AGENDA
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2014 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher Wickstrom, Kathy Nelson, and Ron Case
CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, City Planner Michael Franzen, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, City Attorney Ric Rosow and Council Recorder Jan Curielli
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
A. LEAD360 JEFFERSON AWARDS
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
VI. MINUTES
A. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2014
B. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2014
C. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2014
VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST
B. ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF REEDER RIDGE SECOND ADDITION
C. APPROVE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL’S 21, 22, 23, 24 & 29 FOR THE SOUTHERN SEGMENT OF THE SHADY OAK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
D. AWARD 2014 STREET SWEEPING CONTRACT TO RELIAKOR SERVICES, INC. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 18, 2014 Page 2
E. APPROVE PURCHASE OF POLICE DEPARTMENT MOBILE COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS
F. AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF FOUR LIFE FITNESS TREADMILLS AND TWO UPRIGHT BIKES FOR EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS
A. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCELS 2 AND 6
B. VACATION OF PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER LOT 1, 2 & 3, BLOCK 1, TOPVIEW ACRES 3RD ADDITION (RESOLUTION)
C. AQUATICS ADDITION TO THE EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER by City of Eden Prairie. Request for Site Plan Review on 103 acres. Location: 16700 Valley View Road (Resolution for Site Plan Review)
X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
XIII. APPOINTMENTS
A. CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR OF BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION
XIV. REPORTS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
1. Resolution Supporting “Wyland Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation”
2. City Manager Compensation
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
1. Final Plat of Kaerwer Addition (Resolution)
2. Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Proposed Rules
F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 18, 2014 Page 3
G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XV. OTHER BUSINESS
XVI. ADJOURNMENT ITEM NO.: VI.A.
APPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2014 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher Wickstrom, Ron Case, and Kathy Nelson
CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, City Planner Mike Franzen, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Council Recorder Jan Curielli
I. ROLL CALL / CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. All Council Members were present.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-24 SUPPORTING PARTICIPATION IN THE OPEN TO BUSINESS PROGRAM
Getschow said Open to Business is a technical assistance program for small businesses provided through the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers (MCCD), a 45 member association committed to increasing opportunities for small business and entrepreneurs.
Rob Smolund, representing MCCD, gave an overview of the program that provides technical assistance and financing programs for small businesses and entrepreneurs. He noted the program served a total of 14 entrepreneurs in Eden Prairie in 2013.
Nelson said she has talked to some immigrants who were struggling to set up a small business and asked if the program is limited to financing. Mr. Smolund said they primarily provide technical assistance and help to open a business and to set up the business structure.
Tyra-Lukens asked who can use the service and who is using it. Mr. Smolund said CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 2
for Eden Prairie any resident of Eden Prairie or someone planning to open a business here can use it. He noted each city in the program has different demographics.
Aho asked about the number of staff members. Mr. Smolund said they have four other business advisors; one for Dakota County, one for Scott County and two in Minneapolis. Aho asked if the divisions are geographic, not by specialties. Mr. Smolund replied the advisors work collaboratively as a team. Aho asked where the money for their direct loans comes from. Mr. Smolund said there are a variety of sources including funds from the Treasury Department and the State. They are always looking for new sources of capital as they expand.
Butcher Wickstrom asked how a prospective client would find them. Mr. Smolund said they could call or email him. He holds office hours at Dunn Bros on the first Thursday of the month from 1:00 to 3:00 P.M. They have brochures available and have a number of marketing ideas for this coming year. They are open to any ideas to reach out to a group. Getschow said we do promote it quite a bit on our website, but we might want to establish contact with the Chamber of Commerce to see how they could help the program. Nelson suggested they have brochures available at PROP.
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Nelson, to adopt Resolution No. 2014-24 supporting the City’s participation in the Open to Business program and committing to funding one half of the cost or $5,000. Motion carried 5-0.
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Butcher Wickstrom added Item XIV.A.1.
MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Case, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0.
VI. MINUTES
A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2014
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to approve the minutes of the Council workshop held Tuesday, January 21, 2014, as published. Motion carried 5-0.
B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2014
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, January 21, 2014, as published. Motion carried 5-0.
VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 3
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST
B. BLUFFS WEST 13TH ADDITION by Lake West Development, LLC. Approval of the Development Agreement. Location: 11480 Riverview Road (Development Agreement)
C. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3-2014 AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11, SECTION 11.06, RELATING TO SCREENING OF GROUND BASED TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-25 APPROVING PUBLICATION OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE
D. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC (HKGI) TO PREPARE A TOD ORDINANCE
E. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SRF CONSULTING GROUP FOR DESIGN AND IN-CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE CITY WEST PARKWAY TRAIL CONNECTION
F. AWARD CONTRACT TO ADVANCED ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR PRELIMINARY MODELING AND PLANNING OF NEW DRINKING WATER GROUND STORAGE RESERVOIR
G. DECLARE POLICE CANINE AS SURPLUS PROPERTY
H. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-26 DECLARING PROPERTY AS ABANDONED PROPERTY
Rosow noted Item E related to the UHG project.
MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Aho, to approve Items A-D, and F-H of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to approve Item E of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0-1, with Case abstaining.
Nelson asked what happens to the police canines when they are retired. Getschow said they place the dog in a good home, usually with their handler.
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS
Getschow said there are six public hearings scheduled tonight that relate to six different parcels of property owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). He said this is part of a process that began in 2010 with a Memo of Understanding (MOU) with MAC. We are currently in the middle of that process. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 4
Franzen said the process was begun to establish a mutually agreeable review process for the parcels and to develop regulations to guide development of the parcels. There were public hearings at the Planning Commission and the City Council in September of 2012 to approve the plan to designate Airport Commercial and Airport Office sites. Regulations creating the Airport Commercial and Airport Office sites were approved by the City Council in the first part of 2013. The second part of the process began when the Planning Commission recommended approval of all the proposed rezoning with some conditions at their January 24, 2014 meeting. The concept plans developed for the parcels will represent a couple of ways the parcels might be developed in the future. The third stage of the process will occur when a developer and the MAC work out an agreement for development and then come forward to the City with a development concept. The plan will be reviewed to the performance standards of development in Eden Prairie.
Franzen said staff and the Planning Commission determined Parcels 2 and 6 are different from the other parcels. Parcel 2 is located on the west end of the runway, and staff recommended rezoning nine acres of the site, not 39 acres as requested by MAC in the application. Staff felt that size would be a better fit with the neighborhood and would allow more of the site to remain in a natural condition. He said Parcel 6 is on the east end of the runway, and staff recommended the development be concentrated on the upper part of the parcel. The Planning Commission and staff recommended all of Parcels 3, 4, 5, and 7 be zoned commercial as they do not have natural features to preserve.
Tyra-Lukens asked why we are doing this at this time rather than waiting for an actual proposal to come in. Franzen replied we are separating the rezoning process from the site plan process in accordance with the MOU with MAC. This process gives us two opportunities to be at the table. We still have an opportunity to come back through the site plan process. One of the constant conditions is that the site plans have to conform to the Airport Office and Airport Commercial Zone regulations. Tyra-Lukens asked if, by going through this process, MAC is willing to go along with all of our requirements for how the buildings look. Franzen said that was correct. Tyra-Lukens asked Mr. Rosow to talk about the legal ability we have to say "no" on these parcels.
Rosow said when we started the process in 2010, MAC submitted a seven point proposal for the MOU that provided MAC would seek input from the City and would provide property owners notice of proposed development and an opportunity to comment on it. They would incorporate the City's design standards into the development if those were in compliance with their standards. We met with them and said we needed a process that is akin to our normal process that would go through Guide Plan change, zoning and the development process. MAC was willing to go through that process as a compromise as long as they could get zoning before they had to get a developer involved. They wanted an informal process where they were in charge, and we wanted a public process such as tonight's hearing. In order to get that process, we agreed to pre-zone the parcels, unlike our typical development process.
Rosow said in 1992 we asked the Attorney General for an opinion on what the City's authority was in regard to the zoning of airport property. The Attorney General said with respect to property that was put to aeronautical use, we had no zoning authority. As to the property they would propose to develop and lease to private development for non- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 5
aeronautical use, Rosow said he took the position that was a non-aeronautical use of property. MAC has taken the opposite position. He was convinced if we had not developed the process MAC would have told us that we don't have any right to zone their property and would proceed to develop it as they wanted. If there were one or two parcels that the Council had more trouble with than others, he would recommend that the Council take action on the rezoning for those parcels the Council does agree with and continue the hearing with respect to the others so we can sit down with MAC and cooperatively resolve the issues.
Nelson asked if all of the parcels are out of the safety zone. Franzen said Sites 2 and 6 are in the B zones. Aho noted there are many different layers of safety zoning so this is a pretty complicated picture. He serves on the Joint Airport Zoning Board (JAZB). The JAZB had a complicated model that showed all the height and other restrictions involved. Nelson said she assumed anything that gets approved has to comply with those safety zones.
Case thought we all understand this is complicated. He understood that if we have serious concerns we should put those items on hold, but he wanted the City to have more than a seat at the table. In a real situation, if we have a problem with a particular zoning category, we need to have a rationale for that. He asked if we have that freedom and flexibility as we go down this road.
Rosow said the question is whether we have the zoning authority in the first place. If we do, then we can use all the tools we have available. If we don't have that authority, then they can do whatever they desire in terms of the development. The process was designed to give us a seat at the table and to give us the tools to guide the development in the usual manner. We have not had discussions with MAC staff about what happens if we have issues with some of the six parcels. The Council should continue those parcels that have issues so we can have discussions with MAC and they can hear what the Council concerns are.
Case said everyone who is impacted by the potential development needs to understand that the City Council represents the people of Eden Prairie and wants to make sure people around the area are well listened to. However, it is a complicated issue and we also want to keep the City out of court.
A. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 2 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to Airport Office on 39 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport (Ordinance for Zoning District Change)
Getschow said the MAC request for Parcel 2 is to rezone the entire 39 acres from Rural to Airport Office. Staff and the Planning Commission recommended rezoning approximately 9 acres of the parcel to Airport Office.
Bridget Rief, Director of Airport Development for MAC, said this parcel is located west of the airfield between CS 84 and Eden Prairie Road. She said the majority of the 39 acre site is not conducive to development. Both of the concepts they developed are focused on the north end of the site. The first of the two concepts CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 6
would have a single story office building tucked into the back of the hill with parking access from Eden Prairie Road. The second concept would be a four story office development on the same size parcel that would not exceed any of the height restrictions around the airport. MAC is asking for zoning from Airport to Airport Office tonight.
Trisha Tyson, 9841 Frederick Place, said she lives just south of the proposed development. She was concerned about the amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development and asked if there would be a signal light at the intersection. Ellis said at this point it would be premature to make a determination if traffic signals were needed; however, turn lanes might be necessary to accommodate some of the increased traffic.
Derek Abbey, 16101 Valley Road, said he was concerned that State guidelines have Safety Zone B as Zone A. Rosow said the JAZB zones have not been adopted. The City, in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Guide Plan, adjusted Zones A and B to conform to the Federal zones. Rosow did not think the Council needs to be concerned that we are adopting anything in violation of State guidelines.
Jack Matz, 9752 Cupola Lane, said he understood the people at the MAC say they are going to do what they want to do with the parcel.
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Case, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0.
Case said he understood that other cities do pre-zoning but he did not know enough about doing that process. He did not feel comfortable that this is just a proposal. He was concerned about what we are saying when we approve the concept. He asked if MAC could come back with a proposal that had big changes. Rosow replied the Council is approving the zoning of the parcel and is not approving anything with respect to the site plan. If the zoning were to be approved and they came back with an actual proposal, that proposal would have to go through the site plan approval process and, according to the MOU, it has to meet our performance standards. The performance standards are part of the MOU. The purpose of the exercise here is to continue to move forward. They have agreed to be bound by the performance standards if we rezone the property. Case said he was concerned we are setting a precedent for a future Council to deal with. Rosow said development must meet the performance standards if they don't ask for variances. The Council is saying "yes" to the zoning but the performance standards are still part of the site plan approval process. Case said he was concerned that we would be giving some potential political power leverage to MAC that could work against a future City Council.
Butcher Wickstrom said she wanted to assure our residents that the Council Members are representatives of our citizens. We have heard from some residents and that is what we are here to do. Her sense is that the MAC is wanting to hear a message from the Council on these concepts and hear the feedback we have CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 7
received from residents. She said this is one of the parcels that she was not comfortable with. She would like to table this particular plan because the concept of the four story building is disconcerting to her and she has heard from residents who were concerned about the pipeline and the safety zone.
Nelson said she would agree with Council Member Butcher Wickstrom. She would like to table the two parcels in the safety zone. She thought we may be able to clarify the language for Parcels 2 and 6. Those two parcels are different from the others and should be tabled with the purpose of determining that we are correctly handling the safety issues for these parcels.
Rosow said the Council can move to continue the public hearings to a date certain. If the item is tabled, it won't come up until a Council Member makes a motion to bring it back, and it must be the same Council Member that made the motion to table it. In either event, he would suggest staff be directed to notice it as a public hearing. There would then be a renewed opportunity to comment on anything that might be of concern.
Nelson asked if it could be continued until discussion is finished rather than to a date certain. Rosow said the 120 day review period ends April 8. He suggested the discussion be continued for a month to March 18 and staff be directed to notice that date as a public hearing so people have an opportunity to address the City Council.
Aho said we need to remember here that we are not approving a specific project, rather we are zoning the parcels. They have given us concepts about what might be possible. As we have discussed, we still have the opportunity to approve any project that is brought forward, and it would have to meet all the requirements. He thought we are getting too proscriptive and worried about the details. We are not giving MAC carte blanche, just zoning the properties to a particular building type. Everything still has to meet all of our zoning and planning requirements and go through our whole process. He didn't see we are giving up anything by changing zoning.
Tyra-Lukens asked if we would continue to work cooperatively with MAC if we rezone this. She was concerned they could put in a gas station once it is rezoned. Rosow said if they have the right to go ahead without our approval that would be correct.
Butcher Wickstrom said it was her sense that MAC needs to hear our comments about this. She thought it is our privilege to let them know what our residents have said about it. Aho said we need to bring out what our residents have told us about the parcels. MAC is not coming to us with a proposal at this point, rather a request to rezone. We need to make known what our thoughts are about development. Case said he didn't agree because that would make the assumption that their rules are the same, but they aren't. He was concerned about setting up a potential environment that would limit a future City Council to represent the people. He liked the idea of continuing this for a month. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 8
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to continue the public hearing to the March 18 meeting of the City Council and to direct staff to re-notice the public hearing.
Aho said his question is what do we anticipate we will accomplish during that period and who is going to do what.
Nelson said she would like to add a requirement that any development proposal conforms to all safety requirements. Aho said a development has to meet all the safety requirements or it could not be put forward. Case said he would like to know from staff what we would expect if this parcel came in as a regular and normal site given the neighboring residential areas. We should have some definition of what we might want to do if this were not a MAC parcel.
Ms Rief said the proposal they put together for all of the parcels was done at the specific request of City staff. They did not want to come with any request that was too nebulous, but these designs are just potentials. MAC worked very closely with staff regarding setbacks so the concept designs would be something that accurately reflects what the City's standards would require of them without the promise of what it is going to look like. A developer would have to come through the City's site plan process. MAC would never propose anything that exceeds safety requirement.
Ms Rief said MAC representatives were here tonight to hear the Council's concerns. This is meeting number five in a series of nine potential meetings. She said the pipeline runs all along the northern edge of the airport property, and they are not looking to relocate that. She was also interested in learning who would be responsible for doing what if the public hearing is continued.
Butcher Wickstrom thought what we had to say might provide MAC with some additional information about what a proposal might be as it would come forward. Ms Rief said the action requested tonight is the zoning of the parcel and has nothing to do with the actual site plan review. Hearing the concerns of the residents and the Council is a little premature because MAC is only asking for the zoning tonight.
Rosow said the question that he thought the Council was asking is: If we granted the zoning would MAC comply with all the performance standards including those related to a variance if one is requested by the developer. There could be discussion about that during the next month, and staff would bring information back to the Council on March 18.
VOTE ON THE MOTION: Motion carried 5-0. Aho asked that staff follow up with this and have a plan going forward between this meeting and March 18. Case said he would like to get some kind of a written response to know if MAC will abide by the normal process including the process for variance requests. We need to know if they are willing to go on record they will abide by our process. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 9
Rosow said the MOU states if the City rezones each development parcel MAC agrees not to dissent to the City's zoning authority, and the architectural design review process set forth in City code will be followed with respect to any specific development proposed. Case asked what would happen about a variance request. Rosow said the only difficulty is that either party has the right to terminate the agreement. Nothing they have demonstrated shows anything other than they want to develop the parcels in compliance with City standards; however, he thought a little more conversation about this is appropriate.
Nelson asked if all of the parcels should be continued. Rosow said the Council could do that and then take them all together. However, if there are no concerns about the other parcels, he thought approving those is a good step to take to show MAC that you want to continue to move forward.
B. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 3 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural & Public to Airport Commercial on 3.04 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport (Ordinance for Zoning District Change)
Ms Rief said this parcel is located at the corner of Pioneer Trail and Mitchell Road and offers the best opportunity for development. Access to the parcel would be off the road into the athletic fields. They have a retail and a convenience store concept for the site and have worked with staff on setbacks and overall looks of the structure. They tried to reduce the impact to the residents across the street with landscaping and other screening options. She noted MAC worked with City staff on the improvements to Mitchell Road, and the site has City sewer and water. They are requesting a rezoning from Airport to Airport Commercial.
Nelson said this one seems to make sense, and she would be willing to go forward with this one in good faith.
Case thought we would take issue with a gas station coming in if this were a normal zoning situation. By releasing this to commercial it gets into the question of fully utilizing the property. He asked if we can say "no" and what power are we releasing.
Butcher Wickstrom said she feels comfortable with this. We have heard there is a deficit of gas stations in the area. She would like to hear comments from our residents.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to close the public hearing and to approve 1st reading of the ordinance for Zoning District change from Rural and Public (PUB) to Airport Commercial (A-C) on 3.04 acres, subject to the following condition: Any site plan application will conform to all requirements of the City Code. Motion carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 10
C. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 4 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. Request for Zoning District Change from Public to Airport Commercial on 4.53 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport (Ordinance for Zoning District Change)
Ms Rief said access to this parcel would be from the existing stoplight that allows access into the athletic fields. There are some similarities in these concepts to those of Parcel 3. They would ensure this parcel is accessible by the public, and would also make sure airport security is retained.
Butcher Wickstrom said she felt similarly about this parcel as Parcel 3. It makes a lot of sense, and she would be comfortable with either of the uses.
Case said he was treating these requests as if they were normal requests. He was probably more comfortable with this than the other parcels. He wanted to make sure screening and any negative impacts would be mitigated. He thought this is a pretty clean type of commercial project.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to close the public hearing and to approve 1st reading of the ordinance for Zoning District change from Public (PUB) to Airport Commercial (A-C) on 4.53 acres, subject to the following condition: Any site plan application will conform to all requirements of the City Code. Motion carried 5-0.
D. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 5 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. Request for Zoning District Change from Public to Airport Commercial on 0.45 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport (Ordinance for Zoning District Change)
Ms Rief said this parcel is very small and is not conducive to development. They want to tie this to Parcel 7 and use it as a drainage outlot for Parcel 7.
Case asked where it is located. Franzen said it is in front of the SuperAmerica site in the northeast quadrant of Flying Cloud Drive and Pioneer Trail. Case said if this is contiguous with the Barney property there was a potential burial site in this area.
Tyra-Lukens asked how it would ever be used, given the shape of the property. Ms Rief said they were interested in having it tied to Parcel 7 to use as a supporting function for drainage issues.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to close the public hearing and to approve 1st reading of the ordinance for Zoning District change from Public (PUB) to Airport Commercial (A-C) on 0.45 acres, subject to the following condition: Any site plan application will conform to all requirements of the City Code with the granting of a waiver or a variance to the lot size requirement for the A-C zoning district. Motion carried 5-0. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 11
E. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 6 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural & R1-13.5 to Airport Office on 20.02 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport (Ordinance for Zoning District Change)
Getschow said this is the other office parcel and is a request to rezone the entire 20 acre parcel from Rural to Airport Office. City staff and the Planning Commission recommend that we rezone only 10 of the 20 acres in order to concentrate development on the northern 10 acres. That would fit in better with the neighborhood and minimize the impact to natural areas.
Ms Rief said some areas of the parcel are not conducive to development. The existing wetland and flood plain areas of the site are located on the southern portion of the parcel, and they would not allow development in that area. They have two different concept plans that show the buildings tucked into the side of the hill with a more residential look and feel. The southern portion of the proposed concept would require some additional grading and some significant costs for parking. The expectation is that, because of the topography on the site, there aren't a lot of options to develop. They would like to have the entire 20 acre parcel available for a developer to make a decision.
Case asked about the land to the west of the parcel. Ms Rief said the radar site comes with a protective zone around it out to 1000 feet. She said the runway protection zone and Zone A would limit the development. The location of the VOR was selected as the only location that wouldn't impact non-MAC property. This VOR serves 64 paths for the MSP airport in addition to the Flying Cloud facility.
John Fedora, 9820 Tree Farm Road, said that everything previously discussed about Parcel 2 applies to Parcel 6. This parcel directly touches about 14 residential properties with another five or six separated by a small piece of park land. As a resident he did not want to be harmed in the process nor to have his property values diminished. He thought the separate rezoning process and development proposal doesn't make sense. He would be open to going through the normal process. He would like them to develop the other parcels first because they would learn a lot through that process. He thought this is the least desirable property with the greatest negative impact to the residents. He wanted to wait until there is a real developer with a real plan as this action leaves them in a huge uncertain area.
Dan Sheehan, 9836 Tree Farm Road, noted there have been five fairly recent plane crashes at Flying Cloud field in the safety zones. He asked why we would be shortening the safety zones for the benefit of MAC.
Tim Conners, 9823 Tree Farm Road, said it is good to see that MAC is willing to listen. Parcel 6 is the only one that truly abuts residential property. Prior to purchasing their homes, all of the residents there understood that the property behind their homes would not be developed, and they are the ones that have the most to lose with a decision. He asked why we are compromising the safety zones CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 12
because there have been accidents on the ends of the runways. MAC has indicated Parcel 6 is the least desirable for development. He thought Eden Prairie has made every effort to maintain natural habitat, and this area has a lot of wildlife that would be compromised by development.
Robin Kleinert, 9772 Tree Farm Road, said she understood MAC owns the land and has the ability to do what they want with it; however, she wanted the City Council to consider the residents there. They were told there would never be anything built behind them. Once building begins behind them their lots are not as valuable. She encouraged the Council to leave Parcel 6 off the development list because it is so close to residential land.
Sarah Sheehan, 9836 Tree Farm Road, said this particular parcel sits right next to the homes, and she thought it was important to consider how this will impact the whole community. She was strongly against zoning the parcel commercial.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0.
Butcher Wickstrom said she was not comfortable with either Parcel 6 and Parcel 2. To develop in this area would cause huge heartburn for our residents and would have an impact on all the things mentioned. Over the years she has served on the Council she has heard from a lot of the neighbors in the area about airport noise and the landfill. Even though those things are a part of their everyday lives the residents have chosen to live there because they have a beautiful view. It would be very difficult to locate a development in that area and take away the thing they cherish. She would like to continue this to March 18 as we did Parcel 2.
Case said we know nothing is forever and even though government may promise something, the next generation can change that. He thought it is up to the people in government at the moment to be faithful to pledges made in the past. He believed we really thought that area would stay open as airport land and didn't see this coming. Looking at it from his rationale, if this parcel were not airport land, he was not sure we would ever permit something to be developed that would be a four zone separation. The houses are zoned R1-13.5 and this zoning jumps four zoning levels to go to office development. We are shoehorning development into this parcel. He thought the Council Members need to stand up for the neighbors, and he will not vote for any development on this parcel.
Aho asked if the VOR could be moved to the west to reduce the crowding. Ms Rief said the VOR is not relocatable. It is sited based on the proximity to the runway. The technology may become obsolete at some point, but it is tied very closely to the municipal airport.
Nelson asked why they were not proposing residential development for this parcel. Ms Rief said the site lies in a potential Zone B and that does not allow for residential development. Nelson said it doesn't make sense from a development point of view to have an office development set that far back from a roadway. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 13
Ms Rief said this parcel sits farther from the end of the runway than does Parcel 2. She said the Metropolitan Council guidelines state there are areas that are not recommended for residential development but are conducive to other types of development. This is outside of the potential future Zone B, and they don't recommend residential as there would be concerns about access. They have had two different marketing studies done, and both indicated this is a potential development site.
MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Nelson, to continue the public hearing to the March 18 meeting of the City Council and to direct staff to re-notice the public hearing. Motion carried 3-2, with Aho and Case opposed.
F. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 7 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. Request for Zoning District Change from Public to Airport Commercial on 3.17 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport (Ordinance for Zoning District Change)
Ms Rief said this parcel has some development potential, and they have one building concept for the site.
Case said this makes sense to him but the sad issue is that the public gardens are located there. He thought it would be great to find other areas for the public gardens once this property is developed.
There were no comments from the audience.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 5-0.
MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Case, to approve 1st reading of the ordinance for Zoning District change from Public (PUB) to Airport Commercial (A-C) on 3.17 acres, subject to the following condition: Any site plan application will conform to all requirements of the City Code. Motion carried 5- 0.
G. FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 RELATING TO DISTRICT STANDARDS AND OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES FOR THE A-C AND A-OFC DISTRICTS
Getschow said this amendment adds setbacks, lot sizes, building height, site coverage, parking, etc., requirements for the A-C (Airport Commercial) zoning district and the A-OFC (Airport Office) district. The amendments are the same as other commercial and office zoning districts. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the code amendment at the January 13, 2014 meeting. He said part of this goes back to Step 1 of the process with MAC.
Tyra-Lukens said she looked at some of the specs and did not see any berming. She thought we had regulations regarding that. Franzen said berming is part of Chapter 11 where we have screening standards. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 14
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Aho, to close the public hearing and to approve 1st reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 11 Section 11.03, Subd 2 Tables 4 and 5. (District Standards), and Section 11.03 Subd 3. H.4 (Parking Requirement Use). Motion carried 5-0.
X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to approve the payment of claims as submitted. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Aho, Butcher Wickstrom, Case, Nelson, and Tyra-Lukens voting “aye.”
XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
XIII. APPOINTMENTS
XIV. REPORTS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
1. Snowplowing Efforts--Council Member Butcher Wickstrom
Butcher Wickstrom said she has received some feedback from residents who applauded the great efforts of our Public Works Director and the leadership of Mr. Getschow on the difficult issue of snow plowing this winter.
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF
G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
1. Consideration of Adoption of Ordinances Related to E Cigarettes and Hookah Lounges
Rosow said he gave a presentation with respect to e cigarettes and the options available to the City at the last Council meeting. The City Council directed staff to bring back the options to consider in a more formal format. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 15
He said he had five different options tonight:
1. Approve an ordinance to prohibit smoking of e cigarettes in locations covered by the Eden Prairie Smokefree Air ordinance of 2002; 2. Approve an ordinance to prohibit smoking in locations covered by the Eden Prairie Smokefree Air Ordinance of 2002 and the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act; 3. Require a license for retail sale of e cigarettes; 4. Approve an ordinance for a moratorium on retail sales and sampling of e cigarettes 5. Approve an ordinance for a moratorium on hookah lounges and e cigarette lounges.
Rosow said State law allows a City to put a moratorium in place for one year. The actual time would depend on how long it takes staff to come back with recommendations. The period can be extended for another six months.
Tyra-Lukens said we have been talking about this for a while, and the thing that drives this for her is that we don't know what is in the e cigarettes. She thought people should be able to buy them if they want as long as their use doesn't impact someone else. She asked if there could be a separate moratorium on the sampling of e cigarettes. Rosow said the language could be varied in the moratorium on hookah lounges and e cigarette lounges (Item E) to include the addition of no "sampling" of e cigarettes in retail establishments.
Case said he would like to move on this and get ahead of it. He has had some push back from people who say it helps those who are addicted to tobacco products. He would favor passing Items B, C and Item E modified to not allow the sampling of e cigarettes.
Nelson said that was what she was going to suggest. E cigarettes are different from regular cigarettes, but they have many of the same issues.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to approve first reading of an ordinance amending City Code Section 9.42 adding e cigarettes to the prohibitions against smoking in locations covered by the Eden Prairie Smokefree Air Ordinance of 2002 and the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act. Motion carried 4-1, with Aho opposed.
Aho said, although he does not like e cigarettes, he thought there is a lot less risk to people who are using the product. He thought a moratorium is fine to allow time to see what the State and Federal government do.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to approve first reading of an ordinance amending City Code Section 5.35 to require a license for the retail sale of e cigarettes. Motion carried 5-0.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES February 18, 2014 Page 16
MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Case, to approve first and second readings of Ordinance No. 4-2014 temporarily prohibiting all hookah lounges, e cigarette lounges and related lounges and the "sampling" of e cigarettes in retail establishments; and to adopt Resolution No. 2014-27 approving publication of the summary ordinance; and to adopt Resolution No. 2014-28 authorizing a study to determine what amendments to City code are required to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to provide for sound planning with respect to all hookah lounges, e cigarette lounges and related lounges and the "sampling" of e cigarettes. Motion carried 5-0.
XV. OTHER BUSINESS
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Tyra-Lukens adjourned the meeting at 9:37 PM.
ITEM NO.: VI.B. UNAPPROVED MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP & OPEN PODIUM
TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2014 CITY CENTER 5:00 – 6:25 PM, HERITAGE ROOMS 6:30 – 7:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBER
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher Wickstrom, Kathy Nelson, and Ron Case
CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Police Chief Rob Reynolds, Fire Chief George Esbensen, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, Communications Manager Joyce Lorenz, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Recorder Lorene McWaters
Workshop - Heritage Room II
I. SWLRT INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK (TSAAP)
Jeff McMenimen from HGKI presented an update on the Transitional Station Area Action Plan (TSAAP) process, which spanned 14 months and involved a city by city, station by station approach, including: • An initial project charrette • Issue Resolution Team (IRT) meetings • Weekly coordination meetings with the Southwest Project Office (SPO) • Shared advisory committees • Shared open houses and public events • Monthly City meetings
Public engagement activities included: • TSAAP Open Houses • Listening Sessions • Neighborhodd, community and interest group meetings/presentations • PE Open Houses • Website and e-blasts • MindMixer forums
The outcome of the TSAAP process is the Southwest Corridor Investment Framework, which promotes opening day readiness by bridging the gap between current conditions and future needs. The report addresses: • Existing conditions • Station platform locations • Park and ride sites City Council Workshop Minutes March 4, 2014 Page 2
• Future development potential and development character • Access and circulation planning • Infrastructure planning • Stormwater management options for selected stations including Mitchell Rd
McMenimen reviewed recommended improvements for each of Eden Prairie’s five proposed stations: City West, Golden Triangle, Town Center, Southwest Station, and Mitchell. The report contains three levels of opening day station area improvements: 1. Southwest LRT Anticipated Base Project Scope 2. Southwest Corridor Investment Framework (TSAAP) 3. Southwest LRT Locally Requested Betterments
Mayor Tyra-Lukens asked what items the project office is paying for. McMenimen said that information is included in the complete report document. He said cities may have to pay upfront for some betterments that may later be reimbursed. Regarding the City West Station, Council Member Nelson asked if the City’s successful negotiation with UHG to dedicate land for LRT is being factored into the equation when considering the list of betterments. Jeremiah said staff has reminded the Southwest Project Office that City agreements with property owners have saved acquisition costs. McMenimen said Eden Prairie staff has been fairly assertive in requesting betterments, and at this point the list of betterments has been accepted by the Project Office.
Nelson said she does not necessarily agree with the amount of land that is proposed to be converted to residential in the area of the Golden Triangle Station. She said that could result in the elimination of a lot of jobs. Mayor Tyra-Lukens said she agreed with Nelson. Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah noted that the Comp Plan calls for mixed- use development in the Golden Triangle, but that staff is not trying to push business out anywhere. She said there may be an opportunity to develop some housing as in-fill. Mayor Tyra-Lukens said she definitely wants to make sure there is a balance of housing with the commercial/industrial base. Jeremiah said this is one reason staff is concerned with proposals to end the line in such a valuable commercial area, since it would require using a lot of land for parking.
Nelson asked McMenimen for more information on how much seating will be provided at each station and whether or not it will be covered. He said some covered seating will be provided, but final details have not been developed yet. Additional seating, bike shares, etc., will be included in the list of betterments. Jeremiah said the City has the option of including certain conditions for stations at the time of municipal consent.
Jeremiah said the report has been presented as an informational item at a Planning Commission. It will go back before the Planning Commission on March 24 or April 14 and the City Council on April 22. Hennepin County has requested that the City take some sort of City Council Workshop Minutes March 4, 2014 Page 3
formal action on the document. Jeremiah said that could be anything from approving the report or simply accepting the report. Jeremiah said the City can also make formal comments on the report at that time if it wishes, since Hennepin County sees this as a “living document,” that will be undergoing revision.
Tyra-Lukens asked what the City would be committing to by formally accepting the report. Jeremiah said the City would not be committing to any land use actions, but would be agreeing that certain investments should be made as far as seeking grant funding.
Open Podium - Council Chamber
II. OPEN PODIUM
III. ADJOURNMENT ITEM NO.: VI.C.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2014 7:00 PM, CITY CENTER Council Chamber 8080 Mitchell Road
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Council Members Brad Aho, Sherry Butcher Wickstrom, Ron Case, and Kathy Nelson
CITY STAFF: City Manager Rick Getschow, Public Works Director Robert Ellis, Community Development Director Janet Jeremiah, Parks and Recreation Director Jay Lotthammer, City Attorney Ric Rosow, and Council Recorder Jan Curielli
I. ROLL CALL / CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
Mayor Tyra-Lukens called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. All Council Members were present.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. COUNCIL FORUM INVITATION
IV. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Tyra-Lukens recognized the important part played in the development of our City by Don Brauer who passed away last week. She said he played a major role in planning the City of Eden Prairie and was referred to as the Godfather of Comprehensive Planning.
A. PROP SHOP UPDATE
Cindy Eddy, Director of the PROP Shop, gave an update on the Prop Shop. She thanked the Council, City staff and members of the community for their support during the seven years the Prop Shop has been in existence. Over 6000 people have been helped during that time.
Tyra-Lukens said it is really Ms Eddy's vision and ability to get people to collaborate that have made the Prop Shop a success. Case said Eden Prairie has a lot of people who give a lot, but Ms Eddy was the one who stepped up and made PROP Shop the success it is today. Aho thanked the Eddy family for their efforts, and noted they are huge contributors to the project.
V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Case added Item XIV.A.1.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 4, 2014 Page 2
MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Aho, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried 5-0.
VI. MINUTES
A. COUNCIL WORKSHOP HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2014
MOTION: Aho moved, seconded by Case, to approve the minutes of the Council workshop held Tuesday, February 18, 2014, as published. Motion carried 5-0.
B. CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2014
MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Nelson, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held Tuesday, February 18, 2014, as published. Motion carried 5-0.
VII. REPORTS OF ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. CLERK’S LICENSE LIST
B. ADOPT NO. RESOLUTION 2014-29 APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF BLUFFS WEST 13TH ADDITION
C. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 3 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 5-2014 for Zoning District Change from Rural & Public to Airport Commercial on 3.04 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport
D. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 4 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 6-2014 for Zoning District Change from Public to Airport Commercial on 4.53 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport
E. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 5 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 7-2014 for Zoning District Change from Public to Airport Commercial on 0.45 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport
F. MAC DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 7 by Metropolitan Airports Commission. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 8-2014 for Zoning District Change from Public to Airport Commercial on 3.17 acres. Location: Flying Cloud Airport
G. APPROVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 9-2014 AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 11 RELATING TO DISTRICT STANDARDS AND OFF STREET PARKING FACILITIES FOR THE A-C AND A-OFC DISTRICTS AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-30 APPROVING PUBLICATION OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE
H. APPROVE AGREEMENT WITH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 4, 2014 Page 3
SAFETY BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION FOR FUNDING REIMBURSEMENT FOR ECHARGING ADAPTER
I. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-31 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
J. APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH MAC FOR EDEN PRAIRIE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (RILEY CREEK TO SOUTH OF FREDERICK PLACE)
K. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR 2014 WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
L. AWARD CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING & INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE BAKER ROAD WATER RESERVOIR RECOATING PROJECT
M. APPROVE PURCHASE OF NEW CONTROL ROOM VIDEO PRODUCTION SYSTEM
MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to approve Items A-M of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS / MEETINGS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-32 APPROVING USE OF 2014 CDBG FUNDS
Getschow said this is an annual item. We have estimated the amount of dollars we will receive from the Federal government for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding in 2014 will be $235,000. Based on guidance of the Human Services Review Committee, the funds will be used to help fund programs such as PROP, the YMCA and housing.
A representative of PROP said they served nearly 1100 households, and 45% of those served were children. PROP provides food, emergency financial assistance and support for families in Eden Prairie. She thanked the Council for funding PROP.
Carol Watson, representing Community Action Partnership of Suburban Hennepin (CAPSH), said they help to keep households self-sufficient by providing emergency vehicle repair and other services. She said they have been inundated with requests for vehicle repairs the last couple of months because of the severe winter weather.
Sue Gallus and Christine Tzinakis reviewed the Household and Outside Maintenance for Elderly (HOME) program that helps seniors over the age of 60 to remain independent in their homes as long as possible. The HOME program uses volunteers to provide various types of services including interior and exterior painting, housecleaning, assistance with laundry, grocery shopping and home repairs. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 4, 2014 Page 4
Terry Johnson, Director of Community Education for Eden Prairie Schools, thanked the Council for past grants they received for child care subsidies.
A representative of the Southdale YMCA said they appreciate the support they have received. She noted the Southdale YMCA has partnered with Eden Prairie for over 30 years to provide child care services for school students.
Nelson noted Cornerstone used to be in this category and asked if they are being funded by the Police Department now. Getschow said he understood that group is funded through the Police Department budget.
MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Nelson, to close the public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 2014-32 approving the use of 2014 CDBG funds as recommended by the Eden Prairie Human Services Committee. Motion carried 5-0.
B. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-33 APPROVING LAYOUT NO. 4 FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 61 (FLYING CLOUD DRIVE)
Getschow said this is a public hearing of a request to approve the layout for reconstruction of CSAH 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) from Hwy 101 to Charlson Road.
Jason Staebell, representing Hennepin County, gave an overview of the plans for reconstruction of the roadway. He noted in 2010 Hennepin County took full ownership of the corridor from MnDOT, although MnDOT provides funding to fix roadway deficiencies for turnback roadways. He said the goal of the project is to minimize disruptions caused by seasonal flooding. Part of the project involves raising up portions of the road so it is out of the 100-year floodplain. The construction coincides with the Hwy 101/CSAH 61 project in Carver County for the new bridge into Shakopee and will involve replacing the pavement and creating a pedestrian corridor. There will be two traffic lanes with a continuous left turn lane in the middle of the roadway. In addition there will be right turn lanes at key intersections with a multi-use trail on the north side of the roadway. Retaining walls are planned for the north side to mitigate impact to the bluffs. Guard rails will be used to minimize the impact to the wetlands on the south side. There have been three public meetings and several one-on-one meetings with property owners and businesses about the project.
Mr. Staebell said they are moving forward with an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and are working with the watershed districts to improve water quality in the area. There is one site that is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The EAW will be published in late March, with acquisition of right-of-way to start in the middle of 2014. Construction is scheduled to begin in late 2015 after the Hwy 101/CSAH 61 project is completed. He said full closure will be necessary during much of the construction; however, access to all properties will be maintained throughout the project. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 4, 2014 Page 5
Tyra-Lukens said she liked that the roadway will be pedestrian and bike-friendly. She asked if any of the three bridges included in the project are in Eden Prairie and what their height will be. Mr. Staebell said all three are located in Eden Prairie, and they are 6-10 feet at the highest point. Tyra-Lukens asked about the material used for the retaining walls. Mr. Staebell said they will be cast-in-place walls with a chain link fence on top.
Butcher Wickstrom asked about the artifact that was discovered. Mr. Staebell said it was a small stone hand axe. Butcher Wickstrom asked where the artifact will go. Mr. Staebell said it is expected to go to the State Historical Society, but they can relook at that decision. Butcher Wickstrom asked if they have been in conversation with the Lions Tap. Mr. Staebell said Lions Tap has said they are thrilled with the reconstruction project.
Nelson asked if the power lines will be buried in the section along Dell Road and Eden Prairie Road. Mr. Staebell said they have had discussions about burying those lines. Nelson asked how long the road will be closed. Mr. Staebell said it will probably be closed for more than a year, primarily because of the poor soils and the difficulty of building the retaining walls in the narrow corridor available for construction. Nelson asked where the normal traffic will be rerouted. Mr. Staebell said traffic will probably go from Hwy 101 to Pioneer Trail and then over past the Flying Cloud Airport. Nelson asked how much traffic will be added to Pioneer Trail. Mr. Staebell said they are looking into that to see what the traffic impact will be.
Aho asked if they still plan to start construction in the summer of 2015. Mr. Staebell said that would be the earliest date. Aho said Mr. Staebell alluded to changes to the way Spring Road connects to CSAH 61, and asked if those changes would occur at the time of the project. Mr. Staebell said that was correct.
Dean Edstrom, 10133 Eden Prairie Road, thanked the Council for the tribute to Don Brauer earlier this evening. He said he owns property that runs down Eden Prairie Road to Flying Cloud Drive and was concerned about the impact of the construction on the bluffs. After reviewing the plans, he thought the things they have done within the right of way are very good. He supported the design as it exists. He said the issue he has is with the design of Eden Prairie Road reconstruction, but that will be addressed in the future.
MOTION: Nelson moved, seconded by Case, to close the public hearing and to adopt Resolution No. 2014-33 approving Layout No. 4 for the reconstruction of County State Aid Highway No. 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) between Trunk Highway 101 and Charlson Road. Motion carried 5-0.
X. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Case, to approve the payment of claims as submitted. Motion was approved on a roll call vote, with Aho, Butcher Wickstrom, Case, Nelson, and Tyra-Lukens voting “aye.” CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 4, 2014 Page 6
XI. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
A. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 10-2014 AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 5.35 TO REQUIRE A LICENSE FOR THE RETAIL SALE OF E CIGARETTES
Getschow said the Council took action to adopt an ordinance which adds e cigarettes to the definition of “tobacco-related products” in the City’s tobacco licensing ordinance. This will require that those engaged in the retail sale of e cigarettes obtain a City tobacco license and comply with related regulations.
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom, to approve second reading of Ordinance No. 10-2014 amending City Code Section 5.35 to require a license for the retail sale of e cigarettes. Motion carried 5-0.
B. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 11-2014 AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 9.42 ADDING E CIGARETTES TO THE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SMOKING IN LOCATIONS COVERED BY THE EDEN PRAIRIE SMOKE- FREE AIR ORDINANCE OF 2002 AND THE MINNESOTA CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT
Getschow said at the previous meeting the Council voted to give first reading to an ordinance which adds e cigarettes into the Eden Prairie Smokefree Air Act Ordinance of 2002 prohibiting smoking in parks, city facilities, motor vehicles owned by the city when occupied by two or more persons, and motor vehicles at city parks and facilities. In addition, the ordinance adds a prohibition against smoking, both tobacco and e cigarettes, in any location in which the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act prohibits smoking. This will prohibit use of e cigarettes in bars, restaurants, retail stores, offices, public transportation, educational facilities, auditoriums, etc.
Aho said it appears there is going to be some State legislation regarding what is being contemplated here, so we are potentially getting out ahead of the possible State legislation. He also thought we don't know what the effects are or what is in the devices. Some people use these devices to quit smoking. Those were some of the reasons he would not support the ordinance at this time.
Case said, back in 2002 when we had all of our conversations about cigarette smoking, we heard the same argument against the smoke-free air ordinance. If the State is going through the same thought process now, it confirms that we are doing this right. He didn't think we are getting out ahead of others on this, rather we are doing what we believe is needed in order to represent the people. We are not voting to ban a behavior, instead we are voting to keep someone from blowing e cigarette mist in another person's face. As the science gets clearer on this issue, government at all levels will need to look at protecting the rights of all of us.
MOTION: Butcher Wickstrom moved, seconded by Case, to approve second CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 4, 2014 Page 7
reading of Ordinance No. 11-2014 amending City Code Section 9.42 adding e- cigarettes to the prohibitions against smoking in locations covered by the Eden Prairie Smokefree Air Ordinance of 2002 and the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act. Motion carried 4-1, with Aho opposed.
Tyra-Lukens said she had similar comments to those of Council Member Case. She would add that if there are studies that come out to show that e cigarettes are not a danger, we can pull this back and reconsider the ordinance.
Aho said he voted for the licensing of e cigarettes as he did not want them to be targeted to youth. He thought e cigarettes should be considered a controlled substance since we don't yet know what is in them.
XII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
XIII. APPOINTMENTS
A. COMMISSIONS
Tyra-Lukens said the Council interviewed the candidates for the Commissions last week. There were 19 applications, with eight of the 19 being reapplications from those currently serving on commissions.
MOTION: Nelson moved to appoint to the Conservation Commission Margaret Powell and Lori Tritz with terms ending March 31, 2017; Case moved to appoint to the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission Jay Erwin, Caryl Hansen and Keith Tschohl as Community Representatives with terms ending March 31, 2017; Butcher Wickstrom moved to appoint to the Heritage Preservation Commission Cindy Evert and Ed Muehlberg with terms ending March 31, 2017 AND Deb Paulson to a term ending March 31, 2015; Aho moved to appoint to the Human Rights and Diversity Commission Tonja Bivins, Harry Davis and PG Narayanan with terms ending March 31, 2017; Nelson moved to appoint to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Donald Jacobson and Kirk Spresser with terms ending March 31, 2016 and Leonard Pesheck, Tim Rawerts and Deb Tenner with terms ending March 31, 2017; Case moved to appoint to the Planning Commission John Kirk, Andrew Pieper, Jon Stoltz and Charles Weber with terms ending March 31, 2017. Seconded by Tyra-Lukens. Motion carried 5-0.
B. COMMISSION CHAIRS AND VICE CHAIRS
MOTION: Aho moved to appoint Greg Olson - Chair and Laura Jester- Vice Chair of the Conservation Commission; Butcher Wickstrom moved to appoint Jeffrey Larsen - Chair and Keith Tschohl - Vice Chair of the Flying Cloud Airport Advisory Commission; Case moved to appoint Ed Muehlberg - Chair and Cindy Evert - Vice Chair of the Heritage Preservation Commission; Nelson moved to appoint Sandra Filardo - Chair and PG Narayanan - Vice Chair of the Human Rights and Diversity Commission; Aho moved to appoint Hutch Coburn - Chair and Larry Link - Vice Chair of the Parks, Recreation and CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 4, 2014 Page 8
Natural Resources Commission; Butcher Wickstrom moved to appoint Jon Stoltz - Chair and Steven Frank - Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Tyra-Lukens. Motion carried 5-0.
XIV. REPORTS
A. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
1. Riley/Purgatory Creek/Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPCBC) Draft Water Resources Plan -- Council Member Case
Case said several of the Council Members have received emails and phone calls from residents concerned about the draft final document for the RPCNBC Watershed District's water resource plan. The RPCBC Watershed District is an unelected body that could have a large impact on some of our residents. He was concerned that the Council, as an elected body, does not know a lot about the plan and has not been notified about it. He would like to direct staff to come back in two weeks with a report telling the Council what is going on and giving us more information.
Ellis said the RPCBC Watershed District is in the process of reinstating their regulatory program. They are getting back into the permitting business. There is a public hearing scheduled for March 19 here at City Hall at 6:00 PM to take testimony on the proposed rules. The comment period ends April 7, so they have a quick time schedule. While the rules cover a number of different areas, we have received the most feedback on rules regarding buffers for wetlands, lakes, creeks and steep slopes. He noted anyone who lives within the Watershed District's limits can leave comments about the plan on their website. City staff is putting together our list of comments. He noted the City supports managing water resources in a way that protects them. He said he will bring a report to the next Council meeting that will include the staff comments on the plan.
Tyra-Lukens asked that a link to the watershed district's website with information about this draft plan be put in a prominent place on our website. She said people should be aware they can put comments on the watershed district's website even though they may not be able to attend the March 19 public hearing.
Aho asked about details of the meeting. Ellis said it is at 6:00 PM on March 19, and he thought it will be held in the Council Chamber.
Nelson asked that the report be brought back in a manner such that the Council could take an official position if we so choose. Getschow said staff could do that.
Case said he thought the list of things included sounded pretty good, but his concern is really about the process. It feels like we are not being kept CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 4, 2014 Page 9
informed and in the loop. He was not sure he would have a lot of disagreement with the details, but it feels like we need to find out if there will be negative effects for some of our residents.
B. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
C. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
D. REPORT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR
1. Aquatics Design Update
Lotthammer gave a PowerPoint presentation that included design slides of the Aquatics Center and a timeline for the project. He explained the traffic flow, the layout of each of the pools, the Phase 2 construction, and the second floor plan for the new center. He reviewed the plans for parking and noted they plan to put in more directional signs. The area reserved for teachers to park at the High School will be available for parking after the school day. Staff is trying to create more of an inviting entrance at the back of the building to open up more parking opportunities. We are considering having a shuttle operation for parking at Round Lake for special events and also expect to do our best to reeducate people about alternative parking opportunities.
Lotthammer reviewed the timeline for the project. He noted they expect to give a presentation to the Council of bids received with pricing of alternates on May 6. He said construction could then be started by mid-June if the project is approved. Phase 1 construction will be a year long process.
Tyra-Lukens asked if we have given any consideration to any kind of bump out on Valley View Road that could serve as a drop off for the pool. Lotthammer replied they are really tight on space and are looking at the pool entrance as the quick drop off point. Tyra-Lukens said it would be good to have an area where you didn't have to come through the parking lot. Ellis said there is quite a bit of traffic on Valley View Road, but staff could take it back to the drawing boards and review putting something else there.
Nelson asked if the drop off point for kids using the pool would be the main entrance to the Community Center. Lotthammer said they plan to promote either the back entrance or the Aquatics Center entrance. Staff has been sending out maps that show the area at the back as additional parking. If people come into the parking lot for aquatics, they would be funneled to the left. Nelson asked if there will be facilities for kids to wait for their parents to pick them up. Lotthammer said for the most part he would assume they would wait inside the entrance where there is a waiting area; however, there is an overhang on the outside as well.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 4, 2014 Page 10
Nelson asked about a handicapped entrance. Lotthammer pointed out the ramp along the front of the building. He said one of the biggest challenges right now is congestion from people using the round-about traffic circle in front of the Community Center as a waiting area.
Nelson said she has received some emails about bonding and interest rate percentages. She asked if we will get the same interest rate for this as for our other bonds. Getschow said there are a couple of different ways to issue debt: lease revenue bonds or tax abatement bonds. One of those methods could have a lower interest rate than the other, but our plan is to go with the bond issue with the lowest interest rate possible. The confusion might be that neither of those debt issuances are tied to a referendum.
E. REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
F. REPORT OF POLICE CHIEF
G. REPORT OF FIRE CHIEF
H. REPORT OF CITY ATTORNEY
XV. OTHER BUSINESS
XVI. CLOSED SESSION FOR CITY MANAGER’S PERFORMANCE REVIEW
At 8:40 PM Mayor Tyra-Lukens said the Council would move to closed session to discuss the City Manager's performance review.
XVII. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Case moved, seconded by Aho, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Mayor Tyra-Lukens adjourned the meeting at 9:55 PM. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar March 18, 2014
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: VIII.A. Christy Weigel, Clerk’s License Application List Police/ Support Unit
These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity.
Requested Action Motion: Approve the licenses listed below
Gambling (Bingo) Organization: Eden Prairie Lions Club Event: Schooner Days Place: EP Community Center 16700 Valley View Road Date: May 30 - June 1, 2014
Organization: Eden Prairie Lions Club Event: Eden Prairie 4th of July Place: Round Lake Park 16691 Valley View Road Date: July 3-4, 2014
Raffle Organization: Eden Prairie Ducks Unlimited Place: Bearpath Country Club Date: April 11, 2014
2014 Renewal Licenses
Private Kennel Frank & Lyndy Newcomb
- 1 - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar March 18, 2014
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: IEM NO.: VIII.B. Randy L. Slick Final Plat Report of Reeder Ridge Second Addition Public Works / Engineering
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Reeder Ridge Second Addition.
Synopsis
This proposal is for the plat located at south of Beverly Drive and west of Eden Prairie Road and north of Flying Cloud Drive. The plat consists of 24.45 acres to be platted into 49 single family lots and right-of-way dedication for street purposes. This is a replat of Lot 2, Block 2, Cedar Hills West and Outlot E, Reeder Ridge.
Background Information
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on July 16, 2013. Second reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer’s Agreement was completed on August 20, 2013.
Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $5,773.68. • Receipt of street sign fee in the amount of $2,378.00. • The requirements as set forth in the Developer’s Agreement. • Prior to release of the final plat, Developer shall provide to the City a current title insurance policy. • Revision to plat shall include street names changes for Sapphire Cove and Wagon Wheel Circle. • Satisfaction of bonding requirements for the installation of public improvements.
Attachment • Resolution • Drawing of Final Plat CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF REEDER RIDGE SECOND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Reeder Ridge Second Addition been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
A. Plat approval request for Reeder Ridge Second Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the Final Plat Report on this plat dated March 18, 2014.
B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six- month maximum time lapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer’s report.
C. 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.
D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on March 18, 2014.
______Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
______
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar March 18, 2014
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: 11-5800 ITEM NO.: VIII.C. Approve acquisition of Parcel’s 21, 22, Carter Schulze 23, 24 & 29 for the southern segment of Public Works / Engineering the Shady Oak Road Improvements
Requested Action
Move to: Approve acquisition of Parcel’s 21, 22, 23, 24 & 29 for the southern segment of the Shady Oak Road Improvements in the amount of $141,500, $355,000, $128,000, $4,000 and $43,520.
Synopsis
The previously approved appraised values and negotiated values for the parcels are shown below.
Parcel Appraised Value Negotiated Value
21 $111,165 $141,500 22 $279,875 $355,000 23 $118,500 $128,000 24 $2,600 $4,000 29 $34,300 $43,520
Background Information
The City Council previously authorized the City Engineer and City Attorney to pursue the acquisition of easements for the southern segment of the Shady Oak Road Improvements. The City Council then later approved the market value appraisal for all the affected parcels in the amounts shown above. After counter offer negotiations between the City’s appraised value and the property owners appraised value, the property owners agreed to the settlement amounts as shown above.
Attachments • Parcel Exhibit • Memorandums of Agreement
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar March 18, 2014
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: I.C. 14-5854 ITEM NO.: VIII.D. Mary Krause Award Contract for 2014 Street Sweeping to Reliakor Services, Inc. Public Works/Engineering
Requested Action
Move to: Award contract for 2014 Street Sweeping to Reliakor Services, Inc. in the amount of $32,000.
Synopsis
Sealed bids were received Thursday, March 6, 2014 for the 2014 Street Sweeping. Three bids were received as follows:
Reliakor Services, Inc. $ 32,000 Allied Blacktop Company $ 33,000 Pearson Brothers, Inc. $ 41,000
Background Information
The schedule for street sweeping in the project specifications indicates a start date of April 7, 2014. This early cleaning of the streets prevents sand and debris that has accumulated from the winter snow removal operations from entering into the City’s wetlands, creeks and lakes. Spring sweeping of the streets takes approximately 8-10 working days. Street sweeping after the sealcoat project also is part of this project.
Financial Implications
Funding for the spring sweeping is from the Storm Water Utility Fund. Street sweeping also takes place after the sealcoating project and is funded from the Operating and Maintenance budget for sealcoating and the CIP fund for pavement maintenance.
A comparison of the previous 5 years of sweeping bid prices submitted was done indicating a slight increase in bid prices for 2014.
Staff recommends award to Reliakor Services, Inc.
Attachments
Bid Price Comparison 2010-2014 Historical Sweeping Bid Prices
2010 ReliaKor Allied Blacktop Services Spring Sweeping $67/hour $80/hour Sealcoat $75/hour $90/hour Sweeping
2011 ReliaKor Allied Blacktop Services Spring Sweeping $78.50/hour $80/hour Sealcoat $85/hour $100/hour Sweeping
2012 ReliaKor Allied Blacktop Pearson Services Brothers, Inc. Spring Sweeping $78.50/hour $80/hour $77/hour Sealcoat $83.50/hour $95/hour $86.50/hour Sweeping
2013 ReliaKor Allied Blacktop Pearson Services Brothers, Inc. Spring Sweeping $77/hour $79/hour $79/hour Sealcoat $77/hour $94/hour $92/hour Sweeping
2014 ReliaKor Allied Blacktop Pearson Services, Inc. Company Brothers, Inc. Spring Sweeping $77/hour $79/hour $95/hour Sealcoat $89/hour $95/hour $125/hour Sweeping
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Consent Calendar March 18, 2014
DEPARTMENT: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: VIII.E.
Kristi Etter, IT Manager Police Department Mobile Computer Replacements
Requested Action
Move to: Approve the purchase of 30 new ruggedized laptops for the Police Department squad cars through SHI Corp.
Synopsis
The Panasonic Toughbooks (CF-30) in every squad car have reached the end of their useful life and must be replaced. Multiple quotes were requested from vendors with SHI being able to give us the best price on the Getac B300 model as selected by the police department.
Background Information
20 Panasonic CF-30’s were purchased in July of 2007 and another 10 in March of 2008. Typical lifespan for a ruggedized laptop is approximately five years. The current hardware is on its 6th or 7th year of service.
The Police Department tested two models during the demo phase of this project, the Panasonic CF-31 and the Getac B300. The feedback received from the officers included; the Getac had a brighter screen, the red backlit keyboard was less distracting for night driving, and the placement of certain buttons provided better protection to prevent accidental disconnection or power interruptions.
The Getac laptops will require the replacement of the in-vehicle docking station in each squad car, however, the price difference between the models allows for a minimal increase in the overall cost of the project.
Funds for replacing these computers are included in the 2014-2015 CIP budget. Ordering all 30 devices in one order instead over the course of two years ensures device and support consistency, as well as, a better overall price break.
Attachments
SHI Quote TKK Quote
ITsavvy LLC Quotation 313 South Rohlwing Road Date Addison, Illinois 60101 Feb 24, 2014 3:12 PM CST United States http://www.ITsavvy.com Doc # 1003741 - rev 1 of 1 Description None SalesRep Butler, Matt (P) 630.396.6305 (F) 630.396.6322 Customer Contact Etter, Kristie (P) 952-949-8514 [email protected]
Customer Bill To Ship To City of Eden Prairie (575220) City of Eden Prairie City of Eden Prairie 8080 Mitchell Road Accounts, Payable Etter, Kristie Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 8080 Mitchell Road 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Customer PO: Terms: Ship Via: None Undefined FedEx Ground
Special Instructions: Carrier Account #: None None
Unit Item Description Part # Qty Tax Total Price Panasonic Toughbook 31 Core i5 3340M / 2.7 GHz - Windows 7 Pro - 4 GB RAM - 500 GB HDD - 13.1" 1 CF-31WBLGH1M 30 No $3,695.00 $110,850.00 touchscreen Touch 1024 x 768 - Intel HD Graphics 4000 - Bluetooth - 3G - with Toughbook Preferred 2 Panasonic - 4GB MEMORY FOR CF-31 MK4 CF-19 MK7 CF-C2 MK2 C2-H2 MK3 CF-WMBA1304G 30 No $90.00 $2,700.00 Panasonic 3 CF-WSD311231 30 No $360.00 $10,800.00 Solid state drive - 128 GB - internal - for Toughbook 31
Subtotal: $124,350.00 Tax (0.000%): $0.00 Shipping: $0.00 Total: $124,350.00
Lease Options
FAIR MARKET VALUE (If above total includes tax, lease payments are including estimated taxes.) $5,319.32 / mo. for 24 mos. $3,726.52 / mo. for 36 mos. $2,934.91 / mo. for 48 mos. $2,463.87 / mo. for 60 mos.
$1 BUYOUT (If above total includes tax, lease payments are including estimated taxes.) $5,867.70 / mo. for 24 mos. $4,027.70 / mo. for 36 mos. $3,109.25 / mo. for 48 mos. $2,559.50 / mo. for 60 mos.
ITsavvy is always looking to deliver the lowest cost possible to our clients. This results in fluctuating prices that you will find are lower more often than not. However, prices are subject to increases without notice in the event of a manufacturer or distributor price increase. Available inventory is subject to change without notice. This document is a quotation only and is not an order or offer to sell.
We do accept credit cards for payment. However, if the credit card is provided after the order has been invoiced there will be a charge of 3% of the total purchase. Unless specifically listed above, these prices do NOT include applicable taxes, insurance, shipping, delivery, setup fees, or any cables or cabling services or material.
All non-reoccurring services are 50% due upon signing of contract.
ITsavvy's General Terms and Conditions of Sale, which can be found at www.ITsavvy.com/termsandconditions, shall apply to and are incorporated into all agreements with Client, including all Orders. Quote 117-B W. Walker Street, #24 - Milwaukee, WI 53204 Phone: 414-290-0585 / Fax: 414-672-2815 Date Quote # Email: [email protected] 2/26/2014 4627
WI DOA Contract Holder - Panasonic Toughbooks EBE Certified - City of Milwaukee Name / Address Minority Business Certification No: WI-3363-MBE GSA Schedule 70 GS-35F-0143R City of Eden Prairie D-U-N-S Number - 800024049 8080 Mitchell Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344-4485 Kristi Etter 952-949-8514 Rep Industry Shipping Via [email protected] SN Public Safety Bestway
Item Description Qty Cost Total
B300 Getac B300 Rugged Computer 30 2,988.00 89,640.00 Intel i5-4300M 2.6GHz Processor, 3MB Cache 13.3” 1400 NITs QuadraClear Touchscreen Display 4GB DDR3 RAM 500GB Hard Drive Mechanical Backlight Keyboard SuperMulti DVD 802.11ac WiFi Bluetooth PCMCIA Type II+Express Card 54/34, Smart Card eSATA/USB 3.0 (1x USB + 2x eSATA/USB) Low Temp -29C Fingerprint TPM 1.2 IP65 WIN7 Pro 64-bit OS (NO RF Pass-Thru) 5 Year bumper-to-bumper warranty standard
B-8GBRAM2 Getac - Upgrade RAM to 8GB 30 180.00 5,400.00
B-128SSD Getac - Upgrade HDD to 128GB SSD 30 288.00 8,640.00
B-DUALRF Getac - Dual RF pass through (WWAN, GPS) 30 93.00 2,790.00
B-GPS Getac - Integrated GPS module 30 252.00 7,560.00
B-LTE5 Getac - LTE mobile broadband wireless card (Verizon/AT&T) 30 273.00 8,190.00
B-RFVDCKGJR Gamber Johnson 2nd Gen RF dual-pass thru (WLAN/WWAN) Vehicle Dock 30 680.00 20,400.00 with port replication. Includes 12-32VDC veh adapter
This Quote is valid for 30 days from the issue date and is subject to availability, unless otherwise noted above. Total $142,620.00
By agreeing to purchase items from TKK Electronics you are agreeing to all of our standard terms and conditions. You can request a copy of these terms and conditions via US Mail or email. The terms can also be viewed on our website at: http://www.tkkelectronics.com/id25.html
Due to the restrictions set by the USA distributors & MFG, Panasonic Toughbooks Computers, GETAC Computers & Accessories may NOT be returned under any circumstances. Warranties for all non-Panasonic products must be handled through the mfg of the item. Returns will not be accepted. Statements or description of products, if any, by TKK ELECTRONICS or agents of TKK ELECTRONICS are informational only, and not made or given as a warranty of any kind. TKK ELECTRONICS SELLS THE PRODUCTS WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY TYPE AND PARTICULARLY WITHOUT ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Consent Calendar March 18, 2014
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: VIII.F.
Jay Lotthammer, Director, Purchase Life Fitness Treadmills – Parks and Recreation Community Center
Requested Action
Move to: Authorize the purchase of four Life Fitness treadmills and two upright bikes at the Eden Prairie Community Center at a cost of $37,931.93.
Synopsis
The Community Center has a comprehensive equipment replacement plan to ensure equipment remains current and operational within industry standards. Funds have been set aside for the replacement of fitness equipment on an annual basis as the equipment becomes aged and obsolete.
The new equipment acquisition will replace four treadmills which were purchased in 2008. In addition, there is greater demand for upright cycles due to the increase in usage from senior clientele. To accommodate this demand, two steppers will be replaced with two upright bikes.
Life Fitness equipment provides state of the art fitness equipment for both commercial and residential use.
Attachments
Price Quote
Quote# 1318540 - 2R
Date 07-MAR-2014 Expires 01-JUN-2014 Ship To CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER 16700 VALLEY VIEW RD EDEN PRAIRIE, HENNEPIN MN 55346 United States
Contact : BETH DEGREE O: 1-952-949-8447 Page 1/2 M: F: Email: [email protected] Sales Representative CAROL GRAHL Bill To O: 952-687-7627 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER M: 952-687-7627 16700 VALLEY VIEW RD F: 952-516-5763 EDEN PRAIRIE,HENNEPIN Email: [email protected] MN 55346 US Life Fitness Contact : Phone: Main (847) 288-3300 O: Toll Free (800) 735-3867 M: Life Fitness F: 9525 Bryn Mawr Avenue Email: Rosemont, IL 60018 USA
Line Item Qty Unit Price Unit Unit Selling Total Discount Price Selling Price
1 95TE 4 10,709.00 -3,210.00 7,499.00 29,996.00 TREADMILL DISCOVER SE DOMESTIC - Silver Tread Base/19-INCH DISCOVER SE TREAD CONSOLE ATSC/
2 95CE 2 6,619.00 -2,220.00 4,399.00 8,798.00 UPRIGHT BIKE DISCOVER SE DOMESTIC - Silver Bike Base/16 in LCD Console ATSC/
3 TRADE ITEM 1 -100.00 -900.00 -1,000.00 -1,000.00 ADD'L ALLOW FOR LF TRADE IN PRODUCT
4 TRADE ITEM 1 -100.00 -1,900.00 -2,000.00 -2,000.00 ALLOWANCE FOR NON LIFE FITNESS TRADE IN PRODUCT
5 EXTONLY-LC/SC 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EXTRACTION ONLY BIKES OR STEP
6 EXTONLY-TR/CT 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EXTRACTION ONLY TREADMILL OR CROSSTRAINER
Quote# 1318540 - 2R
Date 07-MAR-2014 Expires 01-JUN-2014 Page 2/2
PO Number Subtotal Payment Type List Price 55,874.00 Payment Terms NET 30 Total Adjustment -20,080.00 Freight Terms Selling Price 35,794.00 FOB Freight/Fuel/Installation 2,137.93 Tax TAXES AS APPLICABLE Total with Options(USD) 37,931.93
Notes:
ADDITIONAL TERMS OF SALE:
Manufacturer REQUIRES that the following products be secured to the floor to stabilize and eliminate rocking or tipping over: Any HD Elite Half Rack Short Base; any Synrgy unit (except the 360X) and any of the following units if they will be used with any Cable Motion unit (CMDAP, OSDAP, CMACO, CMFCO), any Jungle (MJ), any Smith machine (SSM, HSSM, OSSM), any HD Elite Rack (HDE) and Athletic Series Racks (ASPR, HDHR). Some units will require a dynamic bolt to properly secure the unit to the floor, and the dynamic bolt requires a minimum of 2.5 inches of a concrete subfloor. FOB Life Fitness' dock. Invoice will issue on shipment. Life Fitness may ship partial orders. Terms and Conditions of Sale which appear on purchaser's document (including Purchase orders) and which are inconsistent with these terms shall be voided. Orders canceled after shipment (or after product starts for Built-To-Order products) are subject to a 20% restocking fee. Delays in delivery at customer request may result in storage fees. Prices are good for 30 days. All invoices will be in U.S. dollars and will reflect Exchange Rate at time of shipment. Payment terms and credit lines are subject to Life Fitness credit approval.
Further, until any Products are paid for in full, Customer hereby grants to, and Life Fitness shall retain, a security interest in and lien on all Products sold to Customer and all proceeds arising out of the sale of the Products by Customer and all discounts, rebates and other funds on Customer's account payable by Life Fitness. Upon Life Fitness' request, a Customer shall execute such documents that may be necessary or reasonable to perfect Life Fitness' security interest.
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTER USD OPERATING UNIT
Signature ______Signature ______
Name ______Name ______
Title ______Title ______
Effective Date ______
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: March 18, 2014 SECTION: Public Hearings
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: XI.A. City Council Rezoning of MAC Parcels 2 and 6
Requested Action
Move to: • Continue the discussion of Parcels 2 and 6 to the April 22, 2014, Council meeting; and • Direct staff to notice a public hearing on MAC Parcels 2 and 6 for April 22.
Synopsis
MAC has granted an extension for the rezoning of Parcels 2 and 6. A meeting between City staff and MAC staff is set for March 25. Staff recommends that the discussion of Parcels 2 and 6 be continued to the April 22 Council meeting and that notice of a public hearing on MAC Parcels 2 and 6 be published for that date. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Public Hearing March 18, 2014
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: Vacation 14-01 ITEM NO.: IX.B. Vacation of public Drainage and Utility Denise Christensen Easements over Lot 1, 2 & 3, Block 1, Public Works / Engineering TOPVIEW ACRES 3RD ADDITION
Requested Action
Move to: • Close the public hearing; and • Adopt the resolution vacating the public Drainage and Utility Easements over Lot 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Topview Acres 3rd Addition
Synopsis
The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District has requested the vacation of the drainage and utility easements to facilitate the plat of Kaerwer Addition.
Background Information
The drainage and utility easements to be vacated were originally dedicated with the plat of Topview Acres 3rd Addition. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District would like these underlying easements vacated and will dedicate all new drainage and utility easements with the plat of Kaerwer Addition. Staff received an objection from Xcel Energy. The vacation is subject to resolution of this objection. The release of the resolution vacating the drainage and utility easements shall be conditioned on the recording of new dedicated drainage and utility easements on the plat of Kaerwer Addition and the possible addition of an easement for Xcel Energy.
Attachments • Resolution • Location Map • Site Plan • Published Notice • Notification List
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
VACATION OF PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AS DEDICATED IN THE PLAT OF TOPVIEW ACRES 3RD ADDITION EMBRACED WITHIN LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 1, TOPVIEW ACRES 3RD ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA VACATION 14-01
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain Drainage and Utility Easements described as follows: Public drainage and utility easements as dedicated in the plat of TOPVIEW ACRES 3RD ADDITION embraced within Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, TOPVIEW ACRES 3RD ADDITION, except that part of said Lot 3, lying Northerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 3, distant 228.39 feet Southeasterly of the most Northerly corner of said Lot 3, as measured along said Northeasterly line; thence Northwesterly to a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 3, distant 148.15 feet Southerly of said most Northerly corner, as measured along said Westerly line and there terminating, all in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on March 18, 2014, after due notice was given to affected property owners and published in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851; and
WHEREAS, the Council has been advised by City Staff that the proposed vacation of the above described Drainage and Utility Easements has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said Drainage and Utility Easements are not necessary and have no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows:
1. Said Drainage and Utility Easements described above are hereby vacated.
2. The City Clerk shall prepare a Notice of Completion of Proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851.
3. This Resolution is contingent upon the resolution of the Xcel Energy objection to the vacation.
4. This Resolution is contingent upon and shall not be effective until the subdivision Kaerwer Addition has been recorded with the County Recorder/Registrar of Titles as applicable. The City Clerk shall not present the Notice of Completion of Proceedings to the County Auditor or file it with the County Recorder/Registrar of Titles until the subdivision Kaerwer Addition is recorded.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on March 18, 2014.
______Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor ATTEST: SITE
M VAC 14-01 LOCATION MAP &"4&.&/57"$"5*0/&9)*#*5 VACATION 14-01 NOTICE OF VACATION OF PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AS DEDICATED IN THE PLAT OF TOPVIEW ACRES 3RD ADDITION EMBRACED WITHIN LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 1, TOPVIEW ACRES 3RD ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the Eden Prairie City Council at the Eden Prairie City Hall, 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, on March 18, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. to hear all persons present upon the proposed vacation of public drainage and utility easements described as follows: Public drainage and utility easements as dedicated in the plat of TOPVIEW ACRES 3RD ADDITION embraced within Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, TOPVIEW ACRES 3RD ADDITION, except that part of said Lot 3, lying Northerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 3, distant 228.39 feet Southeasterly of the most Northerly corner of said Lot 3, as measured along said Northeasterly line; thence Northwesterly to a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 3, distant 148.15 feet Southerly of said most Northerly corner, as measured along said Westerly line and there terminating, all in Hennepin County, Minnesota. By Order of the City Council
Published in the Eden Prairie News on February 27, 2014
NOTIFICATION LIST
VACATION REQUEST 14-01
A copy of the Public Hearing Notice has been sent to owner of the following parcels:
10-116-22-11-0050 10-116-22-11-0051 11-116-22-22-0001 11-116-22-22-0002 11-116-22-22-0004 11-116-22-22-0037
A copy of the Public Hearing Notice has been sent to the following Utilities:
CenterPoint Energy Century Link Communications Comcast Cable Xcel Energy
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: March 18, 2014 SECTION: Public Hearings
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: IX.C. Community
Development/Planning Eden Prairie Community Center Janet Jeremiah/Michael Franzen Aquatics Addition
Requested Action Move to: • Close the Public Hearing; and • Adopt the Resolution for Site Plan Review on 103 acres.
Synopsis This is a 49,885 square foot project (15,350 is a remodel) that includes the following activities. • A 25 yard eight lane pool with spectator bleachers primarily used for swim practices, competitions, diving, and swim lessons. • A second 25 yard eight lane pool primarily used for swim lessons, lap swimming, swim practices, diving, deep water aerobics, climbing and water polo. • A zero-depth warm water pool primarily used for recreational swimming, swim lessons and water aerobics. • A small hot tub. • Wet locker rooms. • Two community meeting rooms. • A dry-land training fitness room. • An expanded group fitness area. • An expanded cardio workout area.
Background There are 378 parking spaces on site meeting city code requirement for a community center with fitness, hockey rinks, pools, office and meeting space.
The 120-Day Review Period Expires on June 1, 2014.
Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review and Final Order 2014-02 which granted a side yard setback variance from 50-30 feet and a height variance from 30 -35 feet at the February 24, 2014 meeting.
Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Staff Report 3. Final Order 2014-02 4. Location Map 5. Land Use Map 6. Zoning Map 7. Aerial photo 8. Planning Commission Minutes COMMUNITY CENTER AQUATICS ADDITION
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR COMMUNITY CENTER AQUATICS ADDITION BY CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
WHEREAS, The City of Eden Prairie, has applied for Site Plan approval of Community Center Aquatics Addition to construct a building addition;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed said application at a public hearing at its February 24, 2014 meeting and recommended approval of said site plans; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said application at a public hearing at its March 18, 2014 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, that site plan approval be granted to the Community Center Aquatics Addition.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie this 18th day of March, 2014.
______Nancy Tyra Lukens, Mayor
ATTEST:
______Kathleen A. Porta, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael Franzen City Planner
DATE: February 21, 2014
PROJECT: Aquatics Addition to Community Center
LOCATION: Round Lake Park
APPLICANT: City of Eden Prairie, Jay Lotthammer Director of Parks and Recreation
OWNERS: City of Eden Prairie
120 DAY REVIEW: Expires June 21, 2014
REQUEST: 1. Site Plan Review on 103 acres 2. Side yard setback variance from 50 feet to 30 feet. 3. Building height variance from 30 feet to 35 feet.
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Guide Plan shows the 103 acre property as Parks Open Space use. Surrounding land uses consist of Parks and Open Space, Public, and Low Density Residential. The property is zoned Public.
SITE PLAN
This is a 49,885 square foot project (15,350 is a remodel) that includes the following activities.
• A 25 yard eight lane pool with spectator bleachers primarily used for swim practices, competitions, diving, and swim lessons. • A second 25 yard eight lane pool primarily used for swim lessons, lap swimming, swim practices, diving, deep water aerobics, climbing and water polo. • A zero-depth warm water pool primarily used for recreational swimming, swim lessons and water aerobics. • A small hot tub. • Wet locker rooms. • Two community meeting rooms. • A dry-land training fitness room. • An expanded group fitness area. • An expanded cardio workout area.
Staff Report – Aquatics Addition to the Community Center February 21, 2014 Page 2
ARCHITECTURE
The building meets the exterior building material standards of at least 75% face brick, natural stone, and glass.
LANDSCAPING
The landscaping requirement is 130 caliper inches based on the building size. The plan shows 80 inches. The plan should be revised to include 50 more inches of trees.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Ponding and infiltration are shown on the plans.
VARIANCE
Two variances are required:
• Side yard setback from 50 to 30 feet along the west property line. • Building height from 30 – 35 feet.
VARIANCE STANDARD
Variances may be granted when they are “in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” Furthermore variances may “be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
Harmony with Purpose and Intent of Ordinance The requested variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
An aquatics center is a permitted use in the Public Zoning District. The requested variance will not alter the intended use of the property as a city park.
Consistent with Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as Parks Open Space. The variance does not change the use of the property and therefore the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Reasonable Use of the Property Staff Report – Aquatics Addition to the Community Center February 21, 2014 Page 3
The requested variance is a reasonable use of the property.
• An aquatics center is permitted use in the Public Zoning District. • The requested variance will not alter the existing use of the property as a city park.
Circumstances Unique to the Property and not Created by Landowner The property is unique for the following reasons:
• The closest building setback is 30 feet. The average building setback is 85 feet. • Approximately 525 square feet (1.1%) of the 49,885 square foot building addition is within the setback. • The portion of the building that exceeds 30 feet in height is (10.6%) of the exterior wall (350 ft.) facing Valley View Road. • The portion of the building that exceeds 30 feet in height is 250 feet from Valley View Road.
Will not alter Character of Locality The requested variance will not change the character of the locality for the following reasons:
• The addition to the building is comparable in scale and height with existing community center. • The addition is architecturally compatible with the existing community center.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommend approval of the following request:
1. Site Plan Review on 103 acres 2. Final Order 2014-02
VARIANCE # 2014-02 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER 2014
Applicant: City of Eden Prairie
ADDRESS: 16700 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, Hennepin County
OTHER DESCRIPTION:
VARIANCE REQUEST: Side yard setback from 50 feet to 30 feet. Building height from 30 feet to 35 feet.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file therein does hereby find and order as follows:
1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (Yes X No N/A).
2. Variance 2014-02 is: _____ granted _____ modified _____ denied
3. Findings and conditions are attached as Exhibit A.
4. This order shall be effective fifteen days after the decision of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals or on February 25, 2014; however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alternatives permitted shall occur within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof.
5. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council Review.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
N/A = Not Applicable BY:______Jon Stoltz –Chair Date: 02-24-14
EXHIBIT A – FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
FINDINGS
Harmony with Purpose and Intent of Ordinance The requested variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
An aquatics center is a permitted use in the Public Zoning District.. The requested variance will not alter the intended use of the property as a city park.
Consistent with Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as Parks Open Space. The variance does not change the use of the property and therefore the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Reasonable Use of the Property The requested variance is a reasonable use of the property.
An aquatics center is permitted use in the Public Zoning District. The requested variance will not alter the existing use of the property as a city park.
Circumstances Unique to the Property and not Created by Landowner The property is unique for the following reasons:
• The closest building setback is 30 feet. The average building setback is 85 feet. • Approximately 525 square feet (1.1%) of the 49,885 square foot building addition is within the setback. • The portion of the building that exceeds 30 feet in height is (10.6%) of the exterior wall (350 ft.) facing Valley View Road. • The portion of the building that exceeds 30 feet in height is 250 feet from Valley View Road.
Will not alter Character of Locality The requested variance will not change the character of the locality for the following reasons:
• The addition to the building is comparable in scale and height with existing community center. • The addition is architecturally compatible with the existing community center
Area Location Map - Eden Prairie Community Center
Aquatics AdditionBAYWOOD TER
Address: 16700 Valley View Road R D Y Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346 BA RL ET EVENSTON RD PIN AL W 175TH AVE 175TH W A N LP STERLING TER PETERBORG RD E L IN OR E SH UTH W BOYD AVE SO A HILLCREST LN Y PRAIRIE LN
MALLARD CT N HILLCREST CT PAVELKA DR
R R OSALLAD T C P S HILLCRE ST O N D N C HUNTERS RUN L I ED R EN B N R E W OO DDR BR ID AUGUSTA LN W L SITE O E VA W RD Valley ViewO Road- LL VIE WAL EY N FRANK D L Y I U WILLIAMS A N
C
T
W C U
C
I
R
S LORENCE WAY R T
E V E
M
A
H
R
Y
E A Round Lake Eden Prairie Road
N A
E W E I T WESTGA V TE L L H
E E E N N E S R
T COLBY T WESTGATE DR O
D
R CT N R E OU
W N G D
A AY L A WESTGATE TRL T
I K CARNELIAN RD PRAIRIE EDEN R E L LUTHER WAY
E R N D KILMER AVE H N SHELDON AVE
L PARK CIR Y
W SUPERIOR TER SUPERIOR O A MEAD W ER WAGN MAIN ST
BAILEY DR HWY 5 TERREY TERREY PINE DR PINE CT HWY 5 K C 0 470 940 1,880 Feet O ¯ R M W A 79TH ST H L S R T ISLA ASCOT CT ND FULLER RD RD Guide Plan Map - Eden Prairie Community Center Aquatics Addition 16700 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN PAVELKA DR
R R OSALLAD T C P S HILLCRE ST O N D Valley View Road C HUNTERS RUN I ED R EN W OO D DR BRID AUGUSTA LN W L O E VA WRD SITE O - LL VIE WAL EY N D Y A U
C T
W U
C
S R T
E V
M
A H Round R Round
Y
E
A
N A
W
E T
V Lake H E Lake E
R T WESTGATE DR O
D
R N R E OU
W N G D
A
A LA WESTGATE TRL T Y I K CARNELIAN PRAIRIE EDEN RD R E R L LUTHER WAY E Creekwood ParkN D KILMER AVE H N SHELDON AVE Eden Prairie Road L PARK CIR Y W City of Eden Prairie Land Use Guide A MEADO Plan Map 2000-2020 W ER WAGN
Rural Residential 0.10 Units/Acre Neighborhood Commercial Low Density Residential 0-2.5 Units/Acre Community Commercial Streams Principal Arterial Low Density/Public/Open Space Regional Commercial A Minor Arterial ¯ Medium Density residential 2.5-10 Units/Acre Town Center B Minor Arterial DATE Approved 03-19-03 DATE Revised 12-06-06 Medium Density Residential/Office Park/Open Space DATE Revised 01-07-05 DATE Revised 03-01-07 Major Collector DATE Revised 11-07-05 DATE Revised 06-01-07 High Density Residential 10-40 Units/Acre Public/Quasi-Public Minor Collector DATE Revised 02-23-06 DATE Revised 10-01-07 DATE Revised 03-23-06 DATE Revised 03-01-08 DATE Revised 06-23-06 Airport Golf Course DATE Revised 03-01-09 Office Church/ Cemetary DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctness of the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracy of this information. In no event will The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages, including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business information or other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information it Office/Industrial Open Water contains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed. Any errors or omissions should be reported to The City of Eden Prairie. M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialGuidePlan.mxd Map was Updated/Created: April 18, 2008 Office/Public/Open Space Right-Of-Way 600 300 0 600 Feet Industrial Zoning Map - Eden Prairie Community Center Aquatics Addition 16700 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN
MALLARD CT N HILLCREST CT PAVELKA DR
R R OSALLAD T C P S HILLCRE S T O N D C HUNTERS RUN I ED R Valley View Road EN W OO D DR BR ID AUGUSTA LN W L O E V AL EW RD SITE WAL O - L VI EY N FRANK D L Y I U A N
C T
W C U
C
I
R
S R T
E
E V
M
A
H
R
Y
E
N A
WA
E T WESTG V ATE L H
E NE N E
R T WESTGATE DR O
D
R N R E OU
W N G D
A A L
A WESTGATE TRL T Y I
K ARNELIA EDEN PRAIRIERD E C N R L LUTHER WAY
E R N D KILMER AVE H N SHELDON AVE
L PARK CIR Eden Prairie Road Y W O A MEAD W ER WAGN City of Eden Prairie Zoning MapMAIN ST BAILEY DR
Rural Regional Commercial Shoreland Management Classifications R1-44 One Family- 44,000 sf. min. TC-C NE Natural Environment Waters R1-22 One Family-22,000 sf min. TC-R RD Recreational Development Waters R1-13.5 One Family-13,500 sf min. TC-MU GD General Development Waters (Creeks Only) ¯ R1-9.5 One Family-9,500 sf min. Industrial Park - 2 Acre Min, 100 - Year Floodplain RM-6.5 Multi-Family-6.7 U.P.A. max. Industrial Park - 5 Acre Min. RM-2.5 Multi-Family-17.4 U.P.A. max. General Industrial - 5 Acre Min. Up dated through approved Ordinances #26-2008 Office Public Ordinance #33-2001 (BFI Addition) approved, but not shown on this map edition Neighborhood Commercial Golf Course Date: March 1, 2009 In case of discrepency related to a zoning classification on this zoning map, the Ordinance Community Commercial Water and attached legal description on file at Eden Prairie City Center will prevail. Highway Commercial Right of Way Regional Service Commercial 0 0.15 0.3 DISCLAIMER: The City of Eden Prairie does not warrant the accuracy nor the correctness of the information contained in this map. It is your responsibility to verify the accuracy of this information. In no event will The City of Eden Prairie be liable for any damages, including loss of business, lost profits, business interruption, loss of business information or other pecuniary loss that might arise from the use of this map or the information it contains. Map information is believed to be accurate but accuracy is not guaranteed. Any errors or omissions should be reported to T he City of Eden Prairie. M:\GIS\Users\Departments\CommDev\Themes\Shapes\Zoning and all other land use information\OfficialMaps\OfficialZoning.mxd Miles Map was Updated/Created: June 11, 2008
Aerial Map Eden Prairie Community Center Aquatics Addition 16700 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN Eden Prairie, MN 55346
MALLARD CT N HILLCREST CT PAVELKA DR
R R OSALLAD T S HILLCRE S T C Valley View Road
HUNTERS RUN ED EN W OO DDR BR ID AUGUSTA LN W L O E VA WRD O - LL VIE WAL F EY N RANK D L Y I U A N
C T
W C U
C
I
R
S R T
E V E
M
A
H
R
Y
E
A
N A SITE
W
E T WESTG V ATE L H
E
N E
R Eden Prairie Road T WESTGATE DR O
D
R N R E OU
W N
G D A L
A WESTGATE TRL TA Y I
K ARNELIA RD PRAIRIE EDEN E C N R L LUTHER WAY
E R N D KILMER AVE H N SHELDON AVE
L PARK CIR ¯ Y W O A MEAD W ER 0 355 710 1,420 Feet WAGN MAIN ST UNAPPROVED MINUTES
EDEN PRAIRIE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRURAY 24, 2014 7:00 P.M., CITY CENTER Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road
COMMISSION MEMBERS: John Kirk, Jon Stoltz, Katie Lechelt, Travis Wuttke, Steven Frank, Ann Higgins, Mary Egan
STAFF MEMBERS: Mike Franzen, City Planner Stu Fox, Manager of Parks and Natural Resources Rod Rue, City Engineer Julie Krull, Recording Secretary
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – ROLL CALL
Chair Stoltz called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION by Lechelt, seconded by Wuttke, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0.
III. MINUTES
A. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 10, 2014
MOTION by Frank, seconded by Kirk, to approve the minutes. Motion carried 5-0. Egan and Higgins abstained.
IV. INFORMATIONAL MEETINGS
V. PUBLIC MEETINGS
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. COMMUNITY CENTER AQUATICS ADDITION By: City of Eden Prairie Location: 16700 Valley View Road
• Site Plan Review on 103 acres. • Height variance from 30 ft. to 35 ft. February 24, 2014 Page 2
• Side yard setback variance from 50 ft. to 30 ft.
Jay Lotthammer, Director of Parks and Recreation, presented the proposal. He utilized the overhead to show the proposed aquatic center. He stated the expansion would consist of the following: • A 25 yard eight lane pool with spectator bleachers primarily used for swim practices, competitions, diving, and swim lessons. • A second 25 yard eight lane pool primarily used for swim lessons, lap swimming, swim practices, diving, deep water aerobics, climbing and water polo. • A zero-depth warm water pool primarily used for recreational swimming, swim lessons and water aerobics. • A small hot tub. • Wet locker rooms. • Two community meeting rooms. • A dry-land training fitness room. • An expanded group fitness area. • An expanded cardio workout area. Mr. Lotthammer stated there will be two phases to this project. Phase one would be construction of the lower level and phase two would be the area with the warm water pool with the water slides and hot tub. He stated building over the entry way would allow expansion of the fitness center. Mr. Lotthammer said there will be a zero depth pool; which would be very warm. He also showed the exterior elevation of the building. He stated tonight we would be looking at the setback variance and the height variance. The waterslide structure would be the highest elevation and could also end up being an alternative plan if the cost of the project gets to be too high.
Chair Stoltz asked Franzen to review the staff report. Franzen said staff recommendation is for approval.
Chair Stoltz opened the meeting up for public input. There was no input.
Kirk asked if the existing parking lot was adequate based upon the use of the building. Mr. Lotthammer said behind the Community Center there is a lot with approximately 70 spots that is used by the high school during school hours. At night and on weekends the Community Center can utilize the lot. Currently the employees are parking there. There is also a hard surface area where the Lions tent is located for Schooner Days that can be utilized for parking. There is also parking by the football field and also parking by Round Lake.
Frank asked, regarding the background, is it expanding because of more use to the aquatic center. Mr. Lotthammer said this is a 30 year old building and the aquatic center is the only part of the Community Center that has not been February 24, 2014 Page 3
renovated. He pointed out they have had a lot of demand for general time in the pool and also lap swimming. This will be a better swimming situation for competitive swimming. He said there are over 7000 members, 1200 being Silver Sneakers. So there is a wide range of membership which will get spread out during the day.
Margaret Gamble, a member from the audience, asked about parking and said that most of the parking at Round Lake is high school students. Mr. Lotthammer said that is correct; during the day they utilize the area closest to the school. This would just be during the day, and the Community Center could use it at night and on the weekends. Ms. Gamble said she is concerned about the safety factor about kids crossing the street. Chair Stoltz said there is a bridge they can walkover. Mr. Lotthammer said he would like to see the back lot utilized a little more.
Wuttke said typically the Commission has been given very detailed information on parking and said they did not get that tonight.
Franzen said with the last expansion there was a parking analysis and parking was provided meeting code based on building use. Expanding the swimming area did not trigger a need for more parking. Chair Stoltz asked if City Staff had any concerns with parking. Franzen said they did not.
Wuttke said he feels the expansion could create some parking issues. Mr. Lotthammer said tonight there are two things brought before the Commission and parking is not one of them because it meets the City Code. That is the reason parking maps or studies were not brought before the Commission. There are 100’s of spots currently that are not being used. By expanding the pool it would give more room for competitive swimmers.
Kirk commented he felt they received a good explanation of parking and is comfortable with it.
Higgins said with the variety of new activity, sometimes there are a number or cars coming and going at certain times, and that is something that may need to be looked at.
Mr. Lotthammer said when they have big games; there have been traffic control to assist.
Wuttke said he had a pool at college that had an adjustable wall and asked if that is something the City is overlooking. Mr. Lotthammer said it would only be used a small amount of time at the Community Center and can be very expensive. It would not be the best use of the facility to have it as one large body of water. February 24, 2014 Page 4
Frank asked Franzen what it means that we are approving the site plan review. Franzen said it site plan review is a qualitative look at the building architecture, site plan, and landscaping. Frank said we have a wonderful looking project but we have not been informed of some of the details as the Parks Commission has already done so, so this Commission is missing some background and better understanding in the future could facilitate better discussion.
Chair Stoltz said in the future when other Commissions are meeting, could they be notified when the meeting is taking place. Franzen said he would notify them. Wuttke suggested a joint meeting like the ones they have done in the past. He said he felt the site plan review was very broad. Mr. Lotthammer said they have had a history of joint meetings and they are very broad with many projects discussed. In the case of this project, this project has been discussed thoroughly with the Parks Commission. He also pointed out this has been well over a year that this project has been discussed to get to this point and we are 95 percent there.
Chair Stoltz said he does not want to move this project backward.
MOTION by Wuttke, seconded by Lechelt, to close the public hearing. Motion carried 7-0.
MOTION by Wuttke, seconded by Kirk, to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review on 103 acres and Final Order #2014-02. Motion carried 7-0.
VII. PLANNERS’ REPORT
A. TSAAP Presentation by HKGI
Jeff McMinimum, consultant from HKGI, facilitated the presentation. He stated the TSAAP intends to promote opening day readiness for the LRT by bridging the gap between existing conditions and future needs by identifying and prioritizing infrastructure improvements such as sewer, water, sidewalks, roads, trails and parking that enhance the existing businesses, support mixed-income housing opportunities and encourage new development. Over the long term, the goal is to help create unique, transit oriented stations along the SW corridor. This has been a 14 month planning process, city by city, with numerous meetings between TSAAP, engineering designers and the public. The outcome was the manual, Southwest Corridor Investment Framework, which looked at planning17 stations.
February 24, 2014 Page 5
In looking at Eden Prairie, the first station Mr. McMinimum addressed was the City West Station. This station is the most northerly station. It is located by the new United Health facility by Hwy 62 and 212. They would like to develop pedestrian and bike connections, Kiss and Ride, Park & Ride, station amenities, and possibly a plaza area with public art, bike facility and seating.
The next station would be the Golden Triangle Station. The land use for this area is industrial and the recommendation is to put in better roadways; extending W. 70th Street to west of Flying Cloud Drive. They would also like to provide more walkable blocks, pedestrian and bike connections, bike parking at the station, Park & Ride at the station and a Kiss & Ride.
The third station is the Eden Prairie Town Center Station. This area includes retail and housing. Recommendation is for new roads around the area. Eden Road would need to be extended west and Singletree Lane would need to be built up from Main Street to Technology Drive. They would also like to build new bike amenities. The Park & Ride would be necessary to reduce the hide and ride. The Kiss & Ride would be by the station. Key considerations would be a plaza near the station and making a sidewalk from the station to Singletree Lane.
Southwest Station would be the fourth station and this is located by the current Southwest Station. They would like to build more multi-use trails, sidewalk enhancement, and bike facilities at the station. The Park & Ride may need a new ramp. The key consideration would be to orientate the buildings towards the street.
The next station would be the Mitchell Station which would be located by the City Center. The Park & Ride would be northwest of the City Center and more bike facilities would be constructed. Key considerations would be to increase light office and industrial, more food places by the station, and enhanced mobility.
Chair Stoltz asked Franzen to address this presentation. Franzen said this analysis is a good idea because it helps us and the private sector to be aware of infrastructure needs and to incorporate them into future city and private sector development, and helps the city with the preparation of station plans as part of the next guide plan update..
Chair Stoltz asked if the Mitchell Station made the cut. The project proponent said it was still up in the air and would be dependent on funding.
Frank said it was amazing how much detail was in the documents. He commented, in regards to funding, there are different levels listed in the book. February 24, 2014 Page 6
The project proponent said there are cost estimates for opening day and long term improvements.
Frank asked how Presbyterian Homes was taken into account. Franzen said they did look at having the LRT closer to Presbyterian Homes, but it increased the travel time and was more expensive..
Lechelt asked was it possible to construct the road on Singletree Lane without having to take the Brunswick building. Franzen said they have had numerous conversations with them so they can keep the building but replacing parking will be challenging.
Chair Stoltz asked what the next step would be. Franzen said on March 4th, there will be a City Council workshop where this presentation with be shown. Then it will come back again to the Commission for approval. Chair Stoltz asked if anything should be in public record. Frank said in the strategic plans, you want a strong sense of where the City wants to go in the future. Franzen said for the next guide plan update, we are going to have a joint meeting with the City Council. We are doing that because we want to know if we are going in the right direction from the start.
Wuttke asked how the re-routing out of Eden Road to Singletree happened and why wasn’t Prairie Center Drive utilized. The project proponent said because Singletree Lane would be at the heart of the Town Center and a five minute walk from the shopping mall. Wuttke said he can see the rational, but asked what is the direction we want to go in regards to the Town Center Station. The project proponent said this is a fixed station and we cannot move it at this point. Franzen said of the reasons for this location is due to the traffic impacts on Single Tree and concerns from area business and property owners. .
Egan asked about the Mitchell Station and what would be the time frame for making a decision to keep it or drop it. Neither the project proponent nor Franzen knew the answer. Franzen said they would like to keep Mitchell Station to accommodate more parking and minimize traffic increase on Prairie Center Drive. Egan said she thought it would bring in more people from Chaska and Chanhassen. Chair Stoltz concurred.
VIII. MEMBERS’ REPORT
A. CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE – LIGHT RAIL
Lechelt said the next meeting will be this Thursday the 27th, at Hopkins.
IX. CONTINUING BUSINESS
February 24, 2014 Page 7
X. NEW BUSINESS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Lechelt, seconded by Higgins, to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 7-0.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
March 18, 2014 SECTION: Payment of Claims
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: X. Sue Kotchevar, Office of the Payment of Claims City Manager/Finance
Requested Action
Move to: Approve the Payment of Claims as submitted (roll call vote)
Synopsis
Checks 230952 – 231169
Wire Transfers 1006506– 1006706
Wire Transfers 4972 – 4984
Attachments January Purchasing Card Report City of Eden Prairie Council Check Summary 3/18/2014
Division Amount Division Amount
General 52,599 601 Prairie Village Liquor 138,031 100 City Manager 200 602 Den Road Liquor 134,242 101 Legislative 707 603 Prairie View Liquor 142,714 102 Legal Counsel 225 605 Den Road Building 3,376 110 City Clerk 283 701 Water Fund 108,445 111 Customer Service 1,343 702 Sewer Fund 299,988 112 Human Resources 555 703 Storm Drainage Fund 52,556 113 Communications 14,492 Total Enterprise Funds 879,351 114 Benefits & Training 1,681 130 Assessing 816 803 Escrow Fund 20,676 131 Finance 1,170 807 Benefits Fund 403,540 132 Housing and Community Services 526 811 Property Insurance 2,842 133 Planning 2,842 812 Fleet Internal Service 37,907 136 Public Safety Communications 948 813 IT Internal Service 87,859 137 Economic Development 260 814 Facilities Capital ISF 6,950 138 Community Development Admin. 693 815 Facilites Operating ISF 46,614 151 Park Maintenance 12,938 816 Facilites City Center ISF 44,759 153 Organized Athletics 249 817 Facilites Comm. Center ISF 78,745 154 Community Center 18,465 Total Internal Service Funds 729,890 156 Youth Programs 902 158 Senior Center 2,430 159 Recreation Administration 161 Report Total 2,052,391 160 Therapeutic Recreation 75 161 Oak Point Pool 6,755 162 Arts 1,142 163 Outdoor Center 687 168 Arts Center 369 180 Police 55,156 183 Emergency Preparedness 572 184 Fire 21,165 186 Inspections 460 200 Engineering 1,041 201 Street Maintenance 5,662 202 Street Lighting 34 Total General Funds 207,600
301 CDBG 1,415 304 Senior Board 134 308 E-911 1,400 309 DWI Forfeiture 15,708 312 Recycle Rebate 150 Total Special Revenue Funds 18,807
315 Economic Development 4,287 502 Park Development 59 513 CIP Pavement Management 3,136 522 Improvement Projects 2006 2,693 527 CIP - Leasing Costs 30 528 Shady Oak Rd-CR 61 North 19,206 529 Shady Oak Rd-CR 61 South 62,304 530 Pool Upgrade/Expansion 113,535 531 Eden Prairie Road 9,667 532 EP Road Connect Flying Cloud 1,825 Total Capital Project Funds 216,743 City of Eden Prairie Council Check Register 3/18/2014
Check # Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Explanation
231020 288,827 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVI MCES User Fee Sewer Utility - General Monthly MCES Fee 4974 232,387 CERIDIAN Federal Taxes Withheld Health and Benefits Taxes Withheld 4977 147,174 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION PERA Health and Benefits PERA 230997 113,535 HAMMEL, GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON Design & Engineering Pool Upgrade/Expansion Aquatics Design Services 231122 88,350 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006556 68,230 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC Design & Engineering Shady Oak Rd-CR 61 North 1006652 55,610 CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES INC Gas Public Works/Parks 1006673 54,084 LOGIS LOGIS IT Operating 4983 47,238 US BANK Conference/Training Utility Operations - General 1006524 46,848 DIVERSE BUILDING MAINTENANCE Janitor Service Arts Center 230979 35,000 CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE Other Contracted Services Police 231009 34,437 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231167 34,119 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231155 27,858 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF MN Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006694 27,645 ST CROIX ENVIRONMENTAL INC Other Contracted Services Water Wells 1006572 24,497 YOCUM OIL COMPANY INC Motor Fuels Fleet Operating 4976 21,733 ING Deferred Compensation General Fund 1006533 20,260 GREENSIDE INC Contract Svcs - Snow Removal City Hall - CAM 231098 20,000 CROWN BANK Deposits Escrow 231144 17,858 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006697 17,726 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231076 16,652 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231168 16,490 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER INC Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231121 16,392 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING MINNESOTA Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006668 16,021 HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON Other Contracted Services Storm Drainage 231058 15,948 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF MN Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006656 15,059 DAY DISTRIBUTING Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006568 14,783 WENCK ASSOCIATES INC Design & Engineering Storm Drainage 1006559 14,376 THORPE DISTRIBUTING Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006642 14,338 ADVANCED ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL SE Design & Engineering Sewer Liftstation 4975 14,306 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 Deferred Compensation General Fund 1006702 13,810 WALL TRENDS INC Contract Svcs - General Bldg Ice Arena Maintenance 231077 13,647 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA BEER INC Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 4980 13,328 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Life Insurance EE/ER Health and Benefits 231042 13,280 PATCHIN MESSNER DODD & BRUMM Right of Way & Easement Shady Oak Rd-CR 61 North 231154 11,492 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC Design & Engineering EP Rd Connect to Flying Cloud 231125 11,000 KLM ENGINEERING INC Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 231044 9,876 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS INC Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006522 9,550 DAY DISTRIBUTING Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231018 9,484 MATTS AUTO SERVICE INC Equipment Repair & Maint DWI Forfeiture 4981 9,075 GENESIS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, INC HSA General Fund 1006509 8,528 A-SCAPE INC Contract Svcs - Snow Removal Fire Station #5 231007 8,027 ITSAVVY LLC Software Maintenance IT Operating 231034 7,919 NORTHERN AIR CORPORATION Other Contracted Services Ice Arena Maintenance Check # Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Explanation
230996 7,874 GRAYMONT Treatment Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 231166 7,795 WINE MERCHANTS INC Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231023 7,500 MINDMIXER Other Contracted Services Communications 1006543 6,945 METRO SALES INCORPORATED* Operating Supplies IT Operating 1006678 6,935 NEW WORLD SYSTEMS Conference/Training Police 231008 6,884 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING MINNESOTA Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 4978 6,855 GENESIS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, INC HRA Health and Benefits 231079 6,812 CHASE AUTO FINANCE Miscellaneous DWI Forfeiture 231143 6,335 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006554 6,250 RIGHTLINE DESIGN LLC Other Contracted Services Communications 1006699 5,940 USA SECURITY Equipment Repair & Maint Utility Operations - General 231067 5,885 TITAN ENERGY SYSTEMS Contract Svcs - Fire/Life/Safe Fitness/Conference - Cmty Ctr 231162 5,801 VERIZON WIRELESS Pager & Cell Phone Park Maintenance 1006667 5,719 GRAINGER Cleaning Supplies City Hall - CAM 1006571 5,707 XCEL ENERGY Electric Prairie Village Liquor Store 1006651 5,641 CENTERPOINT ENERGY Gas Crestwood Park 231131 4,930 MINNESOTA PIPE AND EQUIPMENT* Equipment Parts Water System Maintenance 231116 4,758 IND SCHOOL DIST 272 Other Contracted Services Oak Point Operations 231115 4,630 HOHENSTEINS INC Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006510 4,342 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC. Waste Disposal City Hall - CAM 1006671 4,294 JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC Protective Clothing Fire 230956 4,287 ACORN INSULATION SYSTEMS Other Contracted Services Project Fund 1006547 4,200 NEW WORLD SYSTEMS Software Maintenance IT Operating 1006506 4,097 ABM EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPANY Janitor Service Utility Operations - General 231112 4,000 HENNEPIN COUNTY Other Contracted Services Storm Drainage 231109 3,875 GRAYMONT Treatment Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 231075 3,709 WINE MERCHANTS INC Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 230985 3,578 EARL F ANDERSEN INC Repair & Maint. Supplies Sewer System Maintenance 1006646 3,477 BELLBOY CORPORATION Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231107 3,470 GOODPOINTE TECHNOLOGY (C/O ZOOM) Other Contracted Services Park Maintenance 1006647 3,407 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC EMS Supplies Fire 1006664 3,237 FILTRATION SYSTEMS Supplies - HVAC City Hall - CAM 1006517 3,136 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION Testing - Soil Boring CIP Pavement Management 1006705 3,127 WINE COMPANY, THE Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006653 3,100 CERIDIAN Ceridian IT Operating 1006700 2,861 VAN PAPER COMPANY Cleaning Supplies City Hall - CAM 231004 2,852 IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS Other Contracted Services Environmental Education 230952 2,842 LAMETTRYS COLLISION Insurance Property Insurance 1006519 2,834 CERIDIAN Ceridian IT Operating 1006670 2,832 ITRON INC. Maintenance Contracts Water Metering 1006564 2,809 VAN PAPER COMPANY Cleaning Supplies Fitness/Conference - Cmty Ctr 231161 2,693 SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION Improvement Contracts Improvement Projects 2006 1006689 2,576 SCHARBER & SONS Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 1006570 2,510 WINE COMPANY, THE Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 230970 2,100 BROTHERS FIRE PROTECTION Contract Svcs - Fire/Life/Safe Fitness/Conference - Cmty Ctr 231084 2,082 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006536 2,038 INTERSTATE POWER SYSTEMS INC Equipment Repair & Maint Water Wells 1006698 2,011 TRANE U.S. INC Supplies - HVAC Ice Arena Maintenance 231002 2,000 HOHENSTEINS INC Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store Check # Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Explanation
1006701 1,970 VINOCOPIA Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231021 1,948 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY Received not Vouchered Concessions 231043 1,925 PAUSTIS & SONS COMPANY Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231108 1,911 GRAPE BEGINNINGS Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 4979 1,893 GENESIS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, INC Other Contracted Services Health and Benefits 1006703 1,884 WATSON CO INC, THE Merchandise for Resale Concessions 231117 1,870 IND SCHOOL DIST 272 Other Contracted Services Oak Point Lessons 231050 1,800 QUANTUM ART INC Software Maintenance IT Operating 1006704 1,777 WILSON, JOHN D. Operating Supplies Police 1006545 1,700 NETSENTIAL.COM INC Software Maintenance IT Operating 1006529 1,597 FASTENAL COMPANY Equipment Parts Traffic Signs 230984 1,587 DSO ARCHITECTURE INC Other Contracted Services FF&E - Furn, Fixtures & Equip. 1006663 1,538 FERRELLGAS Gas Fleet Operating 231114 1,500 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE Employment Support Test Fire 231036 1,450 NORTHWESTERN POWER EQUIPMENT CO INC Repair & Maint. Supplies Water Treatment Plant 1006665 1,421 FORCE AMERICA Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 1006690 1,415 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES Refunds CDBG - Public Service 1006567 1,377 WATSON CO INC, THE Merchandise for Resale Concessions 1006513 1,369 BELLBOY CORPORATION Received not Vouchered Prairie Village Liquor Store 231124 1,354 KENDELL DOORS & HARDWARE INC Contract Svcs - Gener Fitness/Conference - Cmty Ctr 1006541 1,334 LYNDALE PLANT SERVICES Contract Svcs - Int. Landscape City Hall - CAM 1006534 1,320 HACH COMPANY Laboratory Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 230966 1,249 BERNICK'S WINE Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231136 1,240 NEW BRIGHTON FORD Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 231030 1,220 MN HELICOPTERS INC Other Contracted Services Deer Consultant 230981 1,212 DAILEY DATA & ASSOCIATES Other Contracted Services Prairie Village Liquor Store 1006650 1,170 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. Office Supplies IT Operating 231097 1,168 CENTURYLINK Telephone Water Distribution 1006555 1,128 SCHARBER & SONS Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 1006535 1,100 HANINK, KELLY Conference/Training Fire 231146 1,068 POWERPHONE INC Dues & Subscriptions E-911 Program 1006696 1,018 STREICHERS Clothing & Uniforms Police 231040 1,012 PAPCO INC Janitor Service Facilities Operating ISF 231111 1,000 HAMLINE UNIVERSITY Dues & Subscriptions Storm Drainage 230986 992 EDEN PRAIRIE FOUNDATION Deferred Revenue General Fund 230961 980 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006682 948 PAUL'S TWO-WAY RADIO Other Contracted Services Public Safety Communications 231049 916 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION PERA Staring Lake Concert 1006691 905 SHI CORP Equipment Repair & Maint Senior Center Admin 231024 903 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY Equipment Repair & Maint Fire 1006644 889 BARR ENGINEERING COMPANY Design & Engineering Storm Drainage Projects 4984 866 GENESIS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, INC HSA Health and Benefits 1006681 821 PARK SUPPLY OF AMERICA INC Cleaning Supplies Facilities Staff 1006683 801 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY Contract Svcs - Electrical Public Works/Parks 1006520 797 CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT Clothing & Uniforms Facilities Staff 230960 792 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SERVICES Janitor Service Fire 231053 791 ROBERT C VOGEL Other Contracted Services Heritage Preservation 231106 791 G&K SERVICES Clothing & Uniforms Park Maintenance 231138 789 NORTHERN AIR CORPORATION Supplies - HVAC Pool Maintenance Check # Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Explanation
231006 770 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING Union Dues Withheld General Fund 231001 769 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER Operating Supplies-Escrow Planning 230963 762 ASPEN MILLS Clothing & Uniforms Fire 1006569 750 WHITE, BECKI Conference/Training Fire 1006685 741 QUALITY PROPANE Motor Fuels Ice Arena Maintenance 1006537 738 JANEX INC Janitor Service Den Road Liquor Store 231141 735 PAPCO INC Other Contracted Services Facilities Operating ISF 230972 717 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS SUPPLIES INC Clothing & Uniforms Sewer Utility - General 1006532 711 GRAINGER Cleaning Supplies Facilities Staff 1006669 703 HD SUPPLY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE Small Tools City Hall - CAM 231014 701 LAKE COUNTRY DOOR LLC Contract Svcs - General Bldg 3rd Sheet of Ice 231101 683 DOMACE VINO Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231022 677 MILIO'S SANDWICHES Merchandise for Resale Concessions 231032 675 NAHRO Dues & Subscriptions Community Development Admin. 231038 672 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY EMS Supplies Fire 230967 671 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 1006565 660 VINOCOPIA Received not Vouchered Prairie Village Liquor Store 231061 656 ST PAUL POLICE DEPARTMENT-PDI Conference/Training Police 1006542 650 MENARDS Building Materials Police 1006706 624 XCEL ENERGY Electric Den Bldg. - CAM 1006655 615 CUSTOM HOSE TECH Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 1006675 614 METROPOLITAN FORD Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 231092 610 BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS Operating Supplies Facilities Operating ISF 231110 610 GREAT PLAINS RESTAURANT GROUP LLC Application Fees General Fund 231118 610 INDEED BREWING COMPANY LLC Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006514 608 BIFFS INC Waste Disposal Park Maintenance 1006654 590 CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT Clothing & Uniforms Water Treatment Plant 1006550 583 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Operating 230988 583 FIRE SAFETY USA INC Equipment Repair & Maint Fire 231090 571 BERNICK'S WINE Received not Vouchered Prairie Village Liquor Store 231015 568 LAW ENFORCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES Training Supplies Police 1006666 567 GOVDELIVERY Software Maintenance IT Operating 1006551 565 PRAIRIE ELECTRIC COMPANY Equipment Repair & Maint Utility Operations - General 1006687 552 RAY ALLEN MANUFACTURING CO INC Canine Supplies Police 1006566 548 W P & R S MARS CO Lubricants & Additives Fleet Operating 4972 523 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Other Contracted Services Health and Benefits 231099 521 DAILEY DATA & ASSOCIATES Other Contracted Services Den Road Liquor Store 231113 520 HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEF OF POLICE ASSOC Dues & Subscriptions Police 1006539 509 LANDS END CORPORATE SALES Clothing & Uniforms Police 231026 508 MINNESOTA PRINT MANAGEMENT LLC Office Supplies Customer Service 231127 495 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 231062 487 STAPLES ADVANTAGE Office Supplies Customer Service 231088 487 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 230989 486 FIRENET SYSTEMS INC Equipment Repair & Maint Water Treatment Plant 231169 474 XTREME INTEGRATION Other Hardware IT Operating 1006526 465 DREW'S CONCESSIONS LLC Merchandise for Resale Concessions 1006563 460 USA SECURITY Maintenance Contracts Utility Operations - General 1006549 453 PETERSON BROS ROOFING AND CONSTRUCTION I Contract Svcs - Roof Fitness/Conference - Cmty Ctr 231149 449 PRINT SOURCE MINNESOTA Printing Arts Check # Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Explanation
231151 443 SCHERER BROTHERS LUMBER CO Equipment Parts Snow & Ice Control 1006548 438 PARLEY LAKE WINERY Received not Vouchered Den Road Liquor Store 231164 437 VINOANDES Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006574 435 ZIEGLER INC Repair & Maint. Supplies Storm Drainage 231134 434 MINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY Equipment Parts Snow & Ice Control 231145 432 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006557 432 STAR TRIBUNE MEDIA COMPANY LLC Dues & Subscriptions Communications 1006508 431 AMERITRAK Other Contracted Services Snow & Ice Control 1006659 431 EXTREME BEVERAGE Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231056 427 SEELYE Repair & Maint. Supplies Water Treatment Plant 1006515 417 BOBBY & STEVE'S AUTO WORLD EDEN PRAIRIE Equipment Repair & Maint Police 231068 417 TKO WINES, INC Received not Vouchered Prairie Village Liquor Store 231103 405 FIRE SAFETY USA INC Repair & Maint. Supplies Emergency Preparedness 1006540 405 LEROY JOB TRUCKING INC Other Contracted Services Police 231129 398 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 1006507 398 ADAMS PEST CONTROL INC Contract Svcs - Pest Control Facilities Operating ISF 4973 395 CERIDIAN Garnishment Withheld General Fund 231027 394 MINNESOTA RESTAURANT SERVICES Supplies - Electrical Garden Room Repairs 231060 390 ST CROIX TREE SERVICE INC Other Contracted Services Tree Removal 231082 390 AARP DRIVERS SAFETY Other Contracted Services Senior Center Programs 230968 380 BOOM ISLAND BREWING COMPANY Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006523 380 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVICES Other Rentals IT Operating 231005 375 INDEED BREWING COMPANY LLC Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231017 369 MATSON, TOM Small Tools Fleet Operating 231128 361 MARCO INC Equipment Repair & Maint IT Telephone 231137 350 NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP Clothing & Uniforms Inspections-Administration 231156 350 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING-CLASSIFIED Printing Storm Drainage 1006674 348 MENARDS Equipment Parts Park Maintenance 231132 345 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Licenses & Taxes Water Treatment Plant 231003 343 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Supplies - Plumbing Fire Station #4 231135 325 MNFIAM BOOK SALES Training Supplies Fire 231160 325 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Licenses & Taxes Fleet Operating 231095 324 BROADWAY AWARDS Operating Supplies Reserves 230962 323 ARVIG CONSTRUCTION Equipment Repair & Maint IT Operating 1006680 322 NORTH CENTRAL LABORATORIES Laboratory Chemicals Water Treatment Plant 1006648 303 CARDIAC SCIENCE CORPORATION Operating Supplies Police 4982 300 GENESIS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, INC HRA Health and Benefits 231025 300 MINNESOTA DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY Licenses & Taxes Senior Center 231080 300 REDWOOD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Deposits Escrow 231081 300 SCOTT COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Deposits Escrow 231019 290 MEDICINE LAKE TOURS Special Event Fees Trips 231059 283 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING-CLASSIFIED Legal Notices Publishing City Clerk 231045 282 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006562 273 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS Patching Asphalt Street Maintenance 231093 272 BOOM ISLAND BREWING COMPANY Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 231069 270 TWINWEST Miscellaneous Economic Development 231011 263 KEEPERS Clothing & Uniforms Police 1006521 260 CUSTOM HOSE TECH Repair & Maint. Supplies Water Treatment Plant 230995 251 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL OCS-Leak Detection Utility Operations - General Check # Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Explanation
231071 249 UNIVERSAL ATHLETIC SERVICES INC Operating Supplies Broomball 231133 248 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE Electric Traffic Signals 231158 230 STAAF, CARTER Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 1006677 230 MOHN, MATT Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 231105 228 FLEETPRIDE INC Equipment Repair & Maint Fleet Operating 231165 225 WILEY LAW OFFICE PLLC, THE Legal Legal Council 231159 223 STAPLES ADVANTAGE Office Supplies Customer Service 230993 217 GE CAPITAL Other Rentals IT Operating 1006546 211 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006645 210 BATTERIES PLUS Supplies - Electrical Senior Center 230974 210 COMCAST Wireless Subscription IT Operating 231085 201 ASPEN MILLS Clothing & Uniforms Fire 231087 199 BASELINE INC Other Contracted Services Park Maintenance 231048 199 PROP United Way Withheld General Fund 231037 195 OLSEN COMPANIES Small Tools Park Maintenance 230994 194 GENERAL PARTS Supplies - Electrical Garden Room Repairs 231000 192 HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPT Other Contracted Services Engineering 231147 180 PRAHA DISTRIBUTING Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 230957 175 AERO DRAPERY AND BLIND Contract Svcs - General Bldg Fitness/Conference - Cmty Ctr 230955 175 AARP DRIVERS SAFETY Other Contracted Services Senior Center Programs 231046 175 PLEAA Dues & Subscriptions Police 231083 175 AMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SERVICES Janitor Service Prairie Village Liquor Store 231163 173 VINE LINE DISTRIBUTION LLC Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006658 172 DUCHSCHERE, KYLE Travel Expense Fleet Operating 1006530 169 GINA MARIAS INC Operating Supplies Reserves 231029 164 MINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY Equipment Parts Snow & Ice Control 230998 163 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD Equipment Parts Water System Maintenance 231100 160 DIRECTV Other Contracted Services Community Center Admin 231066 160 STEVE LUCAS PHOTOGRAPHY Canine Supplies Police 230973 150 CENTURY COLLEGE Training Supplies Fire 231051 150 RECYCLING ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA Dues & Subscriptions Recycle Rebate 230954 145 AARP DRIVERS SAFETY Other Contracted Services Senior Center Programs 230991 144 FLYING CLOUD T/S #U70 Waste Disposal Park Maintenance 231126 144 KODIAK CUSTOM LETTERING INC Merchandise for Resale Concessions 1006560 141 TOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY Repair & Maint. Supplies Storm Drainage 230978 141 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES OF MINNESOTA United Way Withheld General Fund 1006573 140 YOUNG, JOSEPH Protective Clothing Fire 231119 139 INFRATECH Repair & Maint. Supplies Storm Drainage 1006676 138 MINNESOTA CLAY CO. USA Operating Supplies General Fund 230959 135 AIM ELECTRONICS Contract Svcs - Ice Rink Ice Arena Maintenance 1006688 135 RICHARDSON, JIM Operating Supplies Police 231012 135 KENDELL DOORS & HARDWARE INC Contract Svcs - General Bldg Ice Arena Maintenance 231096 132 CENTURY COLLEGE Training Supplies Fire 1006657 127 DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVICES Other Rentals IT Operating 231148 127 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN Equipment Repair & Maint Street Maintenance 230990 121 FLEETPRIDE INC Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 1006527 120 EDEN PRAIRIE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOC Union Dues Withheld General Fund 231157 120 SQUARE CUT Equipment Repair & Maint Senior Center Programs 1006692 119 SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS Waste Disposal City Center Operations Check # Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Explanation
231094 114 BOURGET IMPORTS Received not Vouchered Prairie Village Liquor Store 231130 111 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPARTMENT Software Maintenance IT Operating 1006528 110 FADDEN, TIMOTHY Licenses & Taxes Inspections-Administration 1006661 110 FASTSIGNS Printing Winter Theatre 230958 110 AFFILIATED EMERGENCY VETERINARY SERV Canine Supplies Police 231089 109 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS INC Contract Svcs - Ice Rink Ice Arena Maintenance 231013 108 KODIAK CUSTOM LETTERING INC Clothing & Uniforms Concessions 230992 107 G & K SERVICES-MPLS INDUSTRIAL Other Contracted Services Park Maintenance 231140 107 OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY Other Contracted Services Fire 230983 102 DIRECTV Cable TV Community Center Admin 231031 100 MRPA Employment Advertising Organizational Services 231153 100 SHANNON, JAMES Licenses, Permits, Taxes Senior Center Programs 1006693 94 SPRINT Computers IT Operating 1006672 90 LANDS END CORPORATE SALES Clothing & Uniforms Police 1006511 89 ATLANTIC TACTICAL Clothing & Uniforms Police 231070 88 UNITED WAY United Way Withheld General Fund 1006695 83 STONEBROOKE Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 1006641 83 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER Operating Supplies Emergency Preparedness 1006684 82 PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 231123 82 KEEPERS Clothing & Uniforms Police 231152 81 SHAMROCK GROUP, INC - ACE ICE Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 230965 76 BAUER BUILT TIRE AND BATTERY Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 1006544 72 MPX GROUP, THE Printing Police 231041 71 PARKER, MARCIE Deposits-P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 230980 68 CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE Operating Supplies Reserves 230953 64 440400 - NCPERS MINNESOTA PERA Health and Benefits 1006538 60 KIDS TEAM TENNIS LLC Instructor Service Tennis 231035 60 NORTHERN TOOL Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 231078 58 WOJTASIAK, LAWRENCE Deposits-P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 231091 55 BEVILACQUA, JIM AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund 1006531 55 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN Training Supplies Finance 1006525 53 DMX MUSIC Utilities Prairie Village Liquor Store 231065 50 STENOIEN, KRISTEN Ball Field Fees Park Maintenance 231120 48 JERRY'S ENTERPRISES INC Operating Supplies Senior Center Programs 1006662 48 FEDEX Postage Customer Service 230971 46 BTR OF MINNESOTA Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 230987 45 FILARDO, SANDRA Deposits-P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 231142 44 PARK JEEP INC Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 1006561 44 ULINE Repair & Maint. Supplies Water Treatment Plant 231028 42 MINNESOTA TROPHIES & GIFTS Operating Supplies Police 231016 40 MACIA Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 231139 39 OLSEN COMPANIES Equipment Repair & Maint Park Maintenance 231074 37 WENDLAND, LINDA AR Utility Water Enterprise Fund 230976 36 COMCAST Wireless Subscription IT Operating 1006679 34 NORCOSTCO Operating Supplies General Fund 1006518 34 CAWLEY COMPANY, THE Clothing & Uniforms Den Road Liquor Store 231057 34 SHAMROCK GROUP, INC - ACE ICE Received not Vouchered Prairie View Liquor Store 1006686 34 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER Operating Supplies Engineering 231047 33 PRAIRIE LAWN AND GARDEN Operating Supplies Street Maintenance Check # Amount Supplier / Explanation Account Description Business Unit Explanation
231086 32 AUGDAHL, KRIS Operating Supplies Winter Theatre 231073 30 WELSH COMPANIES Other Contracted Services CIP - Leasing Costs 230999 29 HECK, JOANNE Deposits-P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 231039 29 PALYS, KATHERINE Deposits-P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 231064 25 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Dues & Subscriptions Fitness/Conference - Cmty Ctr 230964 21 AT&T MOBILITY Pager & Cell Phone Park Maintenance 231063 21 STATE OF MINNESOTA Miscellaneous DWI Forfeiture 1006512 21 BATTERIES PLUS Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 1006660 20 FASTENAL COMPANY Operating Supplies Traffic Signs 231055 20 SCHREIER, MICHAEL Deposits-P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 230975 19 COMCAST Wireless Subscription IT Operating 1006558 18 STREICHERS Clothing & Uniforms Police 1006553 18 PROSOURCE SUPPLY Supplies - General Bldg Fitness/Conference - Cmty Ctr 231150 17 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Other Contracted Services Water Treatment Plant 1006552 16 PREMIUM WATERS INC Supplies - General Bldg Fitness/Conference - Cmty Ctr 1006516 16 BOYER TRUCKS Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 231072 16 WEBER, ANNETTE Deposits-P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 1006643 15 ATLANTIC TACTICAL Clothing & Uniforms Police 231010 11 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY Repair & Maint. Supplies Water Treatment Plant 231054 11 SCHENCK, PATRICIA Deposits-P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 1006649 11 CAWLEY COMPANY, THE Clothing & Uniforms Den Road Liquor Store 231104 11 FISERV INC Bank and Service Charges Water Accounting 231052 11 RICHFIELD, CITY OF Licenses & Taxes Fleet Operating 231033 8 NESS, BRENT Deposits-P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 230969 6 BREDOW, VERNETT Deposits-P&R Refunds Community Center Admin 230977 4 COMCAST Cable TV Fire 230982 4 DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 231102 2 DRIVER RECORDS Licenses & Taxes Customer Service
2,052,391 Grand Total City of Eden Prairie Purchasing Card Payment Report January 2014
Amount Explanation Vendor Account Description Business Unit
32 US-woodshop MENARDS Repair & Maint. Supplies Park Maintenance 286 US-picnic table repair MENARDS Repair & Maint. Supplies Park Maintenance 105 US-DOT stickers MINNESOTA STATE PATROL Safety Supplies Fleet Operating 74 US-woodshop brake ACME TOOLS Equipment Repair & Maint Senior Center Programs 15 US-kitchen supplies WALMART COMMUNITY Operating Supplies Senior Center Admin 72 US-holiday lunch PARTY CITY Special Event Fees Senior Center Programs 8 US-employee holiday lunch DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. Miscellaneous Internal Events 1,711 US-holiday lunch KOWALSKI'S MARKET Special Event Fees Senior Center Programs 59 US-employee holiday lunch WALMART COMMUNITY Miscellaneous Internal Events 10 US-holiday lunch WALMART COMMUNITY Miscellaneous Internal Events 5,268 US-employee holiday lunch KOWALSKI'S MARKET Miscellaneous Internal Events 147 US-employee holiday lunch KOWALSKI'S MARKET Miscellaneous Internal Events 684 US-sr ctr supplies/ipod/camera BEST BUY Equipment Repair & Maint Senior Center Admin 37 US-headlamps HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Repair & Maint. Supplies Utility Operations - General 71 US-kitchen supplies TARGET Repair & Maint. Supplies Utility Operations - General 16 US-leader phrase FEDEX Office Supplies Utility Operations - General 45 US-Boiler License DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Licenses, Permits, Taxes, Fees Water Treatment Plant 129 US-mailbox repair HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Building Materials Street Maintenance 13 US-miller park electric repair MENARDS Building Repair & Maint. Park Maintenance 15 US-Tool Holder SEARS EDEN PRAIRIE Small Tools Water Treatment Plant 56 US-Door hardware MENARDS Repair & Maint. Supplies Water Treatment Plant 29 US-memorial bench placard MINNESOTA TROPHIES & GIFTS Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 99 US-J Cordes training MN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE Conference/Training Tree Disease 403 US-LODD trng BUCA Operating Supplies Fire 446 US-childrens christmas WALMART COMMUNITY Operating Supplies Fire 504 US-S Taylor CFI trng DELTA AIR Tuition Reimbursement/School Fire 274 US-S Taylor CFI trng EXPEDIA Tuition Reimbursement/School Fire 156 US-LODD trng EXPEDIA Travel Expense Fire 157 US-flowers M Frantz PETERSON ANDERSON FLOWERS Operating Supplies Fire 29 US-childrens christmas RAINBOW FOODS INC. Operating Supplies Fire 120 US-Schaitberger conf UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Tuition Reimbursement/School Fire 139 US-flowers B Johnson BACHMANS CREDIT DEPT Operating Supplies Fire 266 US-Schaitberger conf INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL Tuition Reimbursement/School Fire 238 US-Holiday party NOTHING BUNDT CAKES Operating Supplies Fire 75 US-MN EMS 2014 dues PAYPAL INC Dues & Subscriptions Fire 195 US-standby crews holiday party BUCA Operating Supplies Fire 1,178 US-door hangers HORIZON GRAPHICS Printing Street Maintenance 9 US-café supplies FRATTALLONE'S/MINNETONKA AC Operating Supplies Concessions 35 US-café food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 73 US-cafe food WALMART COMMUNITY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 40 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 14 US-café food BRUEGGERS BAGEL Merchandise for Resale Concessions 90 US-café supplies HOCKENBERGS Operating Supplies Concessions 27 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 280 US-café food WALMART COMMUNITY Merchandise for Resale Concessions Amount Explanation Vendor Account Description Business Unit
32 US-cafe food CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE Merchandise for Resale Concessions 7 US-supplies UPS Operating Supplies Concessions 112 US-cafe food WALMART COMMUNITY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 16 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 16 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 182 US-cafe food WALMART COMMUNITY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 8 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 81 US-cafe food WALMART COMMUNITY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 32 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 236 US-cafe food WALMART COMMUNITY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 16 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 14 US-cafe food BRUEGGERS BAGEL Merchandise for Resale Concessions 17 US-cafe food BRUEGGERS BAGEL Merchandise for Resale Concessions 24 US-cafe food WALMART COMMUNITY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 37 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 211 US-cafe food WALMART COMMUNITY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 24 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 16 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 33 US-cafe food WALMART COMMUNITY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 45 US-cafe food CUB FOODS EDEN PRAIRIE Merchandise for Resale Concessions 60 US-café food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 312 US-cafe food WALMART COMMUNITY Merchandise for Resale Concessions 5 US-café supplies MICHAELS - THE ARTS & CRAFTS S Operating Supplies Concessions 24 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 94 US-office supplies ID WHOLESALER Office Supplies Community Center Admin 112 US-uniforms APPARELNBAGS.COM Clothing & Uniforms Community Center Admin 27 US-blades for ice auger CABIN FEVER SPORTINGS GOODS Equipment Repair & Maint Park Maintenance 228 US-flags for vet memorial AMERICAN FLAGS.COM Repair & Maint. Supplies Purgatory Creek Park 99 US-pesticide recertification MN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE Conference/Training Park Maintenance 15 US-weed sprayer license MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRLicenses, Permits, Taxes, Fees Park Maintenance 15 US-photo developing TARGET Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 7 US-key fob battery BATTERIES PLUS Operating Supplies Fire 62 US-wayzata mtg WUOLLET BAKERY INC Operating Supplies Fire 55 US-LODD trng BRUEGGERS BAGEL Operating Supplies Fire 70 US-coffee CARIBOU COFFEE Operating Supplies Fire 7 US-parking ALLIED PARKING Operating Supplies Fire 16 US-MN FAC SHAMROCKS Operating Supplies Fire 11 US-RLFD LODD Taco Bell Operating Supplies Fire 7 US-RLFD LODD MCDONALDS Operating Supplies Fire 20 US-gas RLFD LODD LITTLE STORE Mileage & Parking Fire 11 US-RLFD LODD LA'S PLACE Operating Supplies Fire 78 US-RLFD LODD BULLDOG PIZZA AND GRILL Operating Supplies Fire 37 US-RLFD LODD UMD Operating Supplies Fire 20 US-gas RLFD LODD WOODLAND SHORT STOP Mileage & Parking Fire 13 US-annual review-T Schmitz BIAGGI'S RISTORANTE ITALIANO Operating Supplies Fire 124 US-Flowers for Mollie Heinen BACHMANS CREDIT DEPT Operating Supplies Fire 38 US-cord for #35 truck JERRYS DO IT BEST Repair & Maint. Supplies Fire 99 US-card reader AMAZON.COM Miscellaneous IT Operating 1,875 US-training BMC SOFTWARE INC Conference/Training IT Operating Amount Explanation Vendor Account Description Business Unit
24 US-software MICROSOFT CORPORATE Equipment Repair & Maint IT Operating 15 US-usb cable AMAZON.COM Miscellaneous IT Operating 133 US-supplies AMAZON.COM Miscellaneous IT Operating 82 US-electronics AMAZON.COM Miscellaneous IT Operating 77 US-ipad case AMAZON.COM Miscellaneous IT Operating 193 US-certificate stationary PAPER DIRECT INC Printing Police 124 US-supplies MENARDS Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 7 US-sr ctr-belt sander parts PAYPAL INC Equipment Repair & Maint Park Maintenance 71 US-miller parking lights MENARDS Repair & Maint. Supplies Park Maintenance -4 US-refund PLASTICPRINTERS.COM Operating Supplies Prairie Village Liquor Store 133 US-mayors health & wellness mt CRUMB GOURMET DELI Miscellaneous Parks Administration 1 US-LCAC mtg ST PAUL PUBLIC WORKS Mileage & Parking Community Development Admin. 28 US-mtg with katie walker henn OLD CHICAGO RESTAURANT Miscellaneous Community Development Admin. 1,233 US-group fitness equip POWER SYSTEMS Operating Supplies Fitness Classes 246 US-training materials HUMAN KINETICS Conference/Training Fitness Classes 38 US-supplies AMAZON.COM Operating Supplies Fitness Classes 16 US-goggles TRACTOR SUPPLY Operating Supplies Park Maintenance 310 US-training L Kerns MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL Conference/Training Workers Comp Insurance 429 US-fit bands for wellness prog TARGET Employee Award Organizational Services 86 US-planner FRANKLIN COVEY CO. Office Supplies Customer Service 63 US-planner FRANKLIN COVEY CO. Office Supplies Customer Service 37 US-stamps-store 1 RAINBOW FOODS INC. Operating Supplies Prairie Village Liquor Store 9,036 US-Nov2013 Bldg Surchgs DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Building Surcharge General Fund 2,157 US-Nov2013 Bldg Surchgs DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Mechanical Surcharge General Fund 628 US-Nov2013 Bldg Surchgs DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Plumbing Surcharge General Fund -236 US-Nov2013 Bldg Surchgs DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY Other Revenue General Fund 25 US-training S Kotchevar GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS Deposits Escrow 5 US-Counterpoint gateway RADIANT SYSTEMS Bank and Service Charges Prairie Village Liquor Store 5 US-Counterpoint gateway RADIANT SYSTEMS Bank and Service Charges Den Road Liquor Store 5 US-Counterpoint gateway RADIANT SYSTEMS Bank and Service Charges Prairie View Liquor Store 40 US-UB recurring credit card PAYPAL INC Bank and Service Charges Utility Operations - General 20 US-epermit web security PAYPAL INC Equipment Repair & Maint IT Operating 35 UB-online processing PAYPAL INC Bank and Service Charges Utility Operations - General 52 US-pickleball league awards CROWN TROPHY Operating Supplies Gymnasium (CC) 32 US-shop supplies MENARDS Repair & Maint. Supplies Storm Drainage 330 US-PRSA renewal PUBLIC RELATIONS SOCIETY Dues & Subscriptions Communications 32 US-Brita for water MENARDS Cleaning Supplies Water Treatment Plant 6 US-tree topper TARGET Repair & Maint. Supplies Utility Operations - General 16 US-office supplies MICHAELS - THE ARTS & CRAFTS S Repair & Maint. Supplies Utility Operations - General 133 US-office supplies MENARDS Repair & Maint. Supplies Utility Operations - General 70 US-cleaning supplies DALCO Cleaning Supplies Utility Operations - General 72 US-sunshine fund not received FTD.COM Deposits Escrow 66 US-sunshine fund VINERY Deposits Escrow 60 US-K Spreeman sunshine fund BACHMANS CREDIT DEPT Deposits Escrow 60 US-S Sinell sunshine fund BACHMANS CREDIT DEPT Deposits Escrow 84 US-B Johnson sunshine fund BACHMANS CREDIT DEPT Deposits Escrow 54 US-software-staff scheduling NIMBLE SCHEDULE Other Contracted Services Community Center Admin 70 US-red cross fees AMERICAN RED CROSS Conference/Training Volleyball 70 US-red cross fees AMERICAN RED CROSS Conference/Training Community Center Admin Amount Explanation Vendor Account Description Business Unit
175 US-red cross fees AMERICAN RED CROSS Conference/Training Concessions 140 US-red cross fees AMERICAN RED CROSS Conference/Training Day Care 12 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 51 US-paper for birthday party AMAZON.COM Operating Supplies Birthday Parties 35 US-toy for playcare TOYSRUS.COM Operating Supplies Day Care 70 US-toy for playcare AMAZON.COM Operating Supplies Day Care 1 US-supplies WALMART COMMUNITY Operating Supplies Community Center Admin 5 US-supplies WALMART COMMUNITY Operating Supplies Birthday Parties 10 US-supplies WALMART COMMUNITY Operating Supplies Day Care 16 US-supplies MICHAELS - THE ARTS & CRAFTS S Operating Supplies Day Care 31 US-supplies TARGET Operating Supplies Day Care 10 US-supplies MICHAELS - THE ARTS & CRAFTS S Operating Supplies Birthday Parties 42 US-shop supplies/lift station HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Small Tools Sewer Liftstation 37 US-torch HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Repair & Maint. Supplies Utility Operations - General 206 US-building inspections TAB PRODUCTS CO LLC Office Supplies Inspections-Administration 14 US-building inspections TAB PRODUCTS CO LLC Office Supplies Inspections-Administration 143 US-tool box MENARDS Repair & Maint. Supplies Utility Operations - General 355 US-CEAM conf M Krause UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Conference/Training Engineering 370 US-R Rue CEAM conf UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Conference/Training Engineering 16 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 117 US-pro shop SPORTS WORLD USA INC Merchandise for Resale Concessions 24 US-cafe food RAINBOW FOODS INC. Merchandise for Resale Concessions 25 US-green expo trade expo regis MN NURSERY & LANDSCAPE Conference/Training Fleet Operating 213 US-small tools MILLS FLEET FARM Small Tools Fleet Operating 103 US-parts for #118 AUTOPARTSANDSTUFF.COM Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 61 US-parts PAYPAL INC Equipment Parts Fleet Operating 123 US-equip-salt brine GRAINGER Equipment Parts Snow & Ice Control 205 US-HVAC parts rink 3 RG DAVIS AND CO Repair & Maint. Supplies 3rd Sheet of Ice 73 US-HVAC parts rink 3 RG DAVIS AND CO Repair & Maint. Supplies 3rd Sheet of Ice 90 US-gas SUPERAMERICA Motor Fuels Utility Operations - General 40 US-paint MENARDS Repair & Maint. Supplies Storm Drainage 123 US-software-staff scheduling NIMBLE SCHEDULE Other Contracted Services Community Center Admin 117 US-operating supplies/membersh ID WHOLESALER Operating Supplies Community Center Admin 16 US-team meeting EDEN PRAIRIE COMMUNITY CENTEOperating Supplies Community Center Admin 375 US-software-staff scheduling NIMBLE SCHEDULE Other Contracted Services Community Center Admin 228 US-quartermaster PRO-LOK PRODUCTS Operating Supplies Police 43 US-quartermaster AMAZON.COM Operating Supplies Police 47 US-quartermaster AMAZON.COM Operating Supplies Police 292 US-Tint Meter LASER LABS INC Operating Supplies Police 54 US-quartermaster AMAZON.COM Operating Supplies Police 47 US-crime scene tech supplies DUDA DIESEL Operating Supplies Police 32 US-quartermaster AMAZON.COM Operating Supplies Police 19 US-coffee club reimbursed AMAZON.COM Operating Supplies Police 14 US-reserve calendar CALENDAR WIZ Operating Supplies Reserves 94 US-critter food PETCO Operating Supplies Outdoor Center 83 US-critter food WILD BIRDS UNLIMITED Operating Supplies Outdoor Center 76 US-microscope outdoor ctr AMAZON.COM Operating Supplies Outdoor Center 53 US-critter food PETCO Operating Supplies Outdoor Center 11 US-spray paint MENARDS Operating Supplies Park Maintenance Amount Explanation Vendor Account Description Business Unit
181 US-cable for phones MY CABLE MART Equipment Repair & Maint Public Safety Communications 65 US-IWCE trip BALLY'S LAS VEGAS Conference/Training Public Safety Communications 74 US-broomball pennies AMAZON.COM Operating Supplies Broomball 755 US-training/hotel-C Millard EMBASSY SUITES Tuition Reimbursement/School Police 5 US-polar plunge parking STANDARD PARKING Mileage & Parking Police 404 US-admission to Disney MINNESOTA WILD Events/Admission Fee Special Events & Trips 405 US-ACA conf DELTA AIR Conference/Training Youth Programs Admin 22 US-office supplies OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN-DON'TOperating Supplies Youth Programs Admin 130 US-winter break trip BRUNSWICK BOWLING LANES Special Event Fees Special Events & Trips 19 US-winter trip snacks WALMART COMMUNITY Operating Supplies Special Events & Trips 257 US-winter break trip THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT Special Event Fees Community Center Admin 163 US-winter break trip BRUNSWICK BOWLING LANES Special Event Fees Special Events & Trips 33 US-desk planner ACCO Operating Supplies Youth Programs Admin 50 US-club 204 otuing BRUNSWICK BOWLING LANES Special Event Fees New Adaptive 59 US-club 204 otuing BRUNSWICK BOWLING LANES Special Event Fees New Adaptive 22 US-program supplies RAINBOW FOODS INC. Operating Supplies Leisure Education 139 US-Sat night out program DAVANNI'S PIZZA Operating Supplies Oak Point Operations 62 US-yoga supplies MICHAELS - THE ARTS & CRAFTS S Operating Supplies Specialty Fitness Programs 250 US-licensing fee SCW FITNESS Licenses, Permits, Taxes, Fees Fitness Classes 106 US-replace label machine tape PTOUCHDIRECT.COM Office Supplies Fire 7 US-propane HOLIDAY STATION STORES INC Operating Supplies Fire 41 US-gear wash HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES Protective Clothing Fire 5 US-markers for gear wash OFFICEMAX CREDIT PLAN Protective Clothing Fire 42 US-K9 Equipment/Supplies RAY ALLEN MANUFACTURING CO ICanine Supplies Police 39 US-K9 Equipment/Supplies ELITE K-9 INC Canine Supplies Police 40 US-K9 Equipment/Supplies RAY ALLEN MANUFACTURING CO ICanine Supplies Police 5 US-screw eyes MENARDS Repair & Maint. Supplies Sewer Liftstation 42,611 Report Total
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: March 18, 2014 SECTION: Appointments
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: XIII.A. City Council Appointments of Chair and Vice-Chair to the Board of Appeal and Equalization
Requested Action
Move to: Appoint Patricia Pidcock – Chair and Lyndon Moquist – Vice-Chair of the 2014 Board of Appeal and Equalization.
Synopsis
Chairs and Vice-Chairs are appointed annually by the City Council following the appointment of members to City Boards and Commissions.
City Code Section 2.22, Subd. 5 Officers states, “the Council shall in March each year choose a chairperson and vice-chairperson for a Board or Commission to serve for a period of one year.” To be eligible for consideration, City Code states, “a chairperson must have served one year on the Board or Commission before becoming eligible for appointment as a chairperson.”
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE:
SECTION: Reports of Council Members March 18, 2014
DEPARTMENT ITEM DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO.: XIV.A.1.
Office of the City Manager Resolution Supporting the “Wyland Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation”
Requested Action Move to: Adopt the resolution supporting the Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation.
Synopsis The attached resolution is a commitment from the City of Eden Prairie to once again support water conservation efforts by encouraging residents to participate in the Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation from April 1 to April 30, 2014.
Attachment Resolution
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-__
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE “WYLAND MAYOR’S CHALLENGE FOR WATER CONSERVATION”
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie is committed to increasing energy efficiency, protecting its natural resources and encouraging water conservation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie can engage in efforts to inspire its residents to become better environmental stewards; and
WHEREAS, the “Wyland Mayor’s Challenge,” in association with the Wyland Foundation, the U.S. EPA’s WaterSense Program, the U.S. Forest Service, Toyota, CH2MHill Water Match, Rainbird and Lowe’s is a healthy, nonprofit competition for cleaner communities, and a water use and pollution reduction competition between cities; and
WHEREAS, residents may register their participation in Eden Prairie’s challenge online, by making simple pledges to decrease their water use and to reduce pollution for a period of one year; and
WHEREAS, from April 1 to April 30, 2014, the City of Eden Prairie wishes to encourage its residents to take the “Wyland Mayor’s Challenge for Water Conservation” by making a series of online pledges at mywaterpledge.com to reduce their impact on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Eden Prairie:
I. The City of Eden Prairie agrees with and supports the “Mayor's Challenge for Water Conservation.”
II. The program is to be implemented from April 1 to April 30, 2014, through a series of communication and outreach strategies, whether new or existing, to encourage Eden Prairie residents to take the “Mayor’s Water Conservation Challenge.”
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on this 18th day of March, 2014.
______Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor ATTEST:
______Kathleen Porta, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Director of Public Works March 18, 2014
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: IEM NO.: XIV.E.1. Randy L. Slick Final Plat Report of Kaerwer Addition Public Works / Engineering
Requested Action
Move to: Adopt the resolution approving the final plat of Kaerwer Addition.
Synopsis
This proposal is for the plat located at 12800 Gerard Drive. The plat consists of 5.34 acres to be platted into one lot. The property and home was donated to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD) for future use by NMCWD as a Water Resource Center that will serve as an amenity to the neighborhood and community. This is a replat of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Topview Acres 3rd Addition.
Background Information
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on September 21, 2010. Second reading of the Rezoning Ordinance and final approval of the Developer’s Agreement was completed on January 18, 2011.
Approval of the final plat is subject to the following conditions: • Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $350.00. • Completion of vacation of underlying drainage and utility easements • Prior to release of the final plat, Developer agrees to pay $1,559.44 in trunk assessments. • The requirements as set forth in the Developer’s Agreement. • Possible inclusion of an easement for Xcel Energy.
Attachments • Resolution • Drawing of Final Plat
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2014-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF KAERWER ADDITION
WHEREAS, the plat of Kaerwer Addition been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council:
A. Plat approval request for Kaerwer Addition is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the Final Plat Report on this plat dated March 18, 2014.
B. Variance is herein granted from City Code 12.20 Subd. 2.A. waiving the six- month maximum time lapse between the approval date of the preliminary plat and filing of the final plat as described in said engineer’s report.
C. 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.
D. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions.
ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on March 18, 2014.
______Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Mayor
ATTEST: SEAL
______Kathleen Porta, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: SECTION: Report of the Public Works Director March 18, 2014
DEPARTMENT/DIVISION: ITEM DESCRIPTION: IEM NO.: XIV.E.2. Robert Ellis Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Proposed Rules Public Works / Engineering
Requested Action
Move to: Approve the submittal of proposed rule comments to the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District.
Synopsis
The Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District recently released a Statement of Need and Reasonableness along with a proposed set of rules that will serve as the backbone of its regulatory framework. The rules will apply to land and water resource disturbing activities.
City staff has reviewed the proposed rules and prepared comments for the District’s consideration. Most of the comments ask for consistency with respect to the current Nine Mile Creek Watershed District rules. Eden Prairie is almost entirely contained within these two watershed districts, and 57% of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District falls within our city limits. Having a consistent set of rules being applied uniformly to our region will help eliminate confusion, set clear expectations, promote fairness and generate synergy.
Attachments
• Proposed Rules • Statement of Need and Reasonableness • City Comments
Attachments • Attach 1 – Proposed Rules • Attach 2 – Statement of Need and Reasonableness • Attach 3 – City of Eden Prairie Comments to Proposed Rules
RILEY PURGATORY BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
DRAFT RULES February 21, 2014
Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Definitions ...... 5 Acronyms ...... 9 Rule A – Procedural Requirements ...... 11 1 Policy ...... 11 2 Application ...... 11 3 Conditional approval ...... 12 5 Permit assignment and renewal ...... 13 6 Suspension or revocation ...... 14 Rule B – Floodplain Management and Drainage Alterations ...... 15 1 Policy ...... 15 2 Regulation ...... 15 3 Criteria for floodplain and drainage alterations...... 15 4 Required information and exhibits ...... 16 5 Exceptions ...... 16 Rule C – Erosion and Sediment Control ...... 18 1 Policy ...... 18 2 Regulation ...... 18 3 Criteria ...... 18 4 Required information and exhibits ...... 20 Rule D – Wetland, Lake and Creek Buffers ...... 22 1 Policy ...... 22 2 Regulation ...... 22 3 Criteria ...... 22 4 Temporary Alterations...... 25 5 Roads and Utilities...... 26 6 Shoreline or Streambank Improvements...... 26 7 Required information and exhibits...... 26 Appendix D1 – High-Risk Erosion Areas Map...... 28 Appendix D2 – Wetlands Definitions ...... 29 Rule E – Dredging and Sediment Removal...... 31 1 Policy ...... 31 2 Regulation ...... 31 3 Criteria ...... 31 4 Required information and exhibits ...... 32 5 Fast-Track Public Project Permit ...... 33
2 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
Rule F – Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization ...... 34 1 Policy ...... 34 2 Regulation ...... 34 3 Criteria ...... 34 4 Required information and exhibits...... 36 Rule G – Waterbody Crossings and Structures ...... 38 1 Policy ...... 38 2 Regulation ...... 38 3 Criteria ...... 38 4 Required information and exhibits...... 40 5 Maintenance ...... 40 Rule H – Appropriation of Public Surface Waters ...... 41 1 Policy ...... 41 2 Regulation ...... 41 3 Criteria ...... 41 4 Exhibits ...... 41 Rule I – Appropriation of Groundwater ...... 43 1 Policy ...... 43 2 Regulation ...... 43 3 Criteria ...... 43 4 Exhibits ...... 43 Rule J – Stormwater Management ...... 45 1 Policy ...... 45 2 Regulation ...... 45 3 Criteria ...... 47 4 Required exhibits ...... 49 Appendix J1 – Low Floor Elevation Guidance ...... 51 Rule K – Variances and Exceptions ...... 63 1 Variances ...... 63 2 Exceptions ...... 63 3 Term ...... 64 4 Violation ...... 64 Rule L – Permit Fees ...... 65 1 Policy ...... 65 2 Requirement ...... 65 Rule M – Financial Assurances ...... 67 1 Policy ...... 67 2 Requirement ...... 67
3 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
3 Criteria ...... 67 4 Financial Assurance Release ...... 68
4 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
Definitions The following definitions and acronyms apply to the District rules and accompanying guidance materials.
100-year flood elevation: The surface elevation of a waterbody that has a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, as shown on District floodplain maps, where available, or as calculated using a model utilizing the most recent applicable National Weather Service reference data (e.g., Atlas 14). Abstraction: Permanent retention of runoff on a site by structures and practices such as infiltration basins, evapotranspiration and capture and reuse. Back-to-back storm events: Distinct rainfall events occurring within 24 hours of each other. Best management practices: Various structural and nonstructural measures taken to minimize negative effects on water resources and systems, such as ponding, street sweeping, filtration through a rain garden and infiltration, as documented in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas and the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Bioengineering: Various shoreline and streambank stabilization techniques using aquatic vegetation and native upland plants, along with techniques such as willow wattling, brush layering and willow-posts. Existing conditions: Site conditions at the time of consideration of a permit application by the District, before any of the work for which a permit is sought has commenced, except that when impervious surfaces have been fully or partially removed from a previously developed parcel but no intervening use has been legally or practically established, “existing conditions” denotes the previously established developed use and condition of the parcel. Fill: Any rock, soil, gravel, sand, debris, plant cuttings or other material placed onto land or into water. Groundwater: Water in the interstices of rock and soil that is present at pressures greater than one atmosphere. Impervious surface: Any exposed surface that has been compacted or covered with a layer of material, or is likely to become compacted from expected use, such that it is highly resistant to infiltration. Landlocked basin: A localized depression that does not have a natural outlet at or below the 100-year flood elevation. Land-disturbing activity: Any alteration of the ground surface that could result, through the action of wind and/or water, in soil erosion, substantial compaction, or the movement of sediment into waters, wetlands, storm sewers, or adjacent property.
5 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
Land-disturbing activity includes but is not limited to demolition of a structure or surface, soil stripping, clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, filling and the storage of soil or earth materials. Typical, routine farming operations (e.g., plowing, harvesting) will not be considered land-disturbing activities for purposes of the rules. Linear project: Construction or reconstruction of a public road or other transportation route, sidewalk or trail, or construction, repair or reconstruction of a utility or utilities within existing right of way that is not a component of a larger contemporaneous development or redevelopment project. Low floor: The lowest elevation of any floor of any structure, habitable or not. Meander belt: The lateral extent of a watercourse meander. The edge of the meander belt is the straight-line distance connecting the outside of the channel meander of the upstream bend to the outside of the channel of the next downstream meander. (See Figure 1.) Nested: A hypothetical precipitation distribution where the precipitation depths for various durations within a storm have the same exceedance probabilities. This distribution maximizes the rainfall intensities by incorporating selected short-duration intensities within those needed for longer durations at the same probability level. As a result, the various storm durations are “nested” within a single hypothetical distribution. Nested storm distribution (or frequency based hyetograph) development must be done according to the alternating block methodology as outlined in Chapter 4 of the HEC-HMS Technical Reference Manual, (USACE, 2000). Reference: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2000. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS Technical Reference Manual. Outfall: A constructed point source where a storm sewer system discharges to a receiving water. An outfall does not include diffuse runoff or conveyances that connect segments of the same stream or water systems (e.g., when a conveyance temporarily leaves an storm sewer system at a road crossing). Parcel: A contiguous area of land under common ownership, designated and described in official public records and separated from other lands by its designation. Protected wetland: A wetland, the draining, filling or excavation of which is protected by law. Reconstruction: For non-linear projects, changes, including addition, expansion or other improvement to a building or buildings on a property that involves a change to the footprint of the building or buildings on the parcel. Redevelopment: Any land-disturbing activity on an already-developed parcel or any substantial change to existing structures on a parcel. Regulated feature: A public water basin, public watercourse, public waters wetland or other protected wetland in the watershed; or any watercourse within one of the High-
6 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
Risk Erosion Areas shown on the map in Appendix D1. ”Regulated feature” is a collective term, used to describe all water resources regulated under Rule D. Rehabilitation: A maintenance project that disturbs or replaces only the existing impervious surface, does not disturb underlying soils or result in a change in the direction, peak rate, volume or water quality of runoff flows from the parcel, and does not include the addition of new impervious surface. Mill and overlay of paved surfaces is rehabilitation. Retaining wall: Vertical or nearly vertical structures constructed of mortar-rubble masonry, hand-laid rock or stone, vertical timber pilings, horizontal timber planks with piling supports, sheet pilings, poured concrete, concrete blocks, or other durable materials and constructed approximately parallel to the shoreline. Right-of-way: Parcels of land on which a linear project is located, including adjacent area necessary for safe operation of the road, sidewalk or trail and dedicated to such use by fee ownership or other recorded title interest. Shoreline: The lateral measurement along the contour of the ordinary high water mark of waterbodies other than watercourses, and the top of the bank of the channel of watercourses, and the area waterward thereof. Site: The location of activities that are the subject of a District permit and are under the control of the applicant. Stream Power Index: As defined by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Stream Power Index is calculated: LN ((Drainage Area + 0.001) * ((Slope/100) + 0.0001)). SPI is a function of slope and tributary flow accumulation values, which can be thought of as the volume of water flowing to a particular point on the landscape. SPI represent the ability of intermittent overland flow to create erosion, but the SPI values are not differentiated based on soils type or land cover effects on runoff volume or erosion. Structure: Any impervious thing that is constructed or placed on the ground and that is, or is intended, to remain in place for longer than a temporary period. Thalweg: The line connecting the points of lowest elevation in a watercourse, channel, valley, ravine or gully. Waterbody: A watercourse or water basin. Water basin: An enclosed natural depression with definable banks, capable of retaining water. Watercourse: A natural channel with definable beds and banks capable of conducting confined runoff from adjacent land.
Beyond the definitions above, words in the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District rules will be interpreted consistently with definitions in Minnesota water law (Minnesota Statutes chapters 103A, 103B, 103C, 103D, 103E, 103F and 103G). The
7 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014 specific definitions above will prevail in the event of a contradiction or deviation.
8 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
Acronyms BMP – best management practice BWSR – Board of Water and Soil Resources LGU – local government unit MnRAM – Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology for Evaluating Wetland Functions MPCA – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System RPBCWD - Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District NURP – Nationwide Urban Runoff Program NGVD - national geodetic vertical datum OHW – ordinary high water level WCA – Wetland Conservation Act
9 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
Figure 1 – meander belt:
10
Rule A – Procedural Requirements
1 Policy 1.1 Any person undertaking an activity for which a permit is required by these rules must obtain the required permit prior to commencing the activity that is regulated by the District. 1.2 The District rules will be interpreted and permit decisions will be made consistently with watershed district purposes articulated in the Minnesota Statutes section 103B.201 and 103D.201.
2 Application 2.1 An application bearing the original signature of the property owner(s) must be submitted to the District to obtain a permit under these rules. It is recommended that applicants contact the District and/or submit preliminary plans early in the project development process for nonbinding informal review for conformity with District policies and rules. 2.2 Each substantive District rule includes application and exhibit specifications that, along with this rule, apply to the submission of applications to the District and will be utilized to make determinations of completeness under this rule. 2.3 The District will not take formal action on an application involving land development unless the project has received approval from the relevant city planning commission and preliminary (first reading) approval by the city council, and the Wetland Conservation Act replacement plan review and approval process, if applicable, has been initiated. If plat approval is not required, an application will be reviewed when the applicant provides a written statement from a responsible local official that the project appears to meet local approval requirements and the Wetland Conservation Act replacement plan review and approval process, if applicable, has been initiated. 2.4 The District will not act on an incomplete permit application. A complete permit application includes all required information, exhibits and fees and must be signed by all property owners. The District will notify an applicant if his or her application is incomplete within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of the application. Required information includes, but is not limited to: a the name, address, and telephone number(s) of all property owners; Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
b the name, address and telephone number(s) for all contractors undertaking land-disturbing activities as part of the proposed project; and c a statement granting the District and its authorized representatives access to the site for inspection purposes. 2.5 Application forms and guidance materials may be obtained from the District office or downloaded from the District web site at www.rpbcwd.org.
3 Conditional approval The District may conditionally approve an application, but the permit will not be issued until all conditions to the approval are satisfied. All conditions must be satisfied within 12 months of the date of conditional approval, and failure to satisfy all conditions within 12 months will result in expiration of approval.
4 Reconsideration An applicant aggrieved by a condition or conditions on approval of an application or the specific grounds for denial of an application may suspend the District’s decision on the application by filing a notice of reconsideration with the District. 4.1 Notice of reconsideration must be filed with the District within 10 business days of the decision and at least one day before the date by which a decision on the application must be issued to comply with Minnesota Statutes section 15.99. The notice must be submitted on a form provided by the District that includes the applicant’ concurrence in an extension of the time for District permit action under section 15.99 and must include a statement of the specific conditions and findings to be reconsidered. 4.2 The District will schedule reconsideration of the matter by the Board of Managers and provide notice of the date of reconsideration to the applicant at least 30 days in advance. 4.3 No later than 15 days prior to the date of reconsideration, the applicant may supplement the established permit-review record with any additional exhibits, documentation or legal arguments the applicant wishes to submit. 4.4 In accordance with Minnesota Statutes section 103D.345, subdivision 2, an applicant will be responsible for the analytical costs incurred by the
12 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
District for purposes of the reconsideration, except no costs will be recovered for reconsideration of a decision made on an application made by a local, state or federal governmental body. 4.5 Upon the applicant’s filing of a notice of reconsideration, the underlying permit decision will be suspended until the District renders a determination on the reconsideration and the activities that are the subject of the application may not be undertaken before the District renders a final decision on reconsideration. 4.6 Absent the timely filing of a notice of reconsideration of a condition or the grounds for denial, the District’s decision on the application is final at issuance. A decision on reconsideration will constitute the District’s final decision on the application.
5 Permit assignment and renewal A permit is valid for one year from the date the permit is approved, with or without conditions, unless specified otherwise or the permit is suspended or revoked. To renew or transfer a permit, the permittee must notify the District in writing prior to the permit expiration date and provide an explanation for the renewal or transfer request. The District may impose different or additional conditions on a renewal or deny the renewal in the event of a material change in circumstances, except that on the first renewal, a permit will not be subject to additional or different requirements solely because of a change in District rules. New or revised rule requirements will not be imposed on renewal of a permit where the permittee has made substantial progress toward completion of the permitted work. If the activities subject to the permit have not substantially commenced, no more than one renewal may be granted. An applicant wishing to continue to pursue a project for which permit approval has expired must reapply for a permit from the District and pay applicable fees.
A permittee may assign a permit to another party only upon approval of the District, which will be granted if: 5.1 the proposed assignee agrees in writing to assume responsibility for compliance with all terms, conditions and obligations of the permit as issued; 5.2 there are no pending violations of the permit or conditions of approval; and 5.3 the proposed assignee has provided any required financial assurance necessary to secure performance of the permit.
13 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
The District may impose different or additional conditions on the transfer of a permit or deny the transfer if it finds that the proposed transferee has not demonstrated the ability to perform the work under the terms of the permit as issued. Permit transfer does not extend the permit term.
6 Suspension or revocation The District may suspend or revoke a permit issued under these rules wherever the permit is issued on the basis of incorrect information supplied to the District by the applicant, or if the preliminary and final subdivision approval received from a municipality or county is not consistent with the conditions of the permit.
14
Rule B – Floodplain Management and Drainage Alterations
1 Policy It is the policy of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Board of Managers to regulate to control of floodwaters, ensure the preservation of the natural function of floodplains as floodwater storage areas, maintain no net loss of floodplain storage to accommodate 100-year flood storage volumes and maximize upstream storage and infiltration of floodwaters.
2 Regulation A permit is required for: 2.1 Any alteration or filling of land below the 100-year flood elevation of a waterbody in the watershed. 2.2 Any alteration of surface water flows below the 100-year flood elevation of a waterbody by changing land contours, diverting or obstructing surface or channel flow, or creating a basin outlet.
3 Criteria for floodplain and drainage alterations 3.1 The low floor elevation of all new and reconstructed structures will be constructed at a minimum of two feet above any applicable 100-year flood elevation. Within landlocked basins, the low floor elevation of all new and reconstructed structures will be constructed at an elevation one foot above the surface overflow elevation or the calculated high water level from back-to-back 100-year, 24-hour storm events or the 100- year, 10-day snowmelt, whichever is higher. 3.2 Placement of fill below the 100-year flood elevation is prohibited unless fully compensatory storage at the same elevation (+/- 1 foot) and within the floodplain of the same waterbody is provided. Creation of floodplain storage capacity to offset fill must occur within the original permit term. If offsetting storage capacity will be provided off site, it will be created before any floodplain filling for the project will be allowed. 3.3 The District will issue a permit to alter surface flows only if it finds that the alteration will not have an adverse impact on any upstream or downstream landowner and will not adversely affect flood risk, basin or channel stability, groundwater hydrology, stream base flow, water quality or aquatic or riparian habitat. 3.4 No structure may be placed, constructed or reconstructed and no surface Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
may be paved within 100 feet of the centerline of any watercourse, except that this provision does not apply to: a Bridges, culverts and other structures and associated impervious surface regulated under Rule G – Waterbody Crossings and Structures; b Trails 10 feet wide or less, designed primarily for nonmotorized use.
4 Required information and exhibits The following exhibits must accompany the permit application; one full-size set (22 inches by 34 inches), one set reduced to a maximum of 11 inches by 17 inches, and one set as electronic files in a format acceptable to the District engineer: 4.1 Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing elevation contours of the work area, ordinary high water level or normal water elevation and 100-year flood elevation. All elevations must be reduced to NGVD (1929 datum). 4.2 Grading plan showing any proposed elevation changes. 4.3 Preliminary plat of any proposed land development. 4.4 Determination by a licensed civil engineer or registered qualified hydrologist of the 100-year flood elevation for the parcel before and after the project. 4.5 Computation by a professional engineer of cut, fill and change in water storage capacity resulting from proposed grading. 4.6 Erosion-control plan. 4.7 Soil boring results, if requested by the District engineer. 4.8 Documentation that drainage and flowage easements over all land below the 100-year flood elevation have been conveyed to the municipality with jurisdiction and recorded. For public entities, this requirement may be satisfied by a written agreement executed with the District in lieu of a recorded document; the agreement will state that if the land within the 100-year floodplain is conveyed, the public body will require the buyer to comply with this subsection.
5 Exceptions No floodplain and drainage permit from the District is required: 5.1 For construction or reconstruction of a single-family home, unless any portion of the parcel is: a Within 300 feet of the centerline of and tributary to Riley Creek,
16 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
Purgatory Creek or Bluff Creek; or b Within 500 feet of the ordinary high water level of and tributary to any other waterbody; and c Below the 100-year flood elevation. 5.2 If all of the following conditions exist: a The 100-year flood elevation of a water basin is entirely within a municipality; b the water basin is landlocked; c the municipality has adopted an ordinance regulating floodplain encroachment; and d the proposed project is entirely within the drainage area of the water basin.
17 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
Rule C – Erosion and Sediment Control
1 Policy It is the policy of the District to ensure management of land disturbances to: 1.1 Improve water quality to fully support swimming in designated lakes and to fully support designated uses for waterbodies. 1.2 Preserve vegetation and habitat important to fish, waterfowl and other wildlife while also minimizing negative impacts of erosion. 1.3 Alleviate identified erosion problems. 1.4 Minimize the duration and intensity of soil and cover disturbances. 1.5 Require local governments and developers to manage runoff effectively to minimize water quality impacts from new development, redevelopment and other land-disturbing activities. 1.6 Encourage low-impact development techniques and approaches. 1.7 Minimize compaction of soil from land-disturbing activities and encourage decompaction of soil compacted by land-disturbing activities.
2 Regulation 2.1 An erosion and sediment control permit must be obtained for any land- disturbing activity that will involve: a excavation of 50 cubic yards or more of earth, or; b alteration or removal of 5,000 square feet or more of surface area or vegetation. 2.2 A permit from the District is not required to create, restore or improve a wetland and/or buffer pursuant to a District-approved natural resources creation, restoration or management plan.
3 Criteria 3.1 Permit approval requires preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan that provides: a protection of natural topography and soil conditions; b temporary erosion and sediment control practices such as silt fencing, fiber logs, inlet protection, rock construction entrances, temporary seeding, vegetative buffer strips, erosion control blanketing, mulching, floatation silt curtains and other practices as specified by the District and consistent with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s “Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas,” as amended or
18 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
updated, and the “Minnesota Stormwater Manual,” as amended or updated; c minimization of the disturbance intensity and duration, including phasing of disturbance to minimize quantity of disturbed area at any one time; d additional measures, such as hydraulic mulching and other practices as specified by the District, on slopes of 3:1 (H:V) or steeper to provide adequate stabilization; e protection of stormwater facilities during construction; f final site stabilization measures; g proper management of all construction site waste, such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter and sanitary waste at the construction site. 3.2 Site stabilization a All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs must be maintained until completion of construction and vegetation is established sufficiently to ensure stability of the site, as determined by the District. b All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs must be removed upon final stabilization. c Soil surfaces disturbed or compacted during construction and remaining pervious upon completion of construction must be decompacted through soil amendment and/or ripping to a depth of 18 inches while taking care to avoid utilities, tree roots and other existing vegetation prior to final revegetation or other stabilization. d All disturbed areas must be stabilized within 7 calendar days 3.3 Inspection and maintenance. The permit holder will be responsible for the inspection, maintenance and effectiveness of all erosion and sediment control facilities, features and techniques until final site stabilization. The permittee must, at a minimum, inspect, maintain and repair all disturbed surfaces and all erosion and sediment control facilities and soil stabilization measures every day work is performed on the site and at least weekly until land-disturbing activity has ceased. Thereafter, the permittee must perform these responsibilities at least weekly until vegetative cover is established. The permittee will maintain a log of activities under this section for inspection by the District on request. Between November 15 and snowmelt, and if site work ceases before completion for more than 14 consecutive days, the weekly
19 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
inspection requirement may be reduced to monthly if the site is managed such that: a Exposed soils are stabilized with established vegetation, straw or mulch, matting, rock, rolled erosion control product or other approved material. Seeding is encouraged, but is not alone sufficient. b Temporary and permanent ponds and sediment traps are graded to capacity before spring snowmelt. This does not include infiltration/filtration facilities, which must be kept free of sediment until final site stabilization. c Sediment barriers are properly installed at necessary perimeter and sensitive locations. d Slopes and grades are properly stabilized with approved methods. Rolled erosion control products must be used on slopes of 3:1 (H:V) or greater and where erosion conditions dictate. e Stockpiled soils and other materials subject to erosion are protected by established vegetation, anchored straw or mulch, rolled erosion control materials or other durable covering preventing movement of eroded materials. f All construction entrances are properly stabilized. g Snow management protects erosion and sediment control measures.
4 Required information and exhibits The following exhibits must accompany the permit application; one set full-size (22 inches by 34 inches), one set reduced to a maximum of 11 inches by 17 inches) and one set as electronic files in a format acceptable to the District: 4.1 A narrative statement describing the proposed site work. 4.2 An erosion and sediment-control plan including: a name, address and phone number of the individual who will remain liable to the District for performance under this rule and maintenance of erosion and sediment-control measures from the time the permitted activities commence until vegetative cover is established b topographic maps of existing and proposed conditions that clearly indicate all hydrologic features and areas where grading will expose soils to erosive conditions, site property boundaries, as well as the flow direction of all runoff and run-on; i single-family home construction or reconstruction projects may comply with this provision by providing aerial imagery or
20 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
an oblique map acceptable to the District; c for all projects except construction or reconstruction of a single- family home, tabulation of the construction implementation schedule; d clear identification of all temporary erosion and sediment control measures that will remain in place until vegetation is established; e clear identification of all permanent erosion control and soil stabilization measures, including their locations; f clear identification of staging areas, as applicable; g delineation of proposed changes to any floodplain, wetland or wetland buffer; h documentation as to the status of the project’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater permit and a copy of the project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, if applicable. i clear identification of locations where compaction is to be prevented and/or mitigated.
21
Rule D – Wetland, Lake and Creek Buffers
1 Policy It is the policy of the Board of Managers to ensure the preservation of the natural resources, recreational, habitat, water treatment and water storage functions of water resources. This rule is intended to: 1.1 Support municipal enforcement of the Wetland Conservation Act and the policy of no net loss in the extent, quality and ecological diversity of existing wetlands in the watershed. 1.2 Preserve vegetation and habitat important to fish, waterfowl and other wildlife while also minimizing negative impacts of erosion. 1.3 Require buffers around wetlands, water basins and watercourses affected by land-altering activities. 1.4 Ensure the preservation of the natural resources, habitat, water treatment and water storage functions of wetlands, water basins and watercourses. 1.5 Maintain wetland integrity and prevent fragmentation of wetlands. 1.6 Prevent erosion of shorelines and streambanks, and foster the use of natural materials for the protection, maintenance and restoration of shorelines and streambanks.
2 Regulation 2.1 Compliance with the criteria in section 3 of this rule is required for any activity that requires a permit under the Rule B – Floodplain Management and Drainage Alterations, Rule E – Dredging and Sediment Removal, Rule F – Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization, Rule G – Waterbody Crossings and Structures or Rule J – Stormwater Management rules and on property: a encompassing or adjacent to a public water basin, public watercourse, public waters wetland or other protected wetland in the watershed; or b encompassing or adjacent to a defined regulated feature within a High-Risk Erosion Area shown on the map in Appendix D1, except that the requirements of this rule will not apply to a parcel for which the applicant submits data demonstrating a Stream Power Index rating of 3 or less and an absence of any significant existing erosion. 2.2 The requirements of this rule do not apply to incidental wetland.
3 Criteria 3.1 Buffer width. Buffer must be created or maintained on any regulated Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
feature disturbed by activity regulated by the District and on any regulated feature downgradient from the activity, in accordance with the following criteria: a Subject to paragraphs 3.1b through e, buffers must extend: i An average of 100 feet from the edge of an exceptional value wetland,1 minimum 60 feet; ii An average of 75 feet from the edge of a high value wetland, minimum 50 feet; iii an average 40 feet from the edge of a medium value wetland,1 minimum 20 feet; iv an average 20 feet from the edge of a low value wetland,1 minimum 10 feet; v an average 50 feet from the ordinary high water level of a water basin, minimum 30 feet; vi an average of 50 feet from the centerline of a public waters watercourse or the edge of the meander belt, whichever is greater, minimum 30 feet; vii an average of 50 feet from the thalweg of any watercourse within a High-Risk Erosion Area, as shown in Appendix D1, minimum 30 feet. b The actual width of buffer required for a particular project may be reduced from the applicable width in paragraph a as follows: i For every 3 percent decrease in average buffer slope from 18 percent, the average buffer width may be reduced 1 foot. ii For every grade of Hydrologic Soil Group above Type D for the predominant buffer soil condition, the average buffer width may be reduced 1 foot. c Steep slopes. Paragraph b notwithstanding, where a buffer encompasses all or part of a slope averaging 18 percent or greater over a distance of 50 feet or more upgradient of the regulated feature, calculated using a reasonably precise topographic surface model, the buffer will extend to the width specified under section 3.1a or to the top of the slope, whichever is greater. An existing contour alteration or artificial structure on a slope constitutes a break in slope only if it will indefinitely dissipate upgradient runoff velocity and trap upgradient pollutant loadings.
1 Wetland values will be determined in accordance with Appendix D2.
23 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
d Existing single-family residential properties: Paragraphs b and c do not apply. When required on an existing single-family residential property, buffer width will be 25 percent of the distance between the closest existing habitable structure and the edge of the regulated feature or 30 feet, whichever is greater, except that the buffer width need not exceed the applicable width under paragraph a. e Buffer width may vary, provided that the minimum buffer width is maintained at all points, there is no reduction in total buffer area, and the buffer provides wetland and habitat protection at least equivalent to a buffer of uniform width. Buffer wider than 200 percent of the applicable width calculated in accordance with above provisions will be excluded from the buffer-averaging calculation. f Buffer is only required on the property that is the subject of the District permit, and is required where the regulated feature is either on or within the applicable buffer width of the subject property. g Buffer required for linear projects will be limited in width to the extent of available right-of-way. 3.2 Buffer areas, or portions thereof, that are not vegetated or will be disturbed by grading activities during construction must be planted with native vegetation and maintained to retain natural resources and ecological value. Existing buffer areas preserved in compliance with this rule must be managed in as naturalized a condition as possible to encourage growth of native vegetation and eliminate invasive species. Buffer vegetation must not be cultivated, cropped, pastured, mowed, fertilized, subject to the placement of mulch or yard waste, or otherwise disturbed, except for periodic cutting or burning that promotes the health of the buffer, actions to address disease or invasive species, mowing for purposes of public safety, mowing of turf grass, temporary disturbance for placement or repair of buried utilities, or other actions to maintain or improve buffer quality, each as approved by the District in advance in writing or when implemented pursuant to a written agreement executed with the District. a Diseased, noxious, invasive or otherwise hazardous trees or vegetation may be selectively removed from buffer areas and trees may be selectively pruned to maintain health. b Pesticides and herbicides may be used in accordance with Minnesota Department of Agriculture rules and guidelines. c No fill, debris or other material will be placed within a buffer.
24 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
d No structure or impervious cover (hard surface) may be created within a buffer area, except that boardwalks and trails designed for nonmotorized use and stormwater management facilities may be located within a buffer area as long as the minimum buffer width is maintained between the trail or boardwalk and regulated feature, and plans and specifications are approved by the District prior to construction. e A pervious path, not more than 12 feet wide, may be maintained to provide access to a regulated feature. Access paths will not be located where concentrated runoff will flow to the regulated feature. 3.3 Buffer will be indicated by permanent, free-standing markers at the buffer’s upland edge, with a design and text approved by the District in writing. A marker will be placed along each lot line, with additional markers at an interval of no more than 200 feet. If a District permit is sought for a subdivision, the monumentation requirement will apply to each lot of record to be created. On public land or right-of-way, the monumentation requirement may be satisfied by the use of a marker flush to the ground or breakaway markers of durable material. 3.4 Before any work subject to District permit requirements commences, buffer areas and maintenance requirements must be documented in a declaration or other document approved by the District and recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar. On public land or right-of- way, buffer areas and maintenance requirements may be documented in a written agreement with the District in lieu of a recorded document.
4 Temporary Alterations. Temporary alteration of buffer areas permitted under this rule or in writing by the District must comport with the requirements of this section. 4.1 Compliance with District Rule C – Erosion and Sediment Control is required, irrespective of the area or volume of earth to be disturbed. 4.2 Buffer zones and the location and extent of vegetation disturbance will be delineated on the erosion control plan. 4.3 Alterations must be designed and conducted to ensure only the smallest amount of disturbed ground is exposed for the shortest time possible. Mulches or similar materials must be used for temporary soil coverage and permanent native vegetation established as soon as possible. 4.4 Fill or excavated material may not be placed to create an unstable slope.
25 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
5 Roads and Utilities. A structure, impervious cover or right-of-way maintained permanently in conjunction with a crossing of a waterbody or wetland may be constructed and maintained in buffer area that would otherwise be required under this rule. The structure, impervious cover or right-of-way must be designed to minimize the area of permanent vegetative disturbance. Minimization includes, but is not limited to, approach roads and rights- of-way that are perpendicular to the crossing and of a minimum width consistent with use and maintenance access needs. 5.1 All work will be conducted in accordance with section 4 of this rule.
6 Shoreline or Streambank Improvements. A shoreline or streambank improvement, including a sand blanket, is excepted from the prohibitions of subsection 3.2, provided the improvement complies with District Rule F – Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization. The applicable buffer will extend from the topmost extent of the shoreline or streambank improvement.
7 Required information and exhibits. The following exhibits will accompany the permit application; one set full-size (22 inches by 34 inches), one set reduced to a maximum of 11 inches by 17 inches) and one set as electronic files in a format acceptable to the District. 7.1 For work on any property subject to this rule: a A scaled site plan showing existing conditions, including the following elements: i Topographic contours at two-foot intervals; ii Existing streets, roads and trails; iii Existing structures and facilities; iv Extent of regulated feature as delineated in the field; v Location of existing trees and tree masses; vi Soil types and locations. b A scaled proposed site plan showing proposed development that include the following elements: i Topographic contours showing finished grade at two-foot intervals; ii Proposed streets, parking, trails and sidewalks; iii Location of proposed structures and facilities;
26 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
iv Extent of regulated feature and associated buffers as delineated in the field; v Location of major landscaping including those existing trees and tree masses to be retained. vi Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant vii Street rights-of-way; viii Utility easements; 7.2 For projects on properties on which wetlands are located, exhibits must be submitted as follows: a For existing single-family residential properties encompassing all or part of a wetland: A wetland delineation. b For all other properties encompassing all or part of a wetland: A wetland delineation, type determination, and function and values assessment of any regulated wetland using the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) or another wetlands-assessment method approved by the District. The delineation and function and values assessment must be conducted by a certified wetland delineator and supported by the following documentation: i Identification of the methods used; ii Identification of presence or absence of normal circumstances or problem conditions; iii Wetland data sheets, or a report, for each sample site, referenced to the location shown on the delineation map. In each data sheet/report applicant must provide the reasoning for satisfying, or not satisfying each of the technical criteria and why the area is or is not a wetland; iv A delineation map showing the size, locations, configuration and boundaries of wetlands in relation to identifiable physical characteristics, such as roads, fence lines, waterways or other identifiable features; v The location of all sample sites and stakes/flags must be accurately shown on the delineation map. 7.3 For properties adjacent to but not encompassing any portion of a wetland, the District will determine the need for wetland buffer and applicable buffer width using best available data, including any wetland functions and values data submitted by the applicant.
27
Appendix D1 – High-Risk Erosion Areas Map
Appendix D2 – Wetlands Definitions “Exceptional value wetlands” are those meeting one or more of the following rating levels, as determined by application of the current edition of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) or another wetlands-assessment method approved by the District.
Function or Value Rating Vegetative Diversity Exceptional Wildlife Habitat Exceptional Amphibian Habitat High AND Vegetative Diversity High Fish Habitat Exceptional Shoreline Habitat High Aesthetics/education/recreation/cultural Exceptional AND Wildlife Habitat High Stormwater Sensitivity Exceptional AND Vegetative Diversity Medium or greater Vegetative Diversity High AND Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime High
Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
“High value wetlands” are those meeting one or more of the following rating levels, as determined by application of the current edition of MnRAM or another wetlands- assessment method approved by the District.
Function or Value Rating Vegetative Diversity High Wildlife Habitat High Amphibian Habitat High Fish Habitat High Shoreline Protection Medium Aesthetics/education/recreation/cultural High AND Wildlife Habitat Medium Stormwater Sensitivity High AND Vegetative Diversity Medium or greater Vegetative Diversity Medium AND Maintenance of Hydrologic Regime High or greater
“Medium value wetlands” are those that do not qualify as high value wetlands but that meet one or more of the following rating levels, as determined by application of the current edition of MnRAM or another wetlands-assessment method approved by the District.
Function or Value Rating Vegetative Diversity Medium Wildlife Habitat Medium Amphibian Habitat Medium AND Vegetative Diversity Medium Fish Habitat Medium Shoreline Habitat Low Aesthetics/education/recreation/cultural Medium AND Wildlife Habitat Low Stormwater Sensitivity Medium
“Low value wetlands” are those that do not qualify as “exceptional,” “high,” or “medium” wetlands.
30
Rule E – Dredging and Sediment Removal
1 Policy It is the policy of the Board of Managers to regulate the removal of sediment from public waters to mitigate the impacts of stormwater sediment transport and deposition.
2 Regulation No person will dredge or otherwise remove 1 cubic yard or more of sediment from the beds, banks or shores of any public water by any means without first securing a permit from the District. 2.1 Dredging or sediment removal will be permitted only: a To maintain, or remove sediment from, an existing channel, subject to such further limitations on method or extent of dredging as this rule may provide; b To implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access; c To remove sediment to eliminate a source of nutrients, pollutants or contaminants; d To improve the public recreational, wildlife or fisheries resources of surface waters; or e For other actions by public entities for public purposes. 2.2 No District permit under this rule is required for activities conducted pursuant to a permit from the state Department of Natural Resources, but the District buffer requirements apply to activity that would otherwise require a District permit.
3 Criteria 3.1 Dredging or sediment removal will be permitted upon submission of exhibits demonstrating that the dredging or sediment removal: a Is the minimal-impact solution to achieve reasonable navigational access, when proposed for navigation purposes; b Will not alter the original alignment, slope or cross-section of the beds, banks or shores of any public water; c Will not occur above the ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse; d Will not enlarge a natural watercourse or basin landward or create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes; Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
e Will not cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage; f Is not proposed for a location where any portion of the area to be dredged contains any slope steeper than 3:1 (H:V) in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10:1 (H:V) for an area adjoining residential lakeshore; and g Is not proposed for a location where adverse ecological impact to a high-quality wetland or other ecologically sensitive area cannot be minimized. 3.2 Dredged or excavated sediment must be placed at a location: a above the ordinary high water level of a public water, public water wetland or wetland subject to the Wetland Conservation Act; b Not in a floodplain; or c Not subject to erosion or likely to cause redeposition of the sediment to an adjacent waterbody, stormwater facility or storm sewer. 3.3 Degradation or erosion of the banks or bed of the subject waterbody by entry of equipment must be avoided, and the banks or bed of the subject waterbody must be restored and stabilized at the conclusion of the permitted work and prior to the removal of floatation silt curtain, if required. 3.4 Where determined necessary by the District to protect water quality, a floatation silt curtain will be placed around the sediment-removal site and maintained for the duration of the project. 3.5 No activity affecting the bed of a public water may be conducted between March 15 and June 15 on watercourses, or between April 1 and June 30 on all other public water waterbodies, to minimize impacts on fish spawning and migration.
4 Required information and exhibits The following exhibits will accompany the permit application; one full-size set (22 inches by 34 inches), one set reduced to a maximum of 11 inches by 17 inches, and one set as electronic files in a format acceptable to the District: 4.1 A site plan, showing: a Delineation of the work area; b Property lines; c Ordinary high water elevation; and d 100-year flood elevation. 4.2 Profile, cross sections and/or topographic contours (at intervals of no more than 1 foot) showing existing and proposed elevations and
32 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
proposed side slopes in the work area. 4.3 In the case of projects using hydraulic means of sediment removal and onsite spoil containment, the applicant will provide: a Cross-section of the proposed dike; b Stage/storage volume relationship for the proposed spoil containment area; c Detail of any proposed outlet structure, showing size, description and invert elevation; d Stage/discharge relationship for any proposed outlet structure from the spoil containment area; and e Site plan showing the locations of any proposed outlet structure and emergency overflow from the spoil containment area. 4.4 A site plan showing the proposed location of floating silt curtain(s). 4.5 Supporting data: a Description and volume computation of material to be removed; b Description of equipment to be used; c Construction schedule; d Location map of spoil containment area; e Erosion control plan for containment area; f Restoration plan for any proposed permanent on-site spoil containment site showing final grades, removal of control structure, and a description of how and when the site will be restored, covered or revegetated after construction. g Detail of any proposed floating silt curtain including specifications.
5 Fast-Track Public Project Permit A public entity may obtain a permit for removal of between 1 and 20 cubic yards of sediment from a public waterbody at a stormwater system outlet or similar structure on notice to the District at least 48 hours in advance, including location of the removal. The removal must comply with all criteria in section 3 of this rule.
33
Rule F – Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization
1 Policy It is the policy of the Board of Managers to prevent erosion of shorelines and streambanks, and to foster the use of natural materials and bioengineering for the maintenance and restoration of shorelines.
2 Regulation No person will install an improvement to stabilize a shoreline or streambank, including but not limited to riprap, a bioengineered installation, a sand blanket or a retaining wall, on any watercourse or a public water without first securing a permit from the District. a Planting of vegetation not intended to provide deep soil structure stability does not require a permit under this rule. b No District permit under this rule is required for activities conducted pursuant to a permit from the state Department of Natural Resources, but the District buffer requirements apply to activity that would otherwise require a District permit.
3 Criteria 3.1 An applicant for a permit under this rule must demonstrate a need to prevent erosion or restore an eroded shoreline, unless the proposed improvement is part of a public project designed to restore natural shoreline. 3.2 Sequencing. An applicant must first consider maintenance or restoration of shoreline using bioengineering. If bioengineering cannot provide a stable shoreline, a combination of riprap and bioengineering may be used to restore or maintain shoreline. If a combination of riprap and bioengineering cannot provide a stable shoreline within a reasonable period, riprap may be used to restore or maintain shoreline. a Live plantings incorporated in shoreline bioengineering must be native aquatic vegetation and/or native upland plants. b Riprap to be used in shoreline erosion protection must be sized appropriately in relation to the erosion potential of the wave or current action of the particular waterbody, but in no case will the riprap rock average less than six inches in diameter or more than 30 inches in diameter. Riprap will be durable, natural stone and of a Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
gradation that will result in a stable shoreline embankment. Stone, granular filter and geotextile material will conform to standard Minnesota Department of Transportation specifications, except that neither limestone nor dolomite will be used for shoreline riprap, but may be used at stormwater outfalls. All materials used must be free from organic material, soil, clay, debris, trash or any other material that may cause siltation or pollution. c Riprap will be placed to conform to the natural alignment of the shoreline. d A transitional layer consisting of graded gravel, at least six inches deep, and an appropriate geotextile filter fabric will be placed between the existing shoreline and any riprap. The thickness of riprap layers should be at least 1.25 times the maximum stone diameter. Toe boulders, if used, must be at least 50 percent buried. e Riprap must not cover emergent vegetation, unless authorized by a Department of Natural Resources permit. f Riprap will extend no higher than the top of bank or two feet above the 100-year high water elevation, whichever is lower. 3.3 The finished slope of any shoreline will not be steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). 3.4 Horizontal encroachment from a shoreline will be the minimal amount necessary to permanently stabilize the shoreline and will not unduly interfere with water flow or navigation. No riprap or filter material will be placed more than 6 feet waterward of the OHW. Streambank riprap will not reduce the cross-sectional area of the channel or result in a stage increase at or upstream of the installation. 3.5 The design of any shoreline erosion protection will reflect the engineering properties of the underlying soils and any soil corrections or reinforcements necessary. The design will conform to engineering principles for dispersion of wave energy and resistance to deformation from ice pressures and movement, considering prevailing winds, fetch and other factors that induce wave energy. 3.6 Placement of riprap for merely cosmetic purposes is prohibited. 3.7 Retaining walls extending below the OHW of a waterbody are prohibited, except where: a there is a demonstrable need for a retaining wall in a public improvement project, and b the design of the retaining wall has been certified by a registered
35 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
engineer. 3.8 Criteria – Sand Blankets. The following standards apply to sand blanketing: a The sand or gravel used must be clean prior to being spread. The sand must contain no toxins or heavy metals and must contain no weed infestations such as, but not limited to, water hyacinth, alligator weed, and Eurasian watermilfoil, or animal infestations such as, but not limited to, zebra mussels or their larva. b The sand layer must not exceed six inches in thickness, 50 feet in width along the shoreline, or one-half the width of the lot, whichever is less, and may not extend more than 10 feet waterward of the ordinary high water level. c Only one installation of sand or gravel to the same location may be made during a four-year period. After the four years have passed since the last blanketing, the location may receive another sand blanket. No more than two applications may be made at an individual project site. i Exception. Beaches operated by public entities and available to the public shall be maintained in a manner that represents the minimal impact to the environment, relative to other reasonable alternatives, but otherwise are exempt from the criteria in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
4 Required information and exhibits. The following exhibits will accompany the permit application; one full-size set (22 inches by 34 inches), one set reduced to a maximum of 11 inches by 17 inches, and one set as electronic files in a format acceptable to the District: 4.1 A site plan, showing: a Conditions establishing, to the satisfaction of the District, existing erosion or the potential for erosion; b a survey locating the existing OHW contour, existing shoreline , floodplain elevation and location of property lines; c elevation contours of the upland within 15 feet of the OHW and referenced to accepted datum; and d plan view of locations and lineal footage of the proposed riprap. The plan must show the location of an upland baseline parallel to the shoreline with stationing. The baseline will be staked in the field by the applicant and maintained in place until project completion. Baseline
36 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
origin and terminus each must be referenced to three fixed features measured to the closest 0.05 foot, with measurements shown and described on the plan. Perpendicular offsets from the baseline to the OHW must be measured and distances shown on the plan at 20-foot stations. The plan will be certified by a registered engineer or surveyor. 4.2 A construction plan and specifications, showing: a A sequencing analysis in compliance with section 3.2; b materials to be used, including the size(s) of any riprap to be used; c cross section detailing the proposed riprap, if any, drawn to scale, with the horizontal and vertical scales noted on the drawing. The detail should show the finished riprap slope, transitional layer design and placement, distance waterward of the riprap placement and OWH. d Description of the underlying soil materials. e Material specifications for stone, filter material and geotextile fabric. 4.3 For sites involving aquatic plantings, a separate Aquatic Plant Management permit will be obtained from the Department of Natural Resources. a This provision does not apply to slope protection projects using woody species such as willow and dogwood. 4.4 An erosion control and site restoration plan. 4.5 For an application for a sand blanket, the following exhibits are required: a Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing elevation contours of the adjacent upland area, ordinary high water elevation, and 100-year high water elevation (if available). All elevations must be reduced to NGVD (1929 datum). b Profile, cross sections and/or topographic contours showing existing and proposed elevations in the work area. (Topographic contours should be at intervals not greater than 1.0 foot). c A completed Sand Blanket Permit Application form.
37 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
Rule G – Waterbody Crossings and Structures
1 Policy It is the policy of the Board of Managers to discourage the use of beds and banks of waterbodies for the placement of bridges, utilities or other structures, and to protect the hydraulic capacity and floodplain of streams and drainage systems.
2 Regulation No person will construct, improve, replace or remove a crossing in contact with or under the bed or bank of any waterbody within the District, place or replace a structure in the bed or banks of waters of the state that are not public waters, remove a structure from the bed or bank of any waterbody, or conduct horizontal drilling under a waterbody without first securing a permit from the District. 2.1 No District permit under this rule is required for activities conducted pursuant to a permit from the state Department of Natural Resources, but the District buffer requirements apply to activity that would otherwise require a District permit.
3 Criteria 3.1 Use of the bed or banks of a waterbody must meet: a a demonstrated public benefit for projects affecting public waters or b a demonstrated specific need for all other waterbodies. 3.2 Construction, replacement or improvement of a waterbody crossing in contact with the bed or bank of a waterbody: a Will retain adequate hydraulic capacity and assure no net increase in the flood stage of the pertinent waterbody; b Will retain adequate navigational capacity pursuant to the waterbody’s recreational classification; c Will not adversely affect water quality, change the existing flowline/gradient, or cause increased scour, erosion or sedimentation; d Will preserve existing wildlife passage along each bank and riparian area by means that: 1 account for wildlife that are native to the area or may be present; and 2 are approved by a qualified wildlife biologist.
38 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
e Will represent the ‘minimal impact’ solution to a specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives. 3.3 Construction or improvement of an outfall structure in contact with the bed or bank of a waterbody must: a incorporate a stilling-basin, surge-basin, energy dissipator, or other device or devices when necessary to minimize disturbance and erosion of natural shoreline and bed resulting from peak flows; b when feasible, utilize discharge to stormwater treatment ponds, artificial stilling or sedimentation basins, or other devices for entrapment of floating trash and litter, sand, silt, debris, and organic matter prior to discharge to public waters; and c use natural or artificial ponding areas to provide water retention and storage for the reduction of peak flows into waterbodies to the greatest extent possible. 3.4 Projects involving horizontal drilling will provide for minimum clearance of 3 feet below the bed of a waterbody and a minimum setback of 50 feet from any stream bank for pilot, entrance and exit holes. 3.5 Placement or replacement of a structure must: a Represent the minimal impact solution to a specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives; b Represent the minimum encroachment, change or damage to the environment, particularly the ecology of the waters, necessary to achieve the intended purpose; c Comply with the District floodplain rule; and d Not cause adverse effects to water quality and the physical or biological character of the waterbody. 3.6 Removal of structures or other waterway obstructions: a Will maintain or restore the original cross-section and bed conditions to the greatest extent practicable; b Will achieve complete removal of the structure, including any footings or pilings that impede navigation; and c Will not involve the removal of a water-level control device. 3.7 For all projects: a No activity affecting the bed or banks of a protected water may be conducted between March 15 and June 15 on watercourses, or between April 1 and June 30 on all other public water waterbodies, to minimize impacts on fish spawning and migration. b Banks must be stabilized immediately after completion of permitted
39 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
work and revegetated as soon as growing conditions allow. c The potential transfer of aquatic invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels, Eurasian Watermilfoil, etc.) must be minimized to the maximum extent possible. d Compliance with applicable criteria in subsections 3.2 to 3.7 of Rule F – Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization is required.
4 Required information and exhibits. The following exhibits will accompany the permit application; one full-size set (22 inches by 34 inches), one set reduced to a maximum of 11 inches by 17 inches, and one set as electronic files in a format acceptable to the District: 4.1 Construction plans and specifications, certified by registered professional engineer. 4.2 An analysis prepared by a professional engineer or qualified hydrologist showing the effect of the project on hydraulic capacity and water quality. 4.3 An erosion control and site restoration plan.
5 Maintenance Crossings and structures in contact with the bed or bank of a waterbody will be repaired and maintained to ensure continuing compliance with applicable criteria in section 3 or this rule, including but not limited to ensuring adequate hydraulic and navigational capacity; assuring no net increase in the flood stage; preventing adverse effects to water quality, changes to the existing flowline/gradient and increased scour, erosion or sedimentation; and minimizing the potential for obstruction of the waterbody. A declaration or other recordable document stating terms for maintenance and approved by the District will be recorded before activity under a permit issued under this rule commences. In lieu of recordation, a public permittee or a permittee without a property interest sufficient for recordation may assume the maintenance obligation by means of a written agreement with the District. The agreement will state that if the ownership of the structure is transferred, the public body will require the transferee to comply with this subsection.
40 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
Rule H – Appropriation of Public Surface Waters
1 Policy It is the policy of the Board of Managers to regulate the appropriation of public surface waters pursuant to the mandate in Minnesota Statutes section 103B.211, subdivision 4.
2 Regulation A permit from the District is required to appropriate less than 10,000 gallons per day and up to 1,000,000 gallons per year of water for a nonessential use from: 2.1 A public water basin or wetland within the District; or 2.2 A public watercourse within the District.
3 Criteria An appropriation of public water permitted under this rule must not alter the hydrologic regime in a basin or watercourse in a manner that deprives the public or riparian property owners of reasonable use of and access to the water. 3.1 In addition, the appropriation must: a Be reasonable and practical with regard to alternative sources of water or methods available, including use of water appropriated during high flows and levels and stored for later use, to attain the stated objective; b Include the utilization of water storage and reuse and conservation practices to the greatest extent feasible; c Be subject to restriction, at any time, to meet in-stream flow needs or protect basin water levels. 3.2 A permittee must provide by March 1 each year a report including: a A monthly log of amount of water appropriated over the prior calendar year; and b the method of appropriation, if changed from original application. 3.3 Permits issued under this rule will continue until revoked or relinquished. Failure to comply with the criteria and requirements of this rule will be grounds for revocation.
4 Exhibits An applicant for a permit under this rule must provide: 4.1 Written evidence of ownership, control of or a license to use the land
41 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
abutting the surface water source from which water will be appropriated. 4.2 A completed application showing: a Applicant address; b Applicant email address; c Purpose of the requested appropriation; d Source of water; e Amount of water to be appropriated on a maximum daily, monthly and annual basis; f Means, methods and techniques of appropriation; g Proposed pumping schedule, including rates, times and duration; h Alternative sources of water considered and reasons why the particular alternative proposed was selected; j Information on any water storage facilities and capabilities and any proposed reuse and conservation practices; and k A contingency plan or agreement with the District to discontinue the permitted appropriation in the event of restrictions.
An appropriation application form may be obtained from the District offices or website.
42
Rule I – Appropriation of Groundwater
1 Policy It is the policy of the Board of Managers to regulate appropriations to ensure the health and availability of groundwater in the watershed.
2 Regulation A permit from the District, incorporating an approved groundwater- appropriation plan, is required for an appropriation of groundwater of less than 10,000 gallons per day and up to 1,000,000 gallons per year or of any amount for domestic use by less than 25 persons.
3 Criteria 3.1 An applicant for a permit under this rule must demonstrate that the implementation of its groundwater appropriation plan will: a Be reasonable and practical with regard to alternative sources of water or methods available; b Include the utilization of water storage and reuse and conservation practices to the greatest extent feasible; c Be subject to restriction to meet in-stream flow needs or protect basin water levels. 3.2 A permittee must provide by March 1 each year a report including: a A monthly log of the amount of water appropriated over the prior calendar year; and b the method of appropriation, if changed from original application. 3.3 Permits issued under this rule will continue until revoked or relinquished. Failure to comply with the criteria and requirements of this rule will be grounds for revocation.
4 Exhibits An applicant for a permit under this rule must provide a completed application and groundwater appropriation plan including: 4.1 Applicant address; 4.2 Applicant email address; 4.3 Purpose of the requested appropriation; 4.4 Alternative sources of water considered and reasons why the groundwater appropriation proposed was selected; Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District DRAFT Rules February 21, 2014
4.5 Depth of well, and number and capacity in gallons per minute of pump(s) to be installed; 4.6 Proposed pumping schedule, including rates, times and duration; 4.7 Proposed means of monitoring pumping volumes; 4.8 Information on any water storage facilities and capabilities and any proposed reuse and conservation practices; and 4.9 A contingency plan or draft agreement with the District to discontinue the appropriation in the event of restriction.
An appropriation application form may be obtained from the District offices or website.
44
Rule J – Stormwater Management
1 Policy It is the policy of the District to regulate the management of stormwater runoff to: 1.1 Limit the impact of runoff quality and rate on receiving waterbodies. 1.2 Improve water quality to fully support swimming in designated lakes. 1.3 Improve water quality to fully support designated uses for waterbodies, and remove waterbodies from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency list of impaired waters. 1.4 Alter stormwater hydrographs (stream flow) through infiltrative strategies that reduce peak discharge rates and overall flow volume. 1.5 Require that onsite retention and regional water quality treatment systems operate together to provide complete and effective runoff management. 1.6 Provide for nondegradation of surface waterbodies in the watershed. 1.7 Encourage the use of Better Site Design, Low Impact Development and other techniques that minimize impervious surfaces or incorporate volume-control practices, such as infiltration, to limit runoff volumes. 1.8 Maximize opportunities to improve stormwater and snowmelt management presented by redevelopment of land. 1.9 Require governmental entities and developers to manage runoff effectively to minimize water quality impacts from new development, redevelopment and other land-disturbing activities.
2 Regulation A permit from the District, incorporating an approved stormwater management plan, is required under this rule prior to the commencement of any activities to which this rule applies. The District may review a stormwater management plan at any point in the development of a regulated project and encourages project proposers to seek early review of plans by the District. 2.1 The requirements of this rule apply to: a Land-disturbing activities that will disturb 50 cubic yards or more of earth, b Land-disturbing activities that will disturb 5,000 square feet or more of surface area or vegetation, or c Subdivision of a parcel into three or more residential lots. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
2.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2.1, the requirements of this rule do not apply to: a Construction or reconstruction on a single-family home site, unless any portion of the parcel is: 1 Within 300 feet of the centerline of and tributary to Riley Creek, Purgatory Creek or Bluff Creek, 2 Within 500 feet of the ordinary high water level of and tributary to any other public water or protected wetland, or 3 Below a 100-year flood elevation adopted by the District. b Construction or reconstruction on a single-family home site consistent with a subdivision, development or redevelopment plan that is subject to an unexpired District permit. c Rehabilitation, including mill and overlay, of paved surfaces. 2.3 Redevelopment. If a proposed activity will disturb more than 50 percent of the existing impervious surface on the parcel or will increase the imperviousness of the entire parcel by more than 50 percent, the criteria of section 3 will apply to the entire project parcel. Otherwise, the criteria of section 3 will apply only to the disturbed areas and additional impervious surface on the project parcel. For purposes of this paragraph, disturbed areas are those where underlying soils are exposed in the course of redevelopment. 2.4 Linear projects. Notwithstanding subsection 2.3, a permit under this rule is not required for a linear project if the project entails construction or reconstruction creating less than 5,000 square feet of new or additional impervious surface. For linear projects creating 5,000 square feet or more but less than 1 acre of new or additional impervious surface, the criteria of subsection 3.1 will apply to all new impervious surface. For linear projects creating more than 1 acre of new or additional impervious surface, the criteria of subsection 3.1 will apply to all new and reconstructed impervious surface created by the project. 2.5 Common scheme of development. Activity subject to this rule on a parcel or adjacent parcels under common or related ownership will be considered in the aggregate, and the requirements applicable to the activity under this rule will be determined with respect to all development that has occurred on the site or on adjacent sites under common or related ownership since the date this rule took effect (DATE). a For development or redevelopment under common or related ownership, compliance with the criteria of section 3 may be achieved
46 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
through a shared stormwater management facility or facilities as long as the criteria in subsection 3.1 are met for each contributing drainage area within the common or related ownership. 2.6 Performance monitoring. A permit granted by the District on a finding that stormwater management facilities, as they are to be constructed and maintained under the permit, will meet applicable performance standards under Rule I, does not require additional steps if the permit is complied with but standards are not met. Notwithstanding, as a specific condition to a permit, the District may impose monitoring, performance evaluation, additional compliance measures or other requirements for the purposes of demonstrating that performance standards are being met.
3 Criteria 3.1 An applicant for a permit under this rule must demonstrate, using a model utilizing the most recent applicable National Weather Service reference data (e.g., Atlas 14), that the implementation of its stormwater management plan will: a Limit peak runoff flow rates to that from existing conditions for the two-, 10- and 100-year frequency storm events using a nested 24- hour rainfall distribution, and a 100-year frequency, 10-day snowmelt event, for all points where stormwater discharge leaves the site; b Provide for the abstraction onsite of 1.1 inches of runoff from all impervious surface of the parcel; i Where infiltration or filtration facilities, practices or systems are proposed, pretreatment of runoff must be provided. ii The bottom of infiltration facilities must be at least three feet above the seasonal high water table. c Provide for at least seventy five percent (75%) annual removal efficiency for total phosphorus, and at least ninety percent (90%) annual removal efficiency for total suspended solids from all site runoff. The onsite abstraction of runoff may be included in demonstrating compliance with the total suspended solids and total phosphorus removal requirements. 3.2 Criteria for restricted sites. Where the District engineer concurs that an applicant has demonstrated that the abstraction standard in paragraph 3.1b cannot practicably be met by onsite best management practices, the applicant must: a Achieve the abstraction standard to the maximum extent practicable
47 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
and treat all runoff from the impervious surface on the site to achieve the water-quality standard in paragraph 3.1c. Abstraction options considered and presented must include examination of relocating project elements to address varying soil conditions and other site constraints. b The stormwater management plan for a restricted site must provide rate control in accordance with standard in paragraph 3.1a. 3.3 Low-floor elevation No structure may be constructed or reconstructed such that its lowest floor elevation is less than 2 feet above the 100-year event flood elevation and no stormwater management system may be constructed or reconstructed in a manner that brings the low floor elevation of an adjacent structure into noncompliance with this standard. a All structures riparian to inundation areas or constructed or natural stormwater management facilities must be located and elevations must be set according to Appendix J1 – “Low Floor Elevation Guidance.” b Landlocked basins. Any new or reconstructed structure wholly or partially within a landlocked basin must be constructed such that its lowest floor elevation is: i 1 foot above the surface overflow of the basin, or ii 2 feet above the elevation resulting from two concurrent 100-year single rainfall events in a 24-hour period or a 100-year, 10-day snowmelt, whichever is higher. iii The starting elevation of the basin prior to the runoff event will be established by the highest of one of the following: A Existing ordinary high water elevation established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; B Mottled soil. c Landlocked water basins may be provided with outlets if an outcome- based analysis and resource oriented management review regarding downstream impacts is completed and demonstrates that: i A hydrologic regime is maintained that complies with all other rules; ii Dead storage is provided to retain the fully developed future conditions back to back 100-year critical event water volume, above the highest anticipated groundwater elevation to the extent possible while preventing damage to property adjacent to the
48 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
basin; iii The outlet does not create adverse downstream flooding or water quality conditions, or materially affect stability of downstream watercourses iv Proposed development tributary to the landlocked basin has incorporated runoff volume and rate control practices to the extent practical v There is a demonstrated need for an outlet to protect existing structures and infrastructure; and vi The outlet design is part of an approved comprehensive local water management plan. 3.4 Maintenance All stormwater management structures and facilities must be designed for maintenance access and properly maintained in perpetuity to assure that they continue to function as designed. Permit applicants must provide a maintenance, inspection and, if required, monitoring plan that identifies and protects the design, capacity and functionality of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities; specifies the methods, schedule and responsible parties for inspection, maintenance and monitoring; provides for the inspection and maintenance in perpetuity of the facility, with documentation retained onsite and available to the District upon reasonable notice; and contains at a minimum the requirements in the District’s standard maintenance declaration. The plan will be recorded on the deed in a form acceptable to the District. A public entity assuming the maintenance obligation may do so by filing with the District a document signed by an official with authority.
4 Required exhibits The following exhibits must accompany the permit application; one set full size (22 inches by 34 inches); one set reduced to maximum size of 11 inches by 17 inches, and one set as electronic files in a format acceptable to the District: 4.1 Stormwater management system modeling in a form acceptable to the District engineer. 4.2 A site plan showing: a Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant. b Existing and proposed elevation contours. c Identification of existing and proposed normal, and ordinary high and
49 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
100-year water elevations onsite. 4.3 A stormwater management plan including, at a minimum: a Proposed and existing stormwater facilities’ location, alignment and elevation. b Delineation of existing wetlands, marshes, shoreland and/or floodplain areas onsite or to which any portion of the project parcel drains, except that where a project will not alter or change the hydrology of a wetland, the wetland need only be identified on the plan. c Geotechnical analysis including soil borings at all proposed stormwater management facility locations. d Construction plans and specifications for all proposed stormwater management facilities, including design details for outlet control structures. e Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for the 24-hour, 2-, 10- and 100-year critical events, existing and proposed conditions. Nested storm distribution (or frequency based hyetograph) development must be done according to the alternating block methodology as outlined in Chapter 4 of the HEC-HMS Technical Reference Manual, (USACE, 2000). f All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations completed to design the proposed stormwater management facilities. g Narrative addressing incorporation of retention BMPs. h Platting or easement documents showing sufficient drainage and ponding/flowage easements over hydrologic features such as floodplains, storm sewers, ponds, ditches, swales, wetlands and waterways. i Documentation as to the status of the project’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater permit, if applicable. j If infiltration of runoff is proposed, the District may require submission of a phase I environmental site assessment and/or other documentation to facilitate analysis by the District of the suitability of soils for infiltration. 4.4 An erosion control plan complying with District Rule C. 4.5 Upon completion of site work, a permittee must submit as-built drawings demonstrating that at the time of final stabilization, stormwater facilities conform to design specifications as approved by the District.
50 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
Appendix J1 – Low Floor Elevation Guidance
Overview of Lowest Floor Issue There seems to be two reasons for establishing a minimum lowest floor elevation in the vicinity of a pond – to prevent flooding of the structure by surface water and to prevent seepage or damage from uplift pressures that could result from a rise in the water table elevation. The first reason (direct flooding) can easily be established with knowledge of the maximum flood elevation of a pond (or the 100-year elevation, if this is used) and ground surface topography. The second reason (a rise in the water table due to increased pond elevations) is not so straight forward. This second area is the subject of this memo.
When a formerly dry pond becomes wet (or when a wet pond’s water elevation increases) due to a storm event, downward seepage of the ponded water begins. The rate of seepage through the bottom of the pond is dependent upon:
1) The elevation of the water surface above the pond bottom
2) The soil type at the bottom of the pond (i.e. the pond bottom’s thickness and
permeability)
3) The type of soil underneath the pond (e.g., clay, silt, sand, gravel)
4) The degree of saturation of the soils beneath the pond
5) The depth to the water table
In general, higher seepage through the bottom of the pond will occur when the water surface elevation is high, the pond’s bottom sediments are thin and/or sandy, the soils underneath the pond are permeable (such as sand or gravel), the soils underneath the pond have a high moisture content (i.e, they are at field capacity or higher), and the water table is well below the bottom of the pond (i.e. the soils are freely draining).
Higher seepage rates through the bottom of the pond will cause the water table elevation to rise by creating a “mounding condition” below the pond. How high and how widespread the water table mound becomes are contributing factors to whether or not basements will be affected. However, the single most important factor that will
51 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules determine if seepage from a pond will cause wet basement problems is the depth to the water table, below the basement.
The magnitude and extent of the groundwater mounding conditions is also contingent upon the aquifer’s transmissivity (aquifer permeability multiplied by aquifer thickness), the specific yield of the aquifer materials, and the duration of the high water levels in the pond. In general, thicker aquifers with higher permeability will experience less mounding than thinner aquifers of lower permeability. Perched aquifers (i.e. groundwater zones less than about 10 feet that overlie extensive clay layers) typically experience the greatest amount of mounding.
Overview of Variance Evaluation Method All of the combinations of settings, pond configurations, aquifer parameters, and distances from ponds cannot be anticipated beforehand in coming up with a method to quickly evaluate whether or not a variance to the minimum floor elevation ordinance should be considered. However, by making some generalities, the most commonly encountered situations can be evaluated. This is the approach taken here.
A groundwater flow model of a “typical” pond and aquifer setting was developed. Aquifer parameters and pond elevations were varied and the resulting water table mounding conditions were simulated. The following conditions were evaluated:
1. Pond elevation increases of 2 feet, 4 feet, and 6 feet above normal or dry conditions
2. Depth to the water table (before flooding) of 3 feet (to represent conditions of 3 feet or less) and 10 feet (to represent conditions where the depth to the water table is greater than 3 feet). The purpose of simulating these two conditions is that with shallow water tables, the rate of infiltration is substantially reduced as the groundwater mound rises into the pond. For deeper aquifer conditions, the pond bottom is always above the water table and the depth to the water table has no bearing on the seepage rate.
3. Three aquifer conditions: clay or perched aquifers (transmissivities of 7 ft2/day and specific yield values of 0.1); silt aquifers (transmissivity of 70 ft2/day and specific yield values of 0.2) and sand and gravel aquifers (transmissivities of 2000 ft2/day and specific yield values of 0.2).
4. Pond bottom sediment thickness of 1 feet and bottom sediment hydraulic conductivity of 1 ft/day.
52 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
5. Instantaneous occurrence of a flood condition in the pond, which lasts for 25 days, followed by instantaneous reduction to normal conditions. The purpose of using this condition is that the effects of aquifer storage (specific yield) are taken into account. A duration of 25 days was selected as being a reasonable time period of flood conditions. 6. Increases in the water table elevation were recorded at several distances between 5 feet and 200 feet from the pond. The maximum rise during the modeled period was selected for plotting.
The U.S. Geological Survey’s groundwater modeling code, MODFLOW, was used for this analysis.
How to Determine if a Variance is Warranted In order to determine if a proposed lowest floor elevation is acceptable, the following need to be known: 1. Depth to the water table and an estimation of the water table’s seasonally high elevation.
2. Type of aquifer materials – e.g., clay, silt, sand, gravel
3. Information as to whether or not the water table is perched or is part of a deeper, thicker aquifer system.
4. An estimate of the flood elevation of the pond.
5. The distance of the proposed floor to the pond.
Depth to the water table and the type of aquifer material needs to be determined through the installation of soil borings. The other information should be estimated from other sources.
Once this information is obtained, the minimum depth to the water table from the bottom of the proposed floor slab can be determined from one of six plots, attached to this memorandum. Which of the six plots to use depends on the depth of the water table with respect to the pond’s bottom and the type of aquifer material (e.g., clay, silt, sand, gravel). The following steps should be used:
1. Determine the closest distance of the proposed floor to the pond (if the pond size increases during flooding, the distance should be from the flooded
53 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
perimeter of the pond to the proposed floor).
2. Using Plot 1, determine the minimum permissible depth to the water table for the specified distance from the pond. If the actual depth to the water table (see discussion below for determining this) is greater than the value on Plot 1, no further evaluation is necessary – the floor is sufficiently high with respect to the water table that the water table will not reach the bottom of the slab, regardless of the soil type or transmissivity. If the depth to the water table is less than the value from Plot 1, further evaluation is necessary.
3. If the soil type of the aquifer, below the water table, is mostly clay OR if the aquifer is perched (a continuous clay layer is less than 5 feet below the water table), Plot 2 must be used. The appropriate pond level increase (2, 4, or 6 feet) for flood conditions must be used in Plot 2 to find the minimum permissible depth to the water table. If the depth to the water table from Plot 2 is less than the actual depth to the water table, the proposed floor elevation is too low and must be raised to equal the value from Plot 2.
4. If the soil type of the aquifer is mostly silt AND the pond bottom is 3 feet or less above the water table, Plot 3 should be used.
5. If the soil type of the aquifer is mostly sand or gravel AND the pond bottom is 3 feet or less above the water table, Plot 4 should be used.
6. If the soil type of the aquifer is mostly silt AND the pond bottom is 3 feet or more above the water table, Plot 5 should be used.
7. If the soil type of the aquifer is mostly sand or gravel AND the pond bottom is 3 feet or more above the water table, Plot 5 should be used.
The values from the plots are guidelines, based on typical conditions. If the plots indicate the proposed floor elevation is too low, additional analyses and data collection could be pursued by the applicant. These additional analyses could include additional soil borings, long-term monitoring of piezometers, or more sophisticated modeling.
Determining Depth to the Water Table If a variance to a lowest floor elevation ordinance is to be considered, the depth to the water table at the location in question must be known. Without this knowledge, there cannot be a technical basis for approving a variance. Furthermore, the applicant should demonstrate that the measured water-table elevation is both representative of
54 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules conditions over the entire floor area and is representative of values typical for seasonally high conditions (e.g. spring conditions). A suggested requirement for collecting this information is the following: 1. A minimum of two soil borings shall be installed at or near the perimeter of the lowest floor. At least one of these borings shall be where the floor is closest to the nearest pond.
2. Soil borings shall extend to a depth of at least 7 feet below the water table. The borings shall be left open for a time sufficient to determine the stabilized water level in the borehole. The water level shall be measured with reference to a known bench mark that can relate the water table elevation to the proposed floor elevation. Soils at or immediately below the water table shall be sampled and texturally classified using an approved classification method.
Water levels measured during dry summer months or during the winter may be lower than water levels during the spring. The applicant should be required to make an effort to determine the likely amount of seasonal fluctuation in the water table in the area. Water level records from wells completed in the area could be used. If information is unavailable, the applicant should be required to add a value to the measured water table elevation. One suggestion would be to assume 25% of the total annual precipitation (29 inches), divided by the average effective porosity for non-cohesive soils (0.3), which is:
(29 inches/4) x (1 foot/12 inches)/0.3 = 2 feet
If the seasonally adjusted maximum water-table elevation is eight (8) feet or below the bottom of the slab of the lowest floor, it is unlikely that temporary flood conditions in the pond will cause the water table to rise to the level of the floor.2
Determining Soil Type at the Water Table The textural classification from the soil borings will be necessary for determining the expected rise in the water table caused by an increase in pond elevation. At a minimum, the soil should be classified as one of the following: 1. Sandy or gravely soils – consisting of predominantly sand or gravel, with minor amounts of silt and clay
2 This assumes that the pond level begins to return to normal within about 30 days and the pond level’s increase is not greater than 6 feet.
55 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
2. Silty soils – consisting predominantly of silt
3. Clayey soils – consisting predominantly of clay.
56
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
58 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
59 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
60 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
61 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
62
Rule K – Variances and Exceptions
1 Variances The Board of Managers will consider a request for a variance from strict compliance with the requirements of a District rule on submission of a request by a permit applicant. To grant a variance, the Board of Managers must find, based on demonstration by the applicant, that because of unique conditions inherent to the subject property, which do not apply generally to other land or structures in the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek watershed, strict application of a rule provision will impose a practical difficulty on the applicant, not a mere inconvenience.
For purposes of the Board of Managers’ determination of whether a practical difficulty exists, the following factors will be considered: 1.1 how substantial the variation is from the rule provision; 1.2 the effect of the variance on government services; 1.3 whether the variance will substantially change the character of or cause material adverse effect to water resources, flood levels, drainage or the general welfare in the District, or be a substantial detriment to neighboring properties; 1.4 whether the practical difficulty can be alleviated by a technically and economically feasible method other than a variance. Economic hardship alone may not serve as grounds for issuing a variance if any reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the District rules; 1.5 how the practical difficulty occurred, including whether the landowner, the landowner's agent or representative, or a contractor, created the need for the variance; and 1.6 in light of all of the above factors, whether allowing the variance will serve the interests of justice.
2 Exceptions The Board of Managers may approve an exception from a provision of the rules requiring a particular treatment or management strategy, or setting forth a design specification, if an applicant demonstrates that better natural resource protection or enhancement can be achieved by the project as proposed, with such further conditions as the Board of Managers may impose, than would strict compliance with the provision. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
3 Term A variance or exception granted by the District is valid only as long as the underlying permit remains valid.
4 Violation A violation of any condition of a permit approved with a variance constitutes grounds for termination of the variance.
64
Rule L – Permit Fees
1 Policy It is the determination of the Board of Managers that: 1.1 Charging a minimal permit application fee will increase public awareness of and compliance with District permitting requirements, and will reduce enforcement and inspection costs; 1.2 The public interest will benefit from inspection by District staff of certain large-scale projects in locations presenting particular risk to water resources to provide the Board of Managers with sufficient information to evaluate compliance with District rules and applicable law, and the District’s annual tax levy should not be used to pay such costs; and 1.3 From time to time persons perform work requiring a permit from the District without a permit, and persons perform work in violation of an issued District permit. The Board of Managers determines that its costs of inspection and analysis in such cases will exceed the costs incurred where an applicant has complied with District requirements. The Board of Managers further concludes that its annual tax levy should not be used to pay costs incurred because of a failure to meet District requirements but rather such costs should be recovered from the responsible parties.
2 Requirement The District will charge applicants permit fees in accordance with a schedule that will be maintained and revised from time to time by resolution of the Board of Managers to ensure that permit fees cover the District’s actual costs of administrating and enforcing permits and the actual costs related to field inspections of permitted projects, such as investigation of the area affected by the proposed activity, analysis of the proposed activity, services of a consultant and any required subsequent monitoring of the proposed activity. Costs of monitoring an activity authorized by permit may be charged and collected as necessary after issuance of the permit. The fee schedule may be obtained from the District office or the District’s web site at http://www.rpbcwd.org. A permit applicant must submit the required permit fee to the District at the time it submits the relevant permit application. The fee provided for in this rule will not be charged to any agency of the United States or of any governmental unit or Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
political subdivision of the State of Minnesota.
66
Rule M – Financial Assurances
1 Policy It is the policy of the District to protect and conserve the water resources of the District by requiring a bond or other financial performance assurance with a permit application to ensure adequate performance of the authorized activities and compliance with the District rules.
2 Requirement The District may require a performance bond, letter of credit or other financial assurance in a form approved by the District for an activity regulated under these rules. A performance financial assurance will not be required of any agency of the United States or of any governmental unit or political subdivision of the State of Minnesota.
3 Criteria Financial assurances required pursuant to this rule must be issued in compliance with the following criteria: 3.1 The financial assurance will be a performance bond, letter of credit, cash deposit or other form acceptable to the District, and a commercial financial assurance will be from an issuer licensed and doing business in Minnesota. Financial assurance templates may be obtained from the District web site (http://www.rpbcwd.org) and also are available from the District office. 3.2 The financial assurance will be issued in favor of the District and conditioned upon the applicant’s performance of the activities authorized in the permit in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and all applicable laws, including the District’s rules, and payment when due of any fees or other charges authorized by law, including the District’s rules. The financial assurance will state that in the event the conditions of the financial assurance are not met, the District may make a claim against it. In the event that the District makes a claim against a financial assurance, the full amount of the financial assurance required must be restored within 45 days. 3.3 The financial assurance must be effective for at least three years from the date of issuance and will contain a provision that it may not be canceled Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the District. 3.4 The financial assurance will be submitted by the permit applicant, but the financial assurance principal may be either the landowner or the individual or entity undertaking the proposed activity. 3.5 No financial assurance will be released except pursuant to the terms of section 4. 3.6 No interest will be paid on financial assurances held by the District. 3.7 The amounts of financial assurances required by the District will be set by the Board of Managers by resolution. The schedule of financial assurance amounts will be maintained on the District website (http://www.rpbcwd.org) and also will be available from the District office. Financial assurance amounts will be set as necessary to cover the following potential liabilities to the District: a field inspection, monitoring and related fees authorized under Minnesota Statutes section 103D.345; b the cost of maintaining and implementing erosion and sediment control and other protective measures required by the permit; c the cost of remedying damage resulting from noncompliance with the permit or for which the permittee is otherwise responsible. 3.8 When a cash escrow is to be provided to fulfill a District financial assurance requirement, the permittee/escrow provider will be required as a condition of permit issuance, transfer or renewal to enter into a cash escrow agreement with the District. Permit approval may be revoked for failure to comply with this requirement. A cash escrow agreement template will be maintained on the District website (http://www.rpbcwd.org) and also will be available from the District office.
4 Financial Assurance Release On written notification of completion of a project, the District will inspect the project to determine if the project has been constructed in accordance with the terms of the permit and District rules. If the project is completed in accordance with the terms of the permit and District rules, and there is no outstanding balance for unpaid permit fees, the District will release the financial assurance.
4.1 Final inspection compliance constituting grounds for financial assurance release includes, but is not limited to:
68 Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District - Draft Rules
a demonstration by the permittee and confirmation by the District that the site has been vegetated and stabilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation per Rule C, subsection 3.4, and that erosion and sedimentation controls have been removed; b demonstration and confirmation that stormwater management features have been constructed or installed and are functioning as designed and permitted; c payment of all outstanding fees to the District.
The District may return a portion of the financial assurance if it finds that the entire amount is no longer required to ensure compliance with the permit conditions and District rules. If the District has not inspected the project and made a determination about the project’s compliance with the above criteria within 45 days of District receipt of written notification of project completion, the financial assurance is deemed released unless the District notifies the permittee that final inspection compliance matters remain outstanding. In the event that a financial assurance is released through expiration of the time for confirmation of final inspection compliance, the District will provide a writing releasing the financial assurance if needed to meet the issuer’s requirements.
69 RILEY PURGATORY BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS
Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Rules February 21, 2014
This statement of need and reasonableness presents background on, technical support for and an explanation of new rules proposed by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District:
Rule A: Procedural Requirements Rule B: Floodplain Management and Drainage Alterations Rule C: Erosion and Sediment Control Rule D: Wetland, Lake and Creek Buffers Rule E: Dredging and Sediment Removal Rule F: Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization Rule G: Waterbody Crossings and Structures Rule H: Appropriation of Public Surface Waters Rule I: Appropriation of Groundwater Rule J: Stormwater Management Rule K: Variances and Exceptions Rule L: Permit Fees Rule M: Financial Assurances
These rules will provide the backbone of the District’s regulatory program, the reestablishment of which after a period of dormancy is discussed below. The rules apply to land- and water resource-disturbing activities as delineated in detail in each substantive rule (B through J).
The District will follow the process provided by Minnesota Statutes section 103D.341 to finalize and adopt the rules. The date the rules become effective will be established by the Board of Managers at the time the managers adopt the rules. A public hearing on the rules will be held at 7 p.m., March 19, 2014, at Eden Prairie City Center as part of the regular meeting of the District Board of Managers. The Board of Managers welcomes questions and comments, especially from public and private property owners in the watershed. Comments may be made in writing (email is fine) or at the public hearing. Written comments will be accepted through the close of business April 7, 2014.
Please see the District website – rpbcwd.org – or contact the District office at 952- 294-5976 if you have any questions or seek additional information on this rulemaking.
Legal Authority Legal authority for the District’s adoption of rules requiring permits for land- disturbing work is found in Minnesota Statutes chapters 103B and 103D. Under Minnesota Statutes section 103D.341, subdivision 1, watershed districts must adopt rules “to accomplish the purposes of [the watershed act] and to implement the powers of the [watershed district] managers.” These purposes include, among others, conservation of water for public uses; controlling erosion and siltation of lakes, streams and wetlands; and protecting water quality in these bodies.1 District managers are further authorized to regulate and control the use of water within the watershed district, regulate the use of streams and watercourses to prevent pollution, and regulate the use and development of land under certain conditions.2 The draft rules to which this statement is attached are proposed to fulfill the statutory mandate for watershed districts to regulate.
Overview of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Rulemaking In 2007 the District suspended its regulatory program, relying instead on a streamlined and simplified regulatory system that left watershed cities with sole responsibility to regulate to protect water resources. The major update of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District management plan completed in 2011 included a restatement of the District’s commitment to an advisory role on regulatory matters.
By late 2012, though, the District determined that impending land use changes, development and redevelopment warranted a renewed watershed regulatory program. City representatives also expressed interest and support for the District’s role to augment municipal regulation. In addition, some critical water-resource protections – such as management of work in water resources that traverse municipal boundaries – must be implemented by the District. Watershed district regulation is necessary to ensure a consistent level of resource protection across the watershed, as required by the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act (Minnesota Statutes chapter 103B). Accordingly, in early 2013, the Board of Managers initiated the process of formally amending the District’s plan and articulating the District’s approach to a regulatory program, including roles and key policies. The plan amendment also described the outreach and stakeholder involvement process the District would employ to update its
1 Minn. Stat. § 103D.201, subd. 2. 2 Id. § 103D.335, subds. 10, 16, and 23; § 103B.211, subd. 1.
2
rules. State agencies submitted favorable comments to the proposed plan amendment, and no comments were received from municipalities or Hennepin County.
Stakeholder Input Into Rule Drafting The development of draft rules relied on the District’s strong relationships with water- resources and engineering staffs at the watershed cities. To best ensure that the District rules integrated most effectively and productively with city ordinances, the District framed the rule drafting through three key steps:
First, the District utilized the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District rules as the basis for its drafts. The two adjoining watersheds share four cities, and NMCWD effectively worked with city representatives in developing rules adopted in 2008. The NMCWD rules also benefitted from the development of water-resources science and engineering practice since the adoption of the substantive elements of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek rules in 2000. Finally, the NMCWD rules addressed several of the critical issues the District had preliminarily identified for attention in its rulemaking.
Second, District staff prepared a detailed comparison of the policies and water resource goals established by its plan with the relevant ordinances of the larger cities in the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek watershed: Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and Chanhassen. (The other cities in the watershed are Deephaven, Shorewood and Chaska, each of which shares jurisdiction over relatively small portions of the watershed.) The comparison provided the District with a strong understanding of the existing local regulatory system, the gaps that could be addressed and the harmonization of standards that could be achieved by the District’s rules. While the rules were developed to implement the watershed plan’s policies and goals, the comparison exercise allowed the District to focus its research and rule-development efforts on particular needs, such as onsite stormwater volume control, protection of highly erodible soils in parts of the watershed, buffers on water resources and appropriation of surface waters and groundwater.
Third, as NMCWD had, the District convened a Technical Advisory Committee that provided critical insights and guidance in the development of the District rules. In addition to representatives from state regulatory agencies and the Metropolitan Council, municipal public works, water-resources and planning staff served on the TAC. A representative of the District’s Citizens Advisory Committee also participated. The TAC met monthly from April through December 2013. The details of each rule were discussed in an informal roundtable format, and the TAC members’ comments
3
resulted in productive changes and refinements to the draft rules. (Individuals participating in one of more TAC meetings are listed in Table 1.) The TAC members’ dedication of their time and insights to the rulemaking process was invaluable.
In addition, the District engaged its Citizens Advisory Committee in the process. Beyond the participation of a liaison from the CAC on the TAC, District staff reviewed the draft rules with the CAC as a body on several occasions, and the CAC reviewed and provided comment on the final draft rules and this SONAR prior the Board of Managers’ authorizing their release for review and comment.
With the adoption of the rules by the Board of Managers, the District anticipates and welcomes opportunities to refine and formalize the regulatory relationships between the cities and the District. Specifically, the District will work with watershed cities to eliminate exercise of overlapping regulatory authority, then memorialize each party’s role in a memorandum of understanding.
Rules overview Taken together, the District’s proposed rules provide a comprehensive water-resource protection scheme and the administrative structure to implement it. The remainder of this statement of need and reasonableness provides, first, background, guidance and explanation of the rationale supporting each of the substantive draft rules (B-J), with information on key definitions incorporated into the discussion of the rules to which they pertain. The final section provides guidance on the administrative structure provided in rules A and K-M.
For user-friendliness, each of the substantive rules is structured similarly, with sections addressing, in order, policies, the scope of the regulatory requirement (“regulation”), the specific requirements on work governed by the rule (“criteria”), then exhibit requirements, followed by miscellaneous sections particular to individual rules (e.g., exceptions).
The substantive requirements of the District rules were drafted to maintain wherever possible consistency with the rules of other watershed districts and statewide standards, including the Minimal Impact Design Standards developed by a consortium of stormwater professionals under the auspices of the Minnesota Pollution Control
4
Agency.3 But the rules have been drafted first and foremost to implement the water resource-protection policies in the District watershed plan. (Applicable policies are restated in the first section of each rule.) The unique features of the watershed and the Board of Managers’ interest in ensuring that the District regulatory program plays its part in addressing current critical water resources management concerns also drove the development of the rules. Particular initiatives represented in the draft rules include:
Use of the most current National Weather Service rainfall data as the basis for the District’s analysis of compliance with its rules, coinciding with the integration of Atlas 14 data into District models by 2015; Submission of electronic versions of plans, drawings and exhibits necessary for regulatory analysis – an effort by the District to decrease paper used in complying with its rules4; Application of erosion and sediment control regulations to all sizeable land disturbance, including single-family home construction and reconstruction projects; Required buffer protection on public and protected water resources in the watershed – lakes, creeks, wetlands – and on all watercourses in the high-risk erosion areas within the watershed that have been identified by the engineer; Required collection of data from users of groundwater who are not otherwise regulated by the state in an effort to build understanding of groundwater health and surface waters’ relationship with groundwater.
The sections that follow detail the rationale and support for the scope of and requirements in the District’s rules. While this document attempts to be fully explanatory, it is important for all interested parties to analyze the actual text of the rules to gain a complete understanding of the District’s proposed regulatory provisions.
3 See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and- programs/stormwater/stormwater-minimal-impact-design-standards-mids.html (last visited January 16, 2014). 4 While the District will utilize electronic documents and materials to the greatest extent possible, the cost producing the large-scale printed plans that are needed for detailed analysis of proposals has led to a requirement in each rule that the applicant submit a printed 22-by- 34-inch set of construction plans (see, e.g., section 4 of Rule G – Waterbody Crossings and Structures).
5
Rule-by-Rule Review – Substantive Rules
RULE B – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE ALTERATIONS
The District floodplain requirements hew closely to those of other watershed organizations in requiring the preservation of flood storage, even as the watershed continues to experience significant development. Also like other organizations managing water resources and flood risks, the District proposes to use flood elevations calculated using the latest National Weather Service rainfall data, which at this time is the Atlas 14 report finalized in 2013. (The District is presently updating its floodplain models to incorporate Atlas 14 data; the process should be complete by 2015.) The District will provide applicants with any flood-elevation information it has for purposes of project design. (The District has models for all three creeks and most of the major lakes in the watershed.) But an applicant will need to calculate the flood elevation for other, smaller courses and basins, including stormwater facilities it constructs to comply with District requirements. Such calculations will need to incorporate the most recent National Weather Service rainfall data.)
The TAC members generally concurred in the use and integration of Atlas 14 data into the District rules, but some felt that the District should regulate only activity implicating the floodplain of public waters5 in the watershed, or perhaps some other limited set of water bodies. The District reasons, however, that the impacts of flooding are the same, no matter what the nature of the watercourse or basin that floods.
The types of activities triggering the permit requirement are straightforward (section 2). The rule requires compensation, in advance, for any fill in the 100-year floodplain, precluding minor encroachments over time leading to an increase in the potential for flood damage (paragraph 3.2).
The proposed rule mirrors municipal regulations in requiring the low floor of structures to be a minimum of two feet above the 100-year flood elevation. (Requirements for low-floor elevations of structures adjacent to stormwater facilities are provided by section 3.3 of Rule J – Stormwater Management, discussed below.)
5 “Public waters” are the generally large, mapped water basins (lakes), watercourses (creeks and streams) and wetlands defined in Minnesota Statutes section 103G.005, subdivision 15. See also http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwi/maps.html (the DNR’s web portal for information on public waters; last visited January 10, 2014).
6
The floodplain rule also prohibits, in subsection 3.4, the placement of structures or surface paving within 100 feet of the centerline of Riley, Purgatory or Bluff Creek or another watercourse in the watershed. This is a standard articulated by the District in the 1970s,6 and reestablished in the draft rules. It critically important to prevent the construction of anything along a creek that presents the potential to either become blocked in a flood (e.g., fences) or loosed and sent downstream as a hazard (e.g., sheds). Surface paving near the creek results in the increased velocity of flood flows, and as such is prohibited. Paving and structures within the setback zone will be permitted only when associated with bridges, culverts or trails less than 10 feet wide, which are excepted from the operation of subsection 3.4. (Bridges, culverts and other crossings are regulated by Rule G.)
Section 5 limits application of the rule to construction and reconstruction of single- family homes to only when the underlying property is adjacent and tributary to a waterbody, such that flood hydrology would be affected.
RULE C – EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
Best management practices and techniques for erosion and sedimentation control are well established and understood by the development and construction communities. The watershed cities have substantial experience in regulating erosion and sediment control through years of grading and development permit review, and the District rule reflects the broadly shared understanding of how erosion and sediment can be effectively controlled.
Another consequence of the uniformity of erosion and sediment control policy and practice is that it is an area in which the District and watershed cities are likely to agree that city ordinances and permitting programs protect water resources as well as or better than the District regulatory program. Under such circumstances, the entities can agree that the city will exercise sole regulatory authority, rather than having both regulate to that effect.
Even where the District exercises authority to issue erosion and sediment control permits, it will continue to collaborate with city staff on inspection of permitted sites and deployment of enforcement mechanisms as necessary.
Applicability - regulatory scope
6 See Section F, Review Criteria, Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District Prescribed Overall Plan, 1973, p. 61.
7
The threshold for erosion-control permits is broad and simply stated: disturbance of 50 cubic yards or more of earth or 5,000 square feet or more of surface vegetation. Single-family home property development and redevelopment projects are subject to the rule. Some TAC members questioned the need for the District to regulate work on single-family home properties, but the District finds that it is important to retain the rule’s broad applicability given the potential for residential development and redevelopment in watershed generally, and especially in areas with steep slopes and erodible soils in close proximity to creeks and small watercourses. Cumulatively, these developments and redevelopments, if unmanaged, could significantly increase sediment and pollutant loading to water resources. Further, compliance with the rule is not onerous: Contractors of all sizes should be familiar with standard erosion and sediment control practices, which do not require significant expenditure or experience to implement for small sites. For those that may not be, relevant information is readily available. Finally, the rule’s exhibit requirements include a couple of specific modifications designed to make it unnecessary to engage an engineer for compliance purposes for a single-family home project.7
Criteria The District’s erosion and sediment control criteria should look familiar to experienced developers and construction professionals. The MPCA guidance referenced in subsection 3.1b is well established as authoritative on the topic. The statewide nature of the guidance facilitates familiarity and streamlined compliance.
The District’s criteria in 3.1 through 3.3 are well in line with industry and regulatory standards. The District’s goal with the criterion in 3.2c, including soil ripping to 18 inches deep, is to ensure that vegetated surfaces are fully pervious and capable of the maximum possible infiltration of runoff, in keeping with policy 1.7.
RULE D – WETLAND, LAKE AND CREEK BUFFERS
The District’s buffer rule enhances federal and state wetlands protections, the latter of which will continue to be implemented by the Department of Natural Resources (for public waters wetlands) and watershed cities and transportation authorities acting as Local Governmental Units administering the Wetland Conservation Act (for all other wetlands). (The District rules rely on and do not supplement WCA and state wetlands
7 Oblique maps, available from the Hennepin County property information website, may be submitted in lieu of topographic maps for single-family home site projects, and single- family project applicants are not required to submit tabulation of the relevant construction implementation schedule. See sections 4.2b and c.
8
law’s wetlands protection regime. The District will consider taking on WCA administration if asked, but does not intend to seek WCA LGU status.8) The buffer rule also will play a critical part in the District’s efforts to stabilize and protect steep slopes around creeks and improve watershed lakes’ recreational and aesthetic functions.
The District has carefully weighed the interests of property owners and the contributions water resources in developing the draft buffer provisions. The District finds that the protection provided by buffers is necessary for long-term protection of resources that contribute immeasurably to sustaining property values. The District relied on significant research conducted and extensive findings by its engineer, Barr Engineering, showing the value of buffers for protection of water resources.9
Further, the burden of the buffer requirement on property owners is leavened by the particulars of the rule, which: Do not require a buffer to be established when proposed work triggers only the District Erosion and Sediment Control Rule (i.e., work that does not create
8 Each watershed city presently acts as WCA LGU within its jurisdiction, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation is the LGU for its transportation corridors. 9 Wenger, S., A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and Vegetation, Office of Public Service & Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Ga., rev. ed. March 5, 1999; TRS, The Architecture of Urban Stream Buffers, The Practice of Watershed Protection: Article 39, Watershed Protection Techniques, 1(4): 155-163; Oberts, G., Emmons & Olivier Resources, Benefits of Wetland Buffers: A Study of Functions, Values and Size, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, December 6, 2001; Minn. Dept. of Nat. Res. - Waters, Vegetation Buffer Strips in Agricultural Areas, November 2007; Md. Dept. of Nat. Res., Critical Area Buffer Resources Guide, Critical Area Commission, March 31, 2011; Adkins Arboretum and the Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays, The Green Book for the Buffer, An Illustrated Guidebook for Planting at the Shoreline, Sept. 2012; Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Riparian Forest Buffer s - Linking Land and Water - The conservation and restoration of streamside forests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, July 2004; Bentrup, G. Conservation Buffers - Design Guidelines for Buffers, Corridors, and Greenways, Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-109. Asheville, NC: Dept. of Ag., Forest Serv., Southern Research Station, 2008; Stai, S.M. and Westwood Professional Services, Case Study #6: Assessing vegetated buffers using synthetic residential runoff, College of Science and Engineering, University of Minn., 2012; TRS, Invisibility of Stream/Wetland Buffers: Can Their Integrity be Maintained?, Article 41, Watershed Protection Techniques 1(1): 19-21; Minn. Dept. of Nat. Res., Streambank Erosion and Restoration, Understanding Our Streams Resource Sheet 1, Jan. 2010; Lee, P., C. Smyth, and S. Boutin, Quantitative review of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the United States, Elsevier Ltd., Journal of Environmental Management 70 (2004) 165–180.
9
significant new impervious surface and presents only short-term potential water resources impacts) (section 2); Allow for reduction in the width of the buffer required when slope and soil conditions reduce the risk of degradation of water resources (paragraph 3.1b); Reduce the extent of the buffer required and include simplified buffer-width calculation provisions for an already platted single-family property (paragraph 3.1d)10; Require compliance with specific planting and maintenance requirements only for the portion of a buffer area on the property disturbed during construction (subsection 3.2); Require buffer only to the extent of available right of way for linear projects for which a District permit is required (paragraph 3.1g); and Allow a pervious path through a buffer to provide access to protected water resources (3.2e).
The flexibility from the standard buffer-width requirement in the draft rule for single- family properties and linear projects was particularly important to several TAC members, and District staff was particularly diligent in refining the buffer requirements in response to their concerns.
These provisions are proposed to ensure that the rules consider property owners’ interest in utilizing their land in accordance with applicable municipal zoning while acting in accordance with the District’s legal mandate to protect and improve water resources. The TAC spent a generous portion of three of its meetings discussing options and possible revisions to the rule, and ultimately virtually all TAC members indicated that the District had achieved a reasonable equilibrium. Nonetheless, the District welcomes comments from all interested parties – especially watershed property owners – on the proposed buffer rule.
The District also wishes to make it clear that the rule requires dedication of buffer only when a property owner is undertaking land-disturbing activities that trigger District
10 It is important to note that the specific single-family buffer-width provision applies to existing plats only. Only when a property owner is limited by the legally established property boundaries when constructing or reconstructing will paragraph 3.1d apply, in keeping with the District’s purpose in including this provision of ensuring that the buffer requirement does not make an established property virtually unbuildable. There is opportunity to account for the standard buffer widths provided in the rule in the subdivision process.
10
permit requirements. It is also worth emphasizing that the District rule as proposed requires buffer only on property owned by the applicant for a permit.
Applicability - regulatory scope The rule requires a property owner to establish buffer on a water resource only when a permit is required under one of the District’s substantive rules other than Rule C – Erosion and Sediment Control (subsection 2.1). Further, buffer is required only on a regulated feature (wetland, lake or stream, as defined in the rules) that is either 1. Disturbed by the proposed activities, or 2. Downgradient – and therefore at risk of degradation – from the proposed activities (first sentence of subsection 3.1). That is, the requirement is carefully drafted to apply only when proposed work will directly affect a resource or will increase or alter flow of stormwater and associated contaminants to the resource.
The High-Risk Erosion Areas map in Appendix D1, which governs application of the rule requirements to small, non-public watercourses (see paragraph 3.1a.vii), was developed through diligent analysis by the District engineer of watershed topography to identify those areas particularly susceptible to catastrophic erosion events and chronic degradation from gully-forming runoff.
The analysis underlying the map and the map itself were the subject of extensive review and dialogue with the TAC, and the resulting final map illustrates a unique feature of the watershed: its areas of easily eroded, very sandy soils and the steep slopes, and significant declines to the Minnesota River valley at the southern border of the watershed. The District has resolved that protection of such areas requires particular application of its regulatory authority, in the interest not only of protection of water resources but the integrity and value of property in the watershed as well. The importance of this component of the District’s proposed rules is underscored by the specific steep slope protection in the ordinances of several of the watershed cities.11
A printed High-Risk Erosion Areas map itself is included with the rules for illustrative and general guidance purposes. The GIS-interface functionality of the map is incorporated into the rules because it is necessary to determine whether a property is
11 See, e.g., Eden Prairie City Code, section 11.50, subd. 11(A)(1); Chanhassen Code of Ordinances, sec. 20-482(b); Minnetonka Code of Ordinances, sec. 300.28.20; Deephaven City Ordinances, ch. 12, section 1200.10, subd. 4(g).
11
within or adjacent to a High-Risk Erosion Area (i.e., high-resolution maps) will be available from the District web site (www.rpbcwd.org).
Criteria The required buffer widths derived through application of the criteria is subsection 3.1 were set by the Board of Managers after a review of buffer widths required on wetlands by ordinance in Chanhassen, Minnetonka, Bloomington and Eden Prairie, and by other watershed organizations (Carver County Watershed Management Organization in particular), as well as the research on buffer effectiveness conducted by the District engineer.12 In addition, the widths were carefully reviewed and discussed by the TAC, and staff revised both the base widths in paragraph 3.1a and the provisions modifying the application of the buffer requirement in the rest of subsection 3.1 in response to TAC comments. The TAC members were not asked to and did not explicitly endorse the final draft buffer width requirements. But TAC members noted in meetings their satisfaction with the extent to and manner in which their concerns and interests were addressed by staff’s revisions to the buffer rule specifics.
The TAC gave particular consideration to the tables in Appendix D2 from which wetland buffers will be derived based on assessment of wetland functions and values. (See also paragraphs 3.1a.i, ii, iii and iv, setting buffer widths based on wetland quality.) District staff refined the tables, which rely on the statewide standard Minnesota Routine Assessment Method, in keeping with feedback from TAC members.
RULE E – DREDGING AND SEDIMENT REMOVAL
The District’s Dredging and Sediment Removal Rule responds to the statutory direction in Minnesota Statutes section 103D.201 to regulate the beds, banks and shores of water bodies for preservation and beneficial public use. District regulation of the excavation of materials is meant to help preserve the natural character of public waters, the natural appearance of shoreline areas, and recreational, wildlife and fisheries resources. Regulation is also important because the littoral zone (where sunlight penetrates and sediment typically is deposited) is the most biologically productive and ecologically sensitive area of a water body.
Dredging has the potential to create adverse impacts including deterioration of water quality as a result of disturbance and suspension of bottom sediment, damage to or destruction of aquatic and wildlife habitats, and the creation of optimal conditions for colonization by invasive plant species such as Eurasian water milfoil and purple
12 See footnote 9 and accompanying text. 12
loosestrife. In addition, regulation is important to minimize the release of nutrients from resuspended sediments, which stimulate growth of algae. Finally, storage or disposal of dredging spoils (i.e., sediment) in inappropriate locations can lead to reintroduction of sediment into water bodies.
The dredging and sediment removal rule is the first of three – Rule F – Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization and Rule G – Waterbody Crossings and Structures are the others – drafted to serve as the basis for reissuance of a DNR public waters general permit to the District. A DNR general permit would authorize a property owner obtaining a permit for work in public waters from the District to proceed without obtaining a separate permit from the DNR, as long as the conditions of the general permit are complied with. (The DNR may require the District permittee to provide payment to obtain coverage under the general permit. If so, the District will provide the necessary information when issuing a permit under its public waters rules.) Conversely, no permit is needed from the District under its rules applicable to work in public waters if the project proponent obtains a permit from DNR, though the District buffer requirement, if any, would still apply. (See paragraph 2.2.) These reciprocal provisions represent an efficient and streamlined system designed to minimize burden on property owners while achieving mutual goals. The DNR issued General Permit no. 97-6113 to the District and permittees enjoyed the benefit of it until 2007, when the District suspended its regulatory program. The Board of Managers directed staff during the rulemaking process to initiate efforts to reinstate the permit. Interested parties should consult the District website (www.rpbcwd.org) for updated information on the status of the general permit, and should carefully compare the District rules and the general permit for a complete understanding of overlapping and superseding provisions.)
Operation of the rule The rule requires a permit from the District for removal of more than a de minimus amount of sediment from a public water body; that is, the rule does not apply to removal of accumulated sediment from, say, a stormwater pond. The “regulation” section also specifies the limited set of purposes for which the District will permit removal of sediment, reflecting the District’s general predisposition against the reconfiguration and enlarging of water resources, the natural resources value of which the public has an interest in conserving. The 1-cubic yard de minimus provision and the Fast-Track public-project permitting in section 5 reflect the District’s understanding that public entities often conduct minor routine maintenance activities in public waterbodies and do so in keeping with the policies, purposes and criteria stated in the rule. The District does not wish to unduly burden these efforts.
13
The criteria in section 3 of the rule follow from and implement the policies and purposes stated in the first two sections. An underlying premise is that the original or native bed and banks of a waterbody can be ascertained to establish an extent to which dredging can occur. Generally, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that 1. the proposed dredging or sediment removal is necessary, and 2. that the project will not alter the cross section of and will preserve the natural characteristics of the subject waterbody. Not all criteria will apply to every project, and applicability is addressed as necessary in each criterion (e.g., paragraph 3.1a applies only to a project proposed for navigational purposes).
Staff revised the text in paragraph 3.3 in response to TAC members’ comments to clarify that while the District understands that entry and exit from a waterbody by heavy dredging equipment can cause degradation of the bank or shoreline, such effects must be promptly repaired at the conclusion of permitted work.
RULE F – SHORELINE AND STREAMBANK STABILIZATION
Watershed districts have as one of their purposes the regulation of “improvements by riparian property owners of the beds, banks, and shores of lakes, streams and wetlands for preservation and beneficial public use.”13 In partial fulfillment of that purpose, the rule is designed to ensure that the stability of shorelines and streambanks is preserved. (Note that while the rule, for brevity’s sake, sometime refers simply to “shoreline,” the term is defined for purposes of the rules to encompass both shorelines at and waterward of the ordinary high water level set by DNR (on lakes and wetlands) and the area at and waterward from the top of the streambank (on watercourses). Where distinction is necessary – as in paragraph 3.4 – the term “streambank” is specifically used.)
Like the dredging rule, the shoreline rule applies to public waters. But stabilization of the banks of small streams that are not public waters is also regulated. Again, the topography and soil conditions of the watershed – especially in the high-risk erosion areas identified in the map included as Appendix D1 in the rules – require that the District include such small streams within the scope of the permit requirement. District historical and analytical information indicates that sediment from such small watercourses contributes significantly to pollutant loading in the watershed.
13 Minn. Stat. § 103D.201, subd. 2(11).
14
Importantly, the rule requires that an applicant show a need to prevent erosion or repair erosion damage to obtain a District permit (paragraph 3.1). The provision means the District will not permit purely cosmetic or decorative shoreline or streambank installations, as explicitly stated with regard to riprap in paragraph 3.6. Further along these lines, the rule allows the applicant to hard armor a shoreline or streambank only if necessary to prevent destabilization. The sequencing criteria in subsection 3.2 mandates that applicants first analyze bioengineering options (stabilization using natural materials), then a mixture of bioengineering and hard armoring, before opting to stabilize a shoreline or streambank with, e.g., riprap. In other words, the applicant must provide information showing that erosive forces are such that hard armoring is necessary. The rule allows retaining walls only in public improvement projects where they provide the best-possible means to maintain the stability of a shoreline or streambank and thereby protect the water resource (see subsection 3.7).
At the suggestion of several members of the TAC, installation of a sand blanket on a shoreline requires a permit under the rule. Sand blanket installation is subject exclusively to the specific criteria in subsection 3.9 and the submission requirements in subsection 4.5.
RULE G – WATERBODY CROSSINGS AND STRUCTURES
The District’s proposed Waterbody Crossings and Structures rule generally applies to non-public waterbodies as well as public waters, reflecting the District’s interest in comprehensively regulating projects that have significant potential to affect hydraulics, floodplain storage and water quality in the watershed. But with regard to the placement of a structures, the rule applies only to work in a non-public waters, leaving regulation of structures (e.g., docks) in public waters exclusively to DNR’s extensive expertise and regulatory experience in the arena. Again, no permit under the rule is required for work for which a DNR permit has been issued (subsection 2.1). And in response to comments from TAC members, the rule places an affirmative requirement on permittees to maintain and repair waterbody crossings constructed under a permit from the District (i.e., new crossings, not existing ones) (section 5). But the rule only requires a permit from the District when a waterbody crossing is to be upgraded or expanded (“improved”) or altogether replaced (section 2).
Some members of the TAC felt that some watercourses are small enough that the District should not regulate crossings over them. Others noted, though, challenges related to property owners placing culverts in intermittent streams. The District has
15
not yet discerned a cognizable threshold, under which no regulation is warranted. Stakeholders who have a particular insight into the issue are particularly encouraged to comment.
Like the shoreline stabilization rule, all work subject to the crossings rule can only be permitted on a demonstration of need (paragraph 3.1b). From there, the criteria are organized in terms of the type of work regulated.
The District crossings provisions exceed DNR criteria by requiring that existing wildlife traffic be accounted for (paragraph 3.2d), requiring that a crossing be designed for minimal impact on water resources (3.2e), and permitting no increase in flood stage (paragraph 3.2a), in concert with the policy of no net loss of flood storage capacity stated in the floodplain rule.
The District included specific criteria for outfalls (into non-public waters) at the recommendation of several members of the TAC, who felt that such specifics would be valuable and necessary.
The District’s requirements, in section 3.4, for directional boring are simple and straightforward provisions requiring best practices.
RULE H – APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC SURFACE WATERS
Rule H is the first of two water appropriations rules proposed by the District and pertains to pumping from surface waters (wetlands, lakes, creeks). The rule is proposed to fulfill the requirement in Minnesota Statutes section 103B.211, subdivision 4, that the District regulate small appropriations from surface waters,14 and the regulatory thresholds established in the rule comport directly with the statutory requirement, except that the District has elected to apply its rule to the entire watershed rather than just to Hennepin County as required in the statute.
The criteria in section 3 are nontechnical and straightforward. The rule generally allows small appropriations that do not interfere with the rights of others, including the public broadly. In keeping with this approach and the District’s desire to make compliance as minimally burdensome as possible, the exhibit requirements for the rule are less technical than the requirements under the other substantive District rules.
14 See Minn. Stat. § 103G.271, and Minn. R. 6115.0670 (establishing a permitting regime administered by the Department of Natural Resources for appropriations of public waters in amounts greater than 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year).
16
Also, permits issued under the rule are continuing, and do not expire as long as the permittee complies with the criteria is section 3 (see subsection 3.3).
The District realizes that the surface waters appropriations rule will apply most often to single-family property owners, and staff will prepare education and outreach materials to both make the permitting process as efficient as possible and explain the importance of the rule. As with Rule I – Appropriation of Groundwater, the District’s primary purpose with Rule H is to obtain information on small appropriations to improve its understanding of the effects of small appropriations on surface waters and the surface water-groundwater relationship.
RULE I – APPROPRIATION OF GROUNDWATER
While the District’s regulation of surface water appropriations is mandated by statute, its proposed requirements on small appropriations of groundwater represent a commitment by the District to support the development of a plan for sustainable use of groundwater resources. Watershed district regulation of groundwater appropriations is supported by state statute,15 and the District has determined that it should play an active role in protecting and conserving groundwater.
There is growing concern in the metropolitan area and elsewhere in the state that we can no longer safely assure that our groundwater and surface waters are an unlimited resource. The dramatic drop in water levels in White Bear Lake in the northeastern metro area offers a case study.16 Analysis of well draws from groundwater aquifers and resulting impacts on surface waters led the Metropolitan Council to conclude that current rates of draw – to say nothing of increases as the metropolitan-area population grows – are unsustainable.17 Legislative direction and accompanying appropriation to
15 Among the reasons for the formation of a watershed district is “to provide for the protection of groundwater and regulate its use to preserve it for beneficial purposes.” Minn. Stat. § 103D.201, subd. 2(14). 16 United States Geological Survey, “Groundwater and Surface-Water Interactions near White Bear Lake, Minnesota”; March 25, 2013. See http://mn.water.usgs.gov/provjects/description/NQ00EHR00.html (last visited February 20, 2014).
17 Metropolitan Council, 'Business as usual' is depleting region's most robust aquifer, March 14, 2013. Available at http://metrocouncil.org/News-Events/Wastewater- Water/Newsletters/Business-as-usual-is-depleting-region-s-most-robus.aspx (last visited
17
the Department of Natural Resources in the 2013 legislative session underscored the need for additional tools and more information on groundwater sustainability.18
While the DNR has primary responsibility and authority to regulate the use of groundwater in the state, the agency requires a permit only when more than 10,000 gallons a day or 1 million gallons a year will be appropriated.19 The District determined that to begin to understand whether lesser appropriations of groundwater are or have the potential to significantly undermine the sustainability of groundwater resources or were adversely affecting groundwater-surface water hydrology, the District needed to gather data on the contribution of small appropriations to the overall draw on groundwater aquifers.
Watershed districts are authorized to “regulate, conserve, and control the use of water within the watershed district,”20 and state groundwater policy recognizes that “responsibility for the protection of groundwater in Minnesota is vested in a multiagency approach to management.”21 Like the District’s surface water appropriations rule, the proposed groundwater rule primarily functions as an information-gathering vehicle, and as such does not impose constraints on property owners’ use of groundwater unless a specific connection to a hydrological impairment is identified.
The rule’s criteria ensure reasonable use of groundwater in relation to all other uses, and a permittee is subject to possible restrictions in the event that the District finds a groundwater resource problem related to overuse. But the District neither intends nor anticipates taking affirmative steps to allocate rights to groundwater among property owners. The more immediate concern and intended product of the rule is data, and the criteria in section 3 and exhibit requirements in section 4 reflect this primary focus. The District understands that a property owner may be surprised to learn that a groundwater-appropriation permit is necessary, but staff drafted – and revised, after gaining helpful insights from TAC members – the rule requirements to ensure, again, that the rule’s purposes are achieved with minimal burden on property owners.
As with the surface water appropriations rule, the groundwater rule’s exhibit requirements are less technical than the requirements under the other substantive
19 Minn. Stat. § 103G.271, subd. 4. 20 Minn. Stat. § 103D.335, subd. 10. 21 Minn. Stat. § 103A.204.
18
District rules, and permits issued under the rule also are continuing, with no expiration as long as the permittee complies with the criteria in section 3 (see subsection 3.3). The requirement that an applicant have a contingency plan or agreement with the District is simple – no specific content is required; rather, the District wants to see that the applicant has considered and planned for using alternatives to groundwater pumping.
In conjunction with its regulatory focus on groundwater, the District will gather groundwater data itself. The District collected groundwater level information from approximately 17 wells dispersed throughout the watershed beginning in the late 1960s. The District will correlate newly collected and historic groundwater data with information on lake and wetland levels to better understand the hydrodynamics of shallow groundwater for its own sake and with regard to its interaction with surface water.
The District will work closely with staff at Carver County, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Department of Health and the Department of Natural Resources to refine and coordinate efforts to collect and manage groundwater data, then development management policy.
RULE J – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The District’s proposed stormwater rule is modeled on that of its neighbor, the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, with several key differences:
The policies reflect the District’s own considered statements of the issues to be addressed by stormwater regulation and the purposes established in its 2013 plan amendment reinstating the regulatory program. The criteria in section 3 reflect consideration of the statewide Minimal Impact Development Standards and other recent analysis in setting a volume-control standard of 1.1 inches of runoff (paragraph 3.1b) and a 75 percent annual removal efficiency rate for total phosphorus (paragraph 3.1c). The Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District rule requires more robust management of runoff from linear projects to ensure protection of water resources (subsection 2.4). The rule makes explicit the District’s ability to require ongoing performance monitoring and revision and reimplementation of the stormwater management plan for a site to ensure the effectiveness of innovative or experimental best management practices (subsection 2.6).
19
An alternative management scheme for volume control is proposed for property where infiltration of runoff is either impossible or countermanded by site- specific conditions, instead of a volume-banking system (subsection 3.2). Criteria for providing a landlocked basin with an outlet are provided (paragraph 3.3c).
These highlights of the rule also represent the ways in which the proposed regulatory scheme combines the best established practices with innovations in the science of stormwater management to implement a regulatory program that is capable of improving water quality.
Definitions A number of the entries in the Definitions section of the rules influence the scope of applicability of Rule J, and are discussed in some detail here: “Abstraction” is defined simply and broadly, describing the performance characteristic that is critical to a permit applicant’s demonstration of compliance with the rule: onsite retention of runoff. This exemplifies the performance- based approach utilized throughout the District rules; providing an applicant with the flexibility to comply in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible and consistent with the proposed use of land. Individual applicants will need to provide documentation and analysis supporting the capacity of their proposed systems to meet District standards – in this case, the retention of 1.1 inches of stormwater runoff from impervious areas on the subject property (cross-reference paragraph 3.1b.) “Existing conditions”: Note that for purposes of application of the District rate control standard in 3.1a, the “existing conditions” definition includes the impervious condition of a property that has been cleared of buildings and structures some time prior to the submission of an application to the District, but on which no intervening use has been established. The purpose is to ensure that property owners are not penalized for clearing buildings and leaving property in a pervious state between developments or uses. “Linear project” and “rehabilitation” both contribute significantly to determining how the District criteria in section 3 apply to road and other transportation- corridor projects. (See definitions, paragraph 2.2c and subsection 2.4, and note that the definition of “reconstruction” discussed below does not apply to linear projects, for which the standard sense of “reconstruction” – as “constructing again” – applies.) “Impervious surface” is defined in commonsense and, again, performance terms, leaving determination as to whether a particular surface is in fact impervious (or
20
not) to be demonstrated by an applicant and determine by the District engineer in a particular case. “Reconstruction”: Some members of the TAC recommended that the District define “reconstruction” in terms that rely on a property owner changing the footprint of buildings. Others and District staff have some concern that utilizing a footprint-change basis as opposed to a monetary delineation (i.e., “’reconstruction’ involves a change or addition that increases property value by 50 percent or more”) will lead to missed opportunities to manage stormwater runoff when major reconstruction projects (e.g., teardown/rebuilds) take place in the watershed. Comments on this question are particularly solicited. (See, for cross-reference purposes, subsection 2.2. The definition also determines applicability of the floodplain rule (Rule B – Floodplain Management and Drainage Alterations, section 5.1).)22
Applicability - regulatory scope The basic regulatory thresholds in the rule parallel those in Rule C – Erosion and Sediment Control, except that the stormwater rule also applies to the subdivision of property (paragraph 2.1c). The subdivision provision is premised on the notion that such land-use planning and implementation will include proposed construction (or reconstruction), and that this step in the development process is best suited to and best accommodates stormwater-management planning. (Subsequent construction, as long as the District permit remains valid, does not require further District stormwater permitting; paragraph 2.2b.)
From there, though, the stormwater rule exempts single-family home site (re)construction, except when such work presents a particular risk to water resources (paragraph 2.2a). Certainly properties further away could be tributary and present the same risks even though they lack an overland connection to a waterbody. But the District reasons that such properties will be tied into constructed stormwater- management systems that should provide treatment. The District is particularly interested in comment on this point.
The District comprehends the uncertainties associated with dispersed, small best management practices on isolated properties in the watershed and the vagaries associated with oversight of design, construction and maintenance. The District will
22 Other stormwater-related definitions present no particular interpretive complexities: “100-year flood elevation,” “back-to-back storm events,” “best management practices,” “landlocked basin,” “land-disturbing activity,” “low floor,” “Nested,” “redevelopment.”
21
need to develop and implement specific outreach efforts to address the associated challenges, but reasons that the education benefits support the additional resources that need to be devoted to regulating projects at the single-family property level.
Subsection 2.3 sets the application of the criteria in section 3 for redevelopment projects, limiting the applicability of the rule’s stormwater management criteria when less than 50 percent of the impervious surface of a property is disturbed to balance the District’s interest in encouraging reuse of already developed property with the need to update stormwater management systems.
The District and TAC gave careful consideration to the application of the stormwater permit criteria to linear transportation projects (see subsection 2.4). The specific provision for work in such defined spaces reflects the District’s attempt to balance its interest in ensuring protection of water resources with the reality that already established transportation corridors offer limited space in which to construct stormwater treatment. (The characteristic-based definition of “right-of-way” in the District’s Definitions underscores this latter understanding, recognizing that transportation authorities hold such land via a variety of legal structures.) Subsection 2.4 also recognizes that mill-and-overlay and other maintenance projects do not add impervious surface and do not increase runoff problems.
The definition of ‘linear project’ for purposes of the rules restricts operation of subsection 2.4 to projects in existing right of way. Where a transportation project involves the acquisition of land, the project proponent needs to plan for stormwater management facilities sufficient to meet the District standards as applied to the project.
Criteria The District developed the criteria in section 3 of the rule through analysis of current best practices in watershed rules throughout the metro area, the Minimal Impact Design Standards and watershed cities’ ordinances. The performance-based criteria represent a determination not to retreat from requiring best-possible compliance stormwater management standards at restricted sites. The 1.1-inch base abstraction standard is consistent with MIDS,23 and only slight more stringent than the 1-inch standard in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s new National Pollutant Discharge
23 See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and- programs/stormwater/stormwater-minimal-impact-design-standards-mids.html (last visited January 16, 2014).
22
Elimination System general permit for construction.24 Notably, the Technical Advisory Committee debated the types of projects to which the criteria would apply but did not voice significant or keen objection the standards set in section 3 themselves.
The low-floor criterion in subsection 3.3 closely comports with cities’ requirements, and the District expects it to impose no additional burden on property owners. Noteworthy is the District’s application of the standard to changes to stormwater management facilities that bring adjacent properties into violation of the freeboard criterion (subsection 3.3). While it is not within its purview or intent to regulate the allocation of liabilities between adjacent property owners, the District does not wish to affirmatively permit projects that will create this potential hazard.
The specific regulation of low-floor elevations of structures adjacent to stormwater facilities such as catch basins, rain gardens and detention ponds is designed to prevent flooding damage and seepage (paragraph 3.3a). Appendix J1 will allow permit applicants to set the location of the stormwater facility to the structure, water table elevation and soil conditions to ensure the appropriate distance and elevation of a structure relative to such facilities.
Maintenance To a great extent, the District will rely on and devote resources to requiring landowner compliance with permit conditions requiring inspections, maintenance as necessary and reporting to ensure that runoff-management facilities continue to function as designed over the long term. To this end, the District will require recording maintenance obligations on the deeds for properties subject to a District permit.
Exhibits The District’s stormwater management plan exhibit requirements are standard and straightforward. The option in paragraph 4.3j for the District engineer to require submission of an environmental site assessment allows the engineer to recommend approval of infiltration practices on sites with past-use history that raises concerns about contamination. Where contamination that could be mobilized by increased infiltration of runoff is present, infiltration will not be permitted.
Program Administration Rules
24 See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=18984 (pp. 12- 13) (last visited January 16, 2014).
23
RULE A – PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
The procedural requirements in Rule A harmonize the District regulatory program with city and other watershed district procedural requirements to facilitate streamlined compliance with the District’s substantive rules.
The recommendation in subsection 2.1 to project developers to avail themselves of consultation with District staff early in the development process allows future applicants to consider ways to minimize impervious surface, fully integrate infiltration features and route runoff to such features, and identify other potential project components that provide stormwater management benefits, all of which of course supports compliance with the District rules. Early review, comment and discussion can save significant resources that might otherwise have to be expended to bring a completed design into compliance with District permitting requirements – especially those for stormwater management.
The provision in section 2.3 requiring at least preliminary city approval ensures that the District formally reviews a project only after it has undergone whatever changes may be required to comply with municipal codes and regulations, acknowledging cities’ primary land-use authority. The section also acknowledges and accommodates the fact that wetlands-replacement plan approvals usually proceed in parallel with District permitting.
The rule’s conditional approval provision, section 3, will allow certain submittal requirements or necessary design changes to be fulfilled after the Board of Managers approves an application. As such, conditional approval will be granted only when relatively ministerial, administrative or minor compliance matters remain to be completed. Financial assurances, for example, very frequently will be secured and provided only after conditional permit approval. The key to the efficacy of such a provision is that the permit itself will not be issued – and work subject to the permit may not commence – until the designated conditions are satisfied.
An important aspect of sections 3 and 5 is that permitted projects which will remain under way longer than the original permit period (one year by default) must file for renewal prior to the expiration of the permit. Permittees failing to do so must reapply for a permit and pay applicable fees (i.e., as if applying for the first time). Permit renewal prior to expiration will require only a nominal fee. Also, only one renewal will be allowed when permitted activities have not been substantially commenced. Permittees taking more than two terms to get started will need to submit a new
24
application and associated materials (including the permit fee) and may be subject to new regulatory requirements. Use of the term “substantially commenced” in the rule means the Board of Managers will consider the level, nature and intensity of activities that are under way at a particular project site to support permit renewal. The provisions strike and maintain a balance between allowing permit holders to continue work on a project without apprehension of being subject to changes in the District regulatory requirements and preventing permit holders from obtaining essentially prospective approval of projects to avoid applicability of updates to the District regulatory program. The provisions are drafted to comport with established law on permittees’ vested rights in completing their projects.
Permittees taking more than a single term to complete work still will need to maintain compliance with District financial assurance requirements.
The Board of Managers retains the option of varying from the standard one-year permit term for a particular project in individual cases as the circumstances warrant (section 5).
Finally, section 4 of the rule is specifically included to respond to the 2013 United States Supreme Court decision in Koontz v St. Johns River Water Management District.25 It allows the District to reconsider, at the applicant’s request, a condition on approval of a permit or the grounds for denial of a permit. The applicant will need to reimburse the District for the cost of the additional analysis necessary for this review. The reconsideration step does not alter an applicant’s opportunity to appeal a District decision on a permit application in accordance with watershed law to the Board of Water and Soil Resources or to a state district court.
RULE K – VARIANCES AND EXCEPTIONS
The District’s draft variance provision is straightforward and very much in line with recently revised statutory municipal and county variance criteria in section 1. The rule incorporates the practical difficulties standard that has been codified in state law applicable to cities and counties. Under this standard, to receive a variance an applicant must show practical difficulties in complying with a District rule requirement or requirements. The criteria in the rule facilitate the Board of Managers’ determination as to whether the practical difficulties standard has been met. In short, if what an applicant wants to do with the subject property is reasonable and the
25 U.S. No. 11-1447; 570 U.S. ____ (2013).
25
variance will not undermine the purpose and spirit of the District rules, a variance can be granted.
Given the primacy of the District’s natural resources management mandate, the exception provision in section 2 is consistent with similar provisions utilized by other watershed districts and allows for the creativity of applicants wrestling with difficult or particularly advantageous site conditions. Application of the exception provision is limited to circumstances where substantial and varied measures are being undertaken to address not just the rule provision at issue, but the improvement of water resources broadly.
RULE L – PERMIT FEES
The District intends the fee requirement to reimburse its administrative, inspection and enforcement expenses as provided for by statute (Minn. Stat. § 103D.345, subd. 2).
Fee amounts will be set by Board resolution annually, and a schedule of applicable fees will be maintained on the District’s web site, as well as at the District offices. The District intends to implement and maintain a simple fee structure, with only as much variation and detail as is necessary to ensure that actual costs of administration and enforcement are collected, and that fees collected do not exceed costs of the program.
RULE M – FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Like permit fees, financial assurance amounts will be set annually by board resolution and published via the District’s web site. The rule establishes structure under which financial assurances can be required at the outset of permitting and released upon completion of work.
Per section 4, the District will require that an applicant demonstrate, by means acceptable to the District engineer, that stormwater facilities are functioning before the financial assurance will be released.
The District will work in harmony with the watershed cities to ensure appropriate coordination of financial assurances requirements. Where the District shares regulatory responsibility with a city or cities – such as for erosion and sediment control – adequate financial assurances may be held jointly.
26
Table 1 – Technical Advisory Committee participants
Name Affiliation Liz Stout City of Minnetonka Laurie Susla RPBCWD Citizens Advisory Committee Melissa Jenny U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Terry Jeffery City of Chanhassen Jennie Skancke Department of Natural Resources Jack Gleason Department of Natural Resources Kris Langlie RPBCWD Citizens Advisory Committee John Ekola Hennepin County Mike Wanous Carver County Soil & Water Conservation District Bob Bean Bolton & Menck (City of Deephaven) Joe Mulcahy Metropolitan Council Leslie Stovring City of Eden Prairie Paul Hornby WSB Engineering Inc. (City of Shorewood) Rod Rue City of Eden Prairie Mary Krause City of Eden Prairie Barb Loida Minnesota Department of Transportation Brad Wozney Board of Water and Soil Resources Steve Segar City of Bloomington
27