04/03/1984 - City Council RegularREGULAR MEETING
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
CITY HALL
APRIL 3, 1984
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
I. 6:30 - ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I1.
6:33 -
ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES
e,\ III.
6:35 -
APPEARANCE BY REPRESENTATIVE ART SEABERG
IV.
6:35 -
DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSINESS
Q•\
A.
Fire Department Q•� C. Park Department
\
B.
Police Department p, D. Public Works Department
V•
I
6:55 -
CONSENT ITEM (One Motion Approves All Items)
4
A.
Contractor's License
e,
e./p
B.
Temporary Gambling License for Eagan Lions and Lioness
Club for April 28
C.
Cancellation of Grading Permit ,",09073 (Lone Oak Heights)
P1
dB
D.
Change Order 1/1, County Contract 30-01 (Diffley Road)
P 9
E.
Personnel Items
P'Q
F.
Model Home Permit Applications, Westbury Addition
P
G.
Utility Easement Vacation, Receive Petition/Order Public
11
P
(Knob Hill of Eagan)
U161.
H.
Grading Permit Application, Lexington Square 1st Addition
I.
Grading Permit Application, Hillandale 2nd Addition
Pt�
J.
Utility Easement Vacation, Receive Petition/Order Public
Q'
(Windtree 2nd Addition)
VI.
7:00 -
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14
A.
Proiect 396, Westbury Addition (Streets & Utilities)
k2 B.
Pro+ect 395, Lexington Avenue (Trunk Watermain/Booster
Station)
C.
Pro+ect 348, Coachman/Four Oaks Road (Streets)
VII.
OLD
BUSINESS
p 69 A. Timberline Civic Association Request to Review Level of
Noise Emission at Sperry Semi Conductor Plant
\4 �j B. Perry Kieffer for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial
Storage Facilities in an Agricultural Zoning District in
Part of the SW} of the NE} of Section 24, 3955 Dodd Road,
\p'L Parcel 10-02400-010-05
(1 C. City Code Update/Revisions
• \\� D. Appointment of Advisory Planning Commission Alternate
4
u
Hearing
Hearing
City Council Agenda
City of Eagan
April 3, 1984
Page Two
VIII.. NEW BUSINESS
A. Paul Holmes for Preliminary Plat, Holmes Addition, Containing
l Acre Consisting of Two Single Family Lots, in Part of the NW}
of the NWk of Section 10, T27N, R23W, Parcel No. 10-01000-020-29,
Lying North of Quarry Lane and Towerview Road
B. Lexington South Associates, for PreliminaRY Plat, Sunset 5th
`• Addition - Access to Property North & West - Part of NA of
Section 25
C. J. E. Parranto Associates for a 20' Side Setback Variance
p' for Lot 26, Block 1, Tiberon 1st Addition, Section 29
o �A'� D. Rolf F. Anderson for a 2' Side Setback Variance for Lot 11, Block 1,
Wilderness Run 6th Addition, Section 27
1X. ADDITIONAL ITEMS
%S2.
Final Plat Approval -Fawn Ridge (Countryside Builders)
Pp1S� B. Final Plat Approval -Westbury Addition (Gabbert Development)
1 `S6 C. Final Plat Approval-SuperAmerica Addition (Ashland Oil)
D. Final Plat Approval -Berkshire Ponds (Derrick Land Co.)
59 E. Contract 84-5, Approve Plans/Order Bids (Westbury Addition -Streets)
?'16O F. Contract 84-4, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Yankee Doodle Reservoir -Painting)
62- Drive
Project 406, Receive Petition/Authorize Feqsibility Report (Hackamore
�1�6 Drive - Streets & Utilities)
` X, VISITORS TO BE HEARD (For those persons not on the agenda)
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: MARCH 29, 1984
SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION MEMO FOR APRIL 3, 1984
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
After approval of the March 22, 1984, regular City Council minutes
and the agenda for the April 3, 1984, City Council meeting,
the following items are in order for consideration:
REPRESENTATIVE ART SEABURG
Mayor Blomquist has received a letter from Representative Art
Seaburg who is asking for time to appear on the City Council
agenda at the April 3 meeting. He 'stated in his letter that
he would like the opportunity to explain and discuss current
matters pending before the State Legislature that might affect
local government. Mr. Seaburg will be present and since there
is no Department Head business planned, there should be adequate
time for Representative Seaburg to make comments and allow for
questions by the City Council.
A. Fire Department -- There are no items to be discussed under
Fire Department at this time.
B. Police Department -- There are no items to be discussed
for the Police Department at this time.
C. Parks Deparment -- There are no items to be discussed for
the Parks Department at this time.
D. Public Works Department -- Project 395, Lexington Avenue
Booster Station - Site Location -- Enclosed on page is
a site plan showing the location of the 1.5 acres of land that
the Council authorized the City to acquire for the construction
of the booster station under Project 395 and the future water
reservoirs as a part of our Comprehensive Water Distribution
Plan. In reviewing this location with the developer, Mr. Jim
Curry of Lexington South, Inc., and some perspective buyers
of the property in this general vicinity, the staff has been
asked to review the proposed location of this booster station
to be constructed in 1984/85 which will contain the future round
reservoirs to be constructed after the year 2000. The concern
evidently relates to potential future objections of obstructed
view from the property to be developed in the immediate northwest
corner of new Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road. It appears
that the view from this property is all directed to the north
where the ground elevation falls away and provides a panoramic
view. This view would be obstructed by the future water reservoirs
construction.
CG
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Two
`J
Consequently, staff has reviewed the potential of moving this
1.5 +/- acres further to the south so that it would be located
right at the intersection of Diffley and new Lexington Avenue.
This would have two advantages for the City as follows:
1. It would eliminate any potential objections from future
property owners when the City was to construct the two
ground reservoirs creating an obstructed view for the
multiple density development that is proposed.
2. It would require the entrance. to the multiple density
development to be located further away from a future major
intersection of Lexington 'Avenue and Diffley Road. As
it is proposed right now, with the development right in
the extreme corner, the entrance to a multiple density
would have to take direct access onto County Rd. 30 or
County Rd. 43 (Lexington Avenue) which could create problems
when traffic volumes through this intersection are greatly
increased in the future when saturation development occurs.
Subsequently, the Director of Public Works would like to review
with the City Council the relocation of the proposed water booster
station and ground reservoir to the northwest corner of the
intersection of new Lexington and Diffley Road.
The acquisition of this property has not been finalized and
it would not create any complication in the transfer if the
City Council were to concur with this staff recommendation.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve/deny the new
site for the proposed water booster station and ground reservoirs.
2
i
0
11
SSW 1/4 SEC., 23,127, R. �
i 010-00
i
f�LWfC'YT
ALOVI T! Y/Oh
PoRT'p•pT !'a M-
• I '
OMd� • � 1
`�-- rrer• -- •8
___—__ ___ IQROPefGO Ac0/i t.rrNy I _
oe
i ae
C NTY _!TATE
p/RFL a
J
0toll E^
rA
3
City of caw
013 -BZ
HVIEW
City It
Oi
PF
i
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Three
0 0
Packet
Council Meeting
There are ten (10) items on the agenda referred to as the Consent
Agenda requiring one (1) motion by the City Council. If the
City Council desires to discuss any of the items in further
detail, those items should be removed from the Consent Agenda
and placed under additional items unless the discussion required
is brief.
CONTRACTORS' LICENSE
A. Contractors' License -- The City has received contractor
license applications for contractors who do work in the City
of Eagan and seven -county metropolitan area. All of these contrac-
tors are considered reliable according to the Protective Inspections
department. The necessary documents and fees have been submitted
and it is the recommendation of the Chief Building Inspector
that the contractors' license, per City Code Chapter 6.42, be
approved. Enclosed on page(s) S' is a copy of
the contractors list.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the contractor's
license as referenced.
0 0
FOR APRIL 3, 1984 CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
GENERAL CONTRACTORS:
1. BASIC BUILDERS
2. CORPORATE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
3. COUNTRYSIDE BUILDERS
4. DEVELOPERS CONSTRUCTION INC
5. HERITAGE ENERGY HOMES, INC.
6. MERLE'S CONSTRUCTION -
7. LAUBACH CONSTRUCTION, INC.
8. PIERSEN ESTATES/DEVELOPMENT
9. RUSCON HOMES, INC.
10. SUNSHINE CONSTRUCTION CO.
11. VITALE, ANDREW (HOMEOWNER)
12. STEVE NELSON CONSTRUCTION
HEATING & VENTILATING CONTRACTORS:
1. CONTROLLED AIR
2. HALL'S HEATING INC.
3. METRO AIR
4. MINNESOTA MECHANICAL
MASONRY, CEMENT WORK:
1. METROPOLITAN FIREPLACES, INC.
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Four
TEMPORARY GAMBLING LICENSE/LION & LIONESS CLUB
B. Temporary Gambling License for Eagan Lions and Lioness Club
for April 28 -- The Eagan Lions and Lioness Club have requested
a temporary gambling license for a casino night scheduled on
April 28, 1984, at the Diamond T Ranch. License for temporary
gambling have been approved for the Eagan Lions and Lioness
Club in the past and, therefore, this application is consistent
with previous applications.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To authorize a temporary
gambling license for the Eagan Lions and Lioness Club for April
28, 1984.
9
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Five
CANCELLATION OF GRADING PERMIT/LONE OAK HEIGHTS
C. Cancellation of Grading Permit #09073 (Lone Oak Heights)
-- We have received a notice of cancellation of insurance coverage
for the City of Eagan which was a requirement to the grading
permit issued for the Lone Oak Heights subdivision during late
summer of 1983. Subsequent follow up with the developer, Balfany
Development, indicate that due to current problems pertaining
to the association of Orrin Aune with this development, the
developers wish the previously approved grading permit to expire
rather than to renew and resubmit the appropriate insurance
certificates protecting the City of Eagan.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To cancel the previously
approved grading permit #09073 issued to the Lone Oaks Heights
development through Belfany Development, Inc.
7
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Six
C:
Packet
Council Meeting
0
CHANGE ORDER #1, COUNTY CONTRACT/DIFFLEY ROAD
D. Change Order #1, County Contract 30-01 (Diffley Road) --
During the installation of utilities within the proposed improve-
ments of County Road 30 (Diffley Road) under County Contract
30-01 during the fall of 1983, it was determined that the existing
material underneath the existing service drives is inadequate
to provide the proper support for construction of the proposed
improvements. Subsequently, a change order 'was prepared to
remove approximately 4,300 C.Y. of poor subgrade material to
be replaced with granular backfill 'at an additional cost of
approximately $30,000. The cost of this change order will be
handled by supplemental agreement mto the cost participation
agreement presently in effect between the County and the City
for improvements to County road contracts.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve change order
#1 to County Contract 30-01 for an ADD $29,995.60 and authorize
City personnel to execute all required documents.
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Seven
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AIDE
Personnel Items
1. With the approved 1984 budget, the Finance Department
increased their half-time utility billing clerk to a
full-time clerk typist. With the transfer of Nancy
Ohm to fulfill this full-time position within the Finance
Department, the Public Works Department had to fill
the vacancy of the other half-time position providing
assistance to the Special Assessment Clerk. Subsequently,
the Director of Public works conducted interviews for
this part-time position and is subsequently recommending
that the City Council authorize the hiring of Barbara
Jean Thompson from Apple Valley for the Special Assessment
Aid in the Public Works Department at a compensation
and benefit package as provided for in the current Union
Contract and City policy. The hiring should be contingent
upon successful passage of the City's required medical/
health examination.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve/deny the hiring
of Barbara Jean Thompson as a part-time Special Assessment Aid
within the Public Works Department.
E
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Eight
0
Packet
Council Meeting
LA
Model Home Permit Applications/Westbury Addition
£. Model Home Permit Applications, Westbury Addition -- We
have received an application from Gabbert Development requesting
the issuance of three building permits for model homes to be
located on the following lots:
Lots 2, 3 or 4 of Block 3
Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 (Duplex Unit)
Lots 5 or 6 of Block 6
Due to the requirement that no building permits can be issued
until the final plat has been recorded at Dakota County, it
is necessary for the Council to grant special authorization
for the premature issuance of these building permits as requested.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve/deny the issuance
of a building permit for model home purposes on Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1; Lots 2, 3 or 4 of Block 3; and Lots 5 or 6 of Block
6, Westbury First Addition.
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Nine
Utility Easement Vacation/Knob Hill of Eaqan
G. Utility Easement Vacation, Receive Petitions/Order Public
Hearing (Knob Hill of Eagan Addition) -- we have received a
petition to vacate a small triangular segment of a utility easement
to facilitate the construction of a double garage for the townhouse
development in lieu of the originally planned single garages.
Preliminary review of this by the staff indicates there should
be no objection associated with this. However, a public hearing
will be necessary as this is a publicly dedicated drainage and
utility easement.
Enclosed on pages �+ through A is a copy of the petition,
legal description and graphic location of this easement to be
vacated for the Council's reference.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the petition
and schedule a public hearing to be held on May 1, 1984, for
the vacation of a portion of the utility easement located within
Block 1 of the Knob Hill of Eagan Addition.
• FCR CIT': 11SE C:ILy
Petition N
Date Received ,Z7�fi
i ( PFTIT.ION Presented to Council
LOCATION/SUBDIVISI0i1 KNOB HILL OF EAGAN
I/vie, the undersigned, owners'of the real property adjacent to
Street)
or within Lot 2, Block 1, KNOB HILL OF EAGAN
hereby petition for: Subdivision,
Street improvements
Sanitary Sewer
Water Supply
(Check requested items)
Storm Sevier
Street Lights
u Tl,, r y
Other
C' (Explain) Vacation of Easement
(Legal attached)
I/we understand that upon receipt of this petition, a public hearing will be held.
Irregardless of approval or denial of the requested vacation at the time of public
hearing, I/we hereby guarantee payment for all costs incurred in the processing and
recording of this requested vacation,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
r !';+ CONSULTING ENGINEERS O LANG SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS
Reply To:
12800 Indunrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
18121 559.3700
KNOB HILL OF EAG AN
Proposed vacation - Easement
That part of the utility and drainage easement las delineated on Lot 2, Block 1,
KNOB HILL OF EAGAN according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Min-
nesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence North 85 degrees
East along the north line of said Lot 2 a distance of 30.08 feet; thence
south 00 degrees 45 minutes 33 seconds East, 108.62 feet; thence North 44
degrees 14 minutes 27 seconds East 33.01 to the point of beginning; thence
continue North 44 degrees 14 minutes 27 seconds East 26.85 feet; thence
south 79 degrees 58 minutes 27 seconds west 21.80 feet; thence South 10 de-
grees Ol minutes 33 seconds East 15.68 feet to the point of beginning.
Date: 3/13/84
06293
13
printed on recycled paper
Ma601B
09
t ter•
,kdMH6IH V
11v0,89,99= v" d I 31tJ1S A1Nn0� 00 *G w
` v y N IW
e2e'sce ° � v r1i Zlw i d- —
l011no
020
66.21£ 3 „60 ,10. 18N
At^-
66'L8Z 13 N nOZ.L J
an \ � -, (b d ��
wasoa-abou,olpos 01� /-f'/./��IJ `alb of of o
p / I .
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Ten
Grading Permit Application/Lexington Square Addition
H. Grading Permit Application, Lexington Square Addition (Phase
1) -- With the recent approval of the preliminary plat for the
Lexington Square Addition, staff has received an application
for a grading permit for the first phase which incorporates
approximately 42 acres. All permit requirements have been received,
reviewed and approved by the staff and found to be in order
for favorable consideration by the Council.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve/deny the grading
permit application for Lexington Square 1st Addition as submitted
by Northland Development Company.
16'
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Eleven
Gradinq Permit Application/Hillandale 2nd Addition
I. Grading Permit Application, Hillandale 2nd Addition
With the recent approval of the preliminary plat for the Hillandale
2nd Addition, the staff has received an application for a grading
permit for the first phase of this development. All grading
permit requirements have been received, reviewed and approved
by staff and found to be in order for favorable consideration
by the Council.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the grading
permit applications for the Hillandale 2nd Addition, first phase,
as submitted by the Michael Construction Company.
14
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twelve
0
Packet
Council Meeting
0
Utility Easement Vacation/Windtree 2nd Addition
i. Vacation of Utility Easement, Receive Petition/Order Public
Hearing (Windtreet 2nd Addition) -- We have received a petition
to vacate the common lot line drainage and utility easements
over all lots within the Windtree 2nd Addition with the exception
of lots 13 and 14 of Block 3. These public utility and drainage
easements must be vacated to accomodate the replat of this subdi-
vision into the Windtree 3rd Addition which requires the relocation
of the existing side lot lines. These utility easements will
be replaced in like kind with the final platting of the Windtree
3rd Addition.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the petition
and order the public hearing to be held on May 1, 1984, for
the vacation of the drainage and utility easements over the
common lot lines within the Windtree 2nd Addition.
17
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Thirteen
Project 396/Westbury Addition
A. Project 396, Westbury Addition (Streets & Utilities) --
on February 7, 1984, the Council received a petition from Gabbert
Development and authorized the preparation of a feasibility
report for the installation of streets and utilities to service
the first phase of the Westbury Addition development. This
feasibility report was presented to the Council on March 6 with
the public hearing being scheduled for April 3. Also, notices
have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all property
owners who would be assessed under this project. A copy of
the feasibility report was forwarded to the developer for his
review prior to.the public hearing. As of this date, the staff
has received no objections to this proposed improvement. Enclosed
on pages�_ through is a copy of the feasibility
report for the Council's reference during the public hearing.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing
and approve/deny Project 396 for the installation of streets
and utilities within the Westbury Addition.
E
i
REPORT
ON
WESTBURY ADDITION
UTILITY AND STREET
IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT No. 396
am
EAGAN , MINNESOTA
File No. 49298
Bome�,, Rodeme, 1Q.d,041da C fYddac�, Yom
SG Pa..4 M4mme"la
19
0
96
$T, p..( Af"...b 55119
PA. 412-696-4600
February 28, 1984
Honorable Mayor and Council
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Mn. 55121
Re: Westbury Addition
Project 396
Our File No. 49298
Dear Mayor and Council:
0
YMC.
Gk. R. Cant RE
RAR A. Grade RE
Thm E ftft RE
Rkh" W. Fmm RE
Ra G. SAaANv. RE
M. L Sa..I; P.E
OarMC &wt. i. RE
JIM A. Rw I RE
and R A. Na.m., RE
fid R. Tia. RE
Mk Md T. R.PC
Rohm R. Pf.ffolr. RE
Dn /maom. RE
CMM A. filr
LM M. Po.ARJ
Nnlm M. Ohm
Transmitted herewith is our report for Westbury Addition, Project 396. This
report covers sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, and street construction
and includes a preliminary assessment roll.
We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a
mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report.
Yours very truly,
BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
aC/.g�P%1
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:11
I hereby certify that this report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
L Mark A. Hanson
Date: February 28, 1984 Reg. No. 14260
Approved b c2t/do ^
Nomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Date: 3 -1 -dc- y
9563b
G. i E
W.ft
Rahn W. Ray..t RE
R06 R
Ja>mR C. A.dnfit P.E
&adfW A. LMbV . RE
Rt/md E Tkm . RE
Jo C. Oho.. P.£.
Gk. R. Cant RE
RAR A. Grade RE
Thm E ftft RE
Rkh" W. Fmm RE
Ra G. SAaANv. RE
M. L Sa..I; P.E
OarMC &wt. i. RE
JIM A. Rw I RE
and R A. Na.m., RE
fid R. Tia. RE
Mk Md T. R.PC
Rohm R. Pf.ffolr. RE
Dn /maom. RE
CMM A. filr
LM M. Po.ARJ
Nnlm M. Ohm
Transmitted herewith is our report for Westbury Addition, Project 396. This
report covers sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, and street construction
and includes a preliminary assessment roll.
We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a
mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report.
Yours very truly,
BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
aC/.g�P%1
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:11
I hereby certify that this report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
L Mark A. Hanson
Date: February 28, 1984 Reg. No. 14260
Approved b c2t/do ^
Nomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Date: 3 -1 -dc- y
9563b
0 0
SCOPE: This project. provides for the construction of sanitary sewer, water
main, storm sewer, and streets to service Westbury Addition. Westbury Addi-
tion is located in the southwest quadrant of Lexington Avenue and Wescott Road
and will ultimately include 111 lots for single family and 36 lots for twin
homes. The first phase of the project proposed herein includes developing 50
lots for single family and 20 lots for twin homes. Also included is the con-
struction of a major trunk sanitary sewer and storm sewer to service the area
east of Lexington Avenue as outlined in each of the respective Comprehensive
Plans.
FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This project is feasible from an engineering
standpoint and is in accordance with the Master Utility and Street Plan for
the City of Eagan. The project as outlined herein can best be carried out a
one contract.
DISCUSSION:
Sanitary Sewer - Sanitary sewer proposed herein includes an 8 inch diameter
lateral sanitary sewer and a 12 inch and 15 inch diameter trunk sanitary sewer
to properly service the lots in Westbury Addition. It is intended the lateral
sanitary.sewer in Westbury Drive be constructed at an adequate depth to prop-
erly service the future lots abutting the cul-de-sac located in the southwest-
erly corner of Outlot C. The trunk sanitary sewer will be constructed at a
sufficient depth and capacity to service the area east of Lexington Avenue as
outlined in the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. However, also included in
the service area for this trunk sanitary sewer is the westerly half of Subdis-
trict C -JJ and C -II which was originally intended to drain easterly to Lift
Station No. 54. Sanitary sewer proposed herein will .connect to the Wescott
Trunk Sanitary Sewer - Project No. 361 which is presently under construction
through Contract 84-2.
Page 1.
9563b
21
i
WATER MAIN: Water main proposed herein includes a 6 inch diameter lateral
water main and a 12 inch diameter trunk water main to properly service the
lots in Westbury Addition. City Project No. 395 Lexington Avenue Booster Sta-
tion and Trunk Water Main (Wescott Road to Diffley Road) is also being submit-
ted for the Council's consideration at this time. This trunk water main in
conjunction with the existing 12 inch trunk water main in Wescott Road will be
the main water supply to service Westbury Addition as shown on the attached
drawing. Also included are the required number valves and hydrants.
SERVICES: Sanitary sewer and water services are proposed to be constructed 15
feet beyond the property line. Service lines are proposed to be 4 inch diame-
ter for sanitary sewer and 1 inch diameter for water.
STORM SEWER: Storm sewer proposed herein will convey drainage from Westbury
Addition to Hurley Lake (Pond JP -11 as designated in the Comprehensive Storm
Sewer Plan). Presently under construction through Contract 83-17 is the storm
sewer lift station and force main which when completed will convey drainage
from Hurley Lake to Pond JP -47. Pond JP -47 presently discharges through a
combination of controlled outlets utilizing storm sewer pipe, ponds, and lakes
to the Minnesota River. Storm sewer proposed herein is separated in lateral
storm sewer and trunk storm sewer. Lateral storm sewer is,the amount of storm
sewer required to convey drainage within the Westbury Addition. Lateral storm
sewer includes a combination of 24"9 21111 18", 15", and 12" diameter storm
sewer pipe. Although 24" and 21" diameter storm sewer pipe are not proposed
to be constructed as part of this project, they were used to determine the
lateral storm sewer benefit amount from the trunk storm sewer system.
Trunk storm sewer proposed herein includes construction of the trunk storm
sewer from Pond JP -11 to Lexington Avenue as shown in the Comprehensive Storm
Page 2.
9563b
Z2
0 0
Sewer Plan. This trunk storm sewer will ultimately convey drainage from near-
ly 2,000 acres. Trunk storm sewer proposed herein includes 48" and 42" diame-
ter storm sewer pipe constructed up to 35 feet deep. Ultimately this trunk
storm sewer will be constructed easterly as future development occurs.
Also included was evaluating the feasibility of constructing the future
force main from the Patrick Eagan Lake Lift Station (Pond JP -9 and Lift Sta-
tion No. 13 as designated in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan) along the
west line of Westbury Addition as opposed to through the parcel located di-
rectly west of Westbury Addition (McCarthy's). Both alignments are feasible,
however, the alignment through McCarthy's land is less costly due to a lesser
elevation which the lift station is required to pump against. It is antici-
pated the initial construction cost would be $10,000 to $15,000 less while the
power costs on a yearly basis assuming saturated development would be approxi-
mately $2,000 to $4,000 less through McCarthy's parcel as opposed to through
Westbury Addition. In any event, 'the force main. through Westbury Addition
would not be required until the third phase is developed which is not antici-
pated until 1986.
STREET b BITUMINOUS TRAIL: Street construction proposed herein includes con-
struction of a 32 foot wide street for all the streets within Westbury Addi-
tion as shown on the attached drawing. Each street will be constructed to a 7
ton residential design thickness with surmountable concrete curb and gutter in
conjunction with the required restoration for boulevards. Also included is
construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along Lexington Avenue for the
first phase. It is assumed grading of the streets and trail will be done by
the developer.
Page 3.
9 56 3b
'215
AREA TO BE INCLUDED:
Assessment Area
NE 1/4 SECTION 22
Parcel 012-01
Parcel 011-04
Westbury Addition (011-01)
Construction Area
NE 1/4 SECTION 22
Parcel 012-01
Westbury Addition (011-01)
COST ESTIMATES: Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix A located
at the back of this report. A summary of these costs is as follows:
Sanitary Sewer $206,590
Water Main 89,490
Services 56,320
Storm Sewer 429,610
Street b Bituminous Trail 188,100
TOTAL ........... $970,110
The total estimated project cost is $970,110 which includes contingencies
and all related overhead. Overhead costs are estimated at 27% and include
legal, engineering, administration, and bond interest.
ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited
property. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this re-
port in Appendix B.
SANITARY SEWER: Sanitary sewer proposed herein is separated into lateral and
trunk. Lateral sanitary sewer is the amount of sanitary sewer required to
service the Westbury Addition and is therefore proposed to be assessed evenly
against each benefiting lot. The lateral benefit from the trunk sanitary
sewer was determined by designing an 8 inch equivalent diameter sanitary sewer
at a depth to properly service Westbury Addition. Also included is a lateral
Page 4.
9563b
Tj
0 0
sanitary sewer extention to service Parcel 012-01 located southeast of West-
bury Addition. It is proposed' -to assess the entire cost of this line to Par-
cel 012-01.
Trunk sanitary sewer is the amount of sanitary sewer required to service
the area outside of Westbury Addition. Trunk sanitary sewer will therefore be
the responsibility of the trunk fund. Presently, trunk area assessments for
this area are pending as part of Wescott Trunk Sanitary Sewer, Project No. 361.
WATER MAIN: Water main proposed herein is separated into trunk and lateral
water main. Lateral water main is all water main 6 inch in diameter and is
proposed to be assessed evenly against the benefited lots in Westbury Addi-
tion. Therefore, the 12 inch trunk diameter water main located in Westbury
Drive will be assessed as a 6 inch lateral equivalent and all oversizing costs
associated with the 12 inch trunk main will be the responsibility of the trunk
fund.
Trunk area :rater main for the north 40 acres was previously assessed as
part of Wescott Road Utility and Street Improvements - Project No. 305. Pres-
ently, there are proposed assessments for trunk area and lateral benefit from
trunk water associated with Project No. 395, Lexington Avenue Booster Station
and Trunk water Main (Wescott Road to Diffley Road).
SERVICES: Services are proposed to be assessed evenly against the benefited
lots they serve.
STORM SEWER: Storm sewer proposed herein is separated in lateral and trunk.
Lateral storm sewer is the amount of storm serer required to service the West-
bury Addition. The lateral storm sewer was determined by designing a lateral
storm system to service only Westbury Addition. The lateral storm sewer
equivalent diameters in lieu of the actual trunk diameter are shown on the
drawing at the back of this report. -It is proposed all lateral and lateral
Page 5.
9563b
a5-
0 0
equivalent storm sewer, costs be assessed evenly against the benefited lots in
Westbury Addition. However, it proposed that the lateral storm sewer amount
be apportioned between the first phase and Outlots B and C as follows:
First Phase 66%
Outlot B 9%
Outlot C 25%
Based on this division, the lateral storm sewer assessment per lot will be
more equal such that one phase does not incur a significantly greater or
lesser assessment than the other.
Trunk area storm sewer is proposed to be assessed to the benefited proper-
ty as shown on the attached drawing. Trunk area storm sewer rates will be
those in effect at the time of the public hearing.
STREET b BITUMINOUS TRAIL: Streets and bituminous trailway proposed herein
are to be assessed evenly against the benefited lots they serve in Westbury
Addition.
All lateral costs will be revised based on final costs. Trunk area rates
in effect at the time of this report are as follows:
TRUNK STORM SEWER
Single Family $0.045/sq.ft.
Multi -Family $0.057/sq.ft.
REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as
follows:
Page 6.
9563b
Page 7.
9563b
Q-7
Project
Cost
Revenue
Balance
A.)
SANITARY SEWER
Lateral
$106,540
Trunk
100,050
Lateral Assessment
$106,540
$206,590
$106,540
-$100,050
B.)
WATER MAIN
Lateral
$ 74,080
Trunk
15,410
Lateral Assessment
$ 74,080
$ 89,490
$ 74,080
-$ 15,410
C.)
SERVICES
Lateral
$ 56,320
Lateral Assessment5$
6,320
$ 56,320
$ 56,320
- 0 -
D.
STORM SEWER
Lateral
$147,310
Trunk
282,300
Lateral Assessment
$147,310
Trunk Area
130,270
$429,610
$277,580
-$152,030
E.
STREET b BITUMINOUS TRAIL
Lateral
$188,100
Lateral Assessment18$
8,100
$188,100
$188,100
- 0 -
TOTAL ............
-$267,490
Page 7.
9563b
Q-7
0 0
The total estimated trunk fund balance for this project is -$267,490 which
will be the responsibility of each respective trunk fund. The greatest defi-
cit is shown for trunk storm sewer which is because the most expensive portion
of trunk storm sewer is required through Westbury Addition. However, as the
major trunk continues east and decreases in size and depth, the ratio of the
trunk project costs to the area assessment revenue will decrease. Therefore,
additional revenue will be generated in the future to offset deficits pre-
sented herein.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Present Feasibility Report
Public Hearing
Approve Plans 6 Specifications
Open Bids
Award Contract
Construction Completion
Final Assessment Hearing
First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes
Page 8.
9563b
I�i•J
March 6, 1984
April 3, 1984
May 1984
June 1984
June/July 1984
Fall 1984
Spring 1985
May 1986
APPENDIX A
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
WESTBURY ADDITION
PROJECT NO. 396
A.) SANITARY SEWER
770
Lin.ft.
15" RCP Sanitary sewer 25'-30' dp, in pl. @ $70.00/lin.ft.
$ 53,900
60
Lin.ft.
Jack or auger 15" RCP sanitary sewer @ $150.00/lin.ft.
9,000
400
Lin.ft.
12" RCP Sanitary sewer 15'-20' dp, in pl. @ $22.00/lin.ft.
8,800
470
Lin.ft.
12" RCP Sanitary sewer 10'-15' dp. in 01. @ $19.00/lin.ft.
8,930
110
Lin.ft.
8" DIP Sanitary sewer 25'-30' dp. in pl. @ $25.00/lin.ft.
2,750
220
Lin.ft.
8" PVC Sanitary sewer 15'-25' dp. in pl. @ $15.00/lin.ft.
3,300
2,155
Lin.ft.
8" PVC Sanitary sewer 0'-15' dp, in pl. @ $10.00/lin.ft.
21,550
17
Each
Std. 4' dia. MH w/cstg. @ $900.00/each
15,300
173
Lin.ft.
MH depth greater than 8' dp. in pl. @ $60.00/lin.ft.
.10,380
6
Lin.ft.
12" Outside drop for MH @ $140.00/lin.ft.
840
59
Lin.ft.
8" Outside drop for MH @ $120.00/lin.ft.
7,080
250
Lin.ft.
4" CISP service riser in pl. @ $15.00/lin.ft.
3,750
13
Each
15" x 4" wye in pl. @ $70.00/each
910
9
Each
12" x 4" wye in pl. @ $70.00/each
630
50
Each
8" x 4" wye in pl. @ $40.00/each
2,000
200
Cu.yds.
Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd.
2,000
4,125
Lin.ft.
Mechanical trench compaction in pl. (d $0.92/lin.ft.
3,795
Total
$154,915
+5% Contingencies
7,750
$,1;62,665
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest
43,925
A.) TOTAL SANITARY SEWER ................................
$206,590
Page 9.
9563b
oil
0 0
N
B.) WATER MAIN
860
Lin.ft.
12" DIP Water main in pl. @ $21.00/lin.ft.
$
18,060
2,750
Lin.ft.
6" DIP Water main in pl. @ $10.00/lin.ft.
72
27,500
8
Each
Hydrant in pl. @ $900.00/each
Each
7,200
1
Each
12" Butterfly valve and box @ $750.00/each
Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft.
750
7
Each
6" Resilient wedge gate valve b box @ $350.00/each
$ 42,240
2,450
5,100
Lbs.
Fittings in pl. @ $1.30/lb.
6,630
1
Each
Connect 12" DIP to ex. 12" DIP @ $400.00/each
400
1
Each
Connect 6" DIP to ex. 6" DIP @ $300.00/each
300
50
Cu.yds.
Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd.
500
3,310
Lin.ft.
Mechanical trench.compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft.
3,310
Total
$
67,100
+5% Contingencies
3,360
$
70,460
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. b Bond Interest
19,030
B.) WATER MAIN ..........................................
$
89,490
C.) SERVICES
3,240
Lin.ft.
4" PVC Sanitary sewer service @ $5.00/lin.ft.
$ 16,200
3,320
Lin.ft.
1" Type "K" copper water service @ $5.00/lin.ft.
16,600
72
Each
1" Corporation stop @ $15.00/each
1,080
72
Each
1" Curb stop @ $70.00/each
5,040
3,320
Lin.ft.
Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft.
3,320
Total
$ 42,240
+5% Contingencies
2,110
$ 44,350
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest
11.970
9563b
C.) TOTAL SERVICES ...................................... $ 56,320
Page 10.
30
r1
L
0
D.) STORM SEWER
1,270 Lin.ft. 48" RCP Storm sewer 25'-35' dp. in pl. @ $135.00/lin.ft.
80 Lin.ft. Jack or auger 48" RCP Storm sewer @ $450.00/lin.ft.
100 Lin.ft. 42" RCP Storm sewer 25'-30' dp. in pl. @ $90.00/lin.ft.
100 Lin.ft. 42" RCP Storm sewer 15'-25' dp. in pl.,@ $70.00/lin.ft.
270 Lin.ft. 42" RCP Storm sewer 0'-15' dp. in pl. @ $60.00/lin.ft.
410 Lin.ft. 18" RCP Storm sewer 0'-15' dp. in pl. @ $24.00/lin.ft.
800 Lin.ft. 15" RCP Storm sewer 0'-15' dp. in pl. @ $22.00/lin.ft.
400 Lin.ft. 12" RCP Storm sewer 0'-15' dp. in pl. @ $19.00/lin.ft.
5 Each MR w/cstg. Plate 1-4 in pl. @ $2,000.00/each
7 Each Std. 4' drain MH w/cstg. in pl. @ $900.00/each
3 Each CBMH w/cstg. @ $850.00/each
8 Each CB w/cstg. @ $750.00/each
112 Lin.ft. MH depth greater than 8' dp. @ $60.00/lin.ft.
1 Each 42" RCP flared end w/trash guard @ $2,200.00/each
-1 Each 18" RCP flared end w/trash guard @ $800.00/each
1 Each 15" RCP flared end w/trash guard @ $600.00/each
LUMP SUM Clear and grub trees @ $500.00/L.S.
16 Cu.yds. Rip rap @ $50.00/cu.yd.
100 Cu.yds. Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd.
1,470 Lin.ft. Class B-2 bedding @ $2.99/lin.ft.
3,350 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $0.93/lin.ft.
2.5 Acres Seed with mulch S fertilizer @ $1,000.00/each
Total
+5% Contingencies
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. b Bond Interest
D.) TOTAL STORM SEWER ...................................
9563b Page 11.
31
i
$1171,450
36;000
9,000
7,000
116,200
1 9,840
117,600
7,600
110,000
6,300
2,550
6,000
6,720
2,200
:IN
600
I
500
800
I
1,000
4,410
3,100
2.500
$322,170
16,110
$338,280
1
91.340
$429,610
0 0
E.) STREET b BITUMINOUS TRAIL
820
Cu.yds.
Subgrade correction @ $3.00/cu.yd.
$ 2,400
400
Cu.yds.
Select granular borrow @ $4.50/cu.yd.
1,800
14,710
Sq.yds.
Subgrade preparation @ $0.25/sq.yd.
3,680
5,930
Ton
Class 5 100% crushed quarry rock @ $6.80/ton
40,330
1,150
Ton
2331 Bituminous base course @ $11.00/ton
12,650
1,125
Ton.
2341 Bituminous wear course @ $12.00/ton
14,700
130
Ton
Bituminous material for mixture @ $210.00/tan
27,300
- 620
Gals.
Bituminous material for tack coat @ $1.20/gal.
750
6,980
Lin.ft.
Surmountable concrete curb 6 gutter @ $4.00/lin.ft.
27,920
1,780
Lin.ft.
Reinforcing for concrete curb b gutter @ $1.00/lin.ft.
1,780
32
Each
Adjust MH and CB frame @ $120.00/each
3,840
9
Each
Adjust G.V. and Box @ $100.00/each
900
3.0
Acre
Seed with topsoil and mulch @ $1,000.00/acre
3,000
Total
$141,050
+5% Contingencies
7,060
$148,110
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest
39,990
E.) TOTAL STREET b BITUMINOUS TRAIL ....................
$188,100
A.) SANITARY SEWER $206,590
B.) WATER MAIN 89,490
.C.) SERVICE 56,320
D.) STORM SEWER 429,610
E.) STREET 6 BITUMINOUS TRAIL 188,100
9563b
TOTAL ................... $970,110
Page 12.
3k - -
0 0
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
WESTBURY ADDITION
PROJECT NO. 396
A.) SANITARY SEWER
Lateral (Includes the lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer)
Number of Lots
Parcel Description or Lot Equivalent Cost/Lot
012-01 2.3 $1,473
WESTBURY ADDITION
Block
1,
Lot
1-14
14
$1,473
Block
2,
Lot
1-15
15
$1,473
Block
3,
Lot
1-10
10
$1,473
Block
4,
Lot
1-21
21
$1,473
Block
5,
Lot
1-4
4
$1,473
Block
7,
Lot
1-6
6
$1,473
Total
72.3
B.) WATER MAIN
Lateral
(Includes the lateral
benefit from
trunk water main)
WESTBURY
ADDITION
Block
1,
Lot
1-14
14
$1,058
Block
2,
Lot
1-15
15
$1,058
Block
3,
Lot
1-10
10
$1,058
Block
4,
Lot
1-21
21
$1,058
Block
5,
Lot
1-4
4
$1,058
Block
7,
Lot
1-6
6
$1,058
Total
70
Page. 13.
9563b
3!>
Total
Assessment
$ 3,400
$ 20,628
22,1011
14,734;
30,9421
5,8941
8.8411
$106,540
I
i
$ 14,816
15,874
10,582
22,224
4,233
6.350
$ 74,080
WESTBURY ADDITION - PHASE I
Number of Lots
C.) SERVICES
Parcel Description
or Lot Equivalent
Cost/Lot
Assessment
Block
Lateral
Lot
1-14
14
$587
$ 8,223
Block
2,
Number of Lots
1-15
Total
Parcel Description
8,811
or Lot Equivalent Cost/Lot
Assessment
WESTBURY ADDITION
1-10
10
$587
5,874
Block
Block 1, Lot 1-14
Lot
14
21
$805
$ 11,264
Block 2, Lot 1-15
5,
15
1-4
$805
12,069
Block 3, Lot 1-10
Block
10
Lot
$805
8,046
Block 4, Lot 1-21
3,524
21
$805
16,896
Block 5, Lot 1-4
4
$805
3,218
Block 7, Lot 1-6.
6
$805
4,827
Total
70
$ 56,320
D.) STORM SEWER
a.) Trunk Area
Parcel
Area
Credit
Assessable
Total
Description
(Sq.ft.)
(Sq.Ft.)
Area(Sq.ft.)
Rate
Assessment
NE 1/4 SECTION 22
012-01
203,205
Future R/W
(20X) 162,564
$0.045/s.f.
$ 7,316
Pond 52,100
011-04
1,177,200
Future R/W
(20X) 900,080
$0.045/s.f.
40,504
WESTBURY ADDITION
Phase I
642,000
---
642,000
$0.045/s.f.
$ 28,890
214,500
--
214,500
$0.057/s.f.
12,226
Outlot B
175,500
---
175,500
$0.045/s.f.
7,897
124,250
--
124,250
$0.057/s.f.
7,082
Outlot C
544,000
--
544,000
$0.045/s.f.
24,480
Total
$128,395
WESTBURY ADDITION - PHASE I
Page 14.
9563b
3�4
Number of Lots
Total
Parcel Description
or Lot Equivalent
Cost/Lot
Assessment
Block
1,
Lot
1-14
14
$587
$ 8,223
Block
2,
Lot
1-15
15
$587
8,811
Block
3,
Lot
1-10
10
$587
5,874
Block
4,
Lot
1-21
21
$587
12,335
Block
5,
Lot
1-4
4
$587
2,349
Block
7,
Lot
1-6
6
$587
3,524
Total
70
$ 41,116
Page 14.
9563b
3�4
0 0
b.) Lateral (Includes the lateral benefit from trunk storm sewer)
WESTBURY ADDITION
E.) STREET
WESTBURY ADDITION
Block
1,
Lot
1-14
Number of Lots
$2,687
Total
Parcel Description
or Lot Equivalent
Cost/Lot
Assessment
Block
1,
Lot
1-14
14
$1,403
$ 19,640
Block
2,
Lot
1-15
15
$1,403
21,044
Block
3,
Lot
1-10
10
$1,403
14,030
Block
4,
Lot
1-21
21
$1,403
29,462
Block
5,
Lot
1-4
4
$1,403
5,612
Block
7,
Lot
1-6
6
$1,403
8,418
Outlot
B
9
$1,403
12,627
Outlot
C
26
$1,403
36.477
Total
105
$147,310
E.) STREET
WESTBURY ADDITION
Block
1,
Lot
1-14
14
$2,687
$ 37,620
Block
2,
Lot
1-15
15
$2,687
40,307
Block
3,
Lot
1-10
10
$2,687
26,871
Block
4,
Lot
1-21
21
$2,687
56,430
Block
5,
Lot
1-4
4
$2,687
10,749
Block
7,
Lot
1-6
6
$2,687
16.123
Total
70
$188,100
9563b
Page 15.
3S
Parcel
Description
NE 1/4 SECTION 22
012-01
011-04
WESTBURY ADDITION
Blk. 1, Lot 1-14
Blk. 2, Lot 1-15
Blk. 3, Lot 1-10
Blk. 4, Lot 1-21
Blk. 5, Lot 1-4
Blk. 7, Lot 1-6
Outlot B
Outlot C
SUMMARY
COST/LOT, PARCEL
Storm
Sanitary Water Sewer Storm Total Assess -
Sewer Main Services Trunk Sewer Street ment Cost Per
Lateral(1) Lateral(2) Lateral Area Lateral(3) Lateral Lot, Parcel
$3,400 --- --- $ 7,316 $ 10,716 •
--- --- --- 40,504 40,504
$1,473
$1,058
$ 805
$ 587
$ 1,403
$2,687
$ 8,013
1,473
1,058
805
587
1,403
2,687
8,013
1,473
1,058
805
587
1,403
2,687
8,013
1,473
1,058
805
587
1,403
2,687
8,013
1,473
1,058
805
587
1,403
2,687
8,013
1,473
1,058
805
587
1,403
2,687
8,013
14,979
12,627
27,606
24,480
36,477
60,957
(1) Includes the lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer for Westbury Addition only.
(2) Includes the lateral benefit from trunk water main.
(3) Includes the lateral benefit from trunk storm sewer.
9563b
Page 16.
�_ WESCOTT RD.
(PARCEL 012-01)
FEBRUARY 20, 1984
0.
`WESCOTT RD.
'I
5 4 3 2 I 1 2,3 G� 5
6 6
a
1
15 'G / • 9 6 O�
L_L
S IZ ,\,J i9
a
6 M
9 I =
IO F
p Iu
W
W 12
O
SONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIN WEST ADDITION
8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers WATERMAIN
�__ Sr. Paul, Minnesoro PROJECT NO. 396
it
DATE: ilBNUGR>t 28, 1964 _ COMMISSION Ne. 49798
i.
1
15 'G / • 9 6 O�
L_L
S IZ ,\,J i9
a
6 M
9 I =
IO F
p Iu
W
W 12
O
SONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIN WEST ADDITION
8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers WATERMAIN
�__ Sr. Paul, Minnesoro PROJECT NO. 396
it
DATE: ilBNUGR>t 28, 1964 _ COMMISSION Ne. 49798
`----WESCOTT RD
N
81
I
I
I
I
m
WESCOTT RO_
S :43
2 I I 2 3 4 5
6 6
L � 7
7 6_
I 2 3 1 4 S 9
6 2 IO
9P
l0 9 e � 6
P 112
0 p Q 17
A% II — _—.14
12 / 6 IS a 3 2 1 ;
° 13-
14 6
9 0 TL
13.
4 10
u
I
t 12 r
2 '3
y .p m
3 �TLa—
.s w
1(9 19
2 3 a
SONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK WESTBURY ADDITION
9 ASSOCIATES, INC, STREETS
Consulting Engineers I 1
St. Poul, Minnes9to PROJECT NO. 396
JDATE; FEBRUARY 28, 1984 Commission Me. 49295
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Fourteen
•
Packet
Council Meeting
C,
Project 395/Lexington Avenue
B. Project 395, Lexington Avenue (Trunk Watermain/Booster Station
-- On February 7, the City Council authorized the preparation
of a feasibility report for the installation of a trunk watermain
along Lexington Avenue from Wescott Road to Diffley Road. This
feasibility report was presented to the Council on March 6 with
the public hearing scheduled to be held on April 3. Enclosed
on pages3 through �� is a copy of the feasibility
report for t e Council's reference during the public hearing.
All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent
to all property owners who would be affected by this project.
As of this date, the staff has received no objections to this
proposed improvement.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing
and approve/deny Project 395 for the installation of trunk watermain
along Lexington Avenue and the construction of the booster station
and, if approved, authorize the preparation of detailed plans
and specifications.
42
0 0
REPORT
11yo
LEXINGTON AVENUE
BOOSTER STATION & TRUNK WATER MAIN
( Wescott Road to Diff ley Road )
PROJECT NO.395
FOR
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
FILE N0.49294
�t A� Mo..rasoto
43
N
0
4a&4" & 4.
1333 W. 7...a .vp""
St. /).A A(...& 631t`3
PL... 611.636-4600
February 22, 1984
Honorable Mayor and Council
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Mn. 55121
Re: Lexington Avenue Booster Station
and Trunk Water Main
(Wescott Road to Diffley Road)
Project No. 395
Our File No. 49294
Dear Mayor and Council:
0
G/nu R. Coot. P.£
Keith A. Ci Mon, P.E.
Thome E. Noy P.£
Rrh W. Faun. P -E.
Rohn G. SrhwnM, P.E.
hler.ie L. S ii;. P.E-
OoneMC. RYI(eM1. P.E.
Jr A. RaaMom P.£
Mart A. Nenoon. P.E.
TM R. F.M. P.E.
MirAm T. Reurmann. P.E.
Rohn R. PJd/mrc. P.£
Q dLmt.m. P.E.
Cher A- Frim..
!ao M. ft.e k,
Harlon M. O
Transmitted herewith is our report for Lexington Avenue Booster Station and
Trunk Water Main, Project No. 395 from Wescott Road to Diffley Road.
We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a
mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report.
Yours very truly,
BONESTR00, ROSENE,
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:li
ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
I hereby certify that this report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minne ta.
—7 Mark A. Hanson
Date: Z -
Approved by _'.(—E.tee.) ' r'-��Cr'
homas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Date: - .�y
9454b
41
Reg. No. Z�od
Gno G, R .. P.E.
o
Robrt W,. Revne. P.E.
Jwph C. ArdM4. P.£
Rmd/oMA. LrmM1e, P.£
RlrhwM £ Tamm, P.E.
Jame C. Otron. P. E.
G/nu R. Coot. P.£
Keith A. Ci Mon, P.E.
Thome E. Noy P.£
Rrh W. Faun. P -E.
Rohn G. SrhwnM, P.E.
hler.ie L. S ii;. P.E-
OoneMC. RYI(eM1. P.E.
Jr A. RaaMom P.£
Mart A. Nenoon. P.E.
TM R. F.M. P.E.
MirAm T. Reurmann. P.E.
Rohn R. PJd/mrc. P.£
Q dLmt.m. P.E.
Cher A- Frim..
!ao M. ft.e k,
Harlon M. O
Transmitted herewith is our report for Lexington Avenue Booster Station and
Trunk Water Main, Project No. 395 from Wescott Road to Diffley Road.
We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a
mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report.
Yours very truly,
BONESTR00, ROSENE,
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:li
ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
I hereby certify that this report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minne ta.
—7 Mark A. Hanson
Date: Z -
Approved by _'.(—E.tee.) ' r'-��Cr'
homas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Date: - .�y
9454b
41
Reg. No. Z�od
9 0
cate it is in service nearly twice as much as it should be when compared to
other wells.
DISCUSSION:
An analysis was done on the computer to determine the increase amount of
water supplied to the high level pressure zone if the booster station and
trunk water main proposed herein were constructed. Also included was a sepa-
rate analysis to determine the flow increase if the trunk water main along
Lexington Avenue from Duckwood Drive to Wescott Road were constructed. Two
computer models were setup; one assuming a maximum day demand and the other
assuming a night time_ demand with the storage reservoirs filling. The net
effect of the first analysis showed that although the water supply along Pilot
Knob Road decreased approximately 20%, the net increase in flow to the high-
level pressure zone is nearly double the present flow rate or approximately
1,000 gallons per minute more. The second run which included the trunk water
main from Duckwood Drive to Wescott Road showed a net increase of three to
four times the present flow rate or approximately. 2,500 to 3,000 gallons per
minute more. The main reason for the significant flow increase is due to a
direct link to the main. trunk feeder located on Yankee Doodle Road which is
supplied with water from both from the Yankee Doodle reservoir (5.0 million
gallons) and the wells located at the water treatment plant site. It should
also be noted, that the existing 12 inch trunk water main along Wescott Road
is the only supply line for trunk water main proposed herein and that the flow
rate through a 12 inch main can be nearly one-third that of an 18 inch main
dependent upon the flow characteristics. As a result, it is recommended the
trunk water main from Wescott Road to Diffley Road be constructed at this time
and the trunk water main along Lexington Avenue from Duckwood Drive to Wescott
Road be constructed by 1986.
Page 2.
9454b
44
0
Trunk water main proposed herein, therefore, includes an 18 inch diameter
trunk main from Wescott Road to Northview Park Road. A 20 inch diameter trunk
main 1's included from Northview Park Road to Diffley Road. It is proposed the
trunk water main from Wescott Road to Diffley Road be constructed along the
west side of Lexington Avenue. Water stubs will be provided at the various
street locations in conjunction with the required amount of valves and hy-
drants.' Also included are water service lines to the existing homes along the
trunk water main route.
The proposed booster station will be located on the newly acquired reser-
voir site located on the west side of Lexington Avenue and south of Diffley
Road. The booster station will ultimately include 3 pumps capable of pumping
2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) each. However, it is recommended at this time
that only two pumps be constructed, one being 1,000 gpm and the other being
2,000 gpm. Also included is a pressure reducing valve which will be housed in
the booster station. .The building structure for housing the pumps and pres-
sure reducing station is estimated at 1,000 sq.ft.
AREA TO BE INCLUDED
ASSESSMENT AREA
NE 1/4 SECTION 22
011-01 (Proposed Westbury Addition)
012-01
010-02
SE 1/4 SECTION 22
011-75
013-75
014-75
020-75
012-76
9454b
NW 1/4 SECTION 23
013-25 (Proposed Lexington Square)
014-25 (Proposed Lexington Square)
015-25 (Proposed Lexington Square)
016-25
010-27 (Proposed Lexington Square)
010-28
SW 1/4 SECTION 23
010-50
020-50
010-51
015-54
016-54
Page 3.
47
COST ESTIMATES: Detailed cost estimates are presented at the back of this re-
port in Appendix A.. A summary of these costs are as follows:
A.) Trunk Water Main $409,980
B.) Services 6,740
C.) Booster Station 333,380
TOTAL ........... $750,100
The total estimated project cost is $750,100 which includes contingencies
and all related overhead. Overhead costs are estimated at 27% and include
legal, engineering, administrative bcnd interest.
ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited
property. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this re-
port in Appendix B.
It is proposed to assess trunk area water main in accordance with the
Special Assessment Policy Guide which states all parcels within one-quarter
mile on either side of the trunk water main construction shall be assessed un-
less they have been previously assessed. It is also proposed to assess later-
al benefit from trunk water main to those parcels which benefit through a po-
tential direct connection to the trunk water main. Included at the back of
this report is an assessment drawing which outlines the assessment limits for
trunk area and lateral benefit from trunk water main.
Water service lines will be assessed to the benefited parcel it serves.
Assessment rates in effect at the time of this report are as follows:
TRUNK AREA WATER MAIN
Agriculture or Residential
LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK WATER MAIN
Single Family
Multi -Family, Comm./Ind.
Page 4.
9454b
4S
$1,120/acre
$21.68/centerline ft.
or $10.84/front ft.
$35.74/centerline ft.
REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as
follows:
Project
WATER MAIN
Revenue Balance
Trunk Water Main $409,980
Services 6,740
Booster Station 333,380
Trunk Area $144,866
Lateral Benefit from Trunk 76,333
Service Assessment 6,740
TOTAL ........................ $750,100 $227,939 -$522,161
The total estimated project balance is -$522,161 which will be the re-
sponsibility of the trunk water main fund.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
CONTRACT I CONTRACT II
Present Feasibility Report March 6, 1984
Public Hearing April 3, 1984
Approve Plans and Specifications May 1984 May 1984
Open Bids June/July 1984 June/July 1984
Award Contract July 1984 July 1984
Construction Completion November 1984 Spring 1985
Assessment Hearing Summer 1985 N/A
First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes May 1986 N/A
Page 5.
9454b q
1
0
APPENDIX A
COST ESTIMATE
LEXINGTON AVENUE BOOSTER STATION 6 TRUNK WATER MAIN
(WESCOTT ROAD TO DIFFLEY ROAD)
PROJECT NO. 395
A) TRUNK WATER MAIN
3,400
Lin.ft.
20" DIP water main in pl. @ $38.00/lin.ft.
$129,200
2,160
Lin.ft.
18" DIP water main in pl. @ $34.00/lin.ft.
.73,440
20
Lin.ft.
16" DIP water main in pl. @ $30.00/lin.ft.
600
40
Lin.ft.
12" DIP water main in pl. @ $22.00/lin.ft.
880
290
Lin.ft.
6" DIP water main in pl. @ $14.00/lin.ft.
4,060
100
Lin.ft.
Jack or auger 20" DIP w/steel casing @ $130.00/l.f.
13,000
60
Lin.ft.
Jack or auger 16" DIP w/steel casing @ $120.00/l.f.
7,200
60
Lin.ft.
Jack or auger 12" DIP w/steel casing @ $110.00/l.f.
6,600
5
Each
Hydrant in place @ $1,000.00/each
5,000
4
Each
20" Butterfly valve and box @ $2,200.00/each
8,800
2
Each
18" Butterfly valve and box @ $1,800.00/each
3,600
1
Each
16" Butterfly valve and box @ $1,500.00/each
1,500
1
Each
12" Butterfly valve and box @ $900.00/each
900
5
Each
6" Resilient wedge gate valves b box @ $350.00/each
1,750
18,000
Lbs.
Fittings in pl. @ $1.30/lb.
23,400
1
Each
Connect 18" DIP to existing 18" DIP @ $800.00/each
800
1
Each
Connect 20" DIP to existing 20" DIP @ $800.00/each
800
100
Cu.yds.
Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd.
1,000
7.0
Acres
Seed w/mulch and fertilizer @ $2,000.00/Ac.
14,000
500
Ton
Class 2 shouldering material @ $10.00/ton
5,000
5,910
Lin.ft.
Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft.
5,910
Total
$307,440
+5X Contingencies
15,380
$322,820
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest
87,160
9454b
A.) TOTAL TRUNK WATER MAIN ........................ $409,980
Page 6.
9YA
B.) SERVICES
100 Lin.ft. 1" water service @ $15.00/lin.ft.
150 Lin.ft. Jack or auger 1" water service @ $20.00/lin.ft.
5 Each 1" Corporation stop in pl. @ $24.00/each
5 Each 1" curb stop 6 box in pl. @ $64.00/each
100 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft.
Total
+5% Contingencies
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest
B.) TOTAL SERVICES ................................
C.) BOOSTER STATION
Lump Sum Booster Station w/pump and pressure reducing valves
+5% Contingencies
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest
B.) TOTAL BOOSTER STATION .........................
SUMMARY
A. TRUNK WATER MAIN $409,980
B. SERVICES 6,740,
C. BOOSTER STATION 333,380
TOTAL $750,100
Page. 7.
9454b
Sl
$ 1,500
3,000
120
320
100
$ 5,040
260
$ 5,300
1.440
$ 6,740
$250,000
12.500
$262,500
70.880
$333,380
r�
0
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
LEXINGTON AVENUE BOOSTER STATION b TRUNK WATER MAIN
(WESCOTT ROAD TO DIFFLEY ROAD)
PROJECT NO. 395
A. TRUNK AREA
Parcel
Total
Ac.
--
Assessable
Assessment
Total
Description
Area
Credit
6.65
Area
Rate
Assessment
NE 1/4 SECTION
22
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
5,958
014-75
1.9
Ac.
011-01
18.61 Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
14.89 Ac.
$1,120/Ac.
$16,677
012-01
4.66 Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
3.73 Ac.
$1,120/Ac.
$ 4,178
010-02
3.89 Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
3.11 Ac.
1,120/Ac.
3,483
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
TOTAL
..............................
TOTAL
$24,338
SE 1/4 SECTION 22
011-75
2.85
Ac.
--
2.85
Ac.
$1,120/Ac.
$ 3,192
013-75
6.65
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
5.32
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
5,958
014-75
1.9
Ac.
---
1.9
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
2,128
020-75
2.85
Ac.
---
2.85
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
3,192
012-76
4.80
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
3.84
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
4,305
TOTAL
..............................
$18,775
NW 1/4 SECTION 23
013-25
7.72
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
6.18
Ac.
$1,120/Ac.
$ 6,922
014-25
5.50
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
4.40
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
4,928
015-25
21.60
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
17.28
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
19,354
016-25
3.35
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
2.68
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
3,002
010-27
33.71
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
26.97
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
30,206
010-28
3.24
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
2.59
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
2,901
TOTAL..............................
$67,313
SW 1/4 SECTION 23
010-50 0.84 Ac. -- 0.84 Ac. $1,120/Ac. $ 941
020-50 0.84 Ac. -- 0.84 Ac. 1,120/Ac. 941
010-51 36.34 Ac. Future R/W (20%) 29.07 Ac. 1,120/Ac. 32,558
TOTAL .............................. $34,440
TOTAL TRUNK AREA ............................... $144,866
Page 8.
9454b
S�
u
0 0
B. LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK
SE 1/4 SECTION 22
011-75
Assessable
$10.84
Total
Parcel Description
Footage
Rate/F.F.
Assessment
NE 1/4 SECTION 22
132
10.84
1,431
020-75
198
10.84
2,146
011-01
819.5(1)
$10.84
$ 8,883
012-01
465
10.84
5,041
010-02
462
10.84
5,008
TOTAL ............................
$18,932
SE 1/4 SECTION 22
011-75
198
$10.84
$ 2,146
013-75
426
10.84
4,618
014-75
132
10.84
1,431
020-75
198
10.84
2,146
012-76
268.3
10.84
2.908
TOTAL .............................. $13,249
NW 1/4 SECTION 23
013-25 223 (1) $10.84 $ 2,417
015-25 216.75(1) 10.84 2,350
016-25 328.5(2) 10.84 3,561
010-27 483 (1) 10.84 5,236
010-28 290 10.84 3.144
TOTAL .............................. $16,708
SE 1/4 SECTION 23
010-50
208.71
$10.84
$ 2,262
020-50
208.71
10.84
2,262
010-51
452.59(1)
10.84
4,906
015-54
1,314(1)
10.84
14,244
016-54
347.74(2)
10.84
3,770
TOTAL ..............................
$27,444
TOTAL LATERAL
BENEFIT FROM TRUNK ...
$76,333
(1) Assessable footage equals total front footage divided by two.
(2) Corner lot credit of 75' was applied.
9454b
Page 9.
S3
9454b
Page. 10.
CE" -
C. SERVICES
Total
Parcel
Description
Unit
Rate/Unit
Assessment
NE 1/4
SECTION
22
010-02
1
$1,348
$ 1,348
SE 1/4
SECTION
22
011-75
1
1,348
1,348
NW 1/4
SECTION
23
010-28
1
1,348
1,348
SW 1/4
SECTION
23
010-50
1
1,348
1,348
020-50
1
1,348
1,348
TOTAL ............
5
$ 6,740
9454b
Page. 10.
CE" -
0
PROJECT 395
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
SUMMARY
Parcel
Trunk
Description
Area
NE 1/4
SECTION 22
011-01
$ 16,677
012-01
4,178
010-02
3,483
SE 1/4
SECTION 22
011-75
$ 3,192
013-75
5,958
014-75
2,128
020-75
3,192
012-76
4,305
NW 1/4
SECTION 23
013-25
$ 6,922
014-25
4,928
015-25
19,354
016-25
3,002
010-27
30,206
010-28
2,901
SW 1/4
SECTION 23
010-50
$ 941
020-50
941
010-51
32,558
015-54
---
016-54
TOTAL ..........
$144,866
Lateral Bene-
fit from Trunk Services
$ 8,883
5,041
5,008
2,146
4,618
1,431
2,146
2,908
$ 2,417
2,350
3,561
5,236
3,144
2,262
2,262
4,906
14,244
3,770
$76,333
Page 11.
9454b r
6 S
$ 1,348
$ 1,348
$ 1,348
$ 1,348
1,348
$ 6,740
Total
Assessment
$ 25,560
9,219
9,839
$ 6,686
10,576
3,559
5,338
7,213
$ 9,339
4,928
21,704
6,563
35,442
7,393
$ 4,551
4,551
37,464
14,244
3.770
$227,939
w•wl.• •m•P
n� a
IF�
Nillll
frY MAt
P.w
O
---- IJTRAL anwff not TIOa{ W ATU UMI 4b h• hat tat
® V2Vn ASA WATn MM 4r ti AM
• P
'""" ...._'- .�.•� � �'�-w tAOAH. tfN1/�O�A •n••w ••uuu wsrun•n••
__ _ _ _ _ __ •a non •mum
YrI
19
YIY r.10 I
.Yup
,•'••
L,
•
I
Od Ol.. I.Y.L
I
.. d ' Y-.{0 Y-'• Y rtl
Y 00 14.0
'Y
Y-.. K.pp
Od I
T
b
1YIA M40NI 77
I tf�N7AY N
'JNIY77
1
-a
..m
u
;�.O4at•�:d
i
' •
�t. � l
{
I1 tft►A•A
iilntrnM
7"amm
o d
ui-ys.D.�d
1
Y�
p
YrI
19
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Fifteen
ect 348, Coachman/Four Oaks Road
C. Project 348, Coachman/Four Oaks Road (Streets) -- On January
17, the Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility
report for the upgrading of Coachman Road from Yankee Doodle
to Four Oaks Road and for Four Oaks Road from Coachman Road
to T.H. 13. This feasibility report was presented to the Council
on March 6 with the public hearing being scheduled for April
3. Enclosed on pages C_I_ through_ is a copy of the
feasibility report for the Council's reference during the public
hearing.
All notices associated with this project have been placed in
the legal newspaper and sent to all property owners who would
be affected by this project. As of this date, the staff has
received several questions but no objections to this proposed
improvement.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing
and approve/deny Project 348 for the upgrading of streets on
Coachman and Four Oaks Road and, if approved, authorize the
preparation of detailed plans and specifications.
S?
• 0
OF
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOM9UST
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 mm
PHONE: (612) 45d-8500 THOMAS EGAN
JAMES A SWIM
JEIiry THOMAS
IHEODORE WACHTEP
Cw d rear %
THOMAS HEDGES
PRELIMINARY REPORT ECdv NEVANVE
EUGENE w c OVET78EKE
GN Cb.v
PROJECT 348
COACHMAN /FOUR OAKS ROA
STREETIMPROVEMENTS
hereb;• cerii(v tti0i this plc -n. a7c�iiicv9on,
Or re C•Grl VIFS ^!°.:..:.F^_C1 v', Ria C., unrC .r TP.Y
R^aiete:cd ('.-: is � ... '� I -'. _ .9.: L'•C:f�: iay
laeis M t.l�:�:. c/jL�^cco
Date 3 6 RegiY scion No. 54973
R•
THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
REPORT
UPGRADING OF COACHMAN AND FOUR OAKS ROAD
SCOPE: Project 348 provides for the upgrading of Coachman Road
from Yankee Doodle Road (County Road 28) to Four Oaks Road and
Four Oaks Road from Coachman Road to T.H. 13 to City -designed
standards for 9 -ton collector streets. This report determines
the feasibility of this project by studying existing conditions,
proposed improvements, estimated costs, and methods of financing.
RECOMMENDATIONS: In conclusion, the upgrading of Coachman Road
and Four Oaks Road to a neighborhood collector status has been
determined to be feasible from an engineering standpoint and is
also in conformance with the City's Diaster Thoroughfare Plan as
developed in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Coachman and Four Oaks Road presently
consist of :.i 'i -ton capacity rural road section. This section
consists of a 2" thick bituminous pavement 24' wide over a 13"
thick aggregate base consisting of 4" of Class 6 aggregate base
40' wide and 9" of Class 3 aggregate sub -base 46' wide. This
existing section is depicted in Figure IA..
The drainage for these streets is accomplished via rural ditches
to inplace storm sewer catch basins. Consequently, much erosion
is experienced every spring and after heavy rains along the north
and south road ditches of Four Oaks Road. As a result, time,
material and equipment are required by City maintenance crews to
restore and repair these ditches. Typically, repair of the
shoulders and ditches require 16 manhours and 5 truckloads of
gravel per repair costing the City approximately $400 per occur-
rence (4-6 times/year). This does not include periodic cleaning
of the storm sewer system and downstream deltas that subsequently
occur.
Grading and gravel base for these streets were accomplished under
Project 39 in 1969. The bituminous surfacing was installed under
Project 81 during 1971 and 1972. Utilities have been installed
within Coachman and Four Oaks Road under Projects 61 and 371 for
trunk water main and Project 70 for lateral water, sanitary sewer
and storm sewer. Also, the north half of Four Oaks Road adjacent
to the Coachman Land Company 1st Addition was widened to 22 feet
with concrete curb and gutter under Project 323.
Since the time Coachman Road and Four Oaks Road were initially
i constructed, much development has occurred. This development has
taken place west of Coachman Road and to the north and south of
Four Oaks Road in the form of high density, multi -family
residences. Currently, 1008 of 3,283 feet of frontage adjacent
to the west side of Coachman Road is either developed or
preliminary platted along with 818 of the east frontage.
Similarly, 638 of the south 1,300 feet and 1008 of the north
1,300 feet of Four Oaks Road is presently either developed or
preliminary platted.
Page 1
61.
0
_ic-- 6" CROWN
L 9" CL.3 GRAVEL SUBBASE
FIGURE I -A (Existing)
40' ROW I, 22'
2331 BASE COURSE
20 BIT. TRAILWAY
WITH 4" AGG. BASE
FIGURE 1-13 ( Proposed)
8618 C 9 G
11i=' 2341 WEAR COURSE
EXISTING 2" BIT. MAT
'EXISTING 13" AGG. BASE.
TYPICAL SECTIONS
COACHMAN a FOUR OAKS ROADS
Project 348
Consequently, the traffic volumes on these streets have been
greatly increased from these developments. For instance, the
1981 average daily traffic (ADT) volume for Four Oaks Road was
130 vehicles per day while the 1983 traffic counts revealed it to
be 490 vehicles per day, or almost a 2808 increase. Meanwhile,
the ADT for Coachman Road was recently determined to be 580
vehicles per day. Although no previous data exists as to traffic
volumes for Coachman Road to compare with, this number does not
yet reflect the impact of the Coachman Highlands Addition. This
is estimated to generate at least 350 vehicles per day upon
development of their first phase which is already in progress.
Therefore, the need for the upgrading of Coachman Road and Four
Oaks Road to a 44- foot wide community collector street is
present due to the increased development of the higher density
housing adjacent to both Coachman Road and Four Oaks Road.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT: This project proposes to improve Coachman
Road and Four Oaks Road by upgrading each to its ultimate 9 -ton
neighborhood collector street cross section as depicted in Figure
1B. It is proposed to accomplish this most economically by
utilizing the existing street section. This can be accomplished
by installing B618 curb and gutter 22 feet from centerline on
each side of the street and filling the area between the edge of
the existing pavementand the new gutter section with 2" of
bituminous. Then, the entire width of the street between the
gutters would be overlayed with an additional 1 1/2" of
bituminous surfacing material. This project will complete the
staged construction of these streets begun in 1969. Accompanying
this construction will be the necessary manhole, gate valve,
hydrant, and catch basin adjustments. Installation of all utili-
ties has been completed as previously mentioned. In addition,
grading necessary to fill in the ditches and the restoration of
boulevards will also be required. Preliminary estimates indicate
there will be a shortage of fill material available within the
right-of-way. However, it is anticipated that enough fill mate-
rial can be obtained from adjacent areas.
This upgrading of Coachman and Four Oaks Road to a neighborhood
collector status will require a bituminous pathway to be
constructed along the west side of Coachman Road and the north
side of Four Oaks Road. This bituminous pathway shall be 8' wide
and be constructed along the entire west side of Coachman Road
from Yankee Doodle Road to Four Oaks Road and along the north
side of Four Oaks Road from the Coachman Road intersection to
T.H. 13. The estimated costs of improving Coachman Road and Four
Oaks Road by adding curb and gutter, bituminous widening,
trailway and overlay to a neighborhood collector street status is
$275,827. A detailed breakdown of these costs is attached as
Table A at the end of this report. These costs include 27% for
estimated legal, engineering, administrative and financing over-
head.
EASEMENT ACOUISITION
No easements are anticipated to be required for construction of
this project.
Page 2
0 0
FINANCING: Four Oaks Road is presently designated as a Municipal
State Aid (MSA) street and subsequently eligible for MSA funding.
Similarly, Coachman Road has recently been designated asa PISA
street eligible for MSA funding. with the exception of the
bituminous pathway, all construction costs are eligible for PASA
funding. In the case of the bituminous pathway, only 6 feet of
the 8 feet are MSA eligible, or approximately $5,300 (25%) of the
pathway costs would not be PISA eligible.
Other funding, for this project will be derived from special
assessments to benefiting property under :;.5. 429. In accordance
with the City's special assessment policy, it is proposed to
assess benefited property on both sides of Coachman Road and Four
Oaks Road on a front foot oasis oased on the commercial or multi-
family rate. For this project, both rates are the same and will
consist of all costs required to construct the street and
trailway, as previously described, divided.by the assessable
footage.
However, as mentioned previously, the Coachman Land Company 1st
Addition has installed their half of Four Oaks Road with the
exception of the final bituminous surface. Subsequently, the
Coachman Land Company 1st Addition benefited front footage will
be assessed only for the bituminous surfacing. doth Coachman and
Four Oaks Roads have been assessed for the first stage of their
construction which occurred under Projects 39 and 81.
The estimated assessment rates used for purposes of this report
are as follows:
Commercial/Piulti-Family........ $31.60/F.F.
Overlay Only .....................7.00/F.F.
Attached at the end of this report is a preliminary assessment
roll listing each benefited property and its proposed assessment.
The following summarizes the project costs and anticipated
revenue for this proposed project.
STREETS
Lateral
Frontage Assmts.
MSA Funding*
TOTAL
PROJECT COSTS
$275,827
n
REVENUE
$275,827
245,890
BALANCE
+$245,890
*MSA determined by adding 13% engineering overhead costs to
eligible costs.
Assessment rates presented herein will be revised based upon the
final project costs. As per City policies, the assessments will
be spread over 10 years at an interest rate dependent upon the
most recent bond financing.
Page 3 /
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Present Feasibility Report ;March 6, 1984
i
Public Hearing April 3, 1984
Approve Plans and Specifications May/June 1984
Open Bids June/July 1984
Award Contract July 1984
Construction Completion Fall 1984
Assessment Hearing Spring/Summer 1985
First Payment Due with Real May, 1986
Estate Taxes
ITEM
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT 348
QTY.
Common Borrow 6,000 CY
Common Excay.-Trail 1,500 CY
Subgrade Prep ' 9,110 SY
Agg. Base, C1.5 for Trail 960 TN
B618 CSG 9,200 LF
2331 Bitu. Binder
Bitu. Mat'l.
2341 Bitu. Wear
Bitu. Mat'l.
Wear Course for Trailway
Bitu.Aat'l. for Tack Coat
Adjust MH
Adjust CB
Adjust GV
Adjust HYD
Seed w/Topsoil
Sod w/Topsoil
1,065 TN
50 TN
2,050 TN
130 TN
430 TN
1,140 GAL
11 EA
12 EA
6 £A
7 EA
6.6 AC
4,000 SY
UNIT PRICE
S 3.50/CY
2.00/CY
0.60/SY
10.00/TN
6.00/LF
13.00/TN
210.00/TN
12.00/TN
210 . 00/T1:
20.00/TN
1.50/GAL
150.00/EA
150.00/EA
100.00/EA
300.00/EA
2,000.00/AC
2.00/SY
32 1/2% Overhead'
'Estimated Overhead = 27% LEAF + 5.5% Contingencies
66.
AMOUNT
$ 21,000
3,000
5,466
9,600
55,200
13,845
10,500
24,600
27,300
8,600
1,710
1,650
1,800
600
2,100
13,200
8,000
$208,171
67,656
$275,827
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
COACHMAN ROAD & FOUR OAKS ROAD
STREET RESURFACE AND
CURB & GUTTER
PROJECT 4348
FRONT
TOT.STREET
PARCEL
FTG.
RATE
ASSESSMENT
SW 1/4
SECTION
9
COACHMAN
HIGHLANDS
Lot 1,
Blk.l,
Erutger Co.,Inc.
668*
$31.60/FF
$ 21,109
Fox Ridge
Addition
Lot 1,
Blk.l,
Musky Co.
371
31.60/FF
11,724
Lot 2,
Blk.l,
Rothschild Inc.
4
31.60/FF
126
Lot 1,
Blk.2,
Iclecatsky Bros.
370
31.60/FF
11,692
Lot 2,
31k.2,
Rothschild Inc.
522
31.60/FF
16,495
Lot 3,
Blk.2,
Rothschild Inc.
185
31.60/FF
5,846
Lot 4,
91k.2,
Rothschild Inc.
655*
31.60/FF
20,698
010-52,
Peter
Kontinakis
260
31.60/FF
8,216
COACHMAN
OAKS
PARE:
012-51,
014-51
& 016-51 City of Eagan
655
31.60/FF
20,698
015-51,
Rosewood
Corp.
1316
31.60/FF
41,586
NW 1/4
SECTIOt:
9
COACHMAN
OAKS
CONDONIMIUMS
Condominium
#45,
Coachman Oaks Co.
1471*
31.60/FF
46,484
021-31
Michael
& Jane Swenson
471
31.60/FF
14,884
NW 1/4
SECTION
9
012-31,
Rosewood
Corp.
697
31.60/FF
20,025
013-31,
Rosewood Corp.
1034*
31.60/FF
32,674
COACHMAN
LAND
CO. 1ST ADDITION
Lot 1,
Blk.l,
Four Oaks Court Assn.
220
7.00/FF
1,540
275,797
*Includes
75'
Corner Lot Credit
67
-_,.
A-
012-31 I
OF
L_-
�.
013-31
021-31 i CONDOMINIUMS/
75'1CORNER
LOl CREDIT
OACHMAN
HIGHLANDS
75' SCORNER
LOTi CREDIT
Z
0
~ 4
0
r -<- -2,
BENEFITTED FRONTAGE;
Lw --
� 2
city of eagan
PUBLIC
ED
WORKS
nF oA 0TKAr
OVERLAY RATE
COACHMAN
LAND CO.
IST ADDITION
PART OF
OI3-31 I
015-51
I
I
i
I
:OACHMAN
OAKS
PARK
012-51
014-51
016-51
-�o10- 52
F _ I
II j 1
J — —I
Project 348
Assessment Map
6$
approved:standard I
plate #:
0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Sixteen
0
SPERRY/TIMBERLINE NOISE ISSUE
A. Timberline Civic Association Request To Review Level of
Noise Emission At Sperry Semi -Conductor Plant -- Neighbors located
within the Timberline Addition have experienced excessive noise
that has been generated from the Sperry semi -conductor facility.
Concern about the level of the noise was an issue between the
residents and Sperry personnel during early 1983 and due to
no acceptable resolution by representatives of Sperry to relieve
the excessive noise, the neighborhood presented the problem
to the City staff last summer. The problem was evaluated by
City staff and representatives of MPGA. The noise monitoring
reports that were reviewed by MPCA were found to be acceptable
and, therefore, no action was to be taken by the City staff
regarding the enforcement of any ordinances. The neighborhood
continued to experience a nuisance and appealed their problem
to the City Council and was heard on October 4, 1983. As a
result of a presentation by representatives from the neighborhood
and discussion by the City Council, a motion was adopted as
follows: "that the staff do further investigation of the noise
and light issue, make contact with Sperry personnel and the
residential owners concerning the implementation of temporary
measures for the alleviation of the noise and light problems
with long-range plans for the problems to be resolved; further,
that there is a problem that requires immediate steps to be
corrected, and further, that the City Council be on record stating
that there is a violation of the R&D zoning category and that
the excessive noise and light problems do not comply with the
strict requirements of the R&D zoning. The City Administrator
coordinated several meetings between spokespersons for the Timber-
line Addition and representatives of Sperry in an effort to
resolve the problem upon City Council direction and the action
that was taken at the October 4 City Council meeting. Sperry
originally planned to install attenuators and diverters on all
the stacks at the plant; however, upon their own investigation
altered their corrective measures to include one attenuator
and five diverters on the stacks. Sperry noted that approximately
19 weeks should be allowed for delivery and installation of
the equipment. The time for installation was estimated to be
mid to late winter. The residents continue to experience problems
and before the proposed corrective equipment be installed, asked
that they be heard at a regular City Council meeting. The item
was placed on the February 7, 1984, City Council agenda at which
time spokespersons for the Timberline Civic Association appeared
and stated that they had hired a sound expert and the noise
levels at the Sperry semi -conductor plant as generated from
the stacks were not acceptable under criteria developed for
a residential neighborhood. The neighbors appealed to the City
Council to resolve the noise problem through enforcement of
the ordinance. Representatives of Sperry appeared at that meeting
2
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Seventeen
and assured the neighborhood and City Council that the equipment
would be installed during the month of March and they were hopeful
that corrective measures were designed so that the problem would
be reduced to an acceptable noise standard by the Timberline
Association. The City Council assured the neighborhood that
they were attempting to enforce the ordinance, however, due
to their action in October of 1983, it was necessary to allow
Sperry the opportunity to install the equipment and measure
the success of the proposed corrective devices before any further
consideration or additional action was to be considered. After
discussion by the audience and City Council, a motion was adopted
to continue the matter until the first meeting in April and
further that the City Attorney provide a legal opinion as to
the potential remedies at that time if the noise emission is
not corrected to become acceptable within approved noise standards.
At that same City Council meeting, the City Administrator was
directed to initiate noise testing and the purchase of noise
testing equipment if necessary and establish some benchmarks
for noise testing before and after the equipment is installed
at the Sperry semi -conductor facility plant. The City Administrator
has contacted MPGA, who is the State regulatory body regarding
the measurement and monitoring of noise emission standards.
That department agreed to monitor at two different location
the noise emission levels before and after the installation
of proposed corrective equipment at the Sperry semi -conductor -
plant. Mr. Dave Kelso from the Minnesota pollution control
agency has conducted those tests and a copy of the results are
enclosed on pages, through 8( 0 . Mr. Kelso will be present
at the City Council meeting to explain the results and answer
any questions that the City Council or audience might have regarding
the testing. Recent correspondence by representatives of the
Timberline Homeowners Association is also enclosed on pages
through for your information. There have been recent
comp aints made to our Police Department by residents of the
Timberline neighborhood and copies of those police reports are
enclosed without any page number.
In summary, the action to be considered by the City Council
is to determine whether the findings presented by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency satisfy noise standards as determined
for an R & D/Residential neighborhood. There is a great deal
of information that has been distributed during the past several
months to the City Council, and if any member of the Council
would like copies of letters, reports or any other information
that has been distributed in the past, please contact the City
Administrator's office.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To substantiate that the
findings of MPCA do satisfy noise emission levels and there
is no futher violation of the R & D zoning or that noise emission
levels do conflict with the R & D zoning and that the City Attorney
by asked to review procedures as. they relate to enforcement
of the ordinance.
-7D
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Eighteen
LJ
Packet
Council Meeting
0
Special Note: The City Attorney has reviewed this agenda item
and is including a memorandum which is enclosed on page
q 4 4 - 94e. Also, Sperry has performed some additional noise
analyses since the equipment was installed and if that information
is available, copies will be distributed with the Administrative
Packet on Monday for review by the City Council.
-7►
0
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
March 20, 1984
Mr. Tom Hedges
City Adminstrator
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
Dear Mr. Hedges:
As you requested, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
has conducted noise monitoring regarding complaints received from
Sperry Univac. Monitoring was completed to assess compliance
with Minnesota Noise Standard NPC -21. To date, all monitoring has
been conducted prior to the installation of Sperry Univac's noise
abatement equipment. My intention is to repeat noise monitoring
once all noise abatement equipment Ihas been installed.
Minnesota Rule NPC -2 (MR Part 7010.0400-7010.0700) establishes
the following dB(A) levels for a residential receiver:
Day Night
(0700-2200 hrs) (2200-0700 hrs)
L10 65 55
L50 60 50
Monitoring was conducted in accordance with procedures
established by the MPCA. Those procedures require an hourly
measurement from which a statistical level is obtained in the
form of an Lor L 0 The L]1 ,is that level (in decibels
A -weighted) dceede� 10� of td hourly measurement or six
minutes. The same is true for the L50 except the time is 30
minutes.
Phone: 296-7372
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville. Minnesota 55113.2785
Regional Offices • Dututh/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer -7 ;� -
0 0
Mr. Tom Hedges
March 20, 1984
Page Two
As can be seen from NPC -2, the most stringent requirement to be
met at a residential receiver is 50 decibels not to be exceeded
for more than 30 minutes of an hour at night. With this in mind,
monitoring was conducted on February 22, 1984, with the
cooperation of Ed Meister (City of Eagan); February 29, 1984,
simultaneously with Dr. Richard VanDoeren (Midwest Acoustics and
Sperry Univac's consultant) and March 3, 1984, at the request of
Mr. Giblin. The following details those monitoring events:
February 22, 1984
Location - On the south side of a city owned building (water
meter repair shop?) off of Red Cedar Road. The microphone was
placed approximately 5 feet off the ground and 35 feet southwest
of the building. A clear line of sight was maintained between
the microphone and Sperry throughout the monitoring.
Time - Monitoring was conducted from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Meteorology - Wind conditions were calm with clear skies turning
to partly cloudy. the temperature was 30°F, relative humidity
75% and pressure 29.54 inches of mercury.
Instrumentation - One Metrosonics dB602 statistical noise
analyzer with --a Bruel & Kjaer 1 inch microphone, one Bruel &
Kjaer 2209 sound level meter with a 1 inch microphone and graphic
level recorder, and an IVIE portable spectrum analyzer. All
equipment was calibrated before and after the monitoring period.
Results - Data from the dB602 statistical analyzer shows an L1
of 47 dB(A) and an L of 42 dB(A). both of these levels are Rn
compliance with MinnN ota noise rules. However, the noise was
evident and low in frequency. It should be noted that State
Noise Rules use "A -weighting" for noise measurements which
filter out and biases against lower frequencies.
Data from the IVIE spectrum analyzer was intended to give a
general idea of the frequency breakdown for the noise source.
Although data was not continuously collected, periodic whole
octave readings indicate the strongest noise components were
contained within the 63, 125 and 250 Hz octave bands. Additional
1/3 octave band readings indicate that most of the sound energy
was contained within the 160 and 125 Hz 1/3 octave bands. Octave
data was collected only to provide a spot check of the frequency
distribution and to verify statements made by Mr. Fulton on the
frequency distribution be observed.
73
Mr. Tom Hedges
March 20, 1984
Page Three
Data from the graphic level recorder was intended to provide
a permanent record for the monitoring event. Unfortunately,
there was a battery malfunction with the recorder midway through
the monitoring period which casts a shadow over the data. I did
include a copy of the graphic level data in the attachments to
show the relative pattern of the noise with the intrusion of
aircraft. This data can be used in a general sense but is not
qualitative.
Conclusions and Comments - Data from February 22, 1984, indicate
that Sperry Univac is in compliance with Minnesota Noise Rule
NPC -2. The noise is dominated by low frequency which has a bias
when the dB(A) scale is used for monitoring. Aircraft noise was
evident which leads me to believe that monitoring should be
conducted at a later hour. A copy of field data sheets can be
found as attachments to this report.
Citizens involved in this issue have indicated to me that (in
their opinion) Sperry can and does adjust operations resulting in
changes in the perceived noise. I have no information at this
point in time supporting this conclusion. However, one
interesting fact should be mentioned. I requested that the City
of Eagan not disclose the logistics of the Agency's monitoring
but, I received a phone call from one of the complainants prior
to February 22, communicating to me that it was well known in the
community when and where I was scheduled to monitor. I must
therefore conclude that all parties were aware_of my presence.
Upon completion of monitoring, I contacted the complainants for
an opinion on the representativeness of the noise on this date.
They informed me that on this date the noise was not particularly
loud.
February 29, 1984
Location - In the back yard of Mr. Giblin, 75 feet north of the
berm between Sperry and Mr. Giblin. The microphone again was
positioned 5 feet off the ground. A clear line of sight was
maintained between the microphone location and Sperry. Mr.
Giblin's back yard has a slight incline to it which provides a
clear view of the stacks on Sperry's roof.
The monitoring conducted on this date was arranged to be
concurrent with Sperry's consultant (Dr. Richard VanDoeren) who
positioned his microphone on top of the berm and further to the
east of my location. I would expect that data comparisons can be
made once Dr. VanDoeren's report becomes available.
-71
0 0
Mr. Tom Hedges
March 20, 1984
Page Four
Time - Monitoring was conducted from 10:50 p.m. to 11:50 p.m. and
11:55 P.m. to 12:55 a.m.
Meteorology - Wind conditions were calm with clear skies. The
temperature was -1°C, relative humidity 57% and pressure 30.07 in
Hg.
Instrumentation - One Metrosoncis dB602 statistical noise
anlayzer with a Bruel & Kjaer 1 inch microphone and an IVIS
portable spectrum analyzer. All equipment was calibrated before
and after the monitoring events.
Results - Data from the dB602 statistical analyzer show an Lo
5 dB A) for the hour 10:50 P.m. to 11:50 p.m. and 42 dB(A) i2r
the hour 11:55 P.m. to 12:55 a.m. The L was 42 dB(A) and 40
dB(A) respectively. Again, these levels5gre within those levels
established in NPC -2. Similar observations were made on February
29, as were made on February 22, concerning the low frequency
component of the noise.
Data from the IVIE spectrum analyzer supported earlier monitoring
data in that the primary sound energy is concentrated in the
lower frequencies. Further discussions on frequency distribution
is not necessary at this time.
Conclusions and Comments - Data from February 29, 1984, indicate
that Sperry Univac is in compliance with Minnesota Noise Rule
NPC -2. The noise monitored is concentrated in the lower
frequencies. Aircraft noise did not contribute significantly to
the overall data.
As mentioned earlier, Dr. Richard VanDoeren was conducting a
noise survey for Sperry Univac concurrent with my monitoring.
Although noise data collected by Dr. VanDoeren was not made
available to me, I am confident in that data's integrity. I was
able to accompany Dr. VanDoeren, as was a representative of
Sperry Univac, throughout the majority of the monitoring event.
Comparisons between my data and Dr. VanDoeren's can be made when
all data becomes available.
Again, to verify the representativeness of the noise on this
date, I contacted two of the residents. Comments from those
residents were similar to those received after the February 22
monitoring in that the noise was judged to be quieter than on
previous days. I did communicate this information to Dr. Richard
VanDoeren a few days later.
A copy of the field data sheets can be found as attachments to
this report.
0 0
Mr. Tom Hedges
March 20, 1984
Page Five
March 3, 1984
I mentioned earlier that residents had concerns about the
representativeness of the noise during scheduled monitoring
periods. Because of those concerns I made previous arrangements
for one individual from the community to contact me when the
noise was considered to be loud or at least representative. Luck
would have it that I received a phone call at 12:15 a.m. and I
responded.
Location - Data was taken at the same location in Mr. Giblin's
back yard previously used on February 29, 1984. In addition, I
took spot readings along the entire length of the berm.
Time - Monitoring was conducted from 1:00 a.m. to 2:30 a.m.
Meteorology - Wind conditions were calm with clear skies. The
temperature was 18°F. Relative humidity 60% and pressure 30.07
in Hg.
Instrumentation - One Wortsila 7078 integrating sound level
meter. Cali ration was performed before and after the monitoring
period.
Results - Because of the short lead time, I was not able to
monitor using continuous equipment such as the Metrosonics
dB -602. The Wortsila sound level meter is a hand held instrument
and is not normally used to provide a statistical distribution of
noise. The data is, however, useful in that it provides a
reasonable approximation of what the L or L would be if more
sophisticated equipment was available. 10 50
A copy of my field data sheet can be found as an attachment to
this report. The data shows levels (monitored at my previous
location in Mr. Giblin's back yard) ranging from 50 to 53 dB(A).
Compared to levels obtained on February 22, (L 0 = 42 dBA) and
February 29 (L55o0 = 42 and 40 dBA). March 3 was5 louder. I cannot
accurately predict how much louder but my data shows the
possibility of a 10 dB(A) increase. If a ten decibel increase is
realistic then an average person would perceive a doubling of
loudness.
Additional monitoring along the top of the berm showed levels
ranging from 50 to 56 dB(A) depending on location. Also, a 47 to
49 dB(A) range was recorded at the City owned building
(previously monitored on February 22 ,1984).
76
0
Mr. Tom Hedges
March 20, 1984
Page Six
E
Conclusions and Comments - Data from March 3, 1984, are
inconclusive for assessing compliance with Minnesota Noise Rule
NPC -2. The data does, however, show that levels were higher on
March 3 then on other dates but the degree of increase is
difficult to predict. Recorded levels show a potential ten
decibel increase.
A final comment concerning March 3, 1984. As I was arriving to
monitor, Dr. VanDoeren was completing a scheduled monitoring
survey for Sperry Univac. It will be interesting to compare my
data of March 3 with his.
I hope I have been able to provide the City .with useful
information regarding the noise problem at Sperry Univac. The
Agency is looking forward to conducting post monitoring upon
installation of noise suppressing equipment.
If I can be of further.assistance, please feel free to contact
me.
Yours truly,
Dave Kelso
Program Development/Noise
Division of Air Quality
DK/mpg
Attachments
-77
A. General Information
Noise Source S rrN Uai1 f/C L
Location ��N CC�I.��"A°�17)
Date
7Yme (s) Start /0'00 p. N4 .
Finish // :Oo
B. Instrumentation
U
Meteorology:
�P 36'F
Wind Sp/Dir
Rel. Humidity 9S%
Bar. Pressure Z9 S9 aw
6-82
Manufacturer
Model
Serial #
Cal N
Cal Before
Cal After
Comments
06vwj%u,
&oa
M P,-* +a
iq
MPck
qy
qq
Q{k Y/6! /omit.
s «
,230
hn Pa/FfAAc/F
9y
9y
9 v. l
elk Y/1-/ / " /rut .
5
Sq S7 66 '!f
inPc
-
-
-
6ra c. l.euo( pawrdee
zti��
3oF�
�.Pa�
ry1RcR
qy
qy•a
9'1•�
C. Results - Metrosonics (dBA)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
N®®O®MMOM10.
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
16000
31500
5-6
���
S9
5-6
• t
Q
?S
23.
..
—
—
Sq S7 66 '!f
Sl
SIS
C2
.77
.7S
D. Res ts — Uctave SIL
1
2
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
16000
31500
5-6
Sy
S9
5-6
ff
v7
?S
23.
1s
—
—
Sq S7 66 '!f
Sl
SIS
C2
.77
.7S
0, /0: K
0
9
E. Observations
pF(rvl00%/I w.l�+ti+e{�ewd nl fkl s4wip e,"bter rcmcfeat
4jvc►PF4 we" plseµ4 cW" 0400. 10:ys'
4 PIIS +%.5 bCOtLOOS "Acre Oe
F. Dim
S�,�y u,l✓ec
�ifP.40111�� IOLP�
1
Investigator: �►�
no
56
10CM
-----------------
----
- — — — — Broal 6 Kjmr
— ML
ov aim
,Qyr„y, ro:o9p
lD:oo P.M.
--————————————————
rrr------
SO
qo 464
la:a9 P.M
— — — Broal 3 Kjmr
or mm dneA
oV
appy 1e: 19 Ft•
p Ie: 2Q P«.
sa
qo dm
---------- erot
/e:19 P.e+.
Gil( aso(o
cdl I bra" 99 6[sn-
t,kmt Spee)
Ba�«s ���1� E' ro:� p�`•
81
- or
d
"Y�' 10'. 0 pM.
• • 6-82
NOISE SURVEY FORM A
A. General Infoimation
Noise Source SD¢vva %eUjLycL L
Location M•
Late 1-a4-gy
Time(s) Start /. lo.'SO
.2. /1 Tr
Finish SO
B. Instiwnentation
1.
2.
3•
4.
Meteorology:
Temp —/ 'G
Wind Sp/Dir eo &2
Rel. Humidity S7 ib
Bar. Pressure 30.0 �
Manufacturer
Model
Perial H
Cal b
Cal Before
Cal After
Comments
t
of
mprA j
mqon�•1
S3
ot-9
B /C H/br ll�mr�
3Q
yl
Q
3a
s6
..
13
4v�f
s6 30 ¢
MPcR
wii�Rdr
4
9'I• /
C. Results — Metrosonics (dBA)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
00®m®m
63
'125
250
500
1000
2000
MMM.����•L
8000
16000
31500
S3
S4
S`
3Q
yl
Q
3a
s6
..
13
--
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
D. Results — Octave (H_)
1
K
31.
63
'125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
16000
31500
S3
S4
S`
3Q
yl
39
3a
s6
23
13
--
E. Observations
AIV. n\VY tl&Dcowj 4p" j4A t Lt zt Ac-�,41&3
UV3 GOKdµoFL.� L't1CN l L'O V1
+Lk ivp ab io +44 Eu6Y � Ny �oaai�w. � ye�n'L�aitr�wLJ
�ow+ r3Pavey L4+waL Woy a.�Ge �ea�.
soow�, p✓ko �� wos nek��.
F. Drag...
is
N10►��or,u5 Luas
MOP
m
A CALew, �t..c
cg
Agwt
U -V5
twFotk0X&w VO4 mj EI�a
S}(VGkFj kOc dL'j
5?ZVVI LiuWat .
Investigator: D. YA,20
.0
Alk
Ah
4CIAM
•T2 rv� — �8 r Ops ons — 3a • o
�;,,
$k - G1oa✓
I'
TnS�'Y�cn,en 7a.��on
�I
.Sor�ncli ie�e.� wte.�a - r.J"o�1S/1a. Tyre
i eu-li6ralBv - r3 � la y33o C 4�( dl3
7C
-
(.a,liq,a.h
i
i
�! Yno-miloray, bcahgnAs
lava/
M peot pve-�I&C,�,F- 6-fhlins bark
50-S3
r".t £d PolPQl }ree �Ikr w� %erg+
}B
S`1 -Sb
Var-ONt let' f"CM b-ev. Ivp)
SAerr si4 *".2 fror., bvvw b
Sa-S3
5 trr 5 t�c ".3 ( VBw1 be�w i6p)
so'S.J
Tn ac/)«loll e C An, beva"
io
r�-s3
lveyt g her- rxe rows bevm
51, r3
�.,a Aer ldibi
y7�l
p D
Middle s�rfe-t rN fre++`..I- ore ,6411k5
• LAW OFFICES •
HAUGEN AND AiIHOLAI. P.A.
1936 MIDWEST PLAZA 6ULLDIMG
601 NICOLLET MALL
ORP,N M.NAUGEN MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA SS4O2
THOMAS J. NIaOLAI (BR; 339.7-61 �.
DOUGLAS L.TSCNiDA
JAMES T.NINOLA. March 14, 1984
Ms. Jan M. Cain, Chief
Regulator Compliance Section
Division of it Quality
Minnesota P lution Control Agency
1935 West Co(%ty Road B2
Roseville, MN 113
Dear Ms. Cain:
Mr. John Gustin, the President of the Timberline Civic association,
provided me with a copy of your letter to him of February 28, 1984. 1 am
a resident of the Timberline area and my property borders an that of the
Sperry Corporation. 1, too, am concerned over the 'potential for health
hazards created by Sperry's new semiconductor factory for many of the
reasons set out in the Time Magazine article which Mr. Gustin provided to
you.
Your letter indicates that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff
examined information about the equip -hent for the semiconductor factory
and, apparently, based upon the examination of that information, it was
concluded that Sperry's operations do not constitute a health hazard. 1 am
concerned that, because the information on which you based your
conclusions was furnished by Sperry personnel, the information may not be
reliable. The same persons responsible for designing the equipment in the
factory may not report facts which could make them look had in the eyes
of their management and there is a natural tendency to minimize the
potential for harm to the health and safety of the neighboring community
by only providing self-serving information while withholding that which
would be adverse. Furthermore, we in the neighborhood have developed a
strong mistrust for the inside facilities engineering personnel at Sperry
because of the manner in which misrepresentations and half-truths have
been reported to the City of Eagan as it relates to an on-going noise
pollution problem we have been faced with for the past nine months.
Rather than basing your Agency's opinion as to the safety and efficacy of
the air pollution abatement equipment based upon data supplied by Sperry,
the neighboring citizens would be more comfortable if trained personnel
of the MPCA actually visited the Sperry Plant, examined the equipment
and the effluents being discharged into the atmosphere. Then, too,
periodic surprise visits by MPCA staff persormei should be made to ensure
that the equipment installed by Sperry is properly maintained so as to
remain effective on a continuing basis to limit possible harmful
06 -%
�1jf .:1 � 1.i �.�•
PATENTS
TRADE AP.5
COPYRIGFTS
0
Ms. Janet M. Cain, Chief
March 14, 1984
Page Two
discharges. In this regard, I have been informed that a couple of years
ago transformers and other electrical equipment on the roof of Sperry's
Plant on Shepard Road had to be replaced because the electrical
insulation on that equipment had been eaten away from the corrosive
effluents being given off from Sperry's printed circuit manufacturing
facilities in that plant. I would stress that I do not have personal, first-
hand knowledge of this fact, but it was reported to me by an individual
who is in a position m know.
1 hope that your Agency will respond to -this request and that trained
personnel will conduct an on-site investigation and a detailed analysis, not
only of the equipment being used to control harmful emissions, but the
effectiveness of that equipment over extended periods as well.
Very truly yours,
Thomas J. Nikolai
1504 Red Cedar Road
Eagan, MN 55121
TJN/Ijr
vofc: Thomas Hedges, City Administrator
W.
1•. L,
• LAW OFFICES
HAUGEN AND NIKOLAI, PA.
1936 MIDWEST PLAZA BUILDING
601 NICOLLET MALL
ORRIN M.HAUGEN MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 66.402 PATENTS
THOMAS J. NIKOLAI (612) 339-7A61 TRADE MARKS
COPYRIGHTS
DOUGLAS L.TsCHIOA
JAMES T.NIKOLAI
March 19, 1984
Mr. Thomas Hedges
City Administrator
City of Eagan
3795 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55121
Re: Sperry Semiconductor. Noise Pollution Problem
Dear Tom:
Noting the manner in which Eagan City officials have responded to the
complaints of the Timerline residents relative to the noise created by
Sperry's semiconductor industrial plant, 1 am getting to the point where I
feel that further complaining is strictly an exercise in futility.
Nonetheless, I wanted you to know just how terribly dissatisfied my
neighbors and I have been on the inability of the City to compel any
corrective action on the part of Sperry.
As you may or may not know, Sperry has now installed the long-awaited
diverters on its stacks and I am writing to say that the evening of
March 16 and early morning of March 17 was perhaps the worst it has
been. I was awakened by the loud throaty roar about 300 a.m. and tossed
and turned listening to that din until 5:00 a.m. At that point I left my
bedroom and went to sleep on the livingroom couch.
It is so damn frustrating. This whole problem started over nine months
ago. We attempted to work with the Sperry people. We attempted to
work with City representatives. We called in the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. We have written to top management at Sperry. We have
appeared before the City Council and expressed our complaints. We have
repeatedly called the police. • We have attempted to have the City's
General Nuisance Ordinance enforced against Sperry. The City Attorney
refuses to prosecute. Even though I have lived in my home for 18 years
and spent considerable sums to improve my home and property, my wife
and 1 are now considering moving to get away from this problem.
However, how can I possibly command a fair price for my home when
potential buyers would be exposed to the excessive noise which grinds on,
24 hours a day.
Mr. Thomas Hedges
March 19, 1984
Page Two
The City of Eagan has already found Sperry not to be in compliance with
its R do D Zoning restrictions as far as noise is concerned. That
determination was made way last October. With reference to Councilman
Egan's statement at the February 7th hearing, just how must rope does the
City intend to give to Sperry in this matter?
I believe we have another hearing before the City Council coming up on
April 3. 1 would hope by that time that the Mayor and City Council
members will have gone to the bother of visiting the Timberline area and
hearing first-hand the problem which we have been complaining of for so
long now. I have provided you with a tape recording of the noise back in
late January or early February so that the mayor and council members
could get the full flavor of the problem prior to the February 7th hearing.
I believe that tape stayed in your desk drawer. Mr. Kelso from the
M.P.C.A. has been taking measurements and found, on the one occasion
when Sperry was unaware that he would be doing so, that the noise was
about twice the intensity permitted by the M.P.C.A. standards. Eagan's
Ordinance for R & D Zoning is much more restrictive.
I also hope that by April 3, 1984, the City Council will have received some
sort of direction from Mr. Hauge, our City Attorney, concerning the
manner of enforcement of the existing ordinances, both those relating to
land use regulations (zoning) and those pertaining to the maintenance of a
public nuisance. Nobody, including yourself, Jay Berthe or Paul Hauge
seems to be able to explain the enforcement procedure. If there is no
enforcement, there might as well be no ordinance!
As I have so often said, if any one of the Timberline residents were to
create the level of noise which Sperry is and another neighbor complained,
a refusal to cease the noisemaking would be met with police action,
prosecution and fines. Why should not Sperry be brought into court and
tried for its violations?
About the only thing we have not, as yet, done in an attempt to get this
situation turned around is to bring in public pressure via newspapers,
television, etc. This is because we have been reluctant to advertise the
fact that our area has this severe problem because of the adverse impact
on property values. However, if this condition is allowed to persist, there
will be no hiding it anyway and, as a result, we will have no choice but to
take further actions which will reflect the fact that the City of Eagan is
.either incapable of or, unwilling to provide even-handed justice to both its
homeowners and its corporate residents.
MA
0
Mr. Thomas Hedges
March 19, 1984
Page Three
The. above may come across to you as somewhat of a diatribe. However,
it is being written out of frustration and by a person who has been denied
still another night's sleep.
ery truly yours,
Thomas J. ikolai
1504 Red C ar Road
Eagan, MN 55121
TJN/Ijr
cc: Mayor -Bea Blomquist
Councilman Thomas Egan
Councilman James Smith
Councilman Ted Wactler
Councilman Jerry Thomas
Mr. Paul Hauge, City Attorney
Mr. David Turcott(Sperry)
Mr. Jack Nichols (Sperry).
Mr. Robert Falstad (Sperry)
Mr. G.G. Probst (Sperry)
Mr. David Kelso (M.P.C.A.)
Mr. John Gustin
9I
ORRIN M.H.UGEN
TNOMAs J. NIKOLAI
DOUGLAS L.TSCMIDA
.MMES T.NIKOLAI
• LAW OFFICES 0
HAUOEN AND NIBOLAI, PA.
lyse MIDWEST PLAZA BUILDING
001 NICOLLET MALL
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402
(SIZ: 339-7A61
March 26, 1984
Mr. John Gustin
3061 Woodlark Lane
Eagan, MN 55121
Dear John:
PATENTS
TRADE MARKS
COPTRIGNTS
On March 24, 1984, 1 called Mr. Bob Falstad. Sperry's in-house lawyer, in
an attempt to determine whether all of the sound abatement equipment
had been installed. He informed me that he had been out of town most of
last week and did not know the answer. He promised to find out and to
call me back. About one-half hour later. 1 received a call from Mr.
Falstad and he advised me that at noon on Friday, March 16, 1984, the
sound abatement equipment had been irsta!led. That is, both the six
diverters and the one attenuator were in place and were running as of
noon on the 16th of March.
We spent approximately 45 minutes discussing the sination and the
following are my recollections of the points raised and discussed during
that conversation.
First of all, when I referred to the situation as "Sperry's noise problem",
Mr. Falstad took issue with that and stated that Sperry has never
acknowledged that a problem exists. Such a comment, made nine months
after this all began and in light of all that has taken place, upset me and 1
indicated to him that as long as Sperry and its people were going to
maintain that mentality, I did not see that the homeowners could expect
any solution to come from Sperry.
For the most part, Mr. Falstad pled ignorance on most of my inquiries but,
like a lawyer, continued to press to determine just what facts we had at
hand. He expressed some concern that 1 had a "pipe -line into the plant",
and he inquired as to whom my contacts are. I told him that I had already
informed Sperry in my correspondence just whom my contact was, ie., an
unsuccessful bidder for the sound abatement equipment. Mr. Falstad also
seemed to be surprised by the fact that I 'mew the identity of the sound
expert which Sperry had hired. 1 indicated that that information came to
me from a report which was generated by Mr. Kelso of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency and submitted to the City of Eagan. 1 did not
see that that was a private or privileged fact.
9a
J
Mr. John Gustin
March 26, 1984
Page Two
C,
We discussed the MPCA report dated March 20, 1984, and its finding that
on the one occasion when Sperry was not aware that Mr. Kelso would be
performing monitoring functions, the noise levels happened to be twice
that which was measured when Sperry was aware that the MPGA was in
the area with its monitoring equipment. Mr. Falstad said that he had
made many inquiries concerning the Timberline residents' allegations that
the sound levels were being manipulated by Sperry and insists that they
have not been.
Mr. Falstad requested that I cease directing letters to high level
management at Sperry and, instead, communicate only through him. 1
declined this request indicating that in the past, on several occasions, my
efforts to obtain information through him had been unsuccessful and that
on several occasions when I have called him and made inquiries concerning
the status of the installation of the sound abatement equipment, he has
failed to get back to me with a promised response. 1 also told him that
Mr. Michaud was not responding to calls but, instead, was having Mr.
Falstad return them. Attempts to obtain stars information and plans for
future corrective measures have been met with what can only be
characterized as "stonewalling".
I also indicated that the noise problem has not been satisfactorily resolved
and is still so serious in the minds of the neighboring residents that we
should not be expected to pull any punches merely because certain Sperry
personnel, having direct responsibility for solving the noise problem,
might be embarrassed in having upper level management aware of their
failures.
Toward the end of our conversation I pointedly asked Mr. Falstad whether
the equipment which Sperry has now installed is considered to be the final
solution to the noise pollution situation and whether Sperry intends to do
anything further to curtail the noise. Mr. Falstad indicated that he could
not speak for Sperry but that he would attempt to find out what further,
if anything, might be done. I asked him when he felt he could get back to
me with an answer. He indicated that he did not know, but that Sperry
will have to come up with some answer by April 3, the date for the next
scheduled City Council meeting on the subject.
In dosing, I indicated that spring was now here and very shortly the
homeowners in the Timberline area will be having their windows open. 1
indicated to him that if the sound levels were not brought within the
criteria established by the City of Eagan's Zoning Ordinance for R do D
zoned property, that a lawsuit was certain to result.
Very truly yours,
Thomas 1 Nikolai
TJN/ljr
cc:Giblin
m Hedges
• LAW OFFICES • '-'�' "
HAUGEN AND NIHOLAI. PA.
I936 MIDWEST PLAZA BUILDING
601 NICOLLET MALL
OQP.N M.NAUGEN MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 PATENTS
THOMAS J. NIKOLAI (612:338-7461 Tq DE AM.5
COPTAIGMTS
ODuGLAS L-TSCNIDA
JAMES T. NIKOLAI
March 26, 1984
Mr. David/Turcotte
Sperry Corporation
P. 0. Boz 43525
St. Paul, MN 55164
i
Re: Sperry Noise Pollution Problem
Dear Mr. Turcotte:
Please consider this as a formal request for Sperry to provide
to me, as a representative of the Timberline neighborhood,
a copy.of all test data and test reports. generated by Dr.
VanDoren relating to the noise conditions at your Semiconductor
Operations.
we would like to have this information available.by March 30,
1984 so that we will have an opportunity to review it prior
to the April 3 public hearing. I would be happy to stop by
and pick it up from you if mailing,time is going to be a problem.
Very truly yours,
Thomas J. Nikolai
TJN/jk /
cc: Tom Hedges, City of Eagan ✓
Dave Kelso, MPCA
John Gustin
I
AAIIGE, SuiTH, EIDE & KL•'LLER, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PAUL H. HAUGE
BRADLEY SMITH
KEVIN W. EIDE
DAVID O. KELLER
Eagan City Council
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS
3808 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 79122
March 30, 1984
Re: Sperry Semi Conductor Plant Noise Complaints
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
An" Cope 812
TLLEPmomE 494.4224
Since the Council directed the staff to gather information and prepare a
report for the regular Council meeting on April 3 concerning the complaints
of neighboring residents -about noise from the Sperry Semi Conductor plant,
there has been a significant amount of monitoring of the noise levels by two
persons including Dr. Richard VanDoern, an independent noise engineer on
behalf of Sperry, and David Kelso of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
who was requested to do the monitoring by the City of Eagan. The neighboring
property owners had also engaged Robert W. Fulton to monitor the noise levels
and a report was earlier submitted to the City Council based on his findings.
The results of these tests should be compiled by the staff prior to the
April 3 meeting and the results available to the City Council at that meeting.
In addition, it is our understanding that a noise attenuator was installed
on one of the emission stacks and that baffles were installed on six additional
noise emitting devices from the Sperry plant nearest to Timberline Addition.
Some testing has taken place since the installation of the noise abatement
equipment and the results will be compared by the noise consultants.
Since the Council last considered the issue, the neighboring Timberline
residents have filed official complaints with the Eagan Police Department
alleging significant noise problems particularly during nighttime hours. It
was our recommendation to the Eagan Police Department and the Council that the
City not prosecute any complaints until additional testing takes place and the
sound abatement equipment was installed. The reason for this primarily was
that the Council members had indicated that they wanted to allow Sperry to
attempt to reduce any alleged noise problem and also because of practical
evidentiary problems that appeared to exist.
In any event, some of the alternatives the City Council would appear to have
relating to the noise complaints are as follows:
March 30, 1984
Page Two
0
1. No Action. The Council could accept the findings of the noise consultants
and determine that there is no significant noise problem if the results
according to normal noise testing standards prove that such action is warranted.
2. Ordinance Citation. The City Council could authorize citations to
be served upon Sperry alleging violations of certain ordinance provisions
and these could include one or more of the following:
a. Zoning Violation. The City Council could reaffirm its decision and
resolution of October 4, 1983, at which time it determined that Sperry
was in violation of Eagan Code Chapter 11.20, Subd. 18, relating to
noise emissions from a facility in.a R 6 D zoned parcel adjacent to a
residential area. The facts should be reviewed very carefully to
determine that there is sufficient evidence. This may warrant
prosecution under the specific ordinance resulting, of course, in
potential fines against the corporation.
b. Ordinance Compliance. Another alternative would be for the City
Council to review all aspects of the Sperry Semi Conductor plant facility
including compliance with all building permit requirements, conformance
with all state requirements relating to noise emissions, compliance with
air quality emission standards, and any other issues relating to the
grant of building permits and other permits required for the establishment
of the semiconductor facility. It is our understanding that Sperry did
comply with state and local requirements in these respects.
C. Noise Pollution. Violation of Code Section 10.42 concerning non-
compliance with PCA noise standards is the basis for an ordinance citation.
d. Nuisance Violations. We treated this issue in our letter to Chief
Berthe dated February 23, 1984. There should be a showing that Sperry
intentionally created, maintained, and permitted a condition which
unreasonably damages, injures, or endangers the safety, health, morals,
comfort or repose of a considerable number of persons. Two or more
complaints have been filed by neighboring residents with the Eagan
Police Department.
3. Injunctive Relief. If the City Council determines that there are violations
of any of these State or City requirements or ordinances, there may be cause
for injunctive relief against Sperry in the event of refusal to comply. Injunc-
tive action could include the following:
a. An attempt to force compliance with any laws or ordinances with
which Sperry has failed to comply including building permit requirements,
zoning requirements, etc.
b. Require additional noise abatement devices including attenuators,
baffles, equipment modifications, etc.
MW
March 30, 1984
Page Three
11
c. Compliance with Code Section 10.42 , Noise Pollution Regulations,
which incorporates the PCA noise standards into the City ordinances.
This could, of course, include fairly protracted litigation and also require a
high degree of proof. We would recommend against this injunction alternate
unless there is fairly clear and convincing evidence to proceed in any area of
these directions.
4. The neighboring residential owners may have grounds for commencing their
independent civil action against Sperry and have alleged in the past, such
potential claims as diminution in value of neighboring residences and whatever
other claims may be grounds for such an action.
5. The City Council may, if it finds that the results from the noise moni-
toring are inconclusive, request another independent noise consultant to
review and make recommendations concerning steps that should be taken by
Sperry to reduce the noise or to determine whether other concrete steps could
be taken to modify the equipment in addition to further noise testing. It is
my understanding that some members of our Building Inspection staff are quite
familiar with the noise emission equipment and might have recommendations in
this respect.
PHH:ras
Very truly yours,
HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE h KELLER, P.A.
Paul . Haug `• \ (/
94 C.
0 0
HAIIGE, Smim EIDE & FELLER, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS
3808 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
PAUL H. HAUGE
BRADLEY SMITH
KEVIN W. EIDE
DAVID G. KELLER
Eagan City Council
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122
March 30, 1984
Re: Sperry Semi Conductor Plant Noise Complaints
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
AR[. Cam 812
T9LCPHGN2 454.622•
Since the Council directed the staff to gather information and prepare a
report for the regular Council meeting on April 3 concerning the complaints
of neighboring residents about noise from the Sperry Semi Conductor plant,
there has been a significant amount of monitoring of the noise levels by two
persons including Dr. Richard VanDoern, an independent noise engineer on
behalf of Sperry, and David Kelso of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
who was requested to do the monitoring by the City of Eagan. The neighboring
property owners had also engaged Robert W. Fulton to monitor the noise levels
and a report was earlier submitted to the City Council based on his findings.
The results of these tests should be compiled by the staff prior to the
April 3 meeting and the results available to the City Council at that meeting.
In addition, it is our understanding that a noise attenuator was installed
on one of the emission stacks and that baffles were installed on six additional
noise emitting devices from the Sperry plant nearest to Timberline Addition.
Some testing has taken place since the installation of the noise abatement
equipment and the results will be compared by the noise consultants.
1
Since the Council last considered the issue, the neighboring Timberline
residents have filed official complaints with the Eagan Police Department
alleging significant noise problems particularly during nighttime hours. It
was our recommendation to the Eagan Police Department and the Council that the
City not prosecute any complaints until additional testing takes place and the
sound abatement equipment was installed. The reason for this primarily was
that the Council members had indicated that they wanted to allow Sperry to
attempt to reduce any alleged noise problem and also because of practical
evidentiary problems that appeared to exist.
In any event, some of the alternatives the City Council would appear to have
relating to the noise complaints are as follows:
• I ,
March 30, 1984
Page Two
0
1. No Action. The Council could accept the findings of the noise consultants
and determine that there is no significant noise problem if the results
according to normal noise testing standards prove that such action is warranted.
2. Ordinance Citation. The City Council could authorize citations to
be served upon Sperry alleging violations of certain ordinance provisions
and these could include one or more of the following:
a. Zoning Violation. The City Council could reaffirm its decision and
resolution of October 4, 1983, at which time it determined that Sperry
was in violation of Eagan Code Chapter 11.20, Subd. 18, relating to
noise emissions from a facility in a R b D zoned parcel adjacent to a
residential area. The facts should be reviewed very carefully to
determine that there is sufficient evidence. This may warrant
prosecution under the specific ordinance resulting, of course, in
potential fines against the corporation.
b. Ordinance Compliance. Another alternative would be for the City
Council to review all aspects of the Sperry Semi Conductor plant facility
including compliance with all building permit requirements, conformance
with all state requirements relating to noise emissions, compliance with
air quality emission standards, and any other issues relating to the
grant of building permits and other permits required for the establishment
of the semiconductor facility. It is our understanding that Sperry did
comply with state and local requirements in these respects.
c. Noise Pollution. Violation of Code Section 10.42 concerning non-
compliance with PCA noise standards is the basis for an ordinance citation.
d. Nuisance Violations. We treated this issue in our letter to Chief
Berthe dated February 23, 1984. There should be a showing that Sperry
intentionally created, maintained, and permitted a condition which
unreasonably damages, injures, or endangers the safety, health, morals,
comfort or repose of a considerable number of persons. Two or more
complaints have been filed by neighboring residents with the Eagan
Police Department.
3. Injunctive Relief. If the City Council determines that there are violations
of any of these State or City requirements or ordinances, there may be cause
for injunctive relief against Sperry in the event of refusal to comply. Injunc-
tive action could include the following:
a. An attempt to force compliance with any laws or ordinances with
which Sperry has failed to comply including building permit requirements,
zoning requirements, etc.
b. Require additional noise abatement devices including attenuators,
baffles, equipment modifications, etc.
i=1
March 30, 1984
Page Three
C. Compliance with Code Section 10.42 , Noise Pollution Regulations,
which incorporates the PCA noise standards into the City ordinances.
This could, of course, include fairly protracted litigation and also require a
high degree of proof. We would recommend against this injunction alternate
unless there is fairly clear and.convincing evidence to proceed in any area of
these directions.
4. The neighboring residential owners may have grounds for commencing their
independent civil action against Sperry and have alleged in the past, such
potential claims as diminution in value of neighboring residences and whatever
other claims may be grounds for such an action.
5. The City Council may, if it finds that the results from the noise moni-
toring are inconclusive, request another independent noise consultant to
review and make recommendations concerning steps that should be taken by
Sperry to reduce the noise or to determine whether other concrete steps could
be taken to modify the equipment in addition to further noise testing. It is
my understanding that some members of our Building Inspection staff are quite
familiar with the noise emission equipment and might have recommendations in
this respect.
PHH:ras
Very truly yours,
HAUCE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.
Paul
174 C.
0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Nineteen
0
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/COMMERCIAL STORAGE FACILITIES
B. Perry Keiffer for a. Conditional Use Permit for Commercial
Storage Facilties in an Agricultural Zoning District -- A public
hearing was held before the Advisory Planning Commission at
a regular meeting held on January 24, 1984 to consider an applica-
tion submitted by Perry Keiffer requesting a conditional use
permit for outside storage. Due to Mr. Keiffer's involvement
with the Shrine Circus, it was not possible for him to attend
the February 21 City Council meeting. Therefore, upon his request,
this item was continued until the April 3 City Council meeting.
The Advisory Planning Commission is, recommending approval of
the application. For additional information on the item, refer
to the City Planner's report, a copy of which is enclosed on
pages q through 10 y For additional information on the
action that was taken by ,the APC, refer to a copy of their minutes
enclosed on page A2 .
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a
conditional use permit for commercial storage for Perry Keiffer.
95
C CITY OF EAGAF
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: PERRY KIEFFER
LOCATION: PART OF THE SW's OF THE SA OF NES., OF SEC. 24
PARCEL 10-02400-010-05, 3955 DODD ROAD
EXISTING ZONING: A (AGRICULTURAL)
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: JANUARY 24, 1984
DATE OF REPORT: JANUARY 19, 1984
REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER
APPLICATION SUBMITTED: An application has been submitted requesting
a conditional use permit for outside storage located in part of the
SW; of the SW< of the NE'a of Section 24, 3955 Dodd Road.
COMMENTS
In reviewing this particular application, it appears that Mr. Kieffer
presently owns a minimum of 5 acres, and there is presently a farm-
stead with a barn and new pole building constructed on this property.
City staff issued a permit in late 1983 for a pole barn as it relates
to agricultural purposes. It is also staff's understanding that Mr.
Kieffer is a collector of antique cars and has a rental car business
in which he needs a place to store some of the vehicles he presently
owns himself or with his business. Staff understands that most of
the vehicles are presently stored inside, however, there are some ve-
hicles which would be needed to be stored outside on occasion.
Staff has reviewed the property and the area proposed for storage is
not that noticeable from Dodd Road, if the storage could be placed
in a location which would be least noticeable from Dodd Road.
Since the application was submitted, staff has notified the property
owners within 350 feet. We have had one inquiry from Mr. Howard Fox
requesting what the notice was about and is the business a legitimate
business or is some type of illegal operation being proposed. Staff
informed him that this was the normal process to notify the people
within a distance of 350 feet to inform them as to what is being pro-
posed on this particular property. The only concern Mr. Fox had was
he wanted to make sure that Mr. Kieffer was performing a legitimate
business with the storage of the vehicles.
In review of this particular conditional use, it would appear that
if this conditional use is approved, it should be subject to the fol-
lowing conditions:
CITY OF EAGAN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PERRY KIEFFER C
JANUARY 24, 1984
PAGE TWO
1) All vehicles stored on the property shall either have a collect-
or's license plate or a current license plate in order that a
junkyard or that type of facility would not be created.
2) The Planning Commission may want to discuss with Mr. Kieffer
how many cars should be the maximum stored on this property
that would work for Mr. Kieffer and have some control by the
Advisory Planning Commission.
DCR/jach
49Z 57
Survey Por: aK 4l,t45
C Perry Kieffer
3955 Undd goad
FAmanr MN 5',111
DELMAR H. SCHWANZ-��
yHp.u,v..an Scale
uw•.� arc u.r. w......
Tr.-r41TH ST•EIT w. -SOaw • 1412•21rle.
RUAVIYOa'S CERTIFICATE
N•Cro. UuE •} OOTM 05.00 iae.� Wyt,s1j114,
r 477.00 . N 04057"SV E. i
' 4' A I
i v
. 8
V%
43
w4
LO --N'
1 % I d
I. _
Ur •i
« a tiya
ti .r /
a o• 13 �� S
r IT
ff
W71'�'OPJ'4"
qL
w VIQ
� 7 .
Z
40AI J, �4e.21 ,40.09
4T1.00 A 59•57't9' e.
.t W Vt,SWV4, NE'�41 Sac. Z4, T. X11 C. 23
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct representation or
a survey of the boundaries of the following described tract of lend:
The east 475.00 feet of the south 475.00 feet of the West Half of
the SouthweeC Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 27,
Pange 11, Dakota County, Minnesota.
Subject to all easements of record.
Alen ehnuing the major buildings as located thereon.
-" 19g
Aa a.rrv.vaA by m. thla slat Aay of October,
SUBJECT PARCEL
06"
c
C
ADEN L TS
T
• S. A. R. # 63A
ui
�ftir.I r•
D WEST PU 8LISNIN 99 a
Ist ADD.Ell
o
I v
SUBJECT PARCEL
CUe
• W
q ~ G8 I
I -I ;
/z C. S. A. H. s 30
I
r — ---
AUDITOR'S sUBD. NO. aZ
0 0
APC Minutes
/ January 24, 1984
was to remove most of the cars and indicated that the property is being rented
with the renters stabling the horses on the property. Questions concerning
the size of the fenced area and the type of fence were asked by members
Wilkins, and there were also concerns about the nearness of the property to
Pilot Knob Road, the residential character of the neighborhood and the need
for variance under the 5 acre minimum for agricultural purposes. Noting the
objections that were submitted by neighboring owners, Mulrooney stated that
there was no showing of any practical difficulties or hardships according to
ordinance requirements and was also concerned about precedent problems and the
fact that it was rental property. Krob moved, Mulrooney seconded the motion
to recommend denial of the application based upon the concerns of the neigh-
boring property owners, and that there was no hardship shown or practical
difficulties. All voted in favor.
PERRY KIEFFER - CONDITIONAL USE PER?QT
The public hearing regarding the application of Perry Kieffer for condi-
tional use permit for personal storage located at 3955 Dodd Road was brought
before the Council. Dale Runkle stated that the Kieffer property is approxi-
mately 5 acres and is presently a farmstead with a barn and new pole building
constructed on the property. The City staff issued a permit in late 1983 for
the pole barn noting that it was on agricultural property. Mr. Kieffer is a
collector of antique cars and has a rental car business for which he has
requested space to store some of the vehicles he presently owns himself or
with his business. Mr. Kieffer was present and stated that he has approxi-
mately 30 vehicles stored outside with 40 or 50 vehicles inside at the present
time and not all are licensed. A neighboring owner had concerns as to whether
the proposal would meet the ordinance guidelines. Mr. Kieffer stated that he
would agree to license all of the automobiles if it was a requirement of the
City and also may request a permit for an additional pole building in the near
future. He also stated that he would agree with the annual renewal condi-
tional use permit if the request was imposed. After discussion, McCrea moved,
Krob seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application, subject to
the following conditions:
1. All vehicles stored on the property shall either have collector's
license plates or current license plates in order that a junkyard or that type
of facility would not be created.
2. The conditional use permit shall be renewed at least every three
years unless objections arise and the City determines that the ordinance is
not being complied with.
3• No more than 40 vehicles shall be stored outside at any one time.
4. The property shall not be used for commercial purposes.
All voted in favor.
'tt 6 /ol
6 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Twenty
CITY CODE UPDATE/REVISIONS
C. City Code Update/Revisions -- As stated in the written and
verbal background for the February 21, 1984 City Council meeting,
the ordinance codification was originally adopted by the City
Council effective January 1, 1983. However, since the approval
of that document, changes in City Code language 'have been pro-
posed by both City staff and City Council, in addition to correc-
tions, changes in State law and other revisions, causing -a need
to update the City Code. Municipal Ordinance Codifiers, Inc.,
were again retained to review the various changes proposed for
the ordinance codification, and upon completion of all amendments
to the City Code, action was taken by the City Council at the
February 21 City Council meeting to approve all changes with
the exception of Chapters 11 and 13 as well as several other
items that were directed by the City Council to the City Adminis-
trator for further review and consideration. There were specifi-
cally four items which were addressed by the City Administrator
in a memo to the Director of Finance who is responsible as City
Clerk for all ordinances and a copy is enclosed on page
X03 for your reference. The Director of Finance has coordinated
these ordinance changes, all of which have been reviewed by
the City Administrator and City Attorney's office. For a copy
of the ordinance codification revisions as prepared by the Director
of Finance, refer to pages through it % which includes
a response to the questions that were raised by the City Council
and also a review of the changes for Chapters 11 and 13 which
pertain to zoning and subdivisions. The Advisory Planning Com-
mission held a public hearing at their last regular meeting
and are recommending the changes as outlined in Chapters 11 and 13.
If the City Council desires any additional information, please
feel free to contact the City Administrator's office.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the
final changes to the revisions proposed for the City Code.
WL-
0 0
MEMO TO: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE VANOVERBEKE
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: FEBRUARY 23,1984
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE CODIFICATION REVISIONS
In official action that was taken by the City Council at the
February 21 meeting, all revisions to the City Code were approved
with the exception of language in Chapters 11 and 13 that has
not been published by the City Council. The City Attorney has
agreed to coordinate which language has appeared before the
Advisory Planning Commission, City Council and received final
publication so that publication need not be duplicated.
Other changes that were made by the City Council as a part of
their official action at the meeting Tuesday include the following:
1) Ordinance #9, second series, Subdivision 4B - change 500
to 350 ft. in that paragraph.
2) Chapter 6 - The City Council is questioning how the definition
of kennel was changed to 4 rather than 3. It appears the
City Council still favors 3 or more dogs or cats rather
than 4 as proposed.
3) Ordinance #16, second series, Section 10.30 Curfew - The
City Council would like to eliminate curfew .entirely from
the City Code. Chief of Police Berthe should review the
consequences of eliminating curfew from the City Code and
prepare a memorandum if he feels language should be retained
for law enforcement purposes. Please share these concerns
with Jay Berthe, and I will be happy to discuss this matter
in further detail with him.
4) Please define under Ordinance #2 what the prohibition of
trapping means. It was my understanding and the understanding
of the City Council that trapping is to be prohibited in
city parks and land under 5 acres. Please provide further
definition of prohibiting trapping.
I would suggest that after the public hearing is held by the
Planning Commission to consider changes as proposed in Chapters
11 and 13, that all the revisions that were not adopted by the
City Council and changes under Chapters 11 and 13 be presented
to the City Council for their final review. It is anticipated
that this will occur at an April City Council meeting. However,
I may wish to address the curfew ordinance, trapping and change
in the kennel license before that date if staff feels strongly
about making changes that the City Council to date is not concurring
with.
City Administrator
TLH/jj
cc - Paul Hauge, City Attorney to 3
0 0
MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK VANOVERBEKE
DATE: MARCH 28, 1984
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE CODIFICATION REVISIONS
In your memo of February 23, 1984, you listed certain items
for which the City Council requested additional information/changes
to the ordinance codification revisions as they were presented
at their meeting of February 22, 1984. I have reviewed the
material and provide the following information:
1. The mailing notice regarding moving buildings is being changed
from 500 ft. to 350 ft. per the City Council's request.
2. Ordinance No. 5, prior to codification, defined a kennel
as "Any shelter, place, building, abode, or enclosure used
for the prupose of keeping, maintaining, breeding, training
or raising more than three licensed dogs or three dogs over
3 months of age".
This has been interpreted, correctly I believe, to mean
that kennel licensing would start with 4 or that 3 would
not require the license.
The original ordinance codification of 1982 defined a kennel
as "Any place, building, tract of land, abode or vehicle,
wherein or whereon three or more dogs or cats, or combination,
over six (6) months of age, are kept, kept for sale, or
boarded".
This process changed the numbers, reducing them by one,
meaning that the license requirement starts at 3 or that
2 would not require the license.
In the current review process, we are simply attempting
to get back to where we were prior to codification. No
staff person has been willing to admit to requesting the
reduction, however, if that is the City Council's desire,
then Ordinance No. 12, 2nd Series, should not be adopted
and enforcement of the Code as written at the reduced numbers
should commence.
3. This question has been resolved at the March 22, 1984, City
Council meeting.
4. The reference in Lorraine E. O'Reilly's memo of February
13, 1984, to inserting Ordinance No. 2 prohibiting trapping
means that the ordinance adopted March 1, 1983, will become
part of the Code. A copy of this ordinance as adopted is
attached. I believe it does what you state to be your under-
standing and that of the City Council.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
MARCH 28, 1984
PAGE 2.
The public hearing for Ordinance No. 7, 2nd Series, amending
Chapter 11 and Ordinance No. 13, 2nd Series, amending Chapter
13 was held before the Advisory Planning Commission on March
27, 1984, and these changes are now' ready for City Council review.
My memo to Dale Runkle outlining the changes is attached for
your reference.
Hopefully, all of the revisions can be given approval at the
April 3, 1984, meeting. Upon this approval my office will coordi-
nate the publication, etc., with the City Attorney's Office
as well as with Roger Jensen.
Please let me know if you desire ;any additional information
or would like to discuss these items in more detail. Please
also let me know what other copies you desire. Generally, the
ordinances have not been retyped into final form and probably
will not be until the whole package can be processed.
U
Fina a Director City Clerk VanOverbeke
EJV/jj
Enclosure
CC Tdu� tlnuq Q,
os
• ORDINANCE NO. 2, 2N• ERIES
5
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY
CODE, CHAPTER 10, ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES"
BY ADDING A PROVISION REGULATING TRAPPING; AND, BY ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE, EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 10.99 WHICH, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF_EAGAN DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter 10 is hereby amended by
adding a Section to read:
SEC. 10.13. TRAPPING PROHIBITED - EXCEPTIONS.
Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as used
in this Section, shall have the meanings stated:
A. "Trap" - Any device, snare, artificial
light, net, bird line, ferret, hawk, vehicle or contrivance
whatever used to catch, snare, kill, or otherwise restrain
the free movement of animals or birds.
B. "Trapping" - The act of setting, laying or
possession with intent to set or lay a trap.
Subd. 2. Unlawful Act. It is unlawful for any
Iperson to do any trapping.
to: Subd. 3. Exceptions. This Section shall not apply
A. Owners of platted lots of five acres or
more, and then only if it is done by the owner, a member of
the owner's family, or by written consent of the owner; pro-
vided, that such trapping is not done upon or within 100 feet
of the boundary of any City, County or State park, organized
recreational area, or other public property.
B. Quick -kill trapping if the traps are
designed to kill only rats, mice, gophers or moles.
C. Employees or duly authorized representa-
tives of the City, County, State or Federal government acting
within the course and scope of their employment.
D. Teachers trapping for educational programs
or scientists for the purpose of studying animals, wild life
or birds, which will be returned to their natural environment
uninjured.
/06
L
0
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Dee inoitions Applicable to the Entire.City Code Including Penalty
for violation" and Section 10.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor"
are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though
repeated verbatim herein:
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect
upon i s`� a od ptlon and publication according to law.
ATTEST:
Its y Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF EAGAN
By:
!Its Mayor/—
Date Ordinance Adopted: March 1, 1983
Date Ordinance was Published in the Fagan-rhronic!le -April 25, 1983
-2-
/07
0
MEMO TO CITY PLANNER RUNKLE
MARCH 22, 1984
PAGE 2
Reference City Code Page
VII. 313
0
The word "Utilities" is changed
to "Facilities" (underlined)
and is a correction of a typo-
graphical error.
The attached copy of Ordinance No. 13, 2nd Series, contains the
proposed changes to Chapter 13, and they are as follows:
Reference City Code Page Explanation
I, 372 Changes the process which pro-
vides for a Council waiver of
certain items in the plating
process.
II. 382 Removes the word "residential",
which then causes park dedication
to be satisfied for all plats.
III. 383 and 384 Changes the deadline for. record-
ing a plat to within sixty (60)
days "from final plat approval"
by the Council. This corrects
a codification error.
IV.
397
Corrects the typographical error
on Intermediate.
V.
398
Changes 2' to 12' and adds "and
gutter" to the last two types
of streets. These are error
corrections.
VI.
399
Changes "Trails" to "Trailways"
and changes "and" to "and/or".
These simply clarify the language.
VII.
399
Adds the words "and adjacent"
to clarify the meaning of this
section.
VIII.
399-400
D. is added as a new Item.
IX.
401
Corrects the reference to City
Code Chapter 11.
X.
402
Changes the word "one" to "per"
which corrects an error.
MEMO TO: CITY PLANNER RUNKLE
FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK VANOVERBEKE
DATE: MARCH 22, 1984•
SUBJECT: ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
CHANGES TO CHAPTER 11 AND CHAPTER 13 OF THE CITY CODE
The attached copy of Ordinance No. 7 2nd Series contains the pro-
posed changes to Chapter 11, and they are as follows:
Reference City Code Page Explanation
I. 270 This is a new definition of a
"Planned Development". It was
aFproved by the APC on May 10,1983.
II. None This is a new definition of "Set-
back". It previously was not
defined. (The word minimal is
not included.)
III. 285 The word "and" in the code is
being changed to "all" (under-
lined). This merely improves
the readibility of this sentence.
IV. 287 The classification of I-1 is
changed from "Light" to "Limited"
and in I-2 "Heavy" is changed
to "General". These items simply
correct a codification error
and make these classifications
consistent with the terminology
used throughout the code.
V. 288 8 290 Remove Item 6 of Subd. 3 and
Item 7 of Subd. 5 from uses under
agricultural districts and re-
sidential districts respectively.
The City cannot require these
special permits under State law.
VI. 313 This is added as a conditional
use. This item is included as
part of the update package, how-
ever, both the APC and City Coun-
cil have previously approved
it.
0 0
MEMO TO CITY PLANNER RUNKLE
MARCH.22, 1984
PAGE 3
After the APC has held the public hearing,I will be processing the
changes to the City Council for their review..
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this material
Finan Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke
EJV/jj
IID
0 0
C ORDINANCE N0. 7, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY
CODE CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATION (ZONING)" BY CHANGING
THE DEFINITION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND ADDING THE DEFINITION OF
SETBACK; BY CHANGING A GENERAL PROVISION AS TO PLACEMENT OF HOUSE ON
RESIDENTIAL LOT; BY RENAMING THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; BY REPEALING
PROVISIONS FOR DAY CARE SPECIAL PERMITS IN THE AGRICULTURAL AND
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; BY ADDING A CONDITIONAL USE AND CHANGING A
REFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT IN THE LIMITED INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT; AND, BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND
SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGAN DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Section 11.03 entitled "Definitions"
is hereby amended by changing Item 57, and adding Item 78, to read:
57. "Planned Development" - An urban development
developed according to an approved overall plan (1) having two or
more principal uses (within a single plat) without the necessary
zoning to allow the uses in compliance with the existing zoning
districts; or (2) having a single use which does not comply with
C all of the restrictions of any one zoning district. Planned
Development zoning shall be allowed only where the Council
determines that because of topography, location, design, public
need, amenities, or for other similar reasons, the development
represents good planning in relation to existing and proposed
development in the area.
7 8. "Setback" - The airtiia! horizontal distance between
a building and a street right-of-way or lot line.
Section 2. Eagan City Code Section 11.10 entitled "General
Provisions" is hereby amended by changing Subd. 26 to read:
Subd. 26. Placement of House on Residential Lot.
A. On all residential lots not served by public
utilities which are at least twenty-four thousand (24,000) square
feet in area and one hundred seventy (170) feet in width, all
• structures shall be placed so that the lot may be further
subdivided in the future unless otherwise approved by the Council.
(Subparagraph B remains the same)
Section 3. Eagan City Code Section 11.20 entitled "Use
Districts" is hereby amended by changing Subd. 1 to read:
Subd. 1. Classification. The following land use
L. districts are hereby established under which all lands in the
City shall be classified:
Section 6. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General
Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code
Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation
a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect
upon its adoption and publication according to the law.
ATTEST:
Its Clerk
Date Ordinance Adopted:
CITY OF EAGAN
CITY COUNCIL
By:
Its Mayor
Date Ordinance Published in the Eagan Chronicle:
ORDINANCE NO. 13, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY
CODE CHAPTER 13 ENTITLED "SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (PLATTING)" BY
CHANGING PROVISIONS AS TO COUNCIL WAIVER, REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO FINAL
PLAT AND RECORDING OF PLAT, MINIMUM WIDTHS FOR PRIVATE DRIVES,
SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS, EASEMENTS, BUILDING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS,
CONSTRUCTION OF CITY -INSTALLED IMPROVEMENTS; AND, BY ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE, EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 13.99 WHICH, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGAN DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Section 13.02 entitled "Jurisdiction"
is hereby amended by changing Subd. 2 to read:
Subd. 2. Council Waiver.
A. The Council, after review by the Planning
Commission or after staff review and approval of duplex lot
splits, may waive compliance with any of the provisions of this
Chapter by adoption of a resolution after compliance with waiver
provisions of this Chapter which resolution shall specify which
provisions have been waived in any case:
1. In which compliance will involve an
unnecessary hardship and where failure to comply does not
interfere with the purpose of this Chapter; or,
2. Where an improved plat can be achieved by
Ldeviation from certain provisions of this Chapter.
B. A waiver may be granted without Planning
mmission review only when the subdivision consists of a split
a duplex lot or lots with existing structures having
dividual utility services designed in accordance with standards
posed by the Council upon the original plat.
Section 2. Eagan City Code Section 13.10 entitled "Application
Procedures and Approval Process" is hereby amended by changing item 5
of Subparagraph A and Item 3 of Subparagraph D of Subd. 5 entitled
"Final Plat", to read:
Subd. 5.
/\\ _ A.
Y' S. A determination on the method by which
park dedication shall be satisfied for all plats.
D.
• 3. Recording of
responsibiity of the subdivider to file
County Recorder, within sixty (60) days
by the Council unless a time extension
-1-
Plat. It shall be the
the plat with the Dakota
from final plat approval
has been granted by the_j
0
Council. Failure to record the plat within the sixty day period
shall render final plat approval by the Council null and void
until a new application has been processed and approved by the
City unless the Council has granted an extension of time in which
the final plat shall -be recorded.
Section 3. Eagan City Code Section 13.30 entitled "Data and
Design Standards" is hereby amended by changing Item 9 of Subparagraph
A and Item 5 of Subparagraph B of Subd. 4 entitled "Street Design
Standards", to read:
A. Public Streets.
9. Street surface widths and other design
standards will be addressed in the City Handbook. Street right-
of-way widths shall be as shown in the Comprehensive Plan and
where not shown therein shall not be less than as follows:
Street Type
Principal Arterial
Intermediate Arterial
Minor Arterial
Community Collector
Neighborhood Collector
Local Access
Minimum
Right -of -Way Width
B. Private Streets.
150-300 feet
150-200 feet
100-150 feet
80 feet
66 feet
50 feet
5. Minimum width for private drives as
defined from face of curb to face of curb shall be as follows:
NUMBER.OF POTENTIAL TYPE OF MINIMUM WIDTH
/ UNITS SERVED STREET (FACE TO FACE)
(�• 4 or less No curb and gutter 12'
5 - 8 Concrete curb 20'
9 - 20 Concrete curb 24'
More than 20 Concrete curb and gutter 28'
Through Streets Concrete curb and gutter 28'
Section 4. Eagan City Code Section 13.30 entitled "Data and
Design Standards" is hereby amended by changing Subdivisions 5 and 6,
to read:
Subd. 5. Sidewalks and Trailways. Sidewalks and/or
trailways shall be installed in accordance with City Code
provisions and applicable policies.
Subd. 6. Easements.
A. Utility and drainage easements abutting public
street rights-of-way and adjacent properties and centered on rear
or side lot lines shall be at least, ten feet (101) wide or wider
as may be required by the City.
-2- K
c
0
B. Where a subdivision
area, water course, drainageway, channel
provided a storm water easement or
conforming substantially with the lines
incorporating elevations as required by
0
is traversed by a ponding
or stream there shall be
drainage right-of-way
of such water course and
the City.
C. Trails or pedestrian ways shall be shown as
Utrailways" on the final plat or as separate easements as the
City may direct.
D. All other easements of record and those
.required
iitasubdivision. to provide the required
utilities to service he
Section 5. Eagan City Code Section 13.30 entitled "Data and
Design Standards" is hereby amended by changing Subd. 9, to read:
Subd. 9. Building Locations and Elevations. (Refer to
_City Code Chapter 11 and the State Building Code adopted by
jreference in Chapter 4.)
Section 6. Eagan City Code Section 13.30 entitled "Data and
Design Standards" is hereby amended by changing Item 1 of Subparagraph
C of Subd. 15 entitled "Required Improvements", to read:
1. City -Installed Improvements. The
developer may request the City to install the improvements. The
developer shall submit a petition in the form prescribed by the
City to the City Engineer requesting said installations. The
Council may accept the petition and install the improvements and
assess the cost in accordance with City policy and Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429. This petition request shall include a
requested method of assessment spreading __�( erer__lot, front footage,
percentage ratios, etc). The applicant shall waive its rights to
any and all public hearings required and agree to the acceptance
of all costs associated with City -installed improvements provided
that all benefited properties are assessed. The City
installation of required improvements shall not provide for any
overall site grading, but rather, shall be limited to required
grading within dedicated easements and rights-of-way necessary to
perform the installation of future public dedicated services as
requested by the applicant.
Section 7. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General
Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code
Including Penalty for violation" and Section 13.99 entitled "Violation
a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect
upon its adoption and publication according to the law.
ATTEST:
CITY OF EAGAN
CITY COUNCIL
By:
Its Clerk Its Mayor
Date Ordinance Adopted:
Date Ordinance Published in the Eagan Chronicle:
-4- %11.
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -One
0
Packet
Council Meeting
46
APPOINTMENT OF ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION ALTERNATE
D. Appointment of Advisory Planning Commission Alternate --
Mr. Scott Merkley who was papointed in January of this year
as the Alternate for the Advisory Planning Commission has been
hired by the City of Eagan as an Engineering Aide and therefore
must resign as a member of the commission. Since interviews
for appointment to this position were held as lately as this
January, the City Council decided to again consider the unsuccessful
candidates for this position and made the present appointment
from that group. The Council will be supplied with ballots
at the meeting on Tuesday. The names of the candidates to be
considered are:
Vic Ellison, 1308 Carlson Lake Lane
Roy W. Taylor, Jr., 1368 Highsite Drive
James D. Wannigman, 3763 South Hills Drive
Copies of their letters of application were enclosed with the
packet for the March 27, 1984 special City Council meeting.
If any Councilmember would like additional copies of these memos,
please contact the City Administrator's office and copies will
be supplied.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To appoint the alternate
member to the Advisory Planning Commission to fill the unexpired
term of Scott Merkley. (The term of office expires as of December
31, 1984.)
III
0 0
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -Two
Packet
Council Meeting
PRELIMINARY PLAT/HOLMES ADDITION
A. Paul Holmes for Preliminary Plat, Holmes Addition, Containing
One Acre Consisting of Two Single -Family Lots -- A public hearing
was held before the Advisory Planning Commission at their February
28, 1984, regular meeting and then due to a continuance was
again considered at the March 27, 1984, APC meeting. The Advisory
Planning Commission is recommending approval of the application.
It should be noted that the Advisory Planning Commission spent
considerable time on this item reviewing the present and future
planning of the area, taking into consideration many of the
cost factors as to what will occur with future development around
the proposed preliminary plat. Upgrading streets and other
related improvements were considered as a part of the cost analysis.
For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's
report, a copy is enclosed on pages rZ6 through1:3 a For
a report of the Advisory Planning Commission action, eefer to
those minutes; a copy is enclosed on page(s) 13 - .
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the
preliminary plat entitled Holmes Addition containing one acre
consisting of two single-family lots.
Special Note: Enclosed on pages 13 S through I3 7 is a letter
from the City Attorney's office regarding this item.
III
0 0
CITY OF EAGAN
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT - HOLMES ADDITION
APPLICANT: PAUL HOLMES
LOCATION: PART OF THE NA OF THE NA OF SECTION 10
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DISTRICT)
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: FEBRUARY 28, 1984
DATE OF REPORT: FEBRUARY 21, 1984
REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER
APPLICATION SUBMITTED: An application has been submitted requesting
preliminary plat approval, Holmes Addition, consisting of approximate-
ly 1 acre and containing 2 single family lots located in part of the
NW4 of the NW's of Section 10, Parcel 10-01000-020-29 north of Quarry
Lane and Towerview Road.
COMMENTS
This parcel has been zoned previously to R-1 (Residential Single Dis-
trict) and would allow only single family homes to be developed. The
applicant has submitted an application to split this 1 -acre parcel in-
to two single family lots of which each lot would exceed the 12,000
square foot minimum requirement. Lot 1 would have a 90' lot width
and contain 15,888 square feet net area and Lot 2 would have approx-
imately 174' of frontage and contain 18,780 square feet of net area.
In review of this particular parcel, there appears to have been a high-
way easement granted across this property to provide access to the pro-
perty further to the east and south. In accordance with this easement,
it appears to encumber a 20' area across the front of the property and
run diagonally across the property on the westerly edge. To the south
of this property is a platted subdivision of which Towerview Road has
been dedicated as a half right-of-way. In review of this particular
subdivision, it appears that only a 50' right-of-way would be needed
because the street would only service one or two other properties due
to the location of LeMay's Lake. Therefore, this road is never expect-
ed to be upgraded past a residential street. Consequently, additional
right-of-way would not be required.
In review of this particular subdivision, there appears to be two is-
sues which should be reviewed in relation to this preliminary plat.
The first issue is in regard to a proposed shoreland ordinance. The
shoreland ordinance which the City has been working on for a number
of years is presently up for review by the Advisory Planning Commis-
sion. In this ordinance, it classifies LeMay's Lake as a recreational
development body of water and would require a 75' setback from the
17.0
CITY OF EAGAN
PRELIMINARY PLAT - HOLMES ADDITION
FEBRUARY 28, 1984
PAGE TWO
high water elevation once the ordinance is adopted. Presently, due to
the configuration of the property and the dedication of the road and
setbacks from the road and the lake, the applicant can only obtain a
50' setback vs. a 75' setback which would be required once the ordi-
nance is adopted. The City has been informed by the property owner
that they have reviewed this with the Department of Natural Resources,
and the Department of Natural Resources does not see a problem with
the 50' setback requirement as proposed.
The other issue regarding setbacks is in regard to the right-of-way
for Towerview Road. If the applicant dedicates the additional 20'
of right-of-way for Towerview Road, the applicant can then only meet
a 20' setback requirement instead of the required 301. The proposed
house is drawn in accordance with what is proposed to be built, and
a 10' setback variance would be required from this particular set-
back requirement.
The last issue in regard to this plat is that it is the Planning De-
partment's understanding that Lot 2 would require a lift station or
pump in order to get access to sanitary sewer for this particular
lot. The applicant is aware of this, and this would be a requirement
if the plat is approved. Also, presently Towerview Road is not up-
graded to its potential, and the one additional house requires that
the applicant petition to upgrade Towerview Road to its ultimate de-
sign as a'residential street, or since only one additional dwelling
unit is being constructed, that the upgrading would not have to occur
at this particular time. This will be an engineering decision and.a
recommendation as to how this -street should be addressed.
If approved, the preliminary plat should be subject to the following
conditions:
1) Adequate rights-of-way be dedicated for Towerview Road.
2) A 10' front setback variance be granted for Lot 1 and 2 of the
proposed plat.
3) The plat be reviewed by the Department of Natural Resources for
their comments.
4) A park dedication shall be required as requested by the Advisory
Park Commission.
5) All other applicable ordinances be adhered to.
DCR/jach
1 ;�k
CITY OF EAGAN
PRELIMINARY PLAT - HOLMES ADDITION
FEBRUARY 28, 1984
PAGE THREE
ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
6) A detailed grading and erosion control plan will be required
to be submitted for approval.
7) Public improvements shall be extended along Towerview Road
east of Quarry Lane.
8) A turnaround shall be provided at the end of Towerview Road.
9) The existing 20' easement shall be dedicated as public right-
of-way,for Towerview Road.
10) A ponding easement shall be required to be dedicated to en-
compass the high water elevation of LeMay's Lake.
11) This development shall be responsible for trunk area water
and storm sewer assessments at the rate in effect at the
time of final platting.
12) All costs associated with public improvements shall be the
sole responsibility of this development.
13) All easements shall be dedicated as required by staff in the
Engineering Report.
RMH/jach I-
0 9
MEMO TO: THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE,
CITY PLANNER
FROM: RICHARD M. HEFTI, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1984
SUBJECT: HOLMES ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT
The Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works has the
following comments regarding this proposed development for consid-
eration by the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council.
TOPOGRAPHY/DRAINAGE
The existing topography over this proposed development consists of
a side hill sloping to the northeast and LeMay's Lake from an ele-
vation of approximately 908 at the southwest corner of this propos-
ed development to a normal water level of 873 at LeMay's Lake. This
amounts to an average slope of 188. Subsequently, drainage over
this development is to the northeast towards LeMay's Lake. LeMay's
Lake is designated as Pond DP -2 on the City's Master Storm Sewer
Comprehensive Plan and also has a positive outlet control. Further-
more, LeMay's Lake is designated as a DNR protected water. Subse-
quently, staff recommends a detailed grading and erosion control
plan be submitted for approval.
UTILITIES
Sanitary sewer and water main are located within the intersection
of Towerview Road and Quarry Lane. However, due to the drop in ele-
vation resulting from the existing topography, it is not possible
to serve Lot 2 with a gravity sanitary sewer service line. There-
fore,.it will be necessary for the owner of this lot to provide a
pump to overcome the elevation difference to dispose of his waste
water. Gravity sanitary sewer service can be provided for Lot 1
provided the basement elevation is no lower than an elevation of
901.
In accordance with City policy, this development will be required
to extend sanitary sewer and water main to the east end of Towerview
Road. This work shall be accomplished in accordance with the City's
Engineering Guidelines.
STREETS
Existing streets providing access to this development consist of
Towerview Road. Towerview Road is a City residential street which
has not yet been improved to City standards east of Pilot Knob Road.
Subsequently, as a condition of final platting, this development
shall provide for the upgrading of Towerview Road to City standards
I �3
ENGINEERING REPORT
HOLMES ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT
FEBRUARY 23, 1984
PAGE TWO
east of Quarry Lane. Furthermore, since right-of-way has been dedi-
cated by easement.to the City, a cul-de-sac should be provided for
turn around purposes at the end of Towerview Road in order to pro-
vide for City maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles. Unfortu-
nately, in this instance, no feasible method of looping this road-
way exists which necessitates the cul-de-sac.
RIGHT-OF-WAY/EASEMENTS
The current 20 -foot highway easement for Towerview Road over this
parcel shall be dedicated as public right-of-way.
A 10 -foot utility easement will be required to be dedicated adjacent
all publicly -dedicated right-of-way with a 5' drainage and utility
easement being dedicated adjacent all lot lines. In addition, a
ponding easement shall be dedicated to encompass the high water ele-
vation of LeMay's Lake. An additional easement will be required to
provide the cul-de-sac at the end of Towerview Road.
ASSESSMENTS
This development will be responsible for trunk area water assess-
ments and trunk area storm sewer assessments. These amounts shall
be determined by applying the area rates for each in effect at the
time of final plat approval times the net area of this development.
At 1984 rates, based on net area as shown on the preliminary plat,
this would amount to the following:
Trunk area storm sewer - 30,000 sf X $0.045/sf = $1,350.00
Trunk water main - 0.69 acres X $1,120/Ac = 773.00
The final assessment amount will be determined from the net area of
Block 1 on the final plat using the rates in effect at the time of
the final plat approval.
All costs associated with installing the public improvements will be
the sole responsibility of this development.
I will be available to discuss any aspect of this report in detail
with the Advisory Planning Commission at the February 28, 1984 meet-
ing.
Respectfully/
Richard Ms!6��Jc�it"Gnitted,
/.-HHe di, P.E.
Assistant City Engineer
RMH/jack
SPUR -2
COON Y
CLUB
i
\ H 3 —
r 0SH N2
f
FMAA
'.EHND
i i
'15
u
ACR
SCHOO
KT:ub,D-7
PAR KI
Subject Parcel
C-18
/x_17 I r -T-1
I
O
N d
PARK I ��
N .l /
OME TE=S
D-1
FIGURE
311G {02NCD)
zry� ` F—
SU/R ECFroT 1� SAL
/ HE
I,
�IST � / 1 I o-19
SERVICE
D-13
0 D-29
1
tz�--y11�i1{tr�
11I
u
ACR
SCHOO
KT:ub,D-7
PAR KI
Subject Parcel
C-18
/x_17 I r -T-1
I
O
N d
PARK I ��
N .l /
OME TE=S
D-1
FIGURE
311G {02NCD)
zry� ` F—
SU/R ECFroT 1� SAL
/ HE
I,
�IST � / 1 I o-19
SERVICE
D-13
0 D-29
1
i
OI ill \lam_ b.
2 /
— - —LONE m -OAK - 7 - RD - -
- e— --- 25.3 -254/ -
o \
ji
I
I'
WET TAP
Co
o 11911
u Y 0
N .IW
N
W
TOWER /IEW /_I t `F
MR
OUARRI LANE
I
i
I
I
1
JI1
W
(L +'
LEMAY LAME .—
i
Subject parcel\
+427\ �T-
FIGURE 2
SEE
15
I
I
�
l
' L'c h1A'i 1 •
) II
!3
I !1
�FUT
URE BUILDINGScale: V = 20'
SITE PgGP4gEA
HOUSE ® Soil Boring Location
Bench hark: Nail in tree south
of proposed house
Elevation = 906.0
—F GEC JOB NO: 3580 i
1 (louse corners .
'staked (6)
' I1 � )
• 7nwnrview Riad
i ` ` \ \ /hlt : 1?>w••]� Crn+B rY..,c. nc..1 Or T,lc ru.. �..
�• \ \ /J89'44'ZS" E `•"^..� 13A,ib 3.IAL L BC Ylnw[b It• .
I
\ 98 \ ao110 Is
17
LE MAY 5 LAKE
' \`` \ ��--_ _ =61-5% `\P� \` ..,/`�L'/C _ /�•.., 4.� ,., ,.✓n.l...l Alj.n
J,0 di -
,// // Cp�.GJ �) 1 /�, �`�� .• /1\\ � ` � QIP
•8: -LOT-�- 3 `, LOT --2__
\ ` Fnn�KC-"-^ "� p Jo :�,. 1-knFc�:CD .. � • � \ \1
a�
o�
r\ 439.00
'Ki�Hw�- Eas y-EDot- ss0"v \ li
�A'�
rim lir . _..
♦ep vov.,e`. 589? 44' 26�� W ,
to
1.0 .199.k \
�TOWERV�EW ROAD \ \` M
P
3 CL
3
d z
° � a
P P
(;PAnimn PI AN - Hni PJAFS PADDITION
4IA
S`io4ZB��E
' 2 (o4.
o0
u
Y I
h�EII` i
LE MAYS LAKE
-
I I b'
Jr,urY E:A=CMC�JT
Q ,D
Loo
0 0�
°� LOT 1 LOT 2 ��
i Z I ll O E,o !Q. Fr. w 2t,, 47`1 . Fr. 1 s
N
rl Y
I L
V
!� 4
V N fI
? 1J
HIC.1-4 WA Ea. SF.M.F�I! �[ro. •�� 5l1e799� c
IL, j7-1 r
1 •I 2mn no
TOWERVIEW ROAD
HOLMES ADDITION
N. We 1/4 SEC. 10. 7
1.
q
•'4_
O��
YJ
010-20 a
NO.
26 �*+'
010-27
�_' � tet•
SUBJECT'PARCEL
1
i —T \'• F v�
- 020--29
•, S
I '
V;79VIFW Doe. NO. 424007 - r...
JaC.NO SSfiN00 ...
Kulau ooc. No 402203 _
0I0-30 I :020-30 030-50
i -
000-30 1 030-30 1 ` 040-30
j
_••. olleawv r_..
P�
I I
032-31
1W
'< l/ 033-31
T` -
u..' 1 'f
77
-R-III
GE
Iib UBJECT CrE
•... .. , Ind: -
'Ind. ... .
1V/
- -
-- Ind.
RN
F
R_I - R-111 RB R -III
R•III
R1 - R41 CSC/GB/L
R -III R -III I R-!
_•tel - E -\ P
P
RJI P E Til - R -II
R -II _
R-11 p RI
R-
L R -III LB
�g '�R-f. ••�'`.. ^"". CSC - R-�-
F
U l� Lg - R6 OLI - R-1
P R-1
c R-1 R -I P �.••� F
R-1 GOLF i o A•
R-11
- I R-1 R-11 -1'".P
R-11 wen•ao,t.. w. '
� P I _ r^5 P
- - -
�3G --LE VGLLEY •) ROSE N9J'
APC Minutes
March 27, 1984
HOLMES ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT
The continued public hearing regarding the application of Paul Holmes for
preliminary plat approval of proposed Holmes Addition consisting of approxi-
mately 1 acre, intending to include two single family lots, located near the
intersection of Quarry Lane and Towerview Road, was convened by Chairman Wold.
Dale Runkle reviewed the application that had been continued from the last
meeting and noted that the Planning Commission had requested additional infor-
mation regarding the upgrading of Towerview Road, adjacent to the subdivision.
Mr. Hefti stated that the staff had researched the status of Towerview Road,
east of Quarry Lane, and noted that a bituminous mat and concrete curbing are
in place along the south portion of Towerview Road at that location, adjacent
to the Ed Reid property. The recommendation of the engineering department
would be to upgrade the public improvements within Towerview Road to city
standards in front of Holmes Addition, but that an alternate would be to
escrow funds for future improvements.
City Attorney Paul Hauge also reviewed several alternates, including the
upgrading of the street, improvement of only that portion of Towerview Road in
front of the Holmes Addition, escrowing funds sufficient for the future up-
grading, no upgrading and simply acquiring necessary easement right-of-way, or
the potential for a homeowners agreement amongst the property owners to the
east for maintenance of Towerview Road in that location. Mark Tompkins and
Paul Holmes were present and requested that the road area be released from any
requirement for public improvements. Ed Reid was also present as were other
owners to the east. Mr. Holmes also objected to the requirement for an
escrow.
There were'questions from the Planning Commission members as to what
areas would be assessed for benefit purposes and it was noted the estimated
cost was about $8,200.00 for water main and street improvements. Jerry Rogers
appeared and was concerned about long-term costs for improvement of the hill
to the east. Member Wilkins was concerned about improving the street to Pilot
Knob Road at the present time and indicated that the property owners objected
to that type of improvement. The main issue was whether to recommend upgrad-
ing at the present time or in the future and provide for assessments in the
future. Mr. Hefti indicated it would be difficult to get approval of the
property owners in Holmes Addition for future upgrading after the platting is
completed, and further noted the high cost of maintenance for gravel surfaced
streets. Wilkins moved, Mulrooney seconded the motion to recommend approval
of the application for preliminary plat approval, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Adequate right-of-way shall be dedicated for Towerview Road as
determined by the City.
2. A 10 foot front setback variance shall be granted for Lots 1 and 2
of the proposed plat.
133
q
APC Minutes
March 27, 1984
3. The plat shall be reviewed by the Department of natural Resources
for their comments.
4. Park dedication shall be provided as requested by the Advisory Park
Commission.
5. All other applicable ordinances shall be adhered to.
6. A detailed grading and erosion control plan shall be required to be
submitted for approval.
7. An adequate turnaround shall be provided at the end of Towerview
Road.
8. The existing 20 foot easement shall be dedicated as public right-of-
way for Towerview Road.
9. A ponding easement shall be required to be dedicated to encompass
the high water elevation of LeMay's Lake.
10. This development shall be responsible for trunk area water and storm
sewer asssessments at the rate in effect at the time of final platting.
11. All costs associated with public improvements shall be the sole
responsibility of this development.
12. All easements shall be dedicated as required by staff in the Engi-
neering Report.
13. No public improvements shall be extended along Towerview Road east
of Quarry Lane at the present time, but at such time as Towerview Road, west
of Quarry Lane is improved, the roadway adjacent to Holmes Addition, shall be
upgraded and the benefit shall be assessed.
All voted in favor except Wold, who voted no, indicating he supported the
City policy as to the improvements.
13 �}
3
s •
HAUGr•., Smrm. EIDE & I{ELI.En. P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS
3DO8 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 58122
PAUL H. HALIDE
BRADLEY SMITH
KEVIN W. EIDE
DAVID G. KELLER
Mr. Thomas A. Colbert
Public Works Director
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
March 27, 1984
Re: Proposed Holmes Addition Street Improvements
Dear Tom:
AREA CODE 612
TELEPHONE 434.4224
You have asked for suggestions relating to alternatives that the City Council
and Advisory Planning Council could require the developer of the proposed
Holmes Addition in respect to the roadway which is the easterly end of
Towerview Road south of LeMay Lake. The application was first heard on
February 28, 1984, and the public hearing was continued until March 27, 1984.
Several factors will influence the ultimate decision of the City Council
concerning the improvement of Towerview Road in the vicinity of the Holmes
Addition.
1. A public hearing was held several years ago for the proposed improvement
of Towerview Road westerly to Pilot Knob Road but at that time the property
owners objected to the improvement and it is my understanding that the
improvement was not installed and therefore that portion of Towerview west
of the Holmes Addition has a gravel surface.
2. An earlier preliminary plat application was partially processed by the
City several years ago by Lynn Thiele and the same issues arose but that
final plat was not completed.
3. It is my understanding that the roadway immediately adjacent to Holmes
Addition has a bituminous surface that was installed by the City at the
request of the property owner to the south, Ed Reid, but that this does not
meet City standards.
4. There are at least two residential homes lying along the extended Towerview
private road to the east and it is possible in the near future that one or
both of those parcels will be subdivided and residential homes be built.
5. Holmes Addition would contain only two lots and according to the grading
plan in the packet material there is a highway easement document no. 536799
covering 20 feet on the southerly boundary of the Holmes Addition which
apparently has already been dedicated at an earlier time.
13T
J
J� c
Mr. Colbert • •
March 27, 1984
Page Two
6. The City policy requires public streets to be upgraded to City standards
at the time of approval of residential plats. The City will have to decide
if this portion of Towerview is upgraded whether Towerview to the west should
also be upgraded, whether the portion to the east should be upgraded, and
further whether the half right-of-way on the south side adjacent to the Fd
Reid property should be upgraded and assessed.
Several of the alternates have become quite obvious but they could include
the following:
1. The City could require upgrading of part or all of Towerview Road and
assess costs against the benefitted property. I would assume that there
would be strong objections from several of the neighboring property owners
and particularly those to the east where I don't believe the City has an
easement. In addition, in order to acquire an easement by long continued
use, the City would have had to have maintained the street for at least six
years and it is my understanding that the City has not maintained that easterly
portion of Towerview Road.
2. The City could require improvement of only that portion of Towerview
Road in front of Holmes Addition and therefore accept whatever easement is
yet necessary and assess the benefit against the developer and potentially
the Reid property to the south, if that portion is improved. However,
there is a setback for assessment purposes and I believe that the Reid
property accesses to the west and therefore a portion of the assessment along
the north side of the Reid property would be exempt from special assessments
because it is a corner lot.
3. The City could allow Holmes Addition to be platted, require the dedicated
easement, and not require upgrading of that portion of Towerview Road but
require that an escrow be posted with the City in a permanent road fund to cover
the potential cost of that portion of the improvements. This would mean that
the owners to the east might need a private easement over the Holmes
Addition street easement area if the street is within the right-of-way, but
if that road has been used continuously for at least 15 years openly and
hostily, the owners to the east would have gained an easement over the driven
roadway. I believe the latter is true and I would assume that there are no
written easements to the property owners to the east. I'm not certain, however,
how the maintenance of the private roadway has been done.
4. Another option that is not very practical is to not require an easement
over the Holmes Addition property for street purposes and possibly not
require the escrowing of necessary funds for road improvement purposes. In
any event, the developer may not be willing or able to post a sufficient
escrow for the road improvements which, of course, in the normal fashion would
be assessed over the period of at least ten years.
I36
0 0
Mr. Colbert
March 27, 1984
Page Three
5. There has been some suggestion that there be a homeowner's agreement
entered into by homeowners in the vicinity, particularly to the south and
east. It is very difficult for the City to impose a requirement for a
homeowner's association type of agreement where those owners to the east
are not in the process of developing. The difficulty is that if the property owners
farthest east intend to subdivide their property, they would then need
access to Towerview and may have some difficulty acquiring right-of-way
through the property owners' private property. It may then become an
issue of whether an easement by long, continued use has been acquired if the
middle property owner is not willing to directly grant an easement.
As you can see, there are several choices that the Planning Commission and
Council can use and I will be happy to explore more fully any one,of these
if you wish.
"Very truly yours,
PAvI H. Hauge
City Attorney - City of Eagan
M71
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -Three
0
Packet
Council Meeting
E
PRELIMINARY PLAT/SUNSET FIFTH ADDITION
B. Lexington South Associates, For Preliminary Plat, Sunset
5th Addition --- At the March 6, 1984, City Council meeting,
the preliminary plat application of Sunset 5th Addition, as
recommended for approval by the Advisory Planning Commission,
was reviewed. The developer's representative was unable to
attend the meeting and upon a brief review by the City Council,
a concern was raised about providing direct driveway access
onto Dodd Road with the potential for a future public street
along the future side lot, mainly access to the future church
property. As a result of this discussion,. it was the action
of the City Council that the preliminary plat for Sunset 5th
Addition be sent back to the Advisory Planning Commission for
further review. At the last regular meeting of the Advisory
Planning Commission held on March 27, 1984, the reconsideration
of the preliminary plat for Sunset 5th Addition was approved.
For additional information on this item, refer to the Director
of Public Works' report to the Advisory Planning Commission;
a copy is enclosed on pages 1101 through J!+h. For additional
information regarding the action taken by the Advisory Planning
Commission, refer to those minutes found on pages 1,+ L4oeetjir
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM:
preliminary plat for Sunset 5th Addition.
112
To approve or deny the
MEMO TO: ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MARCH 13, 1984
SUBJECT: SUNSET 5TH ADDITION - RECONSIDERATION OF
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
On March 6, 1984, the City Council formally reviewed the preliminary
plat application of the Sunset 5th Addn..as recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission on February 28. Due to a conflict,
the developer's representative was unable to attend that Council
meeting to present his application. Normally, the City Council
continues those items where the developer or his representative
is not able to be present at the Council meeting. However,
the City Council had serious concerns pertaining to this proposed
two -lot subdivision providing direct driveway access onto Dodd
Road (a community collector) with a potential for a future public
street along the future side lot (north line of plat) of a future
single-family lot without this public right-of-way being of
record or even reviewed to determine if that is the most appropriate
location.
Subsequently, in light of a motion to formally deny this plat
application, the City Council voted to send this back to the
Planning Commission for more detailed review of this proposed
development in relationship to the overall future development
of this area of the Lexington South PUD. The Council felt that
more detailed analysis and review of the potential future develop-
ment of this area might indicate a different configuration for
development.
I have reviewed these concerns with the developer's representative,
Mr. Brad Swenson, and Mr. Jim Curry of the Lexington South PUD.
They have indicated that they will look at a proposed development
scheme for this area and how it may impact or compliment the
proposed Sunset 5th Addition and also reviewing the proposed
configuration and location of the parcel designated for church
just north of the proposed Sunset 5th Addition.
Therefore, the City Council would like the Planning Commission
to perform a more in depth review of the overall area before
the merits of this small subdivision can be reviewed and subsequent-
ly approved.
If any Planning Commission member would like further clarification
in regards to this issue, please feel free to contact me.
Respectfu y submitted,
,ori
omas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works 1%3q
cc: Dale Runkle, City Planner
Richard Hefti, Assistant City Engineer
o r;+-,, rnnnri i r /n ri *v nrimi ni St rAtnr TTr /YF
0
-C 40. - Rd . .11 0. .. ---
"T
:T
ti
YORkjcw-j PLPciL
. %�"bA
00-0- v P1010
PERTIO ...
9:D
cz
LU
in co,
Z as
(Toft
Tb -f
PERTIO ...
9:D
APC Minutes
March 27, 1984
0 0
SUNSET 5TH ADDITION - PRELDQNARY PLAT
Mr. Runkle indicated the City Council formally reviewed the preliminary
plat application of Joseph Hoffman for the approval of Sunset 5th Addition at
the Council's meeting on March 6, 1984. The Council had serious concerns
pertaining to direct driveway access onto Dodd Road with the potential for a
future side lot along the single family lot and no committed public right-of-
way, being of record or even reviewed, to determine if this is the most
appropriate location. There were questions about access to Dodd Road, whether
an easement would be provided over the property to the north and access to the
remainder of the Lexington South property to the west. Brad Swenson appeared
for the applicant and explained the proposal for the development of the land
to the west and the proposed moving of the church location. There were
concerns about additional access points on to Dodd Road, but it was proposed
that turn-arounds on each individual lot be provided. Mr. Swenson indicated
that the property owner to the north would agree to a 60 foot easement north
of the 5th Addition. There was no written committment from Lexington South as
to the 60 foot easement. After extended discussion, Wold moved, Wilkins
seconded the motion to recommend to the Council the following:
1. That each lot in the 5th Addition would be allowed an individual
access with an interior turn -around.
2. That the surroundingland uses appear to warrant the location for an
access road to the north on to Dodd Road.
3. The Planning Commission reaffirms the approval of the conditions for
approval of the preliminary plat.
4. That the preliminary plat be conditioned upon written committment
from the owner to the north, that it will convey a 60 foot road easement.
All voted in favor.
141
4
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -Four
0
Packet
Council Meeting
SIDE SETBACK VARIANC
0
BERON FIRST ADDITION
C. J. E. Parranto Associates For A 20 -Foot Side Setback Variance
for Lot 26, Block 1, Tiberon 1st Addition --, An application
for a side setback variance was presented to the City by J.
E. Parranto Associates requesting 20 feet for Lot 6, Block 1,
Tiberon 1st Addition. The City Planner has reviewed the side
setback variance and a copy of his report is found on pages
14 3 through /.4 &
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the
side setback variance as requested by J. E. Parranto Associates.
0
CITY OF EAGAN
0
SUBJECT: VARIANCE, LOT 26, BLOCK 1, TIBERON 1ST ADDN.
APPLICANT: J. E. PARRANTO & ASSOC.
LOCATION: LOT 26, BLOCK 1, TIBERON IST ADDN.
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 PD (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DISTRICT
UNDER A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: APRIL 3, 1984
DATE OF REPORT: MARCH 30, 1984
REPORTED BY: DALE C RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER
APPLICATION SUBMITTED: An application has been submitted requesting
a 20 ft. side setback variance along Johnny Cake Ridge Road
for Lot 26, Block 1, Tiberon 1st Addition.
COMMENTS
In review of the original application submitted in February,
1983, the applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat and
an overall schematic as to how homes would be located on the
individual lots. In this drawing submitted, the applicant was
proposing to locate a home within 30 ft. of the right-of-way
line of Johnny Cake Ridge Addition or 56 ft. from the curb of
Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Normally on a collector street of this
nature, a 40 ft. setback is required but this is a 50 ft. setback
which would be required in accordance with the right-of-way
width for Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Therefore, there is a discrepancy
between the submission and what the text and condition of the
planned development agreement, which indicates that all side
setbacks shall be met with this particular development.
In review of this site plan, it appears that some shifting could
be done in order to fit a home on Lot 26 and more closely meet
the setback requirement than what is proposed.
The Council will have to determine if, in fact, the exhibit
submitted with the planned development should rule,or the language
of the planned development which indicates that all side yard
setbacks shall be met with this overall plat. If approved, the
variance shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall meet
side setback requirement from
2. All other setbacks shall be
requirements shall be adhered
DCR/jj
IA3
as closely as possible the
Johnny Cake Ridge Road.
met and all other ordinance
to.
0 0
SIGMA \
SURVEYING Sketch Plan For:
ss
SERVICES J.E. PARRANTO ASSOC.
3908 Stbley MemoraI Highway
Eagan, Mtnneaata 55122
Phone: (612) 4523077
assssssssa
(• 24 I 50
ti
50I _ _ _-N69°59'18'E
--I
Fr—_ ___—___� I
50
LOT 26I c O
d ,r• • d W
lO)
u L0.I. 25 I �`
3
?d '
C t a owe. i I • p
p- OC
i I e
z�{'� A----' rn W
1.ad Y
e — — — 'S67°14' 7"W 85.00'' R
oss..r. ewe
_ V I
I �I WOOD6ATE LANE
. c
h T.
O
-N- N�.,j s6w6fy n/LL fvoS
Stale; I"= 40
1 hereby amity thal thf. mwoy,
plan or tepon was prnxff d by me
or undm my dined euo0rvf+lon and
that I am a duly Ro,;wnpd Land
Surveyor under the Iowa of tho
S:mo of MIA3,0:00a.
Waym 'N.,:0 Realet.a' 0n tlo. 1467.
�q�
A C,
100
P 'A "R K
;Olb
EASEMENT per'Bk. 62 M.R. Pg. 43 ei
la
.-Caw" - Easemerl?Pell - Doc No. 409629'11�-
989.81
20
4
J6J6J6
J6
0
25'
0
i14 15 7a0pa
16
WOODGATE---'�
%N89044 37"E 201.47'
Ft
�=3470511
4=2?03dOo
A R
R-4
////A
.11 Lll
810;:01010',;
81-4
' �►%� r
P
a
R-4
�. dW
r,ja
[0
1
rc.v .
V��1 "
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -Five
0
Packet
Council Meeting
0
SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE/ROLF F. ANDERSON
D. Rolf F. Anderson for a 2 -Foot Side Setback Variance for
Lot 11, Block 1, wilderness Run 6th Addition -- An application
was received by the City from Rolf F. Anderson requesting a
2 -foot side setback variance on his property described as Lot
11, Block 1, Wilderness Run 6th Addition. The City Planner
has reviewed the application and enclosed on pages )+ 4S through
Jrj) is a copy of a memorandum regarding the variance request.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the
side setback variance as requested by Rolf F. Anderson.
/47
0 0
CITY OF EAGAN
SUBJECT: VARIANCE
APPLICANT: RALPH F ANDERSON
LOCATION: LOT 11, BLOCK 1, WILDERNESS RUN 6TH ADDN.
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DISTRICT)
17A@Ago]�:1)00too,lOf" 1z[eig
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORTED BY:
APRIL 3, 1984
MARCH 30, 1984
DALE C RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER
APPLICATION SUBMITTED: An application has been sibmitted requesting
a 2 ft. side setback variance on Lot 11, Block 1, Wilderness
Run 6th Addition.
COMMENTS
In a survey that was done, it was determined that a house and
garage located on Lot 11, Block 1, Wilderness Run 6th Addition
did not meet the side setback requirement of 5 feet from
the garage to the property line. The owner of the home is now
requesting that a 2 ft. side setback variance be granted in
order that he can clear title to his home and property if he
would ever sell the. property. It is staff's understanding that
the builder of the home is paying for this variance request,
and that the applicant or owner of the home would like to obtain
this 2 ft. side setback variance because of title problem.
The home is existing and the City's option would be to have
the applicant move the garage or grant the 2 ft. side setback
variance. If approved,_ the variance should be subject .to the
following conditions.
1. All other City ordinances shall be adhered to.
DCR/jj
1413
0
LeC�AL Pr IQ
Lor 11 BLOC*- 1 ,
iLDE%�.lESS �;, � 5; xtN Am+ii�
9g.00.
N ` \\\
11
a
1
30 = I
1 /33
"\
25=
1q• A
SCALE S l�� ao�-O'
L41
ISi(o,
I rt
ci
Ix PF
17 in.
R -I
0
s
IAV ►11
�1M
_ mat IM:�'
m���....... 11...xNoto
Oil man rc
. _
� 7 , WwAs
PF
PF
. ^:N
0
s
IAV ►11
�1M
_ mat IM:�'
m���....... 11...xNoto
Oil man rc
. _
� 7 , WwAs
PF
0
Acc
PK
PF
R -I '
R -I
PF
.J"
PARKVIEW
GOLF
COURSE
,"�•. ;
ISO
0
Acc
PK
�. m .,. qe �,•�„�,.'s.�.:,e. ;.Ie'. .� , �..:.. ..,�•�' - l,.Fq� .... _ ;t• _ •CPP�SON_. r�--d- �?;L.
_ • •mlfC Q�°..- •• �� S :::T ~Te+rn SIT 1: / :6._ ” 1q �.n• ro.q : , tl^ %.
•#•gym A�� Y / mo .n_. _i,,, ..L., ..'.. 1..r ...• 7 I
.A '..� S 1 ' .. r7b, 6'• �• � 7 "' � _ � J Q�Jf - t � ,y, •on•• (� �'_ L .• n. .���r�.� _� I
V bit^ `. •Yo. w', / f, %'
�NYBRO��g11S :!J' �,w .'SOyg \� +. •• - /v_ =�� Se ,�.: � ,•t�ys6 -9''v 1,' ��. , .' '. Y • 1 `�fv'i/..a•.f
CIRCLE K �•'b-� A , —�, R-1 .,e ' =n '•..t'•.. ,�' •• • u.. tt rl Y
4 '♦ (n Ojai •�' tnl• - �^' .r . i nn•� t
y ry {. -}'C• :� A, J•• `
�� - 7 t q • t . t.'` e7 �! L a ,I a +_ {� epi °" `v i a: Z
• ��•e• m , 8 I •,'• OV I + t.. •r- Ri Y • S e m .°, I It • . �•'+. \ 7 ��
„�,�'•434 �o R7 � { �, � .1 \a I•••rfe'I - •:t Jw i(,•1 e
.' t� � • � ylp-{ aj � IIS ---__ _ � � E Nf �e J��i �I �. •'N �• / s CA
NN
•,�.,,y� : w � /i J, '% I,fI .. C Ia a•+r r.. yy '�A't Al � yj ,
:• n �e ;a IInm •wn�_v; • - I -•...I„ /f Ii•/{� S�� •Y. ,�� • ,w'�•••i •- ..._�{tn y`d a: .v1.n• 87•;S• � iS,7 Y!1 y®„
i I OYALYQpr A wLH
CIRCI -_
➢
,•'�• .;Z let
r •e^ •��•Li•/ :�. _ en_i,
s
C I'0.�. _ il.u��' . Li•-T•ii''� • SI 1 ylV Q 8"•:' '^l o'.
7 mj Teams '.f d ®' t i,. ,�9 �pro•/ �r
j. ■ • II ^m w owl v • n..Qj. ., V �i . y nm •i 6a I .vr'.�
' { �rwv4• � +L 1. 1;ice. r ,Lt; _. -5i» �7 f q• �YI L ..,_,
II —___ r11�e. _. y / ei •'��~ c:1 P— "/•, r� � �}'1V 4 � � � �'gY O Y 8t .
1-••�°•+� � ,:� �I ;, / r� NORTH ,..w MALMO • I•LAN'E 1
'� IB • .y,' b, BIW,` nn wuu nm •nV -
v gym- •�=, \ ; � . .ASS (� .,m � � � I 5P
it
am �s lt • t r ..• DUNROVIN e , ._ _ c r: •.�e:,�: a DUNROVIN LANE
• A amu. n ••" V'^^ +
w'r� � Ot p//i {l �,:� � � O � k;�.e LY,j Q } Q ` tI � � � iy - o I I • , G -
V
p Q •6ytf7 tl_ ••r•n i Y .. ... Sj i �• V •� i 4I5 • .. ....I
•n
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Twenty -Six
Final Plat/Fawn Ridge
A. Final Plat Approval - Fawn Ridge (Countryside Builders)
-- After this item had been scheduled for consideration by the
Council at the April 3 meeting, continued research by the Public
Works Director has revealed that the required financial security
for this subdivision has not yet been formally approved by the
financial institution. Subsequently, without a firm financial
security being made available, the staff is recommending that
this item be continued to allow the developer to submit the
necessary securities that are required for final plat approval.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To continue indefinitely
the final plat application for the Fawn Ridge Addition as submitted
by Countryside Builders, Inc.
15a:
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Twenty -Seven
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/WESTBURY ADDITION
B. Final Plat Approval - Westbury Addition (Gabbert Development)
-- We have received a request for final plat approval for the
Westbury Addition from Gabbert Development, Inc. The first
phase of this addition is in compliance with the preliminary
plat approved by Council action on January 17, 1984. All
required final plat appication fees, development contract agree-
ments, grading plans, etc., have been submitted, reviewed and
approved by staff and found to be in order for favorable considera-
tion by the City Council.
The only remaining requirement is the Council approval of installa-
tion of street and utilities under a City project/contract.
If the public hearing for Project 396, as scheduled earlier
on the agenda, is approved by Council action and the improvements
ordered for installation, it would then be in order for the
Council to give final plat approval for this subdivision.
Enclosed on page 19is a copy of the proposed final plat
for the Council's In ormation.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: If Project 396 is approved,
approve the final plat for the Westbury Addition and authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents.
11503
—�P
WESTBURY FIRST
YJW n/ JIIIII Mlrnpr .r. .Nn. IWr
• �nrrY l\ J W Grl n Yr.�tgul
1
rIr + r«r 1. Jrl•, rl«r u«mr Im•a J. w
JIJ Yr 1.1 Iln.. W Y rJl m .IYn w .0 nJr
«I.J IIJ., alr.r nlp WIJ pr s Ya /Irl.
1.us�wr+�•rwu
G r\.
Yynnr 1/I p Idr nM
9 I.nll^ r J Y J«M
YY GO'.Ir4n In . ,
� Ypuw li 4bu Gw.
LOCATION NAP
1 III
OH
Q-0
L �'
A
u
J[
I[
e
IT
61
DELMAR R.SCRWANZ
LANE) SUhVETONS, INC
r i nr i cwrcr5
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -Eight
0
Packet
Council Meeting
0
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/SUPERAMERICA
C. Final Plat Approval - Super America Addition (Ashland Oil)
-- We have received an application for final plat approval of
the Super America Addition located on the southwest corner of
Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road. Enclosed on page
15(2 is a copy of the proposed final plat for the Council's
information.
All conditions placed on the most recent extension of the preli-
minary plat acted upon by the Council in June of 1983, have been
complied with. All final plat application requirements, fees,
development contract agreements, etc., have been submitted,
reviewed and approved by staff and found to be in order for
favorable consideration by the Council.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve/deny the final
plat application for the SuperAmerica Addition as submitted
by Ashland Oil, Inc., and, if approved,' authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute all related documents.
155
L COUNTY ROAD N0. 2B
[YANKEE DOODLE ROAD)
ti
1 I
a I j:
( 1.....8 .mm Q
tA
, a I-. rrm•or.m ..nr I
SUPERAMERICA
JI
II
Z
I
I
-I I
I
's
W
<•
!Lt
ix
I
:<
ap!Li
IA
-
e u avlMI . y
,i�)�i N.•iw Y .O.1 .:li Y� � ••.ms vlc hl
ADDITION
touudo ■..uad lGurvoeyliva Im
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -Nine
C�
Packet
Council Meeting
11
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/BERKSHIRE PONDS
D. Final Plat Approval, Berkshire Ponds (Derrick Land Company)
-- we have received an application for final plat approval for
the Berkshire Ponds Addition located between Galaxie Avenue
and I -35E south of Cliff Road. Enclosed on page /S g is a
copy of the proposed plat for the Council's information.
The final plat application conforms with the preliminary plat
approved by Council action on January 17, 1984. All conditions
placed on that preliminary approval have been complied with
and all final plat application requirements have been received,
reviewed and approved by staff and found to be in order for
favorable consideration by the City Council.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve/deny the final
plat application for Berkshire Ponds as submitted by Derrick
Land Company and, if approved, authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute all related documents.
iS-7
VQ
m
BERKSHIRE PONDS
ADDRESS PLAN
•
•
CONSTRUCTION PEDIS FOR
SANITARY SEWER. WATERMAIN.
STORM SEWER. AND STREET
I
CONSTRUCTION FOR BERSNIRE
i
.
FONDS. EAGAN. MINNESOTA.
WE, .Y
I
,.( WE, . YIW,(..,.I(, (0;.,9Y .1..
YV....{...
1VV!
(Ox.i,d .W
•�Mu( MM
I F-
I�
•
•
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Thirty
APPROVE PLANS/ORDER BIDS/WESTBURY ADDITION -STREETS & UTILITIES
E. Contract 84-5, Approve Plans/Order Bids (Westbury Addition -
Streets & Utilities -- When the petition was received requesting
the preparation of a feasibility report for the installation
of streets and utilities to service the Westbury Addition, the
developer requested the simultaneous preparation of plans and
specifications to expedite the time schedule for their construction.
With the developers guarantee of costs should the project not
be approved at a public hearing, detailed plans and specifications
were ordered for preparation by the Council along with the feasi-
bility report. Subsequently, if the public hearing for Project
396 is approved earlier on the agenda, it would be in order
for the Council to review the detailed plans and specifications
for the installation of these streets and utilities and if approved,
order the advertisement .for bids. The Consulting Engineer and
Public Works Director will be available to discuss the details
of the proposed plans.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: If Project 396 is approved
for installation, approve/deny/modify the plans and specifications
for Contract 84-5 (Westbury Addition - Streets & Utilities)
and, if approved, authorize the advertisement for a bid opening
to be held at 10:30 A.M., Friday, April 27, 1984.
/s9
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Thirty -One
•
Packet
Council Meeting
11
RECEIVE SIDS/AWARD CONTRACT/YANKEE DOODLE RESERVOIR -PAINTING
F. Contract 84-4, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Yankee Doodle
Reservoir -Painting -- On March 6, the City Council approved
the plans and specifications and authorized the advertisement
for bids for the painting of the 5.0 M.G. water reservoir on
Yankee Doodle Road. The Council requested an alternate bid
to be included for consideration of including the word "EAGAN"
to be placed in three locations on the water reservoir. The
bid openin was held at 10:30 A.M. on Friday, March 30. Enclosed
on page �� is a tabulation of the bids received and a comparison
of the low bid to the Engineer's estimate used for preparation
of the 1984 budget.
Consulting Engineer and Public Works Director will be available
to discuss recommendations pertaining to the low bidder and
the alternates at the Council meeting.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the bids for
Contract 84-4 (Yankee Doodle Reservoir -Painting) and award the
contract to the lowest responsible bidder with/without the alternate.
160
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
0 0
Our File No. 49295
REPAINTING OF 5.0 M.G.
YANKEE DOODLE WATER RESERVOIR
CITY CONTRACT #84-4, PROJECT #394
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
CONTRACTORS
Rainbow, Inc.
Valley Contractors
Allied Paint & Renovating
Enterprises Decorating
Dairyland Impr. Co.
General Coatings
Lakehead Painting & Sign Co
Odland Protective Coatings
HEA Tank Specialists
Neumann Contracting
Maguire Iron Inc.
Graham's Contracting
Chippewa Valley Enterprises
Larson Tank Co.
Abhe & Svoboda
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
Low Bid
BID TIME: 10:30 A.M., C.S.T.
BID DATE: Friddy, Murch 30, 1984
TOTAL BASE BID ALT NO. I
34,320.00
+
3600.00
38,220.00
+
750.00
40,000.00
+
1600.00
40,400.00
+
1000.00
47,000.00
+
3000.00
47,435.00
+
750.00
53,493.00
+
3920.00
53,966.00
+
1500.00
54.800-00
+
1200.00
55,900.00
+
2000.00
No
Bid
No Bid
Mn
No
Ri rl
Bid
No Rid
No Bid
No
Bid
No Bid
No
Bid
No Bid
Approved 1984 Utility Budget
8 Low Bid under Estimate
% Low Bid under Budget
/6/
$42,000
34,320
91,500
18.38
62.68
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Thirty -Two
0
Packet
Council Meeting
0
Petition/Hackmore Drive/Streets 8 Utilities
G. Proj. 406, Receive Petition/Authorize Feas.ihilty Report (Hackmore
Drive -- we have received a petition from Gary King requesting
the installation of streets and utilities within Hackmore Drive
between the Sunset 1st/2nd Additions and Northview Meadows Addition.
As the Council may recall, when the Sunset 4th Addition (located
on the north side of Hackmore Drive) received their preliminary
plat approval, a condition was placed whereby they could either
prepay their potential future assessment liabilities associated
with the upgrading of Hackmore Drive, or plat those parcels fronting
onto Hackmore Drive as outlots for future development which
could then be assessed when the improvements were to occur.
The developer of the Sunset 4th Addition has elected the option
of platting outlots instead of the prepayment of assessments.
Now that Mr. King is proposing to develop his property, it will
be necessary to provide streets and utilities to service his
property. However, his petition does not represent the minimum
338 of the fronting property owners that is usually required
for the Council to receive the petition and authorize the prepara-
tion of the feasibility report.
It should be noted however that the petition submitted as signed
by Mr. King guarantees the cost of the feasibility report in
case the project is not approved by Council action at the time
of the public hearing.
Enclosed on pages 1.65 and_'
b is a copy of the petition
with a referenced–To—cal—ion map s owing that section of Hackmore
Drive that is being petitioned for improvement and the relationship
of the adjacent properties that would be affected by this proposed
project. As can be seen, with the proposed Sunset 4th Addition
being platted into outlots, these adjacent property owners would
now have an opportunity to be involved in the public hearing
process.
Therefore, the staff is requesting the Council to consider the
petition and take the appropriate action.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Receive the petition
requesting the improvement of Hackmore Drive and approve/deny
the preparation of a feasibility report for Project 406 (Hackmore
Drive - Streets and Utilities).
/01
�^
FOR CITY USF 0:ii:(
Petition 8 5/O&.
Date Received 3
PETITION Presented to Council
5'3�Y
LOCATION/SUBDIVISION 14AGkm02C-- Aj� t)fL,y
I/vie, the undersigned, ovmers.of the real property adjacent to
'J iA C. -elm.c 1-01 (Street)
or within Sub di:.sicn,
hereby petition for:
Street improvements
Sanitary Sevier.
Water Supply —
(Check requested items)
Storm Sewer
Street Lights
Other (Explain)
I/vie understand that this petition does not in itself request the installation of
these improvements, but rather, request the preparation of a feasibility report in
which the estimated costs of these improvements will be tabulated. I/vie understand
that upon receipt of this petition and the preparation of the requested feasibility
report, a public hearing will be held at which time we may voice our support or
opposition based on the costs as prepared in said feasibility report.
If the requested improvements are denied for construction at the time of Dublic
hearing, I/vie hereby guarantee payment for all costs incurred in the preparation
of this feasibility report and any other related costs.
Signature of Land Owner Address
of Property
3•--- - - - - -- - ----------
4.—-
5.--- — — -- — -- — — — — --
7.— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
I a
7
•I_I_rn
v rw
•roivN
•w•p_a,.i�_g_I
I Cc♦ICE 1
7.-u
■.F�,:.vI'
UIL-LD � t -
N .I
N I
satRAA�tAII � ... a�� i
f
�Hp.RN , Y1
p'°° 5J�Src i iD45D_5U. i:ii• LA„C ,' 1f
` ..14
p.
•A DI ION
1
p`5 i
MOAT
-T
I
• �..�, o. ,.. ..:;....' P IRI P O i S E I D Q` 10 o
t s . * ••' •p'+ pA - I i '� xisting Improv men
O u I'r I L i 0 T I S I G'E • .g , `�
. •''�$i•1.1"�::i}"•:'
�•'i•�,- .\7--.:-".. Nieifi6�_ !'"eo.'.I'fY .� ::.�:a,,\ W09 I
.•�•� 600' �
a a L,1 • ' �' � N.
CO u
1
e• y , a1e. 90 !t O i
cl+ �P so
ib Co
i ~3 •f!% O'a-e, 1.
•
■� is s
... � �, , .' .`':.•,,.,,�. �;�;'.•• • :yy"•:.HCl; '.
AREA OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
a
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
• PQHUTES OF A REGULAR P1EETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF EAGAN
APRIL 3, 1984
A regular meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, April 3,
1984 at 6:30 p.m: at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Blomquist
and City Councilmembers Smith, Wachter, Egan and Thomas. Also present were
City Administrator Hedges, Consulting Engineer Rosene, Public Works Director
Colbert, City Planner Runkle and City Attorney Hauge.
AGENDA
Wachter moved, Egan seconded the motion, to approve the Agenda as distri-
buted. All voted yes.
Egan moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the
March 22, 1984 regular meeting with the exception on page 4, the City Council
meeting will be held on March 27, rather than May 27, 1984. All voted yea.
• REPRESENTATIVE ART SEABERG
Representative Seaberg was present at his request and discussed with the
Council several issues of legislation before the 1984 Legislature. He dis-
cussed the status of industrial revenue financing, both at the federal con-
gressional level and the Minnesota legislature, noting that the position of
Congress will dictate the direction that the Minnesota Legislature will take.
L;iz Witt was also present as the area legislative representative for the
League of Cities. Councilmembers wanted assurance that the suburban city
lobbyists are making contacts with legislators concerning the municipal aid
legislation.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PROJECT 0395 - LEXINGTON AVENUE BOOSTER STATION
Tom Colbert explained to the Council that after reviewing the proposed
location of the 1.5 acre site for Project 0395, the water booster station
that was scheduled to be constructed in 1984-85, he recommended that a change
in location take place to the south of the present proposed site. Reasons
included that it would eliminate any potential objections from future property
owners if the City were to construct the two ground reservoirs creating an
obstructed view for the multiple density development proposed to the south and
• also, it would move the multiple density development farther away from the
1
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984
future major intersection of'Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road. Mayor Blom-
quist questioned whether the developer of Lexington South, Jim Curry, con-
curred,with the relocation and Mr. Colbert stated that he understood that Mr.
Curry did. Another possible site to the north, Kirchner Plaza along Diffley
Road, was discussed. Smith moved, Wachter seconded the motion to authorize
the staff to proceed to negotiate with Mr. Curry regarding the exchange of
sites, either to the north of Kirchner Plaza Addition, or at the intersection
of Diffley Road and Lexington Avenue, with the understanding that the Lexing-
ton South developers will pay all costs of transfer of the site, including
surveying, title examination costs, etc. All voted yes.
CONSENT AGENDA
The following consent agenda items were presented to the City Council for
review and it was recommended they be approved:
•
1. Contractors, Licenses. A schedule of general contractors, heating
and ventilating contractors,, and masonry, cement work contractor license
applications was submitted to the Council for approval in the packet, and the
staff recommended approval subject to compliance with the ordinance require-
ments. •
2. Lion and Lioness Club - Temporary Gambling License. An application
has been submitted on behalf of the Lion and Lioness Club of the City of Eagan
for temporary gambling license for April 28, 1984 at the Diamond T Ranch. The
staff reviewed the application and noted that all application requirements had
been fulfulled.
" 3. Lone Oak Heights - Grading Permit Cancellation. The City has re-
ceived a notice of cancellation of insurance coverage for the grading permit
for the Lone Oak Heights subdivision. The developer, Belfany Development,
Inc., has indicated that it will not pursue the grading permit at the present
time and staff recommended the council authorize cancellation of grading
permit 009073 for Lone Oak Heights.
4. Diffley Road _ Change Order 01 - County Contract. It was determined
during construction under County Contract 030-01, during the fall of 1983,
that the existing material under the existing service drives is inadequate to
provide the proper support. Therefore, the staff recommended a change order
to remove approximately 4,300 cubic yards of poor sub -grade material to be
replaced with granular back -fill at an additional cost of $30,000.00. Staff
recommended approval with the understanding that the cost split will be on the
basis of the normal City -County 45-55 cost participation.
5. Special Assessment Aide. It was recommended that Barbara Jean
Thompson be hired as the special assessment aide in the Public Works Depart- •
ment at a compensation benefit package as provided under the current union
contract in the City policy, on a part time basis.
2
0
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984
6. Westbury Addition - Model Home Permit Application. Applications
have been received from Gabbert Development Company for building permits for
model homes on Lots 2, 3, or 4, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and a duplex
unit on Lots 5 or 6 of Block 6. It was recommended that the application be
approved with the understanding that there be no permanent occupancy until the
final plat has been recorded.
7. Knob Hill of Fagan - Utility Easement Vacation. A petition has been
received to vacate a small triangular segment of the utility easement to
facilitate construction of a double garage for the townhouse development in
Knob Hill of Eagan. Staff recommended that the public hearing be scheduled on
May 1, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall for the vacation as requested by the
developer.
8. Lexington Square Addition -Grading Permit. It was recommended that
an application for a grading permit for the first phase of Lexington Square
Addition, incorporating approximately 42 acres be approved, subject to com-
pliance with all City requirements.
9. Hillandale 2nd Addition - Grading Permit. An application had been
received from the developers of Hillandale 2nd Addition for grading permit and
the staff recommended approval subject to compliance with the City ordinance
• requirements for the first phase.
10. Windtree 2nd Addition - Utility Easement Vacation. A petition has
been received to vacate the common lot line drainage and utility easements
over all lots within Windtree 2nd Addition with the exception of Lots 13 and
14 of Block 3. It was noted a replat has been approved for Windtree 2nd
Addition into Windtree 3rd Addition and it was recommended that the Petition
be received and that the public hearing be scheduled for May 1, 1984 at 7:00
p.m. at City Hall for such vacation purposes.
Upon motion by Egan, seconded Smith, it was resolved that the foregoing
consent agenda items be and they hereby are approved and authorized to be
implemented by the City staff. All voted yea.
SPERRY CORPORATION - TELEPHONE CATV-
Mr.
ABE
Mr. Colbert brought before the Council a request on behalf of North-
western Bell Telephone and Sperry Corporation regarding an application of
Sperry for the use of public right-of-way on Washington Drive, adjacent to
Yankee Doodle Road for the location of a telephone cable. It was proposed
that the cable be installed by Northwestern Bell, but that Sperry will own the
cable. The question deals with whether the City is authorized to allow and
would allow the location of a utility cable in public right-of-way. Mr.
Colbert had concerns about City employees not being familiar with who the
owner would be for service and for record keeping purposes, the precedent in
• the event of similar future applications and the Council asked the staff to
research and return to the Council with a recommendation.
91
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984 •
WESTBURY ADDITION - PROJECT #396 - STREETS d, UTILITIES
The public hearing regarding Project 0396 consisting of utility and
street improvements to the Westbury Addition, Phase I, was convened by Mayor
Bea Blomquist. After introduction of the project by Tom Colbert, Consulting
Engineer, Bob Rosene, reviewed the preliminary report for the project dated
February 28, 1984. He discussed the type of improvements and also the costs
involved and the proposed assessments. The improvements will cover sanitary
sewer, water, storm sewer and street improvements. Pat McCarthy, the neigh-
boring property owner to the west, submitted a letter as one owner of that
property, objecting to proposed assessments against the McCarthy land, noting
it was for storm sewer trunk purposes only. Mr,. Rosene indicated that the
assessments on the McCarthy property are being proposed because of the pro-
jected outlet to the north, across Wescott Road. There were no other objec-
tions. Egan moved, Thomas seconded the motion to close the hearing, to
approve the project for the installation of streets and utilities and to
authorize the preparation of plans and specifications. All voted yes.
LEXINGTON AVENUE - PROJECT #395 - TRUNK YATERMAIN/BOOSTER STATION
The next hearing that was convened by the Mayor consisted of a proposed
booster station/trunk watermain under Project #395, along Lexington Avenue
north of Diffley Road. Mr. Colbert and Mr. Rosene detailed the report of the
consulting engineer's office of February 22, 1984, covering the trunk water -
main services and booster station improvements, including costs and projected •
assessments. Neil Houck, a neighboring owner, appeared and had concerns on
his behalf and for other neighbors, about the amount of the assessments being
proposed against their property. The Senior Citizens Deferral Ordinance
provisions were discussed and there were no objections to the project. Smith
moved, Egan seconded the motion to close the hearing, to order in the project
and to authorize the preparation of detailed plans and specifications. All
voted in favor.
COACHMAN/POUR OAKS ROAD - PROJECT #348 - STREET
The hearing regarding Project #348 covering street improvements on
Coachman Road and Four Oaks Road, east of Highway #13 was next convened. The
report was prepared by the City staff and Mr. Colbert gave a detailed report
regarding the proposal. He indicated that the most recent traffic count on
Four Oaks Road is 490 vehicles per day east of Highway #13, and also noted
that all property on the west side of Coachman Road has either been developed
or is in the process' of development. There was an appearance by an owner in
the Coachman Oaks Condominium project, who indicated he favored the work, but
suggested a pathway to the Univac property. Stuart Gibson who lived on Farnum
Drive objected to proposed assessments to Four Oaks Court Association. It was
proposed, to spread the cost estimate over all of the townhouse association
property, noting that a portion of Four Oaks Road adjacent to the property,
must be brought up to City standards. A representative of Fox Ridge was also
presgpt and had questions only about the amounts of the assessments. There
wereobjections to the project. Wachter moved, Smith seconded the motion to •
close the 'public hearing, to order in the project as presented and to autho-
rize the preparation of the plans and specifications. All voted yes.
4
Council Minutes
• April 3, 1984
SPERRY/T1OMU.INE NOISE ISSUE
Mayor Blomquist introduced the subject relating to the complaints from
Timberline residents about the noise emission from the Sperry semi -conductor
plant. Mr. Hedges gave some background and explained that there have been
other discussion at City Council meetings, including October 4, 1983 and
February 7, 1974. There were a large group of neighboring residents present,
as was David Kelso who is in charge of the noise program with the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency and representatives of Sperry Corporation, including
David Falstad and Ed Michaud.
It was noted that on October 4, 1983, the City Council adopted a resolu-
tion determining that Sperry was in violation of the R & D Zoning category
provisions and requested that steps be taken to alleviate the noise and light
problems. Some corrective measures have been taken by Sperry, including the
installation of one noise attenuator and five diverters on the stacks leading
from the plant. The Council on February 7, 1984 directed that noise studies
be commenced and David Kelso of the PCA has taken noise tests on the site at
least 4 times in recent months at the instruction of the City. It was under-
stood that Dr. Rick VanDoern has taken tests on behalf of Sperry, as has
Robert Fulton for the Timberline property owners.
•
At 'the February 7 meeting, the City Attorney was requested to provide a
legal opinion as to potential remedies if the noise emission is not corrected,
and the City Attorney, Paul Hauge, detailed the potential remedies outlined in
his letter of March 30, 1984. They included no action, potential ordinance
violations including Section 10.42 regarding PCA noise standards, nuisance
violations, zoning violations under Chapter 11.20, injunctive relief, civil
action by residential property owners and the request that additional noise
consultants be hired by the City to determine whether violations have
occurred.
It was noted that Sperry Corporation did not present its noise emission
findings at the meeting.
David Kelso of the PCA reviewed his findings from his tests on February
22, February 29, March 3 and April 2, 1984. He stated that the Pollution
Control Agency uses the A -Scale, noting that low frequency filters out the
sound, where high frequency has the opposite effect. He stated that his
findings from April 2, 1984 indicated relatively little change in noise levels
on the scene but some change in the frequency. He stated the PCA would only
determine whether the noise emissions fall within State guidelines, but that
the City zoning ordinance is more restrictive relating to R & D Zoning. There
was discussion concerning the types of data -collecting devices that were being
used and he mentioned that hand-held meters are not intended to give permanent
readings. He stated that the readings were higher on March 3, 1984 and that
the PCA requires tests 4 to 6 feet off the ground and away from buildings to
• avoid reflection, noting there is no jurisdiction that the PCA has indoors.
He also indicated that the sounds become louder as the testing is higher off
the ground, up to a certain level.
5
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984
Ed Michaud of Sperry made a presentation and indicated the attenuators
and diverters have now been installed and in his opinion, his information was
that the attenuator reduced sound by 75%. There was discussion concerning the
diverters and whether other material could be installed in the diverters to
reduce the sound level. He reviewed several steps that could be taken, in-
cluding the hiring of a noise expert, and overall study of the entire issue
and micro -study of all sound emissions from the semi -conductor plant.
Councilman Egan indicated he had serious problems concerning the noise
levels being emitted from Sperry because there was no change in the levels
after installation of equipment.
J
Tom Nikolai and Robert Fulton appeared regarding the sound recordings
taken by Mr. Fulton on March 30, 1984 with the windows open in the Nikolai
residence facing Sperry to the south. He showed oscilloscope pictures and also
a bar graph reflecting the amount of sound emitted on stereo equipment that he
installed in the Council chambers emitting sounds taken on March 30. John
Custin, the Timberline Civic Association President, appeared and stated that •
the DB levels are not the proper measure but rather the low frequency sound.
He indicated that in his opinion, Sperry had not corrected the problem. Also
Dan Rosini, a neighbor, spoke to the Council objecting to the noise.
Councilman Egan stated that the City Council has been looking for some
concrete steps to be taken by Sperry and requested that Sperry continue to
find such methods to alleviate the noise. He also indicated that it was his
_,opinion that the "negligible noise" is a problem for the neighboring residen-
tial owners. Egan then moved that the City Attorney's office and the staff
proceed to take whatever measures are necessary to determine whether Sperry is
in violation of the Eagan Zoning provisions regarding R 8 D zoning, including
the "negligible noise" provision, and shall determine what procedures the City
may take to determine whether a violation of those zoning provisions has taken
place, including the steps the City Council could take to proceed against
Sperry Corporation; further, it was understood that the City staff, including
the Police Department and Inspection Department, will assist in determining
whether such alleged violations have taken place and submit a report include
measurements covering the lower end of the scale so that the Council has a
definite yard stick to measure whether such violations have taken place;
further, that such findings will be submitted to the City Council, if
possible, by the regular council meeting on April 17, 1984. Smith seconded
the motion. All members voted in favor.
•
0
Council Minutes
• April 3, 1984
PERRY KRIFPER - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The application of Perry Keiffer for conditional use permit for commer-
cial storage facility in A (Agricultural) Zoning District.on Dodd Road was
submitted to the City Council. Dale Runkle explained the application to the
Council, noting that the Advisory Planning Commission recommended approval at
its meeting on January 24, 1984, subject to numerous conditions. Mr. Keiffer
was present and indicated that the quonset hut, the barn and the pole barn are
all being used for auto storage at the present time. He stated that vintage,
antique and collectible cars were being stored on the property and that all
are licensable, although some do not have licenses at the present time.
Don Kline, a neighbor on Dodd Road, appeared and voiced concerns on his
behalf and those of several neighbors regarding the number of junk -type cars
on the property. He showed pictures of the vehicles, many with missing
wheels, engines, etc. Councilmembers indicated that this is primarily a
residential area and that it was a dangerous precedent if a permit is given to
store cars that were inoperable, and also that the problem policing the use of
the property would become fairly difficult. Egan moved, Wachter seconded the
• motion to deny the application based upon the objections of the neighboring
property owners, the precedent that it could create and the difficulty in
policing the issue, noting that there appeared to be junk cars on the property
at the present time. All voted in favor.
CITY CODE UPDATE
Mr. Hedges submitted to the Council and copies were included in the
packet of Ordinance codification revisions. Copies of the proposed changes
have been prepared by Municipal Codifiers, the City staff and the City
Attorney's office. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the
revisions to Chapters it and 13, the Zoning and Subdivision sections. Upon
motion by Thomas, seconded Wachter, it was resolved that the revisions as
proposed by the City staff be and they herbey are approved and authorized to
be published in the legal newspaper. All voted in favor.
ADVISORY PLANKING COMMISSION - MEMBER
Three persons have indicated they are candidates for the replacement of
Scott Markley as the alternate on the Advisory Planning Commission, including
Vic Ellison, Roy W. Taylor, Jr., and James D. Wannigman. Upon secret ballot,
Roy Taylor, Jr. was elected as the alternate member on the Commission. Thomas
moved, Smith seconded the motion to authorize the appointment of Roy Taylor,
Jr. to the Commission for the balance of the current year. All voted in
• favor.
7
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984 •
HOLD ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAY
The application of Paul Holmes for preliminary plat approval of Holmes
Addition containing 1 acre and consisting of two single family lots on Tower -
view Road, south of LeMay Lake was brought before the Council. Mr. Runkle
explained the action of the Advisory Planning Commission's approval, subject
to numerous conditions. Paul Holmes was present. The Engineering staff
recommended against maintenance beyond Quarry Lane if it is not upgraded at
the present time. Mr, and Mrs. Ed Reid were present and objected to new road
improvements and the proposed assessments at the present time. It was noted
that the neighbors preferred less than a 10 foot setback variance if the
houses can be positioned so as to minimize the variance for the setback of the
proposed houses on the plat. The Council discussed whether an escrow should
be acquired, noting special conditions about the location and the condition of
the streets in the area. Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve
the application, noting that normally an escrow for street improvements is
required where the street upgrading does not take place, but because of the
nature of the plat being small, and the uniqueness of the area, no escrow
would be required, subject however, to the following conditions:
1. That no turnaround will be required on the east end of Towerview •
Road and that no City maintenance of the street in front of Holmes Addition
will be provided.
2. Adequate right-of-way shall be dedicated for Towerview Road as
determined by the City.
3. A 10 foot front setback variance shall be granted for Lots 1 and 2
-of the proposed plat.
4. The plat shall be reviewed by the Department of natural Resources
for their comments.
5. Park dedication shall be provided as requested by the Advisory Park
Commission.
6. All other applicable ordinances shall be adhered to.
7. A detailed grading and erosion control plan shall be required to be
submitted for approval.
8. .The existing 20 foot easement shall be dedicated as public right-of-
way for Towerview Road.
9. A ponding easement shall be required to be dedicated to encompass
the high water elevation of LeMay's Lake. •
91
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984
•
10. This development shall be responsible for trunk area water and storm
sewer asssessments at the rate in effect at the time of final platting.
11. All costs associated with public improvements shall be the sole
responsibility of this development.
12. All easements shall be dedicated as required by staff in the Engi-
neering Report.
13. No public improvements shall be extended along Towerview Road east
of Quarry Lane at the present time, but at such time as Towerview Road, west
of Quarry Lane is improved, the roadway adjacent to Holmes Addition, shall be
upgraded and the benefit shall be assessed.
All members voted yea.
SONSB! 5T9 ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT
The application of Lexington South Associates for preliminary plat
• approval in the Sunset 5th Addition then came before the Council. Dale
Runkle, the City Planner, gave a resume of the proposal, including the pro-
posed Yorkshire Place on the north side of Sunset 5th Addition and indicated
that it was the understanding that the Missouri Synod Church at the corner of
Dodd and Diffley Roads agreed to an easement over that church property for
access to Dodd Road. The Planning Commission had recommended that direct
access for the two lots with interior turnarounds be approved. Jim Curry and
Brad Swenson were present and Mr. Curry indicated that the Baptist Church site
had been moved easterly and the Missouri Synod Church owners have agreed to a
street easement on the north side of Holmes Addition. Mr. Curry also re-
quested preliminary concept approval of the development of the property to the
west of Holmes Addition and .the Council reviewed the concept. Smith moved,
Wachter seconded the motion to approve the general concept only, of the
Lexington South property directly west of Holmes Addition. All voted in
favor. Next, Egan moved, Smith seconded the motion to approve the applica-
tion for preliminary plat approval of Sunset 5th Addition, subject to the
following conditions:
•
1. That each lot in the 5th Addition would be allowed an individual
access with an interior turn -around.
2. That the surrounding land uses appear to warrant the location for an
access road to the north on to Dodd Road.
3. The Council reaffirms the approval of the conditions for approval of
the preliminary plat.
0
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984 •
4. That the preliminary plat be conditioned upon written committment
from the owner to the north, that it will convey a 60 foot road easement.
All voted yes.
TIBEHON 1ST ADDITION - SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
The application of J. E. Parranto Associates for a 20 foot side setback
variance for Lot 26, Block 1, Tiberon lst Addition was submitted. Mr. Runkle
explained the request, noting the proposal is to locate a home within 30 feet
of the right-of-way line of Johnny Cake Ridge Addition or 56 feet from the
curb of Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Normally the collector street requires a 40
foot setback, but in this instance a 50 foot setback for Johnny Cake Ridge
Road, regarding the condition in the Planned Development Agreement for the
subdivision. John Parranto was present and there were no objections to the
application. Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion to authorize the vari-
ance up to 29 feet, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall meet as closely as possible the side setback •
requirement from Johnny Cake Ridge Road.
2. All other setbacks shall -be met and all other ordinance requiremnts
shall be adhered to.
All voted in favor.
ROLF F. ANDERSON - SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
WILDERNESS RON 6TH ADDITION
The application of Mr. and Mrs. Rolf F. Anderson for side setback vari-
ance of two feet on Lot 11, Block 1, Wilderness Run 6th Addition was sub-
mitted. It was noted the home has been constructed and a two foot side
setback variance is requested for a corner of the house along the east side,
noting it would be a hardship to make any changes at the present time. Mrs.
Anderson was present and there were no objections. Thomas moved, Wachter
seconded the motion to approve the application, subject to compliance with
City ordinances. All voted in favor.
FAWN RIDGE - FINAL PLAT
The application of Countryside Builders for final plat approval of Fawn
Ridge was submitted to the Council. Mr. Colbert indicated that the financial
security requirements have not been met by the developer and recommended •
indefinite continuance. Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to approve
the recommendation of Mr. Colbert. All voted in favor.
10
Council Minutes
• April 3, 1984
WESTBURY ADDITION - FINAL PLAT
The application of Gabbert Development Company for final plat approval of
the first phase of Westbury Addition was presented to the Councilmembers.
There were no objections and Mr. Colbert indicated that all City requirements
have been met. Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to approve the appli-
cation for final plat approval and authorize the City Clerk and Mayor to
execute the related documents. All voted yes.
SUPER AMERICA - FINAL PLAT
The application of Ashland 011 Corporation for final plat approval of
Super America Addition at the southwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and Yankee
Doodle Road was brought before the Council. A representative of Super America
was present and the staff recommended approval noting that the City ordinance
requirements have been complied with. Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion
to approve the final plat application and authorize the signing of the neces-
sary documents. All voted yes.
BER&SBIBE PONDS - FINAL PLAT
• The next application for final plat approval that was presented was that
of Berkshire Ponds by Derrick Land_Company. Staff recommended approval,
noting that all ordinance requirements have been met. Wachter moved, Egan
seconded the motion to approve the application for final plat approval of
Berkshire Ponds. All voted yes.
CONTRACT #84-8 - HSSlBURY ADDITION - STREETS AND UTILITIES
The plans have been prepared and submitted for approval to the City
Council and it was recommended that the Council schedule a hearing authorizing
the advertisement of bids for the project. Thomas moved, Egan seconded the
motion to approve the plans and specifications and authorize the advertisement
for bid opening to be held on April 27, 1984 at 10:30 a.m. at the Eagan City
Hall. All voted yes.
The bids have now been received and opened on March 6, 1984 for the
painting.of the Yankee Doodle water reservoir with an alternate for the paint-
ing of the City of Eagan name on the tank. It was recommended that the name
be painted vertically, rather than horizontally because of the rib structure
of the tank. Wachter moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve.the low bid
• of Rainbow, Inc. in the sum of $34,320.00 plus alternate No. 1 of $3,600.00
with the understanding that the staff will explore alternate ways of painting
the name of the City on the tank. All voted in favor.
11
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984
Hkamom DRm - STREET DwRommTS - PROJECT /406
A petition has been received from Cary King requesting a feasibility.
study for the installation of streets and utilities within Hackmore Drive
between Sunset 1st and 2nd Addition and Northview Meadows Addition. It was
noted that Mr. King is the owner of about 25% of the proposed assessable area
and it is projected that there may be objections from neighboring property
owners. Smith moved, Wachter seconded the motion to receive the Petition and
authorize the preparation of a feasibU ty report for Project #406, subject to
payment of the necessary feasibility report preparation expenses by Mr. King
in the event that the Council does not proceed with the project at the present
time. All voted yes.
0
Tom Colbert submitted a copy of two notices that had been received by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation for the scheduled closing of Yankee
Doodle Road at Interstate 35E beginning April 16 and Diffley Road at the
intersection of Intersection 35E beginning April 23, 1984. He noted also that
Diffley Road, between Blackhawk Road and Nicola Road will be closed and •
Councilmembers discussed alternates for MTC routes, including Carnelian Lane
or the Beau D' Rue Road in the Cedarvale Shopping Center area. Noting the
residential nature of Carnelian Lane, Wachter moved, Blomquist seconded the
motion to direct that MTC buses be routed, for detour purposes, through the
streets surrounding Cedarvale, rather than Carnelian Lane, while Diffley Road
is closed. All voted in favor.
LONE OAK TREE
Councilman Wachter and City Administrator Hedges discussed their findings
regarding the preservation of the tree wood of Lone Oak tree and recommended
that mobil-cer be authorized' for preservation purposes. Egan moved, Thomas
seconded the motion to authorize the use of the preservative on the wood and
further, that Mr. Wachter and Mr. Hedges be directed to further investigate
the eventual uses for the wood. All voted yes.
PROPOSED CITY HALL HELL
Councilman Wachter reported that he and Tom Hedges had met with Mrs.
Sachowitz concerning the potential sale of an Eagan school bell to the City
and an offer to sell has been made by Mrs. Sackowitz in the sum of $1,000.00.
After discussion, noting that there is no specific funding for the bell,
Blomquist moved, Thomas seconded the motion to offer the sum of $700.00 for •
the purchase of the bell. All voted in favor.
12
Council Minutes
• April 3, 1984
•
�J
___. _, .1. ..
RAGAN DEER POPULATION
Mr. Wachter indicated that there appear to be some fairly large herds of
deer throughout the City and recommended the DNA be contacted to investigate
whether bow hunting, in order to weed out the deer population, would be
advisable. Wachter moved, Thomas seconded the motion to authorize the contact
with the Department of Natural Resources to make such investigation and report
back to the Council. Those in favor were Wachter, Thomas and Smith; those
against were Blomquist and Egan.
ORDINANCE -
City Attorney Paul Hauge submitted a proposed Resolution to the Council
authorizing an abridged version of the publication of certain revisions to
City ordinances that had been approved by the City Council at its April 4,
1984 meeting. Smith moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the Resolution
and authorize the publication of the ordinances as proposed. All voted in
favor.
Egan moved, Smith seconded the motion to approve the following Checklist
dated:
All voted yea.
L 11Vi ;1.i ,R
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
PHH
13
City Clerk
REGULAR MEETING
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
CITY HALL
APRIL 3, 1984
6:30 P.M.
AGENDA
I. 6:30 - ROLL CALL & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I1.
6:33 -
ADOPT AGENDA & APPROVAL OF MINUTES
e,\ III.
6:35 -
APPEARANCE BY REPRESENTATIVE ART SEABERG
IV.
6:35 -
DEPARTMENT HEAD BUSINESS
Q•\
A.
Fire Department Q•� C. Park Department
\
B.
Police Department p, D. Public Works Department
V•
I
6:55 -
CONSENT ITEM (One Motion Approves All Items)
4
A.
Contractor's License
e,
e./p
B.
Temporary Gambling License for Eagan Lions and Lioness
Club for April 28
C.
Cancellation of Grading Permit ,",09073 (Lone Oak Heights)
P1
dB
D.
Change Order 1/1, County Contract 30-01 (Diffley Road)
P 9
E.
Personnel Items
P'Q
F.
Model Home Permit Applications, Westbury Addition
P
G.
Utility Easement Vacation, Receive Petition/Order Public
11
P
(Knob Hill of Eagan)
U161.
H.
Grading Permit Application, Lexington Square 1st Addition
I.
Grading Permit Application, Hillandale 2nd Addition
Pt�
J.
Utility Easement Vacation, Receive Petition/Order Public
Q'
(Windtree 2nd Addition)
VI.
7:00 -
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14
A.
Proiect 396, Westbury Addition (Streets & Utilities)
k2 B.
Pro+ect 395, Lexington Avenue (Trunk Watermain/Booster
Station)
C.
Pro+ect 348, Coachman/Four Oaks Road (Streets)
VII.
OLD
BUSINESS
p 69 A. Timberline Civic Association Request to Review Level of
Noise Emission at Sperry Semi Conductor Plant
\4 �j B. Perry Kieffer for a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial
Storage Facilities in an Agricultural Zoning District in
Part of the SW} of the NE} of Section 24, 3955 Dodd Road,
\p'L Parcel 10-02400-010-05
(1 C. City Code Update/Revisions
• \\� D. Appointment of Advisory Planning Commission Alternate
4
u
Hearing
Hearing
City Council Agenda
City of Eagan
April 3, 1984
Page Two
VIII.. NEW BUSINESS
A. Paul Holmes for Preliminary Plat, Holmes Addition, Containing
l Acre Consisting of Two Single Family Lots, in Part of the NW}
of the NWk of Section 10, T27N, R23W, Parcel No. 10-01000-020-29,
Lying North of Quarry Lane and Towerview Road
B. Lexington South Associates, for PreliminaRY Plat, Sunset 5th
`• Addition - Access to Property North & West - Part of NA of
Section 25
C. J. E. Parranto Associates for a 20' Side Setback Variance
p' for Lot 26, Block 1, Tiberon 1st Addition, Section 29
o �A'� D. Rolf F. Anderson for a 2' Side Setback Variance for Lot 11, Block 1,
Wilderness Run 6th Addition, Section 27
1X. ADDITIONAL ITEMS
%S2.
Final Plat Approval -Fawn Ridge (Countryside Builders)
Pp1S� B. Final Plat Approval -Westbury Addition (Gabbert Development)
1 `S6 C. Final Plat Approval-SuperAmerica Addition (Ashland Oil)
D. Final Plat Approval -Berkshire Ponds (Derrick Land Co.)
59 E. Contract 84-5, Approve Plans/Order Bids (Westbury Addition -Streets)
?'16O F. Contract 84-4, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Yankee Doodle Reservoir -Painting)
62- Drive
Project 406, Receive Petition/Authorize Feqsibility Report (Hackamore
�1�6 Drive - Streets & Utilities)
` X, VISITORS TO BE HEARD (For those persons not on the agenda)
XI. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: MARCH 29, 1984
SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION MEMO FOR APRIL 3, 1984
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
After approval of the March 22, 1984, regular City Council minutes
and the agenda for the April 3, 1984, City Council meeting,
the following items are in order for consideration:
REPRESENTATIVE ART SEABURG
Mayor Blomquist has received a letter from Representative Art
Seaburg who is asking for time to appear on the City Council
agenda at the April 3 meeting. He 'stated in his letter that
he would like the opportunity to explain and discuss current
matters pending before the State Legislature that might affect
local government. Mr. Seaburg will be present and since there
is no Department Head business planned, there should be adequate
time for Representative Seaburg to make comments and allow for
questions by the City Council.
A. Fire Department -- There are no items to be discussed under
Fire Department at this time.
B. Police Department -- There are no items to be discussed
for the Police Department at this time.
C. Parks Deparment -- There are no items to be discussed for
the Parks Department at this time.
D. Public Works Department -- Project 395, Lexington Avenue
Booster Station - Site Location -- Enclosed on page is
a site plan showing the location of the 1.5 acres of land that
the Council authorized the City to acquire for the construction
of the booster station under Project 395 and the future water
reservoirs as a part of our Comprehensive Water Distribution
Plan. In reviewing this location with the developer, Mr. Jim
Curry of Lexington South, Inc., and some perspective buyers
of the property in this general vicinity, the staff has been
asked to review the proposed location of this booster station
to be constructed in 1984/85 which will contain the future round
reservoirs to be constructed after the year 2000. The concern
evidently relates to potential future objections of obstructed
view from the property to be developed in the immediate northwest
corner of new Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road. It appears
that the view from this property is all directed to the north
where the ground elevation falls away and provides a panoramic
view. This view would be obstructed by the future water reservoirs
construction.
CG
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Two
`J
Consequently, staff has reviewed the potential of moving this
1.5 +/- acres further to the south so that it would be located
right at the intersection of Diffley and new Lexington Avenue.
This would have two advantages for the City as follows:
1. It would eliminate any potential objections from future
property owners when the City was to construct the two
ground reservoirs creating an obstructed view for the
multiple density development that is proposed.
2. It would require the entrance. to the multiple density
development to be located further away from a future major
intersection of Lexington 'Avenue and Diffley Road. As
it is proposed right now, with the development right in
the extreme corner, the entrance to a multiple density
would have to take direct access onto County Rd. 30 or
County Rd. 43 (Lexington Avenue) which could create problems
when traffic volumes through this intersection are greatly
increased in the future when saturation development occurs.
Subsequently, the Director of Public Works would like to review
with the City Council the relocation of the proposed water booster
station and ground reservoir to the northwest corner of the
intersection of new Lexington and Diffley Road.
The acquisition of this property has not been finalized and
it would not create any complication in the transfer if the
City Council were to concur with this staff recommendation.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve/deny the new
site for the proposed water booster station and ground reservoirs.
2
i
0
11
SSW 1/4 SEC., 23,127, R. �
i 010-00
i
f�LWfC'YT
ALOVI T! Y/Oh
PoRT'p•pT !'a M-
• I '
OMd� • � 1
`�-- rrer• -- •8
___—__ ___ IQROPefGO Ac0/i t.rrNy I _
oe
i ae
C NTY _!TATE
p/RFL a
J
0toll E^
rA
3
City of caw
013 -BZ
HVIEW
City It
Oi
PF
i
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Three
0 0
Packet
Council Meeting
There are ten (10) items on the agenda referred to as the Consent
Agenda requiring one (1) motion by the City Council. If the
City Council desires to discuss any of the items in further
detail, those items should be removed from the Consent Agenda
and placed under additional items unless the discussion required
is brief.
CONTRACTORS' LICENSE
A. Contractors' License -- The City has received contractor
license applications for contractors who do work in the City
of Eagan and seven -county metropolitan area. All of these contrac-
tors are considered reliable according to the Protective Inspections
department. The necessary documents and fees have been submitted
and it is the recommendation of the Chief Building Inspector
that the contractors' license, per City Code Chapter 6.42, be
approved. Enclosed on page(s) S' is a copy of
the contractors list.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the contractor's
license as referenced.
0 0
FOR APRIL 3, 1984 CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
GENERAL CONTRACTORS:
1. BASIC BUILDERS
2. CORPORATE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
3. COUNTRYSIDE BUILDERS
4. DEVELOPERS CONSTRUCTION INC
5. HERITAGE ENERGY HOMES, INC.
6. MERLE'S CONSTRUCTION -
7. LAUBACH CONSTRUCTION, INC.
8. PIERSEN ESTATES/DEVELOPMENT
9. RUSCON HOMES, INC.
10. SUNSHINE CONSTRUCTION CO.
11. VITALE, ANDREW (HOMEOWNER)
12. STEVE NELSON CONSTRUCTION
HEATING & VENTILATING CONTRACTORS:
1. CONTROLLED AIR
2. HALL'S HEATING INC.
3. METRO AIR
4. MINNESOTA MECHANICAL
MASONRY, CEMENT WORK:
1. METROPOLITAN FIREPLACES, INC.
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Four
TEMPORARY GAMBLING LICENSE/LION & LIONESS CLUB
B. Temporary Gambling License for Eagan Lions and Lioness Club
for April 28 -- The Eagan Lions and Lioness Club have requested
a temporary gambling license for a casino night scheduled on
April 28, 1984, at the Diamond T Ranch. License for temporary
gambling have been approved for the Eagan Lions and Lioness
Club in the past and, therefore, this application is consistent
with previous applications.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To authorize a temporary
gambling license for the Eagan Lions and Lioness Club for April
28, 1984.
9
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Five
CANCELLATION OF GRADING PERMIT/LONE OAK HEIGHTS
C. Cancellation of Grading Permit #09073 (Lone Oak Heights)
-- We have received a notice of cancellation of insurance coverage
for the City of Eagan which was a requirement to the grading
permit issued for the Lone Oak Heights subdivision during late
summer of 1983. Subsequent follow up with the developer, Balfany
Development, indicate that due to current problems pertaining
to the association of Orrin Aune with this development, the
developers wish the previously approved grading permit to expire
rather than to renew and resubmit the appropriate insurance
certificates protecting the City of Eagan.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To cancel the previously
approved grading permit #09073 issued to the Lone Oaks Heights
development through Belfany Development, Inc.
7
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Six
C:
Packet
Council Meeting
0
CHANGE ORDER #1, COUNTY CONTRACT/DIFFLEY ROAD
D. Change Order #1, County Contract 30-01 (Diffley Road) --
During the installation of utilities within the proposed improve-
ments of County Road 30 (Diffley Road) under County Contract
30-01 during the fall of 1983, it was determined that the existing
material underneath the existing service drives is inadequate
to provide the proper support for construction of the proposed
improvements. Subsequently, a change order 'was prepared to
remove approximately 4,300 C.Y. of poor subgrade material to
be replaced with granular backfill 'at an additional cost of
approximately $30,000. The cost of this change order will be
handled by supplemental agreement mto the cost participation
agreement presently in effect between the County and the City
for improvements to County road contracts.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve change order
#1 to County Contract 30-01 for an ADD $29,995.60 and authorize
City personnel to execute all required documents.
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Seven
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AIDE
Personnel Items
1. With the approved 1984 budget, the Finance Department
increased their half-time utility billing clerk to a
full-time clerk typist. With the transfer of Nancy
Ohm to fulfill this full-time position within the Finance
Department, the Public Works Department had to fill
the vacancy of the other half-time position providing
assistance to the Special Assessment Clerk. Subsequently,
the Director of Public works conducted interviews for
this part-time position and is subsequently recommending
that the City Council authorize the hiring of Barbara
Jean Thompson from Apple Valley for the Special Assessment
Aid in the Public Works Department at a compensation
and benefit package as provided for in the current Union
Contract and City policy. The hiring should be contingent
upon successful passage of the City's required medical/
health examination.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve/deny the hiring
of Barbara Jean Thompson as a part-time Special Assessment Aid
within the Public Works Department.
E
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Eight
0
Packet
Council Meeting
LA
Model Home Permit Applications/Westbury Addition
£. Model Home Permit Applications, Westbury Addition -- We
have received an application from Gabbert Development requesting
the issuance of three building permits for model homes to be
located on the following lots:
Lots 2, 3 or 4 of Block 3
Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 (Duplex Unit)
Lots 5 or 6 of Block 6
Due to the requirement that no building permits can be issued
until the final plat has been recorded at Dakota County, it
is necessary for the Council to grant special authorization
for the premature issuance of these building permits as requested.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve/deny the issuance
of a building permit for model home purposes on Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1; Lots 2, 3 or 4 of Block 3; and Lots 5 or 6 of Block
6, Westbury First Addition.
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Nine
Utility Easement Vacation/Knob Hill of Eaqan
G. Utility Easement Vacation, Receive Petitions/Order Public
Hearing (Knob Hill of Eagan Addition) -- we have received a
petition to vacate a small triangular segment of a utility easement
to facilitate the construction of a double garage for the townhouse
development in lieu of the originally planned single garages.
Preliminary review of this by the staff indicates there should
be no objection associated with this. However, a public hearing
will be necessary as this is a publicly dedicated drainage and
utility easement.
Enclosed on pages �+ through A is a copy of the petition,
legal description and graphic location of this easement to be
vacated for the Council's reference.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the petition
and schedule a public hearing to be held on May 1, 1984, for
the vacation of a portion of the utility easement located within
Block 1 of the Knob Hill of Eagan Addition.
• FCR CIT': 11SE C:ILy
Petition N
Date Received ,Z7�fi
i ( PFTIT.ION Presented to Council
LOCATION/SUBDIVISI0i1 KNOB HILL OF EAGAN
I/vie, the undersigned, owners'of the real property adjacent to
Street)
or within Lot 2, Block 1, KNOB HILL OF EAGAN
hereby petition for: Subdivision,
Street improvements
Sanitary Sewer
Water Supply
(Check requested items)
Storm Sevier
Street Lights
u Tl,, r y
Other
C' (Explain) Vacation of Easement
(Legal attached)
I/we understand that upon receipt of this petition, a public hearing will be held.
Irregardless of approval or denial of the requested vacation at the time of public
hearing, I/we hereby guarantee payment for all costs incurred in the processing and
recording of this requested vacation,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
r !';+ CONSULTING ENGINEERS O LANG SURVEYORS ■ PLANNERS
Reply To:
12800 Indunrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
18121 559.3700
KNOB HILL OF EAG AN
Proposed vacation - Easement
That part of the utility and drainage easement las delineated on Lot 2, Block 1,
KNOB HILL OF EAGAN according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Min-
nesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 2; thence North 85 degrees
East along the north line of said Lot 2 a distance of 30.08 feet; thence
south 00 degrees 45 minutes 33 seconds East, 108.62 feet; thence North 44
degrees 14 minutes 27 seconds East 33.01 to the point of beginning; thence
continue North 44 degrees 14 minutes 27 seconds East 26.85 feet; thence
south 79 degrees 58 minutes 27 seconds west 21.80 feet; thence South 10 de-
grees Ol minutes 33 seconds East 15.68 feet to the point of beginning.
Date: 3/13/84
06293
13
printed on recycled paper
Ma601B
09
t ter•
,kdMH6IH V
11v0,89,99= v" d I 31tJ1S A1Nn0� 00 *G w
` v y N IW
e2e'sce ° � v r1i Zlw i d- —
l011no
020
66.21£ 3 „60 ,10. 18N
At^-
66'L8Z 13 N nOZ.L J
an \ � -, (b d ��
wasoa-abou,olpos 01� /-f'/./��IJ `alb of of o
p / I .
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Ten
Grading Permit Application/Lexington Square Addition
H. Grading Permit Application, Lexington Square Addition (Phase
1) -- With the recent approval of the preliminary plat for the
Lexington Square Addition, staff has received an application
for a grading permit for the first phase which incorporates
approximately 42 acres. All permit requirements have been received,
reviewed and approved by the staff and found to be in order
for favorable consideration by the Council.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve/deny the grading
permit application for Lexington Square 1st Addition as submitted
by Northland Development Company.
16'
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Eleven
Gradinq Permit Application/Hillandale 2nd Addition
I. Grading Permit Application, Hillandale 2nd Addition
With the recent approval of the preliminary plat for the Hillandale
2nd Addition, the staff has received an application for a grading
permit for the first phase of this development. All grading
permit requirements have been received, reviewed and approved
by staff and found to be in order for favorable consideration
by the Council.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve the grading
permit applications for the Hillandale 2nd Addition, first phase,
as submitted by the Michael Construction Company.
14
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twelve
0
Packet
Council Meeting
0
Utility Easement Vacation/Windtree 2nd Addition
i. Vacation of Utility Easement, Receive Petition/Order Public
Hearing (Windtreet 2nd Addition) -- We have received a petition
to vacate the common lot line drainage and utility easements
over all lots within the Windtree 2nd Addition with the exception
of lots 13 and 14 of Block 3. These public utility and drainage
easements must be vacated to accomodate the replat of this subdi-
vision into the Windtree 3rd Addition which requires the relocation
of the existing side lot lines. These utility easements will
be replaced in like kind with the final platting of the Windtree
3rd Addition.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the petition
and order the public hearing to be held on May 1, 1984, for
the vacation of the drainage and utility easements over the
common lot lines within the Windtree 2nd Addition.
17
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Thirteen
Project 396/Westbury Addition
A. Project 396, Westbury Addition (Streets & Utilities) --
on February 7, 1984, the Council received a petition from Gabbert
Development and authorized the preparation of a feasibility
report for the installation of streets and utilities to service
the first phase of the Westbury Addition development. This
feasibility report was presented to the Council on March 6 with
the public hearing being scheduled for April 3. Also, notices
have been published in the legal newspaper and sent to all property
owners who would be assessed under this project. A copy of
the feasibility report was forwarded to the developer for his
review prior to.the public hearing. As of this date, the staff
has received no objections to this proposed improvement. Enclosed
on pages�_ through is a copy of the feasibility
report for the Council's reference during the public hearing.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing
and approve/deny Project 396 for the installation of streets
and utilities within the Westbury Addition.
E
i
REPORT
ON
WESTBURY ADDITION
UTILITY AND STREET
IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT No. 396
am
EAGAN , MINNESOTA
File No. 49298
Bome�,, Rodeme, 1Q.d,041da C fYddac�, Yom
SG Pa..4 M4mme"la
19
0
96
$T, p..( Af"...b 55119
PA. 412-696-4600
February 28, 1984
Honorable Mayor and Council
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Mn. 55121
Re: Westbury Addition
Project 396
Our File No. 49298
Dear Mayor and Council:
0
YMC.
Gk. R. Cant RE
RAR A. Grade RE
Thm E ftft RE
Rkh" W. Fmm RE
Ra G. SAaANv. RE
M. L Sa..I; P.E
OarMC &wt. i. RE
JIM A. Rw I RE
and R A. Na.m., RE
fid R. Tia. RE
Mk Md T. R.PC
Rohm R. Pf.ffolr. RE
Dn /maom. RE
CMM A. filr
LM M. Po.ARJ
Nnlm M. Ohm
Transmitted herewith is our report for Westbury Addition, Project 396. This
report covers sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, and street construction
and includes a preliminary assessment roll.
We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a
mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report.
Yours very truly,
BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
aC/.g�P%1
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:11
I hereby certify that this report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
L Mark A. Hanson
Date: February 28, 1984 Reg. No. 14260
Approved b c2t/do ^
Nomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Date: 3 -1 -dc- y
9563b
G. i E
W.ft
Rahn W. Ray..t RE
R06 R
Ja>mR C. A.dnfit P.E
&adfW A. LMbV . RE
Rt/md E Tkm . RE
Jo C. Oho.. P.£.
Gk. R. Cant RE
RAR A. Grade RE
Thm E ftft RE
Rkh" W. Fmm RE
Ra G. SAaANv. RE
M. L Sa..I; P.E
OarMC &wt. i. RE
JIM A. Rw I RE
and R A. Na.m., RE
fid R. Tia. RE
Mk Md T. R.PC
Rohm R. Pf.ffolr. RE
Dn /maom. RE
CMM A. filr
LM M. Po.ARJ
Nnlm M. Ohm
Transmitted herewith is our report for Westbury Addition, Project 396. This
report covers sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, and street construction
and includes a preliminary assessment roll.
We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a
mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report.
Yours very truly,
BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
aC/.g�P%1
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:11
I hereby certify that this report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
L Mark A. Hanson
Date: February 28, 1984 Reg. No. 14260
Approved b c2t/do ^
Nomas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Date: 3 -1 -dc- y
9563b
0 0
SCOPE: This project. provides for the construction of sanitary sewer, water
main, storm sewer, and streets to service Westbury Addition. Westbury Addi-
tion is located in the southwest quadrant of Lexington Avenue and Wescott Road
and will ultimately include 111 lots for single family and 36 lots for twin
homes. The first phase of the project proposed herein includes developing 50
lots for single family and 20 lots for twin homes. Also included is the con-
struction of a major trunk sanitary sewer and storm sewer to service the area
east of Lexington Avenue as outlined in each of the respective Comprehensive
Plans.
FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: This project is feasible from an engineering
standpoint and is in accordance with the Master Utility and Street Plan for
the City of Eagan. The project as outlined herein can best be carried out a
one contract.
DISCUSSION:
Sanitary Sewer - Sanitary sewer proposed herein includes an 8 inch diameter
lateral sanitary sewer and a 12 inch and 15 inch diameter trunk sanitary sewer
to properly service the lots in Westbury Addition. It is intended the lateral
sanitary.sewer in Westbury Drive be constructed at an adequate depth to prop-
erly service the future lots abutting the cul-de-sac located in the southwest-
erly corner of Outlot C. The trunk sanitary sewer will be constructed at a
sufficient depth and capacity to service the area east of Lexington Avenue as
outlined in the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. However, also included in
the service area for this trunk sanitary sewer is the westerly half of Subdis-
trict C -JJ and C -II which was originally intended to drain easterly to Lift
Station No. 54. Sanitary sewer proposed herein will .connect to the Wescott
Trunk Sanitary Sewer - Project No. 361 which is presently under construction
through Contract 84-2.
Page 1.
9563b
21
i
WATER MAIN: Water main proposed herein includes a 6 inch diameter lateral
water main and a 12 inch diameter trunk water main to properly service the
lots in Westbury Addition. City Project No. 395 Lexington Avenue Booster Sta-
tion and Trunk Water Main (Wescott Road to Diffley Road) is also being submit-
ted for the Council's consideration at this time. This trunk water main in
conjunction with the existing 12 inch trunk water main in Wescott Road will be
the main water supply to service Westbury Addition as shown on the attached
drawing. Also included are the required number valves and hydrants.
SERVICES: Sanitary sewer and water services are proposed to be constructed 15
feet beyond the property line. Service lines are proposed to be 4 inch diame-
ter for sanitary sewer and 1 inch diameter for water.
STORM SEWER: Storm sewer proposed herein will convey drainage from Westbury
Addition to Hurley Lake (Pond JP -11 as designated in the Comprehensive Storm
Sewer Plan). Presently under construction through Contract 83-17 is the storm
sewer lift station and force main which when completed will convey drainage
from Hurley Lake to Pond JP -47. Pond JP -47 presently discharges through a
combination of controlled outlets utilizing storm sewer pipe, ponds, and lakes
to the Minnesota River. Storm sewer proposed herein is separated in lateral
storm sewer and trunk storm sewer. Lateral storm sewer is,the amount of storm
sewer required to convey drainage within the Westbury Addition. Lateral storm
sewer includes a combination of 24"9 21111 18", 15", and 12" diameter storm
sewer pipe. Although 24" and 21" diameter storm sewer pipe are not proposed
to be constructed as part of this project, they were used to determine the
lateral storm sewer benefit amount from the trunk storm sewer system.
Trunk storm sewer proposed herein includes construction of the trunk storm
sewer from Pond JP -11 to Lexington Avenue as shown in the Comprehensive Storm
Page 2.
9563b
Z2
0 0
Sewer Plan. This trunk storm sewer will ultimately convey drainage from near-
ly 2,000 acres. Trunk storm sewer proposed herein includes 48" and 42" diame-
ter storm sewer pipe constructed up to 35 feet deep. Ultimately this trunk
storm sewer will be constructed easterly as future development occurs.
Also included was evaluating the feasibility of constructing the future
force main from the Patrick Eagan Lake Lift Station (Pond JP -9 and Lift Sta-
tion No. 13 as designated in the Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan) along the
west line of Westbury Addition as opposed to through the parcel located di-
rectly west of Westbury Addition (McCarthy's). Both alignments are feasible,
however, the alignment through McCarthy's land is less costly due to a lesser
elevation which the lift station is required to pump against. It is antici-
pated the initial construction cost would be $10,000 to $15,000 less while the
power costs on a yearly basis assuming saturated development would be approxi-
mately $2,000 to $4,000 less through McCarthy's parcel as opposed to through
Westbury Addition. In any event, 'the force main. through Westbury Addition
would not be required until the third phase is developed which is not antici-
pated until 1986.
STREET b BITUMINOUS TRAIL: Street construction proposed herein includes con-
struction of a 32 foot wide street for all the streets within Westbury Addi-
tion as shown on the attached drawing. Each street will be constructed to a 7
ton residential design thickness with surmountable concrete curb and gutter in
conjunction with the required restoration for boulevards. Also included is
construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along Lexington Avenue for the
first phase. It is assumed grading of the streets and trail will be done by
the developer.
Page 3.
9 56 3b
'215
AREA TO BE INCLUDED:
Assessment Area
NE 1/4 SECTION 22
Parcel 012-01
Parcel 011-04
Westbury Addition (011-01)
Construction Area
NE 1/4 SECTION 22
Parcel 012-01
Westbury Addition (011-01)
COST ESTIMATES: Detailed cost estimates are presented in Appendix A located
at the back of this report. A summary of these costs is as follows:
Sanitary Sewer $206,590
Water Main 89,490
Services 56,320
Storm Sewer 429,610
Street b Bituminous Trail 188,100
TOTAL ........... $970,110
The total estimated project cost is $970,110 which includes contingencies
and all related overhead. Overhead costs are estimated at 27% and include
legal, engineering, administration, and bond interest.
ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited
property. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this re-
port in Appendix B.
SANITARY SEWER: Sanitary sewer proposed herein is separated into lateral and
trunk. Lateral sanitary sewer is the amount of sanitary sewer required to
service the Westbury Addition and is therefore proposed to be assessed evenly
against each benefiting lot. The lateral benefit from the trunk sanitary
sewer was determined by designing an 8 inch equivalent diameter sanitary sewer
at a depth to properly service Westbury Addition. Also included is a lateral
Page 4.
9563b
Tj
0 0
sanitary sewer extention to service Parcel 012-01 located southeast of West-
bury Addition. It is proposed' -to assess the entire cost of this line to Par-
cel 012-01.
Trunk sanitary sewer is the amount of sanitary sewer required to service
the area outside of Westbury Addition. Trunk sanitary sewer will therefore be
the responsibility of the trunk fund. Presently, trunk area assessments for
this area are pending as part of Wescott Trunk Sanitary Sewer, Project No. 361.
WATER MAIN: Water main proposed herein is separated into trunk and lateral
water main. Lateral water main is all water main 6 inch in diameter and is
proposed to be assessed evenly against the benefited lots in Westbury Addi-
tion. Therefore, the 12 inch trunk diameter water main located in Westbury
Drive will be assessed as a 6 inch lateral equivalent and all oversizing costs
associated with the 12 inch trunk main will be the responsibility of the trunk
fund.
Trunk area :rater main for the north 40 acres was previously assessed as
part of Wescott Road Utility and Street Improvements - Project No. 305. Pres-
ently, there are proposed assessments for trunk area and lateral benefit from
trunk water associated with Project No. 395, Lexington Avenue Booster Station
and Trunk water Main (Wescott Road to Diffley Road).
SERVICES: Services are proposed to be assessed evenly against the benefited
lots they serve.
STORM SEWER: Storm sewer proposed herein is separated in lateral and trunk.
Lateral storm sewer is the amount of storm serer required to service the West-
bury Addition. The lateral storm sewer was determined by designing a lateral
storm system to service only Westbury Addition. The lateral storm sewer
equivalent diameters in lieu of the actual trunk diameter are shown on the
drawing at the back of this report. -It is proposed all lateral and lateral
Page 5.
9563b
a5-
0 0
equivalent storm sewer, costs be assessed evenly against the benefited lots in
Westbury Addition. However, it proposed that the lateral storm sewer amount
be apportioned between the first phase and Outlots B and C as follows:
First Phase 66%
Outlot B 9%
Outlot C 25%
Based on this division, the lateral storm sewer assessment per lot will be
more equal such that one phase does not incur a significantly greater or
lesser assessment than the other.
Trunk area storm sewer is proposed to be assessed to the benefited proper-
ty as shown on the attached drawing. Trunk area storm sewer rates will be
those in effect at the time of the public hearing.
STREET b BITUMINOUS TRAIL: Streets and bituminous trailway proposed herein
are to be assessed evenly against the benefited lots they serve in Westbury
Addition.
All lateral costs will be revised based on final costs. Trunk area rates
in effect at the time of this report are as follows:
TRUNK STORM SEWER
Single Family $0.045/sq.ft.
Multi -Family $0.057/sq.ft.
REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as
follows:
Page 6.
9563b
Page 7.
9563b
Q-7
Project
Cost
Revenue
Balance
A.)
SANITARY SEWER
Lateral
$106,540
Trunk
100,050
Lateral Assessment
$106,540
$206,590
$106,540
-$100,050
B.)
WATER MAIN
Lateral
$ 74,080
Trunk
15,410
Lateral Assessment
$ 74,080
$ 89,490
$ 74,080
-$ 15,410
C.)
SERVICES
Lateral
$ 56,320
Lateral Assessment5$
6,320
$ 56,320
$ 56,320
- 0 -
D.
STORM SEWER
Lateral
$147,310
Trunk
282,300
Lateral Assessment
$147,310
Trunk Area
130,270
$429,610
$277,580
-$152,030
E.
STREET b BITUMINOUS TRAIL
Lateral
$188,100
Lateral Assessment18$
8,100
$188,100
$188,100
- 0 -
TOTAL ............
-$267,490
Page 7.
9563b
Q-7
0 0
The total estimated trunk fund balance for this project is -$267,490 which
will be the responsibility of each respective trunk fund. The greatest defi-
cit is shown for trunk storm sewer which is because the most expensive portion
of trunk storm sewer is required through Westbury Addition. However, as the
major trunk continues east and decreases in size and depth, the ratio of the
trunk project costs to the area assessment revenue will decrease. Therefore,
additional revenue will be generated in the future to offset deficits pre-
sented herein.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Present Feasibility Report
Public Hearing
Approve Plans 6 Specifications
Open Bids
Award Contract
Construction Completion
Final Assessment Hearing
First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes
Page 8.
9563b
I�i•J
March 6, 1984
April 3, 1984
May 1984
June 1984
June/July 1984
Fall 1984
Spring 1985
May 1986
APPENDIX A
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
WESTBURY ADDITION
PROJECT NO. 396
A.) SANITARY SEWER
770
Lin.ft.
15" RCP Sanitary sewer 25'-30' dp, in pl. @ $70.00/lin.ft.
$ 53,900
60
Lin.ft.
Jack or auger 15" RCP sanitary sewer @ $150.00/lin.ft.
9,000
400
Lin.ft.
12" RCP Sanitary sewer 15'-20' dp, in pl. @ $22.00/lin.ft.
8,800
470
Lin.ft.
12" RCP Sanitary sewer 10'-15' dp. in 01. @ $19.00/lin.ft.
8,930
110
Lin.ft.
8" DIP Sanitary sewer 25'-30' dp. in pl. @ $25.00/lin.ft.
2,750
220
Lin.ft.
8" PVC Sanitary sewer 15'-25' dp. in pl. @ $15.00/lin.ft.
3,300
2,155
Lin.ft.
8" PVC Sanitary sewer 0'-15' dp, in pl. @ $10.00/lin.ft.
21,550
17
Each
Std. 4' dia. MH w/cstg. @ $900.00/each
15,300
173
Lin.ft.
MH depth greater than 8' dp. in pl. @ $60.00/lin.ft.
.10,380
6
Lin.ft.
12" Outside drop for MH @ $140.00/lin.ft.
840
59
Lin.ft.
8" Outside drop for MH @ $120.00/lin.ft.
7,080
250
Lin.ft.
4" CISP service riser in pl. @ $15.00/lin.ft.
3,750
13
Each
15" x 4" wye in pl. @ $70.00/each
910
9
Each
12" x 4" wye in pl. @ $70.00/each
630
50
Each
8" x 4" wye in pl. @ $40.00/each
2,000
200
Cu.yds.
Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd.
2,000
4,125
Lin.ft.
Mechanical trench compaction in pl. (d $0.92/lin.ft.
3,795
Total
$154,915
+5% Contingencies
7,750
$,1;62,665
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest
43,925
A.) TOTAL SANITARY SEWER ................................
$206,590
Page 9.
9563b
oil
0 0
N
B.) WATER MAIN
860
Lin.ft.
12" DIP Water main in pl. @ $21.00/lin.ft.
$
18,060
2,750
Lin.ft.
6" DIP Water main in pl. @ $10.00/lin.ft.
72
27,500
8
Each
Hydrant in pl. @ $900.00/each
Each
7,200
1
Each
12" Butterfly valve and box @ $750.00/each
Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft.
750
7
Each
6" Resilient wedge gate valve b box @ $350.00/each
$ 42,240
2,450
5,100
Lbs.
Fittings in pl. @ $1.30/lb.
6,630
1
Each
Connect 12" DIP to ex. 12" DIP @ $400.00/each
400
1
Each
Connect 6" DIP to ex. 6" DIP @ $300.00/each
300
50
Cu.yds.
Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd.
500
3,310
Lin.ft.
Mechanical trench.compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft.
3,310
Total
$
67,100
+5% Contingencies
3,360
$
70,460
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. b Bond Interest
19,030
B.) WATER MAIN ..........................................
$
89,490
C.) SERVICES
3,240
Lin.ft.
4" PVC Sanitary sewer service @ $5.00/lin.ft.
$ 16,200
3,320
Lin.ft.
1" Type "K" copper water service @ $5.00/lin.ft.
16,600
72
Each
1" Corporation stop @ $15.00/each
1,080
72
Each
1" Curb stop @ $70.00/each
5,040
3,320
Lin.ft.
Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft.
3,320
Total
$ 42,240
+5% Contingencies
2,110
$ 44,350
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest
11.970
9563b
C.) TOTAL SERVICES ...................................... $ 56,320
Page 10.
30
r1
L
0
D.) STORM SEWER
1,270 Lin.ft. 48" RCP Storm sewer 25'-35' dp. in pl. @ $135.00/lin.ft.
80 Lin.ft. Jack or auger 48" RCP Storm sewer @ $450.00/lin.ft.
100 Lin.ft. 42" RCP Storm sewer 25'-30' dp. in pl. @ $90.00/lin.ft.
100 Lin.ft. 42" RCP Storm sewer 15'-25' dp. in pl.,@ $70.00/lin.ft.
270 Lin.ft. 42" RCP Storm sewer 0'-15' dp. in pl. @ $60.00/lin.ft.
410 Lin.ft. 18" RCP Storm sewer 0'-15' dp. in pl. @ $24.00/lin.ft.
800 Lin.ft. 15" RCP Storm sewer 0'-15' dp. in pl. @ $22.00/lin.ft.
400 Lin.ft. 12" RCP Storm sewer 0'-15' dp. in pl. @ $19.00/lin.ft.
5 Each MR w/cstg. Plate 1-4 in pl. @ $2,000.00/each
7 Each Std. 4' drain MH w/cstg. in pl. @ $900.00/each
3 Each CBMH w/cstg. @ $850.00/each
8 Each CB w/cstg. @ $750.00/each
112 Lin.ft. MH depth greater than 8' dp. @ $60.00/lin.ft.
1 Each 42" RCP flared end w/trash guard @ $2,200.00/each
-1 Each 18" RCP flared end w/trash guard @ $800.00/each
1 Each 15" RCP flared end w/trash guard @ $600.00/each
LUMP SUM Clear and grub trees @ $500.00/L.S.
16 Cu.yds. Rip rap @ $50.00/cu.yd.
100 Cu.yds. Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd.
1,470 Lin.ft. Class B-2 bedding @ $2.99/lin.ft.
3,350 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $0.93/lin.ft.
2.5 Acres Seed with mulch S fertilizer @ $1,000.00/each
Total
+5% Contingencies
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. b Bond Interest
D.) TOTAL STORM SEWER ...................................
9563b Page 11.
31
i
$1171,450
36;000
9,000
7,000
116,200
1 9,840
117,600
7,600
110,000
6,300
2,550
6,000
6,720
2,200
:IN
600
I
500
800
I
1,000
4,410
3,100
2.500
$322,170
16,110
$338,280
1
91.340
$429,610
0 0
E.) STREET b BITUMINOUS TRAIL
820
Cu.yds.
Subgrade correction @ $3.00/cu.yd.
$ 2,400
400
Cu.yds.
Select granular borrow @ $4.50/cu.yd.
1,800
14,710
Sq.yds.
Subgrade preparation @ $0.25/sq.yd.
3,680
5,930
Ton
Class 5 100% crushed quarry rock @ $6.80/ton
40,330
1,150
Ton
2331 Bituminous base course @ $11.00/ton
12,650
1,125
Ton.
2341 Bituminous wear course @ $12.00/ton
14,700
130
Ton
Bituminous material for mixture @ $210.00/tan
27,300
- 620
Gals.
Bituminous material for tack coat @ $1.20/gal.
750
6,980
Lin.ft.
Surmountable concrete curb 6 gutter @ $4.00/lin.ft.
27,920
1,780
Lin.ft.
Reinforcing for concrete curb b gutter @ $1.00/lin.ft.
1,780
32
Each
Adjust MH and CB frame @ $120.00/each
3,840
9
Each
Adjust G.V. and Box @ $100.00/each
900
3.0
Acre
Seed with topsoil and mulch @ $1,000.00/acre
3,000
Total
$141,050
+5% Contingencies
7,060
$148,110
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest
39,990
E.) TOTAL STREET b BITUMINOUS TRAIL ....................
$188,100
A.) SANITARY SEWER $206,590
B.) WATER MAIN 89,490
.C.) SERVICE 56,320
D.) STORM SEWER 429,610
E.) STREET 6 BITUMINOUS TRAIL 188,100
9563b
TOTAL ................... $970,110
Page 12.
3k - -
0 0
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
WESTBURY ADDITION
PROJECT NO. 396
A.) SANITARY SEWER
Lateral (Includes the lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer)
Number of Lots
Parcel Description or Lot Equivalent Cost/Lot
012-01 2.3 $1,473
WESTBURY ADDITION
Block
1,
Lot
1-14
14
$1,473
Block
2,
Lot
1-15
15
$1,473
Block
3,
Lot
1-10
10
$1,473
Block
4,
Lot
1-21
21
$1,473
Block
5,
Lot
1-4
4
$1,473
Block
7,
Lot
1-6
6
$1,473
Total
72.3
B.) WATER MAIN
Lateral
(Includes the lateral
benefit from
trunk water main)
WESTBURY
ADDITION
Block
1,
Lot
1-14
14
$1,058
Block
2,
Lot
1-15
15
$1,058
Block
3,
Lot
1-10
10
$1,058
Block
4,
Lot
1-21
21
$1,058
Block
5,
Lot
1-4
4
$1,058
Block
7,
Lot
1-6
6
$1,058
Total
70
Page. 13.
9563b
3!>
Total
Assessment
$ 3,400
$ 20,628
22,1011
14,734;
30,9421
5,8941
8.8411
$106,540
I
i
$ 14,816
15,874
10,582
22,224
4,233
6.350
$ 74,080
WESTBURY ADDITION - PHASE I
Number of Lots
C.) SERVICES
Parcel Description
or Lot Equivalent
Cost/Lot
Assessment
Block
Lateral
Lot
1-14
14
$587
$ 8,223
Block
2,
Number of Lots
1-15
Total
Parcel Description
8,811
or Lot Equivalent Cost/Lot
Assessment
WESTBURY ADDITION
1-10
10
$587
5,874
Block
Block 1, Lot 1-14
Lot
14
21
$805
$ 11,264
Block 2, Lot 1-15
5,
15
1-4
$805
12,069
Block 3, Lot 1-10
Block
10
Lot
$805
8,046
Block 4, Lot 1-21
3,524
21
$805
16,896
Block 5, Lot 1-4
4
$805
3,218
Block 7, Lot 1-6.
6
$805
4,827
Total
70
$ 56,320
D.) STORM SEWER
a.) Trunk Area
Parcel
Area
Credit
Assessable
Total
Description
(Sq.ft.)
(Sq.Ft.)
Area(Sq.ft.)
Rate
Assessment
NE 1/4 SECTION 22
012-01
203,205
Future R/W
(20X) 162,564
$0.045/s.f.
$ 7,316
Pond 52,100
011-04
1,177,200
Future R/W
(20X) 900,080
$0.045/s.f.
40,504
WESTBURY ADDITION
Phase I
642,000
---
642,000
$0.045/s.f.
$ 28,890
214,500
--
214,500
$0.057/s.f.
12,226
Outlot B
175,500
---
175,500
$0.045/s.f.
7,897
124,250
--
124,250
$0.057/s.f.
7,082
Outlot C
544,000
--
544,000
$0.045/s.f.
24,480
Total
$128,395
WESTBURY ADDITION - PHASE I
Page 14.
9563b
3�4
Number of Lots
Total
Parcel Description
or Lot Equivalent
Cost/Lot
Assessment
Block
1,
Lot
1-14
14
$587
$ 8,223
Block
2,
Lot
1-15
15
$587
8,811
Block
3,
Lot
1-10
10
$587
5,874
Block
4,
Lot
1-21
21
$587
12,335
Block
5,
Lot
1-4
4
$587
2,349
Block
7,
Lot
1-6
6
$587
3,524
Total
70
$ 41,116
Page 14.
9563b
3�4
0 0
b.) Lateral (Includes the lateral benefit from trunk storm sewer)
WESTBURY ADDITION
E.) STREET
WESTBURY ADDITION
Block
1,
Lot
1-14
Number of Lots
$2,687
Total
Parcel Description
or Lot Equivalent
Cost/Lot
Assessment
Block
1,
Lot
1-14
14
$1,403
$ 19,640
Block
2,
Lot
1-15
15
$1,403
21,044
Block
3,
Lot
1-10
10
$1,403
14,030
Block
4,
Lot
1-21
21
$1,403
29,462
Block
5,
Lot
1-4
4
$1,403
5,612
Block
7,
Lot
1-6
6
$1,403
8,418
Outlot
B
9
$1,403
12,627
Outlot
C
26
$1,403
36.477
Total
105
$147,310
E.) STREET
WESTBURY ADDITION
Block
1,
Lot
1-14
14
$2,687
$ 37,620
Block
2,
Lot
1-15
15
$2,687
40,307
Block
3,
Lot
1-10
10
$2,687
26,871
Block
4,
Lot
1-21
21
$2,687
56,430
Block
5,
Lot
1-4
4
$2,687
10,749
Block
7,
Lot
1-6
6
$2,687
16.123
Total
70
$188,100
9563b
Page 15.
3S
Parcel
Description
NE 1/4 SECTION 22
012-01
011-04
WESTBURY ADDITION
Blk. 1, Lot 1-14
Blk. 2, Lot 1-15
Blk. 3, Lot 1-10
Blk. 4, Lot 1-21
Blk. 5, Lot 1-4
Blk. 7, Lot 1-6
Outlot B
Outlot C
SUMMARY
COST/LOT, PARCEL
Storm
Sanitary Water Sewer Storm Total Assess -
Sewer Main Services Trunk Sewer Street ment Cost Per
Lateral(1) Lateral(2) Lateral Area Lateral(3) Lateral Lot, Parcel
$3,400 --- --- $ 7,316 $ 10,716 •
--- --- --- 40,504 40,504
$1,473
$1,058
$ 805
$ 587
$ 1,403
$2,687
$ 8,013
1,473
1,058
805
587
1,403
2,687
8,013
1,473
1,058
805
587
1,403
2,687
8,013
1,473
1,058
805
587
1,403
2,687
8,013
1,473
1,058
805
587
1,403
2,687
8,013
1,473
1,058
805
587
1,403
2,687
8,013
14,979
12,627
27,606
24,480
36,477
60,957
(1) Includes the lateral benefit from trunk sanitary sewer for Westbury Addition only.
(2) Includes the lateral benefit from trunk water main.
(3) Includes the lateral benefit from trunk storm sewer.
9563b
Page 16.
�_ WESCOTT RD.
(PARCEL 012-01)
FEBRUARY 20, 1984
0.
`WESCOTT RD.
'I
5 4 3 2 I 1 2,3 G� 5
6 6
a
1
15 'G / • 9 6 O�
L_L
S IZ ,\,J i9
a
6 M
9 I =
IO F
p Iu
W
W 12
O
SONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIN WEST ADDITION
8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers WATERMAIN
�__ Sr. Paul, Minnesoro PROJECT NO. 396
it
DATE: ilBNUGR>t 28, 1964 _ COMMISSION Ne. 49798
i.
1
15 'G / • 9 6 O�
L_L
S IZ ,\,J i9
a
6 M
9 I =
IO F
p Iu
W
W 12
O
SONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIN WEST ADDITION
8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers WATERMAIN
�__ Sr. Paul, Minnesoro PROJECT NO. 396
it
DATE: ilBNUGR>t 28, 1964 _ COMMISSION Ne. 49798
`----WESCOTT RD
N
81
I
I
I
I
m
WESCOTT RO_
S :43
2 I I 2 3 4 5
6 6
L � 7
7 6_
I 2 3 1 4 S 9
6 2 IO
9P
l0 9 e � 6
P 112
0 p Q 17
A% II — _—.14
12 / 6 IS a 3 2 1 ;
° 13-
14 6
9 0 TL
13.
4 10
u
I
t 12 r
2 '3
y .p m
3 �TLa—
.s w
1(9 19
2 3 a
SONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK WESTBURY ADDITION
9 ASSOCIATES, INC, STREETS
Consulting Engineers I 1
St. Poul, Minnes9to PROJECT NO. 396
JDATE; FEBRUARY 28, 1984 Commission Me. 49295
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Fourteen
•
Packet
Council Meeting
C,
Project 395/Lexington Avenue
B. Project 395, Lexington Avenue (Trunk Watermain/Booster Station
-- On February 7, the City Council authorized the preparation
of a feasibility report for the installation of a trunk watermain
along Lexington Avenue from Wescott Road to Diffley Road. This
feasibility report was presented to the Council on March 6 with
the public hearing scheduled to be held on April 3. Enclosed
on pages3 through �� is a copy of the feasibility
report for t e Council's reference during the public hearing.
All notices have been published in the legal newspaper and sent
to all property owners who would be affected by this project.
As of this date, the staff has received no objections to this
proposed improvement.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing
and approve/deny Project 395 for the installation of trunk watermain
along Lexington Avenue and the construction of the booster station
and, if approved, authorize the preparation of detailed plans
and specifications.
42
0 0
REPORT
11yo
LEXINGTON AVENUE
BOOSTER STATION & TRUNK WATER MAIN
( Wescott Road to Diff ley Road )
PROJECT NO.395
FOR
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
FILE N0.49294
�t A� Mo..rasoto
43
N
0
4a&4" & 4.
1333 W. 7...a .vp""
St. /).A A(...& 631t`3
PL... 611.636-4600
February 22, 1984
Honorable Mayor and Council
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Mn. 55121
Re: Lexington Avenue Booster Station
and Trunk Water Main
(Wescott Road to Diffley Road)
Project No. 395
Our File No. 49294
Dear Mayor and Council:
0
G/nu R. Coot. P.£
Keith A. Ci Mon, P.E.
Thome E. Noy P.£
Rrh W. Faun. P -E.
Rohn G. SrhwnM, P.E.
hler.ie L. S ii;. P.E-
OoneMC. RYI(eM1. P.E.
Jr A. RaaMom P.£
Mart A. Nenoon. P.E.
TM R. F.M. P.E.
MirAm T. Reurmann. P.E.
Rohn R. PJd/mrc. P.£
Q dLmt.m. P.E.
Cher A- Frim..
!ao M. ft.e k,
Harlon M. O
Transmitted herewith is our report for Lexington Avenue Booster Station and
Trunk Water Main, Project No. 395 from Wescott Road to Diffley Road.
We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a
mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report.
Yours very truly,
BONESTR00, ROSENE,
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:li
ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
I hereby certify that this report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minne ta.
—7 Mark A. Hanson
Date: Z -
Approved by _'.(—E.tee.) ' r'-��Cr'
homas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Date: - .�y
9454b
41
Reg. No. Z�od
Gno G, R .. P.E.
o
Robrt W,. Revne. P.E.
Jwph C. ArdM4. P.£
Rmd/oMA. LrmM1e, P.£
RlrhwM £ Tamm, P.E.
Jame C. Otron. P. E.
G/nu R. Coot. P.£
Keith A. Ci Mon, P.E.
Thome E. Noy P.£
Rrh W. Faun. P -E.
Rohn G. SrhwnM, P.E.
hler.ie L. S ii;. P.E-
OoneMC. RYI(eM1. P.E.
Jr A. RaaMom P.£
Mart A. Nenoon. P.E.
TM R. F.M. P.E.
MirAm T. Reurmann. P.E.
Rohn R. PJd/mrc. P.£
Q dLmt.m. P.E.
Cher A- Frim..
!ao M. ft.e k,
Harlon M. O
Transmitted herewith is our report for Lexington Avenue Booster Station and
Trunk Water Main, Project No. 395 from Wescott Road to Diffley Road.
We would be pleased to meet with the Council and other interested parties at a
mutually convenient time to discuss any aspect of this report.
Yours very truly,
BONESTR00, ROSENE,
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:li
ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
I hereby certify that this report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer
under the laws of the State of Minne ta.
—7 Mark A. Hanson
Date: Z -
Approved by _'.(—E.tee.) ' r'-��Cr'
homas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Date: - .�y
9454b
41
Reg. No. Z�od
9 0
cate it is in service nearly twice as much as it should be when compared to
other wells.
DISCUSSION:
An analysis was done on the computer to determine the increase amount of
water supplied to the high level pressure zone if the booster station and
trunk water main proposed herein were constructed. Also included was a sepa-
rate analysis to determine the flow increase if the trunk water main along
Lexington Avenue from Duckwood Drive to Wescott Road were constructed. Two
computer models were setup; one assuming a maximum day demand and the other
assuming a night time_ demand with the storage reservoirs filling. The net
effect of the first analysis showed that although the water supply along Pilot
Knob Road decreased approximately 20%, the net increase in flow to the high-
level pressure zone is nearly double the present flow rate or approximately
1,000 gallons per minute more. The second run which included the trunk water
main from Duckwood Drive to Wescott Road showed a net increase of three to
four times the present flow rate or approximately. 2,500 to 3,000 gallons per
minute more. The main reason for the significant flow increase is due to a
direct link to the main. trunk feeder located on Yankee Doodle Road which is
supplied with water from both from the Yankee Doodle reservoir (5.0 million
gallons) and the wells located at the water treatment plant site. It should
also be noted, that the existing 12 inch trunk water main along Wescott Road
is the only supply line for trunk water main proposed herein and that the flow
rate through a 12 inch main can be nearly one-third that of an 18 inch main
dependent upon the flow characteristics. As a result, it is recommended the
trunk water main from Wescott Road to Diffley Road be constructed at this time
and the trunk water main along Lexington Avenue from Duckwood Drive to Wescott
Road be constructed by 1986.
Page 2.
9454b
44
0
Trunk water main proposed herein, therefore, includes an 18 inch diameter
trunk main from Wescott Road to Northview Park Road. A 20 inch diameter trunk
main 1's included from Northview Park Road to Diffley Road. It is proposed the
trunk water main from Wescott Road to Diffley Road be constructed along the
west side of Lexington Avenue. Water stubs will be provided at the various
street locations in conjunction with the required amount of valves and hy-
drants.' Also included are water service lines to the existing homes along the
trunk water main route.
The proposed booster station will be located on the newly acquired reser-
voir site located on the west side of Lexington Avenue and south of Diffley
Road. The booster station will ultimately include 3 pumps capable of pumping
2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) each. However, it is recommended at this time
that only two pumps be constructed, one being 1,000 gpm and the other being
2,000 gpm. Also included is a pressure reducing valve which will be housed in
the booster station. .The building structure for housing the pumps and pres-
sure reducing station is estimated at 1,000 sq.ft.
AREA TO BE INCLUDED
ASSESSMENT AREA
NE 1/4 SECTION 22
011-01 (Proposed Westbury Addition)
012-01
010-02
SE 1/4 SECTION 22
011-75
013-75
014-75
020-75
012-76
9454b
NW 1/4 SECTION 23
013-25 (Proposed Lexington Square)
014-25 (Proposed Lexington Square)
015-25 (Proposed Lexington Square)
016-25
010-27 (Proposed Lexington Square)
010-28
SW 1/4 SECTION 23
010-50
020-50
010-51
015-54
016-54
Page 3.
47
COST ESTIMATES: Detailed cost estimates are presented at the back of this re-
port in Appendix A.. A summary of these costs are as follows:
A.) Trunk Water Main $409,980
B.) Services 6,740
C.) Booster Station 333,380
TOTAL ........... $750,100
The total estimated project cost is $750,100 which includes contingencies
and all related overhead. Overhead costs are estimated at 27% and include
legal, engineering, administrative bcnd interest.
ASSESSMENTS: Assessments are proposed to be levied against the benefited
property. A preliminary assessment roll is included at the back of this re-
port in Appendix B.
It is proposed to assess trunk area water main in accordance with the
Special Assessment Policy Guide which states all parcels within one-quarter
mile on either side of the trunk water main construction shall be assessed un-
less they have been previously assessed. It is also proposed to assess later-
al benefit from trunk water main to those parcels which benefit through a po-
tential direct connection to the trunk water main. Included at the back of
this report is an assessment drawing which outlines the assessment limits for
trunk area and lateral benefit from trunk water main.
Water service lines will be assessed to the benefited parcel it serves.
Assessment rates in effect at the time of this report are as follows:
TRUNK AREA WATER MAIN
Agriculture or Residential
LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK WATER MAIN
Single Family
Multi -Family, Comm./Ind.
Page 4.
9454b
4S
$1,120/acre
$21.68/centerline ft.
or $10.84/front ft.
$35.74/centerline ft.
REVENUE SOURCES: Revenue sources to cover the cost of this project are as
follows:
Project
WATER MAIN
Revenue Balance
Trunk Water Main $409,980
Services 6,740
Booster Station 333,380
Trunk Area $144,866
Lateral Benefit from Trunk 76,333
Service Assessment 6,740
TOTAL ........................ $750,100 $227,939 -$522,161
The total estimated project balance is -$522,161 which will be the re-
sponsibility of the trunk water main fund.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
CONTRACT I CONTRACT II
Present Feasibility Report March 6, 1984
Public Hearing April 3, 1984
Approve Plans and Specifications May 1984 May 1984
Open Bids June/July 1984 June/July 1984
Award Contract July 1984 July 1984
Construction Completion November 1984 Spring 1985
Assessment Hearing Summer 1985 N/A
First Payment Due with Real Estate Taxes May 1986 N/A
Page 5.
9454b q
1
0
APPENDIX A
COST ESTIMATE
LEXINGTON AVENUE BOOSTER STATION 6 TRUNK WATER MAIN
(WESCOTT ROAD TO DIFFLEY ROAD)
PROJECT NO. 395
A) TRUNK WATER MAIN
3,400
Lin.ft.
20" DIP water main in pl. @ $38.00/lin.ft.
$129,200
2,160
Lin.ft.
18" DIP water main in pl. @ $34.00/lin.ft.
.73,440
20
Lin.ft.
16" DIP water main in pl. @ $30.00/lin.ft.
600
40
Lin.ft.
12" DIP water main in pl. @ $22.00/lin.ft.
880
290
Lin.ft.
6" DIP water main in pl. @ $14.00/lin.ft.
4,060
100
Lin.ft.
Jack or auger 20" DIP w/steel casing @ $130.00/l.f.
13,000
60
Lin.ft.
Jack or auger 16" DIP w/steel casing @ $120.00/l.f.
7,200
60
Lin.ft.
Jack or auger 12" DIP w/steel casing @ $110.00/l.f.
6,600
5
Each
Hydrant in place @ $1,000.00/each
5,000
4
Each
20" Butterfly valve and box @ $2,200.00/each
8,800
2
Each
18" Butterfly valve and box @ $1,800.00/each
3,600
1
Each
16" Butterfly valve and box @ $1,500.00/each
1,500
1
Each
12" Butterfly valve and box @ $900.00/each
900
5
Each
6" Resilient wedge gate valves b box @ $350.00/each
1,750
18,000
Lbs.
Fittings in pl. @ $1.30/lb.
23,400
1
Each
Connect 18" DIP to existing 18" DIP @ $800.00/each
800
1
Each
Connect 20" DIP to existing 20" DIP @ $800.00/each
800
100
Cu.yds.
Rock stabilization below pipe @ $10.00/cu.yd.
1,000
7.0
Acres
Seed w/mulch and fertilizer @ $2,000.00/Ac.
14,000
500
Ton
Class 2 shouldering material @ $10.00/ton
5,000
5,910
Lin.ft.
Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft.
5,910
Total
$307,440
+5X Contingencies
15,380
$322,820
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest
87,160
9454b
A.) TOTAL TRUNK WATER MAIN ........................ $409,980
Page 6.
9YA
B.) SERVICES
100 Lin.ft. 1" water service @ $15.00/lin.ft.
150 Lin.ft. Jack or auger 1" water service @ $20.00/lin.ft.
5 Each 1" Corporation stop in pl. @ $24.00/each
5 Each 1" curb stop 6 box in pl. @ $64.00/each
100 Lin.ft. Mechanical trench compaction @ $1.00/lin.ft.
Total
+5% Contingencies
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest
B.) TOTAL SERVICES ................................
C.) BOOSTER STATION
Lump Sum Booster Station w/pump and pressure reducing valves
+5% Contingencies
+27% Legal, Engrng., Admin. 6 Bond Interest
B.) TOTAL BOOSTER STATION .........................
SUMMARY
A. TRUNK WATER MAIN $409,980
B. SERVICES 6,740,
C. BOOSTER STATION 333,380
TOTAL $750,100
Page. 7.
9454b
Sl
$ 1,500
3,000
120
320
100
$ 5,040
260
$ 5,300
1.440
$ 6,740
$250,000
12.500
$262,500
70.880
$333,380
r�
0
APPENDIX B
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
LEXINGTON AVENUE BOOSTER STATION b TRUNK WATER MAIN
(WESCOTT ROAD TO DIFFLEY ROAD)
PROJECT NO. 395
A. TRUNK AREA
Parcel
Total
Ac.
--
Assessable
Assessment
Total
Description
Area
Credit
6.65
Area
Rate
Assessment
NE 1/4 SECTION
22
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
5,958
014-75
1.9
Ac.
011-01
18.61 Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
14.89 Ac.
$1,120/Ac.
$16,677
012-01
4.66 Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
3.73 Ac.
$1,120/Ac.
$ 4,178
010-02
3.89 Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
3.11 Ac.
1,120/Ac.
3,483
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
TOTAL
..............................
TOTAL
$24,338
SE 1/4 SECTION 22
011-75
2.85
Ac.
--
2.85
Ac.
$1,120/Ac.
$ 3,192
013-75
6.65
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
5.32
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
5,958
014-75
1.9
Ac.
---
1.9
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
2,128
020-75
2.85
Ac.
---
2.85
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
3,192
012-76
4.80
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
3.84
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
4,305
TOTAL
..............................
$18,775
NW 1/4 SECTION 23
013-25
7.72
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
6.18
Ac.
$1,120/Ac.
$ 6,922
014-25
5.50
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
4.40
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
4,928
015-25
21.60
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
17.28
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
19,354
016-25
3.35
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
2.68
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
3,002
010-27
33.71
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
26.97
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
30,206
010-28
3.24
Ac.
Future
R/W
(20%)
2.59
Ac.
1,120/Ac.
2,901
TOTAL..............................
$67,313
SW 1/4 SECTION 23
010-50 0.84 Ac. -- 0.84 Ac. $1,120/Ac. $ 941
020-50 0.84 Ac. -- 0.84 Ac. 1,120/Ac. 941
010-51 36.34 Ac. Future R/W (20%) 29.07 Ac. 1,120/Ac. 32,558
TOTAL .............................. $34,440
TOTAL TRUNK AREA ............................... $144,866
Page 8.
9454b
S�
u
0 0
B. LATERAL BENEFIT FROM TRUNK
SE 1/4 SECTION 22
011-75
Assessable
$10.84
Total
Parcel Description
Footage
Rate/F.F.
Assessment
NE 1/4 SECTION 22
132
10.84
1,431
020-75
198
10.84
2,146
011-01
819.5(1)
$10.84
$ 8,883
012-01
465
10.84
5,041
010-02
462
10.84
5,008
TOTAL ............................
$18,932
SE 1/4 SECTION 22
011-75
198
$10.84
$ 2,146
013-75
426
10.84
4,618
014-75
132
10.84
1,431
020-75
198
10.84
2,146
012-76
268.3
10.84
2.908
TOTAL .............................. $13,249
NW 1/4 SECTION 23
013-25 223 (1) $10.84 $ 2,417
015-25 216.75(1) 10.84 2,350
016-25 328.5(2) 10.84 3,561
010-27 483 (1) 10.84 5,236
010-28 290 10.84 3.144
TOTAL .............................. $16,708
SE 1/4 SECTION 23
010-50
208.71
$10.84
$ 2,262
020-50
208.71
10.84
2,262
010-51
452.59(1)
10.84
4,906
015-54
1,314(1)
10.84
14,244
016-54
347.74(2)
10.84
3,770
TOTAL ..............................
$27,444
TOTAL LATERAL
BENEFIT FROM TRUNK ...
$76,333
(1) Assessable footage equals total front footage divided by two.
(2) Corner lot credit of 75' was applied.
9454b
Page 9.
S3
9454b
Page. 10.
CE" -
C. SERVICES
Total
Parcel
Description
Unit
Rate/Unit
Assessment
NE 1/4
SECTION
22
010-02
1
$1,348
$ 1,348
SE 1/4
SECTION
22
011-75
1
1,348
1,348
NW 1/4
SECTION
23
010-28
1
1,348
1,348
SW 1/4
SECTION
23
010-50
1
1,348
1,348
020-50
1
1,348
1,348
TOTAL ............
5
$ 6,740
9454b
Page. 10.
CE" -
0
PROJECT 395
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
SUMMARY
Parcel
Trunk
Description
Area
NE 1/4
SECTION 22
011-01
$ 16,677
012-01
4,178
010-02
3,483
SE 1/4
SECTION 22
011-75
$ 3,192
013-75
5,958
014-75
2,128
020-75
3,192
012-76
4,305
NW 1/4
SECTION 23
013-25
$ 6,922
014-25
4,928
015-25
19,354
016-25
3,002
010-27
30,206
010-28
2,901
SW 1/4
SECTION 23
010-50
$ 941
020-50
941
010-51
32,558
015-54
---
016-54
TOTAL ..........
$144,866
Lateral Bene-
fit from Trunk Services
$ 8,883
5,041
5,008
2,146
4,618
1,431
2,146
2,908
$ 2,417
2,350
3,561
5,236
3,144
2,262
2,262
4,906
14,244
3,770
$76,333
Page 11.
9454b r
6 S
$ 1,348
$ 1,348
$ 1,348
$ 1,348
1,348
$ 6,740
Total
Assessment
$ 25,560
9,219
9,839
$ 6,686
10,576
3,559
5,338
7,213
$ 9,339
4,928
21,704
6,563
35,442
7,393
$ 4,551
4,551
37,464
14,244
3.770
$227,939
w•wl.• •m•P
n� a
IF�
Nillll
frY MAt
P.w
O
---- IJTRAL anwff not TIOa{ W ATU UMI 4b h• hat tat
® V2Vn ASA WATn MM 4r ti AM
• P
'""" ...._'- .�.•� � �'�-w tAOAH. tfN1/�O�A •n••w ••uuu wsrun•n••
__ _ _ _ _ __ •a non •mum
YrI
19
YIY r.10 I
.Yup
,•'••
L,
•
I
Od Ol.. I.Y.L
I
.. d ' Y-.{0 Y-'• Y rtl
Y 00 14.0
'Y
Y-.. K.pp
Od I
T
b
1YIA M40NI 77
I tf�N7AY N
'JNIY77
1
-a
..m
u
;�.O4at•�:d
i
' •
�t. � l
{
I1 tft►A•A
iilntrnM
7"amm
o d
ui-ys.D.�d
1
Y�
p
YrI
19
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Fifteen
ect 348, Coachman/Four Oaks Road
C. Project 348, Coachman/Four Oaks Road (Streets) -- On January
17, the Council authorized the preparation of a feasibility
report for the upgrading of Coachman Road from Yankee Doodle
to Four Oaks Road and for Four Oaks Road from Coachman Road
to T.H. 13. This feasibility report was presented to the Council
on March 6 with the public hearing being scheduled for April
3. Enclosed on pages C_I_ through_ is a copy of the
feasibility report for the Council's reference during the public
hearing.
All notices associated with this project have been placed in
the legal newspaper and sent to all property owners who would
be affected by this project. As of this date, the staff has
received several questions but no objections to this proposed
improvement.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To close the public hearing
and approve/deny Project 348 for the upgrading of streets on
Coachman and Four Oaks Road and, if approved, authorize the
preparation of detailed plans and specifications.
S?
• 0
OF
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOM9UST
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55121 mm
PHONE: (612) 45d-8500 THOMAS EGAN
JAMES A SWIM
JEIiry THOMAS
IHEODORE WACHTEP
Cw d rear %
THOMAS HEDGES
PRELIMINARY REPORT ECdv NEVANVE
EUGENE w c OVET78EKE
GN Cb.v
PROJECT 348
COACHMAN /FOUR OAKS ROA
STREETIMPROVEMENTS
hereb;• cerii(v tti0i this plc -n. a7c�iiicv9on,
Or re C•Grl VIFS ^!°.:..:.F^_C1 v', Ria C., unrC .r TP.Y
R^aiete:cd ('.-: is � ... '� I -'. _ .9.: L'•C:f�: iay
laeis M t.l�:�:. c/jL�^cco
Date 3 6 RegiY scion No. 54973
R•
THE LONE OAK TREE ... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY
REPORT
UPGRADING OF COACHMAN AND FOUR OAKS ROAD
SCOPE: Project 348 provides for the upgrading of Coachman Road
from Yankee Doodle Road (County Road 28) to Four Oaks Road and
Four Oaks Road from Coachman Road to T.H. 13 to City -designed
standards for 9 -ton collector streets. This report determines
the feasibility of this project by studying existing conditions,
proposed improvements, estimated costs, and methods of financing.
RECOMMENDATIONS: In conclusion, the upgrading of Coachman Road
and Four Oaks Road to a neighborhood collector status has been
determined to be feasible from an engineering standpoint and is
also in conformance with the City's Diaster Thoroughfare Plan as
developed in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS: Coachman and Four Oaks Road presently
consist of :.i 'i -ton capacity rural road section. This section
consists of a 2" thick bituminous pavement 24' wide over a 13"
thick aggregate base consisting of 4" of Class 6 aggregate base
40' wide and 9" of Class 3 aggregate sub -base 46' wide. This
existing section is depicted in Figure IA..
The drainage for these streets is accomplished via rural ditches
to inplace storm sewer catch basins. Consequently, much erosion
is experienced every spring and after heavy rains along the north
and south road ditches of Four Oaks Road. As a result, time,
material and equipment are required by City maintenance crews to
restore and repair these ditches. Typically, repair of the
shoulders and ditches require 16 manhours and 5 truckloads of
gravel per repair costing the City approximately $400 per occur-
rence (4-6 times/year). This does not include periodic cleaning
of the storm sewer system and downstream deltas that subsequently
occur.
Grading and gravel base for these streets were accomplished under
Project 39 in 1969. The bituminous surfacing was installed under
Project 81 during 1971 and 1972. Utilities have been installed
within Coachman and Four Oaks Road under Projects 61 and 371 for
trunk water main and Project 70 for lateral water, sanitary sewer
and storm sewer. Also, the north half of Four Oaks Road adjacent
to the Coachman Land Company 1st Addition was widened to 22 feet
with concrete curb and gutter under Project 323.
Since the time Coachman Road and Four Oaks Road were initially
i constructed, much development has occurred. This development has
taken place west of Coachman Road and to the north and south of
Four Oaks Road in the form of high density, multi -family
residences. Currently, 1008 of 3,283 feet of frontage adjacent
to the west side of Coachman Road is either developed or
preliminary platted along with 818 of the east frontage.
Similarly, 638 of the south 1,300 feet and 1008 of the north
1,300 feet of Four Oaks Road is presently either developed or
preliminary platted.
Page 1
61.
0
_ic-- 6" CROWN
L 9" CL.3 GRAVEL SUBBASE
FIGURE I -A (Existing)
40' ROW I, 22'
2331 BASE COURSE
20 BIT. TRAILWAY
WITH 4" AGG. BASE
FIGURE 1-13 ( Proposed)
8618 C 9 G
11i=' 2341 WEAR COURSE
EXISTING 2" BIT. MAT
'EXISTING 13" AGG. BASE.
TYPICAL SECTIONS
COACHMAN a FOUR OAKS ROADS
Project 348
Consequently, the traffic volumes on these streets have been
greatly increased from these developments. For instance, the
1981 average daily traffic (ADT) volume for Four Oaks Road was
130 vehicles per day while the 1983 traffic counts revealed it to
be 490 vehicles per day, or almost a 2808 increase. Meanwhile,
the ADT for Coachman Road was recently determined to be 580
vehicles per day. Although no previous data exists as to traffic
volumes for Coachman Road to compare with, this number does not
yet reflect the impact of the Coachman Highlands Addition. This
is estimated to generate at least 350 vehicles per day upon
development of their first phase which is already in progress.
Therefore, the need for the upgrading of Coachman Road and Four
Oaks Road to a 44- foot wide community collector street is
present due to the increased development of the higher density
housing adjacent to both Coachman Road and Four Oaks Road.
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT: This project proposes to improve Coachman
Road and Four Oaks Road by upgrading each to its ultimate 9 -ton
neighborhood collector street cross section as depicted in Figure
1B. It is proposed to accomplish this most economically by
utilizing the existing street section. This can be accomplished
by installing B618 curb and gutter 22 feet from centerline on
each side of the street and filling the area between the edge of
the existing pavementand the new gutter section with 2" of
bituminous. Then, the entire width of the street between the
gutters would be overlayed with an additional 1 1/2" of
bituminous surfacing material. This project will complete the
staged construction of these streets begun in 1969. Accompanying
this construction will be the necessary manhole, gate valve,
hydrant, and catch basin adjustments. Installation of all utili-
ties has been completed as previously mentioned. In addition,
grading necessary to fill in the ditches and the restoration of
boulevards will also be required. Preliminary estimates indicate
there will be a shortage of fill material available within the
right-of-way. However, it is anticipated that enough fill mate-
rial can be obtained from adjacent areas.
This upgrading of Coachman and Four Oaks Road to a neighborhood
collector status will require a bituminous pathway to be
constructed along the west side of Coachman Road and the north
side of Four Oaks Road. This bituminous pathway shall be 8' wide
and be constructed along the entire west side of Coachman Road
from Yankee Doodle Road to Four Oaks Road and along the north
side of Four Oaks Road from the Coachman Road intersection to
T.H. 13. The estimated costs of improving Coachman Road and Four
Oaks Road by adding curb and gutter, bituminous widening,
trailway and overlay to a neighborhood collector street status is
$275,827. A detailed breakdown of these costs is attached as
Table A at the end of this report. These costs include 27% for
estimated legal, engineering, administrative and financing over-
head.
EASEMENT ACOUISITION
No easements are anticipated to be required for construction of
this project.
Page 2
0 0
FINANCING: Four Oaks Road is presently designated as a Municipal
State Aid (MSA) street and subsequently eligible for MSA funding.
Similarly, Coachman Road has recently been designated asa PISA
street eligible for MSA funding. with the exception of the
bituminous pathway, all construction costs are eligible for PASA
funding. In the case of the bituminous pathway, only 6 feet of
the 8 feet are MSA eligible, or approximately $5,300 (25%) of the
pathway costs would not be PISA eligible.
Other funding, for this project will be derived from special
assessments to benefiting property under :;.5. 429. In accordance
with the City's special assessment policy, it is proposed to
assess benefited property on both sides of Coachman Road and Four
Oaks Road on a front foot oasis oased on the commercial or multi-
family rate. For this project, both rates are the same and will
consist of all costs required to construct the street and
trailway, as previously described, divided.by the assessable
footage.
However, as mentioned previously, the Coachman Land Company 1st
Addition has installed their half of Four Oaks Road with the
exception of the final bituminous surface. Subsequently, the
Coachman Land Company 1st Addition benefited front footage will
be assessed only for the bituminous surfacing. doth Coachman and
Four Oaks Roads have been assessed for the first stage of their
construction which occurred under Projects 39 and 81.
The estimated assessment rates used for purposes of this report
are as follows:
Commercial/Piulti-Family........ $31.60/F.F.
Overlay Only .....................7.00/F.F.
Attached at the end of this report is a preliminary assessment
roll listing each benefited property and its proposed assessment.
The following summarizes the project costs and anticipated
revenue for this proposed project.
STREETS
Lateral
Frontage Assmts.
MSA Funding*
TOTAL
PROJECT COSTS
$275,827
n
REVENUE
$275,827
245,890
BALANCE
+$245,890
*MSA determined by adding 13% engineering overhead costs to
eligible costs.
Assessment rates presented herein will be revised based upon the
final project costs. As per City policies, the assessments will
be spread over 10 years at an interest rate dependent upon the
most recent bond financing.
Page 3 /
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Present Feasibility Report ;March 6, 1984
i
Public Hearing April 3, 1984
Approve Plans and Specifications May/June 1984
Open Bids June/July 1984
Award Contract July 1984
Construction Completion Fall 1984
Assessment Hearing Spring/Summer 1985
First Payment Due with Real May, 1986
Estate Taxes
ITEM
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
PROJECT 348
QTY.
Common Borrow 6,000 CY
Common Excay.-Trail 1,500 CY
Subgrade Prep ' 9,110 SY
Agg. Base, C1.5 for Trail 960 TN
B618 CSG 9,200 LF
2331 Bitu. Binder
Bitu. Mat'l.
2341 Bitu. Wear
Bitu. Mat'l.
Wear Course for Trailway
Bitu.Aat'l. for Tack Coat
Adjust MH
Adjust CB
Adjust GV
Adjust HYD
Seed w/Topsoil
Sod w/Topsoil
1,065 TN
50 TN
2,050 TN
130 TN
430 TN
1,140 GAL
11 EA
12 EA
6 £A
7 EA
6.6 AC
4,000 SY
UNIT PRICE
S 3.50/CY
2.00/CY
0.60/SY
10.00/TN
6.00/LF
13.00/TN
210.00/TN
12.00/TN
210 . 00/T1:
20.00/TN
1.50/GAL
150.00/EA
150.00/EA
100.00/EA
300.00/EA
2,000.00/AC
2.00/SY
32 1/2% Overhead'
'Estimated Overhead = 27% LEAF + 5.5% Contingencies
66.
AMOUNT
$ 21,000
3,000
5,466
9,600
55,200
13,845
10,500
24,600
27,300
8,600
1,710
1,650
1,800
600
2,100
13,200
8,000
$208,171
67,656
$275,827
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
COACHMAN ROAD & FOUR OAKS ROAD
STREET RESURFACE AND
CURB & GUTTER
PROJECT 4348
FRONT
TOT.STREET
PARCEL
FTG.
RATE
ASSESSMENT
SW 1/4
SECTION
9
COACHMAN
HIGHLANDS
Lot 1,
Blk.l,
Erutger Co.,Inc.
668*
$31.60/FF
$ 21,109
Fox Ridge
Addition
Lot 1,
Blk.l,
Musky Co.
371
31.60/FF
11,724
Lot 2,
Blk.l,
Rothschild Inc.
4
31.60/FF
126
Lot 1,
Blk.2,
Iclecatsky Bros.
370
31.60/FF
11,692
Lot 2,
31k.2,
Rothschild Inc.
522
31.60/FF
16,495
Lot 3,
Blk.2,
Rothschild Inc.
185
31.60/FF
5,846
Lot 4,
91k.2,
Rothschild Inc.
655*
31.60/FF
20,698
010-52,
Peter
Kontinakis
260
31.60/FF
8,216
COACHMAN
OAKS
PARE:
012-51,
014-51
& 016-51 City of Eagan
655
31.60/FF
20,698
015-51,
Rosewood
Corp.
1316
31.60/FF
41,586
NW 1/4
SECTIOt:
9
COACHMAN
OAKS
CONDONIMIUMS
Condominium
#45,
Coachman Oaks Co.
1471*
31.60/FF
46,484
021-31
Michael
& Jane Swenson
471
31.60/FF
14,884
NW 1/4
SECTION
9
012-31,
Rosewood
Corp.
697
31.60/FF
20,025
013-31,
Rosewood Corp.
1034*
31.60/FF
32,674
COACHMAN
LAND
CO. 1ST ADDITION
Lot 1,
Blk.l,
Four Oaks Court Assn.
220
7.00/FF
1,540
275,797
*Includes
75'
Corner Lot Credit
67
-_,.
A-
012-31 I
OF
L_-
�.
013-31
021-31 i CONDOMINIUMS/
75'1CORNER
LOl CREDIT
OACHMAN
HIGHLANDS
75' SCORNER
LOTi CREDIT
Z
0
~ 4
0
r -<- -2,
BENEFITTED FRONTAGE;
Lw --
� 2
city of eagan
PUBLIC
ED
WORKS
nF oA 0TKAr
OVERLAY RATE
COACHMAN
LAND CO.
IST ADDITION
PART OF
OI3-31 I
015-51
I
I
i
I
:OACHMAN
OAKS
PARK
012-51
014-51
016-51
-�o10- 52
F _ I
II j 1
J — —I
Project 348
Assessment Map
6$
approved:standard I
plate #:
0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Sixteen
0
SPERRY/TIMBERLINE NOISE ISSUE
A. Timberline Civic Association Request To Review Level of
Noise Emission At Sperry Semi -Conductor Plant -- Neighbors located
within the Timberline Addition have experienced excessive noise
that has been generated from the Sperry semi -conductor facility.
Concern about the level of the noise was an issue between the
residents and Sperry personnel during early 1983 and due to
no acceptable resolution by representatives of Sperry to relieve
the excessive noise, the neighborhood presented the problem
to the City staff last summer. The problem was evaluated by
City staff and representatives of MPGA. The noise monitoring
reports that were reviewed by MPCA were found to be acceptable
and, therefore, no action was to be taken by the City staff
regarding the enforcement of any ordinances. The neighborhood
continued to experience a nuisance and appealed their problem
to the City Council and was heard on October 4, 1983. As a
result of a presentation by representatives from the neighborhood
and discussion by the City Council, a motion was adopted as
follows: "that the staff do further investigation of the noise
and light issue, make contact with Sperry personnel and the
residential owners concerning the implementation of temporary
measures for the alleviation of the noise and light problems
with long-range plans for the problems to be resolved; further,
that there is a problem that requires immediate steps to be
corrected, and further, that the City Council be on record stating
that there is a violation of the R&D zoning category and that
the excessive noise and light problems do not comply with the
strict requirements of the R&D zoning. The City Administrator
coordinated several meetings between spokespersons for the Timber-
line Addition and representatives of Sperry in an effort to
resolve the problem upon City Council direction and the action
that was taken at the October 4 City Council meeting. Sperry
originally planned to install attenuators and diverters on all
the stacks at the plant; however, upon their own investigation
altered their corrective measures to include one attenuator
and five diverters on the stacks. Sperry noted that approximately
19 weeks should be allowed for delivery and installation of
the equipment. The time for installation was estimated to be
mid to late winter. The residents continue to experience problems
and before the proposed corrective equipment be installed, asked
that they be heard at a regular City Council meeting. The item
was placed on the February 7, 1984, City Council agenda at which
time spokespersons for the Timberline Civic Association appeared
and stated that they had hired a sound expert and the noise
levels at the Sperry semi -conductor plant as generated from
the stacks were not acceptable under criteria developed for
a residential neighborhood. The neighbors appealed to the City
Council to resolve the noise problem through enforcement of
the ordinance. Representatives of Sperry appeared at that meeting
2
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Seventeen
and assured the neighborhood and City Council that the equipment
would be installed during the month of March and they were hopeful
that corrective measures were designed so that the problem would
be reduced to an acceptable noise standard by the Timberline
Association. The City Council assured the neighborhood that
they were attempting to enforce the ordinance, however, due
to their action in October of 1983, it was necessary to allow
Sperry the opportunity to install the equipment and measure
the success of the proposed corrective devices before any further
consideration or additional action was to be considered. After
discussion by the audience and City Council, a motion was adopted
to continue the matter until the first meeting in April and
further that the City Attorney provide a legal opinion as to
the potential remedies at that time if the noise emission is
not corrected to become acceptable within approved noise standards.
At that same City Council meeting, the City Administrator was
directed to initiate noise testing and the purchase of noise
testing equipment if necessary and establish some benchmarks
for noise testing before and after the equipment is installed
at the Sperry semi -conductor facility plant. The City Administrator
has contacted MPGA, who is the State regulatory body regarding
the measurement and monitoring of noise emission standards.
That department agreed to monitor at two different location
the noise emission levels before and after the installation
of proposed corrective equipment at the Sperry semi -conductor -
plant. Mr. Dave Kelso from the Minnesota pollution control
agency has conducted those tests and a copy of the results are
enclosed on pages, through 8( 0 . Mr. Kelso will be present
at the City Council meeting to explain the results and answer
any questions that the City Council or audience might have regarding
the testing. Recent correspondence by representatives of the
Timberline Homeowners Association is also enclosed on pages
through for your information. There have been recent
comp aints made to our Police Department by residents of the
Timberline neighborhood and copies of those police reports are
enclosed without any page number.
In summary, the action to be considered by the City Council
is to determine whether the findings presented by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency satisfy noise standards as determined
for an R & D/Residential neighborhood. There is a great deal
of information that has been distributed during the past several
months to the City Council, and if any member of the Council
would like copies of letters, reports or any other information
that has been distributed in the past, please contact the City
Administrator's office.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To substantiate that the
findings of MPCA do satisfy noise emission levels and there
is no futher violation of the R & D zoning or that noise emission
levels do conflict with the R & D zoning and that the City Attorney
by asked to review procedures as. they relate to enforcement
of the ordinance.
-7D
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Eighteen
LJ
Packet
Council Meeting
0
Special Note: The City Attorney has reviewed this agenda item
and is including a memorandum which is enclosed on page
q 4 4 - 94e. Also, Sperry has performed some additional noise
analyses since the equipment was installed and if that information
is available, copies will be distributed with the Administrative
Packet on Monday for review by the City Council.
-7►
0
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
March 20, 1984
Mr. Tom Hedges
City Adminstrator
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
Dear Mr. Hedges:
As you requested, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
has conducted noise monitoring regarding complaints received from
Sperry Univac. Monitoring was completed to assess compliance
with Minnesota Noise Standard NPC -21. To date, all monitoring has
been conducted prior to the installation of Sperry Univac's noise
abatement equipment. My intention is to repeat noise monitoring
once all noise abatement equipment Ihas been installed.
Minnesota Rule NPC -2 (MR Part 7010.0400-7010.0700) establishes
the following dB(A) levels for a residential receiver:
Day Night
(0700-2200 hrs) (2200-0700 hrs)
L10 65 55
L50 60 50
Monitoring was conducted in accordance with procedures
established by the MPCA. Those procedures require an hourly
measurement from which a statistical level is obtained in the
form of an Lor L 0 The L]1 ,is that level (in decibels
A -weighted) dceede� 10� of td hourly measurement or six
minutes. The same is true for the L50 except the time is 30
minutes.
Phone: 296-7372
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville. Minnesota 55113.2785
Regional Offices • Dututh/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer -7 ;� -
0 0
Mr. Tom Hedges
March 20, 1984
Page Two
As can be seen from NPC -2, the most stringent requirement to be
met at a residential receiver is 50 decibels not to be exceeded
for more than 30 minutes of an hour at night. With this in mind,
monitoring was conducted on February 22, 1984, with the
cooperation of Ed Meister (City of Eagan); February 29, 1984,
simultaneously with Dr. Richard VanDoeren (Midwest Acoustics and
Sperry Univac's consultant) and March 3, 1984, at the request of
Mr. Giblin. The following details those monitoring events:
February 22, 1984
Location - On the south side of a city owned building (water
meter repair shop?) off of Red Cedar Road. The microphone was
placed approximately 5 feet off the ground and 35 feet southwest
of the building. A clear line of sight was maintained between
the microphone and Sperry throughout the monitoring.
Time - Monitoring was conducted from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Meteorology - Wind conditions were calm with clear skies turning
to partly cloudy. the temperature was 30°F, relative humidity
75% and pressure 29.54 inches of mercury.
Instrumentation - One Metrosonics dB602 statistical noise
analyzer with --a Bruel & Kjaer 1 inch microphone, one Bruel &
Kjaer 2209 sound level meter with a 1 inch microphone and graphic
level recorder, and an IVIE portable spectrum analyzer. All
equipment was calibrated before and after the monitoring period.
Results - Data from the dB602 statistical analyzer shows an L1
of 47 dB(A) and an L of 42 dB(A). both of these levels are Rn
compliance with MinnN ota noise rules. However, the noise was
evident and low in frequency. It should be noted that State
Noise Rules use "A -weighting" for noise measurements which
filter out and biases against lower frequencies.
Data from the IVIE spectrum analyzer was intended to give a
general idea of the frequency breakdown for the noise source.
Although data was not continuously collected, periodic whole
octave readings indicate the strongest noise components were
contained within the 63, 125 and 250 Hz octave bands. Additional
1/3 octave band readings indicate that most of the sound energy
was contained within the 160 and 125 Hz 1/3 octave bands. Octave
data was collected only to provide a spot check of the frequency
distribution and to verify statements made by Mr. Fulton on the
frequency distribution be observed.
73
Mr. Tom Hedges
March 20, 1984
Page Three
Data from the graphic level recorder was intended to provide
a permanent record for the monitoring event. Unfortunately,
there was a battery malfunction with the recorder midway through
the monitoring period which casts a shadow over the data. I did
include a copy of the graphic level data in the attachments to
show the relative pattern of the noise with the intrusion of
aircraft. This data can be used in a general sense but is not
qualitative.
Conclusions and Comments - Data from February 22, 1984, indicate
that Sperry Univac is in compliance with Minnesota Noise Rule
NPC -2. The noise is dominated by low frequency which has a bias
when the dB(A) scale is used for monitoring. Aircraft noise was
evident which leads me to believe that monitoring should be
conducted at a later hour. A copy of field data sheets can be
found as attachments to this report.
Citizens involved in this issue have indicated to me that (in
their opinion) Sperry can and does adjust operations resulting in
changes in the perceived noise. I have no information at this
point in time supporting this conclusion. However, one
interesting fact should be mentioned. I requested that the City
of Eagan not disclose the logistics of the Agency's monitoring
but, I received a phone call from one of the complainants prior
to February 22, communicating to me that it was well known in the
community when and where I was scheduled to monitor. I must
therefore conclude that all parties were aware_of my presence.
Upon completion of monitoring, I contacted the complainants for
an opinion on the representativeness of the noise on this date.
They informed me that on this date the noise was not particularly
loud.
February 29, 1984
Location - In the back yard of Mr. Giblin, 75 feet north of the
berm between Sperry and Mr. Giblin. The microphone again was
positioned 5 feet off the ground. A clear line of sight was
maintained between the microphone location and Sperry. Mr.
Giblin's back yard has a slight incline to it which provides a
clear view of the stacks on Sperry's roof.
The monitoring conducted on this date was arranged to be
concurrent with Sperry's consultant (Dr. Richard VanDoeren) who
positioned his microphone on top of the berm and further to the
east of my location. I would expect that data comparisons can be
made once Dr. VanDoeren's report becomes available.
-71
0 0
Mr. Tom Hedges
March 20, 1984
Page Four
Time - Monitoring was conducted from 10:50 p.m. to 11:50 p.m. and
11:55 P.m. to 12:55 a.m.
Meteorology - Wind conditions were calm with clear skies. The
temperature was -1°C, relative humidity 57% and pressure 30.07 in
Hg.
Instrumentation - One Metrosoncis dB602 statistical noise
anlayzer with a Bruel & Kjaer 1 inch microphone and an IVIS
portable spectrum analyzer. All equipment was calibrated before
and after the monitoring events.
Results - Data from the dB602 statistical analyzer show an Lo
5 dB A) for the hour 10:50 P.m. to 11:50 p.m. and 42 dB(A) i2r
the hour 11:55 P.m. to 12:55 a.m. The L was 42 dB(A) and 40
dB(A) respectively. Again, these levels5gre within those levels
established in NPC -2. Similar observations were made on February
29, as were made on February 22, concerning the low frequency
component of the noise.
Data from the IVIE spectrum analyzer supported earlier monitoring
data in that the primary sound energy is concentrated in the
lower frequencies. Further discussions on frequency distribution
is not necessary at this time.
Conclusions and Comments - Data from February 29, 1984, indicate
that Sperry Univac is in compliance with Minnesota Noise Rule
NPC -2. The noise monitored is concentrated in the lower
frequencies. Aircraft noise did not contribute significantly to
the overall data.
As mentioned earlier, Dr. Richard VanDoeren was conducting a
noise survey for Sperry Univac concurrent with my monitoring.
Although noise data collected by Dr. VanDoeren was not made
available to me, I am confident in that data's integrity. I was
able to accompany Dr. VanDoeren, as was a representative of
Sperry Univac, throughout the majority of the monitoring event.
Comparisons between my data and Dr. VanDoeren's can be made when
all data becomes available.
Again, to verify the representativeness of the noise on this
date, I contacted two of the residents. Comments from those
residents were similar to those received after the February 22
monitoring in that the noise was judged to be quieter than on
previous days. I did communicate this information to Dr. Richard
VanDoeren a few days later.
A copy of the field data sheets can be found as attachments to
this report.
0 0
Mr. Tom Hedges
March 20, 1984
Page Five
March 3, 1984
I mentioned earlier that residents had concerns about the
representativeness of the noise during scheduled monitoring
periods. Because of those concerns I made previous arrangements
for one individual from the community to contact me when the
noise was considered to be loud or at least representative. Luck
would have it that I received a phone call at 12:15 a.m. and I
responded.
Location - Data was taken at the same location in Mr. Giblin's
back yard previously used on February 29, 1984. In addition, I
took spot readings along the entire length of the berm.
Time - Monitoring was conducted from 1:00 a.m. to 2:30 a.m.
Meteorology - Wind conditions were calm with clear skies. The
temperature was 18°F. Relative humidity 60% and pressure 30.07
in Hg.
Instrumentation - One Wortsila 7078 integrating sound level
meter. Cali ration was performed before and after the monitoring
period.
Results - Because of the short lead time, I was not able to
monitor using continuous equipment such as the Metrosonics
dB -602. The Wortsila sound level meter is a hand held instrument
and is not normally used to provide a statistical distribution of
noise. The data is, however, useful in that it provides a
reasonable approximation of what the L or L would be if more
sophisticated equipment was available. 10 50
A copy of my field data sheet can be found as an attachment to
this report. The data shows levels (monitored at my previous
location in Mr. Giblin's back yard) ranging from 50 to 53 dB(A).
Compared to levels obtained on February 22, (L 0 = 42 dBA) and
February 29 (L55o0 = 42 and 40 dBA). March 3 was5 louder. I cannot
accurately predict how much louder but my data shows the
possibility of a 10 dB(A) increase. If a ten decibel increase is
realistic then an average person would perceive a doubling of
loudness.
Additional monitoring along the top of the berm showed levels
ranging from 50 to 56 dB(A) depending on location. Also, a 47 to
49 dB(A) range was recorded at the City owned building
(previously monitored on February 22 ,1984).
76
0
Mr. Tom Hedges
March 20, 1984
Page Six
E
Conclusions and Comments - Data from March 3, 1984, are
inconclusive for assessing compliance with Minnesota Noise Rule
NPC -2. The data does, however, show that levels were higher on
March 3 then on other dates but the degree of increase is
difficult to predict. Recorded levels show a potential ten
decibel increase.
A final comment concerning March 3, 1984. As I was arriving to
monitor, Dr. VanDoeren was completing a scheduled monitoring
survey for Sperry Univac. It will be interesting to compare my
data of March 3 with his.
I hope I have been able to provide the City .with useful
information regarding the noise problem at Sperry Univac. The
Agency is looking forward to conducting post monitoring upon
installation of noise suppressing equipment.
If I can be of further.assistance, please feel free to contact
me.
Yours truly,
Dave Kelso
Program Development/Noise
Division of Air Quality
DK/mpg
Attachments
-77
A. General Information
Noise Source S rrN Uai1 f/C L
Location ��N CC�I.��"A°�17)
Date
7Yme (s) Start /0'00 p. N4 .
Finish // :Oo
B. Instrumentation
U
Meteorology:
�P 36'F
Wind Sp/Dir
Rel. Humidity 9S%
Bar. Pressure Z9 S9 aw
6-82
Manufacturer
Model
Serial #
Cal N
Cal Before
Cal After
Comments
06vwj%u,
&oa
M P,-* +a
iq
MPck
qy
qq
Q{k Y/6! /omit.
s «
,230
hn Pa/FfAAc/F
9y
9y
9 v. l
elk Y/1-/ / " /rut .
5
Sq S7 66 '!f
inPc
-
-
-
6ra c. l.euo( pawrdee
zti��
3oF�
�.Pa�
ry1RcR
qy
qy•a
9'1•�
C. Results - Metrosonics (dBA)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
N®®O®MMOM10.
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
16000
31500
5-6
���
S9
5-6
• t
Q
?S
23.
..
—
—
Sq S7 66 '!f
Sl
SIS
C2
.77
.7S
D. Res ts — Uctave SIL
1
2
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
16000
31500
5-6
Sy
S9
5-6
ff
v7
?S
23.
1s
—
—
Sq S7 66 '!f
Sl
SIS
C2
.77
.7S
0, /0: K
0
9
E. Observations
pF(rvl00%/I w.l�+ti+e{�ewd nl fkl s4wip e,"bter rcmcfeat
4jvc►PF4 we" plseµ4 cW" 0400. 10:ys'
4 PIIS +%.5 bCOtLOOS "Acre Oe
F. Dim
S�,�y u,l✓ec
�ifP.40111�� IOLP�
1
Investigator: �►�
no
56
10CM
-----------------
----
- — — — — Broal 6 Kjmr
— ML
ov aim
,Qyr„y, ro:o9p
lD:oo P.M.
--————————————————
rrr------
SO
qo 464
la:a9 P.M
— — — Broal 3 Kjmr
or mm dneA
oV
appy 1e: 19 Ft•
p Ie: 2Q P«.
sa
qo dm
---------- erot
/e:19 P.e+.
Gil( aso(o
cdl I bra" 99 6[sn-
t,kmt Spee)
Ba�«s ���1� E' ro:� p�`•
81
- or
d
"Y�' 10'. 0 pM.
• • 6-82
NOISE SURVEY FORM A
A. General Infoimation
Noise Source SD¢vva %eUjLycL L
Location M•
Late 1-a4-gy
Time(s) Start /. lo.'SO
.2. /1 Tr
Finish SO
B. Instiwnentation
1.
2.
3•
4.
Meteorology:
Temp —/ 'G
Wind Sp/Dir eo &2
Rel. Humidity S7 ib
Bar. Pressure 30.0 �
Manufacturer
Model
Perial H
Cal b
Cal Before
Cal After
Comments
t
of
mprA j
mqon�•1
S3
ot-9
B /C H/br ll�mr�
3Q
yl
Q
3a
s6
..
13
4v�f
s6 30 ¢
MPcR
wii�Rdr
4
9'I• /
C. Results — Metrosonics (dBA)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
00®m®m
63
'125
250
500
1000
2000
MMM.����•L
8000
16000
31500
S3
S4
S`
3Q
yl
Q
3a
s6
..
13
--
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
D. Results — Octave (H_)
1
K
31.
63
'125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
16000
31500
S3
S4
S`
3Q
yl
39
3a
s6
23
13
--
E. Observations
AIV. n\VY tl&Dcowj 4p" j4A t Lt zt Ac-�,41&3
UV3 GOKdµoFL.� L't1CN l L'O V1
+Lk ivp ab io +44 Eu6Y � Ny �oaai�w. � ye�n'L�aitr�wLJ
�ow+ r3Pavey L4+waL Woy a.�Ge �ea�.
soow�, p✓ko �� wos nek��.
F. Drag...
is
N10►��or,u5 Luas
MOP
m
A CALew, �t..c
cg
Agwt
U -V5
twFotk0X&w VO4 mj EI�a
S}(VGkFj kOc dL'j
5?ZVVI LiuWat .
Investigator: D. YA,20
.0
Alk
Ah
4CIAM
•T2 rv� — �8 r Ops ons — 3a • o
�;,,
$k - G1oa✓
I'
TnS�'Y�cn,en 7a.��on
�I
.Sor�ncli ie�e.� wte.�a - r.J"o�1S/1a. Tyre
i eu-li6ralBv - r3 � la y33o C 4�( dl3
7C
-
(.a,liq,a.h
i
i
�! Yno-miloray, bcahgnAs
lava/
M peot pve-�I&C,�,F- 6-fhlins bark
50-S3
r".t £d PolPQl }ree �Ikr w� %erg+
}B
S`1 -Sb
Var-ONt let' f"CM b-ev. Ivp)
SAerr si4 *".2 fror., bvvw b
Sa-S3
5 trr 5 t�c ".3 ( VBw1 be�w i6p)
so'S.J
Tn ac/)«loll e C An, beva"
io
r�-s3
lveyt g her- rxe rows bevm
51, r3
�.,a Aer ldibi
y7�l
p D
Middle s�rfe-t rN fre++`..I- ore ,6411k5
• LAW OFFICES •
HAUGEN AND AiIHOLAI. P.A.
1936 MIDWEST PLAZA 6ULLDIMG
601 NICOLLET MALL
ORP,N M.NAUGEN MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA SS4O2
THOMAS J. NIaOLAI (BR; 339.7-61 �.
DOUGLAS L.TSCNiDA
JAMES T.NINOLA. March 14, 1984
Ms. Jan M. Cain, Chief
Regulator Compliance Section
Division of it Quality
Minnesota P lution Control Agency
1935 West Co(%ty Road B2
Roseville, MN 113
Dear Ms. Cain:
Mr. John Gustin, the President of the Timberline Civic association,
provided me with a copy of your letter to him of February 28, 1984. 1 am
a resident of the Timberline area and my property borders an that of the
Sperry Corporation. 1, too, am concerned over the 'potential for health
hazards created by Sperry's new semiconductor factory for many of the
reasons set out in the Time Magazine article which Mr. Gustin provided to
you.
Your letter indicates that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff
examined information about the equip -hent for the semiconductor factory
and, apparently, based upon the examination of that information, it was
concluded that Sperry's operations do not constitute a health hazard. 1 am
concerned that, because the information on which you based your
conclusions was furnished by Sperry personnel, the information may not be
reliable. The same persons responsible for designing the equipment in the
factory may not report facts which could make them look had in the eyes
of their management and there is a natural tendency to minimize the
potential for harm to the health and safety of the neighboring community
by only providing self-serving information while withholding that which
would be adverse. Furthermore, we in the neighborhood have developed a
strong mistrust for the inside facilities engineering personnel at Sperry
because of the manner in which misrepresentations and half-truths have
been reported to the City of Eagan as it relates to an on-going noise
pollution problem we have been faced with for the past nine months.
Rather than basing your Agency's opinion as to the safety and efficacy of
the air pollution abatement equipment based upon data supplied by Sperry,
the neighboring citizens would be more comfortable if trained personnel
of the MPCA actually visited the Sperry Plant, examined the equipment
and the effluents being discharged into the atmosphere. Then, too,
periodic surprise visits by MPCA staff persormei should be made to ensure
that the equipment installed by Sperry is properly maintained so as to
remain effective on a continuing basis to limit possible harmful
06 -%
�1jf .:1 � 1.i �.�•
PATENTS
TRADE AP.5
COPYRIGFTS
0
Ms. Janet M. Cain, Chief
March 14, 1984
Page Two
discharges. In this regard, I have been informed that a couple of years
ago transformers and other electrical equipment on the roof of Sperry's
Plant on Shepard Road had to be replaced because the electrical
insulation on that equipment had been eaten away from the corrosive
effluents being given off from Sperry's printed circuit manufacturing
facilities in that plant. I would stress that I do not have personal, first-
hand knowledge of this fact, but it was reported to me by an individual
who is in a position m know.
1 hope that your Agency will respond to -this request and that trained
personnel will conduct an on-site investigation and a detailed analysis, not
only of the equipment being used to control harmful emissions, but the
effectiveness of that equipment over extended periods as well.
Very truly yours,
Thomas J. Nikolai
1504 Red Cedar Road
Eagan, MN 55121
TJN/Ijr
vofc: Thomas Hedges, City Administrator
W.
1•. L,
• LAW OFFICES
HAUGEN AND NIKOLAI, PA.
1936 MIDWEST PLAZA BUILDING
601 NICOLLET MALL
ORRIN M.HAUGEN MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 66.402 PATENTS
THOMAS J. NIKOLAI (612) 339-7A61 TRADE MARKS
COPYRIGHTS
DOUGLAS L.TsCHIOA
JAMES T.NIKOLAI
March 19, 1984
Mr. Thomas Hedges
City Administrator
City of Eagan
3795 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55121
Re: Sperry Semiconductor. Noise Pollution Problem
Dear Tom:
Noting the manner in which Eagan City officials have responded to the
complaints of the Timerline residents relative to the noise created by
Sperry's semiconductor industrial plant, 1 am getting to the point where I
feel that further complaining is strictly an exercise in futility.
Nonetheless, I wanted you to know just how terribly dissatisfied my
neighbors and I have been on the inability of the City to compel any
corrective action on the part of Sperry.
As you may or may not know, Sperry has now installed the long-awaited
diverters on its stacks and I am writing to say that the evening of
March 16 and early morning of March 17 was perhaps the worst it has
been. I was awakened by the loud throaty roar about 300 a.m. and tossed
and turned listening to that din until 5:00 a.m. At that point I left my
bedroom and went to sleep on the livingroom couch.
It is so damn frustrating. This whole problem started over nine months
ago. We attempted to work with the Sperry people. We attempted to
work with City representatives. We called in the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. We have written to top management at Sperry. We have
appeared before the City Council and expressed our complaints. We have
repeatedly called the police. • We have attempted to have the City's
General Nuisance Ordinance enforced against Sperry. The City Attorney
refuses to prosecute. Even though I have lived in my home for 18 years
and spent considerable sums to improve my home and property, my wife
and 1 are now considering moving to get away from this problem.
However, how can I possibly command a fair price for my home when
potential buyers would be exposed to the excessive noise which grinds on,
24 hours a day.
Mr. Thomas Hedges
March 19, 1984
Page Two
The City of Eagan has already found Sperry not to be in compliance with
its R do D Zoning restrictions as far as noise is concerned. That
determination was made way last October. With reference to Councilman
Egan's statement at the February 7th hearing, just how must rope does the
City intend to give to Sperry in this matter?
I believe we have another hearing before the City Council coming up on
April 3. 1 would hope by that time that the Mayor and City Council
members will have gone to the bother of visiting the Timberline area and
hearing first-hand the problem which we have been complaining of for so
long now. I have provided you with a tape recording of the noise back in
late January or early February so that the mayor and council members
could get the full flavor of the problem prior to the February 7th hearing.
I believe that tape stayed in your desk drawer. Mr. Kelso from the
M.P.C.A. has been taking measurements and found, on the one occasion
when Sperry was unaware that he would be doing so, that the noise was
about twice the intensity permitted by the M.P.C.A. standards. Eagan's
Ordinance for R & D Zoning is much more restrictive.
I also hope that by April 3, 1984, the City Council will have received some
sort of direction from Mr. Hauge, our City Attorney, concerning the
manner of enforcement of the existing ordinances, both those relating to
land use regulations (zoning) and those pertaining to the maintenance of a
public nuisance. Nobody, including yourself, Jay Berthe or Paul Hauge
seems to be able to explain the enforcement procedure. If there is no
enforcement, there might as well be no ordinance!
As I have so often said, if any one of the Timberline residents were to
create the level of noise which Sperry is and another neighbor complained,
a refusal to cease the noisemaking would be met with police action,
prosecution and fines. Why should not Sperry be brought into court and
tried for its violations?
About the only thing we have not, as yet, done in an attempt to get this
situation turned around is to bring in public pressure via newspapers,
television, etc. This is because we have been reluctant to advertise the
fact that our area has this severe problem because of the adverse impact
on property values. However, if this condition is allowed to persist, there
will be no hiding it anyway and, as a result, we will have no choice but to
take further actions which will reflect the fact that the City of Eagan is
.either incapable of or, unwilling to provide even-handed justice to both its
homeowners and its corporate residents.
MA
0
Mr. Thomas Hedges
March 19, 1984
Page Three
The. above may come across to you as somewhat of a diatribe. However,
it is being written out of frustration and by a person who has been denied
still another night's sleep.
ery truly yours,
Thomas J. ikolai
1504 Red C ar Road
Eagan, MN 55121
TJN/Ijr
cc: Mayor -Bea Blomquist
Councilman Thomas Egan
Councilman James Smith
Councilman Ted Wactler
Councilman Jerry Thomas
Mr. Paul Hauge, City Attorney
Mr. David Turcott(Sperry)
Mr. Jack Nichols (Sperry).
Mr. Robert Falstad (Sperry)
Mr. G.G. Probst (Sperry)
Mr. David Kelso (M.P.C.A.)
Mr. John Gustin
9I
ORRIN M.H.UGEN
TNOMAs J. NIKOLAI
DOUGLAS L.TSCMIDA
.MMES T.NIKOLAI
• LAW OFFICES 0
HAUOEN AND NIBOLAI, PA.
lyse MIDWEST PLAZA BUILDING
001 NICOLLET MALL
MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402
(SIZ: 339-7A61
March 26, 1984
Mr. John Gustin
3061 Woodlark Lane
Eagan, MN 55121
Dear John:
PATENTS
TRADE MARKS
COPTRIGNTS
On March 24, 1984, 1 called Mr. Bob Falstad. Sperry's in-house lawyer, in
an attempt to determine whether all of the sound abatement equipment
had been installed. He informed me that he had been out of town most of
last week and did not know the answer. He promised to find out and to
call me back. About one-half hour later. 1 received a call from Mr.
Falstad and he advised me that at noon on Friday, March 16, 1984, the
sound abatement equipment had been irsta!led. That is, both the six
diverters and the one attenuator were in place and were running as of
noon on the 16th of March.
We spent approximately 45 minutes discussing the sination and the
following are my recollections of the points raised and discussed during
that conversation.
First of all, when I referred to the situation as "Sperry's noise problem",
Mr. Falstad took issue with that and stated that Sperry has never
acknowledged that a problem exists. Such a comment, made nine months
after this all began and in light of all that has taken place, upset me and 1
indicated to him that as long as Sperry and its people were going to
maintain that mentality, I did not see that the homeowners could expect
any solution to come from Sperry.
For the most part, Mr. Falstad pled ignorance on most of my inquiries but,
like a lawyer, continued to press to determine just what facts we had at
hand. He expressed some concern that 1 had a "pipe -line into the plant",
and he inquired as to whom my contacts are. I told him that I had already
informed Sperry in my correspondence just whom my contact was, ie., an
unsuccessful bidder for the sound abatement equipment. Mr. Falstad also
seemed to be surprised by the fact that I 'mew the identity of the sound
expert which Sperry had hired. 1 indicated that that information came to
me from a report which was generated by Mr. Kelso of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency and submitted to the City of Eagan. 1 did not
see that that was a private or privileged fact.
9a
J
Mr. John Gustin
March 26, 1984
Page Two
C,
We discussed the MPCA report dated March 20, 1984, and its finding that
on the one occasion when Sperry was not aware that Mr. Kelso would be
performing monitoring functions, the noise levels happened to be twice
that which was measured when Sperry was aware that the MPGA was in
the area with its monitoring equipment. Mr. Falstad said that he had
made many inquiries concerning the Timberline residents' allegations that
the sound levels were being manipulated by Sperry and insists that they
have not been.
Mr. Falstad requested that I cease directing letters to high level
management at Sperry and, instead, communicate only through him. 1
declined this request indicating that in the past, on several occasions, my
efforts to obtain information through him had been unsuccessful and that
on several occasions when I have called him and made inquiries concerning
the status of the installation of the sound abatement equipment, he has
failed to get back to me with a promised response. 1 also told him that
Mr. Michaud was not responding to calls but, instead, was having Mr.
Falstad return them. Attempts to obtain stars information and plans for
future corrective measures have been met with what can only be
characterized as "stonewalling".
I also indicated that the noise problem has not been satisfactorily resolved
and is still so serious in the minds of the neighboring residents that we
should not be expected to pull any punches merely because certain Sperry
personnel, having direct responsibility for solving the noise problem,
might be embarrassed in having upper level management aware of their
failures.
Toward the end of our conversation I pointedly asked Mr. Falstad whether
the equipment which Sperry has now installed is considered to be the final
solution to the noise pollution situation and whether Sperry intends to do
anything further to curtail the noise. Mr. Falstad indicated that he could
not speak for Sperry but that he would attempt to find out what further,
if anything, might be done. I asked him when he felt he could get back to
me with an answer. He indicated that he did not know, but that Sperry
will have to come up with some answer by April 3, the date for the next
scheduled City Council meeting on the subject.
In dosing, I indicated that spring was now here and very shortly the
homeowners in the Timberline area will be having their windows open. 1
indicated to him that if the sound levels were not brought within the
criteria established by the City of Eagan's Zoning Ordinance for R do D
zoned property, that a lawsuit was certain to result.
Very truly yours,
Thomas 1 Nikolai
TJN/ljr
cc:Giblin
m Hedges
• LAW OFFICES • '-'�' "
HAUGEN AND NIHOLAI. PA.
I936 MIDWEST PLAZA BUILDING
601 NICOLLET MALL
OQP.N M.NAUGEN MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402 PATENTS
THOMAS J. NIKOLAI (612:338-7461 Tq DE AM.5
COPTAIGMTS
ODuGLAS L-TSCNIDA
JAMES T. NIKOLAI
March 26, 1984
Mr. David/Turcotte
Sperry Corporation
P. 0. Boz 43525
St. Paul, MN 55164
i
Re: Sperry Noise Pollution Problem
Dear Mr. Turcotte:
Please consider this as a formal request for Sperry to provide
to me, as a representative of the Timberline neighborhood,
a copy.of all test data and test reports. generated by Dr.
VanDoren relating to the noise conditions at your Semiconductor
Operations.
we would like to have this information available.by March 30,
1984 so that we will have an opportunity to review it prior
to the April 3 public hearing. I would be happy to stop by
and pick it up from you if mailing,time is going to be a problem.
Very truly yours,
Thomas J. Nikolai
TJN/jk /
cc: Tom Hedges, City of Eagan ✓
Dave Kelso, MPCA
John Gustin
I
AAIIGE, SuiTH, EIDE & KL•'LLER, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PAUL H. HAUGE
BRADLEY SMITH
KEVIN W. EIDE
DAVID O. KELLER
Eagan City Council
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS
3808 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 79122
March 30, 1984
Re: Sperry Semi Conductor Plant Noise Complaints
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
An" Cope 812
TLLEPmomE 494.4224
Since the Council directed the staff to gather information and prepare a
report for the regular Council meeting on April 3 concerning the complaints
of neighboring residents -about noise from the Sperry Semi Conductor plant,
there has been a significant amount of monitoring of the noise levels by two
persons including Dr. Richard VanDoern, an independent noise engineer on
behalf of Sperry, and David Kelso of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
who was requested to do the monitoring by the City of Eagan. The neighboring
property owners had also engaged Robert W. Fulton to monitor the noise levels
and a report was earlier submitted to the City Council based on his findings.
The results of these tests should be compiled by the staff prior to the
April 3 meeting and the results available to the City Council at that meeting.
In addition, it is our understanding that a noise attenuator was installed
on one of the emission stacks and that baffles were installed on six additional
noise emitting devices from the Sperry plant nearest to Timberline Addition.
Some testing has taken place since the installation of the noise abatement
equipment and the results will be compared by the noise consultants.
Since the Council last considered the issue, the neighboring Timberline
residents have filed official complaints with the Eagan Police Department
alleging significant noise problems particularly during nighttime hours. It
was our recommendation to the Eagan Police Department and the Council that the
City not prosecute any complaints until additional testing takes place and the
sound abatement equipment was installed. The reason for this primarily was
that the Council members had indicated that they wanted to allow Sperry to
attempt to reduce any alleged noise problem and also because of practical
evidentiary problems that appeared to exist.
In any event, some of the alternatives the City Council would appear to have
relating to the noise complaints are as follows:
March 30, 1984
Page Two
0
1. No Action. The Council could accept the findings of the noise consultants
and determine that there is no significant noise problem if the results
according to normal noise testing standards prove that such action is warranted.
2. Ordinance Citation. The City Council could authorize citations to
be served upon Sperry alleging violations of certain ordinance provisions
and these could include one or more of the following:
a. Zoning Violation. The City Council could reaffirm its decision and
resolution of October 4, 1983, at which time it determined that Sperry
was in violation of Eagan Code Chapter 11.20, Subd. 18, relating to
noise emissions from a facility in.a R 6 D zoned parcel adjacent to a
residential area. The facts should be reviewed very carefully to
determine that there is sufficient evidence. This may warrant
prosecution under the specific ordinance resulting, of course, in
potential fines against the corporation.
b. Ordinance Compliance. Another alternative would be for the City
Council to review all aspects of the Sperry Semi Conductor plant facility
including compliance with all building permit requirements, conformance
with all state requirements relating to noise emissions, compliance with
air quality emission standards, and any other issues relating to the
grant of building permits and other permits required for the establishment
of the semiconductor facility. It is our understanding that Sperry did
comply with state and local requirements in these respects.
C. Noise Pollution. Violation of Code Section 10.42 concerning non-
compliance with PCA noise standards is the basis for an ordinance citation.
d. Nuisance Violations. We treated this issue in our letter to Chief
Berthe dated February 23, 1984. There should be a showing that Sperry
intentionally created, maintained, and permitted a condition which
unreasonably damages, injures, or endangers the safety, health, morals,
comfort or repose of a considerable number of persons. Two or more
complaints have been filed by neighboring residents with the Eagan
Police Department.
3. Injunctive Relief. If the City Council determines that there are violations
of any of these State or City requirements or ordinances, there may be cause
for injunctive relief against Sperry in the event of refusal to comply. Injunc-
tive action could include the following:
a. An attempt to force compliance with any laws or ordinances with
which Sperry has failed to comply including building permit requirements,
zoning requirements, etc.
b. Require additional noise abatement devices including attenuators,
baffles, equipment modifications, etc.
MW
March 30, 1984
Page Three
11
c. Compliance with Code Section 10.42 , Noise Pollution Regulations,
which incorporates the PCA noise standards into the City ordinances.
This could, of course, include fairly protracted litigation and also require a
high degree of proof. We would recommend against this injunction alternate
unless there is fairly clear and convincing evidence to proceed in any area of
these directions.
4. The neighboring residential owners may have grounds for commencing their
independent civil action against Sperry and have alleged in the past, such
potential claims as diminution in value of neighboring residences and whatever
other claims may be grounds for such an action.
5. The City Council may, if it finds that the results from the noise moni-
toring are inconclusive, request another independent noise consultant to
review and make recommendations concerning steps that should be taken by
Sperry to reduce the noise or to determine whether other concrete steps could
be taken to modify the equipment in addition to further noise testing. It is
my understanding that some members of our Building Inspection staff are quite
familiar with the noise emission equipment and might have recommendations in
this respect.
PHH:ras
Very truly yours,
HAUGE, SMITH, EIDE h KELLER, P.A.
Paul . Haug `• \ (/
94 C.
0 0
HAIIGE, Smim EIDE & FELLER, P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS
3808 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
PAUL H. HAUGE
BRADLEY SMITH
KEVIN W. EIDE
DAVID G. KELLER
Eagan City Council
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 55122
March 30, 1984
Re: Sperry Semi Conductor Plant Noise Complaints
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
AR[. Cam 812
T9LCPHGN2 454.622•
Since the Council directed the staff to gather information and prepare a
report for the regular Council meeting on April 3 concerning the complaints
of neighboring residents about noise from the Sperry Semi Conductor plant,
there has been a significant amount of monitoring of the noise levels by two
persons including Dr. Richard VanDoern, an independent noise engineer on
behalf of Sperry, and David Kelso of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
who was requested to do the monitoring by the City of Eagan. The neighboring
property owners had also engaged Robert W. Fulton to monitor the noise levels
and a report was earlier submitted to the City Council based on his findings.
The results of these tests should be compiled by the staff prior to the
April 3 meeting and the results available to the City Council at that meeting.
In addition, it is our understanding that a noise attenuator was installed
on one of the emission stacks and that baffles were installed on six additional
noise emitting devices from the Sperry plant nearest to Timberline Addition.
Some testing has taken place since the installation of the noise abatement
equipment and the results will be compared by the noise consultants.
1
Since the Council last considered the issue, the neighboring Timberline
residents have filed official complaints with the Eagan Police Department
alleging significant noise problems particularly during nighttime hours. It
was our recommendation to the Eagan Police Department and the Council that the
City not prosecute any complaints until additional testing takes place and the
sound abatement equipment was installed. The reason for this primarily was
that the Council members had indicated that they wanted to allow Sperry to
attempt to reduce any alleged noise problem and also because of practical
evidentiary problems that appeared to exist.
In any event, some of the alternatives the City Council would appear to have
relating to the noise complaints are as follows:
• I ,
March 30, 1984
Page Two
0
1. No Action. The Council could accept the findings of the noise consultants
and determine that there is no significant noise problem if the results
according to normal noise testing standards prove that such action is warranted.
2. Ordinance Citation. The City Council could authorize citations to
be served upon Sperry alleging violations of certain ordinance provisions
and these could include one or more of the following:
a. Zoning Violation. The City Council could reaffirm its decision and
resolution of October 4, 1983, at which time it determined that Sperry
was in violation of Eagan Code Chapter 11.20, Subd. 18, relating to
noise emissions from a facility in a R b D zoned parcel adjacent to a
residential area. The facts should be reviewed very carefully to
determine that there is sufficient evidence. This may warrant
prosecution under the specific ordinance resulting, of course, in
potential fines against the corporation.
b. Ordinance Compliance. Another alternative would be for the City
Council to review all aspects of the Sperry Semi Conductor plant facility
including compliance with all building permit requirements, conformance
with all state requirements relating to noise emissions, compliance with
air quality emission standards, and any other issues relating to the
grant of building permits and other permits required for the establishment
of the semiconductor facility. It is our understanding that Sperry did
comply with state and local requirements in these respects.
c. Noise Pollution. Violation of Code Section 10.42 concerning non-
compliance with PCA noise standards is the basis for an ordinance citation.
d. Nuisance Violations. We treated this issue in our letter to Chief
Berthe dated February 23, 1984. There should be a showing that Sperry
intentionally created, maintained, and permitted a condition which
unreasonably damages, injures, or endangers the safety, health, morals,
comfort or repose of a considerable number of persons. Two or more
complaints have been filed by neighboring residents with the Eagan
Police Department.
3. Injunctive Relief. If the City Council determines that there are violations
of any of these State or City requirements or ordinances, there may be cause
for injunctive relief against Sperry in the event of refusal to comply. Injunc-
tive action could include the following:
a. An attempt to force compliance with any laws or ordinances with
which Sperry has failed to comply including building permit requirements,
zoning requirements, etc.
b. Require additional noise abatement devices including attenuators,
baffles, equipment modifications, etc.
i=1
March 30, 1984
Page Three
C. Compliance with Code Section 10.42 , Noise Pollution Regulations,
which incorporates the PCA noise standards into the City ordinances.
This could, of course, include fairly protracted litigation and also require a
high degree of proof. We would recommend against this injunction alternate
unless there is fairly clear and.convincing evidence to proceed in any area of
these directions.
4. The neighboring residential owners may have grounds for commencing their
independent civil action against Sperry and have alleged in the past, such
potential claims as diminution in value of neighboring residences and whatever
other claims may be grounds for such an action.
5. The City Council may, if it finds that the results from the noise moni-
toring are inconclusive, request another independent noise consultant to
review and make recommendations concerning steps that should be taken by
Sperry to reduce the noise or to determine whether other concrete steps could
be taken to modify the equipment in addition to further noise testing. It is
my understanding that some members of our Building Inspection staff are quite
familiar with the noise emission equipment and might have recommendations in
this respect.
PHH:ras
Very truly yours,
HAUCE, SMITH, EIDE & KELLER, P.A.
Paul
174 C.
0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Nineteen
0
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/COMMERCIAL STORAGE FACILITIES
B. Perry Keiffer for a. Conditional Use Permit for Commercial
Storage Facilties in an Agricultural Zoning District -- A public
hearing was held before the Advisory Planning Commission at
a regular meeting held on January 24, 1984 to consider an applica-
tion submitted by Perry Keiffer requesting a conditional use
permit for outside storage. Due to Mr. Keiffer's involvement
with the Shrine Circus, it was not possible for him to attend
the February 21 City Council meeting. Therefore, upon his request,
this item was continued until the April 3 City Council meeting.
The Advisory Planning Commission is, recommending approval of
the application. For additional information on the item, refer
to the City Planner's report, a copy of which is enclosed on
pages q through 10 y For additional information on the
action that was taken by ,the APC, refer to a copy of their minutes
enclosed on page A2 .
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny a
conditional use permit for commercial storage for Perry Keiffer.
95
C CITY OF EAGAF
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
APPLICANT: PERRY KIEFFER
LOCATION: PART OF THE SW's OF THE SA OF NES., OF SEC. 24
PARCEL 10-02400-010-05, 3955 DODD ROAD
EXISTING ZONING: A (AGRICULTURAL)
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: JANUARY 24, 1984
DATE OF REPORT: JANUARY 19, 1984
REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER
APPLICATION SUBMITTED: An application has been submitted requesting
a conditional use permit for outside storage located in part of the
SW; of the SW< of the NE'a of Section 24, 3955 Dodd Road.
COMMENTS
In reviewing this particular application, it appears that Mr. Kieffer
presently owns a minimum of 5 acres, and there is presently a farm-
stead with a barn and new pole building constructed on this property.
City staff issued a permit in late 1983 for a pole barn as it relates
to agricultural purposes. It is also staff's understanding that Mr.
Kieffer is a collector of antique cars and has a rental car business
in which he needs a place to store some of the vehicles he presently
owns himself or with his business. Staff understands that most of
the vehicles are presently stored inside, however, there are some ve-
hicles which would be needed to be stored outside on occasion.
Staff has reviewed the property and the area proposed for storage is
not that noticeable from Dodd Road, if the storage could be placed
in a location which would be least noticeable from Dodd Road.
Since the application was submitted, staff has notified the property
owners within 350 feet. We have had one inquiry from Mr. Howard Fox
requesting what the notice was about and is the business a legitimate
business or is some type of illegal operation being proposed. Staff
informed him that this was the normal process to notify the people
within a distance of 350 feet to inform them as to what is being pro-
posed on this particular property. The only concern Mr. Fox had was
he wanted to make sure that Mr. Kieffer was performing a legitimate
business with the storage of the vehicles.
In review of this particular conditional use, it would appear that
if this conditional use is approved, it should be subject to the fol-
lowing conditions:
CITY OF EAGAN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PERRY KIEFFER C
JANUARY 24, 1984
PAGE TWO
1) All vehicles stored on the property shall either have a collect-
or's license plate or a current license plate in order that a
junkyard or that type of facility would not be created.
2) The Planning Commission may want to discuss with Mr. Kieffer
how many cars should be the maximum stored on this property
that would work for Mr. Kieffer and have some control by the
Advisory Planning Commission.
DCR/jach
49Z 57
Survey Por: aK 4l,t45
C Perry Kieffer
3955 Undd goad
FAmanr MN 5',111
DELMAR H. SCHWANZ-��
yHp.u,v..an Scale
uw•.� arc u.r. w......
Tr.-r41TH ST•EIT w. -SOaw • 1412•21rle.
RUAVIYOa'S CERTIFICATE
N•Cro. UuE •} OOTM 05.00 iae.� Wyt,s1j114,
r 477.00 . N 04057"SV E. i
' 4' A I
i v
. 8
V%
43
w4
LO --N'
1 % I d
I. _
Ur •i
« a tiya
ti .r /
a o• 13 �� S
r IT
ff
W71'�'OPJ'4"
qL
w VIQ
� 7 .
Z
40AI J, �4e.21 ,40.09
4T1.00 A 59•57't9' e.
.t W Vt,SWV4, NE'�41 Sac. Z4, T. X11 C. 23
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct representation or
a survey of the boundaries of the following described tract of lend:
The east 475.00 feet of the south 475.00 feet of the West Half of
the SouthweeC Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 27,
Pange 11, Dakota County, Minnesota.
Subject to all easements of record.
Alen ehnuing the major buildings as located thereon.
-" 19g
Aa a.rrv.vaA by m. thla slat Aay of October,
SUBJECT PARCEL
06"
c
C
ADEN L TS
T
• S. A. R. # 63A
ui
�ftir.I r•
D WEST PU 8LISNIN 99 a
Ist ADD.Ell
o
I v
SUBJECT PARCEL
CUe
• W
q ~ G8 I
I -I ;
/z C. S. A. H. s 30
I
r — ---
AUDITOR'S sUBD. NO. aZ
0 0
APC Minutes
/ January 24, 1984
was to remove most of the cars and indicated that the property is being rented
with the renters stabling the horses on the property. Questions concerning
the size of the fenced area and the type of fence were asked by members
Wilkins, and there were also concerns about the nearness of the property to
Pilot Knob Road, the residential character of the neighborhood and the need
for variance under the 5 acre minimum for agricultural purposes. Noting the
objections that were submitted by neighboring owners, Mulrooney stated that
there was no showing of any practical difficulties or hardships according to
ordinance requirements and was also concerned about precedent problems and the
fact that it was rental property. Krob moved, Mulrooney seconded the motion
to recommend denial of the application based upon the concerns of the neigh-
boring property owners, and that there was no hardship shown or practical
difficulties. All voted in favor.
PERRY KIEFFER - CONDITIONAL USE PER?QT
The public hearing regarding the application of Perry Kieffer for condi-
tional use permit for personal storage located at 3955 Dodd Road was brought
before the Council. Dale Runkle stated that the Kieffer property is approxi-
mately 5 acres and is presently a farmstead with a barn and new pole building
constructed on the property. The City staff issued a permit in late 1983 for
the pole barn noting that it was on agricultural property. Mr. Kieffer is a
collector of antique cars and has a rental car business for which he has
requested space to store some of the vehicles he presently owns himself or
with his business. Mr. Kieffer was present and stated that he has approxi-
mately 30 vehicles stored outside with 40 or 50 vehicles inside at the present
time and not all are licensed. A neighboring owner had concerns as to whether
the proposal would meet the ordinance guidelines. Mr. Kieffer stated that he
would agree to license all of the automobiles if it was a requirement of the
City and also may request a permit for an additional pole building in the near
future. He also stated that he would agree with the annual renewal condi-
tional use permit if the request was imposed. After discussion, McCrea moved,
Krob seconded the motion to recommend approval of the application, subject to
the following conditions:
1. All vehicles stored on the property shall either have collector's
license plates or current license plates in order that a junkyard or that type
of facility would not be created.
2. The conditional use permit shall be renewed at least every three
years unless objections arise and the City determines that the ordinance is
not being complied with.
3• No more than 40 vehicles shall be stored outside at any one time.
4. The property shall not be used for commercial purposes.
All voted in favor.
'tt 6 /ol
6 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Twenty
CITY CODE UPDATE/REVISIONS
C. City Code Update/Revisions -- As stated in the written and
verbal background for the February 21, 1984 City Council meeting,
the ordinance codification was originally adopted by the City
Council effective January 1, 1983. However, since the approval
of that document, changes in City Code language 'have been pro-
posed by both City staff and City Council, in addition to correc-
tions, changes in State law and other revisions, causing -a need
to update the City Code. Municipal Ordinance Codifiers, Inc.,
were again retained to review the various changes proposed for
the ordinance codification, and upon completion of all amendments
to the City Code, action was taken by the City Council at the
February 21 City Council meeting to approve all changes with
the exception of Chapters 11 and 13 as well as several other
items that were directed by the City Council to the City Adminis-
trator for further review and consideration. There were specifi-
cally four items which were addressed by the City Administrator
in a memo to the Director of Finance who is responsible as City
Clerk for all ordinances and a copy is enclosed on page
X03 for your reference. The Director of Finance has coordinated
these ordinance changes, all of which have been reviewed by
the City Administrator and City Attorney's office. For a copy
of the ordinance codification revisions as prepared by the Director
of Finance, refer to pages through it % which includes
a response to the questions that were raised by the City Council
and also a review of the changes for Chapters 11 and 13 which
pertain to zoning and subdivisions. The Advisory Planning Com-
mission held a public hearing at their last regular meeting
and are recommending the changes as outlined in Chapters 11 and 13.
If the City Council desires any additional information, please
feel free to contact the City Administrator's office.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the
final changes to the revisions proposed for the City Code.
WL-
0 0
MEMO TO: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE VANOVERBEKE
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: FEBRUARY 23,1984
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE CODIFICATION REVISIONS
In official action that was taken by the City Council at the
February 21 meeting, all revisions to the City Code were approved
with the exception of language in Chapters 11 and 13 that has
not been published by the City Council. The City Attorney has
agreed to coordinate which language has appeared before the
Advisory Planning Commission, City Council and received final
publication so that publication need not be duplicated.
Other changes that were made by the City Council as a part of
their official action at the meeting Tuesday include the following:
1) Ordinance #9, second series, Subdivision 4B - change 500
to 350 ft. in that paragraph.
2) Chapter 6 - The City Council is questioning how the definition
of kennel was changed to 4 rather than 3. It appears the
City Council still favors 3 or more dogs or cats rather
than 4 as proposed.
3) Ordinance #16, second series, Section 10.30 Curfew - The
City Council would like to eliminate curfew .entirely from
the City Code. Chief of Police Berthe should review the
consequences of eliminating curfew from the City Code and
prepare a memorandum if he feels language should be retained
for law enforcement purposes. Please share these concerns
with Jay Berthe, and I will be happy to discuss this matter
in further detail with him.
4) Please define under Ordinance #2 what the prohibition of
trapping means. It was my understanding and the understanding
of the City Council that trapping is to be prohibited in
city parks and land under 5 acres. Please provide further
definition of prohibiting trapping.
I would suggest that after the public hearing is held by the
Planning Commission to consider changes as proposed in Chapters
11 and 13, that all the revisions that were not adopted by the
City Council and changes under Chapters 11 and 13 be presented
to the City Council for their final review. It is anticipated
that this will occur at an April City Council meeting. However,
I may wish to address the curfew ordinance, trapping and change
in the kennel license before that date if staff feels strongly
about making changes that the City Council to date is not concurring
with.
City Administrator
TLH/jj
cc - Paul Hauge, City Attorney to 3
0 0
MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK VANOVERBEKE
DATE: MARCH 28, 1984
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE CODIFICATION REVISIONS
In your memo of February 23, 1984, you listed certain items
for which the City Council requested additional information/changes
to the ordinance codification revisions as they were presented
at their meeting of February 22, 1984. I have reviewed the
material and provide the following information:
1. The mailing notice regarding moving buildings is being changed
from 500 ft. to 350 ft. per the City Council's request.
2. Ordinance No. 5, prior to codification, defined a kennel
as "Any shelter, place, building, abode, or enclosure used
for the prupose of keeping, maintaining, breeding, training
or raising more than three licensed dogs or three dogs over
3 months of age".
This has been interpreted, correctly I believe, to mean
that kennel licensing would start with 4 or that 3 would
not require the license.
The original ordinance codification of 1982 defined a kennel
as "Any place, building, tract of land, abode or vehicle,
wherein or whereon three or more dogs or cats, or combination,
over six (6) months of age, are kept, kept for sale, or
boarded".
This process changed the numbers, reducing them by one,
meaning that the license requirement starts at 3 or that
2 would not require the license.
In the current review process, we are simply attempting
to get back to where we were prior to codification. No
staff person has been willing to admit to requesting the
reduction, however, if that is the City Council's desire,
then Ordinance No. 12, 2nd Series, should not be adopted
and enforcement of the Code as written at the reduced numbers
should commence.
3. This question has been resolved at the March 22, 1984, City
Council meeting.
4. The reference in Lorraine E. O'Reilly's memo of February
13, 1984, to inserting Ordinance No. 2 prohibiting trapping
means that the ordinance adopted March 1, 1983, will become
part of the Code. A copy of this ordinance as adopted is
attached. I believe it does what you state to be your under-
standing and that of the City Council.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
MARCH 28, 1984
PAGE 2.
The public hearing for Ordinance No. 7, 2nd Series, amending
Chapter 11 and Ordinance No. 13, 2nd Series, amending Chapter
13 was held before the Advisory Planning Commission on March
27, 1984, and these changes are now' ready for City Council review.
My memo to Dale Runkle outlining the changes is attached for
your reference.
Hopefully, all of the revisions can be given approval at the
April 3, 1984, meeting. Upon this approval my office will coordi-
nate the publication, etc., with the City Attorney's Office
as well as with Roger Jensen.
Please let me know if you desire ;any additional information
or would like to discuss these items in more detail. Please
also let me know what other copies you desire. Generally, the
ordinances have not been retyped into final form and probably
will not be until the whole package can be processed.
U
Fina a Director City Clerk VanOverbeke
EJV/jj
Enclosure
CC Tdu� tlnuq Q,
os
• ORDINANCE NO. 2, 2N• ERIES
5
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY
CODE, CHAPTER 10, ENTITLED "PUBLIC PROTECTION, CRIMES AND OFFENSES"
BY ADDING A PROVISION REGULATING TRAPPING; AND, BY ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE, EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 10.99 WHICH, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF_EAGAN DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter 10 is hereby amended by
adding a Section to read:
SEC. 10.13. TRAPPING PROHIBITED - EXCEPTIONS.
Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terms, as used
in this Section, shall have the meanings stated:
A. "Trap" - Any device, snare, artificial
light, net, bird line, ferret, hawk, vehicle or contrivance
whatever used to catch, snare, kill, or otherwise restrain
the free movement of animals or birds.
B. "Trapping" - The act of setting, laying or
possession with intent to set or lay a trap.
Subd. 2. Unlawful Act. It is unlawful for any
Iperson to do any trapping.
to: Subd. 3. Exceptions. This Section shall not apply
A. Owners of platted lots of five acres or
more, and then only if it is done by the owner, a member of
the owner's family, or by written consent of the owner; pro-
vided, that such trapping is not done upon or within 100 feet
of the boundary of any City, County or State park, organized
recreational area, or other public property.
B. Quick -kill trapping if the traps are
designed to kill only rats, mice, gophers or moles.
C. Employees or duly authorized representa-
tives of the City, County, State or Federal government acting
within the course and scope of their employment.
D. Teachers trapping for educational programs
or scientists for the purpose of studying animals, wild life
or birds, which will be returned to their natural environment
uninjured.
/06
L
0
Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions
and Dee inoitions Applicable to the Entire.City Code Including Penalty
for violation" and Section 10.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor"
are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though
repeated verbatim herein:
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect
upon i s`� a od ptlon and publication according to law.
ATTEST:
Its y Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF EAGAN
By:
!Its Mayor/—
Date Ordinance Adopted: March 1, 1983
Date Ordinance was Published in the Fagan-rhronic!le -April 25, 1983
-2-
/07
0
MEMO TO CITY PLANNER RUNKLE
MARCH 22, 1984
PAGE 2
Reference City Code Page
VII. 313
0
The word "Utilities" is changed
to "Facilities" (underlined)
and is a correction of a typo-
graphical error.
The attached copy of Ordinance No. 13, 2nd Series, contains the
proposed changes to Chapter 13, and they are as follows:
Reference City Code Page Explanation
I, 372 Changes the process which pro-
vides for a Council waiver of
certain items in the plating
process.
II. 382 Removes the word "residential",
which then causes park dedication
to be satisfied for all plats.
III. 383 and 384 Changes the deadline for. record-
ing a plat to within sixty (60)
days "from final plat approval"
by the Council. This corrects
a codification error.
IV.
397
Corrects the typographical error
on Intermediate.
V.
398
Changes 2' to 12' and adds "and
gutter" to the last two types
of streets. These are error
corrections.
VI.
399
Changes "Trails" to "Trailways"
and changes "and" to "and/or".
These simply clarify the language.
VII.
399
Adds the words "and adjacent"
to clarify the meaning of this
section.
VIII.
399-400
D. is added as a new Item.
IX.
401
Corrects the reference to City
Code Chapter 11.
X.
402
Changes the word "one" to "per"
which corrects an error.
MEMO TO: CITY PLANNER RUNKLE
FROM: FINANCE DIRECTOR/CITY CLERK VANOVERBEKE
DATE: MARCH 22, 1984•
SUBJECT: ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
CHANGES TO CHAPTER 11 AND CHAPTER 13 OF THE CITY CODE
The attached copy of Ordinance No. 7 2nd Series contains the pro-
posed changes to Chapter 11, and they are as follows:
Reference City Code Page Explanation
I. 270 This is a new definition of a
"Planned Development". It was
aFproved by the APC on May 10,1983.
II. None This is a new definition of "Set-
back". It previously was not
defined. (The word minimal is
not included.)
III. 285 The word "and" in the code is
being changed to "all" (under-
lined). This merely improves
the readibility of this sentence.
IV. 287 The classification of I-1 is
changed from "Light" to "Limited"
and in I-2 "Heavy" is changed
to "General". These items simply
correct a codification error
and make these classifications
consistent with the terminology
used throughout the code.
V. 288 8 290 Remove Item 6 of Subd. 3 and
Item 7 of Subd. 5 from uses under
agricultural districts and re-
sidential districts respectively.
The City cannot require these
special permits under State law.
VI. 313 This is added as a conditional
use. This item is included as
part of the update package, how-
ever, both the APC and City Coun-
cil have previously approved
it.
0 0
MEMO TO CITY PLANNER RUNKLE
MARCH.22, 1984
PAGE 3
After the APC has held the public hearing,I will be processing the
changes to the City Council for their review..
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this material
Finan Director/City Clerk VanOverbeke
EJV/jj
IID
0 0
C ORDINANCE N0. 7, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY
CODE CHAPTER 11 ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATION (ZONING)" BY CHANGING
THE DEFINITION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND ADDING THE DEFINITION OF
SETBACK; BY CHANGING A GENERAL PROVISION AS TO PLACEMENT OF HOUSE ON
RESIDENTIAL LOT; BY RENAMING THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS; BY REPEALING
PROVISIONS FOR DAY CARE SPECIAL PERMITS IN THE AGRICULTURAL AND
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS; BY ADDING A CONDITIONAL USE AND CHANGING A
REFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT IN THE LIMITED INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT; AND, BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE, EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND
SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGAN DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Section 11.03 entitled "Definitions"
is hereby amended by changing Item 57, and adding Item 78, to read:
57. "Planned Development" - An urban development
developed according to an approved overall plan (1) having two or
more principal uses (within a single plat) without the necessary
zoning to allow the uses in compliance with the existing zoning
districts; or (2) having a single use which does not comply with
C all of the restrictions of any one zoning district. Planned
Development zoning shall be allowed only where the Council
determines that because of topography, location, design, public
need, amenities, or for other similar reasons, the development
represents good planning in relation to existing and proposed
development in the area.
7 8. "Setback" - The airtiia! horizontal distance between
a building and a street right-of-way or lot line.
Section 2. Eagan City Code Section 11.10 entitled "General
Provisions" is hereby amended by changing Subd. 26 to read:
Subd. 26. Placement of House on Residential Lot.
A. On all residential lots not served by public
utilities which are at least twenty-four thousand (24,000) square
feet in area and one hundred seventy (170) feet in width, all
• structures shall be placed so that the lot may be further
subdivided in the future unless otherwise approved by the Council.
(Subparagraph B remains the same)
Section 3. Eagan City Code Section 11.20 entitled "Use
Districts" is hereby amended by changing Subd. 1 to read:
Subd. 1. Classification. The following land use
L. districts are hereby established under which all lands in the
City shall be classified:
Section 6. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General
Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code
Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation
a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect
upon its adoption and publication according to the law.
ATTEST:
Its Clerk
Date Ordinance Adopted:
CITY OF EAGAN
CITY COUNCIL
By:
Its Mayor
Date Ordinance Published in the Eagan Chronicle:
ORDINANCE NO. 13, 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY
CODE CHAPTER 13 ENTITLED "SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (PLATTING)" BY
CHANGING PROVISIONS AS TO COUNCIL WAIVER, REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO FINAL
PLAT AND RECORDING OF PLAT, MINIMUM WIDTHS FOR PRIVATE DRIVES,
SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS, EASEMENTS, BUILDING LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS,
CONSTRUCTION OF CITY -INSTALLED IMPROVEMENTS; AND, BY ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE, EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 13.99 WHICH, AMONG
OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGAN DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Section 13.02 entitled "Jurisdiction"
is hereby amended by changing Subd. 2 to read:
Subd. 2. Council Waiver.
A. The Council, after review by the Planning
Commission or after staff review and approval of duplex lot
splits, may waive compliance with any of the provisions of this
Chapter by adoption of a resolution after compliance with waiver
provisions of this Chapter which resolution shall specify which
provisions have been waived in any case:
1. In which compliance will involve an
unnecessary hardship and where failure to comply does not
interfere with the purpose of this Chapter; or,
2. Where an improved plat can be achieved by
Ldeviation from certain provisions of this Chapter.
B. A waiver may be granted without Planning
mmission review only when the subdivision consists of a split
a duplex lot or lots with existing structures having
dividual utility services designed in accordance with standards
posed by the Council upon the original plat.
Section 2. Eagan City Code Section 13.10 entitled "Application
Procedures and Approval Process" is hereby amended by changing item 5
of Subparagraph A and Item 3 of Subparagraph D of Subd. 5 entitled
"Final Plat", to read:
Subd. 5.
/\\ _ A.
Y' S. A determination on the method by which
park dedication shall be satisfied for all plats.
D.
• 3. Recording of
responsibiity of the subdivider to file
County Recorder, within sixty (60) days
by the Council unless a time extension
-1-
Plat. It shall be the
the plat with the Dakota
from final plat approval
has been granted by the_j
0
Council. Failure to record the plat within the sixty day period
shall render final plat approval by the Council null and void
until a new application has been processed and approved by the
City unless the Council has granted an extension of time in which
the final plat shall -be recorded.
Section 3. Eagan City Code Section 13.30 entitled "Data and
Design Standards" is hereby amended by changing Item 9 of Subparagraph
A and Item 5 of Subparagraph B of Subd. 4 entitled "Street Design
Standards", to read:
A. Public Streets.
9. Street surface widths and other design
standards will be addressed in the City Handbook. Street right-
of-way widths shall be as shown in the Comprehensive Plan and
where not shown therein shall not be less than as follows:
Street Type
Principal Arterial
Intermediate Arterial
Minor Arterial
Community Collector
Neighborhood Collector
Local Access
Minimum
Right -of -Way Width
B. Private Streets.
150-300 feet
150-200 feet
100-150 feet
80 feet
66 feet
50 feet
5. Minimum width for private drives as
defined from face of curb to face of curb shall be as follows:
NUMBER.OF POTENTIAL TYPE OF MINIMUM WIDTH
/ UNITS SERVED STREET (FACE TO FACE)
(�• 4 or less No curb and gutter 12'
5 - 8 Concrete curb 20'
9 - 20 Concrete curb 24'
More than 20 Concrete curb and gutter 28'
Through Streets Concrete curb and gutter 28'
Section 4. Eagan City Code Section 13.30 entitled "Data and
Design Standards" is hereby amended by changing Subdivisions 5 and 6,
to read:
Subd. 5. Sidewalks and Trailways. Sidewalks and/or
trailways shall be installed in accordance with City Code
provisions and applicable policies.
Subd. 6. Easements.
A. Utility and drainage easements abutting public
street rights-of-way and adjacent properties and centered on rear
or side lot lines shall be at least, ten feet (101) wide or wider
as may be required by the City.
-2- K
c
0
B. Where a subdivision
area, water course, drainageway, channel
provided a storm water easement or
conforming substantially with the lines
incorporating elevations as required by
0
is traversed by a ponding
or stream there shall be
drainage right-of-way
of such water course and
the City.
C. Trails or pedestrian ways shall be shown as
Utrailways" on the final plat or as separate easements as the
City may direct.
D. All other easements of record and those
.required
iitasubdivision. to provide the required
utilities to service he
Section 5. Eagan City Code Section 13.30 entitled "Data and
Design Standards" is hereby amended by changing Subd. 9, to read:
Subd. 9. Building Locations and Elevations. (Refer to
_City Code Chapter 11 and the State Building Code adopted by
jreference in Chapter 4.)
Section 6. Eagan City Code Section 13.30 entitled "Data and
Design Standards" is hereby amended by changing Item 1 of Subparagraph
C of Subd. 15 entitled "Required Improvements", to read:
1. City -Installed Improvements. The
developer may request the City to install the improvements. The
developer shall submit a petition in the form prescribed by the
City to the City Engineer requesting said installations. The
Council may accept the petition and install the improvements and
assess the cost in accordance with City policy and Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 429. This petition request shall include a
requested method of assessment spreading __�( erer__lot, front footage,
percentage ratios, etc). The applicant shall waive its rights to
any and all public hearings required and agree to the acceptance
of all costs associated with City -installed improvements provided
that all benefited properties are assessed. The City
installation of required improvements shall not provide for any
overall site grading, but rather, shall be limited to required
grading within dedicated easements and rights-of-way necessary to
perform the installation of future public dedicated services as
requested by the applicant.
Section 7. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General
Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code
Including Penalty for violation" and Section 13.99 entitled "Violation
a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as
though repeated verbatim herein.
Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect
upon its adoption and publication according to the law.
ATTEST:
CITY OF EAGAN
CITY COUNCIL
By:
Its Clerk Its Mayor
Date Ordinance Adopted:
Date Ordinance Published in the Eagan Chronicle:
-4- %11.
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -One
0
Packet
Council Meeting
46
APPOINTMENT OF ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION ALTERNATE
D. Appointment of Advisory Planning Commission Alternate --
Mr. Scott Merkley who was papointed in January of this year
as the Alternate for the Advisory Planning Commission has been
hired by the City of Eagan as an Engineering Aide and therefore
must resign as a member of the commission. Since interviews
for appointment to this position were held as lately as this
January, the City Council decided to again consider the unsuccessful
candidates for this position and made the present appointment
from that group. The Council will be supplied with ballots
at the meeting on Tuesday. The names of the candidates to be
considered are:
Vic Ellison, 1308 Carlson Lake Lane
Roy W. Taylor, Jr., 1368 Highsite Drive
James D. Wannigman, 3763 South Hills Drive
Copies of their letters of application were enclosed with the
packet for the March 27, 1984 special City Council meeting.
If any Councilmember would like additional copies of these memos,
please contact the City Administrator's office and copies will
be supplied.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To appoint the alternate
member to the Advisory Planning Commission to fill the unexpired
term of Scott Merkley. (The term of office expires as of December
31, 1984.)
III
0 0
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -Two
Packet
Council Meeting
PRELIMINARY PLAT/HOLMES ADDITION
A. Paul Holmes for Preliminary Plat, Holmes Addition, Containing
One Acre Consisting of Two Single -Family Lots -- A public hearing
was held before the Advisory Planning Commission at their February
28, 1984, regular meeting and then due to a continuance was
again considered at the March 27, 1984, APC meeting. The Advisory
Planning Commission is recommending approval of the application.
It should be noted that the Advisory Planning Commission spent
considerable time on this item reviewing the present and future
planning of the area, taking into consideration many of the
cost factors as to what will occur with future development around
the proposed preliminary plat. Upgrading streets and other
related improvements were considered as a part of the cost analysis.
For additional information on this item, refer to the City Planner's
report, a copy is enclosed on pages rZ6 through1:3 a For
a report of the Advisory Planning Commission action, eefer to
those minutes; a copy is enclosed on page(s) 13 - .
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the
preliminary plat entitled Holmes Addition containing one acre
consisting of two single-family lots.
Special Note: Enclosed on pages 13 S through I3 7 is a letter
from the City Attorney's office regarding this item.
III
0 0
CITY OF EAGAN
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT - HOLMES ADDITION
APPLICANT: PAUL HOLMES
LOCATION: PART OF THE NA OF THE NA OF SECTION 10
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DISTRICT)
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: FEBRUARY 28, 1984
DATE OF REPORT: FEBRUARY 21, 1984
REPORTED BY: DALE C. RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER
APPLICATION SUBMITTED: An application has been submitted requesting
preliminary plat approval, Holmes Addition, consisting of approximate-
ly 1 acre and containing 2 single family lots located in part of the
NW4 of the NW's of Section 10, Parcel 10-01000-020-29 north of Quarry
Lane and Towerview Road.
COMMENTS
This parcel has been zoned previously to R-1 (Residential Single Dis-
trict) and would allow only single family homes to be developed. The
applicant has submitted an application to split this 1 -acre parcel in-
to two single family lots of which each lot would exceed the 12,000
square foot minimum requirement. Lot 1 would have a 90' lot width
and contain 15,888 square feet net area and Lot 2 would have approx-
imately 174' of frontage and contain 18,780 square feet of net area.
In review of this particular parcel, there appears to have been a high-
way easement granted across this property to provide access to the pro-
perty further to the east and south. In accordance with this easement,
it appears to encumber a 20' area across the front of the property and
run diagonally across the property on the westerly edge. To the south
of this property is a platted subdivision of which Towerview Road has
been dedicated as a half right-of-way. In review of this particular
subdivision, it appears that only a 50' right-of-way would be needed
because the street would only service one or two other properties due
to the location of LeMay's Lake. Therefore, this road is never expect-
ed to be upgraded past a residential street. Consequently, additional
right-of-way would not be required.
In review of this particular subdivision, there appears to be two is-
sues which should be reviewed in relation to this preliminary plat.
The first issue is in regard to a proposed shoreland ordinance. The
shoreland ordinance which the City has been working on for a number
of years is presently up for review by the Advisory Planning Commis-
sion. In this ordinance, it classifies LeMay's Lake as a recreational
development body of water and would require a 75' setback from the
17.0
CITY OF EAGAN
PRELIMINARY PLAT - HOLMES ADDITION
FEBRUARY 28, 1984
PAGE TWO
high water elevation once the ordinance is adopted. Presently, due to
the configuration of the property and the dedication of the road and
setbacks from the road and the lake, the applicant can only obtain a
50' setback vs. a 75' setback which would be required once the ordi-
nance is adopted. The City has been informed by the property owner
that they have reviewed this with the Department of Natural Resources,
and the Department of Natural Resources does not see a problem with
the 50' setback requirement as proposed.
The other issue regarding setbacks is in regard to the right-of-way
for Towerview Road. If the applicant dedicates the additional 20'
of right-of-way for Towerview Road, the applicant can then only meet
a 20' setback requirement instead of the required 301. The proposed
house is drawn in accordance with what is proposed to be built, and
a 10' setback variance would be required from this particular set-
back requirement.
The last issue in regard to this plat is that it is the Planning De-
partment's understanding that Lot 2 would require a lift station or
pump in order to get access to sanitary sewer for this particular
lot. The applicant is aware of this, and this would be a requirement
if the plat is approved. Also, presently Towerview Road is not up-
graded to its potential, and the one additional house requires that
the applicant petition to upgrade Towerview Road to its ultimate de-
sign as a'residential street, or since only one additional dwelling
unit is being constructed, that the upgrading would not have to occur
at this particular time. This will be an engineering decision and.a
recommendation as to how this -street should be addressed.
If approved, the preliminary plat should be subject to the following
conditions:
1) Adequate rights-of-way be dedicated for Towerview Road.
2) A 10' front setback variance be granted for Lot 1 and 2 of the
proposed plat.
3) The plat be reviewed by the Department of Natural Resources for
their comments.
4) A park dedication shall be required as requested by the Advisory
Park Commission.
5) All other applicable ordinances be adhered to.
DCR/jach
1 ;�k
CITY OF EAGAN
PRELIMINARY PLAT - HOLMES ADDITION
FEBRUARY 28, 1984
PAGE THREE
ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS
6) A detailed grading and erosion control plan will be required
to be submitted for approval.
7) Public improvements shall be extended along Towerview Road
east of Quarry Lane.
8) A turnaround shall be provided at the end of Towerview Road.
9) The existing 20' easement shall be dedicated as public right-
of-way,for Towerview Road.
10) A ponding easement shall be required to be dedicated to en-
compass the high water elevation of LeMay's Lake.
11) This development shall be responsible for trunk area water
and storm sewer assessments at the rate in effect at the
time of final platting.
12) All costs associated with public improvements shall be the
sole responsibility of this development.
13) All easements shall be dedicated as required by staff in the
Engineering Report.
RMH/jach I-
0 9
MEMO TO: THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION, C/O DALE C. RUNKLE,
CITY PLANNER
FROM: RICHARD M. HEFTI, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1984
SUBJECT: HOLMES ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT
The Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works has the
following comments regarding this proposed development for consid-
eration by the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council.
TOPOGRAPHY/DRAINAGE
The existing topography over this proposed development consists of
a side hill sloping to the northeast and LeMay's Lake from an ele-
vation of approximately 908 at the southwest corner of this propos-
ed development to a normal water level of 873 at LeMay's Lake. This
amounts to an average slope of 188. Subsequently, drainage over
this development is to the northeast towards LeMay's Lake. LeMay's
Lake is designated as Pond DP -2 on the City's Master Storm Sewer
Comprehensive Plan and also has a positive outlet control. Further-
more, LeMay's Lake is designated as a DNR protected water. Subse-
quently, staff recommends a detailed grading and erosion control
plan be submitted for approval.
UTILITIES
Sanitary sewer and water main are located within the intersection
of Towerview Road and Quarry Lane. However, due to the drop in ele-
vation resulting from the existing topography, it is not possible
to serve Lot 2 with a gravity sanitary sewer service line. There-
fore,.it will be necessary for the owner of this lot to provide a
pump to overcome the elevation difference to dispose of his waste
water. Gravity sanitary sewer service can be provided for Lot 1
provided the basement elevation is no lower than an elevation of
901.
In accordance with City policy, this development will be required
to extend sanitary sewer and water main to the east end of Towerview
Road. This work shall be accomplished in accordance with the City's
Engineering Guidelines.
STREETS
Existing streets providing access to this development consist of
Towerview Road. Towerview Road is a City residential street which
has not yet been improved to City standards east of Pilot Knob Road.
Subsequently, as a condition of final platting, this development
shall provide for the upgrading of Towerview Road to City standards
I �3
ENGINEERING REPORT
HOLMES ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT
FEBRUARY 23, 1984
PAGE TWO
east of Quarry Lane. Furthermore, since right-of-way has been dedi-
cated by easement.to the City, a cul-de-sac should be provided for
turn around purposes at the end of Towerview Road in order to pro-
vide for City maintenance vehicles and emergency vehicles. Unfortu-
nately, in this instance, no feasible method of looping this road-
way exists which necessitates the cul-de-sac.
RIGHT-OF-WAY/EASEMENTS
The current 20 -foot highway easement for Towerview Road over this
parcel shall be dedicated as public right-of-way.
A 10 -foot utility easement will be required to be dedicated adjacent
all publicly -dedicated right-of-way with a 5' drainage and utility
easement being dedicated adjacent all lot lines. In addition, a
ponding easement shall be dedicated to encompass the high water ele-
vation of LeMay's Lake. An additional easement will be required to
provide the cul-de-sac at the end of Towerview Road.
ASSESSMENTS
This development will be responsible for trunk area water assess-
ments and trunk area storm sewer assessments. These amounts shall
be determined by applying the area rates for each in effect at the
time of final plat approval times the net area of this development.
At 1984 rates, based on net area as shown on the preliminary plat,
this would amount to the following:
Trunk area storm sewer - 30,000 sf X $0.045/sf = $1,350.00
Trunk water main - 0.69 acres X $1,120/Ac = 773.00
The final assessment amount will be determined from the net area of
Block 1 on the final plat using the rates in effect at the time of
the final plat approval.
All costs associated with installing the public improvements will be
the sole responsibility of this development.
I will be available to discuss any aspect of this report in detail
with the Advisory Planning Commission at the February 28, 1984 meet-
ing.
Respectfully/
Richard Ms!6��Jc�it"Gnitted,
/.-HHe di, P.E.
Assistant City Engineer
RMH/jack
SPUR -2
COON Y
CLUB
i
\ H 3 —
r 0SH N2
f
FMAA
'.EHND
i i
'15
u
ACR
SCHOO
KT:ub,D-7
PAR KI
Subject Parcel
C-18
/x_17 I r -T-1
I
O
N d
PARK I ��
N .l /
OME TE=S
D-1
FIGURE
311G {02NCD)
zry� ` F—
SU/R ECFroT 1� SAL
/ HE
I,
�IST � / 1 I o-19
SERVICE
D-13
0 D-29
1
tz�--y11�i1{tr�
11I
u
ACR
SCHOO
KT:ub,D-7
PAR KI
Subject Parcel
C-18
/x_17 I r -T-1
I
O
N d
PARK I ��
N .l /
OME TE=S
D-1
FIGURE
311G {02NCD)
zry� ` F—
SU/R ECFroT 1� SAL
/ HE
I,
�IST � / 1 I o-19
SERVICE
D-13
0 D-29
1
i
OI ill \lam_ b.
2 /
— - —LONE m -OAK - 7 - RD - -
- e— --- 25.3 -254/ -
o \
ji
I
I'
WET TAP
Co
o 11911
u Y 0
N .IW
N
W
TOWER /IEW /_I t `F
MR
OUARRI LANE
I
i
I
I
1
JI1
W
(L +'
LEMAY LAME .—
i
Subject parcel\
+427\ �T-
FIGURE 2
SEE
15
I
I
�
l
' L'c h1A'i 1 •
) II
!3
I !1
�FUT
URE BUILDINGScale: V = 20'
SITE PgGP4gEA
HOUSE ® Soil Boring Location
Bench hark: Nail in tree south
of proposed house
Elevation = 906.0
—F GEC JOB NO: 3580 i
1 (louse corners .
'staked (6)
' I1 � )
• 7nwnrview Riad
i ` ` \ \ /hlt : 1?>w••]� Crn+B rY..,c. nc..1 Or T,lc ru.. �..
�• \ \ /J89'44'ZS" E `•"^..� 13A,ib 3.IAL L BC Ylnw[b It• .
I
\ 98 \ ao110 Is
17
LE MAY 5 LAKE
' \`` \ ��--_ _ =61-5% `\P� \` ..,/`�L'/C _ /�•.., 4.� ,., ,.✓n.l...l Alj.n
J,0 di -
,// // Cp�.GJ �) 1 /�, �`�� .• /1\\ � ` � QIP
•8: -LOT-�- 3 `, LOT --2__
\ ` Fnn�KC-"-^ "� p Jo :�,. 1-knFc�:CD .. � • � \ \1
a�
o�
r\ 439.00
'Ki�Hw�- Eas y-EDot- ss0"v \ li
�A'�
rim lir . _..
♦ep vov.,e`. 589? 44' 26�� W ,
to
1.0 .199.k \
�TOWERV�EW ROAD \ \` M
P
3 CL
3
d z
° � a
P P
(;PAnimn PI AN - Hni PJAFS PADDITION
4IA
S`io4ZB��E
' 2 (o4.
o0
u
Y I
h�EII` i
LE MAYS LAKE
-
I I b'
Jr,urY E:A=CMC�JT
Q ,D
Loo
0 0�
°� LOT 1 LOT 2 ��
i Z I ll O E,o !Q. Fr. w 2t,, 47`1 . Fr. 1 s
N
rl Y
I L
V
!� 4
V N fI
? 1J
HIC.1-4 WA Ea. SF.M.F�I! �[ro. •�� 5l1e799� c
IL, j7-1 r
1 •I 2mn no
TOWERVIEW ROAD
HOLMES ADDITION
N. We 1/4 SEC. 10. 7
1.
q
•'4_
O��
YJ
010-20 a
NO.
26 �*+'
010-27
�_' � tet•
SUBJECT'PARCEL
1
i —T \'• F v�
- 020--29
•, S
I '
V;79VIFW Doe. NO. 424007 - r...
JaC.NO SSfiN00 ...
Kulau ooc. No 402203 _
0I0-30 I :020-30 030-50
i -
000-30 1 030-30 1 ` 040-30
j
_••. olleawv r_..
P�
I I
032-31
1W
'< l/ 033-31
T` -
u..' 1 'f
77
-R-III
GE
Iib UBJECT CrE
•... .. , Ind: -
'Ind. ... .
1V/
- -
-- Ind.
RN
F
R_I - R-111 RB R -III
R•III
R1 - R41 CSC/GB/L
R -III R -III I R-!
_•tel - E -\ P
P
RJI P E Til - R -II
R -II _
R-11 p RI
R-
L R -III LB
�g '�R-f. ••�'`.. ^"". CSC - R-�-
F
U l� Lg - R6 OLI - R-1
P R-1
c R-1 R -I P �.••� F
R-1 GOLF i o A•
R-11
- I R-1 R-11 -1'".P
R-11 wen•ao,t.. w. '
� P I _ r^5 P
- - -
�3G --LE VGLLEY •) ROSE N9J'
APC Minutes
March 27, 1984
HOLMES ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT
The continued public hearing regarding the application of Paul Holmes for
preliminary plat approval of proposed Holmes Addition consisting of approxi-
mately 1 acre, intending to include two single family lots, located near the
intersection of Quarry Lane and Towerview Road, was convened by Chairman Wold.
Dale Runkle reviewed the application that had been continued from the last
meeting and noted that the Planning Commission had requested additional infor-
mation regarding the upgrading of Towerview Road, adjacent to the subdivision.
Mr. Hefti stated that the staff had researched the status of Towerview Road,
east of Quarry Lane, and noted that a bituminous mat and concrete curbing are
in place along the south portion of Towerview Road at that location, adjacent
to the Ed Reid property. The recommendation of the engineering department
would be to upgrade the public improvements within Towerview Road to city
standards in front of Holmes Addition, but that an alternate would be to
escrow funds for future improvements.
City Attorney Paul Hauge also reviewed several alternates, including the
upgrading of the street, improvement of only that portion of Towerview Road in
front of the Holmes Addition, escrowing funds sufficient for the future up-
grading, no upgrading and simply acquiring necessary easement right-of-way, or
the potential for a homeowners agreement amongst the property owners to the
east for maintenance of Towerview Road in that location. Mark Tompkins and
Paul Holmes were present and requested that the road area be released from any
requirement for public improvements. Ed Reid was also present as were other
owners to the east. Mr. Holmes also objected to the requirement for an
escrow.
There were'questions from the Planning Commission members as to what
areas would be assessed for benefit purposes and it was noted the estimated
cost was about $8,200.00 for water main and street improvements. Jerry Rogers
appeared and was concerned about long-term costs for improvement of the hill
to the east. Member Wilkins was concerned about improving the street to Pilot
Knob Road at the present time and indicated that the property owners objected
to that type of improvement. The main issue was whether to recommend upgrad-
ing at the present time or in the future and provide for assessments in the
future. Mr. Hefti indicated it would be difficult to get approval of the
property owners in Holmes Addition for future upgrading after the platting is
completed, and further noted the high cost of maintenance for gravel surfaced
streets. Wilkins moved, Mulrooney seconded the motion to recommend approval
of the application for preliminary plat approval, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Adequate right-of-way shall be dedicated for Towerview Road as
determined by the City.
2. A 10 foot front setback variance shall be granted for Lots 1 and 2
of the proposed plat.
133
q
APC Minutes
March 27, 1984
3. The plat shall be reviewed by the Department of natural Resources
for their comments.
4. Park dedication shall be provided as requested by the Advisory Park
Commission.
5. All other applicable ordinances shall be adhered to.
6. A detailed grading and erosion control plan shall be required to be
submitted for approval.
7. An adequate turnaround shall be provided at the end of Towerview
Road.
8. The existing 20 foot easement shall be dedicated as public right-of-
way for Towerview Road.
9. A ponding easement shall be required to be dedicated to encompass
the high water elevation of LeMay's Lake.
10. This development shall be responsible for trunk area water and storm
sewer asssessments at the rate in effect at the time of final platting.
11. All costs associated with public improvements shall be the sole
responsibility of this development.
12. All easements shall be dedicated as required by staff in the Engi-
neering Report.
13. No public improvements shall be extended along Towerview Road east
of Quarry Lane at the present time, but at such time as Towerview Road, west
of Quarry Lane is improved, the roadway adjacent to Holmes Addition, shall be
upgraded and the benefit shall be assessed.
All voted in favor except Wold, who voted no, indicating he supported the
City policy as to the improvements.
13 �}
3
s •
HAUGr•., Smrm. EIDE & I{ELI.En. P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CEDARVALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS
3DO8 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
EAGAN. MINNESOTA 58122
PAUL H. HALIDE
BRADLEY SMITH
KEVIN W. EIDE
DAVID G. KELLER
Mr. Thomas A. Colbert
Public Works Director
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
March 27, 1984
Re: Proposed Holmes Addition Street Improvements
Dear Tom:
AREA CODE 612
TELEPHONE 434.4224
You have asked for suggestions relating to alternatives that the City Council
and Advisory Planning Council could require the developer of the proposed
Holmes Addition in respect to the roadway which is the easterly end of
Towerview Road south of LeMay Lake. The application was first heard on
February 28, 1984, and the public hearing was continued until March 27, 1984.
Several factors will influence the ultimate decision of the City Council
concerning the improvement of Towerview Road in the vicinity of the Holmes
Addition.
1. A public hearing was held several years ago for the proposed improvement
of Towerview Road westerly to Pilot Knob Road but at that time the property
owners objected to the improvement and it is my understanding that the
improvement was not installed and therefore that portion of Towerview west
of the Holmes Addition has a gravel surface.
2. An earlier preliminary plat application was partially processed by the
City several years ago by Lynn Thiele and the same issues arose but that
final plat was not completed.
3. It is my understanding that the roadway immediately adjacent to Holmes
Addition has a bituminous surface that was installed by the City at the
request of the property owner to the south, Ed Reid, but that this does not
meet City standards.
4. There are at least two residential homes lying along the extended Towerview
private road to the east and it is possible in the near future that one or
both of those parcels will be subdivided and residential homes be built.
5. Holmes Addition would contain only two lots and according to the grading
plan in the packet material there is a highway easement document no. 536799
covering 20 feet on the southerly boundary of the Holmes Addition which
apparently has already been dedicated at an earlier time.
13T
J
J� c
Mr. Colbert • •
March 27, 1984
Page Two
6. The City policy requires public streets to be upgraded to City standards
at the time of approval of residential plats. The City will have to decide
if this portion of Towerview is upgraded whether Towerview to the west should
also be upgraded, whether the portion to the east should be upgraded, and
further whether the half right-of-way on the south side adjacent to the Fd
Reid property should be upgraded and assessed.
Several of the alternates have become quite obvious but they could include
the following:
1. The City could require upgrading of part or all of Towerview Road and
assess costs against the benefitted property. I would assume that there
would be strong objections from several of the neighboring property owners
and particularly those to the east where I don't believe the City has an
easement. In addition, in order to acquire an easement by long continued
use, the City would have had to have maintained the street for at least six
years and it is my understanding that the City has not maintained that easterly
portion of Towerview Road.
2. The City could require improvement of only that portion of Towerview
Road in front of Holmes Addition and therefore accept whatever easement is
yet necessary and assess the benefit against the developer and potentially
the Reid property to the south, if that portion is improved. However,
there is a setback for assessment purposes and I believe that the Reid
property accesses to the west and therefore a portion of the assessment along
the north side of the Reid property would be exempt from special assessments
because it is a corner lot.
3. The City could allow Holmes Addition to be platted, require the dedicated
easement, and not require upgrading of that portion of Towerview Road but
require that an escrow be posted with the City in a permanent road fund to cover
the potential cost of that portion of the improvements. This would mean that
the owners to the east might need a private easement over the Holmes
Addition street easement area if the street is within the right-of-way, but
if that road has been used continuously for at least 15 years openly and
hostily, the owners to the east would have gained an easement over the driven
roadway. I believe the latter is true and I would assume that there are no
written easements to the property owners to the east. I'm not certain, however,
how the maintenance of the private roadway has been done.
4. Another option that is not very practical is to not require an easement
over the Holmes Addition property for street purposes and possibly not
require the escrowing of necessary funds for road improvement purposes. In
any event, the developer may not be willing or able to post a sufficient
escrow for the road improvements which, of course, in the normal fashion would
be assessed over the period of at least ten years.
I36
0 0
Mr. Colbert
March 27, 1984
Page Three
5. There has been some suggestion that there be a homeowner's agreement
entered into by homeowners in the vicinity, particularly to the south and
east. It is very difficult for the City to impose a requirement for a
homeowner's association type of agreement where those owners to the east
are not in the process of developing. The difficulty is that if the property owners
farthest east intend to subdivide their property, they would then need
access to Towerview and may have some difficulty acquiring right-of-way
through the property owners' private property. It may then become an
issue of whether an easement by long, continued use has been acquired if the
middle property owner is not willing to directly grant an easement.
As you can see, there are several choices that the Planning Commission and
Council can use and I will be happy to explore more fully any one,of these
if you wish.
"Very truly yours,
PAvI H. Hauge
City Attorney - City of Eagan
M71
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -Three
0
Packet
Council Meeting
E
PRELIMINARY PLAT/SUNSET FIFTH ADDITION
B. Lexington South Associates, For Preliminary Plat, Sunset
5th Addition --- At the March 6, 1984, City Council meeting,
the preliminary plat application of Sunset 5th Addition, as
recommended for approval by the Advisory Planning Commission,
was reviewed. The developer's representative was unable to
attend the meeting and upon a brief review by the City Council,
a concern was raised about providing direct driveway access
onto Dodd Road with the potential for a future public street
along the future side lot, mainly access to the future church
property. As a result of this discussion,. it was the action
of the City Council that the preliminary plat for Sunset 5th
Addition be sent back to the Advisory Planning Commission for
further review. At the last regular meeting of the Advisory
Planning Commission held on March 27, 1984, the reconsideration
of the preliminary plat for Sunset 5th Addition was approved.
For additional information on this item, refer to the Director
of Public Works' report to the Advisory Planning Commission;
a copy is enclosed on pages 1101 through J!+h. For additional
information regarding the action taken by the Advisory Planning
Commission, refer to those minutes found on pages 1,+ L4oeetjir
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM:
preliminary plat for Sunset 5th Addition.
112
To approve or deny the
MEMO TO: ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: THOMAS A. COLBERT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MARCH 13, 1984
SUBJECT: SUNSET 5TH ADDITION - RECONSIDERATION OF
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
On March 6, 1984, the City Council formally reviewed the preliminary
plat application of the Sunset 5th Addn..as recommended for approval
by the Planning Commission on February 28. Due to a conflict,
the developer's representative was unable to attend that Council
meeting to present his application. Normally, the City Council
continues those items where the developer or his representative
is not able to be present at the Council meeting. However,
the City Council had serious concerns pertaining to this proposed
two -lot subdivision providing direct driveway access onto Dodd
Road (a community collector) with a potential for a future public
street along the future side lot (north line of plat) of a future
single-family lot without this public right-of-way being of
record or even reviewed to determine if that is the most appropriate
location.
Subsequently, in light of a motion to formally deny this plat
application, the City Council voted to send this back to the
Planning Commission for more detailed review of this proposed
development in relationship to the overall future development
of this area of the Lexington South PUD. The Council felt that
more detailed analysis and review of the potential future develop-
ment of this area might indicate a different configuration for
development.
I have reviewed these concerns with the developer's representative,
Mr. Brad Swenson, and Mr. Jim Curry of the Lexington South PUD.
They have indicated that they will look at a proposed development
scheme for this area and how it may impact or compliment the
proposed Sunset 5th Addition and also reviewing the proposed
configuration and location of the parcel designated for church
just north of the proposed Sunset 5th Addition.
Therefore, the City Council would like the Planning Commission
to perform a more in depth review of the overall area before
the merits of this small subdivision can be reviewed and subsequent-
ly approved.
If any Planning Commission member would like further clarification
in regards to this issue, please feel free to contact me.
Respectfu y submitted,
,ori
omas A. Colbert, P.E.
Director of Public Works 1%3q
cc: Dale Runkle, City Planner
Richard Hefti, Assistant City Engineer
o r;+-,, rnnnri i r /n ri *v nrimi ni St rAtnr TTr /YF
0
-C 40. - Rd . .11 0. .. ---
"T
:T
ti
YORkjcw-j PLPciL
. %�"bA
00-0- v P1010
PERTIO ...
9:D
cz
LU
in co,
Z as
(Toft
Tb -f
PERTIO ...
9:D
APC Minutes
March 27, 1984
0 0
SUNSET 5TH ADDITION - PRELDQNARY PLAT
Mr. Runkle indicated the City Council formally reviewed the preliminary
plat application of Joseph Hoffman for the approval of Sunset 5th Addition at
the Council's meeting on March 6, 1984. The Council had serious concerns
pertaining to direct driveway access onto Dodd Road with the potential for a
future side lot along the single family lot and no committed public right-of-
way, being of record or even reviewed, to determine if this is the most
appropriate location. There were questions about access to Dodd Road, whether
an easement would be provided over the property to the north and access to the
remainder of the Lexington South property to the west. Brad Swenson appeared
for the applicant and explained the proposal for the development of the land
to the west and the proposed moving of the church location. There were
concerns about additional access points on to Dodd Road, but it was proposed
that turn-arounds on each individual lot be provided. Mr. Swenson indicated
that the property owner to the north would agree to a 60 foot easement north
of the 5th Addition. There was no written committment from Lexington South as
to the 60 foot easement. After extended discussion, Wold moved, Wilkins
seconded the motion to recommend to the Council the following:
1. That each lot in the 5th Addition would be allowed an individual
access with an interior turn -around.
2. That the surroundingland uses appear to warrant the location for an
access road to the north on to Dodd Road.
3. The Planning Commission reaffirms the approval of the conditions for
approval of the preliminary plat.
4. That the preliminary plat be conditioned upon written committment
from the owner to the north, that it will convey a 60 foot road easement.
All voted in favor.
141
4
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -Four
0
Packet
Council Meeting
SIDE SETBACK VARIANC
0
BERON FIRST ADDITION
C. J. E. Parranto Associates For A 20 -Foot Side Setback Variance
for Lot 26, Block 1, Tiberon 1st Addition --, An application
for a side setback variance was presented to the City by J.
E. Parranto Associates requesting 20 feet for Lot 6, Block 1,
Tiberon 1st Addition. The City Planner has reviewed the side
setback variance and a copy of his report is found on pages
14 3 through /.4 &
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the
side setback variance as requested by J. E. Parranto Associates.
0
CITY OF EAGAN
0
SUBJECT: VARIANCE, LOT 26, BLOCK 1, TIBERON 1ST ADDN.
APPLICANT: J. E. PARRANTO & ASSOC.
LOCATION: LOT 26, BLOCK 1, TIBERON IST ADDN.
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 PD (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DISTRICT
UNDER A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: APRIL 3, 1984
DATE OF REPORT: MARCH 30, 1984
REPORTED BY: DALE C RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER
APPLICATION SUBMITTED: An application has been submitted requesting
a 20 ft. side setback variance along Johnny Cake Ridge Road
for Lot 26, Block 1, Tiberon 1st Addition.
COMMENTS
In review of the original application submitted in February,
1983, the applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat and
an overall schematic as to how homes would be located on the
individual lots. In this drawing submitted, the applicant was
proposing to locate a home within 30 ft. of the right-of-way
line of Johnny Cake Ridge Addition or 56 ft. from the curb of
Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Normally on a collector street of this
nature, a 40 ft. setback is required but this is a 50 ft. setback
which would be required in accordance with the right-of-way
width for Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Therefore, there is a discrepancy
between the submission and what the text and condition of the
planned development agreement, which indicates that all side
setbacks shall be met with this particular development.
In review of this site plan, it appears that some shifting could
be done in order to fit a home on Lot 26 and more closely meet
the setback requirement than what is proposed.
The Council will have to determine if, in fact, the exhibit
submitted with the planned development should rule,or the language
of the planned development which indicates that all side yard
setbacks shall be met with this overall plat. If approved, the
variance shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall meet
side setback requirement from
2. All other setbacks shall be
requirements shall be adhered
DCR/jj
IA3
as closely as possible the
Johnny Cake Ridge Road.
met and all other ordinance
to.
0 0
SIGMA \
SURVEYING Sketch Plan For:
ss
SERVICES J.E. PARRANTO ASSOC.
3908 Stbley MemoraI Highway
Eagan, Mtnneaata 55122
Phone: (612) 4523077
assssssssa
(• 24 I 50
ti
50I _ _ _-N69°59'18'E
--I
Fr—_ ___—___� I
50
LOT 26I c O
d ,r• • d W
lO)
u L0.I. 25 I �`
3
?d '
C t a owe. i I • p
p- OC
i I e
z�{'� A----' rn W
1.ad Y
e — — — 'S67°14' 7"W 85.00'' R
oss..r. ewe
_ V I
I �I WOOD6ATE LANE
. c
h T.
O
-N- N�.,j s6w6fy n/LL fvoS
Stale; I"= 40
1 hereby amity thal thf. mwoy,
plan or tepon was prnxff d by me
or undm my dined euo0rvf+lon and
that I am a duly Ro,;wnpd Land
Surveyor under the Iowa of tho
S:mo of MIA3,0:00a.
Waym 'N.,:0 Realet.a' 0n tlo. 1467.
�q�
A C,
100
P 'A "R K
;Olb
EASEMENT per'Bk. 62 M.R. Pg. 43 ei
la
.-Caw" - Easemerl?Pell - Doc No. 409629'11�-
989.81
20
4
J6J6J6
J6
0
25'
0
i14 15 7a0pa
16
WOODGATE---'�
%N89044 37"E 201.47'
Ft
�=3470511
4=2?03dOo
A R
R-4
////A
.11 Lll
810;:01010',;
81-4
' �►%� r
P
a
R-4
�. dW
r,ja
[0
1
rc.v .
V��1 "
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -Five
0
Packet
Council Meeting
0
SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE/ROLF F. ANDERSON
D. Rolf F. Anderson for a 2 -Foot Side Setback Variance for
Lot 11, Block 1, wilderness Run 6th Addition -- An application
was received by the City from Rolf F. Anderson requesting a
2 -foot side setback variance on his property described as Lot
11, Block 1, Wilderness Run 6th Addition. The City Planner
has reviewed the application and enclosed on pages )+ 4S through
Jrj) is a copy of a memorandum regarding the variance request.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve or deny the
side setback variance as requested by Rolf F. Anderson.
/47
0 0
CITY OF EAGAN
SUBJECT: VARIANCE
APPLICANT: RALPH F ANDERSON
LOCATION: LOT 11, BLOCK 1, WILDERNESS RUN 6TH ADDN.
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DISTRICT)
17A@Ago]�:1)00too,lOf" 1z[eig
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORTED BY:
APRIL 3, 1984
MARCH 30, 1984
DALE C RUNKLE, CITY PLANNER
APPLICATION SUBMITTED: An application has been sibmitted requesting
a 2 ft. side setback variance on Lot 11, Block 1, Wilderness
Run 6th Addition.
COMMENTS
In a survey that was done, it was determined that a house and
garage located on Lot 11, Block 1, Wilderness Run 6th Addition
did not meet the side setback requirement of 5 feet from
the garage to the property line. The owner of the home is now
requesting that a 2 ft. side setback variance be granted in
order that he can clear title to his home and property if he
would ever sell the. property. It is staff's understanding that
the builder of the home is paying for this variance request,
and that the applicant or owner of the home would like to obtain
this 2 ft. side setback variance because of title problem.
The home is existing and the City's option would be to have
the applicant move the garage or grant the 2 ft. side setback
variance. If approved,_ the variance should be subject .to the
following conditions.
1. All other City ordinances shall be adhered to.
DCR/jj
1413
0
LeC�AL Pr IQ
Lor 11 BLOC*- 1 ,
iLDE%�.lESS �;, � 5; xtN Am+ii�
9g.00.
N ` \\\
11
a
1
30 = I
1 /33
"\
25=
1q• A
SCALE S l�� ao�-O'
L41
ISi(o,
I rt
ci
Ix PF
17 in.
R -I
0
s
IAV ►11
�1M
_ mat IM:�'
m���....... 11...xNoto
Oil man rc
. _
� 7 , WwAs
PF
PF
. ^:N
0
s
IAV ►11
�1M
_ mat IM:�'
m���....... 11...xNoto
Oil man rc
. _
� 7 , WwAs
PF
0
Acc
PK
PF
R -I '
R -I
PF
.J"
PARKVIEW
GOLF
COURSE
,"�•. ;
ISO
0
Acc
PK
�. m .,. qe �,•�„�,.'s.�.:,e. ;.Ie'. .� , �..:.. ..,�•�' - l,.Fq� .... _ ;t• _ •CPP�SON_. r�--d- �?;L.
_ • •mlfC Q�°..- •• �� S :::T ~Te+rn SIT 1: / :6._ ” 1q �.n• ro.q : , tl^ %.
•#•gym A�� Y / mo .n_. _i,,, ..L., ..'.. 1..r ...• 7 I
.A '..� S 1 ' .. r7b, 6'• �• � 7 "' � _ � J Q�Jf - t � ,y, •on•• (� �'_ L .• n. .���r�.� _� I
V bit^ `. •Yo. w', / f, %'
�NYBRO��g11S :!J' �,w .'SOyg \� +. •• - /v_ =�� Se ,�.: � ,•t�ys6 -9''v 1,' ��. , .' '. Y • 1 `�fv'i/..a•.f
CIRCLE K �•'b-� A , —�, R-1 .,e ' =n '•..t'•.. ,�' •• • u.. tt rl Y
4 '♦ (n Ojai •�' tnl• - �^' .r . i nn•� t
y ry {. -}'C• :� A, J•• `
�� - 7 t q • t . t.'` e7 �! L a ,I a +_ {� epi °" `v i a: Z
• ��•e• m , 8 I •,'• OV I + t.. •r- Ri Y • S e m .°, I It • . �•'+. \ 7 ��
„�,�'•434 �o R7 � { �, � .1 \a I•••rfe'I - •:t Jw i(,•1 e
.' t� � • � ylp-{ aj � IIS ---__ _ � � E Nf �e J��i �I �. •'N �• / s CA
NN
•,�.,,y� : w � /i J, '% I,fI .. C Ia a•+r r.. yy '�A't Al � yj ,
:• n �e ;a IInm •wn�_v; • - I -•...I„ /f Ii•/{� S�� •Y. ,�� • ,w'�•••i •- ..._�{tn y`d a: .v1.n• 87•;S• � iS,7 Y!1 y®„
i I OYALYQpr A wLH
CIRCI -_
➢
,•'�• .;Z let
r •e^ •��•Li•/ :�. _ en_i,
s
C I'0.�. _ il.u��' . Li•-T•ii''� • SI 1 ylV Q 8"•:' '^l o'.
7 mj Teams '.f d ®' t i,. ,�9 �pro•/ �r
j. ■ • II ^m w owl v • n..Qj. ., V �i . y nm •i 6a I .vr'.�
' { �rwv4• � +L 1. 1;ice. r ,Lt; _. -5i» �7 f q• �YI L ..,_,
II —___ r11�e. _. y / ei •'��~ c:1 P— "/•, r� � �}'1V 4 � � � �'gY O Y 8t .
1-••�°•+� � ,:� �I ;, / r� NORTH ,..w MALMO • I•LAN'E 1
'� IB • .y,' b, BIW,` nn wuu nm •nV -
v gym- •�=, \ ; � . .ASS (� .,m � � � I 5P
it
am �s lt • t r ..• DUNROVIN e , ._ _ c r: •.�e:,�: a DUNROVIN LANE
• A amu. n ••" V'^^ +
w'r� � Ot p//i {l �,:� � � O � k;�.e LY,j Q } Q ` tI � � � iy - o I I • , G -
V
p Q •6ytf7 tl_ ••r•n i Y .. ... Sj i �• V •� i 4I5 • .. ....I
•n
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Twenty -Six
Final Plat/Fawn Ridge
A. Final Plat Approval - Fawn Ridge (Countryside Builders)
-- After this item had been scheduled for consideration by the
Council at the April 3 meeting, continued research by the Public
Works Director has revealed that the required financial security
for this subdivision has not yet been formally approved by the
financial institution. Subsequently, without a firm financial
security being made available, the staff is recommending that
this item be continued to allow the developer to submit the
necessary securities that are required for final plat approval.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To continue indefinitely
the final plat application for the Fawn Ridge Addition as submitted
by Countryside Builders, Inc.
15a:
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Twenty -Seven
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/WESTBURY ADDITION
B. Final Plat Approval - Westbury Addition (Gabbert Development)
-- We have received a request for final plat approval for the
Westbury Addition from Gabbert Development, Inc. The first
phase of this addition is in compliance with the preliminary
plat approved by Council action on January 17, 1984. All
required final plat appication fees, development contract agree-
ments, grading plans, etc., have been submitted, reviewed and
approved by staff and found to be in order for favorable considera-
tion by the City Council.
The only remaining requirement is the Council approval of installa-
tion of street and utilities under a City project/contract.
If the public hearing for Project 396, as scheduled earlier
on the agenda, is approved by Council action and the improvements
ordered for installation, it would then be in order for the
Council to give final plat approval for this subdivision.
Enclosed on page 19is a copy of the proposed final plat
for the Council's In ormation.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: If Project 396 is approved,
approve the final plat for the Westbury Addition and authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute all related documents.
11503
—�P
WESTBURY FIRST
YJW n/ JIIIII Mlrnpr .r. .Nn. IWr
• �nrrY l\ J W Grl n Yr.�tgul
1
rIr + r«r 1. Jrl•, rl«r u«mr Im•a J. w
JIJ Yr 1.1 Iln.. W Y rJl m .IYn w .0 nJr
«I.J IIJ., alr.r nlp WIJ pr s Ya /Irl.
1.us�wr+�•rwu
G r\.
Yynnr 1/I p Idr nM
9 I.nll^ r J Y J«M
YY GO'.Ir4n In . ,
� Ypuw li 4bu Gw.
LOCATION NAP
1 III
OH
Q-0
L �'
A
u
J[
I[
e
IT
61
DELMAR R.SCRWANZ
LANE) SUhVETONS, INC
r i nr i cwrcr5
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -Eight
0
Packet
Council Meeting
0
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/SUPERAMERICA
C. Final Plat Approval - Super America Addition (Ashland Oil)
-- We have received an application for final plat approval of
the Super America Addition located on the southwest corner of
Yankee Doodle Road and Pilot Knob Road. Enclosed on page
15(2 is a copy of the proposed final plat for the Council's
information.
All conditions placed on the most recent extension of the preli-
minary plat acted upon by the Council in June of 1983, have been
complied with. All final plat application requirements, fees,
development contract agreements, etc., have been submitted,
reviewed and approved by staff and found to be in order for
favorable consideration by the Council.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve/deny the final
plat application for the SuperAmerica Addition as submitted
by Ashland Oil, Inc., and, if approved,' authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute all related documents.
155
L COUNTY ROAD N0. 2B
[YANKEE DOODLE ROAD)
ti
1 I
a I j:
( 1.....8 .mm Q
tA
, a I-. rrm•or.m ..nr I
SUPERAMERICA
JI
II
Z
I
I
-I I
I
's
W
<•
!Lt
ix
I
:<
ap!Li
IA
-
e u avlMI . y
,i�)�i N.•iw Y .O.1 .:li Y� � ••.ms vlc hl
ADDITION
touudo ■..uad lGurvoeyliva Im
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Twenty -Nine
C�
Packet
Council Meeting
11
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL/BERKSHIRE PONDS
D. Final Plat Approval, Berkshire Ponds (Derrick Land Company)
-- we have received an application for final plat approval for
the Berkshire Ponds Addition located between Galaxie Avenue
and I -35E south of Cliff Road. Enclosed on page /S g is a
copy of the proposed plat for the Council's information.
The final plat application conforms with the preliminary plat
approved by Council action on January 17, 1984. All conditions
placed on that preliminary approval have been complied with
and all final plat application requirements have been received,
reviewed and approved by staff and found to be in order for
favorable consideration by the City Council.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To approve/deny the final
plat application for Berkshire Ponds as submitted by Derrick
Land Company and, if approved, authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute all related documents.
iS-7
VQ
m
BERKSHIRE PONDS
ADDRESS PLAN
•
•
CONSTRUCTION PEDIS FOR
SANITARY SEWER. WATERMAIN.
STORM SEWER. AND STREET
I
CONSTRUCTION FOR BERSNIRE
i
.
FONDS. EAGAN. MINNESOTA.
WE, .Y
I
,.( WE, . YIW,(..,.I(, (0;.,9Y .1..
YV....{...
1VV!
(Ox.i,d .W
•�Mu( MM
I F-
I�
•
•
0 0
Agenda Information Packet
April 3, 1984 City Council Meeting
Page Thirty
APPROVE PLANS/ORDER BIDS/WESTBURY ADDITION -STREETS & UTILITIES
E. Contract 84-5, Approve Plans/Order Bids (Westbury Addition -
Streets & Utilities -- When the petition was received requesting
the preparation of a feasibility report for the installation
of streets and utilities to service the Westbury Addition, the
developer requested the simultaneous preparation of plans and
specifications to expedite the time schedule for their construction.
With the developers guarantee of costs should the project not
be approved at a public hearing, detailed plans and specifications
were ordered for preparation by the Council along with the feasi-
bility report. Subsequently, if the public hearing for Project
396 is approved earlier on the agenda, it would be in order
for the Council to review the detailed plans and specifications
for the installation of these streets and utilities and if approved,
order the advertisement .for bids. The Consulting Engineer and
Public Works Director will be available to discuss the details
of the proposed plans.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: If Project 396 is approved
for installation, approve/deny/modify the plans and specifications
for Contract 84-5 (Westbury Addition - Streets & Utilities)
and, if approved, authorize the advertisement for a bid opening
to be held at 10:30 A.M., Friday, April 27, 1984.
/s9
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Thirty -One
•
Packet
Council Meeting
11
RECEIVE SIDS/AWARD CONTRACT/YANKEE DOODLE RESERVOIR -PAINTING
F. Contract 84-4, Receive Bids/Award Contract (Yankee Doodle
Reservoir -Painting -- On March 6, the City Council approved
the plans and specifications and authorized the advertisement
for bids for the painting of the 5.0 M.G. water reservoir on
Yankee Doodle Road. The Council requested an alternate bid
to be included for consideration of including the word "EAGAN"
to be placed in three locations on the water reservoir. The
bid openin was held at 10:30 A.M. on Friday, March 30. Enclosed
on page �� is a tabulation of the bids received and a comparison
of the low bid to the Engineer's estimate used for preparation
of the 1984 budget.
Consulting Engineer and Public Works Director will be available
to discuss recommendations pertaining to the low bidder and
the alternates at the Council meeting.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: To receive the bids for
Contract 84-4 (Yankee Doodle Reservoir -Painting) and award the
contract to the lowest responsible bidder with/without the alternate.
160
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
0 0
Our File No. 49295
REPAINTING OF 5.0 M.G.
YANKEE DOODLE WATER RESERVOIR
CITY CONTRACT #84-4, PROJECT #394
EAGAN, MINNESOTA
CONTRACTORS
Rainbow, Inc.
Valley Contractors
Allied Paint & Renovating
Enterprises Decorating
Dairyland Impr. Co.
General Coatings
Lakehead Painting & Sign Co
Odland Protective Coatings
HEA Tank Specialists
Neumann Contracting
Maguire Iron Inc.
Graham's Contracting
Chippewa Valley Enterprises
Larson Tank Co.
Abhe & Svoboda
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
Low Bid
BID TIME: 10:30 A.M., C.S.T.
BID DATE: Friddy, Murch 30, 1984
TOTAL BASE BID ALT NO. I
34,320.00
+
3600.00
38,220.00
+
750.00
40,000.00
+
1600.00
40,400.00
+
1000.00
47,000.00
+
3000.00
47,435.00
+
750.00
53,493.00
+
3920.00
53,966.00
+
1500.00
54.800-00
+
1200.00
55,900.00
+
2000.00
No
Bid
No Bid
Mn
No
Ri rl
Bid
No Rid
No Bid
No
Bid
No Bid
No
Bid
No Bid
Approved 1984 Utility Budget
8 Low Bid under Estimate
% Low Bid under Budget
/6/
$42,000
34,320
91,500
18.38
62.68
Agenda Information
April 3, 1984 City
Page Thirty -Two
0
Packet
Council Meeting
0
Petition/Hackmore Drive/Streets 8 Utilities
G. Proj. 406, Receive Petition/Authorize Feas.ihilty Report (Hackmore
Drive -- we have received a petition from Gary King requesting
the installation of streets and utilities within Hackmore Drive
between the Sunset 1st/2nd Additions and Northview Meadows Addition.
As the Council may recall, when the Sunset 4th Addition (located
on the north side of Hackmore Drive) received their preliminary
plat approval, a condition was placed whereby they could either
prepay their potential future assessment liabilities associated
with the upgrading of Hackmore Drive, or plat those parcels fronting
onto Hackmore Drive as outlots for future development which
could then be assessed when the improvements were to occur.
The developer of the Sunset 4th Addition has elected the option
of platting outlots instead of the prepayment of assessments.
Now that Mr. King is proposing to develop his property, it will
be necessary to provide streets and utilities to service his
property. However, his petition does not represent the minimum
338 of the fronting property owners that is usually required
for the Council to receive the petition and authorize the prepara-
tion of the feasibility report.
It should be noted however that the petition submitted as signed
by Mr. King guarantees the cost of the feasibility report in
case the project is not approved by Council action at the time
of the public hearing.
Enclosed on pages 1.65 and_'
b is a copy of the petition
with a referenced–To—cal—ion map s owing that section of Hackmore
Drive that is being petitioned for improvement and the relationship
of the adjacent properties that would be affected by this proposed
project. As can be seen, with the proposed Sunset 4th Addition
being platted into outlots, these adjacent property owners would
now have an opportunity to be involved in the public hearing
process.
Therefore, the staff is requesting the Council to consider the
petition and take the appropriate action.
ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED ON THIS ITEM: Receive the petition
requesting the improvement of Hackmore Drive and approve/deny
the preparation of a feasibility report for Project 406 (Hackmore
Drive - Streets and Utilities).
/01
�^
FOR CITY USF 0:ii:(
Petition 8 5/O&.
Date Received 3
PETITION Presented to Council
5'3�Y
LOCATION/SUBDIVISION 14AGkm02C-- Aj� t)fL,y
I/vie, the undersigned, ovmers.of the real property adjacent to
'J iA C. -elm.c 1-01 (Street)
or within Sub di:.sicn,
hereby petition for:
Street improvements
Sanitary Sevier.
Water Supply —
(Check requested items)
Storm Sewer
Street Lights
Other (Explain)
I/vie understand that this petition does not in itself request the installation of
these improvements, but rather, request the preparation of a feasibility report in
which the estimated costs of these improvements will be tabulated. I/vie understand
that upon receipt of this petition and the preparation of the requested feasibility
report, a public hearing will be held at which time we may voice our support or
opposition based on the costs as prepared in said feasibility report.
If the requested improvements are denied for construction at the time of Dublic
hearing, I/vie hereby guarantee payment for all costs incurred in the preparation
of this feasibility report and any other related costs.
Signature of Land Owner Address
of Property
3•--- - - - - -- - ----------
4.—-
5.--- — — -- — -- — — — — --
7.— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
I a
7
•I_I_rn
v rw
•roivN
•w•p_a,.i�_g_I
I Cc♦ICE 1
7.-u
■.F�,:.vI'
UIL-LD � t -
N .I
N I
satRAA�tAII � ... a�� i
f
�Hp.RN , Y1
p'°° 5J�Src i iD45D_5U. i:ii• LA„C ,' 1f
` ..14
p.
•A DI ION
1
p`5 i
MOAT
-T
I
• �..�, o. ,.. ..:;....' P IRI P O i S E I D Q` 10 o
t s . * ••' •p'+ pA - I i '� xisting Improv men
O u I'r I L i 0 T I S I G'E • .g , `�
. •''�$i•1.1"�::i}"•:'
�•'i•�,- .\7--.:-".. Nieifi6�_ !'"eo.'.I'fY .� ::.�:a,,\ W09 I
.•�•� 600' �
a a L,1 • ' �' � N.
CO u
1
e• y , a1e. 90 !t O i
cl+ �P so
ib Co
i ~3 •f!% O'a-e, 1.
•
■� is s
... � �, , .' .`':.•,,.,,�. �;�;'.•• • :yy"•:.HCl; '.
AREA OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT
a
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
• PQHUTES OF A REGULAR P1EETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF EAGAN
APRIL 3, 1984
A regular meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Tuesday, April 3,
1984 at 6:30 p.m: at the Eagan Municipal Center. Present were Mayor Blomquist
and City Councilmembers Smith, Wachter, Egan and Thomas. Also present were
City Administrator Hedges, Consulting Engineer Rosene, Public Works Director
Colbert, City Planner Runkle and City Attorney Hauge.
AGENDA
Wachter moved, Egan seconded the motion, to approve the Agenda as distri-
buted. All voted yes.
Egan moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the
March 22, 1984 regular meeting with the exception on page 4, the City Council
meeting will be held on March 27, rather than May 27, 1984. All voted yea.
• REPRESENTATIVE ART SEABERG
Representative Seaberg was present at his request and discussed with the
Council several issues of legislation before the 1984 Legislature. He dis-
cussed the status of industrial revenue financing, both at the federal con-
gressional level and the Minnesota legislature, noting that the position of
Congress will dictate the direction that the Minnesota Legislature will take.
L;iz Witt was also present as the area legislative representative for the
League of Cities. Councilmembers wanted assurance that the suburban city
lobbyists are making contacts with legislators concerning the municipal aid
legislation.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PROJECT 0395 - LEXINGTON AVENUE BOOSTER STATION
Tom Colbert explained to the Council that after reviewing the proposed
location of the 1.5 acre site for Project 0395, the water booster station
that was scheduled to be constructed in 1984-85, he recommended that a change
in location take place to the south of the present proposed site. Reasons
included that it would eliminate any potential objections from future property
owners if the City were to construct the two ground reservoirs creating an
obstructed view for the multiple density development proposed to the south and
• also, it would move the multiple density development farther away from the
1
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984
future major intersection of'Lexington Avenue and Diffley Road. Mayor Blom-
quist questioned whether the developer of Lexington South, Jim Curry, con-
curred,with the relocation and Mr. Colbert stated that he understood that Mr.
Curry did. Another possible site to the north, Kirchner Plaza along Diffley
Road, was discussed. Smith moved, Wachter seconded the motion to authorize
the staff to proceed to negotiate with Mr. Curry regarding the exchange of
sites, either to the north of Kirchner Plaza Addition, or at the intersection
of Diffley Road and Lexington Avenue, with the understanding that the Lexing-
ton South developers will pay all costs of transfer of the site, including
surveying, title examination costs, etc. All voted yes.
CONSENT AGENDA
The following consent agenda items were presented to the City Council for
review and it was recommended they be approved:
•
1. Contractors, Licenses. A schedule of general contractors, heating
and ventilating contractors,, and masonry, cement work contractor license
applications was submitted to the Council for approval in the packet, and the
staff recommended approval subject to compliance with the ordinance require-
ments. •
2. Lion and Lioness Club - Temporary Gambling License. An application
has been submitted on behalf of the Lion and Lioness Club of the City of Eagan
for temporary gambling license for April 28, 1984 at the Diamond T Ranch. The
staff reviewed the application and noted that all application requirements had
been fulfulled.
" 3. Lone Oak Heights - Grading Permit Cancellation. The City has re-
ceived a notice of cancellation of insurance coverage for the grading permit
for the Lone Oak Heights subdivision. The developer, Belfany Development,
Inc., has indicated that it will not pursue the grading permit at the present
time and staff recommended the council authorize cancellation of grading
permit 009073 for Lone Oak Heights.
4. Diffley Road _ Change Order 01 - County Contract. It was determined
during construction under County Contract 030-01, during the fall of 1983,
that the existing material under the existing service drives is inadequate to
provide the proper support. Therefore, the staff recommended a change order
to remove approximately 4,300 cubic yards of poor sub -grade material to be
replaced with granular back -fill at an additional cost of $30,000.00. Staff
recommended approval with the understanding that the cost split will be on the
basis of the normal City -County 45-55 cost participation.
5. Special Assessment Aide. It was recommended that Barbara Jean
Thompson be hired as the special assessment aide in the Public Works Depart- •
ment at a compensation benefit package as provided under the current union
contract in the City policy, on a part time basis.
2
0
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984
6. Westbury Addition - Model Home Permit Application. Applications
have been received from Gabbert Development Company for building permits for
model homes on Lots 2, 3, or 4, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and a duplex
unit on Lots 5 or 6 of Block 6. It was recommended that the application be
approved with the understanding that there be no permanent occupancy until the
final plat has been recorded.
7. Knob Hill of Fagan - Utility Easement Vacation. A petition has been
received to vacate a small triangular segment of the utility easement to
facilitate construction of a double garage for the townhouse development in
Knob Hill of Eagan. Staff recommended that the public hearing be scheduled on
May 1, 1984 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall for the vacation as requested by the
developer.
8. Lexington Square Addition -Grading Permit. It was recommended that
an application for a grading permit for the first phase of Lexington Square
Addition, incorporating approximately 42 acres be approved, subject to com-
pliance with all City requirements.
9. Hillandale 2nd Addition - Grading Permit. An application had been
received from the developers of Hillandale 2nd Addition for grading permit and
the staff recommended approval subject to compliance with the City ordinance
• requirements for the first phase.
10. Windtree 2nd Addition - Utility Easement Vacation. A petition has
been received to vacate the common lot line drainage and utility easements
over all lots within Windtree 2nd Addition with the exception of Lots 13 and
14 of Block 3. It was noted a replat has been approved for Windtree 2nd
Addition into Windtree 3rd Addition and it was recommended that the Petition
be received and that the public hearing be scheduled for May 1, 1984 at 7:00
p.m. at City Hall for such vacation purposes.
Upon motion by Egan, seconded Smith, it was resolved that the foregoing
consent agenda items be and they hereby are approved and authorized to be
implemented by the City staff. All voted yea.
SPERRY CORPORATION - TELEPHONE CATV-
Mr.
ABE
Mr. Colbert brought before the Council a request on behalf of North-
western Bell Telephone and Sperry Corporation regarding an application of
Sperry for the use of public right-of-way on Washington Drive, adjacent to
Yankee Doodle Road for the location of a telephone cable. It was proposed
that the cable be installed by Northwestern Bell, but that Sperry will own the
cable. The question deals with whether the City is authorized to allow and
would allow the location of a utility cable in public right-of-way. Mr.
Colbert had concerns about City employees not being familiar with who the
owner would be for service and for record keeping purposes, the precedent in
• the event of similar future applications and the Council asked the staff to
research and return to the Council with a recommendation.
91
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984 •
WESTBURY ADDITION - PROJECT #396 - STREETS d, UTILITIES
The public hearing regarding Project 0396 consisting of utility and
street improvements to the Westbury Addition, Phase I, was convened by Mayor
Bea Blomquist. After introduction of the project by Tom Colbert, Consulting
Engineer, Bob Rosene, reviewed the preliminary report for the project dated
February 28, 1984. He discussed the type of improvements and also the costs
involved and the proposed assessments. The improvements will cover sanitary
sewer, water, storm sewer and street improvements. Pat McCarthy, the neigh-
boring property owner to the west, submitted a letter as one owner of that
property, objecting to proposed assessments against the McCarthy land, noting
it was for storm sewer trunk purposes only. Mr,. Rosene indicated that the
assessments on the McCarthy property are being proposed because of the pro-
jected outlet to the north, across Wescott Road. There were no other objec-
tions. Egan moved, Thomas seconded the motion to close the hearing, to
approve the project for the installation of streets and utilities and to
authorize the preparation of plans and specifications. All voted yes.
LEXINGTON AVENUE - PROJECT #395 - TRUNK YATERMAIN/BOOSTER STATION
The next hearing that was convened by the Mayor consisted of a proposed
booster station/trunk watermain under Project #395, along Lexington Avenue
north of Diffley Road. Mr. Colbert and Mr. Rosene detailed the report of the
consulting engineer's office of February 22, 1984, covering the trunk water -
main services and booster station improvements, including costs and projected •
assessments. Neil Houck, a neighboring owner, appeared and had concerns on
his behalf and for other neighbors, about the amount of the assessments being
proposed against their property. The Senior Citizens Deferral Ordinance
provisions were discussed and there were no objections to the project. Smith
moved, Egan seconded the motion to close the hearing, to order in the project
and to authorize the preparation of detailed plans and specifications. All
voted in favor.
COACHMAN/POUR OAKS ROAD - PROJECT #348 - STREET
The hearing regarding Project #348 covering street improvements on
Coachman Road and Four Oaks Road, east of Highway #13 was next convened. The
report was prepared by the City staff and Mr. Colbert gave a detailed report
regarding the proposal. He indicated that the most recent traffic count on
Four Oaks Road is 490 vehicles per day east of Highway #13, and also noted
that all property on the west side of Coachman Road has either been developed
or is in the process' of development. There was an appearance by an owner in
the Coachman Oaks Condominium project, who indicated he favored the work, but
suggested a pathway to the Univac property. Stuart Gibson who lived on Farnum
Drive objected to proposed assessments to Four Oaks Court Association. It was
proposed, to spread the cost estimate over all of the townhouse association
property, noting that a portion of Four Oaks Road adjacent to the property,
must be brought up to City standards. A representative of Fox Ridge was also
presgpt and had questions only about the amounts of the assessments. There
wereobjections to the project. Wachter moved, Smith seconded the motion to •
close the 'public hearing, to order in the project as presented and to autho-
rize the preparation of the plans and specifications. All voted yes.
4
Council Minutes
• April 3, 1984
SPERRY/T1OMU.INE NOISE ISSUE
Mayor Blomquist introduced the subject relating to the complaints from
Timberline residents about the noise emission from the Sperry semi -conductor
plant. Mr. Hedges gave some background and explained that there have been
other discussion at City Council meetings, including October 4, 1983 and
February 7, 1974. There were a large group of neighboring residents present,
as was David Kelso who is in charge of the noise program with the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency and representatives of Sperry Corporation, including
David Falstad and Ed Michaud.
It was noted that on October 4, 1983, the City Council adopted a resolu-
tion determining that Sperry was in violation of the R & D Zoning category
provisions and requested that steps be taken to alleviate the noise and light
problems. Some corrective measures have been taken by Sperry, including the
installation of one noise attenuator and five diverters on the stacks leading
from the plant. The Council on February 7, 1984 directed that noise studies
be commenced and David Kelso of the PCA has taken noise tests on the site at
least 4 times in recent months at the instruction of the City. It was under-
stood that Dr. Rick VanDoern has taken tests on behalf of Sperry, as has
Robert Fulton for the Timberline property owners.
•
At 'the February 7 meeting, the City Attorney was requested to provide a
legal opinion as to potential remedies if the noise emission is not corrected,
and the City Attorney, Paul Hauge, detailed the potential remedies outlined in
his letter of March 30, 1984. They included no action, potential ordinance
violations including Section 10.42 regarding PCA noise standards, nuisance
violations, zoning violations under Chapter 11.20, injunctive relief, civil
action by residential property owners and the request that additional noise
consultants be hired by the City to determine whether violations have
occurred.
It was noted that Sperry Corporation did not present its noise emission
findings at the meeting.
David Kelso of the PCA reviewed his findings from his tests on February
22, February 29, March 3 and April 2, 1984. He stated that the Pollution
Control Agency uses the A -Scale, noting that low frequency filters out the
sound, where high frequency has the opposite effect. He stated that his
findings from April 2, 1984 indicated relatively little change in noise levels
on the scene but some change in the frequency. He stated the PCA would only
determine whether the noise emissions fall within State guidelines, but that
the City zoning ordinance is more restrictive relating to R & D Zoning. There
was discussion concerning the types of data -collecting devices that were being
used and he mentioned that hand-held meters are not intended to give permanent
readings. He stated that the readings were higher on March 3, 1984 and that
the PCA requires tests 4 to 6 feet off the ground and away from buildings to
• avoid reflection, noting there is no jurisdiction that the PCA has indoors.
He also indicated that the sounds become louder as the testing is higher off
the ground, up to a certain level.
5
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984
Ed Michaud of Sperry made a presentation and indicated the attenuators
and diverters have now been installed and in his opinion, his information was
that the attenuator reduced sound by 75%. There was discussion concerning the
diverters and whether other material could be installed in the diverters to
reduce the sound level. He reviewed several steps that could be taken, in-
cluding the hiring of a noise expert, and overall study of the entire issue
and micro -study of all sound emissions from the semi -conductor plant.
Councilman Egan indicated he had serious problems concerning the noise
levels being emitted from Sperry because there was no change in the levels
after installation of equipment.
J
Tom Nikolai and Robert Fulton appeared regarding the sound recordings
taken by Mr. Fulton on March 30, 1984 with the windows open in the Nikolai
residence facing Sperry to the south. He showed oscilloscope pictures and also
a bar graph reflecting the amount of sound emitted on stereo equipment that he
installed in the Council chambers emitting sounds taken on March 30. John
Custin, the Timberline Civic Association President, appeared and stated that •
the DB levels are not the proper measure but rather the low frequency sound.
He indicated that in his opinion, Sperry had not corrected the problem. Also
Dan Rosini, a neighbor, spoke to the Council objecting to the noise.
Councilman Egan stated that the City Council has been looking for some
concrete steps to be taken by Sperry and requested that Sperry continue to
find such methods to alleviate the noise. He also indicated that it was his
_,opinion that the "negligible noise" is a problem for the neighboring residen-
tial owners. Egan then moved that the City Attorney's office and the staff
proceed to take whatever measures are necessary to determine whether Sperry is
in violation of the Eagan Zoning provisions regarding R 8 D zoning, including
the "negligible noise" provision, and shall determine what procedures the City
may take to determine whether a violation of those zoning provisions has taken
place, including the steps the City Council could take to proceed against
Sperry Corporation; further, it was understood that the City staff, including
the Police Department and Inspection Department, will assist in determining
whether such alleged violations have taken place and submit a report include
measurements covering the lower end of the scale so that the Council has a
definite yard stick to measure whether such violations have taken place;
further, that such findings will be submitted to the City Council, if
possible, by the regular council meeting on April 17, 1984. Smith seconded
the motion. All members voted in favor.
•
0
Council Minutes
• April 3, 1984
PERRY KRIFPER - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The application of Perry Keiffer for conditional use permit for commer-
cial storage facility in A (Agricultural) Zoning District.on Dodd Road was
submitted to the City Council. Dale Runkle explained the application to the
Council, noting that the Advisory Planning Commission recommended approval at
its meeting on January 24, 1984, subject to numerous conditions. Mr. Keiffer
was present and indicated that the quonset hut, the barn and the pole barn are
all being used for auto storage at the present time. He stated that vintage,
antique and collectible cars were being stored on the property and that all
are licensable, although some do not have licenses at the present time.
Don Kline, a neighbor on Dodd Road, appeared and voiced concerns on his
behalf and those of several neighbors regarding the number of junk -type cars
on the property. He showed pictures of the vehicles, many with missing
wheels, engines, etc. Councilmembers indicated that this is primarily a
residential area and that it was a dangerous precedent if a permit is given to
store cars that were inoperable, and also that the problem policing the use of
the property would become fairly difficult. Egan moved, Wachter seconded the
• motion to deny the application based upon the objections of the neighboring
property owners, the precedent that it could create and the difficulty in
policing the issue, noting that there appeared to be junk cars on the property
at the present time. All voted in favor.
CITY CODE UPDATE
Mr. Hedges submitted to the Council and copies were included in the
packet of Ordinance codification revisions. Copies of the proposed changes
have been prepared by Municipal Codifiers, the City staff and the City
Attorney's office. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the
revisions to Chapters it and 13, the Zoning and Subdivision sections. Upon
motion by Thomas, seconded Wachter, it was resolved that the revisions as
proposed by the City staff be and they herbey are approved and authorized to
be published in the legal newspaper. All voted in favor.
ADVISORY PLANKING COMMISSION - MEMBER
Three persons have indicated they are candidates for the replacement of
Scott Markley as the alternate on the Advisory Planning Commission, including
Vic Ellison, Roy W. Taylor, Jr., and James D. Wannigman. Upon secret ballot,
Roy Taylor, Jr. was elected as the alternate member on the Commission. Thomas
moved, Smith seconded the motion to authorize the appointment of Roy Taylor,
Jr. to the Commission for the balance of the current year. All voted in
• favor.
7
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984 •
HOLD ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAY
The application of Paul Holmes for preliminary plat approval of Holmes
Addition containing 1 acre and consisting of two single family lots on Tower -
view Road, south of LeMay Lake was brought before the Council. Mr. Runkle
explained the action of the Advisory Planning Commission's approval, subject
to numerous conditions. Paul Holmes was present. The Engineering staff
recommended against maintenance beyond Quarry Lane if it is not upgraded at
the present time. Mr, and Mrs. Ed Reid were present and objected to new road
improvements and the proposed assessments at the present time. It was noted
that the neighbors preferred less than a 10 foot setback variance if the
houses can be positioned so as to minimize the variance for the setback of the
proposed houses on the plat. The Council discussed whether an escrow should
be acquired, noting special conditions about the location and the condition of
the streets in the area. Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve
the application, noting that normally an escrow for street improvements is
required where the street upgrading does not take place, but because of the
nature of the plat being small, and the uniqueness of the area, no escrow
would be required, subject however, to the following conditions:
1. That no turnaround will be required on the east end of Towerview •
Road and that no City maintenance of the street in front of Holmes Addition
will be provided.
2. Adequate right-of-way shall be dedicated for Towerview Road as
determined by the City.
3. A 10 foot front setback variance shall be granted for Lots 1 and 2
-of the proposed plat.
4. The plat shall be reviewed by the Department of natural Resources
for their comments.
5. Park dedication shall be provided as requested by the Advisory Park
Commission.
6. All other applicable ordinances shall be adhered to.
7. A detailed grading and erosion control plan shall be required to be
submitted for approval.
8. .The existing 20 foot easement shall be dedicated as public right-of-
way for Towerview Road.
9. A ponding easement shall be required to be dedicated to encompass
the high water elevation of LeMay's Lake. •
91
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984
•
10. This development shall be responsible for trunk area water and storm
sewer asssessments at the rate in effect at the time of final platting.
11. All costs associated with public improvements shall be the sole
responsibility of this development.
12. All easements shall be dedicated as required by staff in the Engi-
neering Report.
13. No public improvements shall be extended along Towerview Road east
of Quarry Lane at the present time, but at such time as Towerview Road, west
of Quarry Lane is improved, the roadway adjacent to Holmes Addition, shall be
upgraded and the benefit shall be assessed.
All members voted yea.
SONSB! 5T9 ADDITION - PRELIMINARY PLAT
The application of Lexington South Associates for preliminary plat
• approval in the Sunset 5th Addition then came before the Council. Dale
Runkle, the City Planner, gave a resume of the proposal, including the pro-
posed Yorkshire Place on the north side of Sunset 5th Addition and indicated
that it was the understanding that the Missouri Synod Church at the corner of
Dodd and Diffley Roads agreed to an easement over that church property for
access to Dodd Road. The Planning Commission had recommended that direct
access for the two lots with interior turnarounds be approved. Jim Curry and
Brad Swenson were present and Mr. Curry indicated that the Baptist Church site
had been moved easterly and the Missouri Synod Church owners have agreed to a
street easement on the north side of Holmes Addition. Mr. Curry also re-
quested preliminary concept approval of the development of the property to the
west of Holmes Addition and .the Council reviewed the concept. Smith moved,
Wachter seconded the motion to approve the general concept only, of the
Lexington South property directly west of Holmes Addition. All voted in
favor. Next, Egan moved, Smith seconded the motion to approve the applica-
tion for preliminary plat approval of Sunset 5th Addition, subject to the
following conditions:
•
1. That each lot in the 5th Addition would be allowed an individual
access with an interior turn -around.
2. That the surrounding land uses appear to warrant the location for an
access road to the north on to Dodd Road.
3. The Council reaffirms the approval of the conditions for approval of
the preliminary plat.
0
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984 •
4. That the preliminary plat be conditioned upon written committment
from the owner to the north, that it will convey a 60 foot road easement.
All voted yes.
TIBEHON 1ST ADDITION - SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
The application of J. E. Parranto Associates for a 20 foot side setback
variance for Lot 26, Block 1, Tiberon lst Addition was submitted. Mr. Runkle
explained the request, noting the proposal is to locate a home within 30 feet
of the right-of-way line of Johnny Cake Ridge Addition or 56 feet from the
curb of Johnny Cake Ridge Road. Normally the collector street requires a 40
foot setback, but in this instance a 50 foot setback for Johnny Cake Ridge
Road, regarding the condition in the Planned Development Agreement for the
subdivision. John Parranto was present and there were no objections to the
application. Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion to authorize the vari-
ance up to 29 feet, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall meet as closely as possible the side setback •
requirement from Johnny Cake Ridge Road.
2. All other setbacks shall -be met and all other ordinance requiremnts
shall be adhered to.
All voted in favor.
ROLF F. ANDERSON - SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
WILDERNESS RON 6TH ADDITION
The application of Mr. and Mrs. Rolf F. Anderson for side setback vari-
ance of two feet on Lot 11, Block 1, Wilderness Run 6th Addition was sub-
mitted. It was noted the home has been constructed and a two foot side
setback variance is requested for a corner of the house along the east side,
noting it would be a hardship to make any changes at the present time. Mrs.
Anderson was present and there were no objections. Thomas moved, Wachter
seconded the motion to approve the application, subject to compliance with
City ordinances. All voted in favor.
FAWN RIDGE - FINAL PLAT
The application of Countryside Builders for final plat approval of Fawn
Ridge was submitted to the Council. Mr. Colbert indicated that the financial
security requirements have not been met by the developer and recommended •
indefinite continuance. Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to approve
the recommendation of Mr. Colbert. All voted in favor.
10
Council Minutes
• April 3, 1984
WESTBURY ADDITION - FINAL PLAT
The application of Gabbert Development Company for final plat approval of
the first phase of Westbury Addition was presented to the Councilmembers.
There were no objections and Mr. Colbert indicated that all City requirements
have been met. Egan moved, Wachter seconded the motion to approve the appli-
cation for final plat approval and authorize the City Clerk and Mayor to
execute the related documents. All voted yes.
SUPER AMERICA - FINAL PLAT
The application of Ashland 011 Corporation for final plat approval of
Super America Addition at the southwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and Yankee
Doodle Road was brought before the Council. A representative of Super America
was present and the staff recommended approval noting that the City ordinance
requirements have been complied with. Smith moved, Thomas seconded the motion
to approve the final plat application and authorize the signing of the neces-
sary documents. All voted yes.
BER&SBIBE PONDS - FINAL PLAT
• The next application for final plat approval that was presented was that
of Berkshire Ponds by Derrick Land_Company. Staff recommended approval,
noting that all ordinance requirements have been met. Wachter moved, Egan
seconded the motion to approve the application for final plat approval of
Berkshire Ponds. All voted yes.
CONTRACT #84-8 - HSSlBURY ADDITION - STREETS AND UTILITIES
The plans have been prepared and submitted for approval to the City
Council and it was recommended that the Council schedule a hearing authorizing
the advertisement of bids for the project. Thomas moved, Egan seconded the
motion to approve the plans and specifications and authorize the advertisement
for bid opening to be held on April 27, 1984 at 10:30 a.m. at the Eagan City
Hall. All voted yes.
The bids have now been received and opened on March 6, 1984 for the
painting.of the Yankee Doodle water reservoir with an alternate for the paint-
ing of the City of Eagan name on the tank. It was recommended that the name
be painted vertically, rather than horizontally because of the rib structure
of the tank. Wachter moved, Thomas seconded the motion to approve.the low bid
• of Rainbow, Inc. in the sum of $34,320.00 plus alternate No. 1 of $3,600.00
with the understanding that the staff will explore alternate ways of painting
the name of the City on the tank. All voted in favor.
11
Council Minutes
April 3, 1984
Hkamom DRm - STREET DwRommTS - PROJECT /406
A petition has been received from Cary King requesting a feasibility.
study for the installation of streets and utilities within Hackmore Drive
between Sunset 1st and 2nd Addition and Northview Meadows Addition. It was
noted that Mr. King is the owner of about 25% of the proposed assessable area
and it is projected that there may be objections from neighboring property
owners. Smith moved, Wachter seconded the motion to receive the Petition and
authorize the preparation of a feasibU ty report for Project #406, subject to
payment of the necessary feasibility report preparation expenses by Mr. King
in the event that the Council does not proceed with the project at the present
time. All voted yes.
0
Tom Colbert submitted a copy of two notices that had been received by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation for the scheduled closing of Yankee
Doodle Road at Interstate 35E beginning April 16 and Diffley Road at the
intersection of Intersection 35E beginning April 23, 1984. He noted also that
Diffley Road, between Blackhawk Road and Nicola Road will be closed and •
Councilmembers discussed alternates for MTC routes, including Carnelian Lane
or the Beau D' Rue Road in the Cedarvale Shopping Center area. Noting the
residential nature of Carnelian Lane, Wachter moved, Blomquist seconded the
motion to direct that MTC buses be routed, for detour purposes, through the
streets surrounding Cedarvale, rather than Carnelian Lane, while Diffley Road
is closed. All voted in favor.
LONE OAK TREE
Councilman Wachter and City Administrator Hedges discussed their findings
regarding the preservation of the tree wood of Lone Oak tree and recommended
that mobil-cer be authorized' for preservation purposes. Egan moved, Thomas
seconded the motion to authorize the use of the preservative on the wood and
further, that Mr. Wachter and Mr. Hedges be directed to further investigate
the eventual uses for the wood. All voted yes.
PROPOSED CITY HALL HELL
Councilman Wachter reported that he and Tom Hedges had met with Mrs.
Sachowitz concerning the potential sale of an Eagan school bell to the City
and an offer to sell has been made by Mrs. Sackowitz in the sum of $1,000.00.
After discussion, noting that there is no specific funding for the bell,
Blomquist moved, Thomas seconded the motion to offer the sum of $700.00 for •
the purchase of the bell. All voted in favor.
12
Council Minutes
• April 3, 1984
•
�J
___. _, .1. ..
RAGAN DEER POPULATION
Mr. Wachter indicated that there appear to be some fairly large herds of
deer throughout the City and recommended the DNA be contacted to investigate
whether bow hunting, in order to weed out the deer population, would be
advisable. Wachter moved, Thomas seconded the motion to authorize the contact
with the Department of Natural Resources to make such investigation and report
back to the Council. Those in favor were Wachter, Thomas and Smith; those
against were Blomquist and Egan.
ORDINANCE -
City Attorney Paul Hauge submitted a proposed Resolution to the Council
authorizing an abridged version of the publication of certain revisions to
City ordinances that had been approved by the City Council at its April 4,
1984 meeting. Smith moved, Egan seconded the motion to approve the Resolution
and authorize the publication of the ordinances as proposed. All voted in
favor.
Egan moved, Smith seconded the motion to approve the following Checklist
dated:
All voted yea.
L 11Vi ;1.i ,R
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the meeting adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
PHH
13
City Clerk