HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 08/19/1986 AGENDA
It EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1986 7:30 PM, SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
BOARDROOM
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson,
George Bentley, Patricia Pidcock, and Paul
Redpath
CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to
the City Manager Craig Dawson, City
Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director
John D. Frane, Planning Director Chris
Enger, Director of Community Services
Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works
Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary
Jan Nelson
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
I. APPROVAL DF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
II. CONSENT CALENDAR
I A. Resolution requesting signal modifications @ CSAH 4 & TH5 Page 1960
(Resolution No. 86-206)
B. Approovaall of Agreement for Architectural Services for Fire Page 1961
tam tions
•
C. CRESCENT RIDGE. Denial of 2nd Reading of Ordinance #58-83,
Rezoning of 26.6 acres from Rural and R1-22 to R1-13.5 and
20 acres from Industrial General and Rural to RM-6.5, with
variances, for mixed residential development. Location:
North of Highway #5, South of Lorence Way and west of Atherton
Way.
D. DONNAY'S ROUND LAKE ESTATES, by LAD Properties, Inc. 2nd Reading Page 1962
of Ordinance #12-86-PUD-1-86, Zoning District Change from Rural to
PUD-1-86, including the R1-13.5 on 9.58 acres and RM-6.5, with
variances, on 14.71 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for
Donnay's Round Lake Estates; and Adoption of Resolution #86-201,
Authorizing Summary of Ordinance #12-86-PUD-1-86, and Ordering
Publication of Said Summary. 34.92 acres into 69 lots and one
outlot. Location: North of Highway #5, south of Lorence Way
and west of Atherton Way. (Ordinance #12-86-PUD-1-86, Rezoning
and PUD; Resolution #86-201, Authorizing Summary and Publication)
E. Final Plat approval for Donnay Round Lake Estates (Resolution No. Page 1976
�5T
•
City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues., August 19, 1986
F. BLUFFS EAST 4TH AND 5TH ADDITIONS, by Hustad Development. 2nd Page 1979
Reading of Ordinance #24-86-PUD-3-86, Zoning District Change from
Rural to PUD-3-86, including the R1-13.5 District; Approval of
Developer's Agreement for Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions; and
Adoption of Resolution #86-154, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance
#24-86-PUD-3-86 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. PUD on
184 acres, PUD District Review and Zoning on 38.15 acres for 72
single family lots and nine outlots. Location: West of County
Road #18, northwest of Bluff Road, and west of Franlo Road.
(Ordinance #24-86-PUD-3-86, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution
#86-154, Authorizing Summary and Publication)
G. Reschedule Special City Council meeting set for August 21, 1986 at
7:00 PM from the Media Center at Prairie View School to the
he ooll Administration Boardroom
H. Resolution Supporting the United Way's Salute to Small Business Page 1998
on September 17, 1986 (Resolution No. 86-218)
I. Resolution Sponsoring a Request for Funding lu the Minnesota Page 1999
Department of Energy and Economic Development for Eden Prairie
Rideshare (Resolution No. 86-220)
J. Satisfaction of Development Agreement Conditions - Mitchell Page 2001
Heights 4th Addition (Resolution No. 86-217)
K. Resolution proclaiming September as Eden Prairie History Month Page 2002
(Resolution No. 86-221)
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. FEASIBILITY STUDY, BAKER ROAD SANITARY SEWER (north of St. Page 2004
Andrew Drive) Resolution No. 86-208
B. FEASIBILITY STUDY, RIVERVIEW ROAD & RIVERVIEW DRIVE STREET Page 2005
IMPROVEMENTS, I.C. 52-101
(Resolution No. 86-209
C. FEASIBILITY STUDY, CRESTWOOD TERRACE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, I.C. Page 2006
52-079 (Resolution No. 86-210)—
D. BLUESTEM HILLS, by Brown Land Company. Request for Zoning Page 2008
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 26.86 acres and
Preliminary Plat of 31.56 acres into 64 single family lots, one
outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Bennett Place,
north of Purgatory Creek. (Ordinance #45-86, Rezoning; Resolution
#86-204, Preliminary Plat)
E. FEASIBILITY STUDY, UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR BLUFF'S Page 2037
EAST 4TH ADDITION leAil of Franlo Road and south of CSAH 11
I.C. 52-096 Resolution No. 86-211TAP ROVE 1ANS AND
PECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE BIDS (Resolution No. 8E-212)
IL F. FEASIBILITY STUDY VALLEY VIEW ROAD WEST OF GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE, Page 2039
I.C. 52-089 (Resolution No. 86--271 APPROVE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE BIDS (Resolution No. 8 14)
City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,August 19, 1986
G. VACATION OF EASEMENT, PRAIRIE EAST 4TH ADDITION (north of Page 2041
Nottingham Drive and east of Franlo Road) Resolution No. 86-215
IV. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 2042
V. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
A. Resolution giving final a�rovaall to transfer of controlling
interest in the City's Cable TV Franchise (Resolution No. 86- Page 2051
219)
VI. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS
A. Request from Olympic Hills and the Department of Natural Resources
to address problem of geese at 7ympic Hills Page 2055
B. Grading permit, Flying Cloud Landfill Page 2058
C. Grading permit, Birchwood Mini-Storage (south of Terry Pine Drive, Page 2124
east of CSAH
VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS
VIII. APPOINTMENTS
A. Appointment of member to the Development Commission to fill an
unexpired term to 2/28/88
IL IX. REPORTS OF OFFICERS BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
A. Reports of Council Members
B. Report of City Manager
C. Report of City Attorney
D. Report of Director of Public Works
1. Plan a roval TH 169 improvements between CSAH 1 and Prairie Page 2125
Center Drive Resolution No. 86-216)
2. Award contract for Valley View Road, I.C.. 51-272 (Resolution
No. 86-207)
E. Report of Director of Community Services
1. Appointment of Park Bond Referendum Committee Page 2127
2. Selection of Architect for Community Center Addition Page 2135
3. Selection of Park Planning firm for Miller Park Page 2140
X. NEW BUSINESS
X1. ADJOURNMENT.
•
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 86-206
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
TH5/CSAH 4
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie held a public hearing on
August 5, 1986, to discuss the developments of Prairie Courts and Minnetonka
State Bank and determined that these developments could proceed if certain
traffic improvements could be made to the intersection of CSAH 4 and Trunk
Highway 5; and
WHEREAS, through discussions with the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) it has been determined that retiming and rephasing of the intersection
would be acceptable solutions to making traffic improvements (at an estimated
cost of $30,000).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL that MnDOT is
hereby requested to proceed with the design and implementation of the signal
improvements at all convenient speed.
FURTHERMORE, the City hereby agrees to enter into a cooperative agreement with
MnDOT, which would define the work elements, estimated cost and financial
participation.
ADOPTF.D BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL on August 19, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
l
19c0
fr MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie
FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson (II )
/
SUBJECT: Agreement for Architectural Services for Fire Stations
DATE: August 14, 1986
On May 6, 1986 Eden Prairie voters authorized the issuance of bonds for
improvements to the City's fire service. These improvements included new fire
equipment, remodeling for Stations Nos. 2 and 3, and construction of new Station
No. 4%at the intersection of Homeward Hills Road and Sunnybrook Road. The
authorized issue is $2.3 million.
One of the items included the bonds is architectural services for the
remodelings and new construction. The firm which provided services for planning
a new City Hall, Setter, Leach & Lindstrom, Inc., also did preliminary work for
the fire station components of the fire system referendum. Staff has been quite
satisfied with the performance of and working relationship with members of .this
firm. Staff recommends that Setter, Leach & Lindstrom, Inc. be named to provide
architectural services for the fire station improvements.
Staff and the architect have negotiated an agreement for services which is
nearly identical (i.e., a few minor modifications) to that which was executed
for services for a new City Hall. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed
agreement and found the terms and conditions to be satisfactory.
The agreement would be for a term of two years for a fee not to exceed $126700.
The work would be planned so that the construction of the new station and
individual remodelings would occur consecutively.
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the City Council name Setter, Leach &
Lindstrom, Inc. to perform architectural services for remodeling Fire Stations
Nos. 2 and 3, and for construction of new Fire Station No. 4. It is further
recomended that the Council authorize execution of an agreement for services
with this firm for a fee not to exceed $126,700.
CWD:jdp
Donnay's Round Lake Estates
ir CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 12-86-PUD-1-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Drdinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 1-86,
including the R1-13.5 and the RM-6.5 Districts (hereinafter "PUD 1-86").
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of , 1986, entered into
between L. A. Donnay, an individual, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter
"Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms and
conditions of PUD 1-86, and is hereby made a part hereof.
Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD 1-86 is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan of the
City.
B. PUD 1-86 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of
the City Code, which are contained in PUD 1-86 are justified by the
design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 1-86 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that
its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete
unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and
hereby is, removed from the Rural District and shall b included hereafter in the
Planned Unit Development 1-86, including the R1-13.5 end RM-6.5 Districts, and the
legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03,
subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 15th day of April, 1986, and finally read and adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 19th day of
August, 1986.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
l
I;(3
txmD7t H
O E• Y fig i =fy 7
.J c22,3t° _,%"e ° 7E r ,a,:iaUntrpNT :i1 ^' nDwn:tn2N° i]^ IA
ieyn5J7._,j r= n gc _'-F3 v^zst r 7d - °°c .r.q2
Y.. ..O tu'l4- ^ J' K nJnoSM Y� ^�
a o o n O i o i0 .4Z =q o..= a n o G y o n G i^ • ^ 2 i
.^,i�'o i: a n = w m ' —i c^ 2 a]o° n 0^ o y m
n r M n�� Y n"n �tf.r^ .� 4 N=C y S p ?..g° n r i p i O i
:`,O n,a,^ S•=i y O F e J r^' . .a i ^J^ ^i l i Y
:',]y rag ig f- ^pr teftCz is Co".6n'°i.
ipr"g r anCai J O ' 'C° .^.0 J,"�. O ^n K °i li �.`.
e'i 9 oira� '_ ^.O b C_;i • n 1 i wp m�m�
VzIr';. nY-VO °O Ai!l•7A ,ot .r.l �aO • ^'° ^' if a
ppr"�° gpw_J� Ki lia=n .r.aO Mr GNG o7 S� - aMa^:w __ ^ e
g-$N~fr 6y6O! Dw;M awc^•n In vo;Z:7;;•t ti :' _
a0.,Z " ionr :0 yy i'AiO^1!Oir ,]oan spy sr Ii1 tO
O Nsa"n ai°��6 n` �0;Q:.0 J1"^ ] 2CN-^pip]a ]g ^.J.
.p - r - 8 ^ ,1• ^y y.,^p
^�en.._w" :",m, �' �'0='� =,:.Ua c: -=rP'r'io ^� en
J c o^e'i Ltt e a^'n^3 F^°° O y n.. a J i i
uOZa"^^' * ^n ite12coo....i o.. r
it,
ic'� n:xo_o`:n So.9 ia ..
°' JO °. y 4 J^ � �"
one -c _! ..rpiJg=: 4._. y� °aao1.9" a2
5 K.y n
w r
i
ti ii ii
ciEg�ix 31;Er-f:p iS cii E�3 iT ;cifrif {fiziifri a l2frer 1_
a12. Sai z�:I„! ee s"r..ip sn :r}1:221:is2airi1 E :ig.: It
fi 5z':asi !i rii"" :- ei ' ^li= 8ir�'2ii i .�:2 Ei
ar ._ •i i:2 r ;z c_-.. qca•,. a:..fi 'i -ri ps
_a..i._:ii'i^E_s" - .:.r°ni 1 ii"sif-•s :1.:F ri f^2-ii :
"s-i I:i:r-°:;ir s - ^ s 8`1 1i s °:?r t'xsie
V ids ' 2 rt-Fe =�=sr $ ;i i=8 s,x p:p fi2:_R +ic:a� yy�
._S _"ft.r`e:fi F : 2' 2"Itii3F.€i ai&:gi x
-ij.g ii:-•a6x^'s o titag"a, ° =eri•"g i 22 ?i >i
a,.es .s'e2: 'i - "• i ai as..;':2 SCii r.2:. i
is B; i tics: s"i: r s dF 2i2 ei 2; .1fig"€c iia ie er; r
Piq ' ::i'yRBfi i E l ;:i"j r ie -11T:• rigrc 'PR. r
Ail! 3. :EP ?i` a :if1_ � ^' i° i^°;�i" srr i" sir i "g
tii - ' r`•.".fa Y ii 7_ • ri:.6 r•^C _
z3°i^ ; ,ie', f Y riRfS € 2 if ie!3c ^;igi If t
f" g s-i, g.
�i27 i 8 _ 2 ^ :3: i iY ^g
' " - ^.i'.i.',ii• V, ^g:Vi F: .� . .i.� .i iie: Y
r :X8 r 2:,-f;: i - i i r2 :s °; :2ii'•2 iz!:: S
�, iai. i; °i ? :• i i, •i. .:ti ^:.R;
•i ;&= gr.-` ie y 1 .2 i; . .irV_r rri_2 i r
:. .x ., if '• i8s.' si i�2xi
c $.^8 ^8"_8i - - -'a3^;a.2 sirs 0 rage
i:i:M:.: "2 22 it: 2'iii:i:" :i:ii :
^Xi'i�"ii i•.. S i - 2 .:i :hir.. r
;g'`ts___ :i 3 i _ _ OL is ::ii I::ti
,r:.
_ ; a8� a^2s i s 3i r iias ist e." Xg� lxg
-2 I Y _; i °:^. :- i.i 'IF; r2if"r:
Y, ? z;;: _ ; is . 's ;2:i: r: 31
tlic ;sigc "
: F. • .:ivi zi. i .i.r 2=ia '
,. . in rr ; r.-2 :. .xi .zi
8 i :2 ';:Xi: ! .ia I i•8�i if: isii i:Y.if I
Donnay's Round Lake Estates
PUD DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1986, by
L. A. Donnay, a single person, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY
OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept
Amendment on 34.92 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning
District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.58 acres and from Rural to RM-6.5 on
14.71 acres, with variances, and Preliminary Plat of 34.92 acres into 69 lots and
one outlot, for construction of single family detached and multiple family attached
housing units, situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described
in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter
ILreferred to as "the property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #12-86-PUD-
1-86, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and
maintenance of said property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the
materials revised and dated 1986, reviewed and approved
by the City Council on April 15, 1986, and attached hereto as
Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided
herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain
the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Concurrent with the final plat, Developer agrees to provide to City
a trail easement along the south boundary line of the property, as
f depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. !'
l
/965
•
4. Prior to release of the final plat by the City, Developer shall
secure temporary easements for construction traffic from the south
property line to T. H. #5. If that route is not feasible, and it is
determined that access must be via Evener Way/Hames Way/Valley View
Road, the Developer shall require his contractors to observe load
limits and special traffic signing to limit raffic and safety
problems in the existing neighborhood.
Developer agrees to cooperate with the developer of the project to
the south, known as The Ridge, in order to provide both developers
use of the temporary easements from T. H. #5 for construction
traffic, only to the extent that such construction traffic will not
interfere with, or damage, work on the property as described in
Exhibit A, attached hereto.
5. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours
prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property.
6. Prior to issuance of any permit for grading upon the property,
Developer agrees to implement erosion control measures and adequate
protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where
grading is not to occur, and to receive City approval of said
measures. Prior to approval by the City, the Developer must call
for on-site inspection of the property by the City, and defects in
materials and workmanship in the implementation of said: measures
shall then be determined by the City. Defects in materials or'
workmanship shall then be corrected by the Developer, reinspected
and approved by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit by 1
!. the City. Approval of materials and workmanship may be subject ,to:
such conditions as the City may impose at the time of acceptance.
7. Developer agrees to confine grading to that area of the property •
within the construction limits as shown on Exhibit B. Developer
shall place snow fencing at the construction limits within the
wooded areas of the property prior to any grading upon the property.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Developer shall submit to
the Director of Planning and receive the Director's approval of a
tree inventory of those trees within the construction area and
within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, indicating the size,
type, and location of all trees twelve (12) inches in diameter, or
greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level.
If any such trees are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the
construction area, Developer agrees that prior to issuance of any
building permit for the property, Developer shall submit to the
Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of a
replacement plan for all trees removed, damaged, or destroyed •
outside of the construction area. Developer further agrees that
said trees shall be replaced by similar tree species and that the
trees used for replacement shall be no less than six inches in
diameter. The amount of trees to be replaced shall be determined by
the Director of Planning, using a square inch per square inch basis,.
according to the area of the circle created by a cross sectional cut
through the diameter of a tree as measured 4.5 feet above the
ground.
If a tree replacement plan is required, Developer agrees that, prior
to issuance of any building permit, to submit a bond, or letter of
credit, guaranteeing completion of all tree replacement work as
approved by the Director of Planning. The amount of the bond, or
letter of credit, shall be 150% of the approved estimated cost of
implementation of all tree replacement work and shall be in such
form and contain such other provisions and terms as may required
by the Director of Planning. Developer agrees to prepare and submit
for approval to the Director of Planning a written estimate of the
costs of the tree replacement work to be completed.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed
above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning.
B. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City
Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water,
storm sewer, and erosion control for the property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or
cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
D. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and receive
the Director's approval of the following:
A. Detailed plans for signage on the property.
B. Detailed plans for lighting on the property.
C. A revised landscape plan which includes an additional 153
caliper inches of trees based on the revisions to the
grading plan included as part of Exhibit B, attached hereto.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to
implement, or cause to be implemented, those detailed plans listed
above, as approved by the Director of Planning.
10. Concurrent with street and utility construction, Developer agrees to
construct, or cause to be constructed, an eight-foot wide bituminous
trail along the south boundary of the property, in accordance with
Exhibit C, attached hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these
Or presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY `OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1986, by Gary D. Peterson, the Mayor and Carl J. Jullie,
the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on
behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
L. A. DONNAY
•
o nay
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j Y day of
1986, by L. A. Donnay, a single person.
Notary Public
MAXINF NHut
ND?ARY PU8t11 r.^'C�4t jOtA
• SCOf1 eut,mI
ommtmon Espies i m 16.1992
wwwv.vv
I
L/rflblt t
o f D o!i p Ks e y
- JC J�Sc O3 Ai r 9jo09,1 y`0 NSw r wLctIps.e.n0om w;� IrMi
9 ._r. - - Cep
zwi " '"" ..i
9n O i°^ate O ^n= -* p°fir o n Gj'"• s^^* _5
"gyp^ p S Y ^^ A " w Y p 87 O w N i - S= 3
.7 = ..f.:D ;8 rs ] till a3
'^,'r Mao ^] :d ii-^g �n60p.]. :_w.^.Nnl 5 .
?1::Mnoo_,,I j= --Qty-e i.•.e It 2 -V. •(^7S fie - u"i
-'u-air ^17_- 5n OioaY s]-: l3 i',"pp--e"= c ` oo$
^ • ,a=n� 3-- . >7 :: .e ::"" a L.
o�r'e N ^aoN o�^ ..� e
•' 8N"n. oo= 3� � o0^]pwn�p j ioa���� oG
a a -. :,;`n SQ - 'OJpivfn]rtl' ._ 7SCNa Onbp S.� nl�l
]0 2 i N^▪n A. o Q S i u F e:4 n 7 N n; t=r i_S -O 3 n
�e i S E::o i: M n p] n o S C p a.i 2 Q ] • -A-n i n a
!Ki`'�SiS w- ~_en 4& YN "Y'p„N ".+ r
` nS2" mY+ N
=n: a p" -C C .".y e S j i 4' ,r. N M p p r^ "
] r n.. G r T i ^Y p n S n= .ri C i.0 b=>6.. : ...
C . ;i.J b7n' n
s , 'a •_i 51 xg
sr ir: zg : = .l3 i
i s s : l , 1 'AEci9 r: g za !rii c -e - r - 31 . :3-.Ea g .11,g l:zzA It " p :; C :i a-l • "g i! S •1 ! 3c =! r .!!s g:r ca•" : a; P
•
. = '• ! r ;.! :a ° sgai! fg s g1:.; i.,d? i=a ; s iz1r; je ,i• $ j1-3$ e aq'hig s?eifi- 1: g
r. =;$a e €: € - .1 "s'iv'j .•as z ^:8 1' "P r =ir:11•E gccc Sr :i18:: a a 8
! g 1; -r rr6 _ r
f F _ i4. i:.iz ;:F. gg $: €
, F: F g:" - " :g5.
,�1: -1, _ 4 •F ! 3 i mod" _ _1 -
a.. 34: a 1 t ; h ! 1 'ai C; Yl7 t
;31 f a ! - j• .ili :; fit; ff !
i " " s s "Y : j s j---- i 3 -e " U ! E
8 .1 •S" 33 : ':a ; ! .•8w• _ ! 'i. .. Uri!
® DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
• EXHIBIT C
I. Prior to release of final plat, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer
for approval two copies of a development plan (1" = 100' scale) showing
existing and proposed contours, proposed streets, and lot arrangements and
size, minimum floor elevations on each lot, preliminary alignment and grades
for sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer, 100-year flood plain
contours, ponding areas, tributary areas to catch basins, arrows showing
direction of storm water flow on all lots, location of walks, trails, and
any property deeded to the City.
II. Developer shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the
Watershed District for review and approval. Developer shall follow all
rules and recommendations of said Watershed District.
III. Developer shall pay cash park fees as to all of the property required by
City Code in effect as of the date of the issuance of each building permit
for construction on the property. Presently, the amount of cash park fee
applicable to the property is $420.00 per single family detached unit and
$32D.00 per multiple family attached unit. The amount to be paid by
Developer shall be increased or decreased to the extent that the City Code
is amended or supplemented to require a greater or lesser amount as of the
date of the issuance of any building permit for construction on the -
property.
IV. Prior to the dedication, transfer, or conveyance of any real property or
interest therein to the City as provided herein, Developer shall deliver to
the City an opinion addressed to the City by an Attorney, and in a form
applicable to City as to the condition of the title of such property, or, in
lieu of a title opinion, a title insurance policy insuring the condition of
the property or interest therein in the City. The condition of the title of
any real property or any interest therein to be dedicated, transferred, or
conveyed as may be provided herein by Developer to the City shall vest in
City good and marketable title thereon, free and clear of any mortgages,
liens, encumbrances, or assessments.
V.A. All sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer facilities, concrete curb,
gutters, sidewalks, trails, streets, site grading, and other public
utilities ("improvements") to be made and constructed on or within the
property and dedicated to the City shall be designed in compliance with City
standards by a registered professional engineer and submitted to the City
Engineer for approval. All of the improvements shall be completed by
Developer and acceptable to the City Engineer and shall be free and clear of
any lien, claim, charge, or encumbrance, including any for work, labor, or
services rendered in connection therewith, or materials or equipment
supplied therefor, on or before two (2) years from the date hereof. Upon
completion and acceptance, Developer warrants and guarantees the
improvements against any defect in materials or workmanship for a period of
two (2) years following said completion and acceptance. In the event of any
defect in materials or workmanship within said two-year period, warranty or
guarantee shall be for a period of three (3) years following said completion •
and acceptance. Defects in materials or workmanship shall be determined by
/a�U
the City Engineer. Acceptance of improvements by the City Engineer may be
AIP
subject to such conditions as the City Engineer may impose at the time of
w acceptance. Developer, through Developer's engineer, shall provide for
competent daily inspection during the construction of all improvements. As-
built drawings with service and valve ties on reproduceable mylar shall be
delivered to the City Engineer within sixty (60) days of completion thereof,
together with a written statement from a registered engineer that all
improvements have been completed, inspected, and tested in accordance with
City-approved plans and specifications. Prior to final plat approval, or
issuance of any building permit, if no final plat is required, Developer
shall:
Submit a bond or letter of credit which guarantees completion of all
improvements within the times provided, upon the conditions, and in
accordance with the terms of this subparagraph V.A., including, but
not limited to, a guarantee against defects in materials or
workmanship for a period of two (2) years following completion and
acceptance of the improvements by the City Engineer. The amount of
the bond or letter of credit shall be 125% of the estimated
construction cost of said improvements, subject to reduction thereof
to an amount equal to 25% of the cost of the improvements after
acceptance thereof by the City Engineer, and receipt of as-built
drawings. The bond or letter of credit shall be in such form and
contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by the
City Engineer. The Developer's registered professional engineer
shall make and submit for approval to the City Engineer a written
estimate of the costs of the improvements.
I' B. In lieu of the obligation imposed by subparagraph V.A. above, Developer may
submit a 10D% petition signed by all owners of the property, requesting the
City to install the improvements. If Developer chooses to execute the 100%
petition, Developer waives all rights they have by virtue of Minnesota State
Statutes Sec. 429.D81 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of
amounts, or the procedure used by the City in levying the assessments and
hereby releases the City, its officers, agents, and employees from any and
all liability related to or arising out of the levying of the assessments.
Upon approval by the City Council, the City may cause said improvements to
be made and special assessments for all costs for said improvements will be
levied on the property, except any property which is or shall be dedicated
to the public, over a five-year period. Prior to the award of any contract
by the City for the construction of any improvements, Developer shall have
entered into a contract for rough grading of the streets included in the
improvements to a finished subgrade elevation. Contractor's obligation with
respect to the rough grading work shall be secured by a bond or letter of
credit which shall guarantee completion and payment for all labor and
materials expended in connection with the rough grading. The amount of the
bond or letter of credit shall be 125% of the cost of such rough grading and
shall be in such form and contain such further terms as may be required by
the City Engineer.
C. Prior to release of the final plat, Developer shall pay to City fees for the
first three (3) years' street lighting (public streets), engineering review,
and street signs.
/q7 '
VI.A. Developer shall remove all soil and debris from, and clean all streets
within and abutting the property at least every two (2) months (or within
one week from the date of any request by City), during the period commencing
May 1 and ending October 31 of each year, until such time as such streets
and improvements therein are accepted for ownership and maintenance by City.
Prior to City accepting streets and improvements, Developer shall have
restored all boulevards according to the obligations contained within
paragraph VI.B.
B. Within twenty (20) days of installation of utilities and street curb in any
portion of the property (if said time occurs between May 1 and October 31 of
any year), Developer shall sod (secured with a minimum of two (2) stakes per
roll of sod) that part of the property lying between said curb and a line
18+ inches measured perpendicular with the curb, or, in lieu of said sod,
place a fiber blanket with seed approved by the City (secured with stakes a •
maximum of six (6) feet apart). Either sod or fiber must be placed upon a
minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil. The topsoil shall be level with the
top of the curb at the curb line and rise one-half inch (1/2") for each foot
from the curb line.
Developer shall maintain the sod, fiber blanket, topsoil, and grade until
such time as the streets and improvements in the property are accepted for
ownership and maintenance by City.
Developer shall also sod all drainage swales serving each 1.5 acres a
minimum distance of six (6) feet on either side of the center of the swale.
C. The bond or letter of credit provided in paragraph V.A. hereof shall also
guarantee the performance of Developer's obligations under this paragraph
VI.
VII. City shall not issue any building permit for the construction of any
building, structure, or improvement on any land required to be subdivided
until all requirements listed above have been satisfactorily addressed by
Developer.
VIII. Developer shall submit detailed watermain and fire protection plans to the
Fire Marshall for review and approval. Developer shall follow all the •
recommendations of the Fire Marshall.
IX. If Developer fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within
twenty-four (24) months of the date hereof, Developer, for itself, its
successors, and assigns, shall not oppose rezoning of said property to
Rural.
X. Provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and enforceable against
owners, their successors, and their assigns of the property herein
described.
XI. Developer represents and warrants that they own fee title to the property
free and clear of mortgages, liens, and other encumbrances, except:
DCC Development Company; Craig R. Morton & Associates
.kn '
XII. Developer shall install temporary street signs in accordance with the
IIrecommendations of the City Building Department, prior to the issuance of
any permit to build upon the property.
XIII. Developer acknowledges that the rights of City to performance of obligations
of Developer contemplated in this Agreement are special, unique, and of an J
extraordinary character, and that, in the event that Developer violates, or
fails, or refuses to perform any covenant, condition, or provision made;,
herein, City may be without an adequate remedy at law.. Developer agrees,
therefore, that in the' event Developer violates, fails, or refuses to
perform any covenant, condition, or provision made herein, City may, at its
option, institute and prosecute an action to specifically enforce.
performance of such covenant. No remedy conferred in this agreement is
intended to be exclusive and each shall be cumulative and shall'. be in
addition to every other remedy. The election of any one or more remedies
shall not constitute a waiver of any other remedy.
XIV. Any term of this Agreement that is illegal or unenforceable at law or in
equity shall be deemed to be void and:of no force or effect to the extent
necessary to bring such term within the provisions.of any such applicable.
law or laws, and such terms as so modified and the balance .of the terms of
this Agreement shall be enforceable.
XV. Developer shall, prior to the commencement of any improvements, Provide
written notice to Rogers Cablesystems a Minnesota Limited Partnership, the
franchisee under the City's Cable Communication Ordinance =(8D-33) of the
development contemplated by this Developer's Agreement. Notice shall . be
41, sent to Rogers Cablesystems, 801 Plymouth Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN.
55411.
Donnay's Round Lake Estates
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-201
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 12-86-PUD-1-86 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS, Ordinance. No. 12-86-PUD-1-86 was adopted and ordered published at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 19th day of
August, 1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 12-86-PUD-1-B6, which
is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that
said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of
said ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 12-86-PUD-1-86 shall be recorded in the ordinance
book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B
herein, within 20 days after said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on August 19, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
t.E`){1
/ Donnay's Round Lake Estates
4 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 12-86-PUD-1-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING_IT`IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99,
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY 'PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located north of .
Highway #5, south of Lorence Way and. west of Atherton Way, known as Donnay's Round
Lake Estates, from the Rural District to the PUD-1-86 District, which includes the
R1-13.5 District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's'agreement.
Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, give .the full legal description of this
property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
ATTEST:
/s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1986.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.)
t
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HFNNFPIN COUNTY, MINNISDTA
RFSOLUTION NO. 86-205
A RFSOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF
DONNAYS ROUND LAKE FSTATF.S
WHEREAS, the plat of Donnays Round Lake Estates has been submitted in a manner
required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under
Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had
thereunder; and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the
regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and
ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, :THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FDFN
PRAIRIE:
A. Plat approval request for Oonnays Round Lake Fstates is
approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City
Engineer's report on this plat dated August 12, 1986.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified
copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the
above named plat.
C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to
execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the City Council on August 19, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST SEAL
John D. Franc. C1crk
t
/9'i o
CITY OF FDFN PRA!RIF
ENGINFFR!NG REPORT ON FINAL PLAT
ir
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
r.
FROM: David L. Olson, Senior Engineering Technician ,J�
DATE: August 12, I986
SUBJECT: DONNAYS ROUND LAKE. ESTATES
PROPOSAL:
The developer, LAD Properties, has requested City Council
approval of the final plat of Donnays Round Lake Fstates
located south of Lorence Way and west of Atherton Way in the
South 1/2 of Section 7. The area being platted contains 34.92
acres with 9.58 acres zoned RI-13.5 (Lots 1 thru 6, Block 1;
Lots 26 thru 31, Block 3 and Lots 1 thru 10, Block 4) and
14.71 acres zoned RM 6.5 (Lots 7 thru 21, Block 1; Block 2;
Lots 1 thru 25, Block 3). Residential units will not be
constructed on Lots 7, 12 and 19, Block 1; Lot 2, Block 2 and
Lots 3, 13, 16 and 25, Block 3 (the use of these lots is
explained later in this report). Outlot A contains 12.00
acres, consisting of wetlands and adjacent marsh, and will he
(, retained for ownership by the developer.
HISTORY:
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on March
25, 1986, per Resolution 86-49.
Second reading by the City Council of Ordinance 12-86-PUB-1-86
zoning the property to R1-13.5 (9.58 acres), RM-6.5 (I4.71
acres) and Planned Unit Development District Review is
scheduled for August 19. 1986.
The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report Is
scheduled for execution on August 19, 1986.
VARIANCES:
All variance requests not previously allowed must be prucessed
through the Board of Appeals.
UTILITIFS AND STREETS:
Municipal utilities and streets will be installed thruwjhnut
the development in conformance with City Standards.
It is noted that the project is subject to trunk sewer and
water assessments that will be levied in the Fall, 1986, to
the amount of $94,982.40 (payable over 17 years).
/91'7
Page 2, Final Plat of Donnays Round Lake Estates 8/12/86
Item f4 of the Developer's Agreement specifics conditions and
requirements for construction traffic access to the
development. These requirements must be satisfied prior to
release of the final plat.
Lots 7, 12 and 19. Block 1; Lot 2, Block 2 and Lots 3, 13 and
16. Block 3 will contain privately owned and maintained
driveways and utility services. Ownership of these lots will
be retained by the Developer with the eventual transfer of
ownership and maintenance responsibilities to an owners
association. Easements for surface drainage will be dedicated
to the City.
Lot 25, Block 3 is intended for owners association ownership
as a common area. A City owned and maintained storm sewer
will cross a portion of the site. All other service utilities
within this lot will be owned and maintained by the developer
or association.
A bituminous walkway is to be installed along the southerly
property lines of Lots 28, 29 and 31, Block 3 and Lot 10.
Block 4. The drainage and utility easement shown on the plat
must be increased to a width of 10 feet. A recordable
easement document covering the use of a drainage and utility
easement for walkway purposes must be provided prior to
release of the final plat.
PARK DEDICATION:
Park dedication shall conform to the requirements of the City
Code and the Developer's Agreement.
BONDING:
Bonding for municipal utilities, streets and walkways shall
conform to the requirements of the City Code and the
Developer's Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval of the final plat of Donnays Round Lake
Estates subject to the requirements of this report, the
Developer's Agreement and the following:
1. Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $605.
2. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of
$4,966.
3. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $2,240.
4. Satisfaction of Item f4 of the Developer's Agreement.
5. Receipt of recordable walkway easement document over
parts of Lots 28, 29 and 31. Block 3 and Lot 10,
Block 4.
6. Second reading of Ordinance 12-86-POD-I-86.
7. Execution of the Developer's Agreement.
8. Subject to trunk sewer and water assessments in the
amount of $94,9B2.40.
DLO:sg
14-3?1
Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE ND. 24-86-PUD-3-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESDTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance
(hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be
removed from the Rural District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 3-86,
including the R1-13.5 District (hereinafter "PUD 3-86").
Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of
that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of , 1986, entered into
between The Bluffs Company, a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie
(hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). The Developer's Agreement contains the terms
and conditions of PUD 3-86, and is hereby made a part hereof.
tSection 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings:
A. PUD 3-86 is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan of the
City.
B. PUD 3-86 is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of
the City Code, which are contained in PUD 3-86 are justified by the
design of the development described therein.
D. PUD 3-86 is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that
its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete
unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and
hereby is, removed from the Rural District and shall b>2 included hereafter in the
Planned Unit Development 3-86, including the R1-13.5 District, and the legal
descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03,
subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly.
Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and
Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and
Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their
entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein.
1w
Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its
passage and publication.
FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden
Prairie on the 20th day of May, 1986, and finally read and, adopted and ordered
published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 19th day of
August, 1986.
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of
C
,ca?.9
•
•
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 3
BLUFF COUNTRY
PUD and Platting Legal Description 1
irThat part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36,
Township 116, Range 22, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, lying south of
the North 790 feet thereof.
and that part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said
Section 36, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the
' west line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 distant 332
feet north of the southwest corner thereof to a point on the east
line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 distant 443.4 feet
north of the southeast corner thereof.
and the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of
said Section 36.
and the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 36.
and the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 36, lying
easterly of the centerline of Purgatory Creek.
•
and that part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section
25, said Township 116, Range 22, lying south of BLUFFS-EAST THIRD
'" ADDITION.
and that part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said
Section 25. lying south of BLUFFS EAST THIRD ADDITION and lying
easterly and southeasterly of the following described line:
IL Commencing at the southeast corner of the North 22 rods of said
Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4; thence westerly along the
south line of said North 22 rods a distance of 535.14 feet; thence
southerly at right angles to said south line a distance of 380.00
feet to the point of beginning of line to be described; thence
•
continuing along last described course a distance of 21.0.05 feet;
thence deflecting to the right 46 degrees a distance of 515 feet
more or less to the centerline of Purgatory Creek; thence
southerly along said centerline to the south line of said
Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 and there
terminating.
and Outlet J, BLUFFS WEST, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
EXCEPT
Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, said CREEK KNOLLS.
Lots 5 through 7, Block 2, said CREEK KNOLLS..
Lots 1 through 5, Block 3, said CREEK KNOLLS.
•
•
/yet
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 3
Legal description for Property to be Zoned R1-13.5
dr That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the South 1/2
of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 116, I'
Range 22, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, described as follows: it
Beginning at the southeast corner of said Northeast 1/4 of
the Northwest 1/4; thence westerly along the south line of
said Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 on an assumed bearing
of North 88 degrees West 550 feet; thence North 37 degrees
West 215 feet; thence North 76 degrees West 290 feet; thence
North 164 feet; thence North 49 degrees, East Z73 feet; thence
North 11 degrees East 118 feet; thence North 73 degrees East
168 feet; thence North 88 degrees 'East-'(53 feet; .;thence North
74 degrees East 427 feet; thence South 89 degrees East .".120
feet to the east line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest
1/4; thence South 226 feet; thence South 89 degrees East
along the north line of said South 1/2 of the Northwest .1/4
of the Northeast 1/4 1200 feet; thence.`South 28 degrees West
382 feet; thence South 8 degrees West 183 feet; thence.South
43 degrees West 105` feet; .[:thence North 77 degrees West 341
feet; thence South 34 degrees West 141 feet; thence South 57
degrees West 57 feet to the northeast corner of Lot -3, Block
1, CREEK KNOLLS; thence westerly along the north line of said
Block 1 to the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, said CREEK
KNOLLS; thence South along the west line of said Lot 1 to the
south line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4.; thence
west along said south line 60 feet to the point of beginning.
( AND
That part of Outlot J, BLUFFS WEST, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, described
as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of said Outlot J; thence
easterly along the south line of said Outlot J on an assumed
bearing of South 88 degrees East'250-`feet; thence North' 45
degrees East 494 feet; thence North 38 degrees West 64 feet;
thence North 35 degrees East 178 feet; thence North -22
degrees East 226 feet; thence North 122 feet; thence South
70 degrees West 191 feet; thence-South 42'degrees West 260
feet; thence North 63 degrees West 256 feet to the
northwesterly line of said Outlot J; thence southwesterly
along said northwesterly line to the westerly line of said
Outlot J; thence southerly along said westerly line to the
point of beginning.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exhibit A
•
Page 3 of 3
Legal description for Proposed Multiple
That part of the East 1/2
Range of the Northeast 1/4 of Ser.tiun 3G, Township.
22
116, g Eden Prairie, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning
at a point on the east line of said East 1/2 distant 628.4 feet nort
f h. . .
from-the southeast corner thereof; thence.South 86 degrees 37 minutes
West 445 feet; thence South 3 degrees 23 minutes East 45 feet' thence
South 86- degrees 37 minutes West 400 feet; thence North 3 degrees :2g
minutes West 45 feet; thence South 86 degrees 37 minutes_West 200e feet; '
t c
hence 40 degrees West 133 feet: thence North 30 degrees- East 3
feet; thence North 14 degrees West 60 feet; thence- North 36 degrees
West 335'feet; thence North 2 degrees':West 243 feet: thence East 245
feet; thence North 46 degrees East 180`'feet: thence North 36 dettreea'
East 230 feet to the south line of the North 790 feet of said East 1/2:
thence easterly along said south .line .655 feet to the east line of said
East 1/2; thence southerly along said east line 1210 feet to the point
of beginning.
•
•
i s
/q13
Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of ( /)( , 1986, by
Hustad Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer," and the CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as "City:"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for the following:
a) Planned Unit Development Concept Review of 186 acres
b) Planned Unit Development District Review and Zoning District change
from Rural to PUD-3-86, including the R1-13.5 Zoning District, for
38.15 acres of said 186 acres;
c) Preliminary Plat of 186 acres into 72 single family lots and nine
Ioutlots;
situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as
"the property;"
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #24-86-PUD
3-86, Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and
maintenance of said property as follows:
1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the '
materials revised and dated , 1986, reviewed and
approved by the City Council on May 20. 1986, and attached hereto as
Exhibit B, subject to such changes an modifications as provided
herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain
the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein.
2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by
Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of
all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in
•
Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof.
3. Developer acknowledges that no approval under this Planned Unit
Development Concept shall constitute, or in the future require,
approval or formal establishment or designation of a Planned Unit
Development, zoning, or subdivision by the City of the property, in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11, Section 11.40,
Subdivision 1, of the City Code.
Developer agrees that, prior to development of any portion of the
property beyond Phase I, as depicted in Exhibit B attached hereto,
Developer shall submit to the City, and receive the City's approval
of all plans necessary for review and approval of the zoning,
planned unit development, and subdivision of any portion of the
property beyond Phase I, in accordance with statutory public hearing
process requirements and requirements of the City Code.
4. The Planned Unit Development Concept for the multiple family
residential portion of the property is herein established at a
density base of five units per acre with additional density possible
subject to a detailed review of site and architectural plans that
are based on performance criteria which include that the plans must
show sensitivity to existing land forms and vegetation, heavy use of
landscaping to decrease the scale of the buildings, primary building
materials of facebridk and the buildings shall be residential in
character, and the mass of the buildings shall be reduced through
specific architectural treatment, such as varying roof heights and
IL building jogs.
5. The Planned Unit Development Concept for the future R1-9.5 area, as
depicted on Exhibit B attached hereto, shall be based on a detailed
review of a zoning request with all lots meeting the minimum
requirements of the R1-9.5 zoning district with a maximum density
not to exceed 3.0 units per acre and architectural control which
keys specific unit types to lots such that no two units are alike
side by side, directly across, or diagonally across from each other.
6. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property,
Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and receive the City
Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water,
storm sewer, and erosion control for the property.
Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or
cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said
plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit
C, attached hereto.
7. Concurrent with the final plat su.,mission, Developer agrees to
provide for the documentation to vacate Bluff Road and Franlo Road
and to allow for Outlot C to revert back to the adjoining land fi
owners.
8. Developer agrees to notify the City and the Watershed District at
least 48 hours in advance of any grading, or tree removal, on the
property.
!or
•
Prior to issuance of any permit for grading upon the property,
Developer agrees to implement erosion control measures and adequate
protective measures for areas to be preserved and areas where
grading is not to occur, and to receive City approval of said
measures. Prior to approval by the City, the Developer must call
for on-site inspection of the property by the City, and defects in
materials and workmanship in the implementation of said measures
shall then be determined by the City. Defects in materials or
workmanship shall then be corrected by the Developer, reinspected
and approved by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit by
the City. Approval of materials and workmanship may be subject to
such conditions as the City may impose at the time of acceptance.
9. Developer agrees to confine grading to that area of the property
within the construction limits as shown on Exhibit B. Developer
shall place snow fencing at the construction limits within=the`.
wooded areas of the property prior to any grading upon the property.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Developer shall submit to
the Director of Planning and receive the Director's approval of a
tree inventory of those trees within the construction area and,
within 25 ft. outside of the construction area, indicating the size,
type, and location of all trees twelve (12) inches in diameter, or
greater, at a level 4.5 feet above ground level.
If any such trees are removed, damaged, or destroyed outside of the
construction area, Developer agrees that prior to issuance of any
building permit for the property, Developer shall submit to the
Director of Planning, and receive the Director's approval of a
replacement plan for all trees removed, damaged, or destroyed
outside of the construction area. Developer further agrees that
said trees shall be replaced by similar tree species and that the
trees used for replacement shall be no less than six inches in ".
diameter. The amount of trees to be replaced shall be determined by,
the Director of Planning, using a square inch per square inch basis,
according to the area of the circle created by a cross sectional cut
through the diameter of a tree as measured 4.5 feet above the
ground.
If a tree replacement plan is required, Developer agrees that, prior
to issuance of any building permit, to submit a bond, or letter of
credit, guaranteeing completion of all tree replacement work as
approved by the Director of Planning. The amount of the 'bond, or
letter of credit, shall be 150% of the approved estimated cost of
implementation of all tree replacement work and shall be in such
form and contain such other provision and terms as may be required
by the Director of Planning. Develop, agrees to prepare and submit
for approval to the Director of Planning a written estimate of the
costs of the tree replacement work to be completed.
Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer shall
implement, or cause to be implemented, those improvements listed
above in said plans, as approved by the Director of Planning.
IL
,'Ch
10. Concurrent with development of Phase. II, or no later than 1988,
Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, that
portion of Bluff Road between Phase I and County Road 18. If
Developer does not cause said portion of Bluff Road to be
constructed, Developer agrees to submit a petition for public
improvement of said portion of Bluff Road so that it may be
completed no later than 1988.
As an alternative, Developer agrees to construct a temporary two-
inch thick bituminous surface for the road where shown on Exhibit D,`
attached hereto and made a part hereof, on existing Bluff
Road/County Road #18. Said construction shall be concurrent with
Phase II development, to be completed no later than 1988, and shall
be according to Engineering standards. Developer further agrees
that if this alternative is chosen by Developer, Developer shall be
solely responsible for the cost of materials and labor for said
construction.
11. Prior to development with Phase V, as depicted in Exhibit B attached
hereto. Developer agrees that the minor collector road connection to
County Road #1 shall be completed and signalization of Franlo Road
and County Road #1 intersection shall be in place. Developer agrees
to participate in the cost of`signalization.of said intersection.,
12. Developer acknowledges that it is necessary to install a temporary
lift station for sanitary sewer service to be accessible.for Phase I
of the property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Prior `:!
to release of the final plat by the City for.Phase I of the
property, Developer agrees to submit to the City::Engineer, and
receive the City Engineer's approval of plans:for a temporary lift
station to serve said Phase I with public sanitary sewer.
Upon approval of the said plans by the City Engineer, Developer
agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements
as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with ,the terms and
conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. Developer agrees to pay
the installation cost for construction of said temporary lift
station. Developer also agrees to pay for the ongoing maintenance
costs for said temporary lift station, until said temporary lift
station is able to be removed from the;system when gravity sewer is
available. It shall be at the sole discretion of the'City as to the
timing for removal of the temporary lift station from the system and
its ability to be replaced by
sewer. ,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused these
or presents to be executed as of the day and year aforesaid.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument, was acknowledged before me this • day of
, 1986, by Gary D. Peterson, the Mayor, and Carl J.3ullie, the
City Manager, of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on
behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
THE BLUFFS COMPANY
al ace Hustad r 3 ent
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /3.T.L day of
1986, by Wallace Hustad, the President of the Bluffs Company, a Minnesota
corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
(47)1,1
- GXNT:'CUN1Y.
My Commission ExWies July 16;9992
f(-)7ZZ
•
Exhibit A
Page 1of3
BLUFF COUNTRY
PUD and Platting Legal Description •
411 r :
That part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36,
Township 116, Range 22, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, lying south of
•
the North 790 feet thereof.
and that part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said
Section 36, lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the
west line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 distant 332
feet north of the southwest corner thereof to a point on the east
line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 distant 443.4 feet
north of the southeast corner thereof.
and the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of
said Section 36.
and the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 36.
. and the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 36, lying
easterly of the centerline of Purgatory Creek.
and that part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section
• 25, said Township 116, Range 22, lying south of BLUFFS EAST THIRD
ADDITION.
and that part of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said
Section 25, lying south of BLUFFS EAST THIRD ADDITION and lying
41, easterly and southeasterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the southeast corner of the North 22 rods of said
Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4: thence westerly slung the
south line of said North 22 rods a distance of 535.14 feet; thence
southerly al right angles to said south line a distance of 380.00
feet to the point of beginning of line to be described; thence
continuing along last described course a distance of 210.06 feet;
• thence deflecting to the right 46 degrees a distance of 515 feet
more or less to the centerline of Purgatory Creek; thence
southerly along said centerline to the south line of said
Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 and there terminating.
• and Outlut J, BLUFFS WEST, Eden Prairie, Minnesota.
EXCEPT
Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, said CREEK KNOLLS.
Lots 5 through 7, Block 2, said CHEEK KNOLL:.,:Lots 1 through 5, Block 3, said CREEK KNOLL:
i
1gi9
•
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 3
Legal description for Property to be Zoned R1-13.5
ifThat part of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 and the South 1/2
of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township.-116,
Range 22. Eden Prairie, Minnesota, described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast corner of said Northeast 1/4 of
the Northwest 1/4; thence westerly along the south line of
said Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 on an assumed bearing
of North 88 degrees West 550 feet; thence North 37 degrees
West 215 feet; thence North 76 degrees West 290 feet; thence
North 164 feet; thence North 49 degrees East 273 feet; thence
North 11 degrees East 118 feet; thence North 73 degrees East
168 feet; thence North 88 degrees East 53 feet; thence _North
74 degrees East 427 feet thence South 89 degrees East 120
feet to the east line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest
1/4; thence South 226 feet; thence South 89 degrees ,East .
along the north line of said South 1/2 of .the Northwest 1/4
of the Northeast 1/4 .1200 feet; thence South 28 degrees West
•
382 feet; thence South 8 degrees West. 183 feet; thence 'South
43 degrees West 105 feet: thence North 77 degrees West 341
feet; thence South 34 degrees ,"West 141 feet; thence South 57
degrees West 57 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 3, Block
1, CREEK KNOLLS; thence westerly along the north line of said
Block 1 to the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1 said CREEK
KNOLLS; thence South along the west line of said Lot 1 to the
south line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4; thence
west along said south line .60 feet to the point of beginning.
AND
That part of Out lot J, BLUFFS WEST, Eden Prairie, 'Minnesota, described_
as. follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of said Outlot- J; thence
easterly along the south line of said Outlot J on an assumed
bearing of South 88 degrees East 250 feet; thence North 45
degrees East 494 feet; thence North 38 degrees West 64. feet;
thence North 35 degrees East 178 feet;
e
degrees East 226 feet; thence North 122 feet; t North` •th
70 degrees West 191 feet; seWes South
feet; thence South 42 degrees West 260: 0
• thence North 63 degrees West 256 feet to the
northwesterly line of said Outlot J; thence 'southwesterly
along said northwesterly line to the westerly line of said
Outlot J; thence southerly along said westerly line to the
point of beginning.
l
Ui)
Exhibit A
•
Page 3 of 3
Legal description for Proposed Multiple
That part of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township
( 116, Range 22 Eden Prairie, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning
at a point on the east line of said East 1/2 distant 628.4 feet north
from the southeast corner thereof; thence South 86 degrees 37 'minutes
West 445 feet; thence South 3 degrees 23 minutes East 45 feet; thence
South 86 degrees 37 minutes West 400 feet; thence North 3 degrees 23
minutes West 45 feet; thenr.e South 86 degrees 37 minutes West 200 feet;
thence North 40 degrees West 133 feet: thence North 30 degrees East 335
feet;, thence North 14 degrees West 60 feet; - thence North 36 degrees
West 335 feet; thence North 2 degrees West 243 feet; thence East 245
feet: thence North 46 degrees East 180 feet: thence North 36 degrees
East 230 feet to the south line of the North 790 feet of said East 1/2:
thence easterly along said south line 655 feet to the east line of said
East 1/2; thence southerly along said east line 1210 feet to the point
of beginning.
•
l
f
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT C
ir
I. Prior to release of final plat, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer
for approval two copies of a development plan (1" = 100' scale) showing
existing and proposed contours, proposed streets, and lot arrangements and
size, minimum floor elevations on each lot, preliminary alignment and grades
for sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer, 100-year flood plain
contours, ponding areas, tributary areas to catch basins, arrows showing
direction of storm water flow on all lots, location of walks, trails, and
any property deeded to the City.
II. Developer shall submit detailed construction and storm sewer plans to the
Watershed District for review and approval. Developer shall follow all
rules and recommendations of said Watershed District.
III. Developer shall pay cash park fees as to all of the property required by
City Code in effect as of the date of the issuance of each building permit
for construction on the property. Presently, the amount of cash park fee
applicable to the property is $420.00 per unit. The amount to be paid by
Developer shall be increased or decreased to the extent that the City Code
is amended or supplemented to require a greater or lesser amount as of the
date of the issuance of any building permit for construction on the
property.
IV. Prior to the dedication, transfer, or conveyance of any real property or
interest therein to the City as provided herein, Developer shall deliver to
the City an opinion addressed to the City by an Attorney, and in a form
applicable to City as to the condition of the title of such property, or, in
lieu of a title opinion, a title insurance policy insuring the condition of
the property or interest therein in the City. The condition of the title of
any real property or any interest therein to be dedicated, transferred, or
conveyed as may be provided herein by Developer to the City shall vest in
City good and marketable title thereon, free and clear of any mortgages,
liens, encumbrances, or assessments.
V.A. All sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer facilities, concrete curb,
gutters, sidewalks, trails, streets, site grading, and other public
utilities ("improvements") to be made and constructed on or within the
property and dedicated to the City shall be designed in compliance with City
standards by a registered professional engineer and submitted to the City
Engineer for approval. All of the improvements shall be completed by
Developer and acceptable to the City Engineer and shall be free and clear of
any lien, claim, charge, or encumbrance, including any for work, labor, or
services rendered in connection therewith, or ,aterials or equipment
supplied therefor, on or before two (2) years frr the date hereof. Upon
completion and acceptance, Developer warrants and guarantees the
improvements against any defect in materials or workmanship for a period of
two (2) years following said completion and acceptance. In the event of any
defect in materials or workmanship within said two-year period, warranty or
guarantee shall be for a period of three (3) years following said completion
and acceptance. Defects in materials or workmanship shall be determined by
the City Engineer. Acceptance of improvements by the City Engineer may be
subject to such conditions as the City Engineer may impose at the time of
acceptance. Developer, through Developer's engineer, shall provide for
It • competent daily inspection during the construction of all improvements. As-
built drawings with service and valve ties on reproduceable mylar shall be
delivered to the City Engineer within sixty (60) days of completion thereof,
together imp with written
improvements have been completed,
inspected,a registered
engineer
and tested in accordance with
City-approved plans and specifications. Prior to final plat approval, or
issuance of any building permit, if no final plat is required, Developer
shall:
Submit a bond or letter of credit which guarantees completion of all
improvements within the times provided, upon the conditions, and in
accordance with the terms of this subparagraph V.A., including, but
not limited to, a guarantee against defects in materials or
workmanship for a period of two (2) years following completion and
acceptance of the improvements by the City Engineer. The amount of
the bond or letter of credit shall be 125% of the estimated
construction cost of said improvements, subject to reduction thereof
to an amount equal to 25% of the cost of the improvements after
acceptance thereof by the City Engineer, and receipt of as-built
drawings. The bond or letter of credit shall be in such form and
contain such other provisions and terms as may be required by the
City Engineer. The Developer's registered professional engineer
shall make and submit for approval to the City Engineer a written
estimate of the costs of the improvements.
4
B. In lieu of the obligation imposed by subparagraph V.A. above, Developer may
,. submit a 100% petition signed by all owners of the property, requesting the
City to install the improvements. If Developer chooses to execute the 100%
petition, Developer waives all rights they have by virtue of Minnesota State
Statutes Sec. 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of
amounts, or the procedure used by the City in levying the assessments and
hereby releases the City, its officers, agents, and employees from any and
all liability related to or arising out of the levying of the assessments.
Upon approval by the City Council, the City may cause said improvements to
be made and special assessments for all costs for said improvements will be
levied on the property, except any property which is or shall be dedicated
to the public, over a five-year period. Prior to the award of any contract
by the City for the construction of any improvements, Developer shall have
entered into a contract for rough grading of the streets included in the
improvements to a finished subgrade elevation. Contractor's obligation with
respect to the rough grading work shall be secured by a bond or letter of
credit which shall guarantee completion and payment for all labor and
materials expended in connection with the rough grading. The amount of the
bond or letter of credit shall be 125% of the cost such rough grading and
shall be in such form and contain such further term :s may be required by
the City Engineer.
C. Prior to release of the final plat, Developer shall pay to City fees for the
first three (3) years' street lighting (public streets), engineering review,
and street signs.
VI.A. Developer shall remove all soil and debris from, and clean all streets
within and abutting the property at least every two (2) months (or within
one week from the date of any request by City), during the period commencing
47- May 1 and ending October 31 of each year, until such time as such streets
and improvements therein are accepted for ownership and maintenance by City.
Prior to City accepting streets and improvements. Developer shall have
restored all boulevards according to the obligations contained within
paragraph VI.B.
B. Within twenty (20) days of installation of utilities and street curb in any
portion of the property (if said time occurs between May 1 and October 31 of
any year), Developer shall sod (secured with a minimum of two (2) stakes per
roll of sod) that part of the property lying between said curb and a line
18+ inches measured perpendicular with the curb, or, in lieu of said sod,
place a fiber blanket with seed approved by the City (secured with stakes a
maximum of six (6) feet apart). Either sod or fiber must be placed upon a
minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil. The topsoil shall be level with the
top of the curb at the curb line and rise one-half inch (1/2") for each foot
from the curb line.
Developer shall maintain the sod, fiber blanket, topsoil, and grade until
such time as the streets and improvements in the property are accepted for
ownership and maintenance by City.
Developer shall also sod all drainage swales serving each 1.5 acres a
minimum distance of six (6) feet on either side of the center of the swale.
C. The bond or letter of credit provided in paragraph V.A. hereof shall also
guarantee the performance of Developer's obligations under this paragraph
VI.
VII. City shall not issue any building permit for the construction of any
building, structure, or improvement on any land required to be subdivided
until all requirements listed above have been satisfactorily addressed by
Developer.
VIII. Developer shall submit detailed watermain and fire protection plans to the
Fire Marshall for review and approval. _Developer shall follow all the
recommendations of the Fire Marshall.
IX. If Developer fails to proceed in accordance with this Agreement within
twenty-four (24) months of the date hereof, Developer, for itself, its
successors, and assigns, shall not oppose rezoning of said property to
Rural.
X. Provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon id enforceable against
owners, their successors, and their assigns of the property herein
described.
XI. Developer represents and warrants that they own fee title to the property
free and clear of mortgages, liens, and other encumbrances, except:
XI'I. In the event there are or will be constructed on the property, two or more
streets, and if permanent street signs have not been installed, Developer
lit shall install temporary street signs in accordance with the recomoendations.
of the City Building Department, prior to the issuance of any permit to
build upon the property.
XIII. Developer acknowledges that the rights of City to performance of obligations
of Developer contemplated in this Agreement are special, unique, and of an
extraordinary character, and that, in the event that Developer violates, or
fails, or refuses to perform any covenant, condition, or provision made
herein, City may be without an adequate remedy at law. Developer agrees,
therefore, that in the event Developer violates, fails, or refuses to
perform any covenant, condition, or provision made herein, City may, at its
option, institute and prosecute an action to specifically enforce
performance of such covenant. No remedy conferred in this c`agreement is
intended to be exclusive and each shall be cumulative and shall be in
addition to every other remedy. The election of any one or more remedies
shall not constitute a waiver of any other remedy.
XIV. Any term of this Agreement that is illegal or unenforceable at law or in
equity shall be deemed to be void and of no force or effect to the extent
necessary to bring such term within the provisions of any such applicable
law or laws, and such terms as so modified and the balance of the terms of
this Agreement shall be enforceable.
XV. Developer shall, prior to the commencement of any improvements, provide
written notice to Rogers Cablesystems, a Minnesota Limited.Partnership, the
franchisee under the City's Cable Communication Ordinance (80-33) of the
development contemplated by this Developer's Agreement. Notice shall be
sent to Rogers Cablesystems, 801 Plymouth Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN:'
55411.
is
Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESDLUTION NO. 86-154
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE 24-86-PUD-3-86 AND ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY
WHEREAS,
Ordinance
regular meeting ofthe City NCouncil 86ofUtthe CityaofaEdenePrair1erdoonoredtheb19thpulishedayd atofa
August, 1986;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN
PRAIRIE:
A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 24-86-PUD-3-86, which
is attached hereto, is approved, and the City,Council finds that
said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of
said ordinance.
B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a
body type no smaller than brevier or eight-point type, as defined in
Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07.
C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for
inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office
of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance
shall be posted in the City Hall.
D. That Ordinance No. 24-86-PUD-3-86 shall be recorded in the ordinance
book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B
herein, within 20 days after, said publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council on August 19, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
l
Bluffs East 4th and 5th Additions
CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 24-86-PUD-3-86
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE
ZONING OISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND
IN EACH DISTRICT, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY COOE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99,
WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located west of
County Road #18 northwest of Bluff Road, and west of Franlo Road, known as Bluffs
East 4th and 5th Additions, from the Rural District to the PUO-1-86 District, which
includes the R1-13.5 Oistrict, subject to the terms and conditions of a.developer's
agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal
description of this property.
Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
r ATTEST:
d
/s/John D. Frane /s/Gary D. Peterson
City Clerk Mayor
PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1986.
(A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is.available from the City Clerk.)
RESOLUTION NO. 86-P18
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE UNITED WAY'S SALUTE TO
SMALL BUSINESS ON SEPTEMBER 17, 19B6
WHEREAS, the United Way of Minneapolis Area currently provides funding to
nearly 390 programs in 107 agencies, many located in and serving suburban
communities. For example, in the Eden Prairie area agencies which service the
community include the Southdale YMCA and the American Heart Association which
provide programs ranging from counseling for physically or sexually abused.
adolescents to profesional education; and
WHEREAS, the efforts of thousands of community volunteers enable the United
Way to maintain fundraising and administrative costs under nine cents to a
dollar; and
WHEREAS, in 1986 funds are being distributed to quality programs that reach
more people in suburban comunities The United Way works with county planning
boards and private planning groups to identify-gaps.in services in a continuing
effort to meet the comprehensive needs of people in the six county service area;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council of Eden Prairie hereby
support United Way's Salute to Small Business Wednesday, September 17, 1986, in
the Eden Prairie community and encourage local business and their employees to
( participate in this event.
Mayor Gary D. Peterson
ATTEST
SEAL
John D. Frane, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRDUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie
FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson
SUBJECT: Conmuity Energy Council/Eden Prairie Rideshare Program
DATE: August 14, 1986
The Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce is seeking $7,00D to continue and improve
its Rideshare program. It wishes to provide quicker turnaround of ride matches,
have cleaner lists of those seeking rides, and do a better job of marketing the
program. The State's'Conmunity Energy Council program is one promising vehicle
for obtaining the funds; program staff has indicated that funding,is likely.
Technically, the Conmunity Energy Council is to be a City Council-established
commission. The Council may designate an existing group as the Community Energy
Council as long as that group has the representative membership required by.the
State. The Chamber has most of that representation on its Transportation
Committee and has contacted persons with labor, low-income, and senior
circumstances who have indicated a willingness to serve. The City Council may
designate this expanded Transportation Committee of theChamber of Commerce_ as
Eden Prairie's Community Energy Council.
City involvement with the program would be limited to receipt and pass-through
of funds, and approval of monthly reports by the Community Energy Council to the
State.
Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council designate the Eden Prairie
Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee as the City of Eden Prairie's
Community Energy Council. It is further recommended,that the Council adopt the
attached resolution sponsoring the Eden Prairie Rideshare request for funding
from the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development.
CWO:jdp
Attachment
•
RESOLUTION NO. 86-220
A RESOLUTION SPONSORING A REQUEST FOR FUNDING
BY THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR EDEN PRAIRIE RIDESHARE
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie supports measures to foster self-reliance
in energy; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie endorses efforts to conserve energy; and
WHEREAS, the Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce has operated the Eden Prairie
Rideshare program which addresses these goals;
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie act as the sponsoring unit of
government for Eden Prairie Rideshare project to be conducted September 1, 1986
through August 31, 1987. The Assistant to the City Manager is hereby authorized
to apply to the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development for,
funding of this project on behalf of the City of Eden Prairie.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Eden Prairie enter into a grant
agreement with the State of Minnesota for the Eden Prairie Rideshare project if
the application is sucessful. The Assistant to the City. Manager is authorized
to execute certifications as required and execute such agreements as are
necessary to implement this project.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council, August 19, 1986.
Mayor Gary D. Peterson i"
SEAL
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
l
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-217
A RESOLUTION DECLARING SATISFACTION
OF REQUIREMENTS IN DEVELOPERS' AGREEMENT FOR
HIPPS MITCHELL HEIGHTS 4TH ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City and Hipps Construction Company entered into an agreement
dated March 20, 1979, which set forth the requirements for development of land known
as Hipps Mitchell Heights 4th Addition; and,
WHEREAS, the land has since been developed, subdivided, and sold; and,
WHEREAS, individual ownerships of property have periodically changed since
then; and,
WHEREAS, Hipps Construction Company has completed development of the
property generally in conformance with the terms of the agreement; and,
WHEREAS, owners of individual properties are unable to control general
conditions associated with the Developers' Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Eden Prairie
finds that owners of individual parcels with the Hipps Mitchell Heights 4th Addition
have fulfilled the requirements of said agreement to the extent reasonably possible.
ADOPTED by the City Council of Eden Prairie this 19th day of August, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sandra F. Werts, Recreation Supervisor
DATE: August 14, 1986
SUBJECT: Eden Prairie History Month
One of the goals of the Historical and Cultural Commission is to focus the
attention of residents on Eden Prairie as an autonomous community. They hope
to.accomplish this by focusing on the history of Eden Prairie as a community.
Since Sunbonnet Day is held every year in September., they felt September would
be an appropriate month to have declared Eden Prairie History Month. The Eden
Prairie News has agreed to put together a special supplement. The Sailor will
be running a special article each week in September. There will be a special
display at the Eden Prairie Library, and possibly at the Eden Prairie Center.
In future years, the Commission hopes to have special programs in the schools
for youth and programs for adults.
The Commission requests that you support them in this endeavor by,declaring
September as Eden Prairie History Month.
SW:md
l_
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
Ar
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-221
A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER AS EDEN PRAIRIE HISTORY MONTH
WHEREAS, Eden Prairie was first settled in 1852 and has been making
history ever since, and
WHEREAS, Eden Prairie is one of the fastest growing communities in the
Twin City Metropolitan area, and
WHEREAS, nearly seventy five percent of Eden Prairie's residents did not
live here twenty five years ago, and may not be familiar with the history of
the community, and
- I.I
WHEREAS, Eden Prairie is a community unto itself, with special people,
places and happening,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that September be declared Eden Prairie
History Month to focus attention on the beginnings of this community and
affirm that Eden Prairie's past is what helps to shape its future.
ADOPTED, by the Eden Prairie City Council this 19th day of August, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk SEAL
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE.
HF.NNF.PIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 86-208
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted on the 1st day of July,
1986, fixed the 19th day of August, 1986, as the date for a public hearing on
the following proposed improvements:
J.C. 52-087, Baker Road Sanitary Sewer (north of
St. Andrew Drive)
WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable ton be assessed for the
making of this improvement were given ten days published notice of the Council
hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing
was held and property owners heard on the 19th day of August, 1986.
NOW, THERFFDRF, BF IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF. FDFN
PRAIRIE:
1. Such improvement as above indicated is hereby ordered.
2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for
this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and
specifications for the making of such improvement.
ADDPTED by the Fden Prairie City Council on August 19, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
CITY OF FDFN PRAIRIE
HFNNFPIN COUNTY, MINNFSOEA
RESOLUTION 86-209
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted on the 15th day of July.
1986 fixed the 19th day of August, 1986, as the date for a public hearing on
the following proposed improvements:
I.C.52-101, Riverview Road and Riverview Drive
WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to,be assessed for the
making of this improvement were given ten days published notice of the Council
hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing
was held and property owners heard on the 19th day of August, 1986.
NOW, THEREFORE., DE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL DF THE CITY OF FDF.N
PRAIRIE:
1. Such improvement as above indicated is hereby ordered.
2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for
this project and is hereby directed to -;prepare plans and
specifications for the making of such improvement, with the
assistance of RCM, Inc.
ADOPTED by the Fden Prairie City Council on August 19, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
CITY OF'FOEN PRAIRIE
HF.NNF.PIN COUNTY, MINNF.SOTA
RESOLUTION 86-210
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted on July 15, 1986, fixed the
19th day of August, 1986, as the date for a public hearing on the following
proposed improvements:
I.C. 52-079, Crestwood Terrace Street Improvements.
WHEREAS. all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for-:the
making of this improvement were given ten days published notice of the Council
hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing
was held and property owners heard on the 19th day of August. 1986.:
NOW, THFRFFORF, 8F IT RFSOLVFO 8Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY "OF FDFN
PRAIRIF":
1. Such improvement as above indicated, is hereby ordered. l
2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for
this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans'. and "
specifications for the making of such.improvement.
ADOPTFO by the Eden Prairie City Council'on August 19, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SFAL
John D. Franc, Clerk
l
2OOlo
•
•
ay:N Crestwood Tern..,,. !
idea i'ralric, MN 5+hi4
July 311, 19H6
Mr. Eugene A. Dietz, P.E.
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden l'rairi.c-Road
•
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Dietz:
Re: Street Improvements for Crestwood Terrace
We are writing in response to the proposal regarding paving the`
unpaved,sect ion of Crestwood Terrace and;.upgrading•the paved 'section.
. We would like to go on.record as being in favor of the proposal--and
consider:it to be a fair and equitable method of sharing the .cost
among all of those residents that would benefit_'from this improve-
ment.
• Sincerely,
Melvin F. Goldeirhogen
Donna.M. C,oldcnirngen •
Zoo )
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION #86-204
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF BLUESTEM HILLS FOR
BROWN LAND COMPANY
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
That the Preliminary plat of Bluestem Hills for Brown Land Company, dated July 17,
1986, consisting of 31.56 acres into 64 single family lots, one outlot, and road
right-of-way, 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 19th day of August, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
John D. Frane, City Clerk
i
f
l I
MEMO
TO: City Council
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
RUUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 15, 1986
RE: BLUESTEM HILLS
Attachment C of the July 25, 1986, Staff Report, depicted the extension of
Meade Lane directly to the north of the 'Bluestem'Hills `Subdivision to service
the adjacent properties. Detailed topographic information; provided by the
proponent at the August 11, 1986,. Planning Commission meeting, revealed that
this direct extension was not feasible due to the:change in grade on :the
adjacent property. Since that time, Staff has conducted additional on-site
inspection, and based on the adjacent sites topography, existing' " building.
locations, and property lines, has determined a feasible location for Meade
Lane (see Attachment A). Staff is recommending that the proponent revise the
plans to reflect the Meade Lane Road extension per Attachment A.
i
•
•
•
'►I s , /1 'N '+,7, , "44,, y: /i.ei „•
1.) " ��s•
Job- d.` • 16, n9)5 1611,40.6(6. • .�••-
t , .� Iq,`. �' y�a fMl q IN
~ a N a e d c I . �I
.• 1 4i I,'I lib) (i!1 S.
'b`+..Y ,py n, ••a' •'
1 1•1 , ?dr ylll) 'y I6; (6r1 _ �+'1
•
INI
. i ,.- II
�y
tq6 b !
•
( ` p r
, ,�,
7n . 14) 6
' 01.16'1 Y. f1bo1Y1l11H . e i
•yy1111 Li (6}p1 4
x
r._,,:
.I .".• : i:•, • gar y b e �• io)
y��.y( t1n 11• we
.,., �« spin A)Q
t • I scan ilsf 1; .
ItvNgt(gq 111(r)Q I1Nt siN
l y .g lire J 'n „•d'...
pp• •� r,
=i (ill i V444_ 1�.. ' ,>,'«
wg a '
• i,. * ef M /.+ ;! ,✓'w0�6'41
•
( ATTACHMENT A
MEADE LANE ROAD EXTENSION
STAFF REPORT
(
TO: Planning Commission
. FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THOUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: August 8, 1986
PROJECT: Bluestem Hills Addition
LOCATION: South of Bennett Place, west of Jackson Drive
APPLICANT: Brown Land Company
FEE OWNER: Sandra Brown, Dave Brown, and Sally Brown
REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 26.86 acres.
2. Preliminary Plat of 31.56 acres into 64 single family lots,
one outlot, and road right-of-way.
Background V y ' —
7
R
This is a continued item from the frit(
C°NO., I 406
July 28, 1986, Planning Commission „ _ �T c,.
meeting. At that time, the pro- ' �`/�r�;I',,. �
ponent was directed to make•�if /
revisions to the plans per the Staff �: 1 1 I Ii.Report of July 25, 1986. /-i�j� �'-1 r11111111k424;,
.� filet
Revisions ----`
•
The following is a listing of those ti,
��E�
0.irecommendations made in the Staff 6
Report dated July 25, 1986, and L " . -.•-:••-:.••
comments regarding the proponent's '',�..+... :;:•�•:' ' °%•''•'.••• ' • j'°"'
9 f p e ;../...;..:::�::: :.. ' •:.tea
response to each of those items. �, g :•�. �•�.;,.• .':•%'i;: j'I I LI ,,'�I�
1. Revise the grading plan to �' �+ �'%:•, I l I t
depict positive overflowt .� '" ' ..''.:, "•`
drainage for the landlock f �.r v �!1-135' •' 7--84
basin located within Block t A.. ,,,, Rh-13.5.
3. a imerima
�1041 ,
Y+
,•X4LtN� Y' .
To do this, the proponent 0 4, , PROPOSED SITE
has lowered the road grade •.. . �4 " y +
on Bluestein Lane approx- , - "�� a � .
imately two feet and has s " lit
f changed two of the unit """« �� ?; `' ,44 - <�4
1 can.
� AREA LOCATION MAP ,
RI13g_t--: ai l`7-s
c_
Bluestem Hills Addition 2 August 11, 1986
Ctypes from walkout to ramblers which allows for a drainage swale between the
two units. The positive overflow drainage on the proposed grading plan
depicts it at the 806 contour elevation. In addition, the emergency
overflow catch basin system is still located within this landlocked basin
area.
2. Provide for 252 caliper inches of oak trees to be replaced as part of the
tree replacement policy. Additional tree replacement may be required based
upon the submittal of a tree inventory for the storm sewer construction
area.
The proponent is contending that only 18 caliper inches of oak trees will be
removed as part of the mass grading, street, and utility construction since
the mass grading limits are proposed to be stopped at Bluestem Lane. Lots
adjacent to the creek would be custom graded according to house design at
building permit. Staff calculates a total of 228 caliper inches of trees
would be removed (mostly below Bluestem Lane) and shall be the
responsibility of the developer to replace. Since lots are proposed for
sale to individual builders, it will be difficult to replace trees on a per
lot basis. Tree replacement should occur on the long 3:1 slopes to help
with slope stabilization. Prior to Council review, proponent must submit a
tree replacement plan for review with a minimum tree size of 4-inch caliper.
3. Submit a tree inventory for the storm sewer construction area and
preliminary construction plans for the storm sewer discharge pipe into
Purgatory Creek in order for Staff to evaluate the extent of tree loss in
this area.
The proponent has conducted a tree inventory of this area and has identified
two major trees (10-inch and 12-inch oak) within the vicinity which shall be
retained. The proponent has realigned the proposed storm sewer connection
which would allow for a minimum effect on the slopes in this area.
Additional plans shall be evaluated when construction drawings are
submitted.
4. Complete the study of all alternatives for a gravity flow sanitary sewer
system in this area.
In the letter of July 31, 1986, from Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public
Works, to the Brown Land Company, it is stated that the property does not
have immediate access to sanitary sewer; however, the possibility exists for
sanitary sewer service constructed to the west of Homeward Hills Road. The
decision for the gravity sewer will be determined through a feasibility
study. In the interim, a temporary lift station will be allowed, with the
developer paying for the installation and all maintenance costs until the
temporary lift station would be removed. If a permanent lift station proves
to be the only feasible method to serve this site, the developer would be .
responsible for installation and the maintenance costs for the station. If
the gravity system is feasible, the proponent shall execute a special
assessment agreement or other funding arrangement to pay for the Bluestem
Hills share of the gravity sewer costs.
5. Submit documentation stating that, concurrent with grading, all slopes with
grades of 3:1 or greater shall be sodded and maintained by the developer. A
cash maintenance bond will be required to ensure compliance.
Bluestem Hills Addition 3 August 11, 1986
Within the developer's narrative and noted on the preliminary grading plan,
all slopes of 3:1 or greater that are disturbed during the mass grading will
be restored with sod or an improved equal and will be maintained by the
developer. In addition, the developer will provide a cash maintenance bond
as required by the City.
6. Submit a set of restrictive covenants which shall be recorded concurrent
with final plat approval for that portion of Block 4, Lots 9 through 24,
which is within the transition zone limit of Purgatory Creek.
The proponent has submitted a set of restrictive covenants for Lots 9
through 24, Block 4, that will be finalized in accordance with final plat
approval. The final version of these covenants will be sent to the City for
their review and approval prior to recording.
7. In conjunction with the set of restrictive covenants, the proponent shall
also record a scenic easement for that portion of Block 4, Lots 9 through
23, which is in the conservancy limit of Purgatory Creek.
The proponent will file a scenic easement concurrent with final plat
approval for Lots 9 through 23, Block 4, which are within the conservancy
limit.
8. Submit an Engineers estimate for the construction costs of all improvements
required off-site.
A preliminary Engineer's estimate has been done by the proponent which
includes the grading, sanitary sewer, watermain, and street construction of
Bennett Place from the north boundary of Bluestem Hills to the existing
bituminous street at Creekridge Drive. This figure has been estimated at
S121,000. A more accurate construction cost for off-site improvements will
be conducted with the feasibility study for Bennett Place.
9. Revise the plat to reflect continuation of Meade Lane as shown on Attachment
C.
The proponent has submitted a plan which shows how the proposed Meade Lane
connection could be made to the north of this site. From a topographic
standpoint, the Meade Lane connection could be made to the north to allow
for access to those properties north of the Bluestem Hills site. Although
the plan shows that a number of mature oak trees would need to be removed
with the road construction, Staff feels that in order to allow for adequate
access to the property to the north, the Meade Lane connection should be
made. This will result in the loss of two additional lots.
Staff Recommendation
Staff would recommend approval for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on
approximately 26 acres and the Preliminary Plat of 32 acres into 64 single family
lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way based upon recommendations of the Staff
Reports dated July 25, 1986, August 8, 1986, and plans dated July 17, 1986, and
revised plans dated August 4, 1986, and subject to the following conditions:
Bluestem Hills Addition 4 August 11, 1986
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Provide for 22B caliper inches of oak trees to be replaced as part
of the tree replacement policy.
B. Revise the plans to reflect the continuation of Meade Lane as shown
on Attachment C per Staff Report dated July 25, 1986.
2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water and erosion control plans for review by
the Watershed District,
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control
plans for review by the City. Engineer.
C. Concurrent with final plat approval, proponent shall submit final
drafts of the restrictive covenants and scenic easements for Staff
review. These documents shall be recorded with the final plat.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading. Stake all grading limits with a snow fence. Any trees
lost outside the limits shall be replaced on an area inch per inch
( basis. j
B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
4. Concurrent with building construction, proponent shall install a five-foot"
concrete sidewalk along the west side of Meade Lane, south side of Jackson
Drive, and west side of Bennett Place.
l
r 7
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner
THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
DATE: July 25, 1986
PROJECT: Bluestem Hills Addition
LOCATION: South of Bennett Place, west of Jackson Drive
APPLICANT: Brown Land Company
FEE OWNER: Sandra Brown, Dave Brown, and Sally Brown
REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 26.86 acres.
2. Preliminary Plat of 31.56 acres into 64 single family lots,
one out lot, and road right-of-way.
-- —Background X6�t j!
s 7R
This 32-acre parcel is located to ' • ; �A,
14
IL the south of Bennett Place and west ! �. ; "
of Jackson Drive adjacent to a..i
.' ,,'
Purgatory Creek. The property is �"''�'�i :��
currently guided for Low Density �!�// '� ; ,
Residential as are the properties to .:/ '1L,f_�� 4�
the north, east, and west. The '11 1 fbittlillirlproperty to the south is currently r !- `� i Wguided for Public Open Space and is ' `la
. .,,M�: --W 1,1
the location of Purgatory Creek. �'��Specific zoning and land uses in .,, f11111" 1
this area include Eden Prairie ,�.;,�•��•�.•.,
Acres zoned R1-22 to the north, ';::;:;::;'r;%;::•::••::•:::: •
Purgatory Creek to the south Bluffs '°:;;: �''= ='�• = �
East 3rd Addition, zoned R1-13.5 to ,�� `ry ;;�:'• ••'•:,;;.y ;;.;, `i l l l
the east, and Bluffs West Addition, �,.' ° .;
zoned R1-13.5 to the west. - •.
tto � ', I :• ',
The proponent is requesting a zoning f �+ I'' pi 1-4 107-84
P P to R1- T • "...:. . RI-13.5
district change from Rural � ,. ����F�:sr��
13.5 consistent with the Com- '�u�„oo, MAP ,'� ' I
prehensive Guide Plan to allow for ��� , r PROPOSED SITE;
the development of 64 single family a '♦ � �+yv
i.
residences. g AL
Preliminary Plat •��af.�;' " " : IV� 7'
The preliminary plat depicts the
subdivision of approximately 32 AREA LOCATION MAP-1
acres into 64 single family lots, 9 7 Z
R1-13.�"/t- / `A1 117-"g4 .1
•
Bluestem Hills Addition 2 July 25, 1986
Itone outlot, and road right-of-way. The average lot size proposed for this area is
approximately 16,164 square feet with a range from a maximum of 35,200 square feet
adjacent to Purgatory Creek, to the minimum lot size allowed in an R1-13.5 zoning
district of 13,500 square feet. Block 4, Lots 10 through 23, are adjacent to
Purgatory Creek and are subject to the requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance and
the Purgatory Creek open space corridor study. These requirements will be discussed
in detail in the Shoreland section.
Access to the site is provided by connections through Jackson Drive and Meade Lane
to the east and from Bennett Place to the north. Bennett Place is currently
unimproved but with the development of this project, shall be petitioned to be
upgraded. The proponent shall request a feasibility study for the upgrading of
Bennett Place concurrent with this project (see attached petition). Prior to
Council review, the proponent shall provide a preliminary construction estimate for
the cost of improvements required off-site. If the City were to provide the
improvements which would have to be extended approximately 1500 ft. to serve this
property, there would likely be assessments to property owners adjacent to Bennett
Place who are not developing at this time. The City will have to determine if the
timing is appropriate for this subdivision.
Because of the constraints on the availability of sanitary sewer and road access,
the proponent has proposed to develop the project in phases. Phase I shall consist
of approximately ten lots adjacent to Meade Lane and Jackson Drive which can be
served by gravity flow for sanitary sewer and by existing road connections. The
remainder of the property should not be developed until specific engineering
I problems such as sanitary sewer service and the upgrading of Bennett Place are
resolved.
Shore land
Due to the proximity of this project to Purgatory Creek, portions of Block 4 are
subject to the Shoreland Ordinance. Block 4, Lots 15, 16, 17, and 18, can be
classified as abutting lots and are subject to the following requirements:
1. Minimum lot size - 13,500 square feet.
2. Minimum width at building line - 120 feet.
3. Minimum width at Normal Ordinary High Water Mark - 120 feet.
4. Minimum setback from Normal Ordinary High Water Mark - 100 feet.
All lots meet the requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance with lot sizes ranging
from a minimum of 18,500 square feet to a maximum of 24,500 square feet. Because an
outlot in excess of 150 feet wide has been platted between Purgatory Creek and the
remaining lots, they are not considered abutting lots and are not subject to such
stringent requirements. Outlot A will be dedicated to the City for open space
purposes.
Based on the Purgatory Creek open space corridor study, a conservancy area and a
transitional zone has been established on the proposed preliminary plat. The
conservancy area is an area in which there shall be no grading, tree removal,
construction, or any alteration to the natural environment. In this location, the
conservancy area ranges in width from Purgatory Creek to a maximum of 420 feet along
Bluestem Hills Addition 3 July 25, 1986
ithe southwest property line of Lot 9, to a minimum of 120 feet along Lot 16 and 17.
There are a total of 15 lots within the conservancy area (Block 4, Lots 9 through
23). The preliminary plat and grading plan depict the conservancy area and show
building pad locations and any proposed grading. The current plans meet the
requirement of no grading, tree removal, or land alteration within this area;
however, the proponent shall record a scenic easement in favor of the city to ensure
this.
The preliminary plat also depicts a transition zone limit where special concern for
the development of the property shall be taken. There are 16 lots within this
transition zone (Block 4, Lots 9 through 24). Because of the extreme sensitivity of
this area, Staff is recommending that restrictive covenants be recorded with this
project which relate to the grading and tree removal, etc., on those lots within the
transition zone in order to allow for the proper review of each individual building
permit as they are applied for. Covenants such as those filed for Bluffs West,
Block 2, Lots 19 through 26, are typical of areas like this and may be cited as an
example. (See Attachment A)
Grad inq
Elevations on this site range from a high point of 874 along the northeast property
line to a low point of approximately 738 within Purgatory Creek. Because of the
extreme difference in elevations on this site, land alteration in this area will be
extensive. Primary grading work being done on-site is the cutting away of the
slopes adjacent to surrounding properties to allow for the construction of building
pad locations and for the installation of Meade Lane and Jackson Drive. Long slopes
of 3:1 are common in a number of areas and will be subject to the following special
requirements. (See Attachment B) Once the property is graded, the proponent will be
required to sod those areas with a 3:1 or greater slope and maintain those slopes
until each individual lot is developed. The purpose of this requirement is to
reduce the amount of erosion during construction which is expected in this area. A
cash maintenance bond will be required to ensure compliance.
Grading along the southern portion of the property will be limited to approximately
the 800 contour elevation due to the location of the conservancy area as identified
by the Purgatory Creek open space corridor study. As depicted, grading on each
individual lot shall occur but will be subject to the limitations of the restrictive
covenants recommended by Staff.
In addition, the grading plan also shows a tree inventory as of June 11, 1986. A
total of 1,472 caliper inches of trees are located on this site. A total of 108
have been designated by the developer to be removed with preliminary grading. Staff
has identified a minimum of 314 additional caliper inches of trees which shall be
removed, of which 252 caliper inches of trees are desirable and should be subject to
the tree replacement policy. The developer shall replace these trees on a caliper
inch per caliper inch basis. The grading bond shall be of an adequate amount to
ensure tree replacement.
Finally, Staff has identified a potential drainage problem located within the center
portion of Block 3 due to the drainage flowing in that direction. The proponent has
supplied a catch basin system in this area; however, has not provided for positive
overland drainage. The grading plan should be revised to reflect an overland
emergency overflow which will allow for drainage should the catch basin system
become clogged. The lowest opening into the lowest level of any home surrounding
:r)jf)
Bluestem Hills Addition 4 July 25, 1986
this area must be two feet above the overland overflow (currently proposed at 807).
If no other grading solution is found, walkouts below 809 will not be allowed in
this area.
Utilities
Water service is available to this site by connections to an existing six-inch water
main located within Meade Lane and Jackson Drive. This service is to be extended
throughout the project and shall, with the upgrading of Bennett Place, be looped to
the water line which should be located within Bennett Place.
Sanitary sewer service in this area as proposed would require a lift station to
service the westerly most 54 lots. The most easterly portions of Block 1 and Block
2 can be serviced by gravity flow to an existing eight-inch sanitary sewer line
located in Jackson Drive. Because of this, the proponent is proposing to develop
the ten most easterly lots at this time. In regards to the lift station, Staff has
asked the proponent to pursue all alternatives for its elimination. The proponent
is looking at alternatives for gravity flow sewer service at this time and should be
prepared to answer all questions at the City Council meeting. Should a temporary
lift station be required, it shall be placed in an area where access is readily
available for the gravity flow connection when the extention is made. In addition,
the developer shall provide the necessary funds to pay for all maintenance costs
until the temporary lift station is removed and provide a special assessment or
other funding agreement to pay for the Bluestem share of the gravity sewer cost.
Storm water drainage in this area shall be collected through a series of catch
basins located in Bluestein Lane, Bennett Place, and Jackson Drive. All storm water
captured within these catch basins shall collect at one point between Lots 14 and
15, Block 4, and discharge into the Purgatory Creek area. Prior to Council review,
the proponent shall submit a detailed tree inventory and preliminary construction
plans for the installation of this system in order for staff to evaluate the extent
of tree loss within this area. The tree inventory shall include all trees, 12
inches or greater in diameter, to a point 25 feet outside of the construction
limits.
As previously mentioned, the grading plan is proposing to drain all of Block 3 into
the center portion of the site. This location can be classified as a landlocked
basin and is being required to have positive overland drainage should the proposed
catch basin be plugged. To do this, alternatives such as changing the unit types
and/or lowering the street grade should be examined. It is expected that the
proponent will be able to address this issue at the Planning Commission meeting.
Road Network
In looking at this area, Staff developed a number of alternatives depicting a
possible street system for this area. Currently, this project is being served by
connections to Bennett Place, Jackson Drive, and Meade Lane. Staff looked at the
feasibility of extending Meade Lane and/or Bluestem Lane to the north to help
service those adjacent properties. In reviewing the grading plan and based on
property ownership to the north, Alternative 4 appears to be the most feasible based
on preliminary examination. (See Attachment C)
Bluestem Hills Addition 5 July 25, 1986
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Planning Commission feels enough information has been provided to resolve
issues identified in the Staff Report, it would be appropriate to recommend to the
City Council approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on
approximately 26 acres and the Preliminary Plat of 32 acres into 64 single family
lots, one outlot, and road right-of-way based upon recommendations of the Staff
Report dated July 25, 1986, and plans dated July 17, 1986, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall:
A. Revise the grading plan to depict positive overflow drainage for the
landlock basin located within Block 3.
B. Provide for 252 caliper inches of oak trees to be replaced as part
of the tree replacement policy. Additional tree replacement may be
required based upon the submittal of a tree inventory for the storm
sewer construction area.
C. Submit a tree inventory for the storm sewer construction area and
preliminary construction plans for the storm sewer discharge pipe
into Purgatory Creek in order for Staff to evaluate the extent of
tree loss in this area.
D. Complete the study of all alternatives for a gravity flow sanitary
sewer system in this area.
E. Submit documentation stating that concurrent with grading all slopes
with grades of 3:1 or greater shall be sodded and maintained by the
developer. A cash maintenance bond will be required to ensure
compliance.
F. Submit a set of restrictive covenants which shall be recorded
concurrent with final plat approval for that portion of Block 4,
Lots 9 through 24, which is within the transition zone limit of
Purgatory Creek to minimize the potential of environmental damage
caused by any building in this area.
G. Depending upon the alternative for gravity flow sanitary sewer
service, proponent shall provide a special assessment or other
funding agreement to pay for the Bluestem share of the gravity sewer
costs. In addition, developer shall provide the necessary funds to
pay for all maintenance costs unitl the temporary lift station is
removed.
H. Proponent shall file a scenic easement for that portion of Block 4,
Lots 9 through 23, which is within the Conservancy limit of
Purgatory Creek.
I. Submit an Engineers estimate for the construction costs of all
improvements required off-site.
J. Revise the plat to reflect continuation of Meade Lane as shown on
Attachment C.
;LP*?
Bluestem Hills Addition 6 July 25, 1986
2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall:
A. Submit detailed storm water and erosion control plans for review by
the Watershed District.
B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility and erosion control
plans for review by the City Engineer.
3. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall:
A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance
of grading. Stake all grading limits with a snow fence. Any trees
lost outside the limits shall be replaced on an area inch per inch
basis.
B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services"
DATE: August 13, 1986
SUBJECT: Supplementary Staff Report to the July 25 and August 8,
1986 Planning Staff Report on Bluestem Hills Addition
The parks, recreation and natural resources concerns involved in the Bluestem
Hills Addition include the significant grading that must be accomplished to
develop this site, the Shoreland Management Ordinance requirements, the
removal of significant vegetation proposed for this development, and the
pedestrian system proposed to serve this development and surrounding
developments.
The issues relating to grading, removal of vegetation, the Pugatory Creek
Study and the Shoreland Management Ordianance are adequately addressed in the
July 25th Planning Staff Report. The major issue not addressed is the
proposed location of sidewalks that will serve this development and future
developments to the north, northwest and southeast.
Attached, for your review, is a copy of a proposed trail plan to serve this
portion of the southwest quadrant. The plan depicts a sidewalk on the west
side of Bennett Place from County Road 1, south to Bluestem Lane. The plan
also depicts a future trail connection from Bennett Place, west, across
Purgatory Creek to Homeward Hills Park. That trail connection will occur
north of this proposed plat. The pedestrian sidewalk system will extend
easterly from Bennett Place along the south side of Jackson Drive to Mead
Lane, then southerly along Mead Lane to Franlo Road.
The Community Services Staff recommend a 5' concrete sidewalk be required
along the west side of Bennett Place and south side of Jackson Drive, from
8ennett Place, easterly to Mead Lane and along the west side of Mead Lane from
Jackson Drive to the southern boundary of this plat.
The Community Services Staff recommend approval of Bluestem Hills Addition as
per the July 25 and August B, 1986 Planning Staff Reports and the additional
requirement for sidewalks as proposed in this memorandum.
BL:md
: L
l
•
•
•
•
y k y
11 . 11.116VAftri7 a Amilillik Fa)**I'-' a � :-ce
17: •
� �
. t „-4 X:'1 ; Irf d� ,, •
u
i ' r� y V,Lv 4+1 .gi:z-#.,-., . i i IIJ o �- owl, tf:4
O h" R Y , Y.' ■ RAN"�RD1 ' .1' LA
�
W'iLcit
mv.1/4
e1 ossoM ROAD 4t. • ♦ '�®,. lia& ® r ismasatt so `, .
r. RI�:'' 1� ii, , ® Is®, J
..i; _^ _ -• �661„,.t m03 ao R`, .,.6i,�6 .'viol ,
® IP R &s EAST j®®
iir I® � �,� ARK ® ®fit®®
® /® at
� %he:,
, 1' 'WE tinkiiii•' ' IL. 1 , .
\ _ ' E�WWID�� - ---
‘\ DRIVE ririrn *i 4
:._—— �\ 1• '=-4ly1ia gill1u1 'go* uiff,►
Y -1
♦�. I �1 •
riliiy-X. 7. X I/.;.;.7.7 I- '..:.: \--'7...m
f�
fir. ,fe f s ,• 9 ♦ _ •
. 1 Tsy
. \ r haw " v ..�r y,
1 �iY....r• -...1
i \
CITY OP EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
FE43%dzhrrl Sfcioy
To The Eden Prairie City Council:-
The undersigned property owners herein petition the Eden Prairie City
Council to consider making the following described improvements(s):
(General Location)
X Sanitary Sewer Bennett Place from Creekridge Drive
X Watermain to proposed Bluestein Lane ( in proposed
X Storm Sewer Bluestein Hills plat)
X Street Paving (2705 ± front feet)
Other
Street Address or Other
Legal Description of Names of Petitioners
Property to be Served (Must Be Pro.ert Owners)
PIN 25-116-22-33-0005 (374± ff) Sally Brown ._ 4:,-/AdOr )
PIN 25-116-22-33-0001 (373± ff) Dave Brown ��4!�� ;:_ ,
PIN 26-116-22 41 0038 (219± ff) -
(For City Use)
Date Received (J(�L1 23,1 810
\ Project No.
Council Consideration
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,
CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS
FOR
BLUFFS WEST
THIS DECLARATION made this 19th day of June , 1986, by Hustad •
Development Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, fee owner herein-
after referred to as "Declarant", and Suburban National Bank, a United
States of America corporation, and The Bluffs Company, a Minnesota
corporation, mortgagees.
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of real property in the County of
Hennepin, State of Minnesota, described as follows to wit:
Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, Block 2, Bluffs West
according to the recorded plat thereof on file or of record
in the Office of the Registrar of Titles in and for
Hennepin County, Minnesota. •
WHEREAS, Declarant desires to impose upon and subject said property to
certain covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations for the
benefit of said property and the present and future owners of said
property.
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of said property
described hereinabove shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the
following covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations which
are hereby declared to be for the benefit of the full tract including
the property described herein and the owners thereof, their successors
and assigns. These covenants, conditions, restrictions, and reserva-
tions shall run with the said real property and shall be binding on
all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the
described real property or any part thereof and shall inure to the
benefit of each owner of the lots described herein and said covenants,
conditions, restrictions and reservations are imposed upon said real
property and every part thereof as a servitude in favor of each and
every parcel thereof as the tenement or tenements.
ARTICLE ONE
ORDINANCES
In addition to the provisions of this Declaration, the ordinances of
the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (hereinafter "City") in effect as
of the date of this Declaration shall be binding hereafter including
the rights given in said ordinance to a land owner to apply for
variances from said ordinances. In addition to complying with City of
Eden Prairie ordinances or approved variances therefrom, an owner must
comply with all of the covenants, conditions, restrictions and
reservations set forth herein.
t
1
ATTACHMENT A �,,,,
binding on all of the parties hereto, upon all persons claiming under
them, and upon all purchasers of all or any of the land so described
herein and their heirs, assigns, and successors-in-interest. All of
the provisions of this instrument shall remain in full force and
Ir effect until 10 years from the date hereof, at which time they shall
cease unless an instrument extending the term and signed by a majority
of the owners has been recorded prior to the expiration of the initial
10 year period.
ARTICLE EIGHT
PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION
Section 1. To protect and preserve the property described herein-
above and to minimize erosion and tree loss while providing positive
drainage from each lot, no dwelling, building, house, driveway, walk-
way, wall, fence, garage, exterior ornament, swimming pool, land-
scaping, or other structure improvement or foliage shall be con-
structed, altered, improved or placed upon any lot described herein-
above without strictly adhering to the terms and conditions of Section
2 and Section 3 of this Article as well as and in addition to all
ordinances and other requirements established by the City of Eden
Prairie and any other governmental or administrative agency which
would have jurisidiction over said lots.
Section 2. Grading and vegetation alteration shall be limited to
the immediate house perimeter, and at no time shall removal or major
alteration of natural vegetation occur behind the house.
Section 3. It shall be the sole responsibility of
to prepare a Surveyor's Certificate in
accordance with the Approved Grading Plan prepared March, 1986 and
revisions thereto, including the following information, prior to
issuance of a building permit:
(a) determine if additional courses of concrete block will be
necessary below the basement level and if so, how many
courses of concrete block will be necessary to mitigate
construction impact.
(b) determine the grading limits that will be subject to the
overall grading of each lot site and designate foundation
elevations.
(c) determine the location of appropriate erosion control to be
established before grading of the lot and construction of the
home which will help serve as protection to vegetation which
shall remain behind the proposed home.
(d) prepare a grading plan which will establish a 0.5 foot
minimum rise in the boulevard.
(e) prepare a grading plan which will establish a minimum slope
from the "right-of-way" to natural ground which when
constructed will not exceed a three (3) to one (1) slope.
5 • i `.
Section 4. It shall be the sole responsibility of
to design and monitor each lot's site and
grading plan. Upon completion of construction,
shall recertify the aforementioned Surveyors Certifi-
cate as documentation of compliance with the grading and development
plans prepared pursuant to Section 2 hereinabove. The City of Eden
Prairie shall not issue an occupancy permit or building permit without
receiving such a Surveyor's Certificate.
ARTICLE NINE
SEVERABILITY
Invalidation of any one or more of the provisions herein by
judgment or court order shall not affect any of the other provisions,
which shall remain in full force and effect until the date of
expiration.
ARTICLE TEN
ENFORCEMENT
Each Owner of a lot in the Property shall have the right to
enforce the provisions of this instrument in his/her own.:name by
proceedings in law to recover damages or in to restrain..viola-
tion, against any person violating or attempting to violate any
covenant or provision hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has executed this instrument the
day and year first hereinabove written.
aG
' _ i t _
...LLB^(___-ft, r- '
t*4i ,L' Jri 1.7V: I
CO
,Ir y• r� Ilr� W
J %mil I: :� CC
.'..,.'•,,,i) 1,-..-7-?", .7'.', i r . , ,J,,,--
0
,,. ��-� I):<„,„( , ; , ..
wo
Q
W • m
� aN
e .+
+ . fir leis
^
, ,.. 9 .a..�r :61 * 'e a(915 (61 7—. —� t _ t—,T •� , .,.
I. µ
'a
f����N� 9fl^��111 S 'e,i
Ile) (11) (16) •'s,`,•. j+� (6
.. i (15) (1e) f .1671 SI
±1 !. b 411. 1..4. p 7
n '�.tix 03)
." J F f
,. ,. n b'`
1....., of pSsal .. —epapeaf P alb .I� On' action
1
l
(1,
1
l71
x: / �
r Y: is
` Possi le -eet Connect on
Iec
n
-�Nf f„
!ON#lal MI_lu
( M Sr a 'e1•. e1•
oT I) a JACA ONve-»••
�wY qof It. ~
•
n1 91 a fl/'"1. 9. S M ••••111 p r
& (11) 6 I•=, YiarfS IAS ..�I
—_.u1aC—%. f❑ ; f; ,e I a IYI ,.;
t Id Cl role(W>i-(tl)r lily Iwl 9en
f : 6wAV' ... .. .
�& (Ill NI �s\ r u.I •• s h n e
;;Co.iw
Iw Is) 0+'(lu :'1.a(lnof 1. sIYTIH . _• ,s
/42
w • •
( ATTACHMENT C
ALTERNATIVE 3
STREET NETWORK :Z0ac?
MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, July 28, 1986
School Board Meeting Room
7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Virginia Gartner, Rich Anderson, Julianne
Bye, Christine Dodge
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Ed Schuck, Robert Hallett, Charles Ruebling
STAFF PRESENT: Michael 0. Franzen, Senior Planner; Don Uram, Assistant
Planner; Kate Karnas, Administrative Assistant
Pledge of Allegiance--Roll Call
I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to adopt the agenda as
IL printed.
Motion carried--4-0-0
II. MEMBERS REPORTS
None.
III. MINUTES
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to approve the minutes of the
July 14, 1986, Planning Commission meeting as printed.
Motion carried--4-0-0
IV. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
A. BLUESTEM HILLS, by Brown Land Company. Request for Zoning District
Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 26.86 acres and Preliminary Plat of !-
31.56 acres into 65 single family lots, one outlot, and road right- 1'
of-way. Location: South of Bennett Place, west of Jackson Drive.
A public hearing.
Mr. Peter Knaeble, representing proponent, reviewed the proposed development
with the Commission. He stated that only six of the 60 trees on the
a9
Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 28, 1986
I
property were proposed for removal and that only one of those six was an oak
tree. He noted that the existing home on the property would be located
within one of the proposed lots as shown and that no variances would be
necessary for the house. Mr. Knaeble stated that the proponent was planning
to dedicate an outlot to the City for the area adjacent to Purgatory Creek.
Mr. Knaeble stated that sanitary sewer and water were available to the site
from Jackson Drive on the east. He noted that the existing system would
service the northeasterly ten lots, only, and that the remaining 54 lots
would have to be serviced from a different system. At this time, a lift
station was being proposed.
Regarding grading on sensitive areas of the property, Mr. Knaeble explained
that the developer would be instituting restrictive covenants for those lots
abutting Purgatory Creek, approximately fourteen total homes, which would
include provisions for individual grading plans and bonding for the grading
work to be done on each lot. He added that the mass grading of the property
would be done only to the right-of-way line of the public streets in the
project. Each individual lot owner would then be responsible for the
grading on their own lot, and would be encouraged to prepare plans with the
special features of their particular lot in mind.
Mr. Ron Krueger, representing proponent, stated that provision had been made
whereby each lot survey would be prepared by one firm. The purpose of this
would be to provide for consistent grading control throughout the plat,
between lots, and to assure as much quality control for the grading and
erosion control on the entire property as possible.
Planner Uram reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Staff Report
of July 25, 1986, and stated that all proposed lots met the requirements of
the R1-13.5 Zoning District and Shoreland Management requirements.
In addition to standard requirements regarding grading, utilities, erosion
control, streets, and park dedication, other specific concerns about the
project were raised during Staff review. Planner Uram noted that Staff was
concerned regarding erosion control for the property in areas where the
slopes were three-to-one, or greater. He stated that the developer had
agreed to maintain all such slopes on the property until such time as bonds
for individual grading work were posted by individual lot owners.
With respect to provision of sanitary sewer for the westerly 54 lots,
Planner Uram noted that the proponents had signed a petition for the City to
prepare a feasiblity study for a gravity sewer system to service this area.
He noted that it was City policy not to use lift stations if at all
possible. Planner Uram pointed out that a temporary lift station may be
necessary as an interim measure, but that the proponent would be responsible
for the cost of installation and maintenance until such time as a gravity
sewer was installed.
Planner Uram stated that another area of concern was the road network in the
vicinity. He pointed out that this area of the community had been under a
great deal of pressure from development recently. He mentioned three land
development proposals in the immediate area. Staff suggested that Meade
Lane be extended to the north to provide for better vehicle circulation in
a?U&)
Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 28, 1986
ir
the area and, from a safety point of view, to provide for better emergency
vehicle access to the neighborhood.
Mr. Knaeble responded to the Staff recommendations. He stated that the
developer was amenable to revising the grading plan to allow for positive
• overflow storm water drainage for the landlocked basin within Block 3. He
stated that the developer was also amenable to replacing trees lost due to
construction of the storm sewer down to Purgatory Creek, and that a tree
inventory would be provided showing trees located 25 ft. outside of the
construction area for purposes of replacement of such trees if they were
damaged, or destroyed, during construction.
Mr. Knaeble stated that the developer had submitted a petition to the City
requesting that a feasibility study be done with respect to provision of
gravity sanitary sewer to this property. In the event that it was not a
possibility, or not possible just for the immediate future, Mr. Knaeble
stated that the developer was willing to provide for a permanent, or
temporary, lift station for the sanitary sewer.
Mr. Knaeble noted that the developer had no objections to maintaining all
slopes of three-to-one, or greater, and providing a cash maintenance bond
for this. Also, the developer would provide the restrictive grading
convenants on the individual lots and would provide for dedication of scenic
easement(s) over the area adjacent to Purgatory Creek.
Regarding the proposed construction of gravity sewer for this development,
Mr. Knaeble indicated that other adjacent properties may be affected, and,
therefore, subject to assessment. This may also be the case for the
upgrading of Bennett Place north of the property.
With respect to the extension of Meade Lane to the north, Mr. Knaeble stated
that the developer was not in favor of this extension due to the location of
a 20 ft. high ridge between the Bluestem property and the property to the
north. Also, he noted that it appeared unlikely that and coordinated
development of the area to the north would take place due to the multiple
ownerships of land in this area.
Dodge asked when it would be determined whether the lift station could be
temporary. Planner Uram responded that the results of the feasibility study
petitioned by the proponent would provide the answer as to whether it was
possible. The City Council would then make a decision as to whether it •
should be installed, or not.
Dodge asked for further explanation about the need for extension of Meade
Lane, as recommended in the Staff Report. Planner Franzen stated that it
was suggested that Meade Lane be extended to the north because it would
allow for circulation through the area since it also connected to the
west/southwest at Franlo Road. Dodge stated that she felt it was important
to determine the need for such an extension now, before homes were built in
this area.
l Gartner asked if the materials of a lift station could be reused. Mr. Wayne
Brown, proponent, stated that the pumps within a lift station were reusable,
representing approximately 50% of the total cost of the equipment.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 28, 1986
Anderson asked for explanation of the difference in tree loss calculated by
Staff and the proponent. Planner Uram explained that the plans of the
proponent did not take into account the all the grading work that would take
place on the property. Also, extension of storm sewer south to Purgatory
Creek would likely cause the removal of several trees. These had been
included in the Staff review of tree loss with the City Forester.
Bye expressed concern about the sensitivity of the natural features in this
area and asked if it had been determined what impact the construction of the
storm sewer to Purgatory Creek would have on these natural features. Mr.
Knaeble responded that the storm sewer pipe was located between two lots at
a point where it was least likely to disturb the natural features of the
area. Bye asked about impact on the properties to the east and southeast
from erosion that may be caused by the storm water run-off. Mr. Knaeble
responded that there would be an energy dissipating system installed in the
storm sewer. He statd that the rate of run-off should then be close to, if
not less than, what is was currently.
Bye asked about the direction of storm water run-off from the lots located
north of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Knaeble responded that there was an
existing low area to the north of the storm sewer system in Bluffs East,
east of the proposed subdivision. He noted that when Bennett Place was
improved, then those lots north of the proposed subdivision would likely
flow through the proposed subdivision, instead of to the east. Planner
Franzen stated that, in general, all the projects located south of County
Road #1 drained into Purgatory Creek. He added that the City Engineering
Department and Watershed District would likely consider a larger area than
just the proposed plat to study as concerned storm water drainage. This
would have to be accomplished prior to final design of the utilities.
Bye stated that she was concerned that the entire area be studied in order
to avoid problems in the future, noting that this area had a history storm
water drainage concerns. Planner Franzen stated that it would be an area-
wide study, not just a study of the land within the project boundaries.
Bye also expressed concern regarding the traffic circulation for the area.
She stated that Bluestem Lane appeared to be one long cul-de-sac and that
she felt there should be alternative access available for emergency vehicles
and school buses.
Planner Franzen stated that Staff was also reviewing traffic for this
general area, not just as it affected the proposed development. He noted
that, due to the multiple ownerships in this vicinity and the topography, it
may not be possible to provide the "most desirable" system for
transportation.
Anderson asked who would be responsible for the construction of the trail
system along Purgatory Creek. Planner Uram responded that he had discussed
this with the Director of Community Services, Bob Lambert. Director Lambert
had stated that the City was in the process of purchasing property along
Purgatory Creek for purposes of trail construction. It was likely that the
City would do the ultimate construction of the trail along the creek, with
completion of the system about ten years away, or more. Planner Uram stated
that there were trails shown within the subdivision for purposes of
•
Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 28, 1986
t
pedestrian circulation.
Mr. Harold Johnson, 9995 Bennett Place, stated that he was concerned about
the impact of grading from the proposed development as it may affect his
lot. He stated that the soils in this area were sandy and easily erodible.
Mr. Johnson also expressed concern for the visual impact the subdivision
would have on his lot. He stated that his home was built with an
orientation overlooking Purgatory Creek and that he was concerned that the
• homes not be too high and obstruct his view.
Mr. Knaeble responded that the elevation of the street within the proposed
subdivision was at approximately 830, while Mr. Johnson's home was at an
elevation of 865, making the homes considerable lower than the Johnson home.
Mr. Knaeble stated that he would likely be looking over rooftops of the
subdivision, but that his view of Purgatory Creek and the Minnesota River
would not be blocked by construction within this development. Mr. Knaeble
stated that, with respect to grading, the developer planned to restore all
slopes to at least three-to-one and to re-establish the growth disturbed by
grading.
• Mr. Johnson stated that, in the Spring, a large amount of water gathers in
the area designated for Block 3 of the proposed development. He also
expressed concern that the storm sewer system be adequate to handle the
large amount of Spring run-off. Mr. Johnson asked about the proposed width
of Bennett Place, after its improvement. Mr. Knaeble responded that the it
would be approximately twice its current width, or 28-32 ft. wide, depending
upon City requirements.
With respect to the water seen "standing" in the vicinity of Block 3 of the
proposed subdivision, Mr. Knaeble stated that, currently, the water
percolated out of the area, it did not remain standing for long.
Mr. Johnson asked about future assessments that may be against his property
due to this development. Mr. Knaeble responded that street and utility
assessments would be on the subdivision, only. If, and when, Bennett Place
was improved, Mr. Johnson's property may be subject to assessment for those
improvements. Planner Franzen stated that Mr. Johnson may wish to discuss
this matter at the City Council meeting on the development as they were the
ones to make such decisions.
Mr. Doug Moran, 10788 Jackson Drive, asked what the value of the homes would
be. Mr. Brown responded that the lots along the creek would likely have
values up to $300,000, while those adjacent to the Jackson Drive area would
likely be $125-150,000.
Mr. Moran stated that he was concerned about the impact of the proposed
development upon Jackson Drive. He stated that Jackson Drive appeared to be
a long street, but that there were no sidewalks for pedestrian circulation
on the street. He expressed concern that Jackson Drive would be used as an
alternate route to the east to Franlo Road and County Road #1 and if that
became the case, there should be sidewalks for the children in the
neighborhood so they would not have to walk in the street. Mr. Knaeble
stated that the sidewalk for pedestrian circulation was being provided along
Meade Lane, connecting to Grant Drive, where sidewalk had already been
Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 28, 1986
installed for pedestrian circulation. He pointed out that Grant Drive was a
more direct route to the east and had been platted wide enough to support
the sidewalk for pedestrians. Planner Franzen stated that the Staff could
review the possibility of installation of sidewalks along the proposed and
existing portions of Jackson Drive, if the Commission requested.
Gartner asked when the development to the east was planning to begin
construction. Planner Franzen stated that it could be as early as Fall,
1986, or Spring, 1987. Gartner asked when this project was planned to
begin. Mr. Brown responded that plans were to complete a portion of the
grading yet in 1986.
Mr. Tim Koloski, 10076 Meade Lane, asked if the slope to the west of his lot
would remain in tact. He also expressed concern about standing water and,
therefore, the adequacy of the storm water drainage system for the proposed
development.
Mr. Koloski asked if there would be covenants on the lots which were not
adjacent to Purgatory Creek. Mr. Brown responded that there would be
covenants on all lots, but that the final details of the covenants had not
yet been completed.
Mr. Koloski asked if the hill located at the east end of the development
would remain as is. Mr. Knaeble responded that grading would take place in
4 that area. Mr. Koloski asked about the hill behind Meade Lane. Mr. Knaeble
stated that it would be graded down.
Anderson asked if the property owners adjacent to the proposed extension of
Meade Lane had be talked to about the potential extension of the road.
Planner Uram responded that two of these land owners were aware of the
recommendation, but that others had not been talked to as yet. Planner Uram
explained that the design proposed by Staff for the extension of Meade Lane
was done in such a way to maximize the development of the lots that would be
adjacent to it. The Staff had not discussed alternatives with the
homeowners directly.
Mr. Krueger explained that the plat was designed in such a way that the lots
in the northwest area of the proposed development would not have water in
their basements. The water table was at least two feet lower than any
basement floor elevation, per City Code requirements. A swale was also
being proposed as an alternative location for storm water drainage in case
the storm sewer system became blocked.
Dodge asked about recourse available to residents if the grading of the
proposed subdivision negatively impacted their lots. Planner Franzen stated
that the City required site restoration bonding through the developer's
agreement with the proponent. This bond was kept in full force and effect
until all ground cover was re-established to the satisfaction of the City.
Mr. Rod Haanen, 10108 Meade Lane, stated that the prevailing winds in the
neighborhood were from the west. He expressed concern about blowing dust
and debris toward his neighborhood during the construction process. Mr.
Knaeble stated that the City had strict requirements about such things
during the construction process. He stated that all prudent dust and debris,120?t
1
Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 28, 1986
control measures would be instituted as necessary.
Mr. Haanen asked what type of homes would be built on the lots. Mr. 8rown
explained that the homes would be custom-built to fit the individual lots.
He added that he expected that the project would take approximately three,
or four, years to build out. Mr. Haanen asked if the road system would be
built all at once. Mr. 8rown responded that the roads would be completed in
phases. He added that, depending on the timing of 8ennett Place 1.
improvements, the construction process would likely begin near Meade Lane.
It was also a possibility that the northeasterly ten lots would be the first
to be developed.
Mr. Haanen added that he shared the concerns of the previous speakers with
respect to storm water drainage for the area.
Ms. Sally 8rown, 10080 8ennett Place, stated that water does not remain
standing in that area, but dissipated over a period of two, or three, days
after heavy rain, or snow melt. She asked how many lift stations already
existed in this portion of the City. Planner Franzen stated that he knew of
at least two, but was uncertain whether there were others. Ms. Brown stated
that, since 1964, when first discussions took place about development of
this property, lift stations had been the method suggested for provision of
sanitary sewer to the area. She asked why gravity sewer was being required,
(•
instead of allowing a lift station. Ms. Brown also asked when the City had
amended its tree replacement policy to require the amount of replacement
recommended in the Staff report.
Planner Franzen stated that it was now City policy that gravity sewer be
installed whenever possible. With respect to tree replacement, Planner
Franzen stated that the City Council had recently requested that the Staff
review tree replacement in residential projects. In the past, only •
commercial or industrial projects were subject to the tree replacement
policy. However, the City Council had expressed concern that not requiring
tree replacement in residential areas may allow for the character of the
sites to change drastically if development caused the removal of larger
trees.
Ms. Brown asked what the expected grades would be for the recommended
extension of Meade Lane. Planner Franzen responded that more information
was needed to evaluate this alternative, which was also requested in the
Staff Report.
Gartner stated that she did not feel the extension of Meade Lane was the
only alternative for provision of traffic circulation through the area. She
added that she felt the timing of the development would be adequate to
service this general area. Planner Franzen indicated that it had been
intended that Meade Lane become a minor interior neighborhood collector
servicing this area of the City.
•
Bye expressed concern that the phasing of the development not be done in
such a way that the new residents would be encouraged to use Jackson Drive,
instead of Meade Lane, as a through street to the east and north. Mr. Brown
stated that he would prefer to develop the Meade Lane area first, also.
Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 28, 1986
MOTION:
Motion was made by Bye, seconded by Anderson, to continue the public hearing
on Bluestem Hills to the August 11, 1986, Planning Commission; with
direction to the Planning Staff to publish the item for the August 19, 1986,
City Council meeting.
Bye stated that she felt there were still details which needed to be worked
out with the Staff, but which could be accomplished prior to the City
Council meeting of August 19th. She stated that the.Commission should have
the opportunity to determine at its August 11th meeting whether the changes
were as expected, or whether other significant issues were raised by the
changes made in the plans. Other commissioners concurred.
Planner Franzen stated that the most significant change resulting from any
of the Staff-recommended changes to the development would involve deletion
of two lots from the plat, which-would be considered a minor change to the
development overall.
Motion carried--4-0-0
V. OLD BUSINESS
None.
VI. NEW BUSINESS
None.
VII. PLANNER'S REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Anderson, seconded by Bye.
Acting Chairman Gartner adjourned the meeting at 8:55.p.m.
aU36
CITY OF FDEN PRAIRIE
HF.NNEPIN COUNTY, MINNFSOTA
RFSOLUTION 86-211
RFSOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council,adopted on July 1, 1986, fixed the
19th day of August, 19B6, as the date for a public hearing on the following
proposed improvements:
I.C. 52-096, Utility and Street Improvements for
Bluffs Fast 4th Addition (east of Fran.lo Road
and south of CSAH 1)
WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the
making of this improvement were given .ten,days published notice of the Council
hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing
was held and property owners heard on the 19th day of August, 1986.
NOW, THFREFORF, BF IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY _CDUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FHFN
PRAIRIE:
1. Such improvement as above indicated is hereby ordered.
2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the`Fngineer for
this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and
specifications for the making of such improvement, with the
assistance of Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson, Inc.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 19, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
io3,7
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 86-212
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
WHEREAS, the City Engineer, with the assistance of Hansen Thorp Pellinen
Olson, Inc., has prepared plans and specifications for the following
improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-096, Utility and Street Improvements for
Bluffs East 4th Addition (east of Franlo Road
and south of CSAH 1)
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 2 weeks,
shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be
received until 10:00 A.M. Thursday, September 11, 1986, at City Hall
after which time they will be publically opened by The Deputy City
Clerk and Engineer, will then be tabulated, and will be considered by
the Council at 7:3D P.M., Tuesday, September 16, 1986, at the Eden
Prairie School Administration Building, 8100 School Road, Eden
Prairie. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the
clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond or
certified check payable to the City for 5% (percent) of the amount of
such bid.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on August 19, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 86-213
RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted on July 14, 1986, fixed the
19th day of August, 1986, as the date for a public hearing on the following
proposed improvements:
I.C. 52-089, Improvements to Valley View Road
West of Golden Triangle Drive
WHEREAS, all property owners whose property is liable to be assessed for the
making of this improvement were given ten days published notice of the Council
hearing through two weekly publications of the required notice and the hearing
was held and property owners heard on the 19th day of August, 1986.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN .
PRAIRIE:
1. Such improvement as above indicated is hereby ordered.
2. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for
this project and is hereby directed to prepare plans and
specifications for the making of such improvement, with the
assistance of RCM, Inc.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council 'on August 19, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. Frane, Clerk
�J�9
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 86-214
RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FDR BIDS
WHEREAS, the City Engineer, with the assistance of RCM, Inc., has prepared
plans and specifications for the following improvements to wit:
I.C. 52-096, Improvements to Valley View Road
West of Golden Triangle Drive
and has presented such plans and specifications to the Council for approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE. IT RF.SDLVF.D BY""THF 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 2 weeks,
shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids shall be
received until 10:00 A.M., Tuesday. September 2. 1986, at City Hall
after which time they will be publically 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 2, 1986,. at the-'Eden
Prairie School Administration Building, 8100 School Road, Eden
Prairie. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the
clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid hand 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 19, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
John D. franc, Clerk
2C)4
VAC 86-07
<..cutittliitc Of •1-..'11, .,
. "or_ Book • •.)
•
__..:___
•
/ ,zot •, /
•
•
/ p,c/1'•, E o s:' �0
I �\ 10
h
h,,, l/ 4 O 7 9 _\\
SCALE /':4D' ' / \ \
/ \
1 :O
/ ---,�\ � Y��f,,
i
, "v.,..-o ` ''/ 3
.00Y s7E .) e e.7°
PRWOSED NEW ErSEf1:N1 __ _
The cactcrly 10.0,) fort of tin• southerly o iert of Lot , ,.1oc., 1, ;'r:,.rie :act
4th Addition, Ilrncuyin County, :Ltnn•sota.
PROPOSED EASEr N1 1'ACA11ON
All that part of Lot JU, jlock 1, Prairie Cast 4t;t Au0ition, I,cn,ie,ua :ounty,
i?inncsota Oescrihrd to fol lot•.G: Beginning at a point on a line ur...,n frob, a
point on the L.cat I ine of said Lot 10•distant C7.5U feet nor•to..r.ly of Liu: oout!',-
„1est corner of :•nid Lot 10, to a point on toe Last line of ;.Tin gut 10, distant
7.3 feet northerly of the r.ou!nra:1 corner, said point of u. 1n;un,; .i,•in;j 2,.0
feet nouthcasterll of Ow :c•nt line of saiu Lot 1J; Lhence c.,nlinuiru' Lout;,-
easterly 3:ono on111 line 17.0 I vet; tilance ucflLct ricnt 1:5 l.c.:rocs _ -unut_s
r.i•coti;:; a cir ncc of I4 0 1vrt; Ihcnce JofIact right 7J 6_,irccs ..a ,,, _:.nee
of 7.9- `rot to ',tic- ;mint of I .V;lnninf. nno thifc• tc rniinatinc.
L CH05.or(; I !t£PEBY CERTIFY T:iAT TIIIS
PLAN,
OR NCpo I:AS P2EP;•.Pl D BY I: onUi Dii1 NY
LAND, __ SUhVEI'ING DIRECT SUPERVISION :y7 T1ii,7 I AM A DULY
INC. h£GISi-11£D LAND SUF,V£YOR U!:D"R TH'' LIA:S
OF TN.E STATE OF NI!:!:-SCTA:
D:]]:]1 r....n MM c::]•
a � Ln'iL 1t uiSTii:•:•i0:. 1:0.'.14701
DISTRIBUTIONS BY FUND
10 GENERAL` . 208811.50
11 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 13799.24
12 CERTIFICATE DEBT FD 15462.70 /5
r LIQUOR STORE-P V M 22757.07 1 4 y r^)
• IV LIQUOR STORE-PRESERVE 20937.29 (Iy 31 r r i l
33 UTILITYQBOND FUNDYEtOP 2631 900..4400 IJ (i �qi1'�
39 86 FIRE STATION::CONSTRUCT 2000OD u1 0,1
44 UTILITY DEBT FUND 72020.62 • V°
45 UTILITY' DEBT FD ARB 15600.00 41 (r' .
48 82 G 0 DEBT-P/S &P/W 138875.D6 V 0 ci y5v
51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 112450.07 U)
55 IMPROVEMENT:DEBT FUND ARB 141891.29
.57 ROAD,IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 22420.00
73 WATER FUND . 43650.54
77 SEWER'FUND . 88567.52
81. TRUST S-ESCROW FUND 842.72
91 T I F DEBT FUND 853831.68 .
$1777448.74
(
AUGUST.19,1986
28689 VOIO OUT CHECK 12.00-
28781 VOID OUT CHECK 3.29-
L153 VOID OUT CHECK 23.26-
JO VOID OUT CHECK 104.00-
28911 VOID OUT CHECK 135.57-
28939 VOID OUT CHECK 309.17-
28970 VOID OUT CHECK 709.00-
28987 RO8ERT CARROLL REFUND-UTILITY BILL 3.29
28988 T A PERRY ASSOCIATES INC -REPAIR TOWER/CLEAN OUT BLOWER-PUBLIC 135.57
SAFETY BUILDING
28989 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
28990 JOSEPH K DOLEJSI -PRORATED PROPERTY TAXES-PURCHASE OF 31.44
HIDDEN GLEN PARK
28991 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK PAYROLL 7-25-86 23371.58
28992 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 7-25-86 9852.02
28993 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYROLL 7-25-86 17635.27
28994 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEE RELATIONS PAYRDLL 7-25-86 570.92
28995 UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS PAYROLL 7-25-86 217.50
28996 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 7-25-86 2391.13
28997 SU8URBAN NATIONAL BANK PAYROLL 7-25-86 200.00
28998 MINNESOTA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM PAYROLL 7-25-86 10.00
28999 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYROLL 7-25-86 5128.00
29000 ICMA RETIREMENT CORP PAYROLL 7-25-86 760.00
29001 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
29002 GROUP HEALTH PLAN INC AUGUST HEALTH INSURANCE 2286.95
29D03 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN AUGUST HEALTH INSURANCE 14353.22
29004 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO AUGUST HEALTH INSURANCE 664.97
29005 PERA PAYROLL 7-25-86 18929.52
'16 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 425.98
...J7 CIRCUS TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM-COMMUNITY CENTER 75.00
29008 JIM WALTER PAPERS XERDX PAPER-CITY HALL 694.82
29D09 SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT LABORATORIES FILE CABINET/RECORD CARDS-POLICE DEPT 312.26
29010 JET PHOTO LABS PROCESSING FILM-POLICE DEPT 22.63
29011 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-UTILITY BILLING 433.44
29012 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE -SPECIAL TAX RETURN & APPLICATION FOR 108.00
REGISTRY-LIQUOR STORE
29013 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU -ROUND LAKE & COMMUNITY CENTER CONCESSION 322.34
STAND SUPPLIES
29014 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU SUPPLIES-KIDS KORNER 29.78
29015 MCGLYNN BAKERIES INC EXPENSES 45.B4
29016 STATE AGENCY REVOLVING FUND SERVICE-SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE 198.90
29017 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN AUGUST HEALTH INSURANCE 7230.30
29018 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION REGISTRATION-ENGINEERING DEPT 170.00
29019 LITTLE BRICK SHIRT HOUSE TEEN VOLUNTEER T-SHIRTS 75.00
29020 AT & T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 5.87
29021 AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS SERVICE 831.75
29022 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 14518.93
29023 AT & T COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 1.09
29024 ANDREW ASSELMEIER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 11.00
29025 MATTHEW BECKER REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 13.00
29026 BRETT BEESON REFUND-YOUTH ATHLETIC CLASSES 9.00
29027 LINDSAY CARLISLE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 11.00
29028 JOHN ELVECROG REFUND-YOUTH ATHLETIC CLASSES 9.00
Zon29 SARAH ELVECROG REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00
30 SEAN EPP REFUND-YOUTH ATHLETIC CLASSES 9.00
12082222
AUGUST 19,1986
29031 AMANDA FALKUM REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 12.00
29032 AMANDA FALKUM REFUND-DAY CAMP 40.00
n33 SCOTT FALKUM REFUND-VALLEY FAIR TRIP 12.50
,34 JEFF GOKE REFUND-YOUTH ATHLETIC CLASSES 9.00
29035 DOUG GREEN REFUND-YOUTH ATHLETIC CLASSES 9.00
29036 MIKE HARRIS REFUND-YOUTH ATHLETIC CLASSES 9.00
29D37 LIZA HAUSER REFUND-DAY CAMP 22.80
29038 LIZA HAUSER REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 4.50 '
29039 GIRISH IYER REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 12.00
29040 GIRISH IYER REFUND-DAY CAMP 40.00
29041 PATRICK LEISING REFUND-YOUTH ATHLETIC CLASSES 9.00
29042 DENISE LITTLE REFUND-DAY CAMP 40.00
29043 DENISE LITTLE REFUND-HORSEBACK RIDING 12.00
29044 NATE MARKS REFUND-YOUTH ATHLETIC CLASSES 9.00
29045 PAUL MCGUIRE REFUND-YOUTH ATHLETIC CLASSES 9.00
29046 CYNTHIA MILLER REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 20.00
29047 SCOTT MORFORD REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 15.D0
29048 CRAIG PETERSON REFUND-YOUTH ATHLETIC CLASSES 9.00
29049 KRISTEN ROLFE REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 13.00
29050 BRIAN SANDBERG REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 12.00
29051 BRIAN STRAND REFUND-YOUTH ATHLETIC CLASSES 9.00
29052 SUSAN STRAND REFUND-YOUTH ATHLETIC CLASSES 14.00
29D53 MICHAEL WHITE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 11.00
29054 CITIZENS FORUM DN SELF-GOVERNMENT MEMBERSHIP DUES-CITY MANAGER 25.00
29055 HENNEPIN PARKS GROUP PICNIC-CITY HALL 30.00
29D56 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 252I.80
29057 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 10.28
29058 STATE OF MINNESOTA BOILER CERTIFICATE FEE-COMMUNITY CENTER 15.00
r 59 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGISTRATION-DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES 165.D0
2.-60 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 20.97
29061 J B & D INC -FINAL PAYMENT FOR FIRE STATION LAND 2000.00
AGREEMENT
29062 PADELFORD POCKET BOAT CO ADULT DAY TRIP/FEES PD 210.00
29063 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 25.65
29064 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 1664.94
29065 MINNESOTA GAS CO SERVICE 212.51
29066 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 1429.93
29067 ABBY'S RESTAURANT EXPENSES SUMMER PROGRAMS/FEES PAID 236.25
29068 JOSEPH AINSLIE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.00
29069 NICHOLAS AINSLIE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.D0
29D70 PETER AINSLIE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 16.00
29071 THERESA BARDY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 4.00
29072 TARA BOWLDS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 11.00
29073 MICHELLE BOYS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 4.00
29074 JIMMY CONRAD REFUND-DAY CAMP 40.00
29075 LEAH EGBERG REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00
29076 HARRY GARNETT REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 25.00
29077 FLORENCE MCMAHON REFUND-MANTORVILLE TRIP 8.50
29078 JEFF A NELSON REFUND-SAILBOARDING LESSONS 30.00
29079 SON NGUYEN REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 3.D0
29080 ERIC SMITH REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 13.00
29081 DEREK STENEMAN REFUND-VALLEY FAIR TRIP 12.50
29082 ANTHONY WEBER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 6.00
20083 JEFFREY WEHRMAN REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 15.00
( 14 RYAN WELLS REFUND-VALLEY FAIR TRIP 12.50
916363
Lf
AUGUST 19,1986
1
29085 •NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO SERVICE 2679.47
29086 NORTH CENTRAL SECTION AWWA REGISTRATION-WATER DEPT 65.00
kO87 HOLIDAY INN LOOGING FOR CONFERENCE-WATER DEPT 149.46
:88 PRIOR WINE CO WINE 1198.77
29089 EAGLE WINE CO LIQUOR 12900.91
29090 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 482.31
29091 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO LIQUOR 9899.83
29092 TWIN CITY WINE CO LIQUOR 10297.74
29093 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 4845.35
29094 CAPITOL CITY DISTRIBUTING CO WINE 1494.38
29095 PAUSTIS & SONS CO WINE 149.33
29096 MARK VII SALES WINE 263.58
29097 NORTHERN MESSENGER DELIVERY EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 9.55
29098 VOID OUT CHECK 0.00
29099 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION 5.25
29100 DANA GI88S PACKET DELIVERIES 65.00
29101 HOPKINS POSTMASTER POSTAGE-ELECTIONS 797.44
29102 HARDRIVES INC SERVICE-PRESERVE BLVD 14091.00
29103 ENEBAK CONSTRUCTION SERVICE-TECHNOLOGY DRIVE 22420.00
29104 RICHARD KNUTSON INC SERVICE-ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY 94609.07
29105 STAN POND SERVICES SERVICE-LIME SLUDGE REMOVAL 22853.18
291D6 A B DICK CO 3 HOLE XEROX PAPER-CITY HALL 211.50
29107 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES
29108 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO VIDEO TAPES-POLICE DEPT 113.80 !
29109 AMERICAN FIRE JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT 14.95 !
2911D AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO MOP/DUSTER-LIQUOR STORE 9.05
29111 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION SUBSCRIPTION-PLANNING DEPT 300.00
29112 MPLS AREA CHAPTER -FILM RENTAL/8ASIC RESCUE & WATER SAFETY 53.05
(( 800KS-COMMUNITY CENTER
F'..13 AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS LABORATORY SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 95.23
29114 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC MEM8ERSHIP DUES-WATER DEPT 479.00
29115 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGNS-PARK MAINTENANCE 62.20
29116 ANDON INC -BALLOONS/TANK RENTAL-4TH OF JULY 113.88
CELE8RATION
29117 AQUATROL CORPORATION SERVICE-WATER DEPT 157.50
29118 RO8ERT ARNDT JULY 86 CUSTODIAL SERVICE 200.00
29119 ASSOCIATED ASPHALT INC BLACKTOP-STREET DEPT 1708.06
29120 ASTLEFORD INTL INC PIPE-STREET DEPT 21.98
29121 AVR INC CEMENT-STREET DEPT 125.50
29122 JOHN 8ENSON GOLF INSTRUCTOR/SUPPLIES 30.0D
HI
29123 BLOOMINGTON LOCKSMITH CO LOCK REPAIR-PU8LIC SAFETY BUILDING 42.00
29124 LOIS BOETTCHER -PARK & REC CDMMISSIDN MEETING MINUTES- 55.50
JULY 21 1986
29125 80YER FORD TRUCK PARTS-STREET DEPT 3.60
29126 BRIDGEMAN'S RESTAURANTS INC -CONCESSION TRAILER RENTALS-COMMUNITY 432.65
CENTER `
29127 ED BRION SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES P; .. 186.00
29128 8ROWN PHOTO FILM PROCESSING 82.47 29129 MAXINE BRUECK NOTARY FEE & MILEAGE-FINANCE DEPT 8.00 29130 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC ROCK-STREET DEPT & PARK MAINTENANCE 2044.56 -
29131 ROZ BURNSTEIN SUPPLIES & MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 4D.86 29132 8USINESS FURNITURE INC -TYPING TA8LE/CHAIR-FINANCE DEPT & 392.50 {
29133 CARDOX CORP ENGINEERING DEPT
CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 1130.78
4 4 CEDAR HILLS GOLF GOLF LESSONS/FEES PD 76..00
20824438
2o4
i
AUGUST 19,1986
29135 CELLULAR ONE SERVICE 100.18
29136 CENTRAIRE INC FURNACE & AIR CONDITIONER-CITY HALL 5978.00
^t37 CENTURION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS INC SET UP SQUAD CARS-POLICE DEPT 2030.40
.38 CHANHASSEN LAWN & SPORTS CHAIN/FILES-FORESTRY 31.49
29139 CHASE BRACKETT COMPANY -APPRAISAL SERVICE-PIONEER TRAIL/ 800.00
14350 PIONEER DRIVE
29140 JOSEPH E CLARKE MILEAGE 1B5.75
29141 CLUTCH & TRANSMISSION SER INC KING PIN/HANGER BRACKET/KIT-STREET DEPT 230.17
29142 CMI REFRIGERATION REPAIRS-ICE MACHINE-COMMUNITY CENTER 305.70
29143 CROWN RU8BER STAMP CO -NOTARY STAMP/NAME PLATE-FINANCE DEPT & 27.25
PLANNING DEPT
29144 CURTIS INDUSTRIES -BRAKE CLEANER/SELF-LOCK ROLL PIN/RED 222.26
SILICONE/GLASS CLEANER-PUBLIC WORKS
29145 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 4980.55
29146 DACO CONSTRUCTION REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT 200.00
29147 WARD F DAHLBERG JULY 86 EXPENSES 80.00
29148 DALCO CLEANING SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 267.20
29149 EUGENE DIETZ JULY 86 EXPENSES 165.00
29150 DONS SOD SERVICE SOD-STREET DEPT 36.30
29151 JEFFREY C EDELEN MILEAGE 109.75
29152 EDEN PRAIRIE TRASHTRONICS JULY 86 TRASH PICKUP 345.00
29153 CITY OF EDINA TESTS-WATER DEPT 146.50
29154 ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS MANHOLE RINGS-SEWER DEPT 175.42
29155 CYNTHIA ELLIS MILEAGE 55.85 + '
29156 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY INC SAFETY CAPS-BUILDING DEPT 15.50
29157 EMERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEM INC REPAIRS TO SQUAD CARS-POLICE DEPT 141.65
29158 FITNESS ASSOCIATES INC STRESS TEST-FIRE DEPT 234.00
29159 FLYING CLOUD SANITARY LANDFILL TAX ON LANDFILL DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 202.50
( 60 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 516.75
2a/61 JOHN FRANE JULY 86 EXPENSES 165.00
29162 LYNDELL FREY MILEAGE 85.75
29163 G & K SERVICES -TOWELS/COVERALLS/DRY MOP-PARKS DEPT/ 274.23
WATER DEPT & LIQUOR STORE
29164 GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS INC -RADIO PARTS & REPAIRS-STREET DEPT/ 569.54
POLICE DEPT & FIRE DEPT
29165 GHA LOCK JOINT INC -LOWER WATER MAIN FOR 3 LOCATIONS ON 3750.00
VALLEY VIEW ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
29166 BETTY J GLYNN DRY CLEANING-POLICE DEPT B.50
29167 GOPHER SIGN CO SIGNS/TROUSERS-WATER DEPT 311.84
29168 GOVERNMENT BUSINESS SYSTEMS BALLOT BOXES-ELECTIONS 101.80
29169 W W GRAINGER INC MOTOR-PUBLIC SAFETY 79.20
29170 JAMES T HALE GOLF INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 144.00
2917I JACK HEESAKER REFUND-UTILITY BILL 2349.98-
29172 TILLFORD HELLIE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 98.00
29173 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER MAILING LABELS-ELECTIONS 87.81
29174 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL CENTERS SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 100.00
29175 THE HOTSY CORPORATION EQUIPMENT PARTS-STREET C_rT 61.45
29176 HYDROTEX INC GREASE-STREET DEPT 92B.95
29177 IBM SERVICE 424.32
29178 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 -T-SHIRTS FOR 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION/ 2552.23
-BAND RODM RENTAL-COMMUNITY CENTER/
JULY 86 CUSTODIAL SERVICE
29179 ISLAND MARINE SUPPLY INC CABLE RIDE ROPE-PARK MAINTENANCE 13.13
?0180 JM OFFICE PRODUCTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 89.44
( 31 CARL JULLIE JULY MEETING EXPENSES 59.12
2983746
,2u4'b
AUGUST 19,1986
291B2 JUSTUS LUMBER CO LUMBER SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT & PARKS DEPT 151.47
291B3 KAL LINES - BURNSVILLE BUS SERVICE-SUMMER PROGRAMS 1B7.50
N. 184 KASTER CONST REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT 100.00
,185 KARULF HARDWARE INC -BUG SPRAY/PLIERS/GLOVES/WASHERS/HOOKS/ 1532.35
-CHAINS/SPRAY BOTTLES/RUBBER MALLET/
-SPONGES/PAILS/BRUSHES/DOORSTDPS/TAPE/
-BATTERIES/RUSTOLEUM/OVEN CLEANER/WEATHER
-STRIP/ROPE/BULBS/SCREWDRIVERS/PAINT
-THINNER/CHISEL/PAINT/NAPKINS/PAPER
-PLATES/HAMMER/NOZZLES/HOSE COUPLINGS/
PENCILS/FLASHLIGHT
291B6 KAYE CORPORATION -GUARD/SCREWS/WASHERS/NUTS/FILTERS- 27.08
PARKS DEPT
29187 RAY KERBER HAY BALES-PARK MAINTENANCE 12.00
29I88 BRADLEY J KNUTSON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 172.00
29189 KRAEMERS HOME CENTER CROWBAR/MIRROR/PAINT/RUSTOLEUM-WATER DEPT 152.7E
29190 KUSTOM ELECTRONICS INC RADAR REPAIRS-POLICE DEPT 133.99
29I91 LAKESIDE FUSEE CORPORATION FLARES-POLICE DEPT 519.54
29192 LANCE SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 26.90
29I93 LANE INSURANCE INC BOILER INSURANCE-CITY HALL 6029.00
29194 LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCE CENTER FILM RENTAL-FIRE DEPT 10.00
29195 LEEF BROS INC RUG CLEANING-CITY HALL & STREET DEPT 140.70
29196 LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC PARTS-STREET DEPT & PARKS DEPT 176.6E
29197 LOUISVILLE LANDFILL INC LANDFILL CHARGES-PARKS DEPT 18.00
2919E M & I INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC SOCKET SET/WRENCHES-STREET DEPT 75.10
29199 MIKE MARUSHIN -POWER STEERING PARTS/BRAKE PARTS/ 91.60
WRENCHES/UNIVERSAL JOINTS-STREET DEPT
0200 MCFARLANES INC CEMENT-PARKS DEPT & STREET DEPT 399.00
01 WILLIAM MCNEIL GOLF INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 50.00
/9202 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 54.00
29203 MERLIN'S HARDWARE HANK COUPLINGS/ADAPTORS/PIPE-PARKS DEPT 13.40
29204 METRO FONE COMM INC AUGUST 86 PAGER RENTAL-STREET DEPT 10.50
29205 METRO PRINTING INC FORMS-POLICE DEPT 196.00
29206 METROPOLITAN FIRE EQUIP CO DRY CHEMICALS-FIRE DEPT 19.50
29207 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMM SEPTEMBER B6 SEWER SERVICE 88039.96
29208 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO -CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY 893.96
CENTER & ROUND LAKE PARK
29209 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP-STREET DEPT & PARKS DEPT 424.69
292I0 MINNEGASCO REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT FEE 8.00
29211 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY INC SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 172.20
29212 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP AUGUST 86 PAGER RENTAL-WATER DEPT 78.93
29213 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS INC ADS-LIQUOR STORES 54.76
29214 MODERN TIRE CO TIRES-STREET DEPT 165.70
29215 LYLE 0 MOENCH SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 266.00
29216 WM MUELLER & SONS INC GRAVEL-PARK MAINTENANCE 131.13
29217 MUR-CON & ASSOC'S POWER PADDLES-ROUND LAKE °ARK 90.00
29218 RALPH NELSON JR REFUND-UTILITY BILL 20.98
29219 NORTHERN POWER PRODUCTS INC GENERATOR REPAIR-STREET L:EPT 84.00
29220 NORWEST BANK MINNEAPOLIS NA BOND PAYMENTS 1237681.35
29221 OCHS BRICK & TILE CO CEMENT-PARK MAINTENANCE 60.00
29222 BILL O'ROURKE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 98.00
29223 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO -CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY 955.00
CENTER & ROUND LAKE PARK
( '24 PEPSI/7-UP BOTTLING CO -CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY 632.50
CENTER
1340I5625
•
AUGUST 19,1986
i
29225 T A PERRY ASSOCIATES INC REPAIRS-PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 175.41
29226 CONNIE L PETERS MILEAGE 23.50 f
1, 27 PETTY CASH-PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT PETTY CASH FUND 77.96
12B PIONEER MIDWEST INC SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE 1.20
29229 KEITH POKELA VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 65.00 i
29230 POKORNY COMPANY SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE 6.10
29231 TOM POOTON REFUND-UTILITY BILL I6.34
29232 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY INC -REPAIR LIGHTS & HEATER THERMOSTAT- 424.50
COMMUNITY CENTER
29233 PRINT SHACK PRINTING-COMMUNITY CENTER 289.50
29234 PRIOR LAKE AGGRETATE INC ROCK-STREET DEPT 44.63
29235 PROTOOL TAPE-STREET DEPT 27.77
29236 R & R SPECIALTIES INC -RDTOR/AIR FILTER/OIL FILTER/SPREADER 96.47
CLDTH/TUNE UP KIT-COMMUNITY CENTER
29237 RECREONICS CORP -RATCHET TAKE-UP WRENCH/POOL THERMOSTAT- 45.78
COMMUNITY CENTER
2923E JOHN E RHETTS PHD PA CONSULTATION-POLICE DEPT 200.00
29239 CITY OF RICHFIELD 3RD QTR DISPATCH SERVICES 16605.72
29240 RIDGE DOOR SALES CO OF MN INC -CENTRAL STATIDN WEST DOOR REPAIRS- 144.11
PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
29241 ROAD RESCUE INC -RESUSCITATOR KIT/OXYGEN CYLINDER/ 1059.40
-DISPOSABLE PENLIGHTS/COLD PACKS/TAPE/
-BANDAGES/GAUZE PADS/BLOOD PRESSURE
-CUFFS/STETHOSCOPES/ANTISEPTIC WIPES/
BULB SYRINGES-FIRE DEPT •
29242 ROGERS SERVICE CO ALTERNATOR/WIRE-STREET DEPT 103.00
29243 ROGNESS SERVICE SLAES MOTOR-COMMUNITY CENTER 25.00
744 ROBERT RYAN HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PD 136.00
45 RYANS RUBBER STAMPS -RUBBER STAMPS/NOTARY STAMP-ELECTIONS & 43.55
ENGINEERING DEPT
29246 SAFEGUARD BUS SYS INC LETTERHEAD COMPUTER PAPER-CITY HALL 140.73
29247 THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL SURVIVAL COURSE-POLICE DEPT 160.00
2924E SATELLITE INDUSTRIES INC PORTABLE RESTROOMS-PARK DEPT 241.00
29249 ELIZABETH SAUGEN VOLLEYBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 143.00
29250 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC TOWELS-STREET DEPT 13B.34
29251 SCHMIDT READY MIX INC BLACKTOP-STREET DEPT 424.25
29252 SCHNEIDER EXCAVATING & GRADING IN EXCAVATING SERVICES-FRANLO PARK 1800.00
29253 DON SCHWARTZ SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 236.00
29254 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTROM INC JUNE 86 SERVICE-REMODEL COMMUNITY CENTER 4297.67
29255 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTROM INC SERVICE-CITY HALL PLANNING 7213.83
29256 SHAKOPEE FORD INC PARTS-STREET DEPT 11.56
29257 BRIAN SMITH MILEAGE 100.50
29258 W GORDON SMITH CO -DIESEL/GAS/THERMOSTAT/PULLER TOOL/OIL- 4946.95
STREET DEPT/FIRE DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER
29259 SMITH & WESSON TUITION-POLICE DEPT 275.00
29260 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP FORK/HAMMERS-STREET DEPT 79.95
29261 SNOWDRIFTERS SNOWMOBILE CLUB STATE GRANT TRAIL COSTS-FARKS DEPT 842.72
29262 JENNY SODERBERG SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 28.00
29263 SODERQUIST SERVICES INC -SERVICE-WEED CONTROL-RED ROCK HILLS/ 24B.75
-AMSDEN HILLS SECOND/ANDERSON LAKES PKWY/
-MEADOW PARK/VALLEY CURVE/HIGH TRAILS
ESTATE/DELLWOOD
29264 SOUTHDALE FORD 1986 FORD RANGER-POLICE DEPT 11760.00
?"55 SOUTHWEST AUTO SUPPLY INC -CLAMPS/GASKETS/FUSES/AIR FITTINGS/BELTS/ 3043.63
-SPARK PLUGS/ELECTRIC BRAKE UNIT/FILTERS/
-RADIATOR CAP/BULBS/HOSES/BEARINGS/WATER
5574482
2
-PUMP/VALVES/POWERIDE CHASIS/BATTERIES/ f
FUEL PUMP
29266 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-FIRE DEPT 48.00
29267 SPS COMPANIES PLUMBING SUPPLIES-PARK MAINTENANCE 100.45
7'68 STANDARD SPRING CD AXLE PLATES-STREET DEPT 132.60
[69: STAR WINDSHIELD REPAIR SERVICE REPAIR WINDSHIELD-STREET DEPT 35.00
29270 ROBERT M STARK JR CAR REPAIRS-STREET DEPT 95.00
29271 DAVID STUTELBERG SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PD 102.00
29272 NATALIE SWAGGERT MILEAGE 76.10
29273 NATALIE SWAGGERT MEETING EXPENSES 88.79
29274 TARGET 220 SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 69.10
29275 KEVIN TIMM SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PO 266.00
29276 TESSMAN SEED & CHEMICALS COMPANY 'FERTILIZER-PARK MAINTENANCE 1947.00
29277... TURF SUPPLY CO FERTILIZER-PARK MAINTENANCE 1363.20
29278 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO OXYGEN-STREET DEPT. 13.02
29279 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES UNIFORMS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES 1696.50
29280 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER : 194.88
29281 VIKING STEEL PRODUCTS INC BUILDING MATERIALS-PARK MAINTENANCE 651.32
29282 WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP CD HEATER & BASE-STREET DEPT 65.70
29283 WATER PRODUCTS CO SIMULATOR/1's X 1 1/4 1000 GAL METER/ 3869.85
1 1/2 1000 GAL METERS/2".1000`GAL METERS/ 1
-EXTENSION ROD/25 5/8-3/4 100 GAL REMOTES/
15 5/8 100 GAL GENERATORS
29284 PAUL WELIN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PO 70.00
29285 DON WENDLING RADIO REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 430.00
29286 SANDRA F WERTS EXPENSES-COMMUNITY CENTER 168.24
292B7 SANDRA F WERTS EXPENSES/MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 62.01
29288 SHARON WESTMAN PRINTING-HISTORICAL CULTURE 20.00
29289 XEROX CORP MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS-CITY HALL 217.78
(,,290 ZACK'S INC 10 BAGS FLOOR DRY/6 SHOVELS-PARKS DEPT 95.38
)1 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE1ST AID SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 62.70
92` ZIEBART AUTO TRUCK RUSTPROOFING REPAIRS-PARK DEPT 25.00
29293`:`ZIEGLER INC WATER PUMP/CORE CHARGE-STREET DEPT 271.36.
29294 KAY ZUCCARO AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES PD 217.50
29295- KAY ZUCCARD AQUA AEROBICS INSTRUCTOR/FEES'PD 127.50
29296 PAUL S JOHNSON COMMISSIONER FEE FOR WELL #9 200.00
29297 LELAND FRANKMAN COMMISSIONER FEE FOR WELL #9 200.00: .
29298 EDENVALE ASSOCIATION COMMISSIONER FEE FOR WELL #9 300.00
29299. HOWARD E SHENEHON COMMISSIONER FEE FOR WELL #9 200.00
1347998
$1777448.74
tit'
0 •
(
4 RESOLUTION 86-219
RESOLUTION GIVING FINAL APPROVAL
TO A TRANSFER OF CONTROLLING INTEREST
IN CITY'S CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE.
WHEREAS, The City of , Minnesota, ("City")
has granted a cable television franchise (the "Franchise") to
Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Limited Partnership (the
"Grantee") pursuant to City's cable communications ordinance (the
"Franchise Ordinance") ; and
WHEREAS, City has also adopted an ordinance (the "Relief
Ordinance") intended to provide financial relief to Grantee by
providing for a modification of Grantee's obligations for a
period of time in order to permit refinancing of Grantee's
long-term debt and to enhance its financial viability; and
WHEREAS, Grantee has now proposed a refinancing plan, as
contemplated by the Franchise Ordinance and the Relief Ordinance
and seeks approval of such plan; and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission
(hereinafter SWSCC) has adopted a Resolution, a copy of which is
incorporated herein and made part hereof, recommending approval
of the transfer of controlling interest in Grantee, approval of
Grantee refinancing its long-term debt, and recommending approval
of the extension of the Franchise Ordinance term; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution of the SWSCC recommends compliance
by Grantee of certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution will serve to
approve the refinancing plan of Grantee that includes first, with
the adoption this Resolution, the approval of the transfer of
controlling interest in Grantee, and second, based on the
transfer of the controlling interest in Grantee and refinancing
according to an amendment to a Loan Agreement, an opportunity for
improving the financial operating condition of Grantee;
WHEREAS, Rogers Cablesystems of the Southwest, Inc.,
formerly Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota, Inc. ("RCSI") is the
general partner of Grantee and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Rogers U.S. Cablesystems, Inc. ("RUSCI") ; and
WHEREAS, the proposed transfer of controlling interest calls
for a change in ownership of Grantee's general partner through
transfer of the ownership of the shares of RCSI from RUSCI to
Rogers American Cable Corp. ("RACC"), a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Rogers Cablesystems of America, Inc., ("RCA") ; and
- 1 -
` I
WHEREAS, RCSI and Grantee have represented to the SWSCC,
which acts on behalf of the City on certain matters related to
cable television, that in conjunction with the proposed transfer
of controlling interest in Grantee, RACC will make use of its
line of credit from time to time as necessary to provide funds to
Grantee to meet operating expenses and debt service payments and
RCA will also guarantee performance of Grantee's under the
Franchise Ordinance and Relief Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, it has been represented by Grantee to SWSCC that
such transfer of stock ownership of RCSI will strengthen the
financial position of RCSI and will facilitate the refinancing of
Grantee's long-term debt; and
WHEREAS, SWSCC has engaged the firm of Touche Ross,
certified public accountants, to review this proposed transfer of
stock ownership of RCSI and the proposed refinancing; and
WHEREAS, Touche Ross has made a report to SWSCC indicating
that it has reviewed financial material provided to it by RCA and
has found that its financial condition is healthier than that of
RUSCI; and
WHEREAS, simultaneous with the transfer of controlling
interest in Grantee by RACC an offer was made to the individual
limited partners in Grantee to acquire this interest with limited
partners holding approximately sixty percent (60%) of the units
agreeing to the sale. RACC has assigned its right to purchase
these units to RCSI; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083, and Article XII
of the Franchise Ordinance, require City approval of any transfer
of controlling interest of Grantee; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed transfer of
controlling interest will not adversely affect the Grantee's
subscribers; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the proposed transfer of
controlling interest is likely to benefit Grantee and may, in
turn, permit Grantee to provide better service to its subscribers
than it would otherwise be able to provide.
WHEREAS, City finds that Grantee has complied with the
conditions imposed in a Preliminary Resolution passed by City and
dated
WHEREAS, the City considered the transfer of controlling
interest request at its meeting on , reviewed
the Resolution and recommendation of the SWSCC and the
presentation from its staff, discussed the requests with
representatives of Grantee, and considered all of the reports and
- 2 -
information presented to it at its meeting and finds, based on
the foregoing; that
A. All procedural requirements set forth in the Franchise
and Minnesota state law regarding the consideration of a cable
communications system franchise transfer of controlling interest
and the approval of the refinancing have been complied with;
B. The proposed transfer of controlling interest and
refinancing would be in the public interest as contemplated under
the Franchise and that the transferee has demonstrated that the
transfer of controlling interest will enable the transferee to
finance the cable communications system in a more efficient
manner than currently existing, thereby eliminating potential
financial pressure and cash flow problems on the systems and on
future subscriber rates;
C. As part of the transfer of controlling interest request
and approval of it, the City has relied upon SWSCC's financial
consultant representations that by having assurances from the
parent organizations of Grantee the financial strength of the
cable communications system will be improved; and, in reliance
upon this, City has requested Grantee to secure approval from the
parent organizations to execute an Agreement of Joint and Several
Liability, a copy of which is attached, to be executed by Rogers
Cablesystems, Inc., a Canadian corporation, ("Canadian"), RCA and
RACC; and
D. With the completion of the refinancing as contemplated
by the Amendment to Loan Agreement, the provision of Article 11,
Section 4 of the Franchise Ordinances of the Members Cities will
be satisfied, and upon execution of an Agreement between Grantee
and each City acknowledging the completion of refinancing and
payment of the "Existing Indebtedness", as described in Article
11, Section 4, the Franchise Ordinance will be extended by four
(4) years;
E. The terms of the refinancing and the transfer of
controlling interest should be approved effective July 31, 1986,
and finds that provisions of Article XIi, Section 1 of the
Franchise Ordinance and Section 238.083 of the Minnesota Statutes
are complied with and the terms of the refinancing and transfer
of controlling interest are acceptable.
WHEREAS, City will authorize SWSCC to file with the
Commissioner of Commerce, as required under Minnesota law, the
necessary documentation reflecting the process involved in the
approval of the transfer of controlling interest in Grantee and
the agreements executed between the parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City hereby approves of
the transfer of the controlling interest in Grantee and the
- 3 -
rl, r,�
C acquisition of the limited partnership units by RCSI, subject to
the following conditions:
1. Receipt from Grantee of final signed Resolutions, which
will be substantially in form and substance in conformance:with
the Resolutions presented to SWSCC and attached to the SWSCC
Resolution, from RUSCI, RACC, RCA and RCSI and attorney's opinion_
in a. form acceptable to City, and compliance with all
requirements of Article XIV, Section 2 of the Franchise
Ordinance;
2. Execution by Grantee, and its parent corporations, of
all necessary documents including an Acceptance, a Joint and
Several Liability Agreement (copies of-which are attached as 1
exhibits) and a Certification that all requirements of Article
XIV, Section 2 have been complied with.
3. Receipt by SWSCC of authority from Grantee to file with
the Commissioner of Commerce the information relating to the
transfer of controlling interest and refinancing and extension of
term of Franchise Ordinance together with the authority from each
Member City for SWSCC to do this filing.
4. Upon refinancing being completed Grantee will execute
an Agreement together with City that will acknowledge that the
refinancing, effective July 31, 1986, is complete and
satisfactory according to the terms of Article 11, Section 4 of
/' the Franchise Ordinance and that the Franchise Ordinance term is
q. extended by four (4) years.
5. The SWSCC is hereby authorized on behalf of City to.
snake said filings as may be required with the Minnesota Commerce
Department under Section 238.085 of. Minnesota Statutes.
4. Grantee will pay the reasonable costs and disbursements.
of the SWSCC and its Member Cities directly related to the review
and approval of its refinancing plan and the transfer of
controlling interest approved by this Resolution.
Passed and adopted this day of
1986, by the City of
DATED: CITY OF
By
Its:
AEH:SWRESO4A
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: August 14, 1986
SUBJECT: Request From Olympic Hills Golf Course, Department of Natural
Resources, and the University of Minnesota to Assist in
Controlling Canada goose population.
Attached is an.August 1, 1986 letter from John Parker, Area Game Manager,
outlining the request of Olympic Hills Golf Course to the Department of
Natural Resources and the University of Minnesota to assist them in
controlling the Canada goose population. The DNRis proposing a controlled
goose hunt on the golf course during the fall hunting season of 1986. It is
unknown how affective this hunt will be; however, it is the only solution that
could be initiated in 19116.: .
Mr. Parker and Dr. Cooper will be in attendance, as will representatives from
Olympic Hills Golf Course to outline their proposal, which will provide '
specific information on the days hunting will be allowed, the time of the day,
the number of hunters and other restrictions related to the proposed hunting ,
experiment.
Although, the Community Services Staff believe the proposed hunt will have
limited success for reducing the goose population, staff does recognize the
problem the geese have created at Olympic Hills Golf'.Course, as well as the
Edenvale Golf Course, and the problem the City had at Round Lake beach in
19B5. The City will have to address this problem sooner or later.
Staff would recommend the Council ask Dr. Cooper to explain his trap and
transplant program, and would suggest that perhaps Olympic Hills and Edenvale
Golf Course might be willing to participate in the cost of that program for
1987.
BL:md
1
•
rifikgESOITZ:
STAATEE OF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
?NONE No. 445-9393
ME NO.
Jon M. Parker August 1, 1986
223 Holmes St.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Bob Lambert
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55343
Dear Mr. Lambert:
The management of the Olympic Hills Golf Course in your city have requested
the Department of Natural Resources and the University of Minnesota to assist
them in controlling a Canada goose population which has reached "nuisance"
size on their property. The detrimental effects of these geese to golf courses
(interference with recreation, creation of unsightly, upleasant conditions with
the deposition of droppings) have been well documented in the literature and
experience of wildlife management. Having visited the site with Mr. Jack Adams,
I concur that a problem does exist. Reduction of Canada goose populations
in this area is consistent with DNR policy, and I highly recommend that a program
of reduction be started as soon as possible.
When informed that the DNR and U of M would be unable to commence a "trap
and transplant" control program this year, Olympic Hills management suggested
that they be allowed to conduct a goose hunt on their property. Actually I
suggested such a hunt. Since our resources are limited and goose trapping
is an expensive operation we believe that hunting in this non-traditional
setting may be the least expensive solution. Since we do not know whether
hunting will be effective in controlling this population, Dr. James Cooper of
U of M has agreed to monitor the effects of the hunt. Th••re are no published
accounts of such activities, however Dr. Cooper has heard reports of successful
hunts in New York state.
Since these activities have proven to be controversial, I request that
Dr. Cooper and I be allowed to present this proposal nt your City Council
Meeting of August 19, 1986. We will discuss possible hunting conditions and
restrictions as well as alternatives to hunting. I apologize for the brevity
of this proposal, and I will be in touch with you on or shortly after
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
2US(o
2
August 11. I will not be in town next week. I have asked the Olympic Hills
Management to survey residents adjacent to the proposed hunting area. Please
let me know what type of information you want me to present. Issues which we
may discuss would include: 1. numbers and spacing of hunters; 2. Types of
ammunition (lead shot vs steel shot); 3. Timing of hunting - days and hours
preferred to minimize disturbance of the community while maxisdzing the
goose harvest; and 4. Limitation of areas of the golf course to be hunted.
I am sure a pant can be conducted safely, with minimum disturbance. I
believe that we should use this management tool whenever possible because'it
is a traditional, socially acceptable activity which provides population control
at the least coat to the public while providing worthwhile recreation. I hope
we can work this out. Thanks for consideration of this request.
Sincerel --'.
on Parker
cc: Roger Johnson
11. Dr. James Cooper
Mitch Schneider, Eden Prairie Dept. of Public Safety
f I
1,
Q0S'7
MEMO
I
TO: City Council
FROM: Chris Enger, Director of Planning
H�RDUGH: Carl Jullie, City Manager
DATE: August 15, 1986
RE: REQUEST FDR LAND ALTERATION PERMIT BY WOODLAKE SANITARY SERVICE,
INC.
Introduction
Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc., ("WSSI") has applied for a land alteration permit
for excavation of approximately 1,350,000 cubic yards of earth in an area lying
southeast of the current landfill.
History
In March 1985, WSSI applied to the City for rezoning lands situated adjacent to the
existing landfill limits, including the area which is the subject of the present
application, for purposes of constructing and operating a sanitary landfill. In
connection with WSSI's proposal to construct and operate the sanitary landfill, it
( applied to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") for a permit. An
Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for the facility was prepared and declared
adequate by the Metropolitan Council on December 27, 1984. On July 8, 1985, WSSI
reported that test results of samples of certain wells on and around the existing
landfill limits contained harmful substances. On the same date, MPCA Staff received
analytical results of samples collected by WSSI in April and June 1985 which
indicated the presence of volatile organic compounds (voc's) in several down-
gradient monitoring wells. Several of the voc's were detected in concentrations
which exceed the drinking water guidelines used by the Minnesota Department of
Health. (See July 15, 1985, letter of Rodney Massey, MPCA, to Richard F. Rosow.)
In a Response Order by Consent ("Consent Order") between the MPCA and WSSI, dated
September 25, 1985, it was found that there have been releases and there continue to
be threatened releases of hazardous substances at the Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill
which may cause and continue to cause groundwater contamination. On October 10,
1985, the Metropolitan Council declared that a Supplemental EIS is required for the
proposed expansion. The Supplemental EIS has not yet been declared adequate by the
Metropolitan Council. Pursuant to the Consent Order, WSSI, in February 1986, issued
its Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study ("RIFS)". The RIFS was rejected by the
MPCA in May 1986. (See letter stamped May 7, 1986, from Thomas J. Kalitowski to
Rollin Smith). At the present time WSSI is continuing to gather information in
response to the Consent Order.
Proposal
The proposal is to excavate an area of approximately 25 acres lying southeasterly of
the existing landfill limits to an elevation of 810 from an elevation of
Memo
City Council
Page Two
approximately 930, a total vertical excavation of 120 feet. The excavation is
proposed in the Phase I Area of the expansion. As shown in WSSI's 1985 application
for its expansion, a berm is situated in this area. The berm rises to a top
elevation of 930, which is approximately 40 feet above the natural contour of the
surrounding lands. The berm generally lies along a southwesterly-northeasterly axis
and is approximately 1,700 feet in length and at its widest point is approximately
375 feet.
WSSI's purpose for the excavation and movement of soil is to prepare for the
construction of Phase I of the expansion of the landfill. In addition, some of the
excavated soil is going to be used for daily cover of refuse. (See Kager
deposition, p.52, and Smith testimony, 20-27).
Discussion
The matter of the request of WSSI for rezoning of the lands adjacent to the existing
landfill area limits for the operation and construction of the expansion of the
sanitary landfill was considered by the City Council on June 18, July 2, and August
13, 1985. On August 13, 1985, WSSI requested that its application for rezoning and
amendment of the Comprehensive Guide Plan be tabled indefinitely pending
investigation and resolution of the environmental and underground water pollution
caused by the existing landfill. The land area for which WSSI currently seeks a
it land alteration permit is currently zoned Rural and is designated by the City's
N. Comprehensive Guide Plan for Public Open Space and Low Density Residential uses.
The operation of a sanitary landfill is not a permitted use in the Rural district or
under the uses designated in the Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Consequently, the construction and operation of a sanitary landfill in the area in
question is not permitted by City Code and Guide Plan.
As a result of the environmental contamination, the MPCA has suspended its
consideration of the issuance of its permit to WSSI for the landfill expansion. (See
April 16, 1986, letter of Kenneth Podpeskar to Rollin Smith, p.4.) In addition,
WSSI has not received a permit for the landfill expansion for the Riley-Purgatory
Creek Watershed District as contemplated by the EIS.
The berm in the area of the landfill expansion provides a buffer between the
existing landfill limits and the occupants of surrounding residences. The berm
contributes to mitigating the unsightliness of the landfilling activities and the
noise and blowing debris generated by those activities.
MCAR Sec. 4410.3100 provides that no final governmental derision to grant a permit
or other required approval or to commence a project shall be made until the EIS is
declared adequate, and no physical construction of a project may commence until that
has occured.
In response to the request, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board ("MEQB")
Memo
City Council
if Page Three
stated that (i) the Metropolitan Council has ordered a Supplemental EIS for the
proposed expansion; (ii) the provisions of Sec. 4410.3100 apply to all governmental
approvals and permits required for the expansion; and (iii) those provisions
prohibit the granting of any final approval until such time as the EiS is determined
to be adequate. (See February 14, 1986, letter of Roger A. Pauly to Executive
Director Michael Sullivan, MEQ8, and February 19, 1986, letter from Michael Sullivan.
to Roger A. Pauly.) Further, the MPCA has advised WSSI that any work which is
undertaken in preparation for the expansion is in violation of WSSI's permit, MPCA
rules, and the MEQB rules. The MPCA also stated to WSSi that MEQ8 rules forbid
construction before the determination of adequacy of the Supplemental EIS. (See..
February 13, 1986, letter from Thomas Kalitowski to John Curry.) The MPCA
summarized its position as folllows: "It is the Staff's position that under the.
terms of the existing permit and MPCA rules, the construction of the expansion area
is not allowed."
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the application for the land alteration permit be denied for
the following reasons:
1. MCAR Rule 4410.3100 prohibits the granting of the land alteration permit
until the Supplemental EiS for the landfill expansion is declared adequate.
4. 2. The existing landfill is presently contaminating the environment and the
underground water through the release of harmful substances, and the MPCA
has suspended review of the expansion permit while remedial action is being - I
investigated. Permit review has not been recommenced. The construction and
operation of the landfill expansion may exacerbate the present harmful
effects to the environment.
3. The purpose for which the land alteration is requested, i.e., the
construction and operation of a sanitary landfill is not a use permitted by
the City's zoning code nor its Comprehensive Guide Plan.
4. The removal of the berm will destroy the buffer against noise,blowing
debris, and the detrimental visual effects which it provides to properties
to the east.
5. WSSI has failed to provide the City with its plans for restoration and final
configuration of the land upon completion of the filling of the sanitary
landfill sought to be constructed.
of
•
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
‘1001
July 15, 1985
Mr. Richard F. Rosow
Lang, Pauly and C^z;r.rsc,
4108 IDS Center
Minneapolis, Minn_ ..a
Dear Mr. Rosow:
J Re: Proposed Flying Cloud Landfill Expansion, SW-14
l On April 16, 1984, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff noticed our
intent to issue a solid waste disposal permit to Woodlake Sanitary Services,
Inc. (WSS) for the expansion of the landfill referenced above. During the
notice period, MPCA staff received a request from the City of Eden Prairie for a
contested case hearing on the draft amended permit. The request was sub-
sequently amended by your June 21, 1985 letter. Based on this request, the MPCA
staff believe that a contested case hearing is warranted. Originally, MPCA
staff intended to recommend at our July 23, 1985 MPCA Board meeting that a con-
tested case hearing be authorized regarding the issuance of the MPCA permit.
The hearing is designed to consider testimony and evidence related to the
environmental concerns of the expansion. However, because of recent develop-
ments at the landfill, the contested case hearing item will not be presented at
the July 23, 1985 Board meeting.'
•
On July 8, 1985, MPCA staff received analytical results of samples collected by
WSS in April and June of 1985 which indicate the presence of volatile organic
compounds (VOC's) in several downgradient monitoring wells. The monitoring
wells where VOC's were detected are not drinking water supply wells. However,
several of the VOC's were detected in concentrations which exceed the drinking
water guidelines used by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). The guidelines
are used to indicate what level of a chemical in water would cause one additional
cancer per 100,000 people if they drank two liters of water a day for 70 years.
•
•
Phone:
1935 West County Road 82,Roseville,Minnesota 55113.2785
Regional Offices•Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
ALAI
Equal Opportunity Employer
b1
Mr. Richard R. Rosow
CPage Two
Levels of a chemical less than the guideline are considered an acceptable risk
by MOH. MPCA staff will be splitting samples on several wells with WSS in July,
1985 to further evaluate the presence of VOC's in the ground water near the
landfill.
For sanitary landfills which have a documented release of contaminants to the
ground water, MPCA staff have been using an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) scoring system to evaluate the sites to determine if they qualify for place-
ment on the State Superfund list. The score of a site obtained using EPA's
system considers types of contaminants, geologic setting, nearby surface and
ground water use, and nearby population. The score is used to determine the
relative ranking of a site on the Superfund list which then dictates the
priority it would receive. Within the next few days, MPCA staff intend to score
the Flying Cloud Landfill to see if it qualifies for the Superfund list and if
it does, what priority it would have.
MPCA staff have met with representatives from WSS and have indicated that a
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) must be completed to assess
the extent of contamination and to describe the feasibility of potential reme-
dial actions. The normal procedure for ensuring that this type of work is
completed in a timely fashion is for the MPCA to enter into a signed agreement,
called a consent order (Order), with the responsible party. The Order commits
WSS to any required remedial action, provides for reimbursement of MPCA staff
costs, and requires payment of penalties for noncompliance with the Order. WSS
has expressed a willingness to negotiate an Order and complete the necessary
work. Since the landfill will likely reach its permitted capacity in Jul ,
1985, WSSTias also requested that they be a owe to con i •ilrerTm o erati n
of'the site beyond the permitted capacity unti e S icmplPtPd.ond until
a decision can be mad ti
e on the issuance of an expansion permit. MPCA staff will
determine` the acceptability of this request as the Order is being developed.
MPCA staff feel that it would be premature to consider at this time the con-
tested case hearing issue. The higher priority is to develop an Order and
complete the RI/FS. Because of this, MPCA staff will be delaying consideration
of the contested case hearing by the MPCA Board until a later date.
In summary, contamination in excess of drinking water guidelines has been detected
in the ground water beneath the landfill. MPCA staff believe the development of
an Order is the best course of action to provide for the quickest resolution of
the problem. If the terms of the Order can not be agreed upon, MPCA staff can
consider utilization,of the State Superfund depending upon the landfill's
priority on the Superfund list.
,2G6a
1
•
Mr. Richard R. Rosow j
C Page Three
As information is provided to us, MPCA staff will keep you informed on the pro-
ject. If there are any questions, please contact Ken Podpeskar at 612/297-1786
or Bruce Nelson at 612/297-1780.
Sincerely,
Li
Rodney. E. assey, P.E.
Chief, Regulatory Compliance Section
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
cc: The Honorable Bill Frenzel, U.S. Representative, Bloomington
Mr. Dick Nowlin, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly;and Lindgren, Ltd., Minneapolis
Mr, John Curry, Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill, Eden Prairie
Mr. Stan Johannes, Eden Prairie Citizen's Coalition, Edina
.�C✓ca 3
STATE OF MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
In the matter of the Flying
Cloud Sanitary Landfill, Eden RESPONSE ORDER
Prairie, Minnesota, Proceedings BY CONSENT
Under Sections 17 and 18 of the
Minnesota Environmental Response and
Liability Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 115B.
Based on the information available to the parties on the
effective date of this RESPONSE ORDER BY CONSENT, and without
trial or adjudication of any issues of fact or law and without
admission of liability or responsibility by any party, the
parties hereto agree and it is hereby ordered as follows:
I.
Jurisdiction
�. This RESPONSE ORDER BY CONSENT (Order) is issued pursuant to
the authority vested in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) by the Environmental Response and Liability Act (ERLA),
Minn. Stat. Ch. 1158, and by Minn. Stat. Chs. 115 and 116.
On the basis of the results of the testing and analyses
described in the Statement of Facts, infra, and MPCA files and
records, the MPCA has determined that (1) the Flying Cloud
Sanitary Landfill at Eden Prairie, Minnesota (Flying Cloud
SLF) constitutes a facility within the meaning of Minn. Stat.
S 115B.02, Subd. 5; (2) there have been releases and there
continue to be threatened releases of hazardous substances within
the meaning of Minn. Stat. S 115B.02, Subd. 15, at the Flying
Cloud SLF; (3) the releases may cause ground water contamination
Exhibit "F"
. • % r
-2-
t
and the releases may continue to cause contamination of ground
water unless the releases are abated; (4) with respect to those
releases, Woodlake Sanitary Service Incorporated (WSS) is a
responsible person within the meaning of Minn. Stat. S 115B.03:
(5) the actions to be taken pursuant to this Order are reasonable
and necessary to protect the public health or welfare or the
environment; and (6) a reasonable time for beginning and
completing the actions required by this Order has been provided.
Hy entering into this Order, WSS does not admit, accept or
agree to the factual or legal conclusions set forth above or
elsewhere herein, and further retains the right to controvert in
any subsequent proceedings, excepting any actions to enforce or
implement this Order, the validity of any of the factual or legal
determinations made herein. However, WSS specifically agrees to
undertake all actions required of it by the terms and conditions
of this Order within the time frames specified herein.
II.
Parties
This Order shall apply to and be binding upon the following
parties:
1. Woodlake Sanitary Service Incorporated; and
2. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
-3-
(
III.
Statement of Facts
For purposes of this Order, the following constitutes a
summary of the facts upon which this Order is based. None of the
facts related herein constitutes an agreement or admission by WSS
of the accuracy or validity of such facts nor shall such facts be
considered admissions by any party with respect to any claims
unrelated to this Order:
1. The Flying Cloud SLF is located in Sections 26, 27 and
34, Township 116 North, Range 22 West, City of Eden Prairie,
Hennepin County, Minnesota. A map of the Flying Cloud SLF is
attached as Attachment 1.
2. The Flying Cloud SLF encompasses 240 acres, of which 105
acres have been used or are planned to be used for the disposal
of solid waste.
3. On August 4, 1970, the MPCA issued Minnesota Solid Waste
Disposal Facility Permit Number SW-14 (Permit) to Waste
Management Incorporated for the construction and operation of the
Eden Prairie Sanitary Landfill. On March 13, 1972, the MPCA
transferred the Permit to International Disposal Corporation, a
wholly-owned corporation of Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. The
Eden Prairie Sanitary Landfill subsequently was renamed Flying
Cloud Sanitary Landfill in a permit amendment dated October 16,
1972.
•
d./to‘O
-4-
C
4. MPCA records indicate that from 1973 through 1982 an
estimated 2,910,345 tons of residential, commercial, institutional
and nonhazardous industrial solid wastes (hereinafter
collectively referred to as mixed municipal solid waste) were
deposited at the Flying Cloud SLF.
5. On January 31, 1983, the MPCA amended and reissued the
Permit for the Flying Cloud SLF to WSS, a wholly-owned
corporation of Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. The purpose of
the amended permit was to:
a. clarify the extent and capacity of the Flying Cloud
SLF by restricting its development and authorizing the deposit of
{ 1,074 acre-feet of mixed municipal solid waste;
b. establish a ground water and gas monitoring program;
c. require the preparation and submittal of revised site
development plans that show past and planned future site
development within the limits specified in the Permit;
d. require additional investigations of the subsurface
conditions beneath and in proximity to the Flying Cloud SLF and
assess the actual or potential impacts of the Flying Cloud SLF on
area ground and surface waters;
e. require the submittal of a closure plan, a post-closure
monitoring plan, and financial assurance documentation; and
f. require the submittal of reports that address the
design and operation of an existing methane control system as
well as the measures to be taken to control erosion, noise, and
litter at the Flying Cloud SLF.
:),,J‘217
f
-5-
f
6. Volatile organic compounds have been detected in the
ground water underneath the Flying Cloud SLF. Analysis of
ground water samples from eleven on-site monitoring wells
reported to the MPCA in July 1985 indicate that four on-site
monitoring wells contain detectable concentrations of halogenated
and nonhalogenated volatile organic compounds.
7. Available information indicates that regional ground
water flow beneath the Flying Cloud SLF is southward. Ground
water moving beneath the Flying Cloud SLF may discharge to the
Minnesota River, Grass Lake and surface seeps along the bluff
face.
8. The area of Flying Cloud SLF is characterized by
approximately 120 feet of surficial sands which are underlain in
some areas by a finer-grained silt layer. The horizontal extent
of this silt layer is not well defined and it is known to vary
from 14 to 96 feet in thickness. Beneath this an approximately
100-foot-thick sand layer is present. This in turn is underlain
by the Prairie du Chien Group which is composed predominantly
of dolomite.
9. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. (BFI) has executed a
supplemental letter attachment to this Order which recites that
WSS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BFI and that BFI guarantees
the cost of performance by WSS of the obligations established in
this Order as limited and described herein.
(" r
•
-6-
(
IV.
Definitions
Unless otherwise explicitly stated, the definitions provided
in Minn. Stat. Ch. 115B shall control the meaning of the terms
used in this Order.
V.
Scope of Order
This Order shall govern the following matters:
1. A Remedial Investigation as described in Part VI and
Exhibit A to this Order;
2. A Feasibility Study as described in Part VII and
Exhibit A to this Order;
3. Development of a Response Action Plan and implementation
of Response Actions as described in Part VIII and Exhibit B to
this Order;
4. Continued short-term operation of the Flying Cloud SLF as ,
described in Part IX of this Order;
5. Reimbursement of the MPCA's costs as described in Part
XXIII of this Order.
These matters are set forth in more specific detail in
Parts VI, VII, VIII, XXIII and the Exhibits to this Order. In
the event of any ambiguity or inconsistency between Parts VI,
VII, VIII, and the Exhibits to this Order, the Exhibits shall
govern.
C
�r /l�
:�,001
_7_
VI.
Remedial Investigation
•
WSS shall design, propose, initiate, complete and report
upon a Remedial Investigation (RI) of the Flying Cloud SLF in
accordance with the requirements and time schedules set forth in
Exhibit A to this Order. Exhibit A is appended to and made an
integral and enforceable part of this Order. The purposes of
the RI are to (1) provide information and data needed for the
selection and inmplementation of any response actions, if found
necessary, at the Flying Cloud SLF; and (2) determine the surface
and ground water impacts, if any, caused by or which could have
l been caused by the Flying Cloud SLF.
• VII.
Feasibility Study
WSS shall design, propose, undertake and report upon a
Feasibility Study (FS) for the Flying Cloud SLF in accordance
with the requirements and time schedules set forth in Exhibit A
to this Order. The purpose of the FS is to identify and assess
response action alternatives available to abate or minimize the
release or threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants
and contaminants from the Flying Cloud SLF as identified through
the RI conducted pursuant to Part VI of this Order.
�31D
ff -8-
VIM.
Response Action Plan and Response Action Implementation
WSS shall design, propose and implement a Response Acticn
Plan (RAP) and Response Actions (RAs) in accordance with the
requirements and time schedules set forth in Exhibit B to this
Order. Exhibit B is appended to and made an integral and
enforceable part of this Order. The purpose of the RAP is to
establish procedures for implementation of selected RAs. The
purpose for implementing the selected RAs is to abate or minimize
the release or threatened release of hazardous substances,
pollutants and contaminants at the Flying Cloud SLF.
{ IX.
Continued Operation
WSS may continue operation of the Flying Cloud SLF under
Part I.D. of MPCA Solid Waste Disposal Permit SW-14 issued to WSS
on January 28, 1983 ("Permit") . Disposal volumes authorized by
the Permit for continued operation may not exceed a total of 526
acre-feet of (1) compacted, in-place solid waste and (2) daily,
intermediate and final cover material. Disposal activities shall
be conducted by WSS in accordance with the Permit and plans and
specifications submitted by WSS and approved by the MPCA Director.
X.
Resolution of Disputes
A. If a dispute arises as to the meaning of any part of this
Order or concerning the implementation of the RI, FS, RAP or
ao/ �
-9-
RA(s), other than with respect to the approval of submittals,
WSS shall provide the MPCA Director with a written statement
supporting its position. The MPCA Director shall issue a
proposed order resolving the issues in dispute and shall provide
a written statement setting forth the basis for the Order.
Within ten (10) days of receipt of the proposed order, WSS may
request that the MPCA Board review the issues in dispute. If
WSS elects not to request MPCA Board review, the MPCA Director's
order shall govern the interpretation and implementation of this
Order with respect to the issues in dispute. If MPCA Board review
is requested, the MPCA Board shall consider the issues in dispute
at either its next regularly scheduled meeting or at a special
meeting and shall isssue an order with respect to the dispute.
The order shall be considered a final administrative action of
the MPCA regarding the issue in dispute and may be appealed to a
court of appropriate jurisdiction. Unappealed orders of the MPCA
Board shall govern the interpretation and implementation of this
Order with respect to the issues in dispute. { :
B. In the event there is a dispute between the MPCA and
WSS regarding any submittal, document, report, or schedule
(collectively "submittal"), the dispute shall be resolved in the
following manner:
1. The MPCA Director shall review each submittal
made by WSS as required by this Order within twenty-one (21)
•
ow l
• -10-
r
calendar days of receipt and notify WSS in writing by the twenty-
first calendar day, or the first working day thereafter, of his
approval, disapproval, or modification of the submittal. In the
event the submittal is approved, it shall become an integral and
enforceable part of this Order. In the event that the submittal
is disapproved in whole or part, the MPCA Director shall notify
WSS of the specific inadequacies in writing, and shall state the �.
necessary amendments or revisions to correct such inadequacies and
the reasons therefor. In the event that the submittal is
modified, the MPCA Director shall notify WSS of the specific
modification(s) made to the submittal and the reason(s) therefor.
2. Within twenty-one (21) calendar days of receipt of
any notice of disapproval or modification, or on the first
working day thereafter, WSS shall (1) submit revisions to
correct inadequacies, (2) respond to the modification, or (3)
state in writing the reasons why the submittal, as originally
submitted, should be approved.
•
3. If, within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date
of WSS's submission under subparagraph B.2., above, or the first
working day thereafter, the parties have not reconciled all
issues in dispute with respect to said submission, the MPCA
Director shall propose modifications in the submittal as he deems
necessary. WSS may, within ten (10) days of receipt of the
proposed modifications, request that the MPCA Board review the
(.
-11-
issues in dispute. If WSS elects not to request MPCA Board
review, the MPCA Director's proposed modifications shall be
considered a final administrative action of the MPCA regarding
the issues in dispute. If MPCA Board review is requested, the
MPCA Board shall consider the issues in dispute at either its
next regularly scheduled meeting or at a special meeting and
shall issue an order with respect to the dispute. The order
shall be considered a final administrative action of the MPCA
regarding the issue in dispute and may be appealed to a court of
appropriate jurisdiction. Unappealed orders of the MPCA Director
or MPCA Board shall become integral and enforceable parts of this
Order.
4. All submittals or modifications thereto shall be
technologically feasible and in accordance with sound engineering
practice.
C. The MPCA and WSS shall provide the opportunity to
consult with each other during the review of submittals or
modifications and the resolution of any dispute under this Part.
D. In reviewing all submittals, making any modification
or issuing any order, the MPCA shall comply with the requirements
of Minn. Stat. S 116.07, subd. 6 (1984).
E. During the resolution of any dispute under this Part
and during any subsequent judicial proceedings, WSS shall not
be required to take action in regard to the issue in dispute
until a final resolution of the issue is reached; however, WSS
ocOLI
-12-
(
shall continue to implement those portions of the RI, FS, RAP and
RA(s) which the MPCA Director determines are not the subject of
the dispute and can be reasonably implemented pending final
resolution of the issues in dispute.
XI.
Permits
A. The implementation of this Order may require the issuance
of governmental permits, authorizations or orders (hereinafter
referred to as "permits") by the MPCA, other State agencies, or
other governmental bodies. This Order is based upon the
expectation that the terms and conditions of any necessary
permits will be issued consistent with the response actions
required by this Order.
B. WSS shall notify the MPCA Director of all non-MPCA
permits which are needed to implement the requirements of this
Order as soon as WSS becomes aware of the need for the permit.
WSS shall provide the MPCA Director with a copy of all such
permit applications, at the time the application is submitted to
the governmental body issuing the permit.
C. If a permit is not issued, or is issued or renewed in a
manner which is materially inconsistent with the requirements of
the approved RI, FS, RAP or RAs, WSS may notify the MPCA
Director of its intention to propose modifications to the RI, FS,
/ RAP or RA(s). Notification by WSS of its intention to propose
1
•
-13-
modifications shall be submitted within 7 calendar days of
receipt by WSS of notification that (1) a permit will not be
issued; (2) a permit has been issued or reissued; or (3) a final
judicial determination with respect to issuance of a permit has
been entered. Within 30 days from the date it submits its notice
of intention, WSS shall submit to the MPCA Director its proposed
modifications to the RI, FS, RAP or RAs with an explanation of
its reasons in support thereof.
D. The MPCA Director shall review and approve, disapprove
or modify WSS's proposed modifications to the RI, FS, RAP or
RAs in accordance with Part X of this Order. If WSS submits
proposed modifications prior to a final judicial determination of
any appeal taken on a permit needed to implement this Order, the
MPCA Director may elect to delay review of the proposed
•
modifications until after such final judicial determination is
entered. If the MPCA Director elects to delay review, WSS shall
continue implementation of this Order as provided in Paragraph E.
of this Part.
E. During any judicial review of any permit needed to
implement this Order or during review of any of WSS's proposed
modifications as provided in Paragraph D. above, and during any
subsequent judicial proceedings taken in accordance with the
provisions of Part X, WSS shall continue to implement those
portions of the RI, FS, RAP and RAs which the MPCA Director
determines can be reasonably implemented pending final resolution
of the issue(s) in dispute.
-14-
(
XII. '
Stop Work Order
In the event the MPCA Director determines that activities
implementing or in non-compliance with this Order, or any other
circumstances or activities, are creating a danger to the health
or welfare of the people at the Flying Cloud SLF or in the
surrounding area or to the environment, the MPCA Director may
order WSS to stop further implementation of this Order for such
period of time as needed to abate the danger or may petition a
court of appropriate jurisdiction for such an Order. During any
stoppage of work under this paragraph, WSS's obligations with
respect to the work ordered to be stopped shall be suspended and
the time periods for performance of that work, as well as the
time period for any other work dependent upon the work which
was stopped, shall be extended, pursuant to Part XXIX. of this
Order, for such period of time as the MPCA Director determines is
reasonable under the circumstances.
XIII.
Reporting
WSS shall submit to the MPCA Director written progress
reports which describe the actions which WSS has taken during
the previous month to implement the requirements of this Order.
Progress reports shall also describe the activities scheduled to
be taken during the upcoming month. Progress reports shall be
submitted by the tenth day of each month following the effective
•
•
-15-
date of this Order. The progress reports shall include a
detailed statement of the manner and extent to which the
requirements and time schedules set out in the Exhibits to this
Order are being met. WSS shall indicate and propose in the
monthly reports any additional activities it believes to be
necessary which are not included in the approved RI, FS or RAP
and shall describe the impact of the additional activities on the
other activities conducted pursuant to this Order. The MPCA
Director may, in his discretion, direct that fewer or shorter
reports be submitted at extended intervals or that no further
reports be submitted.
XIV.
Notification
Unless otherwise specified, progress reports and any other
Submittal made by WSS pursuant to this Order shall be sent by
certified mail, return receipt requested and addressed or hand
delivered to:
, Project Leader
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Documents sent to WSS shall be addressed as follows, unless WSS
specifies otherwise:
Rollin Smith
9813 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
,ll
-16-
ft
XV.
Project Leaders
The MPCA and WSS shall each designate a Project Leader and
Alternate (hereinafter "Project Leader") for the purposes of
overseeing the implementation of this Order. Within 10 days of
the effective date of this Order, WSS shall notify the MPCA
Director of the name and address of its Project reader and
Alternate. The MPCA Project Leader is ; the MPCA
Alternate is Bruce Nelson. Either party may change its
designated Project Leader by notifying the other party, in
writing, of the change. To the maximum extent possible,
communications between WSS and the MPCA concerning the terms
and conditions of this Order shall be directed through the
Project Leaders. Each Project Leader shall be responsible for
assuring that all communications from the other Project Leader
are appropriately disseminated and processed.
The Project Leaders shall have at least the authority to
(1) agree to minor changes in the extent of soils to be removed,
if any; (2) take samples or direct that samples be taken;
(3) direct that work stop for a period not to exceed 72 hours
whenever a Project Leader determines that activities at the
Flying Cloud SLF may create a danger to public health or welfare
or the environment; (4) observe, take photographs and make such
other reports on the progress of the work as the Project Leader
deems appropriate; (5) review records, files and documents
-17-
relevant to this Order; and (6) make or authorize minor field
modifications in the RI, FS, RAP or RAs or in techniques,
procedures or design utilized in carrying out this Order which
are necessary to the completion of the project. Any field
modifications shall be approved orally by both Project Leaders.
Within 72 hours following the modification, the Project Leader
who requested the modification shall prepare a memorandum
detailing the modification and the reasons therefor and shall
provide or mail a copy of the memorandum to the other Project
Leader.
The MPCA and WSS Project Leaders shall either be on site
ILor available on call during all hours of work. The absence of
any Project Leader from the Flying Cloud SLF shall not be cause
for stoppage of work. ''
XVI.
Sampling and Data Availability
The MPCA Director and WSS shall make available to each other
the results of sampling, tests or other data generated by either
party, or on their behalf, with respect to the implementation of
this Order. Either party hereto taking samples concerning the
Flying Cloud SLF shall allow the other party, upon request, to
take split or duplicate samples during sample collection
conducted during the implementation of this Order. The party
taking samples shall endeavor to notify the Project Leaders for
the other party not less than seventy-two (72) hours in advance
-18-
of any sample collection. If it is not possible to provide
seventy-two (72) hours prior notification, the party taking
samples shall notify the Project Leaders for the other party as
soon as possible after becoming aware that samples will be
collected.
XVII.
Retention of Records
WSS shall preserve for a minimum of 3 years after termination
of this Order all records and documents in its possession, and
exercise its best efforts regarding retention of records and
documents in the possession of its consultants, which relate in
any way to the disposal of hazardous substances at the Flying
Cloud SLF and all documents and data related to the performance
of its obligations to implement this Order despite any document
retention policy to the contrary.
XVIII.
Access
The MPCA or its authorized representatives shall have
authority to enter the Flying Cloud SLF at all reasonable times
for the purposes of inspecting records, operating logs and
contracts related to the Flying Cloud SLF Site; reviewing the
progress of WSS in implementing this Order; conducting such tests
as the MPCA Director or MPCA Project Leader deems necessary; and
verifying the data submitted to the MPCA by WSS. WSS shall honor
•
aSV�I
-19-
Ir
all reasonable requests for such access by the MPCA conditioned
only upon presentation of proper credentials.
XIX.
Hold Harmless Agreement
WSS agrees to indemnify and save and hold the MPCA, its
agents and employees harmless from any and all claims or causes
of action arising from or on account of acts or omissions of
WSS, its officers, employees, agents, or contractors in
implementing the activities pursuant to this Order; provided,
however, that WSS shall not indemnify the MPCA nor save nor hold
its employees and agents harmless from any claims or causes of
action arising out of the acts or omissions of the MPCA, or its
'employees and agents. 1.
The MPCA Director shall notify WSS of any claim or cause of
action within ten (10) days of receipt by the MPCA Director. The
MPCA agrees not to act with respect to any claim or action for it
which WSS has agreed to indemnify, save and hold the MPCA {l
harmless without first providing WSS an opportunity to
participate. The MPCA further agrees to cooperate with WSS in
the defense of any such claim or action.
XX.
Other Claims
Nothing herein is intended to release any claims, causes of
action or demands in law or equity against any person, firm,
-20-
partnership or corporation not a signatory to this Order from
any liability it may have arising out of or relating in any
way to the generation, storage, treatment, handling,
transportation, disposal or release of any pollutant, contaminant
or hazardous substances at, to, or from the Flying Cloud SLF.
For the purpose of permitting WSS to seek to recover its .
response costs from persons other than the MPCA, the MPCA agrees
that this Order constitutes the authorization required by Minn.
Stat. S 1158.17, subd. 12, for WSS to implement the removal or
remedial actions approved by the MPCA pursuant to this Order.
The MPCA agrees that the actions required to complete the 3 `.
RI, FS, RAP, and RA(s), and such other response action as may be
approved by the MPCA pursuant to this Order, are "in preparation
for, or in the course of rendering care, assistance, or advice to
the director or agency pursuant to Section 1158.17 with respect to
any release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, or in
accordance with the national hazardous substance response plan
pursuant to the Federal Superfund Act, under 42 U.S.C. section
9605, or at the direction of an on-scene coordinator appointed
under that plan, with respect to any release or threatened release
of a hazardous substance" for purposes of Minn. Stat. SS 1158.04,
subd. 11 and 1158.05, subd. 9.
The MPCA shall not be held as a party to any contract entered
into by WSS to implement the activities pursuant to this Order.
LOG3
-21-
(
XXI.
Other Applicable Laws
All actions required to be taken pursuant to this Order shall
be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of all
applicable local, State and federal laws and regulations,
including laws and regulations related to occupational safety and
health. In the event there is a conflict in the application of
federal or State or local laws or regulations, the more stringent
of the conflicting provisions shall control. If compliance with
any local, State or federal law renders any action required
pursuant to this Order unachievable or causes a delay in
\ completing an activity required pursuant to this Order, WSS
shall propose modifications to the RI, FS, RAP or RA(s) to
address the problem and/or may request that the time period
required for completion be extended in accordance with the
provisions of Part XXIX. of this Order. The Director shall
review the proposed modifications in accordance with the
provisions of Part X. of this Order.
XXII.
Confidential Information
WSS may assert a business confidentiality claim covering
all or part of the information requested by this Order pursuant
to Minn. Stat. SS 13.03, 13.37 and 116.075. Analytical data
•
aUeq
-22-
(
shall not be claimed as confidential by WSS. Information
determined to be confidential by the MPCA Director shall be
afforded protection as provided in Minn. Stat. Ch. 13 and
5 116.075. If no such claim accompanies the information when it
is submitted to the MPCA Director, the information may be made
available to the public by the MPCA Director without further
notice to WSS.
oz
•5 a cne effective date of L. _ a ;. ....
pay into the Environmental Response, Compensation and Compliance
Fund of the Treasury of the State of Minnesota the sum of
Five Thousand Thirty-Nine Dollars and 70 Cents ($5,039.70) as
reimbursement of the MPCA's expenditures incurred in connection
with the investigation of the Flying Cloud SLF.
Payment of this sum shall be in full and complete satisfaction of
all past monetary claims of the MPCA for costs associated with
the investigation of the release or threatened release of
hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants at the
Flying y� g Cloud SLF prior to the effective date of this Order.
WSS also agrees to reimburse the Environmental Response,
Compensation and Compliance Fund for reasonable and necessary
costs associated with any MPCA activities related to the
implementation of this Order. The amount of reimbursement,
aU�S
-23-
excluding laboratory costs, shall not exceed Twenty-Five Thousand
Dollars ($25,000.00) in any calendar year. Within 30 days of the
end of each calendar year, the MPCA Director will submit to WSS a
statement of MPCA expenses for the previous year. Within 60 days
following receipt of the statement, WSS shall pay the required
sum into the Environmental Response, Compensation and Compliance
Fund of the Treasury of the State of Minnesota. Any dispute
concerning the amount of future reimbursement shall be resolved
pursuant to Parc A . ?r {; ;; if there is a dispute
concerning the amt... :me, is not required until
of expenses under this
,r_clude recovery pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5 1155.17,
subp. 6, of the same expenses.
XXIV.
Liability Insurance
Prior to implementing any actions under this Order, other
than design studies and plans, WSS shall provide the MPCA
Director with current certificates of insurance certifying
coverage for sudden/accidental pollution insurance with minimum
limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence with an
annual aggregate of at least two million dollars ($2,000,000),
exclusive of legal defense costs, for bodily injury and property
damage liability combined. The insurance shall provide for thirty
(30) days notice to the MPCA Director prior to cancellation.
acne ,
-24-
These insurance limits are not to be construed as maximum limits.
WSS is solely responsible for determining the appropriate amount
of insurance it should carry for injuries or damages resulting
from the implementation of this Order.
If, after utilizing its best efforts to obtain insurance, WSS
is unable to obtain insurance, WSS shall submit to the MPCA_
Director alternative proof of financial responsibility in amounts
consistent with the insurance requirements stated above and
sufficient to cry . -;;fie-1 iox ential liabilities.
inis Order may only be amended by a written agreement between
WSS and the MPCA.
XXVI.
Covenant Not to Sue
In consideration for WSS's performance of the terms and
conditions of this Order, and based on the information known to
the parties on the effective date of this Order, the MPCA agrees
that compliance with this Order shall stand in lieu of any
administrative, legal and equitable remedies available to the
MPCA regarding the release or threatened release of hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants at the Flying Cloud SLF;
except that nothing in this Order shall preclude the MPCA from
exercising any administrative, legal and equitable remedies
LUG
•
-25-
(
available to it to require additional response actions by WSS
in the event that the implementation of the requirements of this
Order are insufficient to remedy the release or threatened
release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at
the Flying Cloud SLF.
XXVII.
Remedies of Parties
The to )r. c stzai . be legally enforceable by
• e.peropriate jurisdiction.
`al! waive the MPCA's right to enforce
authorized by Minn. Stat.
Ch. 115B or by any other law should WSS fail to maintain
compliance with this Order.
XXVIII.
Failure to Make Timely Submittals
A. For each week or portion thereof that WSS fails to make a
Submittal to the MPCA Director in accordance with the time
schedules contained in the Exhibits to this Order or any other
time schedule approved or modified by the MPCA Director, WSS
shall be obligated to pay into the Environmental Response,
Compensation and Compliance Fund of the Treasury of the State of
Minnesota the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000).
B. WSS shall not be liable for payment under this Part if it
has submitted to the MPCA Director a timely request for an
2oU
•
•
-26-
extension of schedules under Part XXIX of this Order and the
request has been granted.
• C. Upon determination by the MPCA Director that WSS has
failed to make a Submittal referenced herein, written notice of
the failure specifying the provision of the Order which has not
been complied with shall be given to WSS. WSS shall pay the
required sum within 30 days of making the Submittal which was the
subject of the notice. WSS retains the right to dispute under
Part ' !o' the MPCA Director's determination
that a Submi . :: s r.;tt been made in a timely fashion. However, �.
WSS waives an :. .ts it may have to challenge, on legal grounds,
the MPCA authority to require payments for late submittals.
D. Payments required by this Part shall accrue from the •
date on which the Submittal was to have been made. Payments
required by this Part shall cease to accrue when WSS delivers
the required Submittal to the MPCA Director.
E. Nothing in this Part shall be construed as prohibiting
or in any way limiting the ability of the MPCA to seek civil
penalties available under Minn. Stat. Ch. 11SB or any other law
for any noncompliance with this Order except for noncompliance
with the schedules for making Submittals.
XXIX.
Extensions of Schedules i .
Extensions shall be granted if requests for extensions are
submitted in a timely fashion and good cause exists for granting
20
-27-
(
the extension. All extensions must be requested by WSS in
writing. The request shall specify the reason(s) why the
extension is needed. Extensions shall only be granted for such
period of time as the MPCA Director or MPCA Board determines is
reasonable under the circumstances. A requested extension shall
not be effective until approved by the MPCA Director or MPCA
Board.
The MPCA Director may extend the time schedules contained in
this Order for a period not to exceed 90 days except that if an
extension is needed as a result of (1) delays in the issuance of
a necessary permit which was timely applied for; (2) judicial
review of the issuance, non-issuance or re-issuance of a
necessary permit; or, (3) judicial review under Part X of this
Order, the MPCA Director may extend the time schedules for a
longer period. Extensions of greater than 90 days requested for
reasons other than the three specified above may be granted under
this Order, but only if approved by the MPCA Board.
The burden shall be on WSS to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the MPCA Director or MPCA Board that the request
for the extension has been submitted in a timely fashion and that
good cause exists for granting the extension. Extensions shall
be granted where WSS demonstrates that the reason the
extension is needed is due to:
(1) Circumstances beyond the reasonable control of
WSS, including delays caused by the MPCA;
4000
-28-
(2) Stoppage of work under Part XII which work stoppage
was not the result of any non-compliance by WSS with this Order
or the Exhibits thereto;
(3) Review resulting from the good faith invocation by
WSS of Part X of this Order, which review results in delays in
implementation of this.Order making it impossible for WSS to meet
the required schedule(s) ; and,
(4) Delays which are directly attributable to any
changes in permit terms or conditions or refusal to issue a
permit needed to implement the requirements of this Order, as
contemplated under Part XI of this order, if WSS filed a timely
application for the necessary permit.
XXX.
Conveyance of Title
No conveyance of title, easement, or other interest in those
portions of the Flying Cloud SLF on which any containment system,
treatment system, monitoring system or other RAs are installed or
implemented pursuant to this Order shall be consummated by WSS
without provision for continued maintenance of any such system
or other RAs. At least 90 days prior to any conveyance, WSS
shall notify the MPCA Director by registered mail of the
provisions made for the continued operation and maintenance of
any RAs or system installed or implemented pursuant to this
Order.
2044I
r
-29-
47
XXXI.
Financial Responsibility
If the Response Action(s) approved by the MPCA Director
pursuant to Exhibit B to this Order require WSS to undertake the
operation and maintenance of a containment system, ground or
surface water monitoring or closure or post-closure activities
at the Flying Cloud SLF, WSS shall provide to the MPCA Director
i
proof of financial responsibility in an amount sufficient to
cover the projected costs of such activities. Proof of financial
responsibility may be in the form of a trust fund, a performance
bond, letter of credit, insurance, or a written submission
meeting the requirements for the financial test or corporate
l guarantee set forth at Minn. Rules part 7045.0524, subparts 6
and 8. If, at any time during the term of this Order, the MPCA j .
adopts rules relevant to financial responsibility for solid waste
disposal facilities, WSS shall conform its proof of financial
responsibility to the requirements of those rules.
XXXII.
Successors
This Order shall be binding upon WSS, its successors and
assigns, and upon the MPCA, its successors and assigns.
XXXIII.
f Termination
l The provisions of this Order shall be deemed satisfied and
terminated upon WSS's receipt of written notice from the MPCA
•
-30-
Director that WSS has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the
MPCA, that the terms of the Order have been completed. Upon
request of WSS, the MPCA Director shall certify that this Order
has terminated if, in the judgment of the MPCA Director, WSS has
completed all actions required pursuant to this Order.
However, following completion of the RI, FS, RAP, or RA(s),
WSS may request a determination by the MPCA Director that WSS
has completed the RI, FS, RAP-or RA(s) to the satisfaction of the
MPCA Director. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of such
request, the MPCA Director shall review the work performed at the
Flying Cloud SLF and determine whether the RI, FS, RAP or RA(s)
has been completed in accordance with the requirements of this ! _
Order. If the MPCA Director determines that such work has been
performed pursuant to the requirements of this Order, the MPCA
Director shall so inform WSS in writing.
Any disputes regarding termination of this Order shall be
resolved pursuant to Part X. of this Order.
XXXIV.
National Priority List
With respect to the releases or threatened releases that are
the subject of this Order, the MPCA agrees not to nominate the
Flying Cloud SLF site for inclusion on the National Priority List
unless WSS fails to maintain compliance with this order.
c
•
-31-
l :
XXXV.
Effective Date
This Order is effective upon the date that the MPCA executes
this Order.
BY THEIR SIGNATURES, THE UNDERSIGNED REPRESENT "
THAT THEY HAVE AUTHORITY TO BIND THE PARTIES THEY
REPRESENT, THEIR AGENTS, CONTRACTORS, AND SUBSIDIARIES
IT IS SO AGREED:
WOODLAKEv ANITARY SERVICE, I
�— Name Gerald-Lyna , Vice: r .Title Date
( IT IS SO ORDERED:
SEP 2 5 1985
T �
Chairperson, Minnesota Pollution Control Date
Agency
� - S P 2 5 i95,
Director, Minnesota Pollution Effective. Date
Control Agency
1
rr rr L!'MAy.R 1986
EXHIBIT B
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
MAY 7 1986
. sanitary Services, Inc.
9813 Flying Cloud Drive
d Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55334
l Dear Mr. Smith:
RE: Response Order by Consent, Woodlake Sanitary Services, Inc. (Flying Cloud
Sanitary Landfill) Remedial Investigation Report
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff have reviewed the Remedial
Investigation (RI) Report submitted pursuant to the Consent Order. Based on
staff's recommendation (enclosed), the RI Report is rejected as not fulfilling
the requirements of the Consent Order.
Under the terms of the Consent Order, revisions to the RI Report are to be sub-
mitted within thirty days of receipt of this letter, except for those portions
of the report which will require further RI work. Those portions shall be sub-
mitted within sixty days following completion of such additional work.
At this time, we are approving the RI Work Plan under which this work was per-
formed, and the Evaluation Report which was submitted with she revisions to the
RI Work Plan.
This is also to notify you of changes in the MPCA staff assigned to this pro-
ject. As you are already aware, Stephen Riner is the Project Manager (the posi-
tion designated in the Order as Project Leader), and, effective May 12, 1985,
the Alternate will be Justin 81um. Mr. 81um will be replacing Bruce Nelson as
Phone
1935 West County Road B2,Roseville,Minnesota 55113.2785
Regional Offices•Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Maranon/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
r C�
Mr. Rollin Smith
Page Two
project hydrologist.If you have any questions regarding this matter. or if you
wish to arrange a meeting with the MPCA staff to discuss staff comments. please
contact Steve Riner at 296-7028 or 8ruce Nelson at 297-1786.
Sincerely, ,
t\s\Ny-s,...-e _
Thomas J Kalitowski
v Executive Director
TJK:ls
cc: M^ rarl .lr•ilie. City Administrator, Eden Prairie
hnneapolis;
,: .. .s; ualy'and Lindc_ra.i, 1,„neapolis
r. cd Moi,t_Ie ne, Hen.:epin County, Hopkins
l'r. Richard Rc,sow, Lang, Pauly and Gregerson, Ltd., Minneapolis
Mr. Roy Ball , .'''',.-North Central ,: Inc, , ?_- '
.,^i. r. M. .ita
! : r.- 7i,n ,Id,:-.t: , t.eii Pia,r,e.
i` Mr. Mark Kaster, Minneapolis
i
1
ac��
•
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
• COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
•
City of Eden Prairie,
Plaintiff,
• File No. 86-2210
vs.
•
• 17oodlake Sanitary
Services, Inc.,
•
Defendant.
•
1,
•
DEPOSITION OF •
RODNEY B. KAGER
JULY 2, 1986
9:00 O'CLOCK A.M.
ELIZABETH GANGL
SYNDICATED REPORTERS
•
612 SYNDICATE `BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
612/333-6549
52
1 enough.
2 Q what was the -- what need was there to
3 remove the stockpile more quickly?
4 A We had to remove the stockpile before we
5 could start the excavation of Phase I.
6 Q Phase I referring to Phase I of the
7 expansion?
8 A Correct.
9 Q The horizontal expansion of the landfill?
d. .,1.1i.r.g factcr in usir., rere
12 the reasons for using Buesing Brothers was not to
13 provide for a need on that scale of more daily or
14 intermediate cover or road maintenance material?
15 A That's correct.
16 Q Let's -- before I was going to put this
17 contour map back in, but I would like to -
18 MR. DIETZEN: Is that an original? Do
19 you need that?
20 THE WITNESS: That may be an original.
21 That may be the only copy we have.
22 MR. DIETZEN: I guess I would -- well,
23 you can mark it as an exhibit but we would like to
24 take it back.
25 MR. ROSOW: T1I understand you want it
A U 1v}�t
cvmnrr mvn AE:A(1oTooe
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
City of Eden Prairie, ) PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) (TESTIMONY OF ROLLIN
) SMITH)
woodlake Sanitary Services, )
Inc..
DC File No. 86-2210
Defendant. )
The above-entitled matter came duly fcr
trial before the Honorable Frai. :__- C. Knoll, a Judge of the
District Court, commencing on the 6th day of February, 1986,
r:ution for a temporary restraining order.
l
APPEARANCES:
ROGER A. PAULY, Esq., and RICHARD F. ROSSOW,
Esq., appeared as counsel for and on behalf of the State of
Minnesota;
CHRISTOPHER DIETZEN, Esq., appeared as
counsel for and on behalf of the Defendant.
Kathleen Curran was present as Clerk.
Linda Trondson was present as court
reporter.
* * * * *
67
(- Rollin Smith — Cross 20
1 of machines working on that berm?
2 A. No, there's that many machines working on that
3 stockpile.
4 Q. Well, you have stated in earlier testimony that that
5 material is being used for cover material.
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Is there some special amount of earth that needs to be
8 covered today
as opposed to what has been done in the
9 past? Ii
10 A. Would you like for me to explain why we are doing it
11 or what our intent is?
If. v ,
we scarte:: e.ccavdtir- and moving that
14 stockpile, and after the stockpile was moved we were
15 going to start excavating, and the reason we did that
16 was that we are optimists, we think we are going to
17 get the expansion permit, but we know that that's a
18 possibility, you know, there is the other possibility
19 that we won't, but if we wait until the permit is
20 issued, we lose a construction season, there's no way
21 that we cannot lose it because, as Chris stated, we
22 cannot place clays to the specifications that the MPCA
23 require during freezing weather.
24 Q. All right, if I may interrupt. You're not justifying
25 something that I think you're admitting you're doing,
aiu()
Rollin Smith - Cross 21
1 you are in fact moving earth from the berm, some of
2 which, in fact most of which is not presently being
3 used for cover material, is that not true?
4 A. We can use those quantities -- on a day-by-day basis,
5 we would use up that quantity over a period of time.
6 Q. And you're moving it to another location?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. And where is that location?
9 A. That location is -- can I show you on the --
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Approximately here (indicating).
12 Q. And you're now pointing to the southwesterly portion
13 of the landfill of the permitted landfill area, is
14 that correct?
15 A. That's correct, that's right.
16 Q. Now, you indicated on your direct examination that the
17 movement of the earth in that berm on the southeastern
18 corner was required by the PCA permit. Is that
19 correct or did I misstate that?
20 A. What I said was that the PCA requires that we use six
21 inches of daily cover over the top of refuse that was
22 deposited that day.
23 Q. And the permit itself doesn't specify that the
24 particular material in the berm on the southeast
25 corner be utilized for that purpose?
2iOI
ti
Rollin Smith — Cross 22
1 A. No, it doesn't.
2 Q. Are you familiar with a letter that Mr. Nowlin wrote
3 to you and Carl Jullie, relating to the excavation of
4 the ground from the expansion area?
5 A. I know that the letter was written. I didn't have a
6 copy of it or receive a copy of it nor have I read it.
7 Q. But you are familiar with the operations that are
8 intended or being conducted or intended to be
9 conducted at the landfill?
10 A. Yes, sir, I am.
11 Q. Mr. Nowlin states that, "As a result of our recent
12 meetings relating to Woodlake Sanitary Services' plan 1
13 to excavate an area east of the existing waste
14 deposit," and then he continues on that Woodlake will
15 be submitting an application for those purposes. What
16 did he mean or does he mean by "plan to excavate an �.
17 area east of the existing waste deposit"?
18 A. He means that we would remove a portion of that
19 stockpile and that when that portion of the stockpile
20 is removed that we would excavate down below that.
21 THE COURT: Excuse me, you're referring to
22 what now?
23 MR. PAULY: I'm referring to Exhibit J
24 attached to the affidavit of Carl Jullie.
25 MR. ROSSOW: If I can approach the bench, I
c2iuz
( Rollin Smith - Cross 23
1 can give the Court a copy.
2 THE COURT: Please. Thank you. Any
3 objection if this is not marked as an exhibit for this
4 hearing?
5 MR. DIETZEN: No.
6 BY MR. PAULY:
7 Q. Referring, Your Honor, to the first sentence contained
8 in the first paragraph, and I believe the answer was
9 that the berm material would be removed after which
10 the underlying soil would be excavated, is that
11 correct, Mr. Smith?
12 A. That's correct.
`. ' 13 THE COURT: Which section, which paragraph
{ 14 again, please?
15 MR. PAULY: The first paragraph, first
16 sentence, it says, "As a result of our recent meetings
17 relating to Woodlake Sanitary Services' plan to
18 excavate an area east of the existing waste deposit,"
19 that's the terminology.
20 THE COURT: Go ahead.
21 BY MR. PAULY:
22 Q. Mr. Smith, you have testified concerning a need for
23 fill material as cover material and that if cover
24 material were not available it would require shutting
25 down of the landfill. In the light of the existence
2I03
i.,
Rollin Smith - Cross 24
1 of the cover material on the southwest corner, would
2 you as an operator shut down the landfill if you did
3 not have access to the material in the southeast
4 corner?
5 A. No, I wouldn't shut it down, we would use that
6 material.
7 Q. Now, you have also -- Mr. Rossow points out, I believe
8 he's done the calculation, that based upon your
9 testimony that your use of cover materials at the rate
10 of 450 to 500 yards per day, and on, the basis of there
11 are 350,000 cubic yards of material in that berm on
12 that southeast corner, that that would be sufficient
13 for approximately 600 days?
14 A. That's probably right. It sounds right.
15 THE COURT: Excuse me, you're referring now 1
16 to the berm that I initially referred to or the --
17 MR. PAULY: The berm in the southeast corner,
18 at the lower corner of the illustration, the one in
19 contention.
20 THE WITNESS: Can I just say something?
21 MR. PAULY: Well, not until I ask a question,
22 please.
23 MR. DIETZEN: Keep the thought, I'll ask you.
24 MR. PAULY: He'll ask you if you have any
25 other thoughts.
aiu�
Rollin Smith - Cross 25
1 THE COURT: You'll get a chance, Mr. Smith.
2 BY MR. PAULY:
3 Q. You have testified to several questions put by your
4 counsel as to any previous need for a permit from the
5 City for excavations and so on. I think during my
6 cross-examination you testified that you have only
7 been employed by the landfill since about, what, 1980?
8 A. '81, June.
9 Q. -- '81, so you know nothing about the process that
10 went on in the '70s and going back all the way to.1970
11 as to what permits were issued and what the procedures
12 of the City were at that time, do you?
13 A. You're right.
14 Q. And you don't profess to be an expert on what permits
15 were required, were or are required by the City?
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. In the light of Mr. Nowlin's letter and the language
18 that I quoted to you previously, is it your
19 understanding as the operator that when you -- if 1,
20 you're permitted to continue removing the berm
21 material, that once that is removed that the intention
22 of Flying Cloud is to continue excavating?
23 A. Could I see the letter, please?
24 Q. Yes.
25 MR. PAULY: May I approach the witness?
a�a�
Rollin Smith - Cross 26
1 THE COURT: Why don't we have that letter
2 marked.
3 (Defendant's Exhibit A marked for
4 identification.)
5 THE COURT: Any objection, Counsel?
6 MR. DIETZEN: No.
7 BY MR. PAULY:
B Q. I'm handing you Defendant's Exhibit A and that's a
9 letter dated February 4, 1986, to Carl Jullie signed
10 by Forrest D. Dick Nowlin, and I hand that to you and
11 I would state that that is the letter that I have been
12 referring to earlier in your questions and your
6 13 cross-examination, and the language that I referred to
14 is contained in the first paragraph, specifically that
15 which reads, "As a result of our recent meetings
16 relating to Woodlake Sanitary Services' plan to
17 excavate an area east of the existing waste deposit,"
18 and my question to you, Mr. Smith, is in the light of
19 that letter and based upon your understanding of the
20 intentions of Woodlake and instructions given to you,
21 is it the intention and plan of Woodlake to continue
22 excavating in the expansion area after the cover
23 material or, as I've referred to it, the berm has been
24 removed?
25 A. Yes, it is.
Rollin Smith - Cross 27
1 MR. PAULY: Nothing further.
2 THE COURT: What is your definition of
3 "excavate"?
4 THE WITNESS: Well, our definition of it at
5 the landfill is that we excavate to --
6 THE COURT: Go below the --
7 THE WITNESS: Right, below the existing
8 ground level or the existing areas.
9 THE COURT: Any redirect?
10 MR. PAULY: Your Honor, could I follow-up
11 with one or two on that subject?
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 BY MR. PAULY:
14 Q. Do you know what the intention is as to how deeply 1
15 that excavation will go?
16 A. Elevation 810.
17 Q. And how many feet below the current elevation will
18 that be?
19 A. Approximately 90.
20 Q. About 90 feet deep?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. And do I understand correctly that it would involve
23 something like a million cubic yards of soil at least?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. PAULY: Thank you.
aio'7
•
Ank
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
‘00"
April 16, 1986 -
•
•
Mr. Rollin Smith
Browning Ferris Industries
9813 Flying Cloud Drive
• Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 • _ ._ ._
Dear Mr. Smith:
Re: Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill, SW-14
On March 4, 1985 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff met with
representatives from Woodlake Sanitary Services,. Inc. (WSS) regarding the above
referenced facility. The intent of the meeting was to discuss continued
compliance with the existing amended permit for the facility and informational
requirements for an expansion of the facility. This letter will summarize our
concerns and will discuss what additional work is needed with regards to this
project. For clarity, we have divided our comments into separate sections.
Amended Permit
On January 28, 1983 WSS was issued an amended permit authorizing continued
operation of the existing landfill. The permit required that additional infor-
mation be submitted for the MPCA Director's approval related to the operation of
the facility. While the information was submitted in a timely manner, certain
portions of it was not considered to be adequate by MPCA staff and was con-
sequently not approved. This information needs to be revised and then resub-
mitted for approval. At the meeting, MPCA staff stressed that the remaining
information related to the existing site must be submitted and approved by the
time the site reaches permitted capacity. In addition, MPCA staff are unwilling
to consider the expansion application on this site unless the remaining infor-
mation has been approved. Specifically, the following information should be
submitted:
1. Site Analysis and Assessment. Part III.A., B., and E. of the permit
• requires the submittal of a Site Analysis and Assessment Work Plan and
Report. This information has been submitted; however, only the revised
Phone:
1935 West County Road E12.Roseville,Minnesota 55113-2785
Regional Offices•Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit tikes/MarshaWRochester
Equal Opportunity Employer /�i
qp., pC if •
Mr. Rollin Smith
( Page Two
phase development plan has been approved. The additional work is
currently being developed under the terms of the September 24, 1985
Response Order by Consent Order (Order). Once that information has
been completed and approved for the Order, MPCA staff will also approve
it as adequately addressing the requirements of the permit.
2. Ultimate Land Use Plan. Part IV.A.2. requires the submittal of an
Ultimate Land Use Plan. While a plan was submitted, it needs to be
revised to address the current fill situation. Specifically, a revised
Ultimate Land Use Plan needs to be submitted which shows the final con-
tours of the site based on the current fill limits. The revised plan
must incorporate the final contours of the 526 acre feet fill proposal
and it cannot include the addition of any more waste at the site over
• the 526 acre feet. The final contours must be designed to provide for
the efficient removal of surface water runoff while ensuring that the
waste will not come into contact with ponded surface water. Final con-
tours shall be at least two percent and no greater than 25 percent.
3. Final Cover System. Part II.C. of the permit requires the submittal of
a final cover report. A report was submitted and has been approved by
MPCA staff in a December 19, 1983 letter. At a minimum, the conditions
of the approval letter must be complied with during placement of the
final cover. If you are proposing modifications to these conditions,
the changes need to be submitted for approval. The final cover report
did not specify the type of vegetation that will be used. Since the
use of plant species with deep tap roots may negatively affect the final cover by increasing its permeability, the proposed seed mixture
should be specified. MPCA staff recommend using Minnesota Department
of Transportation (MnDOT) mixture 15 which contains shallow rooted
grass species and is designed to minimize erosion. Similar seed mix-
tures are acceptable but the root depths should be specified.
4. Gas Migratio Parts 1.8.4. and V.A. of the permit requires that sub-
mittal l of information related to gas migration at the landfill. A
methane report was submitted to the MPCA. In a December 12, 1983
letter, MPCA staff requested that an addendum to the methane report be
submitted which addressed Part V.A.5., 6., 7., and 8. of the permit.
Actually, this information has been submitted for the active methane
system and is considered adequate. However, additional information
needs to be submitted regarding the passive system. Specifically, the
permit requires the submittal of a contingency plan describing
measures to be undertaken when and if odor nuisance conditions develop,.
when and if methane concentrations equal or exceed five percent com-
bustibles as measured at or inside the facility property boundary..."
In a related matter, recent routine gas monitoring results indicate
that probe G-11 is at times showing levels over the Lower Explosive
Limit. From a submittal received March 4, 1986, MPCA staff understand
that four additional probes have since been installed along the fence
,,•c1111
•
Mr. Rollin Smith
-k Page Three
line. This may be a good first step. However, a discussion still
needs to be provided on the significance of the G-11 data, included in
this discussion should be a graph showing concentration versus time for
the measured levels at the three different probe depths. Also, a
description should be submitted of the drilling techniques, including
drilling fluids, used for the installation of the gas probes. MPCA
staff are concerned that, if mud rotary was used, the drilling tech-
nique may have plugged the four inch perforated pipe or plugged the
soils adjacent to the pipe.
5. Surface Water Drainage. Part V.B. of the permit requires the submittal
of an Erosion Control Plan. A plan was submitted and was approved by
the MPCA Director. Since the Ultimate Land Use Plan will be revised,
the Erosion Control Plan must also be amended. Calculations on the
runoff volumes and peak discharges shall be based on the methods
described in' the document entitled "Urban Hydrology for Small
. Watersheds (Technical Release Number 55)" published by the Soil
Conservation Service in January, 1975. The calculations for the con-
veyance system should be based on a ten-year, 24 hour rainfall event,
and they should be based on a 100-year, 24 hour event for the
sedimentation ponds. All calculations should be submitted for MPCA
staff review.
6. Closure/Post-Closure Plan, Part IV.A.1. of the permit requires the
submittal of a closure plan. A plan was submitted to the MPCA. The
access control, notification, final cover, recording and certification
sections of the plan are acceptable. The surface water control, vege-
tation and gas migration sections should be revised based on changes
requested above. The inspection schedule during the post-closure
period should also be revised. MPCA staff are now requiring that the
facility be inspected in April , July and October for the first five
years and thereafter on a schedule to be determined by the MPCA
Director.
7. Noise Report. Part V.D. of the permit requires the submittal of a
Noise Report. MPCA staff agreed to extend the submittal date of this
report until the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed on
the proposed expansion. Since the EIS is completed, the Noise Report
should be resubmitted addressing the concerns raised in the EIS.
8. Financial Assurance. Part IV.A.4, of the permit requires the submittal
of financial assurance documentation. Documentation was submitted and
financial assurance for the site has actually been in-place for the
past few years. However, MPCA staff believe that more refined cost
estimates need to be provided on the facility closure and post-closure
care costs. We have attached a suggested list of items (see Attachment
1) that should be considered when making these cost estimates. The
total closure costs should be based on the maximum amount of acreage
that will remain open at any one time. The post-closure costs should
,r ILO
•
Mr. Rollin Smith
,( Page Four
be made on an annual basis and then should be adjusted each year for a
20-year post-closure period using an annual real rate of return of four
percent. Once the total costs have been estimated, a financial instru-
ment needs to be established which ensures that the total post-closure
costs and the required closure costs will have been accrued when the
site is closed. The proposed financial instrument should be submitted
for MPCA staff review and approval.
At the meeting, we discussed the possibility of self-insuring for clo-
sure and post-closure. Attachment 2 contains information regarding
"self-assurance." Until the new solid waste rules become effective,
MPCA staff are allowing self-assurance. This will have to be re-
evaluated once the rules are promulgated.
To reiterate, MPCA staff believe it is imperative that the remaining information
be submitted and approved by the time the landfill reaches existing permitted
capacity in order to maintain compliance with the permit. We are also unwilling
to proceed with the expansion application process for the landfill until the
remaining information has been approved. To continue moving forward with the
project, MPCA staff believe that the information required above be submitted by
May 15, 1986.
Expansion Appl ication
As stated in previous correspondence, MPCA staff have delayed consideration of
the expansion application until completion of the on-going remedial investiga-
tion and feasibility study (RI/FS). The original draft permit for the expansion
allowed for the submittal of information related to portions of the expansion
after the permit was issued. MPCA staff believe this information should be sub-
mitted for our review now during this time delay and prior to any reprocessing
of the expansion application. Specifically, the information that should be sub-
mitted is as follows:
1. Ultimate Land Use Plan. A final facility topography plan sheet must be
submitted showing the appearance of the facility after closure and
indicates its ultimate use. The revised final contours shall .ensure
that surface water drainage is diverted around and away from the faci-
lity while still minimizing erosion. Final grades shall be predomina-
tely five to six percent slopes but shall be at least two percent. The
final contours shall not increase the volume over the 5644 acre-feet
discussed in the EIS.
2. Phase Development Plan Sheets. Because of the liner requirement, a
series of revised phasing plan sheets showing the progression of anti-
cipated facility development through time for the length of the permit
must be submitted. Each phase sheet must show the horizontal and ver-
tical limits of the current phase and the surrounding site contours as
they exist at the start of the respective phase. The phases must be of
•
Mr. Rollin Smith
Page Five
•
six month duration. The phase sheets must show surface water drainage
control features, direction and sequence of filling, phase starting
point elevations, borrow areas, leachate control features, monitoring
systems, noise berm, methane control system, litter fences and other
• construction features.
MPCA staff require that sites be developed in six month phases with the
active fill areas being brought to final grade as quickly as possible.
• While the original development plan did promote rapid vertical develop-
ment, the phase development plans should be revised even more to ensure
that final cover is placed within one to two years of fill commen-
cement. Because of the significant fill depths and the need from a
construction standpoint to fill horizontally before filling vertically,
MPCA staff recognize that final cover may not be able to be placed over
all portions of the site within two years. However, we do believe that
the filling sequence can be altered so that major portions of the site
will receive final cover in a much quicker time frame than is currently
being proposed. The revised phase development plans should also incor-
porate the concern raised in the EIS that filling be staged so that
--• value impacts on the Bluff's West housing addition are minimized by
early completion of the southeast portion of the facility. Finally,
the phase development plans should address the conditions stated in the
June 17, 1985 Metropolitan Council approval of the expansion
(Attachment 3).
3. Cross-Sections. A series of site cross-sections must be developed per-
pendicular and parallel to the site base line. Each six month phase
and important construction features must have a minimum of_two cross-
sections passing through them. If possible, one cross-section may
illustrate more than one phase. The locations of the cross-sections
must be shown on each phase plan sheet and the section must be labeled
using the site grid system. Where applicable, each cross-section must
show existing, base and final grades; venting and monitoring systems;
limits of filling for each major waste type; drainage control struc-
tures; access roads and ramps on the facility perimeter and within the
active fill area; the limits and filling sequence of phases; leachate
control system, noise berm, methane berm, litter fences, and the final
cover system; and other appropriate site features.
Finally, both the phase development and cross-section plan sheets
should illustrate that a six foot protective layer of refuse will be
placed over the entire liner prior to initiation of the phase develop-
ment sequences.
4. Volume Calculations. Volume calculations should be submitted
demonstrating that filling is within the 5644 acre-feet proposed in the
expansion application and authorizied through the EIS and the
2li�
Mr. Rollin Smith
Page Six
Metropolitan Council approval. The 5644 acre-feet shall consist of a)
compacted, in-place solid waste, and b) daily, intermediate and two
feet of final cover material.
5. Final Cover Plan. If modifications from the approved final cover plan
for the existing site are planned, a revised final cover plan should be
submitted for MCPA staff approval. At a minimum, the final cover
system and field verification procedures for the expansion should be in
accordance with the approved plan for the existing site.
6. Gas Migration. Plans and specifications should be submitted for the
methane barrier to be constructed along the entire south and east side
of the horizontal expansion area. Specific detail should be given
regarding the relationship of the methane barrier construction to the
liner construction. Included in the submittal should also be the loca-
tion of the gas monitoring probes to be installed in 100-foot intervals
along the southeastern perimeter of the horizontal expansion area
parallel to the revised boundary. A contingency plan similar to the
one required for the existing landfill should be submitted for the
expansion. The plan should discuss the steps to be instituted for
{ installing an active methane system on the east side of the landfill if
the probes identify any significant methane migration to the east or
southeast.
7. Surface Water Drainage. Since the Ultimate Land Use Plan for the
expansion is being revised, a new surface water drainage plan should be
submitted. The calculations, analysis, methods and rainfall events
should be similar to those required for the existing landfill. All
calculations should be submitted for MPCA staff review.
8. Noise Berms/Fencing. The location and design details for the noise
berm and litter fences should be submitted.
9. Liner/Leachate Collection System. More detailed plans and specifica-
tions need to be submitted for the liner, leachate collection and
removal system design. Please include in the submittal a discussion on
the potential for physical, chemical or biological failure of the liner
and the measures to be implemented for the long-term maintenance of the
• system. A quality control and assurance plan should be submitted. The
plan should discuss the field verification procedures, the frequency of
testing, the inspection schedule, and any other measures to be imple-
•
mented during the construction of the liner and leachate collection
system. Plans should be provided detailing the specifications of a
proposed leachate treatment system.
At a minimum, the liner/leachate collection system in conjunction with
the final cover system must be designed to ensure an overall site effi-
ciency of at least 98.5 percent (+ 1.0 percent). Overall site effi-
ciency is defined as 100 percent minus the value of the calculated
2ii`,3
Mr. Rollin Smith .
( Page Seven
leachate release divided by the annual precipitation and multiplied by
100 percent. The minimum design requirements are:
a. Liner. The chosen liner must be compatible with the waste and
leachate and have an expected life of at least 20 years after clo
sure. The base liner must be graded to a minimum two percent and
a maximum five percent slope and be at least three feet thick if a
natural liner is installed or at least 30 mils thick if a synthe-
tic membrane is installed. Above the liner must be a minimum 12
inch buffer layer of sand. The liner and sand layer must be
placed in such a manner to ensure that the overall site efficiency
is being attained.
b. Leachate Collection System. The design of the collection system
must be based on the estimated quantity of leachate produced by
the facility during the operating life and after closure. The
system must be capable of collecting and removing leachate for a
period of 20 years after closure. The collection pipes must be at
least four inches in diameter and must be of sufficient strength
to withstand loads experienced during construction and disposal of
solid waste. The pipes must be protected from clogging by the use
of permeable filter fabric. The design must provide for the
proper inspection and clean-out of the collection-system.
10. Operations Manual. A discussion should be submitted regarding any spe-
cial operations related to the protection of the liner and leachate
collection system.
11. Closure/post-Closure Plan. A closure/post-closure plan should be
submitted. The plan should be similar to and can incorporate the infor-
mation required in the closure/post-closure plan for the existing land-
fill. A discussion should be provided on the long-term monitoring and
maintenance of the liner and leachate collection system.
12. Financial Assurance. Documentation should be submitted which
demonstrates the establishment of financial assurance for the proper
closure and post-closure care and monitoring of the expanded facility.
The cost estimates and documentation should be similar to the ones
required for the existing landfill. Cost estimates need to be provided
on the long-term monitoring and maintenance of the liner and leachate
collection system.
MPCA staff believe the information stated above is necessary for us to process
an expansion application. If you wish to continue to pursue expansion of the
landfill, we request that the information be submitted in a timely manner to
allow sufficient time for our review.
Mr. Rollin Smith
Page Eight
Procedural Aspects
The final item discussed at our meeting was the procedural aspects of the pro-
ject. As stated earlier, MPCA staff will not process an expansion application
until the remaining information for the existing landfill is submitted and
approved and the RI/FS work is completed. When the additional expansion infor-
mation is submitted, MPCA staff will send it to the Metropolitan Council for
their information and review. We also intend to re-notice for 30 days any draft
permit for the expansion to solicit public comment. During the noticing of the'
original draft expansion permit, MPCA staff received two requests for a con-
tested case hearing. If such requests are received again, they will have to be
addressed prior .to the issuance of an expansion permit. Finally, the
Metropolitan Council on September 5, 1985 passed a resolution requiring that a
supplemental EIS be completed. Under Environmental Quality Board rules, the
MPCA cannot act on a permit until the responsible government unit, in this case
the Metropolitan Council, determines that the EIS is adquate.
This then summarizes our comments and concerns regarding the Flying Cloud
Sanitary Landfill. These concerns must be addressed prior to any MPCA staff
approvals. If there are any questions, please contact me at 612/296-7740.
Sincerely,
64vhtelfg. P .+ .
Kenneth H. Podpeskar, P.E.
Staff Engineer
Solid Waste Permits Unit
Solid Waste Section
Solid and Hazardous Waste Division
KHP:ch
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Carl Jullie, City of Eden Prairie
Mr. Gerald Sunde, Sunde Engineering
Mr. John Curry, Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill
Mr. Forrest Nowlin, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren
Mr. Ed Monteleone, Hennepin County
Mr. Richard Rosow, Lang, Pauly and Gregerson
Mr. Michael Ayers, Metropolitan Council
Mr. Leslie Davis, Earth Protectors, Inc.
Mr. Robert Vetter, RMT
Mr. Tim Homes, Eden Prairie
Mr. Stan Johannes, Edina
Mr. Mark Kaster, Minneapolis
•
2►15
•
i 4410.3100
ENVIRONMENTAL lialP11111.111111.111' REVIEH'
GOVERNING ENN DECISIONS.
.V4 3228 3229 RULES FINAL GOVERNMENTAL r which a petition f to
or
ION ONOn any project arts 4410.0200
•
4410.3100by rtPROHIBITION
1. E fT ed or required. ordered under por arts
approval e
es of the act andemm a perm[`they a petition h
Subpart filed a°SEW is required or
o grant until has
t
ne that the EIS is10.780p an EAW�snO final governmental
the projectshall be made
°f a determination of
an adequate EIS. aired,or to comm declaration has5,
dismissed, a negative made. ro eels under subpart
to
required,
00,subpart 3. been EIS has been Except for projects governmental de
notify all persons adequacy of the adequate or filed• aired, no final B project shal
1, subpart 3, of its 2• EIS a hi an EIS is required,
to commence the S is adequate.
P Sobp et for which approval required, the final E a permit,
Public notice of forat a permit or other
orp he EQB has
as deter mine the f i al EIS
e of a
made until the are required ct of
Where public hearings until filing°f No Physical construction
eto
hearings shall not be held a to subject aftere tog of ate under parts has been
IS. S, final public t Construction for
rlian prohibited,
project alive declaration
p.3. rojd, a negative the RGU or the
is on thoselpermits projecSubs auIntilcarpettion has been
b en determined adequate declaration
is granted
ss and for which 4ssued,o final EIS has a under subpart 9 or a projects or impose
n of the EIS. The issued,or unless thetproject is an emergency
staff and authority to halt
eertnit applicant or fund, 4 to 8. The EQB's limitedutoby this subpart•project if the forproposer
te. under subparts
relief is in no way begin on a P varianceonm
other temporary Variance. Construction
from subpart tenon of the en
hat were identifieda variance comp at any
each permitting unit Subp• tand is gamed prior attance may be nested
.considered the E(S applies for andapprovals to be granted requested. period following the filing e°EQB
for the purpose of regoview process ma also be req review P variance to
parts 4410.0200 to review moposer commencement of submithe dan application fora be
n. The record may after the user shall proposed to
time
fAW The proposer the construction P
permitting unit of explanation of ranted; te
together with:A. a detailed [al approvals to be g the proposed
ertaken or the 8 environmental effects of undertaking
,n .sues[, inform en overnmen gals;
progess in carrying and the an ting ted pVernmental a fed vironmental effects:
mental units have B or a versa the B anticipated en
of the ubsequent
ecision. constructiCn the reversibility the variance;and
affect subsequent
of
the reasons necessitating how approval affect the P
D. describing w approval would
a daor the and how purpose
a
ed for the project erson shall publish
nent to a final EIS a royals need The within i5
e EQB chairperson days
tat eV Variance applications. EQB Monitor press release at
environmental view, the project is
Subp. 5 a in tai QB shall issu why a
of the variance ppltcation ch rP
imposed project thatarea esrelease
given for
roject;or notice
oti pt of the applicatioof•general EQBircula[ion in the rite,the reasons ce should
summarize a whether a tee th date of
circumstances that newspaperrelease shall su days after the
the proposed project least one The notice and press y that comm on
gnificantly affect the proposed. application and sped the EQBwithin 20 days after
the variance aPP be submitted to than ten y
ivieonmentat effects. must `sting more variance• A
p granted in the EQB Monitor. its first
be utilized in lieu of 6 Granting the EQB shall eeti or deny the
tie cation variance.
h an EIS has been publication
period expires,
equately address the the comment sots,
ranted if: lication and econoan
the RGU consents to a variance;and
•
•
variance shall beg the variantt aPP and unuSO
3GU shall prepare,, /* on the basis of avoid excessive Unusual economic
as a draft and final B in order tosafety unique conditions and
ecessary public health or safety.
characteristic •
construction i a carious threat to P is caused andare not ch
adequacy of thes hardship the P jof the area or state and
hardship•n avoidthat the ro ect
notice of preparation hardship means
are ptcUliar conddions or inaction.
or unless the time is circumstances or general economic rPoser's own action
he governor for good other similar is.9 is not caused by
that the hardship
b. Zl1(0
I '
(
i� I I 44103100 RULES GOVERNING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 3230
1 •
f I Subp.7. Written notice. The EQB shall set forth in writing its reasons for •
• S' granting or denying each request for a variance.
i 's
I I I Subp. 8. Construction or government approvals. Only the construction or
i .1 !: governmental approvals necessary to avoid the consequences listed in subpart 6
'' shall be undertaken or granted. .
l;
f*.14`l Subp. 9. Emergency action. In the rare situation when immediate action
I 'Iby a governmental unit or person is essential to avoid or eliminate an imminent
f ' threat to the public health or safety or a serious threat to natural resources,a
4 proposed project may be undertaken without the environmental review which
i would otherwise be required by parts 4410.0200 to 441.7800. The governmental
` I unit or person must demonstrate to the EQB chairperson, either orally or in
_ ; writing, that immediate action is essential and must receive authorization from
1f i the EQB chairperson to proceed. Authorization to proceed shall be limited to
.. jt �I. those aspects of the project necessary to control the immediate impacts of the
1 1 1emergency. Other aspects of the project remain subject to review under parts
i , 4410.0200 to 4410.7800.
}• 11'
Statutory Authority: MS s 116D.04 subd 5a
i'z
1'i 'I' 44103200 REVIEW OF STATE PROJECTS.
i1•
t t I;I I; Subpart I. Scope. This part applies to any project wholly or partially
conducted by a state agency if an EIS or a generic EIS has been prepared for
1• that project.
I: ir Subp. 2. Prior notice required. At least seven working days prior to the
final decision of any state agency concerning a project subject to this part,that •
I!'. agency shall provide the EQB with notice of its intent to issue a decision. The
S 1_' notice shall include a brief description of the project, the date the final decision
?; is expected to be issued, the title and date of EISs prepared on the project,and
the name,address,and phone number of the project proposer and parties to any
ill 1 proceeding on the project. If the project is required by the existence of a public
emergency advance notice shall not be required. If advance notice is precluded
{ by public emergency or statute notice shall be given at the earliest possible time
## but not later than three calendar days after the final decision is rendered.
f• Subp.3. Decision to delay implementation. At any time prior to or within
Ili,•.,:. ten days after the issuance of the final decision on a project, the chairperson of the EQB may delay implementation of the project by notice to the agency, the .
, project proposer and interested parties as identified by the governmental unit. I
Notice maybe verbal; however, written notice shall be 1€.::. provided as soon as ;
reasonably possible. The chairperson's decision to delay implementation shall 1
be effective for no more than ten days by which time the EQB must affirm or
overturn the decision.
Subp. 4. Basis for decision to delay implementation. The EQB, or the t
chairperson of the EQB, shall delay implementation of a project where there is
substantial reason to believe that the project or its approval is inconsistent with
1::"
the policies and standards of Minnesota Statutes,sections 116D.01 to 116D.06.
Subp. 5. Notice and hearing. Promptly upon issuance of a decision to
• S i' delay implementation of a project, the EQB shall order a hearing. When the
I,1 i hearing will determine the rights of any private individual, the hearing shall be
•
F1• conducted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,sections 14.57 to 14.59. In all other
i cases,the hearing shall be conducted as follows:
1
r,' A. Written notice of the hearing shall be given to the governmental •
I?. unit, the proposer, and parties, as identified by the governmental unit, no less
t, than seven days in advance. To the extent reasonably possible. notice shall be
published in the EQB Monitor and a newspaper of general circulation in each
6 county in which the project is to take place. The notice shall identify the time
I
1111
•
•
LANG,PAULY&GREGERSON,LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4101 IDS CENTER
SO SOUTH EIGHTH STREET
MINNEAPOUS.MINNESOTA 55402
R06ERT I.LANG TELEPHONE(612)77E-0757
ROGER A.PAULY
DAVID N.GREGERSON
RICHARD P.ROSOW
MARK J.JOHNSON
JOSEPH A.NILAN
JOHN W.LANG
DIANA P.MASSIE February 14, 1986
Executive Director Michael Sullivan
Environmental Quality Board
ATTENTION: Gregg Downing
Environmental Review Coordinator
100 Capitol Square Building
^(?.T1.:`=c.ta 55101
Claud Sanitary Landfill
Evan Prairie, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Downing:
We are attorneys for the City of Eden Prairie. The purpose
of this letter is to request the view of the Staff of the Envi-
ronmental Quality Board concerning the application of environmental
review regulations to a request by Woodlake Sanitary Services,
Inc., ("Woodlake") to the City of Eden Prairie for the movement
and excavation of earth for the expansion of Flying Cloud Landfill.
By way of background, Woodlake previously applied for an
expansion of the Flying Cloud Landfill. The EIS was declared by
the Metropolitan Council to be adequate on December 27, 1984.
In the spring of 1985, tests of water samples obtained from mon-
itoring wells at the Landfill revealed the presence of certain
volatile organic compounds. As a result of this discovery, the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, by letter dated July 15, 1985,
to us, advised that it was suspending proceedings for issuance of
a permit for the expansion of the Landfill. On August 13, 1985,
at a public hearing before the Eden Prairie City Council consid-
ering the request for expansion of the Landfill, Woodlake requested
that the matter be tabled. Subsequently, the MPCA issued its
Response Order by Consent in September 1985. Also as a result
of the discovery of the volatile organic compounds, the Metropolitan
Council as the Responsible Governmental Unit declared the need
for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on October 10,
1985. While Woodlake has not as yet renewed its request for zoning
approval of the Landfill expansion, it has applied for a permit
from the City to conduct operations for the removal and excavation
of earth within the expansion area. We are advised that the total
volume of earth contemplated to be moved is approximately 1,000,000
11
•
Environmental Quality Board
Page Two
February 14, 1986
cubic yards, including approximately 350,000 cubic yards consisting
of a berm bank which we believe has existed on the site since the
1970's and has been seeded. The contemplated excavation would
descend to a level of approximately 810 elevation, which would mean
that the depth of the excavation from the surrounding land surface
would be approximately 90 feet.
It is our understanding that neither the Metropolitan Council
as the RGU, nor the EQB has determined the Supplemental EIS to be
adequate. The EIS, in its present form, at page 4, states that,
Under normal circumstances no final govern-
mental decisions to grant permits or other
required approvals, and no project construc-
tion can take place before the FEIS is
declared adequate.
The FEIS, at Table 2 appearing on page 5, indicates that included
in the list of known governmental permits and approvals needed for
the Flying Cloud Landfill expansion is a land alteration permit
from the City of Eden Prairie. Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3100,
governing environmental review provides, in part, that
. no final governmental decision to
grant a permit or other approval required,
or to commence the project shall be made
until the RGU or the EQB has determined
the final EIS is adequate. . . . Subp. 2.
and that,
No physical construction of a project
shall occur . . . until the final EIS has
been determined adequate . . . Subp. 3.
In the light of the provisions of the FEIS and rules governing
environmental review discussed above, it would appear that the
City would not be authorized to grant a land alteration permit
at this time.
Because the Board is the administrator of these rules, we
would appreciate the Staff's advisory opinion concerning their
applicability.
Sincerely,
Roger A. Pauly
RAP:cw
bee: Carl Jullie hll'
Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board
f 100 Capitol Square Building
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul,Minnesota 55101
Phone
February 19, 1986
Mr. Roger A. Pauly
Lang, Pauly, and Gregerson, Ltd.
4108 IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
RE: Flying Cloud Landfill, Eden Prairie
This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1986 asking for
the opinion of the EQB staff about t,'e application of the
environmental review program rules to the question of permits for
expansion work at the Flying Cloud landfill.
Because the Metropolitan Council, the Responsible Governmental Unit
( for landfill projects within the metropolitan area, has ordered a
supplemental EIS for the proposed expansion, we believe that the
provisions of Minn. Rules pt. 4410.3100 now apply to all governmental
permits and approvals required for the proposed expansion and to
construction work connected with the proposed expansion. These
provisions prohibit the granting of any final approvals and any site
activities for the expansion which directly alter the environment
(see definition of "construction" at Minn. Rules pt. 4410.0200 subp.
10) . These prohibitions remain in effect until such time as the EIS
is determined to be adequate, unless exempted by action of the EQB
under the variance process set forth at Minn. Rules pt. 4410.3100
subp. 4.
I trust that this response satisfactorily answers your questions. If
there are any questions please contact either me (296-9027) or Gregg
Downing (296-8253) .
Sincerel ,
Michael Sullivan
Executive Director
cc: D. Knowlin, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
K. Podpeskar, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
L. Bly, Metropolitan Council
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
x5sc)ii„.
February 13, 1986
•
Mr. John Curry
Regional Landfill Manager
Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill
9813 Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
t Dear Mr. Curry:
Re: Flying Cloud Sanitary Landfill, SW-14
Dn January 28, 1986, you informed Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff that
Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc. (WSS) wished to commence excavation in
preparation for expansion of the existing landfill. Apparently, some confusion
exists as to whether you can undertake this work before your permit application
for the expansion is acted upon. The goal of this letter is to clarify the MPCA
staff's position regarding your right to begin work on the proposed expansion
area.
Our position is that any work which is undertaken in preparation for the
expansion is in violation of your permit, MPCA rules and the Environmental
Quality Board rules. The MPCA staff regret that the agency is presently unable
to act on the pending application to permit the expansion. As you are aware,
the Metropolitan Council on September 5, 1985, passed a resolution requiring
that a supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) be completed. Under
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules, the MPCA cannot act on the permit until
the responsible governmental unit--in this case the Metropolitan
Council--determines that the EIS is adequate. Minn. Rules pt. 4410.3100,
subp. 2 (19B5). The EQB rules also forbid construction before the determination •
of adequacy, unless a variance is acquired. Minn, Rules pt. 4410.3100, subp. 3
(1985).
To summarize, it is the staff's position that under the terms of the existing
permit and MPCA rules the construction of the expansion area is not allowed.
Phone
1935 Wesl County Road 82,Rosevdue, Mdnnesota 551 13.2785
Re^,zonal O16ces•Oululh/Brynrrd!tlefrnd I aans0,4,.<n,.o • -
, Mr. John Curry
Page Two
If there are any questions, please contact Dale Wikre of my staff at
612/296-7282.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Kalitowski
Executive Director
TJK:km
cc: The Honorable Sidney Pauly, Minnesota Representative
Ms. Sandy Gardebring, Metropolitan Council
Mr. Carl Jullie, City of Eden Prairie
Mr. Gerald Sunde,`Sunde Engineering
Mr. Forrest D. Nowlin, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
Mr. Mark Kaster, Minneapolis
Mr. Stan Johannes, Edina
Mr. Ed Monteleone, Hennepin County Dept. of Public Works
Mr. Richard F. Rosow, Lang, Pauly and Gregerson, Ltd.
Mr. Tim Homes, Eden Prairie
Mr. Greg Downing, Environmental Quality Board
Mr. Rowlin Smith, BFI
2►ZZ
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
RE: Grading Permit for Flying Cloud Landfill
DATE: August 14, 1986
Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc., has requested City Council approval of a
grading permit to continue expansion of their facility. Expansion consists of
excavation of 1,350,000 cubic yards of soil for sanitary landfill, excavation
of 60,000 cubic yards of soil for a storm water detention pond, construction
of 15 foot perimeter berm, and stock piling of excess excavated material. The
Engineering Division has reviewed the plans submitted and offered the
following comments:
1. The plans do not show any of the proposed erosion control measures for
the site. It would be necessary to install either staked hay bales or
fabric siltation fence, or other appropriate measures, around the
perimeter of the excavation areas. This requirement will undoubtedly
( be required by the Watershed District as well.
2. The work would have to be under a permit issued by the Watershed
District.
3. The plans do not indicate the method that will be used to stabalize
the permanent slopes. For instance, the proposed 15 foot high
perimeter berm has 3-1 slopes. Under normal circumstances, it could
be expected that seeding and disc mulching would be satisfactory to
revegetate the slopes. However, due to the sandy soil conditions, it
may be necessary to supplement the slopes with top soil and perhaps
utilize an erosion netting to preclude a continual erosion problem.
These comments would hold true for the stock pile area for the
proposed 5,000 cubic yards of fine grain soils.
4. Leaching of surface water through the proposed fill area has
contaminated ground water. This is addressed in Chris Enger's
memorandum.
More specific information is required of the developer to control both short
and long term erosion from the site and a permit from the Watershed District
would be required. The Engineering Staff joins in the recommendation and
reasons for the denial of the permit as set forth in Chris Enger's memorandum.
F.AD:sg
2123
TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members
THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager
Eugene A. Dietz, Director of Public Works
FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician ),\.
DATE August 12, 1986
RE: Grading Permit for Birchwood Mini-Storage
Miller Companies, on behalf of iBirchwood Labs, have requested City Council
approval of their request for a grading permit to begin site work for
construction of a mini-storage facility located south of Terrey Pine Court,
east of County Road 4. Grading work for this project consists of preparing
building pads, constructing perimeter berms, and constructing a drainage swale
north over their property to a storm sewer pipe in the south side of Torrey
Pine Court. The Watershed District has reviewed and approved the plans.
Erosion control material will be installed prior to issuance of grading
permit. (7 ha p-°,„rly 'IL. • 1'c���i`'
rr JJ:sg
it
Zt2y
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
HENNE.PIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 86-216
LAYOUT APPROVAL, TH169
WHEREAS, the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has prepared a
preliminary layout for the improvement of a part of Trunk Highway 169 within
the corporate limits of Eden Prairie, and seeks approval thereof; and
WHEREAS, said preliminarylayouts are on file in the office of the Department
of Transportation, St. Paul, Minnesota, being marked, labeled, and"idenified
Is layout .1A S.P.2744-40 (169=5) [from north of CSAH°1 to south of Prairie
Center Drive
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said preliminary layouts for the
improvement of said Trunk Highway within the corporate limits be,and hereby
are approved.
( ADOPTED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL on August 19, 1986.
Gary D. Peterson, Mayor
John D. Frane, City Clerk
7l�� •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
t Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: August 14, 1986
SUBJECT: Appointment Park Bond Referendum Committee
The City Council has recently authorized the staff to proceed with planning for a
park bond referendum in early 1987. As a part of this process, the City staff
have recommended the City contract with an architect to work with a committee to
develop a design and cost estimate for that addition, as well as a park planner to
prepare a final design and cost estimates for Miller Park.
The staff is also recommending the City Council formally appoint a Park Bond
Referendum Committee. Staff is recommending that each of the athletic
associations that will be affected by this referendum have a representative on
this committee, and that the committee include a number of citizens at-large, as
well as a representative from the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources
Commission.
The various athletic associations have submitted the names of people that are
willing to represent their particular organization, and a number of individuals
have responded to the article in the newspaper requesting citizens at-large to
L.." participate in this process.
The following list indicates the names of the individuals and group they are
representing:
1. Moe Cook - Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
2. Dee Anderson - Girl's Softball
3. Gary Soderberg - Eden Prairie Baseball Association
4. Jane Anderson - Eden Prairie Figure Skating Club
5. John Clark - Eden Prairie Football Association
6. John Reedy - Eden Prairie Hockey Association
7. Bill Schroedal - Eden Prairie Soccer Association
8. John Parrington - Eden Prairie Soccer Club
9. Dave Scherer - Eden Prairie Wrestling Club
10. Larry Blagdon - Eden Prairie Basketball Association
21 -1
t f 11. Kathie Holcomb - Girl's Basketball
k 12. JoAnice Jensen - Girl's Volleyball
13. Douglas Fell - citizen at-large
14. Tom Jensen - citizen at-large
15. Peter Rand - citizen at-large
16. Patrick Richard - citizen at-large
17. Lynn Seppman - citizen at-large
18. David Sundeen - citizen at-large
The Community Services Staff would recommend that al.l of the people that have
submitted applications be,appointed to the committee and would, in fact, suggest
that although there should be a limit to the number of people representing any `
certain organization, there should not be-a limit to citizens at-large that may
have other interests that are not represented by a formal organization. If
additional citizens express an interest to serve on the committee prior to the
first meeting of the committee, staff would recommend allowing them to do so.
The Community Services Staff request the City Council to formally appoint the Park
Bond Referendum Committee. This committee will work with the staff and the
i, consultants on developing plans for an addition to the Community Center, as well
as Miller Park and a softball field complex, that will meet the needs fo the.
citizens of Eden Prairie, and will report back to the City Council with a
recommendation on these plans and their cost estimates for a park bond referendum
to be held sometime in early 1987.
BL:md
1z1
General Mills,Inc.
calf General Offices
Post Office Box 1113
' Minneapolis.Minnesota 55440
AUG 8- 1986
August 6, 1986
Honorable Gary Peterson
Mayor, City of Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Dear Gary:
As a follow-up to our phone conversation and in response
to the article that appeared in the Eden Prairie News
requesting volunteers for a bond referendum committee, "
please consider my name for appointment to said committee.
( I have been a resident of Eden Prairie for eight years.
11. During those years I have been active in several programs,
both in and through the community --.programs such 'as Cub
and Boy Scouts, coaching in the soccer association and
coaching and an officer of the hockey association.
If references are needed, please feel free to call Chuck
Rubling or Rick Wolf.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David A. Sundeen
212.9
General Offices and.Bette Crocker Kitcbens at 9200 Wevaata eotrfevard
,ARM.
agoJENSEN, THDMAS A AUG 8 - 1986
,N,,,,,,,,, Auto-Life-Health-Home and Business
' 9597 ANDERSON LAKE PARKWAY
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 5534,1 PHDNE (612) 9't1-5850
August 5, 1986
Mayor Gary Peterson and Eden Prairie City. Council
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie,MN `55344
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I would like to apply for a position on the park bond referendum
committee now being.formed:
I have a keen Interest in the park and recreational facilities
In our city as I have three children'who are very active In various
youth programs. Our son plays a lot of hockey and, therefore, uses
the Community Center a great deal. . He, as well as my daughters,
play softball, soccer and other team sports which require facilities
the referendum will address.
Also, we are building a new home on Mitchell Lake so I Would
like to have input`as a homeowner who would be affected by the design
and usage of Miller Park.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tom Jensen
9597 Anderson Lakes Parkway':
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
TJ/dw
2.130
PIPER,Je5lEfit&Y&HOP'WUOD
( Suite;175
Southgate Office Plaza
5001 West 8Oth'Street ` '
Bloomington.:Minneaota 55437
611-831.2432
August 11, 1986
Mayor of City of Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie City Council t
8950 Sden Prairie.Rd. ,
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mayor and Members, 1
I am writing regarding the committee that will plan the park bond
.referendum. __
Having been a resident of Eden Prairie for one and a half years, with-
two young children, my wife and I are very much interested in the quality
of the Eden Prairie Park System. ,We live near Duck Lake Trail and Duck Lake ,
Road and have already enjoyed many of the parks close to our home, as well..' "i
as those farther away. I continue to be very impressed with both the quality 1
and accessability of our parks.
As an Investment Executive with Piper, Jaffrey and Hopwood, and a taxpayer, .
I also have a significant interest in money matters and minimizing costs.
in summary, I am confident that I could contribute very well to this com-
mittee, and would be pleased to help my cotracunity in this way!
Sincerely, I e
et„d
Patrick A. Richard 17127 Honeysuckle Lane
Investment Executive Eden Prairie, MN 55344
PIPER, JAFFRAY & HOPWOOD, INCORPORATED
PAR/11 g
2131
•
Douglas L. Fell
10449 Huntington Drive
Eden Praire, Minnesota 55344
August 12, 1986
The Mayor and City Council Members
8950 Eden Praire Road
Eden Praire, Minnesota 55344
Honorable Mayor and Distinguished City Council Members,
It is with a great deal of interest and enthusiasm that I submit my
name to serve on the park referendum committee.
My family and I.are new residents of Eden Praire having just moved
here from Bloomington, Minnesota in June of this year. My wife Karen L
and I have two young daughters.
I am a Senior Structural Engineer and an Associate of the Minneapolis
Architectural Engineering firm Hammel Green and Abrahamson, Inc. I
was previously employed for over seven years by Opus Corporation, a
Minnetonka based design build developer.
I look forward to your response and the opportunity to contribute
my services to the city of Eden Praire.
Re ectfully,
o L. Fell
C
August 8, 1986
Gary Peterson, Mayor
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Mr. Peterson,
Please accept this letter of application for committee
member on the Park & Recreation Bond Referendum Committee.
I have been a resident of--Pann prain4n aka na,+ .. ,,..
Years.
I am a self employed computer consultant, married, with two
children ages t •Nand. seven. Our family participates in a.
number of activities many of which are sponsored by the City
of Eden Prairie. The following is a list oforganizations
our family participates in:
Hockey Association of Eden Prairie
Eden Prairie Soccer Association
Eden Prairie Baseball Association
Eden Prairie Football Association
Boy Scouts
Girl Scouts
St. Andrew Lutheran Church
This year I am coordinating fund raisers for both the Hockey
Association and Boy Scouts.
I am very pleased with the various opportunities and
facilities Eden _Prairie has to offer our youth. All of our
facilities must expand as the size of our community expands
to ensure that all of our youth have the same opportunities.
Therefore, I would like to serve on this committee and have
an active role in the decision making and promotion of this
bond referendum.
Sincerely,
Lynn M. Seppman Phones 937-8412 (home)
7276 Hunters Run 372-1282 (work)
Eden Prairie MN 55344
2,33
tow `
fff( Reat.85Z31P
-. 107te♦3 D.,eef Drrl\11111/NI
` 347-9356"
August 6, 1986
Mayor and City Council
8950 Eden Prairie Rd.
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dear Mr. Peterson and Council:
I am writing in response to your request for residents to serve
on Park Bond Referendum Committee.
I am interested in serving'-on the committee. I currently reside
at 15361 village Woods. Drive in Eden Prairie. I" have been I
involved in residential, commercial and investment real estate
for the past ten years. During the last five years, the majority
of my time has been spent in the area of real estate acquisitions
and syndication. I am currently licensed as.a Real Estate Broker
with the Towle Real Estate Company of Minneapolis. I' hold the
C.C.I.M. designation (Certified'Commercial Investment' Member) andi.
the S.R.S. designation (Specialist in Real Estate Securities),
a both awarded by the National Association of Realtors. I am a
member of the National, State and Local Realtor Associations.
I will look forward to hearing from you.
Sin sly;
PETER J. 17•
PJR/jh
•
The TOINLE REAL ESTATE C nnpans,.61)0 Second Attune Scnith•Minneapolis,MN 55402.•(612)341•4444
213Li •
MEMORANDUM
I TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services '1 -'
DATE: August 11, 1986
SUBJECT: Recommendation for Architectural Services for Expansion of the
Community Center
The City Council has authorized staff to prepare a Request For Proposal for
preliminary design services for expansion of the Eden Prairie Community Center.
Attached to this memo is a copy of the Request for Proposal. The City received six
proposals from architectual firms including: Armstong, Torseth, Skold and Rydeen;
Bernard Jacobs; Hammel Green, Abrahamson; Setter, Leach and Lindstrom; Schwartz WebEr
Architects; Waters, Cluts and O'Brien. A five member committee reduced the number of
firms to four and interviewed those four firms on August 6, 1986. The members of the
staff review committee were as follows: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services;
Chris Enger, Director of Planning; Kevin Schmieg, Assistant Director of the Building
Inspections Department; Barb Cross, Landscape Architect, Rick Bolinske, Superintendent
of Recreation.
All four of the firms interviewed have had some experience in the construction of ice
arenas, gymnasiums, fitness centers, and other public buildings. The companies
( provided the following not to exceed cost for this phase of the design:
. Armstong, Torseth, Skold and Rydeen - $20,000
. Hammel, Green Abrahamson - $41,100
. Setter, Leach and Lindstrom - $25,000
. Waters, Cluts and O'Brien - $35,000
The companies also indicated their design costs, if a project was approved by the 4'
referendum, would be as follows:
. Armstrong. Torseth, Skold and Rydeen - 7% of the bid cost
. Hammel, Green and Abrahamson - 4.6% of the estimated cost, plus 3% for any portion
of the construction that included remodeling. +`
. Setter, Leach and Lindstrom - 7 1/4%, plus 8 1/4% for remodeling design
. Waters, Cluts and O'Brien - 6% including the first phase design costs
The total cost for architect services including the first phase quotes, assuming the
project proceeds and would cost approximately three million dollars, would be as
follows:
. Waters, Cluts and O'Brien $160,000
. Armstrong, Torseth, Skold 8 Rydeen $230,000
. Setter, Leach and Lindstrom $247,500
. Hammel, Green, Abrahamson $248,100
Estimate 2.5 million new construction, 15 million remodeling.
2i3S
Upon review of the materials provided by the various architectural firms, and after
the interview of each of the firms, the committee unanimously selected the firm of
Setter, Leach and Lindstrom for the following reasons:
1. The company has had a good working relationship with the City staff throughout the
City Hall design process.
2. The company is presently working on the corrections to the leaking problems at the
Community Center. The correction of these problems would be incorporated with the:
addition; although, it would be a separate project.
3. The Setter, Leach and. Lindstrom company has all mechanical, electrical and
structural engineers in house and seem to have a very clear process developed for
designing a functional, aesthetically pleasing product.
4. The company has many impressive recreation facilities and public buildings_`to its
credit, and the committee felt assured that they would provide a design that would
address the functional needs of the facility as well as the aesthetic concerns.
5. The design team proposed to work on this project would, in the opinion of the
committee, work well with the Park Bond Referendum Committee and would be able to
lead a large committee through the design process.
City staff recommend the Council enter into a a contract with the Setter, Leach and
Lindstrom architectual firm for design services as 'outlined in the Request For
Proposal at a cost not to exceed $25,000.
BL:md
2i3(0
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
pr PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER EXPANSION
t
TIME TABLE: Approximately August 1 thru October 30, 1986
SITE INFORMATION: The Eden Prairie Community Center is an existing
structure of approximately 40,000 sq, ft. located at
16700 Valley View Road in Eden Prairie. The existing
facility contains an ice arena with seating for 1,200
spectators; an L shaped swimming pool, 8 lanes at 25 .
yards, 6 lanes at 25 meters; concession stand; 3
racquetball courts and 2 meeting rooms on the first
floor; a meeting room and a fitness center on the
second floor.
Adjacent to the ice arena are four small changing
rooms for hockey teams, a figure skating club room
that includes a private changing area, a small locker
room, shower area, etc. for the high school hockey
team and a dressing room storage area for the North
Star Hockey Team.
The existing building is located within Round Lake
Park; although, the expansion would impact school
property that is directly adjacent to the City owned
property.
PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST: In 1979, the City passed a bond referendum for parks
and construction of a Community Center. The Community
Center was opened in February of 1981, and has
operated at full capacity ever since. The building is
open 7 days a week, from 6 a.m. until at least 11 p.m.
on a year-round basis. The Eden Prairie Hockey.
Association and the Eden Prairie Figure Skating Club
both are required to buy a significant percentage of
their ice time from other arenas besides using all of
the available ice time at this facility. The rapid
growth of the community and the relatively young age
of the residents has caused a high demand for other
indoor recreation facilities such as gymnasiums,
indoor running area, expanded fitness center,etc.
In 19B4, the City transferred all of the recreation
staff to office at the Community Center, thus,.
eliminating one of the meeting rooms. The City is
committed to continuing the operation of the
recreation programs from this facility, but need
office space for this function.
City residents have cited the major flaw in the
existing building as the undersized locker rooms,
they must be expanded with any addition planned.
2►3')
In 1985, a City Needs Study Committee reviewed all
School District and City needs that will require a
f, referendum within the next five year period. The
committee recommended a park referendum that would
include a Community Center addition for the spring.of
1987. Since that time, other City residents have
requested the Council to consider moving up that
timetable to the fall of 1986. No decision has been
made to date by the Council.
The City Council has authorized staff to hire an
architectural firm to work with a committee made up of
a cross section of residents representing various
interests to develop a program and design for a
Community Center Addition.
SCOPE OF THE WORK: The contract for services will include three major
phases: 1) program development 2) design develop-
ment 3) cost analysis.
Program Development - The first phase of the contract
will be to work with a committee respresenting various
interest groups in developing a program for the
expansion to insure the facility will meet the needs
of the community.
Design Development - The design development phase will
include analyzing the existing design of the building
,! and determining the most efficient design for adding
the facilities required of the program. A major
concern in this expansion is to maintain a design so
the addition fits well with the existing facility not
only from a visual -reference, but from a.functional
reference as well. It will be important to understand
the operation of the various phases of the building to
insure this addition compliments the existing building
function. The selection committee will be especially
concerned over what steps an architect will take to
insure he/she completely understands the function of
the facility.
Cost Analysis - The final phase of the contract will
be to provide a cost analysis for this project that
will include all fees, furniture, etc. to insure a
bond referendum amount will be sufficient to cover the
cost of the project.
EVALUATION CRITERIA: Firms will be evaluated on four main areas: The first
will be a review of the number and quality of design
of large recreation facilities completed by the
architectual firm. The second criteria will be the
credentials provided by the firm of satisfied owners
of similar projects. We will require names, addresses
and telephone numbers of at least three contact
z�3g
persons familiar with similar projects. The third
criteria will be the committee's opinion of the
architect regarding his/her ability to work with a
group of citizens, as well as the City° staff in
accepting design critique, criticism, requests for
change, etc. The final criteria will be the cost for
services proposed.
PROPOSAL FORMAT: The proposal should include a list of the project
team, their profile and relative project experience.
The proposal should also include a list, of the
projects that are similar and " a brief description of
those projects and the name of the planner in charge.
Include the budget vs the actual cost of the project.
The procedure and time sequence your firm will follow
to complete this project by October 30, 1986 should be
included.
Explain your fees to,complete this project and provide
a not to exceed fee.
DEADLINE FOR THE RFP'S: The deadline for accepting proposals is August 1,
1986.
SELECTION PROCESS: The committee will review. all RFP'S and select 3-4
firms for an interview. The firm will be asked .to
give a brief slide presentation of projects of,similar
requirements, explain who would be working on the
project, how he/she would proceed to meet the needs
described in this RFP.
A final recommendation will be made to the City
Council. The City Council has the final authority to
approve or reject all applicants.
CONTACT PERSON: The project director from. the City will be Robert
Lambert, Director of Community Services. Telephone
937-2262, ext. 37.- 1
zi3y
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission
THRU: Carl Jul 1ie, City Manager
FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services
DATE: August 14, 1986
SUBJECT: Selection of Planner/Architect for Miller Park Project
Attached is a copy of the Request For Proposal for Planner/Architect for the
Preliminary Design, Grading Plan and Cost Estimates for Miller Park. The City
received five proposals for this project and the selection committee
interviewed three based on the number and quality of design of similar park
facilities, and the credentials of the staff assigned to this project. The
companies selected for an interview were: Brauer and Associates, Schwartz
Weber Architects, and Wehrman, Bergly Associates, Inc.
The selection committee was made up of Bob Lambert, Director of Community
Services; Rick Bolinske, Superintendent of Recreation; Stuart Fox, City
Forester/Property Manager; and Barb Cross, Landscape Architiect.
All three firms provided excellent examples of previous park planning
experience; although, Brauer and Associates and Wehrman, Bergly Associates had
a much greater degree of experience in planning parks of the size and
character of Miller Park. The three firms provided the following quotes for
the first phase of design as described by the Request for Proposal:
1. Brauer and Associates - $16,000
2. Schwartz Weber Architects - $40,000
3. Wehrman, Bergly Associates - $39,000
The City should also be concerned with the cost of planner/engineering and
architectural services for Miller Park assuming the bond referendum passes.
The three firms provided the following fee information based on a two million
dollar project.
1. Brauer and Associates - preparation of construction documents through
bidding - 2.4% ($48,000). Contract administration 1.35% ($27,000).
Resident inspector 2.5% ($50,000). Including the first phase design cost
of $16,00D, the total cost for Brauer and Associates would be $91,000 for
design services and $50,000 for resident inspection.
2. Schwartz Weber Architects - construction documents through bidding 6.5%
for site work, 10% for building design (estimate 1.6 million dollars in
site work and $400,000 in building costs) would total $104,000 for
landscape architecture and engineering services, and $40,000 for
architectual services. Contract administration 1% for site work ($16,000)
2% for building design ($8,D00). Total $24,000. Resident inspection, for
site work only, 3% ($48,000). The total landscape architecture,
engineering and architectural fees for Schwartz Weber would be $168,000,
plus $48,000 resident inspection fees.
21c10
3. Wehrman, Bergly Associates - construction documents through bidding 4.8%
(includes the first phase design fees)$96,000. Contract administration.
1.2% ($24,000). Resident inspection 2.7% ($54,000). Total fees for
landscape architecture, engineering and architectural services for
Wehrman, Bergly Associates is $120,000, plus $54,000 resident inspection
fees.
Staff requested quotes on resident inspection fees to determine whether or not
it was wise to hire a temporary engineering aide for landscape architect to
provide the necessary inspection on this project. Staff would reconmend
hiring an engineering aide or temporary landscape architect to provide those
services. The estimated cost for either engineering aide or landscape
architect for an 8 month period would be approximately $20,000.
The selection connnittee unanimously, recommend the City enter into a contract
with Brauer and Associates for completing the first phase of design work for
Miller Park as per the attached RFP, at a cost not to exceed $16,000.
BL:md
•
21ta1,
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
(9- PRELIMINARY DESIGN, GRAOING PLAN ANO COST ESTIMATES FOR MILLER PARK
TIME TABLE: Approximately August 1 - October 30, 1986
SITE INFORMATION: Miller Park is a 96 acre site located south of Mitchell Lake
in Eden Prairie. Attached is a copy of the approved concept
site plan.
The majority of the site is presently under agricultural use.
There is an existing wooded,area along the western boundary
and the shoreline of Mitchell Lake. There is •also an existing marshland located as shown on the concept plan.
PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST: In 19B5, .the City appointed a City Needs Study Committee that
determined the development of Miller Park for the purpose of
providing additional youth soccer and youth baseball
facilities, as well as additional picnic facilities, and
access to Mitchell Lake. The committee recommended a
referendum in early 1987. The City Council has recently
approved proceeding with the preliminary plans and grading
plans for this park in order to obtain an accurate cost
estimate for development of this park. Oevelopment'. "of the
first phase that will be included in the bond referendum
tentatively scheduled for early 1987 is as follows:
1. Grading and seeding the park.
2. Irrigation of all athletic fields.
3. Lighting six (6) soccer fields.
4. Installation of all roads and parking lots with curb and
gutter.
5. Boat access and marina.
6. Concession and storage buildings for the marina, the
baseball complex and the soccer complex.
7. Picnic shelter/warming house for the hockey rink.
B. Multi-use court and tennis courts.
9. Playground structure.
10. First phase of landscaping.
SCOPE OF THE WORK: The contractor's services will include three major phases:
1. Review of the concept site plan and completion of the
final design of the park plan including concept design for
the various park shelters.
Zlcl�;.
•
2. Completion of the grading plan.
dr
3. Cost estimates for each of the phases previously
listed to insure a bond referendum amount that will be
sufficient to cover the cost of the project.
Plans and specifications for bidding of the park, as well as
the park shelters will be initiated after approval of a bond
referendum.
EVALUATION CRITERIA: Firms will be evaluated on four main areas: The first will be
review of the number and quality of design of similar park
facilities completed by the architectural firm. The second
critera will be the credentials provided by the firm of
satisified owners of similar projects. We will require names,
addresses and telephones numbers of at least three contact
persons familiar with similar projects. The third criteria
will be committee's opinion of the architect regarding his/her
ability to work with a group of citizens, as well as the City
staff in accepting design critique, criticism, requests for
change, etc. The final critera will be the cost of the
services proposed.
PORPOSAL FORMAT: The proposal should include a list of the project team, their
profile and relative project experience. The proposal should
also include a list of the projects that are similar and a
brief description of those projects and the name of the
` planner in charge. Include the budget vs the actual cost of
the project.
The procedure and time sequence your firm will follow to
complete this project by October 30, 1986 should be included.
Explain your fees to complete this project and provide a
not to exceed fee.
DEADLINE FOR THE RFP's: The deadline for accepting proposals is August 1, 1986.
SELECTION PROCESS: The committee will review all RFP's and select three to four
firms for an interview. The firm will be asked to give a
brief slide presentation of projects of similar requirements,
explain who will be working on the project, how he/she would
proceed to meet the needs prescribed in this RFP.
A final recommendation will be made to the City Council. The
City Council has the final authority to approve or reject all
applicants.
CONTACT PERSON: The project director from the City will be Robert Lambert,
Director of Community Services. Telephone: 937-2262, ext.
37.
21u3