Loading...
1990-06-05 Counciljiln CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA JUNE 5, 1990 - 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Dakota County Solid Waste Update. 4. Adjourn to Regular City Council Meeting. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA JUNE 5, 1990 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Agenda Adoption. 3. Approval of May 15th and May 15th Continued Board of Review Minutes. 4. Consent Calendar 5. Public Comments a. Acknowledgment of the May Building Report. b. Acknowledgment of the Budget Time Line. c. Approval of Leave of Absent Request. d. Approval of the Developer's Agreement for Mendota Woods (Patrick) Subdivision. e. Approval of Plat Correction for Victoria Highlands 7th Addition. f. Approval of CAO No. 90-03 Modified Site Plan for 1140 Orchard Circle. g. Approval of Somerset Oaks Final Plat - RESOLUTION NO 90-30 h. Acceptance of BARR Engineering Agreement. i. Approval of the List of Contractors. Approval of the List of Claims. 17 RESOLUTION NO. 90-31 Accepting Furlong Utility Petition. End of Consent 5. Public Comments 6. Proclamations and Recognitions a. Presentation to the Vasatka-Goers Post 6690. b. Recognition of Cub Scouts, the Bears of Pack 198, Den 4 from St. Josephs for Earth Week Cleanup of Wentworth Park C. Proclamation of Gerry Brown Day, June 11, 1990. 7. Bid Award a. Bridgeview Shores 2nd Addition - RESOLUTION NO. 90-32 8. Unfinished and New Business: � r I a. MM�endota Heights Fire Relief Association By -Laws. b. Case No. 90-13: Bjorklund - Variance C. Case'No. 90-14: McKenzie - Minor CUP d. Case No. 90-15: Neuharth - Wetlands Permit e. Case No. 90-16: Bakewell - Sign Variance f. Case No. 90-17: Mangini - Wetlands Permit * g. Sign Permit for 750 South Plaza Drive. h. Appointment to Community Education Advisory Council i. Approval of Sibley Park Comfort Station. j. Schedule Air Noise Workshop. 9. Council Comments 10. Adjourn CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 4, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Adminislfx FROM: Paul R. Berg —"� Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Sign Permit 750 South Plaza Drive DISCUSSION Midway Sign Company, Inc. has submitted a sign permit application for 750 South Plaza Drive. The proposed sign contains 22.5 square feet of signage. The message is to read Mendota Heights Business Center. This sign is requested to be installed on the west side of the building on the existing canopy. It will replace the existing Mendota Heights City Hall sign. The building is in a B-1 Zone. Our ordinance provides for a maximum of a 50 square foot sign in the B-1 Zone. The proposed 22.5 square foot sign fits within the guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend that City Council approve the requested 22.5 square foot sign to be placed on the west end of the building located at 750 South Plaza Drive ACTION REQUIRED If City Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation to approve a 22.5 square foot sign on the west end of the building located at 750 South Plaza Drive it should pass a motion of approval. APPLICATION FOR WN PERIAff CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PERMIT FEE t%v d w ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: 'The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing.the City of Mendota Heights to take thection herein requested, th . all .statements herein are true and that all ruork herein mentioned :vill be done in accordance with the rd res o the ity Mendota Heights, the State of Minnesota, and rulings of the Building -Department. Slt'iAIA APPROVED SITE ADDRESS 7-5 soU P12 DATE PERMIT NO. S"?0'-122 t" 2 -4,d � PROP,^E,RTYYn. OWNEERo � 19 (Name) (Address) (Telephone No.) ALI CONTRACTOR jOw ";S'�� (Name) (Addy ss) 1A1,111 -%Ho (Tdgphone No.) wC, y� /j, (Add 1Q,.-�, spay Type of Bui ing Construction Used As • l 6 FIV CS,< C,r �, building To 'Re Completed Oldx New ❑ Estimated Ccst4 Contractor's City License No. Wilding Permit No. TYPE OF SIGN WALL ROOF O PROJECTING ❑ GROUND ❑ MARQUEE • ❑ TEMPORARY ❑ OTHER MAX. DIMENSION { VERTICAL _3 FT. HORIZONTAL FT. 'GROUND SIGN AREA SQ. FT. NO. OF SIDES - DISTANCE FROM TO SIGN BASE FT HEIGHT OF SIGN FT. SETBACK OF SIGN -FROM PROPERTY LINE FT. ILLUMINATED YES ❑ NO% ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA ON PREMISE SQ. FT. SKETCH OF SIGN ------------- B(JS/wG s Gf 7�'n-- M4774-. t6rVb riD ya cev{A'L—thus-s' R�le•�el'— ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: 'The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing.the City of Mendota Heights to take thection herein requested, th . all .statements herein are true and that all ruork herein mentioned :vill be done in accordance with the rd res o the ity Mendota Heights, the State of Minnesota, and rulings of the Building -Department. Slt'iAIA APPROVED CD c. S. AU zi CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 1, 1990 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administr � SUBJECT: Dakota County Solid Waste Update DISCUSSION Recently Dakota County contacted the City to offer an update on the many solid waste related activities currently underway within Dakota County. At a recent City Council meeting, it was suggested that Dakota County officials be invited to attend our June 5th Council meeting one half hour in advance of our regular starting time to provide this update. It is anticipated that both elected and appointed officials will attend the June 5th Council meeting to provide an update on County incinerator issues, household recycling and yard waste composting efforts. ACTION REQUIRED No action from the City Council is required on this issue. This update is intended to keep the Council informed on an issue which will be central to Dakota County during the 1990's. MTL:kkb Page No. 2782 May 15, 1990 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 15, 1990 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Anderson, Blesener, Cummins and Hartmann. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Anderson moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting as amended to include a petition for public utilities from the Furlong neighborhood. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, amended to remove items d (Sibley Park Plans and Comfort Station) and j (Furlong Septic Pumping Bids) for discussion later in the meeting, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the draft minutes of the April 24th Planning Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the Fire Department monthly report for April. c. Acknowledgment of the Code Enforcement monthly report for April. d. Acknowledgment of a tabulation of bids received for walkway paving (Improvement No. 89, Project No. 6B), awarding the contract to GMH Asphalt Corporation for their low bid of $266,405. e. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly report for April. f. Adoption of Resolution No. 90-29, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING Page No. 2783 May 15, 1990 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE BRIDGEVIEW SHORES 2ND ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 90, PROJECT NO. 1)." g. Approval of a modified critical area site plan for Monty Girard Homes to allow construction of a home on Lot 2, Block 2, Val's Addition (1134 Orchard Circle), along with waiver of the critical area application fee. f. Acceptance of bids for the closing of wells located at 1304 Kendon Lane and.1306 Kendon Lane (City -acquired properties), and authorization for the issuance of a purchase order for the well closing to Stevens Well Drilling for their low bid of $2,500. g. Authorization of the issuance of a purchase order to the 2M Company for $472.50 for the purchase and installation of Bally Window Blinds in the large conference room. h. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated May 15, 1990 and attached hereto. i. Approval of the List of Claims dated May 15, 1990 and totalling $293,388.39. j. Approval of a recommended summary of Ordinance No. 270 and authorization for its publication according to law. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 FURLONG PETITION Mrs. Carol Doffing, 1314 Furlong, presented the Council with a petition, signed by 18 Furlong Addition property owners, for the installation of sewer and water in the Furlong Addition. Mrs. Doffing stated that the petition represents 54% of the Furlong property owners. Mayor Mertensotto read the petition for the Council and audience. He informed the audience that if Council proceeds with the request there are procedures required under M.S. 429 which must be followed, including conducting a public hearing. Page No. 2784 May 15, 1990 Councilmember Cummins stated that Council is very familiar with the issue and that he does not think anyone believes that the project can be done at an assessment maximum of $15,000 per lot as was stipulated in the petition. He also did not feel that Council could tell the residents that the value of their homes can be enhanced that much, in which case the residents of the city will have to pick up the costs. He further stated that some of the Council members question whether use of TIF funds is prudent management. Councilmember Blesener pointed out that the petition states that the property owners support the project only insofar as it improves their property - if Council uses funds from the city to pay for utility improvements in the neighborhood for the homeowners to stay there, the city will never recapture its TIF funds. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council fully realizes that the MAC wants the properties bought out. He felt that the residents are entitled to public utilities and that this is the least Council can do considering the situation, since Council does not know when MAC will buy the area out. Councilmember Blesener stated that utilities will cost $700,000 to $800,000 and that a buyout would cost $4 million. She felt that if the City makes such a substantial public improvement investment there would be no way MAC will do the buyout. She felt Council should pursue buyout rather than utilities. Councilmember Hartmann pointed out that the City cannot buy out the area and that if public improvements are not installed, Council would be asking the residents to wait and hope for someone to buy them out. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he does not think anyone has ever proposed that the community pay for the improvements: the funds would come from TIF and assessments. Councilmember Cummins felt that the city cannot expend TIF money on the gamble that someday the area will be bought out. He felt Page No. 2785 May 15, 1990 r that the residents of the community will end up paying. Councilmember Anderson questioned what else could be done for these residents who can't drink their water, etc. MAC is not involved in sewer and water problems, but rather buys neighborhoods out because of air noise. He further stated that the city owns two homes in the neighborhood which have no value now, and pointed out that the city does not have $3 to $4 million to do a buyout. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that the original TIF District plan specified that the district would provide subsidy for utilities for the Furlong area. About a year ago, because there are extreme problems in the neighborhood, and because sewer could not be extended then, Council authorized spending some of the TIF funds for the purchase of the two homes. Councilmember Hartmann moved that Council find that more than 35% of the property owners in the Furlong Addition have petitioned Council for sewer and water installation in their neighborhood, unless otherwise notified within 30 days in those cases where only one spouse signed the petition, and further that staff be directed to proceed as expeditiously as possible to commence a Chapter 429 improvement project. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 2 Blesener Cummins FURLONG SEPTIC Council acknowledged a report from Public SYSTEM PUMPING BIDS Works Director Danielson tabulating quotes received for the Furlong residents for septic system pumping. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the purpose of soliciting quotes was to give the residents a way to control costs. He recommended that the neighborhood contact the low bidder. Staff was directed to notify the Furlong residents of the results of the request for quotations. HEARING: MARRIOTT Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for Page No. 2786 - May 15, 1990 LIQUOR LICENSES the purpose of a public hearing on an application from the Courtyard Management Corporation for renewal of the Courtyard By Marriott Limited Service Hotel and Motel On - Sale and Special Sunday On -Sale Liquor licenses which expire on June 30th. Council acknowledged a report and recommendation from the City Clerk. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Hartmann moved to approve the renewal of On -Sale Limited Service Hotel and Motel and Special Sunday On -Sale Liquor Licenses for the Courtyard by Marriott Hotel, effective July 1, 1990. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING: CLUB LIQUOR Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for LICENSES the purpose of a public hearing on applications from the Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club for renewal of their Club Liquor Licenses which expire on June 30th. Council acknowledged a report and recommendation from the City Clerk. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Anderson moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Blesener moved to approve the renewal of Club Liquor Licenses for Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club, effective July 1, 1990. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING: MGM LIQUOR Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for Page No. 2787 May 15, 1990 LICENSE the purpose of a public hearing on an application from the LAMA Corporation for renewal of the off -sale liquor license for the MGM Liquor Warehouse which expires on June 30th. Council acknowledged a report and recommendation from the City Clerk. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Cummins moved to approve the renewal of the MGM Liquor Warehouse off -sale liquor license, effective July 1, 1990. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING: LAVIGNE, Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for CASE NO. 90-10 the purpose of a public hearing on an application from Mrs. Margaret Lavigne for a minor conditional use permit to replace an existing 42" fence with a six foot fence at 1090 West Circle Court. Mrs. Lavigne was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Hartmann moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 It was noted that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the application along with waiver of a portion of the application fee. . Councilmember Hartmann moved to approve the conditional use permit to allow a six foot high fence at 1090 West Circle Court in the same location as the existing 42" fence, along with waiver of $115.00 of the $150 application fee. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 2788 May 15, 1990 BROMPTON COURT Council acknowledged a memo from Engineer STORM WATER Klayton Eckles along with a letter from Mn/DOT .District Hydraulics Engineer Susan Klein, regarding proposed cost participation for a Mn/DOT correction of drainage problems at Highway 13 and Sylvandale (for 651 Highway 13 in Lilydale). Councilmember Hartmann moved to reject the proposed Mn/DOT funding proposal. .Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 HEARING: CENTEX, Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for CASE NO. 90-03 the purpose of a public hearing on an application from Centex Homes for rezoning, conditional use permit for planned unit development, preliminary plat and wetlands permits for Kensington PUD Phase II, Plan C-3. Council acknowledged copies of staff reports to the Planning Commission dated April 19th, March 22nd, and February 22nd; staff reports to Council dated March 28th, April 26th and May 8th; a chronology of Southeast Area Plan adoption dated March 6th; an update of the Southeast Area traffic study, dated April 19th; a memo from the Police Chief to the Public Works Director dated April 17th regarding public safety recommendations; a report from the City Planner dated April 24th; copies of the application materials, including site plans, grading plans, prospectus and Centex Homes' Kensington Phase II brochure; traffic study information prepared by Traffic Engineer Jack Anderson (Short Elliott Hendrickson) and attached to May 8th staff memo; public hearing notice documentation; a notebook containing background information on the comprehensive plan amendment which had been requested by and furnished to the Hampshire neighborhood; the draft minutes of the April 24th Planning Commission meeting, and excerpts from the minutes of the February 28th and March 27th Planning Commission meetings. Council also acknowledged a letter from Mr. Jerry Duffy, counsel for a number of Hampshire and Copperfield area residents dated May 15th, and letters from: Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire Drive; Dan & Kathy Flicek, 2493 Bridgeview Court; J.C. Milstead; Edward L. Zeman, 2219 N. Page No. 2789 May 15, 1990 Bent Tree Lane; Jean & Darrel Robertson, 2344 Copperfield Drive; Nancy & Dan Alcombright, 2236 Bent Tree Lane; Joan L. and Kenneth L. Brendle, 2274 Copperfield Drive; Robert E. Prior, 2455 Hampshire Court; and Pierson M. and Florence B. Grieve, 280 Salem Church Road, Sunfish Lake. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that Council has been informed that if the planning applications are denied the developer threatens litigation and that if they are approved, a number of residents threaten litigation. He further stated that Council intends to give the developer a fair hearing this evening. He acknowledged that the Planning Commission has recommended denial. Mayor Mertensotto then asked the developers' representatives to make their presentation. Mr. John Bannigan, legal counsel for the developers, stated that it is his understanding that Council has a very complete record before it which consists of all the previous details which have come before the Council. He informed Council that he has discussed the public record matter with the City Attorney and that they have agreed that the record consists of all of the materials which were before the Planning Commission and anything the Council has been made aware of either tonight or through the Planning Commission records. Mayor Mertensotto agreed and directed that staff mark all of the items which have been before the Council and Commission for the public record, including letters from residents. Mr. Bannigan introduced Tom Boyce, President of the Minnesota division of Centex, Kevin Clarke, Centex Construction Manager, and Dick Putnam, President of the Tandem Corporation. He informed Council that Mr. Putnam would be making a brief presentation on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Bannigan reserved the right to rebut after public comments. Mayor Mertensotto introduced City Planner Howard Dahlgren, who was involved in the preparation of the Southeast Area Study. He Page No. 2790 May 15, 1990 informed the audience that Mr. Dahlgren has prepared background transparencies for presentation this evening. Mr. Dahlgren informed the audience that he has been asked to consider the amendment to the comprehensive plan adopted in 1985 as it relates to the current proposal and the density as it relates thereto and to briefly look at the traffic conditions as they relate to what is before Council this evening. Mr. Dahlgren reviewed a transparency of the Thoroughfare Plan portion of the City's original comprehensive plan prepared in 1960. He explained that at that time Mendota Heights Road was planned as an east/west thoroughfare to handle heavy traffic traveling through the community from west to east. It was planned as a state aid road since 1960. There was also an east/west thoroughfare from Dodd to Delaware proposed at that time in the location of the existing South Plaza Drive across what is now the Dodge Nature Center. Because of land characteristics and the fact that the property became a nature preserve, MSA status was transferred to the planned Huber Drive. He felt that this has made a very good pattern for providing access to the neighborhood with the focal point being the intersection of Huber Drive and Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Dahlgren then reviewed transparencies showing existing planned unit developments in Mendota Heights, consisting of Ivy Keep, Somerset 19, Eagle Ridge and the Lexington Heights Apartments. He explained that through the use of the planned unit development process, developments utilized the ability to construct the units in townhouse and/or condominium or apartment form and conserve ponding areas and dedicate open space and water areas to the City. Mr. Dahlgren pointed out the City decided in 1985 that the Lexington Heights Apartments PUD, consisting of three very large buildings, is not kind of PUD development they want in the Southeast Area - very large three story brick buildings. The concept at that time was that the City wanted small buildings with a maximum of 24 units per building, two story and residential in character. The comprehensive plan amendment was then adopted, reducing the maximum density to 8 units per acre. Page No. 2791 May 15, 1990 Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Dahlgren stated that when the Comprehensive plan is amended it establishes a new density, and it is assumed that the property will be rezoned to be consistent with the Comprehensive plan. When the plan was amended for the Southeast Area, it was amended to establish a density pattern south of Mendota Heights Road of eight units per acre for some of the area and four units per acre for other areas. Mr. Dahlgren then reviewed a transparency showing noise attenuation districts and noise zones as relate to the MSP airport, airport runway locations and established patterns at the time the Southeast Area Comprehensive plan amendment was adopted. The subject area was located within Noise Zone 4. He explained that at the request of MAC the City adopted a noise compatibility ordinance which provides that single family homes can be built within Noise Zone 4 if the homes are constructed so as to decrease the decibel level by 25 decibels through insulation, etc. It was also felt that if single family structures were kept away from freeways it would be an improvement. In response to a question from Councilmember Anderson, Mr. Dahlgren stated that at the time his firm was requested to prepare the Southeast Area Study, it was recognized by many that trying to develop single family plats in the area of a freeway is difficult, and that people do not want to live next to a freeway. Because of the excessive noise levels near freeways, in those cases where residences exist in advance of freeway construction, Mn/DOT will contribute 90% of the cost for noise walls. They will not provide noise walls after a freeway is built. He explained that noise walls will interrupt the high intensity noise from a freeway and are very expensive to construct. He felt that building single family homes across the whole proposed development would probably not be wise because of the known noise factors. He pointed out that multi -family housing is more compatible because multi -family construction requires air conditioning and reduces noise within the units and also that people spend less time outdoors in multi -family Page No. 2792 May 15, 1990 developments. Another consideration was air noise. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that planes are flying outside the flight corridors. Mr. Dahlgren responded that if aircraft stay within the corridor, steps can be taken through construction of dwellings to alleviate noise impact. Assuming that someday the planes will stay in the corridor, noise would be concentrated within the corridor shown on the noise map. He stated that the location of the corridor is known in the sense that it lines up with the freeways. Mr. Dahlgren reviewed a transparency comparing density statistics in the developers' June 20, 1989 sketch plan and densities allowed by the Comprehensive plan. He stated that the sketch plan covering 111.7 acres envisioned an overall density of 5.07 units per acre, and a total of 567 units, and that the sketch plan was approved. The basic development pattern and density was then established and is no longer an issue. Councilmember Anderson asked if that plan density was consistent with the Southeast Area comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Dahlgren responded that Phase I of Kensington, which was approved, provided for 5.29 acres of medium residential and 16.82 acres of high density residential, for a gross density of 6 units per acre, or 132 total units. The comprehensive plan amendment density was four units per acre on some of the land and eight units per acre for the balance: 156 units was established in the comprehensive plan, and Phase I was well within that limit. He stated that the developer is now requesting approval of the balance of the development, on a total of 89.77 acres, utilizing a gross density of 3.19 (MR) and 7.77 (HR) units per acre as opposed to the 4 and 8 units per acre allowed by the comprehensive plan. The overall net density proposed for Phase II is 5.07 units per acre - 3.48 MR net and 8.10 HR net. The developer proposes a total for Phase II of 423 units as compares to the 478 units allowed by the comprehensive plan. The total net density for the Kensington development overall would be 5.4 units per acre - a total Page No. 2793 May 15, 1990 of 555 units as compared to 634 allowed by the comprehensive plan. The density proposed is well within the legal density requirements that were established in the comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Dahlgren then reviewed a transparency of the Southeast Area Study land use map for Land Use Concept D. He stated that the map shows the density pattern and land use for the Southeast Area which was established when the Southeast Area comprehensive plan amendment was adopted. North of Mendota Heights Road, the Southeast Area plan amendment allowed 418 residences in*the Copperfield/Hampshire areas, but because the land was developed in a curvalinear pattern, the actual number of lots was platted at 258. The comprehensive plan allows 118 units in the Bridgeview Shores development, but 84 were platted. South of Mendota Heights Road, the Plan provided for 669 total units on the Kensington property, but 468 units are actually proposed: 132 units have already been approved. The Patrick subdivision east of Kensington consists of 11 single family lots. According to the comprehensive plan amendment, 1,543 housing units could be built in the Southeast Area, however the total of what is existing and proposed is 1,009 units, resulting in an actual proposed density which is 2/3 of what was approved in the comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Dahlgren reviewed a transparency of the Southeast Area Study preliminary traffic report prepared by Jack Anderson, an independent consultant hired by the City in 1985. Traffic Study Concept D of the report had the highest density and anticipated 1,493 housing units in the Southeast Area. He stated that the traffic report was used to show how it was planned to handle the traffic and how it would relate to the existing proposal. The report assumed 900,000 square feet of office space and 35,000 square feet of commercial space in addition to the anticipated housing units, and commercial space tends to increase traffic levels. He pointed out that under the current development proposal, there would be a total of 1,009 housing units rather than the 1,493 anticipated in the report. Additionally, he showed and reviewed a transparency for Page No. 2794 May 15, 1990 Southeast Area Land Use Plan Concept D, which also envisioned a school north of Mendota Heights Road in addition to the housing units. He reviewed the estimated traffic statistics from the traffic report for Mendota Heights Road and Huber Drive along with current traffic counts taken by City staff. The traffic report envisioned a traffic count of 2,450 two-way average daily trips; the April traffic count was 662 ADT. At the intersection of Mendota Heights Road and Delaware the report projected 785 ADT as compares to 552 in the April count, and 8,954 in the report at the intersection of Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road versus 1,017 counted in April, 1990. He stated that traffic can increase over eight times and still not exceed the estimates of the study, based on the most dense land use, including commercial and office space to the east. Mr. Dahlgren stated that Mr. Anderson had indicated in his report that all of the projected counts would work if two things were done - left turn lanes and signals would have to be constructed at some time. These will come when the State determines that traffic warrants are met. Mr. Anderson had recommended that even before that happens, the City should construct a left -turn slot on Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Dahlgren stated that under Development Concept D of the traffic study, the street system will work because of the very good system of State Aid roads in place. Councilmember Anderson asked if there is any reasonable likelihood that there will be any potential for a Delaware Avenue crossing at I- 494. Mr. Dahlgren responded that there is not. He stated that back in the days when the freeway plans were being developed, one of the ideas that was presented was to put an interchange at Delaware. His firm was working with both Mendota Heights and Sunfish Lake at that time, and Sunfish fought the proposal because it would affect prime residential land. He stated that the concept of a Delaware interchange was scrapped at that time, and he sees no way that it could be resurrected. He informed Council and the audience that there were some recent studies initiated by Northwest Airlines in Eagan for a traffic Page No. 2795 May 15, 1990 analysis. various analyses were done by BRW on how to improve the traffic capacity at Dodd Road and I-494. He stated that one of the options was an interchange at Delaware, but that his firm, which was doing the development consulting for Northwest, convinced them to drop the option because it adversely impacts so many residences and would have a tremendous deleterious affect. One idea that is being proposed is a ramp in the northwest corner of Dodd and I-494. Mayor Mertensotto asked whether Mr. Dahlgren envisions a possibility of a ramp 1/2 mile east of Delaware. Mr. Dahlgren responded that he is not familiar with such a plan but that he is aware that there is contiguous residential development in the area which could be adversely impacted. He informed Council that his firm did the planning for the Northwest site but that it was not involved in the traffic analysis. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that other than updating the traffic information done by City staff, Mr. Dahlgren is talking about planning done in 1985 and that planes are supposed to fly in the corridor. He asked what the study would be like if Mr. Dahlgren were to do that planning today knowing that the planes are flying all over the place. Mr. Dahlgren acknowledged that planes are flying outside the corridor and that in view of the freeway, access, thoroughfare patterns, nature of the land, etc., he believes the Land Use Plan Council adopted in 1985 is a good one and can be successfully executed and that all parties should come out winners, because the big asset is the movement of density which can be done in a PUD. The purpose of a planned unit development is to provide flexibility. The City would receive a 26 acre park free under the development proposal, and he felt that this is a very important factor, as demonstrated by earlier PUD's in the City where the City can conserve vast areas of open space. In this case, the City is not conserving an area that is unbuildable, but rather, the developer proposes to dedicate very desirable land, which would be a tremendous asset to the City's park system. He further stated that the comprehensive plan amendment has the same force and affect as the Page No. 2796 May 15, 1990 original comprehensive plan. By having taken action to adopt the amendment, Council established the density that is allowed in the Southeast Area. Councilmember Cummins stated that Mr. Dahlgren had stated earlier in his presentation that the density issue, by virtue of the comprehensive plan decisions made in 1985, three years ago and two years ago, is a "done deal." He asked the City Attorney to address this issue for Council. Mayor Mertensotto also asked what the 1985 Amendment did and what the City can do today. City Attorney Tom Hart responded that the Council still maintains a certain amount of flexibility today. He explained that the City has two levels of discretion with respect to land use legislation, legislative and quasi- judicial discretion. Legislative discretion means basically that whatever the City decides, as long as it has rational basis, will be upheld in court - virtually unfettered discretion. Quasi-judicial means that the Council must take applications before it and apply a set of standards, in this case the standards set out in the PUD ordinance. He stated that it is his opinion that the City exercised its legislative discretion as to the density issue in 1985 when it passed the comprehensive plan amendment, which is why a super majority (4/5) vote is required for comprehensive plan amendment and why it must go through the Metropolitan Council. There are a number of checks and balances in the process. He stated that as to the density, that decision was made in 1985. If Council were to find that circumstances have changed drastically since 1985, Council could take action to undertake to amend the comprehensive plan, but an amendment should be entertained only if there have been significant changes. He pointed out that Council did not rezone the land at the time of the amendment because there was no application for rezoning before Council, and Council does not generally rezone on its own initiative. He stated that there is an application before Council now and that Council is in a quasi-judicial role. Council must now take the set of standards set forth in the PUD ordinance and apply them to the particular plan before it: density in and of itself was determined in 1985. Any other Page No. 2797 May 15, 1990 planning issue, either set forth in the standards of the PUD Ordinance or otherwise relating to the public health, safety, morals and welfare is before Council tonight. Mr. Hart informed Council that he was handed a letter from Attorney Jerry Duffy tonight as he arrived. He stated that in the letter Mr. Duffy raises a number of practical and legitimate issues relating to the proposed plan. He expressed that he does not know how the issues raised in the letter are to be resolved but that they are legitimate issues before Council this evening - density, in and of itself, is not a legitimate issue in his opinion. With respect to substantial change in circumstances, Mayor Mertensotto stated that planes are flying all over the place now. He asked Mr. Hart whether in his judgment this is a change of circumstances that Council would be warranted to take into account in its quasi-judicial discretion. Mr. Hart responded that this certainly is a factor but that he believes it was a factor in Planner Dahlgren's Southeast Area study recommendation in 1985 for higher density in the Southeast Area. He stated that he would have to defer to Planner Dahlgren as to whether less dense uses given the aircraft situation would be appropriate for the Southeast Area and whether in and of itself this would be a reason to again amend the comprehensive plan. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the City of Eagan purports that by allowing all the residential development in the Southeast Area, Mendota Heights has created its own problems and in reaction is now asking for a fanned flight corridor. Mr. Hart responded that this is a planning consideration: whether aircraft noise was central to consideration to change the plan in 1985. If it was central and Council finds that the situation has changed and is no longer appropriate (planes are flying all over now and noise in the area has been reduced), Council could consider amending the plan. It was his opinion that Council would have to find that airplane noise was a central reason Page No. 2798 May 15, 1990 for the 1985 amendment and that the circumstance no longer exists. Councilmember Anderson stated that it is significant that as recently as June 20th, the Council approved Sketch Plan C-3. He asked whether that tends to indicate that there is some consistency between the comprehensive plan and the proposal. Mr. Hart responded that it is some indication but pointed out that sketch plan approval is the most preliminary approval available under the City's zoning ordinance, and indicates that it is a general feeling of the Council that the program before the Council is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan. The developer's agreement which the City has makes it very clear that all the Council's discretion is expressly reserved, but it does state that Council is generally in agreement that the PUD is consistent with the comprehensive plan, giving evidence to the developer that the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. He stated that if Council were to deny the plan, that would shift the onus to the City to demonstrate the factual basis for denial of the plan. Councilmember Anderson asked whether Council would have to find some significant external change occurring between June of 1989 and May of 1990 to disregard the proposal. Mr. Hart responded that it is evident that in June of 1989 the proposal was consistent with the comprehensive plan and long range planning goals of the City at the time. If a finding were made and came before Council now that it was not aware of at the time, that evidence can be overcome, but it is strong evidence in favor of the developer for that proposal. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council's charge and its primary concern is what is in the interest of the City from the standpoint of health, safety and welfare. Council must know what parameters it can utilize in making a decision and what leeway and discretion it has and what factors are important. He felt that what it gets down to is a question of whether the 1985 comprehensive plan amendment action binds a future Council to a present day development. Page No. 2799 May 15, 1990 Councilmember Hartmann stated that it is his recollection that the impetus for the Southeast Area Study was that in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, the Metropolitan Council rejected the zoning, especially in the southeast area of the City, because it was inconsistent with the airport noise element of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Dahlgren concurred, responding that the Metropolitan Council would not approve the comprehensive plan amendment until the City adopted an aircraft noise attenuation ordinance and put it into affect. With respect to air noise impact, Mr. Dahlgren stated that the City must be very careful what it does. The noise ordinance Council adopted sets as a policy that as the noise level increases development moves away from single family to multi -family housing. Single family use is provisional in Noise Zone 4, but multiple family housing is permitted. He stated that if Council assumes that the noise level is spreading, the provision is that there be more high-density rather than less. He cautioned Council to exercise care on how it uses aircraft noise. Mayor Mertensotto asked who made the finding that this should be, since there would be more people in high density development. Mr. Dahlgren responded that the City studied the draft Metropolitan Council and MAC noise attenuation ordinance and carefully reviewed and suggested changes before it was adopted. He pointed out that what the ordinance officially says is that as the noise problem gets worse, development should move from single family to multiple family housing because in multiple family developments there is always air conditioning, fewer people spend time outside and noise can be better mitigated in the construction of the buildings. It is easier to mitigate the noise in multiple family dwellings than it is in single family. Councilmember Anderson questioned what planning understanding is involved with not putting single family along freeways and under flight paths on the basis that an even greater number of people would be affected by the noise impact in clustering more dense units. Page No. 2800 May 15, 1990 Mr. Dahlgren responded that single family homes are designed for families with children, with large yards and open space around the houses, and that single family residents should spend a good deal of time outside. He stated that in multi -family areas there are frequently very few children and often none. He further stated that the buildings can be built so that they are much more sound -proof than single family homes can be, and although there are more people in the buildings, the buildings are more compatible under aircraft and along freeways than single family homes. He further stated that one can see multiple family very successfully used along freeways but where there are single family homes contiguous to freeways they are hard to sell. Mr. Dahlgren felt that from a planning standpoint, what is at issue now is how the plan is done for parking, building materials, whether two-story is the right height, garages, etc., and also the proposal for private roads. He stated that these are the things the Council has the power to control. Mr. Dahlgren informed Council that private roadways are consistently part of PUD's and that they should be because then the homeowners association maintains them, which he felt is in the City's best interest. Mayor Mertensotto asked that the representative of the developers make his presentation. Mr. Dick Putnam, representing the developers, informed Council that he would not make a slide presentation on the sketch plan which Council reviewed some time ago and which the Planning Commission and neighborhood have seen. He stated that there have been numerous plans approved for the site, including the most recent planning which has also been modified. He presented the plan and stated that the total number of units has been decreasing with each plan and in the new plan. Phase I was approved for 136 housing units and is under construction. There is now a total number of units in the total project area of 555 units. He stated that between Plan A and Plan B, the park area has been pushed and squeezed by the City to make the park system Page No. 2801 May 15, 1990 work not only for the development project but for the City in meeting its park needs. Mr. Putnam stated that he has been going over the reasons the comprehensive plan was amended, and the two factors which keep coming to mind are traffic noise and air noise. There were also some positive points the City had in 1985, one was diversity in housing types in the southeast area. There were very few multiple family units in Mendota Heights at that time, and one of the expressed desires and objectives of the Council was to provide a variety of housing types and the southeast area was felt to be the place to do that. He stated that as the developer of Copperfield, he did not feel it was the place. The proposal made by the prior property owner has potentially 1,000 apartments. Council wanted to encourage ownership as opposed to rental and to limit 24 units per structure. It also wanted to discourage a project that would use repetitive building types, and stipulated that a project cannot exceed 150 units of a repetitive building type. He stated that the other area Council looked at as a positive rather than a negative is the land characteristics. The southeast area of the City is very pretty, with ponds and woods. In Copperfield, the areas between the ponds and the ponds themselves were committed to parks and also scenic easement areas were dedicated around the ponds to protect the adjacent fringe areas of the ponds. He stated that this has carried through in the proposed project and that the developers have respected all of the wetlands and are making most of the wetlands in the area public parks. He felt that another positive is the City park issue. There is a variety of parks in the southeast area including the private Dodge Nature Center and public parks such as Friendly Marsh, passive areas between the ponds in Copperfield, and neighborhood parks such as Friendly Hills and the King-Hagstrom park. He stated that the proposed development includes an extension of the trail system and a proposed very active park and a passive park around the lake. Including three softball and two soccer fields is an asset to the neighborhood and the community, and it generates much that the City wants to accomplish. He pointed out that it would have been much easier for the developers to tell Page No. 2802 May 15, 1990 the City to put the fields some place else and that the developer would put in a 10 acre neighborhood park site. The developers felt that to try to incorporate what the City and the citizens said they wanted in active fields into the development area and to put it where it is proposed makes some sense. He felt that major ballfields are an excellent neighbor to the freeway. He informed Council that the developers will build berms to reduce the freeway noise behind the development. Mr. Putnam stated that one thing that wasn't done in Plan C-3, but which was ultimately addressed in the plan that was submitted for approval tonight was that the developers didn't realize that the area where there is a two-story condominium structure would be perceived to be a problem by people. It was pointed out at the Planning Commission meeting and in meeting with the neighborhood and Attorney Duffy that the intrusion of the high density use at the corner was a problem, and the building has been shifted. What is currently proposed is to replace one of the 24 unit condominium buildings with a 6 and 4 unit townhouse and to shift the road a little to put the townhouse across the road from Hampshire. The result is an increase from 59 to 71 townhouse units and coachhomes and a reduction from 300 to 280 condominium units, decreasing the project to 555 units. He stated that this was not done to decrease the density of the site but to create a buffer in the density between the larger lots in Copperfield and Hampshire and the proposed plat. He informed Council and the audience that the type of structures that are being built now in Phase I are indicative of the architectural detail and attention to other detail that can be expected in the remainder of the units, townhouses, condominiums and single family. The project will provide a diversity in housing ranging from 945 square foot units for a base price of $60,000 to about $95,000 for three bedroom units. Townhouses will range from $100,000 to $135,000. The single family will be similar to Hampshire, although some may be larger because of the woods to the south. He stated that the developers feel the project is well planned and integrates public and private facilities and a good diversity of housing types. All units will be owned versus rental, Page No. 2803.... May 15, 1990 which provides an advantage to the City. He stated that when he started Copperfield he felt the market would be $135,000 to $170,000, and that he was surprised at what happened. In the case of the manor homes, Centex is finding many buyers from Mendota Heights, and many empty -nesters who do not want their four bedroom homes any more. He suggested that the Council not program out Mendota Heights people by ruling out different housing types at the expense of everything having to be the same housing type. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Mr. Putnam was very successful in Copperfield and Hampshire and that Mr. Putnam acknowledged that in the southeast area he has taken medium residential east of the park and put that into single family residential. He stated that Mr. Putnam obviously recognizes that there is a continued market to develop single family in that area contrary to what Planner Dahlgren has said and contrary to the Metropolitan Council plan. He asked how the Council can answer Eagan when it continues to put housing in the southeast area? Mr. Putnam responded that the single family area moves out of Noise Zone 4 in the east and that that area is less noisy. Also, Sunfish Lake is east and there are existing single family homes in Mendota Heights just south of the proposed single family location. He explained that he spent much time in discussing this whole area in 1986 and 1987 in meeting with the neighbors and trying to make a plan work. Also, this portion of the site is heavily wooded, the most heavily wooded portion of the development, and that it is very difficult to build high density units in woods unless they are big buildings which are excluded from the comprehensive plan and would not be consistent with the desires of the City. There is a berm built along I-494 and it is heavily wooded. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the developer is transferring density from that area to the west of the pond and is making a marketing decision to change what is permitted under the comprehensive plan, asking that the density be transferred to the remaining area. He stated that the complaints are coming from the people Mr. Putnam sold lots to. Page No. 2804 May 15, 1990 Mr. Putnam stated that he could go back to Plan B, which was also approved, which had softball fields in addition to the proposed soccer and ballfields. Had the plan gone ahead the condominiums (coach homes) would have been built adjacent to the edge of the King property along Mendota Heights Road and what is proposed now for single family would have been townhouses. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the people Mr. Putnam sold to are not objecting to the townhouses. With respect to Plan B, the City has a need for park and open space and additional athletic fields. He stated that the developer has made the economic decision to put single family east of the park, and he felt that a solution to the whole problem would be for the developer to go back to Plan B. He stated that the City has authority to spend $750,000 and though that it might cost the City $50,000 to get the additional 20 acres of parkland in Plan B (40 acres total) it would solve the City's recreation needs once and for all and might also placate the residents with respect to the problem they have with the condominiums. It is the density transfer from the single family area that stacks the condominiums in. The City does not have its athletic facility plan completed, even with the Sibley park development, and has additional needs. He did not feel the City will be able to get the Mendakota Estates property. He asked Mr. Putnam if going back to Plan B, with a 40 acre park, is a viable option to look at. Mr. Putnam responded that Centex just paid $100,000 in first half real estate taxes and assessments for the property the Mayor suggests is worth $50,000 in land value. He stated that the developer has been down this road for a long time and has discussed" what. if" the City were to buy this land. It was his understanding that the voters passed a referendum that said that the proposed park dedication would be dedicated to the City and the money from the referendum would be used to develop this site and other parks in town and trails. He stated that if he has been listening to the people at the three Planning Commission meetings, they would rather not see as much multi -family adjacent to Mendota Page No. 2805 May 15, 1990 Heights Road, and the developers have tried to do the best they can. There are real problems with putting single family along Mendota Heights Road, and if the Council had initially set out the objective in the past that is being discussed now, everything would have been different in the plan. Specifically to answer the Mayor's question of would plan B be a good plan for all concerned, he stated that in terms of what he knows now in hearing from the Hampshire people, he doesn't think they like Plan B because it would involve condos adjacent to Mendota Heights Road and townhouses where single family is now proposed. He stated that the plan has evolved a long way since those discussions and felt that things have improved for everyone. Councilmember Anderson stated that it seems to him that there was an initial park referendum that was robustly defeated by the citizens and he felt that one reason was that Sibley was out of it and the bulk of the community's residents did not want the main facility in the southeast area of the City. Councilmember Cummins stated that as a resident very close to this area, he did not think that adding three more athletic fields is the kind of open space that the residents in the area want, and that he does not relish the idea of an eight field complex rather than five fields. That would just increase the amount of traffic from all over into the area. He felt that what the Mayor seems to be saying is that the City should buy some additional property to build more playfields on. Councilmember Cummins did not see this as any solution, but if there were to be 15 acres of wooded space the residents would probably like it. Councilmember Blesener stated that the Mayor has said -there is $750,000 available. The referendum was in two parts: some of it was for a third ball site. The referendum that was passed included three sites for ballfields with a budget of about $400,000 to acquire the third site. $750,000 was to acquire land for other park needs: $300,000 to $400,000 is needed from the second referendum question to improve the ballfields, which leaves $350,000 for other park improvements. To assume Council can take all available funds to buy Page No. 2806 May 15, 1990 land for fields is wrong. She pointed out that the voters rejected the proposal two years ago to buying a significant amount of land in this area in the first referendum. Councilmember Anderson pointed out that Council had approved Plan B and the referendum was rejected, after which Council had Mr. Putnam revise his plan to accommodate the City park. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that this time the developer is asking for approval'of the entire PUD, not just a phase. He did not want -to give up the potential for additional park land and pointed out that approval would foreclose any options. Councilmember Blesener also pointed out that she was a member of the referendum committee, and that all the other land in the city that is available for a third ballfield site, including all of the land in this portion of the city was considered by the referendum committee, Park Commission, etc., and putting any more fields in the southeast part of the City was rejected. Councilmember Cummins stated that Plan C-3 is before Council, and that he would like to ask Park Commission Chair Huber, present for the discussion, for the Commission's reaction to this plan. He asked if the Commission supports the park plan portion of C-3. Mr. Huber responded that the Commission unanimously approved the park plan in C-3, and that the City's consultant, Barry Warner, and .the developers and others have worked on the plan. From a park perspective, the Commission feels it has evolved to the best plan, and to go back to Plan B would be going back to something the voters rejected. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the City does not have all of its recreational facility needs satisfied in its overall planning and that he does not want to foreclose the option of satisfying those needs. He felt that after a while the City may not find additional areas to acquire, and that Council should not overlook the possibility of satisfying the entire community need for open space and facilities. Page No. 2807 May 15, 1990 Mr. Huber responded that the facility now has r 3 softball fields. Plan B only has 3 softball fields and one baseball field, which does not meet the total City ballfield needs. Only one additional baseball field would be picked up in the design of Plan C. He also pointed out that if the additional land were acquired there still would be 500 housing units in the development plan. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Plan B has 40 acres of open space as opposed to 20 in C-3, and that he is talking about additional open space which the City would be buying from the developer. He asked Mr. Putnam if he could do Plan B. Mr. Putnam replied that he does not know, but that Plan B does not coincide at all with what he has heard at the three Planning Commission meetings. He could not see any area residents supporting Plan B because it is all multi- family along Mendota Heights Road, so in that regard, he could not do Plan B. Mayor Mertensotto asked whether Mr. Putnam would do the single family development and also if there is a way he could put a restriction on the development so that the City would have some control over who is developing it. He pointed out that Council knows Mr. Putnam and Centex as developers, but was concerned over what might happen if Centex sells the site. Mr. Putnam responded that whether he or Centex develops all of the single family it looks like it would be a third or second phase of Hampshire, which would make the most sense. Centex would develop the townhouse, condominium (coach), and manor homes over the next five years. Attorney Bannigan stated that the approval being requested runs with the land, and the plans are all on file with the City. Centex fully intends on building it, however anyone else who would come in and try to build it would have to do exactly what Centex would have to do. Councilmember Blesener pointed out that the City would have a developers agreement for this development just as is required for all PUD's. Page No. 2808 May 15, 1990 Attorney Tom Hart suggested that the Mayor's concern is in terms of the maintenance of quality if Centex were to sell the property. Under a PUD, the City can certainly require standards in terms of materials, quality, etc. Mayor Mertensotto asked if Mr. Putnam is asking for approval of the entire PUD. Mr. Putnam responded that he is. He felt the single family portion should be zoned single family PUD like Hampshire and Copperfield, and pointed out that it is proposed to be a conventional single family subdivision patterned after Hampshire and Copperfield. He informed Council that there will be public streets in the single family area; in the MR and HR, there is a private street system; Lockwood Drive is a public street. He informed Council that he has spoken to one of the residential property owners south of the proposed single family area, Mr. Biehl, with respect to providing access to the Biehl property and the other parcels adjoining it. Mr. Putnam felt that the best way to provide access to these large private parcels would be to provide a private driveway easement which the developers would convey to those property owners so that they could someday develop their property. He informed Council that while access can be done either via the private easement or public street, a public street would devastate that small sensitive area. Mr. Biehl felt that the private easement would be much better. Councilmember Blesener pointed out that the private street system in the proposed development is really no different from many of the City's existing PUD's. Mr. Putnam stated that the private streets would be built to the same standard as City streets, 28 feet wide with surmountable curbs, and that the only difference from a public street is that they would be constructed and maintained by the people who live in the development. RECESS Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 10:32 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 10:40 P.M.. Page No. 2809 May 15, 1990 Mayor Mertensotto asked for comments from Attorney Gerald Duffy. Mr. Duffy informed Council that he is present to represent 540 to 580 residents of the City who have a concern about the direction this development is taking. He stated that he has submitted a letter to Council, and pointed out that in the letter and before the Planning Commission he has stated that Kensington Phase 2 does not comply with the comprehensive guide plan. He pointed out that Howard Dahlgren stood before Council this evening and disagreed, but that he believes it is clear that it does not comply and he will inform Council as to why he feels it does not. He also stated that he disagrees to some extent with what has been said about what a comprehensive guide plan is. A comprehensive guide plan is a guide and does not carry with it the weight of a zoning ordinance change. He cited two cases in support of the position, which discuss what happens when a comprehensive guide plan is in conflict with zoning. The fact that a Council may have approved a comprehensive guide plan in no way infringes on a councils ability to take a direction other than how the plan guides them. What the Council did in 1985 in accepting the comprehensive guide plan cannot bind the council in 1990 in the exercise of authority to zone or not zone - it is a guide. He pointed to two cases in which Mr. Dahlgren's associate John Shardlow gave expert testimony. What really makes the cases important is how the change was necessary in the comprehensive guide plan when passed and today, what kind of evidence is needed. Council may say the assumptions made in 1985 are no longer valid and that the guide is no more than a guide and may come to some other conclusion on how the property may be rezoned. He then raised issues for discussion. First, whether or not, if the guide applies, this plan conforms to the comprehensive guide plan. The comprehensive guide plan envisions two separate PUD's in terms of density: one can see (on the comprehensive guide plan map) where it shows MR and HR. One is medium density and one is high density, and each carry a maximum density which the Council can allow. The comprehensive guide plan sets a ceiling, but not a floor. Development can be less dense but not more dense. He felt that Page No. 2810 May 15, 1990 it is interesting that when the City did its map and when Howard Dahlgren was talking about the impact of the comprehensive guide plan, he talked about planned density and continued to make distinction between MR and HR. He stated that this is because the comprehensive guide plan laid out a line between them. The only way the Council can approve this plan is if it erases the line, because what the plan does is to transfer density across the MR to the HR. If the density in the HR zone is calculated taking out the park dedication and roads, and one discusses what is actually proposed to be in high density, the proposal is way over the maximum densities the comprehensive guide plan will allow in that zone. He felt that the only way the comprehensive guide plan would allow the densities proposed is if it didn't have the two separate zones, and if in fact it were assumed for the purpose of density discussions that the City were to purchase the land for the park, taking it out of the area which is in the HR zone and the roads, and have the developer deal with the acreage that is left, there would be 18 units per acre. Nowhere in the City is that kind of density allowed. The only way it works is if the line is ignored. He felt that talking about the densities of MR and HR is meaningless, and that it is all HR, and the proposal is contrary to the comprehensive guide plan. Councilmember Cummins read an excerpt from the Zoning Ordinance which provides that if a PUD is in more than one zoning district the number of allowable dwelling units must be separately calculated for each portion of the development in a separate zone and then must be combined to determine the number of allowable dwelling units in the PUD. He pointed out that one of the purposes of the PUD ordinance is to provide a tool to allow the City flexibility to move densities within a PUD regardless of the actual zoning. Mr. Duffy disagreed on the basis that there are two separate zones and two separate PUD density areas and the densities must be made to work on those two areas. If there were not, why would the densities even be discussed. He did not think that what Councilmember Cummins stated is what the ordinance says. He stated that much has been said about the fact that this (property) is Page No. 2811 May 15, 1990 part of the southeast area study. The City went to the Metropolitan Council and asked for amendment to the comprehensive guide plan. One of the significant reasons for the change and the study was a belief at that time that multiple family housing was more suitable in an air landing corridor than was single family. He stated that he disagrees with that logic, but that the fact of the matter is that today given dual local control and the facts that exist the air traffic patterns are going across a wider area of Mendota Heights. He asked how the City is dealing with that. He pointed out that there is a committee which was supposed to meet to discuss air noise reduction and the City has received a letter from Eagan City Administrator Tom Hedges asking for a cooperative effort between the cities in dealing with MAC on air noise. One of the things Mr. Hedges' letter talked about was the need not to exacerbate the issue by approving more residential development in the area before agreement can be reached. He felt that it would be contradictory to say to MAC that noise needs to be reduced in residential areas and at the same time approve plans that will more than double the number of housing units in the area. What also makes the 1985 assumption that multi -family is more consistent in this area than single family is the kind of housing being talked about. He stated that Mr. Dahlgren has said that the developer has tried to make this look more like single family, two-story, but the fact is that the plan before the City is not even close to the kind of multi family that was envisioned when the concept was originally put that multi -family is more consistent in this kind of area. Centex is not advertising Kensington as an area designed to be located within a flight path of an airport where everyone is to stay inside in air conditioned comfort. They are advertising the amenities of Mendota Heights, lots of parks and open space and outside recreational activities. He stated that the assumption that lead to the 1985 study and change in the comprehensive guide plan does not apply today, circumstances have changed. The airport is used differently. This developer's view of the type of housing that should go here has changed significantly. In totality, there is a complete lack of support for the original assumption, a change of circumstances which Page No. 2812 May 15, 1990 makes the 1986 comprehensive guide plan assumption no longer valid. Also no longer a valid assumption is the issue of schools. He stated that one of the points raised at the Planning Commission meeting is that recently the City approved temporary school units. The comprehensive guide plan assumes there will be adequate infrastructure to serve the needs as units are added to the community. One of the needs is schools, and one that will be directly impacted by this development is overcrowded, and the assumption rate will be used by this development, another of the assumptions in the comprehensive guide plan no longer is a valid assumption, there's been a change in circumstances. Mr. Duffy stated that another change in the assumptions that lead to the 1986 comprehensive guide plan change has to do with the number of single family houses in the area. At the time the comprehensive guide plan was looked at there wasn't projected to be the type and number of single family housing, i.e., Marvin Anderson development. The nature of this area changed and is much more oriented to single family. He stated that another assumption was whether or not people would build and buy single family next to freeways. If one looked at comprehensive guide plans in the 1980's they would find that many came up with apartments along freeways, however if one drove down I-35 through Apple Valley, and Burnsville, there is a huge amount of single family going on and there is a market for it, which brings to mind the question of whether this is a valid assumption. He felt this is not the case. Mr. Duffy stated that whether or not those kinds of things are sufficient changes in circumstances for the Council not to apply the comprehensive guide plan, the Council should look at Wellington versus Apple Valley where these very issues were raised, whether or not the assumption that single family could not be built adjacent to interstates and whether or not a road could be completed when it wasn't completed at the time would be sufficient change in circumstances for a council not to comply with the comprehensive guide plan, and the court found that it would. One of the factors that seems to be driving the proposal Page No. 2813 May 15, 1990 is the offer of free park land. That is a prominent factor in why the proposal is before the Council. He stated that Council does not have to trade density for parks and that the City has enough money to buy land for parks. He felt that in any event it is a bad trade- off to trade this kind of density for parks. Mr. Duffy stated that one of the comments the developer has used in talking about differences between park land he is required to dedicate and the other park land is non - required park land dedication. The trade off is the density transfer. It was his belief that the trade-off for the non -required park land is the density transfer. He felt that the trade-off for the non -required park dedication compared to the density simply is not a good trade-off for the City to make for a variety of reasons in terms of what is good for the City as a whole. He suggested that with this kind of density there are lots of cars and lots of people in a relatively small area. One of the questions that came up at the Planning Commission hearing was where all of the cars would be parked. Parking as required by the ordinance will be absorbed partly by a garage for one car and parking one car directly behind it when the garage door is closed, so much land has been used that there is little available space for parking, etc. One question that came up was where the people will put their garbage cans. He stated that the answer was in the garage, but there is barely enough room for a car. People are expected to open their garage door in the winter and put the garbage in a garbage can against the back wall of the garage. He did not think that will happen, they will put the cans out where they are most accessible, right out the back door. He stated that even so simple a question as how to handle the garbage doesn't track in the plan. The developers have had to compress in order to get the density they want and in order to give the City the non -required park land dedication. He stated that Mr. Hart has indicated that the law in terms of what is needed for evidence to not apply the old comprehensive guide plan is a drastic change of circumstance, but he suggested that the cases say only a change of circumstances and sufficient evidence of a change of circumstances. He felt that there is sufficient evidence of a change of circumstances. He directed Council's Page No. 2814 May 15, 1990 attention to his letter, stating that it sets out why he believes the proposed development plan is inconsistent with the comprehensive guide plan and why he believes it does not comply with the City Zoning Ordinance. Under the Zoning Ordinance, to approve a PUD Council must find that the plan meets each and every one of the standards. He stated that it does not. He also pointed out that the PUD must coordinate with subdivision laws,'and that he has set out in his letter several areas where he feels the plan fails to comply with the subdivision ordinance. The PUD must also comply with other applicable provisions of City code, including wetlands permit requirements. He stated that the proposed development cannot meet the standards for the issuance of wetlands permits and that he doesn't feel that has been sufficiently looked at. He then reviewed the portion of his letter relating to wetlands. He stated that Section 5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance sets out criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, which also must be issued. One of the criteria is that it may not be detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of the community. He stated that there will be 1,000 people per square mile in this particular development. The development, which contains less than 1% of the land in the community will have 30% of the population of the City when fully developed, and if that is not detrimental to the general welfare it is hard to define a set of circumstances. It must not cause traffic hazard or congestion. With respect to traffic, the City documents show that when this area is fully developed, the level of service will be Level F until such time as Mendota Heights Road and the interchange of Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road is affected. He stated that this is controlled by Mn/DOT, not the City, and that it seems incomprehensible to approve a plan which carries with it the possibility that Level F could be visited on all these houses. He suggested that Council look at Wellington versus Apple Valley to see if this is sufficient grounds. According to the ordinance, the plan should not seriously depreciate surrounding property values. He further stated that the proposal is not in harmony with good planning. In exchange for the park the City is getting much it doesn't want and should not get. Good planning and Page No. 2815 May 15, 1990 common sense will not result in a disregard for what the neighbors think should go on, shouldn't disregard the comprehensive guide plan, good planning, the zoning ordinance, good wetlands management, good traffic management, current air noise abatement issues and should not overcrowd schools. He stated that he feels it disregards all of these and asked that Council not approve this plan for the reasons set forth tonight. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire stated that it has been mentioned tonight that a previous plan was rejected and that the City would prefer to have properties owned rather than rented. She further stated that the plan contains many condo units, and in discussions with realtors she has found that there is very little after market for condos in the twin cities, fewer people who are in a position to purchase condos are buying them. She asked what will people do if they can't sell them, and felt that they will rent them and that will have a great affect on the area. Mr. Dan Nichols, a Hampshire resident, felt that there are two issues. First, from the residents perspective, it has been made clear that the Council can make any decision it wants to tonight. From the very beginning, the residents have run into resistance from the Planning Commission and Council members with whom they spoke. He felt that it is clear that Council's hands are not tied by the comprehensive plan. The second issue is what the residents want, what they hate to hear is that "you know that land is going to be developed." The residents don't contend that it will not develop and agree with much of the proposed plan. He stated that they don't disagree with Kensington or the single family and that they do respect Mr. Putnam's abilities and Centex's ability as builders. He stated that the only area of disagreement is that the residents do not want the developers to build quite so many units in one area, but unfortunately Council must decide tonight. Mr. Nichols stated that there was much discussion before the Planning Commission about how the residents in the area have been sandbagged, and that no one can give the Page No. 2816 May 15, 1990 residents a clear answer today on where the proposal is at. He stated that this meeting is the residents only opportunity to voice their opinion, since they were not residents at the beginning of the planning. He felt that the only way the residents can negotiate the matter in a way acceptable to those who live in the area is to say no. He pointed out that the Mayor mentioned that litigation has been threatened by both sides, but he did not think that anyone wants to sue. He felt that the parties would be willing to negotiate some points and that it only makes sense that since the parties are so close together, Council should vote no. Mr. Nichols stated that the residents have not been happy with the responses they have received from the Council members, who have given the impression that they do not care what the residents say on the phone. He further stated that there are 600 to 800 voters in the area and they want Council members who are responsive to their needs -- they expect to be heard and hope the Council will not take them lightly. He asked that the development be stopped at this point so that changes can be made to make it desirable to all parties. Councilmember Cummins responded that early in his remarks Mr. Nichols stated that there was one area of density he does not like. He asked what specific area that is. Mr. Nichols responded that it is about 1/3 of the development. He stated that the residents are satisfied with the quality and density of Kensington but that the area in between that needs to be negotiated. The neighbors realize it is not going to be all single family and realize the density is currently too high. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Boyce if there is room for negotiation. Mr. Boyce responded that the developers tried that at the Planning Commission meeting and the only one that stood up was Mr. Duffy. He would therefore guess the answer is that there is no room for negotiation. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Mr. Boyce has heard Mr. Duffy speak this evening and that it is the people Mr. Boyce sold to who are complaining about the continued development. He expressed his concern, stating that Page No. 2817 May 15, 1990 litigation is not the way to go, and the concerns must be resolved. The people have indicated they have no objection to the manor homes, the problem they have is the high density sector in the center of the project, 300 condominium units, which is totally uncharacteristic of the development of Mendota Heights. He further stated that in his experience there is a problem with after market for this type of unit in Mendota Heights. If a solution can be negotiated it would be far better than litigation. Mr. Putnam stated that the first time the residents specifically said the problem is with the density at Lockwood and Mendota Heights Road. He asked when Mr. Nichols talks about the density is it actually 8, 12 and 16 unit buildings that are the problem, the units themselves, detached garages, two stories, etc. He stated that the only difference between that unit and the manor home unit is the attached garage. The first four units are cut -through building units because they have garages in front of them. The units themselves are essentially the same unit, just put together differently. With respect to Mr. Nichol's comment, if the park land were taken out and instead he went back to the plan for a small neighborhood park and take the same number of buildings and spread them out over the area, you would have the same number of units but the perception of how far the buildings are apart would look like the manor homes do. What the City would lose is the public open space. He further stated that as a practical matter, his experience with a project in Bloomington, done in three phases, is that these buildings spread out 200 feet apart look silly, and this is not what the people who live in them are after. He stated that Mr. Nichols' comments are good, and that the developers have wrestled with the same questions, but that they know they don't want to build another 250 manor home units. Mr. Nichols responded that the trouble with the density is that when people talk about density they are always talking about different things. He felt the density the residents are concerned about is the number of people in the area, concern about the secondary effects of that many people in this Page No. 2818 May 15, 1990 area. It is the sense that there are 500 sites all at the end of their block. Bob Divine, 607 Huber, stated that he would rather speak to the value of the homes. He lives in Copperfield and owns one of the homes originally planned to be $130,000 to $175,000. He bought his home for $200,000 and it has appreciated. There are many homes in the $200,000 to $400,000 range in the area and the developer is talking about $60,000 condominiums. He stated that he would rather see fewer condominiums and higher values, $85,000+. He felt that this would be a good compromise, fewer and more expensive units. Liz Petrich, 645 Quail Ridge Circle, stated that her family is probably the least impacted but that does not mean they feel less strongly. What really bothers the residents is that some people have put every nickel they had into their houses which back up against Mendota Heights Road and this is what they have to look at. She stated that she talked to Centex when they were first building their model and was told that it would be the most beautiful executive homesites which would put Copperfield to shame. People were told this and they invested in their lots and homes, and there is a very little setback. Jill Nichols, 633 Hampshire, stated that property value is not a concern of hers. Her concern is traffic that will come from that many people in that small area. Its not consistent with the rest of Mendota Heights. She was concerned about her family going to and from school and work and the safety of her girls biking in that area and her family trying to get out onto Mendota Heights Road. She stated that she does not want to wait until someone is killed before stop lights are installed. She also stated that it is already too noisy there and to add that many units will make the noise that much worse. The resident at, 2470 Park Lane, the corner of Park Lane and Mendota Heights Road, stated that you can't see people coming around the corner. She further stated that she does not relish a stop light next to her house, that living on a corner is bad enough, but stop and go traffic is much worse. She stated that this is a dangerous corner now. Page No. 2819 May 15, 1990 Don Pacdernik, 2472 Hampshire Court, stated that he paid $3,000 extra for his lot which backs on Mendota Heights Road. He was told that this development was going to be multi family, but at $125,000 each for the townhouses. That's where they said it would start at for townhouses. He stated that he thought his investment would be very safe, and that what he understood is a stark departure from $60,000 units. Kay Hallo, 606 Pondview Terrace, stated that her question relates to schools. The private schools are full and Mendota Elementary is overcrowded. She felt that someone buying a $60,000 home will not put their kids in private schools and questioned what will happen when this number of units is put in if the public schools are so crowded now. Gary Berg, 2345 Copperfield Drive, stated that the City can have many statistics about traffic levels at f, a or d and anyone can argue those. He presumed that the Council members have not spent a lot of time in the area seeing the activity, lots of people walking dogs, jogging, kids on bikes. He felt this would no longer be safe and the lifestyles of the people who moved into the area will be disrupted. The residents expect that their reasons for moving into the area will be respected. Dawn Rabelon, 629 Hampshire Drive, stated that her concern is tax revenue. She stated that it is a known fact that these are lesser priced homes and multi -family does not contribute as much to taxes as it takes for schools, fire, police, etc. She stated that she does not think it is fair for the entire city to have to pick up the tab for this. Mike Williams, 2471 Hampshire Court, stated that he is concerned about safety associated with traffic. He stated that much emphasis has been placed on the free park area and that he did not think many of the people in Hampshire Estates would be using the parks. His children would not cross the street to use the parks. Greg Schreader, 594 Waters Edge Terrace, stated that his concern is the apparent lack Page No. 2820 May 15, 1990 of a demographic study by Centex. They have said that they will build as needed. Also, the Ivy Falls development is a nice development very aesthetically appealing and doesn't compare to this proposal. Mayor Mertensotto stated that it is not Council's concern on whether the developers have done market studies. Council's concern is the interest of the City. Mr. Schroeder asked what will happen if the Council approves this and all of the streets and utilities are put.in and it becomes a ..white elephant. Larry Brown, 647 Pond View, stated that he agrees with the Mayor's comment that most of the people in this area moved to Mendota Heights for what it offered, but 30% of the population on 1% of the land mass isnot what they moved here for. He asked how that concentration of people affects the infrastructure. He pointed out that most of the people in the audience did not live here when the comprehensive plan was approved in 1985. He felt that the fact that all of these people now live here but did not in 1985 is a big enough situational change. Mr. Bernard Frie1,750 Mohican Court, stated that the citizens who lived in the area in 1985 opposed the comprehensive plan and did not think there was a basis for change. He spoke about the history of opposition in 1985 and 1987 to the comprehensive plan Amendment, and stated that many of those who opposed the plan changes in 1985 and 1987 still hold their view about the changes in the comprehensive plan and he did not believe they would support this zoning change. Mr. James Losleben,815 Hazel Court, stated that the development is totally out of character with Mendota Heights. He felt that the _fact that the Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 against the proposal is a significant change in circumstance since the last time the Council looked at the proposal. Mike McNamara, 632 Hampshire Drive, stated that he has heard reasons why the single family can't be moved over to where the multi family is in the center, and asked why it Page No. 2821 May 15, 1990 cannot. He acknowledged that businesses are run to make a profit and that Centex has a profit margin, but stated that the Council should represent the residents and must have some sort of a benefit in mind for them. He asked what the costs and benefits are and what value has been placed on the child who might get hit on a bike on his way to the park or the drugs and crime that might happen in the park. He asked what price has been put on all the possible fire, police, school and traffic problems and what the cost/benefit ratio is. Mayor Mertensotto responded that in the general sense,'the question is how does this project benefit the City. There is no question that multi family brings in more tax revenue but there are more people in the area the revenue is coming from. He stated that hopefully the revenue coming in balances against the needed services. An unidentified resident asked if the overall density of the Planned Unit Development meets the standards of MR and which standard applies, MR or HR. Councilmember Cummins responded that Planner Dahlgren has indicated that the density for the MR area is 3.48 units per acre which is well under the four units per acre allowed, and that the HR is 8.10 and that overall the average is under 6 units per acre. Joan Bjorklund,2324 Fieldstone Drive, stated that one thing she does not understand is why the single family homes will be so valuable on the wooded land if what they look out on is multi -family. She further stated that she would not let her children walk around the multi -family to get to the park. The owner of 628 Hampshire, stated that the timing of a compromise is important. If the Council votes on the rezoning now, it should say no. The residents feel compromise must be made before the Council takes a vote. There being no further Councilmember Anderson be closed. Councilmember Hartmann Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 questions or comments, moved that the hearing seconded the motion. Page No. 2822 .. May 15, 1990 Mayor Mertensotto asked for comments from Attorney Bannigan. Mr. Bannigan stated that one of his concerns was the identification of the City Planner as being loose on the density figures. He felt that this is unfair, that Mr. Dahlgren is one of the Planner Emeritus of the twin cities area. He proposed to Council that it must make its decision on a rational basis, that the reasons must be substantive and have a factual basis. Council has heard from lay persons expressing opinions, but Council can only take into consideration the learned opinion of the experts. The law is a good reasoning tool, and Council knows what the law is. He stated that all the developers ask is that the Council base its decision on the facts before it, not the emotions dragged out before them this evening. The task before the Council is to determine whether this applicant has met the predetermined standards for the community. Mayor Mertensotto asked what about the substantive changes that have occurred between the time the comprehensive plan Amendment was adopted and today. Mr. Bannigan responded that when,the Council looks at zoning changes it must look for substantial change in circumstances, a legal charge. He did not think there has been a substantial change, and that every factor that has come up this evening was pre -known, but that the only change is the normal growth in the area which has developed as it was planned and guided. Mayor Mertensotto asked Attorney Duffy for his additional comments. Mr. Duffy stated that there must be substantial change in circumstances to warrant a change from the comprehensive guide plan and evidence that it meets every criteria in the ordinances in order for the Council to make a zoning change. He disagreed with Mr. Bannigan's comments that only learned people can be considered. He stated that the residents have a valid right to point out safety hazards, etc. He further stated that when the Council looks at a request for a zoning change, no one has an inherent right. Developers must come in with evidence as to why rezoning should occur, and the Council must balance that against health, Page No. 2823 May 15, 1990 safety, etc. of the community. The Council must look at what's best for the community and what the law is and consider whether this should be allowed. He felt that the answer should be no, it is not good planning or good use for the land and calls for too much compromise on what's good for the City. He asked that Council say no, and that it tell the developer to try to get something that makes sense. He stated that when Mr. Putnam talked about the meeting with him as a compromise, he was promised a sketch plan and he did not have enough time to let the people know and they were left out of the process. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the matter is now before the Council and it has the proposal before it for a PUD which is effectively for the rezoning of the land. He asked what the rezoning is which is requested to take place. Attorney Hart responded that he has not studied the application for rezoning, but he presumes that the rezoning application will be consistent with the PUD. It is essentially PUD zoning in the area. With respect to the single family, it would be single family PUD, high density would be HR PUD, etc. Planner Dahlgren agreed, stating that the HR and MR PUD areas would stand on their own. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the Council approves the conditional use permit for PUD and the underlying zoning becomes whatever the units that are built in the area dictate. Mr. Dahlgren stated that the zoning for the portion of the comprehensive plan area where it shows MR can be zoned MR -PUD, the HR can be rezoned to the HR -PUD District, the PUD can allow the transfer of density across this but in this case the boundaries would be the same as they are on the comprehensive plan and they would conform to the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Cummins stated that now that it finally comes down to looking at what Council would be voting on tonight, Council does not have what it needs. He stated that he is reluctant to vote without some sort of specific document in front of him (on the rezoning), on which to base his vote. Page No. 2824 May 15, 1990 Councilmember Anderson, stated that regarding the Planner's report of April 24th, the City Planner set forth recommendations with conditions to be attached. Council must understand that it would be operating under the PUD drawing that was submitted to the Council by the developer and dated March 12, 1990, and the most recent preliminary plat which encompasses the area incorporated into the conditional use permit. Mayor Mertensotto asked that if the Council does not rezone but gives a conditional use permit for Planned Unit Development, when does Council impose conditions. Councilmember Blesener suggested that some refinement of the plan needs further consideration, but nevertheless agreed with the validity of the comprehensive plan amendments that have been done over the last several years. She did not agree that there have been significant enough changes and felt the proposal before Council conforms to all that was set forth in the comprehensive plan Amendment. The park is a bonus. She stated that she would like to put to rest some major issues so that design refinements can be addressed, and that she would like to deal with the density and park issues. She stated that she believes that the plan for 555 units is consistent with the comprehensive plan amendments and is acceptable. Also, that the park is a bonus and an excellent dedication that will serve the entire community and further that she feels Council should commit that this is a dedication the City wants. She proposed that Council deal with the rezoning to put a framework forward but not act on the conditional use permit this evening or the preliminary plan, both of which call for further review on design issues. She proposed that Council deal with the rezoning to put in place the basics. Mayor Mertensotto stated that what Councilmember Blesener is saying is that the concept is okay , that she approves single family east of the park, 280 condominiums in the center section and the changes in the transition zone that Mr. Putnam talked about. Councilmember Blesener stated that it is her opinion that the Council could come up with a Page No. 2825 May 15, 1990 list of design and planning and traffic flow issues but put to rest the density and park issues. She wanted to defer acting on the total plan but to make a decision on the total number of units that can be built there. Attorney Bannigan stated that if the developers had a finding as to the consistency of their plan versus the comprehensive plan, and a finding that the park as conceptually drawn is acceptable, they could refine the plan and bring it back to the Council. He stated that the developers must have some determination given that the density is consistent and the park proposal is consistent in order to proceed. They need direction they can consider consistent, otherwise the discussion will continue to go round and round on the issue. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is no developer's agreement or conditions, so Council cannot approve the conditional use permit, because the developers agreement and conditional use permit give the Council the opportunity to impose conditions. Councilmember Cummins stated that he thought that in 1985 Council made a good and reasoned decision on the basis of aircraft noise, the City's desire to acquire park land and traffic and he feels that same way this evening, that the Council made a good decision. He stated that he has spent much time talking to the residents on the phone and that he has been listening. He further stated that he is willing to support a finding that the plan generally conforms with the comprehensive plan, and that he thinks that the density changes Council has put in place are appropriate. He further stated that he was not in general agreement with the particular proposal presented. The most important point was the question of quality of the units being proposed. He stated that the current ordinance sets certain standards for planned unit developments, one of which is that they harmonize with the development in the area. His concern was that there are homes ranging in value from $175,000 to $400,000 in value, and he is not convinced that $60,000 condominiums which may in fact become rental and that he has a serious reservation that they will stand the test of time that the City Page No. 2826 May 15, 1990 has come to expect. He stated that as it presently stands, he thinks the density is appropriate but not that the project is consistent with the kind of quality that people have come to expect in Mendota Heights. Attorney Hart commented that to the extent there is any perception that the various attorneys disagreed as to the level of change in circumstance required for a comprehensive plan change, he agrees with Attorneys Bannigan and Duffy that the proper standard is "substantial and definite change." Councilmember Hartmann stated that he thinks that the density is appropriate. He further stated that he is the only member who has been on the Council since 1979 when the original comprehensive plan was adopted to the present time. There was a concerted effort to zone this part of the southeast area so that it would provide a diversity of housing, part of that direction coming from the Metropolitan Council, and to consider the air and freeway noise impact to the land. He stated that much time was spent to arrive at the 1985 comprehensive plan Amendment, and he felt that it is safe to assume that when Council looked at the sketch plan, they consciously approved" that plan, and he does not disagree with the density. Councilmember Anderson stated that, as the newest Council member with not much input on the matter in the past, if he had been on the Council in 1979 or more particularly 1985, he probably would not have voted for the amendment. He stated that he likes large lots. On the other hand, he is an attorney and he believes in the common law and the affect of precedent and does not think it is his responsibility to disregard what has transpired in the last decade, and that Council must act in good faith. He stated that City has relied on the comprehensive plan, and Council cannot just go back and change it as new neighborhoods develop. On one hand, he did not like the idea of high density, but on the other hand, the developers have worked with the City for a number of years on this project, they are good developers, and most of those present purchased their homes from these developers. He stated that Mr. Putnam and Centex have as Mayor Mertensotto stated that the developer has elected that the land east of the park land is single family, and that as far as he is concerned, the developer forfeits the density on that area, that he can not take that density and put it into another area. He further stated that someone said 1% of the land in the City will have 30% of the population, and he thought that is totally overcrowded and uncharacteristic of the community. He informed the audience that he was not on the Council when the comprehensive plan change was made in 1985. He felt -there has been substantial change in circumstances since that time and that he does not support the proposal at all. He felt that the matter should be tabled and that staff should prepare findings. Councilmember Cummins moved that the City Council find that the density in the proposal which has been submitted by Centex and the park proposal of the PUD before Council are appropriate and further move that Council re- refer the matter to the Planning Commission which should focus its attention on specific planning issues given the fact that the Council has endorsed the density proposed and the southeast area planning: those issues to address are: buffering on I-494 and Mendota Height$ Road by way of transition between multi -family and the single family across the road; impact of traffic exiting the area, specifically the realignment of exits from Kensington which cross into Hampshire, wetlands encroachment, specifically in those wetlands covered in the requested permit; redistribution of townhouses, manor homes and condominiums to provide a more suitable Page No. 2827 May 15, 1990 good a reputation as can be found, and the City Planner has given his recommendation. He pointed out that Council must provide some stability and some precedent. The issue is not rezoning or the PUD, the issue is really changing again the comprehensive plan, which t he felt is inappropriate. With respect to the affect on schools, many of the people in the high density area will not have big families and schools will not be adversely affected. He felt that it is not necessarily true that property values will be adversely affected. He believed Council should have integrity and stick with its earlier decision. . Mayor Mertensotto stated that the developer has elected that the land east of the park land is single family, and that as far as he is concerned, the developer forfeits the density on that area, that he can not take that density and put it into another area. He further stated that someone said 1% of the land in the City will have 30% of the population, and he thought that is totally overcrowded and uncharacteristic of the community. He informed the audience that he was not on the Council when the comprehensive plan change was made in 1985. He felt -there has been substantial change in circumstances since that time and that he does not support the proposal at all. He felt that the matter should be tabled and that staff should prepare findings. Councilmember Cummins moved that the City Council find that the density in the proposal which has been submitted by Centex and the park proposal of the PUD before Council are appropriate and further move that Council re- refer the matter to the Planning Commission which should focus its attention on specific planning issues given the fact that the Council has endorsed the density proposed and the southeast area planning: those issues to address are: buffering on I-494 and Mendota Height$ Road by way of transition between multi -family and the single family across the road; impact of traffic exiting the area, specifically the realignment of exits from Kensington which cross into Hampshire, wetlands encroachment, specifically in those wetlands covered in the requested permit; redistribution of townhouses, manor homes and condominiums to provide a more suitable Page No. 2828 May 15, 1990 distribution within the site; whether detached garages are appropriate in Mendota Heights and this proposal, including the provision of drawings by the developer of those detached garages; the issue of parking including the adequacy and appropriateness of the off-street parking scheme, including screening issues; quality of construction as proposed by the developer and compatibility with the existing housing within the southeast area; details of sidewalk and trail construction and location, including the composition of sidewalks and trails; adequacy of street right-of-way and cul-de-sac sizes; garbage storage issues raised by counsel for the neighbors; driveway easement; street access to the properties in the southeast of the southeast area, specifically access to the lots owned by the Kennedys and existing homes on Delaware; and the possibility of a limitation on long term rental on the condominiums and townhouses to be constructed in the area. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion upon agreement from Councilmember Cummins to include the following additional issues within the motion: the issue of quality of construction includes exterior materials proposed for the structure; the issue of garage setbacks from the right of way; the issue of public versus private streets; the planning issues raised in Mr. Duffy's letter dated May 15th Duffy letter identified as separate line items to be addressed; and the transition in the view from the Hampshire homes to the south, buffering, berming, etc. Discussion on the motion was as follows: Councilmember Anderson stated that he is not sure that the motion proposes to be a finding. He stated that if the Council states that the density is consistent with the comprehensive plan as amended in 1985, he would support it, but if there were an interest in truly amending the comprehensive plan at this point, he would support that. Councilmember Cummins stated he thinks the density decision Council made is appropriate and that when Council gets a PUD proposal presented that meets all the criteria that the City has for a PUD he would be willing to vote to rezone the property to allow the PUD to go Page No. 2829 May 15, 1990 forward. He felt that the PUD before Council is not sufficient and that a great many issues need still to be addressed by the Planning Commission and Council and that he would like the Planning Commission to look at those issues before Council takes a vote on rezoning. Councilmember Anderson stated that if the Council concedes that the density is consistent with the comprehensive plan, Council could go ahead with the rezoning as requested. If Council cannot do that, it seems the door is left open for amending the comprehensive plan, and he would support that if it were left open. If Council is not willing to do that, perhaps there is enough hesitancy that Council should rethink the whole concept of amending the comprehensive plan before making any decision tonight. He felt that Council should not ride the fence. Councilmember Cummins stated that the purpose of the motion was to indicate that there are at least four votes on the council in favor of endorsing the comprehensive plan as it presently exists and the density it implies in the Southeast Area. He thought that it might be premature to change the zoning until the PUD is in shape for approval. Councilmember Hartmann asked if the motion is a finding that the proposed PUD before Council is consistent with what is required. Councilmember Cummins responded that it is specifically a finding that the proposal the developers have given the Council on the density and park land issues conforms to the wishes of the Council. The purpose of the motion is to let the people know that density is not for discussion. Councilmember Blesener stated that further, it endorses the comprehensive plan currently in place, that Council goes on record that the density conforms with the 1985 comprehensive plan amendment. Councilmember Anderson stated that if Council makes that finding, they are locked into it, if that position is taken, Council is telling the people that the Council does not see a significant departure from the standard past Page No. 2830 May 15, 1990 five years ago. Council would be standing behind the comprehensive plan amendment done in 1985. Councilmember Cummins stated that his intent is to say that the Council stands behind the comprehensive plan as amended, as it stands today. Councilmember Blesener stated that Council must make it clear that they are not interested in amending the comprehensive plan and more particularly that the number of units on this proposal is what the Council is ready to deal with, it is less than what is allowed. She stated that she is also trying to make it clear that the developers are not obligated to continue to reduce the density because any reductions would still conform to the comprehensive plan. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he thinks the motion is improper and out of order, that there is no precedent under statute or in City ordinances to proceed in this manner. He stated that the application is in for approval of conditional use permit for Planned Unit Development and rezoning and wetlands permit, etc. He felt that it is not appropriate to make a finding and send it back to the Planning Commission. City Attorney Hart responded that the Zoning Ordinance certainly allows Council to send the matter back to Planning Commission for further findings and investigation and to direct them to focus their attention on the issues that Councilmembers Blesener and Cummins have raised. Councilmember Anderson stated that it takes four/fifths of the Council to amend the comprehensive plan, and that Council must make it very clear that they are not going to do that. Attorney Hart stated that the intent of the motion is to focus the attention of the Planning Commission away from the issue of density for the sake of density and to specifically address the planning issues raised by the citizens and their representative. Page No. 2831 May 15, 1990 Councilmember Cummins agreed, stating that the Planning Commission got lost in the density issues and did not consider the planning issues. The intent is to send the matter back to the Planning Commission with the direction that density is not at issue but that Council wants them to deal with the specific issues raised. He stated that Council must let all parties know that the density issue has been resolved and that Council supports the comprehensive plan, the park land dedication, and the number of units as shown. Councilmember Anderson stated that Council does not want to limit the Commission's considerations, but if the motion intends that the Council stands behind the comprehensive plan and that the density is consistent with the comprehensive plan and Commission must look at planning issues, he can support the motion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he does not consent to the density and cannot support the motion. Mayor Mertensotto called for a vote on the motion. VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 - Mertensotto SIBLEY PARK PLANS AND Council acknowledged a report from Public COMFORT STATION Works Director Danielson along with Sibley Park plans and Sibley Park comfort station design, along with a preliminary cost analysis for the comfort station. Mayor Mertensotto asked how much equipment will be stored in the comfort station. He felt that $50,000 seems to be very high for a 500 square foot building. He stated that Council needs to know why the cost is so high for what amounts to a storage building with two bathrooms. Councilmember Blesener pointed out that it is a very basic building and did not feel there is anything that could be changed to save money. Park Commission Chair John Huber stated that Kodet Architects have indicated the structure ADJOURN Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor Page No. 2832 May 15, 1990 could be built much cheaper with wood rather than block, but did not recommend this change. Administrator Lawell informed Council that one of the items Council had changed in the architectural contract was the removal of the waiver of liability clause. Kodet has objected to removal of the clause and has not signed the contract. Councilmember Blesener asked why Kodet has not agreed and pointed out that the plans are ready to go out for bid. She suggested that staff deal with the architect over the contract terms and to notify Kodet that no payment will be made to them until the contract is signed. Administrative Assistant Batchelder informed the Council that timing on construction of the park is critical and recommended that staff be authorized to take bids for the park construction. It was Council consensus that the comfort station plan be tabled and that staff be directed to try to resolve the contract issue. Councilmember Blesener stated that if Kodet refuses to agree to the contract language, staff should contact other firms for quotes for design. Councilmember Blesener moved to approve the Sibley Park design and to authorize staff to accept bids for construction of the park, not including the comfort station. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Hartmann moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 1:05 o'clock A.M. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk v ... Page No. 2778 May 15, 1990 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Continued Board of Review Meeting Held Tuesday, May 15 ,1990 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the continued meeting of the Board of Review, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 8:00 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 8:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Anderson, Blesener, Cummins and Hartmann. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Hartmann moved approval of the minutes of the May 2nd Review Board meeting. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 DISCUSSION Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that County Assessor Marvin Pulju and Bill Peterson from the Assessor's Officer were present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he feels the residents of the Furlong Addition are entitled to reduced market values because of the problems they are experiencing in finding that their property is not marketable, problems perceived to be due to the on-site disposal systems. He stated that the County Assessor has agreed to reducing values if the Council adopts a resolution requesting such action. Mayor Mertensotto acknowledged a proposed resolution which would request a reduction in land values by a maximum of $5,000 to a minimum of $1,000 in value, and a reduction in the assessors market value for structures and other improvements of up to 10% due to curable, functional obsolescence, the total reduction not to exceed $15,000, independent of any other reduction in market value to which the owners may be entitled. He explained that the curable functional obsolescence relates to on-site systems which could be replaced with municipal systems - if this were occur, the conditions would be cured. Council acknowledged a tentative list of valuation changes, prepared by the Assessor's Office, which would result if the resolution -41, 'AW Page No. 2779 May 15, 1990 is adopted and submitted to the County Assessor. Councilmember Blesener stated that she has a problem with the proposed resolution, because she firmly believes that the neighborhood should be bought out sometime and when the buyout becomes possible it will be starting from a lower base. She stated that she would like to have the opportunity for further information and feedback from the neighborhood. She expressed concern over the long term plans of the City, which she believes would be to buy out the neighborhood in the future - the neighborhood would be worth less if the valuation reductions occur. City Attorney Hart stated that the issue before the Board of Review involves the reduction in value for tax purposes, not for buy out purposes. If the City were to buy out in the future, the question would be the value at that time. He stated that the Assessor's Market Value is not controlling: the residents would have every opportunity to have an appraisal and the City would have to show by then -current valuations what the property value is. He reiterated that the County's market value is not controlling in any way with respect to buy out but rather that it would hopefully result in property tax savings for the property owners. Councilmember Blesener suggested that a fifth condition be added to the resolution: the reduction in market values should not impact any future negotiations for buyout. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he has no objection to the proposed condition. Councilmember Anderson stated that he feels that the condition is redundant since the City Attorney has indicated that the action proposed would have no great bearing on the sale value of the properties. He stated that Council is trying to do the property owners a favor, and that if the condition proposed by Councilmember Blesener is needed to carry the motion, he would support it. Attorney Hart stated that in addition, if any of the residents feel that their property values are being reduced too much, they are free to ask the Assessor to raise them. Mayor Page No. 2780 May 15, 1990 Mertensotto pointed out that the residents also could refuse to accept the change. Councilmember Anderson moved adoption of Resolution No. 90-28, "RESOLUTION REQUESTING DAKOTA COUNTY TO REDUCE PROPERTY MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE FURLONG'S ADDITION OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS," as amended to include a fifth condition stipulating that the reduction in market values should not impact any future negotiations for buyout. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board of Review, Councilmember Hartmann moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Anderson seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 8:12 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor thleen M. Swanson City Clerk 1990 MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOARD OF REVIEW CHANGES PARCEL ID NAME 27-28400-080-01 MADAN 27-28400-010-02 KOPPEN 27-28400-020-02 HSIAO 27-28400-040-02 GOODIJOHN "27-28400-051-02 GOODIJOHN 27-28400-060-02 FURLONG 27-28400-070-02 LYNCH 27-28400-091-02 BIESSENE 27-28400-111-02 BERSKOW 27-28400-112-02 BERSKOW 27-28400-010-03 TOUSIGNANT 27-28400-021-03 TOUSIGNANT 27-28400-032-03 HINER 27-28400-042-03 HINER 27-28400-070-03 DOFFING 27-28400-090-03 GEIER 27-28400-110-03 CITY MENDOTA HGTS 27-28400-120-03 KRENZ 27-28400-010-04 SCHWARTZ 27-28400-030-04 SWANSON 27-28400-050-04 BELL 27-28400-060-04 SPERLE 27-28400-080-04 CITY MENDOTA HGTS 4i' ORGINAL EMV CORRECTED EMV REDUCTION AMOUNT NO CHANGE 104,900 90,500 -14,400 74,700 62,900 -11,800 13,100. 8,.100 -5,000 87,500 741600 -12,900 101,900 65,900 REVIEW DONE -36,000 40,000 32,000 -8,000 84,600 72,200 -12,400 98,900 84,700 -14,200 78,600 66,900 -11,701, 137,200 118,200 REVIEW DONE -19,000 5,900 3,900 -5,000 116,100 101,500 -14,600 8,900 3,900 -5,000 168,900 155,200 -13,700 65,000 55,100 -9,900 73,900 63,800 -10,100 11,000 6,000 -5,000 128,600 113,900 -14,700 100,600 86,700 -13,900 85,200 72,700 --12,500 91,800 79,200 -12,60( 76,500 66,000 -10,500 PARCEL ID NAME ORIGINAL EMV CORRECTED EMV REDUCTION AMOUNT 27-28400-090-04 RICHGELS 93,100 79,200 -13,900 27-28400-110-04 LYSNE 96,100 82,900 -13,200 27-28400-130-04 GRIEP 74,500 62,700 -11,800 27-28400-131-04 LALLIER 1,700 1,000 -700 27-28400-140-04 LALLIER 90,500 77,300 -13,200 27-28400-151-04 LALLIER 1,100 1,000 -100 27-28400-161-04 LECLAIRE 74,700 64,400 -10,300 27-28400-170-04 BREDVOLD 96,600 82,700 -13,900 2' ''8400-171-04 HILL 54,000 45,200 -8,800 27-28400-010-05 FRAZIER 59,100 49,600 -9,500 27-28400-020-05 MAX 52,800 43,800 -9,000 27-28400-040-05 COMPTON 93,200 79,200 -14,000 27-28400-050-05 STEIN 68,900 58,000 -10,900 27-28400-070-05 DERKS 92,200 79,100 -13,100 27-28400-090-05 STATE OF MN 15,300 10,300 -5,000 MEMO Date: 5-25-90 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Building Activity Report for May 1990 CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE 90 YEAR TO DATE 89 BUILDING PERMITS: No. Valuation Fee Collected No. Valuation Fee Collected No. Valuation Fee Collected SFD 9 1,561,708.00 13,252.82 30 5,051,712.00 43,001.72 27 4,160,042.00 36,984.82 APT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOWNHOUSE 3 423,301.00 3,830.48 5 638,665.00 6,023.34 5 821,235.00 7,041 21 CONDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1,500,000.00 7,490.18 MISC. 17 111,387.00 2,336.20 79 618,382.00 11,073.23 69 550,489.00 10,100.54 C/I 3 294,150.00 2,361.35 11 374,574.00 3,855.43 12 1,454,973.00 9,961.17 ------------ ----------------------------+------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Sub Total 32 2,390,546.00 21,780.85 125 6,683,333.00 63,953.72 120 8,486,739.00 71,577.92 TRADE PERMITS• Plumbing 10 577.00 47 1,880.00 42 1,194.00 Water 8 40.00 33 165.00 34 170.00 Sewer 5 87.50 33 577.50 22 385.00 Heat, AC, & Gas 12 666.25 59 3,628.85 56 6,799.00 -------------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Sub Total 35 1,370.75 172 6,251.35 154 8,548.00 Licensing• Contractor's Licenses 38 950.00 307 7,675.00 339 8,475.00 -------------------------------------------+----------------------------- ----+------------------------------------ Total 105 2,390,546.00 24,101.60 1 604 6,683,333.00 77,880.07 1 613 8,486,739.00 88,600.92 NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac, and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee, and valuation amounts. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 22, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Lawrence E. Shaughnessy, Jr., Treasurer SUBJECT: Budget Time Line During the next couple of weeks, staff will begin work on the 1991 Budget. This might seem a bit early, however under the Truth in Taxation Law, we will have to adopt a preliminary levy by August 21st. We would like to have any particular items of comment from each Councilmember as soon as possible. Some new items will appear such as increased park maintenance and operation. From a preliminary estimate by the MWCC, we will not be looking at an increase in sewer rates next year. Please try and list any priority items which you would like to see addressed in the new budget along with any items or activities which could be reduced or eliminated. We do not expect a material increase in our levy limit of $2,001,000. We can expect 3 percent or so. A little publicized change in the new tax will not give us our population or household growth for levy limit purposes in 1991. We will still be free to make special levies for debt. The bottom line makes for a very tight budget with some programs being cut back and others expanded very little. Please try to get your responses back by June 15th so we can have the Department Heads work them into the proposed budgets. Attached is a copy of the proposed schedule of work on the budget. LES:kkb TIME LINE FOR BUDGET 1. Set Hearing Date and Adopt Preliminary Levy - 8/21 2. Certify Preliminary Levy - 9/1 6/1/90 Request Council Budget Requests 6/15 Distribute Forms to Department Heads 7/6 Forms Back to Kathy 7/16-20 Meet with Department Heads 7/27 Prepare Draft Budget 8/1 Revenue Projection and Levy Limits from State 8/15 Council Workshop 8/21 Adopt Preliminary Budget Levy and Set Hearing 9/1 Certify Preliminary Levy 11/20 11/27 12/4 Tuesdays for Hearing 12/11 12/18 (The School District and Dakota County also Set Tuesdays and get First Choice) r CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 29, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Leave of Absence Request INTRODUCTION The City's Personnel Code provides for unpaid leaves of absence for City employees, subject to approval of the City Council. The purpose of this memo is to recommend Council approval of a maternity leave request from Receptionist Maria Karels. INFORMATION Maria is expecting her baby approximately July 10th. She plans to work to as close to the day the baby is born as possible, at which time she would like to take a three month unpaid leave. If everything goes well, Maria will return to work in mid-October. Rita Dolan has agreed to assist us during Maria's absence. Rita has been a part-time employee for the past two years. For various reasons, we use Rita's services in time blocks during the year rather than twenty hours per week all year. Rita would normally have worked from mid-June through November this year because the next several months will be very busy with election preparation, budgeting, zoning ordinance recodification, etc. Because of Maria's absence, it may be necessary to find additional part-time help during the summer months. The savings in Maria's salary and the $9,000 budgeted for part-time personnel for Administration will be more than sufficient to cover costs. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that Council approve Maria Karels' request for a three month unpaid maternity leave. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs in the recommendation, it should pass a motion to approve a three-month unpaid maternity leave of absence for Maria Karels. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 21, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administ�a e-4 FROM: Klayton H. Eckles `"'�� Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Update on Mendota Woods (Patrick) Subdivision Job 8922 Imp. 89-07 DISCUSSION Council ordered Staff to begin preparation of Plans and Specifications subject to receiving a signed Developer's Agreement. Attached is a signed Developer's Agreement for Council review. If the Developer's Agreement is acceptable, Staff would like to begin preliminary design and field investigations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council accept and approve the attached Developer's Agreement for Mendota Woods Subdivision. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with Staff's recommendation, Council should pass a motion approving the attached Developer's Agreement. ��..;. CONTRACT FOR SINGLE,FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Job No. 8922 Imp. No. 89-7 This Agreement, made and entered into this 6&- day of 1990, by and between the City of Mendota Heights, Ddkoth County, Minnesota, (hereinafter called the "City") and Stephen and Jana Patrick, 737 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 and'Bill Lentsch,4J98 North Dale, St. Paul, MN 55117 (hereinafter called the "Developer"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Developer proposes a plat for a single family develop- ment in Mendota Heights to be known as Mendota Woods, consisting of 11 single family -lots on approximately 13 acres located south of Mendota Heights Road,;.east of Dodd Road; and WHEREAS,`public services are needed by the Developer from Mendota Heights in order to proceed with said development. NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the two parties as follows: 1. In the event that the City initiates litigation to enforce performance of the Developer's obligations hereunder, the City shall be entitled to reimbursement of all costs and attorney fees incurred in connection therewith, whether incurred prior to or after entry of judgment. 2. Developer will petition the City for needed public improve- ments (Sanitary Sewer, Storm Sewer, Watermains, and. Streets). Developer agrees to:pay $1650:00 escrow 'to the City as per Ordinance No. 1503. Escrow to be refunded upon successful completion of a project. 3. Developer will provide at'no cost to the City all needed temporary construction easements to install said improve- ments and those permanent, right of way and easements, necessary for said public improvements. 4. Developer will proceed immediately to couffAssion a regis- tered land surveyor to place and maintain enough 1,ot co3_ners so that street center lines and all utilities can be located by City staff. 1 5. Developer acknowledges that there will be park contribution due to the City as per Ordinance No. 301, Section 6 as amended by Resolution 80- 16. That contribution, is to be $600 per lot or $6,000.00 and is payable at the time the Mayor signs the final plat. 6. City agrees to complete the street and boulevard grading and -«. the Developer or lot owner shall complete the..grading of individual lots. 7. Grading operations may be completed in phases (i.e. individ- ual lots) by the Developer/Homebuilder. Each lot must be submitted for approval. To gain approval, the Developer/Homebuilder provide a grading plan that shows at a;minimum erosion control measures, the existing and pro- posed lot corner elevations, elevations for garage floor and first floor, and elevations for all breaks in grade for each lot. Also a $1,000 escrow shall accompany each phase plan. Any change in a phase of the grading shall require reapprov al. The escrow shall be returned upon satisfactory comple- tion of the grading operations. The Developer agrees to notify Lot Owners/Homebuilders of these requirements. 8. If and when there is an excessive buildup of mud or dirt on existing City streets as'a result of building operations, the Developer shall have the affected streets swept'by mechanical means, at the direction of the City. 9. The Developer/Homebuilder will be responsible for repairing damage to public utilities incurred as a result of building construction or private utility installation. Therefore the Developer shall notify the Homebuilder/Lot Owner at the time of sale of a lot of this stipulation. 10. It is the City's desire to cause the least amount of dis- turbance to the existing stand of oak trees on the site. The City has commissioned an oak wilt specialist to provide r.c�.commendations-for protecting the oak trees -during grading operations and construction. The Developer agrees to follow these recommendations in all activities on the site, and agrees to notify new lot owners and/or homebuilders of these recommendations. 11., The Developer agrees to include notifications of aircraft noise attenuation construction requirements in the restric- tive covenants on all lots in the subdivision. All homes in subdivsion must be built to the City's S.T.C. Code Require- ments.The Developer shall provide a copy of these covenants to the City for review at the time the final plat is signed bj, the Mayor. 12. If at anytime the Developer is not in compliance with this agreement, the City reserves the right to correct the areas of non-compliance after giving the Developer 48 hours no- tice. All costs associated with making the corrections shall be charged to the Developer. 13. As the Developer actually consists of several individuals with varying degrees of involvement, the Developer shall designate one person as the legal Developer Representative. The Developer Representative is assumed to represent the interest of the Developers, and the City shall take actions" accordingly. The City will direct all questions, informa- tion and requirements to the Developer Representative. Notification to the Developer Representative shall be,con- sidered notification to the•Developer as a whole. The City will not act on Developer's request that has not been pre- sented via the Developer Representative. The official Developer Representative is listed below. If the Developer wishes to redesignate the Developer Representative a notifi- cation signed by all those persons signing the Developer's Agreement stating this fact shall be delivered to the City. DESIGNATED DEVELOPER REPRESENTATIVE (P' se Pr (S a u e) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor M. Thomas Lawell, City Administrator DEVELOPERS. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 1, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Di r SUBJECT: Victoria Highla ds 7th Addition Plat Correction DISCUSSION• The surveyor who prepared the Victoria Highlands 7th Addition plat made an error on a bearing. That error now needs to be correct- ed. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that the Victoria Highlands plat be corrected as proposed. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation they should pass a motion authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to execute the attached Certificate of Correction. M LAND SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION TO PLAT Name of Plat: VICTORIA HIGHLANDS 7TH ADDITION. Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 505.174 Laws of Minnesota, 1957, John C. Larson, the undersigned, a registered Land Surveyor in and for the State of Minnesota, described as follows: 1. That I prepared the plat of VICTORIA HIGHLANDS 7TH ADDITION dated*September 27, 1989 and filed on October 17, 1989 in the office of County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, Document No. 908422. 2. That said plat contains errors, omissions, or defects in the following particulars, to -wit: The southeasterly line of Lot 1, which has a distance of 28.84 feet, has an incorrect bearing of South 18 degrees 15 minutes 49 seconds East. 3. That said plat is hereby corrected in the following particular, to -wit: The bearing of the southeasterly line of Lot 1 is South 18 degrees 15 minutes 49 seconds West. S-1¢-570 Dated John C. Larson, Registered Land Surveyor No. 19828, State of Minnesota The above Certificate of Correction to the plat of VICTORIA HIGHLANDS 7TH ADDITION has been approved by the City Council of Mendota Heights at a. regular meeting of City Council of Mendota Heights, Minnesota held on the day of , 19 Mayor Clerk This Certificate of Correction has been checked and approved this day of , 19 By Gary H. Stevenson, Dakota County Surveyor 1 • nnimTHAfr VJRJWr TU . 3 �F_ � a• + Ames R. Hili inc � VIII F�qa. 7 �� S � a � oa Z Pumse i Mwmm i SUFivErv+34 ..r�naa.ano�wmia raw.waw.e� • n 1 lie fill' o1 i �F_ � a• + a � i� �� F�qa. 7 �� S � a � oa SwF�c; Sir 11,11 1I �.4 it i€t. .' i S .F �x r �� t •�I e; to . 2 r r z n . o1 i CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 30, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Modified CAO Site Plan DISCUSSION Monty Girard Homes is proposing to construct a new home on Lot 1, Block 2, Val Is Addition (1140 Orchard Circle). The property on which he proposes to construct a home falls within the boundary of the Critical Area Ordinance. Staff is in agreement with Mr. Girard's letter of request (see attached). The lot he is going to construct is virtually flat and there aren't any 40 percent slopes for a vast amount of distance. Staff recommends that 1) the modified site plan for the CAO be approved and 2) the $100.00 application fee be waived as'requested by Mr. Girard. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council wishes to implement staff's two part recommendation it should pass a motion of approval. Monty Girard Homes 4100 Irvin Circle North • Lake Elmo, MN 55042 • (612) 777-0883 City Council of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 May 22, 1990 RE: Lot 1, Block 2 Val's Addition Council Members My firm is requesting a critical area variance for Lot 1, Block 2 Val's Addition. I also am requesting that you waive the $100.00 application fee, as the lot in question is a vast distance from any steep slopes. Thank you for ,your time and consideration in this . matter. Monty i and Monty G rard Homes mg/rg nAiiA City of 1Viendota Heights Applicant Name: APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST (Last) Case No.C/10 90-03 Date of Application - Fee Paid 100 OO Ga In VFW u ) all Address: ''Nl00 MQVI n Circ\� �a4rl1-� �.a�',� \rno P\h 5,15o (Number & Street) \(City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: �0 S Sh_r � \ Ike_ ( V E - (Last) (First) (N1I) Address: �3�s gcnt)N\-RsT �Qa�►.� r SS\\ (0 (Number & Street) (City) (State) Q (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description of Property: 1-ts't bNc�cX Type of Request: Rezoning Variance Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Plan Approval Other (attach explanation) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Section Present Zoning of Property ,�. Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property.: Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. o (Signature of A i t) U (Date) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN - 55118 452.1850 City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 90 - RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR SOMERSET OAKS WHEREAS, a final plat for Somerset Oaks has been submitted to the Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said final plat. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the final plat of Somerset Oaks submitted at this meeting is hereby approved. 2. That the appropriate City officials be and they are hereby authorized to execute the final plat on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of June, 1990. ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk i CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 1, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Adminis r �+ FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Somerset Oaks Final Plat DISCUSSION• Attached is the final plat as submitted by Mr. Jim Gesel for his Somerset Oaks subdivision. The subdivision is located east of Dodd Road within the Super block. The final plat conforms to the prelimi- nary plat previously approved by Council and includes the 30 foot utility easement along the south line of Lot 1 as was a condition of the preliminary plat approval. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends approval of the Somerset Oaks final plat as submitted subject to the receipt of the standard $600 per lot park contribution. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 90- , RESOLUTION AP- PROVING FINAL PLAT FOR SOMERSET OAKS. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 21, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator FROM: Klayton H. Eckles Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Acceptance of BARR Engineering Agreement for completion of a Storm Water Management Plan Job 8912 DISCUSSION Council ordered Staff to prepare an agreement with BARR Engineering for the completion of a Local Watershed Storm Water Management Plan. By state statutes Mendota Heights must have one completed by August of 1991. Proposals were accepted and Council elected to award the project to BARR based on a bid not to exceed $39,000. The attached agreement is included for Council review and approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council take action to enter into the attached agreement with BARR Engineering for the completion of a Local Storm Water Management Plan. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with Staff's recommendation, Council should pass a motion approving the attached agreement. AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES This Agreement between Barr Engineering Co. (BARR) and the City of Mendota Heights (CITY) concerns engineering consulting services which BARR will perform, from time to time, at the written request of the CITY. BARR agrees to furnish all supervision, skills, labor, materials, supplies, tools, equipment, apparatus, facilities, transportation, and all other things necessary to perform any work properly requested by the CITY and undertaken by BARR. The CITY can request work under this Agreement only in writing, through an Activating Letter signed by an official of the CITY. Said Activating Letter may, at the CITY's option, be a properly countersigned letter of proposal from BARR. If the CITY provides BARR with an Activating Letter, BARR will accept or reject the requested work promptly and in writing. If BARR accepts, BARR will begin the work within seven (7) days of accepting. BARR will schedule and complete requested work so as to meet applicable schedules to which the CITY is obligated under applicable federal, state, and local statues and regulations, and any permits, licenses, approvals, orders, or other requirements of any governmental entity or agency of which BARR has been made aware at the time of receipt of the Activating Letter. BARR is not, however, responsible for delays due to acts of God or other causes beyond BARR's control. The CITY will pay BARR for the work performed under this Agreement on the basis of BARR's standard fee schedule in effect when the work is performed. BARR will notify the CITY of any changes to the fee schedule. The CITY will also reimburse BARR, without markup, for certain out-of-pocket 2319165/MHO416.CON/TMK 1 expenses (such as travel and long-distance telephone) which BARR incurs to third parties in performing this Agreement. BARR will include a five percent (5%) markup on all subcontracts for professional and construction services (such as technical consultants, well construction, and testing). At the CITY's option, BARR will prepare subcontract documents for execution by the CITY, and no markup will apply to the value of such services. BARR will invoice the CITY approximately monthly for time, reimbursable expenses, and subcontracted expenses. Upon request, BARR will document each invoice with copies of invoices from third parties and with daily time sheet's for BARR employees. Each invoice is payable within thirty (30) days of the CITY's receipt of the invoice and proper requested documentation. This Agreement takes effect when the CITY signs this letter and continues in effect until either BARR or the CITY terminates said Agreement by sending a written notice. This Agreement cannot be terminated, however, while BARR is performing work under an Activating Letter unless BARR has first been given notice by the CITY to stop work as provided below. The CITY can stop any work requested by an Activating Letter by sending BARR a written notice. The notice takes effect when BARR.receives it. If BARR receives a notice to stop work, BARR will immediately cancel every outstanding order for work and materials which can be cancelled. Any materials already delivered but not yet used, and any material orders which cannot be cancelled become the CITY's property. Within thirty (30) days of receiving a notice to stop work, BARR will submit a final invoice together with appropriate supporting documents. Within thirty (30) days of receiving the final invoice and proper documentation, the CITY will pay the amount due. The CITY agrees to indemnify and save harmless BARR, its officers, employees, and agents from and against any liabilities, penalties, fines, and expense (Including reasonable attorney's fees and other costs and expenses of litigation) which BARR may hereinafter incur as a result of bodily 2319165/MH0416.CON/TMK 2 if, injuries (including death) to any person, damage to any property (public or private), adverse effects on the environment, or any violation of statutes, ordinances, orders, rules or regulations of any governmental entity or agency, caused by or arising out of the work described in an Activating Letter, except to the extent caused by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct, either active or passive, of BARB, its officers, employees, representatives, subcontractors, or agents in the performance of this Agreement. Except as provided above, and up to the limit of applicable insurance, BARR agrees to indemnify and save harmless the CITY and its respective officers, agents, and employees for any liability and expense (including reasonable attorney fees and other costs and expense of litigation) with respect to: (1) Workers' Compensation benefits payable on account of injury or death to BARR's employee(s) arising out of and during the course of their performance of work or services pursuant to this Agreement; (2) claims for bodily injury or death or property loss or damage sustained by any person, except to the extent caused by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct, either active or passive, of the CITY, its agents, servants, or employees; and (3) any fines, penalties, or expenses that may be imposed upon the CITY under federal, states, or local laws and regulations, or pursuant to any permit, license, approval, order, or other requirement of any governmental entity or agency to the extent caused (a) by delays attributable to BARR which are not beyond BARR's control, or (b) by any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct, either active or passive, of BARR, its officers, employees, representatives, subcontractors, or agents. BARR agrees to provide a minimum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) contractual liability insurance coverage as to the indemnity provision stated in this paragraph. BARR will obtain the following minimum insurance coverage and maintain it at all times throughout the life of this Agreement. ' BARR will file certificates of insurance with the CITY upon request. 2319165/MHO416.CON/TMK 3 1. Public liability and property damage insurance to cover' personal injuries, including death, up to at least $250,000 for each person, $500,000 for each occurrence, and property damage up to at least $500,000 for each occurrence. 2. Contractual liability insurance coverage as to BARR's indemnity obligations. 3. Automobile public liability and property damage insurance to cover personal injuries, including death, up to at least $250,000 for each person, $500,000 for each occurrence, and property damage up to at least $100,000 for each occurrence. 4. Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance as required by law. BARR enters into this Agreement and will work as an independent contractor. The people BARR engages to perform work in connection with this Agreement are not for any purposes the employees or agents of the CITY. BARR represents that it is an equal opportunity employer with an approved Affirmative Action Plan. BARR may not assign any of its rights or delegate any of its duties under this Agreement without first getting the CITY's permission in writing. 2319165/MHO416.CON/TMK 4 This Agreement states the complete agreement between BARR and CITY. This Agreement replaces all previous communications, statements, representatives, and understandings, whether written or oral. BARR ENGINEERING CO. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Dennis E. Palmer Vice President Date 2319165/MH0416.CON/TMK 5 By Title By Title Date Of Engineering Company 103 Glenroy Road ,knneapolis, MN 55439-3123 612/830-0555 612/835-0186 (Facsimile) April 18, 1990 Mr. James Danielson Director of Public Works City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Activating Letter Stormwater Management Plan This is an Activating Letter under the terms of our Agreement dated 19 When countersigned, this letter authorizes Barr to proceed with the work described on pages 1-2 through 1-10 and 1-12 of their proposal of October 31, 1989; copies of the referenced pages are attached and made a part of this Activating Letter as Exhibit A. The schedule. therein. shall be adjusted..to begin in May 1990, and end in August 1991. Barr's current fee schedules are attached as Exhibit B and Exhibit C, as required by the Letter of Agreement. Dennis E. Palmer Vice President Accepted , 1990 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By DEP/tmk Attachments 2319165/JD0416.LTR EXHIBIT A WORK PLAN The following pages describe the work plan and methods Barr Engineering proposes for preparing a Water Resources Management Plan for the City of Mendota Heights. The proposed work plan was prepared based on our understanding of the work, and closely follows the August 17, 1989 scope of work developed by the City and the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD). The major work tasks presented here are generally the same as the "milestones" listed in the scope of work. Maior Work Tasks 1. Review of Environment and Land Use 2. Hydrologic Inventory 3. Drainage System Capacity Analysis 4. Water Body Inventory and Water Quality Classification 5. Groundwater Assessment 6. Management Alternatives and Strategies 7. Draft Management Plan and Public Participation 8. Final Management Plan Minor changes were made in our work plan when hydrologic methods used at Barr Engineering differ from those used at SWCD. These differences are pointed out as they occur in, this proposal. The work tasks are described on the following pages. The proposed project team is listed on page 11, and the proposed schedule and cost are discussed on page 12. The qualifications and experience of the project team and the company in general are described in the next tabbed section. Resumes of the project team are provided at the end of this proposal. Page 1.2 LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL JUNE 5, 1990 Asphalt Licenses Ace Blacktop, Inc. Pioneer Blacktop, Inc. Gas Piping Licenses Five Star Plumbing, Inc. Wm. F. Ridley Plumbing & Heating General Contractors Licenses B & B Builders Decks, Etc. Falcon Fire Protection, Inc. Fenc-Co, Inc. Gilbert Mechanical John Beissel, Inc. Lecy Construction, Inc. liberty Construction, Inc. Mankato Plmb. & Htg., Inc. Modern Design Fencing & Manuf., Inc. Nedegaard Construction Co., Inc. North American Framing, Inc. North Pine Aggregate, Inc. T.M. Kearney Construction, Inc. Excavating Licenses Metro Contracting, Inc. Murr Plumbing, Inc. Concrete Licenses Grand Construction Co. Neisen Concrete Co. June 5, 1990 TO: Mayor and City Council CLAIMS LIST SUMMARY: Total Claims $ 87,281.64 Significant Claims Barton Aschman.Park plans 6,958'.73 LaHass Truck -equip 7,599.18 MWCC Monthly chg 30,496.66 Unusual Claims Peat Marwick Auditor 11,000.00 X 0 � N to 1� co col -111't I j rn Q "i i; rl r) to zi t Cl m! at 0 rb D V 1, 0 t r rr, r) (A I Ln �4 -4 -4 1 MX. L ib x rb rA % & , . Is 1 1 -4 1 -4 �4 -4 ID to ig TD to ti ZI to -D 10 ry ID 01 lb ID lb 0 fil 0 VI M 61 iY r) r) ro V rO tot' C iJ j+ "A r� lb Zs lb LO to 01 4 1 In ul Z, Z 0 kn -�l I 11) D !L. ,u tu I '1) 0 In Ul 1 V Cli 13 1� co col -111't I j rn Q "i i; rl r) zi 1� co col -111't t Cl t 3 Z � 1� co col -111't t+ ' V.. AJ9 A tit t O tl p V OF N 92+ 0 0 0 J ONl ONI A fN.l N N O W p' V p N A 41 N+ O m p J p N A tJ N _y @j r ,' j s � 5 ✓ - ,� � f %e.. � -f� ,,. R ,.�..' � Ft{ � D r) 7 V� y � '"R�.'1�, 7 ; K 5r ?3i w ry0, zrx Ul 91 OL7 -1 Y�# ro y c. Y -1 Y, S �t rt K rb rD a To KI v a I vi n: xx s x m x wz axe� Lrl rl -, - m ,tf roS a ct to i wtq }:lb x 3, 9D ro n� r x• r W r.� c U g n 0 n A S z• n F t m lbr m Tj °� .> a t+ •, � . is < , n .`: w n t Tt IA 93 4 C.LL I u C 4 C�0 Vl v .. o rJ } Cq [S 'i„tl f N. u b V! rV r0 • . y r k !t" Vii, . { 5. N A N+ O b p J p fJ N+ m p J p N A Y N+ N 0! J 0 N A Y N+ O 10 p V p N A N N+ O C N p V p N A 41 N+ - �, `• 0- 0 n..0' . O O' O°r ©:. r® 0 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 4 t_ ; 1 ,(0,�1 N N J N N m m m A W N m m O b pp. A pp Ol J 01 A m A W A A N O W b Of V m m A W N O b m V m N A W N O MT;; 0 m V m N A W N= O W W V N N A W N+ lb y N rs�l cl -4 FB s `V '•I .; Q 0 1 r0 rd P 0 ro I roa a I r V i 1-0 ,. I ro ryJ} ry J n 5 i rJ 1 J v ro tG r) V ' 1 ( �(V 1 7 a I m W 1 ! f& 1 1 C3 rt ^I j V G4 C3 rl tt CI 1 .1 w i u � :7 y 7 :g x 05x 0 x N �w"N r) w x x n a I a c x 5 J ro a. w rD 4 II N 1 n ri 0 h C1 : �7 U �, , [1 T I'1 ', 7 it U i i>S. C 1 7 Z73 i 1n �� n` x x x z er 0 x i� � A ro s 5 Q U <7 r1 a ro i ro ro rf,ro f v u5Cv � RI 5 w C 5 [J g5 C4 I� C0 . C➢ +� C4 r 6 i, 4 Gl i1 41Gt lJ G+. FA W GI a GI S w' CJ a as u tJ , ;s rh 5 CI 1 5 5•- 4 51 g 5 W 0 �g t 5 5 rg 5, 5 yt r! i 5 >~ n3- ,..� v \+ ! Grp � jjj bi 'oo� n 4w as m rr•� r ri I 2ii� n ! 'a D b N C n n •n Ll T. N 1 m n m m Di m to in fu E �rDn jI 1 I ( ! 1 4L 1 I )I1 I I V 1 rd r5 V l0 ! s(I V j rt rD 1 i ,'.�, CI f i 1 T i D 3 ro E v! ry 6, ro I t t I ti N Gt i 7 •1 1 • -I v G 5 tO i Ci y 1 [O 5 9 C4 CI 5 W 1 '!', r t 1 i r4 5: fi ri YJ la 1 {I 1 , i 1 J V V V N A J V m NV+ O m m m m m m m m m m N m m m m m m m m A pp A A A A fJ N+ O b OWJ V OWi (WT A fW.t N+ O INO m J ONI INTI A Y N O b m V m m A W N •+ O '� L C 0 0 0 0 .> 1 In N V L N N N N A 41 N N N P O b A A Ol J A A L N A A fJ A GG fJ J ,D OWi tb11 w N+ O 10 0 J 0 N A fNJ N O b 6/ J OI N A 41 N+ O b m J 01 N A N N+ ra .� _ G t 1 ,. } q t7u1 id W a rp 't ut ! C1 Ut A m. W r iv I Q iyiV 7 h• I Ci t Y! :a W t W w Ca rt ? 5 S Ci , h r td I Ca y �; 7T 7 y S M •Y ti LL.:. y 7 + yy- 4L N ,rµt`. V F - LJ ••j'S ;O ,.. ;O '.' ` l"ii '�. IY D 4 W ib �i 1 :0 ]I 2� 3 a ro i 3 v Jjj 3 r tD ro b ;D '' r3 'L 1 Ci U k U w 1to �y y., fo N m x m. z lgr5 x n m v v 1+ 7r m m N toyl N G u t 10 N !D ! 0 j Is •'i I • I 1! i I I ? • i '' I i � ' • W i rA W til��ktt t• 5 5 5 5 5 011 r 5 c; I � 8 a Cr1 9 5 5 ra+ '• 5 a 1`33 Gt 'q Al v ,•1 V •p W � a r55 •6 5 C&5 55 5 � � a y 4 i N r N • to rr J ! 3 vi 7 In N a N to m In g, a r) El X L4Ul ! i ? r 1 , - ri t 1 j 5rov ry 1 4 tv 0 r¢ a i 9 i 1 V ril �I ? 0 I W C6 1 tk C2 t9 ,S G i CO c! 5 5 9 5 5' !+ [A - t G 9 5 5 5 I Q Cp w C9 a } I N A 41 N+ O b p 01 JOA, N A p (J N+ O b m V N N A fw.i N+ O b m V NN A fJ N+ O bb J N N A Lf N+ O b b J N N A Li N+ 0 n � 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 1 _ 4 V m N A W N+ O m pp ep m V N G pp �AJI A p N+ O O�� ((�� (( N V OW W W W N O b m V ON N A W N+ O 0 W V N 1 ,•I s .{ •1 tet_ � �t n •••I <... "I sk. ,� ib"U {jj I •t' •t• � I 1 ; CJ CJ iJ " J Iy CJ I LJ I •A�• �' , �; r) '� r'• � � r - I C tl ct. I 0 0 IC, ' h ' rt Cd I ro rt I V y' Ci - r4 I Q4 rt ? .C& 1 y r, e x y x a �,;' �. y y u ! X x w { i N-1 0, zr 7 zr U r) r) h �' N n 7 y In t? L1 r) 1r p S,7 X 7 7 y rD C 3 UI 7 S 0 y b 7 N rh ,'b ro A 7 ? r >U U x D y 0 It U g i 4n ry V s it. X0 X 7 7 F 03 N r i U :Yj r 7 ro %U U U ID N rB r S Ip _ tU U _ N D ib w w t itJ .1 En A N 41 �. I41 rb 14 P w h• t 4. t. 7J g gJa u w ` µ Ct - w- g9 U t u 0 1 LA 5 Y Co .D m a CA CA CA P 5.5 5 �t Di I i C� •r i ! t C'J n Rii 1 I ; 1 o m 7 I m y m Iy m I m in m CL ` i CJ _A t W 2 A Ci ! r�1 a + LA .f I k• + CI ,: J! C+A W 15 5 t4 L0 i 5 ? rA I •+ I+ ! 5 =' c, I 5 CI W • ro I r� "6 1 � CF p 5 Cri a �'� 7} F �': y Ki g C7 •C .LJ I CJ I g Ul I 5 i t1 y e • ga t 4 r•' i 4 • f: I _ V N A V N+ O N 0 J q tlNiro.—M. N tJ --.!J 010 OJ V Oi N A W N 2 O b pp pp1.1 N .Ai OJ N App W A. 0 b m V OWi N A W N+ O b m V N N A W N O- i N+ O b 0 V O N A V_f�•'ni N A (N.1 N+ O b V OI N A 4I N+ O m W V OWi tWii A W N+ 0 0 w V m N A N N+ O b m V OI OI A W W N+ ti r N It y: 't C4 ti ! �• .rr n u, W n 1 s n ,; I A n ,t m r u r rr` mr w r m x m u 11 mm a ma n N t) n N UI ;Ut r r +' C ittl3 3 i $ J: N WI to I t 17 k• 3 U n0 m CA r..� a� n mN CA 4 f '. 7 t m 1 m m is W +h Y I n mi, a 1 N 01 a c .M a.. 1 m 00 G m t i 5 iv 5 A'j 5 ti t: I i r *• t r •r J` ! IN ry •r �• .t W W C• �; , Qj F3 5 h4 S j � t W W �.. C' •� . is t' V �t � U i 1Edw EA 5 5 0 t3 56 9 z+ �r m • N N , Jr rt n N � '1 ID N Y I UI nn •, ~ x X X I rD N m mm • i i V -0 t A I 1A id I V t rr' ! a 'J i CS �G � V � � i Ch � CP •r 5 9 ,i til 5 G� �• i V 7e _ � FD I X n P I CC5! PCR SS I 5 i m 5' `' n!' Ck ! 5 r,. I t W m i V i j 7 1 pp J AOI N A A p yA� N Y + 4 WO Iu. J OWI N A W N+ O b • N O J N A G N A O W V 01 N A W N'O• •Wa W ro ONO J 50N1, 0 A W N O 10 01 J 0 m a W N+ O J 6Oi O�'i A W 1p OO 01 -CG ro P P t TJ is +t. CP CP 6 r c rd 1 +V N ? µ µP kt 15 t} G7 t r1 co 7 H X I n u p Tf rr 41 Ls l 7 w y 3 T M C v w M � z n X t Km+ Y �: m '• M 9 �. r n ' �. w a ro �' jf I m: + u.. n i H m u. i x m P1 i h "D v w m M H n 3 1 X Cc µ rom u z m " Tb t a mm ;P ;P rP CP r t ra Gti S V i� i 4 ('.1 1 I r I Pt I I I• Q v 5 , w w r I ' sa ' • ,' �i i � �, 5 g 1• 1 � � I {IpU H H 4 n R i i i 4. W I 5 i W V W 1 kb t i N 14 { rl�u 5�3 1� rt i L1 �• 5 t HH 4t a A, le a � I y • 1 3 J N J J N O b m VN N A W p1 N O 1Dt OIJ - 001 N A W N+ O pp b N J OA1 pp pp N pfJ N+ O V) to (.t J g N A W N -° *Oy 10 m V/p``�ON�i fn A W N -� O 1 Y _ m m J q to A Lf N+ O m m V a ANT P w N N O b 0 .! 0 b P f,E w .ro r a) Cd L1 it r 3 S 7 U 3 4 I fib _ 1 D rj P Iol Cv I m C 1 7 0' n rn r) ti t 4t i s H Z h y •� c N urt 7 7 G1 i' u`w y D wu ao10 Y N In iin m rn l< El fin: 'D 4, ci n n r,, Ih L! `• CE u$ LA @ t 1 X `r JP I N $ Eti13 $ co C@ C6 ( 1 t A s• t0 ^ I N � Ut N I7 I i I I I I t i I� LP i V � fV ,° Ur f J.9 fiL1•� I ( f II 1 1 j 1 I i . I i f � N A W .+v mb N+ O b mbm W J A b mmm mm A W N+ bbbvtab b b J Ol ut A m m J q to A Lf N+ O m m V a ANT P w N N O b 0 .! 0 b P +4 r 3 S 7 U 3 4 I fib _ 1 D rj P Iol Cv I m C 1 7 0' n rn r) ti t 4t i W n v l r} h V; + u N urt wu `• ` X 1 X `r t A s• t0 ^ � I I ( f II f fi' �J t fif W .J fat 11 J W � 1 F45 1 fi�tr p. � -b em <5v E•�ru c $ 5+fE$$ n i i i i i I 14'a�y f t i i I I N yin I a I R N tCfl i f f I :•t I � i � Lq tf I � I I I r ' no nn ;A !n ON ;,-m m n to I i ' I ' I A I fJ W i11 W W W V I vCA CC I :.r $ 19 W ! '� CN CA ECA Lr v •. '�s I $ to 0 t .sf + O tipp pp t V N N pp L 41 N+ O b m J q UWi A fW.f N+ O INO 01 V ONI b A W N+ O b W J Of vt A W N+ O �d v m m A W N+ v 0 0 --0 0 � Li0 -4 4 Ut w. 21 0. oe- 'o "0 0 "m "a zr ru I 'D Iri 10 f) ID I In a .4- 41 ra T -4 n ti 0. oe- 'o "0 0 "m "a I T -4 n ti r) 0 1 0 C1 I f CI rA 1 LA 0 1 4 ,A 0 Nm 'A zr 03 12 1 1 4 y 4 i r x UI iA M ct, rD zs 11 x 1 1) x in InCA f.0 G 'D mm EO 0 M Et t Lo rM zr z u Z zr 0 ri c 1 , V IOZI , R Nti0 7 zir 7Z U ID lb z Z; fi a t 3 o ro M rD III (D .10 In x X x w Ul Win In 41 [A In In M MI EA ia x. 4.1 -b N rA r# v0 1, 0 ¢ rq 0 5 to r, U ro vrNcrHHy1 1 05.i r5 S. r N Ej C-1 ro ro fj rl o§ Ft. fIGI I 0 0 rx9 ry CF I c N In X ID It! r) I) In 0 1 IA 1 .1.4 tri Ill. r) F1 n 0 0 in L'I j rp I A EA 14 co 0 w -t- N ro M 0 Lk 1IS Ira l� ti .10 1 d WIN O b m J m N A fA.t N tj O b J ONI N u 0 w Ol J a N A w 0 b 0 rj 0 C- "I I 4 c G J m m m m m a u N m m A O b A A A m V m A AA p m A 4I A A pp N O w w V 10 W N w m m a N N 4t N N N N O m m N N N V m m N N N a N N N N+ O ro m J m + m a W N+ O a `b J^". G� A N V -• t TJ - F � a ro CI by, ffm l t , ''.' n, tn •..t a I 'Z ..� W by Y,Z, i I r1 !n V TY N 1 In N L 1 i 1 ' IC J » i -i : 1, p k' 1 tr -D ? I . -0 tl 2 t� < R I ., n : y u� 0 t• I +l n 1 4' v A V 1 �l W 2> 1 ! v J rl ;a m m n 1 I 4 rb 1 rn 4 1 LR CR r� ., o f •t• - =t 3• W w W • la W I W W 0 4, I r ro T%1� 3 !n - N � b. i N cc TO TO n n^ m r" ' v C r CG l -.111� m 7t5 »C Ch C4 th tb td to C9 X 1 to X 51 „� * ^':cr � - i JD m rb ro ro ro n m r r r_ z �, z a w ria :..a nra ,'S 3 ro roro rov rom w r ( 3 p a iro m. In ro !n Ji to tn 3 I� Z (A IN rS - fn t+ 0 n t7 N 1 CS ., ! tq` n n rJ V I y. p b D k- W Mi ! ry ! 1 'ro ro rR ro, C:t 5 ! t1 `< 4f 'a r µ:«yy ID 7Y C4 i V ry 1 C r; 0 ;a d 'i i7 n 1 i . p _ ru n•I rt ct>t o rl n 4 p 9 n 5 5 CO ro I •': �t !.. Jy� G Vi 4 0} to rb p v i 5 ! u I GA I- R W 9, W I Q r I 11 Ca t • CA g ro C4 G' ! 5 L 35 t7 ro M I ({ 3 1 n f w ti 0. U Ct 1 Ny L•0, :r1 st ( s M in .A n ro n .. H rt r ct ' J V V JJ mm mmm mmmmm mmmmm mmm mm A M a A AA A fJNfJ NfJNfJ fJ 41 fJN NN NN N NN N �-_ s rp0 ro ro p r 0 4 n n n I 14 1 V ro ro ro r( ., U' W- N In n L rn i 1 r rl •.''-T. 0 My 0 ICI � 1 t t 7 a +c ti ar•,ro vroro �r,rG sW a"sw0 f .. H it N H l.a. N t1 H i •.,, ! �.. �! 4 R r i r' I i i, i I ! 2 .5K 9 U 5 y is,0 95 N f I 4 4 G•, G •. M1 4 �, 4 1 4 t TJ - � a ro CI 'Z, n, tn a I 'Z Y� z` by Y,Z, i I r1 !n V TY N 1 In N L n m to y IC Q i' tl < < < < N K < < 0 m m n + n �n na ron Oro =t n 3 !n - N b. i 1 i e a iro o;! ry (A IN W I H N 1 CS ., ! tq` ffi V I J k b D k- E• Mi ! ry ! 1 C:t 5 ! t1 1...,!!i 4f 'a r µ:«yy 5 iV C4 i V ry 1 . p _ . .. 3 5 5 CO ro I •': �t !.. Jy� G Vi 4 0} to rb p v i 5 ! u I GA I- R W 9, W I Q r I 11 Ca t • CA g ro C4 G' ! 5 L t7 ro ({ 3 1 I � s 1 ' J V V JJ mm mmm mmmmm mmmmm mmm mm A pp A A A a A AA A fJNfJ NfJNfJ fJ 41 fJN NN NN N NN N �-_ 1 J N A 401 N O b m V N m W N+ O 10 00 V OWi N A fW.l + b m V ONII N A fN., N+ O ,D W V 0 tl, A N N -' + + O Ip m --. •--. ••__ + 1 � u 9 IN I p U v rl, to' b -I -4 1 '0 -4 $ re a 0" a V 4' 1 0 ra M 1<_ 00 a%0, n .r: to 05 �� V � I V 9 D nv 3� tp r G I u ry fs 7 w I u >a w. u 7 5 Sr ria J tC e J I m X s c 7 u n ww �.w n >n, n m re„ tin w n m ro n st K X <. J .. � X x w eft ct -'fir ,.J ^- - _Y . YX ` -Y... .ter +1 ; t yx 4 m re ro "'x ` � •y Q <.- LQ Lip � v ! x m m n 0) ti re 0 s a :& :?k Ph J �, n n 7 u 7 m ; � re re re m s .- m n « re N !0 re X op X X wed', X { n W N c: n nl c w m" 0 I C I • • : (h ~ Z :`S :Ira re RIS .. re re re " ;� ..O I i�I II l I� n tA a w o y r rlr ro p W w u ca l ..4Nry 5 rvrr,.v 0 ry 5s c9 CN w rN ww CO ?r aGG v fd ru Ni. L4 Cp W u n I :lrti a 05 .•�rqq C4 C0 w j 55 gCt 55. 55 g g w 3 t ul ;n U 4 3 `G 'C nn Sr NN �bti N re te re i pr L 3 x -tn 3 U v c reo � it ra In i � r 4 i 0 ra tp r4 u d r, ; < �, �, rA . I W v I tv C} 0 • W x u w Ca l � " � A C b u r 9 ry ya1 [a 0 V V b 1 4� rd f 5 �' ri, c nj r' . •1 CA r l 0 N' Tl C• J -i 0 r.-4 g 5 �} u -v , tel 4, ,a { 0 i u w F - , fJ U N N A N -• ow g V OAI N A A fJ N+ O tN0 0 V ON1 fill A fW.l N+ O INO m V ONI N A fN.] N O 10 O1 V 01 M A N N+ 0 0 ^� J P fll A fJ N+ 4�- coo 0000 oll, Mendota Heights Police Department Memorandum DATE: May 23, 1990 TO: Mayor and City Council City Administrator FROM: Chief Dennis Delmont SUBJECT: VFW Recognition Dinner In 1984, two members of the Vasatka-Goers, Post 6690 of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, thought it would be a good idea to recognize the Mendota Heights Police and Fire Departments for their efforts on behalf of the City. Lambert Dirks, Commander and Helen Anderson, President of the Auxiliary, raided the Mendota Clubs limited budget and came up with enough money to provide a nice dinner for the police officers, fire fighters, and their spouses, and had enough left over to donate $100.00 to each department to purchase something for the officers and firefighters that is not normally budgeted. This event was so well attended and received that it is now held annually. The only change has been the amount of the donation, which has the following history: 1984 - $100.00, 1985 - $200.00, 1986 - $500.00, 1987 - $1,000, 1988 - $2,500 and 1989 - $5,000 to each department and $2,500 to the D.A.R.E. Program. Over the years this money has been used to purchase exercise and camera equipment, Alco -Sensors, binoculars, a micro -wave oven, computer equipment, and many other pieces of equipment, as well as sponsoring both departments' softball teams. The 1990 dinner was another excellent example of the generosity and thoughtfulness of the members of the Mendota VFW. A prime rib dinner followed by musical entertainment highlighted an evening that included gifts of $7,500 to each department, plus a $5,000 donation to the D.A.R.E. Program. During the 7 -year history of the "Recognition Night" this small club from the small town of Mendota has contributed over $41,000 to the two departments. At a time when State Government appears bent on muscling small organizations of this type out of the charitable gambling picture for the sake of the strictly focused pet projects funded by the State Lottery proceeds, we are all the more appreciative of the efforts of the Mendota VFW. As important as the money that we receive from the Club is, we are very thankful that one organization, or group, from our area takes the time and expends the effort each year to recognize the police officers and fire fighters for the excellent work they do. In conclusion, it is appropriate and fitting that the City Council has decided to formally thank the members of the Vasatga-Goers VFW Club 6690 for their continuing and significant demonstrations of support for the Mendota Heights Police and Fire Departments. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 1, 1990 To: Mayor, City Council and City Administ` From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistan�go Subject: Recognition of Cub Scouts, the Bears of Pack 198, Den 4 from St. Josephs for Earth Week Cleanup of Wentworth Park DISCUSSION Den 4, the Bears of Pack 198, from St. Josephs School, consisting of 3rd grade, eight year old boys from Mendota Heights, West St. Paul and Eagan, volunteered their time and efforts during Earth Week to spend an afternoon picking up trash and debris in the wooded areas of Wentworth Park. Their efforts resulted in the collection of fourteen garbage bags of trash. The Bears were proud to report that of these fourteen bags, eleven were recycled. Staff recommends that these boys be formally recognized at a City Council meeting for their good deeds. They are: Roger Bailey Jason Rhode Brian Tuohe Patrick O'Brien Grant Nosbush Greg Bailey, Scoutmaster Mary Ann Bailey, Earth Week Coordinator ACTION REQUIRED Recognize Den 4, Pack 198 "The Bears" for their good deed of voluntary community service in the clean-up of Wentworth Park during Earth Week. Staff has prepared letters of recognition for the Mayor's signature. Saint Thomas Academy 949 Mendota Heights Road • Mendota Heights • Minnesota 55120 May 31, 1990 Mayor Charles Mertensotto City of Mendota Heights Dear Mayor Mertensotto, I would like to request that the City of Mendota Heights designate Monday, June 11, 1990 as Gerry Brown Day. Gerry Brown is a Mendota Heights resident who has coached football at Saint Thomas Academy for twenty-one years. Gerry has recently resigned as football coach after compiling a record of 173 wins, 34 loses and 1 tie. Gerry has also been actively involved as a board member of the Men&Eagan Athletic Association. We hope that the City of Mendota Heights will join Saint Thomas Academy, the State of Minnesota, the City of St. Paul and the City of West St. Paul in designating June 11, 1990 as Gerry Brown Day. I thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, W. Michael Funk Assistant to the Headmaster WMF/rmd • Academic Offices (612) 454-4570 • Alumni/ Development (612) 454-0090 PROCLAMATION ON GERRY BROWN DAY JUNE 11, 1990 WHEREAS, Gerry Brown is a resident of the City of Mendota Heights, and WHEREAS, Gerry Brown coached many student - athletes from the City of Mendota Heights in his twenty-one years at Saint Thomas Academy, and WHEREAS, Gerry Brown coached Saint Thomas Academy to 13 Conference Football Championships and one State Championship, and WHEREAS, Gerry Brown was one of the most successful football coaches in the State of Minnesota, with a twenty-one year record of 173 wins, 34 loses and 1 tie. WHEREAS, Gerry Brown will be relinquishing his coaching duties at the end of the 1989-90 school year. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights Proclaims that June 11, 1990 be proclaimed as Gerry Brown Day. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights recognizes the enormous contributions Gerry Brown has made to the positive development of the young adults in the community. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the City of Mendota Heights to be affixed this.5th day of June, 1990. Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor 'A - CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 1, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City AdminiQ FROM: Klayton H. Eckles Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Sewers, Water, Streets Bridgeview Shores 2nd Addition Job No. 9007 Improvement No. 90, Project No. 1 DISCUSSION: Bid were received for improvements to serve Bridgeview Shores 2nd Addition on Thursday, May 31st (see attached resolution). The low bidder for this project was F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. in the amount of $175,977. The Engineer's Estimate for this project was $196,000. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council receive the bids and award the contract to the low bidder F.F. Jedlicki. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with the staff recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 90- , RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER, WATER, STORM SEWER, AND STREET CONSTRUCTION TO SERVE BRIDGEVIEW SHORES 2ND ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 90, PROJECT NO. 1) X .W City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 90 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CON- STRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER, WATER, STORM SEWER AND STREET CONSTRUCTION TO SERVE BRIDGEVIEW SHORES 2ND ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 90, PROJECT NO. 1) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the proposed construction of sanitary and storm sewer, water and street, curb and gutter improvements to serve Bridgeview Shores 2nd Addition and adja- cent areas (which improvements have heretofore been known and desig- nated as Improvement No. 90, Project No. 1), bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law and the following bids were received complying with said advertisement: NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. $175,977.00 Eden Prairie, MN Annandale Contracting $176,055.42 Annandale, MN Nodland Construction Co., Inc. $176,767.00 Alexandria,*MN Inland Utility Construction $187,512.47 St. Michael, MN Kirkwold Construction $188,679.70 Dayton, MN Brown & Cris, Inc. $195,582.00 Lakeville, MN Northdale Construction $199,441.70 Rogers, MN Ro-So Contracting, Inc. $202,219.50 Centerville, MN Danner, Inc. $203,644.50 Inver Grove Heights, MN Volk Sewer and Water, Inc. $213,888.00 Brooklyn Park, MN Schurcon, Inc. $214,573.00 Maplewood, MN and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended that F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, be declared the lowest responsible bidder. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the bids for the project are hereby received and ac- cepted. 2. That F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, is hereby declared to be the lowest responsible bidder. 3. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all contracts and documents necessary to consummate the awarding of the bid for the above described improvements to F.F. Jedlicki, Inc. of Eden Priaire, Minnesota for their low bid of $175,977.00. 4. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been signed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of June 1990. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 1, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council, City AdminisQt�r" FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Furlong Addition Feasiblity Study Resolution INFORMATION At the May 15th Council meeting, action was taken by a 3/2 vote to accept the Furlong residents' petition for public improvements and to direct staff to commence a M.S. Ch. 429 improvement project. The first step in the 429 procesa is adoption of a resolution accepting the petition and ordering preparation of a feasibility report. This action was effectively taken by Council on May 15th, however since there was no formal resolution before Council, we have prepared the required resolution. Ordinarily, where there has been a split vote by Council on any matter, subsequent reports and recommendations would be placed on the regular portion of the agenda. Since the attached resolution is technically a confirmation of what has already occured, we have taken the liberty of placing the resolution on the consent calendar. Council may certainly remove the item from consent if desired. ACTION REQUIRED If Council desires to confirm the action taken on May 15th, it should pass a motion to adopt the attached "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FURLONG ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS." CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 90 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FURLONG ADDITION IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, on May 15, 1990 a certain petition requesting the installation of public improvements to serve the Furlong Addition and adjacent areas was submitted to the City Council and was declared by Council motion to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota: 1. That the action taken on May 15, 1990 declaring the adequacy of the petition in conformity to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.035. 2. That the petition is hereby referred to the Public Works Director and he is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Adopted by the City Council this Fifth day of June, 1990. By ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk City Council City of Mendota Heights Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 24, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administro FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Relief Association Bylaws INTRODUCTION Fire Relief Association President Jim Kilburg has requested that the Council consider and approve the revised Association bylaws at Tuesday evening's meeting. This memo is to briefly give the Council a background on the subject. The Relief Association Board has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in revising its existing bylaws to update them and bring them into conformance with state statutes. As ex - officio members of the Board, Mayor Mertensotto and I have been involved in the revisions to a certain extent. We have reviewed the document and suggested changes, which by and large have been incorporated. City Attorney Hart has also reviewed the document. Recommendation for approval of the bylaws should appropriately be deferred to Mayor Mertensotto, as he has been much more actively involved in the process than I. I would however like to recommend that the Council commend the Board for their thorough and conscientious job in transforming the existing brief and outdated bylaws into what I consider to be a much superior document. Jim Kilburg will be present Tuesday to answer any questions Council may have. May 29, 1990 Mendota Heights Firemen,s Relief Assn. 2144 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 Ms. Kathleen Swanson City Clerk City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 Dear Ms. Swanson: The Mendota Heights Firemen's Relief Association has .approved new.by-laws. Please accept this letter as a request•to present the new by-laws to the, Mendota Heights .City Council 'for approval. Thank you. Yours truly, i Jim Ki urg President JK;gl BYLAWS OF MENOOTA HEIGHTS VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION Revised: May 1990 BYLAWS OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I OBJECT The object of this Association shall be to provide means for the Relief of the distressed, injured, sick or disabled member, to pay to its members who have served as volunteer firefighters in the Mendota Heights Fire Department such service pensions as may be provided for in the Bylaws of this Association, and in case of death of a member, to pay to the legal representative, or surviving spouse, or children of such deceased member such sums"as may be provided for in the Bylaws of this Association. ARTICLE II MEMBERSHIP Section 1. Membership. Membership in the Association shall be provisional until such time as the probationary fire fighter has completed one year of service, completed probationary requirements, and has been accepted by a majority vote of the membership at a regular monthly meeting PAGE 1 of the Relief Association. Upon completing probationary requirements and having been duly accepted, the firefighter will receive pension credit retroactive to the day of probationary appointment to the Fire Department. Section 3. Classes of Members. There shall be the following classes of members in the Association: (a) Active Members. Active members shall be the members who are serving on active duty as members of the Mendota Heights Fire Department. (b) Deferred Members. Deferred members shall be those members who are not drawing a pension or other benefits from the Association and who have not yet reached the age of 50 years, but who have served at least ten (10) years of active duty as firefighters in the Mendota Heights Fire Department, have retired from active duty and have been members in good standing of the Association for at least ten (10) years prior to such retirement. Any member who resigns from, leaves, or ceases to be a member of the Fire Department of the City after having faithfully served for at least ten (10) years may nevertheless retain membership in the Association provided they comply with all of the rules and regulations applicable to members of the Association. PAGE 2 c. Retired Members. An individual who has retired from active service with this department and has drawn a service pension, but desires to actively participate in the social functions of the Association. A retired member shall have no voting power, but may be used as a consultant at the discretion of its Board of Trustees. ARTICLE III BOARD OF TRUSTEES Section 1. The Mendota Heights Volunteer Firefighter's Relief Association shall be managed by a Board of Trustees consisting of nine (9) members. Six members of the Board shall be elected from the active membership of the Association; the remaining three members shall be, ex officio, the Mayor, the Clerk, and the Chief of the Municipal Fire Department. An ex officio trustee shall have all of the rights and duties accorded to any other trustee except the right to be an officer of the Association. No trustee shall hold more than one officer position at any one time. The term of elected Trustees shall be staggered, with three members elected every other year. Section 2. The officers of the Association shall consist of a President, Vice -President, Secretary, Treasurer. The officers shall be elected annually by the Trustees. The PAGE 3 election of officers shall occur at the first Board meeting following the annual meeting of the Association. Officers of the Association shall hold their respective office for the term of one (1) year. Section 3. Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring on the Board of Trustees shall be filled by the Board of Trustees. The appointment shall occur as soon as possible following the vacancy and shall be for the unexpired term of the Board member. ARTICLE IV DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES It shall be the duty of the Board of Trustees to faithfully carry out its duties as regulated by Minnesota Statute or regulations applicable to the Fire Relief Association. Members of the Board shall act as Trustees with a fiduciary obligation to the State of Minnesota which authorized the creation of the Relief Association, the taxpayers who aid in its financing, and the firefighters who are its beneficiaries. The Board of Trustees shall have the exclusive management and control of the Association's general and special funds. The Association shall pay or reimburse the Board members for expenses incurred consistent with applicable Minnesota statute. PAGE 4 ARTICLE V DUTIES OF OFFICERS Section 1. Duties of President. It shall be the duty of the President to attend and preside at all meetings of the Association and of the Board of Trustees. The President shall perform any other duties imposed by Minnesota statute and as assigned by the Board of Trustees. The President shall countersign all disbursement checks from the General and Special Fund of the Association, and any other documents requiring his signature. The President shall obtain a bond in an amount as specified by the Board of Trustees. He shall be a member of the Board of Trustees. Section 2. Vice President's Duties. It shall be the duty of the Vice President to perform the duties of the President in the absence of the President. Section 3. Secretary's Duties. It shall be the duty of the Secretary: (a). To keep true and accurate minutes of all meetings of the Association and the Board of Trustees. The secretary shall keep a correct record of all amendments, alterations and additions to the Bylaws, in a separate book from the minutes of the Association. The secretary shall cause written notice to be given for all regular and special PAGE 5 meetings of the Association and the Board of Trustees consistent with Minnesota Statute. (b). The secretary shall keep a complete membership roll with dates of enrollment, resignation, leaves of absences, or discharge. The records of the Secretary shall be, unless otherwise designated, deemed to be public record and open to inspection by members of the Association, the Board of Trustees, and the general public upon written request and at reasonable times. Section 4. Treasurer's Duties. It shall be the duty of the Treasurer to receive all monies accruing to the Association and hold them subject to the order of the Board of Trustees. The Treasurer shall co-sign all disbursements from the Association's General and Special Fund in payment of claims approved by the Board of Trustees. The treasurer shall keep separate and distinct accounts of all of the general and special funds, and shall prepare and present to the Board of Trustees a full and detailed statement of the assets and liabilities of each fund separately at each regular meeting of the Board of Trustees and at the annual meeting of the Association. The Treasurer shall deliver to any successor in office, or any committee appointed by the Board of Trustees to receive the same, all monies, books, paper, etc., pertaining to duties of the office of the PAGE 6 Treasurer immediately upon the expiration of the Treasurer's term of office. The Treasurer shall, prior to entering upon the duties of the office, obtain a bond in the sum required by the State Statute and the Board of Trustees with such sureties as may be required and approved by the Board of Trustees. The Treasurer's records shall be open to audit by the Trustees and others legally authorized to conduct audits. Section 5. Officers' Salaries. The President, the Secretary and the Treasurer shall receive an annual salary, the amount to be determined by the Association at its Annual Meeting and ratified by the Board of Trustees. The salaries shall be allocated between the Special and General Fund. The proportion of the salary allocated to the Special Fund shall be in the Same proportion as the time spent in administering the Special Fund is to the total amount of time spent on other Relief Association affairs. The remainder, if any, shall be paid out of the General Fund. ARTICLE VI FUNDS Section 1. The property and money of the Association shall be divided into separate and distinct funds: (a) General Fund. The General Fund shall be credited with all monies received from the Relief Association's PAGE 7 General Fund activities, any monies, interest earned on assets, or property donated, given, granted, or devised by any person, firm, or corporation. The Treasurer of the Relief Association shall be the custodian of the assets of the General Fund. The Treasurer shall maintain accurate records, documenting any transaction involving the General Fund. Disbursement from the General Fund shall be authorized by the Board of Trustees and made only for the purposes as set forth. Checks from this fund must be co- signed by the President and the Treasurer. From the General Fund shall be paid all claims approved by the Board of Trustees, except for retirement and disability claims. (b) Special Fund. The Special Fund shall be credited with all fire state aid monies received from the State of Minnesota, monies from the City of Mendota Heights, monies or property donated, given, granted or devised by any person, firm, or corporation, which is specified for the support of the Special Fund of the Relief Association, and any interest earned upon the assets of the Special Fund. The Treasurer shall maintain adequate records documenting any transaction involving the assets of the Special Fund. Disbursement from the Special Fund shall be authorized by the Board of Trustees and made only for the purposes as PAGE 8 a set forth in applicable statutes of the State of Minnesota. Checks from this fund must be co-signed by the President and the Treasurer. ,ARTICLE VII PERMANENT DISABILITY Section 1. In the event an active member in good standing becomes permanently disabled and incapable of continuing service as a firefighter, said member shall be entitled to receive one hundred percent (100%) of the amounts credited to said member's individual account, as established pursuant to Article VIII hereof, regardless of the number of years of service completed by said member. Section 2. An active member who becomes disabled shall report that fact, in writing, within thirty (30) days to the Secretary of the Association, or to any officer of the Association, and shall procure from the Secretary a claim form to be completed by the member and his attending physician. The completed claim form shall be filed with the Secretary who shall then present the same at the next meeting of the Board of Trustees for disposition. "Permanent disability" or incapacity to continue service as a Firefighter shall be determined by the Board of Trustees and their medical counsel. PAGE 9 N ARTICLE VIII LUMP SUM DEFINED CONTRIBUTION Section 1. An individual account for each member of this Association shall be established and a statement of lactivity in this account will be provided to each member annually. Contributions to each member's account shall be: A. Monies from the city of Mendota Heights for each member, based on months of active service during that year. B. State Aid which will be divided at the end of the year equally among members based on months of active service during the year. C. Interest earned from investments will be distributed to the individual's account based on the proportional share each individual has in the total fund. D. The unvested portion of any member who (voluntarily or involuntarily) leaves the Fire Department before completing 10 years of service and is not re -admitted within a five (5) year period will be divided, on December 31, following the end of the five (5) year period, proportionally based on active months of service, in that calendar year, among those individuals active during that year. These redistributed funds shall be recouped from each, PAGE 10 active member's account in the event the member who has left with less than ten years of service returns to the department within the five year period. E. The unvested portion (including monies previously allocated to probationary firefighters who are not approved for permanent membership) of any member who retires from the Fire Department AFTER completing ten (10) years or more will be divided on December 31 of that year, proportionally, based on months of active service in that calendar year, among those individuals active during that year. F. Any other income that may arise will be divided on December 31 among the members in proportion to months of active service in that calendar year. G. Retiring members may also qualify for benefits as determined by state statute Article 424 Section A10. H. Administrative costs shall be deducted in equal amounts from each member's account. Section 2. A. The amount in each members' account shall be paid to such members of this Association when they retire after having served at least ten (10) years of active service with the Mendota Heights Volunteer Fire Department and have reached age 50. (Subject to Section 2.C. of=this Article.) PAGE 11 Section 2.B. Disbursements of individual retired member's funds will be made as soon as feasible after accounts of the previous fiscal year have been balanced and payment has been approved by the Trustees. Section 2.C. When a retiring member meets the minimum service requirement set forth in Section 1 of the Article VIII, but has not completed twenty (20) years of service to the Fire Department, said retiring member shall be entitled to receive, upon retirement, the following applicable percentage of the amounts credited to said member's individual account for each full year of service completed: Completed Years Non -forfeitable Portion Portion of Service of Prorata Service Pension Amount 10 ........................60 11 ........................64 12 ........................68 13 ........................72 14 ........................76 15 ........................80 16 ........................84 17 ........................88 18 ........................92 19 ........................96 20 (Or Thereafter) .... ...100 Section 3. If a member shall retire after having served a minimum of ten (10) years of active service, but prior to attaining the age of fifty (50) years, said member must defer distribution of the non -forfeitable portion of the amounts PAGE 12 credited to said member's individual account until said member attains the age of fifty (50) years, at which time the non -forfeitable portion of the amounts credited to said member's account must be distributed. Section 4. Should a deferred member of this association die prior to the distribution to such member of the non -forfeitable portion of the amounts credited to said member's individual account, the beneficiary named in said member's Certificate shall be entitled to receive a lump sum distribution of the non -forfeitable amounts credited to said member's individual account. Section 5. Active members shall receive 100% of their account, regardless of years of service. In the event the named beneficiary shall have predeceased the member, or if no beneficiary has been named in the Certificate, then the amounts credited to the deceased member's individual account shall be paid to such deceased member's surviving spouse (as defined in M.S.A. 424A.05, Subd. 5) if living, or to the estate of the deceased member. ARTICLE IX LEAVE OF ABSENCE Any member of this Association who is granted a leave of absence by the Fire Department shall not accrue credit toward years of service or be entitled to any benefits whatever PAGE 13 except for the death benefit provided by Article VIII, Section 4, which shall be paid in the event of said member's death. If, after expiration of not more than two years' leave of absence, and the member again becomes an active member of the Fire Department, then such member shall be reinstated as a member of the Relief Association. ARTICLE X MISCELLANEOUS Section 1. The fiscal and election year shall begin January 1 and end December 31 of each year. Section 2. The regular monthly Association meeting shall be held immediately after the regular scheduled monthly meeting of the Fire Department. Section 3. The election of the Board of Trustees shall occur at the annual meeting which is the regular meeting of the Association in January of each year. Section 4. Special meetings of the members may be called at any time, with one week notice, upon the written order of the President and one other member of the Board of Trustees or by written petitions of 10 percent of the members of the Association. A special meeting notice shall state the purpose of the meeting. PAGE 14 Section 5. All resolutions to be considered by the members of the Association at a regular or special meeting shall be submitted in writing, and a resolution from an established or special committee shall not be accepted for consideration unless it represents the majority viewpoint of such a committee, provided, however, a minority report in writing shall also be permitted. Section 6. Written notice of intention to retire shall be submitted to the Board of Trustees at the beginning of the calendar year in which the member intends to retire. Section 7. A quorum as used in this document is defined as consisting of fifty-one percent (51%) of the active membership of this Association. Section 8. Aid Committee. There shall be an Aid Committee, composed of the Vice President and two other members of the Association, who may or may not be members of the Board of Trustees, appointed by the President. The Vice President shall be the chairperson of this committee, whose duty shall be to see that assistance is rendered to each sick or disabled member and to the survivors of any deceased member. PAGE 15 ARTICLE XI AMENDMENTS Section 1. These Bylaws may be amended by the Association at any regular meeting thereof, by a vote of two- thirds (2/3) of the members present, provided that the number present constitutes a quorum and provided that notice of any proposed amendment shall be given by reading the same at the regular meeting next preceding that upon which such amendment is acted upon. Section 2. Pursuant to M.S. 69.722, Subd. 6 and M.S. 69.733, Subd. 6, any amendment to the articles of incorporation and bylaws of this Relief Association shall not be effective until ratified by the Board of Trustees and the governing body of the City of Mendota Heights. PAGE 16 THE ORDER OF BUSINESS The order of business for meetings of the Association shall be as follows: 1. Call to order 2. Reading minutes of previous meeting 3. Treasurer's report and schedule of outstanding General and Special Fund claims. 4. Communications 5. Reading of reports and minutes of Board of Trustees 6. Reports of Officers 7. Membership Matters 8. Balloting in respect to Association membership, if applicable. 9. Reports of Special Committees 10. Unfinished Business 11. New Business 12. Election of Board members (Annual Meeting) 13. Motion to Adjourn Robert's Rules Revised shall'govern the conduct of meetings. PAGE 17 DEFINITION OF TERMS ACTIVE SERVICE - Months of active duty ASSOCIATION - The Mendota Heights Volunteer Firefighters' Relief Association. DEPARTMENT (Fire Department) - Mendota Heights Volunteer Fire Department FISCAL YEAR - January 1 to December 31. ACTIVE MONTH - Shall be 16 days for credit. YEARS OF SERVICE - Months of service divided by twelve. PAGE 18 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 24, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direct Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assista SUBJECT: Case No. 90-13: Mersky - Side Yard Setback Variance DISCUSSION Mr. Dick Bjorklund, Sr., appeared before the Planning Commission at their May 22, 1990 meeting to represent Mr. Robert Mersky of 1758 Sutton Lane, in his request for a five foot (5' ) side yard setback variance. (See attached memos and plans) Commission members raised concerns about drainage, driveway opening size and compatibility with neighboring house spacing. Drainage flows from the rear yard to the front yard through this side- yard area and care will need to be taken to maintain that flow. Mr. -Bj orklund - stated-' the * applicants, intend "to use ' 'the existing driveway opening. The Commissioners felt that, should the variance be granted, an eighteen foot (18') space will be maintained between the houses. This would be two feet (21) less than the minimum required setbacks and the Commission felt this was not onerous. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 5-1 the City Council grant the requested Commissioner Tilsen felt this should b (31) lot purchase and replat to create ACTION REQUIRED (Tilsen) to recommend that five foot (5') variance. e handled with a three foot roughly equal side yards. Meet with the applicant and if Council desires to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation, they should pass a motion granting a five foot (51) side yard setback variance for 1758 Sutton Lane. JED/KLB:kkb l CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 17, 1990 TO: Planning Commission _ FROM: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Case No. 90-13: Mersky - Side Yard Setback variance DISCUSSION Mr. Robert Mersky, of 1758 Sutton Lane, has,' -.applied for a five foot (51) side yard setback variance in order to construct`a garage addition to his existing home. The home is currently seventeen feet (17.1).from the side lot line, and the proposed twelve foot (121) addition would bring his -....- garage within five feet (51) of the.side lot line. (See attached.application materials) The applicants have been requested to provide signatures of consent from the affected neighbors. ACTION REQUIRED Meet with the applicant and make a recommendation to the City Council on the requested five foot (51) side yard setback variance. KLB:kkb kA 0 3 r \ • r 4 i 9 ro Zosq to fORN p9e29 42 1 .l10� pae �V Its A I°d r H 13 ao AL„Oy � �Q � 0 ° i i �•• o �- eei��'' �j t^ � '• ti �t 3 toy. / 6° ,,B E �:rQr-¢R�a �"a-s�`� •2 � 0 9 s. s -� t°tt oo� 6 LP 09 9.. nv GJ �` I64 ti V T2 S is ti Y ° M iy e8 E'N 1,600 '. Rk 44 n` N •P: n % i . 00, tlA1?y .s e s otf'D. .. $ £ x8 •` •t.` �A'tb 9�mlIo.S j1 �q•Lr i'! c - M��a '�� ' �; tIC �� � tttr�� 33��Fis''�! �;r i � s I<,! a sa t{• sca ,�°� by. 15 >r p ° 43 34. ,,z Jw . RpP� Alf �`t.\a' Ori P • ' I• :•,�:r 0~'. /GIWO 4t ro y j ,m ° 3f9'OS6I Zo E�yf y\;oe+� S EA'1 totz3 etc :%i� r b f.S �5 ° A3 CO A5 m H o Q U N + rr`� � �' w o 5 1$' Pt ?• \� � Q' ` i° a e zo Sft 24 5 � Z 5$98 �� toe 8\� � O: � E Pi\°RISc•3p:tZ o +R 13 ie`' • se r 6 �� �r� �J /97 7.3 yas , , mac' i 3 ti 1 t % 79. �.. m 6 80'oYSo"w p=1 si m t�iSY•r; '' S /° ' » + m " ^ �t} J too I I 9 �is'if.. �ao � �A i •. ���'N+9V �L62�7 33., o t1D � 4' =j l„LJ 1. roe • 3 ,t °, � � 7 ���g yo'.w o.v, L7bG a3'iv, ty srfl. o r� i� f�y6� N 1 H ,S� m gfl 0 UAll2il City of ji Aiendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST ySZ Y y Case No. Q o — j o TZK (, Ukt D &—O-1 S7, Date of Application y_ a5 Fee Paid 5S.0C> C2PC k fZ� Applicant Name: Al CK, 03G/Z T (Last) (First) (NII) Address: 17,5-9 SO T7-eiv ZAN4 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: / �iZ.s�'t/ %�or3ortT. (Last) / (First) (NII) Address: (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description of Property: Z-'9 5 o /fC/ZS r 7' A/- 2, Type of Request: Rezoning_ Variance Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Plan Approval Other (attach explanation) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Section Present Zoning of Property _ Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property : Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. (Signature of Applicant) (Date) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 CONBBNT The undersigned neighbors of Robert and Mary Mersky hereby consent to the construction of an addition to their garage which will cause the structure to be less than the minimum number of feet from their aide lot line. We hereby consent to the City of Mendota Heights granting a variance to Mr. and Mrs. Mersky from the side set back requirements of the municipal ordinances of the City of Mendota Heights. LI — g o � 0 5/1-X0 AD � � .._ ,r . i _,i _. �—e„ _,_ . __ .. is .. _ s .. � tr.o-r P � �� Ie-.e\i c P _ Z-0cO.. 5�U VA1ZLhAiGC ESTE.=j ft City of . ..�, Alendota Heights May 18, 1990 Mr. Robert Mersky 1758 Sutton Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Mersky: Ct^ , Com, Your application for a Se back 1/'o.-rtahcsZ , will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, z Z. The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M., here at the City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative,.should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb cc: Mr. Richard Bjorklund 2511 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 55118 . 452.1850 City of MAALAI JA Alendota Heights May 24, 1990 Mr. Robert Mersky 1758 Sutton Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Mersky: Your application for a 5�Y01.9, 15efllouc�_ will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, 3uwe S-" (4io The Council meeting starts at 7:5b o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative,,should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Council consideration. The Planning Commission recommended Cie pro v - e_ G If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Batchelder Administrative Assistant cc: Mr. Richard Bjorklund, Sr. 2511 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN . 55118 452.1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MFMn May 24, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direct Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistan SUBJECT: Case No. 90-14: McKenzie - Minor CUP ��' DISCUSSION Mr. Robert McKenzie, 1480 Cherry Hill Road, attended the May 22, 1990 Planning Commission meeting to request a Minor CUP for a fence in order to construct a five foot (5' ) fence in the side yard abutting a public right-of-way. (See attached staff reports). Mr. McKenzie's proposal was to replace a four foot (41) chain link fence with a five foot (51) chain link fence. The Planning Commission said that they would prefer that Mr. McKenzie construct a cedar fence to match the existing fence along his rear yard. Mr. McKenzie agreed with that suggestion. (See attached fence design drawing). During the discussion, it was noticed that Mr. McKenzie's home was constructed eleven feet (111) from City right-of-way. The required setback from all City right-of-ways is thirty feet (301). The Planning Commission therefore decided to also recommend to the City Council that Mr. McKenzie be granted a nineteen foot (191) side yard abutting a street variance to make his house a conforming structure. This house was constructed in 1962, the same year that the Zoning Ordinance was enacted and staff can find no records indicating whether the house has a side yard setback variance or was built before the Ordinance was enacted. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to recommend that the public hearing be waived and that the City Council grant a Minor CUP to allow a five foot (5') fence with the condition that the fence material be changed from chain link to cedar to match the fencing along the rear lot line. The Planning Commission also recommended granting a nineteen foot (191) side yard setback variance to the existing house. ACTION REQUIRED If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation, they should waive the public hearing requirement and pass a motion granting a Minor CUP for a five foot (51) high cedar fence along the property line and granting a nineteen foot (191) side yard setback variance to bring the existing house into conformance. JED/KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 17, 1990 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistand�) SUBJECT: Case No. 90-14: McKenzie - Minor CUP for Fence DISCUSSION Mr. Robert McKenzie, of 1480 Cherry Hill Road, recently constructed a pool in his backyard and is building a five foot (51) fence as required by the pool ordinance. His home is on a corner lot, with the side lot line abutting an unimproved road (across the road from Wentworth Park tennis courts). See attached site plan. This side lot line currently has an existing four foot (41) fence that Mr. McKenzie wishes to replace with a five foot (51) fence. The fence is on the property line and does not meet the thirty foot (301) setback requirement. Staff has researched the records and cannot determine if the structure or the fence has a corner lot variance. This home was constructed in 1962. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission waive the public hearing requirement. The applicant has submitted letters of consent from immediate neighbors and has indicated to staff that he will seek out additional neighbors for consent also. ACTION REQUIRED Consider waiving the public hearing. Meet with the applicant and make a recommendation to the City Council on the requested Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a five foot (51) chain link fence on the side property line. KLB:kkb PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 22 May 1990 90-14 Robert McKenzie 1480 Cherry Hill Road Minor Conditional Use Permit for Fence in Front Yard (see sketch) 1. The McKenzie property is a corner lot located at the south end of Cherry Hill Road where Upper Colonial Drive terminates. The property is located directly north of the northern portion of Wentworth Park. This area of the park includes tennis courts and the parking lot ,for these courts is situated directly across the street from the McKenzie residence. Mr. McKenzie is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to allow him to increase the height of an existing chain-link fence that is within the 30 -foot front yard. 2. The location of the existing fence is it„cated on the site plan. The fence appears to be located on the south property line adjacent to the unutilized ROW for Upper Colonial Drive. The City has no record of a permit for the existing 4 -foot fence that was constructed when the swimming pool was installed in the back yard of the property. The proposed increase from 4 feet to 5 feet is necessary to comply with the life safety code for fencing around a swimming pool. The applicant also indicated that the family dog was getting over the fence, and he was concerned for the dog's safety. 3. While the ROW for Upper .Colonial Drive extends the full width of the property, the improved roadway surface ends approximately 16 feet east of the rear wall of the house. Therefore, the area adjacent to the fence is unimproved. Due to the existing development pattern in the area, it is unlikely that Upper Colonial Drive will be extended to the east in the near future. However, the permit could include the condition that the fence be relocated should Upper Colonial Drive be extended. Due to the relatively remote location of the fence, the applicant's request is reasonable. _ �I N �� �� •`��a • ;soYERSET ELEY ' - 111 ,1'/ • - 'SCFOOI 1 q/pllCl �T� • . • ' • • , • � �� _ • FMER40� -JcY.lc - i -�.rBROOKSIDE LANE1 • ___ _ f . AapL X 5 P2 NO _ • �� 11111) IIIIIi:ill � • • •! • • 1 �•=Js_� � i "ENUEcc ��l 1 ll��l •1 / • —?-)r, SOMERSET • ; .� I• • COUNTRY CLUB t� ARAN 1 SUBJECT PROPERTY • -' VYIK ne. • ( WELL GOLF COURSE a . NORTH ° o = 1 (Prnvole) '1 1 • wENTwoRTN 1 SCALE 1 "=800' I • • � � � PARK F CO RD C. . of • . as • , uu�•• j� 1 ' 1 • • • KN • • 7i , • • • • - N' Al = MENDOTA HEIGHTS `. +• / I I PAF 3 GOLF COURSE PUBLIC)BACHELOR ♦ a i i J +• -- O 4 I cT D F - _1 _ 1. --� '• •'� L _ •� I 104 W 1 -� UARIE TU .Zu . • • , • • • • I . xuzU - 5 • 1 ' A • ���'�\ r 27. r • w W �, • • : 'COUNT 1 � _ -_ ____ � • a. IR•I, • =- • ,MMIH E4EEWX UPRADL1, • \ • fi.. • • •C.• r1EeeT Bleu • • yy , • p N SENKK IefiF U zs ��� -..aL a N o � .s•Cu � o y� ti � �� � e c a • o ,e• � � c ? � 0 ' W(o "' C 3 2 6e ,aq'�a 98 176.18t n zy �c It". r 4 0 o i1:AylyE N. ;. J 3 Q o e f� PAT�tGtA rax z o o.i4 7 o 7 'dti a T Z 30.30 lveL scot .b ® z, r• 23 W VANDALL S 10 9� N c �_ �� o OUTLOTS _ P/0 LOT 7 • r . �?A - ,yz.• ':2R•y 105.34 Y6.sa e PM o F.-10 o� j '= i a y h'�.yo Larch• 8 � �� e L orzrh John G: 17 •srr ,� i /6 P� V2 .6 � to � �' � �a �.r Ac. r s IS ^ .� \i t 1,}L.5• V�4 FO , O lO e ra R v l s `SA ` 1 o 0 = o c 2 a o 13 v �2 s a �37a C 3 .r j Z �� .33 im r 1 A. p AL , ti. 5 ics c ,� 9 ra - Ifo%read P ✓ofir�ro.� h « %� 4:7 7� iQc. r 6 - , S h ISO � i � ✓.£- sy 3Rv A��NV E 05. v LOWS* a co LoNl A+- z h _ SUBJECT PROPERTY h r z 3 14 ¢ `^ „s 144 NORTH ,m rt S „ /1577-::.. SCALE 1"=2001 a t o a ,off :: •::• :. ♦s 3s.2 ssd 9A �V' s:i :�i► 3 46 /7 13 oa arm . ja. m, roa 7:2 • iit.d � �a i ' uaPEe COLo41AL '' /if o C 9 98 4S s2 9S 73 70 �r Z M / h b 3 / L 7 b ia° 0 40 Irl h 4' J P N a z �- 0Ur4.0T B z9S./L 9 4 � 570. � 0 Z°7.S Lof 32 7/7/4Eo9cis w• /�• 8 8ei-nice G Schmidr� L o ¢ 33 April 27, 1990 City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission; The intent of my request to increase the existing -410" fence to 510" is as follows. 1. To provide a fence high enough to meet the conditions as specified for the installation of a swimming pool. 2. To increase the height of the existing fence from.4'0" to 5'O". -in a pleasing and aesthetic manner so as to conform to the surrounding area. I 3. Do to the nature of the surrounding area, it is requested that this fence remain as indicated on the attached print, on the south line approximately 13' to 14' from the unimproved road. i Robert B. McKenzie 1480 Cherry Hill Rd. Mendota Heights, Mn. 55118 April 27. 1990 City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission; Increasing the height of the existing fence of the south line of the McKenzie property to a height of•5'0" would be visually pleasing and would be acceptable to me. _ I ` •• _1i'y M 19 April 27. 1990 City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission; Increasing the height of the existing fence of the south line of the McKenzie property to a height of.5'0" would be visually pleasing and would be acceptable to me., � City of �- �, Mendota Heights Applicant Name: APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. Qo" I q_ Date of Ap licatio - Fee Paid Address: (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) OwnerName: -- (Last) (First) (NII) Address: (Number & Street) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description of Property: Type of Request: (City) (State) (Zip) Rezoning Variance b-_'�' Conditional Use Permit //�;o Z Subdivision Approval Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Plan Approval Other (attach explanation) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Section / Present Zoning of Property Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property / Proposed Use ;//Z I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the nal r, material are true. (S gaature of App " t) 0 9D (Date) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN - 55118 - 452.1850 City of -- �,Al ,, Alendota Heights May 18, 1990 Mr. Robert McKenzie 1480 Cherry Hill Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. McKenzie: Your application for a will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, (V6,.k(.2 l The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M., here at the City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative, should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb 1101 Victoria - Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 City of M, Mendota Heights May 24, 1990 Mr. Robert McKenzie 1480 Cherry Hill Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. McKenzie: Your application for a mtvlor CVi .(ovr �eyxv_ will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, �� �-c S `=` 1li`lo The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative, should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Council consideration. The Planning Commission recommended C U P COV%N.Li-toV-e49 0, 1C_ S -.",,4- 410 .", .-1- 410 G2 +— vHa. �tr�c. 1 WP -y GC�Sc+ CiGew�w`2kc�'QJ' 0. 1� ` 5 u •. .r a�. r� 5�-T 100.G k �/a r�u.vl <-G� {'� cc V1 C. J SQ . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, AIN . 55118 452.1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 24, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Diret &�4DS Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assis � SUBJECT: Case No. 90-15: Neuharth - Wetlands Permit DISCUSSION Mr. James Neuharth of 2458 Pond Circle East, appeared before the Planning Commission at their May 22, 1990 meeting to request a Wetlands Permit in order to construct a deck and a four season porch addition to his home. (See attached staff memos and plans) At the meeting, Commissioner Dwyer stated that he felt that Centex should have obtained this Wetlands approval as part of their PUD approval. He went on to say that now this application was one the Planning Commission was obliged to approve because the deck doors were already in place. Centex representatives later in the evening, explained that it was impossible for them to anticipate all the future -construction -next -to the Wetlands, therefore they only applied for the Wetlands Permits for the principal structure. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted unanimously to waive the requirements for a public hearing and approve a Wetlands Permit to allow construction within 88' of the Wetlands. ACTION REQUIRED If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation they should pass a motion waiving the public hearing and approving a Wetlands Permit to allow construction within 88' of a Wetlands at 2458 Pond Circle East. JED/KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 17, 1990 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative A SUBJECT: Case No. 90-15: Neuharth - Wetlands Permit DISCUSSION Mr. James Neuharth, of 2458 -Pond Circle East, desires to construct a deck and four season porch to his existing home. The existing home is at the one hundred foot (1001) setback line from a City designated Wetlands. The proposed porch and deck addition would extend twelve feet (121) into the wetland setback area. (Please see attached plans) The requested Wetlands Permit is to allow construction of the porch and deck addition to within eighty eight feet (881) of the Wetlands. Section 8c of the Wetlands Ordinance allows the Planning Commission to exempt the applicant from any inappropriate requirements of the ordinance in the case of a single dwelling. The applicant has submitted a signature of consent from his neighbor. ACTION REQUIRED Consider exempting the applicant from the public hearing, review the proposal with the applicant and make a recommendation to the City Council on the Wetlands Permit request. 54RI , • .0 PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 26 May 1990 90-15 James Neuharth 2458 Pond Circle East - .Lot 11, Block 4, Hampshire Estates (see sketch) Approval of Wetlands Permit 1. The subject property is located in Hampshire Estates in the southeast area of the City. The applicant proposes to construct a 10 -foot by 14 -foot porch and 12 -foot by 36 -foot deck in the back yard of his property at 2458 Pond Circle East, as indicated on the attached suryey map. The subject property is adjacent to a pond that is part of the wetlands protected by the City's Wetlands Ordinance. As you know, Section 6(B)4 of this ordinance requires a permit for the construction or alteration of any structure within 100 feet of the normal high mark, which is indicated on the attached portion of the official wetlands map. 2. The existing residence is located right up next to the 100 -foot setback line. Any addition on this side of the house will extend into the setback area. The proposed addition and deck are almost entirely within the setback. The proposed deck would be 88 feet from the pond. When this area was platted, no space was left to allow for these types of additions. Such porch and deck additions are extremely common with today's homes. 3. One of the principal intents of the 100 -foot setback is to preserve the aesthetic character of the environment around the wetlands. Where there is significant vegetation, it is possible . to substantially screen development from view. Generally, the vegetation in this area is not dense enough to provide substantial screening from adjacent properties or those homes opposite each other on the pond. Since the homes in this area are quite large, there is already significant visual impact from adjacent properties. While this addition would increase that impact, the relative increase is probably not significant. The applicant included a letter of approval from one adjacent owner. Perhaps the property owners on the opposite side of the pond should also be contacted since the addition may affect the view from their lots. 4. The design and construction of the porch and deck are attractive and consistent with the existing structure. The visual impact of the porch and deck could be minimized by the addition of carefully planned landscaping. a u Hsi 141_L� C-_ a a F 1 O •es' . .r• Vit. �• ,�..� ' �I i . � NE : NTRY CLUBV. k 's ; • • ��-,�; 1-L.__..1 :.fir. / rJp dfi . DODGE _ ;, NATURE CERTE • rdi - • CT — iM[ • , • • _ \ •\ J— aFP WGq[ 1 • r.. i I STATES _ POWER c0_p _ _• -� _ _• a , u, MARSH 1 • • • • , • \ • f • 1 • I • • , -PARK .� • • • G+� • • • • •• ti i •' , . ;• . > � o� f' 1. • • • •• • /f`Q 1 1/ , -`mac 1- < • i / • ' - "" - SUBJECT PROPERTY \� " : I - • APA . • / ( '�: _ • � • iii--- � - - - -- NORTH • p•zELcT a9nNDOnEO 1 WELL SCALE 1 "=800' 1 j HAGSTOOM-K • 227 W1 �1 •�_ • v • PARK ING L - V I \ � ♦ co { / / Vim, f%�� •'' ' ;'".! is � < ...i • — �CDC - _�ERYfd1T- — aacoE— — — — — 10 X 9 • r 2 � Q , / 16 S 80 4 v 22 a °i 7 a 6 w u1 2f.• S . �G 12 •L1 'Jn 2 0./.., ,4, c 5911 iQ X52 04.OJ n 2r, !n l 4330 144 :4 82 39 4S� RF1 r �.• as9S'' 'f�7Y ..°O* 4 ♦ 0 - Ln • `�\\ f\) '` V 3 ?v 5G �1g ,r• ~ADB d •. y4� 202 39 / _.':32.88 2 c m 63 � //{ , \ a• 1 •n ^ 'JJ Dd vg 3 f ?y :yam N H 4 a C 4! 1 ^ 6 a tm o O f., A� 'D89 'dry �t s•.. 139 79 O tg Q / •9 439 55 — 6 Q P pN p 'Jo�� Sy1C r48 �6 IO ro .r., `•4 pJ � � 9 36 h 15 ti sa79 52 101 •.;•e.83 °jee � E�... X7,.17 oe a Ft ST 1• , 0 7 3r ON NIP 41.70 p 54 8C i4 a 62.56 i n "S ��m 7 � b • � � ECT J'pRp 9 •�, • y , (�� ,) 3 N N SUB O ?. w?ti r: o 80 p 10" / `t ?4 8295 Q` r ; •:iM• . . `100.46 (� x tin M V +- PARK �A t 224 3.T3,,._.. r ' - 6 2i05o O 2p303 37 1p� /" 93 w w (./ S a 3 4 •� • 12 (' 210.38 s 'N ?Ode a t 39.16 C/ ^ 140.8Z t A N 12 C S {St 93 �4 `30,66t7b.0T 7 PARK' p l n � .i H • z •, M YL LAME - I ,•, `__. • -/ H I G '• H W • vi r-- — -- ---- - — -' - -- - - - - . - - - ( . i 900 1 4 CO U i+ T R Y C L U B 990 qc�Q� al. e' .. -.. ._.. . _ _ ;I .V �•:TM' . ` CA.f uS,.,i __ YJ �-t - � - - - �I I - - _ Tom_-. _. _ _--i'•___. -� �._-_ -_ !I =1,;!-{= •< I 4 Ago I(�� :.4'\ ��.5 o « '', • I A sL .I � I ly %-\� ` •� ' 7 11 \_-�� sem, .-�rr f � � LEGEND >`..� - ;y ;, 655 Wetland Systems:' Perennial Lakes and Ponds " Hydrologically Sensitive Soils, '" SUBJECT PROPERTY _ r v ... c Intermittent Ponds �iSO° NORTH s _._ SCALE 1"=1000' Drainage Way TopographyCD Seo o Elevation, ,• Q'. :., - To: Mendota Height Planning Commission Mendota Heights City Council From: J. H. Neuharth 2458 Pond Circles E. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Date: May 12, 1990 The attached elevation drawings, site plot plans and letter of consent is for the application of a wet lands -permit allowing for the construction of a 10' X 14' porch and 12' X 36' deck at my primary residence. The architectural design is consistent with the primary residence. The porch and deck will extend into the wetlands easement as shown on the site plot plan, however. Please grant a permit to build the proposed addition. James Neuharth City of -,-- ., � Aiendota Heights a APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. y 0— t 1 Date of Application 5-11-40 Fee Paid �3�.00 czPC# 8392(0 Applicant Name: %U44Ar_rt+ .)141KS5 Ct PH: 427-97 (LNo (First) Mf=J2 Address: P g S� 1 D o O C( R_ c -LL p D NrLW - SS� 010 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: i tfAJL_ +_ (Last) (First) (MI) �s&FO ";Address: � p C�cc��. c�r� �rs � /tiC�u • .Ss (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: 9 �� . PD li 0 C (P -CLL- 1 Legal Description of Property: L07- R Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. PlanApproval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property . Proposed Use A4 W,PS N Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Other (attach explanation) Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this requeston the additional material are true. LkN-1�11� & . 0— �� ( ture of Applicant) Cl19 a0 ODate) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 May 10, 1990 TO THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION: We have seen the attached plan of the proposed deck and 4 season porch at 2458 Pond Circle E. and agree to a Wetlands Permit for its construction. Thank you, c NAME NAIVE �L i ADDRESS LlZe&4 G, �OT�} �F/L•�TS .�/a0 City of �,., Mendota Heights May 18, 1990 Mr. James Neuharth 2458 Pond Circle East Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Neuharth: Your application for a Wz, lavxdls ?Q<,v,,L+ , will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next //////���� regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, . The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M., here at the City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative, should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN - 55118 452.1850 } City of in JA Mendota Heights May 24, 1990 Mr. James Neuharth 2458 Pond Circle East Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Neuharth: Your application for a Wei'ta-4)5 Pcc-v%n,-t will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, �,j u r-� ��-(� O The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative, should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Council consideration. The Planning Commission recommended {o V-ZIkA 0.1�0� Aor'�� Q.S ,p Yb06SG�cJ If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant 0401;i;i 1101 Victoria Curve .1Viendota Heights, IAN . 55118 452.1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 24, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dire o Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assi n SUBJECT: Case No. 90-16: Bakewell - Henry Sibley Sign Variance DISCUSSION Mrs. Mary Bakewell appeared at the May Planning Commission meeting to request a sign size variance to install a name plate sign on Henry Sibley High School. (See attached staff memos). There was some confusion as to where the sign was to be installed. The Planner thought it was intended to be on the south wall facing TH 110. Mrs. Bakewell informed the Commission that there is currently another committee planning a new sign for the south side of the school but her proposal is for a sign on the north side above the main entrance. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Mrs. Bakewell has submitted the attached new drawing *that'clarifies the sign location on the building. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the requested 88.5 feet of sign size variance. ACTION REQUIRED If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation, they should pass a motion approving an 88.5 foot sign size variance for the Henry Sibley Senior High School. JED/KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 17, 1990 TO: Planning Commission �� FROM: Kevin Batchelder, Administrat'v i tant SUBJECT: Case No. 90-16: Bakewell - Sign Size Variance for Henry Sibley Senior Hiah School DISCUSSION Mrs. Mary Bakewell, representing the Senior Class Party Parent Committee of 1989,is donating a nameplate sign to Henry Sibley High School with funds raised by the parents committee. The sign exists of wall mounted letters spelling Henry Sibley High School. Please refer to the application letter and sign plan. The Zoning`Ordinance allows a nameplate sign for permitted uses (such as a school) not to exceed twelve (12) square feet in residential areas (see Ordinance No. 401 Section 18.6(3)). The proposed sign is 100.5 square feet, thus the requested variance would be for an eighty eight and one half (88 1/2) square foot variance to the sign size. ACTION REQUIRED Review the proposed variance request with the applicant and make a recommendation to the City Council on a sign size variance of 88.5 square feet in order to allow the proposed sign. KLB:kkb May 14, 1990, Variance Committee City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve s Mendota Heights, Minn. 55118 r ' Dear Members of the Variance Committee: I, Mary Bakewell, Chairman of the- Senior Class Party of 1989, come to you on behalf of the Senior`Class Party Parent Committee, for permission to install a sign on Henry Sibley High School. ' The result of many parent survey's over the years indicates that residents of the area`do not`seem to know what that big building on Delaware and Highway 110 is. As you and I know, ' there is a sign on a monument near the entrance of the driveway. Being that we live in Minnesota, however, that sign is covered with snow a great deal of the year. In" addition, a monument sign is. much more susceptible to vandalism (as has been demonstrated many times in the past at Henry Sibley.) Most schools throughout the metropolitan area are' denoted with building -mounted signs. We do not feel this should affect any home owners in Mendota Heights, as the sign will overlook the new - sports complex that the District and the City of Mendota Heights is going to build. In other words, very few if any homeowners will be able to see it from their homes. Even if they could, we don't feel there is anything distasteful about 'a wall mounted sign. The alternative pylon sign would tend to cast a commercial air to the site when we would rather be trying to achieve a degree of respect. As for the size of the sign, the present ordinance would permit only- the word "Henry" in the 24 inch., letters 1 proposed. *-.The concept of allowing the size of signs i increase with the . size of the building and .the size of the. IN q�-l�, site is a well established means of sign control. The proposed lettering will consume 100 square feet. This does not seem inordinately large when the size of Henry Sibley High School is taken into account. The building itself comprises 308,000 square feet. That is about the same or larger than Rainbow Foods and Target put togetherl In addition, the land area is a whopping 76 acres or 3.3 million square•feetl We don't think a 100 square foot sign is inordinately'large for such a building on such a site and we hope you agree. Consequently the parents of the Senior Class of 1989 request a variance to have installed a sign on the building of Henry Sibley High School that can be read as one enters the parking lot. To require a monument sign or pylon sign would work a hardship because of the susceptibility to vandalism of the monument and commercial nature of the pylon which would not be in keeping with the "school" type, atmosphere desired. Respectively submitted -wet Mary B %well Chairman of Senior Class Party Parent Committee, 1989 Page 2 MA1,City of , J%endota Heights' APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. Q()_1 co Date of Application -I q Fee Paid —?5100 Z90 Applicant Name: dAk V' -I I M WU PH: �1r Ci 9'70 (I-ast) (First) , " �(Mn Address: V?S4CP Com) -d Wa r� %1 Ve vV A& iC1�l i� W 5571 (Number -& Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: +Its 1 ry c5b ko ul n (bast) (First) (1vII) Address: (Number &Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: i� J' 0� � /�y2l'ua Legal Description of Property: Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number X. Variance 6W1dinq-1`k Un+P-d 3n Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Other (attach explanation) Section Present Zoning of Property , . Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property : Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. (Signature of Applicant) 9 Dior C [ ass Part1 RaYc ni— (Date) CCMrn1-E-fie.. 04- laaq, (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN - 55118 452.1850 I City of �.�, Mendota Heights May 18, 1990 Ms. Mary Bakewell 1846 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Ms. Bakewell: Your application for a%Ce6no 6,!/hl will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday,. The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M., here at the City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the.meeting in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you -have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb 1101. Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN . 55118 452.1850 Ms. Mary Bakewell 1846 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Ms. Bakewell: City of Mendota Heights May 24, 1990 Your application for a 5 V V-LaVAwill be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative, should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Council consideration. The Planning Commission recommended /(D Mj ld%¢_D G. If you have any questions, please feel free to. -contact me. Sincerely,. Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 1 P CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS iy.i ni If. Til May 24, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dire o Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assi n SUBJECT: Case No. 90-16: Bakewell - Henry Sibley Sign Variance DISCUSSION Mrs. Mary Bakewell appeared at the May Planning Commission meeting to request a sign size variance to install a name plate sign on Henry Sibley High School. (See attached staff memos). There was some confusion as to where the sign was to be installed. The Planner thought it was intended to be on the south wall facing TH 110. Mrs. Bakewell informed the Commission that there is currently another committee planning a new sign for the south side of the school but her proposal is for a sign on the north side above the main entrance. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Mrs. Bakewell has submitted the attached new drawing that clarifies the sign location on the building. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the requested 88.5 feet of sign size variance. ACTION REQUIRED If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation, they should pass a motion approving an 88.5 foot sign size variance for the Henry Sibley Senior High School. JED/KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 24, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dir Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assis SUBJECT: Case No. 90-17: Mangini - Wetlands Permit DISCUSSION Mr. Flavio Mangini appeared before the May Planning Commission meeting to request a Wetlands Permit. (See attached staff memos) RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted unanimously to waive the public hearing and approve the requested Wetlands Permit. ACTION REQUIRED If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation, they should pass a motion waiving the public hearing and approving a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a home at 1867 Warrior Drive within eighty feet (801) of a Wetlands. JED/KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 17, 1990 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative CA+4!?�� SUBJECT: Case No. 90-17: Mangini - Wetlands Permit DISCUSSION i Mr. Flavio Mangini has purchased the lot at 1867 Warrior Drive and wishes to construct a single family home there. The proposed site plan shows the furthest extension of the home being eighty feet (801) from the wetlands. This extension is a deck in the rear yard. The actual house is ninety two feet (921) from the wetlands. Please see attached plan. ' The house building envelope has been constrained by a utility easement running through the front of this lot, as well as the neighboring lots,which also required Wetlands Permits. .Mr. Mangini's request was placed on the Planning Commission agenda under time constraints and he will be meeting with staff and Planner Tim Malloy on Monday, May 21st. There may be additional material brought forth at that time, including signatures of consent. This lot currently has no immediate neighbors. ACTION REQUIRED Consider waiving the public hearing, review the requested Wetlands Permit and make a recommendation to the City Council on the requested Wetlands Permit. KLB:kkb Play 19, 1990 To : The City_ Of Mendota_ Heights It is my intention to build a two story house with walk -out basement on Lot 3, Block 1 of the "Ponds of Mendota Heights". House and site plans have been submitted for your approval and building permit. Sincerely, Fla i TMIngini `4 MA, City of , Mendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. `'1 o - / 7 Date of Application — - Fee Paid f ?Y .(`C') r�z - 3.4 4125 Applicant Name:6 "I ff R-Ayl 0 C PH: 6 d -'2 q3 A°ax �ilmt)nn (First) (M -7 3 3 S'6 1 g o 'tee, J Address: !tj' l lJ G1 h q � 9b r DQ) aAt-e N IV 5-5:116 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: 9,A IM -e_ a'� (bast) (First) (Ml) Address: QHS' CAO y -e (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: 1� 7 �t/D��-vt o v brt VC Legal Description of Property: )ie'`0'tfr Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property Present Use _ Proposed Zoning of Property.: Proposed Use -Trie Variance Subdivision Approval _tv- Wetlands Permit Other (attach explanation) Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. (Signature of 4pliced (Date) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For: ROYAL OAKS REALTY Proposed f use tPo r : Alhen/<ie Yome's, Inc. WARRIOR DRIVE a 'C. 51. 0 510e, 15 i e. to evl, 38D 81 I propost Eleya ions: Top o S Bloe.k < 950.1 Garad3o. Floor . 949.'1 Walkou} Level % •942.o (mas) o I C E 06 lu .F a 143 t+ • �4�, i�4�•0 ca��t j; R•eposta. ` � Hutt ' � 1 �� 941.1. L• `Si �l 41. WW r I ^-- ,je,4 den oIts prop ortel t/tvalior) s r; 1 et° dcnolts eXisfin tlevafion . � ' � � � I � a ��..• � I � Stma I.n I = denoles direction or drainaje 0 denoltt wood slake a/ ffloof o)7 -:e/ 'V o•=e zs' W it O Ln • N • i - Sbo'dint. (may l99 I 10T I ,D o N p 5 \N 0'' 24 2G' 23' W Lot 3, Block 1, THE PONDS OF 14ENDOTA HEIGHTS, ;Dakota County, Minnesota. FOR BUILDING PERMIT ONLY Pro "sew i/ouse ada/ed,' 6/Q/90 De .= 102:30.3= 1-0. Denotes iron I Bedrin a shown are on an ae-sumed datum. Seglt: 1"= so 1 hereby cerfi_y' that this n,survey or report as prepared E. q. RUD / SONS INC. Book b�yy me or under mJ direct supervision and fhafwI am a duly LAND SURVEYORS Rt�isTered Land bur ytyor under The laws: o the ,Stale o{' 9560 Lexin ton Ave. A/. Gb ¢ Minntsofa . Da fhis ao-e day o j'�� 19 gZ Circle Pin Mn. 55014 1% 0.3o24C Re isfrat/or) No. i&?Zj W. 786-5556 plik 'City of ,.' Mendota Heights May 18, 1990 Mr. Flavio E. Mangini 1819 Bohland Avenue St. Paul, MN 55116 Dear Mr. Mangini: Your application for a DJX �(ALA&-S f e.rr-1V- t f , will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday,?�Z . The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M., here at the City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative, should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb .1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 City of .�,, hiendota Heights May 24, 1990 Mr. Flavio E. Mangini 1819 Bohland Avenue St. Paul, MN 55116 Dear Mr. Mangini: Your application for a �evr'Mt 4- will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, �& v e The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative, should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Council consideration. The Planning Commission recommended -ko lae L�-.�-5 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 1 1990 To: Mayor, City Council and City Admini� From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistaw Subject: Appointment to Community Education Advisory Council DISCUSSION The Community Education Advisory Council (CEAC) is seeking a representative from Mendota Heights City government to serve on the Council. The CEAC is an advisory board to the Director of Community Education, Sally Warring. The CEAC provides citizen input in the development of programs to meet community needs in the areas of education, recreation, social services, as well as cultural and civic affairs. The CEAC currently has citizen representatives from the City of Mendota Heights and desires to have a representative who is a City official or staff person. In April, staff attempted to recruit a City commissioner or official for this position without success. I would like to volunteer my services to the Community Education Advisory Council as a Mendota Heights representative. It will involve one Tuesday evening a month of my time. I am excited about the opportunity to become involved with the community Through the CEAC and would be honored if so appointed. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council so desires, they should pass a motion to appoint Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant to fill the vacant Mendota Heights seat on the Community Education Advisory Council. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 1, 1990 TO: Mayor -and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Adminis SUBJECT: Approval of Sibley Park Comfort Station At our last meeting, Council approved plans for the Sibley Park improvements, and deferred approval of Sibley comfort station plans pending the receipt of additional information. The two items of concern related to the comfort station included the acceptability of the contract for architectural services with Kodet Architects, and additional review of the cost estimates for the comfort station. It is the intent of this memo to address these two outstanding issues. DISCUSSION In terms of the Architectural Agreement, you may recall that the City had approved the Agreement with Kodet subject to several changes. These changes related to limiting the cost of the comfort station to $50,000, and the removal of language which limited Kodet's liability for damages which might arise out of the construction and use of the facility. In further negotiation with Kodet, the firm has agreed to accept the Council's conditions, and they have formally signed the Architectural Agreements. a With respect to the cost issue, Council expressed surprise at the architectural estimate of nearly $50,000 for a comfort station building with an area of approximately 400 square feet. Staff has collected information related to other similar structures in neighboring communities and find the architectural estimate provided to be within an acceptable range. More specifically, the City of Eagan has recently taken bids on three park shelter buildings which are somewhat equivalent to the Sibley building. A detailed comparison of the shelter buildings is attached. Taking in to account the size of the structure, the exterior material used, and the types of activities provided for within the structure, cost estimates between $100 and $125 per square foot do not seem out of line. As an additional comparison, staff reviewed the U.S. West Fiber Optics building/comfort station which is located in the Kensington area. Based on building inspection data collected at the time of construction, the original cost of this building was approximately $110 per square foot. RECOMMENDATION Based on the successful resolution of outstanding concerns with the Architectural Agreement, and a survey of recent bid awards for comfort station buildings, staff recommends that the City Council approve the Sibley comfort station designs. ACTION REQUIRED If the Council desires to implement the recommendation, they should pass a motion approving the comfort station design and authorize staff to accept bids. Bids to be opened at 10:00 A.M., Monday, July 9, 1990. MTL:kkb Attachment; 1,1 ro v x � t� �- O O O (D (D O x a :J �! A+ UI Ul N N Al O rt tj Q rt, rt, rt Fj Q rt K ((DD n '*0 O O rt FJ- ro ro 7d O sz :R: P- l< Ul P- O (D (D a O sv O (D ro O :J n n �f rt ti fn P. 0 (SII N F3 L=J ((DD 1 fi :3: w Q 0 rt H P- rpt K ~ (D (D P)Ul I -' O rf' F-'• '3J (D ~ O F4 a I-' O rt cn rt O It �4 0) Q rt rt H (D P) 1=J UI (D rt n L=J O O (D O fro K H rt I Al O N- C] :j ro 1 " }i N H rt Fi• lC I w Q O y N ti O (t 4A I I rt �l 1 O O O ' r ,'J" Fj- 40. -M N H O O Pi O -4 .P 1 L4 A) ro (D O H -.l Ul H O) O O z 11) O Ul N 1 W :� i17 :j LT' C1' Ol ko N Ul O O OA O fi FZ Ul Ul I,`3 :J ► i Z PV 0 O to Cn H O �r >1 ((D I FO-' x z 0 O n 1 Al t (D H x t� �i tf) U 0 i a 110 4A HD pt 1-3 n x 11 H 4A i I ( r (nn (D (D N• G H- O l0 I ti ti Ul ti Q 0 w O 0 (D 0 Q rt tv 4j), 1 1 (D :E: H 1 P) FJ- Q O rt H- rt 4A -M H411, O O ►C P, O N O 1 Q P, ft 0 rt O O (D 00 -I O 00 O O (D Iv O rn O 10) Q r_ fi rt t. .3 ¢+ H H N %D O O oA ul ► i ¢, O d> 1 p (D F i (D Ea t1i co rt 1 O t3j H I C tt Q 1 Pl " H I ►i O a ((DD Ix V O m¢ K K x Ul (D -CA -M 11 n x I m o Cnn cl i i t�1 � ',tl C d N to 4j). 4 (D :4 I C O FJ- rt (D H- 4A A H H O O rt O to Ut I Q P- 0) (D O Q Fo+ ct W 00 OD O) O O 7_, Ql O H H 1 pl (D 4, ^r. :5 X (D W w m dl O O $P O H p, N N I '. ►R I (D 1: 1a 10 En I rt P- 10) v I H 1 (D %D PtO UI I FJ- - tix O 1Q ro {h H J LQ 0) Z (31% � I;r W -M #P {R N -M O 7, F -4F Fi Ul O 1 & ti 0 -I 0 &b 0 W N 0 (D rt ►,C 0 0 1 U1 ; �' CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 1, 1990 To: Mayor, City Council and City Adminis� From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistanto Subject: Schedule Air Noise Workshop DISCUSSION At recent City Council meetings the Council has discussed the possiblity of forming some type of structure, or process, that would enable the City to respond more proactively to the many airport issues we are involved with. A strategy group, or a strategic planning process, is one option that was discussed and staff was directed to schedule a Council workshop on Air Noise. In addition to establishing a strategic planning method for the many airport issues that come along, the City of Mendota Heights is currently involved in discussions with MAC and Eagan regarding operating procedures in the Mendota Heights/Eagan air corridor. The Blue Ribbon Task Force that is discussing this matter has met once and has established a time schedule to resolve this issue by July. Future meetings have been scheduled for June 7, June 11, June 20 and June 27. Also, the City of Mendota Heights will be participating in discussions with other airport communities and the MAC to interactively plan for airport runway expansions, this process being prompted by the MAC's recent runway expansion proposals. For these reasons, and the time constraints involved in the two current issues, staff feels it imperative that the Air Noise Workshop be,conducted as soon a f is recommending a Monday evening, either June 11th_or_ June 18th in order to work around the LMC Conference that runs June 12-15. ACTION REQUIRED If City Council desires they should schedule the Air Monday evening, June 11 or dates. �,AkL to implement staffs recommendation, Noise Workshop. Staff is suggesting Monday evening, June 18 as possible M„Xc0.5 SOMERSET OAKS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That R, James Geselland Rene J. Gesell, Husband and wife, owners and proprietors, and Norr Bank of Roseville, a Minnesota Corporation, mortgagee of the following described property, and The Midway National Bank o`' United States Corporation, mortgagee of the following described property situated in the County of Dakota, State of Minn,, That part of the north 267.00 feet of Lot 51, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 3, MENDOTA, lying Line A: Beginning at a point on the north line of T.28N., R.23W.; thence southeasterly to a being 255.0 feet east of said north -south Star State 1t. Paul, a to -wit: easterly of the following descrf e_. said Lot 51, said point being 138.70 feet point on the south line of Lot 50 of said AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 14 line and there terminating, east of the north -south have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as SOMERSET OAKS and do hereby donate and dedicate the easement as for utility purposes only. n. A. e o' :ion 24. spoint In witness whereof said R. James Gesell and Rene J. Gesell, husband and wife, have hereunto set their hands this lav , 19 R. James Gesell Rene J. Gesell In witness whereof said North Star State Bank of Roseville a Minnesota Corporation, has caused these presents to be sigi,yj, proper officers and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this day of , 19 NORTH STAR STATE BANK OF ROSEVILLE By S.D. Hawkins, Vice President By Wayne R. Thompson, Assistant Vice President In witness whereof said Midway National Bank of St. Paul, has corporate seal to be hereunto affixed this day of MIDWAY NATIONAL BANK OF ST. PAUL caused these presents to be signed by its proper officers , 19 By_ David D. Gross, Senior Vice President By_ GeraldE. Thomas, Vice President STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .husband and wife. Notary Public, My Commission Expires STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was and Corporation. County,_ day of his peat of by its and its , 19 by R. James Gesell and Rene J. Gesell, acknowledge before me this day of , 19 by by , of North Star State Bank of Roseville, Notary Public, My Commission Expires County, STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledge and by States Corporation. before me this day of , 19 by of The Midway National Bank of St. Pau; Notary Public, My Commission Expires County, Minnesota United I hereby certify that I have surveyed and platted the property described on this plat as SOMERSET OAKS that this plat is a correct representation of the survey, that all distances are correctly shown on the plat in feet and hundredths of a foot that all monuments have been correctly placed in the ground as shown, that the outside boundary lines are correctly designated on the plat and that there are no wet lands or public highways to be designated other than as shown. Paul J. McGinley, Land Surveyor Minnesota Registration No. 16099 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing Surveyor's Certificate was acknowledged before me this Paul J. McGinley, Land Surveyor, Minnesota Registration No. 16099. Notary Public, My Commission Expires County, Minnesota We do hereby certify that on the day of Heights, Minnesota approved this p—Tat. Mayor Clerk day of , 19 by , 19 , the City Council of the City of Mendota Pursuant to Chapter 212, Laws of Minnesota, 1973, this plat has been approved this 19 By: Gary H. Stevenson, Dakota County Surveyor I hereby certify that the taxes for the year paid on this day of , 19 • day of for the land described on this plat as SOMERSET OAKS have been County Treasurer, Dakota County, Minnesota No delinquent taxes due and transfer entered this Document Number day of , 19 Dakota County Auditor I hereby certify that this instrument was filed in the office of the County Recorder for record on this day of , 19 , at o'clock .M., and was duly recorded in Book - of on page County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota PAUL R. McLAGAN & SON SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS