Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/16/1990MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Natalie Swaggert, Director of Human Resources & Services FROM: Eden Prairie Community Needs & Resources Council (formerly Human Services Coordinating Council) SUBJECT: Senior Awareness Week DATE: August 16, 1990 "Senior Awareness Week - A Family Affair" was the outgrowth of a presentation made to the EP Community Needs 8 Resources Council last spring by Becky Dorr of Castle Ridge Manor and Joanne Bartel of Prairie Adult Care. A subcommittee has been meeting over the summer to plan the week's events. Activities included during the week of September 9th through 16th are: - Photo contest sponsored by Black's Photo - Library Day on Tuesday - Discounts at local restaurants - Senior health day at Flagship - Seniors' lunch program through the school district - Special 'Meals Ala Car' program - Senior housing open houses - Senior fitness activities at the Community Center - Spcial programming at the Senior Center The week will culminate with a 'Senior Service Provider Fair' on Sunday, September 16th from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the new Oak Point School, 13400 Staring lake Parkway. Upon its adoption, the attached proclamation will be included in a full page ad in the Eden Prairie News which will include dates, times and places for the events as well as coupons which Seniors can use to receive discounts during that week. attachment /km RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 216 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER 9 - 16, 1990 AS "SENIOR AWARENESS WEEK" WHEREAS, senior citizens are important members of our communi t y ; a n d WHEREAS, senior citizens provide valuable resources to our co m m u n i t y ; a n d WHEREAS, the community wishes to acknowledge the service s a n d p r o g r a m s available to seniors and their families; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gary Peterson, Mayor of the City of Ed e n P r a i r i e , Minnesota, do hereby proclaim September 9 through September 1 6 , 1990 to be: "SENIOR AWARENESS WEEK" in the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota . ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on this 21st day of A u g u s t 1 9 9 0 . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed the seal of the City of Ed e n P r a i r i e . Gary D. Peterson, Mayor on behalf of Councilmembers: Richard Anderson Jean Harris Patricia Pidcock Douglas Tenpas P-3 4 2 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-204 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS WHEREAS, the City Engineer (through) has prepared plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit: I.C. 52-197 (Delegard Property Sanitary Sewer) I.C. 52-198 (Loscheider Property Sanitary Sewer) and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: 1. Such plans and specifications, a copy of which is on file for public inspection in the City Engineer's office, are hereby approved. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 3 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be received until 10:00 a.m., September 14, at City Hall after which time they will be publicly opened by the Deputy City Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by the Council at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, September 18, at the Eden Prairie City Hall, Eden Prairie. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of such bid. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 21, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk MOTION 2: Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Ford for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 8.2 acres for construction of an automobile dealership, with variance for outside storage to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, based on plans dated May 11, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 20, and May 11, 1990 with the addition of Item 6 to read: Direct the City Attorney to review the agreement regarding signage and outdoor advertising to ensure compliance with City Code and violations related to this business. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 3: Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Ford for Site Plan Review on 8.2 acres for construction of an automobile dealership, based on plans dated May 11, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 20, and May 11, 1990 with the addition of Item 6 to read: Direct the City Attorney to review the agreement regarding signage and outdoor advertising to ensure compliance with City Code and violations related to this business. Motion carried 5-0-0. MOTION 4: Bye moved, seconded by Sandstad to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Eden Prairie Ford for Preliminary Plat of 24.6 acres into four lots for construction of an automobile dealership, based on plans dated May 11, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated April 20, and May 11, 1990 with the addition of Item 6 to read: Direct the City Attorney to review the agreement regarding signage and outdoor advertising to ensure compliance with City Code and violations related to this business. Motion carried 5-0-0. 8:15 B. VILLAGE KNOLLS, by Argus Development. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.7 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 8.7 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 8.7 acres. Preliminary Plat of 42.7 acres into 23 single family lots, 2 outlots and road right-of-way for a residential development. Location: East of Homeward Hills Road at Silverwood Drive. A public hearing. NOTE: This item was reviewed last on the Agenda. Brian Olson, representing Argus Development, stated that the plan as shown presented all single family homes. He added that a previous plat had been approved for the Argus portion of the project prior to the conservancy area designation. Land had been traded with Hustad Development to provide a 3 i 9 `i better site plan for both parties. The Argus portion of the proposal would have a single loop road with a shared driveway proposed for the area close to the "T" intersection. Olson noted that the Bracky home could be saved with the plan as proposed. The project would consist of 23 single-family lots. Several variances would be necessary with the plan proposed. The variances were necessary in order to move the road as far away from the bluff as possible. 50-foot building pads were proposed. Wallace Hustad, representing Hustad Development, stated that the proposal as presented was an attempt to integrate the Argus Development subdivision with the overall plan for the Bluffs West area. Hustad believed that the plan would provide a transition between the higher priced homes and those of the Argus Development. Because of the grade changes on the property due to a ravine, Hustad believed that it would be difficult to develop single-family homes in the northern portion of the project. A further constraint for the northern section of project related to the guidelines of the Shoreland Ordinance. Hustad noted that Staff had originally recommended consideration of townhouse units in this area; however, at that time Hustad had believed that single-family would be the best site plan. Hustad stated that he would not be opposed to consideration of townhouse units in the northern area and requested direction from the Planning Commission. Hustad believed that the Staff Report was very negative for the proposal as presented. He added that Argus Development was anxious to begin construction, but it was not Hustad's intent to develop its portion of the project in the near future. Franzen reported that several of the lots were located in the conservancy area and were in violation of the Shoreland Ordinance. Franzen noted that in the past the City had not allowed grading or building pads to be located in the conservancy area. He stated that Staff had discussed several options with the proponent such as; reduction in the number of lots proposed, the use of cul-de-sacs, development of multiple-family units, and to shift the loop road to the west. Franzen requested direction from the Planning Commission regarding the use of single-family versus multiple-family units for the northern portion of the project, the land use proposed and how intensely the property adjacent to the creek should be developed. Norman asked Hustad if the reduction of lots could be considered. Hustad replied that the overall density was at 1.5 units per acre and added that a reduction in lots would not be feasible. Norman asked how many lots would need to be cut. Hustad replied that 2 or more lots would need to be taken out to meet the Shoreland Ordinance guidelines. Hustad added that the variances were necessary due to the attempt to eliminate the impact of the project on the creek area. Hustad stated that a wide sewer easement to the north also was restrictive to the property. Bye stated that based on the plan as proposed there were building pads in the conservancy area. Bye added that she strongly supported the precedent set by the City that lot lines could be located within the conservancy area, but building pads were not permitted. Hustad stated that the Bell Oaks project did have portions of building pads in the conservancy area and in fact one entire home was located in the conservancy area. Franzen noted that trade-offs for land outside of the conservancy area had been made to preserve other desirable land. Bye noted that 12 to 14 lots would be located in the conservancy area and believed that it would require a major trade. Sandstad concurred. Dodge noted that by deleting 2 lots only the problems related to the area to the north would be eliminated. Dodge asked Hustad what his plan for multiple-family would consist of. Hustad replied the a definite plan was not prepared; however, the density would not exceed 2.5 units per acre. Hustad had understood the Staff Report to indicate the only options available were a reduction in lots or an alternate land use. Hallett believed that both developers were requesting too many variances and that the development as proposed was too much for the area. Hallett further believed that the conservancy area and Shoreland Ordinance guidelines should be followed. Hallett stated that he would be open to seeing a proposal for multiple-family in the northern portion of the parcel. Hallett asked Franzen if multiple-family would be compatible with adjacent property. Franzen replied that a density transfer would be required to meet the 2.5 units per acre referred to by Hustad earlier and how much of a transition would be provided was questionable without specific plans. Hallett asked what the City would gain by allowing multiple- family units for this portion. Franzen replied that the use of cluster homes could allow the proponent to stay further away from the creek. Hallett believed that first the proponent needed to stay out of the conservancy and Shoreland Ordinance areas and then Staff could negotiate. Franzen replied that the Planning Commission needed to consider if multiple-family units were appropriate for the area. Sandstad believed that the information presented was not enough to base a decision on regarding the use of multiple- family units. He added that he would like to see some form of a design plan. Hustad replied that it would be at least 5 years before this portion of the project was developed and he could not provide details for a townhouse project at this time. Olson stated that Argus Development was anxious to begin construction of its portion of the project. He noted that Argus Development could develop the proposal as originally approved; however, he believed that this proposal was an improvement over the use of a straight road down the center of the property to connect to a cul-de-sac. Olson stated that the northern portion of the parcel was burdened with several restrictions. Olson added that the original proposal met all the requirement for R1-13.5 zoning. Hustad stated that if the Argus Development portion were to develop as originally planned he would not gain any extra lots. He added that the two parties had attempted to work together to develop a better site plan. Hustad stated that there was not enough room to construct a public road in the northern portion of the parcel. Ruebling believed that the Planning Commission was being pressured to approve more units in this area than it could handle. Hustad replied that he would have the same amount of lots with or without Argus Development. Ruebling believed that the terrain suggested the development of larger lots, not smaller ones. Hustad stated that in this area alone he had tried to preserve over 100 acres of land, had provided a trail system, and 12% of open space was provided. Hustad did not believe that the property was being overdeveloped and, in fact, noted that it represented the lowest density in Eden Prairie. Hustad added that he had made a commitment of gifting to the City the property for a lineal trail system and the preservation of the valley. Hustad stated that a significant amount of park land was being dedicated to the City. Hustad noted that in light of the way the Staff Report was written it would make it impossible for him to gift the property and the only alternative would be a dedication of the land. Sandstad recommend a continuance. Norman was concerned about the position of Argus Development if a continuance was passed. Hustad stated that if the northern portion of the plan were designed differently the cul-de-sac could be moved further away from the creek. Olson stated that they had attempted to improve the plan for the area by coming back and working with Hustad Development and Staff. Franzen stated that the main issues to be considered were; how many units could be developed on the high ground, can the property be developed with City Code, would a land use other than single-family be more appropriate for the area to the north. Franzen noted that multiple-family restrictions were more stringent than single-family related to the Shoreland Ordinance. Franzen believed that regardless of the use proposed the corridor should be treated in the same manner. Hallett believed that the Planning Commission needed to consider what would be in the best interest of the City and that the number of variances needed to be reduced. Hallett 8:45 added that even though the previously approved plat was still valid, he believed that further negotiations would benefit all parties. Olson stated that there was some flexibility in the road alignment and it could be moved up to 15 feet in some areas. He added that the lots next to the shoreland could be adjusted to reduce the impact. The Planning Commission directed the proponents to remove the building pads from the conservancy area, adhere to the Shoreland Ordinance guidelines, and minimize the tree lose as much as possible. The Planning Commission indicated that it would be open to viewing a plan for multiple-family housing in the northern portion of the proposal. Hallett asked if the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission had reviewed the proposal. Franzen replied that Director Lambert had attended the initial meetings. Hallett recommended that the proposal be reviewed by the Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission. Ruebling stated that he was uncomfortable with the number of variances required and questioned if a density transfer would be feasible in this area. The remainder of the Planning Commission concurred. Franzen asked if the direction of the Planning Commission was to eliminate all variances or to return to the Planning Commission with a better site plan which would minimize the number of variances required. Ruebling believed that the site plan should be improved with a minimal amount of variance requirements. Hallett stated that it was difficult to get a good feel for the area and recommended that a field inspection might be appropriate. Norman asked Olson how a continuance would affect Argus Development. Olson replied that Argus Development would like to see the project constructed this year. He added that the house was currently vacant and there was concern regarding vandalism. Olson added that either plan would work for Argus Development, but they did need to move in some direction soon. MOTION 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Bye to continue the public hearing to the May 29, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0. C. WILSON RIDGE 3RD ADDITION. by Ryan Properties, Inc. Request for Site Plan Review and Preliminary Plat of 22.57 acres into 7 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES IV. MONDAY, MAY 29, 1990 COMMISSION MEMBERS: STAFF MEMBERS: ROLL CALL: Sandstad absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim Bauer, Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad. Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Scott Kipp, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Hallett to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 6-0-0. MEMBERS REPORTS MINUTES MOTION: Hallett moved, seconded by Bye to approve the Minutes of the May 14, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as published. Motion carried 5-0-1. Bauer abstained. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. VILLAGE KNOLLS, by Argus Development. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.7 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 8.7 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District on 8.7 acres. Preliminary Plat of 42.7 acres into 23 single family lots, 2 outlots and road right-of-way for a residential development. Location: East of Homeward Hills Road at Silverwood Drive. A continued public hearing. Brian Olson, representing Argus Development, stated that the plans had been revised to eliminate all variances for the Hustad portion of the project and to reduce the number of variances necessary for the Argus Development portion by one- half. A few lots still encroached on the conservancy area; however, these lots had been widened. Hustad had reduced the project by one lot. A cul-de-sac from Homeward Hills was proposed in the northern portion of the Hustad project. The road was moved further away from the conservancy area. Two flag lots with a shared driveway were proposed to replace the cul-de-sac. Ruebling asked if the conservancy area was within the 150-foot setback. Olson replied that the building pads would not infringe on the conservancy area. Norman asked how many driveways would come onto Homeward Hills Road. Olson replied 2. Dodge asked if the cars would have to back onto Homeward Hills Road from the driveways. Olson replied that space was available for turnarounds. Franzen reported that the revised plan was a better site plan than previously presented and was acceptable to Staff. He added that the Parks, Recreation, & Natural Resources department was recommending a reforestation plan. Franzen stated that some minor revisions in the plan were still necessary; however, the project could proceed to the City Council as per the Staff recommendations. Franzen noted that the number of variances had been reduced from 16 to 8. Bauer requested clarification on the Staff report, Page 4, Access, in relation to the minor collector road. Franzen replied that in order to retain the existing home in the Argus portion of the project a shared driveway would be necessary. The proposed driveway would intersect directly opposite with the street on the other side of Homeward Hills Road, which was acceptable. Franzen added that the 2 driveways proposed for in the northeast corner of the Hustad portion were a compromise due to the topography of the area and the location of the creek. Franzen stated that the site lines were good in this area and, therefore, the driveways would be acceptable. Norman concurred with Staff that the revised plan was a better plan; however, believed that 7 accesses onto Homeward Hills road in such a short distance was excessive. Hallett asked if the City owned trail access coming from Homeward Hills Road. Franzen replied that this would have to be a gift or a dedication from the developer. Hallett stated that if this plan were approved as planned the residents would not have access to the trail system. Franzen replied that the Parks, Recreation, & Natural Resources department had requested that a trail access be constructed at a 10% grade; however, actual plans were not available at this time. Hallett asked if a plan would be available prior to City Council review. Franzen replied that the trail issue would be reviewed at the Parks, Recreation, & Natural Resources Commission meeting. Hustad added that presently there was a 50-foot strip shown on Attachment A. Ruebling asked if the lot lines were adjusted if additional variances could be eliminated. Franzen replied that the number of lots could be adjusted to meet Code but the lots would have unusual shapes and less building pad area due to narrower frontages. MOTION 1: Bauer moved, seconded by Bye to close the public hearing. Bye asked if Phase II, the Hustad portion, could be changed at a later date to be developed as townhouses if the market so warranted since this was a concept approval only. Franzen replied that changes could be made at the time of preliminary plat review; however, a guide plan and rezoning would be required. Bauer wished to go on record as being uncomfortable with the driveway accesses onto Homeward Hills Road. Hallett stated that he was uncomfortable with the overall plan; however, not to the point to recommend denial. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 2: Bauer moved, seconded by Bye to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Argus Development for Planned Unit Development Concept on 42.7 acres for Village Knolls, based on plans dated May 23, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated May 11 and May 25, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 3: Bauer moved, seconded by Bye to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Argus Development for Planned Unit Development District Review, with waivers, and Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 District, all on 8.7 acres, for Village Knolls, based on plans dated May 23, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated May 11 and May 25, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0. MOTION 4: Bauer moved, seconded by Bye to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Argus Development for Preliminary Plat of 42.7 acres into 23 single family lots, two outlots, and road right-of-way for a single family residential development to be known as Village Knolls, based on plans dated May 23, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Reports dated May 11 and May 25, 1990. Motion carried 6-0-0. 8:15 B. MOLTZE EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE. by Holtze Brothers Development Company. Request for Planned Unit Development Concept MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: July 12, 1990 SUBJECT: Village Knolls Relationship to the Landfill The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information to the City Council on the relationship of the Village Knolls project to the landfill and to summarize the information supplied by Clyde Hertzman, an expert hired by the City to ascertain airborne impacts of the landfill. The landfill is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Highway #169. The landfill is approximately 72 horizontal acres of existing waste in size and 42 horizontal acres if expanded. The elevation of the landfill when capped would be approximately an elevation of 923. The Village Knolls project is located approximately 3,400 feet from the existing landfill and 2,400 feet from the landfill expansion. The median elevation of the Village Knolls project is about elevation 820. The attached letter from Dr. Clyde Hertzman indicates in his opinion that it would be premature to approve a new housing project in the vicinity of the Flying Cloud site until it has been decided whether or not the site would be open. If the site were to be reopened, it would be important to conduct airborne monitoring studies to ensure that the effluent from the site were not getting into the new development under worst case operating conditions. In a previous Council packet, Council was provided the testimony of Dr. Clyde Hertzman, M.D. This testimony indicates that there is evidence of contamination of soil, gas, and ground water in and around the Flying Cloud Landfill by chlorinated and non-chlorinated volatile organic compounds similar to the Upper Ottawa Street Landfill of which an expert, doctor, Clyde Hertzman, M.D., retained by the City conducted the study. Dr. Hertzman states that volatile chemicals found in the Flying Cloud Landfill site are capable of producing mood and narcotic symptoms similar to those found in the Upper Ottawa Street Landfill 1 Memo Village Knolls Relationship to the Landfill July 12, 1990 study. Evidence indicates the concentrations of volatile organics which are known to have narcotic and anesthetic properties were found at the Flying Cloud Landfill at levels at or exceeding standards for workroom air in Canada and the United States. Many of the volatile organics are "heavier than air" they will tend to travel along the ground when released. This may be a problem since the Village Knolls site is about 100 feet lower than the landfill. Data indicates the presence of hydrogen sulfide at the flare inlet. Concentrations of hydrogen sulfide in excess of 90 parts per million were found in these samples. Problems with respiratory and eye irritation have been reported with hydrogen sulfide exposures as low as 5 parts per million. In addition, industrial carcinogens, benzene and vinyl chloride were found in concentrations near or exceeding the occupational standards in some soil gas samples. Seeps in the area of the Flying Cloud Landfill contain Dichlorodifluoromethane, Dichlorofluoromethane, vinyl chloride and benzene. Vinyl chloride and benzene are known and confirmed human carcinogens. Dichlorofluoromethane also known as Freon 21 is toxic to the liver and central nervous system. Dichlorodifluoromethane is also neuro toxic as is Dischlorofluoromethane. Dr. Clyde Hertzman, is of the opinion that the expansion of the Flying Cloud Landfill poses a potential threat to the health of residents similar to that experienced at the Upper Ottawa Street Landfill site. That study concluded there is a valid positive association between adults residing near a landfill and several analyzed health conditions, including: respiratory conditions, skin conditions, certain central nervous system and mood symptoms. Within the respiratory group, there is a concern with bronchitis, shortness of breath, cough, and phlegm. Within the skin condition group, there is concern with a variety of rashes and dry or itchy skin. The "narcotic" group included frequent or severe headaches; frequent dizziness or blurred vision; constant fatigue; lethargy, and drowsiness; and problems with balance, coordination, reaction time and clumsiness. The mood group included insomnia, frequent feelings of anxiety or depression, frequent feelings of irritability, frequent feelings of hyperactivity or restlessness, and learning or memory problems. There is less evidence of a positive association among adults relating to red, itchy eyes. The study also concluded that there is a valid association in connection with central nervous system, skin and mood conditions, and red, itchy eyes among children residing near a landfill. 2 I ,; Memo Village Knolls Relationship to the Landfill July 12, 1990 While the Village Knolls development is slightly further away from the Flying Cloud Landfill site than was the outermost residential area studied at the Upper Ottawa Street Landfill site, Dr. Hertzman states that it really cannot be said for certain what a safe distance might be. Dr. Hertzman states as his opinion that it would be premature to approve a new housing project in the vicinity of the Flying Cloud Landfill site until it has been decided whether the site will be reopened. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Staff would recommend, based upon this information, that the Village Knolls project be denied. VILICNLMO.MDF 3 MEMO r0: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: June 15, 1990 SUBJECT: Village Knolls Project The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Village Knolls Planned Unit Development on May 29, 1990, subject to the recommendations in the Staff Report which required a number of items to be revised prior to review by the City Council: 1. Revised the concept plan according to Attachment A to reduce grading iq the creek corridor. The concept and grading plan has been revised to shorten the cul-de-sac off Homeward Hills Road and pulls grading limits further away from Purgatory Creek. 2. Modify the site plan to indicate a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along one side of the interior loom road within phase two. The site plan has been revised to depict a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the interior loop road in phase two. 3. Modify the site plan to provide for a 40 foot wide outlot with the grading plan depicting an 8 foot wide bituminous trail from Homeward Hills Road to the bridge across Purgatory Creek at a grade not exceeding 10%. The site plan and grading plan has been revised to provide a 40 foot wide outlot and an 8 foot wide trail at a maximum grade of 8% between Homeward Hills Road and the bridge across Purgatory Creek. 4. Provide a tree replacement plan for 300 caliper inches l provide a reforestation plan for the graded areas adjoining Purgatory Creek as shown on Attachment A. A tree replacement plan for 300 caliper inches and reforestation plan for the slopes adjacent to Purgatory Creek have been provided. 5. Modify the storm drainage plan to either extend the storm sewer Pipe to the center line of the creek or redesign the storm sewer system to redire t all storm drainage to Homeward Hills storm sewer system. The storm sewer system plan has been revised to redirect all storm drainage to Homeward Hills Road storm sewer system. VKM0615.MDF:bs 1+1 V e;4Pe`..." iinIN , I n • * ..,44 \ c• 7 v , ' PROPOSED SITE p • • . - • • •.4 4. • ••• -•-• • •••• • 4- n•• ••••• ••••••4 4 ••••••,,i• . • •••• . • • • .• • tfiP ig , IL, • • • 4,„n," 4 •• •,,,;., L....-. •,.. • .,,. - ...v• ..n••••••4 '4,- • n 410..• # • n A 46, .. 1 .1.-- , .... -;•''' .4' STAFF REPORT TO: The Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THRU: Chris Enger, Director of Planning PATE: May 25, 1990 SUBJECT: Village Knolls LOCATION: East of Homeward Hills Road at Silverwood Drive APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Joe Miller Homes & Wallace Hustad REOUEST: 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.7 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 8.7 acres. 3. Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 8.7 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 42.7 acres into 23 single family lots and 2 outlots and road right-of-way for a single family residential development. BACKGROUND This is a continued item from the May 14, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommended that the development plans be returned to the proponent for the following revisions: 1. Revise the site plan to comply with the Shoreland Ordinance requirements. 2. Revise the site plan to eliminate encroachment within the Conservancy Area of Purgatory Creek. AREA LOCATION MAP —4— I III ••• • .4 VI' Village Knolls May 25, 1990 3. Minimize overall tree loss on-site. 4. Minimize the number of waivers requested through the PUD. SHORELAND ORDINANCE The PUD Concept plan has been revised from 69 to 68 lots. Two flag lots are proposed for Lots 16 and 17 instead of a cul-de-sac on the original proposal. A cul-de-sac has been added off Homeward Hills Road plus two lots with driveway access to Homeward Hills Road. These site plan changes allow the project to meet the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance for lot size, lot width at building setback, lot width at the high water mark, and building setback. PURGATORY CREEK CONSERVANCY AREA The previous Staff Report identified impacts in the Purgatory Creek Conservancy area. 16 of the 69 lots had building pads and grading within the Conservancy Area which resulted in alteration of the character of the Creek Corridor and loss of trees. Sheet 7 indicates the Conservancy and Shoreland Areas along Purgatory Creek. The exhibit depicts a revised Conservancy Line. The City Staff has, on occasion, recommended moving the Conservancy Line after field inspection of the proposed revision to determine what impact revision would have on the character of the creek. When it was determined that the character of the creek valley would be preserved, then the Conservancy Line was changed. The City Staff feels that the Conservancy Line could be amended for the following reasons: 1. Portions of the PUD are part of the existing Bluffs West subdivision which was approved prior to the establishment of the Conservancy Line. The PUD pulls the existing lot lines farther away from the creek, thereby minimizing encroachment on the tree line. 2. Use of flag lots on Lots 16 and 17, Block 2 in Phase 11 instead of the cul-de-sac on the previous plan pulls building pads and grading out of the Conservancy Area and preserves more trees. 3. Use of a cul-de-sac and two lots with direct driveway access to Homeward Hills Road pulls grading and house pads farther away from the Conservancy Area in the northeast corner of the property. The Conservancy Line in this area would be adjusted, however, mitigation would be required on the regraded portion where shown on Attachment A. This will 2 Village Knolls May 25, 1990 screen views from the proposed trail within the Creek Corridor. Attachment A indicates a revised cul-de-sac and lotting plan which would result in saving more trees and less grading adjacent to the Creek Corridor. The reconfiguration of the lots would result in a variance from the Shoreland Ordinance for building width at the setback line. TREE LOSS The previous Staff Report indicated a 39% loss of significant trees within the PUD area. Changes in the grading plan allow more trees to be saved within Phase 1, and the overall tree loss has been reduced to 35%, or 614 inches out of a total of 1847 inches on- site. The majority of the trees being saved are within the Conservancy Area of Purgatory Creek outside of the lots proposed for the second phase. In addition, since house pads are farther from the Creek there is more of the understory vegetation along the steep slopes adjacent to the Creek is preserved. This provides for better slope stability, erosion control, and preserves more of the Creek character than the previous plan. PUD DISTRICT REVIEW WAIVERS The previous proposal for Phase 1 depicted 16 waivers for lot size and street frontage. The revised plan depicts 8 waivers. Lot size waivers are requested for Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 2, and Lots 9 and 10, Block 1. Street frontage waivers are requested for Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, and for Lot 3, Block 1. The PUD waiver for Lot 3 is the result of keeping the existing house and providing a common driveway for Lots 2 and 3, which intersects opposite Silverwood Road. The waivers for lot size and street frontage would be a trade off for larger lots and greater setbacks between houses and the Creek. STORM DRAINAGE Most of the storm water runoff will drain towards an existing storm sewer system on Homeward Hills Road, however, a portion of the project in Phase 1 will drain towards Purgatory Creek. Since only Phase 1 will be developed at this time, the storm sewer plan proposes a partial pipe and overland drainage swale to Purgatory Creek. On other projects with overland drainage, there has been severe erosion problems, washouts, and loss of vegetation along Purgatory Creek due to concentrated water runoff. It is 3 Village Knolls May 25, 1990 recommended that the storm sewer pipe be extended all the way to the channel of Purgatory Creek. Another option would be to redesign the storm sewer plan for Phase 1 to drain into the existing storm sewer system on Homeward Hills Road. SIDEWALKS 4 TRAILS There should be a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk constructed along one side of the loop road within Phase 11. In addition, the plan should be revised to depict the location of an 8 wide bituminous trail from Homeward Hills Road to the existing bridge crossing on Purgatory Creek. A trail must be provided within a 40 foot wide outlot and grades for the pathway should not exceed 10%. ACCESS Homeward Hills Road is a minor collector road. Intersections should be aligned directly opposite, or no closer than 150 feet offset. The site plan meets this criteria. The cul-de-sac on the north end of the project is opposite the park entrance road to Homeward Hills Park. Proposed Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 would have direct driveway access to Homeward Hills Road. Due to the volume of traffic on Homeward Hills Road, it is recommended that these lots share a common driveway with provision for turnaround on each site such that cars would not have to back directly onto Homeward Hills Road. CONCLUSION The PUD as proposed is better than the previous submission with changes in road locations and lotting patterns which result in compliance with the requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and a reduction in the impacts on the Conservancy Area along Purgatory Creek. The amount of significant tree loss has been reduced to 35% and more of the understory vegetation along the slopes adjacent to the Creek Corridor have been preserved since grading and house pads have been pulled further away from the Creek. Where grading encroaches into the Conservancy Area in the northeast corner of the subdivision, reforestation of the regraded area (which is currently treeless) will mitigate the impacts of encroachment. Revisions to the site plan according to Attachment A can reduce the grading impacts further. The site plan must also be revised to provide a 40 foot wide outlot and the grading plan should depict no more than a 10% grade for the proposed trail connection to the bridge over Purgatory Creek. 4 Village Knolls May 25, 1990 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Staff would recommend approval of the request for PUD Concept on 42.7 acres, PUD District Review with waivers on 8.7 acres, Zoning District Amendment within the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 8.7 acres and Preliminary Plat of 42.7 acres into 23 lots and 2 outlots based on plans dated May 25, 1990, subject to the recommendations of Staff Report dated May 11, 1990 and May 25, 1990, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to review by the City Council, the proponent shall: a. Revise the Concept plan according to Attachment A to reduce grading in the Creek Corridor. b. Modify the site plan to indicate a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along one side of the interior loop road within Phase 11. c. Modify the site plan to provide for a 40 foot wide outlot with a grading plan depicting an 8 foot wide bituminous trail from Homeward Hills Road to the bridge across Purgatory Creek at a grade not exceeding 10%. d. Provide a tree replacement plan for 300 caliper inches. Provide a reforestation plan for the graded areas adjoining Purgatory Creek where shown on Attachment A. e. Modify the storm drainage plan to either extend the storm sewer pipe to the center line of the Creek, or redesign the storm sewer system to redirect all storm drainage to Homeward Hills Road storm sewer system. 2. Prior to final plat approval, the proponent shall: a. Provide detailed storm water runoff, utility and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. b. Provide detailed storm water runoff and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the proponent shall: a. Pay the appropriate cash park fee. b. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshall. 5 Village Knolls May 25, 1990 4. Grading shall be limited to the area required for Phase 1 only. Stake the proposed grading limits with a construction fence. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. 5. Concurrent with Phase 11 construction, construct a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the interior loop road. 6. If the site plan is revised according to Attachment A, Shoreland Ordinance variances will be required when Phase 11 is subdivided for proposed Lots 4 and 5, Block 2. The Shoreland Ordinance variances for lot width at the building setback results in a better site plan with less grading adjacent to the Creek. 7. Proposed Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall share a common driveway. Each lot shall have a turnaround. 8. Waivers are granted through the PUD District Review for lot size on Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 2, and Lots 9 and 10, Block 1; and street frontage for Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 1. 9. Waivers for flag Lots 16 and 17, Block 2 on Phase 11 will be necessary as part of a PUD District Review when Phase 11 is submitted for zoning and plat approval. VLGEKNOL.MDF:mmr 6 H There are no trees in this area.. lhe topogi .aohy apoe; incorrect, dm. to fill that has beers brought in over • lEWARWHILLS ROAD , i<4.--rmiL ---Herleweeri 141W2 ItAr) 'Nor To Eurzo Jo:, verve. , Attachment A Thcn ., 3s.) 'S CtePV ihd a few tr , down the slope. A This area contains predominantly four- t ten-inch diameter trees. There are also some boxelder trees, sumac and b l a C I cherry. ,I-Ltl. ; • - . 22 ::,A,,,,f'IL., / ;IFI.'415.1 •Pc INN" P..4c V PROPOSED SITE • • • 4 - • • • ,4.• ;%;; .• 0 -• m • • • •4 t . • 4,1•4 • • •••v• 4" ••••••`• •• •••••• 4 . • • 4' o • • •• • •••- • •••• c..„ li , • A. ,j0 WA. • t ik& . #. . 4."-• * 4(• • . • 04, • . • • 1•40.,,,, ...-e....c•-• ! • .•-..• .: -...-.-rtir-2,\.'/•;.T.5 .1' AREA LOCATION MAPS IL ..--1..111 If 41t0m.,4t , J 71 PTA STAFF REPORT TO: The Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Chris Enger, Director of Planning May 11, 1990 Village Knolls East of Homeward Hills Road at Silver Wood Drive Joe Miller Homes and Wallace Hustad 1. Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 42.7 acres. 2. Planned Unit Development District Review with waivers on 8.7 acres. 3. Zoning District Amendment with the R1-13.5 Zoning District on 8.7 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 42.7 acres into 23 single family lots and 2 outlots and road right-of- way for a single family residential development. FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: REOUEST: Backoround This site is currently guided Low Density Residential and is zoned R1-13.5. Portions of this site are within the transition and conservancy areas as depicted on the 1975 Purgatory Creek and Open Space Plan. Portions of this site are impacted by the Shoreland Ordinance for lots abutting Purgatory Creek. P.U.D. Concept The P.U.D. Concept on 42.7 acres covers land from Homeward Hills Road to the centerline of Purgatory Creek. The first phase of the development called Village Knolls is 23 lots immediately adjacent to Homeward Hills Road. The second phase is concept only for land development adjacent to the creek corridor. The net density of the PUD is 2.44 units per acre based on 28.3 acres. The gross density which includes the creek corridor is 1.62 units per acre. Purgatory Creek Conservancy Area Attachment A indicates the transition and conservancy areas of the 1975 Purgatory Creek Open Space Plan. Twenty-nine of the total 69 lots are within the transition area which is a "build with care" area and 16 of the 69 lots are within the conservancy area which is a "no build zone". The attached memo indicates other projects in the Lower Purgatory Creek area which have lots in the conservancy. However, no grading or building pads have been permitted within the conservancy area unless there was a trade for land area outside of the conservancy that was desirable to preserve. This occurred in the Bluestem Hills 5th Addition and the Creekview project. No trade is proposed as part of the PUD. Shoreland Ordinance Purgatory Creek is classified as a general development water. Provisions of the Shoreland Ordinance that are applicable would be a 13,500 square foot minimum lot size, 120 feet of lot width at the building setback, 120 feet at the Ordinary High Water Mark, and a 100 foot building setback. Eleven of the 14 total lots (where shown on Attachment A) within the shoreland area do not meet the minimum lot width of 120 feet or 120 foot lot width at the Ordinary High Water Mark. Shoreland setback variances are required on proposed Lots 4 and 5 which are setback a minimum of 70 feet from the creek. This is based on a 50 foot pad depth. A survey of houses built within scenic areas of the community average 70 feet in depth. This would mean that the Shoreland setback could be 50 feet from the centerline of the creek. Of the projects surveyed within the Lower Purgatory Creek area, no shoreland setback variances have been granted. Impact of Conservancy Area Encroachment and Shoreland Variances An overall tree inventory has been submitted which depicts specific tree types and sizes for the first phase of the project, and an overall general description of tree types for the balance of the property. Attachment B indicates the environmentally sensitive portions of the site. Within the conservancy area, areas 3 and 4 are the most sensitive based upon the size, type, and quality of the trees which are predominantly oak. Area 2, contains a small 2 amount of tree cover, but is the closest area to the creek immediately adjacent to steep slopes. The creek follows the rear lot line of Lots 4, 5, and 6 and may be a safety issue if the creek continues to erode the slopes. Area 5 is the top part of a ravine, located approximately 500 feet from the centerline of the creek. Most of the trees in this area are box elder and elm. Grading and Tree Loss There are a total of 1,847 inches of significant trees within the P.U.D. Trees in phase one total 389 inches, phase 2 totals 330 inches and 1,128 inches are within the conservancy area to the centerline of the creek. Grading will result in a 39% tree loss or 719 inches, two thirds of which are oak trees. Tree replacement would be 373 inches. Grading also removes understory vegetation along the steep slopes adjacent to Purgatory Creek. This vegetation provides slope stability, erosion control and is a significant part of the creek character, especially in areas 2, 3, and 4. Twelve of the lots in the conservancy area are proposed at 50 foot pad depths. The attached survey of building permits issued in areas adjacent to creeks, lakes, and scenic areas average 70 feet in depth. With larger pads there will be additional grading, tree loss, and encroachment to Purgatory Creek conservancy area. Phase One Preliminary Plat Phase 1 depicts 23 lots on 8.6 acres at 2.64 units per acre. If this project was submitted by itself, a Comprehensive Guide Plan change would be required since the density exceeds 2 1/2 units per acre. However, the overall density of the total PUD is 2.44 units per acre. Lot sizes range from 11,200 square feet to 18,675 square feet with an average lot size of 14,031 square feet. Waivers are requested through the PUD District Review for lot sizes less than 13,500 square feet, and for street frontage less than 85 feet. Lot size waivers are requested for Lots 3-9, Block 2 and Lots 6, 9, and 10, Block 1. Street frontage waivers are required on Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and Lots 6, 7, 11, and 12, Block 2. Utilities Sewer and water service is available by connection to existing facilities within Homeward Hills Road. Most pf the storm water run-off will drain towards an existing storm sewer system in Homeward Hills Road, however, a portion of the project will drain towards Purgatory Creek. Since only phase one is proposed to be developed at this time, the storm sewer plan 3 proposes a partial pipe and overland drainage swale down to Purgatory Creek. Additional overall storm water run-off information is necessary to evaluate the proposal and the impact on natural features and the creek corridor. If the overland drainage would result in tree loss and significant erosion, then the storm sewer system should be revised to connect to Homeward Hills Road or be carried by storm sewer pipe to Purgatory Creek. Sidewalks and Trails There should be a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along one side of the loop road within phase one of the Village Knolls project. The second phase should include a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along one side of the loop road. Flood Plain This site is adjacent to a flood plain area. No grading or filling is proposed within the flood plain. Conclusions The City is being asked to consider approval of a 42.7 acre, 69 lot PUD Concept plan and phase one approval for preliminary platting of 23 lots adjacent to Purgatory Creek. The Staff Report identifies grading and tree loss impacts in the conservancy area, and Shoreland area. Tree loss is calculated at 39%. The City should decide whether the site plan with PUD waivers for lot size and street frontage, shoreland variances, and conservancy area encroachment is better than if no waivers, variances or conservancy area encroachment was considered. The developer is proposing the dedication or preservation of 12.4 acres to the centerline of the creek as a trade-off for the shoreland variances and encroachment into the Purgatory Creek Conservancy Area. Historically, the City has approved lots in the conservancy area of Purgatory Creek, predicated upon no building or grading within the conservancy area. House pads and grading have been allowed in the conservancy area if there was a land trade for area outside of the conservancy that should be preserved such as steep slopes or woods. No shoreland setback variances have been approved. If the City feels that the impacts on the creek corridor are significant, there are a number of ways in which the site plan could be modified to reduce impacts in the conservancy and shoreland areas. These would include: 1. Use of cul-de-sacs instead of a through road to minimize filling in the ravines. 2. Fewer but larger lots adjacent to Purgatory Creek. 4 3. Shift the loop road further west. This would result in larger pads outside of the conservancy area, protect more of the wooded slopes and compliance with the 100 foot shoreland setback. Staff Recommendations If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the development plans as proposed, then one option would be to recommend approval of the PUD Concept, preliminary plat and zoning request based on plans dated May 7, 1990 subject to recommendations in the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to City Council review proponent shall: A. Modify the site plan to eliminate the shoreland setback variances, and remove building pads and grading from the conservancy area. B. Submit a tree replacement for 373 inches. C. Provide more detailed storm sewer information on overland drainage to Purgatory Creek. 2. Prior to final plat approval proponent shall: a. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. b. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to grading permit issuance proponent shall: a. Stake the proposed construction limits with a tree fence and notify the City 48 hours in advance of grading. 4. Current with construction of phase one construct a 5 foot wide sidewalk along the internal loop road. 5. Shoreland setback variances require review and approval by Board of Appeals and Adjustments. If the Planning Commission feels that the impacts on the site's natural features including trees, the conservancy area, and the shoreland area are significant, then one option would be to return the development plans to the proponent for revisions. VILKNOLS.MDF MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: May 11, 1990 SUBJECT: Purgatory Creek Master Plan and Residential Projects Within Shoreland Areas The Purgatory Creek Master Plan was prepared in 1975 as a guide for the City to review the development along the Purgatory Creek valley. The conservancy line was developed to define an area beyond which no development should occur. The conservancy line was drawn on a large scale and generally follows the rim of the creek valley, tree coverage, and contour lines. The purpose of the conservancy line was to establish a tentative boundary of a natural area that would be preseved along Purgatory Creek valley. Generally the City has required scenic easements or land to be dedicated on all land between the conservancy line and the creek. However, City Staff has, on occasion, recommende moving the conservancy line after field inspection of the proposed revision to determine what impact the revision might have on the character of the creek valley. If it was determined that the character of the creek valley would be preserved the conservancy line was changed. The Parks Commission has previously recommended that the Bluestem Hills 5th Addition and Creekview conservancy lines be modified. In both cases the developer proposed a land swap as a mitigating measure which gave the City control over more land along the creek than if the original conservancy line was adhered to. There have been several subdivisions approved along the lower Purgatory Creek area between County Road #1 and Riverview Road with lots platted within the conservancy; however, all building pads and grading have been outside of the conservancy. Scenic easements have been established over the concervancy area within the platted lots and the balance of the land along the creek was gifted to the City. Staff has reviewed a majority of subdivisions approved along the lower Purgatory Creek valley. The attached chart provides comparison between the subdivisions along the lower Purgatory Creek area. The following is a brief analysis of seven residential projects within Shoreland areas: Weston Bay Weston Bay is a 24 lot single family subdivision abutting Mitchell Lake. Mitchell Lake is classified as a natural environmental water 1 with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, minimum width at the building line of 150 feet, minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark, 150 feet, and a minimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark of 150 feet. None of the lots that abut Mitchell Lake met the requirements of the natural environmental water. The lot sizes range from 21,000 to 39,000 square feet with a 28,000 square foot average. Lake frontages range from 52 to 197 feet with a 100 foot average. All but one of the lake lots met the 150 foot setback requirement from the high water mark. This site was previously zoned for 60 townhome units. Weston Bay was approved for 24 single family lots. Variances were granted from the Shoreland Ordinance due to a reduction in density, the lot sizes proposed were comparable to existing lots in the Timber Lake residential project to the north (which was approved prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance) and all but one lot met the 150 foot setback requirement. There was a common lake access outlot which increased the average frontage and lot size which they traded away individual dock rights. Red Rock Ranch Red Rock Lake is classified as a recreational development water with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, minimum width building setback of 120 feet, minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark at 120 feet, and minimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark of 100 feet. The Red Rock Ranch plan had 31 lots abutting the lake. The initial plan included 17 variances for width at the high water mark and width at the building setback. This plan was revised based upon Planning Commission recommendation and the number of variances were reduced to two. The variances were granted since the lots on the wooded point average 44,000 square feet, the remainder of the lakeshore lots averaged 33,000 square feet and the average lakeshore width was 145 feet. This resulted in more trees saved on the wooded point, greater setbacks between houses, and less visual impact on the lake. Timber Creek Timber Creek is a mixed use residential project with 68 multiple family units and 40 single family units. Timber Creek abuts Purgatory Creek which is a general development water. Three variances were requested for lot width less than 120 feet for five single family lots and for lot size less than 10,000 square feet for one of the townhome buildings. The variances were granted due to 51 of the 89 acres being set aside for public use along the creek. Twenty-one of the 51 acres were in an oak wooded knoll that could have been developed. Creekview The Creekview residential project abutted Purgatory Creek with a net density of 1.5 units per acre. The initial plan reviewed by 2 t o Gq the Planning Commission had shoreland setback variances for 20 lots. The project was revised based upon Planning Commission and City Council recommendations to meet all requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance. In addition, approximately 15 acres on Purgatory flood plain was gifted to the City. Scenic easements were required on all steep slopes adiacent to the creek. Shores of Mitchell Lake Mitchell Lake is classified as a natural environmental water with a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet, a 150 foot building setback from the lake, and 150 feet of lot width required. Variances were granted for 10 of the 27 lots within the shoreland area. The variances were grantedfor setback to 100 feet on 5 lots and lot width to 100 on 5 lots, since the overall density within the area was in excess of one acre, the average setback was in excess of 150 feet, and the average lake frontage was 225 feet. Five acres of land adjacent to the lake which contained a significant number of 24 to 40 inch oak trees was also dedicated to the City. Summary It appears that consideration for shoreland variances in some of the projects were based on trade-offs which resulted in a better site plan which saved more trees and topography with benefits for the City. PUROMP.MDF:bs 3 Bluffs W. 7th 4.6 42.1 11 2.36 2.42 acre dedication 66 1.77 GIFf 1 2 9.4 19.9 300 300 191 315 Land Gift or Subdivision Acres Units Density Dedication Number of Lots in Conservancy Area Number of Lots Minimum Average Scenic in Creek Creek Easement Transition Area Setback Setback Over Conservanc; Hillsborough March 1987 16 34 2.2 3.4-acre gift gift 17 19 300 300 Yes Creekview Estates 25 29 1.5 6-acre 15 15 100 200 Yes Nwi 1980 dedication Bluffs West 4th 14.3 19 1.3 4.3-acre 0 17 120 300 Yes May 1985 gift Bluffs East 5th 30 15 1.9 50-acre 0 23 300 300 Yes gift in PUD Bluestem Hills 31.6 64 August 1986 2.0 gift 15 15 120 250 Yes Bluff West 1st 100 210 2.2 land gift 7 13 200 200 Yes Creekview 78 93 1.3 15-acre ift 1 27 200 350 Yes BUILDING PAD DEPTHS ON ESTIMATED HOUSE VALUES OF $200,000 - $300,000 (Source: Lot surveys of April 4-June 1, 1989) Addition Kingston Kingston Promotory Bluestem 5 *Timber Lakes Starrwood Shady Oak Ridge Bluffs West 5 Starrwood Bluffs West 5 Bluestem 5 Carmel \w/ *Weston Bay Tree Farm Edenvale 10 Cardinal Ridge Cardinal Hills Bluestem Hills Starrwood *Lake lot - minimum Lot Block 4 2 64' 5 3 63' 8 2 46' 9 1 50' 5 1 52' 5 2 62' 2 2 50' 3 2 58' 13 1 68' 4 4 65' 9 2 (L75')50' 4 4 64' 5 2 49' 2 7 52' 5 2 66' 1 2 64' 14 3 48, 4 1 63' 8 3 68' building pad depth should be 60 feet. Porch Deck If 14' Deck/Porch Y N added, rev. pad 78' 60' 78' 62' Building Pad Depth Addition BUILDING PAD DEPTHS_ON ESTIMATED HOUSE VALUES OVER $300,000 Porch Deck If 14' Deck/Porch Lot Block Building Pad Depth Y N added, rev. pad (Source: Lot surveys of April 4-June 1, 1989) Welters Bryant Pointe Welter 1 Oly Hills 3 Creekview Cardinal Hills Bluestem 5 *Bryant Lake Est Cardinal Hills *Red Rock Heights Bluffs East 5 2 49' 12 1 90' 2 1 60' 3 3 88' 6 ? (L84')42' 4 2 70' 11 1 68' ? (L128')75' 12 1 48' 4 1 75' 12 1 (L96')80' 104' 56' 89' 94' *Minimum building pad depth should be 70 feet. BRYANT POINT 6-89 Building Pad Lot Block Length Depth 19 1 80' 63' 22 1 107' 55' 20 1 118' 75' 21 1 110' 76' 17 1 92' 80' 23 1 104' 65' 4 1 120' 76' 24 1 83' 54' 3 1 88' 90' 24 1 106' 63' 2 2 80' 56' Porch/Deck If 14' Porch/Deck Yes No added, Rev. Pad Depth 77' MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resourcestw DATE: June 1, 1990 SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report to the May 25, 1990 Planning Staff Report on Village Knolls The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission issues regarding this subdivision relate to the comments of the May 25th Planning Staff Report on the Shoreland Ordinance, the Purgatory Creek conservancy area, tree loss, sidewalks and trails. Although this proposal meets the Shoreland Management Ordinance, it requires a revision in the Purgatory Creek conservancy line. As staff have pointed out on previous occasions, the conservancy line was drawn at a much larger scale than is used to review subdivisions. In some cases the conservancy line follows tree lines and in other cases it follows the top of the creek valley bluff, on other occasions it follows neither. The major purpose of the conservancy line is to preserve the creek valley in its natural condition from "rim to rim". Obviously, the creek valley width varies a great deal as it meanders its way through the City of Eden Prairie. In some cases the creek "valley" is well over a half mile wide, while in other cases it is less than a city block in width. The location of the Village Knolls Subdivision is one of the few places where there is a man-made creek crossing in existence. This creek crossing was feasible due to the shallow and relatively narrow configuration of the creek valley in this location. The parks, recreation and natural resources staff believe that it is important to preserve the slopes of the creek valley and the limited vegetation on those slopes in this location in order to maintain the natural character of the creek valley and to screen homes that may be constructed at the rim. In order to maintain the valley appearance, staff is recommending approval of the Village Knolls Subdivision that would approve significant fill within the conservancy line in order to screen the view of the homes proposed in the northerly four lots in this subdivision. Upon review of the existing approved PUD and the many factors that limit the options for developing this piece of property, staff recommend a revision of the conservancy area line that accommodates the proposed plan. The parks, recreation and natural resources staff would recommend more specific language relating to the trail requirement for this subdivision. The creek crossing in this location is. critical to providing pedestrian and bicycle access from residents on the east side of Purgatory Creek to Homeward Hills Park. Staff believes it is critical to have this trail installed with the development and that the Developer provide a design that accommodates, not only the trail, but does not negatively impact the adjacent residential lots; therefore, staff recommends that the Developer be required to construct the 8' wide bituminous trail from the intersection of the northerly park access on Homeward Hills Road to the easterly boundary of this site, just across the creek bridge, prior to a building permit being granted on any of the northerly six lots on this proposed subdivision. This bike trail must be constructed according to City specifications with a grade that cannot exceed 10%. Staff would assume the bituminous trail would cross the bridge and follow the general direction of the trail as depicted on Attachment A of the May 25th Planning Staff Report, where it would tie into the existing bituminous trail along Homeward Hills Road. The projected crossing to the park will occur at the northern park access, located directly across from the northern most cul-de-sac on this proposal. The parks, recreation and natural resources staff recommend approval of this subdivision as per the May 25th Planning Staff Report and the additional recommendations outlined in this report, and subject to review of a grading plan that will satisfactorily accommodate the proposed trail, and a landscape plan that will show how the fill area slopes will be "reforested". BL:mdd knolls/2 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #90-210 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CEDAR RIDGE 2ND ADDITION FOR WESTAR PROPERTIES, INC. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition for Westar Properties, Inc. dated August 3, 1990 consisting of 23.37 acres into 54 single family 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 21st day of August, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk n r) MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and City Council Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Chris Enger, Director of Planning Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition August 16, 1990 This item was first reviewed by the Planning Commission at the July 23rd meeting. The Planning Commission recommended that the plans be returned to the proponent for revisions which would provide a landscape buffer area along County Road 1 and along the rear lot lines adjacent to the school. The Commission also recommended that the lots along County Road 1 be revised to meet the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition at the August 13th meeting. The proponent had revised the plan in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendation at the previous meeting. The planning staff would recommend approval based on plans dated August 3, 1990. iq77 STAFF REPORT IQ: Planning Commission FROM: 11-2 : DATE: PROJECT: APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Chris Enger, Planning Director August 10, 1990 Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition Westar Properties, Inc. LOCATION: North of County Road #1, west of Cedar Ridge Estates at Rogers Road. REQUEST: I. Zoning District Change from Rural to RI-13.5 on 23.7 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat 23.37 acres into 54 single family lots and road right-of-way. 3. Board of Appeals variances. Background This item was continued from the July 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting to allow for plan revisions including the elimination of the lot frontage variances along County Road #1 and the development of a transition plan between the single family homes and both the Cedar Ridge Elementary School and County Road #1. The plans have been revised to address these concerns. Plan Revisions The previous Staff Report dated July 20, 1990 indicated that Lots 5 and 10, Block 1 - 1 AREA LOCATION MAP did not meet the minimum street frontage requirement along County Road #1. The plans have been revised to reflect the minimum street frontage in the R1-13.5 Zoning District of 85 feet for all lots. A front yard setback variance is still required for the existing house on Lot 4, Block 1 from 30 feet to 25 feet. The previous report also recommended that a transition be provided between the Cedar Ridge Elementary School and County Road #1 to the proposed single family lots. The report suggested two alternatives to accomplish this: 1. Revise the plans based on the original concept plan which indicated a roadway adjacent to the southern property line of the school. This plan revision would require the elimination of approximately five lots. 2. A berming and landscaping plan similar to those developed for the Cedar Ridge Addition and Fairfield could be provided for transitional purposes. The proponent has revised the plans to reflect alternative #2. The proposed buffer plan includes a total of 58, 8-foot evergreens and 50, 3-inch deciduous trees adjacent to County Road #1 and 21, 8-foot evergreens and 45, 3-inch deciduous trees adjacent to the Cedar Ridge Elementary School. In addition, the school district has planted approximately 50, 6-foot evergreens along the south property line. Considering the amount of landscaping planted by the school district and the amount proposed by the developer, the transition plan as proposed appears adequate. Staff Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the request for zoning district change from R-13.5 on 23.37 acres and preliminary plat of 23.37 acres into 54 single family lots and road right-of-way based on plans dated August 2, 1990 subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated August 10, 1990 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval, proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Provide detailed utility, storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Submit plans for review by the Fire Marshal. 2 ti ro 3. Apply for and receive a front yard setback variance for the existing house along C o u n t y Road #1. 4. Prior to grading permit issuance, proponent shall obtain a permit from the DNR f o r a n y work proposed within the protective waters. In addition, the proponent must pr o v i d e documentation from the adjacent property owners that the storm water run-off pro p o s a l is acceptable. 5. The proponent and school district shall petition the City for school road to be upg r a d e d prior to building permit issuance. CDRGE2.MDF:bs 3 STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND The Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Chris Enger, Director of Planning July 20, 1990 Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition North of County Road #1, west of Cedar Ridge Estates at Rogers Road Westar Properties, Inc. 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 23.37 acres. 2. Preliminary Plat of 23.37 acres into 54 single family lots and road right-of-way. 3. Board of Appeals variances. TO: FROM: THRU: DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: REOUEST: This site is currently designated on the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan as low density residential for up to 2.5 units per acre. Adjacent land is guided low density residential to the east, south, and west of the property and the Cedar Ridge Elementary School to the north. This site is currently zoned Rural. SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT The site plan depicts the subdivision of 23.37 acres into 54 single family lots at a density of 2.3 units per acre. The lot sizes range in size from 13,528 square feet to 19,032 square feet with a 14,852 square foot average. All lots meet the minimum 1 AREA LOCATION MAP Staff Report Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition July 20, 1990 requirements of the R1-13.5 Zoning District with the exception of Lots 5 and 10, Block 1 which do no meet the minimum street frontage requirements. It is possible to revise lot lines to meet the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 Zoning District. A front yard setback variance will be needed for the existing house on proposed Lot 4 from 30 to 25 feet. ACCESS The proponent and the school district will be petitioning the City to have school road built as a City street. The school access road runs north/south along the west edge of the property. This will be the primary access into the site. Access will also be provided by connection to existing Rogers Road and Kenning Road in Cedar Ridge Estates Addition to the east of this project. GRADING This site is a relatively level farm field and treeless. The amount of grading required is minimal for building pad sites and road construction. UTILITIES There are existing sanitary sewer and water line in Rogers and Kenning Road which will be extended into this property. A 12 inch water main connection from County Road #1 will be extended with the school road project to the Fairfield project north of Cedar Ridge Elementary School. Storm water run-off is proposed to drain into a DNR protected wetland on the Lassen property to the west of the site. A chapter 105 permit will be necessary for work within the public waters. If the proponent is unable to obtain permission from the Lassen property for discharge of the storm water run-off, the project will have to be redesigned to contain storm water run-off on the site. SOUTHWEST AREA PHASING PLAN This site is within area 1B of the Southwest Area Phasing Plan. Since the County road for Highway #5 intersection has been upgraded, the unit cap of 100 lots in this area is no longer applicable. Infrastructure improvements required in this area with this project would be the extension of a water main along County 2 Staff Report Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition July 20, 1990 Road #1, school road access from County Road #1 to the north, and construction of major storm sewer pipes south to County Road #1. Additional comments on storm drainage and school road are included in the attached memo from the Engineering Department. TRANSI TION There are two areas which require transition. One would be along County Road #1, the other would be along the rear lot lines of lots in Block 5 adjacent to Cedar Ridge Elementary School. A berm and mass plantings should be constructed along the entire length of the project adjacent to County Road #1. This would be similar to requirements for Cedar Ridge Addition and Fairfield. The attached concept plan which was previously submitted with the Cedar Ridge Addition project to the east shows a different location for the extension of Rogers Road and 5 fewer lots adjacent to the school. This would be one alternative way of providing transition. (The attached letters from the Eden Prairie School District indicates the concern for lots abutting the school and the proximity to the ball fields and the playground area.) Another way to provide transition would be to create a berm and mass plantings along the rear lot lines for the eleven proposed lots abutting the school. Staff would recommend revising the site plan according to the original concept for 5 lots abutting the school with berming and plantings along the rear lot lines. This would be a more effective and appropriate relationship with the school grounds. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS The existing sidewalks in Rogers Road, and Kenning Road to the east of the site will be extended through this project to school road. There will be an 8 foot wide bituminous trail and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along school road. Sidewalks are also shown along other road within the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS I. If the Planning Commission is comfortable with the site plan as proposed one option would be to recommend approval of the request for zoning district change from R1-13.5 on 23.37 acres and preliminary plat of 23.37 acres into 54 single family lots 3 1974 Staff Report Cedar Ridge 2nd Addition July 20, 1990 and road right-of-way based on plans dated July 20, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report July 20, 1990, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to final plat approval proponent shall: A. Provide detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Provide detailed utility storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. B. Submit plans for review by the Fire Marshal. 3. Apply for and receive front yard setback variance for the existing house along County Road #1. 4. Prior to grading permit issuance proponent shall obtain a permit from the ONE for any work proposed within a protected water. 5. The proponent and school district shall petition the City for School Road. School Road shall be upgraded prior to building permit issuance. If the Planning Commission is uncomfortable with the site plan as proposed with regard to transition and frontage variances, then one option would be to recommend that the plans be returned to the proponent for revision. CDRDGE2.MDF:bs 4 tnS -MEMORANDUM- TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning Commission Alan Gray, P.E. ,7,904 City Engineer July 19, 1990 CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION The purpose of this memo is to discuss the utility and street improvements required for the proposed Cedar Ridge Estates 2nd Addition. The subject to be discussed will be sanitary sewer, watermain, storm drainage and street improvements. Lateral sanitary sewer may be extended from the adjoining Cedar Ridge Estates. No new trunk sanitary sewer facilities are required to provide service for this proposed subdivision. Trunk watermain has been extended along the north side of CSAH 1 to the east boundary of the proposed subdivision. In conjunction with these subdivision improvements, the trunk watermain should be extended westerly along the north side of CSAH 1 to the west boundary of the subdivision. A future trunk watermain will extend north along the west boundary of the proposed subdivision. Lateral benefit would be assessed to the subdivision for the segments of trunk watermain along the southerly and easterly boundaries of the proposed subdivision. The segment of trunk watermain heading north along the west boundary of the subdivision is not initially needed and would be installed at the time the collector roadway along the west boundary is constructed. The storm drainage system proposed for the subdivision would discharge at the northwest corner of the site. This proposed outlet for the subdivision is consistent with the Southwestern Eden Prairie Development Phasing Study. This system, however, requires the construction of an outfall segment of storm sewer across an undeveloped parcel of property to discharge to an existing wetland area. The developer must obtain approval for the construction of this segment of storm sewer from the owner of the undeveloped parcel. The internal storm sewer system should also extend south to the north right-of-way line of CSAH 1. At this point the storm sewer system should provide a hydraulic capacity to serve an area approximately 6.2 acres at an invert elevation of 895. Currently the driveway access to the Cedar Ridge Elementary School runs north from CSAH 1 along the western boundary of the proposed subdivision. A future collector roadway is planned on this alignment. This future roadway would extend from CSAH 1 north to the southern boundary of the Fairfield Addition. At the south /976 July 19, 1990 Page 2 of 2 boundary of the Fairfield Addition it will connect to a s e g m e n t o f collector roadway extending north to future Scenic Heig h t s R o a d . Since the Cedar Ridge Elementary School requires continu o u s a c c e s s twelve months of the year for school programs, it is p r o p o s e d t o construct a future collector roadway in two segments. T h e f i r s t segment to be constructed would be from the school d r i v e w a y connection to the collector roadway north to the F a i r f i e l d Addition. The second segment would be to construct fro m t h e s c h o o l driveway connection south to CSAH 1. While the second s e g m e n t i s under construction, school traffic would be routed no r t h t h r o u g h the Fairfield Addition. The timing for the construc t i o n o f t h e collector roadway is best delayed until the next p h a s e o f t h e Fairfield project is constructed to include the abov e d i s c u s s e d roadway segment for school access. We expect that th e c o l l e c t o r roadway construction could proceed in 1991 and be coord i n a t e d w i t h the next phase of the Fairfield project. An assessmen t a g r e e m e n t for this collector roadway construction would be requi r e d f o r t h e proposed Cedar Ridge Estates 2nd Addition. In summary, there is sufficient infrastructure current l y i n p l a c e to support the development of the proposed Cedar Ridge E s t a t e s 2 n d Addition. The subdivision design must be coordinated to f i t f u t u r e grades for the collector roadway to be built along t h e w e s t e r n boundary in 1991. An assessment agreement could p r o v i d e f o r participation in cost of this collector roadway and th e e x t e n s i o n of the segment of trunk watermain along the western bo u n d a r y . To proceed with the subdivision, the developer must reac h a g r e e m e n t with the property owner to the west regarding the cons t r u c t i o n o f the outfall storm sewer to an existing wetland area. AGD:ssa Dsk.AG.CEDARRDG.2ND EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOO June 22, 1990 District 272 Business Office Telephone: (612) 937-1650 Carl Jullie City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: Cedar Ridge Estates Second Addition Dear Carl: The developers of Cedar Ridge Estates Second Addition h a v e r e c e n t l y shared with me their proposed plat which is scheduled t o g o t o t h e Planning Commission in the relatively near future. The original plat provided that Rogers Road would be b u i l t a t t h e property line of Cedar Ridge Elementary School and the C e d a r R i d g e Estates Second Addition property line. The revised p l a t p r o v i d e s for 11 lots along that property line instead of Roge r s R o a d . T h e school district does not have a preference for either a l t e r n a t i v e , however, the school district does want to point out a c o u p l e o f potential problems that may affect the City of Eden Pr a i r i e i f t h e revised plat is adopted. First, there is a softball field constructed adja c e n t t o t h e boundary line, with home plate located approximately 7 5 f e e t f r o m the back yard lot lines of the proposed development. A l t h o u g h t h i s probably will present little or no problem to the sch o o l d i s t r i c t and its use of the field for students in grades one t h r o u g h f o u r , it may present a problem to the City of Eden Pra i r i e i f t h e Community Services Department desires to schedule u s a g e o f t h a t field for adult softball games. For example, neighbers h a v e r a i s e d concerns regarding usage of the the baseball field lo c a t e d a t t h e high school site because of foul balls. Could this create a concern for future homeowners of this developmen t ? Edon Prairto Schools :(01/ I i Carl Jullie June 22, 1990 Page 2 Secondly, lots 6 throu g h 1 1 a r e i m m e d i a t e l y a d j a c e n t t o t h e m a i n playground area of t h e C e d a r R i d g e E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l . Approximately 750 chil d r e n w i l l b e u s i n g t h e p l a y g r o u n d e a c h d a y during the school year , a n d s u c h u s a g e m a y p r o v i d e c o n c e r n s t o t h e future homeowners of th a t p r o p e r t y . Finally, it should be e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t i s n o t attempting to design t h e p l a t f o r C e d a r R i d g e E s t a t e s S e c o n d Addition, but instead, t h e d i s t r i c t i s s h a r i n g f u t u r e c o n c e r n s . Sincerely yours, Merle Gamm Executive Director of B u s i n e s s S e r v i c e s MG/11 cc: Jerry McCoy Chris Enger, City Plan n i n g D e p a r t m e n t Tricia Tidgewell Jack Van Remortel Ken Foote Ron Krueger, Krueger A s s o c i a t e s EDEN PRAIRIE SCHOOLS July 13, 1990 District 272 Business Office Telephone: (612) 937-1650 Mr. Chris Enger City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: Cedar Ridge Estates Second Addition Dear Chris: The school district has met periodically with John Bruntjen and Ron Krueger concerning the development of Cedar Ridge Estates Second Addition. We have discussed dedicating the school district roadway to the City of Eden Prairie for a future road. Discussions are progressing about selling to the developer 10 feet of the 40 feet of driveway the school district owns. Our letter of June 22, 1990 addressed to Carl Jullie concerning the potential problems of having private lots adjacent to school playgrounds and softball fields communicates the school district's concern. The district does not plan to object to the current plat, but instead simply wants to alert the City and the developer of the potential problems that can occur in the future when properties are adjacent to playfields. Although no formal agreements or final understandings have yet occurred between the school district and the developer, there has been ongoing dialogue accompanied by good relations and clear understandings. Sincerely yours, Merle Gamm Executive Direceor of Business Services HG/11 cc: Jerry McCoy, Ken Foote, Jack Van Remortel, Ron Krueger, John Bruntjen Eden Prairie Schools 8100 School Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 1990 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division 320 Washington Ave. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 Phone: (612) 935-3381 June 28, 1990 Mr. Chris Enger, Planning Director City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: RE: Proposed Plat - Cedar Ridge Estates 2nd CSAH 1, North side, approximately 490 feet west of Gateway Lane Section 20, Township 116, Range 22 Hennepin County Plat No. 1847 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: - For future improvements to this segment of CSAH 1 the developer should dedicate the additional 17 feet of right of way shown on the plat along CSAH 1 making the right of way 50 feet from the center of CSAH 1. - All access to CSAH 1 must be via existing municipal streets as shown. All lots having frontage on CSAH 1 and an internal street must take access via the internal street. When Lot 4, Block 1 is redeveloped the access must be reoriented to the internal street. - All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Operations Division for utility permit forms. - The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Singerely, Dennis L. Hansen, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer CILH/LOW:lw HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer C)9 I t t:IMESCYTTA, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATE OF D EPARTMENT METRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONEN0.296-7523 June 29, 1990 Mr. Chris Enger City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Enger: RE: PROJECT REVIEW, CEDAR RIDGE ESTATE 2ND ADDITION, CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, HENNEPIN COUNTY We have reviewed the site plans for the above-referenced project (received June 27, 1990) and have the following comments to offer: 1) The project site does not contain any DWR protected waters and is not within a shoreland district. 2) According to the drainage study information on sheet 44, it appears the stormwater from the project area will be directed to a wetland to the northwest. The receiving wetland appears to be DNR protected water #27-1001W. A sedimentation basin or treatment basin should be included in the stormwater management plan. The DNR would object to having stormwater routed directly into the wetland. A DNR protected waters permit would be needed if the invert of the stormwater outfall was below the ordinary high water elevation (OHW) for wetland #27-1001W. 3) If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriation permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. 4) Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water and Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 194,2 FILE NO. MINNESOTA • 1990 Chris Enger June 29, 1990 Page Two Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 296-7523 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, C - Cell Strauss Area Hydrologist C175:kap cc: Wetland file #27-1001W It19 Engineering Land Surveying Planning , Ron Krueger lir Associates, Inc. 8080 Wallace Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 1612) 934-4242 June 22, 1990 CEDAR RIDGE ESTATES 2ND ADDITION APPLICANT WESTAR PROPERTIES Attn. John Bruntjen 179 South Westwood Ave. Wayzata, MN 55416 (612)475-4001 PREPARED BY Ron Kruger & Associates, Inc. 8080 Wallace Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612)934-4242 Robert P. Smith, Director of Land Planning Request Westar Properties is requesting approval of rezoning from Rural to R1-13.5, a preliminary plat on Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 with a total site area of 23.37 acres including Co. Rd. 1 right-of-way. Additionally, the existing house on Parcel 2 will require a setback variance. This proposed project consists of 54 single family lots. This proposal also requests the granting of a land alteration permit at first reading and approval of the City Council. Legal Description See the preliminary plat for legal descriptions of Parcels 1 and 2. -PLANNAC EEP; JUN 2 3 1990 CITY E-:DEN PRAIRIE I. Location/Ownership/Developer This parcel is located on the north side of County Road 1, south of Cedar Ridge Elementary School, and west of Cedar Ridge Estates. Parcel 1 is vacant land owned by Harry Rogers and is presently used for agricultural purposes. Parcel 2 is approximately 0.5 acres including the Co. Rd. 1 right-of-way, and is owned by Stanley Dressen. Parcel 2 includes a one story house and a one car detached garage. The applicant for this proposal is Westar Properties. Upon approval of the preliminary plat by the Eden Prairie City Council, the project will be developed by U. S. Homes. Development Method Upon approval of the preliminary plat, final construction plans and final plat will be prepared for approval by the City of Eden Prairie and other government agencies, for construction under private contract in the Fall of 1990. Existing Utilities City sanitary sewer and water are available from Cedar Ridge Estates to the east. A 1r watermain at the southeast corner of the site is proposed to be looped through the site as part of the City's trunk watermain system. Storm water presently flows west onto the Lassen property and into an existing wetland. The proposed storm sewer system will continue this drainage pattern to the west to the wetland via underground storm sewer pipes. City Approvals Approvals necessary for the project to proceed are: 1. Rezoning of approximately 23.37 ac. from rural to R1-13.5. 2. Preliminary plat approval for 54 single family lots. 3. Approval by the Board of Appeals for the existing house setback variance from Co. Rd. 1. 4. Granting a grading permit at 1st reading of the preliminary plat by the City Council. 5. Schedule: Planning Commission July 23,1990 Park & Recreation August 6, 1990 Board of Appeals August 9, 1990 City Council 1st Reading August 21,1990 Grading start Sept. 6,1990 Utility and street start October 4, 1990 PLAN PROPOSAL Land Use/Zoning/Guide Plan/Southwest Study Area The existing zoning of this project is not designated. This preliminary plat will request rezoning to R1-13.5. The City Guide Plan illustrates that this parcel as designated as low density residential. Therefore, an amendment to the guide plan will not be necessary. This proposal is in compliance with the Southwest Study Area phasing plan and the total number of allowable lots. 2. --' preliminary Plat/Development Data Total site area (including Co. Rd. 1) Additional 17 foot Co. Rd. 1 right-of-way Total Co. Rd. 1 right-of-way Net development area Proposed street right-of-way area Total lot area Total lots Average lot area Gross unit density Eliatinp House on Parcel Z 23.37 acres 0.41 acres 1.20 acres 22.17 acres 3.76 acres 18.41 acres 54 lots 14,847 sq. ft. 2.31 units/acre An existing house is located on Co. Rd. 1 and presently has access to Co. Rd. 1. The Applicant requests that the present access be maintained for use by this house. At the time of this writing, a verbal agreement has been made between Westar Properties and the owner of Parcel 2, to join into the final plat. A written agreement will be established by July 1, 1990. This joining into on the final plat will accommodate the replatting of Parcel 2. School Road Access For several weeks on-going discussions have been held with the School District and the Developer. The focus of this discussion has been on the existing school access road. Presently the Cedar Ridge Elementary School is a "flag lot" with a 40 foot strip of land connecting the school property to Co. Rd. 1 for driveway purposes. This is the same location of the future City north/south collector road. The present driveway has been constructed at minimal cost to function as the school's entrance driveway. The exception to this is the school road at Co. Rd. 1 which has a heavier bituminous section. The primary discussion with the School District has focused around the use of, and access to, the school's existing private drive by this project. Additional discussion has focused on the dedication of land for right-of-way and construction timing of the City's north/south collector road. The number of access points from this development to the existing school road is of concern to the school because the potential volume of traffic that all three streets may cause damage to the existing drive surface. Possible resolution of this concern has been discussed with the school district by temporarily restricting access to the southern road of the proposed project. This restriction would last until construction of the City's collector road as the school strip is dedicated as public right-of-way. Another point of concern of all parties is the issue of liability and the need to hold each party harmless. This issue of liability will be addressed by the Developer and the School District. The proposed alignment of the future collector road right-of-way centerline is on the west line of the 40 foot school "flag lot" as shown on the preliminary grading plan. The 60 foot collector road will therefore require 30 feel from the school and 30 feel from the Lassen property to the west. This will leave a 10 foot strip of land between the 60 foot right-of-way and this project. The proposal has been discussed to sell the remaining 10 foot strip to this Developer with a temporary easement, and dedicate the school's westerly 30 feet as right-of-way. Additionally, the petition for public improvements will be tendered for construction of the collector road. The additional westerly 30 feel of right-of-way will be obtained by the City from the School District before construction will begin. This proposal has the prospect of having the highest degree of success, in that the right-of-way must be obtained in this area and this would be the logical time to secure it. Both the School District and the Developer conceptually feel that this solution has merit in resolving the liability issue, and as a final solution. Presently a written agreement between the School District and the Developer has not been completed, but is expected by the first week of July, 1990 . 3. litv Install This project will be graded as one phase upon the approval of the City Council at 1st reading. After additional approvals of the construction plans and the developers agreement, the utilities and streets will be installed under private contract in fall 1990. Storm water from the site presently flows west to an existing wetland on the Lassen property. Design alternatives were reviewed and discussed with the City Engineering staff, this Developer, Lassen, and Lassen's engineer. The two alternatives were to pipe the storm water into the existing wetland on Lassen's property, or to pipe the storm water north directly to the downstream ponds. After further discussion relating to construction timing of the City collector road, we are proposing the first alternative which pipes the storm water into the Lassen pond. The outlet from the Lassen pond will be constructed as part of the City collector road project. Variance Request The existing house on Parcel 2 will require a front yard setback variance to Co. Rd. 1, because of the required dedication of an additional 17 feet for right-of-way purposes. If the additional right-of-way were not required, the variance would not be necessary. Summary/Conclusion This project Is a 54 lot subdivision adjacent to the south side of Cedar Ridge Elementary School proposed by Wester Properties in conjunction with U. S. Homes. All lots meet the proposed R1-13.5 zoning requirements, although the existing house will require a variance to the Co. Rd. 1 setback. All approvals and construction of the grading, streets, and utilities must take place before the end of the fall 1990 construction season to fulfill the housing needs of U. S. Homes through the winter of 1990-1991 in this area. This project does comply with the guidelines established in the Southwest Study Report as adopted by the City of Eden Prairie. Although written agreements have not been made at this writing with the School District and with the home owner of Parcel 2, verbal discussions and agreements are underway and will be written by the first week in July for staff review. 4. N9'7 AUGUST 21.1990 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY 61770 MINNEGASCO 61771 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 61772 PETTY CASH 81773 AT&T 61774 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV 61775 FEIST BLANCHARD CO 61783 THE FLYERS 61784 MN SHAKESPEARE COMPANY .785 CHERYL SAWYER 61786 MN ALLIANCE FOR HEALTH CARE 61787 DEBORAH BOWERS 61788 CAROL CARS 61789 MRS KEN FRIDERES 61790 JAN GRAVES 61791 JULIE LUSE 61792 UJUISE MITCHELL 61793 MARK NELSON 61794 DONNA PERRY 61795 ANNE PITZER 61796 MEL SCHNACKENBERG 61797 CINDY SCHOLLE 61798 DARLENE SEPPMAN 61799 LAURA STRAUTH 61800 DEBBIE WAGNER 61801 PETTY CASH 61802 MCDONALD'S 61803 CONNIE ANDERSON 61804 CAROL BRAUNSWORTH 61805 ELIZABETH BURGETT 1 806 DIANE EIDSMO .1807 HEIDI GLOVER PAYROLL 7/27/90 PAYROLL 7/27/90 -MAY/JUNE/JULY & AUGUST '90 COPIER INSTALLMENT PAYMENT-POLICE DEPT SERVICE TITLE TRANSFER & FEES ON FORFEITED VEHICLE EXPENSES-CITY HALL SERVICE SERVICE -BRAKE DISC PADS/WHEEL NUTS/SCREWS/CABLE -TIES/FLASHER RECEPTACLES/LAMPS/BRAKE -sHOEs/V-RELTS/RFARTNGS/OTL SEALS/FRICTION -PADS/WHEEL CYLINDERS/CLUTCH ASSEMBLY/ -BUSHiNG/FISRHOLDER KTT/CoNNECTORS/PLUGS/ HOSE FITTNGs/HOSE-RUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SERWR SERVICE AUGUST '90 RENT-LIQUOR STORE SERVICE CONFERENCE-SEWER DEFT FOOTBALL CLINIC COACH/FEES PAID -DEPOSIT-ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LAKE -CONCERT SERIES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION -ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LAKE CONCERT SERIES- HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION -ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LAKE CONCERT SERIES- HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION -ENTERTAINMENT-STARING LAKE CONCERT SERIES- HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION CONSU SERVICE-SENIOR PROGRAMS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS/CANOEING LESSONS REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS REFUND-GOLF LESSONS -REFUND-MN AMISH COUNTRY TRIP-ADULT PROGRAMS REFUND-GOLF LESSONS -REFUND-MN AMISH COUNTRY TRIP-ADULT PROGRAMS REFUND-SUMMER ACTIVITY CAMP REFUND-TEAM TENNIS TRAINING REFUND-GOLF LESSONS REFUND-SUMMER SPORTS CAMP REFUND-GOLF LESSONS -REFUND-MN AMISH COUNTRY TRIP-ADULT PROGRAMS REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS REFUND-SKATING LESSONS EXPENSES-CITY HALL OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PROGRAM/FEES PAID REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS CLASS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS REFUND-SKATING LESSONS REFUND-CANOEING LESSONS 63831.74 13510.49 1245.00 2174.87 30.50 54.28 424.13 30.25 1226.95 18.68 29292.90 5020.42 1591.16 23.20 200.00 50.00 200.00 350.00 125.00 25.00 20.00 22.00 22.50 23.50 15.00 23.50 10.00 8.00 15.00 45.00 30.00 23.50 19.00 44.00 47.53 54.70 21.00 20.00 44.00 41.00 10.00 61767 4,766 ( 789 61778 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO 61777 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY 61778 SUPPLER'S 7 Hi ENTER INC 81779 u s WEST COMMuNTCATTONS 61780 HOLIDAY INN - ST croUD 61781 LEE M SMITH 61782 MICHAEL J ANDERSON 11998180 REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS 21.00 REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 27.00 REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 21.00 REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 JULY '90 EXPENSES-FINANCE DEPT 200.00 SCHOOL-ENGINEERING DEPT 136.40 SERVICE-HOMEWARD HILLS PARK 246.45 BALLOONS/GAMES/TOYS-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 127.80 SERVICE 3121.48 SERVICE-PACKET DELIVERY 82.00 GRAVEL-SEWER DEPT/STREET MAINT/PARK MAINT 1019.08 REFUND-OUTDOOR CENTER BUILDING RENTAL 45.00 -SERVICE-SOUND SYSTEM-STARING LAKE CONCERT 240.00 SERIES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION POSTAGE-ELECTIONS 25.00 MIX 168.51 BEER 4073.75 BEER 7840.85 BEER 21893.40 MIX 34.56 BEER 189.60 BEER 18423.28 MIX 781.31 MIX 440.52 BEER 29268.30 WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 3736.44 REGULATOR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 26.97 VIDEO CASSETTES-SEWER DEPT/WATER DEPT 698.50 -2ND QUARTER '90 PLANT INSTRUMENTATION 3869.83 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT/CHARTS-WATER DEFT SUBSCRIPTION-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 38.00 JUNE '90 SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 1781.25 -OIL/SHORTBLOCK & SPARK PLUG FOR LAWN 428.52 -MOWER/WATER PUMP REPAIR-WATER DEFT/ EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FILING FEES & DEED TAX-PARK MAINTENANCE 34.30 EXPENSES-K9 TRIALS-POLICE DEPT 125.00 EXPENSES-K9 TRIALS-POLICE DEPT 104.45 ' POSTAGE FOR POSTAGE METER-CITY HALL 5000.00 POSTAGE-ELECTIONS 20.00 ' EXPENSES-OUTDOOR ADVENTURE 48.16 ' -ON GOLDEN POND TRIP-SENIOR PROGRAMS/FEES 116.35 ' PAID CONFERENCE-ANIMAL CONTROL CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT CONFERENCE-POLICE DEPT JUNIOR TEAM TENNIS LEAGUE REGISTRATION FEE MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION -BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE TRIP GUIDE-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS/FEES PAID 0.00 .! 40.00 ! 95.00 . 150.00 150.00 185.50 540.00 , AUGUST 21.1990 61808 LINDA JACOBSON 4 1809 MARY KELLY 810 TERESE MCCABE 61811 ELIZABETH MORAN 61812 DEBRA ROMASHKO 61813 LISA ROLLIN 61814 MARY SHERWOOD 61815 KELLY STROM 61816 JOHN FRAME 61817 JEFFREY JOHNSON 61818 ROOT-O-MATIC 61819 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC 61820 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS 61821 DANA GIBBS 61822 J L SHIELY COMPANY 81823 DENNIS DAVEY 61824 JOEL WESTACOTT 61825 U S POSTMASTER 61826 ALL AMERICAN BOTTLING CORP 61827 BEER WHOLESALERS INC 61828 DAY DISTRIBUTING CO 61829 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO 61830 HOME JUICE PRODUCTS 61831 KIRSCH DISTRIBUTING CO 61832 MARK VII DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 61833 MINTEST COCA COLA BOTTLING CO '1834 PEPSI COLA COMPANY 1835 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 61836 BIFFS INC 61837 FLAHERTY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION 61838 GREATER LOS ANGELES CHAPER 61839 HONEYWELL INC 61843 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 61844 JIM DEMANN 61845 JIM LINDGREN 61846 HOPKINS POSTMASTER 61847 U S POSTMASTER 61848 MCDONALD'S 61849 VINCENT EVENTS 61850 VOID OUT CHECK 61851 MN ANIMAL CONTROL ASSN 61852 ST PAUL POLICE DEPARTMENT 81853 SUBURBAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSN 61854 USTA INC 61855 MN DEPT OF P/S 1856 JIM STUKEL 61840 INTL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFIC 61841 MINNESOTA MEDICAL FOUNDATION 61842 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 10570556 AUGUST 21.1990 61857 LYBEN COMPUTER SYSTEMS 81858 STATE OF MINNESOTA .859 ASTECH CORP 61860 LANDWEHR HEAVY MOVING 61861 NODLAND CONSTRUCTION CO 61862 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER 61863 AAA TREE & YARD WASTE RECYCLING 61864 AARP 55 ALIVE MATURE DRIVING 61865 ACRO-MN 81866 ACTION RADIO & COMMUNICATIONS 61867 AIRLIFT COORS INC 61868 AIRSIGNAL INC 61869 ALAN SIGNS 61870 ALEXANDER BATTERY NORTH 61871 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO 61872 AMERI-STAR LIGHTING 61873 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC 61874 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO 1875 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC 61878 ARNIE AMRHEIN 61877 ANSAFONE OF MN INC 61676 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC 61879 DON ANDERSON 61880 AQUA ENGINEERING INC 61881 ARMOR SECURITY INC 61882 ARTISANS INC 61883 ASTLEFORD INTL INC 61884 AWARDS INC 61885 B & S TOOLS 61886 BACONS ELECTRIC CO 61887 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC 61888 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC 61889 MYLES BENDER 4T 1890 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 55790960 COMPUTER & PRINTER COVERS-PLANNING DEPT 116.70 -RING BINDERS FOR CODE BOOKS-BUILDING 59.40 DEPT SERVICE-1990 BITUMINOUS SEAL COATING 159602.50 -SERVICE -SUMMIT/MEADOWVALE/RED OAK DRIVES 100560.94 NEIGHBORHOOD -SERVICE-CEDAR RIDGE STORM SEWER/COUNTRY 274583.97 -GLEN UTILITY & STREET IMPROVEMENTS/ -HWY 5 SOUTH FRONTAGE RD/MITCHELL RD & SANDY POINTE ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS BRUSH CUTTER RENTAL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 28.62 TREE REMOVAL-FORESTRY DEPT 2370.00 DEFENSIVE DRIVING INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 126.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL & POLICE DEPT 2856.51 ANTENNAS/COUPLERS-POLICE DEPT 895.00 -REPLACED BOTTOM & INTERMEDIATE DOOR 834.20 SECTION -PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING -AUGUST 90 PAGER SERVICE-BLDG INSP/POLICE 482.00 DEPT/FIRE DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER SIGNS-PARK MAINTENANCE 70.00 PAGER BATTERIES-FIRE DEPT 205.20 CAMCORDER RENTAL/VIDEO TAPES-POLICE DEPT 251.75 LAMPS-TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE 786.00 SERVICE-MITCHELL ROAD EXTENSION 1706.90 -UNIFORMS-BLDG INSP/FACILITIES/SEWER DEPT/ 1770.57 -WATER DEPT/STREET DEFT/EQUIPMENT MAINT/ -PARK MAINT/COMMUNITY CENTER/ANIMAL -CONTROL/POLICE DEFT/MOP HEADS & TOWELS- LIQUOR STORE BOOKS-WATER DEPT PROTECTIVE EAR PLUGS-SAFETY DEFT CITY HALL PHONE SYSTEM REPAIRS-FACILITIES -STREET SIGNS/ADAPTER/WEDGE-STREET DEPT/ -SWING SEAT/5 WASTE RECEPTACLES & LINERS - $2447.44 -PARK MAINTENANCE HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 23.00 -REPLACED BROKEN SPRINKLER HEAD/LINE LEAK -REPAIR/SPRINKLER HEADS/PVC CEMENT/PVC PIPE-FACILITIES DEFT/PARK MAINTENANCE DOOR LOCK REPAIR-POLICE BUILDING 116.00 T-SHIRTS-DAY CAMP/YOUTH TENNIS 940.41 -TUBES/RODS/LEVERS/BUSHINGS/BRACKETS/WATER 1166.17 -PUMP/FILTER/POWER STEERING PUMP/AIR SEATS- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE KEY AWARDS-CITY COUNCIL 380.34 -WIRE WHEELS/PULLER/HOOK & SCRAPER SETS/ 290.95 -CUTTER/WIRE BRUSHES/VISE GRIPS/VACUUM -PUMP/DRILL CHUCK/PLIERS/PUTTY KNIFE-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE HIGH SERVICE PUMP REPAIR-WATER DEPT -BEARINGS/BATTERIES/SIGNAL LENSES/MUFFLER CLAMPS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE EDGER BLADES-COMMUNITY CENTER EXPENSES-NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PAM SERVICE-CITY HALL 75.25 1 55.93 81.00 3052.45 1 270.64 2959.33 1 552.51 36.00 9.36 594.00 I AUGUST 21.1990 61891 RRUCE RETTENDORF 61892 BET MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS 61693 JAMES R RTTTNER 1894 BUCKS PHOTOGRAPHY SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 372.00 SERVICE-ANIMAL CONTROL 39.00 SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 31.00 -FILM/FILM PROCESSING-SEWER & WATER DEPT/ 416.54 -ENGINEERING DEPT/FIRE DEPT/EQUIPMENT -MA TNT/OUTDOOR CENTER/FORESTRY DEPT/ MANNING DEPT CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 269.38 MINUTES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 43.73 FENDERS/SWITCH/BUTTONS-EQUIPMENT MNTCE 171.86 GEARS/SEALS/BEARINGS-WATER DEPT 692.68 CONSULTING SERVICES-PARK MAINTENANCE 573.50 MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEFT 127.25 MVERALLS/TOWELS -EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 157.53 SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 310.00 SOFTBALL & VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 882.00 JULY 90 WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE 1682.04 SEPTEMBER 90 COPIER RENTAL-FIRE DEPT 182.75 CUSHION-PARK MAINTENANCE 54.70 SERVICE-BEAVER DAM REMOVAL-ENGINEERING 100.00 COMPUTER SOFTWARE-ENGINEERING DEPT 133.29 -AIR CONDITIONING REPAIR-POLICE BUILDING/ 367.22 FIRE STATION -KNIVE SET/BOLTS/NUTS/RIDING LAWN MOWER 854.21 REPAIRS-WATER DEPT STREET SWEEPING-STREET MAINTENANCE 1289.66 FITTINGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 41.94 RETAINER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 83.22 BLACKTOP-STREET MNTC/STARING LAKE PARK 3182.20 COMPUTER PAPER-COMMUNITY CENTER 101.50 RADIO REPAIR-WATER DEPT 60.00 -DATER STAMP-PLANNING DEPT/NOTARY STAMP- 71.05 FINANCE DEPT -MASTER CYLINDER/LINING ASSEMBLY/WHEEL 152.15 CYMNDERS/HOSES -EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 4956.14 -CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/FACILITIES 854.36 DEPT/PARK MAINTENANCE MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE 11.50 AUGUST 90 SERVICE-CITY HALL 49.50 CABLE TIES/HAMMER/STEP STOOL-EQUIP MNTC 160.34 DRIVERS GLOVES-WATER DEPT 162.71 CHLORINE-WATER DEFT 4618.00 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 47.65 EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 145.27 -EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER/ 199.70 NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM OIL-DUST CONTROL 4958.00 FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT 163.55 TONER-CITY HALL 97.00 -JULY & AUGUST 90 PEST CONTROL-FIRE 256.00 STATIONS POP REIMBURSEMENT-CITY COUNCIL 19.20 , WASTE DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT 385.00 -SAFETY GOGGLES/BOOTS-SAFETY DEVTI 41.93 COMMUNITY CENTER 81895 BLEVINS CONCESSION SUPPLY COMPANY 61896 LOIS BOETTCHER 61897 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC 61898 J R BRAAS CO 61899 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING INC 61900 ANTONY BROUGH 61901 BRO-TEX INC 81902 WESTON BYRON 61903 NATHAN BUCK 61904 BUCKINGHAM DISPOSAL INC 61905 BUSINESS CREDIT LEASING INC 61906 CARLSONS LAKE STATE EQUIP CO 61907 DICK CARPENTER 81908 CEDAR COMPUTER CENTER INC 61909 CENTRAIRE INC 61910 CHANHASSEN LAIC & SPORTS 61911 CLEAN SWEEP INC 61912 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC 61913 CLIMB & U-JOINT BURNSVILLE INC '1914 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO J915 COMPUTERWARE DATA PRODUCTS INC 61918 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC 61917 CROWN MARKING INC 81918 (MSHMAN MOTOR CO INC 61919 CUTLER MAGNER COMPANY 61920 DALCO 61921 MITCHELL J DEAN 61922 DECORATIVE DESIGNS 61923 DELEGARD TOOL CO 81924 DIRECT SAFETY CO 61925 DPC INDUSTRIES INC 61926 DRTSKILLS SUPER VALU 81927 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU 61928 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU 61929 DUSTCOATING INC 81930 E P PHOTO 61931 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY 61932 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATION DIVISION 61933 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT 81934 JOHN H EKLUND 1335 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC 2958625 1 C, 61938 ENT INCORPORATED 61937 TIM ERNHART 61938 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC 61939 FEDERAL EXPRESS CoRP 81940 FIDELITY 81941 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES 61942 FOCUS 61943 FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO 61944 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY 61945 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY 61946 umi FREY 81947 JACKIE FRIENDSHUH 61948 G & K SERVICES 61949 CHARLES A GOBLE 61950 JOSEPH GTEAsON 61951 GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC 61952 GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE & SERVIC 61953 W W GRAINGER INC 61954 GUNNAR ELECTRIC Co INC a1955 HALE COMPANY INC 61956 ROBERT HANNON 61957 MANUS BUS CO INC 61958 HAYDEN MURPHY EQUIPMENT CO , '1959 HEALTH CONSULTANTS FOR CHILD CARE 1960 HENNEPIN ODUNTY TREASURER 61981 HENNEPIN MINTY TREASURER 81962 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE 61963 DC HEY 61964 HOFFERS INC 81965 HOPKINS PARTS CO 81966 ICMA 81987 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST 272 61988 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC 61969 INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORP 81970 INSTY-PRINTS 81971 INTL CONE OR BLDG OFFICIALS 61972 GARY ISAACS 61973 MICHAEL W JACQUES 61974 JERRY'S NEWMARKET 61975 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC 81976 JUSTUS TOMER CO 61977 CANNER BROTHERS INC 2818710 CHEMICAL FEEDER PROPELLER-WATER DEPT CONFERENCE EXPENSES-WATER DEPT POSTAGE-CITY HALL POSTAGE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL -PAPER/KNIFE/CLIPBOARDS/CALCULATOR/ ADAPTER/GARBAGE BAGS-WATER DEPT TIE WRAPS-PARK MAINTENANCE FILM/PRINTS-ASSESSING DEPT & FACILITIES -SEPTEMBER 90 COPIER INSTALLMENT PAYMENT- POLICE DEPT SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE 1989 AUDIT SERVICE PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD EXPENSES-AFTERNOON ADVENTURE PROGRAM -COVERALLS/MOP HEADS-WATER DEFT/TOWELS- PARK MAINTENANCE/LIQUOR STORE EMERGENCY TECHNICIAN RAGS-FIRE DEPT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD JULY 90 SERVICE-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT TIRES/PUBES-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE -THERMOSTAT GUARDS/TAPE/BATTERIES- FACILITIES DEPT -LIFT STATION UNDERGROUND SERVICE REPAIR- -SEWER DEPT/INSTALL UNDERGROUND POWER To RADIO HOUSE-POLICE DEPT FUEL PUMP REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD -Bus SERVICE-SPECIAL TRIPS & EVENTS AIR SKATELAFTD/BEAVER MOUNTAIN/VALLEY FAIR PNEUMATIC HAMMER REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MNTC BOOKS-CHILD CENTER CARE FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT JUNE 90 BOARD OF PRISONERS SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT COPIER REPAIR-FACILITIES DEPT FIELD MARKING PAINT-PARK MAINTENANCE -REARING/EXHAUST PIPE/MUFFLER/TAIL PIPE/ -CLAMP/SPRINGS/ROTOR ASSEMBLY/FUEL LINE- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BOOK-ADMINISTRATION -BUS SERVICE-AFTERNOON ADVENTURE PROGRAM/ TEEN WORK PROGRAM FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT -REPAIRS OF CONFINED SPACE GAS MONITOR- SEWER DEFT PRINTING FORMS-POLICE DEPT DUES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT -SOFTBALL/VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL & COORDINATOR/FEES PAID MILEAGE-LIQUOR STORE EXPENSES-FIRE DEFT OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT TREATED TIMBERS-WATER DEPT BLACK DIRT-SEWER DEPT 127.21 52.18 13.io 66.00 230.04 100.00 21.55 300.00 243.99 11000.00 60.00 61.83 512.01 330.00 372.00 1923.00 3940.30 75.62 958.62 102.00 361.00 695.00 186.42 45.00 180.00 2693.50 108.00 98.80 266.25 383.23 19.30 220.62 409.62 655.95 51.00 150.00 748.50 13.75 115.60 55.07 8.04 15.00 AUGUST 21.1990 61978 KAMAN BEARING & SUPPLY CORP 61979 DAN N KANTAR 4 9/10 GORDON A KLEHN 381 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC 61982 FRED KOPPELMAN 61983 KRAEMER'S HOME CENTER WORM GEAR/PINION SHAFT-WATER DEPT 227.31 DRILL-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 138.95 SERVICE -HAYRIDE-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 100.00 BASES-PARK MAINTENANCE 327.90 SERVICE-COMMUNITY BAND DIRECTOR 30.00 -CLEANING SUPPLIES/HOOKS/SNIPS/TOOLBOX/ 754.40 -MASKING TAPE/BATIERIES/FRAME/PAINT/RAKES/ -SPONGESARUSHES/STEEL WOOL/TRASH BAGS/ -NOZZLES/BRASS EXTENSIONS/HOSE FITTINGS/ -HOSE/TARP/RUST REMOVER-WATER DEPT/SEWER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE RADAR REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 33.03 GTOVES -WATER DEPT 188.58 LICENSE-WATER DEPT 15.00 WHEELER-PARK MAINTENANCE 24.00 MILEAGE-FIRE DEPT 50.25 ASPHALT PICK-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 195.00 DRILL BITS-COMMUNITY CENTER 55.10 2ND QTR 90 WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 50906.25 COVERALLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 88.16 -REPAIR & REFINISH PICKUP/DUMP TRUCK/ 2024.90 SEDAN-WATER DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE REPLACE LAMP IN SOFTBALL FIELD-PARK MNTC 87.50 EXPENSES-POLICE DEFT & FIRE DEPT 25.87 FILM/FILM PROCESSING-HUMAN RESOURCES 17.06 T-SHIRTS-SPECIAL EVENTS 63.10 JUNE 90 SERVICE 6432.70 SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 246.00 -EXPLOSIVES/BLASTING CAPS/SIGNS- 187.25 ENGINEERING DEPT EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 24.62 -REPLACED BALLAST IN LIGHT FIXTURE-LIQUOR 63.90 STORE TYPESETTING-ASSESSING DEPT 10.00 GAS/GAS TANK-PARK MAINTENANCE 319.80 -BROOM SWEEPER-$61986.00 -STREET DEPT/ 62099.18 CARTS-PARK MAINTENANCE VAN RENTAL/EXPENSES -OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAM 166.38 -SEPTEMBER 90 COMPUTER MAINTENANCE 1295.00 AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT 1ST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 395.04 TOWING SERVICE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 56.00 -TYPESETTING FLYERS-SENIOR PROGRAMS/ 334.90 HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION -CEMENT/GRAVEL/CULVERT-WATER DEPT/SEWER 304.60 DEPT/STREET MAINTENANCE EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT/SPECIAL EVENTS 84.74 -EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL/CITY HALL/POLICE 205.51 DEPT/SENIOR PROGRAMS -EXPENSES-CITY COUNCIL/CITY HALL/SENIOR 323.00 PROGRAMS OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 89.45 WENCH/KEYS/BIT-COMMUNITY CENTER 32.16 -BUSINESS CARDS-CITY HALL/ENGINEERING 800.00 -DEPT/ASSESSING DEPT/PRINTING FORMS- POLICE DEPT/FORESTRY DEPT 61984 KUSTOM ELECTRONICS INC 81985 TAB SAFETY SUPPLY 81986 DALE LACHERMEIER 61987 LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS CENTER 61988 CINDY TANENBERG 61989 LANO EQUIPMENT INC 61990 TAWSON PRODUCTS INC 61991 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 61992 LEEF BROS INC 61993 LESMANN ENTERPRISES INC 61994 TJGHTING SPECIALTIES INC 61995 LIL RED E P GROCERY 61996 LINHOFF CORPORATE COLOR 61997 THE LOFT 61998 LOGIS 61999 DYLAN LOHONEN '000 DOLE EXPLOSIVES INC 62001 LUNDS 62002 LUSIAN ELECTRIC 62003 M-K GRAPHICS 62004 M-V GAS CO 62005 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC 62006 RODERICK MACRAE 62007 MASYS CORPORATION 62008 MATRX MEDICAL INC 62009 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC 62010 MBA DESKTOP PUBLISHING PLUS 62011 MCFARLANES INC 62012 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC 62013 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC 62014 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC 62015 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO 62016 MERLINS HARDWARE HANK (9017 METRO PRINTING INC 12882259 82018 METRO SALES INC 62019 METRO SYSTEMS FURNITURE 62020 MID-CO SECURITY SYTEMS INC f, '1021 MIDLAND EQUIPMENT CO 62022 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP 62023 MINNCOMM PAGING 62024 MINNESOTA BLUEPRINT 62025 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY 62026 MN ICE ARENA MANAGERS ASSN 62027 MMBA 62028 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS 62029 MINNESOTA WANNER CO 62030 MISCO INC 62031 R g MOONEY & ASSOC INC 62032 MOORE MEDICAL CORP 62033 MOORE SIGN & LETTERHOUSE INC 62034 MN TRUCKING ASSN 62035 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO 62036 NM MUELLER & SONS INC 62037 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE IN 62038 NORTH STAR TURF INC 62039 NORTHLAND BUSINESS COMM SYSTEMS 62040 NORTHWOOD GAS CO 62041 THE NOVEMBER GROUP 1042 DIANE O'BRIEN 62043 HERMAN MILLER INC 62044 OCHS BRICK & TILE CO 62045 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLECO 62046 BILL OLSON 62047 PAPER WAREHOUSE 62048 PARK NICOLLHT MEDICAL CENTER 62049 CONNIE PETERS 62050 PINKERTON 62051 PIONEER MIDWEST INC 62052 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC 62053 PRAIRIE HARDWARE 62054 PRAIRIE HARDWARE 62055 PRAIRIE HARDWARE -1160357 TONER-COMMUNITY CENTER 324.70 CHAIR-ASSESSING DEPT 314.00 -AUGUST 90 SECURITY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 329.17 AGREEMENT-POLICE DEPT -CONTRACTOR BODY FOR 1 TON TRUCK-STREET 5267.00 DEPT -BLACKTOP-STREET MNTC/STARING LAKE PARK/ 3079.66 SEWER DEPT AUGUST 90 PAGER SERVICE-STREET DEPT 35.51 COPY PAPER-ENGINEERING DEPT/PLANNING DEPT 998.66 -FIRE EXTINGUISHERS/0 -RINGS/EMBLEMS -FIRE 277.00 nEpT DUES-COMMUNITY CENTER 75.00 DUES-LIQUOR STORE 335.00 ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORE 1829.60 GLOVES-PARK MAINTENANCE 21.68 KEYBOARD SHELF-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 156.55 PAINT-WATER DEPT 106.62 1ST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 217.37 -PORTABLE SIGN & LETTERS RENTAL-HISTORICAL 50.00 & CULTURAL COMMISSION SAFETY MANUALS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 150.58 BEARING/SHAFT ASSEMBLY-EQUIPMENT MNTC 132.63 ROCK-PARK MAINTENANCE 58.38 EMPLOYMENT ADS-HUMAN RESOURCES DET 551.46 RUBBER GLOVES-PARK MAINTENANCE 7.07 -FAX MACHINE DOCUMENT STACKER REPAIR-CITY 13.50 HALL GAS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 13.95 SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 2960.00 -EXPENSES-OPEN HOUSE-HISTORICAL & 63.98 CULTURAL COMMISSION -WORK SURFACE/2 FILE CABINETS/WALL STRIP- 329.06 FACILITIES DEPT CEMENT-STREET MAINTENANCE 27.00 -HOOKS/CHAINS/CHAIN CONNECTING LINKS- 284.25 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE BLACK DIRT-STREET MAINTENANCE 59.50 PAPER CUPS/STICKER-SPORTS/SPECIAL CAMPS 13.45 STRESS TESTS-FIRE DEPT 1626.00 MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 21.25 MOTION DETECTOR-POLICE FORFEITURE -DRUGS 150.00 PARTS FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM-WATER DEPT 88.20 BASEBALL RECEPTACLE REPAIR-PARK MNTC 72.90 -DRILL BITS/GRINDING WHEEL/FILE/SAW/HOSE/ 57.54 HOSE NOZZLES/LOAF PANS-FIRE DEPT -ROPE/TAPE/BOLTS/PLIERS/SWITCH/WASHER/ 47.23 CONNECTIONS-COMMUNITY CENTER -GLOVES/UTILITY KNIFE/LIGHT BULBS/CHAIN/ 4E8.12 -PAINT/EXTENSION CORDS/FLOODLIGHT KIT/ -CHAIR/GLUE/PRUNING SHEAR/ROPE/WASHERS/ -TARP/KEYS/DRILL BITS/RUST REMOVER/HOSES/ -BATTERIES/NOZZLES/COUPLERS/PIPE/VALVES/ -TAPE/BULBS-PARK MAINTENANCE/OUTDOOR CTR/ FORESTRY DEPT -LOCK/CHAIN/ROPE/SCREWDRIVER/TOOL BOXES/ PAINT-POLICE DEPT -PAPER TOWELS/SCOTCH GUARD/SAW BLADE/ -BRUSHES/ROD/PAINT BRUSHES/RUST REMOVER/ -BOLTS/BITS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE -MIRROR/GLOVES/PAINT/KEYS/CLEANING -SUPPLIES/SCISSORS/PAINT CANS/BATTERIES/ -PAINT BRUSHES/DEGREASER/HANDLES/SPONGES/ TAPE/SQUEEGEE/RIM-WATER DEPT -PRINTING-COMMUNITY PROFILE BOOKLETS- -$494.50 -PLANNING DEPT/FLYER-HUMAN RESOURCES DEFT PICTURE FRAMING-POLICE DEPT MANUAL-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT TELEPHONE REPAIR-CITY HALL TELEPHONE REPAIR-FACILITIES DEPT HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD -PLASTER BOTTOM OF WADING POOL-COMMUNITY CENTER EXPENSES-OUTDOOR curn PROGRAM SOD-STREET MAINTENANCE SOLENOIDS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORE PLAQUES-MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION WEED MOWING SERVICE-FORESTRY DEFT RUBBER STAMPS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT -TOWELS/CARBURETOR CLEANER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/PARK MAINTENANCE VIDEO TAPES-WATER DEPT -OFFICE SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT/CITY HALL/ -ENGINEERING DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/ RECREATION ADMINSTRATION/COMMUNITY CENTER -CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT/ COMMUNITY CENTER LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT -IJIMP ASSEMBLY/SWITCHES/LEVER/CORE/ -TRAILER BALL/KNOB/LATCH/RESISTOR - EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SCOREBOARD REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER EXPENSES/CONFERENCE-ASSESSING DEPT MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEPT -OIL/GAS/DIESEL FUEL/BEARING/SEALS-FIRE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SCREWDRIVERS/PLIERS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE EMPLOYMENT ADS-FIRE DEPT ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORE MILEAGE-FORESTRY DEPT FOOTBALL JERSEYS-SPECIAL EVENT SERVICE-COMMUNITY BAND DIRECTOR EQ -STROBE LIGHT REPAIR/SIREN DRIVER- EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT EXPENSES-SEWER DEPT 548.95 116.68 380.50 517.10 41.70 50.00 107.50 190.00 233.00 550.00 89.23 13.75 82.97 120.36 342.45 140.00 30.00 317.75 180.00 354.87 401.15 R5.58 221.91 253.94 413.00 : 145.00 4078.50 115.00 15.96 286.11 155.25 860.00 910.00 152.43 46.00 22.9E' 62056 PRAIRIE HARDWARE 62057 PRAIRIE HARDWARE o2058 PRAIRIE HARDWARE 62059 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING 62060 PRAIRIE VIEW FRAMING CO 62061 PROBER CHIEF 82062 PSO BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS INC 62063 PSQ LEASING & MAINTENANCE 62064 GREG PTACIN 62065 QUALITY POOLS & SPAS 82066 RAINBOW FOODS 82067 RICHFIELD BLACKTOP INC 62088 ROGER'S SERVICE 62069 RON'S ICE CO 62070 ROEMER G ROBERTSON CO 62071 RUFF-CUT 62072 RYANS RUBBER STAMPS 62073 SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION 62074 SAFETY & TRAINING SERVICES '1 2075 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY 62076 SANCO INC 82077 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS DIVISION 620713 SHAKOPEE FORD INC 62079 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO 62080 STEVEN R SINELL 62081 AMANDA SJOQUIST 62082 W GORDON SMITH CO 62083 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP 620134 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC 62085 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC 62086 JOAN SPENCE 62087 SPORTS WORLD USA 62088 EMMETT STARK 62089 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE 62090 SWEDE BUILDER 62091 ANDY SULLIVAN 1256960 AUGUST 21.1990 62092 SUPPLEE ENTERPRISES INC 62093 SYSTEM CONTROL SERVICES -2094 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC 62095 VALERIE TRADER 82098 TRIDENT PROCESS INC 62097 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO 82098 U S CAVALRY 62099 US WEST CELLULAR 62100 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 62101 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 62102 UNITED LABORATORIES INC 82103 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC 82104 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC 62105 VESSCO INC 62106 VICOM INC 62107 VIKING LABORATORIES INC 82108 VOSS ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY 62109 CLARK WALKER 62110 WATER PRODUCTS CO ?111. PAUL WELIN .2112 SANDRA F NTRTS 82113 WEST WELD 62114 wimstilw PRINTING COMPANY 82115 MARIE WITTENBERG 62.116 PAUL WOELFFEL 62117 DONNA YOUNG 62118 YOUNGSTEDTS INC 82119 ZACK'S INC 62120 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 62121 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY 62122 ZIEGLER INC 62123 RIFFS INC 61248 VOID OUT CHECK 81455 VOID OUT CHECK 61534 VOID OUT CHECK 81553 VOID OUT CHECK 81573 VOID OUT CHECK 61633 VOID OUT CHECK 61685 VOID OUT CHECK 443616 LIGHT BULBS-LIQUOR STORE 39.42 WHEEL CONTROL PANEL REPAIR-WATER DEPT 124.83 -ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING TAPE & RIBBON/ 571.16 E0Am CORE-PARK FANNING DEPT AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 25.00 COUPLING HALVES/RUBBER INSERTS-WATER DEPT 40.60 OXYGEN/ACETYLENE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 46.50 NOMEX GLOVES-POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 546.95 2 PORTABLE TELEPHONES-POLICE DEFT 1670.00 UNIFORMS-FIRE DEPT 235.25 UNIFORMS-POLICE DEPT 958.95 CLEANING SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 162.58 STAND-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 35.50 GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 193.84 -PROPELLERS/SWITCHES/SEALS/RECTIFIERS/ 4749.32 -TIMING BELTS/PULLEYS/DOSS OF WEIGHT -RECORDER-$2400.00/HOPPER-$600.00-WATER DEPT -AUGUST '90 WIRE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT- 7.00 COMMUNITY CENTER WATER TEST KIT-POOL OPERATIONS 57.00 LIGHT BULBS-FACILITIES DEPT 259.80 SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 108.50 -TUBES/CEMENT/PVC PIPES & SEWER CAPS/BALL 1029.74 -VAIWES/GATE VALVES/AIR VALVES/RODS/19 -5 WHEEL REMOTE READERS-$304.00/RUBBER -GASKETS/GENERATORS/2 MEASURING CHAMBERS- 6180.0044ATER DEPT SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 232.50 MILEAGE-RECREATION SUPERVISOR 59.58 , DRIVE ROLLS/FEED ROLLS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 67.60 ENVELOPES-CITY HALL 472.77 EXPENSES-HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 10.20 REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 59.26 -CANOE TRIP GUIDE-OUTDOOR CENTER PROGRAMS- 175.00 FEES PAID TIRE TUBES/WHEEL ALIGNMENT-EQUIPMENT MAINT 60.60 RAKES/BROOMS/HANDLES-STREET MAINTENANCE 213.06 1ST AID SUPPLIES-OUTDOOR ADVENTURE PROGRAM 37.50 CHOKE & CARBURETOR CLEANER-EQUIPMENT MAINT 155.85 POWER CONTROL BOX REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINT 264.75 2236.48 WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 200.00- 3876.44- 26.97- 398.50- 3676.10-: 1682.50- 428.52- $1007604.23 DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS 10 GENERAL 11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 15 LIQUOR STORE-P V M 17 LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 21 POLICE DRUG FORFEVMMT 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 73 WATER FUND 77 SEWER FUND 81 TRUST & ESCROW FUND 86 PARK FROG-CONTRIBUTIONS 88 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATIVE $1007804.23 430229.50 68516.25 56504.15 39789.42 696.95 376851.81 29318.27 5540.31 4.42 10.70 342.45 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: August 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Borucki Addition - Preliminary Plat At the last City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to research minutes and staff reports for the Carmel subdivision and to talk to the original developer to determine if the Borucki site had ever been requested as two lots. The Carmel subdivision was reviewed by the City in late 1983 and early 1984. There is no reference in any of the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes or Council minutes regarding a second lot with access from Rowland Road. The preliminary plat approved by the City Council on January 3, 1984 based on plans dated 12/20/83 depicted the existing Borucki parcel as a 20,400 square foot lot. The developers agreement dated March 6, 1984 also refers to the same preliminary plat dated 12/20 with the Borucki lot as a 20,400 square foot parcel (See Attachment A). A final plat was approved by the City Council on March 27, 1984 (See Attachment B). Although the number of lots along Rowland Road remains the same, Fallbrook Road was shifted approximately 100' to the north to provide for better site vision distance along Rowland Road and to help reduce site grading. The relocation of the Fallbrook Road resulted in an increase in the size of Lot 5 to 27,000 square feet. We have also contacted Hans Hagen (developer of Carmel) to see if he could recall requesting an additional lot with direct access to Rowland Road. Mr. Hagen indicated that his files did not have a plan which proposed a second lot on Rowland Road but believed a second lot was asked for. He thought the planning staff probably indicated that a second access to Rowland Road would not be approved, because Rowland Road was a gravel road and site vision distance was poor. Based upon staff's initial input, the site plan was probably revised prior to review by the Planning Commission to eliminate the second lot. Mr. Chris Enger, Director of Planning, could not recall a specific site plan depicting a second lot on Rowland Road submitted for staff review. If such a request did occur, given the gravel road surface and the poor site vision distance, he probably would have recommended that the additional lot not be approved. To: Mayor and City Council August 17, 1990 Page Two The current request reviewed by the Planning Commission was a preliminary plat review. A PUD amendment was not requested. Staff did not believe additional PUD review was warranted given the size and impacts of the request. Staff did ask the Planning Commission to consider whether the request warranted PUD review. The Commission responded that PUD review was not necessary because of the size of the request and minimal impacts. The Planning Commission's concern was timing and that a second access to Rowland Road should not occur until the road is upgraded. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Following are alternatives for Council consideration: 1. The City Council could choose to adopt Resolution 90-200 for preliminary plat approval. 2. The Council could choose to deny the proposal request based on the following: A. The lot size is inconsistent with lots in the immediate area. B. The lot density taken by itself would be 3.2 u/a, ordinance allows only 2.5. C. Additional access to Rowland Road should be limited. D. The lot should be of a size and shape to allow replacement of the old house in the future to conform with front yard setbacks. E. Site distance to Rowland Road is unsafe. F. The proposal is inconsistent with the original PUD. G. The timing of the project is premature. WV4,- 3, tie 1 17__kI .ii• , I rl ) r-% I NE-At Ate.p1/4 (-; CotiN 7,1/ p4 _J DESCRIPTION OF CARMEL PUD at part of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of ztion 2, Township 116, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota. inq South of a line drawn from a point on the West line thereof, 3tant 230 feet South from the Northwest corner of said North- ;t quarter of Northeast quarter to a point on the East line said Northwest quarter of Northeast quarter, distant 840 feet ith from the Northeast corner thereof. Except that part des-bed beginning at a point in the ;.:,ast line of -;, .t quarter of Northeast quarter distant 984.10 feet South in Northwest corner thereof; thence Fast at right angles .97 feet; thence defle,,:fing to the right 84 degrees 51 minutes seconds a distance of 231.58 feet: thence Southwesterly along ine which if extended would intersect the West of North- t quarter 327.55 feet South of point of beginning to a point feet East measured at ri:iht aies from said west line: nce South parallel with said 1,:est line to the South line of thwest quarter of Northeast TJarter; thence West 33 feet; nce North to po44nt of bejinrinq. n 0-. • 5 i ...4"--• .91`.11 ,,„ c , - , ..- 1 ,e....., •e, --.. • / '. • ,.... k. /4, 4., I t, / "1 / V .t0‘;5/4r ‘1 ..„ -',.. -0.- %/ ,..2„,* %, 45-,,,,- ii?.?-le t. ........., .•, . : 1 c., ,.... .,..., \C',..... / , R codaiv, _..,,..,..;,.....,,,,,o,,,,,j 9,1,5!--- _... , 'e t, •• ... ...-n ....c, .. 1..p • . ...-", \ q ..a .. 1.° 7r i o, z - col \s"\-2-- -1 1 i ,oPS. • vr... f\) Z,'; , ....\ -.I "' \--- / 8)0'0 \ :" , 1 Ash, \ - II. /./ /0/ _I L I 14. /dr az —Ge'S2C — M„62,ci 02 N AA"?' a-art:441n3 - 4 CCnn •nnn ( / -0 , • .1-5.•,••, , / ct) klec/ /ine of $it/ d e0,1" 5'er 4 rt,/,: t% 6061 Drainage and Utility Easements are shown thus: f- Ne 7! -1 1 ;;;..17-1 1 Tr7.3-77 1 I I 1 i 1 I I / I I k \//' Ii. 1 10, .,,I 1 .,b,‘ , n i i,n -.1 1•,Y1 1 e Ne 1 Nei I I,. i i't 0 NI ict, Pe; I i f ci / I i 1/ 1 1 i •,:.%.. ,„ --' ' 1 — 11;c::::44:41::;c7ccifec'lliclicc*C77' .V r an , 1 ht. ,i; = _6-- - 'I 0,, , .,, 1 ,:::-.P4-------:: EXCEPTION SI°23' I2"E 630.86 — ' 10 EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 9, 1990 COMMISSION MEMBERS: STAFF MEMBERS: 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim Bauer, Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad. Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. ROLL CALL: Dodge, Hallett, and Ruebling absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Norman moved, seconded by Bye to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0-0. MEMBERS REPORTS MINUTES MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Bye to table the Minutes of the June 25, 1990 Planning Commission meeting to the July 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BORUCKI ADDITION, by Jim Borucki. Request for Preliminary Plat of 0.62 acres into 2 single family lots within the R1- 13.5 Zoning District. Location: 6517 Rowland Road. A public hearing. Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, presented the plans for a 2-lot plat. The existing garage would be removed and a new garage constructed. Cardarelle believed that an additional single-family home would buffer the Carmel project. Storm sewer and sanitary sewer would be connected. Turn- around driveways could be provided for each of the lots. Cardarelle believed that this proposal would be an improvement for the neighborhood. He added that proponent understood that Rowland Road needed to be upgraded prior to any development. WA Franzen reported that the proposal net all R1-13.5 zoning requirements. Franzen noted that the main question was when the development should take place. The site distance needed to be corrected and Staff recommended that no Final Platting occur until the final alignment for Rowland Road had been determined and sanitary sewer connections had been made. Staff further recommended that the plans be revised to reflect turnaround driveways for both homes prior to City Council approval. Bauer believed that turnaround driveways were essential unless the road design changed drastically. Cardarelle stated that the proponent was comfortable with the recommendation for the turnaround driveways and that the Final Plat not be issued until the completion of the feasibility study. Bauer then asked if there would be any drainage problems created for the homes on the other side of Rowland Road. Fanzen replied that little grading would be required for the building pad. Bye asked for clarification on when actual construction could begin related to the Final Plat approval. Franzen replied that the proponent would have to wait for Final Plat approval before construction could begin. Bye then asked if the Feasibility Study showed that problems would arise from this proposal would there be time to make corrections prior to City Council review. Franzen indicated that the rise in the road to the north would be lowered to improve sight distance. The feasibility study would not be completed before Council review. Bauer asked if the new road alignment would take a large portion of the proposed property. Franzen replied that the plat provides additional R.O.W. for Rowland Road Upgrading. MOTION 1: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 2: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Jim Borucki for Preliminary Plat of 0.62 acre into two single family lots within the R1-13.5 Zoning District, based on plans dated June 29, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 6, 1990 with the addition of turnarounds as per plans presented to the Planning Commission on July 9, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0. B. ST. ANDREW'S PARKING LOT EXPANSION, by St. Andrew Church. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 3.5 acres, with a variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review on 3.5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 12.4 acres into 2 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way for construction of additional parking spaces. Location: Northwest corner of Baker Road and St. Andrew Drive. A public hearing. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-200 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BORUCKI ADDITION FOR JIM BORUCKI BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of Borucki Addition for Jim Borucki, dated August 3, 1990, consisting of .62 acres into 2 single family 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 21st day of August, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 9, 1990 COMMISSION MEMBERS: STAFF MEMBERS: 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive Chairperson Christine Dodge, Tim Bauer, Julianne Bye, Robert Hallett, Karen Norman, Charles Ruebling, Doug Sandstad. Michael Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Planner; Deb Edlund, Recording Secretary. ROLL CALL: Dodge, Hallett, and Ruebling absent. I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Norman moved, seconded by Bye to approve the Agenda as published. Motion carried 4-0-0. MEMBERS REPORTS MINUTES IL MOTION: Bauer moved, seconded by Bye to table the Minutes of the June 25, 1990 Planning Commission meeting to the July 23, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0-0. IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS A. BORUCKI ADDITION, by Jim Borucki. Request for Preliminary Plat of 0.62 acres into 2 single family lots within the R1- 13.5 Zoning District. Location: 6517 Rowland Road. A public hearing. Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, presented the plans for a 2-lot plat. The existing garage would be removed and a new garage constructed. Cardarelle believed that an additional single-family home would buffer the Carmel project. Storm sewer and sanitary sewer would be connected. Turn- around driveways could be provided for each of the lots. Cardarelle believed that this proposal would be an improvement for the neighborhood. He added that proponent understood that Rowland Road needed to be upgraded prior to any development. Franzen reported that the proposal met all R1-13.5 zoning requirements. Franzen noted that the main question was when the development should take place. The site distance needed to be corrected and Staff recommended that no Final Platting occur until the final alignment for Rowland Road had been determined and sanitary sewer connections had been made. Staff further recommended that the plans be revised to reflect turnaround driveways for both homes prior to City Council approval. Bauer believed that turnaround driveways were essential unless the road design changed drastically. Cardarelle stated that the proponent was comfortable with the recommendation for the turnaround driveways and that the Final Plat not be issued until the completion of the feasibility study. Bauer then asked if there would be any drainage problems created for the homes on the other side of Rowland Road. Fanzen replied that little grading would be required for the building pad. Bye asked for clarification on when actual construction could begin related to the Final Plat approval. Franzen replied that the proponent would have to wait for Final Plat approval before construction could begin. Bye then asked if the Feasibility Study showed that problems would arise from this proposal would there be time to make corrections prior to City Council review. Franzen indicated that the rise in the road to the north would be lowered to improve sight distance. The feasibility study would not be completed before Council review. Bauer asked if the new road alignment would take a large portion of the proposed property. Franzen replied that the plat provides additional R.O.W. for Rowland Road Upgrading. MOTION 1: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4-0-0. MOTION 2: Bye moved, seconded by Bauer to recommend to the City Council approval of the request of Jim Borucki for Preliminary Plat of 0.62 acre into two single family lots within the R1-13.5 Zoning District, based on plans dated June 29, 1990, subject to the recommendations of the Staff Report dated July 6, 1990 with the addition of turnarounds as per plans presented to the Planning Commission on July 9, 1990. Motion carried 4-0-0. B. ST. ANDREW'S PARKING LOT EXPANSION, by St. Andrew Church. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Public on 3.5 acres, with a variance to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review on 3.5 acres, Preliminary Plat of 12.4 acres into 2 lots, one outlot and road right-of-way for construction of additional parking spaces. Location: Northwest corner of Baker Road and St. Andrew Drive. A public hearing. PROPOSED SITE 14Ski:Z\ '. '-Z . , 2 l if"( \. iliik....,„.s.,n\--,, AREA LOCATION MAP \ t.\\1\::::.=`=7=•' \ 1 4,JUJ t \ an 11-7- STAFF REPORT ZO: FROM: THRU: DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: The Planning Commission Michael D. Franzen, Senior Planner Chris Enger, Director of Planning July 6, 1990 Borucki Addition 6517 Rowland Road APPLICANT/ EELSIENIE: Jim Borucki REOUEST: Preliminary Plat of .62 acres into 2 lots BACKGROUND The Comprehensive Guide Plan designates this site as low density residential for up to 2.5 units per acre. The site is currently zoned R1-13.5. Surrounding properties are zoned R1-13.5 to the north, east, and south of the site with Bryant Lake Regional Park to the west of this site across Rowland Road. This site is part of the 1984 Carmel Planned Unit Development zoned R1-13.5 for 87 units on 58 acres of land. Approximately 15 acres of land was dedicated to the City. The net density based on approximately 43 acres is 2.0 units per acre. In 1987, the northern portion of the Carmel PUD was revised and one additional lot was added. PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat depicts the subdivision of .62 acres into 2 lots. Both lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 Zoning District. There is an existing house on proposed Lot 2 and an existing garage on proposed Lot 1. The garage on proposed Lot 1 would be removed concurrent with construction of a new house. On Lot 1, there is enough room, within setback requirements of the R1-13.5 Zoning District and the sanitary sewer easement to construct a house (first floor 2,200 square feet) and a 2 car garage. Attachment A indicates the size of the lots adjoining the property. A case could be made that the subdivision of the Borucki parcel into lots of 13,500 square feet each may not be an appropriate transition to the adjoining lots which average 20,000 square feet in area. On the other hand, adding one more lot to the overall PUD does not appreciably change the density. The approved PUD density on the net acreage is 2.01. That density increased to 2.03 units per acre with the Carmel PUD revision in 1987. The additional lot created by the Borucki Addition would increase the overall net density of Carmel to 2.06 units per acre. ACCESS Access to the 2 single family lots will occur off Rowland Road. Staff has checked the sight vision distance for access to both parcels and have determined a sight vision problem to the north along Rowland Road. Sight vision distance requirements are based upon a 30 mph design speed which would require a minimum of 350 feet of vision to the north and 250 feet of distance to the south. Since traffic tends to exceed the 30 mph limit, the threshold for sight vision distance decreases dramatically. A feasibility study is currently underway for the upgrading of Rowland Road. This upgrading shall include extension of sanitary sewer, curb and gutter, and improvement of the sight vision distance throughout the length of the roadway. Timing of the improvements has not been established. Since the R1-13.5 Zoning District requires connection to City sewer and water, no final platting shall be approved until that time when sanitary sewer will be available to the property with the upgrading of Rowland Road. This would be similar to the requirement for the Farber Addition subdivision to the south of this project. Although the improvements to Rowland Road will provide for the appropriate amount of sight vision distance based on the speed of 2 the roadway, there should be provisions for turnarounds on e a c h o f the proposed lots so that future home owners would not have t o b a c k into traffic on Rowland Road. UTILITIES Proposed Lot 2 is connected to City sewer from the C a r m e l subdivision. Water is provided by an existing water l i n e i n Rowland Road. City sewer terminates approximately 300 fee t t o t h e south of this site. GRADI 0 Since the site is relatively level adjacent to Rowland R o a d , a minimum amount of grading will be necessary in order to ac c o m m o d a t e the house as proposed. No significant trees will be lo s t d u e t o construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS I. If the Planning Commission feels that the timing o f t h i s proposal is not premature due to the upgrading of Rowla n d Road, and the extension of sanitary sewer to the propert y , then Staff would recommend approval based on plans dated J u n e 29, 1990 subject to the recommendations of the Staff Rep o r t dated July 6, 1990, and subject to the following condition s : A. Prior to City Council Review, proponent shall: 1. Modify the preliminary plat to include provisions for turnarounds on both lots. B. Prior to final plat approval the proponent shall: 1. Await the completion of the Rowland Road feasibility study and not proceed until such time as the letting of the improvements take place. 2. Submit detailed grading, drainage, utility, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer and the Watershed District. C. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: 1. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee II. If the Planning Commission feels that the timing o f t h i s proposal is premature due to the need for Rowland R o a d upgrading and the extension of sanitary sewer to the prop e r t y , then Staff would recommend denial of the project with o u t predjudice. 3 !CT., / 1 I ).1. I i .1 I 1 I !...k .5.1-17 r A ifes21 .... -1 n -- -4 -....,....1 . j5....7:"..., f . ,... .--;....< _ 7 I. _"%ao L 4P.C.r7 k "i,.----77":"..,7--11, 'riyak,----77-. "•",, "....... P .1.1".,,„..7.7".7 r i......... I-- ..,-,, ,, n - 1 -r..,,, -7 r- -- t ' "nn•• ,, II i I 1 ;-*:;-.....1 ;ti ""nn I 0 .,44 I l ..IV ft __11•• ff l' q% ILII Ni a I 1 ‘i l ..:' ... sk, / _ I. oi / \ ,, " . Ikl 14, - \ -1 ,,„....,,,„„ i • ,iii iZti of Ai 1 N/ /\ 15 ,nI ii --..--- --ss.... / N I -.....----2,2:.;;'....„ j"--"1---oo..,„,... it / . , / v - el . N -.Ai ......./..." / 4, i IL. '7..",,,,,4"J .4- / I t o. ,;;;---...------..:----1.. otr j,, / I ,r;..0 , 1 I .4 IN.\ • Z., 7 r- ...; .... -- - ..J in ....1.4,00 M' I it k :‘, i •,.....,--......., s• I i ) •C f -.3,07..N. --- 4 4 1415).iY/ • , , N......,. I.- • ,,.....r,14, ,-1.1001 I 1 0// I'll s ,S/ /0 c lf aii....0 -.._-z146:,/, / 4-8 ., , i it 9 sN v Azr oti 2 4........4q0 / I /6 ... . ! 0 7-1:40---7n- -":;;;` .• / • I a*/ ..-- ail," It 25 °"5 F .--'-''''`nn *2 E., , , , . 1 03 7.,e,,,-; — , ,- -:.../ , ..., s.1 -11 4-,.-.. : r" T • ',P Ni ..... ..._ Si --, • l‘i / 'o''.- ft" '''‘'..-gf.-:4 % '' l ‘,... 7 1 ., .... -. _. cT l'. VaCCO As/. 4. /k, 4 * 1 "-'1,4„, .• Hr_oa:".. ',0 .0 \ ;VI' 1-4 005 IN 1 It is ,.. d. 1°1 / / ••••• ... i$ I 4. 4,_,...r, k",'/Ad 2 if.,,/,/•-t:.... g ill? "04) L------4:2'..'Ic°4•-* 1 \iv/ .... 1 44, fa \ rt0 .S/ /(‘ 'as .3."L.v.` to ". --....1 45 6 40.ei.,---, --Z-5',' /1 14tw '‘, , \ n 1.‘ ^.. A. - <- r/t...1 i L----../, "'"•• ... A,,A,, ...-,- \ I ••••• ".11-.,,, -....•4 %1 L '.4:1.3.71-• 'T .f.: / 7-€ /3 \ b' 6 ''4c. /,;4•. -.;/,,,./1,1 I :/, 1, I NN J...n * / 1-:'''''‘ \IN ----\ 11. ..?%. \` .s.-t .//,/if: ' ..CCIn.is..d.+4... 11\10\14C\ T''' f °j'ktfy 'l ,.....n ......, ....._ .... •..... 1 `49•J'i, ..*„... N... ..."N -.n ,4"1)"../7 5 ‘ % ...'''' 1 fr4.-„"-4-4,-- ., n <...,,,,,,,,,,....? v .".., ..,...--- lents are shown thus: N .. 1 ‘•41c2 alsj:s.),9.0 4./., N,z,.,,n,, 0 1 I I i t--5 '‘? 20 &u4 5Id eiJbiln3 t-1- //+ . •-... \•;-4, ...„. ,-.,,-,--.,t • ... .v. At : in . • PI.. ..,ct. . <, r--- 4: oo7:7 `,''''- 1 1 1,::;;-, s ,,-- 10 i r ---Zri-to7,--. iti ‘ 1 1°.•.:1's 1\ 1 4+ 16 t.‘// il)i'T ..... ,,, e 19 /‘ / n i i k\ii ikY r' ,,y,, / / "--. - 1 l L •••• 9447 I , ir , \)\;!.:---_..00"".. ...- 4' •••••• k i ,11.,...--- cr-4,11:...:' /.. ........- -....ic A 1 -0 s. i *AS ..„,..- 3'6\ " ' V '. o AA ••:.-Y /4' /*se NE 4, ss otherwise indicated, and adjoinin g lot tines, joining street lines, as shown on the plat. AisrAairto --- Pc June 20, 1990 Jim and Pauline Borucki 6517 Rowland Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 SUBJECT: BORUCKI ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT Dear Jim and Pauline: The Borucki Addition preliminary plat was reviewed and the Staff Development Review Committee on Thursday, June 14, 1990 at 2:00 p.m. The following are comments from this meeting regarding additional information and/or plan changes: 1. Ownership signatures are required on the Land Development Application. 2. A cover letter addressed to the Planning Commission should be provided which describes the proposal according to the Land Development Application form (See Attached). 3. A grading plan must be submitted for proposed Lot 1, which indicates the size of house that can be built within setbacks. A 10 foot wide drainage utility easement will be required for the existing sewer and water lines bisecting the property. No building can occur over the easement area. 4. The existing well and septic tanks must be located on the plat. 5. A sight line study will be necessary along Rowland Road for the new driveway entrance. A Staff inspection of the roadway in front of the property indicates a high point in the road near the northwest property corner. 6. A tree inventory will be required which identifies all trees of 12 inches or greater in size on the property within the grading limits. 7. Indicate on the preliminary plat how sewer and water service will be stubbed to the proposed house on Lot 1. Jim and Pauline Borucki June 20, 1990 Page 2 In order for Staff to complete a Staff Report to the Planning Commission on this project, this information must be in our office no later than Wednesday, June 27, 1990. If you should have any questions please do not hesitate to contact my office at your earliest convenience. Sincerely Yours, Michael D. Franzen Senior Planner BORUCKI.MDF:bs 411 City of Eden Prairie City Offices Executive Drive • Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3677 • Telephone (612) 937-2262 May 2, 1989 Mr. Jim and Pauline Borucki 6517 Rowland Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 SUBJECT: PROPOSED LOT DIVISION Dear Jim and Pauline: Thank you for providing the two alternative site plans for the proposed subdivision of your lot. This was very helpful in my review of the proposed subdivision relative to City Codes. Your lot is part of the Carmel Addition, a large residential subdivision, approved by the City in 1984. The existing lot, (Lot 5, Block 2, Carmel Addition), is zoned R1-13.5. This means that each of the proposed lots must meet the requirements of the zoning district which includes 85 feet of street frontage, 100 feet of minimum depth, 13,500 square feet of land area, and an average width of 85 feet. Your existing lot currently meets the requirements of this zoning district. The proposed subdivision, whether it is Alternative A or Alternative B, will require variances for minimum lot size and average width. There will also be a front yard setback variance from 30 feet for the existing house. Since lots immediately adjacent to this project in the Carmel Addition are platted in compliance with the minimum requirements of the R1-13.5 zoning district, it may be difficult for you to substantiate a variance request to allow for smaller lots. In addition, since the lots are wide in front and tapered towards the back, it may be difficult to accommodate a reasonably sized house within the side yard setback requirements of 10 feet for one side and 15 feet for the other side. New houses typically require a 50'x50' pad area. I have drawn on proposal B an alternative which shows one way of subdividing the property which would provide a new house pad in compliance with front and side yard setbacks. The existing house would meet the 10-foot minimum side yard setback requirement for one side. The plan also depicts additional property from the land owner to the south. The additional land area may help the proposed subdivision meet the minimum square footage and street frontage requirements for the R1-13.5 zoning district; however, given the location of the existing structure, I doubt that it will be possible to meet the 85-foot average width requirement, hence requiring a variance from the Board of Appeals. Although I cannot guarantee that the Board of Appeals would approve any variances necessary as part of this proposed subdivision, minimizing the number of variances requested, acquiring additional land, and demonstrating that the future building site can accommodate a reasonable sized home consistent with home sizes built in the neighborhood, will help support your request for variances. Mr. and Mrs. Borucki May 2, 1989 Page Two If I can be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact my office at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, cc: Steve Durham, Zoning Administrator MDF/ms 6517 Rowland Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 April 21, 1989 Mr. Mike Franzin Planning E. Dev. Dept. City of Eden Prairie Eden Prairie City Hall 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mike: Please find enclosed the two proposals(Attachments 1 and 2) which we have drafted per our telephone conversation on April 17, 1989. We plan to have the new lot 13,500 square feet and leaving 13,185 square feet for the lot with the existing house. This would allow all matured trees to be left intact. The present garage would be moved to the east- side of the house as shown on the attachments. If the proposed lot with the existing home can not be approved only because it does not satisfy the minimum area, we would consider purchasing land along our east boundary to meet the minimum square footage. This, however, would only result in approximately one and a half additional feet along the east boundary. This additional land, although, has a very steep grade not practical for building purposes. Please consider this proposal and contact us at your earliestconvenience. If you have any further questions please feel free to call us at the fol- lowing telephone numbers: 944-6953 Home Residence 533-3533 Jim's Work Number 936-6003 Pauline's Work Number .1'CIRTIFICATE OFcURVEY I For: HANS HAGEN HOMES, INC . ,posAL. -t RECEIVED :_419SS C. Lot 5, Block 2, CARMEL, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCALEl Inch r30.Feet o Denotes Iron I Bearings shown ore on an assumed datum.I Job No ZIM Isook _ Doted this of /CI- 19 85 E. G. RUD a SONS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS 9560 Lexington Avenue N. New Brighton (Lexington), Minnesota by a."4-7-,Jé2J 11)1 l'71\ 55112 Telephone: 786 -5556 hereby cortify that this is o true and correct representation of a survey of the hindaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. E.G. RUD a SONS, INC. Minn. Reg. No RAWR CIRTIFICATE OF g..JRVEY I For: HANS HAGEN HOMES, INC. 'E. (.94. 1 RECEIVED FL6 :41985 w aNHm47.14,1 Lot 5, Block 2, CARMEL, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCALE:1 Inch .30..Feet -1-0 Denotes IrorA Bearings shown are on on assumed datum.' Job 143.21.31 I Book_ Page_ Whereby certify t im hat this is a tr and correct representation of a survey of the l ip 'oriel of the above described land ond of the location of all buildings, if any, .3n, and oil visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. E.G. RUD a SONS, INC. b r Minn. Rog No 9,9aR 19 85. d Dated th ,r is 1 day of E. G. RUD a SONS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS 9560 Lexington Avenue N. New Brighton (Lexington), Minnesota 55112 Telephone: 786– 5556 THUNDERBIRD AVIATION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 5100 Eden Avenue • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 Phone (612)926-1671 Flying Cloud Airport 14091 Pioneer Trail Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55343 Phone: (612) 941-1212 gag& lull Aaiun Sawa dogs Sales • Flight instruction Rental • Charter • Service CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90-171 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON THE PROPOSED FLYING CLOUD AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, with the review of the Metropolitan Airports Commission's Flying Cloud Airport Master Plan Update, major concern was raised by the residents of this community regarding an increase in aircraft noise associated with an expanded airport and, WHEREAS, an effective noise abatement plan is essential to controlling increases in aircraft related noise and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed Flying Cloud Airport Noise Abatement Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Eden Prairie City Council finds the noise abatement plan not effective for the following reasons: 1. The abatement plan relies completely on voluntary compliance with no mandatory controls. 2. No noise monitoring system is proposed. 3. No specific procedure to disseminate the abatement plan to transient and non-local pilots has been established. 4. A preferred runway for jet aircraft of 9R for departing/arriving flightswillcreate increased aircraft noise on east side of airport where housing density is high. 5. A preferred runway for jet aircraft of 9R for departing/arriving flights may create an increased threat for potential bird strikes over the Flying Cloud landfill. 6. Higher pattern altitude may result in wider traffic patterns affecting additional residents. 7. Maintenance run-ups are not restricted to the south side of the airport where noise impacts would be minimal. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDEN PRAIRIE: that the Metropolitan Airports Commission is encouraged to reconsider adoption of the plan in its present form. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council recommends: A. That the Metropolitan Airports Commission provide a noise monitoring system to ensure compliance with Chapter 7010 of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Rules noise threshold levels for residential land use of L1065 dBA daytime and L1055 dBA nightime. B. That the Metropolitan Airports Commission provide a noise monitoring system to ensure that an Ldn of 65 not be exceeded for residential land use. C. The Metropolitan Airports Commission develop and monitor a peak aircraft noise standard which is reflective of the ambient noise of a suburban community. Until such time this standard is in place, the MAC should adopt a noise threshold standard in accordance to FAR Part 36 based on A-weighted noise levels not to exceed 72 dBA for takeoff and 85 dBA for approach. ADOPTED, by the City Council on the 21st day of August, 1990. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk RES171.SAK:bs Metropolitan Airports Commission Summary of Daytime and Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Types at Surveyed Airports Airport St 3% Hub Airline Daytime Restrictions Nighttime Restrictions Atlanta 44% Eastern No restrictions. No restrictions Delta Boston 43% None Noise Per Seat Index, or maximum Stage 3%. based Stage 3 only from 11:00P-7:00A: cargo fags from base period on 1984 baseline. No reductions in index over time. grandfathered. Chicago O'Hare 44% United Stage 2 phaseout schedule under consideration as American part Of on-going Part 150 Study. Cincinnati 21% Delta Stage 3 ops only on new Runway 36R when open in 11/90. Dallas-Ft Worth 48% American No restrictions. Delta Denver 52% United Noise budget regulation put in place in 1967. No reductions Continental over time after initial reduction nom 1986 base. Looking to increase allocation for small carriers. $2,000 daily line. No restrictions. Stage 3 ops only on new Runway 36R when open in 11/90. No restrictions. 10 dB penalty in noise budget calculation. Detroit 23% Northwest No restrictions. No restrictions. Houston Intercon 39% Continental No reStriction.S. No restrictions. 72% None Noise budget gives each carriers 1 square mile of Ldn Limits takeoffs to < 72 dBA and landings to < 99 dBA from 11:00P- contour. No reduction over time. 6:30A. 'Iil'rv I I tfit ill sr ittc ()I )5 HNTB Analysis July 5. 1990 Metropolitan Airports Commission Summary of Daytime and Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Types at Surveyed Airports Airport St.3% Hub Airline Daytime R strictions Nighttime Restrictions La Guardia 25% None Considering all Stage 3 by 2000 (not yet studied). 112 PNd13 limit No Stage 2 ops from 12:00M-6:00A except grandfathered flights (2) on all ops (no effect). 1500-mile perimeter rule has some based on August 1989. Regulation. effect. Los Angeles 61% None Proposed ordinance for 100% Stage 3 by 2000. Stage 2 ops Proposed ordinance for Stage 2 ban from 1:00A-6:00A beginning in 1991, 1,11111 voluntarily frozen from June 1990-January 1991 pending further 12:00M-6:00A in 1994, 12:00M-6:30A in 1996. Study. Goals of 25% Stage 3 by 1991, 50% in 1994, 75% in 1996. Memphis Miami Minneapolis-$1. Paul 10% Northwest No restrictions. 34% Eastern No restrictions. 3096 Northwest Noise budget agreements negotiated with airlines in 1987. Annual stepped reductions In budget through 1992 Extension of budget beyond 1992 and/or Stage 2 phaseout schedule under consideration by Stage 3 working (POW. if I rir ));':1" ,yrkr ,1crT7ic. No restrictions. No restrictions. Voluntary limits in place with scheduled air carriers from 11:00P-6:00A (27 flights). Additional restrictions under consideration by Stage 3 working group. Newark 36% Continental Considering all Stage 3 by 2000 (not yet studied). 112 PN013 Stage 2 ops frozen at August 1989 levels (15 grandlathered flights) limit (no effect). Regulation. Orange County 100% None Cap permits only 90 daily departures of MO-80. 737-300.757.A-320, No departures 10:00P-7:00A (8:00A Sundays). No arrivals 11:00P-7:00A. BAE-146 (others If able to meet established single-event levels). No Stage 2 ups. New terminal will increase daily cap. but only "quiet' Stage 3 allowed. 2 HNTB Analysis July 5, 1990 Metropolitan Airports Commission Summary of Daytime and Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Types at Surveyed Airports Airport St.3% Hub Airline Daytime Restrictions Nighttime Restrictions Raleigh-Durham 24% American Noise budget effective January 1991 (allows increase over current 10:00P-7:00A penalty in noise budget calculation. levels). Each airline allowed 50% 01 1990 noise energy in 1997, 35% by 2004. Minimum allocations for all carriers. Energy in PCNEL. CCNEL based on INM data base. Cargo carriers have longer to comply. Penalties Of 350,0004150.000. Fair share strategy. No restrictIonS, No restrictions. Regulation In place for 100% Stage 3 by 1999; 65% by 1991. 70% In 1992. 75% In 1993. June 1989 baseline. $1000 fine per violation. No restrictions No restrictions. No takeoffs from 11:30P-6:30A. Stage 3 takeolls only from 6.30A-7:00A, 10:00P-11:30P. St. Louis 31% TWA Salt Lake City 3446 Delta San Diego 68% None Regulation for airlines lobe at 75% Stage 3 by 1999. Date for 100% Will be set In Jan. 1992. Draft proposal to change 75% target to 1997. Regulation prohibits Stage 2 ops from 12:00M-6:00A ellective 1/90. Change to 1 1:0OP-7:00A In 1993. Exemptions for some foreign carriers. San Francisco 61% None hit I c: Seattle 49% None !it rif, fl PropoSed noise budget would reduce 1989 base period noise by 50% by 2001. Set asides for new entrants and small carriers. INM data base used for noise data. Many similarities to MSP budget. Agreement, not regulation. Undetermined fines. Oct. 1990 date set to restrict Stage 2 ops from 12:00M-6:00A based on 3190 levels (2 year grandfather period). Frozen therafter. Washington National 36% None Proposed Stage 3 Ws beginning in 1990. Goal of 46% In 1990. 100% Current limits from 10:00P-7:00A restrict takeoffs to < 72 dBA by 1999. Regulatory action proposed If progress not acceptable. (A320, 757), landings to < 85 dBA (MD-80.757,A320), according to West Palm 39% None Noise 'budget assigns fees for Stage 2 operations, Beach with daytime/nighttime differentials. Stage 3 credits. Ordinance. Notes: Stage 3 percentages based on June 1989 data. Hub airports shown In Italics. 3 No Stage 2 ops 10:00P-7:00A by ordinance. Max fee of 52.600 tor inadvertent violations. Fee of $20.00 for Stage 3 operations. IINTEI Analysis July 5, 1990 07/15/86 CHAPTER 7010 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY AIR QUALITY DIVISION NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL RULES 7010.0010 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE 7010.0020 DEFINITIONS 7010.0030 NOISE CONTROL REQUIREMENT 7010.0040 NOISE STANDARDS 7010.0050 NOISE AREA CLASSIFICATION 7010.0060 MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY 7010.0070 SOUND ATTENUATION MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY 7010.0080 VARIANCE REPEALER 7010.0010 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. For the purpose of chapter 7010, American National Standards Institute, Specification for Sound Level Meters, S1.4-1983 is incorporated by reference. This publication is available from the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018 and can be found at: the offices of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155; the Government Documents Section, Room 409, Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, 309 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454; and the State of Minnesota Law Library, Ford Building, 117 University Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155. This document is not subject to frequent change. The Federal Highway Administration publication, Sound Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise: Final Report, FHWA-DP-45-1R (August 1981) is incorporated by reference. This publication is available from the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1000 North Globe Road, Arlington, Virginia 22201 and can be found at: the offices of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 520 Lafayette Road North, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155; the Government Documents Section, Room 409, Wilson Library, University of Minnesota, 309 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454; and the State of Minnesota Law Library, Ford Building, 117 University Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155. This document is not subject to frequent change. Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 subds 2,4 page 3 - NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL RULES 7010.0030 NOISE CONTROL REQUIREMENT. No person may violate the standards established in part 7010.0040, unless exempted by Minnesota Statutes, section 116.07, subdivision 2a. Any municipality having authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures within its jurisdiction to prevent the establishment of land use activities listed in noise area classification (NAC) 1, 2, or 3 in any location where the standards established in part 7010.0040 will be violated immediately upon establishment of the land use. Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 subds 2,4 7010.0040 NOISE STANDARDS. Subpart 1. Scope. These standards describe the limiting levels of sound established on the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of public health and welfare. These standards are consistent with speech, sleep, annoyance, and hearing conservation requirements for receivers within areas grouped according to land activities by the noise area classification (NAC) system established in part 7010.0050. However, these standards do not, by themselves, identify the limiting levels of impulsive noise needed for the preservation of public health and welfare. Noise standards in subpart 2 apply to all sources. Subp. 2. Noise standards. Noise Area Classification 1 2 3 Daytime L 50 L 10 60 65 65 70 75 80 Nighttime L 50 L 10 50 55 65 70 75 80 Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 subds 2,4 7010.0050 NOISE AREA CLASSIFICATION. Subpart 1. Applicability. The noise area classification is based on the land use activity at the location of the receiver and determines the noise standards applicable to that land use activity unless an exemption is applied under subpart 3. Subp. 2. Noise area classification. The noise area classifications and the activities included in each classification are listed below: ' page 5 - NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL RULES Noise Area Classification 3 - Land Use Activities Food and kindred products - manufacturing Textile mill products - manufacturing Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics, leather & similar materials - manufacturing Lumber and wood products (except furniture) - manufacturing Furniture and fixtures - manufacturing Paper and allied products - manufacturing Printing, publishing, and allied industries Chemicals and allied products - manufacturing Petroleum refining and related industries Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products - manufacturing Stone, clay, & glass products - manufacturing Primary metal industries Fabricated metal products - manufacturing Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments; photographic & optical goods; watches and clocks - manufacturing Miscellaneous manufacturing (except motion picture production) Railroad, rapid transit, and street railway transportation (except passenger terminals) Motor vehicle transportation (except passenger terminals) Aircraft transportation (except passenger terminals) Marine craft transportation (except passenger and freight terminals) Highway and street right-of-way Communication (except telegragh message centers) Utilities Other transportation, communication & utilities (except transportation services and arrangements) Race tracks Fairgrounds and amusement parks Agricultural Agricultural and related activities Forestry activities and related services (including commercial forest land, timber production, and other related activities) Fishing activities and related services Mining activities and related services Other resource production and extraction All other activities not otherwise listed page 7 - NOISE POLLUTION CONTROL RULES 7010.0060 MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY. Subpart 1. Measurement location. Measurement of sound must be made at or within the applicable NAC at the point of human activity which is nearest to the noise source. All measurements shall be made outdoors. Subp. 2. Equipment specifications. All sound level measuring devices must meet Type 0, I, II, or S specifications under American National Standards Institute S1.4-1983. Subp. 3. Calibration. All sound level measuring devices must, at a minimum, be externally field calibrated before and after monitoring using a calibration device of known frequency and sound pressure level. Subp. 4. Measurement procedures. The following procedures must be used to obtain representative sound level measurements: A. Measurements must be made at least three feet off the ground or surface and away from natural or manmade structures which would prevent an accurate measurement. B. Measurements must be made using the A-weighting and fast response characteristics of the sound measuring device as specified in American National Standards Institute 51.4-1983. C. Measurements must not be made in sustained winds or in precipitation which results in a difference of less than ten decibels between the background noise level and the noise source being measured. D. Measurements must be made using a microphone which is protected from ambient conditions which would prevent an accurate measurement. Subp. 5. Data documentation. A summary sheet for all sound level measurements shall be completed and signed by the person making the measurements. At a minimum, the summary sheet shall include: A. date; B. time; C. location; D. noise source; E. wind speed and direction; F. temperature; G. humidity; H. make, model, and serial number of measuring equipment; I. field calibration results; J. monitored levels; and K. site sketch indicating noise source, measurement location, directions, distances, and obstructions. Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 subds 2,4 28,800 27,300 27,300 23,400 26,500 26,500 26.100 22,000 22,000 22.000 22,000 22,000 22.000 24,400 21,800 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,700 19,000 23,000 22,000 22,000 22.700 19,000 20,000 20,000 22,100 22,000 18.000 21,200 19.600 19,600 19,600 21.000 18,500 19,000 17.000 19,400 17.500 20,000 17,500 18,500 17,200 17,200 15.300 15,300 17.000 17.000 14,300 14.300 16,100 13.300 84.1 90.1 93.1 85.0 80.0 84.0 80.1 96.0 84.1 86.1 84.1 86.1 91.0 84.0 81.7 83.8 85.8 83.8 86.4 79.1 88.8 86.0 90.3 90.3 88.9 84.4 98.7 95.4 81.8 83.0 81.9 81.8 84.1 86.1 98.5 83.0 93.8 99.0 81.5 99.0 92.0 83.0 92.0 100.0 82.1 86.2 82.2 82.2 81.6 81.6 83.1 83.1 77.0 92.0 71.7 77.0 77.0 69.7 65.3 68.3 67.9 81.9 77.8 77.8 81.4 81.4 80.5 85.0 70.8 75.3 75.3 77.8 77.8 69.3 74.8 76.0 79.6 77.7 78.3 70.6 84.8 83.8 71.2 73.2 68.4 63.2 73.2 73.2 83.1 71.9 87.9 89.7 67.0 89.7 84.7 70.6 83.4 89.7 66.1 66.1 71.6 71.6 65.6 65.6 70.4 70.6 66.5 82.3 0,C/it c t CA_A" /. try MO To. Mx t.06- tiffrcuck Tkice aCC wEuri-T rrirttr 1..m o (A34) miNu nicTuRe k DASSAULT BREGUET DASSAULT BREGUET DASSAULT BREGUET SAC SAAB FAIRCHILD SHORTS SHORTS SAC SAC SAC SAC SAC SABRELINER CORP. DOUGLAS SABRELINER CORP. SAC SAC BAC SAC IAI MI AEROSPATIALE SABRELINER CORP. SABRELINER CORP. AEROSPATIALE IAI SAC SABRELINER CORP. SHORTS CESSNA GATES LEARJET EMBRAER SAC SAC SAC CESSNA SABRELINER CORP. IAI GATES LEARJET MESSERSCHMITT SABRELINER CORP. CESSNA SABRELINER CORP. IAI DASSAULT BREGUET DASSAULT BREGUET GATES LEARJET GATES LEARJET GATES LEARJET GATES LEARJET GATES LEARJET GATES LEARJET BEECH GATES LEARJET MoDEL FALCON 200 FALCON 20 FALCON 20 125-800 SF340 SD3-60-300 3-60 HS-125-600A HS-125-700A HS-125-700A HS-125-700A HS-125-700A SABRE 80A DC-3 SABRE 65 HS-125-3A/RA HS-125-3A/RA HS-125-400A HS-125-400A 1125 WESTWIND ASTRO 1124A WESTWIND 2 MOHAWK 298 SABRE 80 SABRE 75A NORD-262C 1124 WESTWIND HS-125-3A/R SABRE 60A 3-30 CITATION III LEARJET 55B EMB-120 BRASILIA HS-125-1A HS-125-1A HS-125-1A CITATION III SABRE 70 1123 WESTWIND LEARJET 55 HFB-320 HANSA SABRE 60 CITATION III SABRE 40A 1121 COMMODORE FALCON 10 FALCON 10 LEARJET 35A 32.000 28,600 28,600 27,400 27,300 27,100 26.400 25,500 25,500 25,500 25,500 25,500 25,500 25,200 24,000 23,600 23,600 23,600 23,600 23,500 23,500 23,400 23,300 23,000 22,900 22,900 22,700 22,700 22.400 22,000 21,500 21,200 21,200 21,200 21,200 21,000 21,000 20,700 20,500 20,300 20,100 20,000 19,600 18,500 18,300 18,300 18,000 LEARJET 36A 18.000 LEARJET 35 W/CENTURY 17,000 LEARJET 36 W/CENTURY 17,000 LEARJET 35 '17,000 LEARJET 36 17,000 1900 16,600 LEARJET 25 B/C/D/F X 16,300 BEECH BEECHJET 400 15,800 14,200 83.0 71.8 BAC JETSTREAM 31 15,200 14,600 74.7 63.7 CESSNA S550 15.100 14,400 79.6 75.9 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 258/C 15,000 13,300 93.8 82.8 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 25D 15,000 13,300 88.2 79.7 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 25F 15,000 13,300 88.2 79.7 FAIRCHILD SA226-AC METRO III 14,500 14,000 78.5 69.2 FAIRCHILD SA227-AT MERLIN IV C 14,500 14,000 78.5 69.2 MITSUBISHI MU300 DIAMOND I 14,100 13,200 77.2 71.9 AEROSPATIALE SN601 CORVETTE 13,900 12,400 79.1 63.8 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 24B/D W/RAIS 13,500 11,900 92.0 77.8 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 24D 13,500 11,900 94.7 80.6 CESSNA CITATION II 13,300 13,300 79.3 62.6 FAIRCHILD SA227-AT MERLIN III 13,200 13,200 78.5 69.5 DORNIER DORMER 228 13,100 12,600 74.7 66.3 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 24E 12,900 11,900 88.3 73.1 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 24F 12,900 11.900 88.3 74.6 BEECH SUPER KINGAIR 200 12,500 12,500 77.8 68.8 BEECH SUPER KINGAIR 8200 12,500 12,500 77.8 68.8 BEECH SUPER KINGAIR B200T/ 12,500 12,500 77.8 68.8 DEHAVILLAND DHC-6 12,500 12,500 78.0 67.0 EMBRAER EMB 110-P2 12,500 12,500 76.0 71.0 FAIRCHILD SA226-AT 12,500 12,500 76.0 71.0 FAIRCHILD SA226-T 12,500 12.500 76.0 71.0 FAIRCHILD SA226-TC METRO II 12,500 12,500 76.0 71.0 SHORTS SKYVAN 12,500 12,500 77.3 71.6 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 23 12,500 11.900 89.7 84.7 PIPER CHEYENNE 400LS 12,050 11,100 78.5 57.0 CESSNA CITATION I 11.900 11,900 77.7 67.3 BEECH B100 KINGAIR 11,800 11,200 77.1 61.5 BEECH A100 11,500 11.200 74.0 62.0 BEECH C99 AIRLINER 11,300 11.300 77.1 71.1 GULFSTREAM AMER 695A COMMANDER 1000 11,200 10,600 77.9 61.6 MITSUBISHI MU-28-36A 11,000 10,200 76.0 66.0 BEECH F90 KINGAIR 10,900 10.900 77.3 62.0 CESSNA 500 10,900 10,900 77.7 67.0 GULFSTREAM AMER 6901) COMMANDER 900 10,700 10.600 77.4 61.7 PIPER PA-42 CHEYENNE 10,500 9,400 77.1 70.3 BEECH 99A 10,400 10,400 74.0 66.0 GULFSTREAM AMER • 690B 10,300 9,700 76.0 66.0 GULFSTREAM AMER • 690C COMMANDER 840 10,300 9.700 77.4 61.3 GULFSTREAM AMER • 695 10,300 9,700 77.4 62.0 GULFSTREAM AMER • 695 COMMANDER 980 10,300 9.700 77.4 62.0 MITSUBISHI MU-213-26A 10,000 10,000 76.0 64.0 BEECH H18 9,900 9,500 75.0 69.6 CESSNA CONQUEST II 9,800 9,800 76.5 63.0 BEECH C90 9.700 9,700 75.0 68.0 PIPER PA-31T 9,000 9,000 74.0 62.0 BEECH 880 8,800 8,800 74.0 66.0 GULFSTREAM AMER 680FL 8,500 8,000 74.0 64.0 CESSNA 404 8.400 8,400 74.0 61.0 CESSNA CONQUEST I 8,200 8,200 75.0 63.0 BEECH 65 QUEENAIR 7,700 7,400 73.8 65.9 CESSNA 421C 7,500 7.500 74.0 61.0 -2- 7,300 7,000 6,900 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,300 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,000 6,000 6,000 5,500 5,500 5,400 5,400 5,300 5,300 5,200 5,200 5,200 5,100 5,100 4,800 4,750 4,600 4.200 4,100 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,850 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3.800 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3.400 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,300 -3- 7,300 7,000 6,900 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,300 6,200 6.200 6,200 6,000 6,000 6,000 5,500 5,500 5,400 5,400 5.300 5,300 5,200 5,200 4,940 5,100 5,100 4,500 4,500 4,600 4,200 4,100 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,850 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3.600 3,600 3.600 3,400 3.400 3,400 3,400 3,300 73.0 74.0 74.0 80.0 73.0 77.0 73.0 73.0 74.0 73.0 77.0 77.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 74.0 74.0 73.7 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 71.1 63.9 71.0 71.0 71.0 64.0 63.8 67.1 64.0 64.0 72.0 71.0 64.0 64.0 70.6 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.9 71.0 68.0 63.0 67.0 76.0 59.0 69.0 70.0 67.0 66.0 67.0 68.0 66.0 70.0 66.0 65.0 66.0 67.0 63.0 67.0 63.0 68.0 70.0 68.0 73.0 71.0 64.0 64.0 70.0 58.0 70.0 62.0 62.0 60.0 71.0 74.3 71.4 73.0 71.0 63.0 62.0 71.0 71.0 56.0 71.0 70.0 69.0 71.0 70.0 69.0 66.0 71.0 70.0 CESSNA PIPER CESSNA BEECH CESSNA GULFSTREAM AMER. GULFSTREAM AMER. PIPER PIPER CESSNA BEECH BEECH BRITTEN-NORMAN CESSNA PIPER PIPER CESSNA PIPER BEECH BEECH BEECH BEECH CESSNA CESSNA PIPER BEECH BEECH PIPER PIPER CESSNA BEECH PIPER BEECH PIPER PIPER BEECH CESSNA CESSNA CESSNA CESSNA GULFSTREAM AMER. PIPER BEECH CESSNA PIPER PIPER PIPER PIPER PIPER BEECH BEECH CESSNA PIPER BEECH CARAVAN I PA-31-350 402C 860 414A 5005 560E PA-31-310 PA-31-325 401 58P 58TC ISLANDER BN-2B 340A 601P PA-602P 31OR PA-60-600 58 (2BLD) 58 (3BLD) E55 (2 BLD) E55 (3BLD) 310Q 320C PA-23-250 B55 B55(3BLD) PA-34-200T PA-34-220T 337H D95A TRAVELAIR PA-46-31P MALIBU 76 PA-44-180T(2BLD) PA-44-180T(3BLD) B36TC BONANZA 207 210 T2101 T210M GA-7 PA-44-180 A36 TU206G PA-30 TWIN COMANCHE PA-32R-300 PA-32R-301 PA-32R-301T PA-32RT-300 F33A V358 (3BLD) 185F PA-32-300 35-C33A 1 3,300 3,300 3,200 3,000 3,000 3,000 3.000 3,000 3,000 2,900 2.800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,600 2,550 2,500 2,500 2,400 2,400 2,300 2,300 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 1,800 1,700 1.700 1,700 1,700 1,600 1,600 1,600 3,300 3,300 3.200 3.000 3,000 3,000 3.000 3,000 3,000 2,900 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,600 2,500 2,500 2,500 2.400 2,400 2,300 2,300 2.200 2,200 2.200 2,200 2,200 2,200 1,800 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,600 1,600 1,600 64.0 63.5 63.0 68.0 63.0 56.0 56.0 63.0 63.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 63.0 62.0 62.0 63.0 62.0 62.0 61.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.7 61.0 61.0 61.0 62.0 62.0 61.0 61.0 52.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 60.0 60.0 59.0 60.0 59.0 59.0 59.0 65.0 70.2 65.0 71.0 70.0 70.0 69.0 72.0 68.0 67.0 65.0 63.0 65.0 69.0 67.0 75.0 75.0 63.0 58.0 63.0 65.0 60.0 59.0 63.2 58.0 59.0 61.0 63.0 58.0 68.0 60.0 57.4 60.0 60.0 53.0 56.0 51.0 55.0 56.0 56.0 55.0 57.1 BELLANCA CESSNA PIPER BEECH BEECH CESSNA CESSNA PIPER PIPER PIPER BEECH BEECH CESSNA CESSNA PIPER BEECH BEECH GULFSTREAM AMER. MOONEY PIPER MOONEY PIPER BEECH MAULE BEECH PIPER CESSNA CESSNA BELLANCA CESSNA GULFSTREAM AMER. GULFSTREAM AMER. PIPER PIPER PIPER BEECH BELLANCA CESSNA PIPER CESSNA CESSNA GULFSTREAM AMER. 17-30A 206 PA-24-260 35-B33 K35.M35 182P 182Q PA-28-235 PA-28-236 PA-28RT-201T(3BLD) A24R C24R 177RG 180 PA-28RT-201(2BLD) C35 E35 112 M20J PA-28-200 M20C PA-28-181 C23 MX7-235 A-23 PA-28-161 172 172N 8GCBC 170B AA-5A AA-5B TIGER PA-28-140 PA-28-151 PA-18-150 77 7GCAA 152 PA-38-112 150 150M AA-1B -4- Lai 16'0 ii14X TO. r 23,600 23,600 23,600 23,600 23,500 22,900 22,700 22,700 21,500 21,200 21,200 21,200 21,000 20,700 20,500 20,300 20.100 20.000 19,600 18,500 18.300 18,300 18,000 18,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000 16,600 16,300 15,800 15,200 15,100 15,000 15,000 15,000 14.500 14,500 14,100 13.900 13,500 13,500 13.300 13,200 13,100 12,900 12.900 12.500 12.500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 MAX 1- 0 6- Affroact, 1-4 ke04 WT. 1-m4y I-N„ (Aft) 20,000 83.8 75.3 20,000 85.8 75.3 20.000 83.8 77.8 20,000 86.4 77.8 19.000 88.8 74.8 19,000 84.4 70.6 20.000 98.7 84.8 20.000 95.4 83.8 18.000 81.9 68.4 19,600 84.1 73.2 19,600 86.1 73.2 19,600 98.5 83.1 18,500 93.8 87.9 19,000 99.0 89.7 17,000 81.5 67.0 19,400 99.0 89.7 17,500 92.0 84.7 20.000 83.0 70.6 17.500 92.0 83.4 18,500 100.0 89.7 17.200 82.1 66.1 17,200 86.2 66.1 15,300 82.2 71.6 15,300 82.2 71.6 17,000 81.6 65.6 17,000 81.6 65.6 14,300 83.1 70.4 14.300 83.1 70.6 16.100 77.0 66.5 13,300 92.0 82.3 14.200 83.0 71.8 14,600 74.7 63.7 14,400 79.6 75.9 13.300 93.8 82.8 13,300 88.2 79.7 13,300 88.2 79.7 14,000 78.5 69.2 14,000 78.5 69.2 13.200 77.2 71.9 12,400 79.1 63.8 11,900 92.0 77.8 11,900 94.7 80.6 13,300 79.3 62.6 13,200 78.5 69.5 12.600 74.7 66.3 11.900 88.3 73.1 11.900 88.3 74.6 12.500 77.8 68.8 12,500 77.8 68.8 12,500 77.8 68.8 12.500 78.0 67.0 12,500 76.0 71.0 12,500 76.0 71.0 12,500 76.0 71.0 /404 4C 4 akKak PI41006L SAC HS-125-3A/RA BAC HS-125-3A/RA SAC HS-125-400A BAC HS-125-400A IAI 1124A WESTWIND 2 IA1 1124 WESTWIND BAC HS-125-3A/R SABRELINER CORP. SABRE 60A GATES LEARJET LEARJET 55B BAC HS-125-1A SAC HS-125-1A SAC HS-125-1A SABRELINER CORP. SABRE 70 IAI 1123 WESTWIND GATES LEARJET LEARJET 55 MESSERSCHMITT HFB-320 HANSA SABRELINER CORP. SABRE 60 CESSNA CITATION III SABRELINER CORP. SABRE 40A IAI 1121 COMMODORE DASSAULT BREGUET FALCON 10 DASSAULT BREGUET FALCON 10 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 35A GATES LEARJET LEARJET 36A GATES LEARJET LEARJET 35 W/CENTURY GATES LEARJET LEARJET 36 W/CENTURY GATES LEARJET LEARJET 35 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 36 BEECH 1900 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 25 B/C/D/F X BEECH BEECHJET 400 SAC JETSTREAM 31 CESSNA 6550 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 25B/C GATES LEARJET LEARJET 25D GATES LEARJET LEARJET 25F FAIRCHILD 5A226-AC METRO III FAIRCHILD SA227-AT MERLIN IV C MITSUBISHI MU300 DIAMOND I AEROSPATIALE SN601 CORVETTE GATES LEARJET LEARJET 24B/D W/RAIS GATES LEARJET LEARJET 240 CESSNA CITATION II FAIRCHILD SA227-AT MERLIN III DORNIER DORNIER 228 GATES LEARJET LEARJET 24E GATES LEARJET LEARJET 24F BEECH SUPER KINGAIR 200 BEECH SUPER KINGAIR B200 BEECH SUPER KINGAIR B200T/ DEHAVILLAND DHC-6 EMBRAER EMS 110-P2 FAIRCHILD SA226-AT FAIRCHILD SA226-T 12.500 12,500 12,500 12,050 11,900 11.800 11,500 11.300 11,200 11,000 10,900 10,900 10,700 10,500 10,400 10,300 10,300 10,300 10.300 10,000 9,900 9,800 9,700 9,000 8,800 8,500 8,400 8,200 7.700 7,500 7,300 7,000 6,900 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,300 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,000 6,000 6,000 5,500 5,500 5,400 5,400 5,300 5,300 5,200 5,200 12.500 12,500 11,900 11,100 11,900 11,200 11,200 11,300 10,600 10,200 10,900 10.900 10.600 9,400 10,400 9,700 9,700 9,700 9.700 10,000 9,500 9,800 9,700 9,000 8,800 8,000 8,400 8,200 7,400 7,500 7,300 7.000 6,900 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,300 6,200 6,200 6,200 6,000 6,000 6,000 5,500 5,500 5.400 5.400 5,300 5,300 5.200 5,200 76.0 77.3 89.7 78.3 77.7 77.1 74.0 77.1 77.9 76.0 77.3 77.7 77.4 77.1 74.0 76.0 77.4 77.4 77.4 76.0 75.0 76.5 75.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 74.0 75.0 73.8 74.0 73.0 74.0 74.0 80.0 73.0 77.0 73.0 73.0 74.0 73.0 77.0 77.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 /3.0 74.0 74.0 73.7 73.0 71.0 71.6 84.7 57.0 67.3 61.5 62.0 71.1 61.6 66.0 62.0 67.0 61.7 70.3 66.0 66.0 61.3 62.0 62.0 64.0 69.6 63.0 68.0 62.0 66.0 64.0 61.0 63.0 65.9 61.0 64.9 71.0 68.0 63.0 67.0 76.0 59.0 69.0 70.0 67.0 66.0 67.0 68.0 66.0 70.0 66.0 65.0 66.0 67.0 63.0 67.0 63.0 68.0 70.0 FAIRCHILD SHORTS GATES LEARJET PIPER CESSNA BEECH BEECH BEECH GULFSTREAM AMER. MITSUBISHI BEECH CESSNA GULFSTREAM AMER. PIPER BEECH GULFSTREAM AMER. GULFSTREAM AMER. GULFSTREAM AMER. GULFSTREAM AMER. MITSUBISHI BEECH CESSNA BEECH PIPER BEECH GULFSTREAM AMER. CESSNA CESSNA BEECH CESSNA CESSNA PIPER CESSNA BEECH CESSNA GULFSTREAM AMER. GULFSTREAM AMER. PIPER PIPER CESSNA BEECH BEECH BRITTEN-NORMAN CESSNA PIPER PIPER CESSNA PIPER BEECH BEECH BEECH BEECH CESSNA CESSNA SA226-TC METRO II SKYVAN LEARJET 23 CHEYENNE 400LS CITATION I 8100 KINGAIR A100 C99 AIRLINER 695A COMMANDER 1000 MU-28-36A F90 KINGAIR 500 6900 COMMANDER 900 PA-42 CHEYENNE 99A 690B 690C COMMANDER 840 695 695 COMMANDER 980 MU-28-26A 818 CONQUEST II C90 PA-31T B80 680FL 404 CONQUEST I 65 QUEENAIR 421C CARAVAN I PA-31-350 402C 860 414A 500S 560E PA-31-310 PA-31-325 401 581' 58TC ISLANDER BN -211 340A 6011' PA-602P 31OR PA-60-600 58 (2BLD) 58 (3BLD) E55 (2 BLD) E55 (3BLD) 310Q 320C -2- 5,200 5,100 5,100 4,800 4,750 4,600 4,200 4,100 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,850 3,800 3,800 3,800 3.800 3,800 3,800 3,600 3,600 3.600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,200 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3.000 3,000 2,900 2,800 2,800 2,800 2.800 2,800 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2.700 2,600 2,550 2,500 2,500 4,940 5,100 5,100 4,500 4,500 4,600 4,200 4,100 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,850 3,800 3,800 3.800 3,800 3,800 3,800 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3.600 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,200 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,900 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,700 2.700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,600 2,500 2,500 2,500 73.0 73.0 73.0 72.0 72.0 72.0 71.1 63.9 71.0 71.0 71.0 64.0 63.8 67.1 64.0 64.0 72.0 71.0 64.0 64.0 70.6 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 63.5 63.0 68.0 63.0 56.0 56.0 63.0 63.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 63.0 62.0 62.0 63.0 62.0 62.0 61.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 62.7 68.0 73.0 71.0 64.0 64.0 70.0 58.0 70.0 62.0 62.0 60.0 71.0 74.3 71.4 73.0 71.0 63.0 62.0 71.0 71.0 56.0 71.0 70.0 69.0 71.0 70.0 69.0 66.0 71.0 70.0 65.0 70.2 65.0 71.0 70.0 70.0 69.0 72.0 68.0 67.0 65.0 63.0 65.0 69.0 67.0 75.0 75.0 63.0 58.0 63.0 65.0 60.0 59.0 63.2 PIPER BEECH BEECH PIPER PIPER CESSNA BEECH PIPER BEECH PIPER PIPER BEECH CESSNA CESSNA CESSNA CESSNA GULFSTREAM AMER. PIPER BEECH CESSNA PIPER PIPER PIPER PIPER PIPER BEECH BEECH CESSNA PIPER BEECH BELLANCA CESSNA PIPER BEECH BEECH CESSNA CESSNA PIPER PIPER PIPER BEECH BEECH CESSNA CESSNA PIPER BEECH BEECH GULFSTREAM AMER. MOONEY PIPER MOONEY PIPER BEECH MAULE PA-23-250 855 855(3BLD) PA-34-200T PA-34-220T 337H 095A TRAVELAIR PA-46-31P MALIBU 76 PA-44-180T(2BLD) PA-44-180T(3BLD) B36TC BONANZA 207 210 T210L T210M GA-7 PA-44-180 A36 TU206G PA-30 TWIN COMANCHE PA-32R-300 PA-32R-301 PA-32R-301T PA-32RT-300 F33A V35B (3BLD) 185F PA-32-300 35-C33A 17-30A 206 PA-24-260 35-833 K35,M35 182? 1820 PA-28-235 PA-28-236 PA-28RT-201T(3BLD) A24R C24R 177RG 180 PA-28RT-201(2BLD) C35 E35 112 M20J PA-28-200 A20C PA-28-181 C23 MX 1-235 -3- BEECH PIPER CESSNA CESSNA BELLANCA CESSNA GULFSTREAM AMER. GULFSTREAM AMER. PIPER PIPER PIPER BEECH BELLANCA CESSNA PIPER CESSNA CESSNA GULFSTREAM AMER. A-23 PA-28-161 172 172N 8GCBC 1708 AA-5A AA-5B TIGER PA-28-140 PA-28-151 PA-18-150 77 7GCAA 152 PA-38-112 150 150M AA-1B 2,400 2,400 61.0 58.0 2,400 2,400 61.0 59.0 2.300 2,300 61.0 61.0 2,300 2,300 62.0 63.0 2,200 2,200 62.0 58.0 2,200 2,200 61.0 68.0 2,200 2.200 61.0 60.0 2,200 2,200 52.0 57.4 2,200 2,200 61.0 60.0 2,200 2,200 61.0 60.0 1,800 1,800 61.0 53.0 1,700 1,700 60.0 56.0 1,700 1,700 60.0 51.0 1,700 1,700 59.0 55.0 1,700 1,700 60.0 56.0 1,600 1,600 59.0 56.0 1,600 1,600 59.0 55.0 1,600 1.600 59.0 57.1 -4- 1) I Oraet Lsk.s Aegion Illinois, Indians, Michismn, Minnssosa. Nam', [Mhos.. Ohio, South Dakosa, Wisconsin :1171/ 74r TrrsicAni.. U6Depanmers TromPalailon Federal Aviation Administration FEB 3 lsal Commissioner Barbara Ashley Chair Operations and Environment Committee Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 66460 Dear Ms. Ashley: On January 28, 1987, during my testimony before your committee. / agreed to provide additional information on the proposed noise budget ordinance. I am enclosing an edited copy of my remarks which contain my presentation as well as additional comments regarding specific technical problems which I did not fully deal with due to time constraints. Pursuant to your request, I am also providing information as to the validation and appropriateness of using Ldn as a measure of noise. If we can provide any further information or analysis of specific items, we are most willing to provide such to aid you in your determinations. Sincerely, c7r\QP,1 ,7Z:721 1SICIf • Monte R. Belger Deputy Director 4 Enclosures „AU—j' Edited Comments of Mr. Monte Belger Deputy Director, FAA Great Lakes Region MAC Noise Budget Ordinance January 28, 1987 My name is Monte Belger. I am the Deputy Director of the FAA's Great Lakes Region. Our region has administrative responsibility for the 8-state area that includes Minneapolis-St. Paul. We are pleased to appear before you today to give the FAA's position on the proposed Noise Budget Ordinance. This is a somewhat unusual situation in that we are here presenting our views and perspective to you on a draft proposal which you have under consideration, and which, when finalized, will be coming to the FAA for formal review as an integral part of your Part 150 airport noise compatibility plan. Usually we would await the outcome of the Part 150 process before expressing our views. However, this proposal is so troublesome that we want to be certain that our concerns are clearly understood before any final decisions are made by the Commission. On various occasions, we have encouraged MAC to deal with the airport noise problem in the coordinated process of the complete Part 150 study and full FAA review. Through that full process, an integrated program of noise abatement measures could be dealt with on a comprehensive rather than a piecemeal basis. As I will .• JUL. I _ 11E 2 discuss more fully in the next few moments, the fundamental problem of enacting restrictive noise abatement measures in the absence of full documentation and analysis of various alternatives is that there is nothing from which to judge the actual benefits and burdens associated with the implementation of the rule. Airport proprietors such as MAC have only limited authority under law to place restrictions on access to the airports they own and any restrictions must be consistent with the national need for an integrated air transportation system. In the notice of hearing, MAC raised four separate issues as the basis upon which to receive testimony. The first issue was whether MAC should set an absolute ceiling on total noise that can be produced by airlines serving Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Each of the three following issues assumes that the answer to the first would be in the affirmative. While the FAA conceptually agrees with the right of an airport operator to deal with the noise that results from airport operation, it must be done in a reasonable manner based upon factual analysis and without unduly restraining the flow of interstate commerce. This proposal is based upon the premise that the amount of noise which existed in 1984, if not desirable, is at least acceptable. However, this proposal was not based upon a quantifiable study of 3 actual noise exposure. Neither does this proposal balance the actual benefits to be derived versus the detriments which would flow from its implementation. There is no analytical information presented relative to the acceptability of the 1984 noise level; it is simply presented as the controlling assumption and predetermined conclusions. Critical questions about the adverse effects of the proposed noise rule on the growth and vitality of the airport must be considered. To put air commerce in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area in perspective, consider the following economic indicators. The Minneapolis Metropolitan Airports System Plan Study, completed in June of 1986, which was based on 1983 economic data, states that the airport provided approximately 15,500 on-site jobs for area . residents. Furthermore, there are an additional 17,500 airport dependant jobs within a 2-mile radius of the airport. These 33,000 jobs, directly or indirectly dependent upon the aviation industry, generated over $900 million dollars in annual payroll. The total economic impact of the aviation industry on the local economy was estimated in 1983 to be approximately $2.1 billion annually, with an additional $1 billion contributed annually to the metropolitan economy by the approximate 10 million air passengers who used MSP in 1982. The number of passengers at the 4 Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport has increased to approximately 15 million in 1985. I think it is safe to assume that the economic impact of the airport on the county has also increased by about 50% since 1983. In reviewing the material available to us, we found no discussion of or consideration being given to the economic and other benefits flowing to the community because of the existence and operation of the airport. A local community may say that the choice to constrain its air commerce is a matter of local concern and is not a matter of Federal concern, and particularly does not involve the FAA. The fact is that there are a number of consequences which flow from such a local decision, which directly involve areas that are of concern to the Federal Government. To mention a few, there are impacts on interstate commerce, discriminatory treatment of air carrier users, and breach of grant contract assurances. Regarding the impact on interstate commerce, it is not necessary to go beyond the material provided by MAC in connection with the proposal to answer the impact question. Over 20% of Northwest- Republic flights would be impacted and may have to be eliminated to comply with the noise limits set forth in the proposed Ordinance. In addition, almost 40% of the flights by Continental. American, Delta, United and TWA would be similarly 5 impacted. From our perspective, this proposal clearly has a significant impact on interstate commerce and this impact may be an impermissible and illegal burden. The FAA is charged with responsibility for maintenance, improvement, and development of the national air transportation system. The key aspect of that responsibility is the concept of a system. Airports are an integral part of that system. They are not simply facilities which provide local services for travelers, passengers, shippers, businesses of all kinds and types. The fundamental concept of air commerce inherently involves the safe, efficient and expeditious movement of people and goods from different and diverse locations to other locations. The FAA cannot ignore or disregard its system responsibilities, and Minneapolis-St. Paul cannot withdraw from that system, or its attendant responsibilities within it, as this would cause an undue burden on other points within the system. Many of the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport facilities were developed with federal airport grant funds provided by the FAA. Under the 1970 airport development program and the 1982 airport improvement program, the amount of federal airport grant funds at Minneapolis-St. Paul has exceeded $44 million. In connection with each of those grants, the Airports Commission provided a number of specific assurances required by federal statute, each of which was included in grant agreements between the FAA and the 6 Airports Commission. Without getting into an extensive recitation of the provisions of those grant assurances, they essentially require that the airport be open and available for public use on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all persona who want to use the airport. The grant assurances require that the airport will be operated and managed in compliance with all applicable Federal laws. This includes consistency with the policy goals of the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act, and the prohibition on local efforts to regulate the rates, routes, or services provided by air carriers. At the same time, Federal law recognizes the legitimate interest of an airport operator in taking reasonable, non-discriminatory actions designed to address local aviation noise problems. Actions which create an undue burden on the flow of interstate commerce or otherwise conflict with Federal law are not permissable. For example, indirectly regulating the use of the navigable airspace or restricting the flow of interstate operations by determining who can or cannot operate, or the type of aircraft which are operated at the airport, does not meet the tests of reasonable, non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary legitimate local noise regulation. Having addressed some of our major conceptual and legal objections to the "noise budget", I would now like to speak to some of the specific problems we have with the proposed 7 Ordinance. I am sure you understand that our speaking to specific problems does not eliminate our overall objections to the approach upon which the Ordinance is based. From a technical perspective, it appears to the FAA that the proposal is seriously flawed, as well as presenting a paperwork and bookkeeping nightmare. The "Average Daily Noise Energy" (ADNE) is not a nationally recognized noise standard. ADNE as used in this proposal is based on calculations derived from noise levels in Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) and the number of operations by generalized aircraft types. As such, the ADNE scheme is a misuse of EPNL since EPNL is not a measure of cumulative noise or community impact as is the average day/night noise metric (Ldn) used by the FAA. EPNL is used primarily to establish compliance with certification criteria in FAR Part 36. The use of EPNL measured in decibels (EPNdB) is, as noted in the definition section of the proposal, a measure of aircraft flyover noise, not a measure of cumulative noise. This proposal purports to transpose and apply EPNL as a cumulative noise metric which it is not and was not designed to be. There are other technical problems with the application of ADNE. It deals with maximum aircraft weight rather than actual or typical weight of the aircraft at takeoff, and may overstate actual noise exposure. It assumes that all aircraft of a given type make the same noise. This is not true. The noise generated 8 depends on the engines used, the load and other factors. It would be unfair to penalize the operator of a quiet aircraft because the Ordinance selected a higher noise value for its particular combination of engine and airframe. Another technical problem is that the noise levels in the ADNE are calculated to a precision beyond the accuracy of the EPNL certification data base from which it is drawn. The problem is compounded in calculating the "arrival/departure cycle" by adjusting the noise level by 8.6 EPNdB. At the request of representatives of the Commission, the FAA's technical experts on noise have met with HNTB to explain in detail our technical concerns and reservations with the ADNE methodology. We hope we can continue to work together, but it appears that MAC has not acted on our technical input. The allocation of noise to particular airlines also presents a number of problems. The methodology would allocate average daily noise energy (ADNE .) to air carriers in proportion to their historical level of service based upon each carrier's market share of seats available during August 1986. In effect, carriers would be frozen into their August 1986 market share. Competition in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area would be severely limited. The allocation scheme, along with the reduction in operations, could Limit the routes a carrier could serve and diminish service on 9 existing routes. The results of the allocation process could, therefore, conflict with those provisions of Federal law which prohibit local regulation of "rates, routes, and services" offered by an air carrier. A second problem related to the allocation scheme proposed is the mixture of time frames used for various aspects of the proposal. While the allocation would be made based on the level of service as measured by the available seats in August 1986, the noise energy to be distributed would be based on noise energy calculations for 1984. The approach favors airlines that have recently increased operations and discriminates against other airlines. From a compliance and enforcement standpoint, the provisions of this Ordinance also raise a number of troubling issues. We note that "every instance of an air carrier exceeding its ADNE [average daily noise energy) allocation" constitutes a crime punishable by imprisonment or fine or both. Based upon the figures set forth by the Commission, Northwest could be fined approximately $30,000 a day for its operations. As we noted earlier, Federal law recognizes the legitimate interest of an airport operator in taking reasonable, non-discriminatory actions designed to address local aviation noise problems. However, that does not extend to the use of police power. The imposition of criminal sanctions to control aircraft noise may not be within 10 the authority or power of an airport proprietor acting in a proprietary capacity. Assuming this exercise of police power were to be implemented, the reporting requirement and related sanctions imposed for failure to report ADNE usage may present serious Constitutional issues. Another compliance problem is presented by the MAC proposal that provides, "Noise allocations may be withdrawn by the Commission . . for willful violation of this Ordinance." This language would appear to give MAC the power to shut down Northwest Airlines or some other airline' if they so desired for non- compliance. This power to impact interstate commerce is not within HAC's authority. Another problem with the Ordinance is the requirement to file compliance reports monthly. At best, this requires an enormously burdensome paperwork exercise. More practically, the requirement to prove, both before and after each month, that an airline has complied with the Ordinance poses operational and potential safety problems. On the operational side, the airline will have little flexibility to consider the reality of day-to-day scheduling. This would include unforeseen revisions of schedules due to weather, equipment breakdowns, or use of the airport as a designated alternate for other airports with severe weather conditions. Neither does the Ordinance provide for the normal variations of schedule to account for seasonal, holiday, and weekday variations. By limiting the number of daily operations, the Ordinance might force decisions to be made between compromising safety and violating the Ordinance. Another specific criticism of the "noise budget" is that, as the MAC Staff Report has found, it erroneously assumes that the airlines will be able to reschedule their fleet use or replace their equipment in a short time so as to comply with the Ordinance. Given this inability to replace Stage II operations with equivalent Stage III operations, an immediate substantial loss in air service to Minneapolis-St. Paul users could be anticipated, with a resultant negative effect on economic development for the entire State. While it may be possible in some limited circumstances for some air carriers to accommodate local desires by such rearrangement, it may not be possible for every carrier to do so or for any of them to do so at every location. The ability of a carrier to engage in this kind of activity at a specific location is dependent on the carrier's existing and projected fleet, as well as the nature of its activities at a particular location. What may be possible at outlying airports may not be possible for hub locations. What may be reasonable use of particular equipment at a given location or on a given route structure may be unreasonable use of equipment on a different route or at a different location. Hirr. 12 From a Federal perspective, the issue is not just a noise budget at Minneapolis-St. Paul. Proposals to assert the inherent rights and legal authority of any airport proprietor are not and cannot be viewed by FAA in isolation. The imposition of diverse schemes which impact the flow of air commerce must be reviewed carefully by the FAA. From a Federal perspective, there should be no race among airports to see which of them can enact or establish a particular set of regulations before other airports can enact such regulations. Neither is it appropriate from a Federal perspective for one airport location to assert a claim to special protection from aviation noise, and by doing so increase the noise impact on other communities in other locations. Our review of the proposed Minneapolis-St. Paul noise budget Ordinance leads us to conclude that it is likely to be fundamentally flawed. We urge the Airports Commission to reject the present proposal. We highly recommend that the Part 150 process be followed to arrive at logical, cohesive, well-analyzed, as well as flexible noise mitigation measures. only in this way can an overall, integrated plan of noise reduction and compatibility be achieved. _ 13 We remain willing and available to assist the Commission as they work with the communities and airport users to develop a Part 150 program. -MEMORANDUM- Mayor Peterson and Council Members Alan D. Gray, P.E., City Engineer Carl J. Jullie, City Manager August 14, 1990 Summit/Meadowvale/Red Oak Drive Neighborhood Sidewalk Improvements (I.C. 52-166) TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: RE: On March 13, 1990, a public hearing was held for utility and street improvements in the Summit/Meadowvale/Red Oak Drive Neighborhood. At the public hearing a number of residents voiced opinions regarding the extent to which sidewalk improvements are proposed A copy of the March 13, 1990 Council Minutes covering the discussion of the proposed improvements are attached to this memo. Also enclosed is a copy of the drawing from the feasibility study showing the proposed sidewalk system in the neighborhood. The portion of the sidewalk system highlighted in green is the basic sidewalk system through the neighborhood. The portion highlighted in red is the additional sidewalk system proposed in response to the original petition by residents for a more extensive sidewalk system in the neighborhood. After the public hearing in March, a questionnaire regarding the extent of the sidewalk system was sent to all property owners on Summit, Meadowvale and Red Oak Drive. Twenty-nine property owners returned the questionnaire. The results are as follows: 1. Should the sidewalk be eliminated along Summit Drive east of Red Oak Drive? 14 Yes 15 No 2. Should the sidewalk be eliminated along Red Oak Drive and along Summit Drive east of Meadowvale Drive? 14 Yes 15 No 3. Should the sidewalk along Summit Drive be on the north or south side of the street? 16 North 9 South Based on the original neighborhood petition for a more expensive extensive sidewalk system and the recent survey results indicating a slight majority of respondents still favor the proposed system, Staff recommends that Council reaffirm the original decision to construct the entire system currently under contract to Landwehr Construction. AGDssa City Council Minutes 12 March 13, 1990 being recommended this evening was based on a recommendation from the Examiner of Titles. Pauly stated that the payment issue could be made a condition of the Developer's Agreement. Peterson asked Pauly if the Council could take action on both the vacation of Corral Lane and the Final Plat approval for Sandy Pointe without hindering the Homeowners Association position regarding ownership. Pauly stated that these proceedings would not determine title of the property. Robert Gartner, 15701 Cedar Ridge Road, was concerned that the Homeowners Association would lose access to its recreation lot if the vacation of Corral Lane took place. Dietz replied that a small portion of the road would go across the property in question. Jullie replied that this would not result in the Homeowners Association being denied access to its property. Pauly asked if access (8U denied access to its property. Pauly asked if access would be available even if a third party owned the property. Jullie replied that there would be access over land which was not in dispute. Gray replied that a trail would be provided in place of a street and access would still be available for the Homeowners Association. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution No. 90-56 to vacate a part of the right-of-way for Corral Lane. Motion carried unanimously. C. ORDER IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, I.C. 52-166 (Sanitary Sewer, Watermain, Street and Drainaae Improvements in Summit/Meadowvale/Red Oak Drives Neighborhood) Resolution No. 90-61 Jullie reported that notice of this public hearing was mailed to 67 surrounding property owners and published in the February 28 and March 7, 1990 issues of the Eden Prairie News. Dietz presented the plans for project I.C. 52-166. The project was the result of a petition from the residents in the neighborhood to provide utilities and street improvements to the area. The street would be 28 feet wide. The exact location of the storm sewer outlots had not been determined at this time and further study was taking place. The proposal had an alternate for the construction of sidewalks. The sidewalk would continue all along Summit Drive and Red Oak Drive based on a ) City Council Minutes 13 March 13, 1990 request by the residents to complete the sidewalk loop. The cost of the project was $404,140. The assessment would consist of 57 lots at $7,090 per lot unit. This assessment included $14,000 for the additional sidewalk at $247 per lot unit. Easement acquisitions for utilities were not included in the figures for the feasibility study and these costs could be added if necessary. Dietz added that the cul-de-sac in the northeast end of Summit Drive would require an easement for the construction of the terminus. The cost of the storm sewer would be approximately $201,860, to be assessed at $3,364 per lot unit for 60 lots. The cost of the watermain would be approximately $166,190 at $3,022 per lot unit for 55 lots plus the trunk sewer and water assessments. An alternate plan had been developed at a lower cost which resulted in a savings of approximately $400 per lot; however, this plan would be more disturbing to the neighborhood and would result in the lose of additional trees. Four lots would be assessed at a one-half lot unit cost because of the irregular shapes. Red Rock View would be assessed for 6 lot units for utilities and 7 lot units for streets. Dietz presented the assessment roll and recommended that the utilities be subject to the Exclusion Policy. Bids were scheduled to open in April, substantial completion in September, and the Special Assessment Hearing would take place in August 1991. The taxes would appear on the 1992 tax statements. Anderson asked Dietz if these were the last homes with septic tanks in this area. Dietz replied that approximately 29 lots in this area had septic tanks. Anderson then asked how long after the City provided sewer to an area did the residents have to hook up to the City's system. Dietz replied that it could be established that hook up would be required within 2 years. Dietz added that currently the policy was that an existing septic system could not be repaired if City sewer were available and the resident would be required to hook up at the time the system failed. Anderson believed that a time limit should be established to require hook up especially when homes were close to a lake. Dietz stated that Staff had been requested by the Metropolitan Waste Commission to establish a comprehensive sewer policy plan which was presently being reviewed by the Building Department. He added that inspection of all on-site systems was part of the recommended proposal. Dan Dineen, 15607 Summit Drive, stated that it appeared that the storm sewer systems did not connect to anything. He added that a water drainage problem existed currently in the area. Dietz replied that these were not the final plans. Dietz added that curb and gutter would be installed in the cul-de-sac area. Dineen requested that further review of the drainage problem be done. Dietz City Council Minutes 14 March 13, 1990 replied that this would be done during the final design process. Dineen stated that he was not in agreement with the sidewalk proposal. Dietz stated that the sidewalk would connect to Red Rock Shores subdivision which would allow a connection to the trail at County Road 4. Peterson asked Dietz the rational for the additional sidewalk. Dietz replied this was based on a petition received from some of the residents in the area. Claude Johnson, 8740 Red Oak Drive, stated that the septic systems in the area do not drain toward the lake. Johnson added that he had been told that he would have 5 years before connection would be required and did not believe that it would be fair to change the rules now. Anderson replied that he was concerned about a potential problem. Johnson stated that he was opposed to the additional sidewalk proposed. He added that he was concerned about the liability issues involved. Johnson did not see the need for the sidewalk because the neighborhood was self- contained. Bob Maier, 15603 Summit Drive, stated that there was a drainage problem currently on his property. Dietz emphasized that these were not final plans and that the issue would not be overlooked at the time of final design. Don Harasyn, 15811 Summit Drive, supported the 2nd alternative plan to reduce the costs. Harrison questioned how often access would be necessary to the backyards. Harrison noted that homes in this area were mainly walkouts and the septic systems were located in the backyards and questioned why the service connection costs would be less by going into the street. Harrison supported the sidewalk system as proposed but recommended consistency in rational for the placement of sidewalks in neighborhoods. John Hoffer, 8711 Meadowvale Drive, stated that he had acquired 40 signatures on the petition for the sidewalks and supported the plan as shown. Catherine Holmbeck, 16050 Summit Drive, stated that she did not see a need for the sidewalk between Summit Drive and County Road 4. Hombeck was concerned about the extra burden of shoveling the sidewalk in the winter and liability. There were no further comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the Public Hearing and adopt Resolution NO. 90-61 ordering the City Council Minutes 15 March 13, 1990 Improvements and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for I.C. 52-166. Peterson asked if direction was going to be given to Staff regarding the sidewalks. Dietz replied that based on the discussions this evening it appeared that the sidewalk presented in green on the plan would be acceptable to the majority of the neighborhood residents; however, the sidewalk presented in orange was not fully supported. Peterson believed that it was important to hear comments from more of the residents in the neighborhood before a determination was made regarding the sidewalk issue. Dietz stated that he was an advocate of sidewalks especially in neighborhoods with young children. Dietz added that from a safety aspect the sidewalk would make sense. Pidcock noted that sidewalks were much harder and more costly to install after a neighborhood was fully developed. Dietz stated that the City did not have an ordinance which required that the sidewalks be shoveled and in fact the City plowed some sidewalks in heavily traveled areas or close to schools. Dietz presented the Council with a letter from a Mrs. Woods which stated objection to the project. Peterson believed that the neighborhood should be polled regarding the sidewalk issue. Anderson believed that the main concern should be the safety of the children in the neighborhood. Claude Johnson stated that on Red Oak Drive there were no young children. Peterson noted that this situation could change in the future. Pidcock believed that the sidewalk was a safety issue. The Council concurred on strong support of the installation of the sidewalk system as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. D. JAMESTOWN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT by Tandem Properties. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial on 5.59 acres and from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on 12.16 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Review on 60.79 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 60.79 acres with waivers, Site Plan Review and Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on Pj,0 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager Carl J. Jullie SUBJECT: Special Meeting Dates DATE: August 15, 1990 Pursuant to the Council's direction at the August 7 meeting, the following are suggested dates for special meeting purposes: Tuesday, August 21, 6:00 - 7:15 PM Re: B&V Water System Report (already scheduled) Thursday, August 23, 5:00 PM Re: 1991 City Budget (already scheduled) Thursday, September 13 - 5:00 PM Re: Community Survey & Liquor Stores Tuesday, September 25, 7:30 PM Re: Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed District Tuesday, October 9, 5:00 PM Re: City Hall Options & City Manager's Goals Tuesday, October 23, 7:30 PM Re: Fairway Woods Homeowners & Edenvale Golf Course The Council can review and amend this list as you deem appropriate at the August 21 meeting. CJJ:jdp i MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources--- DATE: August 3, 1990 SUBJECT: Cooperative Project with the School District to Correct Backstop Design and Install a 12' Fence Behind Soccer Goals Earlier this year, several residents from the Hillcrest neighborhood, north of the Round Lake School/Park site, complained about foul balls from the baseball field, and soccer balls from the soccer fields, landing in their yards. The greatest concern of City and School District officials was relating to the possible injury that could be caused by someone being hit by foul balls from the baseball field. The City Council directed staff to work with the School District officials in an attempt to provide a design that would eliminate foul balls from reaching private property, and to construct a barrier fence behind the soccer goals that would eliminate or, at least, reduce the number of soccer balls that end up in private property across Hillcrest Court. The planner from Brauer and Associates agreed with City staff that the only way to insure eliminating all baseballs from reaching the private property was to install a net from immediately over the home plate, back to the backstop. The recommended correction requires dismantling a portion of the existing backstop that would bring down the entire backstop height to 20' and install 35' high metal poles at each end of the existing backstop, connecting a cable between those two metal poles and a black nylon net from that cable back to the existing backstop. This netting system will catch all foul balls that will land anywhere beyond l' behind home plate. The cost for this project is approximately $12,000. The residents that live on the north side of Hillcrest Court complain that three or four times each game, or practice period, soccer balls will fly over the existing 6' fence behind the goals of the two soccer fields in this location. There is an existing 6' chain link fence running the entire length of the school property boundary from County Road 4 westerly. Staff is recom- mending installing a black vinyl-coated 12' chain link fence immediately south of the existing fence. The additional 6' will catch the vast majority of the balls that are clearing the 6' fence. The black vinyl fence will clearly appear to be a separate "backstop" for the soccer fields, rather than a part of the ex- isting 6' fence. The estimated cost for two 100', 12' high chain link fence structures is approximately $5,000. The other option considered behind the soccer fields, was to in- stall a netting structure behind each soccer field that would have cost close to $5,000 per field and would have been subject to theft, vandalism, etc. Although the 12' fence may not catch all of the soccer balls, it should eliminate the vast majority and not cause the neighbors on Hillcrest Court anymore nuisance than any other typical neighbor living adjacent to a park or athletic field. The estimated cost for these two projects is approximately $17,000. City staff recommends the City of Eden Prairie split the cost of these projects on a 50-50 basis with the School District; there- fore, the estimated cost for the City's share of this project is approximately $8,500. Staff would recommend funding this project from general fund reserves. BL:mdd coop/10 Brauer & Associates Ltd. 7901. Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Mn 55344 16121941-1660 9•4is 4 t4n4a4 (7014.) 6it:O.V4461.- OW sq. 1141-kf tarn N4 -1"(P) 110 - orr Nor 10 'mum IPAme.t. AND him 13.mot.. lor 7.071.04 14/ 4 *4" Sem. 40 404.v. lbor Crrr) — - 0 4.A.im•o- Nor ,5t4Rtor -121.46-19uf 1 • -12o451.411t imrdeop hIPPRA)461... ii It 4 a08c.. tn. Coo -IA") T•tlkl. 1.1 1:04VIVIP dylf710. TA1464.- A.170 12,hke..kki1eff'. 0./ V2-14 A1.160 . MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources August 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Proposal for Professional Services; Purgatory Creek Park, Property Rights Acquisition and Related Services City staff have requested the Brauer Group to provide a proposal for consulting services to secure property rights or easements required to permit construction on the first phase of development of the Purgatory Creek Recreation Area. Staff are recommending Don Brauer to provide this service, as Mr. Brauer is very familiar with the history of the project and he is familiar with most of the property owners of this area. City staff believe that it necessary to obtain a consultant to review all plans, calculations, property maps, costs, and other documents and explain the impact of this proposal to affected property owners. It is important that this consultant understand the development rights of property owners, as well as the goal of the City and Watershed District in protecting the marsh and developing the recreation area. We are requesting the consultant to review this project from both the City's point of view and the property owner's point of view, and provide property owners with a fair assessment of the ob- jectives of the project. He will then request property owners to dedicate title to floodplain property for the City of Eden Prairie, or at least a drainage and trail easement over the floodplain property prior to the City petitioning the Watershed District to initiate a feasibility study on this project. This project has always been predicated on the assumption that property owners would be willing to dedicate their floodplain property to the City of Eden Prairie for this park project free of charge. If property owners are not willing to participate in this manner, staff will be recommending to delay this project until some future date when the City has obtained ownership or easement of the floodplain property. BL:mdd purgag/5 Afer August 14, I -1490 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie. MN 5344 % Bob Lambert, Director, ParksiRecreationiResourcss RE: PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES; PUROATORY PARR. PROPERTY RIGHTS ACOUSITION AND RELATED SERVICES Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter proposal outlines a scope of services, fee structure-. and other elements which will serve. when aeproved. am an agreemert between THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE. a Minnesota municisal corporation, referred to as EP, and the GRAUER GROUP. INC.. a Minnesota corporation, referred to as ERAUER. It is the intention of EP to retain BRAUER to provise professiono1 services required to assist City staff as required and directed n negotiations to secure property rights or eaeements required to permit construction of the first phase of development c4 - the PURGATORY PARE AREA of the City of Eden Prairie, referred to as the PROJECT. A. BASIC SERVICES BRAUER will provide professional services reduired to: 1. Review all plane, calculations, Property macs, costs, and other documente that describe the proposed PROJECT in order to understand and communicate the plan proposals to affected property owners, and to delineate the nature and limits of the property rights to be requested. 2. Prepare a work plan in the form of a brief, written description of the information and materials to be presented to the affected owners, a schedule for meetings with those owners, a typical graphic and legal description of the property or property rights to be acquired from each owner, and a format for progrees. reports on the results of owner meetinds to -taff and Council. 6116 Parnell Avenue, Edina, Minnesota 55424 • (612) 944-7533 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 6/14/S0 r:.are 3. Collect all available dc,ta, V,AiAn!:, want, legal document::, and other pertinent information about the PROjCCI from consultant records, and define specific nfT•eds for addonal data and information required fc ,r information or nedstiations on each specific parcel. 4. Meet with each affected property owner to eescibe the prognsed PROJECT, outline the nature and extent of t is property or property rights requested by hP. and regue ,A transfer of property or property rights required. Z. Participate with EP staff and consultants in reviewing plan or development alternatives or . trade -offs suggested or considered by affected owners durirg performance of the work. 6. Provide additional related professional services requested and directed by EP during the term of this agreement. (,s. EP RESPONSIBILITIES EP shall provide or allow access to all available data, plans, surveys, reports, maps, legal documents, budnets, and other I nformation which may have a bearing on the information presented or the negotiations conduct ea under this agreement, and shall provide for the participation of all key EP staff and consultants required to complete the work. C. FEES FUR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EP shall compensate GRAUER for services orovided under this agreement as follows: 1. Fees for professional services provided under paragraphs Al through A6, above, shall be determined on the basis of the following schedule: Senior Professional .-a7'-.00 per hour Clericel/Field to 30.00 per hour a. EP shall compensate rmuER for all expenses directly connected with the hi-alert including auto milage at the rate of 'I.O.L5 per mile, identifiable materials- and supplies utilized, reproduction and copy costs- telephone, postane. and seecificallv authorized travel expenses. in CiditiOn ta Vhr, h ,~Ay fpr? ,Abov*. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE 3/14/90 cage a 3. Invoices will be submitted on a monthly tesis wi:h a breakdown of time and expenses. tor work psefermed throixce the last day of each month, and are payable within :1 ,0 days •ef the date of the invoice. 4. The total payment to E.RAUER. including all expenses, shall not exceed TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS (IN0.000.00/. unless. specifically authorized by EP. D. TERM, TERMINATION AND SUCCESSION 1. The term of this contract shall be concurrent with the services authorized and performed, bit shall not exceed 120 calendar days from the date of execution unless extended by LP. 2. Termination may be accomplished by either. party at any time by written notice, and shall be effective upon pavmeet in full for all servicee performed to the date of receipt of notice of termination, 3. EP and BRAUER each binds itself ., its partners, essigns or successors and legal reoresentatives to the other party of . this agreement with respect to all covenantin or foie egreemert. 4. Neither EP nor 3fR4UER shall assign, sublet, or transfer its interest in this apreement without the written consent of the other. E. NONDISCRIMINATION 1. BRAUER will not discriminate against any employee on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, physical condition or age. F. RECORDS, DOCUMENTS ONO XNSURANCE i. BRAUER shall maintain time and expense records for work performed •nder- the hourly rate plus expense fee basis, which shall be made available for examination by EP if requested. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, f ,IN 7G00 :2xecutive )rive. Eden Prairie. 'F-1 I344 Oy: CITY OF EDEil PRAIRIE 2. BRAUER Ehall carry inr:,wiinCe t ,z‘ CC:vcer 1 ncr Compensation acts, from for bodily inIke v death to BRAUER ,7mployeav and the eubliP, and from claims for prOperty damage. IN WITNESS WHEREOF LP and BRAUER have made and e,:eputed thiL. Contraot-Agreement, , l qq0. GRAUER: EP081400 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources-F.4.c_ DATE: August 15, 1990 SUBJECT: Review Policy on Permits for Temporary Shelters, Tents or Canopies in Parks At the August 7, 1990 meeting, the City Council requested staff to provide a report reviewing the policy on permits for temporary shelters, tents or canopies in City parks. Under Subd. 4.S., the City Code indicates that it is a petty misdemeanor for any person in a park to "construct or place any type of structure including, but not limited to, deer stands, playhouses, tree houses, temporary storage buildings, motorcycle or bicycle launches, temporary shelters, tents, tarps, canopies, or other such devices upon park- land without a permit." City staff have designated a limited number of areas where the City has authorized tents or sun shelters for public use. Those desig- nated areas are as follows: 1. ROUND LAKE PARK a. within the west hockey rink b. east of the backstop on field number 2 c. Lions Club parking lot 2. STARING LAKE PARK a. on the skating rink oval opposite from the volleyball court (only for groups that have reserved the adjacent park shelter) 3. FLYING CLOUD FIELDS a. adjacent to the concession stand on the south or west side of the building 4. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS a. within hockey rinks The majority of the requests for tents or shelters come from either athletic associations that are conducting tournaments and want a sun shelter for a registration tent or from company picnics that want a larger shelter in case of rain adjacent to their picnic area 9,o6i The City conducted a recent survey of other park systems to determine whether or not they allowed tents in parks. The results of that survey are as follows: 1. Bloomington - yes, in designated areas 2. Edina - yes, in two designated parks 3. Minnetonka - no 4. Burnsville - only small screen tents in large open areas 5. Plymouth - yes, in designated areas 6. Apple Valley - yes 7. Minneapolis - yes, with a $100 damage fee in designated areas (reservation areas only) 8. Hennepin Parks - yes, in designated areas 9. Eagan - yes, in designated areas 10. Lakeville - yes, in designated areas There are several reasons the City has a limited number of desig- nated area where tents or sun shelters are allowed: 1. There is a great deal of underground electrical and irrigation systems in various parts of the park system, and the City does not want anyone driving tent stakes into those underground utilities. 2 The only time the large picnic shelters are used is when it is raining and the ground is wet. When large groups of people congregate in a limited area such as inside a tent on wet turf for an extended period of time, the City must either resod or reseed that area, unless it is in an area such as within a hockey rink where the quality of the turf is not an issue. 3. The City actually only has two parks that are highly sought after for picnic reservation purposes - Staring Lake Park and Round Lake Park. These two park areas already have large areas designed for picnic group reservations. By allowing any other group to come in and set up a large tent in an unre- served area, there would be little or no area for individuals or families to use the parks for casual (unreserved) use. 4. There are limited parking facilities at both parks and by expanding the number of areas where individuals could set up tents for a company picnics, the frustration of existing park users that are unable to find parking places would increase. As an example, we have had at least three occasions during the Concerts in the Park series where the conflict with a park reservation use resulted in many people driving through the park and leaving without attending the concert due to the inability of finding a legal parking space. The City does not reserve Round Lake Park for group reservation use on Monday through Thursday simply due to the lack of parking spaces, because of softball leagues, sand volleyball leagues, swimming beach, tennis courts and other casual park users. City staff are aware that the parks are developed and maintained for public use; however, staff also believes that it is only a good management practice to control the number of large groups that use the parks and to limit the areas where large groups can set up tents, canopies, or other structures. Many companies from outside the City limits call and request to reserve our parks for their company picnics. They do this because of the "beautiful and well maintained facilities". Those parks would not be as beautiful or as well maintained if there were not some restrictions on the use of those facilities. BL:mdd tentuse/10 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources DATE: August 15, 1990 SUBJECT: Review of Options for Council and Commission Tour of the Minnesota River Valley At the August 6, 1990 meeting, the City Council indicated strong support for developing a program or plan for preserving the Minnesota River bluffs, and cleanup of the Minnesota River and adjacent floodplain. The Council requested City staff to develop a plan listing the steps that should be taken to address this concern. Councilman Anderson suggested that the first step might be to give a tour to the City Council, as well as the Planning Commission and Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission members to allow them to view the river valley and its natural beauty. Mr. Anderson suggested a tour of the river front by boat, or possibly driving down into the river valley with cars and doing a limited amount of hiking to see the river and the river floodplain from the road system in place. Staff agreed to provide options for tours and bring them back for Council consideration: Option #1 - tour by boat. Murphys Landing will provide a two hour river tour for $7.50 per person, or a three hour trip that would cover the river from Highway 101 bridge to Highway 18 for $400. This river tour could handle 49 passengers. They are able to do this tour on a Friday at 4 p.m. Attached is a copy of the brochure and catering prices, if dinner were to be served. Staff also looked at the option of touring the river by canoe or by motor boat. A canoe trip would take four to five hours as there is not an acceptable access to the river east of Shakopee until Lyndale Avenue in Bloomington. If the City were to invite members of the Planning Commission and the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, as well as a limited number of staff, there might be as many as 25 to 30 people that may wish to attend this type of tour. Staff did not think it was feasible to get enough motor boats to take 25 to 30 people on a tour. Option #2 - Tour by bus. The City could rent a school bus and view the river valley from the top area where the washouts are occur- ring, and then travel around and proceed down Indian Road toward Shakopee. This would provide Commission and Councilmembers with a first hand look of the obvious future trail locations. Cost would be $13/hour for a driver, plus $.85 per mile. Option #3 - The Council could follow the same course proposed for the bus tour, but simply use the City van and other private vehicles (Councilman Anderson has a van and Bob Lambert has a van). Four or five vans could probably take all of the interested individuals on this type of tour. Staff requests the City Council to decide what type of tour we should plan, as well as the date and time of the tour. BL:mdd tour/10 CREATIVE RIVER TOURS P.O. BOX 151 SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA 55379 Telephone No. (612) 445-7491 Director of Group Activities and Tour Operators: Creative River Tours charter services appeals to many groups. You can choose from a live narrated excursion of the river that describes wildlife, comments on the ever changing river and contains bits of historical trivia, or have a catered lunch, dinner or party cruise for a business meeting or any group function, day or night, from 1 or 2 hour jaunts to full day outings. Creative River Tours is a short drive west of the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul) we are based in Shakopee on the scenic Minnesota River. The land surrounding the Minnesota River is part of the National Wildlife Refuge, and much of it is in its natural state. You can take a public excursion or private charter from Historic Murphy's Landing in Shakopee or charters also leave from Huber Park in Downtown Shakopee, where the boat is handicapped (wheelchairs) accessible. From Shakopee your group or party can cruise down river to Ft. Snelling State Park, the Mississippi River and St. Paul or up the Mississippi River through the Ford Lock to Minneapolis. Also, there are many locations in Minneapolis and St. Paul where you can depart from and journey up the Minnesota River to the many attractions in the Shakopee area (Canterbury Downs, Historic Murphy's Landing, Valleyfair, etc.). The vessel, EMMA LEE, is U.S. Coast Guard certified and inspected annually. Each charter is manned by a licensed captain and crew to serve you. The EMMA LEE has comfortable seating for up to 49 passengers, all the seats are on one level so you do not have to climb between decks and each seat has a full view of the surroundings. The convertible enclosure allows us to adapt the vessel to the weather conditions. The EMMA LEE is equipped with an AM/FM stereo cassette deck and public address system, restroom facility and is fully lighted for night travel. Examples of Group Packages (each) 2 hour Charter Only $ 7.50 2 hour with 3 hors d'oeuvre trays $14.00 2 hour with box dinner and beverage $15.00 3 hour Charter Only $10.00 3 hour with 3 hors d'oeuvre trays $16.50 3 hour with box dinner and beverage $17.50 These are examples of packages, other meals are also available (chicken, roast beef, etc.); for prices call our office. Beverages can be obtained on board (beer, pop, wine coolers). Since 1985 many people have enjoyed cruising the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers with creative River Tours. We have an excellent working relationship and track record with the City of Shakopee and Historic Murphy's Landing. We look forward to serving you. Call our office at (612) 445-7491 for more information on rates and reservations. CREATIVE RIVER TOURS, Gregory A. Anderson John T. Constantine Unique, serene, spectacular. Enjoy a cruise on the Minnesota River. Creati‘ e River Tours is based in Shakopee on the Minnesota River. We have about a 50 mile touring range on the Minnesota, and most of the land sur-rounding the river is a national wildlife refuge. From the Minnesota we can cruise down river to the Mississippi River, Fort Snelling State Park, Min-neapolis, or St. Paul, or from those loca-tions cruise up river to Shakopee and the many attractions there, such as Canter-bury Downs. . Our vessel - the Emma Lee - is custom 54— built as an excursion vessel and special- ly designed to travel on the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. It has a conver- tible enclosure that can be open on sun- ny days or closed in inclement weather but always affording a full view of the river and its surroundings. The Emma Lee has comfortable seating for up to 49 people and is fully lighted for night travel. She is U.S. Coast Guard certified and comes with a licensed cap- tain and crew ready to serve you. Private Charters Creative River Tours can help develop your ideas into a fun, exciting and affordable cruise for any group. • Family Reunions • Tour Groups • Anniversaries • Business Meetings • Weddings • Company • Birthdays Picnics • Up to 49 People • Church Or School Groups Any party or occasion! Any time! Day or night! Season runs from May to November. CREATIVE RIVER TOURS P.O. BOX 151 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 FOR RATES AND RESERVATIONS CALL (612) 445-7491 Public Excursions Front historic Murphy's Landing tit history museum of 1840 - 19001 we offer a title hour historically narrated t011t deSCribillg and nature. Located ½ mile east of Shal“`PJ's' on Highway 101 just north of Came: ittti. Downs. For river excursion only. an to west .mst gate. Frey Parking. Departure Times Wed. - 1715 and 2.1; Sat. — Sun. I:1 :j. 21,0 and Holidays tmi Jstemortm Das weekend to I ;0'1,, I W CC ke s oncs alter Labor Dan Ticket Prices Adults Senior Citizens 62 and over Students 6 to 18 5.4 00 Toddlers 5 and under 49 PASSENGER MAXINILM RESERVATIONS NOT MAT 5s AR\ TIMES AND PRICLS SUBJECT TO CHANoL. -MEMORANDUM- TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: RE: Mayor and City Council Rodney W. Rue, P.E., Assistant City Engineerfa Alan D. Gray, P.E., City Engineer August 15, 1990 Pedestrian Bridge Over T.H. 5 at CSAH 4 In June, 1989, the Eden Prairie City Council approved the preliminary layout for a pedestrian bridge over T.H. 5 at CSAH 4. The approval was by Resolution No. 89-132 (see attached) with the approval subject to the City paying 100% of the construction costs that were estimated at $350,000.00. Since the layout approval, MnDOt has designed the bridge and determined an estimate based on those final plans. The estimate that they recently provided to us was $580,000.00. Attached you will find a breakdown of the estimate together with a letter explaining the discrepancy from the original estimate. With this new information, it is apparent that the Council needs to discuss this item and direct Staff as to the future action that should be taken with MnD0t. RWR:ssa Dsk:CP.PEDBRDGE.EST ,;3(71 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 89-132 (I.C. 52-154) PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LAYOUT APPROVAL TN 5 AT CSAH 4 WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has prepared a preliminary layout for a pedestrian bridge over TH5 at CSAH 4, within the corporate limits of the City of Eden Prairie; and WHEREAS, said preliminary layout is on file in the office of the Department of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota, being marked, labeled, and identified as Layout #1, S.P. 2701-35 (T.H. 5) NOW, THEN, BE IT RESOLVED that said preliminary layout for the pedestrian bridge within the corporate limits be and hereby is approved subject to the following: A. City shall pay 100% of construction cost (estimated to cost $350,000.00). B. MnDOT will provide pre-design, detail design, surveys, letting and construction engineering. C. City will acquire right-of-way necessary. D. City shall retain approval for aesthetic considerations of the bridge which is currently proposed to be: 1. Steel girder; 2. S-type (modified) railings without chain link, but design provisions to allow future addition; 3. Tapered concrete piers with boxouts; and 4. Provision for as much open design as technically possible. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on June 20, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE "I" Agreement No. City of Eden Prairie Date:August 3. 1990 S.P. 2701-27073 (T.H. 5=121) Pedestrian Bridge construction performed under Contract No. with City of Eden Prairie. Located on T.H. 5 at En.ineer Station Li W.B. 1151+06.73 100 Ft. Eas of C.S A H. 4 (Eden Prairie Rd.) in the City of Eden Prairie. 100% State 100% City From Sheet 2 $0.00 $580.240,30 $580,240.30 Subtotals: $0.00 Construction Enaineerina (Est. 8%) (1) $46.419.22 _$0.00 Totals: 546.419.22 $580.240.30 (1) Final based on Actual Construction Engineering Costs - 1 - ITEM NUMBER S.P. 2701*27073 (P.R. 5-121) WORK ITEM UNIT QUANTITY (1) , UNIT PRICE COST (1) 0015.601 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT LUMP SUM 1.00 4.500.00 4.500.00 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1.00 30.000.00 30.000,.,00 2031.501 FIELD OFFICE TYPE D EACH 1.00 2.000.00 2.000.00 2401.501 STRUCTURE CONCRETE (1A43) CU. YD. 113.00 200.00 22.600.00 2401.501 STRUCTURE CONCRETE (3X46A) CU. YD. 137.00 400.00 5.4.800.011 _2401.501 STRUCTURE CONCRETE (3Y43) CU. YD. 136.00 400.00 54.400.00 _2401.541 REINFORCEMENT BARS POUND 7.690.00 .50 _).845.00 2401.541 REINFORCEMENT BARS (EPDXY COED] STRUCTURE EXCAVATION POWID LUMP SUM 32.490.00 1.00 .58 13.100.00 11.844.20 13.100.00 0401.601 0401.603 REVERSE BATTEN SURFACE TREATMENT BO. FT. 560.00 1.00 560.00 2402.521 STRUCTURAL STEEL 13309) POUND 201.010.00 .96 192.969.60 _2402.583 ORNAMENTAL METAL RAILING TYPE 1 LIN. FT. 277.00 90.00 24.930.0Q 2402.583 ORNAMENTAL METAL RAILING TYPE 2 LIN. FT. 1.047.00 75.00 78.525.00 _2402.591 EXPANSION JOINT DEVICES TYPE SPECIAL LIN. FT. 48.00 80.00 3.840.00 2402.595 BEARING ASSEMBLY EACH 22.00 310.00 6.820.00 2452.507 C-I-P CONCRETE PILING DELIVERED 12" LIN. FT. 905.00 15.00 0.575.00 1 2452.508 C-I-P CONCRETE PILING DRIVEN 12" LIN. FT. 905.00 2.50 2.262.50 2452.519 C-I-P CONCRETE TEST PILE 35 FT LONG EACH 3.00 1.400.00 4.200.00 2452.519 C-I-P CONCRETE TEST PILE 40 FT LONG EACH 4.00 1.600.00 6.400.00 2477.503 ZINC-RICH PAINT SYSTEM (NEW) SO. FT. 15.920.00 2.00 31.840.00 2521.511 3" BITUMINOUS WALK SO FT. 3.112.00 2.00 6.224,00 2575.505 SODDING TYPE LAWN SO. FT. 1.780,00 2.25 4.005,00 TOTAL $580 240.30 fl (1) 100% CITY - $ 580_.240.30 I i -2 - OF T# Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 ; ci Metropolitan District Transportation Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 August 8, 1990 Mr. Eugene Dietz Public Works Director City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: S.P. 2701-27073 (T.H. 5) Pedestrian Bridge at CSAH 4 In Eden Prairie ATTN: Rod Rue Reply to Golden Valley Office Telephone No 593-8502 nq — fua 1 osso 0-ry EDEN PRAIRIE Recently I contacted Rod Rue of your Office with an updated, detailed estimate for the above referenced structure, which the City of Eden Prairie intended to pay for. The most recent estimate was $580,240.30. An estimate given to the City some time ago was $350,000.00 for the bridge. In discussing the estimate with Rod, he requested that I provide some information as to what constitutes the difference between the two estimates. I have attempted to do that, and the following is a breakdown of items, as best I can determine, that were changed or added to the project during the course of design. I have also made an estimate of how much each of these items added to the cost of the bridge. Some of the items were added because the bridge contract will need stand alone, and therefore, some items like walkway, sodding, etc. needed to be included. Computer Equipment - $4,500 This item has been typically added to many of our contracts to aid our field personnel in keeping track of costs and breakdowns in the field. The contractor retains ownership of the equipment. Ornamental Metal Railing - $60,000 This was changed from our standard chain link fence during the course of design. Bituminous Walkway and Sod - $10,229 Retaining Walls $25,000 These were added in order to prevent encorachment outside trunk highway right of way on the bridge approaches. Increase in Deck Length - $55,000 An additional span was added during design because of some tight right of way and to avoid encroachment outside trunk highway right of way. tari7" n•••••••••n•n••nn•••n,. MINNESOTA "•••••n• 1990 An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Eugene Dietz August 8, 1990 ' Page Two Mobilization - $30,000 As best I can determine provision was not made in the original estimate for contractor mobilization. Inflation - $50,000 This is assuming an estimated rate of inflation over a period of about three years. All of these items total to $234.729 which would certainly add up to the difference between the two estimates for the bridge. We will need to know from the City if they are willing to pay the additional cost for this structure. I have submitted a breakdown to our Central Of ice for them to prepare an agreement, and they expect to hear from me within about two weeks as to the response from the City. The letting date has been moved to September 28 to allow additional time for the City to review this project and for an agreement to be prepared and processed. If you have any questions or if I can help any further, please give me a call. Sincerely. Glen C. Ellis. P.E. District Final Design Engineer AA 3