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