The URL can be used to link to this page

06/11/1985 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1985 7:00 P.M. I. Roll Call II. Birch Park Final Plat & Reconsideration of Bid Award for Contract 85-10 (Birch Park Addition and Deerwood Drive) III. Fire Department A) Future Fire Station Sites B) Tanker Truck C) Status of VolunteerFirefighters Serving on More Than._One Department D) Other IV. Lot Survey V. Other VI. Adjournment MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JUNE 7, 1985 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING BIRCH PARK FINAL PLAT & RECONSIDERATION OF BID AWARD Acting City Engineer Hefti has sent a letter to the residents on Deerwood Drive and the developers of Birch Park. The bid award and final plat for Contract 85-10 will both be considered at the Special City .Council meeting on Tuesday. To accomodate the City Council, a copy of the Birch Park information relating to both the final plat and the bid award for Contract 85-10 are attached for your review. This information is taken from the last City Council packet. FIRE DEPARTMENT Enclosed is a memorandum that addresses all the issues on the Special City Council meeting agenda pertaining to Fire Department business. LOT SURVEY Enclosed is a copy of the lot survey memorandum that was prepared by Administrative Assistant Hohenstein at the request of this office and upon direction by the City Council. OTHER 1) Cedar Space Addition - Enclosed is a letter from the Metropoli- tan Council chairperson to Mr. and Mrs. Ramnarine that Mayor Blomquist asked to be sent to each member of the City Council. 2) Airport Noise/180 Degree Heading Procedure - City Administrator Hedges has sent a letter to Mr. Ray Glumack, Chairman of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, requesting a presentation at the June 17 commission meeting on the 180 Degree Heading Procedure. Mayor Blomquist, Administrative Assistant Hohenstein and City Administrator Hedges will be attending the meeting. The above -referenced letter is enclosed. 3) Not Just Soap Anymore - Attached is a copy of a flyer that was sent throughout the community by Alan and Laura Menning, who reside at 4174 Blueberry Circle. Please read page 2. The City Administrator, acting in the capacity of the Public Works Director, is preparing a response to the Mennings due to the implications that something is wrong with Eagan water, as implied by reading their letter. 4) Public Works Director Screening - The City Administrator has completed the initial screening for all public works MEMO TO HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL JUNE 7, 1985 PAGE 2 candidates. There were sixty (60) applications. For a brief review of each applicant, please refer to the attached worksheet entitled "Public Works Director Screening". There were forty-five applicants eliminated in the initial screening process, as the attachment indicates, and the City Administrator is currently narrowing the fifteen to approximately eight or ten for an initial interview. The initial interviews are scheduled for Tuesday, June 18. The Selection Committee is Chuck Sigerud, Director of Public Works for the city of Burnsville, Carl Jullie, City Manager for the city of Eden Prairie and City Administrator Hedges. Those applications will be reduced to approximately three or four for a final interview and selection by the City Council on Wednesday, June 26. 5) LMC Annual Conference - Please refer to your May, 1985, issue of the Minnesota Cities Magazine for a copy of the LMC annual conference schedule. The City did register Mayor Blomquist, Administrative Assistant Holly Duffy and the City Administrator. If any member of the City Council wishes to attend any sessions, feel free to attend and if there are any questions asked, just state that you are filling in for one of those three individuals. If you plan to attend a luncheon or some other event, the City will certainly reimburse you for any expenses incurred for the banquet luncheon or other related activity. I have also enclosed another copy of Wednesday night's invitation for each member of the City Council. As a reminder, spouses are invited both for dinner and the program at the Ordway Music Theater that evening. h City Administrator TLH/jj May 29, 1985 Suite 608.4940 Viking Drive • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435.612-835-2808 MEMO T0: Thomas L. Hedges' FROM: Rodney D. Hardy RE: Birch Park/Pilot ointe Access This is to confirm our various conversations with staff and city representatives regarding the need to provide alternate access to the Pilot Pointe Tract. We are in agreement with the layout as done by J.R. Hill, Inc. showing an Outlot C across Lot 17 that links Outlot B (city land) with Deerwood Drive. The drawings showing this layout have been forwarded by Jim Hill to your Consulting Engineer and City Attorney for review. In reviewing this with your City Attorney,.Paul Hauge, we would propose one adjustment in proposed ownership. Instead of creating an outlot for the access we would retain all of Lot 17, Block 6 and give an easement to the city for purposes of -access and utilities. By this means of conveyance it would provide that in the event the access was not required or used within a given time period the land would revert to the original owner. This method of conveyance appears both cleaner and easier for all parties. In conclusion, we propose to convey to the city, at the time of signing the final plat, an easement across the area referred to in the drawings as Outlot C. This easement will be for utilities and access. The rights to construct on this access if not so committed to by the city, shall expire no later than December 31, 1992. The city's Consulting Engineer, Bob Rosene, has reviewed this proposal from an engineering point of view and will be providing you with his evaluation. Finally, it is our understanding that, assuming this easement provides the city with the necessary access to city property and in turn.to the Pilot Pointe Tract, this plat adjustment will make it possible for us to receive final plat approval for Birch Park. All other items have been completed and are being or have been submitted to the city in their proper sequence. Thank you for taking care of this matter. As I also stated Jim Hill will be representing Sienna at the Council meeting on June 4 as I will be out of town. He will be prepared to graphically ( describe the proposed solution and its!proper support material. C.C. Judith Bright Planners Developers ■ Contractors MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES ( FROM: ACTING CITY ENGINEER HEFTI DATE: MAY 31, 1985 SUBJECT: PILOT POINTE ACCESS FROM BIRCH PARK ADDITION I reviewed the proposed future access "Outlot C" to be dedicated by this developer for access to Pilot Point. Outlot C consists of the westerly 80' of Lot 17, Block 6, of the Birch Park Addition. This proposed access appears to require a great deal of grading. Also, the grading required for construction of an access road on this site will encroach on the high water elevation for Pond JP -6. Until the determination of final grades, it is difficult to determine how, much of the storage volume will be lost with this access road grading. Enclosed as Figure 1 is a copy of the contours of this area. Enclosed as Figure 2 is a sketch of the existing center line profile taken from the contour map and a possible grade line profile. The 10% grade does exceed code. Also shown is an 8% grade, which is the maximum allowed by code. Figure 2 shows that depending upon the grade, fills of up to 27 feet will be necessary. By comparison, the access onto Pilot Knob Road requires up to 30 feet of fill material. Enclosed as Figure 3 is a copy of the Pilot Knob Circle profile. This profile will probably be impacted by the reconstruction of Pilot Knob Road that is to occur around 1988. The grade for Pilot Knob Road will more than likely be lowered. The extent it will be lowered is not known at this time. By contrast, Deerwood Drive will not be lowered at the proposed access location. The financing of the street construction, when required, will probably be the responsibility of the owner of Lot 1 of Skovdale Addition, parcel 030-27 and the Pilot Point property. This roadway does not appear to be of any benefit to the Birch Park Addition. If Council requires this access over the westerly_ 80' of Lot 17, Block 6, of Birch Park Addition then I have the following recommend- ations: 1. The westerly 80' of Lot 17, Block 6, Birch Park Addition shall be dedicated as a highway easement rather than an outlot. 2. A 30 -foot slope easement shall be dedicated easterly of the highway easement dedication. I will be happy to discuss any aspect of this memo in detail with yourself or Council if so desired. Rem �e full su tted, Richard Acting City Engineer RMH/kf '57 1; {� I 1 12M ,-r FuTit?t Gdh i } _ Y.1. 80,: at r�;: Bt IG i:,.l,�-:111'1'1• I I 'II I -! i �IQGFi;C?c�•t. I I II i L:' 11 i 'i I I i I Illlli'I�ilil I{I -�2 c fll i ' i- . li i .1 '• �:. 11 ,I .i 1 I � IIi• 111; ;' "' II TT_ ,4-1-71 oz L I I r lp'I T 11, I I -I I' 11111 i {' I' y . 1 ' I ' I I , �I I i-� II � , I 1' i t I I -i - I 1 ._ 1 1 � /,. �, , , J i I I I 1 1 1 �L � 1 � I I __ _• ID�i ItI 1111 in • I ' ; I IIII i' , I I, 1, IIIIin !til,l i 17 i i�' i I I I� I! I 1�! I I J, I i QTV rT,111 ,.4 ;-,II II f , t: I'1 I ' -�1 ill I. I I 11 1 I !_I "I�1'lill L jII ii i'I-I: 1, ,ill 11 111 I i�ljllllli _.. t!Ii�.i�i 1 III IlI�11i '-I II I1, ;.f 111 1 I ' I ! I I I Ig( 1 I.,. 1A. ,..:._�I 1_; s. 4 3 i�'t_TI, 'Il 1{) I IIii III III II IIS � i I 1 ii II�j , I i � li i1j11 - i17E�t..Joo� I{ t I I AOR' rll _ 10 I I{ I{ 1+ Y1;, 721W UNE i I 1 I{ I I i 1 III l I 1_i I 1 11 - I jams! � 10 • I (-{ I � t � t{ r � 1 ... . ................................................ il.......... ..................... ......... ........... ................_....._.__..�..._.... ... ................... .........._........._._...._:.__..._.__._._ ............................. ....................;. .................... rte..........................I............ ............. ............................................ .........................................I.................... ..... ._I_.......................L... .. .I .................. ....................... .......................... ................. .................................................. o 2335 24 7..-A ..Y:yR..ny 36 .$'!. par, Af"....a. 35113 X. 612 - 636.4600 May 30, 1985 City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 Attn: Mr. Tom Hedges Re: Birch Park Preliminary Plat Eagan, Minnesota File No. 49318 Dear Tom, Ono G, Banmroa. P.E. Robert W. Rene. P.E. 1..,h C. Anderbk, P.E. Bradford A. L,.b, ,, P.E. Rmhard E- turner, P.E. James C. Mo., P.E. Glenn R. Coot, P.E. Keith A. CaMoa. P.E. Thom. E. N.M. P.E. RiehaM W. Fon,,. P.E. Robe', G Srh.dahl. P.E. Marvin L. 5.rvole. P.E. Donald C. Bar,ardL P.E. Jerry A. Boa Mon, P.E. M.N A. Na.on, P.E. Ted K. Add. P.E. Miehael L Ram.or.. P.E., Rodd R. Pfeffer/,, P.E. David D. Lasko.. P.E. Charles A. Eriekson Leo M. Pawdsky Jlallan M, Olson At your request, I have reviewed the revised preliminary plat of Birch Park Addition which shows an 80' wide access easement at the southwest corner. This easement is to provide access from Deerwood Drive to the property north of Skovdale No. 1 Addition. ( _ The early preliminary plats of this addition provided consideration of an ac- cess from Denmark Avenue west to the property north of Skovdale No. 1. Later consideration of the property resulted in a preliminary plat for the Pilot Pointe Addition which involved considerable fill being placed on the property and, with this fill, access provided directly to Pilot Knob Road. Recently it was disclosed that the fill was not available and consideration was requested to be given to access again from Denmark Avenue. Since the initial preliminary plat of Birch Park, several changes in lot ar- rangement had been made as well as the raising of the water level in Pond JP -6 from 812.3 to 818.9. A review was made of the present addition layout to com- pare the feasibility of providing access to the land north of Skovdale No. 1 out to Denmark Avenue as compared to access along the west edge of the Birch Park Addition directly to Deerwood Drive. After consideration of the number of large trees involved, the steep topography of the area and the revised ele- vation of the pond, it is our opinion that the direct access out to Deerwood Drive is more feasible if an access is required to the east end of the proper- ty north of Skovdale No. 1. Use of the proposed easement would result in con- siderably fewer trees being removed and a much shorter length of street to provide this access. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert We Rosene RWR:li cc: Rich Hefti Jerry Bourdon 8181c MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: MAY 30, 1985 RE: BIRCHPARK ADDITION I have received a letter of May 24 from James R. Hill regarding Birchpark Addition and your request for my comments regarding the proposed modifications. Possible future road access into the park through Outlot C is of no significance or value to the park system. The City will be developing a trail through the existing park area proceeding from the Municipal Center east to Patrick Eagan Park. A trail will also be constructed along Denmark Avenue. Consequently, access through Outlot C to the park is of no significant value. Further, access at this point is at a storm water pond whose N.O.H.W. would prohibit a trail around the pond. Grades of between 13-15% from Deerwood to the pond would make it difficult for the average pedestrian. The value of Outlot C to the City, if not used for roads or utilities, would only be for additional open space. Inasmuch as this parcel would not be continuous with any other park space, its value is limited and may present more of a problem in the future than its overall benefit. My suggestion would be to take a road easement across lot 17. If the road is not subsequently built in future years, the easement could be vacated and the C. property would then become part of lot 17. In summation, Outlot C has little value to the park system other than being additional open space property. Access as a walking trail would be difficult because of steep grades and the storm water pond. If you would like additional information, please feel free to contact me. /Js Er Our File No. 49318 CITY CONTRACT NO. 85-10 BIRCH PARK ADDITION UTILITY b STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 417 EAGAN, MINNESOTA Feasibility Report Estimate--------- $503,000.00 ENGINEER's ESTIMATE--------- — 465,000.00 7.(+) or (-) Feasibility Report- -18.9 7.(+) or (-) Engineer's Report------ -12.3 BID TIME: 10:30 A.M., C.D.S.T. BID DATE: Thursday, May 2, 1985 CONTRACTORS TOTAL BASE BID 1. Arcon Construction 408,024.15 2. Nodland Associates 423,333.75 3. Gartzke Construction/M&M Sewer & Water 428,000.50 4. Orfei & Sons 430,281.78 5. S.J. Louis Construction 433,555.75 6. Northdale Construction 439,598.25 7. 'L&G Rehbein 443,979.56 8. Mueller Pipeliners 457,327.75 9. Barbarossa & Sons 478.357.75 10. A.P. Keller Construction 478.759.00 11. Lametti & Sons 607.169.00 12. Alexander Construction No Bid 13. Enebak Construction No Bid 14. G.L. Contracting No Bid 15. Rice Lake Contracting No Bid 16. Encon Utilities No Bid 17. Gammon Brothers No Bid 18. 19. 20. 21. Feasibility Report Estimate--------- $503,000.00 ENGINEER's ESTIMATE--------- — 465,000.00 7.(+) or (-) Feasibility Report- -18.9 7.(+) or (-) Engineer's Report------ -12.3 m nr net �F nKC. Oknn R. Caok. P.E. Krirh A. GONon, P.E. ` Ouo O. Bunrvro., P.E. Tkom. E. N.Y.. P.E. O Robrrl W. Rwent. P.E. flkhart W. F ..... P.E. _ J.31h C. Ande.4k, P E. Rnbrr G. Schunirkr. P.E. 2335 V. i,." .411-.1 36 Rradl.,d 4. L ember,, P.F. M.rv,n L. U.I.. P.E. Rirha•d E. )umrr, P.E. Donald C. Bur,artr. P.E. .St. na.l, Af_.ud. 55113 I..,, C. Oho., P Jr ry A. Bourton. P.E. PA... 611.636-4600 Mork A. Hanwa. P.E. Ted K. F,,Id, R.E. Mirkod T. Remmann. P.E.. May 11, 1985 Rabrir R. Plr/Jrrk, P.E. N,,d O. Lwkuro, P.E. Chant A. Erlrkaan City of Eagan LN M. Pawhky 3830 Pilot Knob Road Harlan M. Oho. Eagan, MN 55121 Attn: Mr. Rich Hefti Re: Brick Park Addition City Contract 85-10, Project No. 417 Our File No. 49318 Dear Rich, I have determined the assessments against the properties south of Deerwood Drive based on the bids received for City Contract 85-10, Birch. Park. The assessments in- clude 27% overhead and are determined by the assessable front footage at the build- ing set back line. This method is consistent with the addendum prepared January 4, 1985 which has been included as part of original preliminary report. I have also attached a drawing showing each parcel and it's size in relation to birch Park Addi- tion. Parcels 010-51 and 040-51 are both owned by Altobelli and their assessments have been combined for purposes of this letter. Assessments for lateral water main and street were taken from the Report for Trunk Assessments Rates for Utilities and Streets, Eagan, Minnesota 1984. Therefore, these assessments have not been deter- mined by the bid amount. Listed below are the estimated assessments for each of these parcels and also for the large lots in Birch Park Addition (200 F.F.). Water Main Storm Parcel and Front Sanitary Trunk Ser- Sewer Owner Footage Sewer Lateral Area vices Lateral Street Total 010-51;040-51 Altobelli 405.83' $ 5,867 $ 4,399 $ 3,315 $ 810 $ 5,385 $12,373 $ 32,149 014-54 Fritz 434.47' 6,281 4,710 4,122 810 5,765 13,246 34,934 015-54 Hosford 242.27' 3,502 2,626 4,278 810 3,215 7,387 21,818 016-54 Kohler 242.27' 31502 2,626 41278 810 3,215 7,387 21,818 TOTAL 1324.84' $19,152 $14,361 $15,993 $3,240 $17,580 $40,393 $110,719 Birch Park Addition (Cost/Lot) Lots 14-17 Blk. 6 200' $ 2,891 $ 2,393 $467(1) $ 810 $ 2,656 $ 6,242 $ 15,459 Page 1. 7769c 5e City of Eagan Eagan, MN. Re: File No. 49318 May 13, 1985 (1) The assessment for trunk area water main for the large lots in Birch Park is not accurate for comparison purposes because the total trunk area water main for Birch Park Addition was divided equally amongst each lot regardless of size. The assessments to the unplatted parcels assumes the entire front footage of each parcel is assessed. There are many options which could be employed to reduce the assessment which are listed below. Some may have legal ramifications which I am not not aware of. 1.) Assess a lot equivalent similar to the assessed costs for the large lots in Birch Park (200 F.F.). The deficit (approximately $48,000) could then be recovered through state aid funds, or deferred until the parcel is subdivided. 2.) Construct the sanitary sewer, water main, and services, however, defer the as- sessment until they hook-up. Therefore, their only assessment would be for storm sewer and street. 3.) From an engineering standpoint this is not recommended' but the City could con- struct only the northerly half of Deerwood Drive. Therefore, these parcels would be assessed for only sanitary sewer, water main, and services and would not be assessed for storm sewer and street because they would not be constructed. In any event, whichever utility the City elects to delete from the construction or defer for assessment purposes those amounts would be deducted from the total assess- ment. COST ESTIMATE: I have also determined the total estimated project cost for Birch Park Addition based on the bids received for Contract 85-10, and the anticipated bids to be re- ceived for the state aid portion included in Contract 85-9. City Contract 85-10 $518,190 City Contract 85-9 (MSA Portion) 297,830 TOTAL .......................... $816,020 The total estimated project cost is $816,020 which includes 27% for legal, engineer- ing, administration and bond interest. REVENUE I have also determined the revenue sources for this project in a similar manner as the Cost Estimate. I have summarized this information below: Page 2, 7769c - City of Eagan May 13, 1985 Eagan, MN. Re: File No. 49318 Project Cost Revenue Balance Sanitary Sewer $111,325 $111,325 - 0 - Water Main 120,828 145,679 +$24,851 Services 63,182 63,182 - 0 - Storm Sewer 102,178 102,178 Street Contract 85-10 120,677 Contract 85-9 (MSA) 297,830 Lateral Assessment 212,197 Eligible for MSA funds 267,341 Total Street $418,507 $479,538 +$61,031 TOTAL.............................................. +$85,882 The estimated balance is +$85,882. This amount includes the portion eligible for Municipal State Aid Funds and the amount to be assessed less the project cost. Normally this information is not included in the preliminary report, however, for purposes of this letter I felt it was appropriate. The amount eligible for state aid funds includes the construction costs associated with Contract 85-9 and the es- timated engineering costs. This amount also assumes the assessed cost to the par- cels on the south of Deerwood Drive are not revised. Therefore, if their assess- ments are revised as outlined earlier this amount would be reduced accordingly. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:li cc: RWR JAB (' Page 3. 7769c MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN 1, DATE: MAY 29, 1985 SUBJECT: LOT SIZE SURVEY Pursuant to your request, I reviewed two areas for Council consideration. The first is the number of agenda items in 1984 and 1985 related to R-1 lot size. The second is a study of R-1 lot size and setback requirements for selected cities in the metropolitan area. Mayor Blomquist suggested a list of ten cities for this study. Information about lot sizes in other cities is available through a 1983 Metropolitan Council Summary. A review of the results follows. I. AGENDA ITEMS RELATED TO R-1 LOT SIZE - 35 agenda items pertained to R-1 lot sizes from January 1, 1984, to May 15, 1985. Of these, 26 were requests for setback variances. Five requests for R-1 lot size reduction within PD's were considered in 1984. In 1985, four requests for R-1 lot size variance have been made, but none have been in a PD. The Hampton Heights development has been on the agenda several times, but it has been designated an R-3 PD by the developer, despite its single family detached format. Therefore, it is not included in the total of 35 items mentioned above. A further question about the number of R-1 lot size items continued has been found to be less significant. Aside from Hampton Heights, only one other R-1 item has been shown to be continued in the minutes. In summary, approximately 9 R-1 lot size items, excluding setback variances, have been considered since January, 1984. II. LOT SIZE AND SETBACK SURVEY - A survey of R=1 lot sizes of ten selected cities is summarized below and a sample of the survey instrument is attached. A. LOT SIZE - At a 12,000 sq. ft. minimum, Eagan is close to and slightly above the ten -city average of 11,225 sq. ft. Adjacent communities, such as Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights and Apple Valley, tend to have minimums similar to Eagan's. Otherwise, a pattern is elusive. Roseville and Bloomington are among the closest to the downtowns and their minimums are 11,000 sq. ft. and above. Despite their developable area, more distant communities, such as Blaine, Burnsville and Eden Prairie, are at 10,000 sq. ft. or less. The median of the ten cities is between 10,800 and 11,000 sq. ft. This may be a point of reference if the Council considers a redefinition of R-1 lot size. B.. FRONT FOOTAGE - The average front footage of 80 ft. is \ slightly below Eagan's 85 ft. minimum. The median frontage of 80 ft. is also the most common, as it is used in four of the ten communities. Of the communities with higher Me MEMO PAGE 2 requirements, two are at Eagan's level with a higher requirement for corner lots. Of the other cities which deviate substantially from the norm, Blaine's minimum of 45 ft. has resulted in an average frontage of 80 ft. Eden Prairie only allows 55 ft. on cul-de-sacs to absorb part of the wedge effect. As 80 ft. is both the median and mean in this survey, it too may be a point of reference for Council consideration. C. SETBACKS - Eagan appears to be consistent with most cities in the area of setbacks. Its 15 ft. backyard setback is even shallow compared to those surveyed. D. DENSITY COMPUTATION - As an equal number of cities included streets and netted them out in their density computations, no trend is shown in this study. The appropriateness of the densities chosen are, therefore, more important than the means of calculation. E. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA - Due to the qualitative nature of this item and the lack, in some cases,, of a clearly defined Council policy, few cities offered a response to it. The most common response related to the flexibility it afforded the Council to use its discretion in the planning of PD districts. Several specific limits or parameters are used by various cities: 1. In no case will density be allowed to exceed R-4 standards. (Apple Valley) 2. Density will be allowed only to that of the underlying zoning or comprehensive guide level. (Bloomington and Inver Grove Heights) 3. Densities above zoning classifications are at the discretion of the Council. (Burnsville, Eden Prairie, Mendota Heights and Rosemount) 4. Density will be allowed up to that of the most similar land use. (Coon Rapids) •5. Minimum PD lot size of 60' x 1201. (Coon Rapids) 6. Density will be allowed only to an underlying zoning level unless it contains 208 low -moderate income housing or 408 moderate income housing, in which case 258 higher density is allowed. (Roseville) It appears that the criteria reflect a variety of local development philosophies which focus on relative densities, lot sizes, and income levels. Again, the direction available from this survey and that of the Metropolitan Council depends upon the philosophy of development of the Council. MEMO PAGE 3 7 Chi SUMMARY A review of the R-1 zoning requirements of ten selected cities has shown that Eagan's minimum R-1 lot size of 12,000 sq. ft. is slightly larger than in many developing metropolitan area cities. Similarly, Eagan's 85 ft. frontage requirement exceeds the survey average of 80 ft. This study shows no significant variation in setbacks and so much variation in planned development criteria as to be inconclusive. In direct response to the City's concern about requests for smaller lots, however, Inver Grove Heights indicated that they have received many similar requests as well. Their proximity to Eagan's location and the fact that their requirements parallel or exceed Eagan's tends to indicate an area trend. The fact that other neighbors did not express such a concern may be due to specific development situations or the fact that most have smaller lot size requirements. Ad inistrative Intern JH/J J ( Attachment /3a MINIMUM MINIMUM SETBACKS STREET AREA R-1 LOT SIEE + FRONT FOOTAGE •+ FRONT -SIDE -BACK IN DENSITY NOTES Eagan 12,000 sq. ft. 85 ft. 30-10-15 Apple Valley Int. - 11,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. Int. - 30-10-30 Included PUD allows density up Corner - 12,500 sq.. ft. Corner - 30-20-30 to R-4 level. Blaine 10,000 sq. ft. 45 ft. Int. - 35-10-30 Included Higher density by Corner - 35-20-30 Special Use Permit. Bloomington 11,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 30-10-30 Netted Out PUD allows variation at same density as underlying. Burnsville 10,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 30-10-30 Included PUD allows higher densities than zoning. Coon Rapids 10,800 sq. ft. BO ft. 35-10-35 Included PUD to have same density as most similar uses. /� W Eden Prairie 9,500 sq. ft. 70 ft. 30 -Total -20 Netted Out PUD allows higher density Cul-de-sac 55 ft. (Both sides must total 15 ft.) if parking requirements are met. Inver Grove Heights Int.- 12,000 sq. ft. Int.- 85 ft. 30-10-30 Netted Out PUD to be consistent with ' Corner- 12,500 sq. ft. Corner -100 It. underlying or comp. guide. Mendota Heights 15,000 sq. ft. 100 ft. 30-10-30 Netted Out PUD allows negotiable density. Rosemount 10,200 sq.. ft. 85 ft. 30-10-25 Included PUD allows higher density. (5 ft. side for ramblers) Roseville Int. - 11,000 sq. It. Int.- 85 ft. 30-10-30 Netted Out PUD at same density as Corner - 12,500 sq. ft. Caner -100 It. underlying unless low to • moderate Income benefit. * Many titles have other R-1 or Estate categories of single family zoning at higher square footages than that listed. ti Certain cities replace front footage with a required width at setback to allow frontage variations on Irregularly shaped lots. •** Most cities have smaller side yard setbacks to garages. The width listed is to the living area. MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: FIRE CHIEF CHILDERS DATE: JUNE 7, 1985 SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS There are (3) items of business to be discussed by representatives of the Fire Department at the special City Council meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday, June 11. Those items are as follows: 1. Future Fire Stations/Planning Committee Report 2. Condition of the Present Fire Department Tanker Truck 3. Can a'Volunteer Firefighter Belong to Two Fire Departments? FUTURE FIRE STATIONS/PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Originally the Fire Department Planning Committee was proposing nine (9) fire stations for the ultimate saturation of the community. The committee has since restudied that proposal and is now con- sidering a minimum of four to a maximum of six fire stations for the City. In addition to the three existing fire stations, there are station locations proposed in the general areas as follows: A. Towerview across from Avalon B. Dodd Road at Wilderness Run Road C. Galaxie and Cliff A representative of the Fire Department Planning Committee is planning to further discuss and answer questions 'regarding this issue. TANKER The Fire Department is experiencing problems with the water tanker truck. That piece of equipment is old and is no longer dependable or serviceable. It is proposed by Fire Chief Childers that the City dispose of the tanker truck as surplus property. The Fire Department originally proposed a tanker truck for the 1985 budget which was eliminated as a part of the budget review. After reeval- uation of the proposed tanker, it was determined by the Fire Department that due to water availability throughout the City, the need for a rural water tanker truck is not as significant as it was during the pre -1980's. There is need for additional vehicular water storage capacity as a response to interstate accidents. With the volume of traffic anticipated on both I-494 and I -35E, it will be necessary to have adequate water storage capacity to fight chemical or other fire -related emergencies. The Fire Department is considering as an alternative to a tanker truck, the conversion of a present pumper truck to a 1,000 gallon capacity and in the future purchasing pumpers that contain 1,000 -gallon capacity as opposed to the 500 -gallon capacity that exists today within our equipment. The present capacity for all pumpers ,is approximately 2,700 gallons. The rural fire tanker proposed as surplus property was purchased in 1954. CAN A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER BELONG TO TWO FIRE DEPARTMENTS? This question was raised at a City Childers would like an opportunity City Council. Chief Childers is worker's compensation, retirement to whether a volunteer firefighter ments. OTHER BUSINESS: Command Bus Council meeting and Fire Chief to discuss this matter with the addressing issues relating to and other related questions as can belong to two fire depart - The command bus is back from Wisconsin where the air condition- ing system and internal compartments were installed. Addi- tional work will be coordinated and performed by the Fire Department and Police Department under the supervision of Doug Reid, Civil Defense Director. Recruitment Class There were seventeen (17) rookies who completed training and are now volunteer firefighters. This brings the total member- ship in the Fire Department up to 73. Insurance Rating Currently the insurance rating for the community is 6. The lower the number, the better insurance premiums become as a result of the advanced water system and response time of the Fire Department. The Eagan Chamber of Commerce is working with the Fire Department in an effort to improve the rating by lowering the rating from a 6 to a possible 4 or 5. Garcia Rul The City was notified several months ago of a ruling that was handed down by a federal court entitled the "Garcia Case" that basically states all municipal employees, with the exception of management, must be paid time and one-half for any time worked beyond 40 hours per week. The Fair Labor Standards Act provided this language back in the early 1970's, however, due to a number of interpretations•, cities have circumvented overtime by utilizing compensatory time off or other work schedules to avoid overtime payment. The City can no longer offer compensa- tory time as an alternative to overtime for its full-time employees. Apparently, the law does relate to volunteer fire departments and there is some question regarding employees such as Doug Reid who are called out after hours as to whether they must be paid overtime based on the City's rate of compensation. Assuming the City must recognize this ruling, there could be several firefighters who are affected if the Garcia Case does in fact relate to volunteer fire departments. The City Adminis- trator is further researching this matter and will provide a memorandum to the City Council in the near future. Payroll The Fire Department requested salaries and wages to be $100,000 in 1985 which was adopted as the budget for this calendar year. The amount of $100,000 was also budgeted in 1983 and 1984 for salaries and wages. Chief Childers is anticipating, with the new firefighters, that wages could exceed the $100,000 by approx- imately $11,000 in 1985. For additional information on the proposed 1985 payroll, refer to the attachment. The anticipated increase in wages is informative and it is hoped that the Fire Department can stay within the $262,830 that was budgeted for the Department in 1985. It may not be possible and action will be required later this fall to adjust the budget to accommodate the additional payroll that is presented in the attachment. �L Obert Chi d rs, Fire Chief A"ZW'xV'N �Q Thomas L. Hedges, City A ininistrator cc: Ken Southern, District Chief Dick Schindeldecker, District Chief Doug Reid, Fire Marshal Attachment TLH/kf TO: Tom Hedges FROM: Robert Childers DATE: May 24, 1985 RE: Fire Department Payroll for 1985 Based on the same hourly rates of pay used for 1984, it is expected that the 1985 payroll will be approximately $111,616. The calculations are as follows: 1. 10332 man fires @ $5 51660.00 2. 2685 man trainings @ $5 13225.00 3. 959 emergency hours @ $5 4795.00 4. 3264 lead officer hours @ $7 22848.00 5. 888 department head hours @ $6 5328.00 6. 2712 other officer's hours @ $5 13560.00 $1 IT, The numbers of man hours above were estimated as follows: I. Man fires: a) The average number of men per fire in 1984 was 8631 / 369 = 23.4 men. We have 16% more men on the department now; 234 x 1.16 = 27.2 men/fire. Using more recent data, between 12/19/84 and 4/11/85, we averaged 28.6 men/fire. Hence, we shall use 28 men/fire as our estimator. b) To estimate the number of fire calls in 1985 we computed: # Fire Calls 11/1/83 to 10/31/84 369 11/l/83 to 4/11/84 157 11/l/84 to 4/11/85 135 Based on 1984 actuals, 42.5% of the fires occurred from 11/1/83 to 4/11/84. So, in 1985, if the 135 actual fires from 11/1/84 to 4/11/85 constitute 42.5% of the 1985 fires, then the total fires in 1985 should be 135 / 42.5% = 317 fires. However, to be conservative, we estimate the 1985 fires to total the same as 1984 (e.g., 369 fires). C) The number of man fires for 1985 is then estimated to be 28 x 369 = 10332. 2. Man Trainings: a) In 1984 we averged 50.6 men/regular training. From 12-19-84 to 4-8-85 we averaged 57.5 men/regular training. Hence, we use 57 as the expected average men/regular training. In 1985, there will be 42 regular trainings. Hence, we expect 42 x 57 - 2394 man trainings. Tom Hedges Page two May 23, 1985 b) In 1984 we had 104 special trainings and 187 rookie trainings. We'll use these as the 1985 estimates. c) Total trainings are estimated to be: Regular 2394 Special 104 Rookie 187 �b85- 3. Emergency hours (e.g., special standbys, repairs, etc.): In 1984 there were 459 emergency hours of which 78 were for emergency standbys. In 1985 we have already had 479 hours of emergency standbys. Further, the planning committee will begin meeting in 1985 (for 100 hours, estimated). Thus the 1985 estimate is 459 + 500 = 959 hours. 4. Lead officers hours are based on the following estimated hours per month: Chief 80 hours x 1 man = 80 Dist. Chief 40 hours x 2 men 40 Captains 14 hours x 8 men 112 hrs/month 5. Department head hours are based on: Training Officer (one) 25 Engineer (one) 25 EMS Officer (one) 24 7W hrs/month 6. Other officers hours are based on: Asst. Captains 6 hours x 8 men = 48 Tng. Admin. 10 x 1 man 10 Asst. Training 10 x 3 men 30 Asst. Eng. 8 x 3 men 24 Fire Prev. 12 x 1 man 12 Asst. Fire Prev. 8 x 2 men 16 Systems 25 x 1 man 25 Sta. Captain 7 x 1 man 7 Asst. Sta. Captain 6 x 2 men 12 Aerial Captain 12 x 1 man 12 Asst. EMS 2 x 3 men 6 Administration 24 x 1 man 24 *NOTE: The officers are not actually paid on an hourly basis. The officers' hours given here are the basis by which the monthly salaries are derived. CITY OF EAGAN LOT SIZE SURVEY The City of Eagan is assessing its current lot size, set back and density requirements for R-1 residential zoning. The purpose of this study isto compare Eagan's requirements to those of other Minneapolis—St. Paul Metro— politan Area suburban cities and to make recommendations to the City Council based on its outcome. Currently Eagan requires 12,000 square foot lots with an 85 foot back yard setback. The City has received a number of variance requests for smaller lots in the recent past. The City Council wishes to clarify the context in which these requests are being made through this survey. Your assistance in answering this .brief questionnaire will be much appreciated. Those communities which respond will receive a copy of the tabulated results for their own use. Thank you for the help your response will provide. Jon Hohenstein City of Eagan tac City: Contact Person: Please answer all questions using your subdivision regulations' minimum require— ments. Please attach a copy of the R-1 section of the subdivision ordinance, if possible. 1. 2. 3. What What What is the minimum is the minimum is the minimum allowable square foot for an R-1 lot? allowable front footage for an R-1 lot? allowable width at the front yard setback? sq. ft. feet feet 4. What is the minimum allowable front yard setback? feet 5. What is the minimum allowable side yard setback? feet 6. What is the minimum allowable back yard setback? feet 7. In computing the required or betted out? density of units per acre, is street area included Included/Netted Out 8. What of a (Circle One) criteria do you ordinarily apply in approving a variance or PCD, a deviation on R-1 requirements within the plan? in the case /3 v .I 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Morar PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH June 5, 1985 JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Cwriol Members THOMAS HEDGES MR RAY GLUMACK, CHAIRMAN City Adminisvator METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE P.O. BOX 11700 City Gars TWIN CITY AIRPORT MINNEAPOLIS MN 55111 Re: Request for Presentation on the 180 Degree Heading Procedure Dear Chairman Glumack: Pursuant to our understanding that the Metropolitan Airports Commis- sion ordinarily does not receive public testimony at its meetings, the .City of Eagan respectfully requests the opportunity to speak before the Commission at the June 17, 1985,.. meeting. We do not expect our comments to require more than 15 minutes of jour time and we feel that they would be pertinent ,to the 'Commission's consideration of the 180 Degree Heading Procedure. The City of Eagan makes this request for several reasons. 1. while we appreciate the efforts of the Commission to generate public discussion of issues at the level of its various commissions, we believe that it is important to address our comments on this issue to that body ultimately responsible for its recommendation to the federal aviation administration. 2. We further understand the value of having the airport's staff summarize the comments and proceedings leading to your consider- ation of various matters. However, it seems appropriate to allow affected persons the opportunity to emphasis those portions of the earlier proceedings which are important to specific situations. This is particularly important because interpretations of the data can vary and alternative interpre- tations ought to be before the Commission as well. We appreciate your kind attention to this request and look forward to hearing from you in the near future. If you have any questions regarding our requests, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ��. QK Thomas L. Hedges City.Administrator TLH/jj THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY NOT JUST SOAP ANYMORE We are an Amway Distributor in your area. We would I\ 1. like to have you as a customer for your home care products, or talk to you about the opportunities Amway affords. If you haven't ever tried Amway you will be surprised as to the quality and the economy of the products. We are very excited about a new water treatment system that we market. I have enclosed a letter that I've recently ' sent out, maybe you have seen it in your mail. If you have '20.tc. 45 minutes, I would like to show you a short video, de- monstrate the product, and leave it with you For a 3 day trial. You will be amazed at the difference it makes:- If you are buying bottled water, I can show you how you can save money monthly and have better quality and tasting water. It cost you nothing to listen and it cost you nothing if you are dissatisfied with the product for any reason simply return it to us for a refund. We service what we sell. Check us on these: Financing available Free delivery to your home Cosmetics Full line of home care products Vitamins Expandable home security system Auto care products Water treatment system Housewares Shoppers Catalog (1000's of items) Gift Catalogs Monthly specials Call: Alan or Laura Menning 4174 Blueberry Circle .Eagan. Minnesota 55123 454-3396 U This month's special is 3 lbs. dishwasher compound for soft - water $6.00 plus tax (1 Tablespoon per load). Compare your usage and cost! �• ' ALAN & LAURA MENNING May 2, 1985 Dear Resident: What's in the water you are drinking? Chemicals! They are in small amounts (parts Per million), but nevertheless they are the same type of chemicals you clean and bleach your clothes with or .fertilize your lawn with or put into a swimming pool. What's the first thing you do when you get a small amount of these types of chemicals splashed up into your mouth or on your lips? You spit or wash out your mouth. So why do you drink the water from the tap? Because you are not aware of what is in it, you assume that the city has removed these chemicals. They don't, in fact they treat the water with more chemicals, chlorine and fluoride. The law allows the cities to have within so many parts per million of certain types of chemicals in the water you drink. Most cities test the water daily for chlorine but only test one, two, or maybe three times per month for other chemicals. Those tests are done by independent labs and by the State. But remember that these tests are from samples from the water department locations not at your home. No one knows what is in or gets into the pipes between the water department and your home. 1 would be misleading you if I said I would come out and test your, water for all chemicals, I can't oecause it is too expensive, but what 1 have is a major company which guarantees that the product I sell for them will take out 100 chemicals that the EPA have targeted as dangerous to your health. This filtering system sells for $295 Plus sales tax or you can finance it for $15_per month. The unit is a little larger then a thermos bottle and can be hooked up permanently or as a portable. Other companies also sell units for approximately the same price but most won't demonstrate it in your home. I will demonstrate mine in your home and there wiil be no high pressure sales pitches, gust a demonstration and you make the decision. I'll even install it if you decide to buy. There are alot of items you eat and drink that have chemicals in them, water needn't be one. You can do something about it. If you would like to find out more about it or set up a demonstration time call Alan or Laura at 454-3396. S i ncer•e 1 y, Alan & Laura Menning P.S. R free 3 day home trial can be arranged gust call us. 4174 BLUEBERRY CIRCLE--EAGAN, MN 55123--(612) 454-3396 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SCREENING CURRENT DESIREABLE NAME POSITION DEGREE LOCATION BACKGROUND YES NO AMUNDSON, Dir, of PW Civil Eng. Fairmont, Excellent X Brian Fairmont, Mn. Minn. ASHFELD, Consultant/ Civil Eng. Buffalo, No PW or X Ken Meyer-Rohlin, Minn. Mun. Exp. Buffalo, Mn. BAIRD, Water & Waste Civil Eng. Anchorage, No PW X James Water Utility Alaska City Eng. Anchorage, Winona & Alaska Crookston 1957-1967 BARTEL, Ia. Dept. of Civil Eng. Storm Lake, No PW or X Clyde Transportation Iowa Mun. Exp. Storm Lake, Ia. BATES, MnDOT, Mainte- Civil Eng. Stillwater, No PW/City X Marvin nance Operations Minn. Eng. Exp. Engineer BAUER, Dir. of PW Civil Eng. St.Charles, 7. Yrs. Exp. X Darryll St.Charles, No Mn. Reg. Ill. & Exp. With Ill. Envir.Prot. Agency BLUHM, Comm. Svcs. Civil Eng. St. Paul, No PW/City X Donald MWCC/13 1/2 yrs. Minn. Eng. Exp. BRIGGS, Maint. Eng./ Maint. Eng. Paducah, Coonty Public X Lindsey Commonwealth No Mn. Reg. Kent. Works Exp. No of Kentucky City Eng. Exp. CHRISTENSEN, Consultant Civil Eng. Shoreview, No PW/City X James No. Mn. Reg. Minn. Eng. Exp. CORI, Consultant Civil Eng. Waukesha, Limited PW X Kent CID As Manager Wis. Exp./No In - of Muni. Eng. house City Div. Eng. Exp. CULP, Project Eng./ Civil Eng. Lombard, No PW or X James Dupage County Ill. Comm. Dev. Forest Preserve Exp. District DROWN, Asst. City Eng. Civil Eng. Mpls., Strong City X David City of Roseville Minn. Eng./Minimum PW Exp. EASTLING, City Engineer Civil Eng. Mpls., Strong City X Michael Richfield Eng./Weak PW Exp. *Withdrew Application YES NO X M 1. X 13 X X X M X X CURRENT DESIREABLE NAME POSITION DEGREE LOCATION BACKGROUND EBELING, City Engineer/ Civil Eng. Savage, Strong City Craig Savage Minn. Eng. Exp./Med. Exp. in PW ENGSTROM, Dept. of Health Civil Eng. Fridley, No PW/Eng.Exp. David Water & Sewer Minn. Emphasis FENENDAD, City Engineer Civil Eng. Shoreview, Limited PW Julian Shoreview Minn. Exp. FLORA, Dir, of PW/ Civil Eng. Fridley, Excellent John City Engineer Minn. for Fridley GERSON, President, Civil Eng. Chardon, Asst. City Terrence Consulting Ohio Eng. & PW Firm Background 1969-1971 GOLDMAN, Building Civil Eng. Seabrook, Asst. PW William Official Texas Dir., Ohio & Pa.. GRACI, Chief Design Civil Eng. Philadel- Strong Bldg. Joseph Eng./City of phia, Pa. Background Philadelphia Limited Comm. Dev. & Muni. PW Exp. GRUBE,* City Eng. Civil Eng. Brooklyn _Excellent James Center, Mn. Eng. & PW Exp. HATTER, Consulting Civil Eng. W.Fargo, No PW Exp. David Eng./W.Fargo, N.Dak. N.Dak. HEFTI, Asst. City Civil Eng. Eagan, Eng. Exp./ Richard Engineer Minn. Limited PW Exp. HOVELSRUD, Consulting Civil Eng. Worthington Dir. of PW/ Herman Eng. Minn. City Eng. Richland,Wis. 1961-1970 HARRISON, JR. Consulting Civil Eng. Green Bay, City Eng. Chester Eng. Wis. St.Louis Pk. 1978-1984 Also PW Dir. New Caledonia, Wis. *Withdrew Application YES NO X M 1. X 13 X X X M X X CURRENT DESIRFABLE NAME POSITION DEGREE LOCATION BACKGROUND YES NO JESSUP, MTC Engineer Civil Eng. Stillwater, No Muni.Eng. x David Minn. or PW Exp. JORGENSON, County Eng. Civil Eng. Hampton, County Eng. x Neil Franklin Cty. Ia. No. Municipal Exp. KHANZADEH, Ministery of Civil Eng. Marshall, No Municipal x Azizollah Power, Shiraz Minn. Exp. Iran KLEINSCHMIDT, City Eng. Dir. Civil Eng. Hastings, Good Muni. x James of PW, Winona, Minn. Exp. New Brighton, & IGH KNIPFER, Dir. of Eng. Civil Eng. Riverside, No Municipal x Ronald Sewers Calif. Exp. LARSON, City Eng. Civil Eng. Hastings, City Eng./ x Allan Minn. No PW Exp. LAPSA, Traffic/Design Civil Eng. Wisconsin Heavy in Traffic x David Engineer Rapids,'Wis. Limited PW Exp. LUTZ, Milwaukee Water Civil Eng. Milwaukee, No Muni. Exp. x William Pollution Abate- ment Program MARCUSON, Transp. Manager Civil Eng. Tampa, No Dev. or PW x Joel Tampa, Fla. Fla. Exp. MARLOW, Consultant/Tulsa Civil Eng. Tulsa, Limited Muni. x Lee Okla./Eng. 81-83 Okla. Exp. Muskogee, Okla. MARTIN, City Eng. Civil Eng. Shawnee, Strong Infra- x Robert Okla. Structure Eng./ No PW or Dev. Exp. MATROSIC, Chief Training Civil Eng. Tomah, U.S. Army Retired/ x Charles Ft. McCoy Wis. No City Exp. MENENDEZ, Eng. Dir. of Civil Eng. Miami, No Relative x Juan Dade Cty. Fla. PW Exp. Dept. of Health MINETOR, City Engineer Civil Eng. Wheat Rdge., No Water & Sewer x R.A. Wheat Ridge, Colo. Exp. No Dev.Exp/ Colo. Limited PW MONROY, Principal Eng.II Civil Eng. Bogota, No Municipal x Eduardo Columbia Exp. Aguirre CURRENT DESIREABLE NAME POSITION DEGREE LOCATION BACKGROUND YES NO NANNINGA, Public Works Civil Eng. Aurora, Excellent X James Dir./Aurora, Ill. PW & Eng. Ill. Background NEGRON, Construction Civil Eng. Harlingen, No PW/City X Joseph Engineering Texas Eng. Exp. PAULSON, Asst. VP of Civil Eng. Cedar Falls, No PW, Comm. X Thomas Facilities Ia. Dev or City @UNI Eng. Exp. PFUTZENREUTER, Consulting Civil Eng. Virginia, No PW or Orris Oliver Engineer Minn. City Eng. Exp. POFFENBERGER, Consulting Civil Eng. Halifax, Was PW Dir. X Carl Engineer Pa. Harrisburg,Pa. in 1975 SALMEDA, Energy Eng. Testing for Mpls, No Exp. X Jack NSP Civil Eng. Minn. SCOTT, Partner/Lanier Civil Eng. Gretna, Emphasis in X William & Assoc. La. Environ.Eng. Consulting Ltd.Muni.Exp. Eng. Firm SONNENBERG, PW Dir. Civil Eng. River Falls, Good PW, Muni. X David River Falls, Wis. Eng. Back- Wis. ground SPUINER, City Engineer Civil Eng. Shakopee, _ Strong Eng. X Henry Shakopee Minn. Ltd.PW SPINK, Consultant Civil Eng. Richland,. No Municipal X Robert Spink Eng. WA. Exp. Since 1975 STAHLBERG, Consulting Civil Eng. Alexandria, Limited Muni. X Ronald Firm of Widseth, Minn. Exp. Smith & Notting Assoc. STAPF, Asst. City Eng. Civil Eng. Wyoming, Eng. & Comm. X Joseph Wyoming, Mich. Mich. Dev. Back- ground/Ltd. PW Exp. STEFANIAH, Dir. of PW Civil Eng. W.St.Paul, Dir. of PW Philip W.St.Paul Minn. Good Background STOCKTON, City Engineer Civil Eng. Abilene, Good Comm. Dev/ X John Abilene, Tx. Tex. Eng. No Muni. Exp. CURRENT DESIREABLE NAME POSITION DEGREE LOCATION BACKGROUND YES NC STYGAR, Airport Eng. Civil Eng. Falls No. Municipal x Michael FAA Church,Va. Exp. WALLACE, Consulting Civil Eng. Englewood, Good Water & x Glenn Eng. Colo. Sewer Background No Muni. Exp. WARREN, Consulting Civil Eng. Mpls., Limited Muni. x Gary Eng. CED Minn. Eng. Exp. WESSELHOFF, Consulting Civil Eng. Peoria, Limited Muni. x Jack Eng. Ill. Eng. Exp. WOOD, Asst. PW Dir. Civil Eng. Lemoore, No Muni. Eng. x John Naval Air Calif. Exp. Station WOOD, Wastewater Div./ Civil Eng. Dothan, Exc.Wastewater x Richard Asst. City Eng. Ala. Ltd. PW & Comm. Dothan, Ala. Dev. McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS W LAND SURVEYORS a PLANNERS May 24, 1985 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator 16121559-3700 City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear MrFHedges: As you are aware, the 1985'Leaque of Minnesota Cities (L.M.C.) Annual Conference is scheduled to be held Wednesday thru Friday (June 12-14) at the St. Paul Radisson Hotel. We hope that you, along with the Council and designated City Officials, will be able to take the opportunity to attend this annual conference along with other representatives of various municipalities throughout the State. As you are aware, we have been privileged to provide professional consulting engineer/land surveying services for your community during the past several years. Subsequently, we would like to take the opportunity doting this conference to invite you, the City Council, and any other appropriate Qty Officials and spouses to a pleasant and sociable dining experience at Leeann Chin's Restaurant at approximately 5:00 PM on Wednesday June 12th. We feel this time would fit in best with the tight schedule of the conference, workshops, and the scheduled evening entertainment at the new Ordway Theatre starting at around 7:00 PM. Although the conference and related workshops provide an opportunity for you to meet other City Officials, we feel that this dinner invitation will allow you to share your common interests with several of them in a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere. Due to the time frame required to make the necessary arrangements, we would very much appreciate a confirmation response by June 7, 1985, indicating the names of who will be able to join us. If for some reason you are unable to accept our dinner invitation, we hope that you will take the opportunity to stop by our display area so we can help welcome you to the conference and address any questions or concerns that you may have. We look forward to hearing from you by June 7th indicating that you will be able to join us at St. Paul's lel rated Leeann Chin's restaurant for a pleasant dining experience prior to the enjoyable program at the Ordway Music Theatre. Sincerely, htCC1.1BS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. - Willi&Mtmmbbs/, P.E. TAC/WFM:j - Printed on recyclerl paper May 21, 1985 Mr. and Mrs. Ramnarine 3785 Nichols Road Eagan,.Minnesota 55122 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ramnarine: Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 Governor Perpich has forwarded your letter to me concerning the development proposed by the Beure Company in Eagan. I had staff review your letter and check to determine where this project was in the governmental review process. On March.19; 1985, the Metropolitan Council notified the Corps of Engineers that we had "no comment" on the Section 404 permit application. Based on your letter, staff did additional research and recommended that a second letter be sent to the Corps of Engineers recommending against this permit. I have enclosed a copy of my letter of May 20, 1985 that has been sent to the.Corps of Engineers. I want to thank you for taking the time to get involved 'in this issue. If you have any questions about our review of the permit application, please contact Gary Oberts at 291-6484. Sincerely Sandra S. Gardebring, Chair SSG:jb cc: Governor Rudy Perpich Dale Runkle, City of Eagan Gary Oberts, Metropolitan Council Staff Enclosure An Equal Opportunity Employer s May 20, 1985 Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291635% District Engineer St. Paul District, Corp of Engineers 1135 U.S. Post Office and Customs House St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Attention: Regulatory Functions Branch RE: NCSCO-RF (85-284-23) Applicant: Beure Co. Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 12724-1 On. Mar. 19, 1985, a statement of "no comment" was sent to the Corps pertaining to the above referenced Section 404 permit review., Since that time, the Metropolitan Council has re -evaluated -its position in light of facts it was unaware of at the time of review, specifically, the fact that Harnack Creek is a trout stream and that the fill could damage Nicol's Meadow Fen, one of the few in the Metropolitan Area, unique to the Minnesota River Valley. The Council has several current policies and some under revision that apply to this project and that direct staff to negativelyreview this project. The policies are: Water Resources Chapter No. 14: .. give priority to non-structural flood protection mea- sures that preserve natural resources and minimize increases in flood flow peaks or annual runoff. Such natural features as wetlands..should be maintained in their natural state to enable them to perform their natural drainage, storage and wildlife functions... Protection Open Space Chapter (currently an inactive chapter to be combined with new Water Resources chapter) No. 17: Alterations which would inhibit the role of wetlands in the hydrologic system or an ecological system should not be allowed by the unit of government having jurisdiction. Protection Open Space Chapter No. 44: Alterations or developments adversely affecting land con- taining unique or endangered species should be prohibited by the unit of government having jurisdictional responsibili- ties. An Equal Opportunity Employer District Enaineer St. Paul District, May 20, 1985 Page Two Corp of Engineers Water Resources Management, Part 2, draws nn the results of the Council's Section 208 water quality studies, which found dramatic water quality anis quantity benefits of wetlands, No. 58: Watershed management plans should give preference to non- structural management practices and should make every effort to retain existing wetlands, drainaceways... in a condition that will allow natural drainage, storage and•infiltration processes to operate freely. In short, trout streams and calcareous fens are two truly valu- able natural resources that the Council wants to see protected. Our history of reviews contain numerous comments against develop-.:- ments that impact these types of resources, most recently per- taining to two separate proposals that would have impacted the Savage Fen. We, therefore, ask the Corps not to issue this �. permit. Also, I would like to clarify the Council's review of this pro- ject relative to the Eagan comprehensive plan, since it appears some clarification is needed. When we first reviewed the plan, the city was in the process of adopting a shoreland ordinance and incorporating environmental protection elements into its new sub- division regulations. The Council has not reviewed these ordi- nances, so it is impossible to tell if this project is consistent with them. We review local comprehensive plans based on Council policies and do not consider zoning or site plans on an individ- ual basis. --As such, we commented that the project was concis- — tent, as we knew at the time, with the land use element of the comprehensive plan. However, environmental ordinances can over- lay zoning ordinances and can override zoning on an individual' site basis. Since we have not seen the environmental overlays, we cannot say that this site is unaffected by them. I hope this places our original comments in the proper context. Sincerely, 5VI,k" Sandra S. Gardebring Chair SSG:sje Ad, .�-d.G'-Lx �._�-IL•C.LC/+t.a�u-w �GU�`•-�f'.�[o�J1``�''--�il'J� �•-dii-c%t1t/ �.�7-7 7Z— / ��G�r� JL4 � 7 _.•-�,� �^,�✓� !� j.� �.�.C� �.f/f/ G�4/✓ �%%'-<L.Xi �Ll.. ��%C GL`-GC/iL<�/ /.�!/1/ �%�_ �..�::� L:i� -��•� ;�� (tet% C��i �'� `7�i. ✓� .��C. d ✓ Q SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 11, 1985 7:00 P.M. I. Roll Call II. Birch Park Final Plat & Reconsideration of Bid Award for Contract 85-10 (Birch Park Addition and Deerwood Drive) III. Fire Department A) Future Fire Station Sites B) Tanker Truck C) Status of VolunteerFirefighters Serving on More Than._One Department D) Other IV. Lot Survey V. Other VI. Adjournment MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JUNE 7, 1985 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING BIRCH PARK FINAL PLAT & RECONSIDERATION OF BID AWARD Acting City Engineer Hefti has sent a letter to the residents on Deerwood Drive and the developers of Birch Park. The bid award and final plat for Contract 85-10 will both be considered at the Special City .Council meeting on Tuesday. To accomodate the City Council, a copy of the Birch Park information relating to both the final plat and the bid award for Contract 85-10 are attached for your review. This information is taken from the last City Council packet. FIRE DEPARTMENT Enclosed is a memorandum that addresses all the issues on the Special City Council meeting agenda pertaining to Fire Department business. LOT SURVEY Enclosed is a copy of the lot survey memorandum that was prepared by Administrative Assistant Hohenstein at the request of this office and upon direction by the City Council. OTHER 1) Cedar Space Addition - Enclosed is a letter from the Metropoli- tan Council chairperson to Mr. and Mrs. Ramnarine that Mayor Blomquist asked to be sent to each member of the City Council. 2) Airport Noise/180 Degree Heading Procedure - City Administrator Hedges has sent a letter to Mr. Ray Glumack, Chairman of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, requesting a presentation at the June 17 commission meeting on the 180 Degree Heading Procedure. Mayor Blomquist, Administrative Assistant Hohenstein and City Administrator Hedges will be attending the meeting. The above -referenced letter is enclosed. 3) Not Just Soap Anymore - Attached is a copy of a flyer that was sent throughout the community by Alan and Laura Menning, who reside at 4174 Blueberry Circle. Please read page 2. The City Administrator, acting in the capacity of the Public Works Director, is preparing a response to the Mennings due to the implications that something is wrong with Eagan water, as implied by reading their letter. 4) Public Works Director Screening - The City Administrator has completed the initial screening for all public works MEMO TO HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL JUNE 7, 1985 PAGE 2 candidates. There were sixty (60) applications. For a brief review of each applicant, please refer to the attached worksheet entitled "Public Works Director Screening". There were forty-five applicants eliminated in the initial screening process, as the attachment indicates, and the City Administrator is currently narrowing the fifteen to approximately eight or ten for an initial interview. The initial interviews are scheduled for Tuesday, June 18. The Selection Committee is Chuck Sigerud, Director of Public Works for the city of Burnsville, Carl Jullie, City Manager for the city of Eden Prairie and City Administrator Hedges. Those applications will be reduced to approximately three or four for a final interview and selection by the City Council on Wednesday, June 26. 5) LMC Annual Conference - Please refer to your May, 1985, issue of the Minnesota Cities Magazine for a copy of the LMC annual conference schedule. The City did register Mayor Blomquist, Administrative Assistant Holly Duffy and the City Administrator. If any member of the City Council wishes to attend any sessions, feel free to attend and if there are any questions asked, just state that you are filling in for one of those three individuals. If you plan to attend a luncheon or some other event, the City will certainly reimburse you for any expenses incurred for the banquet luncheon or other related activity. I have also enclosed another copy of Wednesday night's invitation for each member of the City Council. As a reminder, spouses are invited both for dinner and the program at the Ordway Music Theater that evening. h City Administrator TLH/jj May 29, 1985 Suite 608.4940 Viking Drive • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435.612-835-2808 MEMO T0: Thomas L. Hedges' FROM: Rodney D. Hardy RE: Birch Park/Pilot ointe Access This is to confirm our various conversations with staff and city representatives regarding the need to provide alternate access to the Pilot Pointe Tract. We are in agreement with the layout as done by J.R. Hill, Inc. showing an Outlot C across Lot 17 that links Outlot B (city land) with Deerwood Drive. The drawings showing this layout have been forwarded by Jim Hill to your Consulting Engineer and City Attorney for review. In reviewing this with your City Attorney,.Paul Hauge, we would propose one adjustment in proposed ownership. Instead of creating an outlot for the access we would retain all of Lot 17, Block 6 and give an easement to the city for purposes of -access and utilities. By this means of conveyance it would provide that in the event the access was not required or used within a given time period the land would revert to the original owner. This method of conveyance appears both cleaner and easier for all parties. In conclusion, we propose to convey to the city, at the time of signing the final plat, an easement across the area referred to in the drawings as Outlot C. This easement will be for utilities and access. The rights to construct on this access if not so committed to by the city, shall expire no later than December 31, 1992. The city's Consulting Engineer, Bob Rosene, has reviewed this proposal from an engineering point of view and will be providing you with his evaluation. Finally, it is our understanding that, assuming this easement provides the city with the necessary access to city property and in turn.to the Pilot Pointe Tract, this plat adjustment will make it possible for us to receive final plat approval for Birch Park. All other items have been completed and are being or have been submitted to the city in their proper sequence. Thank you for taking care of this matter. As I also stated Jim Hill will be representing Sienna at the Council meeting on June 4 as I will be out of town. He will be prepared to graphically ( describe the proposed solution and its!proper support material. C.C. Judith Bright Planners Developers ■ Contractors MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES ( FROM: ACTING CITY ENGINEER HEFTI DATE: MAY 31, 1985 SUBJECT: PILOT POINTE ACCESS FROM BIRCH PARK ADDITION I reviewed the proposed future access "Outlot C" to be dedicated by this developer for access to Pilot Point. Outlot C consists of the westerly 80' of Lot 17, Block 6, of the Birch Park Addition. This proposed access appears to require a great deal of grading. Also, the grading required for construction of an access road on this site will encroach on the high water elevation for Pond JP -6. Until the determination of final grades, it is difficult to determine how, much of the storage volume will be lost with this access road grading. Enclosed as Figure 1 is a copy of the contours of this area. Enclosed as Figure 2 is a sketch of the existing center line profile taken from the contour map and a possible grade line profile. The 10% grade does exceed code. Also shown is an 8% grade, which is the maximum allowed by code. Figure 2 shows that depending upon the grade, fills of up to 27 feet will be necessary. By comparison, the access onto Pilot Knob Road requires up to 30 feet of fill material. Enclosed as Figure 3 is a copy of the Pilot Knob Circle profile. This profile will probably be impacted by the reconstruction of Pilot Knob Road that is to occur around 1988. The grade for Pilot Knob Road will more than likely be lowered. The extent it will be lowered is not known at this time. By contrast, Deerwood Drive will not be lowered at the proposed access location. The financing of the street construction, when required, will probably be the responsibility of the owner of Lot 1 of Skovdale Addition, parcel 030-27 and the Pilot Point property. This roadway does not appear to be of any benefit to the Birch Park Addition. If Council requires this access over the westerly_ 80' of Lot 17, Block 6, of Birch Park Addition then I have the following recommend- ations: 1. The westerly 80' of Lot 17, Block 6, Birch Park Addition shall be dedicated as a highway easement rather than an outlot. 2. A 30 -foot slope easement shall be dedicated easterly of the highway easement dedication. I will be happy to discuss any aspect of this memo in detail with yourself or Council if so desired. Rem �e full su tted, Richard Acting City Engineer RMH/kf '57 1; {� I 1 12M ,-r FuTit?t Gdh i } _ Y.1. 80,: at r�;: Bt IG i:,.l,�-:111'1'1• I I 'II I -! i �IQGFi;C?c�•t. I I II i L:' 11 i 'i I I i I Illlli'I�ilil I{I -�2 c fll i ' i- . li i .1 '• �:. 11 ,I .i 1 I � IIi• 111; ;' "' II TT_ ,4-1-71 oz L I I r lp'I T 11, I I -I I' 11111 i {' I' y . 1 ' I ' I I , �I I i-� II � , I 1' i t I I -i - I 1 ._ 1 1 � /,. �, , , J i I I I 1 1 1 �L � 1 � I I __ _• ID�i ItI 1111 in • I ' ; I IIII i' , I I, 1, IIIIin !til,l i 17 i i�' i I I I� I! I 1�! I I J, I i QTV rT,111 ,.4 ;-,II II f , t: I'1 I ' -�1 ill I. I I 11 1 I !_I "I�1'lill L jII ii i'I-I: 1, ,ill 11 111 I i�ljllllli _.. t!Ii�.i�i 1 III IlI�11i '-I II I1, ;.f 111 1 I ' I ! I I I Ig( 1 I.,. 1A. ,..:._�I 1_; s. 4 3 i�'t_TI, 'Il 1{) I IIii III III II IIS � i I 1 ii II�j , I i � li i1j11 - i17E�t..Joo� I{ t I I AOR' rll _ 10 I I{ I{ 1+ Y1;, 721W UNE i I 1 I{ I I i 1 III l I 1_i I 1 11 - I jams! � 10 • I (-{ I � t � t{ r � 1 ... . ................................................ il.......... ..................... ......... ........... ................_....._.__..�..._.... ... ................... .........._........._._...._:.__..._.__._._ ............................. ....................;. .................... rte..........................I............ ............. ............................................ .........................................I.................... ..... ._I_.......................L... .. .I .................. ....................... .......................... ................. .................................................. o 2335 24 7..-A ..Y:yR..ny 36 .$'!. par, Af"....a. 35113 X. 612 - 636.4600 May 30, 1985 City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55121 Attn: Mr. Tom Hedges Re: Birch Park Preliminary Plat Eagan, Minnesota File No. 49318 Dear Tom, Ono G, Banmroa. P.E. Robert W. Rene. P.E. 1..,h C. Anderbk, P.E. Bradford A. L,.b, ,, P.E. Rmhard E- turner, P.E. James C. Mo., P.E. Glenn R. Coot, P.E. Keith A. CaMoa. P.E. Thom. E. N.M. P.E. RiehaM W. Fon,,. P.E. Robe', G Srh.dahl. P.E. Marvin L. 5.rvole. P.E. Donald C. Bar,ardL P.E. Jerry A. Boa Mon, P.E. M.N A. Na.on, P.E. Ted K. Add. P.E. Miehael L Ram.or.. P.E., Rodd R. Pfeffer/,, P.E. David D. Lasko.. P.E. Charles A. Eriekson Leo M. Pawdsky Jlallan M, Olson At your request, I have reviewed the revised preliminary plat of Birch Park Addition which shows an 80' wide access easement at the southwest corner. This easement is to provide access from Deerwood Drive to the property north of Skovdale No. 1 Addition. ( _ The early preliminary plats of this addition provided consideration of an ac- cess from Denmark Avenue west to the property north of Skovdale No. 1. Later consideration of the property resulted in a preliminary plat for the Pilot Pointe Addition which involved considerable fill being placed on the property and, with this fill, access provided directly to Pilot Knob Road. Recently it was disclosed that the fill was not available and consideration was requested to be given to access again from Denmark Avenue. Since the initial preliminary plat of Birch Park, several changes in lot ar- rangement had been made as well as the raising of the water level in Pond JP -6 from 812.3 to 818.9. A review was made of the present addition layout to com- pare the feasibility of providing access to the land north of Skovdale No. 1 out to Denmark Avenue as compared to access along the west edge of the Birch Park Addition directly to Deerwood Drive. After consideration of the number of large trees involved, the steep topography of the area and the revised ele- vation of the pond, it is our opinion that the direct access out to Deerwood Drive is more feasible if an access is required to the east end of the proper- ty north of Skovdale No. 1. Use of the proposed easement would result in con- siderably fewer trees being removed and a much shorter length of street to provide this access. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert We Rosene RWR:li cc: Rich Hefti Jerry Bourdon 8181c MEMO TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION DATE: MAY 30, 1985 RE: BIRCHPARK ADDITION I have received a letter of May 24 from James R. Hill regarding Birchpark Addition and your request for my comments regarding the proposed modifications. Possible future road access into the park through Outlot C is of no significance or value to the park system. The City will be developing a trail through the existing park area proceeding from the Municipal Center east to Patrick Eagan Park. A trail will also be constructed along Denmark Avenue. Consequently, access through Outlot C to the park is of no significant value. Further, access at this point is at a storm water pond whose N.O.H.W. would prohibit a trail around the pond. Grades of between 13-15% from Deerwood to the pond would make it difficult for the average pedestrian. The value of Outlot C to the City, if not used for roads or utilities, would only be for additional open space. Inasmuch as this parcel would not be continuous with any other park space, its value is limited and may present more of a problem in the future than its overall benefit. My suggestion would be to take a road easement across lot 17. If the road is not subsequently built in future years, the easement could be vacated and the C. property would then become part of lot 17. In summation, Outlot C has little value to the park system other than being additional open space property. Access as a walking trail would be difficult because of steep grades and the storm water pond. If you would like additional information, please feel free to contact me. /Js Er Our File No. 49318 CITY CONTRACT NO. 85-10 BIRCH PARK ADDITION UTILITY b STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT 417 EAGAN, MINNESOTA Feasibility Report Estimate--------- $503,000.00 ENGINEER's ESTIMATE--------- — 465,000.00 7.(+) or (-) Feasibility Report- -18.9 7.(+) or (-) Engineer's Report------ -12.3 BID TIME: 10:30 A.M., C.D.S.T. BID DATE: Thursday, May 2, 1985 CONTRACTORS TOTAL BASE BID 1. Arcon Construction 408,024.15 2. Nodland Associates 423,333.75 3. Gartzke Construction/M&M Sewer & Water 428,000.50 4. Orfei & Sons 430,281.78 5. S.J. Louis Construction 433,555.75 6. Northdale Construction 439,598.25 7. 'L&G Rehbein 443,979.56 8. Mueller Pipeliners 457,327.75 9. Barbarossa & Sons 478.357.75 10. A.P. Keller Construction 478.759.00 11. Lametti & Sons 607.169.00 12. Alexander Construction No Bid 13. Enebak Construction No Bid 14. G.L. Contracting No Bid 15. Rice Lake Contracting No Bid 16. Encon Utilities No Bid 17. Gammon Brothers No Bid 18. 19. 20. 21. Feasibility Report Estimate--------- $503,000.00 ENGINEER's ESTIMATE--------- — 465,000.00 7.(+) or (-) Feasibility Report- -18.9 7.(+) or (-) Engineer's Report------ -12.3 m nr net �F nKC. Oknn R. Caok. P.E. Krirh A. GONon, P.E. ` Ouo O. Bunrvro., P.E. Tkom. E. N.Y.. P.E. O Robrrl W. Rwent. P.E. flkhart W. F ..... P.E. _ J.31h C. Ande.4k, P E. Rnbrr G. Schunirkr. P.E. 2335 V. i,." .411-.1 36 Rradl.,d 4. L ember,, P.F. M.rv,n L. U.I.. P.E. Rirha•d E. )umrr, P.E. Donald C. Bur,artr. P.E. .St. na.l, Af_.ud. 55113 I..,, C. Oho., P Jr ry A. Bourton. P.E. PA... 611.636-4600 Mork A. Hanwa. P.E. Ted K. F,,Id, R.E. Mirkod T. Remmann. P.E.. May 11, 1985 Rabrir R. Plr/Jrrk, P.E. N,,d O. Lwkuro, P.E. Chant A. Erlrkaan City of Eagan LN M. Pawhky 3830 Pilot Knob Road Harlan M. Oho. Eagan, MN 55121 Attn: Mr. Rich Hefti Re: Brick Park Addition City Contract 85-10, Project No. 417 Our File No. 49318 Dear Rich, I have determined the assessments against the properties south of Deerwood Drive based on the bids received for City Contract 85-10, Birch. Park. The assessments in- clude 27% overhead and are determined by the assessable front footage at the build- ing set back line. This method is consistent with the addendum prepared January 4, 1985 which has been included as part of original preliminary report. I have also attached a drawing showing each parcel and it's size in relation to birch Park Addi- tion. Parcels 010-51 and 040-51 are both owned by Altobelli and their assessments have been combined for purposes of this letter. Assessments for lateral water main and street were taken from the Report for Trunk Assessments Rates for Utilities and Streets, Eagan, Minnesota 1984. Therefore, these assessments have not been deter- mined by the bid amount. Listed below are the estimated assessments for each of these parcels and also for the large lots in Birch Park Addition (200 F.F.). Water Main Storm Parcel and Front Sanitary Trunk Ser- Sewer Owner Footage Sewer Lateral Area vices Lateral Street Total 010-51;040-51 Altobelli 405.83' $ 5,867 $ 4,399 $ 3,315 $ 810 $ 5,385 $12,373 $ 32,149 014-54 Fritz 434.47' 6,281 4,710 4,122 810 5,765 13,246 34,934 015-54 Hosford 242.27' 3,502 2,626 4,278 810 3,215 7,387 21,818 016-54 Kohler 242.27' 31502 2,626 41278 810 3,215 7,387 21,818 TOTAL 1324.84' $19,152 $14,361 $15,993 $3,240 $17,580 $40,393 $110,719 Birch Park Addition (Cost/Lot) Lots 14-17 Blk. 6 200' $ 2,891 $ 2,393 $467(1) $ 810 $ 2,656 $ 6,242 $ 15,459 Page 1. 7769c 5e City of Eagan Eagan, MN. Re: File No. 49318 May 13, 1985 (1) The assessment for trunk area water main for the large lots in Birch Park is not accurate for comparison purposes because the total trunk area water main for Birch Park Addition was divided equally amongst each lot regardless of size. The assessments to the unplatted parcels assumes the entire front footage of each parcel is assessed. There are many options which could be employed to reduce the assessment which are listed below. Some may have legal ramifications which I am not not aware of. 1.) Assess a lot equivalent similar to the assessed costs for the large lots in Birch Park (200 F.F.). The deficit (approximately $48,000) could then be recovered through state aid funds, or deferred until the parcel is subdivided. 2.) Construct the sanitary sewer, water main, and services, however, defer the as- sessment until they hook-up. Therefore, their only assessment would be for storm sewer and street. 3.) From an engineering standpoint this is not recommended' but the City could con- struct only the northerly half of Deerwood Drive. Therefore, these parcels would be assessed for only sanitary sewer, water main, and services and would not be assessed for storm sewer and street because they would not be constructed. In any event, whichever utility the City elects to delete from the construction or defer for assessment purposes those amounts would be deducted from the total assess- ment. COST ESTIMATE: I have also determined the total estimated project cost for Birch Park Addition based on the bids received for Contract 85-10, and the anticipated bids to be re- ceived for the state aid portion included in Contract 85-9. City Contract 85-10 $518,190 City Contract 85-9 (MSA Portion) 297,830 TOTAL .......................... $816,020 The total estimated project cost is $816,020 which includes 27% for legal, engineer- ing, administration and bond interest. REVENUE I have also determined the revenue sources for this project in a similar manner as the Cost Estimate. I have summarized this information below: Page 2, 7769c - City of Eagan May 13, 1985 Eagan, MN. Re: File No. 49318 Project Cost Revenue Balance Sanitary Sewer $111,325 $111,325 - 0 - Water Main 120,828 145,679 +$24,851 Services 63,182 63,182 - 0 - Storm Sewer 102,178 102,178 Street Contract 85-10 120,677 Contract 85-9 (MSA) 297,830 Lateral Assessment 212,197 Eligible for MSA funds 267,341 Total Street $418,507 $479,538 +$61,031 TOTAL.............................................. +$85,882 The estimated balance is +$85,882. This amount includes the portion eligible for Municipal State Aid Funds and the amount to be assessed less the project cost. Normally this information is not included in the preliminary report, however, for purposes of this letter I felt it was appropriate. The amount eligible for state aid funds includes the construction costs associated with Contract 85-9 and the es- timated engineering costs. This amount also assumes the assessed cost to the par- cels on the south of Deerwood Drive are not revised. Therefore, if their assess- ments are revised as outlined earlier this amount would be reduced accordingly. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTR00, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Mark A. Hanson MAH:li cc: RWR JAB (' Page 3. 7769c MEMO TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN 1, DATE: MAY 29, 1985 SUBJECT: LOT SIZE SURVEY Pursuant to your request, I reviewed two areas for Council consideration. The first is the number of agenda items in 1984 and 1985 related to R-1 lot size. The second is a study of R-1 lot size and setback requirements for selected cities in the metropolitan area. Mayor Blomquist suggested a list of ten cities for this study. Information about lot sizes in other cities is available through a 1983 Metropolitan Council Summary. A review of the results follows. I. AGENDA ITEMS RELATED TO R-1 LOT SIZE - 35 agenda items pertained to R-1 lot sizes from January 1, 1984, to May 15, 1985. Of these, 26 were requests for setback variances. Five requests for R-1 lot size reduction within PD's were considered in 1984. In 1985, four requests for R-1 lot size variance have been made, but none have been in a PD. The Hampton Heights development has been on the agenda several times, but it has been designated an R-3 PD by the developer, despite its single family detached format. Therefore, it is not included in the total of 35 items mentioned above. A further question about the number of R-1 lot size items continued has been found to be less significant. Aside from Hampton Heights, only one other R-1 item has been shown to be continued in the minutes. In summary, approximately 9 R-1 lot size items, excluding setback variances, have been considered since January, 1984. II. LOT SIZE AND SETBACK SURVEY - A survey of R=1 lot sizes of ten selected cities is summarized below and a sample of the survey instrument is attached. A. LOT SIZE - At a 12,000 sq. ft. minimum, Eagan is close to and slightly above the ten -city average of 11,225 sq. ft. Adjacent communities, such as Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights and Apple Valley, tend to have minimums similar to Eagan's. Otherwise, a pattern is elusive. Roseville and Bloomington are among the closest to the downtowns and their minimums are 11,000 sq. ft. and above. Despite their developable area, more distant communities, such as Blaine, Burnsville and Eden Prairie, are at 10,000 sq. ft. or less. The median of the ten cities is between 10,800 and 11,000 sq. ft. This may be a point of reference if the Council considers a redefinition of R-1 lot size. B.. FRONT FOOTAGE - The average front footage of 80 ft. is \ slightly below Eagan's 85 ft. minimum. The median frontage of 80 ft. is also the most common, as it is used in four of the ten communities. Of the communities with higher Me MEMO PAGE 2 requirements, two are at Eagan's level with a higher requirement for corner lots. Of the other cities which deviate substantially from the norm, Blaine's minimum of 45 ft. has resulted in an average frontage of 80 ft. Eden Prairie only allows 55 ft. on cul-de-sacs to absorb part of the wedge effect. As 80 ft. is both the median and mean in this survey, it too may be a point of reference for Council consideration. C. SETBACKS - Eagan appears to be consistent with most cities in the area of setbacks. Its 15 ft. backyard setback is even shallow compared to those surveyed. D. DENSITY COMPUTATION - As an equal number of cities included streets and netted them out in their density computations, no trend is shown in this study. The appropriateness of the densities chosen are, therefore, more important than the means of calculation. E. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA - Due to the qualitative nature of this item and the lack, in some cases,, of a clearly defined Council policy, few cities offered a response to it. The most common response related to the flexibility it afforded the Council to use its discretion in the planning of PD districts. Several specific limits or parameters are used by various cities: 1. In no case will density be allowed to exceed R-4 standards. (Apple Valley) 2. Density will be allowed only to that of the underlying zoning or comprehensive guide level. (Bloomington and Inver Grove Heights) 3. Densities above zoning classifications are at the discretion of the Council. (Burnsville, Eden Prairie, Mendota Heights and Rosemount) 4. Density will be allowed up to that of the most similar land use. (Coon Rapids) •5. Minimum PD lot size of 60' x 1201. (Coon Rapids) 6. Density will be allowed only to an underlying zoning level unless it contains 208 low -moderate income housing or 408 moderate income housing, in which case 258 higher density is allowed. (Roseville) It appears that the criteria reflect a variety of local development philosophies which focus on relative densities, lot sizes, and income levels. Again, the direction available from this survey and that of the Metropolitan Council depends upon the philosophy of development of the Council. MEMO PAGE 3 7 Chi SUMMARY A review of the R-1 zoning requirements of ten selected cities has shown that Eagan's minimum R-1 lot size of 12,000 sq. ft. is slightly larger than in many developing metropolitan area cities. Similarly, Eagan's 85 ft. frontage requirement exceeds the survey average of 80 ft. This study shows no significant variation in setbacks and so much variation in planned development criteria as to be inconclusive. In direct response to the City's concern about requests for smaller lots, however, Inver Grove Heights indicated that they have received many similar requests as well. Their proximity to Eagan's location and the fact that their requirements parallel or exceed Eagan's tends to indicate an area trend. The fact that other neighbors did not express such a concern may be due to specific development situations or the fact that most have smaller lot size requirements. Ad ini tra ive Intern JH/J J ( Attachment /3a MINIMUM MINIMUM SETBACKS STREET AREA R-1 LOT SIEE + FRONT FOOTAGE •+ FRONT -SIDE -BACK IN DENSITY NOTES Eagan 12,000 sq. ft. 85 ft. 30-10-15 Apple Valley Int. - 11,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. Int. - 30-10-30 Included PUD allows density up Corner - 12,500 sq.. ft. Corner - 30-20-30 to R-4 level. Blaine 10,000 sq. ft. 45 ft. Int. - 35-10-30 Included Higher density by Corner - 35-20-30 Special Use Permit. Bloomington 11,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 30-10-30 Netted Out PUD allows variation at same density as underlying. Burnsville 10,000 sq. ft. 80 ft. 30-10-30 Included PUD allows higher densities than zoning. Coon Rapids 10,800 sq. ft. BO ft. 35-10-35 Included PUD to have same density as most similar uses. /� W Eden Prairie 9,500 sq. ft. 70 ft. 30 -Total -20 Netted Out PUD allows higher density Cul-de-sac 55 ft. (Both sides must total 15 ft.) if parking requirements are met. Inver Grove Heights Int.- 12,000 sq. ft. Int.- 85 ft. 30-10-30 Netted Out PUD to be consistent with ' Corner- 12,500 sq. ft. Corner -100 It. underlying or comp. guide. Mendota Heights 15,000 sq. ft. 100 ft. 30-10-30 Netted Out PUD allows negotiable density. Rosemount 10,200 sq.. ft. 85 ft. 30-10-25 Included PUD allows higher density. (5 ft. side for ramblers) Roseville Int. - 11,000 sq. It. Int.- 85 ft. 30-10-30 Netted Out PUD at same density as Corner - 12,500 sq. ft. Caner -100 It. underlying unless low to • moderate Income benefit. * Many titles have other R-1 or Estate categories of single family zoning at higher square footages than that listed. ti Certain cities replace front footage with a required width at setback to allow frontage variations on Irregularly shaped lots. •** Most cities have smaller side yard setbacks to garages. The width listed is to the living area. MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: FIRE CHIEF CHILDERS DATE: JUNE 7, 1985 SUBJECT: FIRE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS There are (3) items of business to be discussed by representatives of the Fire Department at the special City Council meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday, June 11. Those items are as follows: 1. Future Fire Stations/Planning Committee Report 2. Condition of the Present Fire Department Tanker Truck 3. Can a'Volunteer Firefighter Belong to Two Fire Departments? FUTURE FIRE STATIONS/PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Originally the Fire Department Planning Committee was proposing nine (9) fire stations for the ultimate saturation of the community. The committee has since restudied that proposal and is now con- sidering a minimum of four to a maximum of six fire stations for the City. In addition to the three existing fire stations, there are station locations proposed in the general areas as follows: A. Towerview across from Avalon B. Dodd Road at Wilderness Run Road C. Galaxie and Cliff A representative of the Fire Department Planning Committee is planning to further discuss and answer questions 'regarding this issue. TANKER The Fire Department is experiencing problems with the water tanker truck. That piece of equipment is old and is no longer dependable or serviceable. It is proposed by Fire Chief Childers that the City dispose of the tanker truck as surplus property. The Fire Department originally proposed a tanker truck for the 1985 budget which was eliminated as a part of the budget review. After reeval- uation of the proposed tanker, it was determined by the Fire Department that due to water availability throughout the City, the need for a rural water tanker truck is not as significant as it was during the pre -1980's. There is need for additional vehicular water storage capacity as a response to interstate accidents. With the volume of traffic anticipated on both I-494 and I -35E, it will be necessary to have adequate water storage capacity to fight chemical or other fire -related emergencies. The Fire Department is considering as an alternative to a tanker truck, the conversion of a present pumper truck to a 1,000 gallon capacity and in the future purchasing pumpers that contain 1,000 -gallon capacity as opposed to the 500 -gallon capacity that exists today within our equipment. The present capacity for all pumpers ,is approximately 2,700 gallons. The rural fire tanker proposed as surplus property was purchased in 1954. CAN A VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER BELONG TO TWO FIRE DEPARTMENTS? This question was raised at a City Childers would like an opportunity City Council. Chief Childers is worker's compensation, retirement to whether a volunteer firefighter ments. OTHER BUSINESS: Command Bus Council meeting and Fire Chief to discuss this matter with the addressing issues relating to and other related questions as can belong to two fire depart - The command bus is back from Wisconsin where the air condition- ing system and internal compartments were installed. Addi- tional work will be coordinated and performed by the Fire Department and Police Department under the supervision of Doug Reid, Civil Defense Director. Recruitment Class There were seventeen (17) rookies who completed training and are now volunteer firefighters. This brings the total member- ship in the Fire Department up to 73. Insurance Rating Currently the insurance rating for the community is 6. The lower the number, the better insurance premiums become as a result of the advanced water system and response time of the Fire Department. The Eagan Chamber of Commerce is working with the Fire Department in an effort to improve the rating by lowering the rating from a 6 to a possible 4 or 5. Garcia Rul The City was notified several months ago of a ruling that was handed down by a federal court entitled the "Garcia Case" that basically states all municipal employees, with the exception of management, must be paid time and one-half for any time worked beyond 40 hours per week. The Fair Labor Standards Act provided this language back in the early 1970's, however, due to a number of interpretations•, cities have circumvented overtime by utilizing compensatory time off or other work schedules to avoid overtime payment. The City can no longer offer compensa- tory time as an alternative to overtime for its full-time employees. Apparently, the law does relate to volunteer fire departments and there is some question regarding employees such as Doug Reid who are called out after hours as to whether they must be paid overtime based on the City's rate of compensation. Assuming the City must recognize this ruling, there could be several firefighters who are affected if the Garcia Case does in fact relate to volunteer fire departments. The City Adminis- trator is further researching this matter and will provide a memorandum to the City Council in the near future. Payroll The Fire Department requested salaries and wages to be $100,000 in 1985 which was adopted as the budget for this calendar year. The amount of $100,000 was also budgeted in 1983 and 1984 for salaries and wages. Chief Childers is anticipating, with the new firefighters, that wages could exceed the $100,000 by approx- imately $11,000 in 1985. For additional information on the proposed 1985 payroll, refer to the attachment. The anticipated increase in wages is informative and it is hoped that the Fire Department can stay within the $262,830 that was budgeted for the Department in 1985. It may not be possible and action will be required later this fall to adjust the budget to accommodate the additional payroll that is presented in the attachment. �L Obert Chi d rs, Fire Chief A"ZW'xV'N �Q Thomas L. Hedges, City A ininistrator cc: Ken Southern, District Chief Dick Schindeldecker, District Chief Doug Reid, Fire Marshal Attachment TLH/kf TO: Tom Hedges FROM: Robert Childers DATE: May 24, 1985 RE: Fire Department Payroll for 1985 Based on the same hourly rates of pay used for 1984, it is expected that the 1985 payroll will be approximately $111,616. The calculations are as follows: 1. 10332 man fires @ $5 51660.00 2. 2685 man trainings @ $5 13225.00 3. 959 emergency hours @ $5 4795.00 4. 3264 lead officer hours @ $7 22848.00 5. 888 department head hours @ $6 5328.00 6. 2712 other officer's hours @ $5 13560.00 $1 IT, The numbers of man hours above were estimated as follows: I. Man fires: a) The average number of men per fire in 1984 was 8631 / 369 = 23.4 men. We have 16% more men on the department now; 234 x 1.16 = 27.2 men/fire. Using more recent data, between 12/19/84 and 4/11/85, we averaged 28.6 men/fire. Hence, we shall use 28 men/fire as our estimator. b) To estimate the number of fire calls in 1985 we computed: # Fire Calls 11/1/83 to 10/31/84 369 11/l/83 to 4/11/84 157 11/l/84 to 4/11/85 135 Based on 1984 actuals, 42.5% of the fires occurred from 11/1/83 to 4/11/84. So, in 1985, if the 135 actual fires from 11/1/84 to 4/11/85 constitute 42.5% of the 1985 fires, then the total fires in 1985 should be 135 / 42.5% = 317 fires. However, to be conservative, we estimate the 1985 fires to total the same as 1984 (e.g., 369 fires). C) The number of man fires for 1985 is then estimated to be 28 x 369 = 10332. 2. Man Trainings: a) In 1984 we averged 50.6 men/regular training. From 12-19-84 to 4-8-85 we averaged 57.5 men/regular training. Hence, we use 57 as the expected average men/regular training. In 1985, there will be 42 regular trainings. Hence, we expect 42 x 57 - 2394 man trainings. Tom Hedges Page two May 23, 1985 b) In 1984 we had 104 special trainings and 187 rookie trainings. We'll use these as the 1985 estimates. c) Total trainings are estimated to be: Regular 2394 Special 104 Rookie 187 �b85- 3. Emergency hours (e.g., special standbys, repairs, etc.): In 1984 there were 459 emergency hours of which 78 were for emergency standbys. In 1985 we have already had 479 hours of emergency standbys. Further, the planning committee will begin meeting in 1985 (for 100 hours, estimated). Thus the 1985 estimate is 459 + 500 = 959 hours. 4. Lead officers hours are based on the following estimated hours per month: Chief 80 hours x 1 man = 80 Dist. Chief 40 hours x 2 men 40 Captains 14 hours x 8 men 112 hrs/month 5. Department head hours are based on: Training Officer (one) 25 Engineer (one) 25 EMS Officer (one) 24 7W hrs/month 6. Other officers hours are based on: Asst. Captains 6 hours x 8 men = 48 Tng. Admin. 10 x 1 man 10 Asst. Training 10 x 3 men 30 Asst. Eng. 8 x 3 men 24 Fire Prev. 12 x 1 man 12 Asst. Fire Prev. 8 x 2 men 16 Systems 25 x 1 man 25 Sta. Captain 7 x 1 man 7 Asst. Sta. Captain 6 x 2 men 12 Aerial Captain 12 x 1 man 12 Asst. EMS 2 x 3 men 6 Administration 24 x 1 man 24 *NOTE: The officers are not actually paid on an hourly basis. The officers' hours given here are the basis by which the monthly salaries are derived. CITY OF EAGAN LOT SIZE SURVEY The City of Eagan is assessing its current lot size, set back and density requirements for R-1 residential zoning. The purpose of this study isto compare Eagan's requirements to those of other Minneapolis—St. Paul Metro— politan Area suburban cities and to make recommendations to the City Council based on its outcome. Currently Eagan requires 12,000 square foot lots with an 85 foot back yard setback. The City has received a number of variance requests for smaller lots in the recent past. The City Council wishes to clarify the context in which these requests are being made through this survey. Your assistance in answering this .brief questionnaire will be much appreciated. Those communities which respond will receive a copy of the tabulated results for their own use. Thank you for the help your response will provide. Jon Hohenstein City of Eagan tac City: Contact Person: Please answer all questions using your subdivision regulations' minimum require— ments. Please attach a copy of the R-1 section of the subdivision ordinance, if possible. 1. 2. 3. What What What is the minimum is the minimum is the minimum allowable square foot for an R-1 lot? allowable front footage for an R-1 lot? allowable width at the front yard setback? sq. ft. feet feet 4. What is the minimum allowable front yard setback? feet 5. What is the minimum allowable side yard setback? feet 6. What is the minimum allowable back yard setback? feet 7. In computing the required or betted out? density of units per acre, is street area included Included/Netted Out 8. What of a (Circle One) criteria do you ordinarily apply in approving a variance or PCD, a deviation on R-1 requirements within the plan? in the case /3 v .I 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD. P.O. BOX 21199 BEA BLOMQUIST EAGAN, MINNESOTA 55121 Morar PHONE: (612) 454-8100 THOMAS EGAN JAMES A. SMITH June 5, 1985 JERRY THOMAS THEODORE WACHTER Cwriol Members THOMAS HEDGES MR RAY GLUMACK, CHAIRMAN City Adminisvator METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION EUGENE VAN OVERBEKE P.O. BOX 11700 City Gars TWIN CITY AIRPORT MINNEAPOLIS MN 55111 Re: Request for Presentation on the 180 Degree Heading Procedure Dear Chairman Glumack: Pursuant to our understanding that the Metropolitan Airports Commis- sion ordinarily does not receive public testimony at its meetings, the .City of Eagan respectfully requests the opportunity to speak before the Commission at the June 17, 1985,.. meeting. We do not expect our comments to require more than 15 minutes of jour time and we feel that they would be pertinent ,to the 'Commission's consideration of the 180 Degree Heading Procedure. The City of Eagan makes this request for several reasons. 1. while we appreciate the efforts of the Commission to generate public discussion of issues at the level of its various commissions, we believe that it is important to address our comments on this issue to that body ultimately responsible for its recommendation to the federal aviation administration. 2. We further understand the value of having the airport's staff summarize the comments and proceedings leading to your consider- ation of various matters. However, it seems appropriate to allow affected persons the opportunity to emphasis those portions of the earlier proceedings which are important to specific situations. This is particularly important because interpretations of the data can vary and alternative interpre- tations ought to be before the Commission as well. We appreciate your kind attention to this request and look forward to hearing from you in the near future. If you have any questions regarding our requests, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ��. QK Thomas L. Hedges City.Administrator TLH/jj THE LONE OAK TREE... THE SYMBOL OF STRENGTH AND GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY NOT JUST SOAP ANYMORE We are an Amway Distributor in your area. We would I\ 1. like to have you as a customer for your home care products, or talk to you about the opportunities Amway affords. If you haven't ever tried Amway you will be surprised as to the quality and the economy of the products. We are very excited about a new water treatment system that we market. I have enclosed a letter that I've recently ' sent out, maybe you have seen it in your mail. If you have '20.tc. 45 minutes, I would like to show you a short video, de- monstrate the product, and leave it with you For a 3 day trial. You will be amazed at the difference it makes:- If you are buying bottled water, I can show you how you can save money monthly and have better quality and tasting water. It cost you nothing to listen and it cost you nothing if you are dissatisfied with the product for any reason simply return it to us for a refund. We service what we sell. Check us on these: Financing available Free delivery to your home Cosmetics Full line of home care products Vitamins Expandable home security system Auto care products Water treatment system Housewares Shoppers Catalog (1000's of items) Gift Catalogs Monthly specials Call: Alan or Laura Menning 4174 Blueberry Circle .Eagan. Minnesota 55123 454-3396 U This month's special is 3 lbs. dishwasher compound for soft - water $6.00 plus tax (1 Tablespoon per load). Compare your usage and cost! �• ' ALAN & LAURA MENNING May 2, 1985 Dear Resident: What's in the water you are drinking? Chemicals! They are in small amounts (parts Per million), but nevertheless they are the same type of chemicals you clean and bleach your clothes with or .fertilize your lawn with or put into a swimming pool. What's the first thing you do when you get a small amount of these types of chemicals splashed up into your mouth or on your lips? You spit or wash out your mouth. So why do you drink the water from the tap? Because you are not aware of what is in it, you assume that the city has removed these chemicals. They don't, in fact they treat the water with more chemicals, chlorine and fluoride. The law allows the cities to have within so many parts per million of certain types of chemicals in the water you drink. Most cities test the water daily for chlorine but only test one, two, or maybe three times per month for other chemicals. Those tests are done by independent labs and by the State. But remember that these tests are from samples from the water department locations not at your home. No one knows what is in or gets into the pipes between the water department and your home. 1 would be misleading you if I said I would come out and test your, water for all chemicals, I can't oecause it is too expensive, but what 1 have is a major company which guarantees that the product I sell for them will take out 100 chemicals that the EPA have targeted as dangerous to your health. This filtering system sells for $295 Plus sales tax or you can finance it for $15_per month. The unit is a little larger then a thermos bottle and can be hooked up permanently or as a portable. Other companies also sell units for approximately the same price but most won't demonstrate it in your home. I will demonstrate mine in your home and there wiil be no high pressure sales pitches, gust a demonstration and you make the decision. I'll even install it if you decide to buy. There are alot of items you eat and drink that have chemicals in them, water needn't be one. You can do something about it. If you would like to find out more about it or set up a demonstration time call Alan or Laura at 454-3396. S i ncer•e 1 y, Alan & Laura Menning P.S. R free 3 day home trial can be arranged gust call us. 4174 BLUEBERRY CIRCLE--EAGAN, MN 55123--(612) 454-3396 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR SCREENING CURRENT DESIREABLE NAME POSITION DEGREE LOCATION BACKGROUND YES NO AMUNDSON, Dir, of PW Civil Eng. Fairmont, Excellent X Brian Fairmont, Mn. Minn. ASHFELD, Consultant/ Civil Eng. Buffalo, No PW or X Ken Meyer-Rohlin, Minn. Mun. Exp. Buffalo, Mn. BAIRD, Water & Waste Civil Eng. Anchorage, No PW X James Water Utility Alaska City Eng. Anchorage, Winona & Alaska Crookston 1957-1967 BARTEL, Ia. Dept. of Civil Eng. Storm Lake, No PW or X Clyde Transportation Iowa Mun. Exp. Storm Lake, Ia. BATES, MnDOT, Mainte- Civil Eng. Stillwater, No PW/City X Marvin nance Operations Minn. Eng. Exp. Engineer BAUER, Dir. of PW Civil Eng. St.Charles, 7. Yrs. Exp. X Darryll St.Charles, No Mn. Reg. Ill. & Exp. With Ill. Envir.Prot. Agency BLUHM, Comm. Svcs. Civil Eng. St. Paul, No PW/City X Donald MWCC/13 1/2 yrs. Minn. Eng. Exp. BRIGGS, Maint. Eng./ Maint. Eng. Paducah, Coonty Public X Lindsey Commonwealth No Mn. Reg. Kent. Works Exp. No of Kentucky City Eng. Exp. CHRISTENSEN, Consultant Civil Eng. Shoreview, No PW/City X James No. Mn. Reg. Minn. Eng. Exp. CORI, Consultant Civil Eng. Waukesha, Limited PW X Kent CID As Manager Wis. Exp./No In - of Muni. Eng. house City Div. Eng. Exp. CULP, Project Eng./ Civil Eng. Lombard, No PW or X James Dupage County Ill. Comm. Dev. Forest Preserve Exp. District DROWN, Asst. City Eng. Civil Eng. Mpls., Strong City X David City of Roseville Minn. Eng./Minimum PW Exp. EASTLING, City Engineer Civil Eng. Mpls., Strong City X Michael Richfield Eng./Weak PW Exp. *Withdrew Application YES NO X M 1. X 13 X X X M X X CURRENT DESIREABLE NAME POSITION DEGREE LOCATION BACKGROUND EBELING, City Engineer/ Civil Eng. Savage, Strong City Craig Savage Minn. Eng. Exp./Med. Exp. in PW ENGSTROM, Dept. of Health Civil Eng. Fridley, No PW/Eng.Exp. David Water & Sewer Minn. Emphasis FENENDAD, City Engineer Civil Eng. Shoreview, Limited PW Julian Shoreview Minn. Exp. FLORA, Dir, of PW/ Civil Eng. Fridley, Excellent John City Engineer Minn. for Fridley GERSON, President, Civil Eng. Chardon, Asst. City Terrence Consulting Ohio Eng. & PW Firm Background 1969-1971 GOLDMAN, Building Civil Eng. Seabrook, Asst. PW William Official Texas Dir., Ohio & Pa.. GRACI, Chief Design Civil Eng. Philadel- Strong Bldg. Joseph Eng./City of phia, Pa. Background Philadelphia Limited Comm. Dev. & Muni. PW Exp. GRUBE,* City Eng. Civil Eng. Brooklyn _Excellent James Center, Mn. Eng. & PW Exp. HATTER, Consulting Civil Eng. W.Fargo, No PW Exp. David Eng./W.Fargo, N.Dak. N.Dak. HEFTI, Asst. City Civil Eng. Eagan, Eng. Exp./ Richard Engineer Minn. Limited PW Exp. HOVELSRUD, Consulting Civil Eng. Worthington Dir. of PW/ Herman Eng. Minn. City Eng. Richland,Wis. 1961-1970 HARRISON, JR. Consulting Civil Eng. Green Bay, City Eng. Chester Eng. Wis. St.Louis Pk. 1978-1984 Also PW Dir. New Caledonia, Wis. *Withdrew Application YES NO X M 1. X 13 X X X M X X CURRENT DESIRFABLE NAME POSITION DEGREE LOCATION BACKGROUND YES NO JESSUP, MTC Engineer Civil Eng. Stillwater, No Muni.Eng. x David Minn. or PW Exp. JORGENSON, County Eng. Civil Eng. Hampton, County Eng. x Neil Franklin Cty. Ia. No. Municipal Exp. KHANZADEH, Ministery of Civil Eng. Marshall, No Municipal x Azizollah Power, Shiraz Minn. Exp. Iran KLEINSCHMIDT, City Eng. Dir. Civil Eng. Hastings, Good Muni. x James of PW, Winona, Minn. Exp. New Brighton, & IGH KNIPFER, Dir. of Eng. Civil Eng. Riverside, No Municipal x Ronald Sewers Calif. Exp. LARSON, City Eng. Civil Eng. Hastings, City Eng./ x Allan Minn. No PW Exp. LAPSA, Traffic/Design Civil Eng. Wisconsin Heavy in Traffic x David Engineer Rapids,'Wis. Limited PW Exp. LUTZ, Milwaukee Water Civil Eng. Milwaukee, No Muni. Exp. x William Pollution Abate- ment Program MARCUSON, Transp. Manager Civil Eng. Tampa, No Dev. or PW x Joel Tampa, Fla. Fla. Exp. MARLOW, Consultant/Tulsa Civil Eng. Tulsa, Limited Muni. x Lee Okla./Eng. 81-83 Okla. Exp. Muskogee, Okla. MARTIN, City Eng. Civil Eng. Shawnee, Strong Infra- x Robert Okla. Structure Eng./ No PW or Dev. Exp. MATROSIC, Chief Training Civil Eng. Tomah, U.S. Army Retired/ x Charles Ft. McCoy Wis. No City Exp. MENENDEZ, Eng. Dir. of Civil Eng. Miami, No Relative x Juan Dade Cty. Fla. PW Exp. Dept. of Health MINETOR, City Engineer Civil Eng. Wheat Rdge., No Water & Sewer x R.A. Wheat Ridge, Colo. Exp. No Dev.Exp/ Colo. Limited PW MONROY, Principal Eng.II Civil Eng. Bogota, No Municipal x Eduardo Columbia Exp. Aguirre CURRENT DESIREABLE NAME POSITION DEGREE LOCATION BACKGROUND YES NO NANNINGA, Public Works Civil Eng. Aurora, Excellent X James Dir./Aurora, Ill. PW & Eng. Ill. Background NEGRON, Construction Civil Eng. Harlingen, No PW/City X Joseph Engineering Texas Eng. Exp. PAULSON, Asst. VP of Civil Eng. Cedar Falls, No PW, Comm. X Thomas Facilities Ia. Dev or City @UNI Eng. Exp. PFUTZENREUTER, Consulting Civil Eng. Virginia, No PW or Orris Oliver Engineer Minn. City Eng. Exp. POFFENBERGER, Consulting Civil Eng. Halifax, Was PW Dir. X Carl Engineer Pa. Harrisburg,Pa. in 1975 SALMEDA, Energy Eng. Testing for Mpls, No Exp. X Jack NSP Civil Eng. Minn. SCOTT, Partner/Lanier Civil Eng. Gretna, Emphasis in X William & Assoc. La. Environ.Eng. Consulting Ltd.Muni.Exp. Eng. Firm SONNENBERG, PW Dir. Civil Eng. River Falls, Good PW, Muni. X David River Falls, Wis. Eng. Back- Wis. ground SPUINER, City Engineer Civil Eng. Shakopee, _ Strong Eng. X Henry Shakopee Minn. Ltd.PW SPINK, Consultant Civil Eng. Richland,. No Municipal X Robert Spink Eng. WA. Exp. Since 1975 STAHLBERG, Consulting Civil Eng. Alexandria, Limited Muni. X Ronald Firm of Widseth, Minn. Exp. Smith & Notting Assoc. STAPF, Asst. City Eng. Civil Eng. Wyoming, Eng. & Comm. X Joseph Wyoming, Mich. Mich. Dev. Back- ground/Ltd. PW Exp. STEFANIAH, Dir. of PW Civil Eng. W.St.Paul, Dir. of PW Philip W.St.Paul Minn. Good Background STOCKTON, City Engineer Civil Eng. Abilene, Good Comm. Dev/ X John Abilene, Tx. Tex. Eng. No Muni. Exp. CURRENT DESIREABLE NAME POSITION DEGREE LOCATION BACKGROUND YES NC STYGAR, Airport Eng. Civil Eng. Falls No. Municipal x Michael FAA Church,Va. Exp. WALLACE, Consulting Civil Eng. Englewood, Good Water & x Glenn Eng. Colo. Sewer Background No Muni. Exp. WARREN, Consulting Civil Eng. Mpls., Limited Muni. x Gary Eng. CED Minn. Eng. Exp. WESSELHOFF, Consulting Civil Eng. Peoria, Limited Muni. x Jack Eng. Ill. Eng. Exp. WOOD, Asst. PW Dir. Civil Eng. Lemoore, No Muni. Eng. x John Naval Air Calif. Exp. Station WOOD, Wastewater Div./ Civil Eng. Dothan, Exc.Wastewater x Richard Asst. City Eng. Ala. Ltd. PW & Comm. Dothan, Ala. Dev. McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS W LAND SURVEYORS a PLANNERS May 24, 1985 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator 16121559-3700 City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Dear MrFHedges: As you are aware, the 1985'Leaque of Minnesota Cities (L.M.C.) Annual Conference is scheduled to be held Wednesday thru Friday (June 12-14) at the St. Paul Radisson Hotel. We hope that you, along with the Council and designated City Officials, will be able to take the opportunity to attend this annual conference along with other representatives of various municipalities throughout the State. As you are aware, we have been privileged to provide professional consulting engineer/land surveying services for your community during the past several years. Subsequently, we would like to take the opportunity doting this conference to invite you, the City Council, and any other appropriate Qty Officials and spouses to a pleasant and sociable dining experience at Leeann Chin's Restaurant at approximately 5:00 PM on Wednesday June 12th. We feel this time would fit in best with the tight schedule of the conference, workshops, and the scheduled evening entertainment at the new Ordway Theatre starting at around 7:00 PM. Although the conference and related workshops provide an opportunity for you to meet other City Officials, we feel that this dinner invitation will allow you to share your common interests with several of them in a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere. Due to the time frame required to make the necessary arrangements, we would very much appreciate a confirmation response by June 7, 1985, indicating the names of who will be able to join us. If for some reason you are unable to accept our dinner invitation, we hope that you will take the opportunity to stop by our display area so we can help welcome you to the conference and address any questions or concerns that you may have. We look forward to hearing from you by June 7th indicating that you will be able to join us at St. Paul's lel rated Leeann Chin's restaurant for a pleasant dining experience prior to the enjoyable program at the Ordway Music Theatre. Sincerely, htCC1.1BS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. - Willi&Mtmmbbs/, P.E. TAC/WFM:j - Printed on recyclerl paper May 21, 1985 Mr. and Mrs. Ramnarine 3785 Nichols Road Eagan,.Minnesota 55122 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ramnarine: Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 Governor Perpich has forwarded your letter to me concerning the development proposed by the Beure Company in Eagan. I had staff review your letter and check to determine where this project was in the governmental review process. On March.19; 1985, the Metropolitan Council notified the Corps of Engineers that we had "no comment" on the Section 404 permit application. Based on your letter, staff did additional research and recommended that a second letter be sent to the Corps of Engineers recommending against this permit. I have enclosed a copy of my letter of May 20, 1985 that has been sent to the.Corps of Engineers. I want to thank you for taking the time to get involved 'in this issue. If you have any questions about our review of the permit application, please contact Gary Oberts at 291-6484. Sincerely Sandra S. Gardebring, Chair SSG:jb cc: Governor Rudy Perpich Dale Runkle, City of Eagan Gary Oberts, Metropolitan Council Staff Enclosure An Equal Opportunity Employer s May 20, 1985 Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291635% District Engineer St. Paul District, Corp of Engineers 1135 U.S. Post Office and Customs House St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Attention: Regulatory Functions Branch RE: NCSCO-RF (85-284-23) Applicant: Beure Co. Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 12724-1 On. Mar. 19, 1985, a statement of "no comment" was sent to the Corps pertaining to the above referenced Section 404 permit review., Since that time, the Metropolitan Council has re -evaluated -its position in light of facts it was unaware of at the time of review, specifically, the fact that Harnack Creek is a trout stream and that the fill could damage Nicol's Meadow Fen, one of the few in the Metropolitan Area, unique to the Minnesota River Valley. The Council has several current policies and some under revision that apply to this project and that direct staff to negativelyreview this project. The policies are: Water Resources Chapter No. 14: .. give priority to non-structural flood protection mea- sures that preserve natural resources and minimize increases in flood flow peaks or annual runoff. Such natural features as wetlands..should be maintained in their natural state to enable them to perform their natural drainage, storage and wildlife functions... Protection Open Space Chapter (currently an inactive chapter to be combined with new Water Resources chapter) No. 17: Alterations which would inhibit the role of wetlands in the hydrologic system or an ecological system should not be allowed by the unit of government having jurisdiction. Protection Open Space Chapter No. 44: Alterations or developments adversely affecting land con- taining unique or endangered species should be prohibited by the unit of government having jurisdictional responsibili- ties. An Equal Opportunity Employer District Enaineer St. Paul District, May 20, 1985 Page Two Corp of Engineers Water Resources Management, Part 2, draws nn the results of the Council's Section 208 water quality studies, which found dramatic water quality anis quantity benefits of wetlands, No. 58: Watershed management plans should give preference to non- structural management practices and should make every effort to retain existing wetlands, drainaceways... in a condition that will allow natural drainage, storage and•infiltration processes to operate freely. In short, trout streams and calcareous fens are two truly valu- able natural resources that the Council wants to see protected. Our history of reviews contain numerous comments against develop-.:- ments that impact these types of resources, most recently per- taining to two separate proposals that would have impacted the Savage Fen. We, therefore, ask the Corps not to issue this �. permit. Also, I would like to clarify the Council's review of this pro- ject relative to the Eagan comprehensive plan, since it appears some clarification is needed. When we first reviewed the plan, the city was in the process of adopting a shoreland ordinance and incorporating environmental protection elements into its new sub- division regulations. The Council has not reviewed these ordi- nances, so it is impossible to tell if this project is consistent with them. We review local comprehensive plans based on Council policies and do not consider zoning or site plans on an individ- ual basis. --As such, we commented that the project was concis- — tent, as we knew at the time, with the land use element of the comprehensive plan. However, environmental ordinances can over- lay zoning ordinances and can override zoning on an individual' site basis. Since we have not seen the environmental overlays, we cannot say that this site is unaffected by them. I hope this places our original comments in the proper context. Sincerely, 5VI,k" Sandra S. Gardebring Chair SSG:sje Ad, .�-d.G'-Lx �._�-IL•C.LC/+t.a�u-w �GU�`•-�f'.�[o�J1``�''--�il'J� �•-dii-c%t1t/ �.�7-7 7Z— / ��G�r� JL4 � 7 _.•-�,� �^,�✓� !� j.� �.�.C� �.f/f/ G�4/✓ �%%'-<L.Xi �Ll.. ��%C GL`-GC/iL<�/ /.�!/1/ �%�_ �..�::� L:i� -��•� ;�� (tet% C��i �'� `7�i. ✓� .��C. d ✓ Q