2015-09-01 Council PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 1, 2015 – 7:00 pm
Mendota Heights City Hall
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Pledge of Allegiance
4. Adopt Agenda
5. Consent Agenda
a. Approve August 18, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes
b. Approve August 18, 2015 Council Workshop minutes
c. Approve August 24, 2015 Special City Council Meeting Minutes
d. Approve August 24, 2015 Council Workshop Minutes
e. Acknowledgement of August 25, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
f. Approve Change of Nov 3rd City Council Meeting Start Time to 8:00 p.m.
g. Scheduling a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission
h. Approve Temporary Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy for Sept 23-25, 2015
i. Approve Ordinance 486 Establishing Parking Restrictions on Acacia Boulevard
j. Authorization to Execute a Purchase Order for the Annual Street Striping Contract
k. Approve Resolution 2015-68 Critical Area Permit at 2190 Glenhill Road, Planning Case
2015-31
l. Receipt of July 2015 Fire Department Synopsis Report
m. Approve Claims List
n. Approve Contractor List
o. Receipt of July Par 3 Update
p. Approve Treasurer’s Report
6. Public Comments
7. Presentations
(None Scheduled)
8. Public Hearing
a.
Resolution 2015-66 Vacating A Portion of an Easement at 1450 Northland Drive
9. New and Unfinished Business
a.
Resolution 2015-67 Variance at 1176 Ivy Hill Road, Planning Case 2015-26
b.
Resolution 2015-69 Conditional Use Permit and Variances at 1400 Commerce Drive,
Planning Case 2015-32
c.
Wetland Conservation Act Permit Ryland Homes, LeMay Shores
d.
Resolution 2015-65 Accept Feasibility Report and Call For a Public Hearing for the
Mendota Road Neighborhood Improvements Project
e.
Discussion regarding the Halloween Bonfire event
10. Community Announcements
11. Council Comments
12. Adjourn
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights,
Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers present included Duggan,
Povolny, Petschel, and Norton.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council, the audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Krebsbach presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the
agenda.
Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Krebsbach presented the consent calendar and explained the procedure for discussion and
approval. Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the consent calendar as presented and
authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein, pulling items c) Scheduling a
Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission, e) Approval of Off-Leash Dog Area Fencing, and g)
Approval of Building Activity Report for July 2015.
a. Approval of Revised August 4, 2015 City Council Minutes
b. Approval of Renewal of Webstreaming Agreement with NDC4
c. Scheduling a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission
d. Approval of Resolution 2015-63 Accept Donation to Patrick Memorial
e. Approval of Off -Leash Dog Area Fencing
f. Approval of Personnel Action Report
g. Approval of Building Activity Report for July 2015
h. Approval of Claims List
i. Approval of Contractor List
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
page 3
PULLED CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
C) SCHEDULING A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City Administrator Mark McNeill noted the joint meeting with the Planning Commission would be to
talk about the Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan that was authorized earlier this year. Staff
recommended 5:00 p.m. on October 27, 2015 for the meeting time. After discussion, the Council asked
that the meeting be held on October 28, 2015. Staff agreed to check with the Planning Commission
members.
Councilmember Duggan moved to table Scheduling a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission until
such time as the date is confirmed.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
E) APPROVAL OF OFF-LEASH DOG AREA FENCING
Councilmember Duggan suggested that black vinyl chain-link fencing be used instead of the galvanized
chain-link fencing for approximately $2,000 more; and that the height be four feet.
Based on the fact that this is intended to be a temporary (3 – 5 years) off-leash dog area, other
Councilmembers recommended the galvanized fencing.
Additional discussion was had regarding the location of the security lighting.
Councilmember Petschel moved approval of Off-Leash Dog Area amenities using four-foot galvanized
fencing, along with the other items as recommended in the staff report.
Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 1 (Duggan)
G) APPROVAL OF BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT FOR JULY 2015
Councilmember Duggan noted that, in light of the changing economy, the City of Mendota Heights is
doing very well in relation to revenues from building projects.
Councilmember Duggan moved approval of the Building Activity Report for July 2015.
Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
page 4
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Patrick Watson, 1327 Delaware Avenue, brought a petition that represents a significant number of
residents of Mendota Heights. The petition requests that the Council revisit the question of allowing
chickens in the residents’ backyards. He referenced previous requests as an example, most recently
Planning Case 2014-35 in December 2014, which was denied. He also noted that the discussion at the
Goals Workshop held by the City Council really was not a discussion but an agreement by the Council
to not allow chickens to be raised as pets within the City.
He listed several neighboring cities that have found no quality of life or nuisance issues with their
modifications in their city codes allowing for raising chickens as pets.
Mr. Howard Paster of Paster Properties announced that all of the spaces in Mendota Plaza are now
leased. The King and I Thai Restaurant opened up a couple of weeks ago and Fresh and Natural Foods
grocery store is leasing the end cap location. There has not been a grocery in this location since the late
1980’s.
Mr. Paster introduced Mr. Kerry Larson from Fresh and Natural Foods to give a snap shot of their
grocery stores. Mr. Larson explained that they are in the health business and food is their vehicle; a full-
service grocery store with a full fresh meat department, full deli, scratch meat deli, large produce
department with a large selection of bulk foods as well, and then a grocery, frozen food, dairy, natural
health and body care products, natural beauty care products, and health supplements.
PRESENTATIONS
None scheduled.
NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A) ORDINANCE 483 CONCERNING VIDEO/ELECTRONIC DISPLAY SCOREBOARDS,
PLANNING CASE 2015-28
Planner Nolan Wall explained that this is a continuation of a discussion from the last Council meeting
regarding Planning Case 2015-28. The City is considering amendments to Title 12, Chapter 1, Article E
of the City Code concerning video and electronic display scoreboards. Based on the discussion had at
the previous meeting, staff has revised the draft ordinance for further discussion and potential action.
Copies of the revised ordinance were also sent to school representatives for additional review and
comment.
Planner Wall reviewed the changes as a result of the discussion at the last meeting. He also shared
images of potential scoreboard locations based on setback requirements at Henry Sibley High School,
Convent of the Visitation, and St. Thomas Academy.
Councilmembers asked questions regarding the definition of a Video/Electronic Display Scoreboard,
what ‘screening’ could be, and what comments were received from the schools in the area – including
School District 197. Mr. Wall stated the schools had no issues or concerns with the proposed ordinance.
page 5
Councilmember Petschel moved to ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 483 AMENDING TITLE 12,
CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE E OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING VIDEO/ELECTRONIC DISPLAY
SCOREBOARDS.
Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
COMMUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS
Assistant to the City Administrator Tamara Schutta made the following announcements:
• The last event at The Village Market Square Park is scheduled for Wednesday, August 19. It is a
Kid’s Dance starting at 6:30 p.m. The event will include a DJ, face painting, and a petting zoo.
• The City will be hosting a blood drive on September 2. There are still plenty of openings.
COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Duggan commended Ross Fefercorn for his participation in making The Village
available to the candlelight vigil event and also for the efforts in celebrating Music in the Park.
ADJOURN
Councilmember Duggan moved to adjourn the meeting.
Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion.
Mayor Krebsbach noted that the City Council was in a budget workshop meeting prior to the Council
meeting and they would be returning to that workshop meeting. Also, on Monday, August 24, there will
be a Special City Council meeting to address the needs of Prime Therapeutics, and a budget workshop
meeting afterwards.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m.
____________________________________
Sandra Krebsbach
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City C lerk
page 6
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Workshop
Held Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota was held at 5:00 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. Councilmembers present included Duggan,
Norton, Petschel, and Povolny. Also in attendance: City Administrator McNeill, Assistant to the City
Administrator/HR Coordinator Tammy Schutta, Public Works Director John Mazzitello, Finance Director
Kristen Schabacker, Police Chief Mike Aschenbrener, Fire Chief John Maczko, IT Manager Sue Donovan,
Planner Nolan Wall, and City Clerk Lorri Smith.
2016 DRAFT BUDGET OVERVIEW
Administrator McNeill presented an overview of the preliminary budget for 2016. It was noted that the
preliminary budget must be certified to Dakota County by September 30, 2015. The final levy must be
adopted by December 28, 2015.
It was noted that the city’s general fund balance has been reduced from 98% in 2012 to a current 80%. A
base budget with very few differences from the 2015 budget was presented which showed an increase of
$207,394. The increase is due to wages, workers compensation insurance, lower transfers, and City Hall
rent. The overall base levy increase is 3.72%.
The Council reviewed 25 improvement packages submitted by staff. 13 of the improvement packages were
recommended for funding in 2016. The total cost of those improvements would be $158,027. If all 13
improvement packages were approved, it would add 2.26% to the overall levy increase.
It was noted that each additional $70,000 added to the budget generates a 1% increase.
The proposed overall base levy and the improvement packages as recommended would increase the levy by
5.98% for FY 2016, or a total levy increase of $418,721. The effect on taxes for a home valued at
$334,863 (median home value) would be $62.59. Councilmember Petschel stated she would like to see the
tax increase for a home valued at $225,000.
Police – It was noted that the additional police officer to be hired this year has not been included in the
proposed base budget.
page 7
Human Resources – It was noted there will be a reduction in health insurance premiums for 2016. In the
2016 proposed base budget, the city’s contribution remained the same as in 2015.
The Council discussed the contribution made for tuition reimbursement and suggested taking a closer look
at the policy.
Parks and Recreation – Councilmember Petschel stated she would like the Council to review the city’s
agreement with the school district for maintenance of the baseball field since the city sees very little use of
this field. It was also suggested the city take another look at the city’s contribution to Mendota Heights
Athletic Association.
Building Codes – Councilmember Duggan suggested the city review the policy on SAC charges for
teardowns.
Finance – Councilmember Petschel suggested the City review our fees for conduit financing. Mayor
Krebsbach suggested reviewing the park dedication fee the city charges. Councilmember Povolny
suggested the Council review new franchise fees for utilities at the next meeting.
Mayor Krebsbach stated she would like a council workshop on fiscal disparities.
The Council reviewed each department’s budget line items and asked questions of department directors.
PUBLIC WORKS – The building official’s contract for inspections is increasing by 12%, would like to
increase the hours of this position to 30 per week due to the expected increase in 2016 inspections.
John Mazzitello presented a street project schedule showing the difference between a 1% levy towards
street projects and a .6% levy towards street projects and how this affects the timing of the projects.
The Council discussed funding the dump truck instead of the quick connect/release kit. Council directed
staff to review the use of equipment certificates for funding the dump truck in 2016.
ENGINEERING – The budget showed a decrease of 3.7%.
SANITARY SEWER – Revenues are expected to increase by 5%. It was noted the Met Council sewer
charge is expected to increase 5.5%
FIRE – It was noted this budget is proposed to decrease. The improvement package for aerial truck repairs
was recommended for approval. It was recommended that the portable pump is needed by the City of
Sunfish Lake and they should be approached for funding.
PLANNING – The recycling budget was proposed to increase 14.09%. It was suggested the city not accept
construction and demolition debris at the next Clean Up Day event which would decrease costs, and
potential hazards to the helpers that day.
page 8
The estimated Comprehensive Plan costs were discussed. Staff was directed to get more estimates for the
study.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – The staffing level was discussed and the possibility of adding a part-
time position. Mayor Krebsbach suggested a Council workshop to discuss this department in its entirety.
City Hall phone system was discussed and the need to upgrade the system. It was recommended to fund
this in 2015 with the Cable Fund.
The need for a dry sprinkler head in the server room was recommended for funding immediately.
The need for two Toughbook computers and a Fire Department Technology Needs Assessment was
recommended for funding in the amount of $15,000.
The Council recessed the workshop meeting at 6:55 p.m. to attend the regular City Council meeting at 7:00
p.m.
MEETING RECONVENED
The Council reconvened the workshop meeting at 7:46 p.m. All Councilmembers, except Councilmember
Duggan, were present. Staff present included City Administrator McNeill, Assistant to the City
Administrator/HR Coordinator Schutta, Public Works Director Mazzitello, Finance Director Schabacker,
Police Chief Aschenbrener, Fire Chief Maczko, and City Clerk Lorri Smith.
The Council completed reviewing the department budgets and the improvement packages submitted by
staff.
POLICE – The need for better cell phone coverage inside of the City Hall building was recommended for
funding.
Discussion was held regarding a request to fund the addition of a captain position to the police department.
Mayor Krebsbach suggested the Council take a more comprehensive look at the Police Department in its
entirety.
Police Department guns and tasers were recommended by staff for funding in 2016. The personal
protective equipment option was recommended to be funded through the Civil Defense budget for 2015.
The police reserve squad was recommended to be purchased through the State of MN Fleet Management,
after the lease has ended. The Sergeants vehicle was not recommended for replacement in 2016 by the
City Administrator. It was suggested that donations be sought for the purchase of the AED for the squad
cars.
It was noted there were no changes in the Emergency Management or Animal Control budgets.
CITY COUNCIL – A recommended $60,000 contingency line item amount was discussed. The consensus
of Council was that it be moved to the Administration section of the budget.
page 9
ADMINISTRATION – The requested scanning technician position was discussed and the possibility of
using an intern from an area school to save on costs. Council directed that some accommodation be made
in the 2016 budget.
The need for smoke detectors in city hall and a color copier were discussed and recommended.
The job evaluation system redesign was recommended for funding in 2017.
The Pilot Knob Management Contract funding will remain the same as in 2015.
ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCES
The Council discussed the need for reviewing the City’s revenue sources and the need to find additional
sources of revenue. Mayor Krebsbach stated she would like to see a discussion of the City’s overall
finances on a future workshop agenda.
Councilmember Petschel stated she would also like to see the Council discuss who we are as a city, and
where we are going, on a future workshop agenda.
ADJOURN
Staff indicated that the 2016 budget topic will be on the workshop agenda set for Monday, August 24, 2015
starting at 4:30 p.m. and also on Tuesday, September 1, 2015, starting at 5:00 p.m.
Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 8:41 p.m.
____________________________________
ATTEST: Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 10
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Special Meeting
Held Monday, August 24, 2015
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota
Heights, Minnesota was held at 4:30 p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights,
Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 4:31 p.m. Councilmembers present included Duggan,
Povolny, and Petschel. Councilmember Norton was absent.
Representing Prime Therapeutics was Brian Holmes.
AGENDA ADOPTION
Mayor Krebsbach presented the agenda for adoption. Councilmember Duggan moved adoption of the
agenda.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1(Norton)
PUBLIC HEARING – RESOLUTION 2015-64 AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN
THE MINNESOTA INVESTMENT FUND LOAN PROGRAM
City Administrator Mark McNeill gave some background on the company Prime Therapeutics and their
plans for expanding their company into Mendota Heights. The proposed location for this new business
is at 1440 - 1444 Northland Drive. This is a company that manages coverage for medicine to health
insurers, employers, Medicare recipients, and individuals.
Prime Therapeutics plans to create 125 new jobs within three years at an average cash wage of $26.82
per hour. The project is eligible for a forgivable loan of $750,000 from the Minnesota Investment Fund.
Prime will have two years to create those jobs; however, they may request a one year extension if
needed. If Prime falls short of the job creation number, the State, with cooperation of the City, may
require a proportional reimbursement through a “claw back” mechanism.
It was noted that the City of Mendota Heights assumes no direct financial risk if the jobs are not created.
Mayor Krebsbach opened the public hearing.
page 11
Brian Holmes, Senior Director of Enterprise Real Estate and Facilities Operations for Prime
Therapeutics, was present to answer the Council’s questions.
No one from the public wished to be heard on this issue.
Councilmember Duggan asked how many forgivable loans have defaulted in the past. Administrator
McNeill stated he did not know that number, but could find out.
Councilmember Duggan and Mayor Krebsbach suggested minor grammatical changes to the resolution.
Motion by Councilmember Petschel to close the public hearing.
Council member Duggan seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1(Norton)
Motion by Councilmember Petschel to approve RESOLUTION 2015-64 AUTHORIZING
PARTICIPATION IN THE MINNESOTA INVESTMENT FUND LOAN PROGRAM with the
suggested grammatical changes.
Councilmember Povolny seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1(Norton)
ADJOURN
Councilmember Duggan moved to adjourn.
Councilmember Petschel seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Absent: 1(Norton)
Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 4:39 p.m.
____________________________________
Sandra Krebsbach
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Lorri Smith
City Clerk
page 12
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Council Workshop
Held Monday, August 24, 2015
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a workshop of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota was held immediately following the Special City Council Meeting at City Hall, 1101 Victoria
Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Krebsbach called the meeting to order at 4:42 p.m. Councilmembers present included Duggan,
Petschel, and Povolny. Councilmember Norton arrived at 5:00 p.m.
Also in attendance: City Administrator McNeill, Public Works Director John Mazzitello, Finance Director
Kristen Schabacker, City Clerk Lorri Smith, General Manager Steve Schneider from St. Paul Regional
Water and Matt Anfang, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners for St. Paul Regional Water Service.
ST. PAUL REGIONAL WATER CONTRACT DISCUSSION
Public Works Director John Mazzitello provided an overview of existing contractual agreement with St.
Paul Regional Water Service. The agreement expires in December 2015. Under the current agreement, the
City of Mendota Heights owns the distribution system and is responsible for all routine maintenance,
rehabilitation, and replacement of the system components. St. Paul Regional Water supplies the water and
is responsible for all emergency repairs, inspection or completion of new or replacement projects, and
conducts all billing for the utility. Because of this, St. Paul Regional Water charges Mendota Heights
residents a rate 20% higher than their base rate for other municipal customers. Additionally, the City of
Mendota Heights charges a 10% surcharge to all water utility customers to gain revenue for the Water
Utility Fund which is used to fund maintenance activities as well as rehabilitation and replacement projects.
St. Paul Regional Water presented the Council with a revised proposed contract, showing updates made
based on the Council’s comments from the June 29, 2015 Workshop meeting.
Mayor Krebsbach asked for a proposed timeline. Mr. Schneider stated that if the Council approves the
agreement to convey the system to St. Paul Regional Water, then that contract would be presented to the
Board of Commissioners of St. Paul Regional Water System for their approval. If this contract is not
approved by the Mendota Heights City Council, then an extension of the current contract could be
discussed.
The Councilmembers discussed how the city could take back the system in the future if they desire to do
that, the age of the water pipes throughout the city and which ones get replaced first, the capacity of the St.
page 13
Paul Regional Water System’s facility, and whether the water distribution system is an asset or a liability
for the City.
Mayor Krebsbach requested additional information for the next meeting, including a chart of the water
mains in the city and the repair cycle of the mains and the financial statements for St. Paul Regional Water
System. It was noted that St. Paul Regional Water has a AAA bond rating with Standard and Poor’s.
FIRE STATION FEASIBILITY AND PROGRAMMING STUDY
Staff in attendance: City Administrator McNeill, Assistant to the City Administrator/HR Coordinator
Tamara Schutta, Finance Director Kristen Schabacker, Fire Chief John Maczko, City Clerk Lorri Smith,
Randy Engel and Modris Feders, representing Buetow 2 Architects.
Fire Chief Maczko presented an overview of fire station feasibility study that was completed by Buetow 2
Architects. Randy Engel then gave a presentation of their findings of need. He presented four proposed
action plans. Three of the plans would retain the existing fire station building. One plan would replace the
existing building.
The first plan presented is the lowest in cost and includes only the minimums to be done. It would include
repairs and replacements to the existing 25,500 square foot facility. This action plan does not address the
essential long-term improvements to the facility such as space needs, handicapped accessibility, gender
equity, training facilities, safety improvements, or security enhancements. The estimated project cost for
this plan is $1,550,000.
The second action plan (5A) would include an addition to the existing building which would improve the
way the building operates and improve security. The expansion would include an apparatus bay addition,
firefighter addition, training addition, and an ambulance suite, along with renovations to the existing space.
This plan adds approximately 10,600 square feet to the existing building. The estimated project cost for
this plan is $6,000,000.
The third action plan (6A) would include an addition to the existing building which would improve the way
the building operates and improve security. The expansion would include an apparatus bay addition,
firefighter addition, training addition, and an ambulance suite, along with renovations to the existing space.
This plan adds approximately 8,300 square feet onto the existing building. The estimated project cost for
this plan is $5,200,000.
Action plan #4 would include replacement of the existing building with a new 20,000 square foot structure.
The estimated project cost for this plan is $7,200,000. It was noted that this plan would provide for
operational savings and rebates from Xcel Energy, and the building would be the most efficient. There are
also many ‘unknowns’ when a remodel project is completed.
The needs of the department were identified by Chief Maczko. They were training, storage, HealthEast
ambulance inside storage, safety and storage for the turnout gear, air quality sensors, and mechanical-
heating system.
page 14
The Council discussed the location of the fire department, temporary space that would be needed during the
duration of the project, the current trends in fire departments, and the possibility of the department merging
with another adjacent department in the future.
Mayor Krebsbach stated that the financing of this project will be the biggest challenge. She stated that the
city hall should have a space needs analysis completed before any action is taken on this project.
Councilmember Povolny suggested that the city consider moving the police department to the fire
department site, and a building be completed for both departments to be located adjacent to each other.
Administrator McNeill summarized that the city will look into the cost of completing a space needs
analysis of the police department and the administration departments, and this item will be brought back to
a Council workshop meeting in one month.
CONTINUED BUDGET FY2016 DISCUSSION
Staff indicated that the 2016 budget discussion will continue on the workshop agenda set for Tuesday,
September 1, 2015 starting at 5:00 p.m.
ADJOURN
Mayor Krebsbach adjourned the meeting at 7:28 p.m.
____________________________________
ATTEST: Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
_______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 15
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2
3
PLANNING COMMISSON MINUTES 4
August 25, 2015 5
6
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 7
25, 2015 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. 8
9
The following Commissioners were present: Chair Litton Field, Jr., Commissioners Howard 10
Roston, Michael Noonan, Doug Hennes, Mary Magnuson, Christine Costello and Ansis Viksnins. 11
Those absent: None. Others present were City Planner Nolan Wall and Public Works Director/City 12
Engineer John Mazzitello. 13
14
Approval of Agenda 15
16
The agenda was approved as submitted. 17
18
Approval of July 28, 2015 Minutes 19
20
Commissioner Viksnins asked for clarification that Commissioner Hennes moved to approve 21
Planning Case 2015-24 and then voted to deny. Commissioner Hennes confirmed that once he had 22
made the motion he then changed his mind and voted to deny, so the minutes are correct. 23
24
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES TO 25
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2015, AS PRESENTED. 26
27
AYES: 7 28
NAYS: 0 29
30
Hearings 31
32
Chair Field noted that staff advertised a public hearing for Planning Case 2015-33, a Wetlands 33
Permit at 2195 Glen Toro Road; however, that application has been withdrawn. It is anticipated 34
that the applicant will be resubmitting for consideration at the September 22, 2015 Planning 35
Commission Meeting and another notice will be published and mailed to surrounding properties. 36
37
PLANNING CASE #2015-26 38
Robert Alvarez, 1176 Ivy Hill Drive 39
Variance Request for Deck 40
41
Chair Field noted that this application was held over from last month’s meeting and is back before 42
the Commission this evening. 43
44
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant is seeking to construct a deck that requires a 45
variance from the R-1 district’s rear yard setback standards. The Planning Commission tabled 46
action on this request at the July meeting with the public hearing remaining open. The applicant 47
page 16
intends to construct a deck wrapping around the west and northwest corner of the existing dwelling. 48
As proposed, a portion of the proposed deck within the rear yard requires a variance. 49
50
The original request was for a nine-foot rear yard setback variance. The applicant has since 51
amended the application and is now proposing to construct a 3.5-foot-wide walkway/landing into 52
the rear yard to access the compliant portion of the proposed deck in the side yard, resulting in a 53
reduction of the previously-proposed encroachment by over five feet. 54
55
Planner Wall then reviewed the three standards to be considered and applied in this variance 56
request and how this request meets those standards. Staff recommended approval of this amended 57
variance request. 58
59
Mr. Robert Alvarez, 1176 Ivy Hill Drive was available to answer questions and make comments; 60
there were none. 61
62
Chair Field asked if there was anyone in attendance to comment on this request since the public 63
hearing was still open. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a 64
motion to close the public hearing. 65
66
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 67
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 68
69
AYES: 7 70
NAYS: 0 71
72
COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 73
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-26, VARIANCE REQUEST BASED 74
ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 75
1. Construction of the proposed walkway/landing within the required setback to access the 76
rear yard and compliant deck structure in the side yard through an existing patio door is a 77
reasonable use of the property and meets the purpose and intent of the Code and 78
Comprehensive Plan. 79
2. Due to the subject parcel’s frontage and existing conditions, a practical difficulty is 80
demonstrated in order to construct a walkway/landing within the required rear yard setback 81
to access a compliant deck structure from within the existing dwelling and provide safe 82
access to the rear yard. 83
3. As proposed, the request would not allow for useable deck space in the rear yard or 84
negatively impact the essential character of the neighborhood. 85
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 86
1. The proposed encroachment would extend no further than 3.5 feet from the northeast 87
corner of the existing dwelling to provide access to the compliant portion of the proposed 88
deck in the side yard. 89
2. The applicant obtains a building permit. 90
91
AYES: 7 92
NAYS: 0 93
94
page 17
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2015 95
meeting. 96
97
PLANNING CASE #2015-31 98
Joe Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road 99
Critical Area Permit 100
101
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was requesting a Critical Area Permit to 102
remodel an existing single-family dwelling within the Mississippi Corridor Critical Area. The 103
subject parcel is located 1920 Glenhill Road, zoned R-1, and guided as Low Density Residential 104
Development in the Comprehensive Plan. 105
106
Planner Wall shared an aerial image of the subject property and explained that the proposed project 107
potentially impacting the Critical Area consists of removal and reconstruction of the existing deck 108
and porch, including roof modifications. As proposed, the project does meet the applicable zoning 109
regulations and conditions for improvements to existing structures that were built prior to 2003 in 110
the Critical Area. The new porch and deck do not extend any closer than the existing condition 111
and the overall building height is not increased. Staff recommended approval of this Critical Area 112
Permit request with conditions. 113
114
Commissioners asked for clarification on what exists and what is proposed as new and how much 115
disturbance of the property there would be in connection with the project. 116
117
Mr. Joe Juliette, 1920 Glenhill Road was present to answer questions or make comment. 118
119
Commissioners asked the applicant about how much disturbance to the property there would be. 120
121
Chair Field opened the public hearing. 122
123
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 124
hearing. 125
126
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO 127
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 128
129
AYES: 7 130
NAYS: 0 131
132
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO 133
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-31, CRITICAL AREA PERMIT 134
BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 135
1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District 136
and with the city’s comprehensive plan. 137
2. The proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the area. 138
3. The proposed use is allowed under city ordinance. 139
4. The proposed addition does not increase the height of the existing structure. 140
141
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 142
page 18
1. All applicable permits are obtained from the City prior to construction of the proposed 143
project. 144
2. Construction of the proposed improvements shall be in compliance with the City’s Land 145
Disturbance Guidance Document. 146
3. Separate permits will be applied for and obtained when the existing exterior stairs are to be 147
replaced and for any additional future projects. 148
149
AYES: 7 150
NAYS: 0 151
152
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2015 153
meeting. 154
155
PLANNING CASE #2015-32 156
HD Supply Construction & Industrial – White Cap, 1400 Commerce Drive 157
Conditional Use Permit and Variances 158
159
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the applicant was seeking a Conditional Use Permit to 160
expand an existing outdoor storage area and variances to allow outdoor storage within 1,500 feet 161
of a residential zone and to allow screened open-air storage of materials. 162
163
Planner Wall shared images of the property and described its surroundings. The subject parcel is 164
approximately three acres and zoned and guided for industrial development. The existing 165
office/warehouse building is currently vacant and has a legally nonconforming outdoor storage 166
yard. 167
168
The proposed use is a permitted nonmanufacturing use in the Industrial District as landscaping and 169
building design and construction. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing outdoor storage 170
area to approximately 19,000 square feet. Outdoor storage for the permitted use is allowed by a 171
Conditional Use Permit, subject to thirteen conditions. The proposed project meets all but two of 172
those required conditions, those being: 173
174
• No outdoor storage can be located within 1,500 feet of a residentially-zoned property 175
• All storage and display must be under three-sided covered structures 176
177
Regarding the first variance request, Planner Wall shared a zoning map showing the residentially-178
zoned property in question, which is a portion of Acacia Park Cemetery. Staff feels that due to the 179
nature of the use and the fact that the subject parcel is not visible from the cemetery, the intent of 180
the Code’s setback provision is met. He also noted that there are three existing nonconforming 181
residential structures that are located within 1,500 feet, but they are not zoned residential; 182
therefore, they do not apply in this case. 183
184
Regarding the second variance request, Planner Wall shared images of other sites operated by the 185
applicant and described the materials proposed to be stored on-site. Due to the nature of the 186
materials to be stored outside and because they will be obscured from view by the recommended 187
fencing, staff felt that requiring three-sided covered structures was unnecessary in this case. 188
page 19
Planner Wall further explained how the proposed use meets the standards for approval of the 189
variance requests. 190
191
Planner Wall shared images of the proposed six-foot-high slatted chain-link fence. He noted that 192
while specifications were not provided as part of the application, it would most likely not meet the 193
Code’s 90% opacity standard. Therefore, staff is recommending a wood fence that meets the 194
opacity standard be erected around the entire proposed outdoor storage yard, which would be 195
consistent with other properties in the immediate area. 196
197
Staff recommended approval of the requests with conditions. 198
199
Commissioners asked questions regarding proposed condition #2 (All materials will be packaged 200
or self-contained. No loose or bulk materials), if another finding should be added that the 201
residentially-zoned property is a cemetery and not residential homes, if a minimum height 202
requirement of six feet should be added to condition #3, and if this application would create a 203
disconnect between what the Industrial District study is considering. 204
205
Ms. Jessica Beyer from HD Supply Construction & Industrial – White Cap, 5205 Highway 169 206
North, Plymouth, MN was on hand to answer questions or comment. She commented that they 207
would be agreeable to erecting a wood fence and noted that many of items shown in the images of 208
other storage yards they operate would be stored inside at this location due to the size of the 209
warehouse. She further commented that they would continue to operate at their existing location 210
and that this would be a secondary location with room to grow. In response to a question on the 211
need for the proposed expanded outdoor storage yard, she indicated that they also intend to store 212
vehicles within the locked fenced-in area. 213
214
Chair Field opened the public hearing. 215
216
Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Field asked for a motion to close the public 217
hearing. 218
219
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 220
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 221
222
AYES: 7 223
NAYS: 0 224
225
COMMISSIONER ROSTON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS, TO 226
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-26, VARIANCE REQUEST BASED 227
ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: 228
1. The proposed variance meets the purpose and intent of the conditional use permit standard 229
for 1,500’ buffer from residential uses and that the residential use within that 1,500’ buffer 230
is a cemetery. 231
2. The proposed variance meets the purpose and intent of the conditional use permit standard 232
for three-side enclosed covered storage. 233
3. Granting of the variances sought is in accordance with the standards laid out in the City 234
Code. 235
page 20
4. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the remaining conditional use permit 236
requirements for outdoor storage in the Industrial District of the City Code. 237
5. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing nonconformity. 238
AND WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 239
1. Materials stored on site will not exceed a height of 6’. 240
2. All materials will be packaged or self-contained. No loose or bulk materials. 241
3. A 6’ high wood fence that provides a minimum of 90% opacity during all seasons will be 242
provided on the front and side yards. 243
244
AYES: 7 245
NAYS: 0 246
247
Chair Field advised the City Council would consider this application at its September 1, 2015 248
meeting. 249
250
PLANNING CASE #2015-34 251
City of Mendota Heights 252
Proposed City Code Amendment Concerning Alternative Energy Systems 253
254
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City was considering amendments to Title 12, Chapter 255
1, Articles B, D, and E of the City Code concerning alternative energy systems. Currently, there 256
are no standards in place for alternative energy systems; however, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan 257
includes a section on protection of solar access and a policy to consider modifying the Code. 258
259
Draft Ordinance 485 creates a new section in the Code and provides standards, right now, only for 260
solar energy systems. Additional sections can be added as necessary in the future to address 261
ground-source heat pumps (geothermal) and wind energy systems, if and when the need arises. 262
The proposed draft ordinance ensures that consistent standards are in place to encourage 263
sustainable practices that do not adversely impact the community. 264
265
Planner Wall then reviewed the proposed amendments and regulations contained in draft 266
Ordinance 485. 267
268
Commissioners asked questions regarding setback requirements, demolition permits, conditional 269
use permit standard #2 (That the solar energy system has a net energy gain), the existence of any 270
legislation about solar energy systems, and conditional use versus permitted as an accessory use. 271
After further discussion regarding the conditional versus permitted use issue, the Commission 272
agreed that this would be a policy issue for the City Council to determine. 273
274
Let the record reflect that there was no one present to address a public hearing so no motion to 275
close was necessary. 276
277
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO 278
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-34, PROPOSED CITY CODE 279
AMENDMENT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS 280
281
AYES: 7 282
NAYS: 0 283
page 21
PLANNING CASE #2015-14 284
City of Mendota Heights 285
Proposed City Code Amendment Concerning Trade Schools 286
287
City Planner Nolan Wall explained that the City is considering amendments to Title 12, Chapter 288
1, Article B, Section 2 of the City Code concerning the definition of a trade school. Staff originally 289
brought this request forward at the May Planning Commission meeting; action was tabled with the 290
public hearing remaining open. The intent is to clarify the City’s interpretation of the existing 291
definition. 292
293
Commissioners asked to be reminded why the revised definition includes “privately-owned” 294
versus “public”, why the definition says “including, but not limited to”, 295
296
After discussion it was the consensus of the Commission to amend the definition as follows 297
(remove or add): 298
299
TRADE SCHOOL: A privately-owned, post-secondary, skill-based educational institution which 300
offers completion programs that issue certificates, diplomas, and degrees;, and or certified 301
training to full and/or part time students including, but not limited to, such as those in technical, 302
mechanical, services and computing fields. 303
304
Let the record reflect that there was no one present to address a public hearing so no motion to 305
close was necessary. 306
307
COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COSTELLO, TO 308
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING CASE 2015-14, PROPOSED CITY CODE 309
AMENDMENT CONCERNING TRADE SCHOOLS AS AMENDED BY THE COMMISSION 310
311
AYES: 7 312
NAYS: 0 313
314
Schedule Redevelopment Plan Workshop 315
316
Planner Nolan Wall noted that earlier this year the City received a grant from the Dakota County 317
CDA to do a redevelopment plan for the Industrial District. The Council approved a project scope 318
and staff is working with the planning consultants (Stantec) on the initial scope and the work. One 319
of the pieces of the scope of the project is to have a joint workshop between the Planning 320
Commission and the City Council once feedback has been received from stakeholders to share 321
ideas and get feedback. 322
323
Planner Wall noted that the already scheduled Planning Commission meetings and City Council 324
meetings do not work for some members of the Council or the planning consultant. Other dates 325
under consideration are October 19th, 21st, 22nd, or 29th. It is anticipated that the meeting would 326
begin at 5:00 p.m. and last approximately two hours. He then asked if any of the proposed dates 327
would definitely not work for any members of the Commission, noting that any potential dates 328
would need to be brought to the City Council for their availability. 329
330
The consensus of the Planning Commission members were for October 19th, 21st, and 29th. 331
page 22
Verbal Review 332
333
Planner Wall gave the following verbal review: 334
335
PLANNING CASE #2015-27 336
Wetlands Permit at 2185 Glen Toro Road 337
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. 338
339
PLANNING CASE #2015-24 340
Critical Area Permit and Variance for a Retaining Wall at 1680 Mayfield Heights Road 341
• The Commission tabled this request last month, the applicant withdrew the application and 342
submitted a building permit for a revised plan that did not need a variance. 343
344
PLANNING CASE #2015-25 345
Variances for Accessory Structure at Mendakota Country Club 346
• Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. 347
348
PLANNING CASE #2015-28 349
City-initiated Code Amendment Concerning Video/Electronic Display Scoreboards 350
• Ultimately approved by the City Council with minor revisions concerning the setbacks 351
352
PLANNING CASE #2015-29 and PLANNING CASE #2015-30 353
City-initiated Code Amendment and Interim Use Permit for the city-operated Off-lease Dog Area 354
at the Pilot Knob South site 355
• Ultimately both were approved by the City Council 356
• At the most recent City Council meeting they approved a fencing plan for that area 357
• City Engineer John Mazzitello provided an update on the fencing, lighting, and other plans 358
359
Staff and Commission Announcements 360
361
• Next Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 22, 2015 362
363
Adjournment 364
365
COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ROSTON, TO 366
ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:24 P.M. 367
368
AYES: 7 369
NAYS: 0 370
page 23
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council, City Administrator
FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk
SUBJECT: November 3rd City Council Meeting Time Change
BACKGROUND
This year, the November 3rd City Council meeting falls on the same date as the regularly
scheduled school district general election. While there are no city races on the ballot, state law
prohibits public meetings between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. In years past, the city
council has chosen to start their meeting on this night an hour later.
If this is the desire of the council, the official start time of the November 3rd city council
meeting would be posted as 8:00 p.m.
RECOMMENDATION
If the council desires, a motion to approve changing the start time of the November 3rd city
council meeting to 8:00 p.m. would be in order. Approval of this action requires a majority vote
of the city council.
page 24
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mark McNeill, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
COMMENT:
INTRODUCTION
The Council is asked to approve the scheduling of a joint meeting with the Planning Commission
to discuss the Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan.
BACKGROUND
At the August 18th meeting, Council discussed when to schedule a joint meeting with the
Planning Commission, which would provide an opportunity to present ideas to the two bodies in
order to receive feedback, gauge support and develop a preferred plan for Stantec to refine.
After determining that the originally suggested date wouldn’t work, alternative dates have since
be discussed with the consultant and the Planning Commission. The new suggested time and
date is Thursday, October 29th. A joint workshop could begin at 5:00 PM.
An alternative to that would be Wednesday, October 21st.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend a joint workshop to discuss the preliminary Industrial Area Redevelopment Plan be
scheduled for 5:00 PM, on Thursday, October 29th. The meeting would be in the City Council
Chambers.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If the Council concurs, the Council should, by motion, schedule a joint meeting with the
Mendota Heights Planning Commission to be held at 5:00 PM on Thursday, October 29th.
____________________________
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
page 25
DATE: September 1, 2015 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Lorri Smith, City Clerk SUBJECT: Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for St. Thomas Academy
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to State Statutes and our City Code, no person shall sell or give away liquor without first
having received a license. Temporary On-Sale Liquor licenses shall be granted only to clubs and
charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations for the sale of intoxicating liquor. The licenses are
subject to final approval by the Director of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement.
DISCUSSION
St. Thomas Academy, located at 949 Mendota Heights Road, is planning to hold their annual
reunion weekend activities at St. Thomas Academy on September 23 – 25, 2015. The events will
take place as follows:
• Wednesday, September 23, Opus Sancti Thomae Major Benefactor Dinner in the Ciresi
Atrium and Holtz Gym.
• Thursday, September 24, Senior Stag Dinner in the Holtz Gym, and also the alumni
gathering in the Sjoberg Arena.
• Friday, September 25, Athletic Hall of Fame Inductees Dinner and a hospitality room for
alumni and guests during homecoming football game in the Holtz Gym.
They have requested a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License to allow for the sale of alcoholic
beverages at the events. St. Thomas Academy has submitted an application and a certificate of
insurance showing liquor liability on above dates.
It should be noted that temporary on-sale liquor licenses have been issued in the past to St.
Thomas Academy and other charitable, nonprofit and religious organizations within the city with
no incidents or negative reports.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends the City Council approve a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for St.
Thomas Academy for September 23, 24, and 25, 2015, subject to approval of the Director of
Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement.
page 26
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA – Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Ordinance 486 – Establishing Parking Restrictions – Acacia Boulevard
BACKGROUND
With the establishment of an Off-Leash Dog Area (OLDA) on Acacia Boulevard, it will become
necessary to regulate parking in order to maintain public pedestrian and traffic safety in the area.
The OLDA will utilize on-street parking for patrons of the OLDA to park. Acacia Boulevard is
44 feet wide and experiences large truck traffic from the Mendota Heights Industrial park
throughout the day. With the addition of on-street parking for the OLDA, this traffic may be
adversely impacted.
The attached Ordinance would formally codify parking restriction on Acacia Boulevard in the
vicinity of the OLDA. The Ordinance would prohibit parking on the north side of Acacia
Boulevard and for the westernmost 75 feet on the south side of Acacia Boulevard. These
restrictions will allow for continued two-way truck traffic as well as provide safety for the
patrons of the OLDA by preventing people and animals from having to cross Acacia Boulevard
to access the OLDA. This is consistent with parking restrictions imposed at other Mendota
Heights parks.
These parking restrictions will still allow up to 28 vehicles to park along Acacia Boulevard at
any given point in time.
BUDGET IMPACT
Other than the costs of Ordinance publication and sign manufacture, no significant costs are
anticipated.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council adopt the attached ORDINANCE No. 486 – AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3, OF THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT PARKING ON
PORTIONS OF ACACIA BOULEVARD.
page 27
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 486
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY CODE TO
PROHIBIT PARKING ON PORTIONS OF ACACIA BOULEVARD
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota ordains as follows:
SECTION 1
The following language is added to Section 6-3-3C – Parking Prohibited on
Certain Streets:
Acacia
Boulevard
North Between Pilot Knob Road and Highway 13
Acacia Boulevard South Between Pilot Knob Road and 75 feet east of Pilot
Knob Road
Adopted and ordained into an Ordinance this first day of September 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
___________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 28
Page 1 of 1
Pr
i
n
t
P
r
e
v
i
e
w
8 /25 /201 5
ht
t
p
:
/
/
g
i
s
.
c
o
.
d
a
k
o
t
a
.
m
n
.
u
s
/D
C
G
I
S
/
W
e
b
F
o
r
m
s
/
P
r
i
n
t
.
as
p
x
?
i
m
g
=
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
g
i
s
.
c
o
.
d
a
k
o
t
a
.
m
n
.
u
s
/
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
/
D
C
G
I
S
M
a
p
s
/
_
a
g
s
_
9
4
5
8
0
a
f
b
.
j ...page 29
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorization to Execute a Purchase Order for 2015 Street Striping
BACKGROUND
Funding for street paint striping is included in the Public Works Street Cleaning and Striping Budget.
Following completion of the street sweeping operations, any remaining budget is allocated to paint
striping or markings on city streets. The remaining budget after the spring street sweeping for 2015
is approximately $20,900.00. Staff estimates that a fall sweeping will cost approximately $5,000.
City Council approved the use of epoxy enamel marking paint, which lasts two to four times longer
than the paints previously used. This product is extensively used by Dakota County and MnDOT.
Mendota Heights is able to secure bids for this service through the JPA with the City of Burnsville.
Sir Lines-A-Lot was granted the service through the JPA and submitted a quote of $13,818.40.
Marie Avenue from Lexington Avenue to Dodd Road is proposed to be striped. The new striping
will eliminate the dashed centerline which will be replaced with a double solid yellow stripe and
include white fog lines to separate parking areas from drive lanes. New crosswalks and turn arrows
will also be added.
BUDGET IMPACT
The project costs will be funded through the Public Works Street Cleaning and Striping Budget
which has sufficient funds to cover the project costs. The total cost for the 2015 Street Striping is
$13,818.40.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the council accept the quote and authorize staff to execute a Purchase Order.
If city council wishes to implement the staff recommendations, pass a motion authorizing staff to
execute a Purchase Order to Sir Lines-A-Lot for street striping and markings with a not to exceed
amount of $13,818.40. This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 30
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Critical Area Permit at 1920 Glenhill Road
BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking to remodel an existing single family dwelling, within the Mississippi River
Corridor Critical Area, by removing an existing porch and deck and replacing it with a new porch and deck,
and modifying the roof. The project requires a Critical Area Permit before a building permit can be issued.
The proposed project will not increase the site’s impervious surface coverage or overall building height and
will reduce the existing encroachment towards the river valley. Therefore, the improvements are consistent
with the Code requirements for such projects in the Critical Area.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the August 25 meeting; there were no public
comments.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the critical area permit request, with conditions, as
described in Planning Case 2015-31. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a
motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-68 APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AT 2190
GLENHILL ROAD.
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 31
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015-68
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CRITICAL AREA PERMIT AT
2190 GLENHILL ROAD
WHEREAS, Joe Juliette has applied for a critical area permit to remodel an existing
single-family residential dwelling as proposed in Planning Case 2015-31 and described in
Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter at their regular meeting on August 25, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that
the critical area permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-31 is hereby approved based
on the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District
and with the city’s comprehensive plan.
2. The proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the area.
3. The proposed use is allowed under city ordinance.
4. The proposed addition does not increase the height of the existing structure.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the critical
area permit request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-31 is hereby approved with the following
conditions:
1. All applicable permits are obtained from the City prior to construction of the proposed
project.
2. Construction of the proposed improvements shall be in compliance with the City’s Land
Disturbance Guidance Document.
3. Separate permits will be applied for and obtained when the existing exterior stairs are to
be replaced and for any additional future projects.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of September, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 32
Item No. 2015-31
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 25, 2015
To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner
RE: Planning Case 2015-31:
Joe Juliette
1920 Glenhill Road
Critical Area Permit to demolish existing porch and construct new porch on an
existing single family home in the Critical Area
Action
Deadline: September 29, 2015 (60 days from complete application submittal)
INTRODUCTION
The applicant wishes to remodel an existing single family home at 1920 Glenhill Road, within the
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, removing an existing porch and deck and replacing it with a
new porch and deck, and modifying the roof.
The project requires a Critical Area Permit to demolish a portion of the existing structure and
construct a new porch addition within the Critical Area.
BACKGROUND
• The property is guided LR Low Density Residential in the City’s Land Use Plan.
• The property is zoned R-1 One Family Residential.
• There is no change in the impervious coverage on the site.
• There is no change in the overall height of the structure.
ANALYSIS
The pertinent provisions of the Critical Area Overlay District that apply to this application are:
12-3-7. Existing Structures and Uses:
D. Existing Residential Uses: Residential buildings on parcels developed and built upon prior
to June 1, 2003, that otherwise conform to the standards and regulations of the zoning
ordinance, and which comply with the standards and regulations of this chapter with the
exception of the slope requirements, may be expanded with the addition of attached or
detached structures, provided that:
page 33
1. The expansion or accessory structure shall encroach no closer toward the river than the
existing structure.
2. The expansion or accessory structure shall comply with all other performance
standards and regulations of this chapter and the zoning ordinance.
3. The proposed expansion shall be processed in accordance with the procedures for site
plan review as listed in section 12-3-17 of this chapter.
The proposed addition meets these objectives, since the existing porch and deck jut out
significantly from the house and the new porch and deck are recessed back closer to the house,
in keeping with the spirit of the regulations. See attached floor plans graphics, which overlay
existing and proposed building lines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the
application for Critical Area Permit for the Joe Juliette application with the following conditions:
1. All applicable permits are obtained from the City prior to construction of the proposed
project.
2. Construction of the proposed improvements shall be in compliance with the City’s Land
Disturbance Guidance Document.
3. Separate permits will be applied for and obtained when the existing exterior stairs are to be
replaced and for any additional future projects.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
1. Recommend approval of the Critical Area Permit, based on the attached findings of fact,
with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the Critical Area Permit, based on findings that the application
does not meet the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District.
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others.
page 34
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
The following exhibits are attached for your review:
1. Aerial Location Map
2. Floor Plans showing existing and proposed building lines
3. Aerial oblique photos of the existing house
4. Street View photos of the existing house
5. Planning Applications, including supporting materials
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Critical Area Permit
1920 Glenhill Road
1. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the Critical Area Overlay District
and with the city’s comprehensive plan.
2. The proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the area.
3. The proposed use is allowed under city ordinance.
4. The proposed addition does not increase the height of the existing structure.
page 35
page 36
page 37
page 38
Aerial Oblique – view from west
Aerial Oblique – view from south
page 39
Street View – from west
Street View – from southwest
page 40
151
139
90
73
10
9
38
37
32
9 12 92
28
1920
1914
1205
CULLIGAN LN
GL
E
N
H
I
L
L
R
D
91
6
91
8
920
91
4
9
1
2
9
2
2
9
1
0
924
Planning Case 2015-311920 Glenhill Road City of
Mendota
Heights025
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
8/6/2015
page 41
page 42
page 43
page 44
page 45
CONSTRUCTION SET:
07 - 27 - 2015
Sheet:
Architecture
& Design, P.A.
19
2
0
G
l
e
n
h
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
Cu
s
t
o
m
H
o
m
e
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
Pa
t
r
i
c
a
&
J
o
s
e
p
h
J
u
l
i
e
t
t
e
REVISED
page 46
Page 1 of 1Print Preview
8/3/2015http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co...
page 47
Page 1 of 1Print Preview
8/3/2015http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co...
page 48
page 49
page 50
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Dave Dreelan, Assistant Fire Chief
SUBJECT: July 2015 Fire Synopsis
Fire Calls
The department responded to 24 calls for the month. The majority of calls were classified as
false alarms, or as good intent calls, and 14 were residential in nature. Of the other calls, two
were commercial, five were EMS calls, two were utility checks, and there was one vehicle
accident with injuries where extrication was required.
Monthly Department Training
The monthly department training was a ladder drill. The training focused on the proper use of
the ground. Each of the department’s apparatus carries at least three different types of ladders
ranging in length from 8’ to 35’. The drill was conducted at the public works facility. When
crews reached the roof they dropped rope bags to the firefighter below and the ropes were then
used to pull saws and other equipment to the roof.
Monthly Squad Training
The squad training for the month was boat operations. In the eyes of the NFPA the operation of
our boat is considered a technical skill that requires annual training. Crews launched the boat at
Rogers Lake Park and trained on boat operation and performing water rescues.
page 51
MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT
JULY 2015 MONTHLY REPORT
FIRE CALLS NO. 15120 -15143 NUMBER OF CALLS:24
FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED:NUMBER STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC.TOTALS TO DATE
ACTUAL FIRES
Structure - MH Commercial $2,510
Structure - MH Residential $100,000
Structure - Contract Areas $0
Vehicle - MH $9,900
Vehicle - Contract Areas $0
Grass/Brush/No Value MH
Grass/Brush/No Value Contract TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES
MEDICAL
Assist 5 $0 $0 $0
Extrication 1
HAZARDOUS SITUATION FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Spills/Leaks
Arcing/Shorting ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH)$0 $112,410
Chemical
Power Line Down 1 MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS $100,010
FALSE ALARM
Residential Malfunction 4 MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS $11,400
Commercial Malfunction 1
Unintentional - Commercial MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $111,410
Unintentional - Residential 4
Criminal BILLING FOR SERVICES
GOOD INTENT
Smoke Scare 1 AGENCY THIS MONTH TO DATE
Steam Mistaken for Smoke
Other 7 MN/DOT $0
MUTUAL AID MILW. RR $0
CNR RR $0
TOTAL CALLS 24 OTHERS:
$0
LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS:TO DATE LAST YEAR
TOTALS:$0 $0
MENDOTA HEIGHTS 20 120 144
MENDOTA 1 2 4 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH
SUNFISH LAKE 1 7 9
LILYDALE 2 7 12 INSPECTIONS 43
OTHER 7 5
INVESTIGATIONS
TOTAL 24 143 174
RE-INSPECTION
WORK PERFORMED HOURS TO DATE LAST YEAR
MEETINGS
FIRE CALLS 327 2337.5 3133
MEETINGS 16.5 192.5 230.5 ADMINISTRATION 18
DRILLS 147 1069.5 1060.5
WEEKLY CLEAN-UP 32 246 253 SPECIAL PROJECTS 4
SPECIAL ACTIVITY 99.5 1523.5 2429.75
ADMINISTATIVE 0 0 0 TOTAL 65
FIRE MARSHAL 65 359 386
TOTALS 687 5728 7492.75 REMARKS:SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS
page 52
page 53
page 54
page 55
page 56
page 57
page 58
page 59
page 60
page 61
page 62
page 63
2015 Licensing List for City Council
Type Contractor Name
HVAC
Supreme Heating & Air
Swift Mechanical, Inc
Thursday, August 27, 2015 Page 1 of 1
page 64
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sloan Wallgren, Recreation Program Coordinator
SUBJECT: July Par 3 Update
Update
The golf course remained busy during the month of July with golfers and footgolfers. We are
continuing to see large groups of footgolfers visit our course every day, and have booked and
hosted many group outings. We have limited the footgolfers to Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday from noon to 3:00pm and Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday after noon. This
allows us to accommodate our golf leagues and busy Saturday and Sunday mornings.
Our Women’s League, Junior League and Golf camps will finish up for the season right before
Labor Day.
Maintenance Update
The weather has been very good for the golf course. The course conditions remain very good
and we are still continuing to receive many complements from golfers and footgolfers. During
the month of July we stained and painted the maintenance building to bring back the beautiful
color of the building. We are planning on aerating the greens on September 28, 2015.
Budget
Total sales for the month of July were $32,018 and total expenses were $26,874. Total sales for
the year through July are $110,616 and expenses are $82,479 resulting in a net profit of $28,137
year to date. We saw a large increase in Clubhouse Wages for July 2015 due to the fact that we
ran more Golf Camps, and during July 2015 there were three pay periods. The Clubhouse
Wages will be lower in the month of August for 2015 compared to August 2014, which included
three pay periods.
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3
BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT
page 65
July 2015 (58.33% OF YEAR)
REVENUES
JULY YTD YTD
BUDGET 2015 2015 %
GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $105,000 $22,886 $65,519 62.40%
RECREATION PROGRAMS $35,000 $3,412 $32,524 92.92%
CONCESSIONS $21,000 $5,694 $12,464 59.35%
SUNDRY REVENUE $100 $26 $109 109.25%
INTEREST $250 $0 $0 0.00%
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS $0 $0 $0 0.00%
PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $161,350 $32,018 $110,616 68.56%
EXPENDITURES
JULY YTD YTD
BUDGET 2015 2015 %
CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $30,000 $11,022 $16,712 55.71%
ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $25,043 $2,927 $15,142 60.47%
FICA/PERA $9,854 $1,958 $5,138 52.15%
MEDICAL INSURANCE $7,144 $490 $3,431 48.03%
U/E & W/C INSURANCE $1,250 -$17 $1,536 122.87%
RENTALS $2,500 $600 $2,400 96.00%
UTILITIES $10,400 $1,144 $5,411 52.03%
PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $2,500 $0 $1,146 45.84%
PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $300 $0 $332 110.67%
PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $6,000 $1,000 $4,000 66.67%
PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $18,000 $3,013 $8,861 49.23%
PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $0 0.00%
ADVERTISING/NEWSLETTER $400 $0 $159 39.74%
LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $3,300 $282 $3,383 102.50%
OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $5,500 $1,446 $3,108 56.51%
FUEL $2,500 $260 $1,000 40.01%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $16,500 $1,277 $7,298 44.23%
SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $2,800 $949 $1,568 56.01%
CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $0 0.00%
ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $2,700 $524 $1,854 68.66%
PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $146,691 $26,874 $82,479 56.23%
MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3
BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT
July 2014 AND 2015
page 66
REVENUES July July YTD YTD
2014 2015 2014 2015
GREENS, LEAGUE, TOURNAMENT
FEES $18,702 $22,886 $51,051 $65,519
RECREATION PROGRAMS $5,459 $3,412 $33,236 $32,524
CONCESSIONS $4,523 $5,694 $10,135 $12,464
SUNDRY REVENUE $112 $26 $113 $109
INTEREST $0 $0 $0 $0
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS $0 $0 $0 $0
PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $28,796 $32,018 $94,535 $110,616
EXPENDITURES
CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $4,925 $11,022 $9,884 $16,712
ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $1,861 $2,927 $13,721 $15,142
FICA/PERA $1,034 $1,958 $3,368 $5,138
MEDICAL INSURANCE $490 $490 $3,428 $3,431
U/E & W/C INSURANCE ($25) ($17) $1,223 $1,536
RENTALS $603 $600 $1,186 $2,400
UTILITIES $997 $1,144 $4,220 $5,411
PROFESSIONAL FEES-AUDIT $1,301 $0 $2,425 $1,146
PROF FEES-CONSULTING FEES $0 $0 $1,520 $332
PROF FEES-GROUNDS MGMT $1,000 $1,000 $4,000 $4,000
PROF FEES-GROUNDS WAGES $2,008 $3,013 $6,114 $8,861
PROF-FEES-TREE MAINTENANCE $0 $0 $0 $0
ADVERTISING/NEWSLETTER $0 $0 $205 $158
LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $0 $282 $2,961 $3,383
OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $1,124 $1,446 $1,893 $3,108
FUEL $244 $260 $1,046 $1,000
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $1,564 $1,277 $4,169 $7,298
SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $112 $949 $2,197 $1,568
CAPITAL OUTLAY $0 $0 $0 $0
ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $418 $524 $1,480 $1,854
CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $1,760 $0
PAR 3 EXPENDITUES TOTAL $17,656 $26,874 $66,800 $82,479
page 67
page 68
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: John R. Mazzitello, PE, PMP, MBA - Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Public Hearing – Vacation of Part of a Drainage and Utility Easement
BACKGROUND
A Mendota Heights business owner that owns property at 1450 Northland Drive has
requested the vacation of a portion of a Drainage and Utility Easement located along the southern
boundary of the property, recorded as Document Number 371255, and part of the Inland Industrial
Park plat of 1974. The property owner is requesting that 240 feet of the easement be vacated.
The request is being made in order for the property owner to re-purpose the building for their
own use. The new use will require larger trucks that the current loading dock configuration can
accommodate. In order to accommodate the larger trucks, the paved lot needs to be expanded, and
that expansion will encroach on the easement being requested for vacation. A diagram of the
conceptual expansion and the easement is attached for your reference.
Staff has researched the Drainage and Utility Easement referenced and located on the subject
property. This portion of the easement is not being utilized by the City or any other utility we have
located or identified in our Geographic Information System (GIS) database.
In order for the City to vacate a Right-of-Way or Easement, a public hearing must be
conducted. After the public hearing, Council may consider vacating the easement described as the
north-westernmost 240 feet of the 30-foot wide Drainage and Utility Easement identified by
Document Number 371255, located at Lot 2, Block 1, part of the Inland Industrial Park plat in
Mendota Heights.
All impacted property owners, and all property owners party to the associated subdivision
plat have been notified about the public hearing by published and mailed notice.
BUDGET IMPACT
Other than the staff time to process the vacation, there is no impact to the city budget.
The application fee, per the City Fee Schedule, has been paid.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 2015-66,
RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT AT 1450 NORTHLAND
DRIVE UPON REQUEST BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. This action would require a 4/5
majority vote.
page 69
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-66
RESOLUTION VACATNG A (PORTION OF) AN EASEMENT AT 1450 NORTHLAND
DRIVE UPON REQUEST BY THE PROPERTY OWNER
WHEREAS, a request by the property owner of 1450 Northland Drive in Mendota
Heights was received by the City clerk on the 20th day of July 2015; and
WHEREAS, the request is that the City Council pursuant to Minnesota Statute §412.851
vacate a drainage and utility easement (a portion thereof) located at the southwest corner of the
property legally described as:
The north-westernmost 240 feet of the 30-foot wide Drainage and Utility Easement identified
by Document Number 371255, located at Lot 2, Block 1, part of the Inland Industrial Park
plat in Mendota Heights.
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has reviewed and examined the request and determined that
the requestor is the valid property owner; and
WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the easement for current and future potential uses
by the City and determined that there are no current uses and no apparent future uses of the
easement by the City; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider the vacation of such easement was held on the
1st day of September, 2015, before the City Council in the City Hall located at 1101 Victoria
Curve at 7:00 pm after due published and posted notice had been given, as well as personal
mailed notice to all affected property owners by the City Clerk on the 10th day of August, 2014
and all interested and affected persons were given proper notice and an opportunity to voice their
concerns and be heard; and
WHEREAS, any person, corporation or public body owning or controlling easements
contained upon the property vacated, reserves the right to continue maintaining the same or to
enter upon such way or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace or otherwise attend
thereto; and
WHEREAS, the City Council in its discretion has determined that the vacation will
benefit the public interest because it is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, COUNTY OF DAKOTA, MINNESOTA, that such petition for
vacation is hereby granted and the (portion of) easement described as follows is hereby vacated:
page 70
The north-westernmost 240 feet of the 30-foot wide Drainage and Utility Easement identified
by Document Number 371255, located at Lot 2, Block 1, part of the Inland Industrial Park
plat in Mendota Heights
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to
sign all documents necessary to effectuate the intent of this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this1st day of September, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENODTA HEIGHTS
BY________________________________
ATTEST Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
BY_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 71
page 72
page 73
page 74
Page 1 of 1Print Preview
7/28/2015http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/C...
page 75
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Variance Request at 1176 Ivy Hill Drive
BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking to construct a deck onto an existing single-family dwelling and requires a variance
from the rear yard setback requirements for a portion of the structure. The original request in this case was
for a nine-foot variance, which was tabled by the Planning Commission at the July 28 meeting.
Subsequently, the applicant amended the request for a 3.5-foot variance to construct a walkway/landing to
access the rear yard and compliant portion of the proposed deck in the side yard from inside the existing
dwelling.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the July 28 and August 25 meetings; there were
no public comments.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance request, with conditions, as described in
Planning Case 2015-26. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion
adopting RESOLUTION 2015-67 APPROVING A VARIANCE AT 1176 IVY HILL DRIVE.
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 76
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015-67
RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE AT 1176 IVY HILL DRIVE
WHEREAS, Robert Alvarez has applied for a variance to construct a deck as
proposed in Planning Case 2015-26 and described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter at their regular meetings on July 28 and August 25, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City C ouncil
that the variance request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-26 is hereby approved based on
the following findings of fact:
1. Construction of the proposed walkway/landing within the required setback to access
the rear yard and compliant deck structure in the side yard through an existing patio
door is a reasonable use of the property and meets the purpose and intent of the Code
and Comprehensive Plan.
2. Due to the subject parcel’s frontage and existing conditions, a practical difficulty is
demonstrated in order to construct a walkway/landing within the required rear yard
setback to access a compliant deck structure from within the existing dwelling and
provide safe access to the rear yard.
3. As proposed, the request would not allow for useable deck space in the rear yard or
negatively impact the essential character of the neighborhood.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
variance request as proposed in Planning Case 2015-26 is hereby approved with the
following conditions:
1. The proposed encroachment would extend no further than 3.5 feet from the northeast
corner of the existing dwelling to provide access to the compliant portion of the
proposed deck in the side yard.
2. The applicant obtains a building permit.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of September,
2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 77
DATE: August 25, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-26
Variance Request for Deck
APPLICANT: Robert Alvarez
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1176 Ivy Hill Drive
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: November 4, 2015 (extended to 120 days)
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is seeking to construct a deck onto an existing single-family dwelling and requires a variance
from the rear yard setback requirements for a portion of the structure in the R-1 Zoning District.
BACKGROUND
The original request in this case was for a nine-foot variance, which was tabled by the Planning Commission
at the July 28 meeting with the public hearing remaining open. Based on the previous staff report and
Commission discussion, the applicant has since amended the initial variance request to include a reduced
rear yard setback encroachment. The original staff report is attached for additional background and
analysis.
ANALYSIS
As proposed in the amended variance request (see attached Site Plan), the applicant is proposing to construct
a 3.5-foot-wide walkway/landing to access the rear yard and the compliant portion of the proposed deck in
the side yard; therefore reducing the previously-proposed rear yard setback encroachment by over five feet.
When considering the variance request for the proposed walkway/landing, the City is required to find that:
1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive
plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The applicant’s desire to construct a deck onto the existing single-family residential dwelling is a
reasonable use of the property and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The existing dwelling has
an above-grade patio door intended to provide access to the rear yard, which, due to the existing
condition, is a safety issue that should be addressed. The portion of the proposed walkway/landing
within the required setback is intended only to access the compliant portion of the deck in the side yard
and rear yard via steps. As a result of the reduced encroachment and limited use of the walkway/landing
within the required setback, the intent of the Code’s rear yard setback standard is met.
page 78
2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to
circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on
economic considerations.
The subject parcel is a long narrow lot and the frontage on Ivy Hill Road resulted in construction of the
existing dwelling at the maximum front and rear yard setbacks. Therefore, a practical difficulty is
demonstrated in order to construct a walkway/landing within the required rear yard setback to access a
compliant deck structure from within the dwelling and address an existing safety issue. As proposed,
the amended variance request allows for the least impactful option to address the unique circumstances
in this case while meeting the applicant’s needs.
As discussed in the previous staff report, the installation of an above-grade patio door without
appropriate access to the rear yard is a circumstance created by the applicant, and the resulting safety
issue could potentially be addressed by only proposing a rear yard setback variance to construct a
compliant landing and steps. However, it would not provide access from the dwelling to the compliant
portion of the proposed deck extending into the side yard.
3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
The proposed walkway/landing encroaching into the required rear yard setback abuts the side yard of
the adjacent property to the north at 1167 Dodd Road. As proposed, the 3.5-foot-wide walkway/landing
is intended only to provide access to the rear yard and side yard deck and will not negatively impact
the neighboring property due to the proposed reduced encroachment and limited use capabilities.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the amended variance request to allow construction of a 3.5-foot-wide
walkway/landing from the patio door to access the rear yard and compliant portion of the proposed
deck extending into the side yard, based on the attached findings of fact, with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the original variance request for construction of the proposed deck and the
amended variance request for construction of the proposed walkway/landing within the required
rear yard setback, based on the attached findings of fact.
OR
3. Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the amended variance request, staff recommends approval of the 3.5-foot rear yard setback
variance as proposed by the applicant in this case, based on the attached findings of fact, with the following
conditions (Alternative #1):
1. The proposed encroachment would extend no further than 3.5 feet from the northeast corner of the
existing dwelling to provide access to the compliant portion of the proposed deck in the side yard.
2. The applicant obtains a building permit.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Revised Site Plan – dated August 17
2. Staff report and application materials provided in the July 28 Planning Commission packet
page 79
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
3.5-foot Rear Yard Setback Variance Request
1176 Ivy Hill Drive
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the amended variance request:
1. Construction of the proposed walkway/landing within the required setback to access the rear yard
and compliant deck structure in the side yard through an existing patio door is a reasonable use of
the property and meets the purpose and intent of the Code and Comprehensive Plan.
2. Due to the subject parcel’s frontage and existing conditions, a practical difficulty is demonstrated
in order to construct a walkway/landing within the required rear yard setback to access a compliant
deck structure from within the existing dwelling and provide safe access to the rear yard.
3. As proposed, the request would not allow for useable deck space in the rear yard or negatively
impact the essential character of the neighborhood.
page 80
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL
Rear Yard Setback Variance Requests
1176 Ivy Hill Drive
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed variance requests:
1. Reasonable use of the property can be made without the need for a variance.
2. Alternatives exist to reduce the proposed encroachment into the rear yard and provide safe access
to the existing patio door.
3. The proposed encroachment does not meet the intent of the Code by decreasing the buffer area
between the adjoining properties and would negatively impact the essential character of the
neighborhood.
page 81
2
6
8
2
6
6
4
5
5
1
3
5
9
4
65
11
2
6
70
4
2
3
4
0
7
26
8
100
129
2
6
6
2
6
6
70
1167
1176
1161
604 1155608
1170
IV
Y
H
I
L
L
D
R
DOD
D
R
D
Planning Case 2015-261176 Ivy Hill Drive City of
Mendota
Heights030
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
7/20/2015
page 82
Source: Staff (07.10.15)
page 83
page 84
page 85
DATE: July 28, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 2015-26
Variance Request for Deck
APPLICANT: Robert Alvarez
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1176 Ivy Hill Drive
ZONING/GUIDED: R-1 One Family Residential/LR Low Density Residential
ACTION DEADLINE: September 5, 2015
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is seeking to construct a deck onto an existing single-family dwelling and requires a variance
from the rear yard setback requirements for such a structure in the R-1 Zoning District.
BACKGROUND
The subject parcel is approximately 21,000 square feet and contains a single-family dwelling. The property
is zoned R-1 One Family Residential and guided for low density residential development. While not
updated on the attached aerial map, a portion of right-of-way along Ivy Hill Drive was vacated, which
increased the lot size prior to construction of the existing dwelling. The applicant intends to construct a
deck wrapping around the west and northwest corners of the existing dwelling into the side and rear yards.
As proposed, the portion of the deck within the rear yard requires a variance from the applicable setback
requirements in the R-1 District.
The existing dwelling was constructed in 2006. Between 2004 and 2005, the configuration of potential
building pads on the subject parcel was discussed at length by the Planning Commission and City Council
in a series of planning applications containing various requests. According to available minutes and
application files, and without including a detailed summary of the discussion and background on the
requests, the actions included:
1. Case 2004-13: Subdivision and variances for street frontage and front yard setback
• Proposed lot reconfiguration for construction of a new dwelling on the subject parcel and
variance from the 100-foot lot width requirements along Dodd Road
• Denied by the Planning Commission and City Council (Resolution 2004-47)
2. Case 2004-44: Variance for rear yard setback for proposed dwelling
• Proposed variance to allow 10-foot rear yard setback
• Lot width variance was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission
• Both requests denied by the City Council (Resolution 2004-108)
page 86
3. Case 2005-11: Variance for rear yard setback for proposed dwelling
• Proposed variance to allow 10-foot rear yard setback
• Not reviewed by the Planning Commission
• Denied by the City Council (Resolution 2005-18)
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The subject parcel is guided LR Low Density Residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant’s
request to construct a deck on the property is consistent with the continued use as a single-family dwelling.
Variance
The R-1 District’s required rear yard setback is 30 feet or 20% of the average lot depth, whichever is greater.
In this case, due to the orientation of the existing dwelling fronting Ivy Hill Drive, the required rear yard
setback is 30 feet.
As a result of the aforementioned denials for a rear yard setback variance, the existing dwelling was issued
a building permit for construction in its current location. Based on the existing conditions, but without an
as-built survey, it can be assumed it was approved to be constructed in compliance with the applicable Code
requirements, including within the required setbacks. However, attached decks are considered to be part
of the principal structure, therefore the same setback standards apply. As proposed, the deck would
encroach nine feet into the 30-foot setback and requires a rear yard setback variance.
When considering the variance request for the proposed deck in this case, the City is required to find that:
1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and comprehensive
plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
The applicant’s desire to construct a deck onto the existing single-family dwelling is a reasonable use of
the property. However, the proposed encroachment into the rear yard is excessive and could be reduced or
eliminated to still allow for reasonable use of the property in compliance with the Code requirements. The
intent of the rear yard setback is to discourage crowding and maintain open space between dwellings, which
is compromised by the proposed project in this case and therefore does not meet the intent of the Code.
2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the ordinance due to
circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created by the applicant or based on
economic considerations.
According to the applicant, the existing patio door facing the rear yard and the proposed deck were included
in the approved building plans for the existing dwelling, which is implied as both a practical difficulty and
unique circumstance in this case. Staff was not able to locate those plans; the city is only required to
maintain residential building permits for five years after expiration, which is one year after issuance.
Furthermore, the installation of patio doors with access to the rear yard above the existing grade is a
circumstance created by the applicant, and the resulting safety issue can potentially be addressed with a
revised variance request that reduces the proposed encroachment.
The portion of the deck extending approximately 13 feet into the side yard is compliant due to an over 130-
foot setback from the side yard property boundary line. However, the proposed deck in this location can
only be accessed from the existing patio doors along the north side of the dwelling without constructing
steps accessing the side yard. As a result, staff contends there are at least three options to reduce the
proposed encroachment and/or eliminate the variance request:
page 87
A. Consider a three-foot variance to allow construction of a landing/walkway from the patio
door to the portion of the proposed deck extending into the side yard.
This option allows access to the compliant portion of the proposed deck in the side yard from
inside the house and decreases the excessive encroachment being requested in this case.
According to the building code, three feet is the minimum width of a landing required for a
walkway. In this scenario, staff would further recommend the three-foot encroachment extend
no further than three feet from the northeast corner of the existing dwelling.
B. Consider a three-foot variance to allow construction of a landing/steps to the existing
patio door and eliminate the portion of the proposed deck encroaching into the rear yard.
This option addresses the safety concern raised by the applicant regarding access to the existing
patio door. A compliant landing at least three long and steps could be constructed to provide
safe access to the rear yard from the existing dwelling. However, it would not provide access
from the dwelling to the compliant portion of the proposed deck extending into the side yard.
C. Eliminate the portion of the proposed deck encroaching into the rear yard and construct
steps to access the compliant portion from the side yard.
This option does not require a variance and, in staff’s opinion, still allows for reasonable use
of the property by providing access to the compliant portion of the deck extending into the side
yard. As with Option B, it would not provide access from the dwelling to the portion of the
proposed deck extending into the side yard or address the potential safety issue.
3. The request will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The compliant portion of the proposed deck extending into the side yard will not alter the essential character
of the neighborhood. However, the proposed deck’s nine-foot encroachment into the rear yard will decrease
the distance between the abutting property to the north at 1167 Dodd Road. Based on aerial maps, it appears
the dwelling is constructed near the 10-foot minimum side yard setback line. Due to the subject parcel’s
frontage on Ivy Hill Drive, the existing condition already provides for the minimum separation distance of
40 feet between both dwellings; any further encroachment should be carefully considered in order to ensure
appropriate buffering between the properties.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend denial of the nine-foot rear yard setback variance request for construction of the
proposed deck, based on the attached findings of fact.
OR
2. Recommend approval of a three-foot rear yard setback variance request to allow construction of a
landing/walkway from the patio doors to the compliant portion of the proposed deck extending into
the side yard, as proposed for consideration by staff and acceptable to the applicant, based on the
attached findings of fact, with conditions.
OR
3. Recommend approval of a three-foot rear yard setback variance request to allow construction of a
landing/steps to the existing patio doors and eliminate the portion of the proposed deck encroaching
into the rear yard, as proposed for consideration by staff and acceptable to the applicant, based on
the attached findings of fact, with conditions.
OR
page 88
4. Recommend approval of a nine-foot rear yard setback variance request for construction of the
proposed deck, as proposed by the applicant, based on the findings of fact that the use of the
property is reasonable, a practical difficulty has been established based on unique circumstances
not created by the applicant, and the essential character of the neighborhood is not altered; with the
condition that the applicant obtain a building permit.
OR
5. Table the request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the proposed nine-foot rear yard setback variance as proposed by the applicant,
based on the attached findings of fact (Alternative #1). As noted in this report, there are other design options
that would allow for a reasonable use of the property with a reduced encroachment or no variance.
If acceptable to the applicant, staff is supportive of a recommendation approving a reduced encroachment
to allow a three-foot rear yard setback variance as included in Alternative #2 (Option A), based on the
attached findings of fact, with the following conditions:
1. The three-foot encroachment would extend no further than three feet from the northeast corner of
the existing dwelling to provide access to the compliant portion of the proposed deck in the side
yard.
2. The applicant obtains a building permit.
If acceptable to the applicant, staff is also supportive of a recommendation approving a reduced
encroachment to allow a three-foot rear yard setback variance as included in Alternative #3 (Option B),
based on the attached findings of fact, with the following conditions:
1. The three-foot encroachment would be no wider than the existing patio door, or the minimum width
as determined by the Building Official.
2. The applicant obtains a building permit.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
1. Aerial site map
2. Site photos
3. Planning applications, including supporting materials
page 89
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL
Nine-foot Rear Yard Setback Variance Request
1176 Ivy Hill Drive
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of denial of the proposed request:
1. Reasonable use of the property can be made without the need for a variance.
2. Alternatives exist to reduce the proposed encroachment into the rear yard and provide safe access
to the existing patio door.
3. The proposed nine-foot encroachment does not meet the intent of the Code by decreasing the buffer
area between the adjoining properties and would negatively impact the essential character of the
neighborhood.
page 90
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Three-foot Rear Yard Setback Variance Request – Option A
1176 Ivy Hill Drive
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the alternative request, referred to as
“Option A” in the staff report:
1. Construction of a three-foot landing/walkway within the required rear yard setback to access a
compliant deck structure through an existing patio door is a reasonable use of the property.
2. The subject parcel is a long narrow lot and the frontage on Ivy Hill Road resulted in construction
of the existing dwelling at the maximum front and rear yard setbacks; therefore a practical difficulty
is demonstrated in order to construct a walkway/landing within the required rear yard setback to
access a compliant deck structure from within the existing dwelling.
3. The alternative request reduces the proposed encroachment by six feet and would not allow for a
useable deck space in the rear yard or negatively impact the essential character of the neighborhood.
page 91
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Three-foot Rear Yard Setback Variance Request – Option B
1176 Ivy Hill Drive
The following Findings of Fact are made in support of approval of the alternative request, referred to as
“Option B” in the staff report:
1. Construction of a three-foot landing/steps to the existing patio door within the required rear yard
setback to provide safe access to the dwelling/backyard is a reasonable use of the property.
2. The subject parcel is a long narrow lot and the frontage on Ivy Hill Road resulted in construction
of the existing dwelling at the maximum front and rear yard setbacks; therefore a practical difficulty
is demonstrated in order to construct a landing/steps within the required rear yard setback to provide
safe access to the dwelling/backyard.
3. The alternative request eliminates the proposed deck’s encroachment into the required rear yard
and would not negatively impact the essential character of the neighborhood.
page 92
page 93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: Nolan Wall, AICP
Planner
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit and Variances at 1400 Commerce
Drive
BACKGROUND
The applicant is seeking to establish a warehouse and distribution facility at 1400 Commerce Drive, which
is currently vacant. The property is zoned Industrial and contains a legal nonconforming outdoor storage
yard. Based on information supplied by the applicant, the use is considered a permitted nonmanufacturing
use in the Industrial District. Therefore, the Code allows outdoor storage and display of materials and
equipment by conditional use permit. As a result, the proposed project to expand the existing outdoor
storage yard requires the following approvals:
1. Conditional Use Permit for expanding an existing outdoor storage yard.
2. Variance to allow the outdoor storage yard to locate within 1,500 feet of a residentially zoned area.
3. Variance to store material in a fenced open air yard instead of the required three-sided, covered
structures.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at the August 25 meeting; there were no public
comments.
BUDGET IMPACT
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit and variance requests, with
conditions, as described in Planning Case 2015-32. If the City Council desires to implement the
recommendation, pass a motion adopting RESOLUTION 2015-69 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND VARIANCES AT 1400 COMMERCE DRIVE.
This matter requires a simple majority vote.
page 98
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015-69
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES
AT 1400 COMMERCED DRIVE
WHEREAS, HD Supply – Construction and Industrial White Cap has applied for a
conditional use permit and variances to expand an existing outdoor storage yard as proposed in
Planning Case 2015-32 and described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter
at their regular meeting on August 25, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that the
conditional use permit and variance requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-32 are hereby
approved based on the following findings of fact:
1. The proposed variance meets the purpose and intent of the conditional use permit standard for
1,500’ buffer from residential uses since the use in question is a cemetery.
2. The proposed variance meets the purpose and intent of the conditional use permit standard for
three-side enclosed covered storage.
3. Granting of the variances sought is in accordance with the standards laid out in the City Code.
4. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the remaining conditional use permit
requirements for outdoor storage in the Industrial District of the City Code.
5. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing nonconformity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council that the conditional
use permit and variance requests as proposed in Planning Case 2015-32 are hereby approved with the
following conditions:
1. Materials stored on site will not exceed a height of six feet.
2. All materials will be packaged or self-contained; no loose or bulk materials.
3. A six-foot-tall wood fence that provides a minimum of 90% opacity during all seasons will be
erected around the entire proposed outdoor storage yard.
4. The applicant obtains a fence permit and any necessary building permits.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this first day of September, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
_____________________________
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 99
Item No. 2015-32
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 25, 2015
To: Mendota Heights Planning Commission
From: Phil Carlson, AICP, Consulting Planner
RE: Planning Case 2015-32:
HD Supply Construction & Industrial – White Cap
1400 Commerce Drive
1. Conditional Permit to expand existing outdoor storage yard
2. Variance to allow outdoor storage within 1,500’ of residential zone
3. Variance to allow screened open air storage of material
Action
Deadline: October 4, 2015 (60 days from complete application submittal)
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, HD Supply Constructions & Industrial – White Cap (HD Supply), wishes to establish a
warehouse and distribution facility at 1400 Commerce Drive. HD Supply warehouses and
distributes products used in the construction industry through jobsite delivery, direct-ship options
and/or will call. The products typically include erosion control supplies, building materials, tools,
jobsite and safety supplies to large and medium sized contractors. The property is currently vacant
and zoned I Industrial and has a smaller, legal non-conforming outdoor storage yard.
The project requires:
• Conditional use permit for expanding an existing outdoor storage yard.
• Variance to allow the outdoor storage yard to locate within 1,500 feet of a residentially
zoned area
• Variance to store material in a fenced open air yard instead of the required three-sided,
covered structures
ANALYSIS
Based on the information supplied by the applicant, the use is considered a permitted
nonmanufacturing use in the Industrial District. City code Section 12-1G-2: Conditional Uses states,
“within the I industrial district, no outdoor storage and display of materials and equipment
accessory to landscaping and building design and construction shall be used except by
conditional use permit”.
page 100
1. In order for a conditional use permit to be granted, “no storage and display shall be
located on any parcel that is within one thousand five hundred feet (1,500') from any
residentially zoned property, measured from the closest point of the lot lines”.
The objective of this standard is to make sure residents are kept undisturbed by the uses of
the property in terms of noise, dust, view, and other adverse impacts.
In this case, the residential area in question that is within 1,500’ from the HD Supply property
is the Acacia Park Cemetery, where no residents are present. In addition, the site is
visually blocked by other properties from the cemetery property. Therefore, granting a
variance in this case will cause minimal adverse impact to the residentially zoned property.
2. The conditional permit also calls for “All storage and display shall be located under three
(3) sided, covered structures, with the exception of landscape plant materials and trucks
or equipment as shown on a specific and detailed site plan”.
The objective of this standard is to keep the site tidy in appearance and to minimize
problems such as those caused by material run off. The three sides in the standard assume
two sides and rear, plus top (covered).
In this case, the material stored on site will be screened from view by a 6’ tall chain link
fence with slats completely surrounding the site. All material will be stored inside the fence
and piled less than 6’ in height. The material stored on site will be already packaged or of
a nature that does not require coverage or containment. Examples of the materials
include rebar, vapor barrier, foam boards, wire mesh and drain tiles.
Similarly screened outdoor storage can be found in nearby neighboring properties.
It appears that a variance to this standard on this site will not increase the risk of material
run off or create undesirable views from outside of the property.
According to City Code 12-1D-13-2: Additional Requirements for All B and I Districts, the opacity of
“required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges or
other landscape materials. The screen shall provide a minimum opacity of ninety percent (90%)
during all seasons”.
HD Supply is proposing to use a chain link fence with slats for screening the storage site. No
specification was provided as to the opacity of the particular model to be used. Our
research indicates a typical chain link fence with slats offers opacity in the 75% range, so it
may not meet the city’s standard. HD Supply has indicated willingness to use fencing
material preferred by the city. Some neighboring properties use wood fence that offer
100% opacity, which may be a better choice here, at least on the front and side yards
facing the street and neighboring property.
page 101
From City Code 12-1L-5: A variance shall only be recommended when the planning commission
finds:
1. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and
comprehensive plan and the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner.
2. The applicant establishes there are practical difficulties with complying with the
ordinance due to circumstances that are unique to the property which are not created
by the applicant or based on economic considerations.
3. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
As discussed in previous paragraphs, the variance required for the 1,500’ rule has a
special circumstance in this case because the residential zone has no actual residents.
So the strict application of the standard would deprive the applicant of the proposed
expansion of the existing outdoor storage yard while not eliminating any real potential
adverse impact to any city residents.
The requirement for 3-side covered storage for all materials generally would be
intended for easy to disburse material such as dirt, liquids, landscaping materials. This
site will store large building materials usually not requiring structures or are bagged and
therefore not likely to blow around or leak off site. Strict application of the standard will
impose unnecessary burden to the applicant and may restrict the reasonable use of
property while no public welfare issues exist.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the
application for Conditional Use Permit and Variances for the HD Supply Application with the
following conditions:
1. Materials stored on site will not exceed a height of 6’.
2. All materials will be packaged or self-contained. No loose or bulk materials.
3. A wood fence that provides a minimum of 90% opacity during all seasons will be provided
on the front and side yards.
REQUESTED ACTION
Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission may consider the following
actions:
page 102
1. Recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Variances, based on the
attached findings of fact, with conditions.
OR
2. Recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit and Variances, based on the findings of
fact that the proposed expansion of the existing outdoor storage area does not meet the
purpose and intent of the Code and reasonable use of the property can be made without
a variance.
OR
3. Table the request, pending additional information from staff or others.
MATERIALS INCLUDED FOR REVIEW
The following exhibits are attached for your review:
1. Aerial Location Map
2. Site Photos
3. HD Supply Applications, including supporting materials
FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit and Variances
1400 Commerce Drive
1. The proposed variance meets the purpose and intent of the conditional use permit
standard for 1,500’ buffer from residential uses.
2. The proposed variance meets the purpose and intent of the conditional use permit
standard for three-side enclosed covered storage.
3. Granting of the variances sought is in accordance with the standards laid out in the City
Code.
4. The proposed project meets the purpose and intent of the remaining conditional use
permit requirements for outdoor storage in the Industrial District of the City Code.
5. The proposed project will aesthetically improve an existing nonconformity.
page 103
297
301
2
7
2
269
260
263
2
4
4
41
0
170
155
96
13
1
85
4
5
0
114
101
55
188
556
43
40
3
1
9
80
33
2
8
16
13
11
3
297
26
3
1400
1500
1395
HWY
1
3
COMM
E
R
C
E
D
R
P
I
L
O
T
K
N
O
B
R
D
HWY 1
3
866
858
860
862
864
8
6
8
856
854
8
7
0
852
872
874
850
848
846
844
842
860
858
860
858
856
Planning Case 2015-321400 Commerce Drive City of
Mendota
Heights090
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
8/17/2015
page 104
Front of building
Existing outdoor storage area
page 105
Existing screening towards Commerce Drive
Existing screening towards property to south (1500 Commerce Drive)
page 106
August 5, 2015
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Attn: Planner – Nolan Wall
RE: Variance Application and Conditional Use Permit for 1400 Commerce Dr, Mendota, Heights, MN
Dear Mr. Wall,
This site is zoned in the Industrial District and our use fits in the landscaping, and building design and construction. The operation of HD Supply Construction & Industrial – White Cap is a wholesale
distributor to construction professionals in the Commercial, Residential, and Industrial building industries. White Cap customers are professional contractors with established accounts rather than the
general public. We warehouse and distribute our product through jobsite delivery, direct ship options, and/or will-call. We are not a retail store. Shipments are received in the warehouse on
daily basis to replenish the inventory. White Cap maintains a large inventory of products for use in the construction industry. Our facilities typically maintain an inventory of and distribute erosion control
supplies, building materials, tools, jobsite and safety supplies to large and medium sized contractors.
This property is currently vacant and our business will bring 9 new jobs to Mendota Heights. We are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to expand the existing non-conforming outdoor storage yard. The expanded yard will improve the look of the property as the outdoor activity for the business will be screened and fenced in. The site plan with this application shows the area of the existing yard and the area we would like to expand to. All of the area within the desired yard area is already paved and no land disturbance is needed or landscape removal. No parking is effected and all circulation to enter the site and access all the rear doors and docks are maintained. We are asking for the expanded space for more efficiency for our trucks to get to materials that are stored in the yard as well as the ability to secure our trucks on the property overnight as the current yard does not provide that. The site plans shows 3 spaces in the dock area that are striped, which will be for our large trucks to park.
We plan to use 6 feet high chain link fence with slats for screening to enclose the rear area and no
material would be stored over the fence. Photos are attached of the fence and slats to show the look of the
enclosure. If the City would prefer a different type of slat or a wooden fence, we will change to that.
Please stipulate which fence type is preferred.
We are requesting a Variance on two out of the twelve requirements for outdoor storage and display of materials:
1. Item #C - No storage and display shall be located on any parcel that is within one thousand five
hundred feet (1,500') from any residentially zoned property, measured from the closest point of the lot
lines. (Map attached showing a small portion of R-1 with 1500 feet, note that this is a cemetery and not
homes)
2. Item #I - All storage and display shall be located under three (3) sided, covered structures, with
the exception of landscape plant materials and trucks or equipment as shown on a specific and detailed
site plan.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
page 107
Questions Addressed for Variance:
1. In your opinion, does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
Yes, it meets items A through H and J through L of 12- 1G- 2 for the outdoor storage and display of
materials and equipment accessory to landscaping and building design and construction requirements
described in our designated zone 12G for our permitted use. All material will be screened from the road
and neighboring properties
2. Please describe the circumstances unique to the property (not created by you).
For item C, we understand the impact our use of this property has on residential neighbors and the
manager of this location has visited the area that falls with the 1,500 feet area that is zoned residential,
which is a cemetery, and confirmed that the yard area and the building is not visible from there. Two
other buildings block the view completely and also serve as a buffer for any possible noise.
For item I, all of our material that goes in the yard are self-contained so no cover is needed over the yard
area. The typical items we store are various sizes of rebar, vapor barrier, foam boards, wire mesh, and
drain tiles. Nothing will be stacked higher than the fence so everything would be fully contained and
screened.
3. In your opinion, will the variance, if granted, fit with the character of the
neighborhood?
Yes, MN DOT and Bituminous Roadways are fellow businesses in the park that have outdoor storage
with a screened fence just as we are requesting for ours to be. No businesses in the immediate
neighborhood have a covered structure for storage, therefore ours would fit in to not have it as well.
Attached are some photos of existing White Cap branch in Elk Grove Village, Illinois with a large
fenced-in storage yard (pictures specifically of outdoor yard area). This location is across the street from
O’Hare Airport and also from a Wyndham Hotel and needed special approval and the location has never
received a complaint about the yard appearance. These photos show how we store in a screened fence
with product not stored above the fence line.
Jeremiah George, the District Manager for this area will attend the City meeting for any questions or
additional information.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Bobbi Curry
Senior Manager of Construction
HD Supply
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
page 108
page 109
page 110
page 111
page 112
page 113
W
S
1
-
N
W
S
1
-
N
W
S
1
-
N
W
S
1
-
N
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
3
6
x
9
6
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
3
6
x
1
0
8
4
2
x
1
0
8
3
6
x
1
0
8
3
6
x
9
6
4
2
x
1
0
8
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
E
D
R
I
V
E
P
I
L
O
T
K
N
O
B
R
O
A
D
LOADINGDOCKS
P
O
N
D
30' ROLLING GATEEXISTING STORAGE YARDTO BE REMOVED PROPOSED FENCEDSTORAGE YARD = 19,821 SF159'-9"114'-6"43'-6"90'-7"
EXISTING PARKING
A
A
SETBACK
6250 BROOK HOLLOW PKWY.
STE. 100
NORCROSS, GA 30071
www.hdsupply.com
APPROVAL SIGNATURES
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
MINNEAPOLIS, MN
1400 COMMERCE DR
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120
S
I
T
E
N.T.S.SITE PLAN1
W
H
I
T
E
C
A
P
3
8
,
8
6
3
S
F
3 PARKINGSPACES FORLARGE TRUCKSNO STORAGEHERE
p
a
g
e
1
1
4
HWY 1
3
HW
Y
5
5
PI
L
O
T
K
N
O
B
R
D
SI
B
L
E
Y
M
E
M
O
R
I
A
L
LEMAY AVE
ACACIA BLVD
W
A
T
E
R
S
D
R
COMM
E
R
C
E
D
R
VICTORY AVE
HWY 1
3
HW
Y
5
5
1400 Commerce Drive City of
Mendota
Heights0590
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
8/17/2015
LEGEND
1400 Commerce Drive
1,500-foot Buffer
Zoning District
ZONING
I - Industrial
B-3 - General Business
R-1 - One Family Residential
R-3 - Multiple Family Residential
State Park
page 115
Fence and Slats for Storage Yard – HD White Cap
page 116
p
a
g
e
1
1
7
p
a
g
e
1
1
8
Page 1 of 1Print Preview
8/3/2015http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/DCGIS/WebForms/Print.aspx?img=http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/Co...
page 119
page 120
page 121
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Lemay Lake Shores – After-the-fact Wetland Permit
BACKGROUND
The City Council of Mendota Heights is the Local Governmental Unit (LGU) that administers
the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). A wetland delineation report for the Lemay
Lake Shores Property was approved by city council in October of 2014. During an inspection of
the site, staff noticed disturbances to two wetlands that were identified in the delineation report.
Site meetings were held with Dakota County SWCD, DNR & the MPCA. The consensus was to
have the developer submit an application for the unauthorized work in a wetland boundary.
Wetland 2 and Wetland 3 on the site have been impacted/filled. The stated reason for filling the
two wetlands was to cap them as they had been used as a garbage dump for the cemetery. The
application report submitted by Ryland Homes consultant Kjolhaug Environmental identify the
two wetlands as being low quality and posing a public safety hazard due to their use as a garbage
dump.
The developer is proposing to keep the wetlands capped and has secured wetland credits from an
approved wetland bank. The wetlands are being replaced at a 2:1 ratio. The wetland bank
credits are of a higher value and function wetland within the same Minnesota river watershed but
not located in Mendota Heights.
Wetland Application attached.
BUDGET IMPACT
None, this process is a judicial requirement of the city. If council approves the application a
Notice of Decision will be sent to respective agencies (Dakota County SWCD, BWSR,
LMRWMO, Army Corps.) The previously listed agencies have not submitted comments as this
was the course of action discussed during the field meetings.
page 122
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that council approve and accept the application as submitted by Kjolhaug
Environmental Services Company, Inc. on behalf of Ryland Homes and direct staff to issue the
Notice of Decision on the report extension.
page 123
26105 Wild Rose Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331, Phone: 952-401-8757, Fax: 952-401-8798
Memorandum
Date: July 31, 2015
To: Ryan Ruzek, City of Mendota Heights
Cc: Shawn Wenzel, Ryland Homes
From: Melissa Barrett, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company (KES)
Re: After-the-Fact Wetland Permit Application
Lemay Shores, Mendota Heights, MN
The Lemay Shores development site (formerly called Lemay Lake Site) is located in the NE ¼ of
Section 34, Township 28N, Range 23W, City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota. The
approximately 80-acre site is located south of Lake Augusta, east of Lemay Lake, and west of
Resurrection Cemetery, less than a quarter mile north of the junction of Lemay Lake Road and
Mendota Heights Road (Figure 1).
The site was originally delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services (KES) in October 2006 and
wetland boundaries were reviewed and approved by the LGU (Local Government Unit) at that time.
The site was re-visited by KES in 2014 to assess site conditions and re-check previously delineated
wetland boundaries for any changes. KES submitted a memo documenting that land use on the site
had not significantly changed and requested and extension of the 2006 wetland delineation
approval. An extension was granted by the City of Mendota Heights in August of 2014 (Appendix
A). Approved wetland boundaries are shown on Figure 2 and Appendix B.
Recent Wetland Fill
Since the time of the 2014 delineation extension, Wetland 2 and Wetland 3 on the site have been
impacted/filled. The reason for filling these two wetlands and their immediate surrounding areas
was to cap them, as they had been used as a garbage dump for the cemetery (former landowner of
the site) for many years.
page 124
Page 2 of 2
Avoidance and Minimization
Simply cleaning out garbage from the wetlands (wetland restoration; avoidance) is not possible as
the garbage dump encompasses more than these two wetland areas.
Furthermore, these wetlands were low quality and posed a public safety hazard due to their use as a
garbage dump. Impact replacement via wetland banking is certain to provide an increase in wetland
functions and values as compared to the existing wetlands (i.e. the impacts meet sequencing
flexibility as outlined in MN Rule 8420.0520 Subp. 7a. Sequencing Flexibility).
Because the entire area of Wetland 2 and Wetland 3 were impacted with fill, impact minimization is
not possible.
Wetland Replacement Plan
To compensate for after-the-fact-wetland impacts the applicant proposes to purchase Standard
Wetland Credit (SWC) from an available wetland bank within the same major watershed
(Watershed 33 – Minnesota River) and Bank Service Area (BSA9) as the impacted wetlands at a
2:1 replacement ratio. Figure 3 (created from a document provided by Landform Engineering)
documents the sizes of Wetland 2 and Wetland 3 prior to filling. Table 1 below summarizes
wetland impacts, required replacement, and proposed replacement action.
Table 1. Wetland Impacts, Required Replacement, and Proposed Replacement Action
Wetland
ID
County,
BSA, Major
Watershed
Size
(square
feet)
Size
(acre)
Required
Replacement at
2:1 Ratio (acre)
Proposed Replacement
Action
2
Dakota,
Watershed 33,
BSA9
4,388 0.1007 0.2015
0.2015 ac of SWC from
Wetland Bank in Scott
County, Major Watershed
33, BSA 9
3
Dakota,
Watershed 33,
BSA9
2,487 0.0571 0.1142
0.2015 ac of SWC from
Wetland Bank in Scott
County, Major Watershed
33, BSA 9
Total 6,875 0.1578 0.316 0.316
Note: There are currently no available wetland banks in Dakota County.
The Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources in MN and the Transaction for
Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank are included in Appendix C.
page 125
Figure 3 - Wetland 2 and Wetland 3 Sizes Prior to Fill/Impact
Lemay Shores (KES 2014-110)
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Note: Boundaries indicated
on this figure are approximate
and do not constitute an
official survey product.
¯0 1,000
Feet
page 126
Figure 2 - Delineated Wetlands
Lemay Lake Site (KES No. 2014-110)
Mendota Heights, Minnesota
Note: Site boundary and wetland
boundaries are approximate
and do not constitute an
official survey product.
¯
1 inch = 348 feet
Site Boundary
Wetland Boundary
Transect
Wetland 1
SP 3-1U
Wetland 3
Wetland 2
Wetland 4
SP 3-1W
SP 1-1W
SP 1-1U
SP 4-1WSP 4-1U
SP 2-1U
SP 2-1W
page 127
DATE: September 1, 2015
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Ryan Ruzek, PE, Assistant City Engineer
Almin Ramic, PE, Project Engineer
SUBJECT: Accepting of Feasibility Report for Mendota Road Neighborhood
Improvements Project (201507)
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memo is to request that the council to approve the feasibility report for the
proposed 2016 street reconstruction and rehabilitation project Mendota Road Improvements.
Staff identified the Mendota Road Neighborhood Improvements as a 2016 street reconstruction
and rehabilitation project in the 2013-2017 Street Improvement Plan (SIP).
As identified in the 2013-2017 SIP, the proposed street to be reconstructed is the rural section of
Mendota Road (previously Hwy 110 Frontage Road) from Delaware Avenue to Oak Street in
Mendota Heights. This street has deteriorated to the point where it is no longer cost effective to
patch. Under the circumstances, the questions that need to be resolved are related to the design
details of the street as opposed to whether or not the street should be reconstructed. The proposed
streets to be rehabilitated, as identified in the 2013-2017 SIP, are High Ridge Circle, Sibley
Court, and Warrior Drive. Based on our observations as well as our pavement management
system, these streets have deteriorated to the point where it is no longer cost effective to patch
the street and rehabilitation is necessary. Residents on these streets were not surveyed although
staff has received several telephone inquiries as to when resurfacing will take place.
The preparation of a feasibility report for the Mendota Road Neighborhood Improvements
Project (201507) was authorized by the Mendota Heights City Council by adopting Resolution
2015-32 at the City Council meeting held on May 19, 2015. The streets to be rehabilitated have
concrete curb and gutters so a pavement replacement is proposed. Street rehabilitation typically
includes removing and replacing the existing bituminous surface with a new bituminous surface,
curb and gutter repair, and catch basin repair. Before staff presents the feasibility report to the
city council, a neighborhood meeting will be held to discuss possible design issues for the
proposed project.
A copy of the feasibility report is attached to this memo.
page 128
Street Reconstruction – Mendota Road
Mendota Road was constructed in 1970. Concrete curb and gutters were installed on a portion of
the street and the roadway widths currently measure 24 feet from edge of pavement to edge of
pavement, and 26 feet from face of curb to edge of pavement in the areas were curb was
installed. The pavement cross-section consists of a 4.5” bituminous surface over a 13” aggregate
base. Sanitary sewer and water main were constructed on this street during the original project
in 1970 and existing storm sewer on a part of the road during the Town Center project.
Proposed improvements for Mendota Road will include the reclamation of the existing
bituminous roadway and the placing of a 3” bituminous base course and a 2” bituminous wear
course over the reclaimed pavement material, new curb and gutter installation, storm sewer
extension and existing curb and gutter and catch basin repair.
Street Rehabilitation – High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court and Warrior Drive
Warrior Drive was constructed in 1970 and High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court were constructed in
1988. Warrior Drive has a pavement cross-section consisting of a 3” bituminous surface over a
6” aggregate base. Concrete curb and gutter was installed on this street and the roadway widths
currently measures 44 feet from face of curb to face of curb. High Ridge Circle and Sibley Court
have a pavement cross-section consisting of a 3.5” bituminous surface over a 6” aggregate base.
Concrete curb and gutter was installed on the streets and the roadway widths currently measure
33 feet from face of curb to face of curb. Storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and water main were also
constructed on these streets in 1970 and 1988.
Proposed improvements for Warrior Drive will include the reclamation of the existing
bituminous roadway and the placing of a 2.5” bituminous base course and a 1.5” bituminous
wear course over the reclaimed pavement material, curb and gutter repair, and catch basin repair.
It will also include construction of a concrete median and a mini roundabout at the intersection of
Warrior Drive and Henry Sibley High School entrance. High Ridge Circle and Sibley Court will
include the reclamation of the existing bituminous roadway and the placing of a 2.5” bituminous
base course and a 1.5” bituminous wear course over the reclaimed pavement material, curb and
gutter repair, and catch basin repair.
Trail Improvements
Proposed improvements to the existing Brookside Lane to Laura Court trail include overlaying
the existing bituminous surface with 2” bituminous pavement. (Appendix E)
Pedestrian curb ramps will be constructed at the each end of the trail, as well as on every
crosswalk location on Mendota Road trail with truncated dome detectible warning systems in
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Preventative Maintenance- Fog Seal Coating of the bike trail between the Dodd Road and
Delaware Avenue
Proposed improvements for the bike trail between the Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue will
include a fog seal. Fog seals are used to delay weathering of the pavement, waterproof the
pavement surface, and improve the pavement’s ability to keep water from penetrating the base
course or subgrade, and reduce raveling.
page 129
Preventative Maintenance - Seal Coating of the Bunker Hills Neighborhood Streets and the
Town Center approaches
Proposed maintenance treatment for Arvin Drive, Freeway Road, Hilltop Court, Hilltop Road,
Knob Road, Linden Street, Market Street, Maple Street, North Freeway Road, Ridge Place,
South Freeway Road, South Lane, Valley Curve, Valley Curve Alley, Wachtler Avenue, and
Willow Lane will include the chip seal coating which will consider distributing bituminous oil,
or liquid asphalt, on the street surface, application of an aggregate cover, and using the
pneumatic roller to reorient or seat the aggregate particles and tighten the rock matrix. After the
asphalt cures, the excess aggregate is removed by sweeping so the seal coat provides the street
with a new water proof surface and uniform look.
BUDGET IMPACT
The attached report indicates the estimated costs for the project, along with preliminary
assessment estimates. At the end of the feasibility report, a project financing summary is
included to show project cost splits and funding sources. The total estimated cost of the project is
$1,955,246.
Street improvement projects are proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners.
Pursuant to the City’s Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy, the benefiting properties
should be assessed 50% of the street rehabilitation costs. The following tables show the
estimated unit assessments based on the City policy and proposed unit assessments that are being
recommended by staff.
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET RECONSTRUCTION – MENDOTA ROAD
Assessable Costs $830,166.83
Assessment $415,083.41 50%
Assessable Units 26
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $15,964.74 $415,083.24 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment* $7,593.00 $175,218.00 21%
* Units that were assessed $3700 for the Town Center project will have their assessment lowered by that amount.
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET REHABILITATION – WARRIOR DRIVE
Assessable Costs $729,074.40
Assessment $364,537.20
50%
Assessable Units 50
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $7,290.74 $364,537.00 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment $3,950.00 $197,500.00 27%
The estimated unit assessments for the street rehabilitation are higher than the rates that staff
anticipates for future reconstruction and rehabilitation projects with pavement reclamation due to
the anticipated sub-grade correction. Staff proposes to assess the benefiting properties
$7,593/unit in the reconstruction area of the project, $3,893/unit in the reconstruction area of the
project for the properties that were assessed $3700 during Town Center project and $3,950/unit
in the rehabilitation project area in order to bring the rate closer to anticipated costs.
page 130
Project Financing
The Mendota Road Neighborhood Improvements Project is proposed to be financed by special
assessments and municipal bonds. Funding sources and amounts are shown below:
FUNDING SOURCES
ITEM
COST
ESTIMATE
ASSESSM
ENT
MUNICIPAL
BONDS
MSA
FUNDS
UTILITY
FUNDS
Street Reconstruction
Mendota Road $830,167 $175,218 $204,949 $450,000
Street Rehabilitation
Warrior Drive $729,074 $197,500 $531,574
Curb Replacement $58,241 $58,241
Trail $58,095 $58,095
Storm Sewer $186,588 $186,588
Preventative Maintenance $93,081 $93,081.00
Totals $1,955,246 $372,718 $852,859 $450,000 $186,588
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that council accept the feasibility report and schedule the public hearing for
November 17, 2015. A neighborhood informational meeting is scheduled for September 21,
2015.
If city council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, pass a motion adopting A
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE MENDOTA ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
(PROJECT #201507). This action requires a simple majority vote.
page 131
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2015-65
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE MENDOTA ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS
(PROJECT #201507)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 2015-32, the City Council, on May 19, 2015, ordered a
feasibility report to be prepared by the City Engineer with reference to the improvement High Ridge
Circle, Sibley Court, Warrior Drive and Mendota Road (previously Hwy 110 Frontage Road) from
Delaware Avenue to Oak Street in Mendota Heights; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has submitted a report to the City Council with respect to the
High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court, Warrior Drive and Mendota Road (previously Hwy 110 Frontage Road)
from Delaware Avenue to Oak Street in Mendota Heights improvements which include: removing the
existing bituminous surface, the construction of storm sewer, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter
placing a new bituminous surface, existing catch basin repair, and appurtenant work; and
WHEREAS, in said report the City Engineer reported that the proposed improvements and
construction thereof are desirable and necessary, technically and economically feasible, cost effective,
and further reported on the estimated cost of the proposed improvements; and
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Mendota Heights City Council as
follows:
1. The City Council hereby accepts the Feasibility Report as submitted.
2. The Council will consider the improvement of such streets and areas in accordance with the
report and the assessment of property as described in the report for all or a portion of the cost
of the improvements pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of
the improvements of $1,955,246.
3. A Public Hearing shall be held on such proposed improvements on the 17th day of
November, 2015 at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota at
7:00 p.m. Statutory notice and publication requirements shall be followed.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this First day of September, 2015.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Sandra Krebsbach, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Lorri Smith, City Clerk
page 132
FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR
MENDOTA ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENTS
WHICH INCLUDES IMPROVEMENTS TO:
HIGH RIDGE CIRCLE, SIBLEY COURT, WARRIOR DRIVE
AND MENDOTA ROAD FROM DELAWARE AVENUE TO
OAK STREET IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS
CITY PROJECT #201507
AUGUST 2015
City of
Mendota Heights
I hereby certify that this Feasibility Report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed
Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Ryan E. Ruzek, P.E. Date
License Number: 44990
Almin Ramic, P.E. Date
License Number: 51687
page 133
Feasibility Report Page 2
Project No. 201507
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................ 2
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
AUTHORIZATION........................................................................................................................................................ 3
SCOPE ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
LOCATION ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 4
STREETS .................................................................................................................................................................... 4
High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court, Mendota Road and Warrior Drive .................................................................. 4
SANITARY SEWER ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
WATER MAIN ............................................................................................................................................................ 5
STORM SEWER ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
PRIVATE UTILITIES .................................................................................................................................................... 5
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 6
ROADWAY REHABILITATION – HIGH RIDGE CIRCLE, SIBLEY COURT AND WARRIOR DRIVE ..................................... 6
TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 7
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................. 7
Seal Coating of the Bunker Hills Neighborhood Streets and the Town Center approaches ................................ 7
Fog Seal Coating of the bike trail between the Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue ............................................. 7
SANITARY SEWER ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
WATER MAIN ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
STORM SEWER ........................................................................................................................................................... 8
PRIVATE UTILITIES .................................................................................................................................................... 8
FUNDING ................................................................................................................................................................... 8
FEASIBILITY............................................................................................................................................................... 8
FUNDING SOURCES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ....................................................................................... 9
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS ...................................................................................................................................... 9
PROPOSED ESTIMATED ASSESSMENTS ..................................................................................................................... 10
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE ..................................................................................................................... 11
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX A: MENDOTA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AREA ....................................................... 12
APPENDIX B: PROPERTY OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONSES ................................................ 14
APPENDIX C: TYPICAL SECTIONS ................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX D: STREET MAINTENANCE SEAL COATING MAP .................................................................. 28
APPENDIX E: TRAIL IMPROVEMENT MAP .................................................................................................... 30
APPENDIX F: ENGINEER’S OPINION OF ESTIMATED COSTS .................................................................. 32
APPENDIX G: PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL ...................................................................................... 37
page 134
Feasibility Report Page 3
Project No. 201507
INTRODUCTION
Authorization
The preparation of this report was authorized by the Mendota Heights City Council by adopting
Resolution 2015-32 at the City Council meeting held on May 19, 2015. This street reconstruction
and rehabilitation project has been designated as City Project No.201507. The Improvements to
High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court, Warrior Drive, and Mendota Road (previously Hwy 110 Frontage
Road) from Delaware Avenue to Oak Street in Mendota Heights are located in the Section 25,
Township 28, Range 23.
Scope
This report addresses the feasibility of reconstructing the rural section of Mendota Road
(previously Hwy 110 Frontage Road) from Delaware Avenue to Oak Street and rehabilitating High
Ridge Circle, Sibley Court, and Warrior Drive. Pedestrian improvements were also studied as to
rehabilitating the existing trail along Mendota Road and Trail that connects Laura Lane and Laura
Court. Opinions of estimated costs for the associated improvements are noted herein and project
funding strategies have been developed in this report.
Location
The proposed project location area is shown in Appendix A.
page 135
Feasibility Report Page 4
Project No. 201507
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Streets
High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court, Mendota Road and Warrior Drive
Mendota Road and Warrior Drive were constructed in 1970 under Project Number 6928 as a
State Project (SP) 1918-55. Concrete curb and gutters were installed only along a portion of one
side of Mendota Road and on both sides of Warrior Drive. Mendota Road typical section varies
and the road width is between 27 and 30 feet. Warrior Drive measures 44 feet from face of curb
to face of curb. Mendota Road has a pavement cross-section consisting of a 4.5” bituminous
surface over a 13” aggregate base. Warrior Drive has a pavement cross-section consisting of a 3”
bituminous surface over a 6” aggregate base. Sanitary sewer and water main along Mendota
Road and Warrior Drive were also constructed on these streets as part of Project Number 6928.
Storm Sewer is constructed along Warrior drive and only partially along Mendota Road. High
Ridge Circle and Sibley Court were constructed in 1988 under Project Number 8711. High Ridge
Circle and Sibley Court have a pavement cross-section consisting of a 3.5” bituminous surface
over a 6” aggregate base.
These streets currently have a failing bituminous surface and are in relatively poor condition. All
of these streets appear to be near the end of their useful life and the cost to maintain and repair the
roadways is steadily increasing. These streets no longer meet the City’s minimum design standards
and it is no longer cost effective to continue to repair these streets.
Based on the extent of fatigue cracking, a rehabilitation of High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court, and
Warrior Drive is recommended by the pavement management system. Street rehabilitation will
consist of reclaiming the existing bituminous roadway and the placing of a new bituminous surface
over the reclaimed pavement material. Pavement cores will be obtained for these streets to verify
the existing street cross-section and that the material will be suitable for pavement reclamation.
Overlaying or seal coating the existing pavement is no longer a feasible alternative.
The Mendota Road pavement section consists of a 4.5” bituminous surface over 5” Class 6
aggregate base and 8” Class 3 aggregate base. The pavement condition varies along Mendota
Road, but it is generally in very poor condition, and appears to be near the end of its useful life
while the cost to maintain and repair the roadway is steadily increasing. Overlaying or seal
coating the pavement is no longer feasible. Based on the extent of fatigue cracking, our
pavement management system recommends reconstruction of Mendota Road. Mendota Road no
longer meets minimum design standards and is no longer cost effective to continue to repair.
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer located within the limits of the project site was cleaned and televised as part of
a Mendota Heights City project in 2012. Overall, the pipes throughout the proposed project site
are in good condition with very few instances of leaking located near the manholes. This project
does not include replacing any of the existing sanitary sewer lines.
page 136
Feasibility Report Page 5
Project No. 201507
Water Main
The existing water main in the Mendota Road Neighborhood is 8” ductile iron pipe and is
currently in good condition with no need for replacement.
The existing water main in the Warrior Drive Neighborhood is 12” ductile iron pipe and 6”
ductile iron pipe at High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court. The water main pipes are currently in good
condition with no need for replacement.
Storm Sewer
All existing storm sewer systems along the High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court and Warrior Drive
are currently in good condition with no need for replacement. The existing storm sewer along
Mendota Road was constructed with HDPE pipe and the condition of it will be assessed when
connection of the new storm sewer is made.
Private Utilities
Providers of privately owned gas, electric, communications and cable television utilities are
present in the neighborhood.
page 137
Feasibility Report Page 6
Project No. 201507
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
Roadway Reconstruction – Mendota Road
Mendota Road requires a 9-ton street design meeting MDOT’s Municipal State Aid (MSA)
standards. For a 20-year design life, the soils report recommends a street section consisting of a
minimum 5” bituminous pavement surface over a 10” aggregate base. The horizontal alignment
of Mendota Road will remain approximately the same from Oak Street to Delaware Avenue. The
proposed street widths varies from 28 feet to 34 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb,
which is generally 0 feet to 6 feet wider than the existing streets due to the addition of a parking
lane, and concrete curb and gutter. See Appendix A for site plan. See Appendix B for resident
survey results. See Appendix C for the typical sections.
An effective way of rebuilding streets to achieve a greater design strength and reduce material
costs is to reclaim the existing bituminous surface and incorporate the reclaimed bituminous as
part of the base material for building the new streets. The City has utilized this construction
procedure with good success on past reconstruction projects. Bituminous reclamation will be
utilized where feasible.
Driveways that are disturbed due to the street reconstruction will be replaced in kind. Disturbed
boulevard areas will be restored with topsoil and sod.
The existing right-of-way along Mendota road varies. No additional right of way or easements
are anticipated with this project.
Roadway Rehabilitation – High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court and Warrior Drive
The rehabilitation of High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court and Warrior Drive requires a 7-ton street
design per the City’s Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy. Any damaged concrete curb
and gutter along these streets will also be replaced as part of the roadway restoration. Driveways
that may be disturbed due to the street rehabilitation will be replaced in kind. Disturbed boulevard
areas will be restored with topsoil and sod.
The existing right-of-way is 80 feet wide on Warrior Drive and 55 feet wide throughout High
Ridge Circle, Sibley Court. No additional right-of-way or easements are anticipated.
Proposed improvements for High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court and Warrior Drive will include the
reclamation of the existing bituminous roadway and the placing of a 2.5” bituminous base course
and a 1.5” bituminous wear course over the reclaimed pavement material. By using the reclaimed
pavement material as a base there is a cost savings versus importing a new aggregate base material.
This method should rehabilitate the streets to like new condition and extend the life of the
pavement an additional 20-30 years with continued preventative maintenance. The typical section
of Warrior drive will be changed to allow for a concrete median lane divider and parking lane on
the east side. See Appendix C for the typical sections.
page 138
Feasibility Report Page 7
Project No. 201507
Trail Improvements
Proposed improvements to the existing Brookside Lane to Laura Court trail include overlaying the
existing bituminous surface with 2” bituminous pavement. (Appendix E)
Pedestrian curb ramps will be constructed at the each end of the trail, as well as on every crosswalk
location on Mendota Road trail with truncated dome detectible warning systems in compliance
with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Preventative Maintenance
Seal Coating of the Bunker Hills Neighborhood Streets and the Town Center approaches
Proposed maintenance treatment for Arvin Drive, Freeway Road, Hilltop Court, Hilltop Road,
Knob Road, Linden Street, Market Street, Maple Street, North Freeway Road, Ridge Place,
South Freeway Road, South Lane, Valley Curve, Valley Curve Alley, Wachtler Avenue, and
Willow Lane will include the chip seal coating which will consider distributing bituminous oil,
or liquid asphalt, on the street surface, application of an aggregate cover, and using the
pneumatic roller to reorient or seat the aggregate particles and tighten the rock matrix. After the
asphalt cures, the excess aggregate is removed by sweeping so the seal coat provides the street
with a new water proof surface and uniform look.
There are two main reasons for seal coating streets:
1. The first main reason for seal coating is to seal the bituminous surface against the
elements. The older a bituminous surface gets the more porous it becomes. This is due to
the wearing away of the surface due to air, sunlight, rain and traffic. The rougher the
surface becomes due to these factors, the more vulnerable it is and the more rapidly it
deteriorates. Water trapped in the surface and freezing at night and thawing during the
day over a few days begin the formation of potholes. One method of avoiding this result
is to routinely seal coat the streets to keep the water out.
2. The second reason to seal coat streets is to coat the bituminous surface with a wear
resistant material such as a hard material like granite. This not only minimizes damage
done by normal traffic wear, but it also protects our streets from damage that might be
done by scraping them several times a year with snowplows. Consequently seal coating
does not add strength to the street; therefore, it is not used on older streets that need other
type of repair such as overlaying or total reconstruction.
Fog Seal Coating of the bike trail between the Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue
Proposed maintenance treatment for the bike trail between the Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue
will include the fog seal. Fog seals are used to delay weathering of the pavement, waterproof the
pavement surface, improve the pavement’s ability to keep water from penetrating the base course
or subgrade, and reduce raveling. Fog seals add new asphalt to the surface and help protect the
asphalt and improve the appearance. It is relatively inexpensive treatment when compared to other
surface treatments and will extend the quality life of the trail. See Appendix D for the Preventative
Maintenance site map.
page 139
Feasibility Report Page 8
Project No. 201507
Sanitary Sewer
As mentioned before, the existing sanitary sewer is in satisfactory condition. This project does
not include replacing any of the existing sanitary sewer lines.
Water Main
As mentioned before, the existing water main is in satisfactory condition. This project does not
include replacing any of the existing water main lines.
Storm Sewer
As mentioned before, the existing storm sewer is in satisfactory condition. This project does not
include replacing any of the existing storm sewer lines. New storm sewer will be extended on
Mendota Road.
Private Utilities
No utility companies have indicated they will be making improvements to their distribution
networks in conjunction with our proposed improvements.
Funding
Per the City’s Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy, it is proposed that the benefiting
property owners will be assessed for street construction. Municipal bonds will be used to finance
the City’s portion of the street reconstruction.
Feasibility
From an engineering standpoint, this project is necessary, cost-effective, feasible, and can be
accomplished as proposed.
page 140
Feasibility Report Page 9
Project No. 201507
FUNDING SOURCES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
The area proposed to be assessed is every lot, piece, and parcel within the city limits benefiting
from said improvement, whether abutting or not, within the following described areas:
High Ridge Circle, Sibley Court, Mendota Road and Warrior Drive.
Specific property descriptions included in the above-described area are shown on the map
attached in Appendix A.
The roadway improvement costs can be assessed on a unit basis to the benefiting properties as
per the Street Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Policy adopted by the City council on June 16,
1992. All units with a driveway located on one of the proposed streets that are to be rehabilitated
will be assessed.
The following sections discuss the assessment distribution for the streets based on the City’s
policy.
Estimated Project Costs
The following costs were prepared based upon an Engineer’s Opinion of Estimated Costs
(Appendix F) and are subject to change, depending on the final design of the project, soil
conditions, bids received, and actual work performed.
PROJECT COSTS
ITEM CONSTRUCTION INDIRECT* TOTAL
Street Reconstruction Mendota Road $664,133.46 $166,033.37 $830,166.83
Street Rehabilitation Warrior Drive $583,259.52 $145,814.88 $729,074.40
Curb Replacement $46,593.00 $11,648.25 $58,241.25
Trail $46,476.00 $11,619.00 $58,095.00
Storm Sewer $149,270.00 $37,317.50 $186,587.50
Totals $1,489,731.98 $372,433.00 $1,862,164.98
* Includes 25% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administration, and finance.
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE COST
ITEM MAINTENANCE INDIRECT* TOTAL
Chip Seal Street Coating $80,940 $12,141 $93,081
Totals $80,940 $12,141 $93,081
* Includes 10% for contingencies, and 5% for engineering cost.
page 141
Feasibility Report Page 10
Project No. 201507
Proposed Estimated Assessments
The estimated total assessable amount for the project is based on specially assessing 50% of the
following costs: mobilization, traffic control, bituminous removal/reclamation, bituminous base
course, bituminous wear course, tack coat, valve and manhole adjustments, and appurtenant
work. City costs include curb and gutter replacement, sod restoration, bituminous trail overlay
and appurtenant work.
The estimated unit assessment for this project was determined by calculating the number of
assessable lots and dividing them into the total assessable project cost. The preliminary
assessment roll listing the assessable parcels is provided in Appendix F.
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET RECONSTRUCTION – MENDOTA ROAD
Assessable Costs $830,166.83
Assessment $415,083.41 50%
Assessable Units 26
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $15,964.74 $415,083.24 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment* $7,593.00 $175,218.00 21%
* Units that were assessed $3700 for the Town Center project will have their assessment lowered by that amount.
ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS - STREET REHABILITATION – WARRIOR DRIVE
Assessable Costs $729,074.40
Assessment $364,537.20 50%
Assessable Units 50
Estimated Unit Assessment per City Policy $7,290.74 $364,537.00 50%
Proposed Unit Assessment $3,950.00 $197,500.00 27%
The estimated unit assessments for the street rehabilitation are higher than the rates that staff
anticipates for future reconstruction and rehabilitation projects with pavement reclamation due to
the anticipated sub-grade correction. Staff proposes to assess the benefiting properties
$7,593/unit in the reconstruction area of the project, $3,893/unit in the reconstruction area of the
project for the properties that were assessed $3700 during Town Center project and $3,950/unit
in the rehabilitation project area in order to bring the rate closer to anticipated costs.
The costs and funding sources for the projects are summarized in the following table:
FUNDING SOURCES
ITEM
COST
ESTIMATE
ASSESSM
ENT
MUNICIPAL
BONDS
MSA
FUNDS
UTILITY
FUNDS
Street Reconstruction
Mendota Road $830,167 $175,218 $204,949 $450,000
Street Rehabilitation
Warrior Drive $729,074 $197,500 $531,574
Curb Replacement $58,241 $58,241
Trail $58,095 $58,095
Storm Sewer $186,588 $186,588
Preventative Maintenance $93,081 $93,081.00
Totals $1,955,246 $372,718 $852,859 $450,000 $186,588
page 142
Feasibility Report Page 11
Project No. 201507
With a total estimated assessable project cost of $1,225,577, the assessed amount of $372,718
would be equivalent to 30% of the total bond issue. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 Special
Assessment Bond Issue requires that a minimum of 20% of the total bond issue amount be
recovered through special assessments.
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
The following project schedule outlines an approach to complete the assessable project in 2016:
ACTIVITY DATE
Accept Feasibility Study/Call for Public Hearing September 1, 2015
Hold Neighborhood Informational Meeting September 21, 2015
Conduct Public Hearing/Accept Project/Order Plans and Specifications November 17, 2015
Approve Plans and Specifications/Order Advertisements for Bids January 2016
Open Bids March 2016
Accept Bids/Award Contract April 2016
Begin Construction May/June 2016
Complete Bituminous Pavement August 2016
Authorize Amount to be Assessed/Schedule Assessment Hearing October 2016
Conduct Assessment Hearing/Adopt Assessment Roll October 2016
CONCLUSION
The proposed improvements are necessary, cost effective, and feasible from an engineering
standpoint and should be made as proposed.
The total estimated cost of the recommended improvements is $1,955,246. A portion of this
project is proposed to be assessed to the benefiting property owners and the remainder through
other funding sources.
page 143
Feasibility Report
Project No. 201507
APPENDIX A: Mendota Road Improvements Project Area
page 144
HWY 110
MARIE AVE W
MENDOTA RD
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
SO
U
T
H
L
N
WA
R
R
I
O
R
D
R
KN
O
B
R
D
CALLAHAN PL
WESLEY LN
PRIVATE ROAD
FREEWAY RD S
MENDOTA RD W
FREEWAY RD N
DO
D
D
R
D
SIBLEY CT
NA
T
U
R
E
V
I
E
W
L
N
PRESERVE PATH
DEER RUN TRL
OA
K
S
T
CH
A
R
D
E
L
C
T
DARLA CT
MARKET ST
WE
S
L
E
Y
C
T
LINDEN ST
HW
Y
O
A
K
S
T
HWY 110
HIG
H
R
I
D
G
E
C
I
R
NATURE VIEW CT
HE
A
T
H
E
R
C
T
NA
T
U
R
E
W
A
Y
RI
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
MAGE
R
C
T
M
A
I
N
S
T
Mendota Road Neighborhood Improvements Project Area
June 29, 2015
City ofMendotaHeights0490
SCALE IN FEET
Legend
Assesed Properties Mendota Road
Assesed Properties Warrior Drive
Improvement Type
Warrior Drive Rehabilitation
Mendota Road Reconstruction
page 145
Feasibility Report
Project No. 201507
APPENDIX B: Property Owner Questionnaire and Responses
page 146
June 30, 2015
RE: Mendota Road Neighborhood Improvements – Property Owners Questionnaire
Dear Resident:
The City of Mendota Heights has initiated the process of roadway and utility improvements for
the summer of 2016 which includes your neighborhood. The 2013-2017 Street Improvement
Plan (SIP) identifies future street reconstruction and rehabilitation projects and the Mendota
Road Neighborhood Improvement project is planned for 2016. The Mendota Heights City
Council ordered the preparation of a feasibility report for the Mendota Road Neighborhood
Improvements at the May 19, 2015, city council meeting.
The next step is to get feedback from you regarding a number of key components of the project.
The information you share with us is essential in determining certain aspects of the project that
may be constructed.
Things to know and consider if an improvement project is approved:
Residents pay a portion of the overall project cost in the form of a special assessment.
You will not be billed for the special assessment until Fall 2017. Estimated special
assessments for your neighborhood will not be determined until after information has
been gathered from the questionnaires and a feasibility report is completed.
Components of a project vary and are based on questionnaire responses. Special
assessments typically include the cost of the new roadway. Other utility upgrades such as
water main, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer are funded through utility funds and are not
assessed.
Construction typically starts in spring/early summer and ends in late fall of the same year.
The following information explains the questionnaire that is enclosed. A map showing the
boundaries of the area to be reconstructed is also enclosed. After reading this letter completely,
please complete the questionnaire and return by July 17, 2015, in the self-addressed stamped
envelope.
Drainage and Erosion Issues
Typically, the installation of curb and gutter as well as rain gardens go a long way in correcting
drainage issues due to concentrated flows from streets onto private property.
The City would like to know about any local drainage problems that you may have. Does storm
water run-off stand in the street or in front of your house? As part of the storm sewer design
process, we would like to know if this or similar situations are occurring in your neighborhood.
page 147
If so, please describe it in the drainage and erosion section of the questionnaire. We will review
them for possible corrective action.
Rain Gardens
A rain garden is simply a "sunken" flowerbed, designed to retain and infiltrate as much storm
water as possible. Rather than having the typical "raised" flowerbed that drains water away from
the plants that need it, how about creating a garden to capture and use storm water to water the
plants? The benefit to the environment is the reduction in the amount of storm water entering our
ponds, lakes and streams. Every drop of water entering the street has no place to go, except down
the gutter, into the storm sewer and into our ponds, lakes, streams and rivers.
Should you choose to have a rain garden, it will be graded, prepared and plants supplied as part
of the project at NO additional cost to you. The only condition is that you take ownership of the
garden as far as maintaining it as part of your landscaping. Please call or stop in at the
Engineering Department in City Hall for more information.
Private Underground Utilities
Some residents install private underground utilities in the City owned right-of-way. Typically the
right-of-way is 15' to 20' behind the roadway. These utilities are usually lawn irrigation or pet
containment systems. Utility and roadway reconstruction can damage these utilities. The
contractor is responsible for protecting marked irrigation systems and pet fences, if damaged;
they will be replaced to their original condition by the contractor. However, if the contractor
knows the location of these private utilities, they can attempt to avoid damaging them.
If you have any private underground utilities, please tell us in the private underground utilities
section of the questionnaire.
Tree Issues
The City regards trees as an important element in any neighborhood environment and will do
everything possible to design around any boulevard trees - especially mature ones. By no means
will the City ever clear-cut entire boulevards of trees as part of a construction project!
Property owners must understand, however, there are some instances in which boulevard trees
may need to be removed. Several instances include whether 1) the tree is an obstruction in which
the new street, in extreme cases, cannot be designed around or 2) if the tree has been a
maintenance problem or sight distance hazard in the past, or 3) if the tree is located over an
existing utility in need of repair.
If a tree needs to be removed, the City will notify the property owner whose yard fronts the
boulevard in which the tree stands prior to removal and explain the reason for removal. Residents
who desire to have boulevard trees removed must notify the city prior to construction bidding
which usually occurs in early spring. Residents who desire to have non-boulevard trees removed
or trimmed must do so at their expense.
page 148
Traffic/Pedestrian Issues
The City of Mendota Heights typically reviews traffic or pedestrian issues on local streets. We
would like to know if you feel that your roadway has any traffic or pedestrian issues.
The existing street width on Mendota Road is between 27 and 30 feet wide from bit edge to bit
edge. The city standard street width is 33 feet wide from face of curb to face of curb.
The street width of 33 feet wide would be wide enough for one car to be parked and still
maintain two drivable lanes on the street. The 33 feet wide street section will allow for parking
only on the one side of street and the other side of the street would be posted as “No Parking".
An alternative option is to reconstruct the street to be 28 feet wide. This option would result in
no on-street parking. Please tell us your preferred street width in the traffic/pedestrian issues
section of the questionnaire and indicate your preferred choice, On-street parking in front of your
property or no on-street parking.
Questions
If you have questions after reading this letter, please call me or the engineering staff at 651-452-
1850.
Sincerely,
Ryan Ruzek, PE
Assistant City Engineer
ryanr@mendota-heights.com
Enclosed: Property Owners Questionnaire
Reconstruction Map
Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope
page 149
Project No. 201507 Mendota Road Neighborhood Improvements 1
PROPERTY OWNERS QUESTIONAIRE MENDOTA ROAD
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS
Please do NOT answer these questions before you have read the attached letter. Please complete and
return this survey by July 17, 2015, using the self-addressed stamped-envelope.
Address __________________________________________________________________________
Drainage and Erosion Issues
1. Do you regularly get water in your basement? Yes No
If yes, when? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
After big rain storms After almost any rain or melting event
In the spring - during snow melt All the time - continuous
Comments__________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
2. Do you have any of the following? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
Basement drain tile Sump pump None
3. Does water stand in your yard after big storms? Yes No
If yes,
A. How long is it there? ______________________________________________________
B. How far away is it from your house? __________________________________________
C. Where is it in relation to your house (direction and feet)? _________________________
D. Is the standing water creating damage to the property or is it just a nuisance?
________________________________________________________________________
E. Please sketch in the space below: your house, garage, driveway, and where drainage
problem is occurring:
4. Please list specific surface water drainage or erosion problems in your neighborhood:
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: Most private drainage problems (which are usually attributed to grades at or near the
foundation) will likely NOT be solved by this street project. However, with this information we may
be able to take a look at the whole picture and possibly address some occurrences.
page 150
Project No. 201507 Mendota Road Neighborhood Improvements 2
Rain Gardens
5. If it is feasible to do so, do you wish to have a rain garden placed in the boulevard on your
parcel? Yes No
If you answered "yes",
A. Do you have a preferred size? _______________________________________________
B. Preferred location: ________________________________________________________
6. Additional Comments/Questions about Rain Gardens:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Please check out www.bluethumb.org for more information on rain gardens or contact the
Engineering Department at 651-452-1850.
Private Underground Utilities
7. Do you have an underground lawn irrigation system in the City right-of-way? (Typically the
right-of-way is 15' to 20' behind the roadway.) Yes No
8. Do you have an underground electric pet containment system in the City's right-of-way?
Yes No
9. Do you have any private wiring, private pipes, etc in the City's right-of-way?
Yes No
Tree Issues
10. Do you have any trees in the City right-of-way that you would like removed? (Typically the
right-of-way is 15' to 20' behind the roadway.) Yes No
Traffic/Pedestrian Issues
11. If you live on Mendota Road would you prefer on street parking lane/space in front of your
property?
No Parking Parking on the North side of the street
12. Preferred street width for Mendota Road Drive.
33 Feet (with Parking on One-Side) 28 Feet (No Parking)
13. Do you feel your neighborhood or roadway has any pedestrian or traffic issues (e.g. crossing
adjacent to busy roadways, parking, excessive speed, traffic volumes, etc.)?
Yes No
If yes, where?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Other Issues
14. Additional Comments/Questions:
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your cooperation. Please return this questionnaire in the enclosed self-addressed,
stamped-envelope. Please complete all questions and return to the City of Mendota Heights by
July 17, 2015.
page 151
QU
E
S
T
I
O
N
N
A
I
R
E
R
E
S
P
O
N
S
E
S
CI
T
Y
O
F
M
E
N
D
O
T
A
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
Me
n
d
o
t
a
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
D
a
t
e
:
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
5
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
S
e
n
t
O
u
t
:
1
5
L
a
s
t
D
a
t
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
#20
1
5
0
7
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
D
u
e
D
a
t
e
:
7
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
5
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
R
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
:
9
La
s
t
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
R
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
:
7
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
5
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
R
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
:
6
0
%
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
E
r
o
s
i
o
n
I
s
s
u
e
s
Ra
i
n
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
P
r
i
va
t
e
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
T
r
e
e
I
s
s
u
e
s
Traffic/Pedestrian Issues Othe r Issues
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Re
t
u
r
n
e
d
Su
r
v
e
y
De
s
c
r
i
b
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
r
a
i
n
a
g e
o
r
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
pr
o
b
l
e
m
s
i
n
y
o
u
r
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
.
Describe specific pedestrian or traffic issues in your neighborhood.Describe other issues or concerns in your neighborhood.
Ye
s
N
o
Ba
s
e
m
e
n
t
d
r
a
i
n
t
i
l
e
Su
m
p
Pu
m
p
N
o
n
e
Y
e
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
M
a
y
b
e
Y
e
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
Y
e
s
N
o
No
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
No
r
t
h
Si
d
e
3
3
'
2
8
'
Did Not Vote Yes No
XX
X
X
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
1
0
/
M
en
d
o
t
a
R
d
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Excessive Speed. Would prefer to keep bike path where it is. Weve gotten used to itIt is nice to start a walk without havin g to cross the street
59
1
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
1
0
/
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
R
d
1
1
1
1
1
3.
T
h
e
B
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
i
g in
a
l
1
9
3
9
ho
u
s
e
i
s
j
u
s
t
b
l
o
c
k
-
n
o
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
o
f
i
n
g
-
we
p
l
a
n
t
o
t
r
y
r
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
ba
c
k
(an
d
m
o
s
t
l
y d
e
a
l
w
i
t
h
i
t
-
t
h
e
1
9
3
9
ba
s
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
2
0
1
3
ba
s
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
a
s
o
n
s
)
.
2
0
1
3
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
h
a
s
n
o
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
h
a
s
d
r
a
i
n
ti
l
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
u
m
p
p
u
m
p
.
4
.
W
h
e
n
th
e
r
s
e
i
s
a
l
a
r
g
e
s
t
o
r
m
t
h
e
c
a
t
c
h
ba
s
i
n
@
W
a
r
r
i
o
r
a
n
d
1
1
0
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
Ro
a
d
b
a
ck
s
u
p
an
d
c
o
m
e
s
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
NU
R
T
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
With the Hart to Home deveklopment next door, one of our significant concerns(expressed previously to the city) would be alliviated by having on-street parking to reduce the number of their vehicles staff/vissitors that have to crossthe NURT.When the NURT and curb and g utter were put in, our curb was not placed appropriately on the east side, for us to be able to turn onto outr driveway when approaching from the east. We would like our curb cut moved further east to accommodate this.
59
5
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
1
0
/
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
R
d
1
1
1
1
1
Se
e
m
T
o
h
a
v
e
a
d
a
m
p
c
o
r
n
e
r
n
e
a
r
se
w
e
r
d
r
a
i
n
(
s
k
e
t
c
h
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Excessive Speed between Warrior Dr. and Oak St.Might help to have another stop sign at Warrior and Mendota RdHaving a wider road and shoulder would make for a safer road and add some buffer to the heavily used sidewalk
59
9
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
1
0
/
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
R
d
1
1
1
1
Du
e
t
o
w
a
y e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
o
n
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
di
r
e
c
t
l
y
e
a
s
t
w
a
t
e
r
i
s
n
o
w
c
a
u
s
i
n
g
pr
o
b
l
e
m
i
n
m
y
y
a
r
d
.
T
h
i
s
h
a
d
n
o
t
pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
b
e
e
n
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
With Senior Housin g next door concern regardingtheir parking and entry onto Mendota Road- noturn around- direct backing into the traffic
63
9
H
i
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
/
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
R
d
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
64
5
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
1
0
/
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
R
d
1
1
1
1
A ft
e
r
B
i
g r
a
i
n
s
t
o
r
m
s
,
l
o
t
s
o
f
r
a
i
n
i
n
th
e
s
h
o
r
t
t
i
m
e
,
s
t
o
r
m
d
r
a
i
n
F
a
i
l
a
n
d
wa
t
e
r
b
a
c
k
s
u
p
t
o
ho
u
s
e
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
dr
a
i
n
i
s
s
u
e
i
n
b
o
t
h
s
t
o
r
m
d
r
a
i
n
s
,
t
h
e
y
ca
n
t
n
o
t
k
e
e
p
u
p
w
i
t
h
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
m
ra
i
n
s
t
o
r
m
s
t
h
a
t
d
u
m
p
s
i
n
c
h
e
s
o
f
r
a
i
n
in
h
o
u
r
.
W
a
t
e
r
b
a
c
k
u
p
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
y ar
d
t
o
ho
u
s
e
.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Excessive Speed. Back of the house, storm drain on South Lane is damaged, needs repair.
65
1
H
i
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
/
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
R
d
1
1
1
1
No
n
e
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
None
66
3
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
1
0
/
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
R
d
1
1
1
1
A ft
e
r
B
i
g r
a
i
n
s
t
o
r
m
s
s
o
m
e
t
i
m
e
s
cl
a
s
s
5
w
a
s
h
e
s
o
u
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
F
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
r
d
.
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
r
o
a
d
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
66
9
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
1
1
/
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
R
d
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Mendota Road/110 Fronta g e Rd is in dire need of resurfacing between Delaware and Market St.
67
3
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
1
0
/
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
R
d
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Some speedin g on service rd in front.
R e t u
r
n
e
d
1
0
1
9
3
2
7
3
7
2
7
0
0
1
0
2
8
0
1
0
2
8
6
2
3
6
1
6
4
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
R
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
*
1
0
0
%
1
0
%
9
0
%
3
0
%
2
0
%
7
0
%
3
0
%
7
0
%
2
0
%
7
0
%
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
2
0
%
8
0
%
0
%
1
0
0
%
2
0
%
8
0
%
6
0
%
2
0
%
3
0
%
6
0
%
1
0
%
6
0
%
4
0
%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
S
e
n
t
O
u
t
*
6
7
%
7
%
6
0
%
2
0
%
1
3
%
4
7
%
2
0
%
4
7
%
1
3
%
4
7
%
0
%
0
%
6
7
%
1
3
%
5
3
%
0
%
6
7
%
1
3
%
5
3
%
4
0
%
1
3
%
2
0
%
4
0
%
7
%
4
0
%
2
7
%
*
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g es
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
o
f
r
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
s
a
n
d
m
a
y n
o
t
e
q
u
a
l
1
0
0
%
i
f
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
w
e
r
e
n
o
t
a
n
s
w
e
r
e
d
o
n
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e
.
Wa
t
e
r
i
n
ba
s
e
m
e
n
t
?
Pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
Wi
d
t
h
?
Wo
u
l
d
Y
o
u
P
r
e
f
e
r
st
r
e
t
p
a
r
k
i
n
g s
p
a
c
e
in
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
y
o
u
r
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Does your neighborhood have any pedestrian or traffic issues?
Do
y
o
u
h
a
v
e
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
?
Do
e
s
w
a
t
e
r
st
a
n
d
i
n
y
o
u
r
ya
r
d
a
f
t
e
r
b
i
g
st
o
r
m
s
?
If
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
w
o
u
l
d
yo
u
l
i
k
e
a
r
a
i
n
ga
r
d
e
n
i
n
y
o
u
r
ya
r
d
?
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
.
in
R
O
W
?
Pe
t
Co
n
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
Sy
s
.
i
n
RO
W
?
Ot
h
e
r
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
RO
W
?
Do
y
o
u
h
a
v
e
a
tr
e
e
i
n
t
h
e
R
O
W
yo
u
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
re
m
o
v
e
d
?
Page 1 of 1page 152
HWY 110 MENDOTA RD
DE
L
A
W
A
R
E
A
V
E
SO
U
T
H
L
N
WA
R
R
I
O
R
D
R
KN
O
B
R
D
WESLEY LN
FREEWAY RD S
DODG
E
L
N
FREEWAY RD N
MENDOTA RD W
SIBLEY CT
NA
T
U
R
E
V
I
E
W
L
N
DEER RUN TRL
OA
K
S
T
DARLA CT
HIG
H
R
I
D
G
E
C
I
R
NATURE VIEW CT
HW
Y
O
A
K
S
T
MARKET ST
HWY 110
WE
S
L
E
Y
C
T
LINDEN ST
Mendota Road Neighborhood Improvements Parking Survey Results & Proposed Road Width
August 3, 2015
City ofMendotaHeights0440
SCALE IN FEET
Legend
Road Width
28'
33'
Parking Survey Results
No parking
Not answered/No preference
Parking
page 153
Feasibility Report
Project No. 201507
APPENDIX C: Typical Sections
page 154
page 155
page 156
page 157
page 158
page 159
Feasibility Report
Project No. 201507
APPENDIX D: Street Maintenance Seal Coating Map
page 160
Preventative Maintenance:Seal Coating Projects for 2015
August 19, 2015
City ofMendotaHeights0870
SCALE IN FEET
Preventative Maintenance
2015
Chip Seal
Fog Seal
page 161
Feasibility Report
Project No. 201507
APPENDIX E: Trail Improvement Map
page 162
LAURA CT
LA
U
R
A
S
T
669
1313
1324
662670
1308
671 665 655675
5
11
60203040
4
6
49
59
60
62
65
70
76
79
8
0
13
5
13
5
13
5
13
5
88
10
6
12
0
120
1
2
1
198140
146
14
8
159
16
2
18
0
190
19
3
200
210
27
0
220
22
2
703
644
4
8
1
3.5
2
s
q
f
t
Laura Trail Overlay City ofMendotaHeights0100
SCALE IN FEET
GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights.
Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation.
8/28/2015
Brookside Ln
page 163
Feasibility Report
Project No. 201507
APPENDIX F: Engineer’s Opinion of Estimated Costs
page 164
CI
T
Y
O
F
M
E
N
D
O
T
A
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
Me
n
d
o
t
a
R
o
a
d
/
W
a
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
PR
O
J
E
C
T
#
:
20
1
5
0
7
S.
A
.
P
.
#
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
TO
T
A
L
LOCAL JOB 201507 STORM SEWER
IT
E
M
NO
.
S
P
E
C
.
N
O
.
I
T
E
M
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
U
N
I
T
ES
T
I
M
A
T
ED
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
UN
I
T
P
R
I
C
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
AM
O
U
N
T
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
AM
O
U
N
T
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
AM
O
U
N
T
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNTENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNTENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNTENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNT
SC
H
E
D
U
L
E
'
A
'
-
S
T
R
E
E
T
R
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
&
R
E
H
A
B
I
L
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
1
2
0
2
1
.
5
0
1
M
O
B
I
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
L.
S
.
1
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
.
5
0
1
C
L
E
A
R
I
N
G
AC
R
E
0.
2
$
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
2
$
1
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
3
2
1
0
1
.
5
0
6
G
R
U
B
B
I
N
G
AC
R
E
0.
2
$
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
2
$
1
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
4
2
1
0
1
.
6
0
2
C
L
E
A
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
G
R
U
B
B
I
N
G
4
"
A
N
D
L
A
R
G
E
R
D
I
A
M
E
T
E
R
TR
E
E
8
$
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
8
.
0
$
3
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
5
2
1
0
1
.
6
0
2
T
R
E
E
T
R
I
M
M
I
N
G
Ea
c
h
10
$
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6
2
1
0
4
.
5
0
1
R
E
M
O
V
E
C
U
R
B
A
N
D
G
U
T
T
E
R
L.
F
.
1
,
4
0
0
$
4
.
0
0
$
5
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
5
0
0
.
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
9
0
0
.
0
$
3
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
7
2
1
0
4
.
5
0
1
R
E
M
O
V
E
B
I
T
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
C
U
R
B
L.
F
.
1
9
0
$
4
.
0
0
$
7
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1
9
0
.
0
$
7
6
0
.
0
0
8
2
1
0
4
.
5
0
1
R
E
M
O
V
E
M
E
T
A
L
C
U
L
V
E
R
T
L.
F
.
1
0
0
$
9
.
0
0
$
9
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
0
.
0
$
9
0
0
.
0
0
9
2
1
0
4
.
5
0
1
R
E
M
O
V
E
S
E
W
E
R
P
I
P
E
(
S
T
O
R
M
)
L.
F
.
3
0
0
$
9
.
0
0
$
2
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
3
0
0
.
0
$
2
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
10
2
1
0
4
.
5
0
5
R
E
M
O
V
E
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
S.
Y
.
1
3
9
$
1
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
3
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1
3
9
$
1
,
3
9
0
.
0
0
11
2
1
0
4
.
5
0
5
R
E
M
O
V
E
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
S.
Y
.
4
4
4
$
7
.
0
0
$
3
,
1
0
8
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
4
4
4
.
0
$
3
,
1
0
8
.
0
0
12
2
1
0
4
.
5
0
5
R
E
M
O
V
E
B
I
T
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
S.
Y
.
1
,
5
5
5
$
4
.
0
0
$
6
,
2
2
0
.
0
0
7
1
1
.
0
$
2
,
8
4
4
.
0
0
8
4
4
.
0
$
3
,
3
7
6
.
0
0
13
2
1
0
4
.
5
0
5
R
E
M
O
V
E
B
I
T
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
S.
Y
.
2
3
,
8
1
0
$
4
.
0
0
$
9
5
,
2
3
9
.
9
9
1
0
,
2
9
1
.
7
$
4
1
,
1
6
6
.
6
7
1
3
,
5
1
8
.
3
$
5
4
,
0
7
3
.
3
2
14
2
1
0
4
.
5
0
5
R
E
M
O
V
E
B
I
T
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
T
R
A
I
L
S.
Y
.
5
5
6
$
4
.
0
0
$
2
,
2
2
4
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
5
5
6
$
2
,
2
2
4
.
0
0
15
2
1
0
4
.
5
0
9
R
E
M
O
V
E
M
A
N
H
O
L
E
O
R
C
A
T
C
H
B
A
S
I
N
Ea
c
h
7
$
3
5
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
7
.
0
$
2
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
16
2
1
0
4
.
5
1
3
S
A
W
I
N
G
B
I
T
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
(
F
U
L
L
D
E
P
T
H
)
L.
F
.
3
1
0
$
3
.
5
0
$
1
,
0
8
5
.
0
0
2
5
0
.
0
$
8
7
5
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
$
2
1
0
.
0
0
17
2
1
0
4
.
5
1
3
S
A
W
I
N
G
B
I
T
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
L.
F
.
1
5
0
$
3
.
0
0
$
4
5
0
.
0
0
1
5
0
.
0
$
4
5
0
.
0
0
18
2
1
0
4
.
5
2
1
S
A
L
V
A
G
E
W
O
O
D
E
N
F
E
N
C
E
L.
F
.
0
$
1
5
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
19
2
1
0
4
.
6
0
3
R
E
M
O
V
E
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
L.
F
.
0
$
1
6
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
20
2
1
0
4
.
6
0
7
S
A
L
V
A
G
E
R
A
N
D
O
M
R
I
P
R
A
P
C.
Y
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
21
2
1
0
5
.
6
0
7
C
O
M
M
O
N
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
P
)
C.
Y
.
6
,
7
6
2
$
2
5
.
0
0
$
1
6
9
,
0
5
2
.
9
1
3
,
4
7
6
.
3
$
8
6
,
9
0
7
.
4
1
3
,
2
8
5
.
8
$
8
2
,
1
4
5
.
5
0
22
2
1
0
5
.
5
0
7
S
U
B
G
R
A
D
E
/
A
G
G
R
E
G
A
T
E
B
A
S
E
C
O
R
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N
O
U
T
S
I
D
E
T
H
E
AR
E
A
O
F
I
N
F
L
U
E
N
C
E
O
F
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
E
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
T
R
E
N
C
H
E
S
(
S
E
E
SP
E
C
I
A
L
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
-
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
2
)
C.
Y
.
1
,
1
9
1
$
2
4
.
0
0
$
2
8
,
5
8
4
.
0
0
5
1
5
.
0
$
1
2
,
3
6
0
.
0
0
6
7
6
.
0
$
1
6
,
2
2
4
.
0
0
23
2
1
0
5
.
5
2
2
S
E
L
E
C
T
G
R
A
N
U
L
A
R
B
O
R
R
O
W
(
C
V
)
C.
Y
.
1
,
1
9
1
$
1
3
.
0
0
$
1
5
,
4
8
3
.
0
0
5
1
5
.
0
$
6
,
6
9
5
.
0
0
6
7
6
.
0
$
8
,
7
8
8
.
0
0
24
2
1
0
5
.
5
2
6
S
E
L
E
C
T
T
O
P
S
O
I
L
B
O
R
R
O
W
(
L
V
)
C.
Y
.
1
,
2
6
5
$
1
8
.
0
0
$
2
2
,
7
7
0
.
0
0
1
,
1
5
0
.
0
$
2
0
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
1
1
5
.
0
$
2
,
0
7
0
.
0
0
25
2
1
1
2
.
6
0
4
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
U
B
G
R
A
D
E
P
R
E
P
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
S.
Y
.
1
2
,
5
1
5
$
0
.
7
5
$
9
,
3
8
6
.
2
5
1
2
,
5
1
5
.
0
$
9
,
3
8
6
.
2
5
26
2
1
1
2
.
6
0
4
B
A
S
E
P
R
E
P
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
(
S
E
E
S
P
E
C
I
A
L
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
-
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
2
)
S.
Y
.
2
2
,
5
5
4
$
0
.
7
5
$
1
6
,
9
1
5
.
5
0
9
,
8
8
0
.
0
$
7
,
4
1
0
.
0
0
1
2
,
6
7
4
.
0
$
9
,
5
0
5
.
5
0
27
2
1
1
2
.
6
0
4
T
R
A
I
L
B
A
S
E
P
R
E
P
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
S.
Y
.
5
5
6
$
1
.
5
0
$
8
3
4
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
5
5
6
$
8
3
4
.
0
0
28
2
1
2
3
.
5
0
1
C
O
M
M
O
N
L
A
B
O
R
HR
1
0
$
6
0
.
0
0
$
6
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
$
6
0
0
.
0
0
29
2
1
2
3
.
5
0
9
D
O
Z
E
R
W
I
T
H
O
P
E
R
A
T
O
R
HR
1
0
$
1
2
5
.
0
0
$
1
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
$
1
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
30
2
1
2
3
.
5
1
4
2
C
U
Y
D
F
R
O
N
T
E
N
D
L
O
A
D
E
R
W
I
T
H
O
P
E
R
A
T
O
R
HR
1
0
$
1
2
5
.
0
0
$
1
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
$
1
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
31
2
1
2
3
.
6
1
0
S
K
I
D
S
T
E
E
R
(
B
O
B
C
A
T
)
W
I
T
H
O
P
E
R
A
T
O
R
HR
1
0
$
9
0
.
0
0
$
9
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
$
9
0
0
.
0
0
LOCAL JOB 201507 CURB REPLACEMENT
LO
C
A
L
J
O
B
2
0
1
5
0
7
TRAILS PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
O
P
I
N
I
O
N
O
F
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
C
O
S
T
S
20
1
5
0
7
M
E
N
D
O
T
A
R
O
A
D
2
0
1
5
0
7
,
W
A
R
R
I
O
R
D
R
I
V
E
Page 1 of 3page 165
PR
O
J
E
C
T
TO
T
A
L
LOCAL JOB 201507 STORM SEWER
IT
E
M
NO
.
S
P
E
C
.
N
O
.
I
T
E
M
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
U
N
I
T
ES
T
I
M
A
T
ED
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
UN
I
T
P
R
I
C
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
AM
O
U
N
T
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
AM
O
U
N
T
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
AM
O
U
N
T
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNTENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNTENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNTENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNTLOCAL JOB 201507 CURB REPLACEMENT
LO
C
A
L
J
O
B
2
0
1
5
0
7
TRAILS PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
20
1
5
0
7
M
E
N
D
O
T
A
R
O
A
D
2
0
1
5
0
7
,
W
A
R
R
I
O
R
D
R
I
V
E
32
2
1
2
3
.
6
1
0
B
A
C
K
H
O
E
W
I
T
H
O
P
E
R
A
T
O
R
HR
1
0
$
1
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
33
2
2
1
1
.
5
0
1
A
G
G
R
E
G
A
T
E
B
A
S
E
C
L
A
S
S
5
(
V
I
R
G
I
N
,
1
0
0
%
C
R
U
S
H
E
D
)
,
I
N
P
L
A
C
E
TO
N
4
,
2
8
0
$
1
6
.
0
0
$
6
8
,
4
8
6
.
4
0
3
,
5
6
7
.
0
$
5
7
,
0
7
2
.
0
0
7
1
3
.
4
$
1
1
,
4
1
4
.
4
0
34
2
2
1
1
.
5
0
1
A
G
G
R
E
G
A
T
E
B
A
S
E
C
L
A
S
S
5
(
R
E
C
Y
C
L
E
D
,
O
N
-
S
I
T
E
)
,
I
N
P
L
A
C
E
TO
N
3
,
6
8
1
$
6
.
0
0
$
2
2
,
0
8
6
.
0
0
3
,
4
7
3
.
0
$
2
0
,
8
3
8
.
0
0
2
0
8
$
1
,
2
4
8
.
0
0
35
2
2
1
1
.
5
0
1
1
1
/
2
"
S
C
R
E
E
N
E
D
C
L
E
A
N
A
G
G
R
E
G
A
T
E
B
A
S
E
TO
N
3
5
2
$
2
2
.
0
0
$
7
,
7
4
4
.
0
0
3
5
2
.
0
$
7
,
7
4
4
.
0
0
36
2
2
3
2
.
5
0
1
M
I
L
L
B
I
T
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
(
1
.
5
"
N
O
M
I
N
A
L
D
E
P
T
H
)
(
P
R
I
O
R
T
O
W
E
A
R
S.
Y
.
5
6
$
8
.
0
0
$
4
4
8
.
0
0
5
6
.
0
$
4
4
8
.
0
0
37
2
3
0
1
.
5
0
4
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
7
.
0
"
S.
Y
.
6
0
$
6
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
$
3
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
38
2
3
3
1
.
6
0
4
B
I
T
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
R
E
C
L
A
M
A
T
I
O
N
(
1
0
"
N
O
M
I
N
A
L
D
E
P
T
H
)
S.
Y
.
1
0
,
2
9
2
$
2
.
5
0
$
2
5
,
7
3
0
.
0
0
1
0
,
2
9
2
.
0
$
2
5
,
7
3
0
.
0
0
39
2
3
5
5
.
5
0
2
B
I
T
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
F
O
R
F
O
G
S
E
A
L
GA
L
6
8
8
$
2
.
4
8
$
1
,
7
0
6
.
2
4
6
8
8
.
0
$
1
,
7
0
6
.
2
4
40
2
3
5
7
.
5
0
2
B
I
T
U
M
I
N
O
U
S
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
F
O
R
T
A
C
K
C
O
A
T
GA
L
1
,
6
9
2
$
3
.
2
5
$
5
,
4
9
9
.
0
0
4
9
4
.
0
$
1
,
6
0
5
.
5
0
1
,
1
9
8
.
0
$
3
,
8
9
3
.
5
0
41
2
3
0
1
.
5
3
8
D
O
W
E
L
B
A
R
1
.
2
5
"
EA
C
H
8
0
$
1
2
.
0
0
$
9
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
8
0
.
0
$
9
6
0
.
0
0
42
2
3
6
0
.
5
0
1
T
Y
P
E
S
P
W
E
A
3
4
0
C
W
E
A
R
I
N
G
C
O
U
R
S
E
,
I
N
-
P
L
A
C
E
(
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
TO
N
2
,
1
8
8
$
6
8
.
0
0
$
1
4
8
,
8
1
4
.
6
0
8
3
4
.
0
$
5
6
,
7
1
2
.
0
0
1
,
3
5
4
.
5
$
9
2
,
1
0
2
.
6
0
43
2
3
6
0
.
5
0
1
T
Y
P
E
S
P
W
E
A
2
4
0
C
W
E
A
R
I
N
G
C
O
U
R
S
E
,
I
N
-
P
L
A
C
E
(
T
R
A
I
L
)
TO
N
1
5
0
$
5
8
.
0
0
$
8
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1
5
0
$
8
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
44
2
3
6
0
.
5
0
2
T
Y
P
E
S
P
N
W
B
2
3
0
B
N
O
N
W
E
A
R
I
N
G
C
O
U
R
S
E
,
I
N
-
P
L
A
C
E
TO
N
3
,
6
4
7
$
5
8
.
0
0
$
2
1
1
,
5
0
5
.
7
0
1
,
3
8
9
.
0
$
8
0
,
5
6
2
.
0
0
2
,
2
5
7
.
7
$
1
3
0
,
9
4
3
.
7
0
45
2
3
6
0
.
5
0
3
3
"
T
Y
P
E
S
P
W
E
A
2
3
0
B
W
E
A
R
I
N
G
C
O
U
R
S
E
F
O
R
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
S
S.
Y
.
7
1
1
$
2
3
.
0
0
$
1
6
,
3
5
3
.
0
0
7
1
1
.
0
$
1
6
,
3
5
3
.
0
0
46
2
4
1
1
.
6
1
8
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
,
T
Y
P
E
M
O
D
U
L
A
R
B
L
O
C
K
S.
F
.
5
0
0
$
3
5
.
0
0
$
1
7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
5
0
0
$
1
7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
47
2
5
0
1
.
5
1
5
1
2
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
A
P
R
O
N
Ea
c
h
1
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1 $1,800.00
48
2
5
0
1
.
5
1
5
1
5
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
A
P
R
O
N
Ea
c
h
1
$
2
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1 $2,100.00
49
2
5
0
1
.
5
1
5
1
8
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
A
P
R
O
N
Ea
c
h
1
$
2
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1 $2,500.00
50
2
5
0
1
.
5
1
5
2
1
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
A
P
R
O
N
Ea
c
h
1
$
2
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1 $2,700.00
51
2
5
0
1
.
5
1
5
3
6
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
A
P
R
O
N
Ea
c
h
1
$
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1 $3,000.00
52
25
0
3
.
5
4
1
TR
A
S
H
G
U
A
R
D
F
O
R
1
2
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
A
P
R
O
N
Ea
c
h
1
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1 $1,800.00
53
25
0
3
.
5
4
1
TR
A
S
H
G
U
A
R
D
F
O
R
1
5
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
A
P
R
O
N
Ea
c
h
1
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1 $1,800.00
54
25
0
3
.
5
4
1
TR
A
S
H
G
U
A
R
D
F
O
R
1
8
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
A
P
R
O
N
Ea
c
h
1
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1 $1,800.00
55
25
0
3
.
5
4
1
TR
A
S
H
G
U
A
R
D
F
O
R
2
1
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
A
P
R
O
N
Ea
c
h
1
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1 $1,800.00
56
25
0
3
.
5
4
1
TR
A
S
H
G
U
A
R
D
F
O
R
3
6
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
A
P
R
O
N
Ea
c
h
1
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1 $1,800.00
57
2
5
0
2
.
6
0
2
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
,
S
A
L
V
A
G
E
,
R
E
S
T
O
R
E
,
O
R
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
,
P
E
R
L
O
T
Ea
c
h
1
0
$
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
58
2
5
0
3
.
5
4
1
1
2
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
S
E
W
E
R
D
E
S
I
G
N
3
0
0
6
C
L
A
S
S
V
L.
F
.
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
.
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1,000 $30,000.00
59
2
5
0
3
.
5
4
1
1
5
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
S
E
W
E
R
D
E
S
I
G
N
3
0
0
6
C
L
A
S
S
V
L.
F
.
5
0
$
3
2
.
0
0
$
1
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
50 $1,600.00
60
2
5
0
3
.
5
4
1
1
8
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
S
E
W
E
R
D
E
S
I
G
N
3
0
0
6
C
L
A
S
S
V
L.
F
.
5
0
$
3
6
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
50 $1,800.00
61
2
5
0
3
.
5
4
1
2
1
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
S
E
W
E
R
D
E
S
I
G
N
3
0
0
6
C
L
A
S
S
V
L.
F
.
5
0
$
4
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
50 $2,000.00
62
2
5
0
3
.
5
4
1
2
7
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
S
E
W
E
R
D
E
S
I
G
N
3
0
0
6
C
L
A
S
S
I
I
I
L.
F
.
1
7
0
$
5
6
.
0
0
$
9
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
170 $9,520.00
63
2
5
0
3
.
5
4
1
3
6
"
R
C
P
I
P
E
S
E
W
E
R
D
E
S
I
G
N
3
0
0
6
C
L
A
S
S
I
I
I
L.
F
.
1
6
0
$
7
0
.
0
0
$
1
1
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
160 $11,200.00
64
2
5
0
3
.
6
0
2
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
T
O
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
S
T
O
R
M
S
E
W
E
R
Ea
c
h
4
$
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
4 $4,000.00
65
2
5
0
4
.
6
0
2
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
Ea
c
h
3
$
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
.
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
.
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
66
2
5
0
4
.
6
0
2
A
D
J
U
S
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
T
O
P
B
O
X
Ea
c
h
1
6
$
1
5
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
1
6
.
0
$
2
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
67
2
5
0
4
.
6
0
2
A
D
J
U
S
T
V
A
L
V
E
B
O
X
,
I
N
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
P
A
R
T
S
Ea
c
h
2
$
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
8
0
0
.
0
0
2
.
0
$
8
0
0
.
0
0
68
2
5
0
6
.
5
0
2
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
C
A
T
C
H
B
A
S
I
N
D
E
S
I
G
N
2
'
X
3
'
,
I
N
-
P
L
A
C
E
Ea
c
h
19
$
1
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
4
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$0
.
0
0
6.
0
$
7
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
13 $16,900.00
69
2
5
0
6
.
5
0
2
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
H
Ea
c
h
3
$
1
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$0
.
0
0
3 $3,000.00
70
2
5
0
6
.
5
0
2
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
4
8
-
4
0
2
0
Ea
c
h
10
$
1
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
7
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$0
.
0
0
10 $17,000.00
71
2
5
0
6
.
5
1
6
C
A
T
C
H
B
A
S
I
N
C
A
S
T
I
N
G
A
S
S
E
M
B
L
Y
,
I
N
-
P
L
A
C
E
Ea
c
h
25
$
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$0
.
0
0
25 $20,000.00
72
2
5
0
6
.
5
2
2
A
D
J
U
S
T
F
R
A
M
E
&
R
I
N
G
C
A
S
T
I
N
G
Ea
c
h
32
$
3
7
5
.
0
0
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$0
.
0
0
6.
0
$
2
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
26 $9,750.00
73
2
5
0
6
.
6
0
2
R
E
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
C
A
T
C
H
B
A
S
I
N
C
A
S
T
I
N
G
,
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
R
I
N
G
S
Ea
c
h
22
$
5
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
4
.
0
$
2
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
1
8
.
0
$
9
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
74
2
5
0
6
.
6
0
2
R
E
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
M
A
N
H
O
L
E
C
A
S
T
I
N
G
,
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
R
I
N
G
S
Ea
c
h
33
$
6
5
0
.
0
0
$
2
1
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
1
5
.
0
$
9
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
1
8
.
0
$
1
1
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
75
25
0
6
.
6
0
2
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
T
O
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
Ea
c
h
4
$
3
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$0
.
0
0
4 $1,400.00
76
2
5
2
1
.
5
0
1
4
"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
L
K
S.
F
.
8
,
9
3
1
$
5
.
5
0
$
4
9
,
1
2
0
.
5
0
0
.
0
$0
.
0
0
8
,
9
3
1
.
0
$
4
9
,
1
2
0
.
5
0
77
2
5
2
1
.
5
0
1
6
"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
L
K
S.
F
.
8
5
0
$
1
0
.
0
0
$
8
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$0
.
0
0
85
0
$
8
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
78
2
5
3
1
.
5
0
1
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
C
U
R
B
&
G
U
T
T
E
R
D
E
S
I
G
N
B
6
1
8
L.
F
.
9
,
1
7
3
$
1
0
.
5
0
$
9
6
,
3
1
6
.
5
0
5
,
1
6
0
.
0
$
5
4
,
1
8
0
.
0
0
4
,
0
1
3
.
0
$
4
2
,
1
3
6
.
5
0
79
2
5
3
1
.
5
0
7
6
"
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
S.
Y
.
0
$
4
5
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
0.
0
$0
.
0
0
Page 2 of 3page 166
PR
O
J
E
C
T
TO
T
A
L
LOCAL JOB 201507 STORM SEWER
IT
E
M
NO
.
S
P
E
C
.
N
O
.
I
T
E
M
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
U
N
I
T
ES
T
I
M
A
T
ED
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
UN
I
T
P
R
I
C
E
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
AM
O
U
N
T
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
AM
O
U
N
T
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
AM
O
U
N
T
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
'
S
ES
T
I
M
A
T
E
D
QU
A
N
T
I
T
Y
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNTENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNTENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNTENGINEER'S ESTIMATED QUANTITYENGINEER'S ESTIMATED AMOUNTLOCAL JOB 201507 CURB REPLACEMENT
LO
C
A
L
J
O
B
2
0
1
5
0
7
TRAILS PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
20
1
5
0
7
M
E
N
D
O
T
A
R
O
A
D
2
0
1
5
0
7
,
W
A
R
R
I
O
R
D
R
I
V
E
80
2
5
3
1
.
6
0
3
R
E
M
O
V
E
A
N
D
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
C
U
R
B
&
G
U
T
T
E
R
-
B
6
1
8
(
I
N
2
0
1
4
)
L.
F
.
2
,
5
4
2
$
2
3
.
2
5
$
5
9
,
1
0
1
.
5
0
5
3
8
.
0
$
1
2
,
5
0
8
.
5
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
2
,
0
0
4
$
4
6
,
5
9
3
.
0
0
81
2
5
3
1
.
6
1
8
T
R
U
N
C
A
T
E
D
D
O
M
E
P
A
N
E
L
S.
F
.
1
6
0
$
3
8
.
0
0
$
6
,
0
8
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
1
6
0
$
6
,
0
8
0
.
0
0
82
2
5
4
0
.
6
0
2
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
M
A
I
L
B
O
X
Ea
c
h
1
6
$
1
5
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
1
6
.
0
$
2
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
83
2
5
4
0
.
6
0
4
S
A
L
V
A
G
E
A
N
D
R
E
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
P
A
V
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
S.
Y
.
5
6
$
5
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
7
7
8
.
0
0
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
5
5
.
6
$
2
,
7
7
8
.
0
0
84
2
5
6
3
.
6
0
1
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
L.
S
.
1
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
8
$
1
1
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
3
$
3
,
7
5
0
.
0
0
85
2
5
7
3
.
5
0
2
S
I
L
T
F
E
N
C
E
,
T
Y
P
E
H
E
A
V
Y
D
U
T
Y
L.
F
.
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
.
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
86
2
5
7
3
.
6
0
2
S
T
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
I
N
L
E
T
P
R
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
U
R
I
N
G
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
Ea
c
h
34
$
2
2
5
.
0
0
$
7
,
6
5
0
.
0
0
1
6
.
0
$
3
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
1
8
.
0
$
4
,
0
5
0
.
0
0
87
2
5
7
5
.
5
0
5
S
O
D
D
I
N
G
T
Y
P
E
L
A
W
N
S.
Y
.
7
,
6
6
7
$
5
.
0
0
$
3
8
,
3
3
3
.
8
9
7
,
6
6
6
.
8
$
3
8
,
3
3
3
.
8
9
0
.
0
$
0
.
0
0
88
2
5
7
5
.
5
0
5
S
E
E
D
M
I
X
T
U
R
E
2
5
0
W
I
T
H
F
I
B
E
R
B
L
A
N
K
E
T
S.
Y
.
5
0
$
3
.
0
0
$
1
5
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
$
1
5
0
.
0
0
89
2
5
7
5
.
5
3
5
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
W
A
T
E
R
F
O
R
T
U
R
F
,
A
F
T
E
R
3
0
D
A
Y
S
MG
5
0
$
3
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
90
2
5
8
2
.
5
0
2
4
"
S
O
L
I
D
L
I
N
E
W
H
I
T
E
-
E
P
O
X
Y
L.
F
.
3
7
0
$
0
.
8
0
$
2
9
6
.
0
0
3
7
0
.
0
$
2
9
6
.
0
0
91
2
5
8
2
.
5
0
2
1
2
"
S
O
L
I
D
L
I
N
E
W
H
I
T
E
-
E
P
O
X
Y
L.
F
.
2
5
0
$
5
.
0
0
$
1
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
2
5
0
.
0
$
1
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
92
2
5
8
2
.
5
0
2
2
4
"
S
O
L
I
D
L
I
N
E
W
H
I
T
E
-
E
P
O
X
Y
L.
F
.
9
0
$
1
2
.
0
0
$
1
,
0
8
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
0
$
1
,
0
8
0
.
0
0
93
2
5
8
2
.
5
0
2
4
"
D
O
U
B
L
E
S
O
L
I
D
L
I
N
E
Y
E
L
L
O
W
-
E
P
O
X
Y
L.
F
.
3
,
4
0
0
$
0
.
8
0
$
2
,
7
2
0
.
0
0
3
,
4
0
0
.
0
$
2
,
7
2
0
.
0
0
$6
6
4
,
1
3
3
.
4
6
$
5
8
3
,
2
5
9
.
5
2
$
4
6
,
4
7
6
.
0
0
$
4
6
,
5
9
3
.
0
0
$
1
4
9
,
2
7
0
.
0
0
$
0
.
0
0
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
$1
,
4
8
9
,
7
3
1
.
9
8
SC
H
E
D
U
L
E
'
B
'
-
P
R
E
V
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
1
21
2
3
.
6
1
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
w
e
e
p
i
n
g
20
$7
5
.
0
0
$1
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
20 $1,500.00
2
23
3
1
.
6
0
3
C
r
a
c
k
S
e
a
l
i
n
g
33
,
3
0
0
$0
.
5
3
$1
7
,
6
1
5
.
7
0
33300 $17,615.70
3
23
5
6
.
6
0
4
C
l
a
s
s
A
A
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e
S
e
a
l
C
o
a
t
55
,
2
0
0
$1
.
1
2
$6
1
,
8
2
4
.
0
0
55200 $61,824.00 $80,940.00
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
$8
0
,
9
3
9
.
7
0
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
SC
H
E
D
U
L
E
'
A
'
-
S
T
R
E
E
T
R
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
&
R
E
H
A
B
I
L
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
$1
,
4
8
9
,
7
3
1
.
9
8
IN
D
I
R
E
C
T
C
O
S
T
S
$3
7
2
,
4
3
3
.
0
0
SC
H
E
D
U
L
E
'
B
'
-
P
R
E
V
E
N
T
A
T
I
V
E
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$8
0
,
9
4
0
.
0
0
IN
D
I
R
E
C
T
C
O
S
T
S
$1
2
,
1
4
1
.
0
0
TO
T
A
L
$1
,
9
5
5
,
2
4
5
.
9
8
Page 3 of 3page 167
Feasibility Report
Project No. 201507
APPENDIX G: Preliminary Assessment Roll
page 168
CI
T
Y
O
F
M
E
N
D
O
T
A
H
E
I
G
H
T
S
-
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
R
O
L
L
Jo
b
#
2
0
1
5
0
7
St
r
e
e
t
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
=
1
0
y
e
a
r
s
St
r
e
e
t
R
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
=
1
9
y
e
a
r
s
IN
T
E
R
E
S
T
R
A
T
E
=
Wa
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
Pa
r
c
e
l
N
o
:
R
e
p
u
t
e
d
O
w
n
e
r
:
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
Re
h
a
b
:
Bl
o
c
k
:
Lo
t
:
R
e
c
o
n
:
27
-
0
2
5
0
0
-
02
-
0
1
0
In
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
s
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
9
7
18
9
7
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
02
01
0
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2
5
T
w
n
2
8
R
a
n
g
e
2
3
W
1
/
2
o
f
N
E
1/
4
o
f
N
E
1
/
4
e
x
N
4
0
f
t
f
o
r
S
t
s
u
b
j
t
o
c
o
R/
W
P
a
r
1
(
3
9
0
)
De
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
$7
5
,
0
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
0
2
5
0
0
-
03
-
0
1
0
In
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
9
7
18
9
7
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
03
01
0
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2
5
T
w
n
2
8
R
a
n
g
e
2
3
S
E
1
/
4
o
f
N
E
1/
4
L
e
s
s
H
g
w
y
9
8
/
1
0
0
A
e
x
p
t
f
o
r
s
t
s
u
b
j
t
o
co
R
/
W
P
a
r
1
(
3
5
2
)
&
s
u
b
j
t
o
c
o
R
/
W
P
a
r
1
(3
9
0
)
De
l
a
w
a
r
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
$98,709.00
27
-
0
2
5
0
0
-
04
-
0
1
0
Ma
t
t
h
e
w
L
&
A
n
d
r
e
a
L
G
l
e
w
w
e
59
1
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
2
0
04
01
0
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2
5
T
w
n
2
8
R
a
n
g
e
2
3
S
3
1
5
f
t
o
f
E
20
0
f
t
o
f
E
1
5
A
o
f
S
W
1
/
4
o
f
N
E
1
/
4
e
x
p
t
fo
r
s
t
Hi
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
$7,593.00
27
-
0
2
5
0
0
-
04
-
0
2
2
Sy
l
v
i
a
A
G
l
e
w
w
e
-
W
e
n
t
w
o
r
t
h
59
9
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
2
0
04
02
2
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2
5
T
w
n
2
8
R
a
n
g
e
2
3
S
3
1
5
f
t
o
f
W
15
0
f
t
o
f
E
1
5
a
c
s
o
f
S
W
1
/
4
o
f
N
E
1
/
4
e
x
Hg
w
y
Hi
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
$7,593.00
27
-
0
2
5
0
0
-
04
-
0
2
4
H
t
o
H
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
2
L
L
C
82
9
Ea
g
a
n
,
M
N
5
5
1
2
3
04
02
4
Se
c
t
i
o
n
2
5
T
w
n
2
8
R
a
n
g
e
2
3
S
3
1
5
f
t
o
f
E
15
a
c
s
o
f
S
W
1
/
4
o
f
N
E
1
/
4
e
x
E
2
0
0
f
t
&
ex
W
1
5
0
f
t
Tr
o
t
t
e
r
s
R
d
g
$7,593.00
27
-
2
8
7
0
0
-
00
-
0
1
0
Jo
y
M
.
W
a
r
n
e
r
63
5
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
00
01
0
Ga
i
l
a
n
d
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
e
x
p
t
t
o
V
i
l
l
f
o
r
S
t
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
1
1
0
$7,593.00
27
-
4
9
2
5
0
-
01
-
0
1
0
Ju
l
i
e
K
S
h
a
d
e
&
P
a
m
e
l
a
L
B
e
h
m
64
9
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
4
2
01
01
0
Mo
r
t
e
n
s
e
n
s
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
L
-
1
B
-
1
e
x
p
t
H
g
w
y
&
ex
p
t
t
o
V
i
l
l
Hi
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
$7,593.00
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
7
,
2
0
1
5
Page 1 of 7
Dr
a
f
t
Wa
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
page 169
Pa
r
c
e
l
N
o
:
R
e
p
u
t
e
d
O
w
n
e
r
:
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
Re
h
a
b
:
Bl
o
c
k
:
Lo
t
:
R
e
c
o
n
:
27
-
4
9
2
5
0
-
01
-
0
2
0
Jo
s
e
p
h
G
&
J
o
y
E
W
e
i
s
s
64
3
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
4
1
01
02
0
Mo
r
t
e
n
s
e
n
s
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
L
-
2
B
-
1
e
x
p
t
t
o
V
i
l
l
fo
r
S
t
Hi
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
$7,593.00
27
-
4
9
2
5
0
-
01
-
0
3
0
Jo
h
n
T
&
B
o
n
i
t
a
M
W
a
l
l
a
c
e
64
5
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
4
1
01
03
0
Mo
r
t
e
n
s
e
n
s
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
L
-
3
B
-
1
e
x
S
7
f
t
f
o
r
S
t
Hi
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
$7,593.00
27
-
4
9
2
5
0
-
02
-
0
2
0
Br
a
d
l
e
y
J
.
K
l
e
v
e
n
65
1
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
4
2
02
02
0
Mo
r
t
e
n
s
e
n
s
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
L
-
2
B
-
2
S
u
b
j
t
o
H
g
w
y
Es
m
n
t
Hi
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
$3,893.00
27
-
4
9
2
5
0
-
02
-
0
3
0
Ab
e
l
&
C
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
e
P
i
n
e
i
r
o
65
7
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
4
2
02
03
0
Mo
r
t
e
n
s
e
n
s
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
L
-
3
B
-
2
Hi
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
$3,893.00
27
-
4
9
2
5
0
-
02
-
0
4
0
Jo
h
n
M
B
u
k
o
w
s
k
i
66
3
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
4
2
02
04
0
Mo
r
t
e
n
s
e
n
s
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
L
-
4
B
-
2
e
x
p
t
t
o
H
w
y
Hi
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
$3,893.00
27
-
4
9
2
5
0
-
02
-
0
5
0
Ju
s
t
i
n
F
T
s
t
e
H
e
r
z
o
g
&
Su
s
a
n
E
T
s
t
e
H
e
r
z
o
g
66
9
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
4
2
02
05
0
Mo
r
t
e
n
s
e
n
s
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
L
-
5
B
-
2
Hi
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
W
$3,893.00
27
-
4
9
2
5
0
-
02
-
0
7
0
Ma
u
r
e
e
n
M
B
o
l
a
n
d
67
3
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
4
2
02
07
0
Mo
r
t
e
n
s
e
n
s
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
o
f
L
o
t
s
6
&
7
B
-
2
Hi
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
$3,893.00
27
-
4
9
2
5
0
-
02
-
0
8
0
Di
n
h
V
a
n
T
r
a
n
68
9
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
4
2
02
08
0
Mo
r
t
e
n
s
e
n
s
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
L
-
8
B
-
2
e
x
p
t
t
a
k
e
n
fo
r
H
g
w
y
Hi
g hw
a
y 1
1
0
$3,893.00
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
7
,
2
0
1
5
Page 2 of 7
Dr
a
f
t
Wa
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
page 170
Pa
r
c
e
l
N
o
:
R
e
p
u
t
e
d
O
w
n
e
r
:
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
Re
h
a
b
:
Bl
o
c
k
:
Lo
t
:
R
e
c
o
n
:
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
0
1
0
Ke
v
i
n
W
&
J
u
l
i
e
A
G
i
l
l
e
n
57
4
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
01
01
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
B
-
1
Si
b
l
e
y C
o
u
r
t
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
0
2
0
Ro
b
e
r
t
W
T
u
t
t
l
e
&
S
u
e
-
M
i
C
h
a
T
u
t
t
l
e
58
0
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
01
02
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
2
B
-
1
Si
b
l
e
y C
o
u
r
t
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
0
3
0
Cr
a
i
g
A
&
P
r
i
s
c
i
l
l
a
K
o
e
c
k
e
r
i
t
z
58
6
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
2
01
03
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
3
B
-
1
Si
b
l
e
y C
o
u
r
t
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
0
4
0
St
e
v
e
n
L
&
J
a
c
a
l
y
n
R
H
a
n
s
o
n
59
2
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
2
01
04
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
4
B
-
1
Si
b
l
e
y C
o
u
r
t
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
0
5
0
Le
o
n
&
Y
o
l
l
a
B
L
e
v
i
t
t
60
0
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
01
05
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
5
B
-
1
Si
b
l
e
y C
o
u
r
t
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
0
6
0
Be
r
n
a
r
d
G
S
c
h
l
e
p
e
r
&
L
y
n
n
M
S
c
h
r
a
m
60
1
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
2
01
06
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
6
B
-
1
Si
b
l
e
y C
o
u
r
t
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
0
7
0
Pa
t
r
i
c
k
J
&
S
h
i
r
l
e
y
K
e
l
l
y
59
3
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
2
01
07
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
7
B
-
1
Si
b
l
e
y C
o
u
r
t
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
0
8
0
Th
o
m
a
s
P
&
J
a
n
i
s
L
V
u
c
i
c
e
v
i
c
58
7
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
2
01
08
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
8
B
-
1
Si
b
l
e
y C
o
u
r
t
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
7
,
2
0
1
5
Page 3 of 7
Dr
a
f
t
Wa
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
page 171
Pa
r
c
e
l
N
o
:
R
e
p
u
t
e
d
O
w
n
e
r
:
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
Re
h
a
b
:
Bl
o
c
k
:
Lo
t
:
R
e
c
o
n
:
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
0
9
0
Sh
a
r
o
n
D
e
l
e
u
i
l
T
s
t
e
T
h
i
e
m
a
n
58
1
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
01
09
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
9
B
-
1
Si
b
l
e
y C
o
u
r
t
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
1
0
0
Pa
t
r
i
c
k
B
&
E
i
l
e
e
n
T
W
h
i
t
e
57
5
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
01
10
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
0
B
-
1
Si
b
l
e
y C
o
u
r
t
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
1
1
0
Dr
e
w
S
t
e
v
e
n
B
a
c
k
s
t
r
a
n
d
30 Co
s
C
o
b
,
C
T
0
6
8
0
7
01
11
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
1
B
-
1
Ha
r
o
l
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
1
2
0
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
M
&
A
n
n
E
S
u
t
m
a
r
58
2
St
.
P
a
u
l
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
1
01
12
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
2
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
1
3
0
Na
n
c
y
A
G
o
l
d
b
e
r
g
e
r
58
8
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
01
13
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
3
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
1
4
0
Ke
n
t
A
&
M
a
r
y
E
M
o
g
l
e
r
59
2
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
1
01
14
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
4
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
1
5
0
Jo
h
n
R
&
C
y
n
t
h
i
a
B
u
l
t
e
n
a
59
6
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
1
01
15
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
5
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
1
6
0
Ke
v
i
n
J
&
D
i
a
n
e
H
O
h
e
h
i
r
60
0
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
1
01
16
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
6
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
7
,
2
0
1
5
Page 4 of 7
Dr
a
f
t
Wa
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
page 172
Pa
r
c
e
l
N
o
:
R
e
p
u
t
e
d
O
w
n
e
r
:
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
Re
h
a
b
:
Bl
o
c
k
:
Lo
t
:
R
e
c
o
n
:
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
1
7
0
Sc
o
t
t
H
e
r
z
o
g
60
4
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
01
17
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
7
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
1
8
0
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
J
&
C
a
r
o
l
A
B
u
t
c
h
e
r
t
60
8
St
.
P
a
u
l
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
1
01
18
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
8
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
1
9
0
Na
t
h
a
n
&
S
h
a
n
n
o
n
H
u
n
t
l
e
y
61
2
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
1
01
19
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
9
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
2
0
0
La
w
r
e
n
c
e
S
&
J
o
E
C
h
l
e
b
e
c
k
61
3
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
1
01
20
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
2
0
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
2
1
0
Pe
t
e
r
L
P
i
c
o
&
K
a
t
h
a
r
i
n
e
S
c
o
t
t
A
r
m
s
P
i
c
o
60
9
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
01
21
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
2
1
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
2
2
0
St
u
a
r
t
R
&
J
e
n
n
i
f
e
r
S
i
m
e
k
57
7
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
1
01
22
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
2
2
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
2
3
0
Da
n
i
e
l
M
&
D
e
b
o
r
a
h
G
P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
58
5
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
1
01
23
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
2
3
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
6
8
1
0
0
-
01
-
2
4
0
Ed
w
a
r
d
A
&
S
u
z
a
n
n
e
M
K
o
c
o
u
r
e
k
60
5
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
1
01
24
0
Si
b
l
e
y
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
2
4
B
-
1
Hi
g h
R
i
d
g e
C
i
r
c
l
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
7
,
2
0
1
5
Page 5 of 7
Dr
a
f
t
Wa
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
page 173
Pa
r
c
e
l
N
o
:
R
e
p
u
t
e
d
O
w
n
e
r
:
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
Re
h
a
b
:
Bl
o
c
k
:
Lo
t
:
R
e
c
o
n
:
27
-
7
5
9
0
0
-
01
-
0
1
0
Jo
s
e
p
h
S
&
T
e
r
e
s
a
M
L
a
w
d
e
r
18
5
1
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
5
01
01
0
Th
e
P
o
n
d
s
o
f
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
1
B
-
1
W
a
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
7
5
9
0
0
-
01
-
0
2
0
Je
r
r
o
l
d
&
G
a
i
l
M
W
i
l
d
e
n
a
u
e
r
18
5
9
St
.
P
a
u
l
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
5
01
02
0
Th
e
P
o
n
d
s
o
f
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
2
B
-
1
W
a
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
7
5
9
0
0
-
01
-
0
3
0
Fr
a
n
k
&
J
o
a
n
P
T
s
t
e
s
P
i
l
n
e
y
18
6
7
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
01
03
0
Th
e
P
o
n
d
s
o
f
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
3
B
-
1
W
a
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
7
5
9
0
0
-
01
-
0
4
0
Ke
v
i
n
&
C
a
r
i
s
s
a
B
o
r
m
a
n
n
18
7
5
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
01
04
0
Th
e
P
o
n
d
s
o
f
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
4
B
-
1
W
a
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
7
5
9
0
0
-
01
-
0
5
0
Pa
t
r
i
c
k
L
&
S
a
r
a
J
C
o
t
t
e
r
18
8
3
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
01
05
0
Th
e
P
o
n
d
s
o
f
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
5
B
-
1
W
a
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
7
5
9
0
0
-
01
-
0
6
0
Ja
m
e
s
F
&
J
a
n
i
c
e
A
S
c
h
u
p
p
e
r
t
19
0
1
Me
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
01
06
0
Th
e
P
o
n
d
s
o
f
M
e
n
d
o
t
a
H
e
i
g
h
t
s
L
-
6
B
-
1
W
a
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
27
-
8
4
3
0
0
-
00
-
3
5
3
Ja
m
e
s
R
&
A
n
g
e
l
a
R
P
i
r
k
l
18
2
5
St
.
P
a
u
l
,
M
N
5
5
1
1
8
-
4
3
5
5
00
35
3
Wi
l
l
o
w
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
S
6
0
f
t
o
f
L
o
t
3
5
&
th
a
t
p
t
o
f
L
o
t
3
5
W
o
f
E
4
0
f
t
&
l
y
i
n
g
E
o
f
li
n
e
c
o
m
N
W
c
o
r
N
E
o
n
N
l
i
n
e
1
3
8
f
t
t
o
Be
g
S
0
8
D
3
0
M
5
4
S
E
1
1
3
f
t
S
0
2
D
07
M
3
3
S
E
t
o
N
l
i
n
e
o
f
S
6
0
f
t
&
t
h
e
r
e
t
e
r
m
ex
p
t
N
o
f
S
1
4
0
f
t
t
h
e
r
e
o
f
W
a
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
$3
,
9
5
0
.
0
0
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
7
,
2
0
1
5
Page 6 of 7
Dr
a
f
t
Wa
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
page 174
Pa
r
c
e
l
N
o
:
R
e
p
u
t
e
d
O
w
n
e
r
:
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
Re
h
a
b
:
Bl
o
c
k
:
Lo
t
:
R
e
c
o
n
:
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
:
46
To
t
a
l
R
e
h
a
b
:
$1
9
7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
To
t
a
l
R
e
c
o
n
:
$1
7
5
,
2
1
8
.
0
0
$3
7
2
,
7
1
8
.
0
0
Gr
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
:
Th
u
r
s
d
a
y
,
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
7
,
2
0
1
5
Page 7 of 7
Dr
a
f
t
Wa
r
r
i
o
r
D
r
i
v
e
page 175