Loading...
1990-05-15 CouncilCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA BOARD OF REVIEW AGENDA MAY 15, 1990 - 8:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Continuation of May 2, 1990 Board of Review Meeting - RESOLUTION NO. 90-28 (Information Available Tuesday Night) 4. Adjourn to Regular City Council Meeting. ************************************************************ CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA MAY 15, 1990 - 8:15 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Agenda Adoption. 3. Approval of May 2nd Board of Review Minutes. 4. Consent Calendar a. Acknowledgment of the draft April 24 Planning Commission Minutes. b. Acknowledgment of the April Fire Department Report. Acknowledgment of the April Code Enforcement Report. Approval of the Sibley Park Plans and ggmfora Building and Authorization of Staff to Accept Bids. e. Approval of Paved Walkways Bid Award. f. Acknowledgment of April Treasurer's Report. g. Approval of Plans and Specifications and Authorization for Advertisement of Bids for ��.ar►► Bridgeview Shores 2nd Addition - RESOLUTION NO. 90-29 h. Approval of CAO 90-02 Modified Site Plan for 1134 Orchard Circle. ** i. Approval of Furlong Well Closure Bids (Information Available Tuesday Night) Approval of Furlong Septic Pumping Bids. k. Approval to Purchase Conference Room Blinds. 1. Approval of the List of Contractors. m. Approval of the List of Claims. * n. Approval to publish Summary Ordinance No. 270 ("An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 239) End of Consent Calendar 6. Public Comments 7. Hearings a. Liquor License Renewals - 7:45 P.M. - Courtyard by Marriott - On -Sale Limited Service Hotel and Motel and Special Sunday On -Sale Liquor Licenses - Somerset Country Club and Mendakota Country Club - Club Liquor Licenses - MGM Off -Sale Liquor License b. Case No. 90-10: LaVigne - Minor CUP - 8:00 P.M. C. Case No. 90-03: Centex Homes - Rezoning,- 8:15 P.M. CUP for PUD, Prel. Plat, Wetlands (Continued Hearing) 8. Unfinished and New Business a. Information Regarding the Highway 13, Brompton Court Storm Problem 9. Council Comments 10. Adjourn CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 15, 1990 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administrator SUBJECT: Add On Agenda for May 15, 1990 The item listed under the consent calendar as "Available Tuesday Night" is attached for your information (**). One additional item has been added to the consent portion of the agenda (*). Please note that the Resolution listed under the Board of Review agenda is submitted for your review. 2. Agenda Adoption It is recommended that Council adopt the revised agenda printed on pink paper. 4i. Approval of Furlong Well Closure Bids See attached memo. 4n. Approval to Publish Summary Ordinance No. 270 ("An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 23911) See attached Summary of Ordinance No. 270. MTL:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 90 - RESOLUTION REQUESTING DAKOTA COUNTY TO REDUCE PROPERTY MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE FURLONG'S ADDITION OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights desires that all parcels within the community be appropriately valued for purposes of property taxation, and WHEREAS, within Dakota County the Dakota County Assessor's Office has the responsibility to administer the property market value assessment system, and WHEREAS, there exists within the City of Mendota Heights a residential subdivision formally recorded as Furlong's Addition, and WHEREAS, recent statements provided by residents in the subdivision confirm that the saleability of property within the subdivision has suffered due to conditions which can be identified and described as "curable functional obsolescence", and WHEREAS, on May 2, 1990 the City of Mendota Heights opened its 1990 Board of Review for the purpose of reviewing market value assessments made by Dakota County for valuations which will affect future property taxes, and WHEREAS, market valuations within the Furlong's Addition appear to not reflect true values within the area due to reasons of curable functional obsolescence. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Mendota Heights requests that the Dakota County Assessor's Office reduce the property market value assessments within the Furlong's Addition by application of the following. formula applied to each residential and vacant parcel: 1. Reduce current market value of land by $5,00.0, however resultant land value should not be less than $1,000. ` 2. Structures - Other improvements should be reduced in market value by ten percent. 3. Total reduction in market value assessment, due to curable functional obsolescence, should not exceed $15,000 total per parcel. 4. Items 1, 2 and 3 as set forth above shall apply independently of any other reduction in market value. The owner of the residential unit may be entitled to for reasons other than the curable functional obsolescence referred to herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dakota County Assessor's Office should individually change parcel values as necessary to insure that assessment records are correct. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 15th day of May, 1990. ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor AAn CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 14, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator FROM: Klayton H. Eckles Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Bid award for well abandonment Job No. 8923 DISCUSSION Bids were received for the abandonment of the wells located on the two city acquired properties in the Furlong area (1305 and 1306 Kendon lane). Four well contractors submitted bids. The low bidder was Stevens Well Drilling Company. The bid results are as follows: CONTRACTOR BID Stevens Well Drilling $2,500 Keys'Well Drilling $4,500 Associated Well Drillers $4,735 Johnson Brothers Well Drilling $6,970 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council award the bid to Stevens Well Drilling for the abandonment of two wells for an amount not to exceed $2,500. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with Staff's recommendation, Council should pass a motion authorizing Staff to prepare a Purchase Order with Stevens Well Drilling for the abandonment of two wells for an amount not to exceed $2,500. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 270 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 239 The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has determined that the following summary of the above referenced ordinance (the "Ordinance") clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance, and shall be published in lieu of publishing the entire text of the ordinance. The City of Mendota Heights has determined it to be in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Mendota Heights to amend Ordinance No. 239, "Ordinance Adopting the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code and the National Fire Code by Reference", in its entirety to meet the current needs of the community. Section 1 of the Ordinance expressly adopts as the fire prevention code of the City of Mendota Heights the uniform Fire Code, 1982 Edition, as amended by Chapter 7510.4100 of the Minnesota Rules, its Appendices and Standards and the National Fire Codes shall be available for public use in the office of the City Clerk, and a copy of the National Fire Code shall be available for public use in the office of the City Fire Marshal. Section 2 delegates to the City Fire Chief the responsibility for administering and enforcing the Ordinance. Section 3 prohibits disposing of refuse by open burning upon or from any residential property and incorporates the rules adopted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency governing open burning. Section 4 requires the issuance of a permit for any and all recreational fires and establishes a maximum of three foot by three foot size for any recreational fire. Section 5 prohibits any fire or open flame on any balcony above ground level or on any ground floor patio immediately adjacent to or within fifteen feet of any unit in any structure containing two or more vertically stacked residential units. Section 6 authorizes the Fire Marshal and/or Fire Chief to establish fire lanes on public or private property as may be necessary in order to allow adequate access for fire equipment and vehicles and sets forth standards for the size and identification of such fire lanes. Section 7 requires submission to the Fire Chief of an "as -built" plan of new and existing buildings and sets forth the requirements of such plan. Section 8 establishes limits of districts in which storage of flammable or combustible liquids in outside, above ground tanks is to be prohibited. Section 9 provides certain amendments to the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, including without limitation (i) regulations regarding sprinkler systems and yearly sprinkler maintenance tests; (ii) regulations regarding the location and type of fire extinguishers are established for multiple dwellings and retail and commercial establishments; (iii) regulations are established for portable trash containers and the area in which such trash containers are enclosed; (iiii) regulations are established for the storage of liquid petroleum gas; (iiiii) regulations regarding maintenance and testing of alarm systems. Section 10 provides for procedures for the Enforcing Officer to give notice of alleged violations of the Ordinance in writing, particularizing the violation and providing a reasonable time less than ten days for correction of the violation, unless such violation deemed by such Enforcing Officer to be an immediate fire or life safety hazard. Section 12 provides that any person aggrieved by a notice of violation may appeal such violation to the Board of Appeals by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within fifteen days after service of said notice violation. Section 14 provides that any violation of the provisions of the Ordinance may be punishable by a fine of not more than $700 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both, plus the cost of prosecution in any case. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 11, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approval of the Sibley Park Plans and Comfort Building Job No. 8920E Improvement No. 89, Project No. 6E DISCUSSION• The Park and Recreation Commission approved the Sibley Park Construction and Comfort Station plans at their May 8th meeting (see attached reduced plans, full plans will be available Tuesday evening). Council needs to review and approve the plans and authorize staff to accept bids for the following: Sibley Park* Comfort Station** TOTAL Estimated Cost $440,125.00 $ 54,828.00 Budgeted Amount $321,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $494,828.00 $383,000.00 * Including Overhead, Consultant fees, etc. **Including Architect fees The Park and Recreation Commission discussed the possibility of overbudget construction costs and decided to await the final low bid before determining what funds would be used to cover any costs over the referendum budget RECOMMENDATION• The Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Coun- cil approve the attached Sibley Park and Comfort Station designs. ACTION REQUIRED• If Council desires to implement the Park and Recreation Commis- sion recommendation they should pass a motion approving the Sibley Park and Comfort Station designs and authorize staff to accept bids. Bids to be opened at 10:00 A.M., Friday, June 15, 1990. JED: dfw Attachments JL -t r JL —ir •I, I..Ii L I ; �I II11,11 JL I JL -jr c � I _z z I i L � I I '9 II I : I • a s,.�r,Ta�m,r.�,c�rre•.o�w, q IS Groveland Terrac(3ROUP e inneapolis•M 3 14rNty Kpww.r m� s.wwh eMae,e:.n s.mYlawlY•+I MAY�mO ..>, Y• dd QM •.4d.•n• a.o.+a TT JL 'ir rdd bd JL it ♦� a Ell min S � V •i L WWW i i JL s �dm . �r F y Y ! a dd JL it OL P I I F 7 • a s,.�r,Ta�m,r.�,c�rre•.o�w, q IS Groveland Terrac(3ROUP e inneapolis•M 3 14rNty Kpww.r m� s.wwh eMae,e:.n s.mYlawlY•+I MAY�mO ..>, Y• dd QM •.4d.•n• a.o.+a I r' i • a s,.�r,Ta�m,r.�,c�rre•.o�w, q IS Groveland Terrac(3ROUP e inneapolis•M 3 14rNty Kpww.r m� s.wwh eMae,e:.n s.mYlawlY•+I MAY�mO ..>, Y• dd QM •.4d.•n• a.o.+a I • a s,.�r,Ta�m,r.�,c�rre•.o�w, q IS Groveland Terrac(3ROUP e inneapolis•M 3 14rNty Kpww.r m� s.wwh eMae,e:.n s.mYlawlY•+I MAY�mO ..>, Y• dd QM •.4d.•n• a.o.+a KODET _ARCH ITFL-C T_URAL GROUP, LT 15�GROVELAi� TER(?ACE MPLS., MINN.� 55403' 377-2737 Mendota Heights May 8, 1990 Preliminary Cost Analysis for Mendota Heights Sibley Athletic Fields Comfort Building Based on Floor Plan Dated May 8, 1990 Excavation: Concrete: Footings _ and Slabs Masonry: Concrete Block Rock Faced Exterior Steel: ' Beams Rough Carpentry: Sheathing;, Soffit, Trusses Finish Carpentry: Siding, Fascia,.Cabinets Roofing: Asphalt Shingles Sealants . Doors: - Hollow Metal Doors and Frames, Rolling Door, Hardware Gypsum Board: Ceiling " Tile: Ceramic Tile, Quarry Tile. Painting Miscellaneous: Fire Exiting, Bath Accessories, Toilet Partitions, Signage Mechanical: Plumbing Electrical: 5% Contingency 18% Overhead and Profit Total Construction Cost $2,475.00 3,474.00 6,160.00. 3,220.00 4,978.00 1,596.00 875.00 400.00 fi 1 1 left 1,712.00 1,642.00 .1,400.00 .. 3,720.00 2,900.00 $40,408.00 " 2,021.00 -7,274.00 $49,703.00 This probable cost summary is reflective of the knowledge available on this project as of this date. Market conditions, program changes, bidding conditions, and other market place factors can and will -affect this summary. The summary is provided to determine and approximate scope of project. �. I C/' SII NI I h, Ili; s .I •1lll L loll rydg4 do is I --- ----_� / O 1990 MENDOTA HEIGHTS BOARD OF REVIEW CHANGES PARCEL ID NAME ORGINAL EMV CORRECTED EMV REDUCTION AMOUNT 27-28400-080-01 MADAN NO CHANGE 27-28400-010-02 KOPPEN 104,900 90,500 -14,400 27-28400-020-02 HSIAO 74,700 62,900 -11,800 27-28400-040-02 GOODIJOHN 13,100 8,100 -5,000 27-28400-051-02 GOODIJOHN 87,500 74,600 -12,900 27-28400-060-02 FURLONG 101,900 65,900 REVIEW DONE -36,000 27-28400-070-02 LYNCH 40,000 32,000 -8,000 27-28400-091-02 BIESSENE 84,600 72,200 -12,400 27-28400-111-02 BERSKOW 98,900 84,700 -14,200 27-28400-112-02 BERSKOW 78,600 66,900 -11,700 27-28400-010-03 TOUSIGNANT 137,200 118,200 REVIEW DONE -19,000 27-28400-021-03 TOUSIGNANT 8,900 3,900 -5,000 27-28400-032-03 HINER 116,100 101,500 -14,600 27-28400-042-03 HINER 8,900 3,900 -5,000 27-28400-070-03 DOFFING 168,900 155,200 -13,700 27-28400-090-03 GEIER • 65,000 55,100 -9,900 27-28400-110-03 CITY MENDOTA HGTS 73,900 63,800 -10,100 27-28400-120-03 KRENZ 11,000 6,000 -5,000 27-28400-010-04 SCHWARTZ 128,600 113,900 ::-14,700 27-28400-030-04 SWANSON 100,600 86,700 -13,900 27-28400-050-04 BELL 85,200 .72,700 -12,500 '-28400-060-04 SPERLE 91,800 79,200 -12,600 27-28400-080-04 CITY MENDOTA HGTS .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 2728400-170-04 BREDVOLD 96,600 82,700 -13,900 27-28400-171-04 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 2728400-070-05 DERKS 92,200 79,100 -13,100 27-28400-090-05 STATE OF MN 15,300 10,300 -5,000 Page No. 2778 May 2, 1990 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Board of Review Meeting Held Wednesday, May 2, 1990 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the annual Board of Review meeting for the 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. Mayor Mertensotto acknowledged letters received from Stanley Karon, Ronald Zamansky (for Cray Research), Steven Goldberger, Edward Tande, Eleanor Arndt, Dave Moran and Gregory Schreoder. He then turned the meeting over to Bill Peterson, Dakota County Assessor's Office Residential Manager. Mr. Peterson informed the audience that the purpose of the meeting is to review 1990 -residential market values for taxes payable in 1991. He explained that after the general discussion, representatives of the Assessor's Office would meet individually with everyone present, and he asked that everyone in attendance sign their names on an attendance list. Mr. Peterson stated that his office had conducted County -wide open book meetings and that 91 Mendota Heights property owners had participated in that process. He explained that one of the reasons the Assessor's Office conducted the open book meetings is that the office has converted all of its information to a computer assisted mass appraisal system. Using this system, residential market values were recalculated county -wide this year. In previous years his office has given across the board valuation increases, however this year changes vary considerably - some valuations have risen while others have been reduced. Mr. Peterson then asked for general questions from the audience. Responding to an audience question, Mr. Peterson stated that the Assessor's Office must assess properties in excess of 90% of what those properties could be sold for on the open market. In valuing properties, property sales prices for the period between October 1, 1988 and September 1, 1989 which were received by the Auditor as of November 1, 1989 were used. Using the computer assisted mass appraisal system, the Assessor's staff can now do studies on all components of a home which have an affect on market value, such as number of bedrooms, all brick exteriors, etc. He further stated that location is one of the most important factors. Page No. 2779 May 2, 1990 After responding to other general questions, Mr. Peterson informed the audience that the Assessor's staff would now meet individually with the property owners in attendance. After meeting with all of the property owners, Mr. Peterson informed the Council that the Assessor's staff had met individually with 52 residents. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council,'Councilmember Anderson moved that the meeting be continued to 1:30 P.M. on May 15th. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor COMPARISON OF ASSESSMENTS MUNICIPALITY OF: MSNDOTA 14/614T'S REAL ESTATE -- FINAL 19ja ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE -- REAL ESTATE -- VALUES AS OF MARCH / for 19 1 0 Land $ /3a, J/3B , 900 Buildings $ .39R , 679, '{OO Machinery $ TOTAL MARKET: $ 6'0?5�P8 .1300 -------------------- ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE -- Land $ /38, 5a/, 800 Buildings $ y01y, 79y; 500 Machinery $ TOTAL MARKET: $ 51.3, Z>/l. 300 -------------------- Real Estate Real Estate Gross Tax Capacity: $ 1 ,588, 09Net Tax Capacity: $ %V, 009, Personal Property Personal Property Gross Tax Capacity: $ .356,.3/e3 Net Tax Capacity: $ 0353, yi8 TOTAL GROSS TAX TOTAL NET TAX CAPACITY: 19 89 $ 16; 9�%, �O% CAPACITY: 19 Remarks: ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE FOR 1990 IS .5.357 % GREATER THAN FINAL FOR 8 !;l DR OF M NDO HEIGHTS CITY E TA H I HTS A DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 24, 1990 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, April 24, 1990, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chairperson Morson called'the meeting to order at 7:34 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Morson, Koll, Dwyer, Dreelan, Duggan and Tilsen. Commissioner Krebsbach was excused from the meeting. Also present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson, Planning Consultant Howard Dahlgren, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder and Parks and Recreation Chairperson John Huber. APPROVAL OF Commissioner Koll moved approval of the MINUTES March 27, 1990 minutes. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 90-11: Mr. James Loving, 672 Cheyenne Lane was LOVING - present to discuss with the Commission his VARIANCE request for a side yard setback variance to construct a four season porch. He stated that he has obtained signatures of consent from his neighbors. Chairperson Morson inquired if the signatures included the neighbors to the south.of Mr. Loving since they are the ones who will be most impacted by the addition. Mr. Loving answered that the neighbors to the south are included on the list. Commissioner Dwyer moved to recommend that the City Council approve an eight foot (81) sideyard setback variance. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 90-12: Mr. Bob Brasch, representative from JA JA DEVELOPMENT - Development, was present to discuss their WETLANDS PERMIT request to allow construction of a home within a Wetlands District boundary. He stated that the proposed home will be located on Lot 6 and 1/2 of Lot 5, Block 1, Tilsen's Highland Heights Addition. In response to a question from Chairperson Morson, Mr. Brasch stated that there will be two soil boring tests done. He stated that fill will be brought in since the poor soil will be removed. He stated that Twin City Testing will be testing the soil conditions. April 24, 1990 Page 2 Public Works Director Danielson stated that the drainage on the lot is adequate and that the drainage will drain away from the old Wetlands. Mr. Brasch stated that they plan on keeping the wooded area on the lot and that they will not be moving fill into the Wetlands area. In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan, Mr. Brasch stated that at this time they are not planning to remove any trees and that JA Development will work with the City to determine the best drainage plan for this lot. Commissioner Koll questioned what would happen if there was an excess of water flow - such as a 100 year storm. Mr. Brasch responded that drainage would flow away from the area and that particular problem would be an exception since any other home could have a problem based upon those conditions. He reiterated that that is why testing of the soil is being done, so that they can remove the poor soil to help prevent erosion. Commission Duggan questioned if inspections are done during the process of construction relating to soil testing and foundation. Public Works Director Danielson confirmed that inspections will be done. Mr. Brasch also confirmed that the footing inspection will have to be done by an independent inspector. Public Works Director Danielson explained that independent inspectors will certify the inspection and send notice to the City inspectors. Commissioner Duggan moved to waive the public hearing and to recommend to the City Council that they grant a Wetlands Permit to construct a home on Lot 6, and 1/2 of Lot 5, Block 1, Tilsen's Highlands Heights Addition. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 90-10: Chairperson Morson opened the meeting for LAVIGNE - the purpose of a public hearing to discuss MINOR CUP a request from Ms. Margaret LaVigne for a minor conditional use permit to construct a six foot (61) fence around a proposed pool. He explained that the previous owners of the lot had obtained a Minor Conditional Use Permit for a split rail fence conditioned upon the height of the fence not exceeding 42". AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 April 24, 1990 Page 3 Ms. LaVigne, 1090 West Circle Court, was present to discuss her request. She stated that she has done some research regarding chemicals used in pools. She stated that she will be using a chemical called Baquacil instead of chlorine. She commented that Baquacil is much better as far as the environment is concerned. She further commented that she plans on back washing into her backyard but if there is a concern with the process she would be willing to use a hose and drain the water into the sanitary sewer system. Commissioner Dwyer stated his concerns regarding the fence. He questioned the sound protection of the fence and wondered if the neighbors are opposed to the fence. Chairperson Morson questioned if she has considered using a different type of fence other than a solid board fence. Ms. LaVigne answered that she would like to have spaces in between the boards and that she does not want a solid board fence. She stated that she will discuss that with her contractor. Commissioner Duggan asked if the City incurred any expenses in publication fees and postage fees. Public Works Director Danielson confirmed that there were publication and postages costs. Commissioner Duggan stated that the applicant should be responsible for paying those costs. Commissioner Tilsen expressed his concerns for noise problems relating to the fences. He stated that there are no neighbors across the street from the LaVigne's and that he has no problem with this request. Commissioner Tilsen further commented that he does not want to start setting precedents regarding future fence requests. Chairman Morson pointed out that each fence request is an isolated incident with respect to neighbors and traffic. Chairperson Morson then opened the meeting to the public. There was no one present to discuss the request. Commissioner Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. April 24, 1990 Page 4 r There was a brief discussion regarding the opacity of the fence and the location of the fence. Commissioner Dwyer moved to recommend to the City Council that they amend the existing Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow an extension of the fence height from 42" to six feet (61). He further moved that Ms. LaVigne is to reimburse the City for postage and publications cost with an amount no greater than $35.00 Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1, Morson CASE NO. 90-09: Chairman Morson opened the meeting for the GESELL - purpose of a public hearing to discuss a SUBDIVISION request from Mr. R. James Gesell for the subdivision of his lot. Mr. Paul McGinley, from Paul McLagan and Son Land Surveyors, was present to discuss the request. Mr. McGinley explained that Mr. Gesell owns a 7.15 acre lot that he - would like to subdivide into two lots. Mr. McGinley. explained that the lot is in the R -1A Zoning District and once subdivided into two lots, the acreage will still remain in excess of the R -1A Zoning requirements. Mr. McGinley explained that the proposed house on Lot 2 is in excessive of 100 feet to the wetlands. Mr. McGinley stated that a variance is required because the lot does not have 150 feet of frontage from the street. Mr. McGinley explained that there is a private street easement from the property to Dodd Road. Mr. McGinley briefly discussed the possibility of a future street system for the new addition to accommodate future subdivisions. Mr. McGinley explained that he prepared, as suggested by Planner Dahlgren, a street circulation plan for the neighborhood. Mr. McGinley stated that a suggestion of dedicating a street along the south 30 feet of lot 1 would be -unnecessary and useless in the future. . Planner Dahlgren stated that he concurs with Mr. McGinley and that the proposal, as submitted, will work just fine for the area. In response to a question from Chairperson Morson, Mr. McGinley stated that the lots are on an Auditor's Subdivision. He explained that Auditor's Subdivisions were used years ago to accomplish what Aoril 24, 1990 Paae 5 subdivision would accomplish today. In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen, Public Works Director Danielson stated that an easement should be provided across the properties for the eventuality should public utilities be installed. He stated that they would be able locate utility easements. Chairperson Morson asked Mr. Gesell if he would be willing to allow, in the future, a utility easement along Lot 1 to serve Lot 2. Mr. Gesell stated that he has no problem with dedicating the public utility easement. Commissioner Dwyer questioned what purpose the 150 foot building line serve. Planner Dahlgren stated that that compares to the 100 foot lot width requirement for the R-1 Zone in the City. Chairperson Morson then opened the meeting to the public. Ms. Kathleen Ridder, Dodd Road, was present to review the proposed plans. She stated that she has no problem with the proposed subdivision. Commissioner Dwyer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Dwyer moved to recommend to the City Council that they.approve the preliminary plat and a variance to the required 150 foot of frontage along a public street subject to the provisions of a public utility easement along Lot 1. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 April 24, 1990 Page 6 CASE NO. 90-03: Chairperson Morson opened the meeting for CENTEX HOMES - the purpose of a public hearing to REZONING, PREL. discuss a request from Centex Homes for PLAT, CUP FOR PUD, Rezoning, CUP for PUD, Preliminary Plat WETLANDS Approval and Wetlands Permit for the second phase of Kensington. Mr. Dick Putnam, part applicant and part owner of the land that is in question, briefly reviewed the information submitted to the Planning Commission. Chairperson Morson stated that there have been meetings held between Mr. Putnam, Centex Homes and Mr. Jerry Duffy, legal counsel representing the residents surrounding the proposed project. He noted that there have been a few changes made to the sketch plan since the last meeting and he asked for an explanation of those changes. Mr. Putnam stated that he had contacted Mr. Duffy and they agreed to meet. He stated that the meeting was held at the City Hall and he explained that people in attendance included Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistance, Kevin Clark and Tom Boyce both from Centex, Jerry Duffy, legal counsel and himself. He explained that any residents were welcome to attend the meeting and that they would be happy to talk to them. He stated that there were three issues that were discussed. He stated that traffic impact on Delaware Avenue and Mendota Heights Road was discussed. He explained that the discussion was not only the traffic impact of the proposed development but of the entire Southeast Area, i.e., Northwest Airlines, Cray Research. He stated that they discussed the issue of a proposed interchange at Delaware Avenue and I-494. He further explained that they discussed the land use planning issue, i.e., transition of buildings and buffer. He explained that the issue of density was discussed. He stated that this topic was difficult for both parties. He stated it was hard to get a handle on what was meant by a reduction in density. He explained that Mr. Duffy did not Anril 24, 1990 Paae 7 represent a number, but rather a statement of a "substantial decrease" in density. Mr. Putnam stated that at that time they were unable to determine the reasons for such a*reduction. He stated again that they did not come away from the meeting with a particular set of directions relating to density. Mr. Putnam explained the buffer issue and making changes to provide a transition from the Hampshire single family homes to the condominiums. He stated that berming and plantings will occur to provide buffering. He stated that building an 8' to 10' berm would be easy to do and that he would do that. He stated that this will provide a good separation from the street and the single family uses to the north. He stated that they feel that this plan is very reasonable. He further explained that in discussing with Mr. Duffy, he stated that there was nothing pointed out to him that specifically addressed why the plan is inferior or a "bad plan". He further commented that they feel it is an excellent plan and that the City thought that when they approved the sketch plan. He stated that the only changes between the sketch plan and the plan submitted tonight were to make accommodations to make the park work better. Mr. Putnam stated that they are unable to respond to the density question of changing a significant amount of a multiple family use in an effective way because what it entails is changing the comprehensive plan from what is there today.- He also stated that it would affect the park land dedication dramatically. He stated that the City went through a lengthy process in 1985 and that there was a tremendous amount of input. Mr. Putnam confirmed the fact that the residents in Hampshire/Copperfield Additions were not apart of the discussions in 1985. He stated that the residents of the additions would not be here today if those discussions had not taken place. He further stated that the developer April 24, 1990 Page 8 cannot change the City's comprehensive plan. He further discussed the research the City has done for the needs of parks, and ballfields. Chairman Morson discussed with Mr. Putnam that in his transition improvements, there would be eight less units of coach homes and Mr. Putnam concurred. He stated that there would be an additional 12 units of townhouses and a reduction of 20 condominium units on the plan. Mr. Putnam stated that they inadvertently did not include the garage details to the Commission. He explained the details of the garages and stated that they are similar to the buildings. He stated.that the garages would be 22 x 22 per garage. Public Works Director Jim Danielson explained that at the request of the developer and the resident's attorney the City has partially completed a traffic impact study. He explained that the traffic had been counted on Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road in July of 1989. He stated that the City called Mr. Jack Anderson who did the traffic study in conjunction with the Southeast Area Study to update his study based on the current proposal. He explained the report submitted by Civil Engineer Eckles. He explained the maximum numbers possible using the different schemes in figuring those numbers. He stated that the numbers are less than what Mr. Anderson analyzed as a result of Planner Howard Dahlgren's report with one exception, that is if all the land is developed using single family homes. Mr. Danielson further discussed the traffic at Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road intersection. He briefly discussed the possibility of having traffic jams at that intersection sometime in the future as a result of the extra traffic. He stated that that condition was pointed out in the City's ISP report. He stated that condition would occur only if no other improvements were to be constructed at that intersection. He stated that Mr. April 24 ,. 1990 Page 9 Anderson suggested two improvements. He explained that there are two improvements the City could make to address the problem, installing a left hand turn lane and installing signal lights. He further explained that intersection is not under the City's jurisdiction, it is under the State's. He stated that the City has petitioned the State to install signal lights, and the State has denied the requests. He stated that the City does agree with the traffic engineer's analysis and that the City will continue to work with MnDOT to have the signals installed at the appropriate time. Commissioner Tilsen questioned if that particular intersection would qualify as a school crossing. Public Works Director Danielson responded that that was the justification that the City submitted to the State on the first two requests. Commissioner Dwyer questioned what the density calculation for the MR PUD and the HR PUD. Mr. Putnam stated that the density on the entire site is 4.8 units per acre which includes the single family, townhouses and multi -family which is based on 431 units. He stated that the eight units less is not a major change that responds to the density questions. He stated that the density is within and under all of the previous approvals and that is what they have tried to do all along. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated that the changes in the density are all within the MR -PUD Zone which runs down the center line of where the power lines are. He stated that prior to the amendments there were 199 units on 58.2 acres which includes the park land within the MR -PUD Zone. He explained that the density was 3.42 units per acre. He explained that there are eight less units which would be 191 units on 58.2 acres for a density of 3.27 units per acre. He explained that the HR -PUD density does not change. He stated that it is 232 units on 28.19 acres or 8.23 units per acre which also includes the April 24, 1990 Page 10 park land south of the easement. He stated that the overall density does not change much. Commissioner Dreelan questioned what the walkways would be made of and who would be maintaining them. Mr. Putnam explained that the walkways along the public street would be either a sidewalk or a bituminous path. He stated that that will be decided between the Parks Commission and the City and that the costs will be assessed against the road. He explained the walkways within the park. He explained the private sidewalk and who would maintain them. In response to a question from Commissioner Dwyer, Mr. Putnam stated that there are covenants for Hampshire Estates. He further stated that they are proposing covenants for the new addition. Mr. Boyce stated that the single family homes would be similar to Hampshire. Estates. Mr. Putnam stated that scenic easement provisions will be added to the covenants for the proposed single family homes. He explained that the terrain is much different than Hampshire Estates. In response to a question from Commissioner Dwyer, Mr. Boyce explained that the covenants for the townhomes and coach homes are fairly similar. He explained that the By Laws had been submitted earlier. Mr. Clark stated that By Laws change based upon State Statutes. As requested by Chairperson Morson, Mr. Putnam explained the timelines for the park construction. He explained that it could take four to five years to develop the land. He explained that the Copperfield Addition was started in 1985 and still has 15 to 18 lots left to sell. Chairperson Morson questioned who is responsible for maintaining the undeveloped land. Mr. Putnam stated that the property owner would be responsible and in this case it would be Centex. Chairperson Morson questioned what guarantee does the City have to see the completion of this development. Mr. Acril 24, 1990 Page 1.1, Putnam stated that that is a legal question. Mr. Putnam stated that the plans that are approved or agreements that are signed by Centex are binding on anyone that might take over either in a case of foreclosure or sale of property. Chairperson Morson inquired about the financial structure of the development. Mr. Boyce stated that it is not their intent to propose a project and not build it. He further explained that they will have to pay assessments and taxes just like everyone else. Mr. Boyce stated that right now there is no construction finances on this project. Chairperson Morson questioned if Centex would furnish a Performance Bond on the entire project and Mr. Boyce answered no. He stated that he would not advise it. He stated that if Centex was doing the public improvements he would not have a problem with that. Mr. Putnam explained his property and how he purchased it. Chairperson Morson stated that he is satisfied with the plans and that there are good conditions. He explained that he was brining up these points so that the residents would recognize that there are a lot of concerns with a development of this magnitude. Commissioner Duggan questioned whether a sign would be constructed indicating the magnitude of the development so that the future residents will not be mislead. Mr. Putnam stated that they could do that but that he is not sure how successful that would be. He further commented that there has to be an approved project before a sign is constructed. Commissioner Duggan stated that he is looking for offset of any future unhappiness by publicizing the development with a sign. Mr. -Boyce stated that is why they have the people sign, in writing, acknowledging they are aware of the multi -family proposal. Commissioner Duggan stated that many of the people have indicated to the Commission that when they came to the City Hall to look at plans, they saw existing plans and not potential future April. 24, 1990 Page' -1.2 plans. He stated that those residents felt that that was somewhat misleading. Mr. Boyce stated that they want to be sure that the people are informed as well. Commissioner Dwyer inquired about the Delaware Avenue and I-494 interchange. Mr. Putnam stated that that has been brought to his attention by people who live on Delaware Avenue. He stated that the City of Mendota Heights is on record opposing the interchange along with Sunfish Lake. Commissioner Dwyer asked what Centex's position is on the interchange and Mr. Putnam answered that they have opposed it all along. Commissioner Dwyer stated that if there is existing pressure to put an interchange at that location that pressure is going to increase dramatically with an additional 400 families in the area. Mr. Putnam stated that the interchange has nothing to do with Mendota Heights. In response to a direction by Chairperson Morson, Planner Dahlgren explained briefly that Centex Homes has tried to work closely with the City to achieve their joint objectives. He explained that an objective was to achieve significant parks space in the southeast portion of the City. He further explained the dedication of park land by the developer. Planner Dahlgren briefly explained other planned unit developments in the City. He further explained the proposed development with regards to the density. He explained that by moving the density around we are then able to conserve the larger open spaces for the overall benefit of the people who are going to live here and the City as a whole. Planner Dahlgren briefly explained the rezoning issue. He stated that it has always been anticipated that along I-494 that there will not be single family homes. He stated that the City left the zoning single family until there was freeway acquisition. He explained that April 24, 1990 Page 13 the comprehensive plan was amended based upon the new densities which were established according to the Metropolitan Council procedures which was all setup by State law. He further explained that the density level is very difficult to change because hearings were held and that the process has gone over a period of time. Planner Dahlgren further explained that townhouses are very compatible with single family homes if they are done well, which he stated, in this case is. He briefly discussed the traffic concerns. He stated that the traffic will work based upon the research that was done. He further explained that the development done this way will not have a deleterious affect on people living north of Mendota Heights Road. Planner Dahlgren briefly explained the Delaware Avenue/I-494 interchange. He explained that that interchange is out of the question. He discussed briefly the City of Mendota Heights' opinion on the interchange. He further commented that we can be reasonably be assured that at some point in time there will be improvements to the Dodd Road and I-494 interchange. In conclusion, Planner Dahlgren stated that the densities are all relatively low. He stated that normal multi -family housing in the Twin Cities is about 15 units per acre. In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen, Planner Dahlgren explained the amount of acres that Northwest and Cray Reserach has in Eagan. He explained that the amount of traffic will be considerable. He stated that the traffic in Mendota Heights is nothing by comparison. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he wanted to convey to the residents that the traffic in Eagan is several fold more than the traffic on Mendota Heights Road. Commissioner Duggan questioned where else the City of Mendota Heights plans to provide parks so that we attain the April 24, 1990 3.4. original Comprehensive Plan calling for 289 acres of park land for a population of between 11,000 and 13,000. Planner Dahlgren briefly explained the tremendous demand for parks in the City due to the increased popularity in soccer and softball. He explained the process that the City has worked through to obtain those parks. Planner Dahlgren stated that the Parks Commission is looking at other options with a consultant to look at additional park land. Commissioner Duggan questioned what recreational provisions, if any, are making for this development. Mr. Putnam stated that there are a number of them. He stated that they made a decision by talking with the City. He stated that they made a judgment based on the comprehensive plan which stated that the City needs a park in the southeast area. Chairperson of the Parks and Recreation Commission John Huber explained that the City of Mendota Heights has numerous neighborhood parks. He explained that Mendota Heights has one active adult softball field. He further explained that an agreement has been worked out with Sibley High School where some of the park referendum funds are being used to develop a piece of land at the intersection of Marie Avenue and Delaware Avenue. He explained that that facility will be shared between the School District and the City. He further explained that when the study was done for parks the feeling was that ultimately Mendota Heights will need three adult size ball field complex. He explained a possibility of another site on Dodd Road south of Mendakota Country Club. He further explained that any other sites are extremely expensive. He stated that the land is going fast. Commissioner Duggan read several paragraphs from the Land Use Plan from the Comprehensive Plan of 1979 explaining that there is a need for larger open recreation areas within the City. He questioned whether the City should be making decisions in relation to April 24, 1990 Page 1.5 this land in giving it away to condominiums and townhouses until we are certain that we do have some land to meet the needs of the community as are expressed in the Comprehensive Plan of 1979. In response to a question from Commissioner Dwyer, Public Works Director Danielson stated that there is one baseball field, one soccer field and two full size baseball diamonds at the Sibley Park site. He further stated that the facility should be available for use next spring or summer. Chairperson Morson then opened the meeting for public discussion. Mr. Jerry Duffy, attorney representing the neighborhood, stated that he attended the meeting with Mr. Putnam and City staff members. He stated that it does, not surprise him that some of Mr. Putnam's recollections are not the same as his own. He stated that it was their decision to not have members of the neighborhood attend the meeting between himself and the Mr. Putnam and that he had made that point to begin with. He stated that it was the Planning Commission's charge to go back and come up with another -plan and to meet with the neighbors to talk about it and there was no other plan to talk about. He stated that another plan was given tonight which is the equivalent of not giving us the opportunity of looking at and talking about it as a group and trying to decide if there are portions of it we can support or not. He stated that it has been a waste of a month in terms of what he understood what the Planning Commission to have in mind when it told us to go out and take part in that process. He stated that that -process simply did not work. Mr. Duffy stated that one of the concerns that he had talked about was density. He stated that he did say that it was too dense. He stated that the developer wants to be able to use all'of its land and the City of Mendota Heights wants to April. 24, 1990 Page 3:6 get some park land and not pay for it. He stated that the only way that the two lines can cross is if somebody looks the other way in terms of how the planning process works. He stated that the density does not meet the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Mr. Duffy referred to a staff memo dated April 19, 1990. Mr. Duffy explained that Mr. Putnam stated that any significant decrease in density would entail a significant reduction of the non required park dedication area. Mr. Duffy further stated that Mr. Putnam has indicated that he will not prepare any plans showing these types of reductions. Mr. Duffy stated that he is not blaming the developers because they have land and they want to be able to get the value out of the land. He stated that the City is saying that they want the developer to give the City the land. He stated that it is not eight units per acre. He stated that it is only eight units per acre if you include all of the park. Mr. Duffy stated that he did not say that there were 10,000 cars out on the streets today. He stated that the plan states there is going to be 12,000 cars and that there is going to be a level of service F. He stated that with the neighborhood traffic plus park traffic there is going to be a lot of people. He stated that his question, at the meeting with Mr. Putnam and City staff, was when are the improvements planned. He stated that his question was answered by saying there is no plan. ' Public Works Director Danielson stated that a light is planned for Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road and that the infra structure is in place for installing the light at such time when it is warranted. Mr. Duffy referred to a letter sent from the City of Eagan to the Mendota Heights City Administrator. He summarized the letter stating that the land development in the southeast area of Mendota Heights and the northeast area of Eagan may be jeopardized when the two Cities fail to cooperatively prepare for long term April 24, 1990 Paae 17 transportation plans for supporting the roadways at Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road. He stated that that letter was sent in 1987 and nothing has been done. Mr. Duffy stated that the City is getting free parks on the backs of the Copperfield/Hampshire residents. Mr. Duffy stated that they have suggested to come up with a less dense unit and bring in some more single family units and there will be more people who are supportive of the plan. In conclusion, Mr. Duffy stated that the plan is a poor exchange in a month's time. He stated that he is not blaming the developer because he thinks that the developer is ham strung by its need to get its value out of the property. Mr. Jim Losleben, 815 Hazel Court, stated that he has been a resident for 21 years and has served on the Mendota Heights City Council in the past. He stated that this plan is not a community plan. He stated that there have been amendments to the Comprehensive Plan since 1979 and that every time a developer wanted to change something the City has changed the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that this is spot changes to the Comprehensive Plan and that he does not like it. He questioned who is supporting the Comprehensive Plan. Michael Gannon, Copperfield resident, stated that the residents are tax payers and that they have invested a lot of money. He stated that he would not have moved into Mendota Heights had he known that this was going happen. He stated that he is opposed to $60,000 condominiums next to $200,000 to $400,000 homes. He stated that he does, not think that anyone would be here tonight if $150,000 condominiums were planned. He further stated that the residents are not being represented on this issue. Duncan Baird, Mayor of Sunfish Lake, stated that he is concerned with the potential traffic on Delaware Avenue. He April 24, 1990 Page 18 stated that the roads in Sunfish Lake are not designed to handle heavy traffic. Dan Nichols, Hampshire Estates resident, stated his concerns for traffic on the residential streets. He further commented that there is little support amongst the neighbors for the park land use. Parks and Recreation Chairperson John Huber explained that a large citizen group decided that ball fields were needed. He stated that when the bond referendum was passed, Copperfield residents voted overwhelming for the park referendum. He explained that fliers were sent to all residents in the City. Bernard Friel, Mohican Lane, stated that the density was set in stone in 1985, when the first referendum was brought to the residents. He stated there were densities built into the Developer's Agreement with respect to the first bond issue. Commissioner Dwyer questioned the safety issues with regards to the park plan. Mr. Putnam stated that those concerns were not discussed at the meeting. Mr. Pacdernick, Hampshire Estates resident, stated that he raised the concerns of safety with regards to. the concentration of a great deal of people in the parks. He stated that it is a secluded area. He questioned what has been done to increase the level of security. Mr. Clark responded that he was before the Council a year ago requesting lights and that it was the Council's desire to not have lights. Mr. Putnam pointed out an April 18, 1990 memorandum from Police Chief Delmont. Mr. Danielson stated that the Police Chief has looked at the situation and that he does not agree with Mr. Pacdernick. Mr. Putnam briefly summarized the memorandum from Police Chief Delmont. Commissioner Duggan stated that Police April 24, 1990 Page 19 Chief Delmont suggested that'all common parking areas (near garages) should be lit with flood lights and that all parking lots adjacent to recreation areas should receive particular attention. Commissioner Duggan questioned what the Police Chief was referring to. Commissioner Duggan stated that the Met Council has indicated that this area is not suitable for single family dwellings. He further commented that he questions what makes this area more suitable for multi -family dwelling. He further stated that this area is more suitable for parks. Commissioner Dwyer questioned the impact of putting 500 additional families under the air corridor. Mr. Losleben questioned how many units are planned for the entire area between Delaware Avenue, Dodd Road, Mendota Heights Road and I-494. Planner Malloy answered 1,458. Chairman Morson stated that the City•is not planning that number. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan would allow that amount. Commissioner Duggan stated that the City is working at a "break neck" pace. He further commented that Mendota Heights is going to be like West St. Paul if we keep going at this rate. Commissioner Dreelan questioned the possible need for adding a school. Planner Dahlgren briefly responded that the School District has retained a site at Mendota Heights Road and Huber Drive. He stated that they are keeping the site in the event that another school is needed. Planner Dahlgren further commented that the 1,458 units in the southeast area of town, included all the single family homes in Copperfield. He further stated that the total number from Delaware Avenue to Dodd Road, south of Mendota Heights Road would be 1,007. He stated that at the rate we are developing, we will be far below that figure. April 24, 1990 Page -20 . A resident expressed his concerns regarding the traffic and his concerns for the softball fields. Bernard Friel stated that when the southeast area study was done it showed the 40 acres adjacent to the school site as park area not single family dwellings. He stated that that was in the computation when the densities were computed for the southeast area. He commented that everybody likes to over look that. A resident from Hampshire estates expressed her concerns over the possible increase in property taxes. Administrative Assistant Batchelder stated that the former City Administrator did a Municipal Services analysis on tax impact caused by the increase for the need of police and fire service and road improvements. He stated that the report concluded that there will be sufficient tax revenue from the development to pay for the extra services demanded. Lou Shatz, Sunfish Lake resident, stated her concerns for the impact on schools. She stated that all of the schools are jammed with kids. She stated that townhouses generate almost as many kids as single family dwellings. Ron Smith, Hampshire Estates residents, stated that high density development increases tax rates. He stated that this development will increase the tax base in this community. Tim Ridley, Hampshire Estates resident, asked what the benefit of this development for the City of Mendota Heights is, other than the benefit to the developer. Jim Losleben asked what right the developer has to increase the density so that they can make a profit. William Pilla, Copperfield resident, stated that if you poll 99 percent of the people in Mendota Heights they would April 24, 1990 _P' t.ge 21 probably be against this development. He stated that people do not want the park as it stands like this. He further commented that philosophically there is something wrong with this plan. Daryl Robertson, Copperfield resident, stated that he voted for the parks because he thought it was going to remain as open space. He stated that he would rather see parks than homes. Mr. Duffy stated that typically more dense uses do not carry their fair share of the burden in terms of the taxes. Alan Vernon, Hampshire Estates resident, stated that the duty of the Planning Commission is to examine the zoning request. Commissioner Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend to the City Council that they deny the request of rezoning, CUP fc PUD, Preliminary Plat and Wetlands based on the following finding of facts: 1. There is no community support for this project. 2. The plan is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan of 1979. 3. Density is ridiculously skewed. 4. Plan presented to the Commission is not harmonious to the neighborhood and the community. 5. Does not show any proper buffering on the freeway side and on the other side. 6. The plan requests more than a heavy infringement on wetlands which it also will likely use to make the apartments, condominiums or townhouses more acceptable. 7. An inadequate use of lands in light of City needs for parks and ball fields. 8. There is an unresolved question of safety of parks next to a freeway. 9. The area is not suited as indicated by Met Council for single family dwellings. 10. Comprehensive Plan calls for a certain number of tlni i -C ai' ncri-a i r f i -pec WT� +-'k-+- cio aro currently beyona the requirements of our comp. plan and to move into a decision that is favorable would put us bottom heavy in units. Commissioner Dwyer offered a friendly amendment stating that the proposal will lead to a heightened air traffic problem in Mendota Heights. It will lead to a development of an interchange at Delaware Avenue and I-494. He stated that he is concerned for the safety of children that will be lured to the ball fields. He further commented, with all due respect to the amount of work the Parks and Recreation Commission have put into the parks plan, that we are permitting the "tail to wag the dog". He further stated that we should not be blinded by our concerns for parks. Commissioner Dreelan offered a friendly amendment stating that there is a concern for the overcrowding of the schools. Commissioner Tilsen offered a friendly amendment stating that the developer failed to give the community an opportunity to react to the changes submitted tonight. Commissioner Duggan accepted the friendly amendments and added to his motion that the development is contrary to, or opposes, the mission statement of the community. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 1, Morson ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Dwyer moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:05 o'clock A.M. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT APRIL 1989 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE CALLS NO. 90051 - 90074 FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED: NUMBER ACTUAL FIRES HOURS Structure - MH Commercial FIRE CALLS Structure - MH Residential 1490 Structure - Contract Areas 60.5 Vehicle - MH 2 Vehicle - Contract Areas 287.5 Grass/Brush/No Value MH 1 Grass/Brush/No Value Contract 1 MEDICAL 96 Assist 6 Extrication 1 HAZARDOUS SITUATION 287.5 Spills/Leaks 8-2 Arcing/Shorting 3 Chemical Power Llne Down 1 FALSE ALARM Residential Malfunction 2 Commercial Malfunction Unintentional - Commercial 1 Unintentional - Residential Criminal GOOD INTENT Smoke Scare 1 Steam Mistaken for Smoke Other 7 MUTUAL AID 1 TOTAL CALLS 24 LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS: TO DATE MENDOTA HEIGHTS 18 55 MENDOTA 2 5 SUNFISH LAKE 1 6 LILYDALE 2 6 OTHER 1 2 TOTAL 24 74 WORK PERFORMED HOURS TO DATE FIRE CALLS 539 1490 MEETINGS 60.5 236.5 DRILLS 94.5 287.5 WEEKLY CLEAN-UP 101 336 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 62 _73 96 ADMINISTATIVE 8 588 FIRE MARSHAL 87 —TO 287.5 TOTALS 8-2 3321.5 NUMBER OF CALLS: 24 STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC. TOTALS TO DATE $0 $0 $0 $300 $1,700 $2,000 TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES $0 $0 $300 FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH) $300 $3,700 MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $0 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $1,700 MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE- $1,700 BILLING FOR SERVICES 0 AGENCY THIS MONTH TO DATE INSPECTIONS MN/DOT $0 MILW. RR $0 CNRRR $4,600.00 $4,600.00 LAST YEAR OTHERS: MEETINGS 763 $0 LAST YEAR ADMINISTRATION 266 TOTALS: $4,60.0.00 $4,,;;600.00 64 449 3 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH 0 10 INSPECTIONS 3 INVESTIGATIONS 80 RE -INSPECTION LAST YEAR MEETINGS 763 222 ADMINISTRATION 266 246 SPECIAL PRQIECTS 322 449 TOTAL 261.5 I 5 12.5 87 REMARKS: SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS SYNOPSIS The Department responded to 24 fire calls during the month of April. only two of which resulted in any dollar loss, both of these were minor vehicles fires. The department also responded to two grass fires during the month, one in the river bottoms west Highway 13 started by a train, the second in Sunfish Lake that was contained in a small area. That fire is listed suspi- cious. The department also responded to request from mutual aid to the City of Inver Grove Heights on a large grass fire. MONTHLY TRATNTNG The department spent the whole month of April conducting smoke drills and Self Contained Breathing Apparatus practice in the two residences on the west side of the City. our regular monthly departmental drill was spent conducting live burns in the building. Live burns are not something that we often get the opportunity to practice within a control environ- ment, so whenever we can it is very beneficial to the department. FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY WORK PERFORMANCE FOR APRIL 1990 CALLS FOR MONTH FIRE FIRE FIRE PERCENT CLEAN MONTHLY GEN OFFICER RESCUE ROOKIE SPECIAL 24 CALLS CALL CALLS ATTENDED UP DRILL MTG MTG DRILL DRILL ACT. YEAR TO DATE ATT'D HOURS ATT'D THIS 3 2 2 2 2 2 10 ADIV 74 1 MONTH MONTH YEAR YEAR HOURS HOURS HRS. HOURS HOURSI HOURS HOURS HRS CHIEF John Maczko 13 16.5 32 43% 4 2 2.5 1.5 86 ASST. Bill Lerbs 14 18 30 41% 12 5.5 2 2.5 52 CAPT. Keith Stein 17 20.5 48 65% 3 2 2 2.5 Paul Dreelan 12 15 34 46% 3 4 2 Mike Coonan 1 19 24.5 45 1 61% 2 11 Gordy Sk•erven 17 21.5 43 58% 3 3 2 Ed Adrian 13 17.5 44 59% 3 2.5 2 Jim Perron 16 20.5 35 47% 3 5.5 2 4 Mike Marscullio 10 11.5 20 27% 3 3 Tom Shields 17 21.5 38 51% 3 5.5 2 CAPT. R. McNamara 1 16 21.5 36 49% 3 9 2 2.5 4 Bill Chisler 16 21.5 36 49% 3 2 2 2.5 Marc Connolly 9 11.5 23 31% 3 Jamie Lerbs 17 22 41 55% 5 2.5 2 1 6.5 Dick Zwirn 15 17.5 43 1 58% 3 2 2 2.5 George Lowe 16 20.5 41 55% 6 5.5 1 2 2.5 Mike Johns 1 7 12 44 59% 3 5.5 2 1.5 0 0% CAPT. Jeff Stenhaug 19 24.5 41 55% 12 9 2 2.5 7.5 Leroy Noack 12 16 44 59% 2.5 3 Lambert Derks 8 8.5 36 49% 2.5 2 George Noack Jr. 1 1 12.5 33 45% 3 2.5 `1om'Olurid'. �... 8.5... 2()27�Jo 3. 2. _. Mike Maczko 11 14 44 59% 9 2.5 1 2 Aaron Coates 19 24 52 1 70% 3 4 5.5 0 0% 0 0% CAPT. John Neska 21 25.5 62 84% 3 2.5 2 2.5 2.5 Tom Weinzettel 11 13 22 30% 3 2 2 2.5 Ted Husnik 12 16 33 45% 3 2 John Lapakko 14 17.5 48 65% 3 4.5 2 4.5 Jim Kilburg 8 11 32 43% 6 2.5 2 4.5 Pat Knight 9 13.5 25 34% 3 2.5 Kevin Perron 3 3 16 22% 3 2 Tim Oster 14 18 34 46% 3 2.5 2 TOTAL FOR MONTH 539 TOTALATTENDED 33.67 47.25 24 5 0 0 15 TOTAL FOR YEAR 1490 TOTALMANHOURS 101 94.5 48 12.5 0 0 62 THIS MONTH ILAST MONTH LAST YEAR AVE. RUNS/MAN 13.22 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX AVE. MEN/RUN 17.63 16.25 18.57 AVE % FOR YEAR 49.62 47.00 49.07 MEMO Date: 4-30-90 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Building Activity Report for April 1990 NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac, and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee, and valuation amounts. 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 7 1,252,308.00 10,013.87 21 3,490,004.00 29,748.90 16 2,469,670.00 21,935.97 APT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOWNHOUSE 1 121,886.00 1,182.23 2 215,364.00 2,192.86 5 821,235.00 7,041 21 CONDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1,500,000.00 7,490.18 MISC. 30 282,427.00 4,800.93 62 506,995.00 8,737.03 34 212,315.00 4,457.60 C/I 1 8,500.00 178.20 8 80,424.00 1,494.08 11 1,432,123.00 9,575.07 -------------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Sub Total 39 1,665,121.00 16,175.23 93 4,292,787.00 42,172.87 73 6,435,343.00 50,500.03 TRADE PERMITS: I Plumbing 12 500.00 37 1,303.00 32 943.00 Water 16 80.00 25 125.00 23 115.00 Sewer 13 227.50 28 490.00 17 297.50 Heat, AC, & Gas 14 842.50 47 2,962.60 37 5,625.50 -------------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Sub Total 55 1,650.00 137 4,880.60 109 6,981.00 Licensing• Contractor's Licenses 15 375.00 269 6,725.00 288 7,200.00 -------------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Total 109 1,665,121.00 18,200.23 1 499 4,292,787.00 53,778.47 1 470 6,435,343.00 64,681.03 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 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Paved Walkways Job No. 8920B Improvement No. 89, Project No. 6B DISCUSSION• Bids were received for the paved walkways. follows: May 11, 1990 The bids are as GMH Asphalt Corporation $266,405.00 Central Landscaping 288,666.50 Pine Bend Paving 290,056.00 Alber Construction 316,233.00 Barber Construction Company 327,954.00 Ace Blacktop 343,050.35 Midwest Asphalt Corporation 461,352.45 The low bid, submitted by GMH Asphalt Corporation, is approxi- mately $20,000 under the Engineer's Estimate of $285,000. GMH Asphalt Corporation is currently working on the Neighborhood Parks projects and when this is completed later this month, work will begin on the walkways. There are 6+ miles of trail within this contract which include trails along the north side of Victoria Road, where Virgil McQuay was in opposition and the north side of Marie Avenue where Dr. Bozovich was in opposition. Staff has heard nothing further from either of these two parties about their trails since they last met with Council. Also included is the paved trail through Valley Park which was of concern to several residents. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that Council receive the bids and award the contract to the low bidder, GMH Asphalt Corporation, for their low bid of $266,405. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with the staff recommendation they should pass a motion accepting the bids and awarding the contract to GMH Asphalt Corporation for their low bid of $266,405. JED:dfw CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TREASURER'S REPORT, APRIL, 1990 LES:kkb 5-8-90 BALANCE COLLATERAL DAKOTA COUNTY STATE BANK Checking Account 5% $ 133,010.01 Savings Account 5 1/2 499.72 C.D. Rep 6.6% 100,000.00 233,509.73 Collateral - Bonds 646,000.00 Gov't Guar. 100,000.00 $746,000.00 CHEROKEE STATE BANK C.D. due 9/4/90 350,000.00 @ 7.95% Savings Cert. 8/28/90 13,952.59 @ 7.5% 363,952.59 Collateral - Bonds 600,000.00 Gov't Guar. 100,000.00 $700,000.00 Value 4/30/90 (est.) U.S. Treasury Money Mkt 2,300,000.00 (2,647,000.00) Gov't, Securities Fund 1,200,000.00 (1,740,000.00) TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: $4,097,462.32 Funds Available 12/31/89 6,026,184.56 4/30/89 4,091,351.00 Rates, Money Market Apr. 30 Bank 6.6%. Fid 7.94% LES:kkb 5-8-90 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 10, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Klayton H. Eckles Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Sewers, Water, Streets Bridgeview Shores 2nd Addition Job No. 9007 Improvement No. 90, Project No. 1 DISCUSSION• Staff has completed the preparation of plans and specifications for the Bridgeview Shores 2nd Addition development. There were no surprises or extraordinary conditions encountered during the design, so bids should come in favorable. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends Council approve the plans and specifications and order staff to advertise for bids. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 90- , RESOLUTION AP- PROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE BRIDGEVIEW SHORES 2ND ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 90, PROJECT NO. 1). RA`_1-0i City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 90 - RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE BRIDGEVIEW SHORES 2ND ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 90, PROJECT NO. 1) WHEREAS, the City Engineer reported that the proposed improvements and construction thereof were feasible and desirable and further reported on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore directed that the City Engi- neer proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications thereof; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for said improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and they are hereby in all respects approved. 2. That the City Clerk with the aid and assistance of the City Engineer be and is hereby authorized and directed to adver- tise for bids for said improvements all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such bids to be received at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights by 10:00 o'clock A.M., Thursday, May 31, 1990, at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Engineer will then tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at its next regular Council meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 22nd day of May, 1990. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS May 10, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council, 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 L-2 B-2 Val's Addition (1134 Orchard Circle). The property on which he proposes to construct 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% slopes for a vast amount of distance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that 1) the modified site plan for the CAO be approved and 2) the $100 application fee be waived as requested by Mr. Girard. FMt�7�► ::a • ,�:: . 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, IVIN 55042 e (612) 777-0883 Mendota Heights City Council Dakota County, Minnesota May 10, 1990 Re: Lot 2, Block 2 Vals Addition City Council Members My firm,is requesting you to consider waivering the $100.00 application fee for the modified site plan. Lot 2, Block 2 Vals Addition is located in a critical area development. This lot is actually 600-700 feet from any steep slopes and therefore this is the reason for the waiver. request. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Monty Girard President mg/rg Case No. CAO CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Dakota County, Minnesota APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF CRITICAL AREA DEVELOPMENT (Ordinance NO. 403) Date of Application Fee Paid i " CC? Receipt NumberVt-&.-M V-M\A� I Applicant, Name: Q� Z'O'*V'y Last Address: �--)No () Number & Street Phone 1'r �U � Home FirgV City Initial State Zip Code D'o - q CAIA 9 Owner : Name: YO W ZQ First rst Initial Address :P, 91. 5 c . htUte, m Number & Street city State Zip Code Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description of Property: TR Type of Request: Variance Site Plan Approval Modified Site Plan Approval Present Zoning of Property: Present Use of Property: ON - Proposed Use of Property: I hereby declare that. ' all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. signature of--A�bplicant Date Received by (title) Note: The following information shall be provided in the site plan-: 1. Location of the property, including such information as the name and numbers of adjoining roads, railroads, existing subdivisions, or other landmarks. 2. The name and address of the owner(s) or developer(s), the section, township, range, north point, date, and scale of drawings, and number of sheets. 3. Existing topography as indicated on a contour map having a contour interval no greater than two (2) feet per contour; the contour map shall also clearly delineate any bluff line, all streams, including intermittent streams and swales, rivers, water bodies, and wetlands located on the site. 4. A plan delineating the existing drainage of the water setting forth in which direction the volume, and at what rate the storm water,is conveyed from the site in setting forth those areas ' on the site where storm water collects and is gradually percolated into the ground or .slowly released to stream or lake. 5. A description of the soils on the site including a map indicating soil types by areas to be disturbed as well as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable.. All areas proposed for grading shall be identified by soil type, both as to soil type of existing top soil and soil type of the new contour. The location and extent of any erosion areas shall be included in the soils description. 6. A description of the flora and fauna, which occupy the site or are occasionally found thereon, setting forth with detail those areas where unique plant or animal species may be found on the site. H. r- 4 4 0 Im cri Ma m z m t JV! tp -01 0 to o LO fil o ol o C. -C m ujGl, oti 672- Ch N • > I 0 c M m 10 03 �i T. T. NUJ t.1 016-0 —1%"w m ca Ica o C. -C m Ch N • > wo 0 to49 z 0 4 P) to . -4 0- — 0 0 c M m 10 03 �i T. T. NUJ t.1 016-0 —1%"w CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 10, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Jim Danielson, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Furlong Septic Pumping Bids DISCUSSION At one of the Council's recent meetings with the Furlong residents, the residents complained that their septic system pumping prices were high. They were concerned that these prices may go even higher and they requested that the City help them out by getting formal quotes. I have sent the attached bid request to all the licensed pumpers within Dakota County and have received the following quotes back: Bidder 1000 gal. 2000 gal. 3000 gal. Ronald H. Meyer $65.00 $ 70.00 $ 85.00 Laverne Wahl $65.00 $ 70.00 $120.00 Schlomka Services, Inc. $70.00 $ 90.00 $110.00 McKinley Sewer Service $75.00 $100.00 $125.00 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that these bids be accepted and the low bidder, Ronald H. Meyer's bid, be distributed to the homeowner's. ACTION REQUIRED If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion accepting the 1990 Furlong Septic Pumping Bid and directing staff to notify the Furlong residents of the results. JED:njb 1990 SEPTIC SYSTEM PUMPING FOR CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA CONTRACTOR'S QUOTATION FORM Quotes due on or before 12:00 P.M., April 27, 1990 TO: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Gentlemen: I hereby submit my quote for pumping septic systems within the Furlong Addition neighborhood in Mendota Heights. Contractor will coordinate pumping directly with individual homeowners who will be responsible for paying for service. Quotes will be good through January 1, 1991. 1. Pump and properly dispose of 1000 gallon septic tank. 2. Pump and properly dispose of 2000 gallon septic tank. $ 65.00 S 70.00 3. Pump and properly dispose of 3000 gallon $ 85.00 septic tank. List Exceptions: Price includes MWCC Charge. for dumping and backflushing each SyGtPm Tli ` 6 li a'$5'.'00* charge for ' anvtiine it's over'' 100 feet ' of host 41-1324891 Printed Name: Ronald H. Meyer Treasury Number Signed By: ,n� _ Title: -Owner Official Address: 5325 Manning Ave. S. Afton, Minn. 55001 Date: April 23. 1990 Phone: 459-0162 It is the intent of the City to publize the result of this re- quest for quotation to area residents to help assure that proper septci system maintenance procedures are undertaken in the area. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor, Cit Council, City Adminis,"a /r Y Y FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Conference Room Blinds INTRODUCTION At the April 17th meeting, Councilmember that window blinds be installed in the large have since requested quotes from two vendors following for your review. INFORMATION May 7, 1990 Blesener suggested conference room. We and submit the The two vendors we contacted are the Window Warehouse in West St. Paul and the 2M Company from Apple Valley. Both were asked to include installation in their quotations. Window Warehouse quoted $870.49 for Anderson blinds. 2M quoted $472.50 for Bally blinds. Although all of the horizontal blinds in City Hall were purchased from Window Warehouse, their quoted price is significantly higher than both the 2M quote and the prices we have paid in the past. Staff agrees that the conference room needs blinds and recommends their purchase. Although 2M cannot provide Anderson blinds, they have assured us that the quality of the Bally product is similar and there is only a slight difference in the appearance of the Bally product. The color is the same. On the basis of this assurance and the significant difference in price, we recommend that a purchase order be issued to 2M Company. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs in the recommendation it should authorize 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. LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL MAY 15, 1990 General Contractors Licenses Doug Olson Construction First Landmark Builders, Inc. Kindy Construction Co. Lifestyle Homes Massee Carpentry Midwest Fence Waxwing Woodworking Concrete License Charles Hess Co., Inc. Excavating License Gary's Bobcat Service May 15, 1990 TO: Mayor and City Council CLAIMS LIST SUMMARY: Total Claims $ 211,616 Significant Claims American Natl Bank MSA bond pymt 35,417 Blattner Impr project 14,033 Bra.slau Air Noise 3,002 Ceca Final Impr pymt 2,378 LaHass Plow 1,892 1st 9 N. W. Banks Eq cert interest 11,600 Winthrop Weinstine Legal service 81F059 Unusual Claims E. Anderson Park equipment 99,400 MN Dept Jobs & Trng unempl 1,555 N U 41 I c 'i3 N ,. i H. ;--,- -• j M �! I. ! I• `{ w 3 m D CR U {a 9 s+ GS ! •k ' • n ct Gt ! w C] ct rV ! rp Cf ct b ! M N 1 , r, n ro C 7 I 3 7 I 7 9 I 7 •L ! :7 Di 7 W ro 0 ID 17 7, 'D �' ( 1T v ro j b ro - I D ro - m rl M. m C ra ru M m al r)ui 3 3, 3 3 0 UI , I r) , N I r) 0 N-'1 0 ui aI Dr D1 A ro 0 0 ! x x ! ro rD ro ro ro x ro x x Y s x ry' Z zro 7 Z ro z z 5 � ro 5 m I, w D, D, 3 0 I L b 3 SD U z z .. 3 tr 1 I7 ID I R U f f a C� 7, Ti 1i z (r c) x ro t7 rD 0! i ro h E ro h l ro z 3 DI ro n s ro! 7 zzzzz j 1y 7 j aaan - I � H K n M i i I n 1 rD o f II 0 ID U N m m X N U -S1 Di w vt M w 1 � r 4.r. b M i.. M i f•, .�.i .�.. S � %� sr'' :b r J i ro I ro b) *J rA ^a ro ro ro ro 1) 3) 1) 0 i i DI DI 0' D, L i I i i i N N N In V I R, I x X X• X X {g k• CS CV 4 4 ry 0 M ionnn I � ! i I f • ! 5 rI 5 u J5MNM f t• 55 W W W r•1 ( I j M ; r(1 M M M M ui r) ! r ! ! { 1 { ! n w ca I ryt��rru �r Iw rl; rrt•r i r a u r I y ; w i M I 1 r" ro r, i 9• ca 5 U u n a, r i• j ca 9, ro ry x9555 L) ne C', V t 5 5 g u ( 5 rd , ca ca ca u 5 9 55@ I UI5 f 5 5 9 555 a n� ! !� !! rD r^a 5 5 5, 61, i {0 9 5 5 55 55 rri j I I rD k ! n 3 i ' n N j N ! f z a ro 1 i I ' I 1 3 n G7 s ! N C � 1 t N y s;. I In I ! ca i i I ! Z;4, ..C. Cl I ' I 1 J 9 G7 s ! ! 9! N 15, I ! Z;4, ..C. Cl I 111 ; I 1 Ti -tz !_ � I N b Ca W tJ H N 000u,o nm�n.�Dy �tivona b rr to Co N V ON In Pi rt Ob UbbC:V Di OW W (DD rt y' U3 ro M 1 I i ! i J I 1 N t mtoLEI n tD r) N of w 61 n 0 n •L I ro ! + I j a I f ! j I 1 ± six c1 Ica M!r')xu r M I w r$ ! ry I •t• , iD a 5 5 r_I i j ! { I I ; I 1 ! I i f I I I 111 ; I 1 Ti -tz !_ � I N b Ca W tJ H N 000u,o nm�n.�Dy �tivona b rr to Co N V ON In Pi rt Ob UbbC:V Di OW W (DD rt y' U3 ro M 1 I i ! i J I 1 .,iA_W...JI �I_N N):i C�A�tI �)IN NO'�U_R `o p—�'i? •n,.� '. 41,1••' ' • !�'. ._[i 0, [0 N V���LI_�A{W •.!n..� Cf 1-l. • ; I rD i a ro -4 ro v -s ' ro a` � 1 ro -4 I a m ro z !.a w [t W! I !✓• CJ I CD 11 n Y I M rJ I rV n h ct (r1 W Y i rJ ! W+ Cl ra n Y ! F'` 5 15 Q h I cr 0 I tD d � [t Co i ;D S') n (D ! V V V 14 V V V x 0 rp'< y W {�.,7 I m N M 0 7 Df I•" 3 ( to ' m M1y 7 y m i W , 0 I�pp 1 W to i 7 10 W MM M Y M , W w IT to 7 m •J✓ I n m N m n m '.Y I D1 i n to V n In ID n In Y! n 41 m n Q W ai x [tJ z x; x x m x W,x in kft( z N z ro 4 z m m i z m 4 G 1, G 4 Ca 4tz 4 z! or I 11 rJ ly b [7 n a I 1 yJ q a C 4 7 h 7 n i N 1 t'1 :7 m tt 7 'T 9j 41 ; rD ct K h 7Z �► m h I' 7 �� m i n( x, I m m 3 C3 S n H n n ct of [r 0 n ,1 n n n 0 y m m m 1 a 1� I m , 7r DI m o m i m f i m m n! n w r) I n n o to I n Www 0L90 x x I X ! ED U7 x , x i - n X 7 I x '- [ In ; c :�� 1 n f o roro'aro'T!ro'm a z z mm z z m z ro rorovvrovv C C ct tb 1vTt Gt tn m I u W 5 N t` Y 5 5 Gt tp 5 C8 5+ V 5 5 5 Y 5 IJ n I ry WW U41CJ i CJ W CA w u u w w 5 5 UA 5 W CJ ! 5 5 1 U1 9 i 5 Lk { 5! !,1 5 W CJ Cd. 5 G1 W C1 5t 5 5 C1 5 5 Z. n ' U[ J; � i � b' CDI 9 5 •C -L, ill • 5 -L, -L, r] i] to CCSPP 71 S 9 5 5 9 5 5 9 li R 1V 1 1 14 1V N V C*1 C14 C 5 5 f ! 55. i 5 5 5+ 5555x355 'J If as ! ID j a I 0. m i Y D!ul m y to zr n m m f m m6 ro m 3 ro ro 3 3i� re !U ro 0 n k ro k Y Y ifj Di I+ Y, n X W yro 3 w m mmt in0in nn X n nnnnnnn In y y n rp W m roro rlmrororo 7 i : ro 91 W 5 :J •L Dr DI It m m N m n n n i n r) I ! + 1 ! i jtf I u 1 w � i 1 1 ' i ! I { I LO ! 0 CJ I W Q) Lo til W 1 W 1 u 1 U Ot 1 a1 C• 0 5 I el i 5 ru I ry u i C4 CI I C/ 5! 5 v I W I W I 1 I 51 5 V d C1 I C1 1 5 CD R I Gl tB W CO ;1 t Ck V C2 ry N W x1 4 h 5! 5 r4 ! ry 5! 5 5 5! 5 m I Co 5 1 5 r_9 15 ffi w V rh Gi a• s vh i i i 1 I { I [.. 1 A `. \1 -. I1) C f f4. C NDN C1 N N N N NAL^ J C1 N P W N ..f O N l; - [. p .. �'. L: . A�� A P ^ A A A j�A_` !] N1;� .• � 1A�A W N .O 'L J[ IW 41 (J 101 A L. ) .J�. � '. �41q N ! I .A.I J L. M1 1 . .. 1.� 1•• - N�..)� . ♦ . .1 ...__ ...... 1 �_k,'u :i�`=: o�F i -a.• n rn a �.i r.) _u �w"_a+ t is u'w"__r.. n j -ai_�-n, 1, N;_� -N N �r _ Ty _ t_•_ t.0 ;, rt l: n; J ! ro 0 M II M v {' M � j c•t 41 L I W n n j 7 m st U I Di Cb. fA Rb CA d C4 C4 CD Cr rII ry U`• I nncinn0l0 rnn n 1 7 m ct V I ]i m n n m rt y •- C} I Ot I b 7 m ctC8 L I r,,A m n 17 I m rt •p 0 " t •b m n j o n tDN MK»JL ):-K»W,-1 N ct ct ct ct �•! ct rt ct rt I n X n m j v n n n m » m z m x m z m `n z is m x j j z m 000000.000000 ry V ct ct ct ct ct M. M N ct rt It ct �� t7 K tr i t7 w ! a �+ n ct j m Ci 000000000000 m n ) m n Dj. m n c fm n » z I mrB j •i `f I. i i i j Vi .7 m ' j J N n I n c�mr�Nm nr�mmra0n ro n µ n DJ ! n r n 0x x ccccc,.cc x m Ix x x I t aaaaav'vaaaa'a -0 70 ! r z _ » M N M N V M M 4+ N✓ N 1tn z C b 1 Irl ! a ID z � n f N ISD 1 I '''D ' 0 n { 0 n i ro z f z o j 44 M » Ur a V Cl CI n t6 5 f. M 555»5555555 V U M C9 5 b 5 M r! M M Y r� M M M» M �.1 M i •G i Ct, ' CA t t• l l l i l! I l t( t I 1 � r 11 t t• t! ! W { J: . •c• r r r r• WCJWCJWCSW WWEli WEll j i •D r r4 r W r W W1 5 5U55 555Gt W G1W CJ I ' Gn S ry 5 S CACtCArl,CbC 5S 555• 9 C4 � C9 x• I 555�955r•rrrr r, ! 5 '•r• S •k i t7� V V m V C9 Vi t0 m y 41 CA 5 - 5 to 5E4 5 5 5 5 I! ri I I I I! I l i l l J, 114 114uCrraCRrJlW V; i 5 5 M ra S 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5' i S 5 CA r . i i I 33 a 3= 3 3 L. a -0-n i r s 3 �+ 4» K N K K D, �, yK Ii, '�,Ell W W N M N n' m m NN i � ct N m roaaaa'aaaa r Ora m DI y I w y I w Dl w rtti g ro r ' i i i i i •i i� *' b c 3 I �•+ M rt rt K ct M M K M CAI D! N. N In N N tn. in Nin : to N • y , t Jr •p 0 14 ro to ro W I M M K I U c, r4 - P U, U,, S L' 4` p W I C C9 V Q W CJ W V 1•t CA to CA 15wUCD0co0r,;5(A55 j } f I I f � ro I 'a I W I Cs j Cd .W i E3• I` 5 j V i V I 5 r 5 rt l: n; Iralr3 ! ro 0 M II M TJ n n 1 ct n � � cC -�a n 4 N rT r DI K Y ct m Q 7 K N I ' 1 i..t n.cj •: � Iri � I� °� ", m �i r _ !m m� m I m� m�- v v a v Sor, y ! I a V ' l o to I to n a t l to pp n o n to I to b n I K w ry Ce r n b n ir�rp ry ry o n t• u to M M n n r n 5 rI i ti mnp n N v to '< I n n { th (] ' CR I ca I �' I t I �+ j� I 7 1 5 x 7 b 7 m I •L w b 7 L I 7� b m I b m, � N I7 I n m y� N n n 7 m! I n m � n n < m .. to N n! N m Ip l i a, n (A L n N n n In I n n n, m ( n n UI n n m n ca W 7 x( j x I 4 zl K zm zz jm e +D N zim !< m M m m w z '3 m kti jej 1 n 7 3 l sa m ti f a n cr 0 m 3( 71 j v :s Ir 7 a a m n 1 a m n I n m ci cr m I n x m m n ; m I n , s m n tt a m m i 7 t fA M 7 e 7 m 7 `f 7 n 3 l Sr iii ttl . N 7 3 7 y 3 i mI n m n 3 n+ m n m m n n m( n m m m n b m m n "' m x 3 x `< x {{ x x a K x x OL I j N ! I 4 a) 9j z EA z i 4 2 ! i z{ i `S r r1 a rl '3 U I Cr n !- M m m M rt m + cr m 7 l V m c tr m I m s t7 m 7 w U m << N» 3 { i j �+ i a i 3ly to +P to t q N ro r'v rM j to ry N CJ UI C9 t• W I r:� • I .'C 5 rGryto 7 5 I Ca 5 I W M r4 N 5 5 N 5 rq. 9 5 5 7i M M 1 M v N W I 2• j N to W to to rto�7 451 5-S n + I b 5 M 5 X4, j rnrn n n I. + I m < ry I � I uck ( ry W r 5 5 � ( SI•• 5 5 ; 55 , 5 5� Q a to nr • i z n M . LO i � 7 M i N K X N m H• N N n S < CG u < < z m n ucA nn n m m v N zz Y t iH j ` µIMS CAICA I ; l I iroIto i m ru I C� �yy3 15 i N i to Gi I �� r' 5 I to I 5 5 1 Q LA I r0 Cv Ll M u U M I t ' 5 55 J{ ( 5 A i G ( 15 5 1 5+59 5 I 55 I L i I M i lb 1 I L � .,) b :,h v P�T•A (J N AV -V G '.'P � li 4 A. 1.) V'1 ^')1 f. � ur • l f _ .I, - _ .. ._ .. _. p w i ! ! N N N R R R y y N It, 15 0 mroro 1 i pi I `V w u •k• b Lry Z+ � - It ! tp j I V I I � I j I , I I 0 ro i I ( a I ro z 7 ti 'D I w l tp r' i Cr +D ? •0 y 1 W R ro I W I ro h D ld R LS 1 W Cs 1 r w u i 0 0 W <T j I W 1 9 h Gf tp 1 � h n ro N RCP 1 CP 0 n ro n 13 ID n 'S x h rO `< ; a, 7 7 mV !U .1 I zr 7 s N N I d j ro n N N -4 7 . 5 ro N i N ro n 4 DI 'n u ro n M ! DI i r, Y fD n N N t FD ro r) ri w L + n x G. u w x In x I x x 3 x -� a a CS a -I fD • -1 N l y I Cl �I a [ ID 1) z ro ro ro m ro x ro R z ro I z ro o z 3 h '>r ! a K ! I- I y i I m r � v' 3 (� -s bab v f IU I aN ! 7 z a r1 x i v ro 5 n ` z r w n Q n ro r7 7 N I m S C, 7 c m m` n ! 7 K m n 7 m z ro i n I �ctyr I n a I o n �m m m ' 0 n n x x ro ro m z D, I x f x ! x z j I' i N N I z R ! , a a 1 a i m} p a I • V f i•+ i y g t0 W g, u! I 5� � 5• � 5 I � tp w m 5 rO L ro H n I ! 1 .I, -0,p -b I 4, t n u CHs wH t. 5 W ; W Z ! Cs+ i LD Gs i 15 u u III r i I •51 i �� h Cf ( 9 HI Y I m N N 1 ! I N d I ! N � µ N p w i ! ! N N N R R R y y N It, 15 0 mroro 1 i pi I `V w u •k• b Lry Z+ � It ! tp CY I V I I � I j I , I 7 q rb i I fn ros -b ... W m0 5 0 ct Q kP 0 Z� 01 2 a roM a, r) (D 10 r) IR r) EJ I GIU5J+C0 U 0 0 cr. ZI 1 El t E%l 0 Ni CD c Z 0 zr rb C'i r) fD fa 0 '3 I (D co n HWw (41 v14 VW4 NW W4 W4 V0 ct IM tl rt U f CA 11 ct ro E-1 ci i -1, 4., I'r) m D x i3 r.) l< zr ro 9) - U ro ro In U lu a, EA i 0, - QC IC Q> 7 q ... m0 "I W . . . . . . . . I Lk 19 W W ti WW 0 CO 0 U -Zi a, r) Di Z EJ I GIU5J+C0 U 0 0 cr. ZI 1 El t E%l 0 Ni CD c Z 0 zr rb 6. (p I (D co n HWw (41 v14 VW4 NW W4 W4 V0 ct IM tl rt U f CA 11 ct ro E-1 ci i -1, 4., I'r) m D x i3 r.) l< zr ro 9) - U ro !b �? In U lu a, EA U tb 0, - QC IC 1. ro r) LI le "D 41 3 1I Z D 0 Lo rA CO 0 U, 10 0 to 7-a H H H H CT 3 z -< OL n N 3 U Ill 'S as ro ro 7IDlb Z Ur Cr -S Z z :0]D u I i C9 x Nro 7 zr -ID '5 j r) r) N In rl fD m ti ItEb Eli 'W ro 01 -ID w 4.1 w u ro w 0 w w Elk W c (d 14 w 0 w w m w U Ed 5 5 CJ r1l t, ro 59U 5m a 61 0 Iry 0 0 u 5CA55 i 0 5 ct I riare X ... m0 "I W . . . . . . . . I Lk 19 W W ti WW 0 CO 0 U -Zi a, r) Di Z EJ I GIU5J+C0 U 0 0 cr. ZI 1 El t E%l 0 Ni CD c Z 0 6. 16 '6; W -F If, W.— -tU 3) X, xi TA -D T) m In Hro 0 13 '13 -0 *0 'n 13 13 E. 1 1 1 i i I LI le "D 41 In Ill a Tj0 H H H H CT 3 as ... m0 "I W . . . . . . . . I Lk 19 W W ti WW 0 CO 0 U -Zi a, r) Di Z EJ I GIU5J+C0 U 0 0 cr. ZI 1 El t E%l 0 Ni CD c Z 0 6. 16 '6; W -F If, W.— -tU -4 't rbi i~ :r rD io q; f, —ro1 s T *0' 4 *0 m 0 Ei e Io rt rl 'o Nit (i u Q a I d C* I Gi L7) 0 0 '1 Hro t, -L, rl HW 0 1 rt -S i N l< ZI w' 'I. U w�r 1 a; m FD " 4 X X 7, M m11 X M w x m 10 ! - I < ID ro nm R N7U Jn Nn Nz n 0 W n in r4 CAW II rb I M x% X j c m to tn N z 0 lb a, EU T 0 , T r a c c 7 7U c w 0 N 0 9 0,a New Cf i x X x Cf aj w fa 0 m cl � ro 0 t tf c ID n Dj I Cr M Q 'D m , fa Tt I IA 0 ro zr z I n x U ra fo m M rD r) w G W d CA i 0 0 0 Ej w 0 ro 0 0 0 1) U v/ ul ro 4} 4.1 4.1 4.% -t� 4% •L, -b L, W -L, 4 .Ll 4) L% .4> r i f W EJ L -i u Ell W Ell Ej 0 i z UUlS ri Ll u 91 7 0. 1 r0o I.,E0 El to 0 0, rb 14 1 1,4 ro OL ul rt r, -k A N !A ct 0 1 j, Balm Q 0 M rb N tn LA M 03 10 ID, .tl i Ei 0 kV S 1550.15 56r} ri i � jI 1i � i N 11 0 1 j, -4 If j zz 'tj u -4 ra 1 I u c% 0 -0 -4 CG 0 CR f r p 1 n I -4 io b -4 a u r1l w w Gj W 0 rrL^ I ro ro ro 4 CA 0 rru j PA 0 0 0 -D 1 'L, 14 rl) Ja z oj V zr At i u Dj I zr a) zr ro -D 10 ro 10 ro a n tn Q Ul D (A 0 N W r) In i pj n N OU ro 0 U aQaaaa x b7rb x x x I a x j X x a Cth E—j C' r IO n .3 10 IB 010 10 0 3 N in in 03 c ji in in T) U3 ro Ill i 3 Tj 3 rt It rt ct rt q 0 0 0 cr I z I w Cr Ex Cr IO Cr u ro E u rD ra rb .10 M ID to 0 n n n IA cy m r. < lb r) m cl i l 0 y N 6 'A a o In 14 6j a, ra 0 M x ID 0 .1 rb I'D I'D (n (n Ui zs 'o 7J u 'o 'o v I z n i 4 14 z I ;A cra r (n a.10 IO i ID ID ; ru 555555 ro 0 0 5 U 5 5 v 5 11 Ll ILI .11 1� bb Eli (A C%l (11 LIS w Eli "I % 0 G Di to EJ ro I u u LA is, %I 14 U U ro Wr) 14 4., "1 li4 L't i do LR f oj a In ct rD Q zr Ul 4) tn w tn ID i 5 i i S u u Lo in v7 0 'U Tj Tj m 7) m rn ul N N in m ib ro I'D M m fo D TJ Q rt �WbuM r J, u u r.) ro 0 U u 0 V U ry b•, I W I w ED I ro I ro D 00 V Lrj 5 uuOk rat Lot1 0 1 rD CD rD O O CD O , i xxxxx Y �annnnaa 1 N N rt t K i M 3 7:f 7773' j I. 0 r1 C r1 rt rt I.- K K R tr ct M 0 0 C < C < < C < nnnnnnn s 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 u u u u u u u t• t• t t 4:1 J` t• www w w W w r r 6 CA !B ;@ A L C51rr ' 5�555r�p(�gtSp 59�r365 N W iJ (' C} r1q' r4 5+55555 t aav-mvtly N N N N N UI N noononn I ' ul iUr W Ct50 5 1 5r525J~C;tV 15buL@Ca ie C@ i • I I i ' n N N m y nn 'a "C U i < < < < i 11 S W tti N N i mmm t -4 t j I ! 1 I 14 is I I I a i Ca I t• CJ CJ CJ 0141 V t ryCDq U' J% 4:1 m :aI m w i •r La u1 c3 I i u I1 ro 1 ` N 0 i vV 0 Ek C i" 1 u 0 µ I Lau U 10 v La 10ri r0 nm I +4 m ! 1 1 h I [j ray I u 0q Qr I 1+ .N C l I I %I %! V 1 iJ W CJ x rS v rJ i 7 N ro x 7L m 1 I 3 7 a) i Sr< 3 t@ m 3 Vl 3 I zr y t@N �Y 3 I M ri+ µ n N z M m rtct n x N m 3 n x N m n N m m m m 33Z�, n I N x m m m aaa m n X Lem i W M -4 m 0 c m aaaa 0 0 94. -4 m (ydii a n i �5 a 5 I f $ N _ rt C K r n ' ! ��� ; C ' i ro !v W ur !7 i I cr n I 17 n K K 10 s a h r 7 N N ct ct m rrt zr m 7 x m m i "S 7 x x x mmmm m 0 i . T m m m l T. m m w M i ,.. 10 ,.. ,.. ,.. a m N 0 N m n n m n In i n Ia w to to n x o o x x! a x angrt x xxa I N 1 cr ct (zrtr ;ct ' m Y m m n n vCfatt CR u L9 Cti V 0 n L 0 N N N N LJ N 7 7 7 7 i m 1 V u u rjr 5 Le 5 555 CJ 55 b i CJ t• I t• � Jr 1 1 1 fi tJ: 0 pr t• i w ! La ru ri+ r6 N CJ j CacD i5 ( 5 5555 NCa n W Gt W W m C1 5 i 5 i 5 CU555 55 CA a 1 I m fr W V Ed 01 Vu Q>5 5 i 5 5 5 555 55 N HCl L T .. I i raj N i • I I i ' n N N m y nn 'a "C U i < < < < i 11 S W tti N N i mmm Ell W W w , �'0Tjm 444 n N N N N 'a "C U M < < < < i 11 S 3 nnnn mmm t t j I ! 1 I 14 is I I I i Ca I t• CJ CJ CJ 0141 V t ryCDq U' J% 4:1 m :aI w i •r La u1 c3 I r i' to m cr 'n ro 1 ` I I ! 1 1 ! ,t • '- i) n u 11 o, o v,.n1 C s n 0 "1 n_0I w � m cwi~m v ii...II _� .,I e� r.'; i; a%_v� � o r.,l c•, �._: _! ^..n_ f.• - _ - .._ _ t i n m m n v l at i �• f b tv i m Cn i ro O C� ! �' m! m. rn l I rl r_g ICF m Q it w m ! rn n r ui ce r f�r 1 •. •b n! H m� W W n n N ! ro n �t � (M 0 x 5 1 5 0 r Q ! U r. � 7 ro `'C w I 7 I 7 !U 1 7 tU ( x 2 1 7 1 Zr zt N 3 to 1-/ J 3 iD N 1 .� T u I '� fr .� E ro N n n :n , w m s a n i Ln n „ n to j n ul >r ! n to n x i -e Z W a to a x y; x x -t i s x -4 ; ,c a, (x a F n x v. 5 ( ra rD n) 'a •0 Z� 'D M i to Z Faz i 1 z rb M n z vi c 3 'b n '3 « -0 ' a •V N N c « 'q to 3 « •d s 3 «( 'p a c a'it 3 In , 1 a t n N a �.. r N ! a , n n r �•r 3 a t n K a t rD - v a I N v a r z a lb! n n �, a, n a; rD r iD j ID < m o n m• m a 17 r, ( r m 0 m Di n 7 M j n m > a m c a s (s m ' 0 n s 7 m ro I o s x, ro zr a c nn ! ; M ! n ( n n n -a 10 i ; n i b ; n ; o y n I m .'m ra x w x s x s x m x x l x n ° y tA j z ro i z l 4, og, �c� z z m► u 3 m W a ! 0!� 9) N � 3 i � ra � tn i N i a n a( -ea a i it { a 3 a « a < R ' 1 UI ID '� ru r rD '^^ r : •� I � i I m M 0 c, i X X c, m r m y Ol c, � ca M a Ce j •C CJ n r0 w, 5 d in i � 1 � 1 � • ko 5 rie ° e 14 n t j k I J>4.1j ru 4. ;• n W C J i r rj _ W 5 ; 5 j 1 5 e 5 r ; 5 5 CA 5 n n ,r t nI�. I. t t i ! i ' ! ( I 3 rb C a1 5-9 F Ce g n iD i i 1 tt ti 7 ct ' • N • a i µ 91 z p 3 n c c N ul a I I rD a m n r ct K S C N Dpi Ta a tl A A a Z y 0 n ro rn rD ra rb r) a LR ro +� to c n !A (',i to ro i n ro ! I i r `1` 1 ;u t rJl N ce � i � 4 a ca L4 ira!r• 5! ce�te ce ce rIr C,lM W A{ Ce 9 i 5 V i V 5 t9 I fi! ro I ri b ' S i 525 ro t ro I n a 5 j ! 5 5 5 r t4., 5( 5+ ! 5 j 5 1 5 5! 9 5 t 5 Lei r I 1 o Iola „ r1 upt,°. -i E 'n w i, a` ' is w °.'�!� r., p•c-,. .. a�°-' _.r •'i m [^ . ., .. .. _ J UI (n IA w m < u. 1, rl ro EJ t, I w ,4 0 V �4 14 1 (A t, ct CT C. 0 ct u 7 z u zr z ro m m m m . rb rt .p 1 -4 -4 V 4 4 V 4 4 V 4 V xr) 0 ti 0 au we�, s ct H 0 ct 0 -t w w 15 I tt -4 0 1 559905955959 r) H14 0 0 c I bo h H 4.1 1 14 1 14 UI (n IA w m < W 4% W di4, -4 0i Lf to LR t• ty Ili LR u. 1, rl ro EJ t, I w ,4 0 V �4 14 1 (A t, 14 r.4 Ck ro . rb rt .p 1 -4 -4 V 4 4 V 4 4 V 4 V xr) cq -t 0 15 I W I 61 -4 0 1 559905955959 r) H14 0 0 c I bo h H 4.1 1 14 1 n HC' Z ro au z ro fil 3a ID p lbirl 41 -4-4 f) W Hro etHH Hr Hr z 7 77 7 u :jr zr zi Z 'D N fo z z 7- z R m ID ID fD TO M ID ID -'D M L U c 0 z, tf Cf 'a i 0 a Tj fo �t zr cr -,a zr E& TA 0 0 o 0 0 0 di o o I zr m Ili u zr ri u in %t rf ct rt ct ct �t vt rt �t rt 't I ro 'D K t m m ID m I) 0) 1 W oj oj 9j Dj I M a, Dj Dj r) I a 1 0 ro n Ul In r) vt rt q ct Tt Ict rt ct rt vt ct fo ro (D m ra to m ,D rb -,D rd X I I x rt rA M M M mm ID M M M rD M M rD m lb to rb ul 5 u 0 V 55 al -b 41 -L, -t- JDI 4.1 41 tj w CJ (A Id Y YY r# w 11 w bi w 'III w Ul 59 0 Le G; 1 L I 301 U W M -4 M 'I u u rt CR Ri WCJ M 70 a[ W lb W a) 9) 9J 9j Dj 0) oj 13 ke L< L< H ojDj 11 x x x 1 0 1 �t It N N N to (n vi in in No Nin onnnl�ioonnN 0 0 0 L!3 W 4% W di4, -4 0i Lf to LR t• ty Ili LR rl ro EJ t, I w ,4 0 V 14 1 (A t, 14 r.4 Ck ro . rb LF CI xr) cq 0 14 t, 0 15 I W I 61 rl rD r) rb xr) aro ro I 14 x r) r) N rp N ja. J Al N -F 4.1 4.1 ID ro z cl Ed EJ I*J Ed roro w 1, Ej nn r ..) Lk -4 '4 CQ CA CQ 0 i 14 14 14 I n C I V V 0'0 nrl Ir I" Ct t4D I 'Id CO I'S 0 Ct -b N TO 0 tV l< rh Zf si 1 555 y5 u I. V 14 0 CQ 1 V -4 !11!11- n 4 i 4 .10 r-,,µ a) Q Uyro7 x co ki ro -tl 1 S4 14 n ro.t nutI 0i 1 01 n 7 ct ft Ai 1;1Iw r ID l< 10 1), - f) x v 2 m (n 6 L:3 m ct r -4 E CL : N z rD -D C. —1 ct Z c a Ti N N 10 43 4 fu rli L6 Ed Ll to ID Z ro I z "D M -ID rb 7 y 8.. M C: -Z EO ro f< f 14 :s z ID 7 crtr x UD �j cl FO o u t -'D -5 (a a tl 0 zi n z 1 11 3 i ID 1, ro t .10 ro ro r) X cr ID Z LO C M3 Cl cr Cf ra ro N I ro M 14 14 14 14 rl, Li w ro .14 I 14 x r) r) N rp N rb N 4.1 4.1 ID ro z rt Y Ed EJ I*J Ed roro w 1, Ej I 14 x r) r) N rp o 14 N 4.1 4.1 ID ro z Ed EJ I*J Ed -L, w 1, Ej nn r ..) Lk '4 CQ CA CQ 0 i 14 14 14 I n C I V V 0'0 nrl Ir I" Ct t4D I 'Id CO I'S 0 Ct -b N TO 0 tV l< rh Zf si 1 555 y5 u I. V rD 6 0 !11!11- , 7- z .10 r-,,µ a) Q x n m a rD r) U tt Tj r L2 l< x I x M 6 L:3 m ct r -4 E CL : N z rD -D C. —1 ct Z c a Ti N N 43 rli L6 Ed Ll -ID M -ID rb 7 y M EO ro f< f 14 :s z ID rt x r) r, r) 10 ro I'D ro a-0 ID I 14 x r) r) N rp o 14 N 4.1 4.1 ID ro z Ed EJ I*J Ed -L, w 1, Ej nn r ..) Lk U CQ CA CQ 91 er ox cr 0' 119 S' C'� nrl LN I (A U Ea U rp rc, s 0 U3 rh l< 555 y5 rl { rin L2 ct r ul ct 43 0 ib 9) x r) r) ro r-11 14 N zr ID ro z 13 .0 ct w 1, Ej nn 0 ;p 0 ox cr -L, I M kb Ej CQ k4 N tn w 1, Ej 0 ;p 0 ox of -L, I M kb Ej 1) LN I (A 0 rp rc, s 0 U3 L2 /'n`N 1 N Ar P n A n 4.' N n O MJ W W W 'a •� w L( 1: .' 1 :�i-^ :.� !! I_ -- I.P. _I '•a , •i Ni r, a, r;;+ o c(_r_..—.i-,+-t v1• - c. _ , J VI Yt i .3 71 M m j m r.. v �:A v i -4 I 3 -a a "U -4 v -4 w t i cr ^ v 4G i� - I (n co r Ca n 4i 1 i (rl C1A a Cn m h 4 CG I m C9 tD C4 n y, v N n 'i3 at I r�r n •� n H Ca W r. 4* 1 M ry n ct u v H g 1 5 5 5 5 1 n H W i 0 1tl w ra i t0 w r lb I w rA 10 w CD [� FD G ra , to th w to ; 10 r < 10 rJ n N I I H 1 n UI n l m I g c n N 3 zs n N n xri UI i n x N 1D n C6 r, y ct r, j x ! -7 rt x 1 -4 X K tl 6 x( -i R X S 7 ro EllI ( '3 1ti Di Z I iD 7 10 z rD a0 N S, '3 n S ' t 3 I -8 U j �7 3 ti( G rJ G p Tj t I a m J n 3 Cr n tLi h m In m '7 I �0 y s b 1 7 n a i m n 1�, z g ri a n 7 �• 7 t¢ zr m 7 �Y C zr i D S nti J' w w. S s -6 3 i 1D , 10 Di ID is Mn' ro m n n n m D n n ommlo n atm (D DY1 ro i ID 1 1(D N nnnn v m, i tb S I S ct H C, H $ t I CG D N N N 0 ! t.11 1 I j i B 9 5 5 5 5 W 5 D 1 �ry� r�� 5 5 y Z rl:W 5; i { r7 i 6 5 8 C5l 5 4 n H i _ i I i t i 1 1 1 i. I m � �;• EN CQ C, ` fD l 1 ! In ' H f I LQ I 1 iN N 3 3 3 C+ D HO I w. W n DI F. Ut N n In :n N N `C OL nn nnnn iD V Ul 7 N 10 Ul N ? :n Irl N to i Z I D D n M o 'a D r0 H $1 N cC K `C X k `C j N N •a N Ul N N tl0 1 X In or, t r{I 1 0 Ca GR j u i N 14 0 Ca LQ l cB D �p ! 1 9! V C, 5t ; 5 J: t ry [,Q •D t I i 1 I I { Pw • -._r• 1" •. c N ^f O w 47 C O N iT jo ar___,, of aww N Q,'n�n oL:a n lP gp N P A !. nwro-,tea W 41' 1'1 ,a o r - u'I�a a r yc, y n �•�n ', a. ,,, °, " '� f yO ni _ _ _ _ _, _ 5 LK i •� m v m s n ru n n rn i r�'I 14 � 1 r' rpp - 1 l w4% �' C I + -! rd Cr, ! .C• i ro to u, Y W 0 5 0 m? ro ! 9 9 9 j 5 ' 5 1 55 5 i 5 9; m U W m II a '-40 3 ? tb j rt. C) 'J r Y 1 Y K 5 15 n n t0 I am •L i i rD 3 ' i 91 m n V l m to i n 5 r , n u r) I N Y µ rIn ! r h JI ct0 1 '-3V V V V V �t r 1 P :7, 0 CO 7 r j k `" N u I a s D YJ CO 0 0 r0 EO W r' N I t 3 I 13! 3 N N 0 i n Nr '3 r) N R n •r �t + ct x I N ! x 1 N :s 3 3: x 1 m w m T r ti. z a tm NN j�3 {z �4 rD zzzzzz a z!m nne r91uU 2 n r ia 3 L W 1 0 N m L N m N r, 3 z NEZ 1 a a C5 Z 3 - £ £ £ £ £ £ £ C M y! a 3 0 ItN N N N N N N i Y z 7 n m n + t0 0 I A 0 -Q v v '0 13 tt v U h 10 D 0 ry N w u m m 7 .t 0 m m :v 3 ro i p 10 iD 0 N "0 3 Z7 m )'D TJ 0 N L'1 N 'C + n a sX ro Y 9 N 5 LK i i i r�'I 14 � 1 r' rpp - 1 l w4% u i �YYr r�YY C I CR 6 -! rd Cr, ! .C• i ro to u, Y W 0 5 0 m? gg 1 5 5 1 5 1 ! 9 9 9 j 5 ' 5 1 55 5 i 5 9; j b i W W0- rJau Cr I O OS v V V m U W j a 1 C,5 ii, n 1 W 5 N 3 I '-40 3 ? ry a 3 : r0 rp N u I aY tt am i 13 1 arsJ i rD 3 0 z m n V l m to i n 5 1 ra ro m ra u to , n u UT EO w It r) a µ lILI y at 10 0 ct0 1 '-3V V V V V �t 7 i y v 1 P :7, 0 -S C 7 r j k +l N u I a s D CO 0 0 r0 EO W r' N ra 0 0 t rp N u 0 N N 0 i n Nr '3 r) N R n •r �t + ct x I N ! x 1 N :s 3 3: x 1 m w m T r ti. z a tm NN j�3 {z �4 rD zzzzzz a z!m nne r91uU 2 n r I 3 L W 1 0 N m L N m N r, 3 i 1 a a C5 Z 3 - £ £ £ £ £ £ £ C M y! a 3 0 ItN N N N N N N i Y z 7 n m n + t0 0 I A 0 -Q v v '0 13 tt v U h 10 D 0 ry N w u m m 7 , 'L L N I a. M L , zr m m :v 3 10 iD 0 N "0 3 Z7 m )'D TJ 0 N L'1 N 'C Eb n a sX c In N N N N N N N 12 0 M 1 fo 1 a, CO [Yr ro I 9 CO V C' I i 5 i I CO ! ca I 59 I Lri V 9559955 Gn 0' 9Y 5 D r R a n W I Ed L.) wrVNruriNN C-1 J 9 r 5 9 i b b b b b C• t• Y Y Y C9 I UCA 1 955 5eN�595 U(kaU ct 4 j Y N Y N MJ i ' r� A� u N Y Y •.s d n 9 5 b i 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 a n 14 j Co Eni i I I 1 5 a, Ca Y Y u u 0 k 5 i 9 9 1 000019%0 n e [2 i 3 y i a N `J n r y s+ N N i W N N N in �pXr ryt:xl7 µ uY n n 0 m - m 10 ID N 0 rU ; N m to n 0 0 N W ct rr Cr as Nwrrr�µ a at r...,. tO5 i pa m u AAAA i ton cr r, n Io atmn n Y E N N N N N �JQ t�iJ 7 rt 'S W W lO In r) N 'Ji N C] n • I i i i r�'I 14 � r' rpp l t0 I l w4% u i �YYr r�YY C I CR 6 -! rd Cr, ! .C• i ro to u, Y W 0 5 0 m? gg 1 5 5 1 5 1 ! 9 9 9 j 5 ' 5 1 55 5 i 5 9; j b i W W0- rJau Cr I O OS v V V m U W j a 1 C,5 ii, n 1 W 5 N I i 'r.., i rr i�, c T .. > m o c I c+ L. _� •o n G �_ -' I � � � ., r�.:. n r v Y b 0 L Q u N S, %t t�) m § r Sc i 1455 4 �tq 0 15Y 1 U 155 55r45955 r Lt3 ;nub i t �) c ra Zt rb ZI, A Q, I tp 1 -4 -4 t v. 1.) -4 Ed I o 0 m= TJ ra 1 0 1 0 0 LO W kil 0 u U U Q Q U �L, Lo 4z, �o 0 ka rA ca Q) 0 r,) r6 r,) "? Lo<j Di x g �o In '1 rb C: r6 - :5 Z 0 UI 0 0 'A 0 z 0 x 0 0 ct ct ct rr Tt rr rt ct cr u zr zr �f z :T z -i �j ro rt ct ct ro rn fn ro 1 i -4 CL n 1 3I'D zr - 3 ti In, m M m In iA TJ Qvt tr 11 0 0 m I tr ntn ct T1 ct ro 1 ty l Dj ro rx ig To ID m I M It 5.4 qI, 1b Ph r.* Q. rA, 2 i 7 r) ro rb rt rt ct It rb to ID m m lb ro m m m t I. - 14 , :� z 3 z :j z z z: z N 0 0 T m 0 w 0 m ct ct cr ct ct cr C? ct ct ct ;j I. m ID T m m m ti m -'D m S ct ct r, ct 14 m m m TA Zi z 5 N ft N0 LA Is I-- iq 0 fu 4J S 0 U Ft "j 0 -t 4, rd t. n N N ry ril N r� Nr!; n) r W Ld W 4 s 5 i5•r3 Ci Ci r" r4 0 ru 0 s 5519955555 U 5 f h ro 55+5 -4 M T 7 5 505 0 •.1 ct !S I I all CIO a req I rlil ! m41 GI cl in ct i a a - 1 lb Di 01 91 !b Di Di 1 1 N 1 W aj vi Di a, Di Di Q L11 lb I ru O ID M m m m Ln 13 m ID ro rh Q 0 7 11 to ct Q M Lrj Z !nZo;R!! 0 L Q u N S, %t t�) m § r Sc i 1455 4 �tq 0 15Y 1 U 155 55r45955 r Lt3 -,6-, �� v n• v v a � i r i � n +� m :� �:c_. .. - - • _ _ _ _ i F rn � rcr 1 i ! i 1 I ' • i i i i j t y N N N N N N N N N N a, a% ch m ON m ch Ln to In Ln to N N N N N to In Ln to In In In ' 0% Ln aA w N N O to Do V a, Lo NNO tD co ,b 1 1 '.. •r ul In ro ro�o �'� 10,1 N w CO . NwNw H �_ w M Ut.icoQQ ID NHN w w _rl_(.._;•1..Mjn_n �.��'-..�'?=.I�� .�_t.lv__.t..v _ ''cL_u _. ID ulQ, N N O N to ID O N to b V O th O N N In N w 00 OOO�AO V w0%wO OOln00 w 0 as OOODIO OO to NO OO to N OO c 0carte n 5 H ti x mI- rt m �• ti aa nc f m I -a nN H•a �o b ~ a n m h b cyrti�r� W n b h h Ort m O m fD W IC d N N• J C � fHD tori I m b H A to to to to as to to ID 3 m m N\\\\\\ c b k N•b k Iq Iq a Hca .la 4a Eti akjtu :c b N1�:3 w 1D tD a\ y b a N. In IO N ' rt rt Q.- (b tD (D (D to 1D C� tin b O y n ti a N 0 H m N fD rt tc 11 nj Cu H1 N R, W N ti n n rt rt F rn � rcr I'h to y i 1 , 1 1 '.. •r ul In ro ro�o �'� .? uiLu_^ �^t.�.r+ ,iv acv n •: . �_ :..I�_ry _rl_(.._;•1..Mjn_n �.��'-..�'?=.I�� .�_t.lv__.t..v _ ''cL_u _. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 8,;1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson,'ldy Clerk SUBJECT: Marriott Courtyard Liquor License Renewal INTRODUCTION The Marriott Courtyard Hotel has applied for renewal of its Limited Service Hotel and Motel On -Sale and Special Sunday On -Sale Liquor Licenses which expire on June 30th. The applicable Ordinance No. 1403 stipulates that council shall conduct a public hearing on all liquor license applications. The hearing has been scheduled for 7:45 o'clock P.M. on May 15th. DISCUSSION The applicant has submitted all application materials, including insurance and bond forms, and a statement of liquor to food sales ratios for 1989. Police Chief Delmont and I have reviewed the application contents and find everything to be in order. As was true of its first year of operation, the Marriott Corporation and local staff have been excellent to deal with. We have not received any complaints nor have there been any license violations. RECOMMENDATION/ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends approval of the renewal of the Marriott liquor licenses, subject of course to any public comments Council may receive at the public hearing. Council should conduct the public hearing, and if it concurs in staff recommendation, should pass a motion approving the renewal of On -Sale Limited Service Hotel and Motel and Special Sunday On -Sale Liquor Licenses for the Courtyard by Marriott Hotel. KMS:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING ON RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE AND SPECIAL SUNDAY LIQUOR LICENSE April 10, 1990 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Mendota Heights City Council will meet at 7:45 o'clock P.M. or as soon there after as possible on Tuesday, May 15, 1990, in the City Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, to consider a renewal application from the Courtyard Management Corporation for Limited Service Hotel On -Sale Liquor License and Special Sunday Liquor License. The Courtyard Management Corporation is applying for a renewal license to dispense liquor on -sale at the restaurant/lounge facility in the Courtyard by Marriott Hotel, located at 1352 Northland Drive. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above application will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 8, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson'(6ity Clerk SUBJECT: Hearings on Mendakota Country Club and Somerset Country Club - Club Liquor License Renewals INFORMATION We have received applications from both Mendakota . Country Club and Somerset Country Club for renewal of their Club Liquor Licenses. The licenses for Somerset Country Club and Mendakota Country Club will expire on June 30th. Public hearings have been scheduled for 7:45 o'clock P.M. on May 15th. RECOMMENDATION All of the license requirements have been met by both Clubs. There have been no liquor license violations by either Club and both, as always, have been excellent to deal with on liquor licensing and operation. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the renewal licenses. ACTION REQUIRED Council should conduct separate public hearings, and if Council concurs with the recommendation, it should pass motions approving the renewal of Club Liquor License for Mendakota Country Club and Mendakota Country Club. EMS:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING ON RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR CLUB ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE April 10, 1990 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Mendota Heights City Council will meet at 7:45 o'clock P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible on Tuesday, May 15, 1990 in the City Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve to consider a renewal application from Somerset Country Club for a Club On -Sale Liquor License. Somerset Country Club is applying for a Club Liquor License to dispense liquor on -sale at the private country club facility at 1416 Dodd Road. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above application will be heard at this meeting. 1. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING ON RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR CLUB ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE April 10, 1990 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Mendota Heights City Council will meet at 7:45 o'clock P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible on Tuesday, May 15, 1990 in the City Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve to consider a renewal application from Mendakota Country Club for a Club On -Sale Liquor License. Mendakota Country Club is applying for a Club Liquor License to dispense liquor on -sale at the private country club facility at 2075 Mendakota Drive. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above application will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 11, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Kathleen M. Swanso44ity Clerk SUBJECT: MGM Off -Sale Liquor License Renewal INTRODUCTION The LAMA Corporation has applied for renewal of its Off - Sale Liquor License for the MGM Liquor Store located in the Mendota Plaza. The current license expires on June 30, 1990. Staff has scheduled the required public hearing for 7:45 o'clock P.M. on May 15th. DISCUSSION The applicant has submitted all application materials, including insurance and bond forms. Police Chief Delmont and I have reviewed the application contents and find everything to be in order. MGM has complied with all Ordinance requirements and has been cooperative with staff during its second year of operation. We have had no negative experiences relating to the Off -Sale operation, nor have we received any complaints. RECOMMENDATION/ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends approval of the renewal of the MGM liquor license, subject of course to any public comments Council may receive at the public hearing. Council should conduct the public hearing, and if it concurs in the recommendation, Council should pass a motion approving the renewal of Off -Sale Liquor License for the MGM Liquor Store. KMS:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING ON RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR OFF -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE April 10, 1990 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Mendota Heights City Council will meet at 7:45 o'clock P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible, on Tuesday, May 15, 1990, in the City Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, to consider a renewal application from MGM Liquor Warehouse for an Off -Sale Liquor License. MGM is applying for a renewal license to sell liquor off -sale at the Mendota Mall, located at 750 Highway 110. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above application will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 11, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Case No. 90-10: LaVigne - Minor CUP DISCUSSION The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their April meeting to consider an amendment to Mrs. Margaret LaVigne's existing CUP increasing the height of her fence from 42" to six feet (see attached staff memos). There was no audience and the only Planning Commission discussion was concerning whether the fence should be allowed to' be sol'id,* *'(for* noise-reflectidii) *.'*In* as' much a!§'* there''are no neighbors across the street, that concern was dismissed. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the six foot high fence as proposed to replace the existing 42" high split rail fence, the Planning Commission also recommended waiving the portion of the fee not needed for publication costs, not exceeding $35.00. ACTION REQUIRED Conduct the required public hearing and then.if Council desires to implement the Planning Commission recommendation, they should pass a motion approving a CUP allowing a six foot high fence at the 30 foot rear yard setback for 1090 West Circle Court and waiving $115.00 of the $150.00 fee. JED:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 18, 1990 TO: Planning Commission, FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dire Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist nth SUBJECT: Case No. 90-10: LaVigne - Minor CUP DISCUSSION Mrs. Margaret LaVigne of 1090 West Circle Court, wishes to install a pool in the backyard of her lot. City ordinances require that at a minimum, a five foot (51) high fence be maintained around swimming pools. Mrs. LaVigne's lot is a through lot and therefore requires a Minor CUP be obtained to allow a fence along her rear property line. The previous owners of the lot had obtained a Minor CUP for a split rail fence conditioned upon the height of the fence not exceeding 42". A public hearing needs to be conducted to consider modifying this CUP to allow a six foot (61) high fence as she is requesting. In as much as there is an existing CUP allowing a fence of 42" along the property line, staff has suggested that Mrs. LaVigne request that the planning fee be waived. ACTION REQUIRED Conduct the required public hearing. Make a recommendation to the City Council on the amendment of the existing Minor CUP to allow an extension of the fence height from 42" to six feet (61) and waiving the $150.00 fee. JED/KLB:kkb is a T PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 24 April 1990 90-10 Margaret A. LaVigne Southwesterly of West Circle Court (see sketch) Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Fence 1. This property is northeasterly of the new. -City Hall. In fact, you can see the back yard of this house from the windows and balcony on the second level of City Hall. 2. You will note from looking at the attached copy of the section map that this property fronts on West Circle Court, but backs up to County Road 43 (Lexington Avenue). Also, when this land was platted over ten years ago, a total of 50 feet was dedicated for the centerline of Lexington Avenue. Thus, if you look at the land from Lexington Avenue, it will appear that the existing fence is well back from the right-of-way. There is an existing fence along this line that is a split -rail fence. The applicant proposes to build a pool, and therefore, proposes a 6 -foot high privacy fence along Lexington Avenue. 3. As you know, where a rear or side yard is contiguous to a public street, the regulations applicable to a front yard apply to the area along the street. This means that structures and/or fences must be set back 30 feet, if the fence is more than 3 feet in height. In this case, the applicant proposes to build a 6 -foot fence that will be a solid board fence constructed of cedar. Attached is a copy of a drawing illustrating the design of the fence. You will note that in the center between the post, the fence will be 5 feet, 6 inches high. The public safety requirement is for a fence to be 5 feet to secure a swimming pool in the City of Mendota Heights. 4. Wherever a back yard of a "through lot" is contiguous to a major thoroughfare such as Lexington Avenue, there is the problem of the screening from the visual distraction of the traffic and, in some cases, of noise as well. Depending on the terrain conditions, these fences vary from 4 to 6-1/2 feet in height. In this case, because the land is high to the east of the proposed fence, additional height is merited. Also, the property line is set back a substantial distance (50 feet from the centerline) so that the fence as proposed would be less imposing upon the public traveling near the center of the right-of-way. Thus, it would seem that the fence and design may be appropriate aesthetically and functionally to serve the intended purpose. Margaret LaVigne, Case No. 90-10 Page 2 5. Attached is a statement from the applicant regarding this proposal. The request is for a Minor Conditional Use Permit, in that fences of such a through lot (within 30 feet of the right-of-way) are required to have such a Conditional Use Permit. It is proposed in the future that such variances in fence height would be handled as a variance rather than a Conditional Use Permit. This reduces the publication costs and the fee required. This Ordinance change is a part of a number of changes that will be reviewed in the near future in work sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council. DOUGLAS ROAD • _ - , , • •�J Gam. • • • • • -J• 1. • • • • �C`� • t• • • • : • • I • • • KINGS,_F.-f . . • • • • • • • • • • • I < \\'- M -C I 'C• `ifr'io*s f ' I • Y • • ~ • J • • Q is it {. - - :i, .... — :I • • ; • • • • • • • • • o --MARIE - AVENU PL CE• • • O • • (1, + • • • • • • • • • 000 • O` • �. 11 I �` I • Q ��ti _� II I • BWANA • • _ • ♦ • • �\� I • CT. • • • • • • `> • • • • • • •• O , • • • • DRIVE O • / • • _ • • • MENDOTA ELEMENTARY • • • • • = J SCHOOL I PUBLIC I �j' O • 1 • ~ • WEST CIRCLE • Oa • • CT • P.h- SUBJECT PROPERTY19 a i • IONICA LA NORTH T • / • SCALE 1 "=400' • /AAV 1 /SITE ® VICTORIA • / (0.7 - ROAD n AVANTI DPI J p a w N W 9• b24j 99 •A N is lc 1 1 > vi N�� 'V t•7 ZtiS A -.32 � � MI � ! 'ti,` a�13 7 6" 16 _ r24.00 ...5e 1.. ; � . 1: c• �- 5c .fa _, 0 c- 17 18 15 y 10 I I 14 m 11_ Cf �N • ` -1 Iti �9 N r-9 30.S0`.e13 10 Z gc - WEST_; CIRCLE _ z COURT rJ 3 R 3 :•�' u 6 � 5 � to � � � ^ 3 .... 'J` mIp o on - � ''a '' z, 95 to.o0 .g I.f °,- - 8 - t• P .• ' 14 It O u r� ° v I .� fz y 3o 30 ' U 's p ' 19.36 ;UBJECT PROPERTY '�p9100 1 u.se VAIL o 100'7L �•�' v, 9' 1 v T---,— ;00x• ;DRIVE tm •�/,, NORTH o 71 }a' 4t.54 ; ,156 �� - — o. a ' °f = /FIRST �v ICHAEL D DuPONTCALE 1"=20,0' 2 �� '' �,, ADDITION 3 `4°e 0 �1 5c 193.: ITO,Op v1.00 j 145.44 4407 IBB 89 R X97 ' Ina 53 60 •' 4'3 .: 6 71 , °..- w a 7 e3 N99F !':A f 46r 39 Errirnie Z. Si 4 19c 020-30 26068-8 012-30 03G- 31, ZGoGS-c 1 1 �90•s v ln, tf my° ~°�9' •� 66.55 a - ^ Q 7 02 F. g ,L.4,50 ndF'S115c. VICTORIA N6"O6AT� 4 89";6 44"E 0 8c 4. 5'.B r4 , 6 JJ� 3 m O. 59.82 •g I b.m - a �0 1 01= 3 r �• C, 0054 /6 96 62 76 IN 76 G "6=°"7etiY 1 'c L 11') 12 H •0 1 1 :c •_ I v •�. U) 260107.8, b!° za 6r o, 69 .0: 7 z ICI 76 6 N d6"}5'48 'E 461 04 Z O O 5• � _ w I lot W 144.4 L o GI.g° tg 87 3°• f' •, Z: - 2 r 2 T I_'• 1 o 3 5P O ° r tSf >a ' tY5 f3 , 34w X o f p 1 ,44f.f5 s! 5e 4,.E. Lf •1 W ° L \ n g4.6t. ✓ k AVANTI DPI J p a w N W 9• b24j 99 •A N is lc 1 1 > vi N�� 'V t•7 ZtiS A -.32 � � MI � ! 'ti,` a�13 7 6" 16 _ r24.00 ...5e 1.. ; � . 1: c• �- 5c .fa _, 0 c- 17 18 15 y 10 I I 14 m 11_ Cf �N • ` -1 Iti �9 N r-9 30.S0`.e13 10 Z gc - WEST_; CIRCLE _ z COURT rJ 3 R 3 :•�' u 6 � 5 � to � � � ^ 3 .... 'J` mIp o on - � ''a '' z, 95 to.o0 .g I.f °,- - 8 - t• P .• ' 14 It O u r� ° v I .� fz y 3o 30 ' U 's p ' 19.36 ;UBJECT PROPERTY '�p9100 1 u.se VAIL o 100'7L �•�' v, 9' 1 v T---,— ;00x• ;DRIVE tm •�/,, NORTH o 71 }a' 4t.54 ; ,156 �� - — o. a ' °f = /FIRST �v ICHAEL D DuPONTCALE 1"=20,0' 2 �� '' �,, ADDITION 3 `4°e 0 �1 5c 193.: ITO,Op v1.00 j 145.44 4407 IBB 89 R X97 ' Ina 53 60 •' 4'3 .: 6 71 , °..- w a 7 e3 N99F !':A f 46r 39 Errirnie Z. Si 4 19c 020-30 26068-8 012-30 03G- 31, ZGoGS-c 1 1 �90•s v ln, tf my° ~°�9' •� 66.55 a - ^ Q 7 02 F. g ,L.4,50 ndF'S115c. VICTORIA N6"O6AT� 4 89";6 44"E 0 8c 4. 5'.B r4 , 6 JJ� 3 m O. 59.82 •g I b.m - a �0 1 01= 3 r �• C, 0054 /6 96 62 76 IN 76 G "6=°"7etiY 1 'c L 11') 12 H •0 1 1 :c •_ I v •�. U) 260107.8, b!° za 6r o, 69 .0: 7 z ICI 76 6 N d6"}5'48 'E 461 04 Z O O C - � I, T I_'• I. 3 5P AVANTI DPI J p a w N W 9• b24j 99 •A N is lc 1 1 > vi N�� 'V t•7 ZtiS A -.32 � � MI � ! 'ti,` a�13 7 6" 16 _ r24.00 ...5e 1.. ; � . 1: c• �- 5c .fa _, 0 c- 17 18 15 y 10 I I 14 m 11_ Cf �N • ` -1 Iti �9 N r-9 30.S0`.e13 10 Z gc - WEST_; CIRCLE _ z COURT rJ 3 R 3 :•�' u 6 � 5 � to � � � ^ 3 .... 'J` mIp o on - � ''a '' z, 95 to.o0 .g I.f °,- - 8 - t• P .• ' 14 It O u r� ° v I .� fz y 3o 30 ' U 's p ' 19.36 ;UBJECT PROPERTY '�p9100 1 u.se VAIL o 100'7L �•�' v, 9' 1 v T---,— ;00x• ;DRIVE tm •�/,, NORTH o 71 }a' 4t.54 ; ,156 �� - — o. a ' °f = /FIRST �v ICHAEL D DuPONTCALE 1"=20,0' 2 �� '' �,, ADDITION 3 `4°e 0 �1 5c 193.: ITO,Op v1.00 j 145.44 4407 IBB 89 R X97 ' Ina 53 60 •' 4'3 .: 6 71 , °..- w a 7 e3 N99F !':A f 46r 39 Errirnie Z. Si 4 19c 020-30 26068-8 012-30 03G- 31, ZGoGS-c 1 1 �90•s v ln, tf my° ~°�9' •� 66.55 a - ^ Q 7 02 F. g ,L.4,50 ndF'S115c. VICTORIA N6"O6AT� 4 89";6 44"E 0 8c 4. 5'.B r4 , 6 JJ� 3 m O. 59.82 •g I b.m - a �0 1 01= 3 r �• C, 0054 /6 96 62 76 IN 76 G "6=°"7etiY 1 'c L 11') 12 H •0 1 1 :c •_ I v •�. U) 260107.8, b!° za 6r o, 69 .0: 7 z ICI 76 6 N d6"}5'48 'E 461 04 Z O O April 4, 1990 Mendota Heights Planning Commission 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights,,MN 55118 Dear Sirs: It is my intent_ to have an 18' x 36' in -ground swimming pool constructed on my property at 1090 West Circle Court by Country Side Pools. Because of the pool, I would have a 6' privacy fence constructed by Fence Co along my property line of Lexington Avenue commencing at the southwest corner of the house and going due west to the current location of the rail fence, then south along the site of the present rail fence, east to the corner of the existing chain link fence, following the chain link fence to where it currenly stops (which is more than 30 feet from the front of the property) then going northwest to attach to the southeast corner of my garage. I will have this fence painted to match the color of the house. The remainder of the present rail fence shall stay on its present location. I would also like to request that you waive the fee because the former owner had a conditional use permit for the existing 42" fence. I have applied for the Abstractor's Certificat of Property owners within 350 feet, and shall have it delivered to you on April 5. A site plan showing property lines and fences and pool shall be in your hands on or before April 17. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Margaret La Vigne IAL MA,& i AJA Applicant Name: Address: Owner Name: Address: City of Mendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Q Case No. Date of Application Fee Paid 160 Q� (Last) (First) (NII) )!70 w Q- ',:;T- C_' (Number & Street) 0. (Last) 61 ic& (City) JAL &4,V .5511 �l (State) (Zip) 6'l (MID (Number & Street) (City) (Statex (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: 1 9 cvLr_� Ca'`.�- 1� -sL .moi W .s 5 Legal Description of Property: wz._4 , ojk'e Type of Request: Rezoning _L,-' 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 Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Other (attach explanation) Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. AA; (Signature bf Applicant) A/-.3-iD (Date) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 K KII, - viUlf., AW kwl. All ZX �Ai Yy - Wz�o ---1 Tt P-'. Y t '6 rh.s77. w." GROUND s rP'.L AL J<�E Y 5 77 "i_ - op 0.5 r- D G RA�OE :D.Qli pp, v El� u ulrfTarod y Me Or un I -Z 4 M'T 4 H 3 -Pez C.", sura isi n 'a 3A •T,'� DA A06 LtM 4A t -9 8 -5 - Sun 1!�lk:' szatr .'_4 C F RT I F I C it T 15 OF SURV'EY' URVEY' - r1ok 1-4161/4".IWO VVEST. c L) L PO R, PA 0 L e'A A E' G EAST I-1 . 0 A I r A", t M� -n •-v1_ „_ d tr rye - .. 'L..C. Y _ !V._ .-.=•'{P F -sr `=F V �F 71 TECHNEYARBORYOAE �P 0 0 L.. � STEP 1 47 STONES ACCENT BOULDER CARDINAL MEIDILAND WHITE DOGWOOD ROSE C00EASTER EMERALD MOUND HONEYSUCKLE STEP STONES SCALE 1 =8) DATE PAGODA NATURAL LANDSCAPE DOGWOOD 1000 BLUE GENTIAN ROAD EAGAN MN 55121 MICROBIOTA ACCENT BOULDER POLY EDGING BRIDAL WREATH SPIREA 06 WALLITER PINK ROSE FLOWER BED �P 0 0 L.. � STEP 1 47 STONES ACCENT BOULDER CARDINAL MEIDILAND WHITE DOGWOOD ROSE C00EASTER EMERALD MOUND HONEYSUCKLE `MISS KIM LINDEN SURPRISELILAC \ AZALEA ` 1090 CIRCLE WEST MENDOTA HGTS 55118 452-6410 SCALE 1 =8) DATE 51M HANSON NATURAL LANDSCAPE & DESIGN INC 1000 BLUE GENTIAN ROAD EAGAN MN 55121 452-0755 `MISS KIM LINDEN SURPRISELILAC \ AZALEA ` CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING April 20, 1990 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights will meet at 8:00 o'clock P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible on Tuesday, May 15, 1990, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Ms. Margaret LaVigne for a conditional use permit to construct a six foot (61) privacy fence and pool along Lexington Avenue on the following described property: Lot 8, Block 2, Lexington Highland West More particularly, this property is located at 1090 West Circle Court. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Ordinance No. 401. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed conditional use permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING April 5, 1990 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:45 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday, April 24, 1990, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Ms. Margaret LaVigne for a conditional use permit to construct a six foot (61) privacy fence and pool along Lexington Avenue on the following described property: Lot 8, Block 2, Lexington Highland West More particularly, this property is located at 1090 West Circle Court. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Ordinance No. 401. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed conditional use permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk f n AAA Alk i A j Ms. Margaret LaVigne 1090 West Circle Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Ms. LaVigne: City of Mendota Heights May 11, 1990 Your application for a Wlmr U t , will 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 If you have any qudst me. KLB:kkb U U1 AC21 M b R K n(I U-Iurh CO`s5 's.0(-::) , please feel free to contact Sincerely, Ke in Batchelder ab Administrative Assistant 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, NIN . 55118 452.1850 City of !A,.ji, Mendota Heights April 19, 1990 Mrs. Margaret A. LaVigne 1090 West Circle Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mrs. LaVigne: Your application for a Hinpr- C,A_j 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, rLb Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb 1101 Victoria Curve -1Viendota Heights, MN - 55118 452.1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 8, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Director Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Case No. 90-03: Centex Homes - Rezoning, CUP for PUD, Prel. Plat and Wetland Permits INTRODUCTION Centex Homes' proposed Kensington PUD Phase II received Sketch Plan approval for Plan C-3 at the June 20, 1989 City Council meeting. Phase I had received final approval in December of 1987 and is currently under construction. This Centex Homes' development for Phase II of Kensington has appeared at public hearings at the February, March and Aril Planning Commission meetings. There is a very extensive public record for this development and included in your packet are the following: 1. Staff memos. 2. Planning Reports. 3. Application materials including site plans, grading plans, prospectus, etc. 4. Neighborhood petition and letters from the public. 5. Documentation of public notice. In addition to your Council packet and minutes from the Planning Commission meetings, City Council was provided with a notebook containing background information on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment requested by and furnished to the neighborhood. Planner Howard Dahlgren has been requested to attend the meeting and provide a Planner's overview of the issue at the outset of the public hearing prior to the developer's presentation. Planner Dahlgren intends to cover the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment, land use and density issues, Sketch Plan approval, traffic considerations and the current proposal. DISCUSSION Specific planning considerations for the Centex Homes' proposal are outlined and discussed in the staff memo dated March 22, 1990. The specific considerations are: 1. Rezoning. 2. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development. 3. Preliminary Plat. 4. Wetlands Permit. Please refer to March 22, 1990 staff memo for detailed discussions of the separate planning considerations. DENSITY The density issue has been the heart of neighborhood's opposition to the proposed project. Staff has prepared the attached matrix analyzing the density, acreage, pond and parks in the project, including Phases I and II. TRAFFIC Traffic impacts have also been a major concern of those opposed to the project. Traffic was studied by Mr. Jack Anderson, Traffic Engineer, prior to, and in conjunction with, adoption of the Southeast Area Plan and its attendant Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 1985. Mr. Anderson's traffic study included projected traffic volumes based upon full development of maximum density for the entire Southeast Area. The Anderson traffic study concluded that the (collector) road network proposed in the area would be adequate to handle the development provided that two improvements would be constructed at Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road at the time they are warranted. These two improvements are the construction of a left turn lane and the installation of a traffic signal. MnDOT has the jurisdiction for this intersection and a copy of MnDOT warrants are included in a memo from Klayton Eckles, Civil Engineer, to the Planning Commission. (See staff memo dated April 19, 1990). Traffic generation rates that were used for the projections in the study are as follows: Land Use Daily Trip Generation Single Family Residential 10.0/unit Townhouse 5.2/unit Apartment 6.1/unit Office 7.0/1000 sf Commercial 41.0/1000 sf Staff counted traffic in the summer of 1989 and those figures are within the April Planning Commission memo. Staff has also completed a new traffic count this Spring and the numbers have not changed since 1989 (see attached). TRANSITION The third major concern of neighboring residents opposed to the project is the transition from single family homes to multi -family units across Mendota Heights Road. Based upon a meeting between the developer and the neighborhood's legal representative, the developer has attempted to address the transition issue by offering an alternative site plan. This new alternative now shows that the proposed project will be single family homes, townhomes, or park land all along Mendota Heights Road across from the single family development. The alternative site plan has replaced sixteen (16) condominium units along Mendota Heights Road with twelve (12) townhome units. (See attached alternative 2 included in the April 19, 1990 staff memos). MUNICIPAL SERVICES In August 1985, the City conducted a study of projected Municipal Services demands related to the Southeast Area. That study indicated that development plans which incorporate multi -family residential units do indeed generate revenues sufficient to provide basic municipal services. A full copy of this report was distributed as part of an earlier binder of information given to the neighborhood and the City Council. A summary matrix of this report is attached. PUBLIC SAFETY There has been a concern expressed by the neighbors about the public safety of the proposed active park. Chief of Police Delmont has reviewed the proposed Kensington Phase II plans and his comments are included in the attached April 19, 1990 staff report to the Planning Commission. PARK DEDICATION Including Phase I, the proposed Kensington development would include approximately 112 acres. The City's park dedication requirements are ten percent (10%) of the land being proposed to be developed. The developer has been working cooperatively with the City and the Parks and Recreation Commission to provide additional park land in this area consistent with the City's voter approved Park Bond Referendum in September 1989. Total proposed dedication is 26.53 acres. (See attached density and acreage analysis for factors on park water and land area). Please note attached petition and letters from the public concerning this proposed development. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 5-1, (Morson) to recommend to the City Council that they deny the request of rezoning, CUP for PUD, Preliminary Plat and Wetlands based on the following finding of facts: 1. There is no community support for this project. 2. The plan is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan of 1979. 3. Density is ridiculously skewed. 4. Plan presented to the Commission is not harmonious to the neighborhood and the community. 5. Does not show any proper buffering on the freeway side and on the other side. 6. The plan requests more than a heavy infringement on wetlands which it also will likely use to make the apartments, condominium or townhouses more acceptable. 7. An inadequate use of lands in light of City needs. for parks and ball fields. 8. There is an unresolved question of safety of parks next to a freeway. 9. The area is not suited as indicated by Met Council for single family dwellings. 10. Comprehensive Plan calls for a certain number of units at certain times. Commissioner Dwyer Friendly Amendment: 11. It will lead to a heightened need for development of an interchange at Delaware Avenue and I-494. 12. Safety concerns for children that will be lured to the ball fields. Commissioner Dreelan Friendly Amendment: 13. Concern for over crowding of schools. Commissioner Tilsen Friendly Amendment: 14. Failure of the developer to give the community an opportunity to react to the changes submitted tonight. Commission Duggan Friendly Amendment: 15. The development is contrary to, or opposes, the mission statement of the community. N ACTION REQUIRED Conduct the public hearing. Should City Council desire to act on the application this evening, they should pass a motion adopting a resolution incorporating their findings of fact. JED/KLB:kkb 0 J� N �1 rl 1p N n b OY (O p N N C) co N 0) M _ m M M co w co n CO a N W r o7 N N r (o -. au N nN (+ l O O n co co Ol V ~ Q i ao n o w n nX x y '�( N- N- l� (D (O (C 1y m N iC O> N V� n CD N N C-0 (D ' O M N N W N N Go W n N V 4 y r O CO CON w W V' to Qi N N W) in o f0 *a N o to (� r - x (n x <T' PIN � N M ^t CO) C) N M t 1 ti• (fl co (D W co0D N i� N Ol ^ V. N n V) M (7 W r Q) N A n th C. ^L� N m H 00 co Lo M n .! n �+ co N (O.N•� N c0 N O O cc dl X U1 X O w ( n of N N M O co n N 40 O ca N O N W `•. O N w co m O O n N N (D W w d. ♦ N m c) N m m M {- l- O O N O M t- O N c0 T O O O N w n X (o p A X �+ M ^! w N .. co w N Q (C (D 0) C) ^ T q N N to co m W O m M M o Cf w N o 0A w C� x x O O K F i .i r a t- • F d i w q C o V a v v w F to i • V t3 K 0 q E 0 O F T w O 7 O C q O c w w a O U O �. q U3 T F V �, V Q q b V n q a U a O .. a > -• o E•- > O b 5 O 9. a O c p o W 4 -- -^ .0 U > a a m q o o o p o E q o V a F G o - o u U 7 c• o Q o U O 0 �- F x c b o F c o c S 0 q 4 G o ro - q > o > o u .. a O V (n « 'C O O •O G 2 X 2 7 F p q a t o T o w 7 K u G G - O > .. z W 4 O 4 O 7 O 4 'E q �' o > 0 C 7 P �- q � m 0. 0 4 E CL a 2 W F F K i n- i - MAY -09-1990 13:4? FROM SEH INC. TO 4522995 P.03 I SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON PAGE 2 OF 2 HOURLY, I CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: MENDOTA HEIGHTS •,•,,,MREC71-9b12,; -DO LOCATION: MENDOTA HEIGHTS LOC: M 1 MENDOT v FILENAME: 140MO190 7 WEATHER: PROCESSED 26 APRIL 90 4{�1ON`o1YIL23,=199 F OPERATOR: GAV, PROCESSED BY TTK .................................. HOUR MONDAY --- ........................................................................................... TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DAY BEGINS 23 24 25 26 27 AVERAGE 28 29 AVERAGE AM 12 0 0 1 * * 1 * * 1 1 0• 0 4 * * 4 * * 4 2 0 0 2 * * 2 * * 2 3 4 5 3 * * 4 * * 4 4 0 0 0 * * * * 4 5 5 3 2 * * 3 * * 3 6 21 14 35 * * 23 * * 23 7 47 4S 63 * 52 * * 52 8 35 35 30 * * 33 * * 33 9 18 11 21 * * 17 • 17 10 19 20 25 * * 21 * * 21 11 27 22 32 + * 27 * 27 PM 12 11 36 34 * * 29 * ' 29 1 27 17 27 * * 24 * * 24 2 33 28 * * * 31 * * 31 3 50 57 * * 54 * * 54 4 64 55 * * * 60 * * 60 S 47 49 * * '' 48 * * 48 6 47 44 * * * 46 * '" 46 7 30 22 * + * 26 * * 26 8 33 19 * * * 26 26 9 12 12 * * * 12 * * 12 10 0 6 * * 6 * * 6 11 4 6 * * * 5 * * 5 ............ --- -------- TOTALS -.......................................... 540 506 279 0 -........ -------............................................... 0 552 0 0 i•52 X AVG WKDAY 97.8 91.6 50.5 0.0 0.0 % AVG DAY 97.8 91.6 50.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AM PEAK HR 7 7 7 PEAK FLOC! 47 45 63 PM PEAK HR 4 3 12 PEAK FLOW 64 57 34 I MAY -09-1990 13:49 FROM SEH INC. TO 4522995 P.07 SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON PAGE 2 OF 2 HOURLY, 1 CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: MENDOTA HEIGHTS Oi#jtECT CT�� 1.00 LOCATION: MENDOTA HEIGHTS LOc: M _ 4 OBER 4F 79�Nb'tiT cw+a'n�; LENAME: 140TH 0 WEATHER: PROCESSED 26 APRIL 90 �° °Y � jO pp�PII OPERATOR: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ GAV, PROCESSED BY TTK HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DAY BEGINS ------------------------------------------------------------•---------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 24 25 26 27 ANlRAGE 28 29 AVERAGE AM 12 1 3 0 * + 2 * * 2 1 0 2 0 * * 2 * * 2 2 3 2 0 * * 3 * * 3 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 5 4 0 * * 5 * * S 6 17 10 0 * * 14 * * 14 7 58 733 0 * 66 * * 66 $ 72 66 0 * * 69 * * 69 9 21 24 0 * * 23 * * 23 10 37 14 0 * * 26 * * 26 11 34 0 0 * * 34 * * 34 PTi 12 42 0 0 * * 42 * * 42 1 49 0 0 * * 49 * * 49 2 44 0 * * * 44 * * 44 3 46 0 * * * 46 * * 46 4 56 0 * * * 56 * * 56 5 56 0 * * * 56 * * 56 6 52 0 * * * 52 * * 52 7 33 0 * * * 33 * 33 8 21 0 * * * 21 * * 21 9 10 0 * * * 10 * * 10 10 8 0 * * * $ * * 8 11 3 0 * * * 3 * . 3 -------..................................... TOTALS 668 199 ---................... 0 0 --............................................................... 0 662 0 0 X AVG WKDAY x100.9 30.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 X AVC DAY X100.9 30.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AM PEAK HR 8 7 PEAK FLOW 72 73 PM PEAK HR 4 PEAK FLOW t 56 * * + . 4"MAY-09-1990 13:48 FROM SEH INC. TO 4522995 P.05 SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON PAGE 2 OF 2 HOURLY, 1 CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: LOCATION: MENDOTA HEIGNTS MENDOTA HEIGHTS LOC: M 5MENDOTA1r'�llT:s CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.00 DrEsi�OF DODD D� FILENAME,�,40t905 1 ' ` ""` < CFiDND/17 WEATHER: PROCESSED 26 APRIL 90 APJjfm 33 OPERATOR: GAV, PROCESSED BY TTK HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DAY BEGINS 23 24 25 26 27 AVERAGE 28 29 AVERAGE AM 12 1 3 2 * * 2 * ' 2 1 0 1 3 * * 2 * * 2 2 2 3 1 * * 2 * * 2 3 0 1 1 * * 1 * * 1 4 0 0 0 5 10 10 6 * * 9 * 9 6 43 28 25 * * 32 * * 32 7 80 83 99 * * 87 * * 87 8 87 92 62 * * 80 * * 80 9 50 41 31 * * 41 * * 41 10 58 46 55 * * 53 * * 53 11 64 67 61 * * 64 * * 64 PM 12 65 82 77 * * 75 * 75 1 72 57 70 * * 66 * 66 2 77 57 * * * 67 * * 67 3 92 76 * * * 84 * 84 4 85 73 + * + 79 79 5 83 99 * * * 91 * * 91 6 67 79 * * * 73 * * 73 7 43 33 * * * 38 * * 38 8 32 27 * * * 30 * * 30 9 11 20 * * * 16 * 16 10 10 17 * * * 14 * * 14 11 8 16 * * 12 * * 12 TOTALS 1040 1011 493 0 0 1017 0 0 µi,if J1017; % AVG WKDAY X,102.3 99.5 48.5 0.0 0.0 x AVG DAY 9102.3 99.5 48.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AM PEAK HR 8 8 7 PEAK FLOW 87 92 99 * * + PM PEAK HR 3 S 12 PEAK FLOW 92 99 77 t CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 9, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Director Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Density and Acreage Analysis DISCUSSION At the request of the City Council, the following density analysis has been prepared. AREA Gross Description Area Units Density Phase Two 89.77 acres 431 4.80 Phase One 22.00 acres 136 6.18 Total 111.77 acres 567 5.70 ' * Dwelling Units per Acre = Gross Density WATER Description Area Owens Pond within Park Dedication 3.54 acres Owens Pond within Private Lots 1.59 acres Owens Pond 5.13 acres Wetlands South of Owens Pond within Park .69 Wetlands in Private Lots .35 Total Wetlands 1.04 acres Water within Park Dedication - 4.23 acres (Phase II) Total Pond or Wetland Phase I - 4.97 acres Allowable Units in Comprehensive Plan * does not include 24.6 acres City would purchase with potential referendum funds -Units Approved 136 Phase One Constructed 3 - 8 unit 3 - 4 unit 36 Tota Other Planned Unit Developments in Mendota Heights Name Units Acres Net Density Eagle Ridge Allowed Kensington 5.98 PUD Area it Allowed 25.1 .L of Units Du/Ac MR -PUD 22 7.6 54.24 acres 4 Du/Ac Ivy Falls Townhomes 217 HR -PUD 3.44 Du/Ac 50.19 acres 8 Du/Ac 401 104.38* 618 * does not include 7.36 acres right-of-way Number of Units,.Density Different Plans Total Proposed Plan Units Acres Gross Density Sketch Plan A �_ 540 81 acres 6.66 Du/Ac Sketch Plan B 500 77.65* 6.4.4 Du/Ac Sketch Plan C 567 111.77 5.07 Du/Ac * does not include 24.6 acres City would purchase with potential referendum funds -Units Approved 136 Phase One Constructed 3 - 8 unit 3 - 4 unit 36 Tota Other Planned Unit Developments in Mendota Heights Name Units Acres Net Density Eagle Ridge 158 26.4 5.98 Du/Ac Lexington Heights 225 25.1 8.96 Du/Ac Somerset 19 22 7.6 2.89 Du/Ac Ivy Falls Townhomes 82 23.8 3.44 Du/Ac JED/KLB:kkb RICHARD SIEGEL JOSIAH E. BRILL, JR. JAMES R. GREUPNER GERALD S. DUFFY WOOD R. FOSTER, JR. THOMAS H. GOODMAN K. CRAIG WILDFANG JOHN S. WATSON WM. CHRISTOPHER PENWELL MURRAY R. KLANE SUSAN M. VOIGT BRUCE HEDGCOCK KATHLEEN A. CONNELLY STEVEN L. SCHECHTMAN` ANTHONY J. GLEEKEL SHERRI L BRICK BRIAN E. WEISBERG BY MESSENGER LAW OFFICES SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER & DUFFY, P.A. FORMERLY GROSSMAN, KARLINS, SIEGEL & BRILL RETIRED SUITE 1350 M. L. GROSSMAN, P.A. 100 WASHINGTON SQUARE SHELDON D. KARLINS, P.A. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 `ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON ONLY TELEPHONE (612) 339-7131 TELECOPIER (612) 339-6591 / May 15, 1990 Mr. Kevin Batchelder Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota Dear Kevin: Enclosed please find a letter to the City Council which summarizes and restates the majority of our points in opposition to the Centex Corporation development in Mendota Heights. Enclosed are five (5) copies of the letter for distribution to the individual council members. Thank you very much for your assistance. Very truly yours, Kathleen A Connelly KAC:mkf Enclosures RICHARD SIEGEL JOSIAH E. BRILL, JR. JAMES R. GREUPNER GERALD S. DUFFY WOOD R. FOSTER, JR. THOMAS H.GOODMAN K. CRAIG WILDFANG JOHN S. WATSON WM. CHRISTOPHER PENWELL MURRAY R. KLANE SUSAN M, VOIGT BRUCE HEDGCOCK KATHLEEN A. CONNELLY STEVEN L. SCHECHTMAN' ANTHONY J. GLEEKEL SHERRI L BRICK BRIAN E. WEISBERG LAW OFFICES SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER & DUFFY, P.A. FORMERLY GROSSMAN. KARLINS. SIEGEL & BRILL SUITE 1350 100 WASHINGTON SQUARE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55401 TELEPHONE (612) 339-7131 TELECOPIER (612) 339-6591 May 15, 1990 City Council of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota Councilmembers: Q, , s// s- WA RETIRED M. L. GROSSMAN, P.A. SHELDON D. KARLINS, P.A. ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON ONLY We represent a large number of residents of Mendota Heights who, as you are aware, vigorously oppose development as proposed south of Mendota Heights Road east of Dodd Road and West of Delaware. These residents represent diverse interests. Among their number are nearby residents, but also included are citizens of the City who have come to believe that the City is trading away civic amenities such as parkland and quietude for no reason, to the detriment of these and future citizens. You have heard from us and from our clients on numerous occasions, verbally and in writing. We now wish to take this opportunity to restate our opposition to Centex Corporation's plans for the Southeast Area for the following reasons: The Proposed Development Does Not Meet The Criteria For Rezoning To Planned Unit Development. Section 10A of Chapter 401 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that a rezoning to a PUD district must satisfy all criteria listed in Section 10A.2. These same criteria are reflected in Section 19 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the public record and such additional testimony to be offered at the public hearing on this matter, the criteria are not satisfied in the following respects: City Council of Mendota Heights May 15, 1990 Page 2 1. The proposed development is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as found by the City's Planning Staff. Chapter 401, Mendota Heights Code of Ordinances Section 10A.2(1)a and 19.2(1)a. Specifically, the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan with which the proposed development is inconsistent, are given below: Goal: To resist deterioration of the environment. A supporting guideline directs the City to do so by providing for maintenance and further development of natural ecological systems including lakes, ponding areas, acuifiers and drainage areas. The proposed development provides for elimination of three natural wetland areas on the property. Goal: To perpetuate a quality residential development and maintain the existing residential areas of the City. A supporting guideline directs the City to provide a desirable residential land use pattern taking into account adaptability of the land which has unusual soil conditions. The plan fails on this count because the development scheme requires the land to be leveled out the wetland areas to be filled, and placing large 24 unit structures directly in the area of wet soils. The soils on this site are described in the United States Department of Agriculture's Soil Survey of Dakota County, Minnesota (1983) and building limitations given as follows: Jewett silt loam - If buildings are constructed on this soil, foundations and footing should be designed to prevent structure damage caused by swelling and shrinking of the soil. Quam silt loam - This soil is generally unsuitable for buildings or septic tank absorption fields because ponding is a hazard. Kingsley sandy loam - Buildings constructed on this soil should be designed to conform to the natural slope of the land. Kato silty clay loam - This soils is generally unsuitable for buildings or septic tank absorption fields because of the flooding hazard. City Council of Mendota Heights May 15, 1990 Page 3 Auburndale silt loam - This soil is generally unsuitable for building or septic tank absorption fields because ponding is a hazard. Chetek sandy loam - Buildings constructed on this soil should be designed to conform to the natural slope of the land. Refer also to the Soil Constraints Study attached to the DSU Southeast Area Study for confirmation of the above-described limitations. Goal: To enable the movement of persons and goods within the City in a safe, environmentally acceptable manner. The guidelines require the City to maintain and develop streets so they are capable of handling anticipated traffic volumes safely, and to avoid isolation of neighborhoods. The proposed development has demonstrably failed to address the ability of these roads to handle the traffic to be generated by the residential and recreational uses in the development. The proposed development also badly isolates a large number of residents at the far south of the property providing no alternative access than a long road among rows of densely packed multiple'dwelling units which do not create a neighborhood atmosphere. Goal: To provide the optimum amount of active and passive open space for the enjoyment of all Mendota Heights residents. Guidelines for this goal include the provision of usable park space for each neighborhood, establishment of recreational facilities usable by all age groups, and acquisition of development rights to preserve open space. The plan for development provides no recreational resources for small children; no playgrounds, no playfields; and what little there is for older children puts the children at risk from traffic into and out of the project. Rather than preserve open space, the City is being asked to permit the obliteration of wetland areas. Goal: To provide the services and facilities essential for the protection of private and public property in the City. The City's Storm Water Drainage Plan indicates a large ponding area in Subdistrict IA, which is included in this property (Figure 12 of Comprehensive Plan). No such pond appears in the current development plan and its absence has not been adequately addressed. City Council of Mendota Heights May 15, 1990 Page 4 Goal: To preserve and enhance the natural beauty, uniqueness, and attractive appearance of the community. The supporting guidelines applicable here are: - Work to diminish and control noise pollution. As indicated by Mike Dwyer of the Planning Commission and Mike Gannon of Mendota Heights Citizens Concerned for Quieter Skies, the placement of high density housing in the glide path to the St. Paul -Minneapolis airport horribly undercuts the City's argument that increased air traffic and noise is unacceptable in Mendota Heights. The City should refuse to plan for and around an increase in pollution. Protect and preserve natural water drainage, water recharge areas and water ponding areas. The proposed development destroys these. Enforce the Wetlands Ordinance to ensure that wetlands, ponding areas and natural drainage courses are managed and protected. The proposed development destroys these. - Adopts standards to limit and manage filling its affect .on wetlands and related water resource areas. The proposed plan is in direct opposites to this guideline. 2. The PUD does not provide for the preservation of the site's unique natural amenities. Chapter 401, Sections 10A.2(1)b and 19.2(1)b. With the removal of trees, grading and filling of wetlands, the basic nature of this property will be critically altered, not preserved. 3. The PUD does not harmonize with surrounding development. Chapter 401, Sections 10A.2(1)c and 19.2(1)c. In the vicinity of the recreation areas there is no buffering such as will insulate surrounding neighborhoods from traffic and parking intrusions. The buffering along Mendota Heights Road is insufficient. 4. The density calculations are performed incorrectly. Rather than allowing a transfer of development rights from what little wetland is not being destroyed and rather than City Council of Mendota Heights May 15, 1990 Page 5 including prospective parkland in excess of 10%, the calculations of allowable density ought be performed to give meaning to the Comprehensive Plan mandate to "controlled growth." Chapter 401, Sections 10A.2(3) and 19.2(3). 5. All Planned Unit Developments are required to coordinate with the Subdivision Control Ordinance. Chapter 401 Section 19.2(4). Mendota Heights' Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 301 provides: That minor streets must be planned so as to discourage this use by non -local traffic. The cul-de-sac at the southeast corner of Lockwood Drive is directly opposite of the ballfield area. As ballfield users look for parking close by the fields they will turn down the cul-de-sac resulting in heavy use and parking on residential streets by non-residents. They will also use the small interior loop adjacent to Interstate 494 for the same purposes, greatly overburdening the already scanty parking available to residents and augmenting use of the local streets for non -local traffic. Chapter 301, Section 5.3(2). A minimum 49 foot radius for cul-de-sacs is required. However the radii for the cul-de-sacs in the multiple dwelling unit area of the proposed development are only 36 feet. Also these cul-de-sacs are completely lacking the 60 foot radius right of way. Chapter 301, Section 5.3(2). Section 5.3(6) directs consideration of a frontage road along Interstate 494. If the ballfields are to remain deep within the development, alternative access via a frontage road ought to be implemented to draw off traffic hazards in the residential area. Chapter 301, Section 5.3(6). 6. The PUD must comply with other applicable portions of the Code. Chapter 401, Section 19.2(5). The proposed development requires a wetlands permit, governed by Chapter 402, Mendota Heights Code of Ordinances. However, this proposed development cannot meet the standards for issuance of a permit. City Council of Mendota Heights May 15, 1990 Page 6 Dredging and/or filing -shall be located in areas of minimal vegetation. The wetland areas proposed for filing are thickly vegetated with grasses, reeds and other aquatic vegetation, all of which would be destroyed by this project. Lowest floor elevations must be at least three (3) feet above the highest known water level. The plan does not meet these requirements in the vicinity of wetlands. Refer to developers submissions for elevations. No development is permitted that will endanger the public health safety or welfare. By now it is well known that wetland areas serve an important function in filtering contaminants from groundwater. The loss of these wetlands will deprive the public of this valuable health and safety promoting resource. The wetland permit may not be issued unless there is provision for treatment of runoff prior to release to drainage for parking areas and land uses which manufacture products likely to contaminate groundwater. We have seen no provision for such treatment. Section 5.6 of Chapter 401 of the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance sets out the criteria for approval of conditional use permits. The conditional use: 1. Must not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; at 1000 people per square mile, this part of Mendota Heights will contain 30% of Mendota Heights population on less than 1% of the land. In the Municipal Services Demand projection report dated August 21, 1985 numerous errors in the Revenue Projection portion which are sheer carelessness lead us to lack confidence in the City's conclusion that the additional service demands to be generated by the development can be paid for out of revenues. III City Council of Mendota Heights May 15, 1990 Page 7 2. Must not cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards; the ISP for this site projects traffic level F for the Dodd/Mendota Heights Road intersection. The status of the Delaware and 494 interchange is thrown into controversy given Eagan development plans adjacent to the freeway and this proposed high density development. These inevitable traffic crises have not been planned for as required. 3. Must not seriously depreciate surrounding property value. Neighboring property owner's testimony regarding the deleterious impact of the proposed development on their property values has been offered. 4. Must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this (zoning) ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development fails in this regard for all the reasons stated previously. The Proposed Development Fails To Meet Technical Requirements Of The Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 401, Section 10.7(7) requires a minimum storage area of 50 square feet per dwelling unit, exclusive of that provided in the unit. No outside storage of garbage is permitted. The developers have not demonstrated that these requirements have been met. Section 10.5(7) requires that the parking areas along Mendota Heights Road be screened from the homes across the street, and from the single family residential lots by 4 foot fences. No plans the neighbors have seen show such fencing. Section 10.5(4) provides that no driveways are to be less than 50 feet from street intersections, yet plans show numerous drives less than 50 feet away from these intersections. Section 10.5(2) provides that unenclosed parking areas shall be less than 40 feet from streets, yet plans show parking areas much closer than 40 feet. City Council of Mendota Heights May 15, 1990 Page 8 10.5(1) provides for minimal parking space dimensions. These minimums are not met, except in a theoretical sense. In many cases, the dimensions comprising a parking space are 1/2 in and 1/2 out of a garage. 10.4(2)c prohibits principal buildings housing two or more dwelling units from being within 50 feet of each other, yet this prohibition is not adhered to in the plans. Based on the foregoing we respectfully request that the Council deny the application for Conditional Use and Wetlands Permits, Rezoning and Planning Plat. Yours very truly, i GSD : mkf CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 11, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Approval of the Sibley Park Plans and Comfort Building Job No. 8920E Improvement No. 89, Project No. 6E 4 DISCUSSION: The Park and Recreation Commission approved the Sibley Park Construction and Comfort Station plans at their May 8th meeting (see attached reduced plans, full plans will be available Tuesday evening). Council needs to review and approve the plans and authorize staff to accept bids for the following: Sibley Park* Comfort Station** TOTAL Estimated Cost $440,125.00 $ 54,828.00 $494,828.00 * Including Overhead, Consultant fees, etc. **Including Architect fees Budgeted Amount $321,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $383,000.00 The Park and Recreation Commission discussed the possibility of overbudget construction costs and decided to await the final low bid before determining what funds would be used to cover any costs over the referendum budget RECOMMENDATION• The Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Coun- cil approve the attached Sibley Park and Comfort Station designs. ACTION REQUIRED• If Council desires to implement the Park and Recreation Commis- sion recommendation they should pass a motion approving the Sibley Park and Comfort Station designs and authorize staff to accept bids. Bids to be opened at 10:00 A.M., Friday, June 15, 1990. JED:dfw Attachments • JL �r JL �i . L II 4 1� :I Ir �I Ij II IF ;� �4 � JL �r rp u MV N O I I um ��i• �I,il y v m i I II .I�i It JL r _ ...... .. ..... ._ _ V• n T T. T" '414 ---------------- Y JL 'ir JL -ir JL -1 r JL -ir r'min �������t•����t•t•t,��t•�t•���t•�r,����� �������r•��t•����������������� '414 ---------------- Y JL 'ir JL -ir JL -1 r JL -ir r'min �= No I i I '414 ---------------- Y JL 'ir JL -ir JL -1 r JL -ir �= I i I '414 ---------------- Y JL 'ir JL -ir JL -1 r JL -ir I\ODET-ARC HITE GROUP, ATE 15 GROVE, ; D TERRACE M?LS., MINN. 55403 377-2737 -------. -�. . Mendota Heights May 8,1990 Preliminary"Cost Analysis for Mendota Heights Sibley Athletic Fields Comfort Building Based on Floor Plan Dated May 8,1990 Excavation: $2,475.00 Concrete: Footings and Slabs 3,474.00 Masonry: Concrete Block Rock Faced Exterior 6,160.00 Steel: " Beams 3,220.00 Rough Carpentry: Sheathing, Soffit, Trusses 4,978.00 Finish Carpentry: Siding, Fascia, Cabinets 1,596.00 Roofing: Asphalt Shingles 875.00 Sealants " 400.00 Doors: -Hollow Metal Doors and Frames, Rolling Door; Hardware - 5,460.00 Gypsum Board: Ceiling 3%.00 Tile: Ceramic Tile, Quarry Tile. 1,712.00 Painting 1,642.00 Miscellaneous: Fire Exiting, Bath Accessories, Toilet Partitions, Signage .1,400.00 Mechanical: Plumbing -.3,720.00. Electrical: 2,900.00 $40,408.00 5% Contingency 2,021.00 18% Overhead and Profit .7,274.00 Total Construction Cost $49,703.00 This probable cost summary is reflective of the knowledge available .on this project as of this date. Market conditions, program changes, bidding conditions, and other market place factors can and will affect this summary. The summary is provided to determine and approximate scope of project: F `1 ti6iv� Na;_"' '.. :.Hj li...,, � �•� � _ �� . L��,I / i � �� � � v � ``� 5 Al i�, uIs .� _.—>BS'QCatBn.'iF•� z :.sem,'.' 1�. a ��7 c3 f �i R � ti6iv� Na;_"' '.. :.Hj li...,, � �•� � _ �� . L��,I / i � �� � � v � ``� 5 Al i�, uIs .� _.—>BS'QCatBn.'iF•� z :.sem,'.' 1�. a ��7 March 27, 1990 .Page 8 2. That they maintain a maximum of 3:1 slopes. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 90-03 Chairperson Morson opened the meeting for CENTEX HOMES - the purpose of a public hearing to discuss REZONING, CUP FOR a request from Centex Homes for Rezoning, PUD, PREL. PLAT, CUP for PUD, Preliminary Plat Approval and WETLANDS Wetlands Permit for the second phase of Kensington. Mr. Tom Boyce, President of the Minnesota Division of Centex Homes and Kevin Clark, Project Manger, were present to discuss Centex's request. Mr. Boyce briefly explained the C-5 plan as submitted by Centex Homes. Chairman Morson questioned if their were drawings available showing the free standing garages. Mr. Boyce briefly explained that the garages would be similar to the buildings. He also stated that the landscaping that is shown on the plans will be built and that nothing shown on the plans is for future installation. He also explained that some of the townhomes may have basements. He stated that the market demand for basements will dictate whether or not there will be basements included in the proposed townhomes. Chairman Morson questioned if there will be walkways on the public streets and also questioned the type of material that would be used. Mr. Boyce responded that the sidewalks would probably be concrete. He explained that the City would be installing these walkways. He further commented that the interior walkways would be bituminous. Commissioner Tilsen questioned if there will be underground lawn sprinkling. Mr. Boyce responded that there will be. Commissioner Tilsen questioned who will be plowing the walkways. Mr. Boyce explained that the interior walkways would be plowed by the association. Commissioner Duggan stated that he would like to review the chronology of the southeast area prepared by staff and deduce what has been left out, intentionally or unintentionally or misrepresented. a t March 27, 1990 Page 9 Commissioner Krebsbach questioned the layout of the 16 unit buildings. Mr. Boyce stated that the 16 unit building is on the end and that there is room to move buildings. Commissioner Dwyer had questions regarding the setbacks of the homes, siding, condominium garages and storage. Mr. Boyce explained that they will adhere to the required setbacks as directed by the City. He explained that the siding would be aluminum. He further explained that there would single car garages for the condominiums and that there would ample storage space for the residents. In response to a question from Commissioner Dwyer, Mr. Boyce stated that the City has requirements with regards to stop signs and other necessary traffic signs on Mendota Heights Road and the City controls traffic signage. Commissioner Koll expressed her concerns with regards to the quality of the exterior materials on the dwellings and she also stated her general concerns for detached garages. Commissioner Duggan questioned if Centex Homes will be complying with the air noise attenuation guidelines. Mr. Boyce stated that they will be complying with the City's ordinance. Commissioner Duggan questioned if there is greater noise in this area than originally called for in the ordinance. He questioned if Centex is measuring in decibels. Mr. Clark explained that Centex Homes has been involved with the air noise attenuation process from the start. He stated that they have consulted with MAC and that they have complied with all requirements and guidelines in submitting the plans. In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan regarding the parks that have been dedicated for the numerous additions in the southeast area, Planner Dahlgren explained the park dedication procedure. He stated that 10 percent of land is dedicated when land -is subdivided or there.is an option of money in lieu of land dedication. He stated that an appropriate amount of land has.been dedicated for Copperfield 1st through 4th Additions, Hampshire Addition and Bridgeview Shores. Commissioner Duggan read ari excerpt from March 27, 1990 Page 10 minutes of a City Council meeting dated November 3, 1987 that stated at one point the development was 500 units on 105 acres of park, that the City would have to purchase. He further commented that the City is playing fast and lose with the comprehensive plan. Planner Dahlgren further commented that in 1987 Centex Homes presented Plan B to the City. He stated that this plan included 500 units with a park dedication of 43 acres. He stated that this park plan was presented to the citizens of Mendota Heights in a Park Bond referendum in May of 1988. He explained that this referendum failed. He further explained that Centex came back to the City with plan C,that showed 563 units with a park dedication of 26 acres. This again was presented to the citizens of Mendota Heights and was then passed. He commented that Centex is trying to provide as much park land as possible. Chairperson Morson stated that he does not like the statement made by Commissioner Duggan regarding the comprehensive plan.• He stated that the comprehensive plan was well thought out by the City. He further commented that Centex Homes had complied with the requirements that were set out in the sketch plan approval. Commissioner Duggan stated he was in favor of less units and more park land. Chairperson Morson then opened the meeting to the audience. A resident of Copperfield stated that she is concerned with the possible increase in class room sizes and taxes. Mr. Jerry Duffy, attorney on behalf of the neighborhood, was present to discuss the concerns of the neighborhood. Mr. Duffy stated that they do not oppose a well reasoned, well planned PUD. He stated that the duality of these plans is not in keeping with Mendota Heights standards. He further stated that the plan does not comply with two density designations. Mr. Duffy further submitted a petition against the proposed development, which was signed by area residents, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Duffy further explained the concerns of the neighborhood. He commented on how the natural terrain will be gone and that many March 27, 1990 Page 11 trees will be removed. He also asked for a traffic impact study be completed. He stated that there will be an increase in traffic and that is a major concern. Mr. Duffy further questioned the park land availability. He asked how much is park and land and how much is pond. He stated that.more land could be used for parks to reduce the density. In response to a question from Mr. Duff, Commission Duggan stated that 18 acres is land, 8 acres is water. He stated that a total of 20 acres is not water. Planner Dahlgren stated that the sketch plan was approved one year ago and the figures were analyzed. He stated that there is far more land being dedicated now than before. Mr. Duffy stated that they are arguing that there is a lot of water dedicated in this park plan and that they are wondering where the people plan on recreating since there is a lot of water. . Mr. Duffy further commented on the parking concerns. He stated that the garages barely make the minimum code requirement. He questioned where the second car will be parked in a two car family. He stated that there are concerns for winter time. He wondered where the snow will be placed. He further stated that the City services would be impacted. He further questioned where the garbage would be placed. Mr. Duffy concluded that the plan is bad and questioned why it took two years to plan. He further stated again that they are very concerned with the density level and he told the Commission that they have the authority to tell the developer to go back and try again. Jill Nichols, 633 Hampshire, stated that she visited the Devonwood site in Bloomington. She stated that the structures are nice looking. She stated that there seemed to -be a lot of cars and that parking is a problem. Dan Nichols, 633 Hampshire, stated that the vast majority of people impacted moved in after the decisions were made and that they have had no input. He further commented that staff has given inaccurate information. He stated that he would like to see the Commission recommend denying this plan until all issues can be studied. March 27, 1990 Page 12 Ken Brendl, 2274 Copperfield Drive, stated his concerns with regards to traffic, schools and the possible increase in the crime rate. He further commented on the possible tax base increase. Gary Berg, 2345 Copperfield Drive, stated that he is also concerned with the traffic increase and that he would like to see the density level decreased. He asked the developer to lower the total number of units. Tom Gibon, Hampshire Drive, stated his concerns with the traffic increase and the dangerous intersections. He further commented that there has been misrepresentation on Centex's part. He asked the Commission to table the issue and have the developer come back with a new plan. Raymond Berghold, 629 Hampshire, stated that he is concerned with traffic in relation to the parks. Jill Smith, 625 Hampshire, commented on the comprehensive plan and that it should be re -thought. Duncan Baird, Mayor of Sunfish Lake, stated that he is very impressed with what the area residents have to say regarding the proposed project. He stated that he too is concerned with the amount of traffic that will occur if this development is approved. He further commented that the streets in Sunfish Lake could not tolerate an increase in traffic. He stated that he is bitterly opposed to this project. Ms. Capistrant, 2466 Park Lane, questioned how many units will be homestead unit that will become rental units (referring to the existing manor homes). She also stated that the aluminum siding is nice for maintenance but wondered how many people would actually live in these units for a long time. Mr. Braun, 647 Pond View, expressed his displeasure as to why Centex did not present these plans to people who were interested in buying homes in the Hampshire Estate addition. Beth Segal, 2568 Hampshire, stated that she has asthmatic children and the increase in traffic would only traumitize her children more. She stated that she has no problem 4 March 27, 1990 Page 13 with the townhomes and manor homes. She questioned why Centex did not tell her about the condominiums. She stated that she would not have moved there had she known about the proposal. She stated her concerns for drunk drivers coming down Mendota Heights Road and hitting her kids. Glennis Svendsen, 2300'Field Stone, stated that she is concerned with the noise level that increase in traffic would cause. She also expressed her concerns about the concentration of population in the Kensington area. She stated her concerns with kids crossing.the street to get to the parks. Tom Smith, Hampshire Drive, stated that the Planning Commission -took on responsibility of guiding land use in the City. He stated that this development has potential for big impact on City. -He further commented that the growth is completely at odds with explicit and implicit goals of the comprehensive plan. He stated his concerns for the tax base and that this development will have negative impacts on the traffic, schools and crime. Don Pacerdnik, Hampshire Estates, stated that he has the worse lot situated to Kensington. He stated that the park ball fields are disturbing and that it is a haven for crime and that he is concerned with the police patrolling this area. Mr. Duffy stated that he has proposed findings of fact to submit to the City. Jeff Ward, Hampshire Estates, stated that property values are clearly not the overriding concern of residents in the area. Joe Sparza, Bridgeview Shores, stated that he is very concerned with the increase in traffic as he has a handicapped child. Chairman Morson stated that the City cannot stop development of the land unless they buy it. He stated that.the Commission recognizes the residents concerns. He further explained that the Planning Commission has not had adequate time to review the plans. Commissioner Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Krebsbach stated that she would only consider tabling the hearing if March 27, 1990 Page 14 Centex will grant concessions. There was a brief discussion among the Commission members whether to table the hearing or to close the hearing. Commissioner Dwyer stated that the Planning Commission agrees with the neighbors but that the Commission's concerns have fallen* on deaf ears in the past on other topics. He stated that the decision is not made by the Commission but by the Council. Mr. Boyce stated that Centex is not adverse at attempting to work out neighbors concerns. . Chairperson Morson stated that if we close the public hearing then we are not doing our job in a responsible manner. He stated that if they recommend approval of the project - we haven't seriously considered all the issues. He further stated that if they recommend denying the project then we are reacting to emotional statements. Planner Dahlgren stated that the Commission can table the manner to further review the plans. He stated that the Council cannot proceed until the Planning Commission has had 60 days to consider. He stated the application was made at the February meeting and that the April meeting would constitute 60 days, at which time the developer could ask for a recommendation to go to Council. Commissioner Dwyer and Duggan stated that they have not seen any improvements in the plans. Commissioner Dugan stated that by postponing for 30 days it will be 30 days more till the inevitable. Commissioner Koll discussed briefly about meeting with Centex and the neighbors to further discuss the neighborhood's concern with this proposal. Planner Dahlgren commented that they can work further on the plans but in reality, the sketch plan has been approved by Council under the Comprehensive Guide Plan. There was a brief discussion regarding the developer meeting with the neighborhood to discuss their concerns. Commissioner Duggan's motion to close the public hearing failed due to lack of second. March 27, 1990 Page 15 Commissioner Koll moved to table the hearing to April 24, 1990 at 8:00 o'clock P.M. with the direction to Centex to organize a meeting with the neighborhood to discuss their concerns:. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion.. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2, Duggan Krebsbach Commissioner Krebsbach informed the Commission that she would not be attending the April 24th meeting.and that is why she voted against tabling the matter. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Koll moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:15 o'clock A.M. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Respectfully submitted,. Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 February 28, 1990 Page 11 Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. Commissioner Tilsen offered a friendly amendment to Commissioner Duggan's motion stating that the applicants propose their own list of conditions to help guide the Commission in understanding what they are proposing. Commissioner Duggan accepted the friendly amendment. Vice Chair Dwyer called a recess at 9:25 o'clock P.M. CASE NO. 90-03 Vice Chair Dwyer opened the meeting at 9:35 CENTEX HOMES - o'clock P.M. for the purpose -of a public REZONING, CUP hearing to discuss a request from Centex FOR PUD, WETIANDSHomes for rezoning, CUP for PUD and a PERMIT Wetlands Permit. Vice Chair Dwyer explained the hearing procedure to the audience and the role of_the Planning Commission. Mr. Dick Putnam, Tandem Corporation, was present to discuss Centex Homes request. He stated that he is working with Centex Homes on this project. He introduced Mr. Tom Boyce, President of Minnesota Division of Centex and Kevin Clark, Project Manager. For the.benefit of the Planning Commission and the audience, Mr. Putnam gave a lengthy history and background concerning the approval procedure to date for the Kensington PUD. This included a slide show and presentation of maps and sketch plans relevant to the PUD. Mr. John Huber, Chair of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission, briefly explained the role of the Parks and Recreation Commission in planning the park within Kensington Phase II. He further described the park plan. He stated. that Centex has been very good to work with. Mr. Putnam briefly described the proposed development within Kensington Phase II with regards to the condominiums, manor homes, townhomes and single family homes. Vice Chair Dwyer then opened the meeting for public comments. Dan Nichols, 633 Hampshire Drive, stated that he is stunned by the density of the development. He stated that he is against this level of density. He stated that when he was looking to move to Mendota Heights several years ago nothing was mentioned February 28, 1990 Page 12 about the condominiums or the smaller townhomes described. Vice Chair Dwyer questioned Mr. Nichols as to who made those representations and Mr. Nichols stated that the salesperson in the Centex Home model home did. He further commented that most of the people in the room had never heard anything about condominiums and anything at that level of density. Mr. Ridley, 620 Hampshire Drive, stated there were several misrepresentations regarding condominiums and the park referendum. He also stated that he is against the density level. Ms. Hammel, 646 Pond View Terrace, she stated that she is concerned with the density level with respect to City services. She also stated that she is concerned with the amount of people it will bring into.the school. Mr: Ecker, 2308 Field Stone Drive,.spoke against the rezoning proposed by Centex Homes. He spoke on how the tax base for Mendota Heights will raise. He further stated his concerns with the density level. He also commented on the possible high level of traffic this development may bring. He further stated his concerns regarding the increase of population in the schools. He commented that he wonders what type of person would be attracted to 350 condominiums, townhouses, manor houses. Vice Chair Dwyer reiterated the`concerns of the residents with respect to supposed misrepresentations made, density, possible increases in the taxes, traffic problems and school district and asked if there were any comments different from those previously stated. Mr. Ecker, 2308 Fieldstone Drive, expressed his concerns about the impact on the environment. He questioned if.there were going to be studies done on the environment. Public Works Director Danielson stated that the City has done an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) along with the initial application and an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) has been done He stated that further studies will be conducted during this process. Don Pacdernik, 2472 Hampshire Court, questioned if the plans that have been , referred tonight are a done deal. -- Planner Dahlgren stated that the basic February 28, 1990 Page 13 density pattern was established and approved by the City when they amended the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Dahlgren explained that zoning is different from the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that a Comprehensive Plan is a document which is required under Minnesota law for all communities in the Metropolitan area which is the basis for.zoning. He stated that the land use plan designates the land use which includes the density. He stated that in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which was done after the Southeast Area Study, that amendment established the density pattern for this whole area.. He explained what the pattern was. He stated that there was to be single family homes at 15,000 square feet per lot north of Mendota Heights Road. He stated for the area south of Mendota Heights Road and easterly was designated four units per acre. He stated that the area to the west of the powerlines south of Mendota Heights Road over to Dodd Road was desi.gnated.at eight units per acre. He stated that the existing ordinance for multi-family,housing in the City, at that time, was about 10 units per.acre. He stated that the approximate density normal for the R-3 District, the only multi -family housing district in the City, was 10 units per acre, in the process of this study the Council decided to reduce that to eight units per acre. He stated that substantial traffic studies were done and showed that the densities at that rate .(4 units per acre to the east of;the.right-of-way and eight units per acre to the west of the powerline right=of-way, that that would not create undo traffic problems if Mendota Heights Road and Huber Drive were constructed. He stated that plan also envisioned a substantial park plan in the area. He stated that the actual area of parks varied, as Mr. Putnam explained, based on the bond issues.that were passed and not passed. Planner Dahlgren stated that with the bond issue that did not pass ultimately Mr. Putnam proposed a relatively large area of parks to be dedicated. He stated that when the plans evolved over time all were done in conformance with those densities established in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that these plans do not follow the density pattern exactly because Mr. Putnam has added a substantial amount of single family housing south of Mendota Heights Road in an area that was designated at four units per acre. Planner Dahlgren stated that part of the development is at a much lower density than was established in the comprehensive plan and parts of it are individually a little higher, 10 to 12 units per acre. He stated that the density February 28, 1990 Page 14 required in the Comprehensive Plan deals with the over all density. He further explained that a hearing was held last year on a concept plan for the whole area and at that time this basic pattern of developing with a looped street as a public right of way was included in that plan and the basic designation of these park areas plus the trail area and.thesetypes of units were in that plan. He explained that the concept of using these different types of housing units had been approved. He further explained that the specific development plan to carry on with the additional detail as represented by the manor homes was what was being reviewed tonight. He stated that to an extent, portions of the plans are done in terms of establishing the basic density pattern, establishing the requirement to build the looped street, dedicate park areas and maintain the ponding areas and develop single family housing. He stated that if 'All of the development proposed meets these density.standards; that basically has been decided. He stated that what is left to be decided is the nature of the units, size, materials, exact configuration'of the parks and facilities in the park. He.further commented that as a part of considering that detail the final zoning must be considered. He stated that the zoning will be applied when they approve the final PUD. He stated that theoretically if the development conforms to the densities established in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, then the City has very little ability to change that zoning pattern. Planner Dahlgren stated that there were substantial public hearings held during this process and that he understands some concerns with those residents who have moved in after all of the public hearings had been held. Mr. Pacdernik, 2472 Hampshire Court, stated that he is concerned with the decrease in market value to his home in the future. He further stated that Centex did a fantastic job in building his home and that they have been great to work with but he feels deceived. Greg Schroeder, 594 Watersedge Terrace, commented that had he know the apartments were to have been built he would not have bought in Copperfield. He further commented on the homes.pictured in the slides Mr. Putnam showed. He stated his concerns for the market value of his home. Harold Beale, 2463 Delaware Avenue, stated that he has attended all of the meetings in the last five years, he stated that he understands that there has been no zoning February 28, 1990 Page 15 change except for the areas that have been developed. He commented that for all of the acreage that exists is still zoned residential. Planner Dahlgren stated that was correct and explained that many cities adopt a comprehensive plan and may leave the underlying zonincr.as.is and act on the zoning at such time as final -development plans are approved. Planner Dahlgren further explained that the zoning is a final legal action that puts the comprehensive plan into effect and most communities will withhold that rezoning until the final developments are prepared and approved - usually in a case of multi -family housing in the form of a PUD. In -'response to a question from 2308 Field Stone Drive, Planner Dahlgren explained that in the State of Minnesota the comp. plan for a'City is required by law. He stated that by law the zoning has to conform to the comprehensive plan. He explained that when a City adoptsa comprehensive plan that is a stage'at which the basic,issue of land use* and density are decided. He stated that when the -zoning portion comes along the zoning districts need to be setup to conform with the density and when the final development glans are ready for review then the zoning is applied to the land in conformance with the comp plan. He stated that once you have adopted a comp plan and densities when someone applies for rezoning or development approval in accordance with those land uses and densities the City has limited ability to turn it down: He explained that they have to have reasons such as the layout does not work out right or buildings are badly designed etc, for turning down the design. He explained that the developer has the legal right to those densities. Robert Prior, 2455 Hampshire Court, Vice Chair Dwyer stated that the City had received a letter from this individual, stated his opposition and questioned whether the comprehensive plan could be changed. He commented that the people in the audience are opposed to condominiums. Glynnis Svendsen, 2300 Field Stone Drive, discussed her calculations in reference to density. Mr. Putnam briefly explained the amount of property left to develop is not very much. He further explained the open land and who owns it and what is proposed. Ms. Svendsen commented that the density level does not seem to work. She further February 28, 1990 Page 16 stated she does not think that anyone has a problem with the townhome concept. She further stated that when you start looking at the "C" word - condominiums - nobody is happy. Mr. Putnam questioned if the manor homes that are under construction right now are offensive to anyone. It was the concensus of the audience that no they are not. Mr. Tom Boyce, President of Centex, stated that they are not talking about building a three story condominium that is up against a freeway that HUD is going to own half of. He stated that they have all seen pictures of what they are proposing and they can see first hand what they are building across the way from their developments. Mr. Boyce stated that the manor homes being built right now are condominiums. Mr. Putnam stated that the homes in Hampshire are going to appear more dense than the ones they are building because there is all park in front of it. He further stated that there seems to be a feeling that when we say condominiums or the "C" word it represents somethingcompletely i different. The only difference s that the present manor homes are four and eight unit ' buildings with an attached garage and the ones that are being proposed are 8, 12, 16 unit buildings with a detached garage. He stated that it is almost an identical unit inside. He stated that,it would look very strange to have a lot of one thing built over 80 or 100 acres. Mr. Boyce stated that the present manor homes are at 8 units an acre. Mr. Jeff Laramy, 618 Pond View Court, stated his concerns for his property value. Susan Alt, 642 Pond View Terrace, stated that she researched what was proposed for the Hampshire Estates area before she bought in Copperfield. She stated that they were also mislead. She stated.that she is concerned with the density level. Mr. Putnam stated that there is a lot of property. He stated that he had just informed a potential buyer in Copperfield about the parks available to him. He stated that they have talked at the Copperfield parties for the last three years about what is going on in the neighborhood. He stated that the reason why there has not been a single plan is because the plan has been changed several times. He stated that the reason why there have been so many plans is February 28, 1990 Page 17 because it has not been finalized with very good reasons, not Centex's reasons. He stated that if the personnel in the model centers get confused on pointing out that townhouses go here and it turns out to be a condominium building the reason is that at one point in time it probably was suppose to be townhouse. He stated that if you look at theplans, we have been moving things around the "site to try and accommodate ourselves and well as what the City has wanted. He stated that they have taken as a mandate that the City is'looking for some active parks. A woman, resident of Copperfield, stated that Mendota Heights -is different than Bloomington. She further read an excerpt from the City's Comprehensive Plan. She stated.that she had some difficulty in getting information from the City. She explained her concerns for increase in the traffic.. She asked what.the target market is for these homes. Mr.. Kevin Clark explained-the'target market for the homes, the approximate square footage of the homes, the proposed base prices of the homes and the proposed prices of homes with options.. He explained the amount of manor homes that they have sold in Kensington. Mr. Clark stated that they do not sell to investors. Mr. Boyce stated that they try to discourage investors. John Siedel, 2459 Hampshire Court, stated that he is disturbed to know that it appears that the Comprehensive Plan is a tight and stringent plan that we have to live by. He stated that he is not excited about the proposed parks because of the possible problems they may bring, i.e. drinking and parties. Steve Gollinger, 686 Apache Lane, stated that he inquired with the City in 1986 about what was to be proposed for this area. He stated that he feels maybe that the City has mislead the residents. Thomas Smith, 625 Hampshire Court, questioned what benefit arises out of the proposal by Centex for the high density development. He further read an excerpt from the Minnesota Real Estate Journal which quoted Planner Dahlgren. He stated that he does'not feel that this plan benefits the City as a whole. He further read another excerpt from the Journal which quoted Dick Putnam. He stated that he is surprised by the proposed condominiums. Terry Berg, Copperfield Drive, stated that February 28, 1990 Page 18 he liked the spaciousness and fields in the City. He stated that he was also mislead with regards to high density. Commissioner Tilsen briefly explained that the "battle" is with the City Council and that the role of the Planning Commission is to work with Centex to.get a product that suits Mendota Heights as best as we can. In response to a citizen's question as to what can they do as concerned citizens, Vice Chair Dwyer stated that the elected officials of the City are sensitive to the legal rights of the developer and'that they are also sensitive to their constituents. He explained that they will have to take the matter up with the City Council. In response to a question from a resident, Vice Chair Dwyer stated that the park land. has not been deeded to the City. The above resident then asked if the parkland had not been made available to the City would the City had approved this development if the park land were not to be deeded by the City. Planner Dahlgren surmised a guess, no, because park land is a very important ingredient here in as much as the City has gotten themselves into a position where they do not have adequate parks. He explained that the developer is required to dedicate 10 percent of land for park when they final plat. He stated that they have proposed to dedicate much more than that because of the extreme park need that the City finds itself in. Mr. Mc Inerney, 2355 Field Stone Drive, questioned what the role of the Planning Commission is. Vice Chair Dwyer explained that the Commission serves as an advisory body to the City Council. He explained that the Council can abide by their recommendations or it can listen to the applicant's request and make their own decision. Bill Healey expressed his concerns'with the high levels of density and the air noise issue. A resident questioned whether Centex could better regulate the prices of their homes. Mr. Boyce responded that there is a limited market in townhomes and that they cannot regulate the prices. Commissioner Duggan assured the residents that the Commission would not spend long hours on an issue if they felt that they did not have a say so on what happens in the City. He stated that the City works long February 28, 1990 Page 19 hours on issues and tries to come up with a reasonable compromise. He stated that we are not going to satisfy everybody. He stated that the developer's have legal rights and that there are a lot of legal contracts already in place. He stated that he likes the idea of more expensive units and that he does not like what he sees being proposed. He also spoke on how the Centex salespeople may have mislead the residents. Commissioner Duggan moved to continue the public hearing to March 27, 1990 at 8:00 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 SCHEDULING OF It was the concensus of the Commission that JOINT CITY they meet with the City Council on COUNCIL/PLANNING Wednesday, May 2, 1990 at 8:00 o'clock P.M. COMMISSION WORK -for the purpose of a joint workshop to SHOP discuss the zoning ordinance recodification. ELECTION OF It was the concensus of the Commission to OFFICERS reappoint Mr. Jerry Morson as the Chair of the Planning Commission. It was also the consensus of the Commission to reappoint Mr. Mike Dwyer as the Vice Chair of the Commission. VERBAL REVIEW Public Works Director Danielson gave a verbal review to the Planning Commission on City Council action on Planning items. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Duggan moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:10 o'clock A.M. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, 9 N Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 26, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Admii or FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Di e or� Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assi SUBJECT: Case No. 90-03: Centex Homes - Rezoning, CUP for PUD, Prel. Plat, Wetlands DISCUSSION The Centex Homes development for the Kensington site in the Southeast Area has appeared at public hearings at the . February, March and April Planning Commission meetings. In anticipation of a recommendation from the Planning Commission, the public notice for this case was published and mailed, as required, scheduling the City Council hearing for the April 3rd meeting. On April 3rd, Council continued the hearing until their May 1st meeting at 8:00 o'clock P.M. Attached you will find a request from the developer asking that this hearing be continued until the May 15th City Council meeting. A copy of this memo has been mailed to every resident on the Abstract Certificate. ACTION REQUIRED If Council so desires, they should pass a motion continuing the public hearing until May 15th at 8:15 o'clock P.M. JED/KLB:kkb PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 24 April 1990 90-03 Centex Corporation South of Mendota Heights Road, North of 494, West of Delaware Avenue (see sketch) Rezoning From R-1, R -1A, and R -1B to HR PUD and MR PUD, Approval of Preliminary Plat, Wetlands Permit, and Conditional Use Permit for PUD 1. This item was tabled from the last meeting of the Planning Commission so as to give time for the applicant to review neighborhood concerns as presented at the Planning Commission hearing. The neighbors . were represented by Gerald Duffy, legal counsel. 2. Since the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Duffy has met with Dick Putnam and Kevin Batchelder. It appears Mr. Duffy represents two parties. One is a group of neighbors who are near the Kensington Development on the north side of Mendota Heights Road and another group more distant. Apparently, the first group is concerned with the transition of land use, i.e., the impact on their residential sites from the development that would be immediately south of Mendota Heights Road. The second group is apparently concerned about the overall density and general nature of the development. 3. With respect to the first group, Mr. Putnam has agreed to change the land use in the southwest corner of Lockwood Drive and Mendota Heights Road from a "condo structure" to a townhouse structure. This change (as noted in our last month's report) would result in all of the land south of Mendota Heights Road being utilized as either single-family, townhouses, or park usage. If such land uses across Mendota Heights Road from the single-family homes were well designed, well built, and well landscaped, no threat to the integrity or value of single-family homes to the north would occur. Townhouses in the City of Mendota Heights, such as the Ivy Falls Townhouses have clearly illustrated that these such units represent no deleterious effect on single-family development. In that case, it is noteworthy that that PUD and method of concentrating the density provides for the dedication of Mendota Heights' first public park (a 7 -acre parcel). 4. From conversations at the Duffy/Putnam meeting, it appeared that a principle concern with respect to density was the issue of traffic. Mr. Duffy apparently claims that there are currently 10,000 vehicles a day Centex Corporation, Case No. 90-03 Page 2 on Mendota Heights Road. City Staff is conducting traffic counts prior to the April meeting to ascertain these numbers. It is likely that the counts are far less than the number noted. 5. In view of the land use on either side of Mendota Heights Road (all of which is residential), the chance of their being a traffic problem on Mendota Heights Road between Delaware and Dodd Road is almost negligible. You are all aware that Mr. Jack Anderson, a noted traffic engineer who worked many years with MnDOT and later became a private consultant, did an overall traffic analysis of the southeast area of land use proposals. His conclusion was that the road system consisting of two state -aid major thoroughfares to serve this area would handle the traffic well. He did note that at a point in time when the need arises, a traffic signal will be needed at Dodd Road and Mendota Heights Road. Such signals are installed when the traffic "warrants the need". This is how such traffic signals are installed throughout the State of Minnesota (and in the rest of the country). The condition referred to in the Indirect Source Permit assumes no traffic signal. Mr. Danielson will comment further regarding this issue at the Planning Commission hearing. 6. With respect to the overall density, the acreage and units add up. to a 3.42 density in the MR PUD area (generally east of the power line) and a density of 8.23 units per acre to the west. This means that the overall density of the land between Delaware and Dodd Road will be significantly less than that plan for the study, since a significant area west of this proposed development is being platted for single-family homes. This is the Steve Patrick proposal that the Planning Commission and Council have previously considered. 7. The density of the development south of Mendota Heights Road can be .reduced by eliminating major portions of the park and spreading the houses over more land area. This would seem a great shame in view of the City's need for park space. In fact, one of the values of the PUD process is the ability to' concentrate the density and part of a site, and thereby retain the open space in the remainder. This is what has happened in both the Ivy Falls Townhouse PUD (one of the first done in the Metropolitan Area in the early 1960's) and the Sommerset PUD where large wetlands were preserved. B. In conclusion, .it is well to bear in mind that the overall density pattern was established by the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The question now is the detailed manner in which the donsity is to be distributed and developed on the site. Also, the City opposed the development of 75 -unit, 3 -story apartment blocks on the site. The City's expressed desire as noted in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was for smaller scale, multi -family housing development with the maximum of 24 -unit buildings. Such structures as proposed, with a maximum of 20 units per building and 2 stories high, are the kind of character anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan. That is to say, the units are in a more residential scale, with a more informal layout (including the separate garage structures). Such development is more compatible with single-family homes in the area to the north and offers a development solution that can be a highly successful ingredient to the community's overall housing alternatives. ` •� -• r ' � •• mak'• • � ''•::• : • x I 114 r"A o;'iHi i — ""—w ao d r V ` S � - - Silr15 7•,.�Jh j I - 3 J4 if •� , I -% -��+re� -- �, � � �, '•_ •''• ' �;Ib it I � I L;h'�I . Lal i ' I `, •.� ♦ _--•--••-- ._....._ __ t + -Ti�_`"�I�'��:�y m,. h. selxu i , • ref t �—._..--_—.341ti1]..._._...3.HT7'_ •J I I PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Background 27 March 1990 90-03 Centex Corporation South of Mendota Heights Road, North of 494, West of Delaware Avenue (see sketch) Rezoning From R-1, R -1A, and R -1B to HR PUD and MR PUD, Approval of Preliminary Plat, Wetlands Permit, and Conditional Use Permit for PUD Each of you will have received a memo from Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant, of March 6, 1990 listing the "chronology of the southeast area plan adoption". The proces- was done carefully over a period of time. Key dates were the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in December 1987 and the City Council approval of Sketch Plan C-3 for the Kensington PUD dated June 20, 1989. It will be helpful if members of the Planning Commission and Council review that memo and the accompanying drawings, which will note be repeated in this report. The current proposal is for the approval of the development plan (having previously approved the sketch plan) for an 89.77 -acre parcel consisting of condo units (for sale), townhouses, and single-family lots. The basic form of the development and the allowable density has been set by the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the approval of the Sketch Plan. What is at issue now is the final disposition of unit overall design, landscaping, floor plans, and exterior architectural treatment of the proposed structures. The applicants have submitted a booklet entitled "Kensington Planned Unit Development, City of Mendota Heights" that outlines the basic concept and numbers and a reduced sketch of a method' of serving the westerly portions of some existing single-family lots in the far southeast corner of the site. Also, submitted for your review are reduced scale copies of the development plans, utility plans, landscape plans, floor plans, and exterior elevations of the structures, all of which constitute the total PUD submission. You will note on the fourth page of the brochure, a sheet entitled "Site Data" that states the acreage, density, and parking factors. You will note a total of 48 single-family lots, 59 townhouses, and 300 condo units. This totals 407 units whereas the total indicates in the table is Centex Corporation, Case No. 90-03 Page 2 431. At 431 units and 89.77 gross acres, the dwelling units per acre are 4.8 (as indicated in the table). However, if the total count is in fact 407 units, the density is 4.53 units per acre. These units will be checked with the developer prior to the Planning Commission meeting to ascertain the accuracy of these numbers. A part of the process in reviewing the final PUD drawing as proposed is to compare them to the Sketch Plan previously approved. For this purpose, we have printed a reduced copy of the Sketch Plan in green with an overlay of the current development plan in black. The objective here is to allow a comparison of the two and to provide a means of reviewing where they are different. You will note in the single-family area a change in the street pattern bringing the public street into Mendota Heights Road closer to Delaware Avenue than previously proposed. Changes in the public pathway system are noted as it relates to Mendota Heights Road and the single-family public street system. Some changes in park land are included. In particular, adding additional acreage to the area southwesterly of the pond and additional land on the west side of the park area contiguous to 494 (containing the three ballfields). In the overall, the basic plan conforms closely to the original Sketch Plan with the scope and scale of the distribution of units very similar to that which was originally proposed. 2. Park Plan The developer in this case has worked closely with the Mendota Heights Parks Committee and their consultants in producing a combination of an active and passive park system to serve this area of town, consisting of a total of 26.53 acres. Development regulations in. Mendota Heights require a minimum of 10 percent of the land to be dedicated for park. If the total acreage is approximately 90 acres, 9 acres would be required. It is true that some of the 26.53 acres is water area, though obviously the total acreage of usable land far exceeds the approximately 9 acres required. In fairness to the developer, it must be noted that the development of the park system to serve the community as it relates to the property in question has been a significant factor in planning and replanning this PUD over a period of over several years. You are all aware of the preparations of plans "A and B" and several variations thereof during the process of this planning period. As we understand it, the Mendota Heights Park Committee has recommended approval of the parks plan currently proposed. 3. Rezoning The Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopted a designation of land use of HR and MR PUD. This means that any ultimate development must be processed as a PUD. The Ordinance is also amended to establish PUD Districts as a zoning category. Therefore, as is the case in most communities, the rezoning of the land was held until the submission of the final PUD development proposal and plat. That is why the land has remained in the underlying zoning category of R -1A, R -1B, and R-1. Centex Corporation, Case No. 90-03 4. Utilities Page 3 Overall utility plans have been submitted and reviewed by the Engineering Staff. We understand that the Staff finds the engineering concept to be a workable one and will be working with the developer as more detailed engineering plans are accomplished through the development process. The public street system and utilities will be designed, supervised, and contracted for by the City. The details of that handling of this work, the overall development, the handling of expenses will be covered in a development agreement, the ultimate approval of which should be a condition to any approval applying to the Conditional Use Permit for PUD. Mr. Danielson, Public Works Director, may comment on this item further. 5. Platting An important element of the plat is that of the dedication of the park land. We are aware that the Park Committee is anxious to achieve title to this property so as to begin a development process to enhance early use of the facilities. Perhaps members of the Park Board can comment on this timing question at the public hearing so that the Planning Commission and Council will be fully aware of these concerns. 6. Wetlands Permit A Wetlands Permit is required for all development contiguous to water courses, ponding areas, and drainage ways in the City as designated on the wetlands map. A copy of the map indicating the southeasterly portion of the City is attached for your information. The standard for a setback to such designated water courses is 100 feet. Some of the townhouses contiguous to the pond near the center of this proposed development (most of which is in the park) are setback approximately 80 to 110 feet.' This is consistent with the original proposal and previous plans. Approval of the Wetlands Permit should include a condition that structures be located as indicated in the PUD drawings dated 3/12/90. This restricts the structure locations to not less than 80 feet in any instance. With respect to the single-family area, it would appear that all the future residences can conform to this 100 -foot requirement. In the even that this is not the case, individual applications may be made for permits not meeting this standard. It appears that the shortest dimension from the pond to the front yard setback and the lots contiguous to the pond is for Lot 3 of Block 2, which has a distance of approximately 145 feet. Thus, this lot would have a potential house depth of 45 feet, which should be ample. 7. Areas of Concern Following are some areas of concern that we suggest that the Planning Commission and Council consider in their review of the development proposal: Centex Corporation, Case No. 90-03 Walkways Page 4 A system of public walkways is indicated in the PUD drawing contiguous to streets and in the park system. There appears to be no detail as to the nature of these walkways, whether they are to be concrete or asphalt, or a woodchip pathway. There is also the question as who is going to build these walks. It is important to ascertain these details as a part of this development approval. You will note that in the overall plan the walkways serving the multi -family structures are not included. In the landscape plan section of the submission, however, there is a "typical 16 -unit building landscaping plan" that indicates the handling of the walkways serving the various entrances to the structure. We assume, of course, that such walkways will be constructed throughout the site. There is, however, no walkway shown in the private roadway system. Would it not be appropriate to add a walkway on at least one side of this system similar to that which serves the public road loop through the project? Setbacks If one scales the location of the principle structures and the accessory structures (the garages), one finds that in some cases the principle structures are less than 30 feet from the public right-of-way and the accessory structures are less than 15 feet. We suggest that it is appropriate for the principle structures, most of which are two stories high, to be located 30 feet from the public right-of-way and that the accessory structures be 15 feet from the public right-of-way. It is also important that in each case where a garage orients toward a public or private street, there be adequate space in front of the garage to park a car without impeding through -traffic. In the case of a public street, this space should be adequate for a car to be parked in the driveway without being on the public right-of-way. This is most important where a walkway may be built now or in the future (within the public right-of-way). We have discussed these concerns with the developer who notes his willingness to respond. Sinale-Family Area Access In the southeast corner of the site there are single-family lots contiguous to the proposed development. In the original Sketch Plan, a stub public street was proposed to be extended to the westerly portion of these deep lots fronting on Delaware Avenue. The current proposal is to provide a right-of-way for a private roadway for access to this contiguous developable land. You will note on the last page of the booklet submitted with the application the optional sketch indicating the way in which this property can be developed. There is also a letter to at least one of the land owners regarding these possibilities. It may be important to ascertain the desires of these land owners as to which technique they prefer for providing future access to the land. The City has the right to require either since access to contiguous properties, otherwise landlocked for development, is an appropriate area of concern in considering .the platting of land. Centex Corporation, Case No- 90-03 Neiqhborhood Concerns Page 5 We are all aware of concerns expressed by neighbors residing in recently developed areas north of Mendota Height Road with respect to the form and density of the proposed development south of Mendota Heights Road. You will note in examining the development plans that all of the land uses contiguous to Mendota Heights Road in the subject project are either single-family, townhouses, or park, except for a 16 -unit building located at the southwest corner of Mendota Heights Road and Lockwood Drive. Perhaps the degree of compatibility with the single-family area to the north could be considerably improved if this unit were to be changed to some other form of housing. That change may be to a townhouse, or a modified open space, with the intent of adjusting the density in the southern portion of the overall project in some area where it would have no impact on the single-family home owners north of Mendota Heights Road. We have not discussed this proposal with the developer, though it would seem the kind of adjustment that might increase the level of compatibility in the eyes of the Mendota Heights citizens residing in their new houses north of Mendota Heights road. r :a - --------------- 'Y---••----'i::-.=A_-_-....-_- DEtA -------------__------- - -'r-------- __- -_ --- ------------------ -��-:If--------------- ----------- ---- ---------- ----------- WAKE AVENUE CO. no. NO. !]. N of j ' =.;1, )' � �• i •. ,�-1 1' .. ` 1 � ` ; j ji9i: � a � : I;> ;IIS ''jl ' /lilt, �� ' r 1 r r I IIIII n 1 iii 11 a>, a 1'sa11 ' ( r 1t' • \ N ` ( 1 ilo CL S i jjj 1 , r ' 444'•' •. l .. .._, `...••, .• � i ��Y�\444 � T•` { 1 �. I '''1 _ I w f— ' U.1 II T :1 @I cc i1, L` ._�-'� r �ra.r� C •� - ':�A'� WYr - .,. ' � .,,• � ) t w j 1,• '1 '!•: ��.• IpGR� ---5� _.,.r+� - --'J^ ... \ ` !,�'h f' , 1 1tNM it � • •\ ` i� !jl''!)•1'fjil'�"Ilii )1' I Ihll' lill'Ir r 1 r, •1,11'% i�.°. .: 11 II I• 1p 1.11•, ; 1 jiUl'i!t II' i�' �; F ; 1;, � L . I, r l,jlt„ 11� 11 t j�l, . Illy,l!jll •,,,6(� 1 1 i � y ,, y 8: \'`, �" •'l) I: •1 111111 t I I 1 II , II Ill',., III �y. f . , I !! ! ' I'il)1i• 111 j VIII u ; I; 111; ! i1, 1, ,'1 c . I ,t�,ll.l �''7 1!•I,,.1•`Ilj, ` , 1 Lp'I, Lill. � � 11 I ; 1) '' :.31 �� .�. 1 1.111 q• I . IIII ..11,11, I. !'. 111'i t , 111, I! • y• . . eu�bn! I,.,...IILII,u I • h r 11 I lulu , 1 ,,........ .. w .—•,_ , CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 19, 1990 TO: Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Director Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Case No. 90-03: Centex Homes - Rezoning, CUP for PUD, Prel. Plat, Wetlands DISCUSSION Public hearings for the Kensington Planned Unit Development have been conducted at the February and March Planning Commission meetings. In addition to these hearings, the developers have also appeared before the Parks and Recreation Commission to finalize the plans for the park dedication. Since the March meeting, Mr. Dick Putnam and Centex Homes have met with Gerald Duffy, legal counsel representing the neighbors to the Kensington Project. At that meeting, Mr. Duffy expressed three concerns: 1. The overall density of the project. 2. The transition of single family homes to multi- family dwellings across Mendota Heights Road. 3. Impacts of density, especially traffic patterns in the area. Mr. Putnam indicated at that meeting that the developers would look at alternatives to address the transition of residential uses and requested that the City conduct a traffic count for the area. Density Issue Mr. Putnam has stated that any significant decrease in the density would entail a significant reduction of the non -required park dedication area. Mr. Putnam has indicated he will not prepare any plans showing these types of reductions. Housing Transition Zone Mr. Putnam has agreed to replace the 16 unit condominium proposed for the southwest quadrant at Mendota Heights Road and Lockwood Drive with a 6 unit townhouse (see attached proposal). This alternate would provide for either park, townhouses or single family homes all along Mendota Heights Road across from Hampshire Estates. Traffic There continues to be a concern about traffic along Mendota Heights Road. The City counted the traffic on Mendota Heights Road last July and found that there was an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count of 1059 on Mendota Heights Road at Dodd Road and 561 ADT on Mendota Heights Road at - Delaware Avenue. Traffic counts are being measured right now to get a more up to date figure. These numbers will be available next week. Jack Anderson, the traffic engineer who prepared the study for Howard Dahlgren's Southeast Area report, was unable to update his report based on the Centex proposal in time for this meeting, however, City staff did prepare some updated findings under his guidance (see attached report from Klayton Eckles)- Public Safety Report Police Chief Dennis Delmont and Fire Chief John Maczko have reviewed the proposal. See attached for the Police Chief's comments, the Fire Chief's comments will be available Tuesday evening. ACTION REQUIRED Conduct the continued public hearing. The developer's have indicated that they are willing to again continue this hearing should some substantive suggestions for changes be brought out. Should the Planning Commission feel that they are ready to act upon the proposal this evening, they need to make recommendations to the City Council on the requested rezoning, preliminary plat, wetlands permit and CUP for PUD. NOTE: Please bring the materials submitted for review last meeting, should a member need more copies, please contact City Hall. JED/KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 19, 1990 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Klayton H. Eckles Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Update of Traffic Study for South East Area INTRODUCTION In 1985 the City commissioned Dahlgren, Shardlow, & Uban Inc. to complete a study of the South East Area (which includes Copperfield, Hampshire, Kensington, Bridgeview, and Visitation development areas). The study.included an analysis by Jack Anderson of the impacts from the various plans on traffic volumes. The study initially included four possible development plans for the area which were named Concept A -D (not to be confused with the various Kensington plans). Questions have arisen regarding the validity of Anderson's study now that a more detailed development plan for the entire area is being discussed. DISCUSSION Staff has discussed updating the plan with Anderson, and he informed us that it would not be difficult for us to update the study ourselves. He gave some suggestions to Staff on how to complete an update of his old study. Staff has performed an updating of his traffic study based on the newest Kensington plans. The following is a list of the total projected ADT (average daily traffic) for the entire South East Area based on Anderson's initial study, followed by Staff's projection of the ultimate ADT for the latest Centex plan. PLAN 1985-A 1985-B 1985-C 1985-D DESCRIPTION MAX. TOTAL ADT 634 SF homes 6,340 2000 multi, 333 SF 14,868 1,400 multi, 373 SF, 605K office 1,530 multi, 333 SF, 1.26M office 16,167 21,356 3/90 Centex Plan (including all S.E. Area) 11,665 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO The newest plan is below the projected volumes of all the 1985 plans except Concept A, which assumed 100% single family development. Therefore the recommendations made by Anderson back in 1985 pretty much hold true today too. Anderson's study indicated that the one area which could need special attention would be the intersection of Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road. He stated that at some point the increased traffic volumes would warrant additional intersection improvements such as left turn lanes, or traffic lights. This still holds true; at some point improvements will be necessary. This is no great concern, as it is no surprise, and any costs would be covered by state funds. As far as the timing of intersection improvements, that is dependent on specific state guidelines called "Warrants". In this case the governing Warrant would be traffic volumes. When traffic volumes meet a certain specified amount, improvements would be warranted, and therefore the state would participate in the funding of the improvements. The attached document includes state rules for Warrants. These Warrants would probably not be met until additional significant development takes place. 2. The number and distribution of gaps in vehicular traffic on the major street when minor -street traffic finds it possible to use the intersection safely. 3. The 85 -percentile speed of vehicles on controlled approaches at a point near to the intersection but unaffected by the control. 4. Pedestrian delay time for at least two 30 -minute peak pedestrian delay periods of an average weekday or like periods of a Saturday or a Sunday. Adequate roadway capacity at a signalized intersection is desirable. Widening of both the main highway and the intersecting roadway may be warranted to reduce the delays caused by assignment of right-of-way at intersections controlled by traffic signals. Widening of the intersecting roadway is often beneficial to operation on the main highway because it reduces the signal time that must be assigned to side -street traffic. In urban areas, the effect of widening can be achieved by elimination of parking at intersectional approaches. It is always desirable to have at least two lanes for moving traffic on each approach to a signalized intersection. Additional width may be necessary on the leaving side of the intersection, as well as the approach side, in order to clear traffic through the intersection effectively. Before an intersection is widened, the additional green time needed by pedestrians to cross the widened streets should be checked to ensure that it will not exceed the green time saved through improved vehicular flow. 4C-2 Warrants for Traffic Signal Installation Traffic control signals should not be installed unless one or more of the signal warrants in this Manual are met. Information should be obtained by means of engineering studies and compared with the requirements set forth in the warrants. If these requirements are not met, a traffic signal should neither be put into operation nor continued in operation (if already installed). For the purpose of warranting signalization, a wide -median intersection should be considered as one intersection. When a traffic control signal is indicated as being warranted, it is presumed that the signal and all related traffic control devices and markings are installed according to the standards set forth in this Manual. It is further presumed that signal indications are properly phased, that roadways are properly designed, that adjacent traffic signals are properly coordinated, that there is adequate supervision of the operation and maintenance of the signal and all of its related devices, and that the traffic signal controller will be selected on the basis of engineering study and judgment. Rev. 3/86 4C-2 An investigation of the need for traffic signal control should include where applicable, at least an analysis of the factors contained in the following warrants: Warrant 1—Minimum vehicular volume. Warrant 2—Interruption of continuous traffic. Warrant 3—Minimum pedestrian volume. Warrant 4—School crossings. Warrant 5—Progressive movement. Warrant 6—Accident experience. Warrant 7—Systems. Warrant 8—Combination of warrants. Warrant 9—Four Hour Volumes. Warrant 10—Peak Hour Delay. Warrant 11—Peak Hour Volume. 4)(- 4G3 Warrant 1, Minimum Vehicular Volume The Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is intended for application where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for consideration of signal installation. The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher -volume minor - street approach to the intersection. An "average" day is defined as a weekday representing traffic volumes normally and repeatedly found at the location. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUMES FOR WARRANT 1 Vehicles per hour on Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on higher -volume mi - on each approach major street (total of nor -street approach Major Street Minor Street both approaches) (one direction only) 1 ................ 1................ 500 150 2 or more........ 1 ................ 600 150 2 or more........ 2 or more........ 600 200, 1 ................ 2 or more........ 500 200 These major -street and minor -street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours, the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. When the 85 -percentile speed of major -street traffic exceeds 40 mph in either an urban or a rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above. 4C-3 Rev. 3186 IV -43(c) IV -20 c Rev. 4 From : R.A.Putnam & Assoc,Inc Tandem Corp.(612)471-0573 Apr.16.1990 01:39 PM P03 x . :2t—lp-- A�&,t,s j ,r From : R.A.Putnam & Assoc,Inc Tandem Corp.C612)471-0573 Apr.16.1990 01:39 PM PO4 R Iwo Mendota Heights Police Department Memorandum April 17, 1990 TO: ►Jim Danielson, Dir. of Public Works Paul Berg, Code Enforcement Officer FROM: Dennis J. Delmont, Chief of Police 1 SUBJECT: Kensington Phase II �' v I have reviewed the preliminary Kensington Phase II plans would offer the following comments: 1. As in Phase I, I strongly endorse the use of street lighting in the area, particularly at intersections and and cul-de-sacs. Additionally, all common parking areas (near garages, etc.) should be lit with floods. The parking lots adjacent to the recreational facilities, such as the ball park, should receive particular attention. 2. • The address numbers of all units should be clearly displayed on the outside of the buildings on the side facing the access street. Address numbers, whenever possible, should conform to the City numbering system. 3. First responders must have access to the interiors of security buildings. 4. All streets should be distinctively and individually named, including "stub" streets. 5. All of the streets that terminate at Mendota Heights Rd., or Delaware Ave., should be stopped with a stop sign. The roadway from the ball park parking lot should also be stopped at Lockwood Drive. DJD:cb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO March 28, 1990 To: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant Subject: CASE NO. 90-03: Centex Homes - Rezoning, CUP for PUD, Preliminary Plat, and Wetlands Continued Hearing DISCUSSION The Centex public hearing was ordered for the City Council meeting of April 3, 1990 in anticipation of a Planning Commission recommendation from their March meeting. The Planning Commission continued their hearing until April to allow time for the developer to meet with the neighborhood group to attempt to address some of their concerns. The Planning Commission also felt they needed more time to adequately study and review the plans submitted by Centex. ACTION REQUIRED Continue the public hearing until the City Council meeting of May 1, 1990 at 8:00 p.m. this being the first meeting following the Planning Commission's April meeting. r. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO March 22, 1990 TO: Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direct Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist a SUBJECT: Case No. 90-03: Centex Homes - Rezoning, CUP for PUD, Preliminary Plat and Wetland BACKGROUND A public hearing on the Kensington Planned Unit Development was conducted at the February Planning Commission meeting. The developer had not submitted all of the required drawings for that meeting so the hearing was conducted as a presentation on the background of the _. -Kensington' prbj ect'. ' ... .... _ . . .. . .. .. . . . ... . The developer has since met with staff and has completed submittal of the required drawings. See attached PUD submittal. Sketch plan approval has been previously granted and tonight's consideration is for final approval of the Planned Unit Development. DISCUSSION Specific planning considerations for the Kensington development are: 1. Rezoning 2. Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development 3. Preliminary Plat Approval 4. Wetlands Permit REZONING The underlying zoning of the proposed Kensington project is R -1A, R -1B and R-1. See attached zoning map. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area to be zoned as MR -PUD and HR -PUD. The developer's request is to rezone the property consistent with the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan. t. n PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL The developer has submitted a preliminary plat that shows the dedication of a public street, a large park area and numerous condominium, townhouse and manor home locations. Subject to final approval by the City, the developer proposes to complete a final plat dedicating the public street and park to the City. The remaining areas will be platted as outlots with the final plats completed as the area's development progresses. WETLANDS The property in question includes a large pond, Owen's Pond and a smaller pond that are designated in the City's Wetlands Ordinance. The following buildings are shown to be within the hundred foot (1001) setback required in the Wetlands Ordinance: Building 33 . . . . . . . . . 80' Building 36 . . . . . . . . . 90' Building 39 . . . . . . . . . 85' Building 40. . . . . . . . . 75' Lot 2, Block2 . . . . . . . 85' Lot 3, Block 2 . . . . . . . 85' Lot 8, Block 275' Y,o't 9; 1916dk •2 . . . .85 ,• Lot 10, Block 2 . . . . . . . 80' Lot 16, Block 2 . . . . . . . 40' Lot 17, Block 2 . . . . . . . 80' Building 8 in the southwestern part of the development is situated on top of an extremely small wetland area. The developer proposes to eliminate that wetland and substitute another wetland by creating a new ponding area nearby. There is also an intermittent wetlands area indicated within the park dedication near the intersection of Mendota Heights Road and Huber Drive. See attached Wetlands Map. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The developer has submitted all the materials necessary for a preliminary/final development plan approval.- Staff's comments on some of those submittals follow: 1. Utilities: Improvements within this area will be a combination of public and private. Within the condominium areas, a public street and utilities will be looped through the project. Private drives and utilities L will be stubbed off from this thoroughfare. These private facilities will be constructed, owned and maintained by the homeowners association. All the roads and utilities within the single family areas will be public facilities. a. Sanitary Sewer - Sanitary Sewer layout appears to be acceptable as proposed. b. Watermain - A number of 6 inch watermains have been shown. City minimum size watermain is 8 inch. c. Storm Sewer - The area seems to need more catch basins. Staff has not yet received storm water computations from the developer. The engineering staff is continuing to work closely with the developer to finalize details of the utility design. 2. Covenants The developer has submitted a copy of the condominiums covenants. It is a lengthy document - and has not been included for the Planning Commission's review. Should anyone desire a copy they should contact City staff. 3. Other PUD Considerations Other required submittals include the maps showing the street system, plot plan, parks dedication, open spaces, building elevations, parking and landscaping. These plans have been submitted and are attached. Neighborhood Concerns Since the last meeting, with neighbors and concerned Kensington development. Th requested a large packet of history of this development. information is available fo at City Hall. The Hampshire commissioned an attorney to been at City Hall reviewing Park Dedication staff has had several meeti residents regarding the The Hampshire Estate group information concerning the Staff has provided this r Planning Commission review Estates group has also work on their behalf and she files. ngs here has The Park and Recreation Commission desires to acquire the parks dedication in order to move forward with the Parks Referendum implementations. Parks and Recreation Commission Chair John Huber has informed staff that we will be present to answer questions regarding any park issues. .♦ In Police and Fire Review Copies of these plans have been submitted to the Police and Fire Departments for their review. Comments are not available for this report. ACTION REQUIRED Conduct the continued public hearing. Make a recommendation to the City Council on rezoning, preliminary plat, wetlands and CUP for PUD. JED/KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO March 6, 1990 To: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator _ From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist t J< L�3 Subject: Chronology of Southeast Area Plan Adoption DISCUSSION Attached you will find a detailed chronology of the development of the Southeast Area, including the planning actions that have occurred as a result of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was approved in December 1987. The goals of our Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was approved by the Metropolitan Council were: k-. 1. To provide a diversity of housing types within the multi- family residential areas of the Southeast Area. 2. To encourage development which will be sensitive to the natural beauty and terrain of the Southeast Area. 3. To encourage development at an appropriate scale for the area (24 units per building was the established maximum.) 4. To encourage development which provides the opportunity for property ownership by its residents, this being recognized as beneficial to the community as a whole. The Chronology attached includes the planning approvals that were granted to the following developments in the Southeast Area: 1. Copperfield I, II, III and IV. 2. Hampshire Estates. 3. Kensington - Phase One. 4. Bridgeview Shores. 5. Patrick Subdivision - Mendota Woods. Also attached are some before and after maps of the Comprehensive Plan and a current.- Zoning Map. As you will notice, the major amendment concerning land use designation and density was accomplished in the 1985 Comprehensive Land Use amendment. The 1987 and 1989 Comprehensive Land Use amendments were for the purpose of adjusting school and park designations. Please note that while the dates indicated in the chronology are accurate for the most part, some are approximate and require more research. For further clarification, please contact me. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF LAND USE IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS SOUTHEAST AREA March 6, 1990 Year Event 1956 Original zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan adopted by Village of Mendota Heights. 4/3/62 Current Zoning Ordinance #401 adopted. Southeast Area consisted of rural residential zoning at this point. 1972 Pursuant to MN Stat. Chapter 412 the Village of Mendota Heights becomes the City of Mendota Heights, a statutory Plan A city with the City Administrator form of government. 1976 State of Minnesota passes Comprehensive Land Planning Act requiring every city to have a comprehensive plan. 1979 Mendota Heights adopts current Comprehensive Plan which guides Southeast Area as low density and rural residential use. 3/24/83 The Metropolitan Council adopts Guidelines for Land Use Compatibility with Aircraft Noise as an amendment to. the Aviation Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide. These guidelines relate to new and existing land uses within the newly established Noise Exposure Zones around airports and determine compatible uses with the airport. 5/28/85 Planning Commission receives James Riley's proposal for multi -family project and rejects it. Commission requests Council to commence planned study of Southeast Area. 7/85 Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban complete Southeast Area Study for the City of Mendota Heights outlining and suggesting alternatives for land uses. 9/25/85 Planning Commission approves Southeast Area amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 10/15/85 City Council approves Southeast Area amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. City Council approves the Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for Copperfield I through IV. 12/3/85 City Council approves Final Plat for Copperfield I through IV. 12/6/85 The City of Mendota Heights applies to the'Metropolitan Council for a Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment of the Southeast Area to reconfigure the originally guided rural residential and low density residential to low density residential, MR -PUD, HR -PUD and Limited Business -PUD. Council adopts a public statement for circulation in the Heights Highlites. 1985 Dual local control begins at MSP and procedures require that aircraft operating off the parallel runways have 15 degrees separation on departures.. This spreads flight tracks outside the previously defined/planned corridor and over areas that have been traditionally residential. 1986 Met Council requires Mendota Heights to adopt Model Noise Ordinance as a condition of approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This whole year, and most of 1987, was spent negotiating with the Met Council over specific ordinance requirements. 3/25/86 Public hearing at the Planning Commission to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on the density requirements of the zoning districts. 5/6/86 City Council holds public hearing and tables the zoning density amendments until Met Council submits a model noise attentuation ordinance. City Council approves Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Copperfield I through IV. Sept/86 Metropolitan Council submits model noise ordinance to the City for consideration. 2/17/87 Tandem/Centex give public presentation to City Council on their proposed Kensington development. 5/19/87 The City of Mendota Heights adopts Model Noise Ordinance making it the only community in conformance with Guidelines for Land Use Compatibility with Aircraft Noise. The City Council approves a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development, a Rezoning and a Subdivision for Hampshire Estates. 9/87 The Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Kensington proposal is finished and submitted to the City. 9/27/87 Planning Commission approves revised Southeast Area Plan for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to be submitted to the Met Council. The revisions focus on the exact locations of parks, schools and low density housing. 11/19/87 City Council approves the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Kensington PUD. City Council approves the revised Southeast Area Plan for the Comp Plan amendment. The revision of the original amendment is an adjustment of the School property and the park. 11/24/87 Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Southeast Area submitted to the Met Council. 12/1/87 City Council approves an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate density changes for MR -PUD and HR -PUD zoning designations in the revised Comprehensive Guide Plan. 12/15/87 City Council approves a Rezoning, Subdivision and a Conditional Use Permit for Phase I - Kensington. 12/87 City Council approves Developers Agreement for Kensington .Sketch Plan A and B. Sketch Plan A allows for 540 units with a ten (10) acre park. Sketch Plan B allows for 500 units with a thirty five (35) acre park. These sketch plans are prior to the first Parks Bond Referendum, which failed in May 1988. 12/17/87 Metropolitan Council approves the Comprehensive Plan - Amendment for the .Southeast Area. 2/24/88 City Council approves a Preliminary Plat and Wetlands Permit for Bridgeview Shores. 8/2/88 City Council approves Final Plat and Subdivision for Bridgeview Shores. 6/20/89 The City Council approves Sketch Plan C-3 for the Kensington PUD which incorporates the park that was negotiated with the Citizens Park Review Committee. 7/89 The City of Mendota Heights applies for and receives an additional approval on Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This change was for the re -designation of a park only. 9/19/89 City Council granted Preliminary Plat approval for an eleven lot Subdivision proposal by Stephen Patrick for eleven (11) single family lots immediately west of Kensington - Phase One. ! u^S34 '�ih r n �'!�1 '3tl+S i P : !? NiLU CL .��_ W _ I +••,LLQ' P i ^^T Ll 71, I rJe. - - g _'. __ _K; �`. Gam,. coIP clt• •�' , t- _ � I � � ` �••-y �.ea���. •�.•. —.tea �... } �! ,lam �• ...... ��� � :�r�. � '� ._�- '�! i 1� ���. �' w , i cid; 'SI �I?$. . } '•���� •�� pl �!$ O p • , / 1 ``��1 Ze LO co r00 OWN `r ♦�/ 1 l� L� ti s: ;+ CO LU 111IF CO j 4 � �'.� \� 1 /�� ' ,I 1 ' \ _ �� � � I •`� Q CO Nn X 44 E! • • • • • ��, 1\ \ 1111 •• •�, • •�• ,•• •• • • • * =j1��, ` j '! 1111♦' � •• � • 1 �.:I•.I, t • : • � _ 1, w 1 `•VI\ice a a'�;<:R, I �I • too,': : • ••���• _ •. 1. I i../i_41... • >r � � . • 1 . t t •— \\\�t1 � 1 '♦�i\ i% i` \ .. i ••., � ,� 1 SI �1• •••��� � 1 I,. I Y � • I 1 1 li, • .. . .1 u\ \ '' �/■lin\}�y{l,J�1 :? I + < a� anu p ��/ , ily� �. 111,�,I�1� I 1 I ,I''Ir .�,� , 1,; •• '' ' � 1 � 1�/'' / !fit 4, � 1 � �-� i. , ,•,�'' •111114 . �' Ir' '' •1 -- \�_J ak'��� f•-- i' --y Y �IIiil•,ll I 1 � � 1i1111 11♦4¢ � `♦ - �_'` 1 I• ZIP tom•, _\ •'\ �' ...—xJ� •Id!� •I I tl'� 11• •' I I� 1) 1, Kllt �\ \��/ i `` • I • \,', -�5; .'I;I�d�lilploilji illl•,� 1 1' oil �l -',� �_�♦ � � 1 r ' •� ��� _ m�1y!I �IIII I I I! 1!� I, � /_/ � II / I •I AfW ¢ (!1 W l ` �,.. I•;.' r ,� ;. • 4 -co (1) Z 1 �= \1!f', ,,f . 1 1 �, `.1;,1 i �`` .�—_��It` , 1 , •': ._ , Oar Lij j�'•�--, ----\..«� •r. •'• by -.`. . '% `, , I'`t . lit ••��• • �. • Y •• %I f'. ri l�i. ) IPyi ` FJ -1 �2•\ 1p � i 1 1J. ✓r: — f sff� ;:i I I iv' i - � � p''1.4� I'�I����' a �! I' "Ild y,•,��.. .• � \ Its � { : r ►�t f,' �• 1 '��t� ,� r T11h 17 �� _ � .. �,,i ��.1,1,1;� SII i ��'i�� •� � 1� � ; u •11 . � - � �- -' ,-{ - - � � I' - - I ••' .!• .1' •11'111 � �, ,?� ].w � •�s ` , • � 1: ryf..�1t �I III .I.ri�.. 11 , s.3 . srrir i � r ,_— IIII �•` a� `1 N ',' I� , 11� L, Y/ rl` r� �i II t 1 i•`'� � 's' ------ '11 �k'' I, q ,, I 111 I h 11` � Ir c,` 4�` 1 -- - - —_.� �•. ,T, , �- .,al 1 1�� 1 ' ,• � it :, �' !I III . , s • •'�'L' •(• �~• i•.l . 1. •,. .,.I•J J�u_i��T • ;•�"���J '�'' �� ' �`` _ _`_ -- r- 1;u• - .} H M^ n' Lij Wly Q1 „ -// - 11t i' yll d,\ ^1+ I 1 I+� `� r f / / •-� \ /i j 1: /�� W cit .0 ao CL w I G � O. 11. � i `��/ ' \ r :. : i ' �♦ e1% air j'•F ' I I ..i ��—� 1 /~/ 't • s +dj �� r K O ` �; L is ,:.. a, 1 I � • i � ./•• `�^ Imo'/i/v/��! ' �,I/ ' '.�.: II ------ I • + /C ' If 1% <h(`r� 1'��,,��uii .I .: 7Q al r I if fE - ��` - •� • ';;: r,+.\ Nr � -�' ' I �.. .. .I.I .. .. . t. • �, VV • i H ' _ \ `\-� — - r •+� it /'1 , �! I `' / rI _ •1� �_�_ 1 'ISI I � � /_` �'- V�%511,•• /, 'f' j(\ j %'�' � � �1 � //� ..� 11 III,I,I':, �'�',alli,l j1i YIIIIII� ' �''Ij�l�' ..1 .' •1: �j"� /�1/��� / �e[�t - 7 i'w� •!I�t �n ��IIIIIj1 WWI '''I�' �' »: I 1� I �. _-� �.i� 1'�:f•'•' I I �llid .'1111 �� ., � � '"'".II' �,, �' I. �i jl � `�, �.,,,�.��' "�"��' I •.I': j:- V1 1 y '�,. i ' .:I' i 1 I I 1' 11 ••� �\ i_-- `� G `III - / \ � • �� �j ?DII 1Tr �- j'� ' �'-'?�>=� •''� I•� � ' I'! I 1 I � III I ,I` t 4 �v � `+ - �-'` t ! ! •i • . Nk \ _ �} � '"qn ..wlljj i�ll•I II I'., I .. f_�+ � I t .. --i�1�-�t__� Iw yQ a p. 1 si yin Mil y ox cr I .: 4"hii, co - r• O-wr UJ I LL a. z. 1 ..• \ T r / 1`y� S 6 h • , ` �A Dol 1 ! ■ I i I I _ AO's I• - ) L 1N3w 35x31 07 tl3MOd ^ �3tr15 Ntl3M1tlON j\ i-: I /�. j ` r Z -T I •. - ,..ti _AV 83008/ ! 2A, J, _— Nvm�; --•tf_I, i = - 1 i � I ' Imoof . � .. 1 �,r- ! ;•. I '• :z_ TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 22, 1990 Planning Commission James E. Danielson, Public WorksfSsittlanq11) or Kevin Batchelder, Administrative CASE NO. 90-03, Centex Homes - Rezoning CUP for PUD, Wetlands INTRODUCTION Kensington PUD received sketch plan approval in June of 1989. Last summer's park bond referendum included provisions to develop the park dedication that would be forthcoming from this proposed development. The developer's have worked closely in cooperation with the City regarding the design and layout of Kensington Park. Recently, they met with the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the dedication. DISCUSSION The City is anxious to receive the dedication for Kensington Park. Although the developers, Centex and Tandem Corporation have received sketch plan approval, they are reluctant to dedicate the park land until they have received final PUD approval. The City desires to gain possession of the park land as early as possible in 1990 so that the site can be graded and seeded in anticipation for use in 1991. Centex and their engineers have been working with staff and Barton-Aschman (our park consultant) to design their condominium locations around the park layout and boundaries. The original site proposed for the park was not large enough to accommodate all the desired athletic facilities however, Centex indicated their willingness to increase the park land to accommodate these needs. They are currently revising the plans, in conjunction with staff and Barton-Aschman, to address this. Staff does not have a set of plans to review and to make comments for this meeting.. The Kensington PUD'is potentially the largest and most important development in the history of Mendota Heights. As such, there will be many issues to review in addition to the park dedication, ranging from public improvements and grading, to density, parking and lot locations, to name a few. Staff will need ample time to conduct a thorough and proper review of the proposed development. Therefore, the only action the Planning Commission should take this evening is to hear the developer's oral presentation, provide him feedback based on the presentation and continue the matter to the March meeting. Attached is a letter from the developer proposing a modified schedule of meetings for the review of the Kensington PUD. The Planning Commission may wish to consider additional meetings. ACTION REQUIRED Conduct the public hearing and table the action until a future date. JED/KLB:kkb Attachment 1. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING March 30, 1990 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Mendota Heights Planning Commission will meet at 8:00 o'clock P.M. on Tuesday, April 24, 1990, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, to consider an application from Centex Homes for rezoning'from R-1 and R -1A to HR PUD and MR PUD, Preliminary Plat, CUP for -PUD to allow approximately 65 units of townhomes, 305 units of condominiums, 45 single family homes and.24 manor'homes aafd a Wetlands Permit for the following described property: That part of the SEI/4 of Section 36, Township 28 north, Range 23 west described as follows: Commencing at the SE corner of said SEI/4; thence nortli 00'12'37" west, bearing assumed, along the east line of said SEI/4,'a distance 721.62 feet to a point ona line parallel with and 103.40 feet southerly of, as measured perpendicular to Elie north line of the south 50 rods of the Sts of- said SEI/4 and the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence north 00'12'37" west, continuing along said east line of -the SEI/4, a distance of 451.79 feet; thence south 84'52158" west, a distance of 364.29 feet to a point on a line parallel with and 362.95 feet westerly of, as measured perpendicular to, said east line of the SEI/4; thence north 00'12'37" west, along said parallel line', a distance of 287.00 feet; thence north 80"49'39" east, a distance 367.44 feet to said east line of the SEI/4; thence north 00'12'37" west, along said east line of the SEI/4, distance of 327.49 feet to the north line of the south 30 rods of the Nh of said SEI/4; thence •south 89'22152" west, along said north line of the south 30 rods, a distance of 1611.37 feet; thence south 00'12'37" east, parallel ,AthsidE3st line of the SEI/4, a distance of 988.46 feet to said north line of the south 50 rods of the Sts of said SEI/4; thence north 89'24'31" east, along said north line of the south 50 rods, a distance of 138.51 feet; thence 'south 20`16'08" east, a distance of 109.80 feet to a line parallel with and 103.40 feet southerly_ of, -as measured perpendicular to, said north line of the south 50 rods; thence north 89`24'31" east, along said parallel line, a distance of 1435.19 feet to the point of beginning. Except that part embraced within the plat'of Hampshire Estates. Also; Outlot A, Hampshire Estates, according to the recorded plat thereof. AND -ALSO: That part of the south 1815.00 feet of the SEI/4 of Section 36, Township 28, Range 23 which lies westerly and southwesterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the SE.Corner of said SEI/4;'•thence south 89'24'06" west, assumed basis for bearings, 1097.00 feet along the south line of said SE1/4; thence north 0'35'54" west 395.50 feet; thence north 74'48'54", west 252.00 feet; thence north 20'14'55" west 383.28 feet to the north line of the south 825.00 feet of said SEI/4; thence south 89'24'06" west 130.07 feet along said north line to the east line of the west 1032.56 feet of said SEI/4; thence north 0'27'53" west 990.00 feet along said east line to the north line of the south 1815.00 feet of said SEI/4 and said line there terminating. Except that part of said 1815.00 feet which lies within the right-of-way of Interstate Highway No.494 as established by Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 19 -57 - That part of the Ets of the SWI/4 of Section 36, Township 26, Range 23, which lies easterly of the plat of Kensington P.U.D. according to the recorded plat thereof and which lies southerly of the westerly extension of a line drawn 40.00 feet south of and parallel with the north line of the south 1815.00 feet of the SEI/4 of said Section 36. Except that part of the Eh of the SWI/4 as shown on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 19-56. More particularly, this property is che'Phase II construction of Kensington located east of Dodd Road. and west of Delaware Avenue between Mendota Heights Road and I-494. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Ordinance Numbers 401 and 402_ Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to this request will be heard at the meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk .m. Mr. Dick Putnam Tandem Corporation 2765 Casco Point Road - Wayzata, MN 55391 City of Alendota Heights May 11, 1990 Dear Mr. Putnam: ► / , p 1�_/pj�A Your application for a am L.IN Tz� ,o will be considered by the City Council at their'next' regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, r,~ 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. me. The Planning Commission recommended If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Sincerely, 4�t" �..�� Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN . 55118 452.1850 City of !AU. J ji Mendota Heights May 11, 1990 Mr. Tom Boyce Mr. Kevin Clark Centex Real Estate Corporation 5929 Baker Road, Suite 470 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Dear Mr. Boyce and Mr. Clark' �_M.) CU�Or Pu-0,Your application for a �'� QM dj, will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, gyp, I r 2-� 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 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, l.�Jl Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN - 55118 452.1850 F(IMIAlu"Aul 7W" % to Hensia� rn. g by CENTEX HOMES CORPORATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TABLE OF CONTENTS KENSINGTON - PHASE II COACH HOMES of KENSINGTON . The Home Features . The Site Plan . Streets and Parking . Condominium Association MANOR HOMES of KENSINGTON TOWNHOMES of KENSINGTON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS SITE DATA SUMMARY PHASING EXHIBITS . Disclosure Statement. - Edina Manor Homes . 3/7/90 letter - property owners south - alternates 1&2 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UTILITY PLAN, GRADING PLAN LANDSCAPE PLANS . Overall planting concept . Specific building landscaping plans - Coach Home and Townhomes ARCHITECTURAL PLANS . Coach Homes of Kensington - Key plans 16, 12, 8 unit homes - Elevations 16, 12, 8 unit homes Manor Homes of Kensington - Key plans 4 and 8 unit homes - Elevations 4 and 8 unit homes . Townhomes of Kensington - Williamsburg Townhome intro - Williamsburg elevations, floor plans - Front elevations 4, 4, & 6 unit homes cop KENSINGTON - PHASE II The plans submitted for the City of Mendota Heights review will complete the final development plan, preliminary plat and detailed plan review phase of the Kensington development. Construction on the Coach Homes, Manor Homes, single family and public park are expected to begin this summer/fall, 90'. Centex has purchased 60 acres of the 80+ acre site and R.A. Putnam and Associates has purchased about 6 acres (for Mendota Heights Road RO&W and Hampshire Estate) of the 38 acre site adjacent to Delaware Avenue. Mr. James Riley is the owner with which both purchase agreements have been signed and completion of the contracts is by 1992. Centex and R.A. Putnum will develop the remaining sites over the next 5 years. Centex Homes completes numerous market research projects that influence the purchase of development sites, type of housing units to be built, features to be included in given units, costs for features and units, and target market. The information produced by this research is used to shape the projects such as Hampshire Estate or the Kensington Manor Homes. The Coach Home and Townhomes of Kensington are different units that serve slightly different. markets. Centex Homes will be able to provide new home ownership opportunities for a wide range of individuals, young families, retired, empty nesters and families with children. The following is a brief description of the housing types proposed. The architectural plans and site development plans complete the project submission. Previous Kensington PUD submitted plans maybe used as a reference concerning site feature, area plans and general conditions which shaped the basic plan. COACH HOMES OF KENSINGTON THE HOME From the exterior, the Coach Homes appear much like large residential homes on well manicured grounds. Entering through private entrance or semi -private foyers, the interior'is divided into either eight, twelve or sixteen individual homes with one detached garage per home. The total gross square footage of the buildings is 18,829 sq. ft. for the 16 unit, 14,757 sq. ft. for the 12 unit, and 9,693 sq. ft. and 8,208 sq ft. for the 2--8 unit buildings. The smallest living unit is 945 gross sq. ft. and the largest living unit is 1,400 gross sq. ft. THESE COACH HOMES FEATURE: 1. Two and three. bedroom designs. 2. Detached garages which provide storage space. 3. Ample storage within each dwelling unit. 4. Individual furnace systems. 5. Individual laundry facilities. 6. Security systems, fire sprinkler systems, and smoke detectors. 7. Optional fireplaces and central air-conditioning. 8. Acoustical separation between dwelling units and the aircraft noise ordinance building standards. 9. Energy efficient insulation. 4 10. Patios and/or covered balconies. 11. Kitchen and breakfast nook areas. 12. One and two bath plans. 13. Three to five inch trees and extensive landscaping for each building and the common areas. Coach Homes are designed to present a.luxurious appearance at densities 'of approximately 10 to 15 units per acre. This development has a proposed density of 13.1 units per acre, which combined with extensive public open space and variety of home types provides a spacious feeling to the entire neighborhood. The exterior architectural details - the roof lines, the detached garages, landscaping, building materials and window arrangements, have been carefully designed to reduce the over all architectural scale of each building. The estimated sale price for the Kensington Coach Homes condominiums, size and option price follows: Unit Type Size Sg, Ft. Bedrooms/Baths A 945 2/1 B 1,039 2/1 C 995 2/2 D 1,089 2/2 E 1,401 3/2 The estimated base price will range from about $60,000 to $85,000 with options available from $3,000 to $10,000. Specific Coach Homes may have premiums for location such as: pond or wooded site above the base price. THE SITE PLAN The Coach Homes development consists of 300 dwelling units on 22.89 acres of land. 15 - 8 unit, 3 - 12 unit and 9 - 16 unit buildings are being constructed, with building locations carefully planned to provide maximum privacy, views and attractiveness. The site density is 13.11 units per acre. The site plan provides small clusters or groups of Coach Homes served by private streets and bordering open space areas. The clusters which connect to Lockwood Drive provide an interesting variety of structure types as viewed from the city street. The only Coach Home with exposure to Mendota Heights Road is an end of a 16 unit building. The site will include private trail and sidewalk systems that connect to the paths along Lockwood Drive and the park trail system. The Coach Home recreation building located on the southern cluster will provide interior and exterior recreation space for Coach Home residents and guests. Preliminary research suggests these facilities: outdoor pool, deck space, outdoor cooking/dining area, volleyball/badmitten, common meeting/party room, bathroom/locker space, association office/storage space and parking. Final design of the space is not complete but the building is expected to be between 2000 - 3000 sq. ft. with deck and pool adjacent. The architectural design will be compatible with the Coach Home style. STREETS AND. PARKING 760 off-street parking spaces are provided. Of these spaces, 300 are enclosed and 460 are open. In addition, 10 visitor spaces are provided at the recreation building. The public streets are to be constructed in 60 ft. right-of-ways to city standards. Buildings will have a minimum setback of 25 ft. from the public right-of-way and garages a 15 ft. minimum. In addition to the street, either parking bays (9 feet wide) or additional pavement area for visitor parking will be provided. The cul-de-sacs have a 50 ft. radius. Private streets are proposed in 5 areas of the project. These streets would still be constructed to city standards but would be 28 ft. in width with surmountable curb. A 5 ft. wide sidewalk is being proposed along the public right-of-way. The private streets and related utilities will be constructed by Centex. CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Centex Homes will develop the condominium under the Minnesota Uniform Condominium Act. The Declaration, ByLaws and Articles of Incorporation will be submitted to the Mendota Heights City Attorney for review and approval before recording. Attached is a sample Disclosure Statement from the Manor Homes of Edina, which` gives a general overview of the condominium association. MANOR HOMES OF KENSINGTON Twenty-four Manor Homes are proposed to complete the Phase I development. The 4 buildings, 24's and 2-8's are located on 1.8 acres completing the private and public street frontages. The units are the same as those of Phase I and will complete the southern area of the site and form a transition with the Coach Homes. TONNHOMES OF KENSINGTON The Townhomes of Kensington provide 59 homes in two clusters along the south side of Mendota Heights Road north of the pond. The units back out on the pond and public parkway along the pond. The Townhomes provide units ranging from 1,100 sq. ft. to 1,650 sq. ft. with 2 and 3 bedrooms and 2 to 3 baths. The homes are expected to be priced from $100,000 to $135,000 with options from 5,000 to $15,000. Also, some homes will have lot premiums depending on views, etc. The homes will have separate entrances, 2 car attached garages and patio/deck areas. The Townhome plans illustrate the exterior and floor plans for the 4, 5 and 6 unit buildings. The architect is of a different yet compatible design with the Coach Homes and Manor Homes. The site design provides space for berms and landscaping to separate the homes from Mendota Heights Road and Lockwood Drive. SINGLE FAMILY LOTS 48 single family lots are proposed south of Mendota Heights Road and west of Delaware Avenue. The lots will all meet the 15,000 sq. ft. area minimum with a variety of frontages and widths similar to Hampshire and Copperfield. The lots are located in open field space and wooded areas. The lot grading will. depend upon the tree cover and street grade requirements. The site plan provides a 25' easement of driveway and utility construction to serve the future sites south of the lots. A copy of a March 7th letter to the three owners is attached for explanation and the 2 site alternates. The 48 quality lots should provide sites for homes from $160,000 to $250,000+ range with a variety of architectural styles; tudor, country french, etc. SUMMARY The Kensington Planned Unit Development provides a variety of ownership homes from $60,000 to over $250,000 in cost. The homes provide for a wide range of buyers lifestyle, age, income, home size and style. We believe that the City of Mendota Heights through its comprehensive plans since the 1960's to the present has provided a range in housing styles, costs, and ownership vs. rental options to its residents. Kensington provides well planned residential neighborhoods which are designed to complement the 26.53 acres of public park dedicated with the development. The numerous revisions to the original Plan A & B PUD approvals have provided the southeast neighborhood and total city with a community recreation area to be developed with 1989 Park Board Referendum funds. Centex is proud of the current Kensington plan that provides for public improvements compatible with the needs of the future residents. SITE DATA DENS P DESIG1dATI0N SaAF� 2 MamN MANOR HOME 1.82 ac. 24 13.19 30 30 60 2.50 CONDO I 4.01 ac. 60 14.96 60 86, 146 2.43 CONDO II 8.33 ac. 96 11.52 96 1533 249 2.59 CONDO III 3.65 ac. 52 14.65 52 79 131 2.52 CONDO IV 3.74 so. 48 .12.83 48 77 125 2.60 CONDO V 3.16 so. 44 13.92 44 65 109 2.48 22.89 ac. 13.11 300 460 760 2.53 TOWN HOME I 3.85 so. 27 7.01 54 53 107 3.96 TOWN HOME II 3.64 ac. 32 8.79 64 72, 136 4.25 7.49 ac. 59-1)- 7.88 -118 125 243 4.12 Single Family 27.69 ac.4 48 1.73 Park 1 7.53 ac. (SEE CITY PARK PLAN) Park 2 10.96 ac. Park 3 8.04 ac. Lockwood Drive R/W 2.45 so. �' 7 Deleware Avenue R/W 0.91 ac. 89.77 so. 431 4.80 DU/AC.Gross Density I. All areas subject to final computations 2. Includes spaces in front of garages 3. Excludes Rec. Building Parking (10 spaces) 4. Includes Public Street R/W (4.00 acres) SUMMARY The Kensington Planned Unit Development provides a variety of ownership homes from $60,000 to over $250,000 in cost. The homes provide for a wide range of buyers lifestyle, age, income, home size and style. We believe that the City of Mendota Heights through its comprehensive plans since the 1960's to the present has provided a range in housing styles, costs, and ownership vs. rental options to its residents. Kensington provides well planned residential neighborhoods which are designed to complement the 26.53 acres of public park dedicated with the development. The numerous revisions to the original Plan A & B PUD approvals have provided the southeast neighborhood and total city with a community recreation area to be developed with 1989 Park Board Referendum funds. Centex is proud of the current Kensington plan that provides for public improvements compatible with the needs of the future residents. PHASING OF KENSINGTON PUD 1989 A. Sketch Plan Approval B. Phase I Manor Homes Approval (public street; private street & utilities; grading on 136 unit Phase I of Kensington) 1990 A. Phase II Final PUD Plan, Preliminary Plat, Rezoning B. Park Dedication of Parks 1 and 2, approximately 18 acres C. City Park Construction Parks 1 and 2 D. Public Street and Utility Construction - Lockwood Drive loop paving on Lockwood to private street B south intersection - Rough grading on Coach Home sites, Condo I, II & III - coordinated with park construction - Utilities Condo I area - Rough grading Manor Home I site E. Home Construction - Manor Home construction continue in Phase I - Model for Coach Home begin (building #15) Oct -Nov open Spring, 90' F. Begin public street construction in single family with rough grading and utility construction. Pave only 1st Phase south from Mendota Heights Road to street 1 cul-de-sac. 1991 A. Park improvement continue - open for play June/July, 91' B. Centex dedication of Park 3 - city install trail and picnic, dock etc. improvements C. Paving, completion of Lockwood Drive loop street by June, 91' D. Rough grade Condo IV, V & Townhome l E. Utilities in Condo II & III F. Construction of Coach Home units in Condo I, II & III G. Complete public street in single family continue home construction H. Continue Manor Home construction I. Begin model of Townhomes (#32 or #33) 1992 A. Complete Manor Home construction B. Continue Coach Home construction Condo II, II & IV C. Continue Townhome construction in I & II D. Finish single family lot home construction E. City complete park improvements 1993 - 95 A. Complete all Coach Home, Manor Home, and Townhome construction DISCLOSURE STATE'M0,r THE MANOR HOMES OF EDINA, CONDOMINIUM PHASE I A. The name and principal address of the Declarant is Centex Homes Midwest, Inc. 8601 Darnel Road, Eden'Prairie, Minnesota 55344, hereinafter referred to as "Centex Homes". The name and address of the condominium is the Manor Homes of Edina Condominium, 5950 Lincoln Drive,�Edina, Minnesota 55436. The condominium number assigned by the Hennepin County Recorder is 294. B. The condominium will consist of three buildings containing eight living units and eight garage units each and one building containing four living units and four garage units each, for a total of twenty eight (28) living and attached garage units. The condominium will also consist of ten additional detached garages. The condominium is Phase I of an anticipated four phase development. Subsequent phases are presently contemplated as follows: Phase II - 68 units; Phase III-- 40 units; Phase IV - 8 units. The total number of additional units that may be included in the condominium is one hundred forty-seven (147). Centex Homes is not, however, obligated to add any property to the condominium beyond Phase I. Amenities being provided are 1) a totlot, which will consist of a play structure, swings, sandbox, and seating area, and 2) a tennis court consisting of• a hard surfaced court, net and fence. Both amenities will be built as a part of Phase II. Construction is'scheduled to commence in September, 1981 and scheduled for completion in Winter/Spring, 1982, subject to labor disputes, inability to obtain material or labor, inclement weather, acts of God, or any other causes beyond the reasonable control of Centex Homes. C. The total number of additional units that may be included in the condominium is one hundred forty-seven (147). Centex Homes has no plans to rent or market blocks of units to investors. 2 D. The following are attached as exhibits: Exhibit 1: Declaration of Condominium Exhibit 2: Floor plan for the particular unit Exhibit 3: Bylaws of the Association Exhibit 4: Articles of Incorporntion Exhibit S: FHA Regulatory Agreement The Association will develop rules and regulations if deemed necessary. There are no contracts or leases to which the unit owners or association will be subject, which may not be cancelled upon thirty (30) days written notice, except there is a contract with Northern States Power for street lighting of the private streets, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 10. E. There is no current balance sheet for the Association. The following is attached as an exhibit: Exhibit 6: Projected budget for the first full year of Association operation as prepared by Centex Homes. F. There are no supplies or services provided by Centex that are'not reflected in'the budget attached as Exhibit 6. Until the Association levies an assessment, Centex Homes shall pay all Association operating expenses. C. Purchaser will be obligated to pay to the Association, at closing, an initial fee which will be three (3) months of the estimated Association assessment for the unit purchased. This fee will be held by the Association in its operating account to meet initial and start-up expenses and is neither refundable nor is to be considered an advance payment of monthly assessments. Purchaser may recover this initial from a subsequent Buyer upon resale of Purchaser's unit. •�- H. There are no liens, defects or encumbrances affecting title to the condominium except, 1) easements of record, 2) covenants and restrictions contained in document # dated and filed and 3) the Condominium Documents. However, there may be a construction mortgage which would be a lien on the units and the common elements. If there is a construction mortgage, the individual unit and that unit's percentage of ownership interest 3 in the common elements would be released from the lien of such mortgage at closing. I. Centex Homes has submitted for the approval of the condominium by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Veterans Administration (VA). This approval would enable the FHA and the VA to insure or guarantee• mortgage loans to qualified buyers from any qualified lender. Centex has also submitted for the approval of the Condominium by the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA). This approval would allow FNMA to purchase qualified mortgages from qualified lenders. Financing made available by Centex Homes may, from time to time, change as to the type, availability, interest rate, mortgage amount, etc. Attached as Exhibit 7 is a summary of the financing made available by Centex Homes as of the date this Disclosure Statement is given: J. The warranty that will be provided and the limitations thereon are attached as Exhibit 8. K. As required by the Minnesota Condominium Act, Purchaser is hereby informed as follows: 1) Within fifteen (15) days after receipt of this Disclosure Statement, a Purchaser may, prior to conveyance, cancel any purchase agreement of a unit from Centex Homes. , 2) If Centex Homes fails to provide this Disclosure' Statementto a Purchaser rte; z.� before conveying a unit to that Purchaser, that Purchaser may'recover from Centex Homes an amount not to exceed five (5) percent of the sales price of the unit. 3) If .a Purchaser receives a Disclosure Statement more than fifteen (15) days prior to signing a purchase agreement, Purchaser cannot cancel the agreement. L. Centex Homes, to the extent of its actual knowledge, and after reasonable 4 inquiry, does not know of any judgements against the Association. There are no pending suits to which the Association is a party and there are no pending suits concerning the condominium or the Association. M.' Any earnest money paid in connection with the purchase of a unit will be held in an escrow account until closing and will he rettirned to the Purchaser if the Purchaser cancels the purchase agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Annotated, Section 515A.4-106. N. Centex Homes, through the Association, will provide insurance coverage for the benefit of the unit owners as provided in the Declaration of Condominium attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The unit owners are responsible for insuring their own personal property and for providing any other appropriate condominium unit insurance. 0. Other than the initial fee and the monthly assessments, there will be no additional fees or charges for thich the unit owners will be responsible regarding the use of common elements and facilities. tP. Centex Homes has made finincial arrangements to provide for the completion of the improvements labeled on the condominium floor plans (Exhibit 2) as "must be built". Q. Centex Homes will deposit with the Association, working capital for the Association in an amount equal to one percent (lx) of the total value of the units in the condominium as determined by the FHA. The working capital fund is in addition to any reserves required to be accumulated or maintained by the Association as detailed in the FHA Regulatory Agreement (Exhibit 5) and. the Association operating budget (Exhibit 6). Working capital funds will be used by the Association -to cover unanticipated i needs which may arise in the first year of operation. Any remaining balance after the first year of operation will be transferred to the replacement reserve account. R. The nearest MTC bus stop is located approximately 1 block south of the project, on Lincoln Drive. Churches, schools, shopping centers, playgrounds and other community facilities available to residents are shown on the area map prepared by Centex Homes and which is attached as Exhibit 9. ar R. A. Putnam and Associates, Inc. 2765 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 • Off. & Pax (612) 471-0573 March 7, 1990 Mr. & Mrs. Michael P. Kennedy 2567 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Kensington Single Family Lots - Future use of your westerly property Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy: I have enclosed preliminary copies of the proposed single family plat on the property north of your homes. I have also enclosed two sketches of a possible development of yours and your neighbors' lots west of the easterly pond. These plans are for your . review, comments and suggestions so we might prepare plans that respect your wishes for the future use of your lots. We were asked. by Mr. Biel at a city planning commissioners meeting last year to show access to your lots in case you or your neighbors chose to develop your westerly lots in the future. The plans labeled #1 and 02 illustrate two approaches to using your lots if you so choose. #1 - represents a 3'lbt devdloperient'that'ddes'not* require filling of the wetlands and does the least damage to your land of the two plans. The homes would be walkout homes facing west with access to the public street via a private driveway easement shared by the 3 lots. Sewer and water would be extended in that driveway by the 3 lots at such time as they all developed. #2 - is a plan that would build a public street from the north street in Kensington to serve your property. The cost for the utilities and street would be shared by 5 or 6 lots. The plan may not be possible due the amount of filling needed in the ponds and wetlands. Also, everything there would be grade and all trees removed. The plan maybe very expensive to accomplish due to the apparent shortage of fill needed for the project. I believe that if you wish to develop the land in the future, the #1 plan makes the most sense because it is the least cost, least disturbance of the existing site, does not require filling of the wetlands and will not ruin your views from your current homes. I would be happy to discuss any questions and suggestions you have with you and/or your neighbors at your convenience. I am sending this letter and plans to Kennedy, Biel and Kane, and Jim Danielson, City of Mendota Heights. Please give me a call if you have any questions, suggestions or to set up a time to meet. Sincerely, t I- vl� Dick Putnam cc: J. Danielson, City of Mendota Heights Jill Smith 625 Hampshire Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 May 7, 1990 Mayor Charles E. Mertensotto City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mayor Mertensotto: I am a resident of -Hampshire Estates in Mendota Heights -and am writing to you to protest the proposed rezoning of the land south of Mendota Heights Road. I feel that the proposed plan presents numerous problems, many of which can be included in two major categories: 1) density, and 2) traffic. Since the proposed rezoning is a PUD, traditional lot size and setback requirements are dispensed with. In theory, more control can be given to the municipality in the planning process in a PUD. Where is the control in this plan? Maximum density has been allowed by including required parkland, additional parkland, ponds, marshland, DNR protected wetlands, and streets in the single family area in the total buildable area. The resulting number of units is far to high for the situation. The multi -family units, primarily the condominium units, are packed together and achieve an actual density far higher than that allowed. Detached garages increase the buildout even further. Rather than diluting the effect of this incredible density and providing a place for residents to recreate, the parkland consists primarily of ballfields intended for greater metropolitan area use and will in fact increase the intensity of use of the area even more. The only real transition between the high density residential and the surrounding single family areas is where single family lots have yet to be sold. This plan violates the zoning guidelines in the 1986 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan by bringing high density development up to Mendota Heights Road, it also requires averaging of the densities to be in compliance with current zoning requirements. If the proposed rezoning is approved, approximately 13% of the population would reside on less than 1% of the land in Mendota Heights. I have yet to see an adequate analysis of the impacts of such a density on schools, fire, police, and other city services. Traffic generated by the proposed plan will create hazardous conditions and intolerable congestion problems. One of the most serious problems with the plan is that all traffic from the dense multi -family housing area empties onto Mendota Heights Road. A recent Dakota County study projected traffic on Mendota Heights Road (with this development and with present traffic controls) at level F, a dead stop. Final authority for a traffic signal at Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road rests with the state and they have twice denied requests for a traffic signal. Mendota Heights Road, which was built just a year ago, was built to accommodate one lane of traffic and curb parking on each side. With the proposed plan this road would already be obsolete. Another major problem with the plan is that a main exit from the development lines up with Park Lane, providing direct entry into the single family areas north of Mendota Heights Road. Many of these residential streets have no sidewalks or street lights, were not intended to be collector streets, and are not equipped to handle higher volumes of traffic. Travelers seeking to avoid congestion on Mendota Heights Road and/or reach destinations to the north would surely venture into the residential areas in large enough numbers to endanger the safety of residents and their children. Mendota Heights Road promises to be such a hazard to cross (no controlled crossings have been planned) that few parents would allow their children to visit the proposed park. On Tuesday, April 24th, the City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission voted five to one against the proposed rezoning. The Planning Commission. listed many reasons for not passing the proposed rezoning and expressed grave concerns about the impact of the proposed rezoning on the community. A transcript of this meeting and the specific resolution have been or will be provided to you. The Planning Commission's reasons for defeating the proposed rezoning include fundamental statutory violations of responsibilities mandated by the state to each community — violations of health, safety, and promotion of the general welfare of its citizens. I feel that the reasons given for defeating the proposed rezoning are valid. Unless new and compelling evidence is presented to you in open hearing at the City Council meeting on May 15th (or at such time when this matter actually comes before you) that unequivocally answers each of the issues raised by the Planning Commission, it is your obligation to follow. the advice of your Planning Commission and vote against the proposed rezoning. It is my understanding that the City is anxious to obtain additional parkland and, specifically, more ball fields. While the proposed plan does allow for this priority of the City, the remainder of the plan is a dismal failure in fulfilling the stated goals of the City listed in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan and in meeting the needs of the rest of the community. —Th—i-5-plan js not the answer to obtaining additional parkland — the cost to the rest of the community is too high. Your vote on the proposed rezoning should be based on the evidence presented to you. I implore you as an elected official of the City of Mendota Heights to take a realistic look at what is being presented to you and the long-term negative effect it will have on our beautiful city. Exercise your responsibility to your constituents, the voters, in a conscientious and responsible manner and vote against the prouosed rezoning of the land south of Mendota Heights Road. Sincerely, j- 7-°J �i �UiQ ,�f.-'� /�.�GiG��,l��i •S'!/�./ice` �,�, 4 May 1990 Mendota Heights City Council Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55120 This correspondence is to express my concern as a citizen of Mendota Heights to the rezoning proposal from Centex Homes. Even though I believe wholeheartedly in citizen involvement in the governmental process, I think it is unnecessary when trivial matters are involved. However, the above mentioned topic is of grave concern because of its detrimental impact on the City and its citizens. Therefore, it demands not only citizen involvement but also the understanding of what I assume to be a council that's looking out for the best interest of its citizens. I have been involved in two separate meetings regarding this issue with the City's Planning Commission. During these sessions, I heard a number of creditable reasons for not approving this plan. It's my understanding that the Planning Commission, in their analysis, has recommended to you that the proposal should be defeated because of its negative ramifications. . In thinking through this entire matter, it seems that if the proposal were to benefit other existing community residents, the negative impact on a few possibly should yield to the needs of the many. The obvious motivation for those of us who are homeowners in this particular area is that of protection of domain and family. This includes lots of considerations, nevertheless, it's a basic motivation that all of us as well as yourselves would pursue. However in this situation, a positive response to Centex only harms all of the citizens of the City and does nothing to benefit any of us. Positive response to this developer who is NOT a citizen of the community - who does NOT pay taxes to the city - who will NOT care what happens to the community once all the land has been developed and sold - seems inappropriate. If the council is knowledgeable of benefits that we as citizens do not understand, please make this information available because we are most interested in knowing. I have to assume that any positive consideration you would give is based on sound logic and reasoning. Otherwise, this only appears to be a negative for the entire City in the long run. Page 2 Mendota Heights City Council As a governing body your responsibility is to the citizens, not to outside entities (developers) that have only short term objectives. Due to the responsibility you have accepted as elected members of the City Council, it appears that you have but one choice, and that's to deny the zoning application. sincerely, JCM/mr:43 EDWARD L. ZEMAN 2219 Bent Tree Lane Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 May 4, 1990 Mr. Charles Mertensotto Mayor City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 Dear Mayor Mertensotto: I am writing you concerning the proposed rezoning for the Centex development. I am vehemently opposed to the rezoning. I do not believe it will add anything to the City of Mendota Heights. However, it will cause many negatives such as overuse of Deleware and Dodd roads and increase the population of Mendota Heights by 8% - 10% in a very dense geographic area. The changing of the area zoning requirements should only be done when it is beneficial to the residents surrounding the area and the City. You have received a petition with more than 500 residents opposed to the rezoning. As elected officials your job is to hear the people and act accordingly. The people have spoken. They do not want the rezoning approved. If for some reason you feel compelled to vote for the rezoning, I would appreciate hearing your reasons for this. My home phone number is 688-0987. I look forward to seeing you on May 15. Thank you for your time. Best regards, Edward L. Zeman ELZ/mcs 0543z April 23, 1990 Janet Blesener City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Council Member, Concerning the rezoning of the Kensington Development We want to voice our concerns over the rezoning of the Kensington development. We find this housing development unacceptable to this area. It would increase our traffic and population in the city. The development would increase our noise level and may even require an additional school to be built. You need to look at what this would do to our area not just the projected tax base. Please think of the density of people in such a small area of land. Let's make Mendota Heights a city where we are showing some intelligent comfriuhity gl'anning;" ndt° just •bui•Tdirig * anywhere, or- anyplace •-without regard to living standards. Sincerely, Darrel Robertson J n Robertson 2344 Copperfield Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2236 Bent Tree Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55120 April 22, 1990 Honorable Janet Blesener City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Councilor Blesener, We ask that you vote to deny the Kensington rezoning application. We are convinced that the current proposal represents poor planning. Any developmental proposal should only be accepted when the community's best interest is met. Nancy and I moved to Mendota Heights last fall. We chose Mendota Heights because of "what it is" and "what it is not." Mendota Heights is a attractive, friendly community with good access to both Minneapolis and St. Paul. The city seems to be very well managed and is part of an excellent public school system with close access to fine private schools. More importantly we liked what Mendota Heights is not! Mendota Heights is not a poorly planned community with factories, retail stores, apartments, condominiums and single family homes mixed in a seemingly random pattern. Concerning the Kensington rezoning issue we object to the following: - Increased volume of traffic on Mendota Heights Road, Huber, Decorah, and Delaware. - Lack of transition from single-family to multi -family lots north of Mendota Heights Road. The additional population (1,000-1,200 people by my calculations !) in a very dense area with little thought given to the impact on schools, noise, traffic, snow removal, garbage collection, and pedestrian traffic. I hope that you agree it is in the best interest of the community to deny the Kensington rezoning application. Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can assist you in any way. Sincerely, Nancy & Dan Alc right PIERSON M. GRIEVE 280 SALEM CHURCH ROAD ` SUNFISH LAKE, MN 55118 13 April 1990 Mayor Charles E. Mertensotto City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: Ms. Janet Blesener Mr. Carl Cummins III Mr. John Harmann Mr. Burt Anderson This letter is written to express our great concern about the extraordinarily rapid growth of the area bounded by Delaware, Interstate 494, and Dodd Road. - We specifically write to express our dismay and disagreement with the plan for additiorial townhomes, dwellings and 305 condominiums, which are under consideration at this time. The City of Mendota Heights and its surrounding area does not need this kind of density, nor can it afford - it. Delaware and Dodd Road were never designed to handle this amount of density. In addition to matters of health and safety, there is the obvious question about esthetics. The bucolic nature of this part of Dakota County has radically changed with your rezoning. Nobody expected this area to remain farmland, but neither did anyone bargain for the cheek -to -jowl instant suburb that has emerged to the dismay of not only the old neighbors, but those who have recently purchased property in the area. Ladies and gentlemen, Minnesota is blessed with a beautiful countryside and we have ample space to allow for careful planning which permits everyone to enjoy it. Please stop and reconsider before doing any further harm to this little piece of Minnesota. We urgently petition you to deny the rezoning application before you.. Sincerel ,. '• V G�- Florence B. and Pierson M. Grieve PMG/naw �(A 2274 Copper. f i.eld Drive Mendota. Hei.6hts, MN 551.20 March 31.. 1990 Ms. Janet Blesener Mendota, Heights City Council 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota. Heights, MN 55118 RE: Centex Homes Rezoning Proposal. This letter is written to voice our opposition to the request by Centex Homes to rezone property between Mendota Heights Road and I-494 east of the kennsington manor homes. Centex's request to develop 128 acres for condos, townhouses and other multi -family units should not be approved. In ta.l_king with our new neighbors, we know our community feels this rezoning application is the single most important issue to come before our community government this year. The impact of this issue makes airport noise, taxes and other issues secondary. When we came to the Twin Cities, we choose to move to Mendota. Heights because of the city's history of limiting multi -family development. If we wanted to live near condominiums, apartments and cluster homes, we would have bought in Ewan or Apple Valley. Other attractions of Mendota Heights include acceptable school class sizes and wide streets with little traffic that make it safer for biking for our nine year old. The demands for new infrastructure are moderate, neighborhood are developed to pre- serve their open character. Centex's plans suggests that we will lose the very attractions which brought me to Mendota Heights. We hope Centex's promises of parks and playing fields are seen in their true context. The land offered as park space could not be developed and sold by Centex at a profit. A third of the proposed park area is under water or marshland. The soccer fields are split by high tension power lines. The softball fields are next to those same power lines and I-494. The only reason the property is offered as park space is the lack of alternative use. Centex recognizes the impact of its development plans. The company has gone out of its way to buffer its proposed single family units from the multi -family units? Centex has minimized the traffic into its new single family units. Instead, the impact falls on residents of Hampshire Estates, Copperfield and Friendly Hills. Can you imagine the traffic from adding 1,000 cars to the traffic on Mendota Heights Road? Would ,you want young children crossing those busy streets to play at a park surrounded by electric transmission lines and I 494? Mendota, Hei.a'hts City Council Members March 30, 1.990 Paae 2 The Centex plans bring no value to our community. The property cannot begin to add the tax base needed to generate enough reve- nue to pay for needed increases in city services. Why should we subsidize this potential drain on our city? Approving a develop- ment of this size that does not add to this neighborhood or this community is a serious mistake. We have seen the results of bad planning decisions. In San Ra- fael, California, north of San Francisco, a civic experiment with high density planning lead to a development that became not only a. congested eyesore with huge traffic delays, but a case study by the University of California in how not to develop a neighbor- hood. Worse, it became the highest crime area in Marin County, one of the most affluent counties in the country. If. Centex offers a plan keeping with the character and density of the surrounding neighborhood, we have no quarrel. We would welcome another development similar to Hampshire Estates. We would accept a low density townhouse plan that adds open space at a density of 3-4 units per acre. These ideas would be welcome in our community. How can a development that increases Mendota Heights' population by more that 10 percent on so few acres help our community? Does it make sense to crowd 25 percent of Mendota Heights' population into the developments of Friendly Hills, Copperfield and the Centex properties? It is your duty as an elected official to resist Centex's bargin. Vote against their request to for rezoning! None of us gain from repeating the mistakes of rapid growth that trouble neighboring towns. Why endorse one of those mistakes now? Yours truly, Joan L. and Kenneth 1J. Brendle CC: Jerry Duffy, Esq. Mendota Heights Planning Commission Howard Dahlgren V I Robert E. Prior 2455 Hampshire Court Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 (612) 688-6330 February 28, 1990 Mayor Charles Mertensotto Mendota Heights City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mayor Mertensotto, I wish to register with you my strong opposition to the proposed zoning change that will appear before the city council this eve- ning by Centex for the property south of Mendota Heights Road be- tween the Kensington development and Delaware Avenue. As a Centex home owner near this property, I am extremely disap- pointed that they are trying to gain city approval to put in in- expensive condominiums which I believe will create an unrealistic amount of traffic, people, the need for more city services, and ultimately harm the value of the major investment I have made in my entire life: my home. Please do not allow u s very my c. Robert E. Prior a change to the present zoning. Ja?,dd e 41'o 4 -;�_Xex 0 41-11 "Fe A) 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 10, 1990 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator FROM: Klayton H. Eckles Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Information regarding the Highway 13, Brompton Court Storm Problem Job 9008 Imp. 90-02 INTRODUCTION Recently Staff was notified by MnDot that a problem has occurred in one of MnDot's storm sewer pipes that drains water from Mendota Heights near Brompton Ct. to the other side of T.H. 13 into Lilydale (see attached map). Apparently the storm pipe was installed back in the 1940's to drain water from our side of T.H. 13 down the river bluffs on the other side of T.H. 13. In the 1970's a house was build on the Lilydale side, and this house (651 T.H. 13) was built ' over the top of the pipe by mistake. The pipe is causing the yard near the house to settle. The home owner contacted MnDot because he is worried the house will settle too. Now MnDot is trying to remedy the situation. But the MnDot "remedy" calls for Mendota Heights to pick up 83% of the cost. DISCUSSION Staff received a letter from Susan Klein of MnDot asking us to enter into an agreement to pay for 83% of the construction costs, which works out to $60,050 (see attached letter). Staff has looked at the situation and the criteria for State and City participation and we believe the proposed funding levels are unfair and fail to meet the State funding criteria. Lilydale is also opposed to the proposal, as it would have Lilydale participate at a level of about $4,000. Portions of the MnDot policy statement indicate that Cities must participate in maintenance projects at the same rate as when a pipe was originally installed. MnDot paid for 100% of the initial project. Also since it is a MnDot storm pipe, predominantly in Lilydale, and the problem was brought about by a Lilydale building, it is Staff's position that MnDot and Lilydale should bare more of the responsibility. The letter from Susan Klein asks for the City's concurrence on the proposed project. Staff recommends Council reject the MnDot funding proposal for the storm sewer restoration project at T.H. 13 and Brompton Court. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with Staff's recommendation, Council should pass a motion to reject the proposed MnDot funding proposal. a W J a C7 O� Cc 00 K °c a- x M th o- Y In E'1 ,: Mir— isota Department of Transportatio- Metropolitan District Transportation • Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Apri 1 23, 1990 Reply to Telephone No. Mr. Jim Danielson City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 Dear Mr. Danielson: SUBJECT: Proposed Storm Sewer and Pond Construction, In the Vicinity of T.H. 13 and Sylvandale Road. 779-1190 Enclosed are preliminary plans and a cost participation breakdown for the proposed drainage facilities construction, at the referenced location. As previously discussed, participation percentages are based on a proration of contributing flows. The estimated costs per party are as follows: T.H. 13 Culvert Mn/DOT Mendota Heights Lilydale Total (Blue) 2,T9U_(f00%) - - 2__'W Pond Inflow -Sewer 1,055 (9.11%) 10,462 (90.31%) 67 (0.58%) 11,584 (Orange) Pond and Outflow Sewer 4,557 (8.65%) 45,140 (85.68%) 2,987 (5.67%) 52,684 (Brown) 8,092 (12• ) ro ro To those figures, 8% must be added for construction engineering, resulting in total estimated costs of $60,050 and $3,298 for Mendota Heights and Lilydale, respectively. We intend to complete our construction plan by May 25th, for bid letting on July 27, 1990. Therefore, we ask that you review this preliminary information and provide a letter of concurrence, at your earliest convenience. We will then proceed to draft the necessary cooperative agreements. In addition, in order to address the issue of environmental involvement within the city park; we ask that you provide a statement in your response letter, indicating that the city feels this project will have no adverse environmental impact upon city park property. Thank you for your efforts in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 779-1190. (We have also sent this information to Jim Langseth, along with the Hydraulic computations.) Sincerely, Susan M. Klein, P.E. _ District Hydraulics Engin MINNESOTA 1"o An Equal Opportunity Employer