activities which have a potential impact on the
environment.
1) Dismantling •
• incomplete fluid drainage and recovery;
1
• incomplete removal of parts containing hazardous substances;
• size of dismantling area;
• surface on which dismantling occurs;
• number of cars received and dismantled;
• area covered or uncovered
2) Storage
• indoor or outdoor storage of parts;
• surface on which parts are stored;
• central storage areas for different parts(e.g. engine blocks, gas tanks);
3) Crushing
• extent of fluid drainage prior to crushing;
• size of crushing area;
• proximity of crushing and dismantling operations;
• number of cars crushed.
WASTES AND WASTE SOURCES
The primary organic contaminants of concern at MVSFs are Volatile Organic Carbon
compounds (VOCs)associated with gasoline, and heavier hydrocarbons associated with waste
oils and grease. These compounds are not typically commingled since drainage of oils and gas
tanks do not often occur in the same area. Waste oils are found throughout a facility in areas
where fluids are drained,oil-containing parts are stored,and vehicles are crushed. Gasoline-
related compounds are restricted to locations where gas is drained and gas tanks are removed and
stored. The extent of contamination is a function of the efficiency of fluid collection,the size of
the dismantling area, and to a lesser degree, volume(i.e. number of cars processed)and soil
type. Metals are contained in waste oils, hydraulic fluids, and paints or pigments. These include
lead(Pb), copper(Cu), zinc(Zn), cadmium (Cd), nickel(Ni), mercury(Hg), and chromium (Cr).
Lead, copper, and zinc occur in many parts while cadmium is highly toxic and mobile. These
four metals are of primary concern. Contamination with metals is most likely in dismantling
areas at sites where extensive drainage and dismantling occurs,or in crusher areas at sites where
little dismantling occurs and parts are crushed with the vehicle. PCBs are not a typical waste
material associated with motor vehicles but were frequently used in hydraulic fluids prior to the
1970's. Most crushers are hydraulically operated and spills or leaks occur frequently.
Additionally, some MVSFs accepted transformers and other PCB-containing materials during
past operations. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons(PAHs)are present in automobile waste
oils at low concentrations.
PHASE I- COLLECTION OF SITE DATA
Phase I of a site investigation includes collection of historic operational and physical data and a
site visit(visual inspection). The compilation of site data should consider the previous
discussion of methods of operation and wastes at MVSFs.
Site History
Historical information includes land-use prior to operation of the MVSF,years of operation, site
activities(e.g. vehicle crushing, other scrapping operations),generator information, and
2 `fJ
- operational practices and locations. A site checklist is illustrated in Appendix A. Much of this
data was collected for most facilities in Minnesota during the MVSF Program in 1994-1995.
Aerial photos may provide information concerning past storage and crushing areas.
Physical Data •
A checklist for physical data is contained in Appendix A. This information is of a general nature
and includes surface and subsurface soils, geologic setting,general topography,depth to ground
water,distance to nearest water users and surface water,and extent of fill at the site. This
information, except for fill thickness,is available in geologic maps or atlases, soil surveys,and
from topographic maps. Most of this data has not been compiled for MVSFs surveyed in 1994.
Additional useful data include soil organic matter content(g/g), soil water content(cm3/cm3)of
the surface 6 inches,and soil bulk density(g/cm3). Some of this information may be available in
published literature(e.g. geologic atlases,soil surveys).
Site Visit
The purpose of a site visit is to identify areas likely to be contaminated,verify historical and
physical information,and develop a site map. Salvage yard operations are discussed in Motor
Vehicle Salvage Facilities:A Report on the MPCA's Evaluation,Assessment and Outreach
Effort(1995).
Automobile Storage
Vehicles are generally stored prior to dismantling and after crushing or drainage. Storage may
occur in a central area or vehicles may be spread across a site. Identify these areas and
associated staining. The major concern is vehicles with leaking fluids, primarily oil,
transmission fluids, or hydraulic fluids.
Drainage and Dismantling
Drainage of fluids and dismantling of vehicle parts may occur simultaneously in a central
location or may occur at different locations throughout a site. Engine oil,anti-freeze, and
gasoline are drained at most facilities,while many of the remaining vehicle fluids are not. If a
MVSF is active during the site visit,observe dismantling and drainage practices.Identify
locations where vehicle parts are stored. Determine if gasoline is drained prior to removal of the
gas tank. Inspect gas tanks which have been removed and soils beneath these tanks.
Heavy areal staining is typical of intensive dismantling areas. Staining generally extends to a
depth of a few inches below the surface. Gasoline typically penetrates much deeper than oil.
Localized staining is more typical of oil spills and does not extend below the top inch of soil.
Gasoline contamination may be identified by odor or by a water-resistant coating on soil
particles.
Crushing
MVSFs may have a permanent crusher located on site or utilize contract crushing. The crushing
area is typically characterized by considerable broken glass and metal parts or pieces. Note the
extent of staining and metal debris in crusher sluff(a mixture of soil, oil, grease,and auto parts
left after crushing). Gasoline is a common contaminant in crushing areas and is identified by
odor. Oil contamination is generally not as great here as in dismantling or storage areas unless
engines which have not been drained are being crushed with the automobiles. Contamination is
3
SO
often confined to the sluff,but if this material is not collected it is worked into the soil around
the crusher. Sluff is often used as fill at a site.
Parts Storage
At many facilities, automobile parts are stored outdoors on bare ground. Parts containing fluids
are of most concern. These include engine,transmission,battery, gas tank, and axle piles. Oil
staining will be associated with transmission, engine, and axle piles, but is generally most severe
in engine piles. Gas tanks should be inspected for complete drainage.
At many MVSFs, particularly in rural areas, operations are not limited to automobiles.
Additional materials may be salvaged, including white goods. This document does not provide
guidance for non-automobile operations,but contamination may be associated with dismantling
and or storage of other materials. Examples include PCBs associated with transformers and
capacitors, CFCs associated with refrigerants, fuel oils and sludge associated with tanks, and
metals associated with wire recycling or metal coating operations.
Runoff Sediments and Receptors
Significant runoff occurs at most facilities due to soil compaction and the need to remove water
from the site. Runoff pathways should be identified. Note the amount of soil deposited along
the runoff pathway and whether the deposited material is stained. Identify the deposition area
for future runoff water and sediment sampling. If the deposition area is an ecological receptor
point(e.g. stream,wetland), observe if sediments have been impacted or vegetation is stressed.
Other Observations
Additional visual inspection may reflect site history and general operational practices. Some
things to look for and what they may reflect include:
• extent of fill-depth of contamination;
• use and condition of barrels storing fluids-efficiency of fluid collection;
• parts left in vehicles stored on site-engines, batteries, etc. left in vehicles reflects
minimal dismantling and fluid drainage;
• general organization-poorly organized sites typically have poor fluid collection;
• condition of floors in buildings or truck bodies used for storage.
A checklist for a site visit is provided in Appendix B.
PHASE II-SITE SCREENING
Objectives
The purpose of site screening is to determine if a site requires further investigation or possible
remediation. Unless there is evidence of burial of wastes, spillage of gasoline,or underground
storage tanks,contamination will be greatest at the soil surface. Additionally, contamination at
MVSFs is easy to identify visually(e.g. staining or metal debris)or by odor(for gasoline). The
Phase I investigation therefore focuses on the soil surface.
Site screening utilizes a risk-based approach with the following steps:
1. Identify contaminants of concern : gasoline,oil, metals.
2. Determine pathways- soil leaching, soil exposure, runoff, inhalation of vapors.
3. Determine receptors-humans for soil leaching and exposure, ecological for soil exposure
and runoff.
4
S1
- 4. Determine risk criteria-Tier I Soil Leaching Values(SLVs), Soil Reference Values(SRVs)
for soil exposure, Ecological Soil Values and Sediment Criteria for soil exposure, and Water
Quality Criteria for runoff.
5. Determine site concentrations.
6. Compare site concentrations to risk criteria.
Sampling of ground water is not generally recommended during the screening phase because the
risk to ground water is typically low at MVSFs and costs are therefore not justified. If liability
assurances are being sought,ground water sampling is required. Sampling at receptor points is
recommended if a receptor(e.g. surface water)appears to be impacted by contamination from a
salvage facility. Guidance on risk-based analyses for ground water, surface water, and sediment
sampling is provided in the Site Response Screening section of the Site Decision Guidance
document.
Soil Sampling
Sampling is biased during the screening phase. Soil sampling should be conducted in the top one
to six cm in dismantling,crushing,parts storage,and deposition areas on a site. Composite
samples are recommended because contaminants are typically uniformly distributed within
source areas. Duplicates should be taken if costs permit. Minimum sample parameters include
Diesel Range Organics(DRO), Gasoline Range Organics(GRO),Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons(PAHs), lead, copper,zinc,and cadmium. If soils appear to be saturated with
gasoline,VOC samples should be collected. Composite sampling is not allowed for VOC
samples. Caution should be used when sampling for PAHs because concentrations are likely to
be low and laboratory analysis is difficult due to matrix interference with oil.
If depth to ground water is shallow and GRO is detected in soil samples,follow-up sampling
should be conducted at depth for VOCs. Sample at two foot intervals with a split spoon sampler,
screening soils with a vapor analyzer. Continue sampling until no headspace is recorded or
ground water is encountered.
Xylene,toluene,and naphthalene are typically present whenever gasoline is found in soil.
Benzene and substituted benzenes are present in moderately contaminated soils. Ketones and
ethers are found in heavily contaminated soils. The risk assessment for the leaching pathway is
liberal for the following reasons:
• contamination is generally the result of small quantity spillage on the soil surface
over long time periods;
• the contaminants are readily degraded or volatilized;
• the Health Risk Limits(HRLs)for auto-related VOCs in ground water are high
(generally> 500 ug/l).
There are exceptions to the liberal assumptions,however.
• If a facility used chlorinated solvents for degreasing, sample at depth for VOCs •
(generally only at facilities where parts are washed).
• If large quantities of gasoline have historically been spilled(i.e. gas tanks were •
allowed to drain onto soil), sample at depth for VOCs(primary concern will be
benzene).
• If soils are saturated with gasoline, sample at depth for VOCs because the
degradation and volatilization assumptions may be invalidated.
5
Z-
• If underground tanks were used in operations, sample for VOCs in the vicinity of the
tanks.
Water Samples
The focus of water sampling during the screening phase will be on runoff water. Samples should
be collected for two separate runoff events. Samples should be collected at a location where
runoff is exclusively from the facility, minimizing dilution while sampling as close to a receptor
point as possible, and at a point where water can be collected without suspending sediments. If
several runoff channels exist, collect samples where an oil or gasoline sheen is evident but where
water is moving relatively quickly. This is generally near the center of the channel.
Minimum sample parameters include DRO, GRO, lead, copper, zinc, and cadmium. Additional
sample parameters may include nickel,chromium,mercury and PAHs. Total metal and
dissolved metal samples should be collected.
Water will have to be collected in some special,dedicated device and then transferred to sample
bottles. Collect a sufficient volume to fill a GRO bottle(40 ml). GRO bottles should be filled
quickly while minimizing wind and rain effects which cause volatilization and dilution of
sample.
A 5.0 micron filter is recommended for dissolved metals. Collect sufficient sample volume
(generally 0.5 liter) in the filtering apparatus,cover, and apply sufficient suction to collect the
sample. At sites where sediment loads are heavy,the concentration of suspended solids should
be determined.
During the runoff event note the approximate precipitation intensity,runoff rate, time when
rainfall started and ended, and total precipitation. Loading rates and volumes may be computed
with the above data assuming the period of runoff equals the period of precipitation.
Risk Analysis
Unrestricted land and aquifer use is assumed for screening. Risk criteria for screening values are
used for the soil leaching pathway, SRVs or Ecological Values for soil and sediment exposure,
and Water Quality Criteria for runoff waters. Surface water values are Maximum Standards for
either Class 2A or Class 2B/2C waters. Metals are not considered for the soil leaching pathway
unless there is reason to suspect that metal-bearing fluids or parts extend to the water table or
battery fluids have been spilled on soil. For soil exposure and soil leaching, individual VOCs
must be evaluated. If GRO is not detected in soil samples, assume that VOCs pass the risk
criteria. Typical detection levels for GRO is 10 mg/kg(ppm). Tabled values of SRVs and Tier 1
leaching values are summarized in the Site Response Site Screening section of the Site Decision
Guidance document. If site concentrations exceed the risk criteria for any contaminant within a
pathway,that pathway fails and additional investigation or remediation will be required. For the
runoff pathway, use dissolved concentrations for comparison with risk criteria. However, if total
metal concentrations exceed the risk criteria, additional sampling of sediments may be warranted
if a receptor(e.g. wetland)exists. Sediment criteria would be used in this situation. Sediment
criteria are summarized in the Prescriptive Guidance document. A checklist for the risk analysis
is provided in Appendix C.
If a site has barely failed the screening process,additional Phase II sampling should be-
conducted. For soil exposure, sampling should focus on determining if the concentrations used
6
Ss
in the risk analysis are representative of average exposure concentrations. For leaching,
additional sampling at depth will verify if contaminants are moving vertically. For runoff,
sampling at receptor points will verify impacts from the facility. When sampling off-site,
background samples should be collected to verify that impacts to surface waters or sediments are
related to the salvage facility.
Risk criteria for some chemicals may change over time. The most current criteria tables should
be used in the screening process. MPCA Risk Assessors should be consulted when application
of the criteria are unclear or site data is incomplete or difficult to interpret.
PHASE III-ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION OR REMEDIATION
Investigation and Cleanup Goals
For sites which have failed the screening process,some level of remediation will most likely be
required if criteria from more than one impacted media are exceeded. Additional sampling
should be conducted to characterize and determine the extent of contamination. Sample
parameters may include DRO,GRO(VOCs),Cd,Cu,Pb,Zn,and PAHs.
For sites where the future land-use will be industrial, industrial soil exposure values are used.
For sites where the future aquifer-use will be restricted, appropriate ground water dilution terms
may be employed in conjunction with the screening soil-based leaching values. For sites where
liability assurances are being sought,ground water data from wells must be obtained.
For the soil leaching or soil exposure pathways,the screening SRVs,Ecological Values,or Soil
Leaching Values,modified as necessary on a site-specific basis,are used as cleanup goals.
VOCs and metals will be the contaminants of concern for these pathways. For the runoff
pathway,metals and oil will be the primary contaminants of concern. Technical staff may
develop cleanup values using simple dilution, partitioning,and/or loading methods or using
available computer models.However,protection of receptors associated with the runoff pathway
will more typically involve modifying the pathway with runoff control structures and reducing
contaminant loading to soil.
Remediation
Remedial options at MVSFs fall into three general categories-reducing loading to soil,
modifying pathways, and cleanup(including removal or treatment). The first option should
always be implemented. The second option is desirable if a receptor exists adjacent to a facility.
Reducing loading of contaminants to soils should be done at all MVSFs. Best Management
Practices are discussed in Motor Vehicle Salvage Facility Environmental Compliance Manual
(MPCA, 1994). The primary BMPs implemented at a MVSF are drainage of all fluids within
confined areas containing suitable collection systems,and dismantling of automobile parts prior
to crushing.
Most salvage facilities operated prior to the time when BMPs were printed and
education/outreach were implemented. Metals and heavily oil-contaminated soils will not`clean
up' over time. Remedial options for these contaminants are limited and the easiest way of
protecting receptors is by eliminating or modifying a pathway. For soil exposure, paving will
eliminate the pathway but may be accompanied by restrictions on future land use. For runoff,
•
- the pathway cannot be eliminated but can be modified. Runoff may be diverted, buffer strips
may be used for filtering sediments,or runoff collection systems may be installed.
Soils may be remediated on site. For oil and gasoline,contaminated soils may be composted or
land treated. Studies indicate that,under proper conditions, ninety percent of oil and gasoline
can be degraded within one year. Metal concentrations are typically well below levels which
would be considered hazardous(i.e. fails TCLP). An exception may be with soils in areas where
batteries have been stored or cracked. Metal contamination is generally restricted to areas where
cars have been dismantled or crushed. Soils from these areas can often be land-spread across the
remainder of the site to reduce average exposure concentrations. If BMPs are implemented,
further contamination of soil will be minimal. Removal of lead contaminated soils may be
required for more heavily contaminated sites,particularly at small facilities where land-
spreading is not feasible.
CASE STUDY-SLIPPERY SAM'S SALVAGE
Background
Slippery Sam Salvage is a Motor Vehicle Salvage Facility approximately one acre in size.
Approximately 300 automobiles enter the facility and are crushed monthly. The facility has been
in operation for approximately 25 years.
The site is located in surficial alluvial channel deposits. Native geologic deposits are coarse-
textured. The site has been covered with an unknown amount of fill, including gravel and soil at
the surface. Depth to water is estimated to be fifteen to twenty feet. The site is located in a
commercial area. Site topography is relatively flat,with a slope of less than 2 percent to the
east-southeast, except near the driveway,which extends into the street at a slope of greater than
ten percent. Surface drainage from the operational areas is predominantly toward the driveway,
with some movement to the east. Drainage on the site is poor to moderate and soils are not
excessively compacted despite the heavy traffic.
Automobiles are initially stored on the street adjacent to the facility. Automobiles are brought in
to the yard to a central dismantling area consisting of two racks. Cars are placed on the racks
and fluids are drained by gravity into pans. Engines and useable parts are removed and
temporarily stored on bare ground following removal. Fluids are placed into barrels which are
stored inside a garage. Additional dismantling may be done inside one of two garages,each
containing two bays. Parts are also stored in these garages. There is no collection system
installed within the garages.Cars are crushed shortly after dismantling. There are approximately
100 cars stored on racks on site. Sluff from crushing is typically left around the crusher and
compacted by operations. There are approximately 3 sluff piles existing on the site.
A site map is shown in Figure 1. Historically,operations at the facility were conducted in an
environmentally poor manner. Fluids were often not drained prior to crushing. Gasoline tanks
were often punctured and gasoline allowed to flow onto soil. Operational areas have not been
rotated or moved. Parts containing fluids have been stored on bare soil. All outdoor operations •
have been done on bare soil and high traffic into and out of the garages diminished the benefits
of dismantling indoors. The operational area is extremely small and operations are congested.
The entire site is stained with oil. Strong odors exist and appear to reflect spillage of gasoline,
antifreeze, and oils. Staining is evident within the surface 6 inches and soils have an odor
reflective of degradation.
8
NORTH
I —i
0 O O DISMANTLING RACKS(2)
I [HEAVY STAINING] I
BARRELS / I
I AND S I, TIRES
Stree PARTS B 1
t I GARAGE I
A •
CRUSHER - I
PARTS [HEAVY
AND STAINING, AI
BLOCKS SLUFF] DRAINAGE
I OFFICE I
Drain STAINING] S2,
B2 0 I
I CAR I
SLUFF
0
PILES
GARAGE S3, RACKS
/ B3 I
I BLOCK (3 ROWS)
PARTS STORAGE I
I [HEAVY
STAINING] I
I / / Ili
0 ft. S4,R1 >250 ft.
ENTRANCE S5
STREET(HEAVY STAINING]
DRAINAGE >
--- Building
Property Line
I I Approximate delineation of an area
S1,BI,RI : Surface soil,boring,or runoff sample
Figure 1 :Site Map for Slippery Sam's Salvage
Sampling Plan
Sampling was designed for assessing the soil exposure, leaching, and runoff pathways. Soil
sampling consisted of composite samples from a one cm depth in the dismantling area,adjacent .
to the crusher,and in the engine storage area. An on-site sediment sample was collected as a
composite from the driveway. An off-site composite sample of sediments was also collected
from the street. The sediment samples were collected from the surface one cm. Parameters for
these shallow samples were DRO, GRO, lead, cadmium, copper, zinc, nickel, mercury, and
chromium. .
10
S
Borings were drilled in the three on-site operational areas where the shallow samples were
collected. Samples were collected at the 0 to 2,2 to 4,and 14 to 16 foot depth. The deep depth
was assumed to be just above the water table,which was not encountered during drilling. Fill
materials were encountered in the surface six feet and consisted of clay loam soil. Gravel and
metal debris extended to a 2 foot depth. Clean sand was found below six feet. Sample
parameters for the borings were VOCs,DRO, PAHs, lead, cadmium, and barium,which is a
metal found in many hydraulic fluids. A split spoon sampler was used and soils were screened
with a Photoionization Detector(PID).
Runoff samples were collected on five occasions. Runoff samples were collected in the
driveway at the point where water and eroded sediment leave the property. Four were from
rainfall events and one was during snow melt. Rain intensities were low for two of the events
and moderate to high for the other two events. Sample parameters included DRO, GRO,VOCs,
lead, zinc, copper, cadmium,nickel,mercury,and chromium. Metals were filtered for three of
the rain events.
Results
General results,used for the screening process,are summarized in Table 2. Future land use was
not evaluated. The site is located in a mixed residential-commercial area. Land use was
therefore assumed to be unrestricted for the screening evaluation. Concentrations represent
mean concentrations. The data indicate that the site fails the exposure pathway for lead and
naphthalene and the runoff pathway for oil and copper. Total concentrations of lead and zinc in
runoff water would represent a concern if an ecological receptor were adjacent to the site.
The results indicate that additional investigation or remediation are warranted at the facility. If
land-use were evaluated at the site and a commercial-industrial setting determined,the site
would not fail for soil exposure to lead.
The major concern at the facility is the runoff pathway. As a first step,the owner must re-
evaluate operations at the facility. A site plan needs to be developed which will allow for
implementation of BMPs and modification of the runoff pathway. A site plan recommended to
the owner is presented in Figure 2. In this scenario, dismantling is done indoors and parts are
stored above ground under enclosures. The driveway has been moved to separate the operational
practices from vehicles entering and leaving the site. The site continues to drain from
contaminated areas toward the street,but a runoff collection system may be utilized at the point
where runoff leaves the facility. Despite congestion within the site, soils contaminated with
VOCs and oil may be tilled on a periodic basis to enhance degradation. This remedy provides a
gradual improvement in the quality of runoff water and may improve the efficiency of operations
at the facility.
•
11
PATHWAY SITE CONCENTRATION l HUMAN ECOLOGICAL Pass/Fail
LEACHING mg/kg' mg/kg mg/kg
Benzene <0.1 0.7 x Pass
Toluene <0.1 75 x Pass
Xylenes(total) <0.1 749 x Pass
Ethylbenzene <0.1 65 x Pass
Naphthalene <0.1 86 x Pass
Methyl ethyl ketone <0.1 229 x Pass
PAHs' ND Variable' x Pass
MEDIA SUMMARY Pass/Fail
SOIL EXPOSURE mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg'
Pb 860 400 x Fail
Cu 502 1300 x Pass
Zn 908 10000 x Pass
Cd 5.9 26 x Pass
Benzene 1.9 17 x Pass
Toluene 16 450 x Pass
Xylenes(total) 49 350 x Pass
Ethylbenzene 5.4 740 x Pass
Naphthalene 44 25 x Fail
Methyl ethyl ketone 0.7 2000 x Pass
PAHs ND Variable x Pass .
MEDIA SUMMARY Pass/Fail ,
RUNOFF TOTAL DISSOLVED CLASS 2A CLASS 2B/2C Pass/Fail
ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1
Pb 6.0 1891 82 82 Pass'
Cu 2612 108.1 18 18 Fail
Zn 4404 31.8 117 117 Pass'
Cd 26.74 0.21 3.9 33 Pass
DRO x 39900.8 2757 2757 Fail
GRO x <100 1818 1818 Pass
MEDIA SUMMARY Pass/Fail
' Values used for the leaching pathway are from the 14 to 16 foot depth.
2 Includes all PAHs except naphthalene and methylnaphthalene
' Criteria vary for individual PAHs
' Ecological values had not been developed at the time of this report.
'Total metal concentrations exceed Water Quality Criteria,indicating considerable contamination associated with sediment.
Table 2: Summary of sampling results and comparison with risk criteria for Slippery Sam's Salvage.
I
I ENCLOSED DISMANTLING STRUCTURE I
I I
I AUTO AND I
I PARTS I
DRAINAGE > •
(MAY INCLUDE RUNOFF I
STORAGE
i (PARTIALLY COLLECTION SYSTEM)
I ENCLOSED, I
SOILS MAY BE
I TILLED •
PERIODICALLY) I
I
ENCLOSED CRUSHING AREA
ENTRANCE
Figure 2 :Recommended remedial site plan for Slippery Sam's Salvage.
APPENDIX A-SITE INFORMATION
Most of this information has been compiled for salvage facilities in Minnesota.
GENERAL DATA
FACILITY: YEARS OF OPERATION:
VEHICLES RECEIVED PER MONTH: ACRES:
VEHICLES CRUSHED PER MONTH:
CRUSHER: permanent contract
PHYSICAL DATA
SURFACE SOIL TYPE:Sand Silt Clay Gravel Rock Fill SUBSURFACE SOIL:Sand Silt Clay Gravel Rock Fill
GEOLOGIC SETTING: TOPOGRAPHY:
DEPTH TO GROUND WATER: DISTANCE TO SURFACE WATER:
WELL ON SITE: yes no NEAREST SURFACE WATER BODY:wetland lake stream
EXTENT OF FILL:
NOTES
•
GENERATOR DATA
PRODUCT REMOVED DISMANTLING AREAS GENERATOR DATA
(YIN)
INDOOR/OUTDOOR CEMENT/SOIL AMOUNT DISPOSAL METHODS
Engine oil
Gasoline
Hydraulic fluids
Oil filters
Light switches
Antifreeze/coolant
Batteries
Tires
Freon
Engines
Heater cores
Wheel weights
Radiators
Exhaust systems
Differential •
Other:
Other:
Other:
I3
APPENDIX B-SITE VISIT CHECKLIST
1. Make site map
• Locate crusher,dismantling area,parts storage areas
• Indicate runoff direction and channels
• Indicate adjacent land uses(e.g.industries,wetlands)
• Indicate general topography and slope
• Indicate contaminated areas,debris areas
• Illustrate soil/geologic features
2. Dismantling
• centralized or dispersed
• which parts are dismantled
• storage methods for dismantled parts
• where and how are fluids drained
• how are fluids handled/stored
3. Crushing
• Permanent or contract crusher
• Has crusher been moved around or kept in one place
• How much sluff is there in and around crusher
• Does sluff appear to contain oil or gasoline
• Is crushing done on soil or a pad
4. Parts storage
• Are parts stored outdoors on bare ground
• Are fluids present in parts(especially engines,transmissions,gas tanks)
• Are batteries stored on bare ground
• Note extent of staining laterally and with depth beneath and around parts
• Do stored cars contain engines,batteries,gas tanks,other parts
5. Other
• Are non-automotive parts found on site and if so,describe
• Are there any free liquids present and if so,is it oil,hydraulic fluid,antifreeze,or gasoline
• Identify any odors
• Identify compacted areas,runoff channels,stressed vegetation
• Identify sediment deposition on site
6. Off-site
•
• Identify adjacent businesses
• Look for off-site deposition of sediment
• Look for parts occurring off-site
• Identify receptors
• Examine receptors for signs of impacts(e.g.stained sediments)
14
GO
•
APPENDIX C-SCREENING EVALUATION TABLE
•
The following table may be used in the screening evaluation. Note that risk criteria may change over time.
Use average concentrations. Determine the appropriate water criteria(i.e.Class 2A or 2B/C). Use
dissolved concentrations for the runoff pathway. If a media fails for any contaminant,the media fails
completely. If total metal concentrations exceed water quality criteria,examination of sediment
concentrations in receiving bodies is warranted.
PATHWAY SITE CONCENTRATION t HUMAN ECOLOGICAL Pass/Fail
LEACHING mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Benzene x
Toluene x
Xylenes(total)
Ethylbenzene x
Naphthalene x
Methyl ethyl ketone x
MEDIA SUMMARY Pass/Fail
SOIL EXPOSURE mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Pb
Cu
Zn
Cd
Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes(total)
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Methyl ethyl ketone
MEDIA SUMMARY Pass/Fail
RUNOFF TOTAL DISSOLVED CLASS 2A CLASS 2B/2C Pass/Fail
ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1
Pb
Cu
Zn •
Cd
DRO
GRO
15
l91
Schoell & Madson, Inc.
_ _ Engineer's • Surveyors • Planners
Soil Testing • Environmental Services
10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305-1525
Office 612-546-7601 Fax 612-546-9065
September 5, 1996
Mr. Michael D. Franzen
City Planner
City of Eden Prairie
8080 Mitchel Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2230
Subject: The Hills of Eden Prairie
Response to Dan Grote Letter
Dated August 26, 1996
Dear Mr. Franzen:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to the above referenced letter. In this letter Mr.
Grote has raised several questions about the completeness of the investigation performed on the
property. I have prepared this letter to address Mr. Grote's concerns.
At the time of the original investigation performed in November, 1994, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency(MPCA)did not have any guidelines for the investigation of closed
Motor Vehicle Salvage Facilities (MVSFs). Therefore Mr. Pavelka was interviewed and a
general site walk through was completed to determine those areas that would most likely be
contaminated. Based on this information, it was apparent the area surrounding the location of the
former above ground storage tank(AST)was the most likely to be contaminated. Some used oil
was stored in drums in this area and the cars were crushed by a contract company in this area. To
determine if the used oil and petroleum fuels had caused soil and ground water contamination,
this area was investigated. The sampling guidelines developed by the Tanks and Spills Section
of the MPCA were used since no other guidelines were available. The tanks and spills guidelines
do not require additional sampling at used oil sites if the levels detected do not exceed their
action levels.
The results of our investigation indicated that the soils had been impacted by both
gasoline and used oil in the subject area. In addition, gasoline had caused some very slight •
contamination of the ground water below the AST area. The ground water contamination did -
not exceed drinking water standards developed by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency and the Minnesota Department of Health.
956 _-('/'1'1'ri/i1/7 .//0 L��f1 i r ( 1�iIi��, 996
- Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer -_
6 2
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Mr. Michael D. Franzen 2 September 5, 1996
The levels of soil contamination were very low and none were detected at or above the
levels that normally require remediation. The MPCA has issued a closure letter dated July 7,
1995 based on the results of the investigation. However, the owners decided that the best course
of action to protect both the future home owners and themselves, would be to remove the soils
with low level petroleum contamination for treatment off site. This will be completed during the
site grading of the future development for cost efficiency. It was determined that this would
prevent any future problems associated with these soils.
Since the original investigation was completed,the MPCA has produced an unofficial
guidance document that includes recommendations for sampling soil, and runoff from MVSFs
dated February, 1996. I have included a copy of these guidelines for your review. Please note
that these guidelines have not been adopted officially by the MPCA and there are no plans
to do so at this time. In this document the MPCA states:
1. The primary contaminants of concern at a MVSF are petroleum fuels,waste oil and the
metals lead, copper, zinc and cadmium.
2. Waste oil does not generally soak into the ground deeper than a few inches, and is usually
located in those areas where crushing and fluid draining takes place.
I would like to refer you to the section on page four of the document that is labeled
Phase II-Site Screening. This section deals with the recommended sampling at closed MVSFs.
We have collected most of the data needed to complete a Site Screen of the subject property
during the previous investigation. To complete the data, we will be collecting soil samples for
metal analysis and sediment and water samples from the wetland for analysis of all the suggested
parameters. When these samples are analyzed we will prepare a second report including our
recommendations for additional remediation of the site if needed.
Please feel free to call me at 546-7601 if you have any questions or comments about this
information.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
2_e• 12(6--L.
John T. Baxter
Senior Hydrogeologist
l�✓
•
August 30, 1996
Re: The Hills of Eden Prairie
Dear Planning Commission Member
At our most recent neighborhood meeting, a question arose dealing with the location of our townhomes in
relation to the wetlands. We realize actual distances are hard to perceive from drawings alone. We know
we have more than adequate distance and would like to show you on site. We have directed our surveyors
to place stakes on the site that locate the pond side corners of the townhomes which circle the pond. . We
hope to have this work done on Wednesday, September 4. It is our plan to conduct a tour of the site for
the neighborhood on Thursday, September 5, at 7:15 PM. We will meet at the driveway intersection with
Bryant Lake Drive. A rainy day alternative will be Friday, September 6,at 7:15 PM.
This note is an invitation to you to join us on this site tour.
Enclosed is a copy of our letter to the neighbors written as a follow-up to our neighborhood meeting of
August 28 held at the City Hall.
Please call if you have any questions concerning the site tour or our letter to you dated August 19, 1996
(Sent as a part of last Friday's packet from Mike Franzen).
Sincerely,
4tcGai(-(//--
Dave Pavelka
8640 Montgomery Court -
Eden Prairie,MN 55347
9s' `
Telephone: 937 8791
End.:
cc:Mike Franzen ,.7
l,LI
Unapproved Minutes
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
because there currently is a septic system. It's being brought into the site to
handle the fresh and waste water demands needed for the new building, as
well as any future expansion on the site.
Bowman was concerned that the tree calculation was determined on the
entire 37 acres versus two and a half acres. Stricke explained that there may
be future development but most of the 53-acre site is not land mass. A lot of
that is wetland and lake, and part of the property goes out into the middle of
Birch Island Lake. They are interested in retaining as much open space as
possible for tree space with vegetation. There is no interest in building
buildings to cover the entire ground because they need the open space for
their programs and activities. This building is replacement of an existing
building and any future development would fall under that category. The
new building is slightly larger than the existing one but it replaces four
structures instead of one.
Koenig was concerned about the Historical Preservation Society. Stricke
replied at this point there has been no determination as to the historical
significance of the two structures they were concerned about. At this point
they're determining whether it meets minimum criteria to be considered
historical.
MOTION: Brown moved, seconded by Koenig, to approve
recommendations as per Staff Report of September 12, 1996 for the
improvements of the dining hall. Motion carried 5-0-1 with one
abstention by Jacobson.
B. The Hills of Eden Prairie
Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated September 12, 1996, from
Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; and a Staff Report
dated September 6, 1996, from Michael D. Franzen, City Planner.
Dave Pavelka, owner and developer, reviewed his development proposal
with the Commission and gave a brief history about the land owned by his
grandfather for 93 years. He explained there are three hills. One is the high
hill near the entrance, one is a low hill in the center, and there's an area that's
a medium size hill which they call the oak knoll. In the 93 years his
grandfather has owned this site, the trees in the oak knoll have never been
cut. There are trees in there 36 inches in diameter.
7
65 .
Unapproved Minutes
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
The proposal is for 37 upscale townhome units in 15 buildings. These
townhomes will be rentals starting at $1,300 per month. The plan includes
clustering the units in the center of the site and preserving the natural land
around that cluster. Tree loss is at 9 percent. There will be a conservation
easement placed over the high hill and the oak knoll which is in conjunction
with the City of Eden Prairie. They are also placing a conservation easement
around their wetland and are going to leave a natural border. There will be
a filter and any runoff will go through that filter before it goes into the
wetland.
Fox reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission. He indicated that the
first plan had 45 percent tree loss and now they are down to 9 percent tree
loss. The tree replacement requires 24 caliber inches. The landscaping plan
mitigates the tree loss, as well as the requirements for new plantings with
multiple family homes. The position of the NURP pond will drain to the
north and go through a pipe underneath Bryant Lake Drive and end up in the
creek on the other side. It is currently being checked by the Engineering
Department to make sure it does meet proper sizing.
There is no wetland infringement. There will be scenic easements over the
common ground that would limit what could be done on those areas. The
developer indicated he would like to put an internal type of surface trail with
a scenic vista throughout so people can walk up to the top of the knoll and
enjoy it. Staff has no problem with that as long as it's defined within the
terms of the easement agreement.
Staff has talked with the developer about the possibility that a trail may be
desired along Bryant Lake Drive sometime in the future. Staff feels there is
adequate right-of-way to construct this trail on Bryant Lake Drive; however,
it will be tight in the vicinity of the curve south of the entrance road. The
developer is proposing to build a modular wall in this vicinity to assist with
sight distance to the south for oncoming traffic, as well as those exiting the
development.
Bowman asked who will be responsible for the maintenance of the NURP
pond because if there is a clogging of the outlot it would not take long for
a lot of homes to get flooded. Pavelka replied he owns the property and they
will maintain it. It's in their best interest to make sure their property does not
get damaged.
MOTION: Koenig moved, seconded by Jacobson, to approve The Hills of
8
Unapproved Minutes
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
Eden Prairie per the Staff Report of September 12, 1996. Motion carried
6-0.
C. Eden Hills Townhomes
Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated September 12, 1996, from
Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; and a Staff Report
dated August 23, 1996, from Michael D. Franzen, City Planner.
Arne Zachman, developer, reviewed the plans and layout of the property
which indicated there are presently three houses and one open lot. The
proposal is to move two of the houses up and the third one will get
demolished. The idea was to save as many trees as possible. There is no
significant tree loss and any trees that are eight inches in diameter or smaller
will be transplanted to the outer portion of the property.
Fox reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission. The subdivision does
not meet the normal criteria to evaluate tree loss since it is a redevelopment
of single family yards. In the past whenever this type of development took
place calculations for loss of significant trees were waived because of the fact
it was not a native woodland but landscaped yard trees that were being
displayed by new roads and building pads. Staff has encouraged the
developer to utilize as many of the smaller trees on the site that can be
moved with a tree spade. A NURP pond is proposed on the southerly portion
of the development. This pond is undergoing evaluation by the City
Engineering Department to check for size appropriateness. The outflow of
the NURP pond would go into the City's storm drain located at Franlo Road
and then be carried within the storm drain system to Eden Lake.
There is an existing sidewalk on the south easterly corner. When the
condominiums came in there was talk about continuation of the sidewalk and
whether or not it should just go across the street to serve the condos or wait
until development took place on the east side. There is now development on
the east side and staffs recommendation is to continue that five-foot sidealk
around the circumference of the project. One problem is there is a retaining
wall built rather tall that was built when Franlo Road was upgraded eight or
nine years ago, and there's a fire hydrant halfway along there. Staff
suggested moving the fire hydrant back up tight against the retaining wall,
or possibly move the fire hydrant service south, closer to the entrance road.
In either case it will be a seven-foot sidewalk in the area of the retaining
wall.
9
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 10-1-96
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM NO. V, D
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Community Development
Chris Enger CAMP EDENWOOD
Michael D. Franzen
Requested Council Action:
The Staff recommends that the Council take the following action:
• Approve a Resolution for Site Plan Review on 2 acres.
Background:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the project at the September 9, 1996 meeting.
Supporting Reports:
1. Resolution for Site Plan Review
2. Staff Report dated September 6, 1996
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated September 9, 1996
4. Correspondence
CAMP EDENWOOD
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR CAMP EDENWOOD
BY FRIENDSHIP VENTURES
WHEREAS, Friendship Ventures has applied for Site Plan approval of Camp Edenwood on 2 acres for
construction of a new two story 15,000 sq. ft. dining hall and associated parking lot area located at Indian Chief
Road which is zoned within the Public Zoning District,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its September 9,
1996, Planning Commission meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its October 1, 1996,
meeting;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to Friendship Ventures for the construction of a dining
hall and parking lot, based on plans dated September 24, 1996, between Friendship Ventures, and the City of
Eden Prairie.
ADOPTED by the City Council on October 1, 1996.
Jean L. Harris, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
2
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Scott A. Kipp, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Michael D. Franzen, City Planner
DATE: September 6, 1996
SUBJECT: Eden Wood Camping and Retreat Center
APPLICANT: Friendship Ventures
FEE OWNER: City of Eden Prairie
LOCATION: 6350 Indian Chief Road
REQUEST: Site Plan Review on 2 acres
. J l_ A f
.--f r T , �.v N S H I P
VP--.�-
•
....r
utl_JC$
REUa}> .41010*
le Aar,
�
/ •-_-_ia:T3 . . ..„ , ,. -
/
ERmet , . ,
, •:.:,,,:,::::::::.. • . ..4 . . ,,
...
.::: :, i, :,,,,,,,,:,:,,,„.:,::::... •
/ ._...
.: .,. ... ::,w Hi :iiii:: ,i, ,:,:,.. •
• ,. . .....„
NKr :• �'' .,,- / ..,;:.::)
.,.. ,
7:7•191.::...:•••' ::•:•.;•;•.;:;:.•;$-..4::ii. :jii. .•.P•.::; • "s• -.
�INE AlIV • `� !: ' /7i57
/
i::i"iH.:
::•H WHH;1•
# S. • •i ::::::::.:::.4: ::: :::::::::. . e••
7 ,
::•:•:•:•:•::•:•:.:•:•::
....
:. •.•kv,„„ ... , „„„,„::..., •:::•:::::::::••••••• ii .v
•::::,::::::::„
. •
.•::••• . . , 4
. 1.4.MAR
�° '► - BIRCH
'..... p..- • •• EMI
! ;� lp 7
.„ R. : .
:411:111111. '
,,,,,,i' 4 I' - � 77 ,,00' ' WO \/ .
A 11115W- 41
qii
14:
40" ••
• 0, 44, _
, . as -„„, '
1►� •
, .
. at* wilijP.
at
_. =. mil en mom `‘..
4,, .. 411 61. 0 Allarillep .4:,. ' 11111 . . :r..."..
A' '' \ ..k,....,-T
'dr ' WM":gif Zai
Aire CI I IV• . i ccc3
pap*SW g Fir . . ... 11P4"44"w
ill
4* AL graph
ego 111
us
/ z ii
1,„ -.. •
40400
s _ifot;44.4. 4pkiiist,
-1: *.ii. .A:' i'i Wili Nisi., . -..!„. ler. 11 / •zji
• •14 i: .-.. ih -a-70 ..
. ......„ . 1 , .,,
,•-•.-.";Az„ - , ---
•-.1 a 7 /
'f�/// '\. p ROWN DRIVE c,;
ifai 111
air
WI° :4"2.)'" air "Ill LAURA MO
vicycirMilii i • b. 70
V `,‘, . t. , 1,1; . i ift .,e.
*\ ,.. : - 1.. ennrigi ' .
A.
%-c,.,pir ,
Mka
i1%,Aiiii •
ti r- .
Staff Report
Eden Wood Camping and Retreat Center
September 6, 1996
BACKGROUND
The Guide Plan identifies this site as Public Open Space. The property is zoned Public.
Surrounding land uses consist of Glen Lake Golf and Practice Center to the north(currently under
construction),BFI Recycling Center and Midwest Asphalt to the east, zoned industrial, the Chicago,
Milwaukee, St. Paul Railroad and additional Hennepin County property to the south, and Birch
Island Lake to the west.
The site has been used as a camp for many years, including during the existence of the Glen Lake
Sanitorium. Hennepin County has conveyed this property to the City. The City maintains a lease
agreement with Friendship Ventures for the continued use of the property as a camp and retreat
center for the developmentally challenged and other disadvantaged youth.
In 1987, a moving permit was issued to move a house from the old Arteka site (Northwest Swim
and Racquet) to this site near Indian Chief Road. This house is now the administrative office for
the camp.
SITE PLAN
The total land area of the property is 52 acres. The camp is located on approximately a 2 acre
portion of the property immediately adjacent to Birch Island Lake, and the railroad. The site
plan depicts the construction of a new two story 15,000 sq.ft. dining hall and associated parking
lot area. The existing dining hall does not meet current Department of Health requirements, and
will be demolished. All building setbacks meet City code. The Public zoning district does not
specify a maximum base area ratio or floor area ratio requirement. However, based on the
overall site area, the building coverage will be low.
The existing parking lot area is not paved. A new hard surfaced drive aisle and 40 paved
parking spaces will be provide for the project. Parking requirements for this unique use is not
defined by City code. In these circumstances, parking is based on the needs of the use. Since
the clients of the camp are brought to the site by bus, parking has been based on staff and visitor
needs, as defined by the camp administrator.
GRADING/DRAINAGE
Minimal alteration of the site will be necessary. A tree inventory has been provided for the 2
acre portion of the property. Based on this acreage, total significant tree loss is 14%, or 255
caliper inches. Factoring in the remaining acreage and tree cover for the property, tree loss is
estimated at approximately 5%. This would require replacement of 16 caliper inches. The
landscaping plan provides 24 caliper inches of tree replacement, meeting the code requirement.
All storm water run-off will be directed to a storm water drainage basin proposed on the north
side of the new parking area.
2
5
Staff Report
Eden Wood Camping and Retreat Center
September 6, 1996
UTILITIES
Sanitary sewer and water is currently connected to the administration building near Indian Chief
Road. The existing dining hall uses a cesspool. The State Plumbing Code does not permit the
use of this cesspool. In addition, the Public zoning district requires the use of municipal sewer
and water. The proposal depicts the extension of municipal sewer and water to the new dining
hall, meeting code
SHORELAND ORDINANCE
Birch Island Lake is classified as a Recreational Development Water by the DNR. The
shoreland ordinance requires structures to maintain at least a 200 foot setback from this water
body. The proposed dining hall will be setback approximately 300 feet from the ordinary high
water level, meeting City code. In addition, the shore and bluff impact zones (considered to be
one half of the structure setback) will not be impacted by this proposal.
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE
All the buildings associated with the original camp are currently being evaluated by the Minnesota
Historical Society (MHS) for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. According to the
consultant working for MHS, the camp is associated with the Glen Lake Sanitorium(demolished)
and was a care facility for children at risk of developing tuberculosis.
The determination of National Register eligibility will be done through the MHS State Historic
Preservation Office,possibly by mid-September.
If Camp Eden Wood is found eligible,the City will need to discuss development plans with MHS.
Delays in the proposed development for the camp would likely result from a determination of
National Register eligibility.
City Staff has requested that the MHS complete its determination of eligibility as soon as
possible.
ARCHITECTURE
The new dining hall will be placed in the same location as the existing dining hall. This location
will minimize tree loss and site alteration. The building will be 15,000 sq.ft. in size and will
maintain a residential look with the use of a pitch roof, and walkout design. Building materials
will consist of asphalt shingles, wood siding, and the use of at least 75% face brick and glass as
required in the Public zoning district.
LANDSCAPING
Based on the building size, a total of 47 caliper inches of landscaping is required. The proposed
3
(0
Staff Report
Eden Wood Camping and Retreat Center
September 6, 1996
building will be replacing the existing dining hall, thus no significant gain in building square
footage is proposed for the site. In addition, the camp has planted a number of evergreen trees
on the property over the last few years far exceeding the total caliper inch requirement of the
landscaping code, therefore, no additional planting is recommended.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff would recommend approval of Site Plan Review on 2 acres, based on plans dated
September 6, 1996, this report, and the following:
1. Prior to grading permit issuance, the proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water runoff, utility, and erosion control plans for review
and approval by the City Engineer and Watershed District.
B. Notify the City and Watershed District 48 hours in advance of grading.
C. Install erosion control on the property, as well as tree protection fencing at the
drip line of all trees to be preserved near the grading limits of the development.
Said fencing shall be field inspected by the City Forester prior to any grading.
2. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall:
A. Provide a landscape surety equivalent to 150% of the cost of the landscaping
improvements indicated on the approved plan.
B. Submit detailed building plans to the Inspections Department and Fire Marshal
for their review and approval.
C. Submit building material colors and samples for review by the City Planner.
D. Obtain demolition permits, cap existing wells and septic systems.
4
7
Planning Commission
Monday, September 9, 1996
C. CAMP EDENWOOD by Friendship Ventures. Request for Site Plan Review on 2
acres. Location: Indian Chief Road.
Ed Stracke, president of Friendship Ventures, reviewed his development proposal
with the Commission. He gave background information noting that Edenwood
Center is sometimes referred to as Camp Edenwood and has been in operation since
1958. It started as a day camp and has turned into a year round camp. They are a
non-profit organization. In January 1985 they took over a lease on the property that's
owned by the City of Eden Prairie from Hennepin County and transferred that to
Friendship Ventures. They continue as a camp and retreat center for disabled adults
and children.
The proposed building is a multi-purpose program center. It's purpose is to replace
four structures which include an area for food preparation, dining, indoor activity
area,restrooms and storage. The new dining hall will be placed in the same location
as the existing dining hall. This location will minimize tree loss and site alteration.
They will be using the entrance way on the existing property because there is very
little impact on the existing facility in terms of tree loss, water runoff, and grading.
Sandstad was concerned about the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Society and
how it was initiated. Kipp indicated consultants from the Historical Society contacted
his office and indicated they were doing a survey of state facilities that treated
tuberculosis in the turn of the century. They flagged this structure as one of them and
indicated they were going to do an evaluation of the site.
Ismail asked if the expansion will increase the number of clients and who are the
clients. Stracke indicated it will increase the number of clients they are able to serve
on a year round basis. It will not significantly increase the number of total clients that
they can serve at any one time. In the summer they serve about 50 to 60 clients and
most of those are resident clients who are dropped off for a week and they care for
them and provide recreation. During the non-summer months they are limited to 30
clients because they can not feed a large group of people at any one time. They have
housing accommodations for 50 to 60 people but can not feed them all. Their clients
are children and adults with disabilities.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Brice Holasek, 6602 Old Shady Oak Road, asked if one of the houses was moved
from another location a few years back. Stracke indicated it was and they were not
operators of the facility at that time.
13
Planning Commission
Monday, September 9, 1996
Foote commented it's a nice area and supported the project.
Sandstad said it looks great and supported the project.
Kipp noted that all the comments he heard from the neighbors had been good.
MOTION 1: Foote moved, seconded by Habicht, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried 6-0.
MOTION 2: Foote moved, seconded by Habicht,to recommend to the City Council
approval of the request of Friendship Ventures for Site Plan Review on 2 acres based
on plans dated September 6, 1996, and subject to the recommendations of the Staff
Report dated September 6, 1996. Motion carried 6-0.
14
MEMORANDUM
TO: Development Review Committee
FROM: John Gertz,Historic Preservation Speciali
DATE: August 28, 1996
SUBJECT: Camp Edenwood Retreat Center
On Tuesday, August 27, I received a call from Rolf Anderson, a historic preservation consultant
working on a project for the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in Saint Paul. Mr.
Anderson described the project to me as a survey of state and county facilities used for the
treatment of tuberculosis patients during the early part of the twentieth century. Part of his
project would also include his evaluation of the facilities for National Register of Historic Places
eligibility. He indicated that his report would be complete in about two weeks and does include
the camp buildings at Camp Edenwood.
The State Historic Preservation Office will review Mr. Anderson's report and make a
determination of National Register eligibility. If the camp buildings are found eligible by the
SHPO, there may be delays for the proposed demolition of any existing building associated with
the camp.
As the owner of the property, the City will need to discuss with SHPO the proposed development
of Camp Edenwood (if it is found eligible to the National Register) and the Heritage Preservation
Commission. It is not possible at this time to speculate on how much time it will take to resolve
this matter, since the SHPO has not yet made its determination. However,the developer for
Camp Edenwood should be notified as soon as possible about this pending issue.
barb\john\campedn.mem
l
City of Eden Prairie `
City Offices
� t Y Pi8080 Mitchell Road • Eden Prairie, MN 55344 2230 j � E ? '• %m
•
Phone (612) 949-8300 • TDD (612) 949-8399 • Fax (612) 949-8390
August 30, 1996
Rolf Anderson
212 W. 36th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55408
SUBJECT: Camp Edenwood Retreat Center
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Thank you for calling me regarding the Camp Edenwood Retreat Center.
The City recently received a development proposal for the camp from Friendship Ventures which
leases the property from the City. Demolition of the dining hall and several nearby buildings are
being considered along with a new replacement dining hall, road, parking lot, and utilities.
As I mentioned in our conversation on the 27th, the City owns the property, which is also
contiguous to Birch Island Park. Friendship Ventures has a lease agreement with the City to
operate a resident, day or outpost camping - recreation program for developmentally challenged
children and adults within Hennepin County. I believe the camp has served in this capacity for
over 30 years. It was very interesting to learn from you that prior to this recent use the camp
served children at risk of tuberculosis and was affiliated with the Glen Lake Sanitorium.
Unfortunately, none of the City's recent cultural resource survey's included Camp Edenwood. It
is apparent that an important historic property was missed.
To assist you in completing your evaluation of Camp Edenwood, you should be aware of the
current development review schedule for the camp. It should go as follows:
September 9th Planning Commission
October 1st City Council - 1st Reading
November 5th City Council -2nd Reading
Considering the historical significance of the camp, the Heritage Preservation Commission should
also review and comment on the proposed demolition of existing camp buildings. The Heritage
Preservation Commission meets September 16th.
(5)
II
If you find that the camp is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, then I recommend
that determination be made as soon as possible.
If you have any questions, or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 949-
8454.
Sincerely, �.
"air
44160
ohn Gertz
Historic Preservation Specialist
cc: Dennis Girnrnestad
Government Programs and Compliance Officer, Minnesota Historical Society
Sherry Butcher-Younghans, HPC Chair
Heritage Preservation Commission
Elizabeth Thompson, Friendship Ventures
12
M 11. ARCHIT:CTS, LTD.
612-377-8151
Fax 612-377-8156
2501 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405
August 22, 1996
Mr. Michael Franzen
Mr. Scott Kipp
City of Eden Prairie, City Offices
8080 Mitchell Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344-2230
Dear Michael and Scott:
In response to your letter of August 9th regarding the proposed Dining Hall/Program
Center at Edenwood, we are sending you the thirteen copies of our drawings, Sht. SP1
-- Site Plan, Sht. GP1 --Grading Plan, Sht. UP1 -- Utilities Plan, Sht. LP1 -- Landscaping
plan, Sht. A2 -- Floor Plans, Sht. A3 -- Elevations, all of which have been revised. We
are also enclosing, for reference, thirteen copies each of HTPO's Boundary and
Topographic Survey and their Topographic Detail. We have studied each of your
comments and would like to address each as follows:
1. The new building will be provided with a fire sprinkler system as required.
Refer to Sht. A2.
2. Demolition permits will be acquired; old wells and abandoned septic systems
will be capped off.
3. The handicapped accessible parking stalls were located where the slope was
most gradual. At the parking area directly adjacent to the walkway, the slope
is quite steep and exceeds the 1:20 maximum required by code. The slope
reflects the existing grade; we have attempted to maintain it so as to avoid
excessive grading and excavation. We would be happy to work with you in
relocating the accessible parking stalls.
4. We have revised our site plans to show the sedimentation pond requested by
the City. We have been working with the City to determine the capacity of the
sewage system currently in use and its adequacy for the proposed
construction. We are showing the existing concrete holding tank to be
removed and a new manhold installed at that location.
1?
5. Stuart Fox, the City Forrestor, has visited the site and has studied the trees in
the area of proposed construction. He has proposed that we move the building
slightly to the northeast and rotate it about its southeastern corner several
degrees so as to avoid damaging the trees to the west of the building but most
likely requiring the removal of the trees directly to the east and south of the
building. We have done this and that change is reflected on all of the enclosed
drawings. He has estimated that fourteen (14) trees will be lost due to
construction. These will gradually be replaced by Friendship Ventures and we
will continue to work with Stuart on the orientation of the building.
6. The building is shown with more than 75% brick and glass.
If you require further information, please let us know.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely yours,
Elizabeth Thompson
cc. Edward Stracke, Executive Director, Camp Friendship
Jerry Runk, KMR Architects, Ltd.
Alan Kimpell, KMR Architects, Ltd.
iy
Unapproved Minutes
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
A. Edenwood Camping and Retreat Center
Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated September 12, 1996, from
Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; and a Staff Report
dated September 6, 1996, from Michael D. Franzen, City Planner.
Ed Stricke, president of Friendship Ventures, reviewed his development
proposal with the Commission. This plan represents a portion of the
property that is owned by the City that they lease. They run programs for
children and adults with disabilities. The major developments are the road
coming into the main portion of the property, constructing a new year round
program center, dining hall, and replacing four old structures. The plan has
very little overall impact in terms of the environment. At the
recommendation of staff, they changed the orientation of the building
slightly to save more trees on the lake front area. The tree loss for the entire
park site is about 5 percent. The access road is a paved road with parking.
The lines go very well with the natural topography of the site. Currently
there is runoff into a holding pond area and there is not any likelihood of
overflow into the wetland area.
Fox reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission. This area was given to
the City of Eden Prairie by Hennepin County when they wanted to get out
of the property lease business. There is a long term lease as long as the
property is used as it was when it was taken over, and that was for
handicapped activity for youths and adults. This particular site is a relatively
small area of the entire 37 acres. Staff calculated a total of 14 trees would
be lost due to construction in that area. The architect made some adjustments
due to staffs recommendation of shifting the building to save the large mass
of trees to the west. They did not inventory the whole area but estimate tree
loss to be about 5 percent of significant trees. The trees that are being put in
are slightly different from the existing trees; however, they are designed to
provide for some varied visual interest on the front of the building.
The NURP pond mentioned is not technically a NURP pond but a depression
to collect storm water. This has been looked at by the Engineering
Department and they feel it does meet the standards. However, at some time
in the future if the sedimentation basin became clogged, they may want to
look at some type of discharge pipe. There is no need for any sidewalks or
trails. The camp has their own internal trails and sidewalk system mainly of
gravel. The public does not access this area at all. There is no grading into
the wetlands and new sewer and water services must be brought into this site
6
I��
Unapproved Minutes
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
because there currently is a septic system. It's being brought into the site to
handle the fresh and waste water demands needed for the new building, as
well as any future expansion on the site.
Bowman was concerned that the tree calculation was determined on the
entire 37 acres versus two and a half acres. Stricke explained that there may
be future development but most of the 53-acre site is not land mass. A lot of
that is wetland and lake, and part of the property goes out into the middle of
Birch Island Lake. They are interested in retaining as much open space as
possible for tree space with vegetation. There is no interest in building
buildings to cover the entire ground because they need the open space for
their programs and activities. This building is replacement of an existing
building and any future development would fall under that category. The
new building is slightly larger than the existing one but it replaces four
structures instead of one.
Koenig was concerned about the Historical Preservation Society. Stricke
replied at this point there has been no determination as to the historical
significance of the two structures they were concerned about. At this point
they're determining whether it meets minimum criteria to be considered
historical.
MOTION: Brown moved, seconded by Koenig, to approve
recommendations as per Staff Report of September 12, 1996 for the
improvements of the dining hall. Motion carried 5-0-1 with one
abstention by Jacobson.
B. The Hills of Eden Prairie
Staff referred the Commission to a memo dated September 12, 1996, from
Stuart A. Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources; and a Staff Report
dated September 6, 1996, from Michael D. Franzen, City Planner.
Dave Pavelka, owner and developer, reviewed his development proposal
with the Commission and gave a brief history about the land owned by his
grandfather for 93 years. He explained there are three hills. One is the high
hill near the entrance, one is a low hill in the center, and there's an area that's
a medium size hill which they call the oak knoll. In the 93 years his
grandfather has owned this site, the trees in the oak knoll have never been
cut. There are trees in there 36 inches in diameter.
7
EPmaimn CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
prairie SECTION: Payment of Claims 10-01-96
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.
Finance Payment of Claims VI
Checks No. 45687 thru 46265
Please note the term "Violation Fees" refers to the damage deposits required
from softball teams. Now that the season is over, these deposits are being
refunded.
Action/Direction:
Approve payment of claims.
COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY WED, SEP 25, 1996, 3:35 PM
DIVISION TOTAL
CONTINGENCY $62.50
LEGAL COUNSEL $23,140.93
GENERAL SERVICES $144,535.21
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $3,892.27
DATA PROCESSING $45.00
CITY MANAGER $7.00
HUMAN RESOURCES $1,895.72
COMMUNITY INFORMATION $1,370.01
ENGINEERING $295.74
INSPECTIONS $849.88
FACILITIES $10,095.98
ASSESSING $321.78
CIVIL DEFENSE $50.24
POLICE $33,564.75
FIRE $14,445.16
ANIMAL CONTROL $955.63
PARK ADMIN $129.81
STREETS & TRAFFIC $460,856.92
PARK MAINTENANCE $46,060.25
STREET LIGHTING $90,985.52
FLEET SERVICES $20,893.91
ORGANIZED ATHLETICS $19,911.00
COMMUNITY DEVELOP $480.73
COMMUNITY CENTER $44,257.72
HISTORICAL $1,074.15
YOUTH RECREATION $6,440.57
SPECIAL EVENTS $1,005.06
ADULT RECREATION $9,197.77
RECREATION ADMIN $14.95
ADAPTIVE REC $664.92
OAK POINT POOL $101.50
PUBLIC IMPROV PROJ $399,621.88
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS $154,327.39
CITY CENTER $1,712.93
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $1,368.76
PRAIRIE VILLAGE $62,686.55
PRAIRIEVIEW $84,187.76
PRESERVE $31,488.86
WATER DEPT $217,371.21
SEWER DEPT $213,739.33
STORM DRAINAGE $11.66
AGENCY FUNDS $1,000.00
ADA $215.26
$2,105,334.17*
2
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, SEP 25, 1996, 3:34 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
45687 $14,001.02 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45688 $33,507.45 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45689 $14,182.00 MARK VII BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45690 $1,170.15 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45691 $73.10 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
45692 $23,419.85 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45693 $108.44 AARON ROLFSRUD OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45694 $97.82 ALICIA A KUIPERS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45695 $6.25 ALISSA WONG OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45696 $133.13 AMIE FOXWORTH OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45697 $12.50 BEN DENKINGER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45698 $128.13 CHRISTINE LUSIAN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45699 $50.63 COLIN HARER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45700 $74.93 COREY YEAROUS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45701 $35.10 DAN LENNON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45702 $64.69 DREW PETERSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45703 $21.88 EMILY WILSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45704 $154.69 ERIC MORAN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45705 $74.38 ERIC SMITH OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45706 $40.50 ERIC TAGGATZ OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45707 $93.75 ERICA FAURE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45708 $50.00 GAVIN LINDAHL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45709 $183.76 GEOFF HOLTGREWE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45710 $12.50 JASMINE KOTTKE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45711 $190.63 JESSICA JOHNSON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45712 $2.50 JODY RUDNITSKY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45713 $169.38 KATIE LAVIGNE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45714 $138.13 LARISSA MARTINEZ OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45715 $17.50 LUCAS BEYER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45716 $108.13 MARK KIMITCH OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45717 $111.88 MATTHEW FRANK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45718 $17.50 MORGAN GOTTSCHALK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45719 $217.82 NICK PENNER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45720 $40.00 ROBERT FINNEY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45721 $32.40 SEAN LENNON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45722 $52.19 SMITA SAHU OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45723 $106.25 STEPHANIE STACIONIS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45724 $35.00 TEALINA MAIRS OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45725 $103.28 THOMAS CRAMPTON OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45726 $49.00 AMY JO BINNING LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
45727 $145.00 CHARLES ROLLAND ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
45728 $49.00 CHRISTI HERZAN LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
45729 $50.00 ELLIOT AVIATION CITY BUILDING RENTAL SPECIAL EVENTS
45730 $145.00 EUGENE DIETZ ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
45731 $83.00 KEITH ERICKSON ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPORTS/SPECIAL CAMPS
45732 $24.50 LARRY NELSON LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
45733 $24.50 LYNN BLASCHKE LESSONS/CLASSES POOL LESSONS
45734 $28.00 NANCY HOLM LESSONS/CLASSES OAK POINT LESSONS
45735 $26.00 RHONDA DUGAN LESSONS/CLASSES ICE ARENA
45736 $200.00 RICHARD MORGAN FAMILY RESIDENT MEMBERSHIP COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN
45737 $145.00 ROBERT RIVARD ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
45738 $145.00 SANDY DUFFY ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG SPECIAL EVENTS/TRIPS
45739 $71.00 SHARON WOELFFER ADULT/YOUTH/OUTDOOR CTR PROG DAY CAMP
45740 $128.30 ANOKA CO GOVT CTR GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
45741 $713.58 CARVER CO CHILD SUPPORT UNIT GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
o
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, SEP 25, 1996, 3:34 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
45742 $300.00 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MPLS BOND DEDUCTION FD 10 ORG
45743 $8,170.50 GREAT WEST LIFE AND ANNUITY DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG
45744 $545.55 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT AND GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
45745 $4,417.12 I.C.M.A. RETIREMENT TRUCT-457 DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG
45746 $332.00 MINN STATE RETIREMENT SYS DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG
45747 $227.42 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE GARNISHMENT WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
45748 $1,952.50 MINNESOTA MUTUAL LIFE DEFERRED COMP FD 10 ORG
45749 $35.00 MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNI CREDIT UNION FD 10 ORG
45750 $44,179.78 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PERA WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
45751 $17.50 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PERA WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
45752 $184.00 UNITED WAY UNITED WAY WITHHELD FD 10 ORG
45753 $100.00 ADAM WYATT VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45754 $100.00 AL CUTSHAW VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45755 $75.00 ALL SYSTEMS INSTALLATION/TRACY VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45756 $100.00 ALLEN PETERSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45757 $100.00 AMCOM, MATT YAEGER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45758 $100.00 ANAGRAM/LARRY ZIGAN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45759 $100.00 APPLIED COOKING TECH., JOE MOS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45760 $100.00 ATHLETIC FITTERS/PAUL TAUNTON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45761 $100.00 AUGUSTINE MEDICAL/MATT CUMERFO VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45762 $100.00 BARRETT M&S, MARK BOOMGAARDEN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45763 $75.00 BART MCNABB VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45764 $100.00 BILL HOAG VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45765 $100.00 BILL MCMONIGAL VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45766 $75.00 BILL SMALL VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45767 $75.00 BOB MADING VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45768 $100.00 BOB RIESINGER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45769 $75.00 BRAD MADSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45770 $75.00 BRAD SODERBERG VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45771 $100.00 BRENT O'BERT VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45772 $100.00 BRIAN DANIELSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45773 $100.00 BRIAN SCHMID VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45774 $100.00 BRIAN SEE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45775 $100.00 BRUCE WEBSTER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45776 $100.00 C H ROBINSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45777 $100.00 CAM MERKEL VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45778 $100.00 CARRIE BROWN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45779 $25.00 CARRIE CARLSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45780 $100.00 CARRIE KRYCH VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45781 $100.00 CATHY SCHNEITZER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45782 $200.00 CENTURY BANK VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45783 $100.00 CHRIS GOETTL VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45784 $75.00 CHRIS GOODMAN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45785 $100.00 CHRIS MILLARD VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45786 $75.00 CRAIG ZEMKE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45787 $100.00 CRAIG ZEMKE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45788 $100.00 CROWN MARKETING, TOM KNAVEN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45789 $100.00 CURT BJORLIN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45790 $100.00 DAN BLAKE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45791 $100.00 DAN GROEN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45792 $100.00 DAN MARSH VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45793 $75.00 DAN SCHAEFER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45794 $100.00 DAVE BRUCKS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45795 $100.00 DAVE CARL VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45796 $100.00 DAVE CARTER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, SEP 25, 1996, 3:34 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
45797 $100.00 DAVE GULLICKSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45798 $100.00 DAVE LEKANDER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45799 $100.00 DAVE LYONS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45800 $100.00 DAVE MILANO VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45801 $100.00 DAVID FEIDLEY VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45802 $100.00 DAVID MILANO VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45803 $100.00 DEBBIE YORK VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45804 $100.00 DEBBY BLATT VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45805 $100.00 DENISE BERENGUER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45806 $100.00 DON HUNTER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45807 $75.00 DOUG DUPEY VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45808 $100.00 DREW ALLENSWORTH VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45809 $100.00 EATON CORP./JENIFER WALIGOSKI VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45810 $175.00 EP PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,MARY CA VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45811 $100.00 ERIC SCHUMAN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45812 $100.00 ERIC YOUNG VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45813 $100.00 ERIK ENGWALL VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45814 $100.00 ERIK GILBERTSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45815 $100.00 FACILITY SYSTEMS, INC., BOB MA VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45816 $100.00 FINLEY MONTGOMERY VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45817 $100:00 FORD CREDIT, DAN SMID VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45818 $100.00 FRANK KLOIDA VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45819 $100.00 FUNCO INC./LEE LOEHRS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45820 $100.00 GARY WILLIAMS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45821 $100.00 GE CAPITAL FLEET/ATTN:HUMAN RE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45822 $100.00 GE CAPITAL/ATTN: ERSC VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45823 $100.00 GORDON EVENSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45824 $100.00 GREG ANDERSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45825 $100.00 GREG OLSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45826 $100.00 GREG VANDERVORSTE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45827 $100.00 GREGG OTTO VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45828 $100.00 GTI, CARLA BROWN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45829 $100.00 HAGEN SYSTEMS, INC., STEVE PET VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45830 $100.00 HEATHER OLSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45831 $100.00 HOWIE PETSINGER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45832 $100.00 JAMES WERDIN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45833 $100.00 JANICE MCINERNEY VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45834 $100.00 JAY ANNALA VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45835 $100.00 JAY MARTIN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45836 $100.00 JAY PERRILL VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45837 $75.00 JAY WOLKENBROD VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45838 $100.00 JEFF SMITH VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45839 $100.00 JEFF THOILMANN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45840 $100.00 JILL STARK VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45841 $100.00 JIM BORUCKI VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45842 $100.00 JIM FRATTO VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45843 $75.00 JIM KIMES VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45844 $100.00 JIM KOEPPL VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45845 $25.00 JIM STRONER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45846 $100.00 JIM WILTON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45847 $100.00 JOEL HANSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45848 $100.00 JOHN DRISCOLL VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45849 $100.00 JOHN NELSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45850 $100.00 JOHN SAUER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45851 $100.00 JOHN SMITH VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
S
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, SEP 25, 1996, 3:34 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
45852 $100.00 JON PETERS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45853 $100.00 JOY KIELDAHL VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45854 $100.00 JUSTIN WHILEY VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45855 $100.00 K. ROQUETTE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45856 $100.00 KEVIN JOHNSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45857 $100.00 KEVIN KILONER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45858 $100.00 KIM SLEVA VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45859 $100.00 KIM STENDER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45860 $100.00 LAREE STREMPKE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45861 $100.00 LARRY BENNER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45862 $100.00 LINDA ARP VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45863 $75.00 LORI MORAIN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45864 $100.00 LORI MORAIN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45865 $100.00 MAARIE GAYTHER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45866 $100.00 MARIE WINDHORST VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45867 $100.00 MARK BUCHSTABER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45868 $100.00 MARK F MCGRUDER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45869 $75.00 MARK GRAY VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45870 $100.00 MARK HOGUE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45871 $100.00 MARK HOLM VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45872 $100.00 MARK MYERS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45873 $100.00 MARNIE LIETZ-WHITAKER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45874 $100.00 MARY BOYCE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45875 $75.00 MATT NYLIN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45876 $100.00 MATT ROSHEIM VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45877 $100.00 MELISSA DECLARE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45878 $100.00 MIKE MILLER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45879 $100.00 MIKE MULQUEENY VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45880 $100.00 MIKE PIRNER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45881 $75.00 MIKE POWER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45882 $100.00 MIKE SANDNESS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45883 $100.00 MIKE SPECA VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45884 $100.00 MINN. SUPPLY, DEAN SOMMERDORF VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45885 $100.00 MITCH SMITH VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45886 $100.00 OLYMPIC FINANCIAL/JEFF BLASCHK VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45887 $100.00 ONTRACK/REED WARD/GREG OLSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45888 $100.00 OPM INFO SYSTEMS, BRAD STARR VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45889 $100.00 OPM INFO SYSTEMS, BRAD STARR VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45890 $100.00 PAT THOMAS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45891 $75.00 PAUL HOFFER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45892 $75.00 PAUL LUNDQUIST VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45893 $75.00 PAUL NEBUHR VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45894 $100.00 PETE HINES VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45895 $100.00 PETE POWERS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45896 $100.00 PETE TETRAK VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45897 $100.00 PHIL BAUM VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45898 $100.00 PHILLIP TENRO VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45899 $100.00 PHILLIPS & TEMRO IND./ATTN:RIC VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45900 $100.00 PHYSICAL ELECTRONICS, MARK WAG VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45901 $100.00 PRODEA SOFTWARE, DAN RAHL VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45902 $100.00 RANDY BIERBAUM VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45903 $100.00 RANDY DALLMAN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45904 $100.00 RANDY KELLOGG VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45905 $100.00 RANDY KELLOG VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45906 $100.00 RICH WESTERBERG VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
6
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, SEP 25, 1996, 3:34 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
45907 $100.00 RICHARD WALLNER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45908 $100.00 RITA PAPPAS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45909 $100.00 ROAD HOME CHURCH VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45910 $100.00 ROB JOHNSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45911 $100.00 ROB MITCHELL VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45912 $100.00 ROGER BADENHOP VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45913 $100.00 RON NELSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45914 $100.00 S & W PLASTICS/BRENT DZIVK VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45915 $100.00 SARDELLI'S, TONY HANSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45916 $75.00 SCOTT DOWNEY VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45917 $100.00 SCOTT FRANSEN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45918 $100.00 SCOTT HUTCHINS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45919 $100.00 SCOTT JOHNSON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45920 $100.00 SCOTT SMITH VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45921 $100.00 SHARI BLAIR VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45922 $75.00 SHAWN WINTERS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45923 $100.00 SKIP SKALLERUDE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45924 $100.00 ST. ANDREW LUTHERAN, KEN HALLO VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45925 $100.00 STARKEY LABS, ROGER LAHWYE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45926 $100.00 STATE STREET BANK VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45927 $100.00 STEPHEN MYERS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45928 $75.00 STEVE HANLON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45929 $100.00 STEVE HEALY VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45930 $100.00 STEVE MALEVICH VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45931 $100.00 SUE BAILEY VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45932 $100.00 SUPER VALU/MIKE POMERLEAN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45933 $100.00 TERI MEYER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45934 $100.00 TIM KOEPKE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45935 $100.00 TIM MARBLE VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45936 $75.00 TODD KARELS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45937 $100.00 TODD LINGMAN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45938 $100.00 TODD SCHANSBERG VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45939 $100.00 TOM MASCARENAS VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45940 $100.00 TOM SUTERA VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45941 $100.00 TOM TRECKER VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45942 $100.00 TOM WHALEN VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45943 $100.00 VALUE VISION/HUMAN RESOURCES VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45944 $100.00 WALSER MAZDA VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45945 $75.00 WILLIAM LORNSTON VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45946 $100.00 WOODDALE CHURCH VIOLATION FEES SOFTBALL
45947 $10,250.00 DKH EXCAVATING INC LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL MILLER PARK
45948 $372.75 EDEN PRAIRIE 66 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE
45949 $41.00 EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN
45950 $350.00 FAHEYS HARNESS SHOP INSTRUCTOR SERVICE SUNBONNET DAYS
45951 $1,320.00 G & N BLACKTOPPING ENTERPRISES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1993 REHAB 54044
45952 $152.87 GALLS INC POLICE EQUIPMENT POLICE
45953 $20.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER MEETING EXPENSES ENGINEERING DEPT
45954 $160.00 IACP SCHOOLS POLICE
45955 $200.00 JACK PEARSON INSTRUCTOR SERVICE SUNBONNET DAYS
45956 $6.04 JOE RUZIK DEPOSITS ESCROW
45957 $100.00 MIKE BOSACKER SCHOOLS POLICE
45958 $65.80 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE
45959 $27.63 TIFFANY AXEL-WEYANDT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES ENGINEERING DEPT
45960 $100.00 TIM SCHROEDER INSTRUCTOR SERVICE SUNBONNET DAYS
45961 $83.40 TT SYSTEMS POLICE EQUIPMENT POLICE
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, SEP 25, 1996, 3:34 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
45962 $192.00 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING SPECIAL EVENTS FEES SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
45963 $1,362.89 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE WATER UTILITY-GEN
45965 $166.04 CLIFF CRACAUER USE OF PERSONAL AUTO EQUIPMENT MAINT
45966 $20.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER CONFERENCE WATER UTILITY-GEN
45967 $150.00 JEAN L HARRIS CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
45968 $120.00 JOEL WESTACOTT OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SUNBONNET DAYS
45969 $10.00 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
45970 $95.00 MINNESOTA RECREATION AND PARK CONFERENCE ADAPTIVE RECREATION
45971 $33.44 NICK PENNER OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45972 $158,402.75 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO ELECTRIC SEWER LIFTSTATION
45976 $3,491.56 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES HUMAN RESOURCES
45977 $259.00 OLD LOG THEATER SPECIAL EVENTS FEES ADULT PROGRAM
45978 $450.00 OPERATING ENGINEERS TRAINING P CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
45979 $184.38 PAUL KRUSE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TEEN WORK PROGRAM
45980 $94.31 PETTY CASH RECORDING DOCUMENT FEE ENGINEERING DEPT
45981 $420.00 RICHARD SENTZ RIGHT OF WAY & EASEMENTS SUNNYBROOK RD W HOMEWARD HILLS
45982 $40.00 SUBURBAN UTILITIES SUPERINTEND SCHOOLS WATER UTILITY-GEN
45983 $5,136.14 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE WATER UTILITY-GEN
45985 $1,375.47 EAGLE WINE COMPANY WINE DOMESTIC PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45986 $11,534.60 GRIGGS COOPER & CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45987 $8,303.96 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45988 $6,034.82 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45989 $1,754.43 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45990 $4,371.14 QUALITY WINE & SPIRTS CO MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45991 $80.00 VINTAGE ONE WINES INC WINE DOMESTIC PRESERVE LIQUOR #2
45992 $551.90 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE IMPORTED PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45993 $123.06 BELLBOY CORPORATION MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45994 $6,702.55 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45995 $11,874.70 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPANY BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45996 $11,753.29 MARK VII BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45997 $530.60 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
45998 $164.65 PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
45999 $59.60 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRTS INC BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
46000 $18,241.65 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER 6/12 PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
46001 $150.00 ALVER PRODOEHL LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL STREET MAINT
46002 $209,563.24 ASPHALT SURFACE TECHNOLOGIES C SEAL COATING CONTRACTED STREET MAINT
46003 $80.00 AVCAM SCHOOLS POLICE
46004 $8,115.78 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINT
46007 $18.50 BRENDA UTING SPECIAL EVENTS FEES ADULT PROGRAM
46008 $47.82 BRIDGET MILLER TRAINING SUPPLIES IN SERVICE TRAINING
46009 $246.40 BRUCE HUTCHINS SCHOOLS IN SERVICE TRAINING
46010 $25.00 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER CITY BUILDING RENTAL CITY CENTER OPERATING COSTS
46011 $30.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFI SCHOOLS POLICE
46012 $28.00 IPMA - MN CHAPTER CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING j
46013 $200.00 JIM FARRELL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SUNBONNET DAYS
46014 $85.20 JIM RICHARDSON POLICE EQUIPMENT POLICE
46015 $60.00 JOYCE ANN BLACK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SUNBONNET DAYS
46016 $73,138.16 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION PATCHING ASPHALT STREET MAINT
46018 $44.15 MOLLY PATTERSON PRINTING HERITAGE PRESERVATION
46019 $113,712.62 REHBEIN INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES LIME SLUDGE
46020 $50.20 SANDY MCNEILL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES HUMAN RESOURCES
46021 $31.37 TRIA MANN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ADAPTIVE RECREATION
46022 $190.00 UNIVERSITY OF ST THOMAS SCHOOLS WATER UTILITY-GEN
46023 $20.00 WOMEN IN LEISURE SERVICES DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING
46024 $100.00 MN OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASS CONFERENCE IN SERVICE TRAINING
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, SEP 25, 1996, 3:34 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
46025 $93,249.14 NORWEST BANKS MINNESOTA N A FEDERAL TAXES W/H FD 10 ORG
46026 $1,214.52 US POSTMASTER POSTAGE WATER ACCTG
46027 $750.00 WEST SUBURBAN COLUMBUS CREDIT CREDIT UNION FD 10 ORG
46028 $291.98 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER EQUIPMENT RENTAL JULY 4TH CELEBRATION
46029 $100.00 A.T.O.M. SCHOOLS POLICE
46030 $90.00 AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER SYSTEM MAINT
46031 $2,956.64 ABM EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPA NEW CAR EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT MAINT
46032 $156.00 ACCENT PUBLISHING OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
46033 $38.77 ACTIVE RUBBER STAMP OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE
46034 $870.52 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS INC CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR FIRE STATION #2
46035 $46.50 AIM ELECTRONICS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
46036 $76.28 ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURNITURE EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46037 $1,025.00 ALTERNATIVE STUMP REMOVAL OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES TREE REMOVAL
46038 $1,959.60 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING I PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WATER STORAGE-BAKER RD
46039 $81.09 AMERICAN PAGING OF MN COMMUNICATIONS POLICE
46040 $200.00 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING
46041 $10,542.39 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATI DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS WATER UTILITY-GEN
46042 $50.53 ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE
46043 $610.00 ANCHOR PRINTING COMPANY PRINTING SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
46044 $225.38 AQUA ENGINEERING INC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS FIRE STATION #3
46045 $165.18 ARMOR SECURITY INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT OUTDOOR CTR-STARING LAKE
46046 $25.00 ASIAN PAGES DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS IN SERVICE TRAINING
46047 $11,160.47 B & F DISTRIBUTING MOTOR FUELS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46048 $372.11 B & S TOOLS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46049 $103.31 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46050 $822.30 BELLBOY CORPORATION MISC TAXABLE PRESERVE LIQUOR #2
46052 $7,941.75 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC DESIGN & CONST E.P. TRANSPORTATION PLAN
46053 $20.65 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL STREET MAINT
46054 $7,665.65 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINT
46057 $541.06 BILL CLARK OIL CO INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46058 $27,088.61 BLACK & VEATCH DESIGN & CONST 10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION
46059 $245.91 BLOOMINGTON LOCK AND SAFE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL GENERAL BLDG FACILITIES
46060 $130.26 BMS. . .INTEGRATED OFFICE TECHNO CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE
46061 $107.59 BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46062 $162.00 BRAD ZIOLA OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL
46063 $173.00 BRENDA JERDE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
46064 $261.43 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT POLICE
46065 $50.00 CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT & TITLE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
46066 $2,265.78 CENTRAIRE INC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS PUBLIC WORKS/PARKS
46067 $67.64 CHAD SEWICH OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL DAY CAMP
46068 $519.20 CHANHASSEN BUMPER TO BUMPER EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46069 $144.00 CHRIS JESSEN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SOFTBALL
46070 $600.00 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON KENNEL SERVICE ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT
46071 $325.00 CITY OF EDINA CONST TESTING-SOIL BORING WATER SYSTEM SAMPLE
46072 $154.30 CITY OF RICHFIELD EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46073 $54.00 CO 2 SERVICES CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE
46074 $234.47 COLE PUBLICATIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
46075 $866.79 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46076 $459.81 COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOC OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
46077 $385.83 CORPORATE AUTO RENTALS INC EQUIPMENT RENTAL OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
46078 $2,448.05 CRAIG GROUP INTERNATIONAL MEETING EXPENSES IN SERVICE TRAINING
46079 $14.28 CROWN MARKING INC OFFICE SUPPLIES ASSESSING-ADM
46080 $288.17 CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE
46081 $70.94 CUSTOM HF.AT)SETS INC POLICE EQUIPMENT POLICE
46082 $13,478.06 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
9
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, SEP 25, 1996, 3:34 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
46083 $279.15 D C HEY COMPANY OFFICE EQUIP MAINT STREET MAINT
46084 $8,966.73 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
46085 $731.70 DECORATIVE DESIGNS INC RENTALS EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
46086 $60.62 DESIGNS BY NORVELL INC OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE
46087 $109.27 DISPLAY SALES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
46088 $576.00 DONLANE SPORTSWEAR CLOTHING & UNIFORMS ADAPTIVE RECREATION
46089 $646.61 DONS SOD SERVICE LANDSCAPE MTLS & AG SUPPL MILLER PARK
46090 $2,235.00 DPC INDUSTRIES INC CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46091 $19,971.02 E F JOHNSON CO RADIOS POLICE
46092 $314.21 ECOLAB INC CONTRACTED BLDG MAINT FIRE STATION #2
46093 $17.00 EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNITY SERVICES
46094 $2,300.00 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT OTHER EQUIPMENT FIRE
46095 $109.90 EDEN PRAIRIE FLORIST OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
46096 $83.46 EDEN PRAIRIE FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46097 $15.50 EDEN PRAIRIE SENIORS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TASTE OF PRAIRIE
46098 $124.98 EDEN PRAIRIE TIRE & AUTO SERVI CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINT
46099 $639.00 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS SEWER SYSTEM MAINT
46100 $66.60 FASTENAL COMPANY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46101 $398.99 FIBRCOM COMMUNICATIONS POLICE
46102 $133.13 FINAL TOUCH SERVICES INC BLDG REPAIR & MAINT SENIOR CENTER
46103 $6,880.00 FINLEY BROS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINT
46104 $346.32 FLAGHOUSE INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES DAY CAMP
46105 $440.91 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT CUMMINS/GRILL
46106 $90.10 FLYING CLOUD ANIMAL HOSPITAL CANINE SUPPLIES POLICE
46107 $218.33 FUN SERVICES EQUIPMENT RENTAL TASTE OF PRAIRIE
46108 $880.48 G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINT
46109 $45.00 GALAXY COMPUTER SERVICES CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT INFORMATION SYSTEM
46110 $11,897.48 GARTNER REFRIGERATION & MFG IN REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
46111 $134.75 GE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL SR CTR OPERATIONS
46112 $1,322.35 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS COMPAN FURNITURE & FIXTURES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46113 $218.00 GENESIS TRAVEL NETWORK SCHOOLS POLICE
46114 $72.00 GENZ-RYAN CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WATER SYSTEM MAINT
46115 $582.00 GERALD 0 ZAHN OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES VOLLEYBALL
46116 $42.23 GLENROSE FLORAL AND GIFT SHOPS EMPLOYEE AWARD HUMAN RESOURCES
46117 $675.00 GOLD ASSOCIATES INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
46118 $7,751.06 GOLD STAR PRINTING INC PRINTING COMMUNITY BROCHURE
46119 $156.56 GRAFIX SHOPPE CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINT
46120 $187.50 GRAPHIC IMPRINTS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
46121 $400.00 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS FIRE STATION #5
46122 $251.90 HACH COMPANY OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46123 $2,782.39 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RIVERVIEW RD
46124 $79.88 HDS SPECIALTY VEHICLES TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY
46125 $59.50 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS RECORDING DOCUMENT FEE ENGINEERING DEPT
46126 $1,291.04 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC POLICE
46127 $292.50 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
46128 $219.52 HENNEPIN COUNTY WASTE DISPOSAL PARK MAINT
46129 $270.00 HENNEPIN PARKS SPECIAL EVENTS FEES DAY CAMP
46130 $399.38 HIRSHFIELDS PAINT MANUFACTURIN OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINT
46131 $29.75 HORIZONGRAPHICS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY SERVICES
46132 $339.65 HOSP. SUPPLY SCIENTIFIC PROD OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46133 $72.27 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46134 $240.00 INFRATECH CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT SEWER SYSTEM MAINT
46135 $159.75 INLAND TRUCK PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46136 $55.50 INTL FACILITY MGMT ASSOC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK PLAN & DEVELOP
46137 $98.00 J&R RADIATOR CORP CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINT
/0
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, SEP 25, 1996, 3:34 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
46138 $89.00 JAMESTOWN AREA LABOR-MGMT COMM DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS WATER UTILITY-GEN
46139 $968.61 JANEX INC CLEANING SUPPLIES EP CITY CTR OPERATING COSTS
46140 $1,026.93 JOEL WESTACOTT WAGES PART TIME COMMUNITY SERVICES
46141 $84.42 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY BUILDING MATERIALS STREET MAINT
46142 $126.18 KEN ANDERSON TRUCKING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ANIMAL WARDEN PROJECT
46143 $497.75 KERRY FIERKE OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SPORTS/SPECIAL CAMPS
46144 $83.01 KINKOS INC PHOTO SUPPLIES POLICE
46145 $312,257.16 KNUTSON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACTS 10 MGD WATER PLANT EXPANSION
46146 $10,188.01 KODET ARCHITECTURAL GRP LTD DESIGN & CONST PW STORAGE FACILITY
46147 $920.23 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46148 $70.00 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS PUBLIC WORKS/PARKS
46149 $1,560.22 LAKE REGION VENDING MISC TAXABLE PRESERVE LIQUOR #2
46150 $422.50 LAMETTRYS COLLISION CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EQUIPMENT MAINT
46151 $26,805.13 LANG PAULY GREGERSON AND ROSOW LEGAL SERVICE SEWER SYSTEM MAINT
46152 $525.82 LANO EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46153 $135,739.25 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INS INSURANCE GENERAL
46154 $30.00 LEEANN C LEBLANC CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE
46155 $6.00 LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE
46156 $169.29 LUSIAN ELECTRIC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
46157 $44.64 LYONS SAFETY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46158 $45.00 M SHANKEN COMMUNICATIONS INC MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
46159 $10.00 MAINLINE CRUISE AND TRAVEL SCHOOLS POLICE
46160 $1,429.70 MASYS CORPORATION CONTRACTED COMM MAINT POLICE
46161 $635.82 MAXI-PRINT INC PRINTING POLICE
46162 $30.00 MEDICINE LAKE LINES TRANSPORTATION SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM
46163 $442.84 MENARDS BLDG REPAIR & MAINT FIRE STATION #3
46164 $678.58 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES EPCC MAINTENANCE
46166 $40.00 METRO LEGAL SERVICES INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES 1994 REHAB 55041
46167 $3,262.01 METRO SALES INCORPORATED CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT GENERAL
46168 $207,811.00 METROPOLITIAN COUNCIL WASTEWAT WASTE DISPOSAL SEWER UTILITY-GEN
46169 $436.86 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46170 $205,557.07 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION ASPHALT OVERLAY STREET MAINT
46171 $479.25 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COM OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TASTE OF PRAIRIE
46172 $161.34 MINNCOMM PAGING COMMUNICATIONS INSPECTION-ADM
46173 $51.44 MINNESOTA BUSINESS FORMS OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
46174 $92.75 MINNESOTA CONWAY CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT EPCC MAINTENANCE
46175 $92.00 MINNESOTA COUNTIES INS TRUST PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BENEFITS
46176 $915.90 MINNESOTA PIPE AND EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER SYSTEM MAINT
46177 $59.76 MINNESOTA RECREATION AND PARK OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ADAPTIVE RECREATION
46178 $102.70 MINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINT
46179 $188.77 MINUTEMAN PRESS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL COMMUNITY CENTER ADMIN
46180 $23.43 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOC OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE
46181 $294.00 MN FOUNDATION FOR BETTER WAGES PART TIME ADAPTIVE INTERGRATED
46182 $56.71 MN TROPHIES & GIFTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL FIRE
46183 $51.56 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINT
46184 $311.83 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46185 $1,229.91 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING HUMAN RESOURCES
46186 $2,112.69 NORTH STAR ICE MISC TAXABLE PRAIRIE VILLAGE LIQUOR #1
46187 $18.64 OCHS BRICK AND TILE COMPANY CLEANING SUPPLIES FIRE STATION #3
46188 $85.42 OHLIN SALES OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE
46189 $314.18 OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS INC MOWING STREET MAINT
46190 $14.95 PAPER DIRECT INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL RECREATION ADMIN
46191 $3,763.50 PARROTT CONTRACTING INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WATER SYSTEM MAINT
46192 $181.29 PETSMART CANINE SUPPLIES POLICE
46193 $85.75 PH WAREHOUSE SALES INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL PARK MAINT
II
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, SEP 25, 1996, 3:34 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
46194 $15,972.51 PINK COMPANIES OTHER EQUIPMENT CC CAPITAL OUTLAY
46195 $903.60 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING MISC TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
46196 $50.00 PIPER HOLASEK OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES DAY CAMP
46197 $188.51 PITNEY BOWES INC RENTALS GENERAL
46198 $176.61 POWERTEX SPORTSWEAR INC CLOTHING & UNIFORMS POLICE
46199 $167.85 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY CONTRACTED EQUIP REPAIR WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46200 $101.52 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT FIRE
46201 $544.80 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING PRINTING INSPECTION-ADM
46202 $105.00 PRINTERS SERVICE INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
46203 $559.11 PROEX PHOTO SYSTEMS PHOTO SUPPLIES POLICE
46204 $600.17 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT SEWER LIFTSTATION
46205 $1,382.96 QUALITY WASTE CONTROL INC WASTE DISPOSAL FIRE STATION #2
46206 $199.16 R AND R SPECIALITIES INC REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES ICE ARENA
46207 $80.45 RADIO SHACK OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER UTILITY-GEN
46208 $49.50 RAINBOW FOODS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL OUTDOOR CTR PROGRAM
46209 $289.06 RDO EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46210 $131.69 RESPOND SYSTEMS SAFETY SUPPLIES STREET MAINT
46211 $31.39 REVERE BLDG REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46212 $141.86 RICHARDS ASPHALT COMPANY PATCHING ASPHALT STREET MAINT
46213 $135.61 RITZ CAMERA PHOTO SUPPLIES TREE DISEASE
46214 $171.97 ROAD RESCUE INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46215 $165.73 ROGERS SERVICE CO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46216 $105.00 ROOT 0 MATIC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT SEWER SYSTEM MAINT
46217 $300.00 SANIFILL INC WASTE DISPOSAL ROUND LAKE
46218 $145.00 SARA JEN NEWBERRY OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND
46219 $355.18 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES EQUIPMENT MAINT
46220 $101.13 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46221 $60.74 SHARPS AWAY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE
46222 $37.76 SHERI L MOONEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES KIDS KORNER
46223 $314.95 SIGNSOURCE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL HUMAN RESOURCES
46224 $279.03 SIGNUM GRAPHIC SYSTEMS INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL TRAFFIC SIGNALING
46225 $817.54 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO BOARD OF PRISONERS SVC POLICE
46226 $661.74 SNAP-ON TOOLS REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46227 $2,112.96 SOUTHWEST LAWN MAINTENANCE INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WATER SYSTEM MAINT
46228 $1,486.64 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING LEGAL NOTICES PUBLISHING GENERAL
46229 $148.75 SPORTS WORLD USA INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL ICE ARENA
46230 $304.71 ST JOSEPH EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46231 $92.59 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
46232 $17.52 STAR TRIBUNE MISC NON-TAXABLE PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
46233 $1,061.82 STREICHERS TRAINING SUPPLIES POLICE
46234 $223.10 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES GENERAL
46235 $827.42 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GEO EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46236 $77.00 SUPERINTENDANT OF DOCUMENTS OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL SAFETY
46237 $125.00 SWEDLUNDS WASTE DISPOSAL OUTDOOR CTR-STARING LAKE
46238 $2,269.05 SYSTECH SERVICES CONTRACTED COMM MAINT POLICE
46239 $412.75 THE STATE CHEMICAL MFG CO BLDG REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46240 $2,127.36 THE WORK CONNECTION OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES PARK MAINT
46241 $21.30 TOWN AND COUNTRY DODGE EQUIPMENT PARTS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46242 $465.41 TRI-STATE PUMP & CONTROL INC EQUIPMENT PARTS SEWER LIFTSTATION
46243 $479.36 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN MTKA CITY CENTER GROUNDS MNTC SENIOR CENTER
46244 $334.34 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES EQUIPMENT MAINT
46245 $791.36 UNIFORMS UNILIMITED CLOTHING & UNIFORMS FIRE
46246 $249.36 UNITED LABORATORIES CLEANING SUPPLIES SEWER UTILITY-GEN
46247 $591.83 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC SMALL TOOLS EQUIPMENT MAINT
46248 $24.19 USI INC TRAINING SUPPLIES SAFETY
1 9
COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, SEP 25, 1996, 3:34 PM
CHECK NO CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION PROGRAM
46249 $9,401.34 VALLEY RICH CO INC CONTRACTED REPAIR & MAINT WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46250 $6,370.00 VAN WATERS & ROGERS INC CHEMICALS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46251 $3,247.00 VESSCO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46252 $272.19 VIDEO SERVICE OF AMERICA VIDEO SUPPLIES COMMUNITY SERVICES
46253 $44.77 VOSS LIGHTING REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PRAIRE VIEW LIQUOR #3
46254 $471.48 W W GOETSCH ASSOC INC EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46255 $131.91 W W GRAINGER INC OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER UTILITY-GEN
46256 $465.67 WAHLS ENTERPRISES REPAIR & MAINT SUPPLIES PARK MAINT
46257 $44.35 WALMART STORES INC POLICE EQUIPMENT POLICE
46258 $833.05 WATER SPECIALITY OF MN INC CHEMICALS POOL MAINTENANCE
46259 $263.06 WATERPRO SUPPLIES CORPORATION EQUIPMENT PARTS WATER METER REPAIR
46260 $150.00 WEATHER WATCH INC OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES SNOW & ICE CONTROL
46261 $234.01 WESTSIDE REDIMIX INC SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT STREET MAINT
46262 $3,452.50 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CSAH4/VALLEY VIEW RD-EP
46263 $595.18 WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS BUILDING MATERIALS ROUND LAKE
46264 $2,738.21 YALE INCORPORATED CONTRACTED BLDG REPAIRS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
46265 $138.44 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE OPERATING SUPPLIES-GENERAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
$2,105,334.17*
r�