Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1997-09-02 Council Packet
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SEPTEMBER 2, 1997- 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call _ pf 3. Agenda Adoption 4. Approval of July 22 Workshop Minutes, August 5 and August 19 Minutes 5. Consent Calendar a. Acknowledgment of the August 13th Airport Relations Commission Minutes. b. Acknowledgment of the August 26th Planning Commission Minutes. C. Acknowledgment of the Building Activity Report for August. d. Acknowledge Receipt of the Unapproved Minutes from the July 2nd NDC4 Commission Meeting and August 6th Executive Committee Meeting. e. Acknowledge Receipt of Revised Budget Forms. f. Approval of Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy for 1998: a. Resolution Adopting Proposed Budget - RESOLUTION NO. 9749 b. Resolution Approving Tentative 1997 Levy Collectible in 1998 - RESOLUTION NO. 97-50 C. Resolution Approving Final 1997 Tax Levy for Special Taxing District No. 1 Collectible in 1998 - RESOLUTION NO. 97-51 g. Approval to Appoint New Fire Fighters to Probationary Fire Fighter Positions. \ h. Approval to Inform Bunker Hills Residents of September 30, 1997 Workshop with City Council. i. Acknowledge the Withdrawal of Moen-Leuer's Application for the Tousignant Site - Case No. 97-23. j. Approval of RESOLUTION NO. 97-52, RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR TILSEN'S HIGHLAND HEIGHTS STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND SURROUNDING AREA IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 96, PROJECT NO. 4). k. Approval of Lloyds Parking Lot Improvement Request. GAcknowledge MCTO Bus Route Proposals. M. Approval of the List of Contractors. n. Approval of the List of Claims. o. Approval of Plans and Specifications for Victoria Trail. September 2, 1997 City Council Agenda ��� Consent Calendar Continued U"p Approval to Establish School Speed Zones - �� ►✓> RESOLUTION NO. 97-53 Approval to Cancel September Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. End of Consent Calendar 7. Bid Awards ��a Wentworth Park Picnic Shelter * * North Kensington Park Landscape Improvements - Available Tuesday VC. 1997 Boulevard Tree Planting Program. 8. Presentation a. Airport Relations Commission - Air. Noise Plan of Action. 9. Unfinished and New Business Za. Discuss Tempco TIF Agreement. Discuss Dakota Bank Frontage Road Name Request. *** Discuss Request to Release MnDOT Right -of -Way. Case No. 97-27: Roseville Property Management Company - Simple Lot Division - RESOLUTION NO. 97-54 Case No. 97-32: Schneeman - Variance - RESOLUTION NO. 97-55 LP/ Case No. 97-28: Convery - CUP- RESOLUTION NO. 97-56 Case No. 97-29: Palme - CUP and Variance - RESOLUTION NO. 97-57 Case No. 97-30: Convent of Visitation - CUP - RESOLUTION NO. 97-58 Case No. 97-31: Hoffman Homes - Resurrection Cemetery Property - Concept Plan Discussion September 2, 1997 City Council Agenda 2 k. Discuss Update on McNeill Property Acquisition. I. Review/Discuss Lilydale Comprehensive Plan. 9. Council Comments 10. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 452-1850 with requests. 0 September 2, 1997 City Council Agenda 3 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS September 2, 1997 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator SUBJECT: Add On Agenda for September 2 City Council Meeting One new item has been added to the consent calendar, please see item 5q M. Information as indicated Available Tuesday is submitted for review. Please see Bid Awards item 7b (* * ). One item has been removed from tonight's agenda, item 9c - Unfinished and New Business (***). It is recommended that Council adopt the revised agenda printed on green paper. 5q. Approval #Q Cancel September Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting. Please see attached memo. 7b. North Kensington Park Landscape Improvements. Please see attached memo. 9c. Discuss Huber Drive/DelawareAvenue Turn Lane. Mr. and Mrs. Shepard, property owners who have requested that the City Council abort the 'right turn lane project, have requested that this item be tabled until Council's September 16, 1997 meeting as they are unable to attend tonight's meeting. KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO September 2, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Permission for the Parks Commission to Cancel the September Meeting Discussion At the August 12, 1997 meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Commission directed Staff to cancel the September 9, 1997 meeting of the Parks Commission unless an urgent matter arose. In the absence of such an issue, the Parks and Recreation Commission may cancel a meeting with prior Council permission. Staff has no items for the Parks Commission which require them to meet this month. On behalf of the Commission, Staff therefore requests Council permission to skip the September 9, 1997 meeting. Action Requested If the Council concurs with canceling the meeting, the Council should acknowledge the Parks Commission's decision not to meet on September 9, 1997. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION SECOND JOINT CELL/PCS WORKSHOP MINUTES JULY 22, 1997 The second joint Cell/PCS Workshop between the Planning Commission and the City Council was held on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, in the Large Conference Room at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:45 PM. The following Councilmembers were present: Smith, Huber, and Koch. The.following Planning Commissioners were present: Dwyer, Tilsen, Lorberbaum, Betlej, Koll. Duggan. Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmember Krebsbach, and Commissioner Friel were excused from the meeting. Also present were City Administrator Kevin Batchelder, Director of Public Works Jim Danielson, Administrative Assistant Patrick C. Hollister, and industry representatives Marie Grimm of AT&T Wireless and Dave Hagen of Sprint PCS. PRESENTATION OF ISSUE Mr. Hollister reviewed the current status of the Draft PCS Ordinance. Mr. Hollister recalled that the Council had passed a one-year moratorium on all Cellular/PCS applications on December 3, 1996, to expire unless extended by the Council on December 3, 1997. Mr. Hollister continued that the first joint Council/Planning Commission Workshop on the subject of antennae was held on April 19, 1997, and that the results of that workshop were encoded into a draft ordinance. Mr. Hollister continued that since the initial workshop, both the Planning Commission and the City Council had seen the draft ordinance twice and had made revisions to the draft ordinance. Mr. Hollister added that the Cellular/PCS industry had also expressed their concerns both orally and in writing to the Planning Commission, and that the industry was also present that evening in the form of Ms. Grimm and Mr. Hagen. Mr. Hollister said that the City was mandated by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 to "reasonably accommodate" Cellular and PCS technology, and that the central issue of the Workshop was to what extent the City had to accommodate the desires of the Cell/PCS industry in order to satisfy the federal mandate for "reasonable accommodation" while still protecting the unique aesthetic character of the City of Mendota Heights. DRAFT ORDINANCE REVISION The Workshop participants then discussed the following aspects of the draft Cellular/PCS ordinance: Height Limitations Mr. Hollister explained that the industry felt that the 75 foot height limit originally contained in Section 21.6(4)d was too short. Mr. Hollister said that according to the industry, 75 feet represented the minimum height necessary for effective communication under ideal topographical circumstances. Mr. Hollister continued that the industry requested that the City raise the height limit to accommodate co -location and reduce the number of towers needed in the City, and that a 25 foot bonus be granted if the pole is designed to accommodate a second user. Commissioner Duggan said that the claim that 75' was too short was based on trees and line -of -sight, and that any applicant wanting a tower more than 75' high should be required to make the case that it is necessary based on the specific topographical circumstances. Commissioner Koll agreed with Commissioner Duggan. Commissioner Duggan added that the ordinance should encourage co -location and "stealth" or "camouflaged" design. Commissioner Tilsen felt that the height limit should only be 75' even with co -location and produced a home-made map of existing NSP towers where he felt that antennae could be permitted. Mr. Hagen said that his company could not adhere to Commissioner Tilsen's plan to place all the antennae on existing NSP poles, because the industry had already set up its grid pattern and chosen necessary sites, and also because the industry will need to increase the number of sites based on increased usage. Mr. Hagen reiterated that 75' was too low for a free-standing antennae, but that 100' could possibly work. Commissioner Tilsen responded that Mendota Heights is a small community, and that the existing NSP utility grid should provide sufficient locations for all service providers within the City. Mr. Hagen said that although NSP is mandated to work with the industry, the City could not mandate that the antennae be placed on existing NSP poles. Mr. Hagen continued that locating towers or antennae on NSP structures or property was fraught with logistical concerns such as access, electrocution, and general safety. Mr. Hagen said that Sprint PCS had a general agreement with NSP to try to use poles, and that the antennae needed 2 to be 15' above the utility poles, which he considered to be preferable to free-standing antennae. Councilmember Smith said that the City should try to minimize the visual impact of the antennae and towers. Councilmember Smith said that the City had to balance technology with aesthetics. Councilmember Smith said that she did not want to see 160' freestanding antennae poles in the City of Mendota Heights. Mr. Batchelder said that the City could hire a communications expert to choose a few sites where antennae would be allowed and which the City would own and operate, chosen based upon the expert's knowledge of the needs of the industry. Ms. Grimm said that no expert would have access to all the information necessary, since it is proprietary information. Commissioner Dwyer said that the industry could give confidential information to the expert. Ms. Grimm said that there were cases in court over mandated sites. Ms. Grimm said that her company would be happy to provide information to the City, and that basically her company wanted access to major transportation corridors. Councilmember Smith said that the sites most coveted by the industry thus far seemed to be the high school and the water tower, but that a more desirable location could emerge based on expert advice. Ms. Grimm said that she used to be a St. Paul Councilmember, and that she understood that the City had the flexibility and justification to impose conditions or grant variances on tower applications. Commissioner Betlej suggested hiring a good consult to create a special Overlay Zoning District specifically for Cell/PCS antennae. Commissioner Koll asked if stealth technology could be used to adorn a cell tower and make it a Mendota Heights landmark. Mr. Hagen said that Sprint PCS did not want to give their plan for coverage, and that the City could not legally specify parcels for the antennae. Councilmember Smith said that while the City may not be able to specify parcels for antennae, the City could specify areas of the City for antennae. Councilmember Smith said that the City should encourage co -location. Councilmember Smith said that she did not want to significantly change the zoning in Mendota Heights. Councilmember Smith added that the City could scientifically determine the optimal location for most providers based on topography and encourage service providers to co -locate there. Councilmember Huber advised against hiring a consultant, because it was impossible to plan for the long term. Ms. Grimm said that regarding co -location, the individual providers could not take the initiative for co -location due to anti-trust laws, but that the City could provide incentives for co -location. The Workshop participants concluded discussion on height limitations by editing the current draft of the ordinance to include a 75' height limit and a 25' "co -location bonus". Setbacks Mr. Hollister explained that the industry felt that the requirement that antennas be 25' plus the height of the tower from the nearest lot line originally contained in 21.6(4)d was too strict. The Workshop participants responded by removing the 25' component and merely requiring the tower to be at least its own height from the nearest setback line. Prohibition in Residential Zones Mr. Hollister explained that Section 21.6(4)a currently prohibits antennae within R-1, R- MA, or R-2 zones. Mr. Hollister continued that the industry felt that this is too restrictive, particularly in light of how much of the City falls within these zones (roughly 70%). Mr. Hollister added that both US West and AT&T Wireless requested that at a minimum institutional sites within these zones be granted an exception. The workshop participants chose to leave the prohibition as it was. Non-interference Mr. Hollister explained that Sprint PCS had objected to the requirement that the applicant submit a report from a qualified professional engineer guaranteeing non-interference along with a copy of the FCC approval of the antennae in regards to non-interference. Ms. Grimm said that this requirement was redundant with FCC regulations. Councilmember Smith said that potential interference clause should remain. The workshop participants again opted to let this requirement stand. 4 Abandonment Bond Mr. Hollister explained that Sprint PCS objected to the requirement for submission of an "Abandonment Bond" to the City equal to 150% times the current cost of removal and disposal in Section 21.6(8)g. Mr. Hagen said that Sprint PCS felt that this is a unique burden placed upon antennae, and no other structures. Mr. Hagen said that in the case of his company the bond was unnecessary because as his company developed infill tower locations, it would keep existing sites. Ms. Grimm said that the antennae and poles are too valuable to abandon, even in terms of scrap metal value alone. Ms. Grimm said that the bond requirement as written was especially onerous because it had no time limit. Ms. Grimm said that her company did remove one site at First National Bank in St. Paul, and that her company now has only 5 sites in the City of Saint Paul. The workshop participants opted to let the bond requirement stand. Maps Mr. Hollister explained that the industry also objected to the requirement to submit maps showing all existing and proposed antennae of both the applicant and competitors within a five mile radius due to the proprietary nature and competitive sensitivity of such information (Section 21.6(8)i). Mr. Hagen added that the requirement to submit all existing and future sites of his own company and of his competitors within a five mile radius was an onerous burden, although he couldn't speak for AT&T. Councilmember Huber said that even if the industry shared all their plans today, in the long term changes in demand are unpredictable, and thus today's plans won't make sense in the future. The workshop participants reduced the radius to two miles, and limited the information to merely the applicant's own locations. Requiring a Conditional Use Permit for Building -Mounted Antennae Mr. Hollister explained that AT&T Wireless objected to this requirement and that AT&T felt that building -mounted antennae should be a permitted use for up to 15' in height. The workshop participants opted to let this requirement stand. 5 Councilmember Koch said that the draft ordinance had become too complicated, and asked why a special ordinance is needed every time a new issue arises. Mr. Hollister asked the industry representatives present how high the highest free- standing tower in Minnesota was. Ms. Grimm said that the highest tower she was aware of was owned by Arial in a rural area and was 165' high. Timetable The Workshop participants then directed Staff to pursue the following timetable for further revision and eventual adoption of the Cell/PCS Ordinance: August 26: Informal Discussion by the Planning Commission September 23: Formal Public Hearing by the Planning Commission October 7: Formal Adoption by the City Council ADJOURN Motion made to adjourn by Huber and seconded by Koch. AYES: 3 NAYS: 0 The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Patrick C Hollister 2 Page No. 1 August 5, 1997 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, August 5, 1997 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Koch, Krebsbach and Smith. Councilmember Huber had notified Council that he would be absent. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Koch moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move item c, MCTO bus route changes, to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the July 29, 1997 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the building activity report for July. c. Approval of the purchase and installation of audio and video recording equipment for the police department interview room from Advanced State Security at a cost not to exceed $8,000. d. Authorization for an expenditure of $10,800 from the City Hall building fund for the purchase of a Dictaphone Express System from the Dictaphone Corporation for the police department. e. Adoption of Resolution No. 97-36, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. 96, PROJECT NO.2 (SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE EXTENSION." Page No. 2 August 5, 1997 f. Approval of a modified critical area site plan for Gardner & Associates (CAO 97-03), to allow construction of a bay window addition at 996 Caren Court for Mr. and Mrs. George Bergh, along with waiver of the $100 critical area fee. g. Acknowledgment of receipt of information regarding the National League of Cities Congress. h. Approval of the acquisition of an IBM compatible computer system for the administration department for an amount not to exceed $3,700 plus tax and delivery, from the most competitive bidder. i. Acceptance of the resignation of Michael Brennan from the volunteer fire department. j. Approval of the issuance of an off -sale 3.2 malt beverage licence for SuperAmerica Group Store 4521. k. Approval of the issuance of a cigarette license for SuperAmerica Group Store 4521. 1. Approval of the List of contractor licenses dated August 5, 1997 and attached hereto. m. Approval of the List of Claims dated August 5, 1997 and totaling $496,922.25. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 FIRE CELEBRATION Fire Department 50th Anniversary Committee members Carolyn Dreelan, Ken Weisenberger and Brett Blaeser informed Council and the audience on plans for the anniversary celebration to be held on August 16. SLURRY SEAL BIDS Council acknowledged a tabulation of bids received for the 1997 Slurry Seal project. Engineer Mogan reviewed the bids and responded to Council questions. Page No. 3 August 5, 1997 Councilmember Smith moved to award the contract for the 1997 Slurry Seal project to Struck & Irwin Paving, Inc., for its low bid of $62,360. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 BUS ROUTES Council acknowledged a letter from the MCTO regarding delay in implementation of transit changes until the fall of 1998 and informing Council of two service expansions planned for September of 1997, including bringing 95W service to the Parkview Plaza turnaround and new service to the Brown Institute (new route #415). Council also acknowledged associated memos from Administrator Batchelder and Public Works Director Danielson. Councilmember Smith stated that it was her initial understanding that Brown Institute stated to Council that it did not need public transportation since most of the students have private transportation and Brown would provide transportation for those students who do not have transportation. She stated that one the one hand she is concerned about ridership and on the other, the MCTO would be providing service to the Mall of America from the downtown area of Mendota Heights. She stated that Council spent much time trying to resolve the traffic problems on Mendota Heights Road at Dodd Road and it would be her preference for the bus to avoid that intersection. She suggested that the bus be routed along T.H. 55 rather than Dodd Road. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the bus will not pick up riders along Mendota Heights, and will likely not pick up riders on Dodd, so he felt that it may be better for the buses leaving Brown Institute to travel along Mendota Heights Road to Lexington, and then take Lexington to T.H. 110 and T.H. 110 to Dodd. He stated that before Council takes action to request such a change in route, residents along Lexington should be notified that the city is considering recommending that the buses travel north on Lexington to see whether the residents have objection. He felt that there should be an open comment period until the next Council meeting. Administrator Batchelder stated that there are two factors to consider. He informed Council that he does not know if MCTO plans to make stops along Mendota Heights Road or not, but that he will contact MCTO. The second issue is that Route 415, which comes from the Mall of America to Brown Institute and then the Parkview Plaza, then becomes Route 95MU. He stated that MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD SIDEWALK PROJECT Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 4 August 5, 1997 redesigning the route may change MCTO's ability to provide service to downtown Minneapolis. Councilmember Smith responded that if there is no benefit to the community, she cannot see any reason for MCTO to use the city's streets. Administrator Batchelder stated that staff will contact the management of the Lexington Heights Apartments with respect to distribution of a letter on the proposed route change to residents of the complex. Discussion on the matter was continued to August 19. Council acknowledged a memo and tabulation of bids received for the Mendota Heights Road sidewalk construction project. Engineer Mogan reviewed the bids for Council and the audience. Councilmember Smith pointed out that the project is being done cooperatively with the school district to save taxpayer money. Councilmember Koch moved to award the bid for Mendota Heights Road Bituminous Sidewalk Construction to Daily & Sons Blacktopping, Inc., for its low bid of $43,775.24. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. CAREN COURT DRAINAGE Council acknowledged a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Alton Todd, 991 Caren Court, regarding drainage concerns, along with an associated report from Engineer Mogan. Mr. Todd was present for the discussion. Engineer Mogan summarized the problem and informed Council on the results of his investigation and on his recommendation that the holding pond outlet discharge pipe be reduced to an 8" diameter opening. Mr. Todd stated that he is not satisfied with the recommendation. He informed Council that prior to the Tilsen Highland Heights street reconstruction project, the only drainage to his yard was from Caren Court, which was a very small amount of water. He stated that since the storm sewer line was installed as part of the new project, the runoff from James Road is being channeled to his yard and is Page No. 5 August 5, 1997 eroding the dirt around his storage building and most of the soil from his garden has been eroded away. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Todd if the city's drainage easement is along his west property line. Mr. Todd responded that there is a small intake on his property and a very small channel that he put in. He informed Council that in heavy rain, the water washes through his yard area. He reviewed a drawing showing the old drainage flow, which he stated never brought much water to his property. He explained that with the excessive rain recently, the channel cannot handle the water. Mayor Mertensotto asked if a retaining block wall could be installed to keep the water along the west property line. Mr. Todd responded that he had not considered the option, and that his concern is over the amount of water which he did not have before the project. He felt that even with an 8" pipe, the back of his property would receive a lot of water in a 100 year storm. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the pipe was in place before the street project was done. Mr. Todd responded that it was, but the difference is that there is a natural depression in his driveway that collected only the natural runoff from the Caren Court area. Mayor Mertensotto stated that what is disturbing is why there is such a large pipe if it is only draining the cul-de-sac. Mr. Todd responded that the pipe was in place when he bought his property in 1982, but since the street project was completed, the court collects the excess runoff from the intersection of Douglas and James Road and the catch basin at his property line is the only catch basin on Caren Court. Councilmember Smith asked if it is possible that the pipe was installed by the developer of the property since there is no city easement. Engineer Mogan responded that he thinks it was either installed by the developer or the city maintenance crews many years ago without an easement. He explained that the other storm sewer that was in Page No. 6 August 5, 1997 place was installed by the developer and it is probable that this pipe was installed at the same time. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council certainly does not want to give up an easement that the city holds but that he can understand Mr. Todd's concerns. He suggested that the city contract with Barr Engineering to investigate the situation and act as an intermediary. He informed Mr. Todd that Barr is the hydrological engineering firm that serves the watershed management organizations in Dakota County. Mr. Todd stated that the proposal to use Barr Engineering is acceptable to him. CASE NO. 97-17, MENDOTA Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister with HEIGHTS UNITED CHURCH respect to continued discussion on an application from the OF CHRIST Mendota Heights United Church of Christ for reconfiguration of its property located at 680 Highway 110. Mr. Carl Baumeister, representing the church, and Dr. Greg Lee, representing the Dodge Nature Center, were present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto asked what has changed since the last discussion on the request to transfer ownership of 1.97 acres of church owned land to the Dodge Nature Center. Mr. Baumeister responded that he has found a plat that shows access on an easement about 100 feet from the right of way, but it is not shown on the title record. Mayor Mertensotto responded that now is the time for the issue to be resolved. He stated that Council would like to see that the church has access rights. Mr. Baumeister informed Council that the Dodge Nature Center has indicated to him that it will refuse to sell property to the church. Dr. Lee, stated that it is his understanding that Council raised two issues at the prior discussion on the church's application. One issue related to the old barn on the nature center property. He informed Council that the nature center has taken down a number of buildings on the land in the last few years and does plan to remove the subject barn as soon as a replacement facility can be constructed at the West St. Paul Dodge Nature Center. He informed Council that the nature center wants the barn taken down as much as the -city does, but it is used for storage at the present time. He stated that the second issue Page No. 7 August 5, 1997 was incorporating the property being purchased from the church into the nature center property. He asked if a replace would be required. Mayor Mertensotto responded that he believes all that would be necessary would be for the nature center to ask Dakota County to combine the two parcels into the same parcel identification number. Dr. Lee stated that the nature center would prefer that they be kept separate because the rest of the property was given to the nature center with certain restrictions, and if those restrictions are not met the nature center would lose the property. He stated that the purchase area has no public access and it would be difficult for the nature center to sell the land. Councilmember Smith stated that there would need to be a condition imposed that the land could only be acquired by one of the adjacent properties. Dr. Lee responded that the land is surrounded on three sides by the nature center and by the church on the other side. He informed Council that the church and nature center have had a good relationship over the years as far as access to T.H. 110. He stated that the nature center would be more than willing to sell the church easement rights to access to the highway but is not interested in selling the land to the east of the church. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the church does not have much land coming out of the building entrance on the east site, perhaps 50 feet, and they are expanding the use of their structures with improvements and a new worship enter. He stated that if the church is giving the nature center the opportunity to purchase land, the nature center should be a cooperative neighbor and give the church some breathing room on the east so that the church would have access to the highway without easement. Dr. Lee responded that he has been directed to inform Council that the nature center is not interested in selling any property to the east. He stated that the center would work with the church so that they get an easement which would provide legal access to the highway. Councilmember Smith asked when the church's driveway was constructed. Page No. 8 August 5, 1997 Mr. Baumeister responded that the driveway has been in place since the 1960's and the church has also been caring for the lawn for eight years. Councilmember Smith stated that the church then has rights because of continuous use. She asked Dr. Lee what easement he proposes. Dr. Lee responded that the nature center would work out an arrangement with the church whereby if the church transfers to the 1.9 acres of land to the DNC, the DNC would transfer easement rights and some cash to the church. He did not know whether the nature center board would charge the church for the easement. Mayor Mertensotto stated Council is trying to help the church because Council must nke a d cision on the lot split. He stated that this is a situation whe e/ ere not have as a matter of right on their title to access to. bI. 0, an Council is just saying that that should be correct�t -s time. I explained that Council would like to seq,that the two exchanges (land and access) are in place at the same / Dr. Lee stated that he thinks that if it appears that the city will approve the lot split, that the nature center and the church can meet and work out the access issue. He stated that the DNC would like first right of refusal for the church property if the church ever leaves. He further stated that the church is a compatible use, but other uses may not be compatible. Mr. Baumeister stated that Dr. Lee's suggestion that the two parties meet appears to be a workable solution. Action on the matter was tabled. TEMPCO Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister relative to a tentative tax increment financing agreement with Tempco. Mr. Jerry Lansink and Mr. Jerry Cronin, representing Tempco, were present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Tempco is planning to install a new press in its building, which will require a higher roof structure, and that Tempco representatives have indicated that they would be willing to square off the comer. He asked Mr. Lansink if Tempco could put the press on the northeast side of the structure, towards the highway. Page No. 9 August 5, 1997 Mr. Lansink responded that he does not think it would fit on that site. Councilmember Smith stated that since council is concerned about aesthetics, the question came up as to whether the addition needs to be at the front of the building. Mr. Lansink responded that Tempco looked at other options but the owners felt that where it is proposed would be the most useful spot because most of the equipment is in that portion of the building. He stated that the owners also thought it would look better aesthetically on that side. Mr. Cronin stated that if the press were located in the northeast part of the building, it would still be necessary to raise the roof and the existing presses would need to be moved, which would be very expensive. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the existing building is not handicapped accessible, and that Tempco is proposing a parking space to the south for the company president, who is handicapped. He asked why Tempco is not addressing a handicapped parking spot to the front of the building. Mr. Lansink responded that he does not think the owners would want to put a handicapped parking spot to the front unless it is required. Mayor Mertensotto stated that in the spirit of the ADA and for future job applicants, there should be handicapped access to the front of the building. He further stated that it is his understanding that the statute relies on city offices to gain compliance with ADA. City Attorney Hart responded that there is a distinction under ADA with respect to public accommodation. He stated that under ADA, a commercial facility is required to comply with ADA requirements if there is any substantial renovation to the facility. He further stated that what is proposed would likely,be considered substantial renovation, and ADA would require access to the facility. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that there is no ADA access to the office area of the building. Mr. Lansink responded that what Tempco has done to comply so far has been to place a sign at the front of the building which states that there is handicapped access to the rear. He stated that he has discussed the matter with Mr. Cronin, and Mr. Cronin stated that in Page No. 10 August 5, 1997 30 years no handicapped person has applied for employment at Tempco. Mayor Mertensotto asked if there would be a problem in providing handicapped accessibility to the office by a ramp. Mr. Cronin responded that he did not think an access ramp would be a problem. Mayor Mertensotto briefly reviewed the list of line items which were attached to Assistant Hollister's memo. Responding to a question from Councilmember Smith about how much painting will be done, Mr. Lansink stated that Tempco will paint the doors, building trim and flashing to match the new addition. Councilmember Smith asked if Tempco would be willing to paint the entire building and work with the city's architect. Mr. Cronin responded that the project is very expensive and he could not afford to paint the entire building. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the TIF would consist of $50.,000 up front when the sprinkling system is completed and the annual $5,000 TIF would not apply unless the whole project is completed. Councilmember Smith stated that Council has not seen any plans showing the design of the addition. Mr. Lansink responded that he submitted a plan to the code enforcement officer, but the fire marshal said it need a sprinkling system. He explained that the plan was then redesigned to avoid the requirement for a sprinkling system, but if there is city TIF assistance available, Tempco would go back to the original plan. He explained that under the plan, three overhead doors will be closed off, leaving just one door. He stated that the color scheme will all match. He further stated that the building doors will be painted to match the building color. Councilmember Smith asked if the window frames will be painted. Mr. Lansink responded that they are presently white, and repainting them was never discussed. Page No. 11 August 5, 1997 Councilmember Smith stated that as long as the city is considering participating with TIF, she would like to know what it would cost to paint the entire building and look at a color scheme that would be consistent with other buildings in the industrial park. Mr. Cronin responded that if the city would help pay for it, he would get bids. He explained that there is 100,000 square feet of building and the color is not much different from the building across the street. He further stated that the building will only have one overhead door and that will be brown. Councilmember Koch stated that she believes the 30 inch entrance door would be very tight for a wheelchair and that she believes handicapped access doors are supposed to be 36 inches wide. Mr. Cronin responded that he has no idea how big the front door is, but that he is sure it is big enough for a wheelchair. Mayor Mertensotto asked if Tempco's officers have reviewed the contract. Mr. Lansink responded that Mr. Cronin has reviewed it and has no objections. Councilmember Smith stated that one of the things she feels would really help the project would be if there were a complimentary color, rather than a contrasting color, on the windows. Mr. Lansink responded that he can could get quote on what it would cost and will leave the decision to the ownership. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Tempco wants to begin the project as soon as possible, so that they can use the press this fall. He further stated that on the basis that Tempco is going to paint the doors and has agreed to get cost estimates for windows, the city could probably participate in those costs. Councilmember Smith stated that she would want to know that the windows are coordinating in color before she can vote on the issue. She suggested that the city ask the architect that the city retained to suggest a color. Mr. Cronin responded that he does not care what color it is, whatever the city desires. Page No. 12 August 5, 1997 Mayor Mertensotto responded that the white framing around the windows draws attention to the vast amount of glass. He stated that he would like to get the maximum impact possible for the public funds being contributed to the project. He informed Mr. Cronin that Council is are only talking that part of the building visible from Mendota Heights Road and the office area. He further stated that Council also needs some compromise on the truck access - where the stopping point will be. Mr. Lansink responded that he does not see that as being an issue at all. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the proposed $96,360 TIF participation in the cost of the Tempco project envisions that the project will include painting all of the windows along Mendota Heights Road and TH 55. He also asked Tempco to determine what the cost would be for installing a ramp to the front office. City Attorney Hart stated that Tempco must provide handicapped access to the facility if and when required by the accessibility guidelines of ADA. Councilmember Koch stated that Tempco should also determine the size of the door opening, as she would not want Tempco to build a ramp and then not have a large enough door. Councilmember Krebsbach moved concept approval of the Tax Increment Financing agreement with Tempco as proposed in Administrative Assistant Hollister's memo to Council which sets out the schedule of payments, and the conditions on payback and pay-as- you-go TIF, and to authorize issuance of a building permit in accordance with plans submitted this evening. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 RECESS Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 9:45 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:50 p.m. NSP FRANCHISE Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson regarding renewal of NSP's gas and electric franchise agreements. Mr. Pat Cline, NSP's Community Service Manager, was present for the discussion. Page No. 13 August 5, 1997 Mayor Mertensotto stated that his concern is that there may be a day when the city would want a revenue tax. He stated that he would like an option in the agreement that would allow the city to give NSP six months notice that the city would be imposing a revenue tax. He explained that Mendota Heights would not want to be the only city that is not using the revenue source. He informed Mr. Cline that another question he has is how the exclusive franchise plays out. He stated that he would like NSP to include the same provision as other cities have which allows other providers to cross the city, and that he would like the city to have the ability to amend the agreement on notice from the city. He also asked Mr. Cline if he would agree to Council appointment of a franchise committee. Mr. Cline responded that NSP does have an alternate agreement that gives the city the right to impose a fee, and a change can be easily made to the proposed agreement. He also stated that he would be happy to work with a franchise committee. Regarding Mayor Mertensotto's question over the right to choose another provider, he stated that the proposed agreement simply covers the equipment for distribution of energy. He stated that currently NSP has an exclusive franchise that residents must buy energy from NSP, but in the future, the agreement will be that if people choose to buy NSP, but he did not think that the city would want another distribution system. Mayor Mertensotto responded that he wants flexibility in the future, not a 20 year agreement. He pointed out that city residents currently pay 20% more to St. Paul Water than St. Paul residents do, and that St. Paul Water cannot charge that 20% to Mendota Heights unless it imposes the same charge to all of its customers outside of the city. If a lower rate is offered to other cities, St. Paul Water must offer Mendota Heights the lower rate. Mr. Cline responded it is common to open issues during the term of the agreement. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he would like to put together a working group of four people to meet with Mr. Cline, including city staff., and that he will establish the committee soon and then contact Mr. Cline. ' CASE NO. 97-18, GIGUERE Council acknowledged an application from David Giguere for conditional use permit and four foot sideyard setback variance to allow replacement of an existing one -car detached garage with a Page No. 14 August 5, 1997 detached two -car garage at 1311 Delaware Avenue. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mayor Mertensotto noted that the staff report recommended review of the plan by the Fire Marshal and Code Enforcement Officers for code compliance because the garage appears to be too close to the existing house. Mr. Giguere responded that he has a covered patio between the garage and the house. Attorney Hart stated that as long as the structure is in compliance with the Uniform Building Code, the requirement that both the Fire Marshal and Code Enforcement Officers is not needed in the approving resolution. Referring to Mr. Giguere's concern over costs associated with the city planning applications and requirements, Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Giguere what his cost was for the required abstractor's certificate. Mr. Giguere responded that the certificate cost $100. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city's ordinance requires an abstractor's certificate showing the owners of properties located within 350 feet of the applicant's property. He felt that the city should ask Dakota County to develop the property owner list through GIS so that the cost to applicants is not so great. Public Works Director Danielson responded that Dakota County is working towards availability of GIS -generated ownership lists. Also responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, he stated that only a variance fee has been charged to Mr. Giguere pending determination by Council on whether a conditional use fee should be required. He explained that Mr. Giguere felt that the interpretation that replacing an existing detached garage with a new one places unfair burden on residents who live in older homes. Mayor Mertensotto stated that because of the width of the lot, Mr. Giguere. has not alternative other than to locate the garage as proposed. He suggested that Council grant the conditional use permit and waive the fee. Councilmember Smith moved adoption of Resolution No. 97-38, "A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 15 August 5, 1997 AND A 4' SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO 1311 DELAWARE AVENUE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE WITH A NEW DETACHED GARAGE," amended to remove staff review and approval of plans, and further to approve waiver of the conditional use permit application fee. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that review by the Code Enforcement Officers and Fire Marshal were removed because no permit can be issued without their approval. CASE NO. 97-19, NORTHLAND Council acknowledged an application from Northland Drive DRIVE PARTNERSHIP Partnership for a 40 foot setback variance to allow installation of a multi -tenant 66 square foot sign at the property line at 2506-2526 Northland Drive. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Dave Gravelle was present for the discussion. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that when signs start encroaching on the setback, sight lines are restricted at intersections. Mr. Gravelle responded that the sign would be on the curve, not on a corner, and there are no trees in the proposed sign location. He explained that because of the trees at the required setback, the sign would not be visible and some very mature trees would have to be removed. He stated that the only location where the sign could be seen is at the proposed location. Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Gravelle that the largest variance Council typically grants for sign setbacks is 20 feet. He felt that the proposed variance would set a dangerous precedent of allowing signs 1/0 on the property line. Councilmember Smith stated that one thing Council has done in the JJ t in granting a variance for a sign close to the property line was to (J `" ss two feet from the property line or a minimum distance from the ` curb if conditions change. 1 l� It was the consensus to amend the proposed approving resolution to allow a variance to the extent necessary for the placement of a sign no closer than 2 feet back from the, the location of the curb may change fr time to time. I h� Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 97- 19, "A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE TO Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 97-20, KELLER RESIDENTIAL Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 16 August 5, 1997 NORTHLAND DRIVE PARTNERSHIP FOR A SIGN," as amended. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Council acknowledged an application from Keller Residential, Inc., for a ten foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of a fence for Mr. & Mrs. Neil Melton at 2459 Winthrop Court. Council also acknowledged staff reports. Mr. Melton was present for the discussion. Mr. Melton informed Council that he has a corner lot, so the 10 foot front yard variance that is required is really for his side lot line. He stated that the fence will look like a picket fence and will be six feet tall. He explained that it will be stained to match the color of the house. He informed Council that he needs the fence to separate neighborhood children from his dog and that he has tried invisible fencing but there are seven children aged 2 through 9 in his neighborhood and the came to play with his dog and broke the fence. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Melton stated that at such time as he no longer has his present dog he will likely get another. He informed Council that there will be landscaping around the fence and that all of his neighbors have submitted their written approval. Councilmember Koch moved adoption of Resolution No. 97-20, "A RESOLUTON GRANTING A 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FENCE TO 2459 WINTHROP COURT," granting a three foot fence height variance to allow a six foot fence to be located 20 feet from the property line along Mendota Heights Road. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. CASE NO. 97-21, Council acknowledged an application from the Convent of the VISITATION Visitation for a wetlands permit to allow two tennis courts to be constructed to within 50 feet of a pond on the Visitation property. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Gary Ostberg was present on behalf of Visitation. Mr. Ostberg explained that the permit is being requested to allow two additional tennis courts at Visitation. He briefly reviewed the Page No. 17 August 5, 1997 drawings and drainage plan and discussed drainage issues with Council. Councilmember Smith moved adoption of Resolution No. 97-21, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A WETLANDS PERMIT TO VISITATION FOR TWO TENNIS COURTS TO WITHIN 50" OF THE WETLAND," consistent with the plans and specifications dated July 23, 1997 and on file with the city, and with the condition that the distance form the high water mark will be determined by city staff. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 97-22, PIHLSTROM Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Gary Pihlstrom for a conditional use permit and modified critical area permit to allow construction of a 240 square foot accessory structure at 1907 Hunter Lane. Council also acknowledged a letter from Mr. J.W. Barber, 1919 Hunter Lane, and staff reports. Mr. Pihlstrom was present for the discussion. Regarding Mr. Barber's request that conditions be placed on the permit, Mr. Pihlstrom stated that he has agreed to set the fence back one foot from the property line. He stated that Mr. Barber has agreed that if his fence encroaches on the Pihlstrom property line he will move it. He informed Council that Mr. Barber's concerns were addressed in the proposal at the outset. Councilmember Koch stated that one of the conditions in the proposed resolution is that the fence conform to the Zoning Ordinance in all respects, including the ten foot setback from the south property line. Public Works Director Danielson responded that the resolution language is in error, and should state that the proposed free standing accessory structure conform to the R-1 zoning code, etc. Mr. Pihlstrom stated that the structure will be set back ten feet from his property line and the fence will be set back one foot from the property line. He also stated that the siding and shingles will match the house. Mr. Pihlstrom informed Council that the abstractor's certificate required by the city cost $260, and that the city charged $100 for the Page No. 18 August 5, 1997 critical are fee and $350 for the conditional use permit, so it has cost him $700 just to request a yard barn and the fence. Mayor Mertensotto suggested waiver of the critical area fee. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 97- 22, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITONAL USE PERMIT AND A MODIFIED CRITICAL AREA PERMIT FOR 1907 HUNTER LANE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE," revised as to the fust condition. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 97-43, ROYAL Council acknowledged an application from Royal Redeemer REDEEMER Lutheran Church for a 20 foot setback variance and a 40 square foot sign size variance to allow installation of a new 64 square foot sign. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Ms. Mary Moore was present on behalf of Royal Redeemer. Councilmember Krebsbach asked for a comparison of the proposed sign to others in the city. Ms. Moore responded that the church does not like the high sign it currently has and the new sign would be a foot taller than the City Hall sign. She stated that the church would like to move the sign closer to the access and have it look more like the other signs in the area. She cited several church signs as examples. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the sign as proposed appears to be very large. Ms. Moore responded that the one the currently exists is five feet high and the new one would be 4 feet high and would be set in a planter. She explained that light emanating from the existing sign carries off the site at night, at eye level. She stated that one of the church's concerns is that the facility is located in a 40 mile per hour zone, and there is concern over safety because of the amount of time it takes to read the sign, stop and turn. She stated that a if a smaller sign were installed, by the time someone could read it they would go past the facility and brake, which is dangerous. She informed Council that the city's sign is 3 by 8 feet and the church is asking for a four by 8 foot sign. She stated that from ground level to the top of the sign is 7'6", but that could be adjusted, and flowers will be planted in the base. Page No. 19 August 5, 1997 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would be inclined to approve the application if she knew the sign would be lower. Ms. Moore responded that it has taken the church nine years to get to this point, and the original sign was installed in the early 1960's. She stated that a small sign would not be beneficial to the church, and the city ordinance only allows a 3 by 4 foot sign. Mayor Mertensotto stated that what Councilmember Krebsbach is asking is if the church can lower the distance between the bottom of the sign and the landscaping base. He suggested that the sign be six to eight inches above the base. Ms. Moore responded that this is not an issue and that the sign can be brought down. She stated that if Council wishes, the sign could be placed on the based and plantings could be placed around the base. Councilmember Smith asked if the church would agree to a setback of ten feet from the property line or a specified distance from the curb. Ms. Moore responded that right now the sign is next to the path and the church would be moving it towards the driveway and away from the path. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 97- 25, "A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 10' SETBACK VARIANCE AND A 40 SQUARE FOOT SIZE VARIANCE TO ROYAL REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH FOR A NEW SIGN," with the conditions that the sign be no closer than ten feet from the property line along Lexington Avenue, that the sign must be constructed on top of the base, and that the monument material match the exterior of the church facility. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 97-26, BIFULK Council acknowledged an application from Mr. Phil Bifulk for a 20 foot front yard setback variance to allow installation of a chain link fence at 1936 Glen Hill Road. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council granted a ten foot variance for a similar fence close to the Bifulk property, thus there is Page No. 20 August 5, 1997 precedent for approval. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 97- 26, "A RESOLUTION GRANTING A 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND A MODIFIED CRITICAL AREA PERMIT TO 1936 GLEN HILL ROAD FOR A FENCE," along with waiver of the critical area modified site plan review fee. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 97-45, UNITED Council acknowledged an application from United Properties for a PROPERTIES conditional use permit for planned unit development for the Mendota Technology Center. Council also acknowledged associated staff reports. Mr. Dale Glowa was present for the discussion on behalf of United Properties. Mr. Glowa reviewed building renderings and reviewed the site plan for Council. He stated that he is seeking concept, preliminary and final PUD approval so that he can begin construction on the first phase of the development in thirty days. He informed Council hat the development will start with Phase 1, which will be a two-story structure. It is the intent to develop in phases as the market requires ant that there are two two-story buildings and two one story buildings proposed for the development. He stated that the one-story buildings will be either office/show room or entirely office space. He informed Council that the buildings will be red brick with stone an that they will be built on a speculation basis. Responding to a question from Councilmember Smith, Mr. Glowa stated that United Properties intends to individually plat each property and there will be cross parking and access easements. Councilmember Smith moved adoption of Resolution No. 97-24, "A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONCEPT, PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPROVAL TO UNITED PROPERTIES FOR MENDOTA TECHNOLOGY CENTER," subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, along with authorization for issuance of a building permit. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 21 August 5, 1997 T.H. 110 FRONTAGE ROAD Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson regarding a request from Dakota Bank that the South Lexington Avenue frontage road be renamed Dakota Drive. It was the consensus not to rename the road without input from the other owners of property along the frontage road. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister regarding an application made by staff to the Metropolitan Council for a $20,000 grant to assist in the cost of revising the city's Comprehensive Plan. It was the consensus of Council to apply for the funding in part because the city must hire airport noise experts to review plans south of T.H. 110 to determine whether they fit in with the development plans for MSP. Councilmember Smith moved adoption of Resolution No. 97-46, "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO APPLY FOR A $20,000 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT." Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 BUDGET WORKSHOP It was the consensus of Council to conduct a workshop on the proposed 1998 budget at 7:30 p.m. on August 14. MIDDLE SCHOOL TOUR Council acknowledged an invitation to tour the new middle school on August 12. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Koch moved that the meeting be adjourned to 7:30 p.m. on August 12 for a tour of the middle school and to 7:30 p.m. on August 14 for a budget workshop. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:45 o'clock P.M. Kathleen M. Swanson ATTEST: City Clerk Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL August 5, 1997 Excavating Contractor License Glenn Rehbein Excavating, Inc. Rycon, Inc. Gas Piping Contractor License Flare Heating and Air Conditioning Northwestern Service, Inc. HVAC Contractor License Flare Heating and Air Conditioning Northwestern Service, Inc. Seasonal Control Inc. Vogel Sheetmetal Inc. General Contractor License Amerect, Inc. Asphalt & Concrete Buy Knox Dalco Roofing & Sheetmetal, Inc. Fenc-co, Inc. R J Ryan Construction Inc. Page No. 1 August 19, 1997 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, August 19, 1997 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Huber, Koch, Krebsbach and Smith. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Smith moved approval of the minutes of the July 19, 1997 regular meeting as amended. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Krebsbach moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move item e., fire hydrant painting, to the regular agenda,. along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the July 9, 1997 Airport Relations Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the Fire Department monthly report for July. c. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly report for July. d. Acknowledgment of a memo from Treasurer Shaughnessy regarding 1997 bond issues. e. Acknowledgment of a memo on the Friendly Hills sod replacement project. Page No. 2 August 19, 1997 f. Adoption of Resolution No. 97-48, "RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR TILSEN'S HIGHLAND HEIGHTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 96, PROJECT NO. 4)" and Resolution No. 97-49, "RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PINE CREEK ESTATES (IMPROVEMENT NO. 93, PROJECT NO. 1)." g. Approval of a request from St. Thomas Academy for authorization to operate a motorized pontoon boat on Rogers Lake for the purpose of obtaining lake samples between 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. during the months of September through November. h. Authorization to advertise for bids for Rogers Lake Addition drainage improvements, project costs to be fmanced by the Storm Water Utility Fund, in accordance with a memo from Engineer Mogan. i. Acceptance of the retirement of Fred Pfeiffer from the Public Works Department, with appreciation for his 25 years of service to the city, and authorization for staff to begin the replacement process. j. Approval of the probationary appointment of William Bird to the part-time Recreation Programmer position, at the pay rate of $11,777, effective on August 25, 1997. k. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated August 19, 1997 and attached hereto. 1. Approval of the list of claims dated August 19, 1997 and totaling $227,785.67. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 FIRE HYDRANT PAINTING Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from Public Works Director Danielson regarding bids received for fire hydrant painting. Council members expressed concern that the ability to complete the sandblasting and painting of all of the hydrants this fall is a critical part of the project, and the low bidder failed to comply with the bid requirement that he specify the number of hydrants he would paint Page No. 3 August 19, 1997 each day. It was noted that acrylic paint must be applied and allowed to dry without moisture, and that the paint supplier recommends that the project begin immediately and end by late September when mornings and evenings are dewy. Lacking information on how many hydrants the low bidder expects to paint each day, there does not appear to be enough time left in the season for one individual to complete the sandblasting and painting of all of the hydrants. Councilmember Huber moved to reject the low bid submitted by Bob Doane, because the bid failed to specify the number of hydrants which would be painted each day, and to award the contract to Budget Sandblasting and Painting, for its bid of $27.00 per hydrant. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Bill Burke, 707 Decorah Lane, was present to express appreciation to the Council and Engineer Mogan for the Friendly Hills sod replacement. He stated that the appearance of the neighborhood and the quality of the sod work is far superior to the original work done as part of the Friendly Hills street reconstruction project. SUPER AMERICA SIGN Council acknowledged a letter from SuperAmerica requesting Council approval of an alternate design for the free standing monument sign at the new SuperAmerica facility at Lexington and Highway 110. Council also acknowledged an associated memo from Public Works Director Danielson. Mr. Mike Cronin was present on behalf of SuperAmerica. Mr. Cronin explained that the alternate sign is being proposed at the request of Dakota Bank, and is four feet wider than the original plan but will be about 7 1/2 feet lower. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if the sign location will block the bank sign. She further asked if much advantage will be gained by revising the sign since it will not be moved very much. 11 k.,P, ( C;�kkV Mr. Cronin responded that Dakota B re 'den Sei 1 eels that there is a great advantage, and that Mr!Seidl as requested the new sign. He stated that the SuperAmerica chitects and Mr. Seidl discussed the sign at length. Mr. Cronin also informed Council that the base of the sign will be the same brick used on the SuperAmerica store. Page No. 4 August 19, 1997 Mayor Mertensotto stated that if Council concurs in the request, the original sign approval must be vacated and Council must, as an amendment, authorize the two-party agreement between the bank and SuperAmerica, which will result in a sign of about half of the approved height and four feet more width. Staff confirmed that the sign as proposed conforms to city ordinance sign size requirements. Councilmember Smith moved to abandon the original SuperAmerica free standing monument sign approval and authorize an amended sign as reviewed this evening and on file at City Hall. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 DISPATCH SERVICE Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Batchelder regarding a proposed amendment to the dispatch service agreement with the City of West St. Paul. Administrator Batchelder explained that in June Council had received the proposal to make an amendment to the current agreement to extend the agreement another year for dispatch services for police and fire. At that time, Council asked West St. Paul to provide budget information. He stated that West St. Paul has provided the information on its actual expenses for 1995 as well as the budgeted amounts for 1996 and 1997. The 1997 budget calls for a 3.3% increase over the 1996 budget, however the 1996 budget was actually overspent by a considerable amount due to severance and vacation benefits. He informed Council that the 1997 budget is less than the actual 1996 expenditures. He stated that Mendota Heights paid for dispatch services for 1996 based on the 1996 budget and West St. Paul is proposing that the Mendota Heights 1997 dispatch service amount be based on the 1997 budget, not on the over -run from 1996. Council discussed police use of cell phones rather than their radios. It was felt that perhaps the police were using the phones because the radio frequency is too congested because of the merger with South St. Paul. Administrator Batchelder responded that the two channels West St. Paul uses are busier now because of the combination with South St. Paul, however the channels are available. Page No. 5 August 19, 1997 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she feels that the Mendota Heights police officers do not have adequate access to the radio and it might be better to have a repeater. She asked if item number two in West Paul Police Chief Iago's letter refers to a repeater that West St. Paul will be investing in. She expressed concern that the Mendota Heights officers have access to the channels and if they do not have adequate access that something will be done. Administrator Batchelder responded that the officers do have access to the channels even though they are busier now that South St. Paul is part of the system. He explained that the Mendota Heights officers have stricter protocols on use of the channels, and it is not a question of access as much as discipline. He felt that the level of service provided by West. St. Paul is adequate. Councilmember Smith asked if the reference in Chief Iago's letter to the fact that there will soon be two complete and separate frequencies means that West St. Paul will have the ability to expand its capacity. Mayor Mertensotto responded that it is obvious that more information is needed. He stated that Mendota Heights has had increases two years in a row due to expansion of the system to include South St Paul, and that Mendota Heights should find out where it stands and more research is needed to determine if the city is getting service as good as it has had in the past. He asked the Administrator to request a report from Chief Delmont. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to authorize the 1997 amendment to the dispatch service agreement with West St. Paul with the direction that the Police Chief research and report on whether Mendota Heights is receiving adequate service and whether the agreement is also satisfactory for 1998. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 NDC -4 BUDGET Council acknowledged the NDC4 draft budget for 1998 along with an associated memo from Administrator Batchelder. Councilmember Huber, the Council representative on NDC -4, responded to several Council questions regarding the proposed budget and US West fees and requirements for components. He informed Council that there is a tentative US West agreement to sell the Twin Cities part of its cable system to Charter Communications. Page No. 6 August 19, 1997 Councilmember Smith -pointed out that the grant from NDC -4 to NDCTV is decreasing and that NDC -4 expects NDCTV to become more self-sufficient. She also noted that one other big change is that NDCTV plans to fully fund the cost of production of "Insight 7" and is not anticipating asking for city assistance in funding. Councilmember Huber responded that NDCTV would like to try to fund the program internally if at all possible and not ask for city contributions from franchise fee payments. Councilmember Smith asked Administrator Batchelder to request a copy of the NDCTV proposed budget for 1998 for distribution to Council. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that it is not necessary for Council to take action on the proposed budget, since the terms of the Joint Powers Agreement stipulate that unless a city submits written objection to the proposed budget within 45 days, the failure to respond will be considered a positive vote for the proposed budget. CELLULAR/PCS ORDINANCE Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister regarding the draft Cellular/PCS ordinance. Mayor Mertensotto stated that his primary concern is exceeding the 75 foot height limitation. He stated that Council has been requiring the height limitation and has asked AT&T to reduce its tower to 75 feet. He did not feel that Council should take any action that would be contrary to this policy, and further that he did not think co - location in the future (with a 25 foot height bonus) would work. He stated that the Planning Commission has done excellent work on the proposed ordinance but that he cannot support the proposed bonus to allow 100 foot towers. Councilmember Smith responded that there are a number of ways to look at the height issue. She stated that under the co -location aspect, there could only be two antennas located on a 100 foot tower, so the best that co -location would do would be to eliminate one tower. She further stated that every company could say that they would be happy to co -locate just to get the 100 foot tower, whether there would be someone co -locating in the future or not. Assistant Hollister reviewed proposed changes to the description of height which have been made in the draft as the result of concerns expressed by Councilmember Smith. Page No. 7 August 19, 1997 Council discussed the proposed setback requirement. It was the consensus to require the use district setback or 30 feet, whichever is greater, plus the height of the tower. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that one topic of discussion at the National League of Cities conference was abandonment of towers. She felt that the language in the draft ordinance requiring an abandonment bond is appropriate. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the ordinance could either require the abandonment bond or it could state that the tower must be in use and maintained or the land owner must remove it. Councilmember Smith stated that there should be some flexibility in the use of the tower, such as co -location or use by another company. It was the consensus to include language to state that a tower must be removed when it in no longer in active use. Councilmember Smith asked if the ordinance should require that operators notify the city when a tower is no longer in use, because without such notification the city would not know when a tower is inactive. Mayor Mertensotto responded that with or without notification, Section 21.6(8)a of the proposed ordinance stipulates that if the use ceases for a period of more than six months, the conditional use automatically terminates. Staff was directed to inform the Planning Commission on Council's comments and let them know what the discussion points were. PARK DEDICATION FEES Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Hollister regarding proposed revisions to the park dedication policy which have been recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. Councilmember Koch asked whether there is any reason, other than that the city's fees are lower than those of other cities surveyed, that the fees should be increased. She pointed out that Mendota Heights taxes are also low. Mayor Mertensotto responded that the proposed increases are primarily to reflect increased demand for funds for park equipment, equipment replacement, etc. He pointed out that as properties develop, there are increased demands on the park sytem. Page No. 8 August 19, 1997 Councilmember Smith felt that a fee of 10% of the market value for industrial property is excessive. She asked how the market value is determined. Treasurer Shaughnessy responded that the Dakota County Assessor's market value for a property has been used in the past, and this value is probably lower than actual market value. Councilmember Smith asked if the fee should be tied to a building permit, in the case of development of replats. Administrator Batchelder reviewed the language is Subdivision 2 of the draft policy, which stipulates what type of development activity would be subject to dedication fees. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council would consider this evening's review of the proposed policy as the first reading to allow property owners to submit written comments prior to the second Council meeting in September. He stated that if no comments are received, the policy will be placed on Council's consent calendar for approval on September 16. Administrator Batchelder stated that in some cases, a parcel could have paid a park dedication in the past and is subsequently redeveloped. He asked if the city would intend to charge a park fee again. He also raised the question of whether the city can charge a park fee again to someone who may have subdivided a parcel in the past but never developed. Treasurer Shaughnessy stated that it has been the practice that, for example, if a parcel was platted as a ten acre lot and the park fee was paid, it was paid on a per parcel basis. If the parcel were to be subsequently split into two five acre parcels for development, a fee would be required for one of the new lots. Councilmember Koch expressed concern the city must be careful about double taxation. Mayor Mertensotto responded that if a new parcel is created, a fee must be paid for that parcel. Staff was directed to give Council a written policy based on past practice and that staff look at prior procedure to determine what should be done in the best interest of the city and in fairness and equitability to the property owners. Page No. 9 August 19, 1997 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Krebsbach commended the Park Celebration/Fire Department 50'h Anniversary committees for their efforts on behalf of the August 16 celebration. There was discussion over the condition of the Ivy Falls Park pond and the wild flower plantings. Administrator Batchelder expressed appreciation to Administrative Secretary Kim Blaeser for her work on the park celebration. He informed Council that when the Recreation Programmer resigned in June, Kim volunteered to take over the park celebration responsibilities and did an excellent job. Staff was directed to look into replacing dead trees at Mendakota Park. Councilmembers Huber and Krebsbach informed Council that they will not be able to attend the September 16 Council meeting. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Krebsbach moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:33 o'clock P.M. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor J CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 1997 - MINUTES The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, August 13, 1997 in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1 101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: Beaty, Leuman, May, Des Roches and Gross. Commissioners Fitzer and Stein were excused. Also present were City Administrator Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner May moved approval of the July 9, 1997 Minutes. Commissioner Des Roches seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 MISCELLANEOUS Chair Beaty stated that he had attended the NOISE conference and felt that the conference had provided excellent information. He noted that he is interested in inviting Mr. Ahuja, of the Georgia Tech Research Institute, to speak at an upcoming Commission meeting. He stated that Mr. Ahuja indicated that the City should be able to conduct its own tests and get an accurate depiction of sound and develop air noise contours based on these tests. Beaty stated that by the City conducting its own testing, may help provide some "teeth" in negotiating/discussing changes with the MAC. Beaty indicated that Mayor Mertensotto is also interested in hearing this individual speak. He also suggested that Mr. Ahuja attend an upcoming NDCARC meeting. Commissioner Gross suggested that the City request a resume from Mr. Ahuja. Beaty suggested that staff provide the Mayor with a copy of the Whiley Research analysis. UPDATE AIRPORT ACTION PLAN Administrator Batchelder stated that the Commission had discussed updating the Action Plan at their July meeting. He noted that the AUGUST 13, 7997 AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES C Commission had made several changes to the plan and that they have been added to the Action Plan for their final review tonight. Administrator Batchelder noted that, the Commission has added a new goal to the plan, Revisiting Fanning Options off of 11 L. Batchelder stated that fanning of aircraft already occurs to the north and inquired if the Commission intends for their goal to fan aircraft further south. He reminded the Commission that no headings are issued south of the 29 localizer. Chair Beaty referred to the Braslau report where Mr. Braslau suggested air noise relief by fanning aircraft in all directions from MSP. He stated that Mr. Braslau felt that by spreading aircraft noise, there will be much less noise in one specific area. Commissioner Leuman stated that aircraft cannot be fanned much farther north because of the St. Paul Airport airspace. Chair Beaty stated that the control tower currently fans the aircraft. Batchelder stated that this issue is in conflict with other goals the Commission has established such as narrowing the air noise corridor. Commissioner Des Roches stated that she is concerned that this "goal" will distract other issues the Commission is currently working on within the Action Plan. Chair Beaty stated that the City Council is looking for equity of air noise. He stated that the Council should consider reviewing this issue as it is tough to not include the northern area of Mendota Heights if the City's intent is to equitably distribute air noise. Commissioner Gross stated that the reality is that the airport and city are here to stay and that the City should continue to focus on narrowing the corridor. Beaty stated that he agrees. Gross noted that he is concerned that the community may interpret this new "goal" as the Commission unsure of what it wants to accomplish. He stated that this new goal is contrary to what the Commission has been working on over the past few years. Chair Beaty stated that this goal fits into the equity issue of the Action Plan. Commissioner May stated that he believes that the concept of fanning fits within the Action Plan and that it should be considered as a part of noise abatement procedures. Administrator Batchelder explained that the City had reviewed this concept in the past and that the study is available to the Commission. He stated that as a result of this study and the City's persistence in equitable air noise distribution, the MAC developed the now implemented crossing pattern. Batchelder suggested that the Commission request the MAC to report on AUGUST 13, 1997 AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES 2 how the crossing pattern is being implemented and whether the FAA is using this procedure during non -simultaneous periods. He suggested that the Commission focus on why the City is still experiencing 5:00 a.m. departures over residential neighborhoods. Commissioner Gross agreed with Administrator Batchelder. He stated the Commission/Council should pursue a court injunction since there seems to be a direct violation of a specific tower order. Commissioner Des Roches agreed but added that she would like to see specific data before pursuing court action. Batchelder inquired further about specific changes to the Action Plan. Commissioner Des Roches stated that she does not want to include, within the Action Plan, fanning of aircraft. She stated that she welcomes additional material/education regarding this concept. She noted that by adding this goal to the Action Plan, it may send a message to the Council and community that the Commission is pursuing a goal that is incompatible with the entire Action. Administrator Batchelder inquired about the Commission's priority in fanning aircraft. Commissioner May suggested that the fanning option should be prioritized and that it be included as a noise reduction issue. Chair Beaty stated that he is looking for equity of the current runway use system. Batchelder stated that with the construction of the north/south runway, 37 percent of the departures will depart off the north/south runway and that departures from 11 L will drop to 8 percent. Chair Beaty stated that he cannot image that the Cities of Bloomington and Richfield will allow 37 percent of the departures to depart over their cities. He stated that operations will increase over the years and that he believes the runways will continue to be used as they are now. He stated that he does not believe that with the new north/south runway, Mendota Heights will experience less noise. Chair Beaty stated that if Mendota Heights receives 8 percent of the departures (with the construction of the north/south runway), why not consider spreading that air noise across the City. Administrator Batchelder inquired if the Action Plan's goal of narrowing the corridor is no longer a priority. Chair Beaty stated that specific neighborhoods within Mendota Heights keep getting "burned" with air noise and that he would like to see these neighborhoods get some relief. Commissioner May stated that he concurs with Chair Beaty and that he believes there are some viable alternatives in distributing air noise. In response to a question from Chair Beaty regarding Commissioners living AUGUST 13, 1997 AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES 3 north of Highway 110, Commissioner Gross stated that he does experience some air noise. He stated that he is of the opinion that he would like to see the Commission stay on "track" with their issues and goals related to equitable distribution of air noise. He stated that this Commission needs to maintain its credibility. He stated that he believes revisiting fanning options off of 11 L should be kept out of the Action Plan. Commissioner Des Roches stated that she does not get much air noise and that she agrees with Commissioner Gross about maintaining the Commission's credibility. Chair Beaty stated that he would like to see the Commission educated further on Braslau/Collette study. Administrator Batchelder suggested that Page 3 of the Action Plan be changed to read: Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Revisit Fanning Options. Action Steps Who When 1. Receive outside expertise to educate ARC 1998 the Commission on how fanning may affect communities. 2. Research other airports implementation ARC/Staff of fanning procedure 3. Explore history with MAC/St. Paul ARC/Staff airspace. 4. Explore opportunities and constraints ARC/Staff with FAA traffic control. Commissioner May stated that he believes that the Commission should revisit the fanning issue. He stated that this may be a political issue but that the Commission has an obligation to pursue other noise abatement procedures. Chair Beaty requested that staff send copies of the Braslau/Collette study in the next Commission agenda packet. The Commission was of the consensus to present the Action Plan to at the September 2, 1997 City Council regular meeting. DISCUSS JOINT WORKSHOP FOR AUGUST 13, 7997 AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES 4 NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY AIRPORT RELATIONS' COMMISSIONERS The Commission discussed topics of interest and planned the bus tour route. The Commission discussed best times to view air traffic within the City of Mendota Heights. Commissioners Stein indicated he would attend the meeting. DISCUSS LETTER AND VIDEO FROM MR. RON FUSSELL The Commission reviewed a letter and video from Mr. Ron Fussell, of 530 Abbey Way. The Commission noted the air traffic patterns and how specific aircraft generate more noise than others. The Commission was interested in noting how Mr. Fussell's interpretation of noisy aircraft changed. The Commission expressed their appreciation in receiving the video and directed staff to send a thank you letter to Mr. Fussell. PRESENTATION ON NOISE - 8 P.M. MR. BRIAN ADDIS - INSTRUCTOR AT INVER HILLS COMMUNITY COLLEGE Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that Mr. Addis had canceled his presentation earlier in the day. It was noted that Mr. Addis had been requested to help investigate a recent aircraft accident. Batchelder stated that he would reschedule Mr. Addis' presentation. UPDATES NOISE ABATEMENT DEPARTURE PROFILES Administrator Batchelder reviewed a letter sent by Mayor Mertensotto to the members of the Planning and Environment Committee - MAC regarding their recent action to table discussion of the MASAC recommendation on Noise Abatement Departure Profiles for one month. The Mayor's letter explains the City's position on how vitally important that a Close -In Departure be adopted for both ends of the parallel runways for the MSP airport. Commissioner May inquired if the City has considered reviewing this issue with the City Attorney. He suggested that the City consider this option because there appears to be a real inconsistency in how the MAC dictates policies and procedures. He stated that by the City challenging MAC's AUGUST 13, 1997 AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES 5 inconsistencies, the City will generate publicity that the MAC may not wish to endure. May stated that it is hard for any court to ignore equal protection of the law. Commissioner Des Roches suggested sending a letter to the MAC regarding Commissioner May's suggestion. Commissioner May stated that the City can only gain more respect in demanding equal protection. He stated that staff/commission/council can tap into specific resources to help generate facts and statistics to help its cause in comparing "apples to apples". MAC AND MASAC REPRESENTATION Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that he would be attending the Executive Committee meeting on August 14 where the committee will review the possible changes to the MASAC membership roster. COMMUNITY STABILIZATION WORKING GROUP - AUGUST 12, 1997 Administrator Batchelder explained that in 1996 the Noise Mitigation Committee established by the MAC recommended that a Community Stabilization Working group be formed to develop recommendations on noise mitigation programs that could be submitted to the Minnesota Legislature. He explained that according to the MAC, with the timing of this adoption of the Committee recommendations and subsequent presentation to the - Legislature, action could not be taken for the 1997 session. In essence, the MAC is now looking to develop potential recommendations for the 1998 session. He stated that staff will continue to monitor this working group's discussions and follow our adopted Noise Mitigation Needs Statement. PART 150 RESPONSE TO MS. RITA HUGHES, 2308 SWAN Batchelder explained that the City had made a request on behalf of Ms. Hughes, on Swan Drive, to insulate her home after seven other homes in her neighborhood had received sound insulation. Batchelder explained that the City has received a response from Mr. Steven Vecchi, Manager of the Part 150 Program at MAC, that Ms. Rita Hughes' request to have her home insulated using Part 150 funds has been denied. Mr. Vecchi explained that Ms. Hughes's property is located on a block that AUGUST 13, 1997 AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES 6 does not meet FAA criteria and therefore is not eligible for Part 150 modifications. The reason being that FAA guidelines stated that only blocks that are intersected or completely contained within the outermost contour boundary are eligible for the Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation Program. Batchelder stated that Ms. Hughes' neighboring blocks (Blocks 21 and 22) are eligible because they are intersected by the outermost DNL contour boundary. Commissioner Des Roches was excused at 9:10 p.m. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC agenda for July 22, 1997 and June 24, 1997 minutes. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC abbreviated Technical Advisor's Report for June, 1997. Administrator Batchelder informed the Commission that the ANOMS system is experiencing technical difficulties as it relates to the new installation of equipment at the new control tower. Apparently the new equipment in the control tower is not compatible with the existing ANOMS equipment. The MAC is in the process of upgrading the system so that it is compatible with the FAA's system. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Airport Noise Report for July. The Commission acknowledged receipt MASAC Executive Committee Agenda for August 14, 1997 and July 11, 1997 Minutes. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Operations Committee Agenda for August 14, 1997 and Minutes of July 15, 1997. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Eagan ARC Agenda for August 12, 1997. AUGUST 13, 1997 AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES 7 ri ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Airport Relations Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary AUGUST 13, 1997 AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES 8 r., I'd CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 26, 1997 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 26, 1997, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1 101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The following Commission members were present: Dwyer, Koll, Betlej, Lorberbaum, Duggan and Tilsen. Commissioner Friel was excused. Also present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson, Planner Meg McMonigal, Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Duggan moved approval of the July 29, 1997 Minutes with corrections. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: 1, TILSEN CASE NO. 97-27: ROSEVILLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO - SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR LOT RECONFIGURATION Mr. Hugh Cullen, of Roseville Properties, was present to discuss his request to reconfigure two lots by adjusting a common lot line located at 2025 Centre Pointe Boulevard. Mr. Cullen explained that his request is to transfer .72 acres from one platted parcel to the adjacent platted parcel. He stated that this may be accomplished by a Certificate of Survey as allowed under the City's Subdivision Ordinance. In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan, Mr. Cullen explained that when the Centre Pointe building was constructed on Lot 6, Block 1, Yorkton Centre Pointe South, ,the parking lot was built across the southern AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 lot line. He explained that at that time, the properties were under common ownership and it was presumed that the lots would be consolidated. Cullen stated that these lots were never and will never be consolidated and that Roseville Properties would like to reconfigure the lots by adjusting the common lot line in order that the parking is all on Parcel A. He stated there with the lot reconfiguration, the4 will be no impact to setback requirements. Commissioner Tilsen inquired about easements. Public Works Director Danielson stated that with new plats, five foot easements are required and that an easement can be added to the Certificate of Survey. Mr. Cullen agreed. Commissioner Tilsen moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Lot Reconfiguration by Certificate of Survey for Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Yorkton Centre Pointe South conditioned upon: 1. The applicant dedicating a five foot easement on either side of the property. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 97-32: SCHNEEMAN - VARIANCE Mr. Eric Schneeman, of 868 Bluff Circle, was present to discuss his request for two variances which would allow the installation of a split rail fence on city property adjacent to his home. Mr. Schneeman submitted additional pictures of his home and yard which depict the placement of the proposed split rail fence. Schneeman explained that they experience problems with people using or thinking that their�driveway is a part of the City's pathway system. He explained that they experience joggers, rollerbladers and bicyclists heading down their driveway who all realize, at the last minute, that they are on private property. He stated that these people then cut across their lot to access the pathway via a rather steep slope. Chair Dwyer inquired why Mr. Schneeman wants to install the fence on City property and not his own property. Schneeman explained that they wish to install the fence 6' to 8' feet of the curb in the front yard so that the fence AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 will be visible to pedestrians. He noted the Planner's concern for snow storage and that the placement of the fence may hinder the storage of snow. Schneeman stated that he has not experienced a problem with snow storage and that the placement of the fence is not in the area of where the snow is stored. He explained that the placement of the fence between his property line and pathway in his rear yard is to help maximize the use of his back yard. He stated that he has a very small back yard. In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan, Mr. Schneeman stated that his property line runs parallel to the City's pathway. He stated that he intends to leave this area natural. He further explained that his wife has a large garden in the back yard and that if they install the fence on their own property, it will shrink the usage of his yard. Commissioner Duggan stated that it is difficult to make a recommendation without being specific as to the placement of the fence. He stated that 10 to 13 feet gives too much leeway. He stated that he does not have a problem with placing the fence at the 13 foot mark. He inquired if Mr. Schneeman intends to utilize his neighbor's fence as a part of his fence line. Mr. Schneeman answered no. Duggan inquired how Mr. Schneeman sees a fence discouraging pathway users. Schneeman responded that a fence will prevent individuals from going down the steep hill. He further stated that proposed lighting will also be installed on the City's property. Duggan suggested that Mr. Schneeman consider bringing the front yard fence in an additional 10 to 15 feet as it may make better sense to see his driveway, especially at night time. Chair Dwyer stated that the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship and that the applicant can install the fence on his own property. Schneeman responded that he has been put at a disadvantage with the location of the City's pathway. He stated that with the location of the pathway, it encourages trespassing on his private property. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the proposed fence seems to be more of a decorative fence than a private fence. He stated that because it is more of a decorative fence, snow storage is not an issue because the fence will not act as a barrier. He stated that he will not disagree that a hardship has not been demonstrated. He suggested that the applicant consider giving the City the fence. He stated that the applicant could agree to maintain the fence and that he could agree to tear it down if there is a problem. Tilsen stated that he see this as a "middle ground" compromise. He noted his concern for establishing a precedent in granting a resident a variance to install a fence on City property. He further stated that the Schneeman's have presented a AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 tasteful design. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated she would support a 13 foot setback. Commissioner Duggan inquired about neighborhood support. Schneeman stated that he has full support of the neighborhood. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City Council grant a seven foot front yard variance and eight foot rear yard variance. Commissioner Lorberbaum seconded the motion. Commissioner Tilsen suggested that the City own the fence. The Commission inquired if the City could have the fence installed on its own property without a variance, Chair Dwyer stated that a hardship has not been presented and that the applicant can install the fence on his own property. Commissioner Koll stated that she does not know where the fence is going to be placed or how tall it will be. Mr. Schneeman stated the fence height will be three feet or less. Koll stated that the plantings within the backyard will adequately define the Schneeman's property. VOTE ON MOTION: AYES: 3 NAYS: 3, KOLL, DWYER, TILSEN MOTION FAILS Chair Dwyer moved to recommend that the City Council deny the variance request. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 3 NAYS: 3, BETLEJ, LORBERBAUM, DUGGAN MOTION FAILS Chair Dwyer stated that the Planning Commission is at an impasse and that the applicant will need to proceed on to the City Council for their formal review. Commissioner Lorberbaum suggested that the applicant present the Council with a revised map indicating the exact placement of the fence. Mr. Schneeman stated that he would do so. AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 HEARING: CASE NO. 97-28: CONVERY - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Brian Convery, of 1 193 Victoria Curve, was present to discuss his request for a Conditional Use Permit which would allow the construction of a detached garage. Mr. Convery explained that he is proposing to build a two car garage of 24' by 28' in his rear yard. He stated that there is not an existing garage on the property and it is not possible to attached a garage to his home. He explained that the building materials and roof pitch will match his home. Commissioner Koll noted that Mr. Convery's back yard appears to be low. She inquired about drainage. Mr. Convery stated that he had not experienced drainage problems. In response to a question from Commissioner Lorberbaum, Mr. Convery stated that the existing driveway was the original driveway owned by the original owner many years ago. He stated that there was a garage shared by the original owners many years ago. He stated that occasionally he uses Hunter Lane to access his back yard. He stated that with the construction of the garage, the garage design will allow him to turnaround adequately within his own driveway. Convery stated that he intends to add electricity to the garage in the future. Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public. There was no one present to discuss this issue. Chair Dwyer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen, Mr. Convery stated that he intends to pave the driveway in the spring. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage at 11983 Victoria Curve. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 HEARING: CASE NO. 97-29: PALME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Mr. David Palme, of 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail, was present to discuss his request for a Conditional Use Permit and side yard setback variance to replace an existing detached garage. In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Planner McMonigal stated that during her review of Mr. Palme's request for a Conditional Use Permit, it became apparent that the site plan submitted was in error. She stated that in essence, Mr. Palme also needs a variance of 10 feet. She noted that Mr. Palme's old garage and proposed garage will be placed on the property line. Mr. Palme stated that he disputes the City's plat maps. He submitted pictures indicating the location of his old/proposed garage. He informed the Commission that the City's pathway and MnDOT right-of-way (1-35E) run along side of his east property line. He stated that he believes his property dimensions to be accurate and the City's map inaccurate. He stated that the foundation (old garage) and overgrown lilac bushes have been there longer than the City's pathway and MnDOT right-of-way. He stated that he has not gotten a formal survey due to the expense. In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Mr. Palme stated that he tore down the old garage one month ago. He stated the old garage was "L" shaped. Palme stated that if the garage were to be moved closer to his home, he would not have access to his back yard. He stated that his property is only 65 feet wide. He stated no neighbors will be affected with the construction of the garage. He stated that if the garage is shifted he will loose an apple tree. He stated that if the garage is shifted, drainage will become a concern along with storing of snow during the winter time. Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired if the driveway will be paved. Mr. Palme stated next year. Commissioner Tilsen stated that Mr. Palme will need a setback variance to install the driveway. Commissioner Tilsen stated that Mr. Palme has presented a hardship in that MnDOT has taken a portion of his 65 foot wide parcel. He stated that he has no problem with the garage being placed on the property line. He stated AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6 that the question is whether or not the old garage was placed on the property line to begin with. He inquired if the City has the resources to help Mr. Palme determine his property lines. Public Works Director Danielson stated that the City's engineering staff will visit the site to determine the location of the property monuments. Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public. There was no one present to discuss this request. Chair Dwyer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired about the existing shed. Mr. Palme stated that the size of the shed is 10' by 14 ' and that he received a building permit last spring. Commissioner Tilsen moved to recommend that the City Council grant the Conditional Use Permit and a nine foot side yard setback variance and a four foot driveway setback variance. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 HEARING: CASE NO. 97-30: CONVENT OF VISITATION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Gary Ostberg, representing the Convent of Visitation, was present to discuss their request for a Conditional Use Permit which would allow the construction of an Early Childhood Center. In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Administrative Assistant Hollister informed the Commission that there is an existing early childhood center on the property and that the Convent of Visitation wishes to move the center and connect it to the existing building. Mr. Ostberg explained that this request is the second phase of an ongoing AUGUST 26, 1997 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7 project at Visitation. He stated that the first phase included a parking lot which will be completed by the first day of school. He stated that the original early childhood center was approved three years ago. He stated that the new building will house infants, toddlers, pre-school, Montessori and extended day children. Chair Dwyer inquired if construction of this new building will increase the student population at Visitation. Mr. Ostberg stated that it will not add children. Ostberg stated that Visitation is very tight on maintaining student population and that they set goals on specific classroom size. He stated there is an extremely long waiting list. He stated that the additions to Visitation are only to accommodate the growing need of facilities that are currently shared with St. Thomas Academy, i.e., athletic facility. Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public. There was no one present to discuss this issue. Chair Dwyer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Duggan inquired about the size of the parking stalls. He stated that the City's ordinance requires 9' by 20' stalls and the plans submitted indicate the stalls to be 8' by 18' or 9' by 18'. Mr. Ostberg stated that he would work with City staff regarding this issue. Commissioner Koll inquired about traffic patterns within the parking lot. Mr. Ostberg explained that they are focusing on a one way pattern and that directional arrows will be painted on the asphalt. He explained that buses will be parked at the Fine Arts center and that it is their intent to one day develop a separate busing area. He stated that they intend to give maps out to all individuals who are of driving age. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit conditioned upon the City Engineer's review and approval of the grading and drainage and utility plans. He stated that emphasis should be placed on creating 9' by 20' parking stalls. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 DISCUSS CONCEPT PLAN REQUEST AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8 CASE NO. 97-31: HOFFMAN HOMES, INC. Mr. Peter Coyle, attorney representing Hoffman Homes, was present to discuss Hoffman Homes' concept plan consisting of 30 side-by-side townhomes on 27.1 acres located west of Lake Augusta and north of LeMay Lake. Mr. Coyle outlined a rendering of the development. He explained that this process had started about five to six months ago. He stated that the City has expressed its opinion on not building single family homes in the southern quadrant and within the LDN 65 contour. He stated that Hoffman Homes - has explored the idea of building townhomes within the northern quadrant of this area. Coyle explained that there will be 30 side-by-side townhomes (60 units) within this upscale community. Access will be off of Highway 13 just west of Lake Augusta. He explained that there will be a "T" road design with two 800 foot cul-de-sacs. He stated that this design is patterned after the Cliff Lake Shores development south of 1-35E. Mr. Coyle referred to the City's Highway 55 Corridor study and how Hoffman Homes has tried to propose a development consistent with the study. He explained that the proposed development is proposed to be compatible with Furlong neighborhood. He stated that Hoffman Homes is trying to strike a balance between protecting the unique features of the property along with complying with the Met Council's guidelines. Coyle stated that Hoffman Homes intends to pursue this development as a Planned Unit Development. He stated that this process will allow the flexibility of preserving the special features of the property. Commissioner Duggan inquired why the City Planner indicates a 1200 to 1400 foot cul-de-sac length. Mr. Coyle explained how the 800 foot cul-de- sac length was measured. Chair Dwyer stated that his impression of the proposed development is that of a large wall. Mr. Coyle stated that the density is 2.21 units. He stated that this density is traditional style and that they are trying to maximize and preserve the features of this property. Commissioner Duggan inquired about the density of Kensington and also reminded the Commission of the large park dedication Centex Homes dedicated to the City as a result of the Kensington development. AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 Commissioner Betlej stated there was more developable land within the Kensington area and that Hoffman Homes is proposing a large development within a small area of developable land. Commissioner Duggan stated that the fire department is concerned with the length of the proposed cul-de-sac. He inquired if Hoffman Homes has considered a different plan. He suggested adding another access to the north end of the property. Mr. Coyle informed the Commission that MnDOT has indicated their preferred access points. He stated that they are aware of the fire department's concerns. He reminded the Commission of the unusual topographic constraints. Chair Dwyer inquired about the 500 foot cul-de-sac rationale. Public Works Director Danielson informed the Commission that it is a safety issue, i.e., the distance an individual can run along with fire equipment constraints. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he believes that the 500 foot length is a good guideline to follow. He inquired if this area is a part of the critical area district. Public Works Director Danielson responded no. He stated that the critical area district relates to the Mississippi river bluff line. Commissioner Koll inquired if the contractor is aware of a letter sent by the Met Council informing the City to implement air noise changes concurrent with Comprehensive Plan Update. She stated that the Met Council informs the City that the new guide greatly expands air noise zone boundaries and that this development would not be allowed under the new air noise zone classification. Mr. Coyle stated that they are aware of the policy recommendation. He stated that they believe there is some flexibility and that this is an issue they will have to wrestle with. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Patrick Hoffman informed the Commission that they will meet all mandated fire department requirements. Commissioner Duggan inquired if Mr. Hoffman will install fire suppression systems within the units. Hoffman responded that they will be willing to discuss this issue with the fire department. Regarding the changes in the air noise zone district, Mr. Coyle stated that they believe there are many variables and that variances may be received from the MPCA. In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Mr. Hoffman explained that the perceived "wall" of homes should be viewed differently. He explained that the units start to turn about every 300 feet. He stated that the curvature is very similar to several single family home developments in Mendota Heights. AUGUST 26, 1997 -PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10 He stated that they are proposing to develop three different styles of units and that they are trying to achieve individuality with each unit. He stated that this style of home is a wanted commodity with the empty nesters. He stated that they are trying to work with the City along with accommodating the market. He stated that this development provides excellent access to the main highway system and MSP International Airport. Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired about park dedication. Mr. Hoffman stated that there will be a certain amount of open space and that they are planning to dedicate some land and cash. He stated that they will work with the City. In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan, Mr. Hoffman stated that they would be willing to work with MnDOT in creating an emergency vehicle access point into the development. Duggan noted his concern with the amount of traffic using the minimal amount of roads within this development. He stated that he would like additional access considered. Mr. Hoffman stated that they are trying to respect the special topographic nature of the property. Commissioner Duggan stated that he is not happy with the "spine" like development and that he would have more interest in the development if there are less units. He stated that the development would be more attractive and that additional landscaping can only help. Hoffman stated that they will work with the City in including their specific desires into platting this property. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he would like to see the access road lined up with Acacia Boulevard and that the developer should include another access from the north. He stated that he does not discount the emergency vehicle access but that a more permanent access is preferred. Tilsen stated that he is concerned with how this development intersects the highway and that lining the street up with Acacia Boulevard will help a great deal. He stated that he does not like a steep grade with intersecting roads. Mr. John Ruggieri, architect, explained that they have been working with MnDOT for over a year regarding access to the development. He explained that the median has been created to provide safety around the curve (near Acacia Boulevard). He stated that there is a significant grade change in this area and that it would be very difficult to connect the streets without cutting into the razor back. He stated that they did discuss attaching a secondary road off the frontage road but that it would significantly encroach the wetlands area. Ruggiere agreed that there are significant slopes in this area AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11 but that it is not unusual to have a 7 to 8 percent slope. He stated that this is the highest point within the development and that it makes sense to construct the road at the highest elevation point within the development. Ruggiere stated that significant trees have already been identified on the site and that there are minimal significant trees in this specific area. He stated that the road construction is well within the public safety guidelines. Regarding the "spine" like design, Mr. Ruggiere explained that each of the lots has a ten foot side yard setback. He stated that this development is not any different than a single family home development in that the lots are a 50 to 60 foot wide with a 30 foot setback. He stated that the side yard setbacks are consistent with the R-1 zoning regulations. He explained that with the 30 foot setback, significant landscaping can be created. He stated that with the curve like road design, it provides more of an opportunity to individual landscaping similar to that of an R-1 zoning district. He stated that Hoffman Homes' intent is to be consistent with the typical R-1 neighborhood. Mr. Ruggiere stated that he has spent a great deal of time with MnDOT and Hoffman Homes in trying to create a development that provides appropriate access while accommodating the specific topographic features of the property. Regarding Air Noise Zone 3 issues, Mr. Ruggiere stated that Hoffman Homes must comply with specific standards related to noise abatement. He stated that the current plan meets the Met Council's guidelines. Chair Dwyer stated that it is not a pleasant experience when standing outside listening to significant air noise. Mr. Ruggiere stated that this area is not directly under the flight path. In response to a question from Commissioner Duggan, Mr. Hoffman stated that the air noise guidelines are more restrictive at the present time. He stated that the City of Mendota Heights is going to experience significant changes in its land use as it relates to air noise boundaries. He stated that he would be willing to work with the City in determining how the proposed Met Council changes will impact the City's future land development. The Commission briefly discussed the turning radius of an emergency vehicle. The Commission inquired about the standard width of a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Tilsen reiterated his concerns with congestion within a cul-de- sac. He noted his concerns with the proposed length of the cul-de-sac. He stated that he would prefer to see the roads lined up and that adding a northern entrance to the development would be preferred. He stated that Hoffman Homes should speak further with MnDOT regarding this issue. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he believes this plan is a good start. He AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12 stated that this area has a beautiful topography and that he would like to see this become park space. Commissioner Betlej stated that he would like to see the "spine" like development eliminated and have the developer create a cluster development instead. He stated that he believes this type of development will create a scenic view and give an opportunity to break up the monotonous pattern of homes. He stated he prefers a little more variety within a development. He stated that he wants to be sure the developer accommodates the Park Commission's concerns in creating scenic easements and preserving trees and park land. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that this is a beautiful area. She stated she is not fond of the isolated nature of the development. She further noted her concerns with the air noise zone classification and the length of the cul- de-sac. Chair Dwyer inquired if the audience was interested in speaking about the project. An individual from the Mendota Motel informed the Commission of their concerns with developing the land. He stated that he was not informed of the plans to develop the area. Chair Dwyer stated that the developer is in the process of discussing this development and that the Mendota Motel will be informed of formal proceedings at a later date. Chair Dwyer inquired of the Commission's direction to Council. Commissioner Betlej stated that he is in favor of the development and that he believes some "tweaking" can be done to accommodate the Commission's concerns. He stated that he believes the development does have a role within the community. Commissioner Koll stated there is a need for this type of housing within the community. She stated that she visually does not like the look of this development. She stated that the development appears to be too monotonous. She stated this development reminds her of the Mendota Meadows development on Mendota Heights Road. She stated that this location seems ideal for a geographically segregated community. Commissioner Duggan suggested that the contractor return to the Commission with 3 or 4 different overlay designs. Commissioner Lorberbaurn was excused at 10:20 p.m. Commissioner Duggan suggested that the contract consider adding more AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 13 common spaces within the development, i.e., swimming pool and meeting room areas. He suggested that the developer consider eliminating some of the units. Commissioner Tilsen suggested that the contractor consider the historical value this area may have in archaeological artifacts. Mr. Hoffman explained that his company has developed along the river bluffs in Bloomington and that they have an archaeological protection program enforced. Commissioner Koll stated that the City needs to have further legal representation regarding the air noise zone boundary changes. Planner McMonigal informed the Commission that the developer would need a comprehensive plan amendment to develop this property. Commissioner Duggan inquired if this development should be pursued before the changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Dwyer called a recess at 10:30 p.m. Chair Dwyer reconvened the meeting at 10:36 p.m. DISCUSS DRAFT CELL/PCS ORDINANCE Chair Dwyer stated that the draft ordinance reflects the consensus of the City Council and Planning Commission at a recent workshop. Commissioner Betlej suggested changing 21.6(8)] to read as follows: All costs of an application, including but not limited to those incurred by City staff time and resources, engineering studies by consultants retained by the City and other data as may be required by City staff, the Planning Commission or the City Council shall be borne in full by the applicant. Regarding 21.6(8)i Commissioner Duggan noted his concern with a business projecting its future plans in that five years seems to long. He suggested that 2.5 years be considered. Mr. Coyle, of Larkin, Hoffman, was present to discuss the proposed ordinance. Mr. Coyle stated that his client is pursuing co -location sites such as the high school and an apartment complex. He inquired if this is consistent with the Commission's interpretation of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Graham, representing AT&T Wireless, inquired about section 21.6(8)d regarding capacity analysis. She noted that this section is not necessary as AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 14 there are specific FCC regulations. Chair Dwyer stated that this could be discussed at the September hearing. Commissioner Betlej moved to place the proposed ordinance on the Planning Commission's September agenda as a formal hearing process. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF INFORMATION REGARDING LILYDALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Commission acknowledged receipt of a memo from Administrative Assistant Hollister regarding the anticipated change in Lilydale with respect to the redevelopment of the Shiely property at the intersection of Highway 13 and Highway 35E. The Commission asked to be kept abreast of the any future details. VERBAL REVIEW Public Works Director Danielson gave a brief review of recent City Council action on July Planning Commission cases. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Tilsen suggested that the City consider updating the critical area district by utilizing the County's GIS system. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 11:04 p.m. AUGUST 26, 1997 - PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 15 MEMO Date: 8-28-97 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator Q FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer U l $7,(J l SUBJECT: Building Activity Report for August 1997 CURRENT MONTH BUILDING PERMITS: No. Valuation Fee Collected SFD 1 191,919.00 1,586.48 APT 0 0 0 TOWNHOUSE 0 0 0 CONDO 0 0 0 MISC. 46 406,738.00 5,771.73 C/I 13 4,604,314.00 25,159.14 ------------------------------------------- Sub Total 60 5,202,971.00 32,517.35 ADE PERMITS• Plumbing 9 1,200.00 Water 3 15.00 Sewer 2 35.00 Heat, AC, - YEAR TO DATE 97 No. Valuation Fee Collected 18 2,992,976.00 25,899.13 0 0 0 4 484,606.00 4,703.34 0 0 0 253 2,374,684.00 36,248.95 85 12,063,727.00 71,893.30 -------------------------------------- 360 17,915,993.00 138,744.72 77 33 29 4,238.00 165.00 507.50 YEAR TO DATE 96 No. Valuation Fee Collected 9 1,764,513.00 14,515.07 0 0 0 6 716,278.00 6,868.14 0 0 0 246 2,305,172.00 35,717.72 55 17,306,026.00 78,477.03 316 22,091,989.00 135,577.96 69 22 24 8,489.00 110.00 494.50 8 Gas 16 3,298.00 1 139 11,871.50 1 133 23,569.50 -------------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Sub Total 30 4,548.00 278 16,782.00 248 32,663.00 Licensing: Contractor's Licenses 21 525.00 358 8,950.00 340 8,500.00 -------------------------------------------+------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Total 111 5,202,971.00 37,590.35 1 996 17,915,993.00 164,476.72 1 904 22,091,989.00 176,740.96 NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac, and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee, and valuation amounts. NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 5845 Blaine Avenue No [)C Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota 55076-1401 4 612/450-9891 FAX 612/450-9429 TDD 612/552-9675 TO: City Mayors and Administrators/Clerks: - Inver Grove Heights - Lilydale - Mendota - Mendota Heights - South St. Paul - Sunfish Lake - West St. Paul FROM: Jodie Miller, Executive Director DATE: 27 August 1997 RE: NDC4 MEETING MINUTES & AGENDA Enclosed are copies of the UNAPPROVED minutes from the July 2nd NDC4 Commission meeting and August 6th Executive Committee meeting. Please distribute copies of these minutes to your city council members. Also enclosed is a copy of the Agenda for the next full Commission meeting on Wednesday, September 3, 1997. A public hearing on the sale of Continental Cable14sion to Charter Communications is on the agenda for September 3. Several public hearing posters are included for posting at City Hall, police, fire, or other public locations. This meeting will be cablecast live on Channel 18 at 7:00 p.m. and replayed on September 11, 1997, at 1:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. ` Please feel free to contact me at 450-9891 with questions or comments regarding any cable issues. Encs NDC4 UNAPPROVED Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission Full Commission Meeting July 2, 1997 1- Call to Order - The July 2, 1997 NDC4 Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Tourville at 7:08 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Members Present: Lucille Collins, Henry Hovey, John Huber (7:12 p.m.), Jodelle Ista, Richard Jackson, Mike Sokol, Jim Sullivan, George Tourville, and James Zacharski. Members Absent: Alvin Boelter, Joe Conlon, Laurence Jung, James Levy, and James Zacharski. Others Present: Kathy Donnelly Coen, (Government Relations, MediaOne); Steve Baker - Engineer, and Cheryl Olmstead - Customer Service Manager (Continental Cablevision); and Joy Curtin and Jodie Miller (NDC4 staff. 2. Adopt Agenda - Chair Tourville announced that Volunteer Awards Presentation would be added to the Agenda ahead of regular business. Mo on 7-2-97-1 to adopt the amended Agenda was made by H. Hovey, seconded by R. Jackson, and unanimously carried. 3. Volunteer Awards - Chair Tourville announced that since April 1, 1997 (the beginning of the second year of the Volunteer Program) 43 volunteers have contributed 937.5 hours of their time to produce programming and assist NDCTV and NDC4 staff. Volunteers who tracked their time as part of the Volunteer Program were named and those present given their awards. These volunteers were: Mitzi Addis, Dan Jensen, and Susan Young (media pass), Ken Anich, Jason Sell, Lorna Redding, John Schroer, and Tom Voigt (shirts), Betty Olson (jacket) and Randy Sell and Evelyn Witz (pins). Program volunteers who attain a 100 -point level have their names included in a quarterly drawing for their choice of cinema tickets or attendance at an ITVA meeting. J. Miller drew the name, and the 1 st Quarter 1997 winner was Joe Conlon. 4. Consent Agenda - A) Approve Minutes: The June 4, 1997 NDC4 Commission Meeting minutes were presented for approval. Motion 7-2-97-2 to approve the June 4, 1997 full Commission Meeting minutes was made by J. Sullivan, seconded by H. Hovey, and unanimously carried. NDC4 Commission Meeting July 2, 1997 Unapproved B) Approve List of Claims: The List of Claims for 6/5/97 - 7/2/97 was presented for approval. Treasurer Huber noted that the invoice from the City of Mendota Heights for payroll had not yet been received, and therefore, not included with this month's claims. Motion 7-2-97-3 to approve the List of Claims for 6/4/97 - 7/2/97 was made by H. Hovey, seconded by J. Ista, and unanimously carried. 5. Citizen Comments - Chair Tourville announced that the public is welcome to address their comments and/or questions to the Commission via telephone throughout the meeting. 6. 1998 Draft Budgets - J. Miller noted that the NDCTV Board is still working on their budget and intend to attach a business plan that will explain how the earned revenues goal will be achieved in 1998. The 1998 NDC4 draft budget was presented for review. J. Miller explained that the NDC4 budget includes discretionary items which are dependent upon having received adequate revenues. She went on to highlight some of the changes. Franchise fees were estimated at approximately $101,000 per quarter. Money currently held in savings was transferred to a passbook savings account that will provide interest comparable to an 18 - month CD. Personnel expenses increased partly because of the possibility of providing long-term disability insurance for employees. Savings occur in the area of workers compensation insurance which dropped from 90 cents to 40 cents per $100 of payroll in part because of legislative actions. Most items include a 3% - 5% increase to allow for possible inflationary changes. A special project fund was established to deal with work that needs to be done concerning the Franchise renewal and the Joint Powers Agreement. Office rent calculations were based on operational expenses and increased to approximately $12/ square foot. G. Tourville suggested that a generic capital fund be established for items such as resurfacing the parking lot, or fixing the roof instead of restricting the fund to a specific use. Money has been included in the promotions line item to allow having program schedules printed in a local newspaper once again. The cost would be split with NDCTV. Repair and maintenance of video equipment was increased largely because of the age of the city cameras. City Video Services was increased to take into account additional meetings and the increased cablecaster rates. Costs for covering the news show was included for the first time in the 1998 budget. The Office Equipment line item takes into consideration the possible need to replace the aging copy and/or fax machines, purchase of a laser printer and office cubicles which had been on a back burner since moving into the building four years ago. Video Equipment purchases include an industrial grade camera and tripod for use on remote city productions. It is also anticipated the final expenditure of Narrowcasting Funds will be made in 1998 pending Government Programming Committee approval. J. Huber commented that he thought it was good to include a long-term approach to the budget by including discretionary items. Chair Tourville commented on the importance of presenting a balanced budget to the cities and inquired how this could be attained. J. Miller responded that the $25,000 budgeted for special projects pertaining to Franchise Page - 2 NDC4 Commission Meeting Unapproved July 2, 1997 issues could be taken from the designated reserve fund to pay for these anticipated expenses. Motion 7-2-97-9 to amend the 1998 NDC4 draft budget by removing $25,000 from the Legal line item and using a designated fund for legal/consulting matters pertaining to franchise renewal was made by J. Huber and seconded by J. Ista. Chair Tourville clarified that by making this change the budget would be balanced. J. Huber requested that the cover letter to the member cities accompanying the budget include an explanation of the discretionary funds. The vote was taken and the motion was unanimously carried. 7. Staff Report - A) Executive Director: J. Miller reported that some of the cities are discussing their participation in the Joint Powers Agreement. Letters have been received from Lilydale and Mendota Heights indicating their interest at this time in continuing in the JPA. The City of West St. Paul indicated weighted voting would be a desirable change. Staff was directed to research different models for weighted voting from other commissions. A portion of Upper 55th Street East and its access ramps from Hwy 52 will be closed soon as construction begins on Blaine Avenue and the property adjacent to NDCTV. A map was included in mailed packets showing detours. The NATOA annual conference will be held September 6 - 10 in Tucson. There are enough remaining funds in the budget to cover the cost of sending three people. J. Ista encouraged Commissioners to attend and M. Sokol expressed his interest in attending. Chair Tourville suggested Commissioners contact staff if they wish to attend the conference. Motion 7-2-97-5 to approve sending up to three people to the annual NATOA Conference in September was made by J. Huber, seconded by J. Ista, and unanimously carried. J. Miller reviewed a customer complaint received from a Mendota Heights resident who was concerned about an amplifier pedestal that was installed on his front yard. The issue has been resolved, but is a good example of what some other residents may experience from time to time and an issue the Commission may need to deal with again. The original amplifier housing was only a couple of inches above the ground, however the replacement pedestal rises approximately 3 feet tall. Because of the shape of the resident's lot, the pedestal appears to be in a straight line from his door and cannot be hidden, therefore detracting from the appearance of the residence. Continental has since agreed to reinstall the original amplifier housing and redesign their system in this location. In process of searching for a solution, the resident discovered a vendor that manufactured an underground "vault" type of housing. Continental, however, is not able to use these underground containers in Minnesota, given its climate. The resident inquired whether he had any further choice in the matter. Upon further investigation by NDC4 Legal Counsel, it was determined that since the pedestal is within the easement and only affects aesthetics, the resident cannot dictate what is used. Discussion followed during which F. Zeuli Page - 3 NDC4 Commission Meeting July 2, 1997 Unapproved explained he believed this is the smallest type of housing available in which to place the amplifiers. f J. Miller thanked Continental and Odyssey for supporting the event held in June to promote the addition of Odyssey to the Channel 34 line up. A tape of the evening events is currently being played on Channel 34. A call was received from the FCC advising that Continental is challenging the CPS rate complaint Form 329 that NDC4 filed with the FCC. Continental is claiming that NDC4 did not have two valid complaints about the CPS rate per member city and that the complaints received were not specific to the CPS tier. A letter response from NDC4 Legal Counsel was sent to the FCC arguing that NDC4 acts in the stead of all seven member communities as a unit and the regulations apply to the entire group as a whole; and that the complaints received were, indeed, specific to the CPS tier rates. The FCC appears to be processing the case in a timely fashion and the matter should be resolved by August 20. B. Grogan pointed out that after the complaint was submitted to Continental, their response did not mention either of these two arguments. Chair Tourville noted that in Continental's response to NDC4 it is stated that equipment rates are reviewed by the FCC, although Federal law grants such overview to local franchising authorities. B. Grogan stated that although there is such a statement in the Social Contract, it does not reconcile with Federal law. J. Miller pointed out that the Commission can ask for information at any time regarding how equipment rates are calculated. 8. Legal Counsel Report - B. Grogan reported that the Chair, Executive Director and Legal Counsel met recently with representatives from Charter Communications (proposed transferee) and MediaOne to discuss the transfer process and plans. MediaOne is looking to close the transfer deal in late 1997 to early 1998. NDC4 will be guided by federal, state, and local laws throughout the process. A summary of the transfer process laws and requirements, along with a time line was distributed for reference by Commissioners throughout the process. B. Grogan explained that federal law will take precedence over all other laws, followed by state laws and local laws. In the case of this particular transfer, federal and state law are consistent. When the written request for transfer of the NDC system to Charter Communications (Form 394) is received by NDC4, a 30 -day clock begins during which time NDC4 is expected to establish a date for a public hearing. It is anticipated the request will be in hand by mid- July which means the Commission must act by mid-August. Because the Commission does not meet again as a full body until September 3, Legal Counsel drafted a written request of MediaOne to grant flexibility in coordinating consideration of the various issues within the normal NDC4 meeting schedule. Initial reaction from MediaOne Legal Counsel is that such scheduling should not be a problem. Staff was directed to send the written request to MediaOne for considering the transfer issues within the regular NDC4 meetings schedule. B. Grogan noted that the NDC4 Franchise allows member cities the Right of First Refusal. Following the anticipated time frame, it appears that NDC4 will consider setting a Public Page - 4 NDC4 Commission Meeting July 2, 1997 Unapproved Hearing in September, hold the Public Hearing in October, and make a decision about the transfer in November. Chair Tourville inquired whether NDC4 has the sole authority to approve or deny the transfer. B. Grogan responded that NDC4 has that authority. J. Zacharski inquired whether the Social Contract will apply to Charter Communications, as well. B. Grogan responded that after having received the federal form which identifies Charter's legal, technical, and financial qualifications, NDC4 can follow up with additional questions including what the impact of the Social Contract will be on Charter and whether the Contract can continue forward. Chair Tourville stated that NDC4 will plan to hold a Public Hearing on this very important issue. 9. Continental Report - F. Zeuli introduced Kathy Donnelly Coen who has worked in Government Relations with the King and Meredith systems. Ms. Cohen will be assisting from time to time throughout the transfer process. C. Olmstead remains the direct contact for Customer Service issues, and Steve Baker will continue as the main contact for the system upgrade. Equipment Replacement Grant money in the amount of $50,000 will be transferred to NDCTV within the next week. J. Miller thanked F. Zeuli for the timely delivery of the check. C. Olmstead updated the group on the problems that occurred recently during the recent electrical outages due to storms and excessive rain in the Twin Cities area. Repair crews have been somewhat restricted by having to wait until NSP repairs are complete before making cable repairs. Most of the areas are now operating normally with only a few pockets still experiencing outages. B. Grogan inquired whether the Form 394 is still scheduled to be delivered by July 15. F. Zeuli responded that, indeed, July 15 is still the target date and added that in his conversations with Charter Communications he foresaw no problem with their extending flexibility on the timing compliance and would likely agree with a slight 30 -day deviation. Chair Tourville noted that during the meeting with Charter Communications, the general flow of activity during the transfer process was discussed. Specific questions and concerns about the transfer can be brought forward at the Public Hearing. There are no particular problems anticipated, and it was noted that financing for this transfer is already put in place. Commissioners are invited to address their concerns to either the Chair or Executive Director ahead of the Public Hearing date if they wish. H. Hovey described the difficulty he recently had with trying to resolve a problem he experienced with his remote control. C. Olmstead noted the complaint and assured that she would look into why there was such confusion in the Customer Service Department. She encouraged Commissioners and others to contact her directly when they experience these kinds of problems. H. Hovey further commented that the after hours telephone number should be clearly identified on the information distributed to customers. 10. Unfinished Business - J. Miller noted that the Government Coordinator's report was included in the materials handed out this evening. A purchase request for one S -VHS Page - 5 NDC4 Commission Meeting July 2, 1997 Unapproved deck, rack mount, and cable is included in the report. The equipment will be used for dubbing city programming onto S -VHS tape and will cost $5,542 including tax. This purchase is included in the 1997 budget and is part of the equipment purchase plan, which is being coordinated with NDCTV in order to obtain a better price. Two quotes were received at nearly the same price. Motion 7-2-97-6 to approve purchase of one S -VHS deck, mounting rack and cable up to $5,542.26 as recommended was made by J. Huber and seconded by H. Hovey. Chair Tourville remarked that in the future, the vendor should be chosen at the time the money is approved. The vote was taken and the motion was unanimously carried. The Volunteer Appreciation Saints Game will take place July 16 beginning with a barbecue in the stadium parking lot at 5:00 p.m. Commissioners should notify staff if they would like to attend. WCCO news caster Don Shelby was a guest on a recent edition of Business Voice produced by Bill Woods at the NDCTV studio. While here, Mr. Shelby also shot a couple of 30 -second promos for NDCTV and Insight 7. M. Sokol inquired whether the Alpha Channel is running correctly. J. Miller responded that the looping feature is now working and more bulletin board information is being added to the system. Occasionally the main computer at the head -end goes down and cannot be tended to until morning when staff returns. If the Master Control function is moved into the NDCTV facility, the Alpha Channel system would also be moved making it easier for staff to monitor and correct such problems. 11. New Business - There will be an Executive Committee Meeting on August 6 at 5:30 p.m. 12. Adjoumment - Motion 7 -2 -97 -Ito adjourn the meeting was made by H. Hovey and seconded by L. Collins. The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joy A. Curtin NDC4 Administrative Assistant and Recording Secretary Page - 6 NDC., UNAPPROVED Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission Executive Committee Meeting August 6, 1997 1. Call to Order - The August 6, 1997 NDC4 Executive Committee meeting was called to order by Chair Tourville at 5:35 p.m. in the Conference Room. Members Present: Lucille Collins, Jodelle Ista, Mike Sokol, and George Tourville. Member Absent: John Huber. Others Present: Joe Conlon, Jim Sullivan (5:40 p.m.), and Henry Hovey (6:50 p.m.). Brian Grogan (NDC4 Legal Counsel); John Gibbs (MediaOne Legal Counsel); Cheryl Olmstead, Customer Service Manager, and Fran Zeuli, General Manager (Continental Cablevision); and Joy Curtin and Jodie Miller (NDC4 star. 2. Approve Claims - The List of Claims for 7/3/97 - 8/6/97 was presented for approval. Motion 8-6-97-1 to approve the List of Claims for 7/3/97 - 8/6/97 was made by M. Sokol, seconded by J. Ista, and unanimously carried. 3. Officers' Reports - (No reports were given.) 4. Staff Report - J. Miller reported that NDC4 received three copies of the application for franchise transfer (FCC Form 394) from Charter Communications on July 16. The application is contained in a large three-ring binder. Although portions of the application have been copied and distributed to Commissioners, the binders are available for anyone wishing to review the application in its entirety. The application presents Charter Communication's technical, financial and legal qualifications for operating the NDC system. The purchase agreement was also enclosed. Financial qualifications were packaged apart from the binder for confidential reasons. Two charts were prepared by staff summarizing data from the application binder. One chart shows that most of Charter's 165 cable systems (98%) around the country have fewer channels than the Twin Cities systems. The majority have only 40 - 49 channels. The other chart shows that many of Charter's 460 franchises (55.7%) expire before the year 2004, with the highest number (55 franchises) expiring in 2000, the same as NDC4. These numbers may indicate that there will be considerable competition for Charter's resources when the NDC4 Franchise is up for renewal. NDC4 Executive Committee Meeting August 6, 1997 UNAPPROVED J. Miller has a few questions after her initial review of the materials included in the binder. One question is why different names seem to be used interchangeably including Charter of St. Paul, Charter King, and Charter Twin Cities. J. Gibbs explained that Charter of St. Paul is the correct name and will show by an asterisk that it contains the NDC system. He will verify that the Charter King name has been used in error and provide corrections in writing to NDC4 and its Legal Counsel. J. Gibbs announced that because some pages were omitted from some of the Purchase Agreement documents, correct replacement copies of the entire Purchase Agreements will be redistributed within one week. (J. Gibbs collected and took with him the original copies of the three Purchase Agreements previously delivered to NDC4.) J. Miller commented that $160 Million has been committed by two investment firms and Charter Communications to supplement the debt and stock sales needed for the $600 Million purchase. It will be interesting to see how the NDC system fits into the overall financial picture considering that most of the other Twin Cities systems included in this deal want system improvements made over the next year. J. Gibbs added that funding sources will be presented as the Commission delves into analyzing financial qualifications. He added that the NDC system is in a very good position, having pursued a 750MHZ upgrade last year. B. Grogan explained that NDC4 needs to make certain that all matters pertaining to ownership of the system are in order before signing off on a transfer, thus motivating the Commission to conduct a Franchise Fee audit, while Continental's financial records are still accessible and open to scrutiny, and also to consider conducting a technical audit to make certain the system has been built and upgraded according to specifications. B. Grogan inquired whether the philosophy regarding reimbursing costs for transfer of ownership had changed from the last transfer. In 1996 costs were reimbursed to the Commission by Continental. J. Gibbs responded that he believed that normal compliance review expenditures might be put into the context of transfer review expenditure, thereby making them more likely to be reimbursed by the company than they would have been had there not been a transfer pending. Without the transfer, it is unlikely consultant expenses would be expected to be reimbursed, as those costs would be expected to come out of the normal Franchise Fees. Fundamentally, the position is the same as last year regarding reimbursement of transfer review expenses whether legal fees or otherwise. B. Grogan inquired whether the company intends to pass the reimbursement through as an external cost as they did during the last transfer. J. Gibbs responded that the method of reimbursement is still to be discussed but that it is not likely reimbursement of consultant costs for conducting the technical and Franchise Fee audits will be considered a part of the review process by the company. B. Grogan further inquired whose obligation it will be to correct a problem discovered after the transfer takes place that existed before the transfer took place. J. Gibbs responded that there will be obligations and reiterated that reimbursement of transfer review matters will be reimbursed as last time, however, routine compliance -type activities (which he considers the technical and franchise fee audits to be) should not be reimbursed. Chair Tourville inquired whether an agreement needs to be reached up front regarding how much will be reimbursed and a cap applied, as with the last transfer. J. Gibbs responded that it is hoped this transfer will be less complicated, Page - 2 NDC4 Executive Committee Meeting August 6, 1997 UNAPPROVED although some issues may be different, and that the costs will be similar and that a cap can be applied. J. Miller stated that she wished to review what the needs are for the NDC transfer and that she believed this transfer is not similar to the previous one because of the permanency of the buyer (last time it was known that USWest could only own the system 6 - 9 months), the legal, technical and financial qualifications of Charter Communications, and determining that Continental is in total compliance with the current Franchise before a transfer takes place. She further stated that she believes it would be prudent to conduct a Franchise Fee audit as part of the transfer process. The Franchise Fee audit will determine how past revenues have been recorded and how franchise fees have been calculated and paid. By bringing in an outside engineer to conduct a technical audit the Commission can be certain that at the time of a possible transfer, the system is technically sound and was constructed and operating according to what was promised. If this audit is done now, should a problem arise in the future after the transfer, it will be easy for the Commission or other authority to determine obligation and liability. A financial analysis may also be needed. NDC4 needs to determine whether to go forward with staff recommendations to conduct a Franchise Fee audit and a technical audit of the NDC system. B. Grogan added that when there is a transfer of ownership, the current Franchise allows the Commission or member city the right to purchase the system at a price reduced by the amount attributable to the franchise itself (which can be quite significant). There is a 60 - day window of time from the date of receipt of the transfer application in which to make a determination about this. B. Grogan read the exact wording from the Franchise pertaining to the First Right of Refusal. Member cities need to be notified of this option, and it is likely they wi11 want to know the purchase price in order to give this matter adequate consideration. B. Grogan explained that the Commission needs to direct staff and legal Counsel on whether to pursue gathering information to present to cities regarding the option to purchase the system. Discussion followed on timing of Commission meetings and the 60 -day clock which has begun to run and the process that would be used to determine the value of the NDC system. It was agreed to direct staff and Legal Counsel to send a letter to member city administrators and NDC4 Commissioners explaining the matter of First Right of Refusal and to begin an internal analysis of the purchase price. If a city is interested in such a purchase this information can be discussed during the Public Hearing and further examination can be made. It was agreed that it is important for NDC4 to spend time investigating the matter and letting the cities know about this option, regardless of whether any city opts to purchase the system. J. Gibbs offered to assist in formulating a fairly accurate estimate of what the bona fide offer amount would be. Discussion continued and J. Gibbs reminded the group that from the perspective of MediaOne, meeting the 120 -day deadline is very important. J. Miller inquired whether the Commission wished to hold a Public Hearing. Brief discussion followed. Motion 8-6-97-2 to hold a Public Hearing on September 3, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. prior to the regular Commission meeting for citizen comments on the system transfer to Charter Communications was made by L. Collins, seconded by M. Sokol, and Page - 3 NDC4 Executive Committee Meeting August 6, 1997 UNAPPROVED unanimously carried. Chair Tourville suggested that representatives from Charter, as well as from MediaOne be present to briefly introduce themselves and answer questions. J. Miller inquired whether the Commission wished to approve conducting a Franchise Fee audit. Preliminary information has been requested from Continental's Chicago office and Moss & Barnett is capable of conducting a "desk audit" for $2,500 -- $3,500, after which the Commission may decide to pursue an on-site audit. B. Grogan explained what a desk audit entails and that it will cost less than hiring an outside firm to do the work. J. Gibbs reiterated his belief that this audit is outside the scope of the transfer review and would likely not be reimbursed by MediaOne. B. Grogan argued that the Commission needs to concern itself with compliance issues during the transfer review. Chair Tourville clarified that MediaOne is looking for a "clean slate" for NDC4 to sign off on, and in order to do that in good conscience, the Commission has an obligation to look at these matters now. M. Sokol inquired what time period would be involved in this audit. B. Grogan responded the period initially investigated will be from 1994 through 1996. Motion 8-6-97-5 to authorize Moss & Barnett to conduct a Franchise Fee desk audit of Continental's records from 1994 - 1996 at a cost not to exceed $3,500 was made by L. Collins and seconded by J. Ista. Chair Tourville clarified that by this motion, NDC4 is making a determination to conduct this review as an important part of the transfer process. The Commission may request reimbursement from Charter Communications for the costs of this audit; but that has yet to be determined. The vote was taken and the motion was unanimously carried. J. Miller explained that, given the limited time in which to deal with matters, an RFP for a technical audit was submitted to two engineers. Both engineers responded with proposals which were very close in cost. The rationale behind conducting a technical audit prior to the transfer is to know with certainty that all technical matters pertaining to the system and rebuild are in compliance with the current Franchise before the transfer takes place. This is yet another method to safeguard NDC4 from having to sort through obligations and liabilities (which can be time consuming and costly) should some technical problem be discovered after the transfer has taken place that can be attributed to existing prior to the transfer. Another option would be to ask Charter to provide guarantees of one sort or another. B. Grogan explained that both engineers who submitted proposals are reputable and well- respected in this field, and can provide assurance that what they discover is accurate. The cost for their services would approach $10,000. It is Legal Counsel's recommendation to conduct this technical investigation now in order to provide a good level of comfort to the Commission as they prepare to approve the potential transfer. The alternative is to grant a transfer without knowing for certain that all technical aspects comply with current requirements. J. Miller described what the engineers proposed to do which include among other things testing video and audio levels, physical plant, distortions, verifying Continental's proof -of - performance numbers which are done annually. Their final report will provide recommendations and conclusions for NDC4 consideration. Chair Tourville noted that the Page - 4 NDC4 Executive Committee Meeting August 6, 1997 UNAPPROVED 750 MHz rebuild will not be completed until November and may not be done when the technical report is. Discussion followed, during which J. Gibbs verified that an extension would likely not be granted by Charter Communications in order to accommodate a technical audit being performed after the entire rebuild is complete. Chair Tourville inquired whether Charter Communications will agree to the conditions already set forth regarding the 750 MHZ rebuild. J. Gibbs affirmed that Charter will acknowledge acceptance of the same conditions. Discussion continued during which M. Sokol suggested the full Commission should approve an expenditure of this magnitude. J. Miller explained that the proposal information has been distributed to all Commissioners with cost estimates. The issue could be presented for action at the full Commission meeting on September 3. Arguments continued on whether to conduct the technical audit now. B. Grogan suggested that there may still be time to conduct the audit even if a decision is made at the September 3 meeting. Chair Tourville inquired whether a technical audit is covered under a renewal process. B. Grogan responded that the law is more favorable to commissions on transfer than on renewal. M. Sokol inquired whether staff could locate information regarding the name of the consultant and the cost for the last technical audit that took place several years ago. J. Miller cited language from the current Franchise that states that Continental will pay all costs for transfer review before a system transfer is approved. B. Grogan stated that in his opinion is would be prudent for the Commission to conduct these audits since this is a permanent and not just a temporary transfer. M. Sokol inquired whether the transfer could be held up if the incumbent company is found to be not in compliance. B. Grogan affirmed that the transferee must sign off on all existing obligations. J. Miller added that those conditions, therefore, must be known. Chair Tourville inquired whether NDC4 could list out conditions that must be met before a transfer would take place. B. Grogan responded that they could to a certain extent. Discussion continued. L. Collins commented that she believed the Commission should follow the recommendation of their attorney and make certain they have done everything possible to assure that all matters are in order before the system is transferred. B. Grogan reiterated that the issues discussed at the table at this meeting are legitimate and are not unfamiliar in most transfer discussions since they are important to cities. Chair Tourville suggested Legal Counsel formulate language that should be included as conditions for the transfer. J. Miller reported that only one Commissioner, M. Sokol, has expressed interest attending the NATOA confererice. Two staff will attend, as well. The copy machine is in process of trying to be repaired and may need to be replaced. It was suggested that star look at leasing as well as purchase options. 5. Continental Report - C. Olmstead distributed promotional information on Charter Communications and a map of the service area. She also provided a larger map for the office showing the 750 MHz rebuild. M. Sokol noted that the web site listed by Charter Communications is not working. Page - 5 NDC4 Executive Committee Meeting UNAPPROVED August 6, 1997 Chair Tourville noted that he would like to continue discussions with Continental regarding line extension in southern Inver Grove Heights. J. Miller inquired about a letter sent to Continental's Chicago office requesting information for the Franchise Fee audit. F. Zeuli stated that he had not been copied on the letter but will try to expedite the request. An e-mail message from S. Baker (Continental Engineer) identified the subcontractors working on the system rebuild and addressed the requirement that subcontractors wear an identification badge and properly -marked vehicles. The FCC ruled recently that the CPS tier rates are correct. However, they dismissed Continental's complaint that there should be two complaints per city in order to file the form. Phase III of the rebuild is 96% complete according to the progress report. M. Sokol inquired about the pay to basic ratio and the drop in PPV in June. F. Zeuli responded that the pay to basic is likely an error and he will check on the PPV number. The Social Contract update was received and the section pertaining to the State of Minnesota was copied for Commissioners. Many other Charter -owned systems nation- wide are coming up for renewal in 2000. 6. Unfinished Business - J. Ista inquired why the South St. Paul Parks & Recreation Department information appears under category #351 instead of on the category listed under the city on the Alpha Channel. J. Miller will follow up with staff on this matter. 7. New Business - No new business was brought up for discussion. 8. Adjournment - Motion 8-6-97-3 to adjourn the meeting was made by J. Ista and seconded by L. Collins. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7: 35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joy A. Curtin NDC4 Administrative Assistant and Recording Secretary Page - 6 NDC4 to Hold PUBLIC HEARING Cable subscribers and residents of the NDC seven -city area may comment or question on the sale of Continental Cablevision to Charter Communications: "Will the sale to Charter adversely impact subscribers or residents?" For more information call oNO04 at 450-9891 VednesdaY , September 3 -00 PM - N -r DCT.V .Studio A:.:, .= - . 15845 Blaine.•Avenue;-lnverr^Grove:,'Heights Cable subscribers and residents of the NDC seven -city area may comment or question on the sale of Continental Cablevision to Charter Communications: "Will the sale to Charter adversely impact subscribers or residents?" For more information call oNO04 at 450-9891 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 27, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator FROM: Kathleen M. SwansonKr,_S City Clerk SUBJECT: Revised Budget Forms INFORMATION On August 14, City Council conducted a workshop session to discuss the City Administrator's proposed budget for 1998. Pages in the budget document have since been revised to reflect Council -directed changes as well as to correct errors and omissions. Those pages are attached and are described below. DISCUSSION Originally, the police department budget requested creation of a part-time community service officer as an additional service level item. At the direction of Council, the $12,000 proposed for this position has been shown as a new contingency line item on the police department personal services detail sheet (Form 0-3A), and the "Additional Personnel Request" form has been removed from the budget. This change resulted in a $12,000 increase in the proposed police department 1998 budget (Form 0-2) and is also reflected on the "Total Expenditures" form. No other changes were made which impacted the proposed general fund budget. In addition to the revised "Total Expenditures" and police budget forms, a revised City Council form (0-3A) is attached. After publication of the proposed budget, it was discovered that there was an error in the 1997 PERA amount. The correct figure for 1997 is $225 (instead of $189), the same as the proposal for 1998. Also, the Facility Reserve Fund revenue projection form has been corrected to show a $55,000 transfer to the City Hall Fund rather than the incorrect $59,000 transfer shown on the original budget form. Through an oversight, the budget document which was presented to Council did not include revenue forms for the enterprise funds. Those forms are attached to this memo. The attached sheets can be loosely inserted into Council's budget documents if Council desires. If you prefer, I would be happy to bind them into your proposed budgets. If this is your preference, please bring your books to the Council meeting and I will re -bind and return them to you. ACTION REQUIRED This is for information only, so no action is required. FUND GENERAL FUND FUND NO, 01 REVENUES REVENUE SOURCE 1995 1996 1997 TO 1997 1998 ACTUAL ACTUAL 6/30/97 BUDGET BUDGET TAXES Current Tax Levy 2,369,030 2,423,190 235,220 2,435,080 2,525,080 Total Taxes 2,369,030 2,423,190 235,220 2,435,080 2,525,080 LICENSES & PERMITS ,Cigarette Licenses 100 100 100 100 100 Rubbish Licenses 1,280 1,210 1,020 1,200 1,200 Dog Licenses 520 560 160 500 500 Contractor Licenses 9,640 10,230 7,950 7,500 9,000 Club Liquor Licenses 400 800 400 400 400 Off -Sale License 730 180 170 170 180 On -Sale License 7,450 6,550 6,950 6,600 6,600 Building Permits 163,270 188,980 105,450 125,000 125,000 Heating Permits 11,450 29,700 12,530 10,000 10,000 Plumbing Permits 4,120 6,960 7,260 4,000 4,500 Water Permits 220 180 100 600 400 -otal Licenses & Permits 199,180 245,450 142,090 156,070 157,880 TINES & FORFEITS Court Fines 36,000 46,720 28,540 35,000 41,000 False Alarm Fines 1,270 370 0 1,500 1,000 Dog Impounding 1,400 1,740 540 1,500 1,800 Total Fines & Forfeits 38,670 48,830 29,080 38,000 43,800 CHARGES FOR SERVICES Accident Reports Recreation Programs 760 23,860 950 16,380 210 16,490 1,000 26,580 1,000 22,500 Park Use Fees Maps & Ordinances 1,410 590 1,500 630 250 240 500 500 1,000 500 Surcharges Planning Fees .. 2,040 6,900 (160 9,390 3,320 3,450 0 4,000 0 8,000 Fire Contracts Fire Calls 1-ilydale Policing Mendota Policing 43,790 0 109,660 30,290 39,560 0 109,600 32,000 30,610 0 0 0 39,370 200 87,000 30,000 40,000 0 89,270 30,810 Assessment Searches & Splits Street charges =fling Fees 140 2501 0I 100 300 30 50 0 0 200 150 0 100 200 30 FUND GENERALFUND REVENUES FUND NO. 01 REVENUE SOURCE 1995 1996 1997 TO 1997 1998 ACTUAL ACTUAL 6/30/97 BUDGET PROPOSED CHGS. FOR SVCS. (Cont'd) Data Processing Chgs. Operating Funds 7,000 7,000 0 7,000 7,000 Debt Funds 7,000 7,000 0 7,000 7,000 Admin. Transfers Utility Fund 18,380 18,380 18,380 18,380 18,300 TIF 60,000 60,000 70,000 70,000 80,000 Other Funds 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Consolidated Debt 15,000 15,000 29,000 15,000 15,000 Engineering Fund 7,000 7,000 7,200 7,200 7,200 Total Charges for Services 339,070 329,660 184,200 319,080 332,910 INTERFUND TRANSFERS 9,840 8,980 0 12,000 10,000 Project Interest Transfer Project Reimbursement 7,500 14,800 0 10,000 10,000 Total Interfund Transfers 17,340 23,780 0 22,000 20,000 4TERGOVERNMENTAL MSA Maintenance 57,000 57,000 57,000 57,000 60,000 Police State Aid 80,130 86,960 0 85,000 85,000 Fed.Police Aid/Fed. & State Gran 23,890 25,000 6,250 25,000 7,500 Local Performance Aid 0 0 0 12,130 0 Total Intergovernmental 161,020 168,960 63,250 179,130 152,500 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 0 500 0 300 300 Insurance Claims Sundry Revenue 13,970 8,700 9,260 5,000 3,500 Gravel Tax 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 Interest 174,850 101,940 0 80,000 80,000 Total Miscellaneous 188,820 111,140 9,260 90,300 88,800 Dakota County Waste Management 10,840 i 11,360 I 4,980 11,300 11,000 Waste Management 10,840 11,3601 4,9801 11,3001 11,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 3,323,970 3,362,370 668,080 3,250,960 3,331,970 'Reflected as a reduction in tax levy FUND GENERALFUND --71 FUND NO. 01 :1 TOTAL EXPENDITURES DEPARTMENT 1995 ACTUAL 1996 ACTUAL 1997 BUDGET 1997 to 611/97 1997 ESTIMATE 1998 BUDGET % Increase City Council 16,890 15,850 23,590 9,330 23,590 23,590 0.0% Administration 503,810 458,940 536,000 201,180 529,330 548,730 2.4% Elections 16,760 31,110 40,430 8,050 39,680 40,610 0.4% Police 1,254,800 1,305,720 1,346,640 529,810 1,346,640 1,373,100 2.0% Fire 229,570 221,860 231,080 63,270 231,080 239,020 3.4% Code Enforcement 128,540 135,190 136,110 48,790 136,110 141,430 3.9% Public Works Road & Bridge 407,130 492,010 448,270 184,390 448,270 477,710 6.6% Parks & Recreation 394,350 410,390 395,950 297,110 382,660 394,310 -0.4% Planning 55,920 49,260 69,390 15,370 69,390 69,560 0.2% Recycling 12,340 8,710 15,900 6,810 14,720 16,310 2.6% Animal Control 7,260 5,640 7,600 2,360 7,600 7,600 0.0% Total General Fund Expenditures 3,027,370 3,134,680 3,250,960 1,366,470 3,229,070 3,331,970 2.5% General Fund Contingency 72,000 60,000 60,000 0 60,000 1 I i 60,000 0.0% FORM 0-3A EXISTING PERSONNEL Defined contribution (PERA) 225 225 225 (5% of gross salary) FICA 1,262 1,262 1,262 17,987 TOTAL 17,987 17,987 17,990 NET 1998 PERCENT OF SALARY 1997 SALARY PERCENT SALARY THIS NAME POSITION SALARY REQUESTED INCREASE IN ACTIVITY ACTIVITY Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor 4,500 4,500 0% 100% 4,500 John Huber Councilmember 3,000 3,000 0% 100% 3,000 Christine Koch Councilmember 3,000 3,000 0% 100% 3,000 Sandra Krebsbach Councilmember 3,000 3,000 0% 100% 3,000 Jill Smith Councilmember 3,000 3,000 0% 100% 3,000 Defined contribution (PERA) 225 225 225 (5% of gross salary) FICA 1,262 1,262 1,262 17,987 TOTAL 17,987 17,987 17,990 FORM 0-2 BUDGET 1997 1998 1995 1996 1997 TO 1997 1998 REQUESTED POLICE ACTUAL ACTUAL BUDGET 611/97 ESTIMATE PROPOSED ADD LEVEL Personal Services 965,210 1,001,610 1.026,320 421.940 1,026,320 1,071,000 Contractual Services 171,560 174,650 173,890 14,340 173,890 177,700 Commodities 47,450 67,550 47,680 32,950 47,680 50,900 Other Charges 19,550 23,320 26,000 14,810 26,000 26,900 Capital Outlay* 51,030 38.590 72,750 45,770 72,760 46,600 IWAL Marked squad cars Mobile Radio Radar Light Bar/Controller Class "C" vehicle 1.264,800 1,305,720 1,346,640 529.810 1.346,640 1,373.100 0 38,000 3,200 2,000 1,400 2,000 ADDITIONAL SERVICE LEVEL ORM 0-3A EXISTING PERSONNEL 1998 PERCENT OF 1997 SALARY PERCENT SALARY NET SALARY NAME POSITION SALARY REQUESTED INCREASE IN ACTIVITY THIS ACTIVITY Dennis Delmont Police Chief 60,862 62,688 3% 100% 62,688 Jeff Piotraschke Sergeant 53,074 50,827 -6% 100% 50,827 Donn Anderson Sergeant 53,074 54,666 3% 100% 54,666 Larrie Mack Sergeant 53,074 54,666 3% 100% 54,666 Larry Bridger Investigator 50,316 51,825 3% 100% 51,825 Mario Reyes Investigator 50,316 51,825 3% 100% 51,825 Rebecca Trost Police Secretary 30,830 31,755 3% 100% 31,755 Rita Dolan Clerk -Typist 25,304 26,063 3% 100% 26,063 Neil Garlock Patrol Officer 46,029 47,410 3% 100% 47,410 Jeff Menden Patrol Officer 46,922 48,330 3% 100% 48,330 Yvette Tillery Patrol Officer 47,816 49,250 3% 100% 49,250 Lee Flandrich, Jr. Patrol Officer 42,958 44,247 3% 100% 44,247 Brian Convery Patrol Officer 43,270 44,568 3% 100% 44,568 Scott Patrick Patrol Officer 40,980 45,276 11% 100% 45,276 Michael Thompson Patrol Officer 37,566 41,658 11% 100% 41,658 John Larrive Patrol Officer 37,566 41,658 11% 100% 41,658 Robert Lambert Patrol Officer 37,566 41,658 11% 100% 41,658 David Odlaug Patrol Officer 34,116 38,693 13% 100% 38,693 Overtime 20,000 20,000 20,000 Contingency 0 12,000 12,000 Hospitalization 81,000 85,050 85,050 Workers' Compensation 31,000 29,000 29,000 PERA 90,404 87,044 87,044 FICA & Medicare 10,672 10,843 10,843 TOTAL 1,024,715 1,071,000 1,071,000 FUND ENGINEERING FUND REVENUES FUND NO. 05 REVENUE SOURCE 1995 1996 1997 TO 1997 1998 ACTUAL ACTUAL 6/30/97 BUDGET PROPOSED CHARGES FOR SERVICES Public Imp. Projects 325,590 272,540 116,290 353,000 370,000 Miscellaneous Billed Services 10 10 20 1,000 1,000 Total Charges for Services 325,600 272,550 116,310 354,000 371,000 INTERFUND TRANSFERS General Fund Retainer Administration 10,200 10,200 5,250 10,500 10,500 Code Enforcement 1,840 3,120 1,560 3,120 3,120 Road & Bridge 1,840 3,120 1,610 3,220 3,220 Parks 1,840 3,120 1,610 3,220 3,220 Planning 5,200 5,200 4,000 8,000 8,000 General Fund Fees Code Enforcement Fees/Footing Insp. 3,260 8,640 710 5,000 5,000 Planning Fees 880 6,010 2,480 4,000 4,000 Other Fees 12,960 19,350 7,720 7,500 7,500 Storm Sewer Study 0 0 0 0 0 Jtility Fund Fees Retainer 2,840 3,120 1,610 3,220 3,220 SSSS 0 0 0 4,000 4,000 Miscellaneous Fees 4,810 4,280 4,730 2,000 2,000 TIF Miscellaneous Fees 19,290 5,490 8,080 5,000 5,000 WMO's 11,040 7,650 2,440 5,000 5,000 Special Park Fund Miscellaneous 13,130 13,530 6,150 7,500 7,500 Interest Income 4,380 6,710 0 10,000 10,000 Total Inter -Fund 93,510 99,540 47,950 81,280 81,280 Total Engineering Fund Revenues 419,1101 If I I I 372,0901 3 164,2601 1 435,280 452,280 FUND UTILITY FUND REVENUES 7 -5 -NO. 15 REVENUE SOURCE 1995 ACTUAL 1996 ACTUAL 1997 TO 6/1/97 1997 BUDGET j 1998 I BUDGET Sewer Rental 969,150 1,158,260 383,450 1,025,000 1,050,000 Interceptor Maintenance 0 500 0 500 500 Metro Sewer Debt 0 26,680 2,830 30,000 30,000 SAC surcharges 0 10 10 500 500 SAC charges 42,500 164,700 119,300 75,000 50,000 Water Surcharge Transfer 0 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 Sewer permits 800 640 400 1,500 1,000 Lilydale Lift Station Maintenance 2,500 2,500 0 2,500 2,500 Gopher State One Call 0 500 0 500 500 Miscellaneous Income 3,120 990 580 0 0 terest Income 10,000 23,410 0 10,000 10,000 Total Utility Fund Revenue 1,028,070 1 1,385,690 � 1 514,070 I f 1,153,000 1,152,500 FUND STORM WATER UTILITY REVENUES FUND NO. 05 REVENUE SOURCE 1995 1996 1997 TO I 1997 1998 ACTUAL ACTUAL 6/30/97 BUDGET PROPOSED Storm Water Utility Fees 129,790 135,700 44,510 105,000 125,000 Miscellaneous Income 13,440 10 0 0 0 Interest Income 23,370 26,580 0 6,000 20,000 Project Income 13,530 47,230 0 20,000 0 Total Storm Water Utility Fund Revenues 1 13,4401 101 I I 0 0 0 M 1998 REVENUE PROJECTION FACILITY RESERVE FUND FUND NO. 24 Estimated 12/31/97 Fund Balance $ 986,000 Estimated 1998 Receipts 90,000 Estimated 1998 Interest Earnings 50,000 Balance Available 1,126,000 Expenses Transfer to City Hall Fund 55,000 Street Reconstruction (Curley/Tilsen) 350,000 Estimated 12/31/98 Fund Balance 7219000 Detail of Revenue Distribution and Expenses: Facilities Infrastructure Revenues Reserve Replacement Est. 1997 Fund Balance 445,000 541,000 Est. 1998 Receipts 55,000 45,000 Est. 1998 Interest 25,000 25,000 525,000 611,000 Expenditures Transfer to City Hall Fund 55,000 Street Reconstruction 350,000 Est. 12/31/98 Fund Balance 470,000 261,000 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 25, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Admini tl`a`tb� FROM: Lawrence E. Shaughnessy, Jr., Treasurer SUBJECT: Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy for 1998 DISCUSSION Each year the City must adopt a preliminary budget and tax levy for the following year prior to September 15th, and certify the levy to the County Auditor. Once the preliminary levy is adopted, it can be reduced but not increased. The County Auditor then prepares parcel specific tax notices and mails them prior to our Truth -in -Taxation hearing. Attached are these resolutions: 1. Preliminary Budget Resolution 2. Preliminary Tax Levy Resolution which includes the General Fund Levy plus the special purpose levies. 3. A Final Tax Levy Resolution for the Commercial Street Light District which is not subject to the Truth -in -Taxation hearing. Due to the Legislature's imposed shift in rate classes, we do not have the information to estimate the budget effect on individual property owners. The State estimates reflect about a 5.9 percent decrease in taxes due to the additional state aid for schools and new homestead credit of up to $225 on the school tax bill. Considering the estimated 2.4 percent increase in our budgeted levy and the new construction growth in the City, our tax payers should see a minimal change in the City portion of their taxes provided their valuation has not grown by more than 3 percent. The Preliminary Budget, which shows a 2.1 percent increase in overall dollars, is ready for approval. A resident with no increase in valuation will see a decrease in City taxes (of 2 to 3 percent). A tax payer whose house has a five percent increase in value will see about 3.5 to 4 percent increase for 1998. The typical $150,000 home pad a 1997 City tax of $432.74 a decrease from 1996 of 3.1 percent. The budget as presented does allow for an add level of service for 1998. The budget as presented includes a contingency for additional police services. According to the dates provided by the County Auditor, we can hold our Truth -in -Taxation hearing at our regular meeting on December 2, 1997 with our subsequent/continuation hearing at our regular December 16th meeting. The final Resolution must be adopted at a subsequent hearing prior to December 27th. The time and dates of the continuation and/or subsequent hearing must be announced at the December 2nd hearing. ACTION REQUIRED If Council so desires, a motion should be passed adopting: 1. Resolution No. 97- , RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET; 2. Resolution No. 97- , RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE 1997 LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1998; and 3. Resolution NO. 97- , RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL 1997 TAX LEVY FOR SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT NO. 1 COLLECTIBLE IN 1998. LES:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 97 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROPOSED BUDGET WHEREAS, State Statute requires City Council adoption of a proposed Budget for 1998 on or before September 15, 1997; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed the City Administrator's Proposed 1998 Budget; and WHEREAS, Council recognized that the Budget document was prepared on the basis of a Preliminary Levy which will be considered at public hearing tentatively set for December 2, 1997. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the City Administrator's Proposed 1998 Budget appropriates expenditures in a manner consistent with service level needs and Preliminary Levy funding; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council hereby adopts the Administrator's Proposed 1998 Budget dated as the Preliminary Budget for 1998 subject to amendment following budget and levy hearings and adoption of a final levy. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of September, 1997. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS I: ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 97 - RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE 1997 LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1998 WHEREAS, the 1997 State Tax Law requires the City of Mendota Heights to certify a tentative Tax Levy for the 1998 prior to September 15, 1997; and WHEREAS, the Levy may be adjusted prior to December 27, 1997, to an amount not to exceed the adopted tentative Levy. NOW THEREFORE BE /T RESOLVED that the City Council adopted the following tentative Levy for tax against all taxable property in the City of Mendota Heights for collection in the year 1998: General Fund $2,525,080 Emergency Preparedness 1,000 Fire Relief 26,000 Infra Structure Reserve 45,000 Legal & Contingency Levy 60.000 Total General Levy $2,657,080 Less HACA and LPA Aids $ 381,672 Net Levy General $2,275,408 Special Debt Levies MWCC $ 30,000 Equipment Certificates 106,000 Park Bonds 320,000 Improvement Bonds 17,400 Fr. Hills St. Bonds 55.000 Total $ 528,400 Less HACA Aid $ 90.229 Net Levy Debt Service $ 438,171 Net Tentative Levy Certified $2,713,579 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Levy shall be amended following budget hearings to reflect the adopted City Budget. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hold a public hearing tentatively set for Tuesday, December 2, 1997 at 7:30 o'clock P.M. for the purpose of considering the proposed budget and levy with a second hearing to be held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. on Wednesday, December 16, 1997. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of September, 1997. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 97 - RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL 1997 TAX LEVY FOR SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT NO. 1 COLLECTIBLE IN 1998 WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has, by Resolution No. 87-91, authorized the levy of taxes within Special Tax District No. 1 for the purpose of paying operating costs of the street lighting system established with said District; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights has determined that the sum of $12,500 will be required in 1998 for the purpose of paying such operating costs. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights adopt the following levy against all taxable property within said Special Taxing District No. 1. Operation and Maintenance costs $12,500 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any tax exempt property with said District be billed for services at a comparable rate computed on the Assessor's Market Value of such property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the Dakota County Auditor. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of September, 1997. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS August 28, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City A i�C``J� or FROM: Marc S. Mogan, Civil Engineer MSM SUBJECT: Bunker Hills Project Status Job No. 9514, Improvement No. 96, Project No. 3 DISCUSSION• A feasibility report was presented and accepted by Council for the Bunker Hills Street Reconstruction project at the August 20, 1996 Council meeting. A public hearing was held on September 17, 1996 at City Hall to discuss the project. Council continued the public hearing, and directed staff acquire additional survey data which would be used to prepare detailed exhibits showing possible and specific project construction impacts on the neighborhood. Council agreed to schedule a special workshop meeting with the neighborhood to present this information at some future date, but also stated this additional work could delay the project beyond the 1997 construction season. Inclement weather did interrupt the field survey work in progress. This delay necessitated postponement of this project until the 1998 construction season. Council formally closed the continued public hearing at their January 21, 1997 Council meeting, and thereby concluded their consideration of this project for the time being. Council agreed to formally initiate the public improvement process again this summer by scheduling the promised neighborhood workshop meeting for sometime in June of 1997. Due to the heavy workload this past summer, the Engineering Department was unable to compile this information for presentation to the residents by that time. It would be desirable to schedule, this neighborhood workshop meeting for Tuesday September 30, 1997, (the 5th Tuesday) to address and resolve the concerns of the neighborhood so that this project could proceed. ACTION REQUIRED: Council should direct staff to send out notices to the property owners to inform them of this meeting date, or schedule an alternate date, if they determine that this meeting date conflicts with the schedules of Council members. MSM , ih ' CW\ CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 28, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Admini trator FROM: Marc S. Mogan, Civil Engineer M SM SUBJECT: Assessment Roll Information - Tilsen's Highland Heights Area Job No. 9612, Imp. 96-4 0 DISCUSSION: Attached is a copy of the proposed assessment roll for Tilsen's Highland Heights. BACKGROUND: The feasibility report for this project was presented to Council in October of 1996. This project has 123 parcels within the project boundary which includes 4 City owned lots on the north end between Lilac Lane and James Road. At the feasibility hearing in 1996, Council set a per lot assessment of $3,700 with the City assuming 50% of the project costs. As of this week, storm sewer, curbs, driveways, and the first lift of bituminous are in place. Sod restoration is currently in progress, and a decision when to place the final lift of bituminous will be made after the sod is in place. To date costs have been in line with feasibility estimates. The majority of the properties will have an assessment of $3,700. There were 30 property owners that requested extra driveway improvements, and they have been charged appropriately. RECOMMENDATION: The Tilsen's Highland Heights street reconstruction project is not currently fully completed, but 95% of the work will be done by the end of September. Due to considerable interest expense which would accrue on this project, staff recommends that the City certify the assessment roll this year, rather than delay it unit next year. It is recommended that a public hearing be conducted at the October 7, 1997 City Council meeting to consider adoption of the attached assessment roll. ACTION REQUIRED: Review the attached assessment roll, make any changes and then if Council desires to implement the Staff Recommendation, pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 97- , "RESOLUTION CALLING FOR HEARING ON ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR TILSEN'S HIGHLAND HEIGHTS STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND SURROUNDING AREA IMPROVEMENTS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 96, PROJECT NO. 4)". ASSESS. AT PERIOD Street Reconstruction - 19 years INTEREST RATE - 7% CITY OF MENDL _ HEIGHTS ASSESSMENT ROLL TILSEN'S HIGHLAND HEIGHTS REHABILITATION/RECONSTRUCTION JOB NO. 9612, IMP. 964 ADOPTED: ASSESSMENT RATE_ Street Reconstruction - $3,700 per lot (Street Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Fund - 50%) PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76400- Frances I. Christian Tilsen's Highland Heights 6 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 060-01 1636 Lilac Lane pt of lots 4 to Lot 6 Blk 1 corn W line L-5 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 10.18 ft N of SW cor E & parr to S line L-6 to E line L-6 N on E line L-6 ex N to N line L-5 NW to pt on W line L-4 76.37 ft N of SW Cor L-4 S on W lines of Lots 4 & 5 Lots 5 to beg 27-76400- Jeffrey & Mary Beissel Tilsen's Highland Heights 6 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 061-01 1642 Lilac Lane pt of L-5 & 6 B-1 S & W of line com W Mendota Heights, MN 55118 line lot 5 10.18 ft N of SW cor E & parr with S line of Lot 6 to E line Lot 6 ex pt of L-6 E of line 0.5 ft W of & parr toEline &Sof line com 55 ft S of NE cor L-41 ext W of Lot 6 Block 1 27-76400- Gloria H. Spelios Tilsen's Highland Heights 7 1 $2,330.00 $3,700.00 $6,030.00 070-01 1650 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Kem A. Pomeroy Tilsen's Highland Heights 8 1 $2,420.00 $3,700.00 $6,120.00 080-01 1658 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tilsens Page 1 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76400- Patrica M. Carson Tilsen's Highland Heights 9 1 $2,590.00 $3,700.00 $6,290.00 090-01 1666 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Mary E. Kingston Tilsen's Highland Heights 10 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 100-01 1672 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400 Penelope G. Nyfenger Tilsen's Highland Heights 11 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 110-01 1678 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Lewis A & Marjorie Blustin Tilsen's Highland Heights 12 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 120-01 1686 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Victor J. & Sheila A. Bremer Tilsen's Highland Heights 13 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 130-01 1694 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Jeremy P. Mayberg & Marie E. Forbush Tilsen's Highland Heights 14 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 140-01 1700 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Thomas J. & Nancy J. Nelson Tilsen's Highland Heights 15 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 150-01 1704 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Rollin Neil Larson Tilsen's Highland Heights 17 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 170-01 1710 Lilac Lane All of Lot 16 Blk 1 & N 1/2 of L-17 B-1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Bradford W. & L.A. Genereaux Tilsen's Highland Heights 18 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 180-01 1730 Lilac Lane S 1/2 of L-17 Blk 1 & all of L-18 B-1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tilsens Page 2 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76400- Keith A. Gardner & Melissa Klein Gardner Tilsen's Highland Heights 20 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 200-01 1733 Vicki Lane All of Lot 19 Blk 1 ex N 87 ft of Lot 20 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Block 1 27-76400- Thorns P. Parker Tilsen's Highland Heights 20 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 201-01 1725 Vicki Lane N 87 ft of L-20 Blk 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400 William W. & Kathryn Roach Tilsen's Highland Heights 21 1 $2,350.00 $3,700.00 $6,050.00 210-01 1721 Vicki Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Keith R. Bellis Tilsen's Highland Heights 23 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 230-01 1711 Vicki Lane All of Lot 22 Block 1 and pt S of line of Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Lot 23 Blk 1 com int W line and N line L-15 E to pt on E line L-23 8 ft N of SE cor 27-76400- Joseph & Michele B. Morgan Tilsen's Highland Heights 24 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 240-01 1707 Vicki Lane Pt N of Line of Lot 23 Blk 1 com int W Mendota Heights, MN 55118 line & N line L 15 E to pt on E line Lot 23, 8 ft N of SE cor & pt of Lot 24 Blk 1 lying W of W line Lot 35 ext S to Vicki Lane 27-76400- Ned V. Rukavina & Leslie A. Pilgrim Tilsen's Highland Heights 25 1 $2,720.00 $3,700.00 $6,420.00 250-01 1704 Vicki Lane Pt of Lot 24 Blk 1 lying E of W ine L-35 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 ext S to Vicki Land and all of L-25 B-1 27-76400- Harold & Patrice Kaplan Tilsen's Highland Heights 26 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 260-01 1710 Vicki Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Walter W. & Dorothy Petroski Tilsen's Highland Heights 27 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 270-01 1720 Vicki Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tilsens Page 3 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76400- James S. & Stephanie Levine Tilsen's Highland Heights 28 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 280-01 1724 Vicki Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Cori B. Johnson Tilsen's Highland Heights 29 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 290-01 1732 Vicki Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400 Thomas S. Kreager Tilsen's Highland Heights 30 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 300-01 1731 Victoria Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Gail K. & Rev. Tst Frisch Tilsen's Highland Heights 41 1 $9,150.00 '' $3,700.00 $12,850.00 412-01 960 Caren Road Lot 3 Blk 1 ex N 40 ft (taken for Caren Road) Mendota Heights, MN 55118 pt of Lots 4 & 5 Blk 1 lying E & NE of following line: com NE cor lot 6 NW on ext of E line lot 6 to int N line Lot 5 NW to pt on W line Lot 4 76.37 ft (following lot line) N of SW cor and N 55 ft of Lot 41 Blk 1 subj to parr 11 Dakota Co. R/W map No. 119 27-76400- Stanley & Judith J. Starkman Tilsen's Highland Heights 2 2 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 020-02 990 Douglas Road pt of Lots 1 and Lot 2 Blk 2 lying W of line Mendota Heights, MN 55118 com N line L-2 129.33 ft E of NW cor L-1 S to pt on S line L-1 129.33 ft E of SW cor 27-76400- David & Fern Sanders Tilsen's Highland Heights 3 2 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 030-02 980 Douglas Road Pt of Lots 1 and Lot 2 Blk 2 lying E of line Mendota Heights, MN 55118 com N line L-2 129.33 ft E of NW cor L-1 S to pt on S line L-1 129.33 ft E of SW cor and W 10 ft of L-3 B-2 27-76400- Rodney & Paula Carey Tilsen's Highland Heights 4 2 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 040-02 976 Douglas Road E 70 ft of Lot 3 Block 2 and W 45 ft of Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Lot 4 Blk 2 Tilsens Page 4 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76400- Bevan T. & Judith Marry Tilsen's Highland Heights 5 2 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 050-02 970 Douglas Road E 35 ft of Lot 4 Blk 2 and all of Lot 5 Blk 2 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Robert D. & Beverly Pilgrim Tilsen's Highland Heights 7 2 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 070-02 960 Douglas Road all of Lot 6 Blk 2 &W20 ft of Lot 7 Blk 2 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76400- Carl R.III & Mary A. Sievers Tilsen's Highland Heights 7 2 $4,780.00 $3,700.00 $8,480.00 071-02 956 Douglas Road E 140 ft of Lot 7 Blk 2 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Ella S. James Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 3 0 $3,110.00 $3,700.00 $6,810.00 030-00 1636 James Road S 10 ft of Lot 2 & all of Lot 3 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Vicki L. Marvy Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 4 0 $2,120.00 $3,700.00 $5,820.00 040-00 1640 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Joan C. & Wallin & Joseph J. Fadlovich Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 5 0 $3,840.00 $3,700.00 $7,540.00 050-00 1648 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Guy & Janet DeLambert Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 6 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 060-00 1652 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Ann L. & Jack Fecht Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 7 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 070-00 1660 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- J. Douglas & M. Carselle Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 8 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 080-00 1670 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tilsens Page 5 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76401- Paul D. & Lacey L. Steele Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 9 0 $4,480.00 $3,700.00 $8,180.00 090-00 1678 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Violet L Tste Noreen Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 10 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 100-00 1684 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Aloysius E. & M. B. McCormick Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 11 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 110-00 1690 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- John & Rosemary Murphy Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 12 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 120-00 1696 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Gregory E. & Ann M. Duchaine Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 13 0 $5,860.00 $3,700.00 $9,560.00 130-00 1704 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- David J. & Elizbeth Poliseno Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 14 0 $3,150.00 $3,700.00 $6,850.00 140-00 1005 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Lawrence J. & H. Gleeman Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 15 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 150-00 999 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Hyman & Ruth Cohen MFSL Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 16 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 160-00 1727 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Morris & Ceil Mesnik Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 17 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 170-00 1715 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tilsens Page 6 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76401- Werner J. Eggert & Kathryn J. Zuelke Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 18 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 180-00 1711 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Peter S. & Elizabeth Ekholm Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 19 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 190-00 1703 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Richard N. & Shirlene Matus Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 20 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 200-00 1695 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Richard L. & Donna A. Schroer` Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 22 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 220-00 1689 Lilac Lane All of lots 21 and S 6 ft of Lot 22 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Nathan & Hannah Neren Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 22 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 221-00 1681 Lilac Lane ex S 6 ft of Lot 22 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Jack & Roberta L. Schribman Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 23 0 $2,780.00 $3,700.00 $6,480.00 230-00 1675 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Lisa Marie Angelstad & Lois Mark Schaefer Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 24 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 240-00 1669 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Steven & Flory Katz Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 25 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 250-00 1663 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Emil & Marcella Reiher Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 26 0 $2,270.00 - $3,700.00 $5,970.00 260-00 1655 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tilsens Page 7 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76401- Marc J. & Jo Ellen Cohen Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 27 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 270-00 1649 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76401- Harold & Anna Specktor Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 2 28 0 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 280-00 1643 Lilac Lane Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Ann M. Byers Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 4 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 041-01 1736 Lexington Ave. S. N 115 ft of Lot 4 Block 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Douglas & Mary S. Lamski Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 6 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 061-01 1761 Douglas Court Lots 6 Block 1 also pt Lot 5 Blk 1 des as fol: Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Beg SE cor Lot 5 N'ly along E L 135 ft to NE cor W'ly along N L 135 ft to NW cor thence SE'ly 190.92 ft M/L to pt of beg 27-76402- Scott F. & Jan E. Tilsen Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 7 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 071-01 1765 Douglas Court Lot 7 Blk 1 also pt Lot 5 Blk 1 beg SE Cor Mendota Heights, MN 55118 W'ly along S L 135 ft to SW cor N'ly along W L 135 ft to NW cor SE'ly 190.92 ft M/L to pt of beg 27-76402- David A. & Mary S. Uhler Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 8 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 080-01 1768 Douglas Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Stanley E.,& Delores Karon Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 9 1 $1,520.00 $3,700.00 $5,220.00 090-01 1764 Douglas Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Charles R & Alice Berquist Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 10 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 100-01 1760 Douglas Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tilsens Page 8 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76402- W. Derek & Gale W. Robb Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 11 1 $3,959.00 $3,700.00 $7,659.00 110-01 1754 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- James A. & Linda G. Stein Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 13 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 130-01 1752 James Road All of Lot 12 Blk 1 & all ex E 40 ft of Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Lot 13 Blk 1 27-76402- Daniel E. & Beverly Dwyer Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 14 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 140-01 1750 James Road E 40 ft of Lot 13 Blk 1 & all ex E 30 ft of Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Lots 14 Blk 1 27-76402- James B. & Kathleen Kelly Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 15 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 150-01 1748 James Road E 30 ft of Lot 14 Blk 1 & W 80 ft Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Lot 15 Blk 1 27-76402- Robert H. & Margaret Trapp Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 16 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 160-01 1746 James Road E 20 ft of Lot 15 Blk 1 & W 90 ft of Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Lot 16 Blk 1 27-76402- Robert J. & Mary E. Satterstrom Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 17 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 170-01 1744 James Road E 10 ft of Lot 16 Blk 1 & all of Lot 17 BIk 1 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- James N. & Suzanne Burton Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 18 1 $3,250.00 $3,700.00 $6,950.00 180-01 1742 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Robert C. Blumberg Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 19 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 190-01 1740 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- John A. & Janice K. Fisher Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 20 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 200-01 1730 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tilsens Page 9 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76402- John K. & Julie A. Korte Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 21 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 210-01 1000 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Everett H. Karon Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 22 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 220-01 996 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Steven R. & Heather Ashley Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 1 2 $1,393.00 $3,700.00 $5,093.00 010-02 1056 Dougls Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Henry Thomas Kimble Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 2 2 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 020-02 1050 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Stuart & Elaine Steinman Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 3 2 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 030-02 1046 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Terry T. & Rebecca L. Kuruvilla Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 4 2 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 040-02 1044 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- John R. & Mary J. Simplot Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 5 2 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 050-02 1040 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Alice H. Tste Sjolander Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 7 2 $2,260.00 / $3,700.00 $5,960.00 070-02 1030 Doulgas Road All of Lots 6 Blk 2 & W 10 ft ex com SW Mendota Heights, MN 55118 cor Lot 7 E 10 ft S 13.05 ft NW on line to beg of Lot 7 Blk 2 Tilsens Page 10 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76402- Helen J. Ziegler Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 8 2 $6,760.00 $3,700.00 $10,460.00 080-02 P.O. Box 50839 Ex W 10 ft of Lot 7 Blk 2 & NE of line com Mendota Heights, MN 55118-0839 S line 1 ft SW of SE cor NW to pt of int NE line Lot 8 & line drawn parr to & 10 ft E of W line Lot 7 to Lot 8 Blk 2 27-76402- John H. & Marian S. Thill Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 8 2 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 081-02 1743 James Road pt of Lot 7 Blk 2 com SW cor E 10 ft S Mendota Heights, MN 55118 13.05 ft NW on line to beg & pt of Lot 8 Blk 2 SW of line com S line 1 ft SW of SE cor NW to pt of int NE line Lot 8 & line drawn parr to & 10 ft E of W line Lot 7 27-76402- Robert S. & Sandra Loewenstein Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 10 2 $2,930.00 -' $3,700.00 $6,630.00 100-02 1745 James Road All of Lot 9 Blk 2 & E 30 ft of Lot 10 Blk 2 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Joseph F. & Kathryn A. Schuster Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 11 2 $2,360.00 $3,700.00 $6,060.00 110-02 1747 James Road W 70 ft of Lot 10 Blk 2 & E 60 ft of Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Lot 11 Blk 2 27-76402- Daniel G. McCreary & Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 12 2 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 120-02 Nancy Lufkin McCreary W 40 ft of Lot 11 Blk 2 & the pt lying E 1751 James Road of line com 20 ft E of SW cor N to NW cor Mendota Heights, MN 55118 of Lot 12 Blk 2 27-76402- Irven M. & Ida Mae Johnson Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 13 2 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 130-02 1753 James Road pt of Lot 12 Blk 2 lying W of line com Mendota Heights, MN 55118 20 ft E of SW cor N to NW cor & all of Lot 13 Blk 2 27-76402- Edward & Jacqueline Paster Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 1 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 010-03 1081 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tilsens Page 11 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76402- James P. Lillehei Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 2 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 020-03 1075 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Russell Welsh & B. Andrewson Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 4 3 $4,481.00 $3,700.00 $8,181.00 040-03 1069 Douglas Road all of lots 3 and 4 Blk 3 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Joseph C. & M. Coopersmith Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 5 3 $7,500.00 $3,700.00 $11,200.00 050-03 1059 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Patrick T. & Joan Brennan Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 6 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 060-03 1055 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Emily I. Sweeney Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 7 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 070-03 1051 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- David L. Olson & Nancy H. Fushan Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 9 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 090-03 1049 Douglas Road All of Lot 8 Blk 3 & all of W 45 ft of Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Lot 9 Blk 3 27-76402- Leon & Yolla B. Levitt Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 10 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 100-03 1045 Douglas Road E 55 ft of Lot 9 Blk 3 & W 62.5 ft of Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Lot 10 Blk 3 27-76402- Michael A. & S.K. Posnansky Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 11 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 110-03 1041 Douglas Road E. 37.5 ft of Lot 10 Blk 3 & W 80 ft of Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Lot 11 Blk 3 27-76402- David B. & Ellen Sloane Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 12 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 120-03 1031 Douglas Road E 20 ft of Lot 11 Blk 3 & all of Lot 12 Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Blk 3 Tilsens Page 12 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76402- George Jr. & Margaret Kronschnabel Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 13 3 $3,450.00 $3,700.00 $7,150.00 130-03 1011 Douglas Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Philip & Jean Tste Freeman Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 14 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 140-03 1701 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Thomas S. & Alison M. Williams Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 15 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 150-03 1693 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Daniel & Ann Mehl Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 16 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 160-03 1687 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Sol & Mildred Mastbaum Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 17 3 $2,270.00 $3,700.00 $5,970.00 170-03 1008 James Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Daniel W. & Ruth A. Fram Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 18 3 $2,780.00 $3,700.00 $6,480.00 180-03 1012 James Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Harold & Maxine S. Slobof Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 19 3 $2,780.00 $3,700.00 $6,480.00 190-03 1016 James Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Allen & Katherine Goldman Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 21 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 210-03 1015 James Court pt of Lot 20 Blk 3 lying W of line com N Mendota Heights, MN 55118 line 30 ft W of NE cor SE to SE Cor & N 2 ft of part lying E of said line & pt of Lot 21 Blk 3 com NW cor E on N line 1OftS2ftWtoWline Ntobeg Tilsens Page 13 PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76402- John F. & Patricia L. Kemper Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 21 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 211-03 1011 James Court pt of Lot 20 Blk 3 lying E of line Com N Mendota Heights, MN 55118 line 30 ft W of NE cor SE to SE cor ex N 2ft&ex N2 ftofW 1OftofLot 21 Blk3 27-76402- Stephen G. & Jane S. Sackett Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 22 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 220-03 1665 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Robin C. Reed & Ann M. Hathaway Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 23 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 230-03 1657 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Donald C. & Janis S. Tweedy Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 24 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 240-03 1651 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Alan R. & Patricia L. Anderson Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 25 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 250-03 1645 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- David T. Tste Dinger Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 26 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 260-03 Cheryl I. Tste Dinger 1639 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- John L. & Anne Schuster Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 27 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 270-03 1631 James Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Stanley C. & Nancy M. Skadron Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 28 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 280-03 992 Caren Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tilsens Page 14 v PARCEL NO. REPUTED OWNER AND DESCRIPTION SUBDIVISION LOT NO. BLK NO. DRIVEWAY STREET RECONSTR TOTAL 27-76402- George Jr. & Maxine Bergh Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 29 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 290-03 996 Caren Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Kenneth A. & Camilla Herrmann Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 30 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 300-03 995 Caren Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Alton C. & Sandra M. Todd Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 33 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 330-03 991 Caren Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Brett H. & Mary T.A. Larson ' Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 34 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 340-03 985 Caren Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Sheldon W. & Carol L. Damberg Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 36 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 361-03 975 Caren Road Ex com SW cor N 75 ft E 5 ft S to beg Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Thomas H. III Fahey & Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 36 3 $190.00 ^� $3,700.00 $3,890.00 362-03 Anne L. Boisclair-Fahey all of Lot 35 Blk 3 & pt of Lot 36 Blk 3 979 Caren Road com SW cor N75 ft E 5 ft S to beg Mendota Heights, MN 55118 27-76402- Anita I. Stockton Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3 37 3 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 370-03 969 Caren Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Tilsens Page 15 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS August 29, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administ or FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dect SUBJECT: Lloyds Parking Lot Improvement Lloyds' Meats is planning on constructing building and parking lot expansions this fall (site plan is attached). The proposed building expansion encroaches on TH 13 right-of-way by 2.72 feet at one location and will require that a setback variance be processed through the Planning Commission before Council consideration. The parking lot improvement totally complies with the City's Zoning Ordinance and can be approved immediately. The parking lot expansion is being completed in order to relocate some spaces that currently exist on the north side of the building, thus freeing up the area for trucks to maneuver. It will also provide the additional spaces that will be needed for their building expansion. Lloyd's Meats parking lot expansion totally complies with the City's Zoning Ordinance and I recommend that Council authorize staff to issue a permit. If Council desires to implement the recommendation they should pass a motion authorizing staff to issue a permit to Lloyd's Meats to construct a parking lot according to plans attached dated August 21, 1997. �� ,� L E CL 10 n o� I fU I Co L. n. to In M Lr) n r- a% tr G l 01997 Westwood Professional [Services, Inc. Call 48 Hours before digging: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 454-0002 n. ToIty-Free T-800-252-1166 b< 4 /Al / �``�l —------- —�1�--— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ------------ j --- ------- r------------ 3 I . I PAINT STRIPES I _ IJMITS BIT. PAVING \ 3 I 1➢ I / 195 SPACES CUR6.CAEXIST. / CAL EMS TO AIN IPE) lCK i 19 . t4 0 REMOVE SIGNS 18 IGH, COATED I \ �` J ! GY l2 LV NT STRIPES / IT. PAVING EXISTING BUILDING 18 ETAINING WALL �J ® x -291 O , X83 / BTUMINOUS SECTION TO MATCH EXISTING BITUMNOUSPAVEMENT O AGGREGATE BASE AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION PER SOILS ENGINEER 2 PAVEMENT SECTION APPROX. 3762 S.Y. \� / qj y - i a' 30' 60• Westwood I hereby cerUly IAat thla Wan p epefed by m. or undo my REVISIONS d' t W and that I a dWy regbt«ea PROFESSIONAL DEscNm RBC CNEO 0 JHP LLOYD'S BARBEQUE CO. DA 8/28/97 PARKING LOT STRIPING (DJW) vaat.- P'.f..I-W Snrkea. Inc � s Io.a 1 tat. 1 wLnaseta. oaAw+ 14160 W4tl Tank N.Y. S RBC RECORD ORAWelO BY/DATE Ryan Companies US, Inc. BULK STORAGE SITE PLAN 8/2EET Eden Preinq MN 55344 SHEET 612 937-5150 DA L - RE . NO. Z�i979 YEIIDOTA HEIGHTS. MM&BOTA 1 OF 3 97375 7375SPF1A'NG Westwood Professional ISer 'es. Enc. : / Coll 48 Hours before digging: F A l o GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 454-0002 Mn To ree i-800 - z: � 2-1166 —\— --- N _—————— — —- — r q — �I-------=------- a i y .r-„�••r' a 's 's i �• z r./i —840- 38 — I”-850-^ J 5' B 1 $48 1" a a , / 3� ~ 3 R s a 8 842 a R *t \ ^ a N. t /� / � R R ! H ��� � +ate / a a < z s" � a � �� / � / � a ,� � e a "a „� �, e `w. ` •�� I� OVERFLOW ELEV. 6 z _ I s I - ' a a L / J 840.0 / �" a �F2ETAINING WALL « DESIGN BY OTHERS B EXISTING t TOP OF WALL - 839.4 FFE 837.0 O ti,OFXWALL - 833.2 R 0 ' \, f! (APPR. 1100 S0. \ �4G- _ \ 0 RET jWALQ ! / meg- \ a SILT FENCE ( ! t1� z / 2.0 a 3 x f POLE 4 31.55 FILTER t-ABPlC State • �. `` _ 3� Y• 3 �. x 4 COMPACT BAOMLL /\ @4$ \/ �` \�\� "j e A LEGEND '9/7 y.0 \ —`$3 \\� _ 3 co j +gMy. DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIC GENERAL GRADING & DRAINAGE NOTES: y h, I. _ Q �- —980 DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS NAVE SOIL , 1/ a ALL CONTOURS AND SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN TO FINISHED o• y1 \ - " \ j TOE -IN TRENCH FOR ENVIROFENCE SURFACE/CUTTER GRADES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. \ s \ ¢ 3-5$0 DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS s METHOD •REFER TO THE SITE PLAN/RECORD PLAT FOR MOST CURRENT ` '. *k�' DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVAT o he anticipated the acdxsedi enn control tabrk side of the lance h the daectkn HORIZONTAL SITE DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT. of thedposn the pole against (net side of the system away koro the `�• n `` ?~' ` -- i•- ,, / �l ,�� J wr�r� DENOTES PROPOSED SILT FENCE flow) and position the pales against the back wdt of fns trench. ' EXISTING CONTOURS SHOWN ARE FROM WESTWOOD PROF. SVCS. SURVEY EROSION CONTROL NOTES `"' �, 2. Use a /S sledge hammer ar stmxr dadce to Male the poles foto the ground DATED 8/20/97 (FIELD VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THE s �i untB the bottom of the industrial netting is approximately 2• below ground ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS.) a j I—L (Seo dfo7crn) ALL SILT FENCE AND OTHER EROSION CONTROL FEATURES SHALL B£ IN�PLACE 3. Lay the bottom 8" of sedimentatkn control fobrk Into the trench. . PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNiIC 2 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING VIABLE TURF OR GROUND COVER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. EXISTING SILT FENCE- `�r b t. Backrdl Ina trepan with natixe saa and compact UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES WITH THE OWNERS AND FlELD-VERIFY ON-SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND OR REMOVED AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED SILT FENCE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT IT IS OF EXTREME IMPORTANCE TO BE DIVERSIONARY DIKE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM PLAN. AWARE OF CURRENT FIELD CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO EROSION CONTROL. \ • ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL RULES, TEMPORARY PONDING. DIKES, HAYBALES. ETC.. REQUIRED BY THE CITY SHALL BE �`` \b \ \ - + qj E 7 \ INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT. *POSITIVE DRAINAGE FROM THE SITE MUST BE PROVIDED AT ALL TIMES. *ALL STREETS DISTURBED DURING WORKING HOURS MUST BE CLEANED AT THE END ?� ` "SLOPE CUTTER ON CURB TO MATCH ADJACENT PAVEMENT GRADE, OF EACH WORKING DAY. t j t � \ t • t � � 0' 30' 60' - EVISIONS 11T Westwood I hereby aerBty trot ms plan was prepared by ma or ands my — —• — dFnat aaverN thet tom duly req, t. YRat'f594AYL Vr4°� RBC �o1D JHP LLOYDS BARBEO!)E CO. /28/97 PARKING LOT STRIPING (DJW) W"I"cd Protessonm s. rke> IM crtLwEe t uM a taws �t a ore ssota paAVH •—•.. DATI El- PWs1 T k Hwy- 5 _RBC K00ft DRAWNG BY/DAM Ratan Companies US Inc. BULK STORAGE GRADING PIAN 8/21/1 a i gislso �` DATE o- � s 5HEE RE . 0. +. 74 hWMOTA HEIGHTS, MIMSOTA 2 OF m NW ELEV.835.0 WET VOLUME = 0.36 AC. FT. HWL ELEV. = 837.0 DRYVOLUME = 0.25 AC. FT. ADD 'L STORAGE CAPACITY TO ELEV. 840.0 -0.55 AC. F _ _ _ 23' OF 21' RCP ® 0.5R—` 18" RCP -0,0.5% r6< OF 15' FES -1 -C�-3 21' RC APRON/ RE as 839.8 IE - 835.00 835.12 SK -1 1 IE = 833.80 839.8 835.44 4 / RCP l l ®03% / 5 — _ _ — — — — — _ I Call 48 Hours before digging: RE = 84 = IE 834..44 9 I \ / Westwood O O Ylnt.00d Proraavcnd S—&— tM 14160 yd t T—k H" 5 Edea Plokis, uN s5J.4 612 937-5150 E)OSTING BUILDING \ \ �\ j Ryan Companies V$� Inc.nC / UTILITY PLAN \ \ PC•,p 1 \ \ ® 1 \ p / / \ 0$ G 97375 7375U-FI.D'AG \ \ \ FES -2 \ 24RC APRON \ \ IE = 833.14 \ 4 \ \\\ ll /r4nk y/9h \ � wo \ O \ \ \ \ \ GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Twin City Area 454-0002 QD Mn. Toll Free 1-800-252-1166 1 1 / � I �o I � e / dd / 0 r / r ' d r / ® d r / d r / I r / I r / / g b/moo/� J, / REVISIONS 8/28/97 PARKING LOT STRIPING (DJW) W Westwood O O Ylnt.00d Proraavcnd S—&— tM 14160 yd t T—k H" 5 Edea Plokis, uN s5J.4 612 937-5150 1 bveby ce y Pb .aa raw d by me a under my dram -Y;'�'U-��tdthtb�d I o 1 . InWt—d PROFESSIONAL D=IEER thorb s • r ut aota DA RE 0. Z DESGKD RBC CHECKED JHP DRAM RBC RECORD DuvmG BY/DAIEULK Ryan Companies V$� Inc.nC LLOYD'S BARBEQUE CO. STORAGE MENDOTA NFJOME, 11Y1l�60TA UTILITY PLAN DATE 8/2EET SHEET 3 OF 9 97375 7375U-FI.D'AG LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Asphalt Contractor License Valley Blacktopping, Inc. Concrete/Masonry Contractor License Sonco, Inc. Excavatina Contractor License Beyer Excavating J J Charles & Sons Metro Utilities, Inc. Valley Rich Co, Inc. General Contractor License Architectural Renovations Inc. D & W Construction Imperial Developers, Inc. 4' r September 2, 1947 TO: lsagor and City Ccuncfl — - Total claims 270,697 Significant claims W St Paul' dispatch 68,I4 0 "; Mac Connection fire computer :7- 2,996':f'5; MCES MHAA sewer/july sac chgs 1144I8%` , �= Professional Turf T ball sub park supplies 3,884;:=:;: 3,510'_::::' NSP Winthrop Weinstine utilities legal 5,042. • � pis Unusual claims Northland Partners, T I Impr 13,268 Temp Check Number o 5 onache 01-4330-490-70 5 Totals Temn Check Number 5 Temp Check Number a a Bear Corn 01-4330-440-e0 I ^ ' Dept Dept — -- - 29 `y� a�ms List Claims ��s� Sept 2, 1997 En 60-Utilities Page z Fri AM City or Mendota H` Cs 30 -Fire 88 -Planning Temp Check Number 40-C[O � 85--Reoyling 90 -Animal Control Temp. ' Check � Number Vendor Name- _'_ -'Account Code _ . comments Amount .' ` 1 Absolute Rain e7-4460-721-00 spxlr rprs *ilsens 599. 00 ------ ' Totals remo Check Number I . . Temp Check Number ........ " e AT&T.... --_�����1��0������_-_� ____�_''_-- sept svo _ _ � 5.33___�. 2 AT&T 01-4210-030-30 sept s"c 5.33 ' e AT&T 01-42/0-110-10 lu calls 28-57 .' _-____-_'__-_-_�__ AT&T ___-___w�����e�m�u�e«c _-_-_____--_'_-__' z� r���s - - �1~@� � AT&T 01 -*e10-070-70 4th ntr 14.68 �= m���s �� ��x w�u� ' �---Temn'emec�'w � i 3 o r u r wireless Svcs 01 -4e10 -0e0-20 ave svc 1e'77 '_-a�u-sv�_______ --_-- ^^ ' - a a�mo ~ -^ ' azs_zemo -3- -�� Temp Check Number 4 �--'----- + ownax Sales 01-4300-110+10 splys -- —�------'-------�r 282.25 , [.= 4 Am/k Sales 01 -*300-030-30 spzys 80.65 i ��pa�a _���3m���w -sol�� 80.65 ' * ompak Sales 01-4300-050-50 splys aw.�o ` 4 nmnak Sales 01-4300-070-70 smzys 80.65 �-----�* omnau Sales 05-4300-105-15 solys ^ omnax Sales 15-+3*0-060-60 spzys 80.60 . -' + omnukoazes splvs _ __- 80. 60 __---__- ` � -_ aa 1,128.90 4 - Temp Check Number o 5 onache 01-4330-490-70 5 Totals Temn Check Number 5 Temp Check Number a a Bear Corn 01-4330-440-e0 I ra A. 197 Claims List Fri . . nm City of Mendota o` rs Temp Check Number 6 Pane e Temp. ' Check ' Number Vendor Name _ Account Cnue _ oomments _ _ _ _ Amount_ s near Com 01-+330-4*0-e0 rprs 194'96 Totals remo Check Number s ' re�p Check Number � ' `.� 7 B-T_Office Prcducts---_-_--���I����� ___--_--�pls�--�--��----'15.80-- - '- - '—� n � a r o+r�ce ro�uo�s splyw - r a T Office products 01-4300-030-30 splys 103'59 ��_��oZo�ce-�uvcts���@��� �nl�- 40��______'��� ` r o r Office Products 05-4300-105-15 splvs 16'12 r a r Office Products ^ 05 -*300-105-15 rtn 15.89cr = I_Offioe Products 01-4300-110-10 sDlyS 87.48 7 B orrice Products 0e -*300-105-15 yplys 87'48 = r a T Office Products 05-4300-105-15 snlvs 31'10 �c'-2zuo�o��� nl r a T Office Products 05-4300-105-15 13'e1 % -_ ------ ,. `. 77 558.79 Totals Temp Check Number 7 --Temp-Check-Nmmber 2j L'^ e Best Buy 01 -*301-110-10 zip disks 37e'71 37' �� 30 ,° - ------ 10 21 � = ���-------------'---- Totals Tema Check Number43 o ' �� � Temp Check Number 9 ^" -`-__---9_ Bauer _Built __-----_--_-- parts 305 a*'w1_____ e Bauer Built 01-4330-440-20 parts � 39 ----�---- '^ s Bauer Built -- 01 -4330 -*90-50 parts 310 umm'ae '^ ---- e7 -'-'--' ---'--- ------'---------------''---------'-'-- - - - -- ---'-'---- � ----'--- ------ - ' -932'7e � Totals remo Check Number � s Temp Check Number 10 Iw Kevin Batchelder - ' -- _ w1-4*10-11w-1w_� _ sept allow . . _ � 120. 00 _ 1m ------ 1ew'ww Totals Temp Check Number 10 . Temp Check Number 11 11 oirrs Inc -- 01 -*e00-610-70 8/16 rent 316'8e ------ a1a'ee Totals remo Check Number 11 29 At 197 Claims List Page 3 Fri , J AM City of Mendota H, its Temp Check Number 12 Temp. Check Number Vendor Name - Account Code.-- ....._. --. _ .. _ Comments Amount 12 City of W St Paul 01-4275-020-20 disp svc 56,659.20 12 City of W St.Paul _ •_ -__..--014275-030-3�? - _-disp svc _ _ _ 11,440.80 a 12 City of W St Paul 01-4330-440-20 End qtr rndt 405.83 _ 12 City of W St Paul 01-4330-440-20 End qtr rndt 270.00 48 68, 77.,. 83 - Totals Terno Check Number 12 Temp Check Number 13 13_Cole-Sewell-&-Teresa Garlcpk_01-4;31-0-_0-.0__— sent rem•_ arlock 72.30 :o 13 72.30 -_--_ Totals._Jernp_ Check-Ammber Temp Check Number 14 ;27 r'' 14 Commercial Asphalt 01-4422-050-50 wear mix 151.02 14 Commercial Asphalt 29-4337-000-00 wear mix 88.41 -_ 28 ---- •--- 239.43 - ---- --- s„ - Totals Terno Check Number 14 Temp Check Number 15 W _--_15_Cooy.-Sales-Inc 01300=11010 —.--____ toner 133`25__ sc - 15 Copy Sales Inc 01-4300-040-40 _—_ toner —_--- ----- 44.50 i == 15 Copy Sales Inc 05-4300-105-15 toner 133.25 ::;• 15_Copy.._Sales_Inc 1.5�3a@=@60-60 __--� toner _ 44.43 15 Copy Sales Inc 01-4330-490-10 rntcrn 216.20 - 15 Copy Sales Inc 01-4330-445-40 rntcn 108.10 __-_-15 Copy -Sales-Inc.--_ — 216.20 15 Copy Sales Inc 15-4330-490-60 mtcn- 15 Copy Sales Inc 01-4300-080-80 ratcn 108.10 15 Copy Sales Inc _ _ _ _ -01-:4.490-1109-09 _ -_ rntcn 108.12 150 1,220.25 Totals -Terno Check Number _ 15 __-__•_ _ Ternp Check Number 16 16 Dakota County Treas-Auditor 16-4490-000-00 of fin chg 2,849.00 16 2,849.00 Totals Terno Check Number 16 Temp Check Number 17 17 Jaynes Danielson 05-4415-105-15 sept allow 120.00 17 120.00 Totals Temp Check Number 17 29 At 197 Claims List page 4 Fri . i AM City of Mendota Ne. is Tema Check Number 18 Temp. Check Number Vendor Name- _.____._—_. Account Code.._, ._—_.__ _. _ . -.__Comments _ - Amount 18 Danko Ernacy Ea 01-4305-030-30 solys 54.32 28 -- - - 54. 32 Totals Tema Check Number 18 Temp Check Number 1s -- --_19 _Dermis._Del m nt„�—_— 01-4415-0 0-2N __.--------•--.. ._ -----^— —sept a11ow_.,.--_--._• ----___-- -.._._._ ...--120_k�0 ;; - - '- -----^ i = s 3 1 c� 120.00 IL --Totals Temn-Check_Number 19 Temp Check Number 20 20 Egan Oil 01-1210 splys 660.21 20 - Totals Tema Check Number 20 sof ,__Temp_ Check,_Nurnber— --moi— _ — --- —_ �_—__ _- -- -- ---- - — --- - — --- -- :: — s =' 21 First Trust 88-4226-000-00 svc fee 707.25 •aa; _J 21 707.25 aef Totals Temp Check Number 21 cr uo• Temp Check Number 22 j41' 14ai Trust_ ae=A eR--6 g0-4 svc fee_ 274.00_--_— - --- _- —22_Eir_star -Co_ 22 Firstar Trust Co ___zO 11-4226-000-00 svc fee 272.00 45, - ----- - - .,.- - ----- _ 546.00 • Totals Temp Check Number 22 -_Temp _Ch eck_Number_.__—.—.—.+=3 -- --- ---- `. 23 Fortis benefits Iris Co 01-4132-031-30 sept prern 166.50 23 166.50 Totals Temp Check Number 23 Temp Check Number 24 24 G E Capitol 01-4620-0::0-20 upgrade 1,741.29 24 1,741.29 Totals Temp Check Number 24 Temp Check Number 25 25 Graffiti Removal Svc 08-4335-000-00 8/14 svc 85.00 25 85.00 29 n" 197 Claims List Page 5 . . Fri I om City of Mendota m ts Temp Check Number e5 Temp. - Check Number vendor Name . - --Account Code. -' Comment s Amount Totals Temo Check Number e5 � Temp Check Number ea .� --_'. ..L,6'�-Inc_ � arou� ueaz�x'zno__�----_____mo=����=�m�=�o__--__--___--_- _-sept 'prem.xuazander -_--_----_-'-1a5.0w--.�- . ------ � -_ aa 185. 00 �' .� ---- --- _zotals Temp Check wumber--'__- ' Temp oxeox Number e7 .� ` � ' u7 Hagen . wt -+330-4+0-e0 | = = rotazs Tewn Check Number 27 .,,/ �-_zemp-oxecx_mumuec_-___-__ �ea' ca Hughes m Costello Jul svc 3,8*3.30 '^ `^ ua 3°843.30 Totals Temp Check Number 28 �m Temp Check Number 29 es 69.8+ � �-___zotazs�-Temu'obecu_mvmuex�_-__----' - . ' Temp Check Number am30 . �'--- -Hoffers Inc ---'----01-4330-215-70-----' - --rink soiys----------1,400.93 -- -�—'----� � am. 1"*00,93 _ Totals Temp Check Number 30 � -Temp Check Number_ _ _ _31 31 zxo" office aozut io^ 01-4300-050-50 spzys 19.51 � 31 Ikon orrime Solution � 01 -*330-490-50 rprs 3e-30 31 Ikon office Solution 01-4330-490-70 rprs 32.35 31 1xur Office ooIut ion 15-4330-4e0-60 rprs 32'35 � 31 zxon Office ut ion aun mtrn 13.35 -Sol oz zxon Office anzvtio" . _017�330-*90750 01 -43u0 -4e0-70 amu mtcn 13.35 31 Ikon office Solution 15 -*330-490-6w aou mtcn 13.30 31 1xon Office Solution 01 -*a30-460-30_ aun mtrn 10'75 ------ --- 24a 1a7'ea Totals remo Check Number 31 Temp Check Number 32 � 29 o �397 Claims List Fri » om City or Mendota H* As Temp Check Number 3e Temp. ' Check wmnuer Vendor Name � ' -- - 'Account .coue ae Inver Grove Pora 01 -+330 -**0-20 ae Totals Tema Check Number 32 Comments parts Page 6 9mount ro'aw � ` Temp check Number no n3'Ppvl-U�iser u*���^�--____--_ 1,350�@� _----_-- 33 1^350,00 �--__-zotazm�re�n_oh=: -_--_-----_____' . ' �.. ,I q. Temp, Check Number 34 ' - u* °a" "°vs 01-4330-4=0-70 locks =7^84 - �:0 ___-_o4 = Totals Temp Check Number 3435 -` .—TAM n -ch b_wvmbg 35 Knox Commercial Credit 08 -4335 -OW -00 splys 88.30 _1Y s sp 261.22 35 wmov Commercial Credit 01-4305-030-30 solvs 39.3* 35(' � = riox45.04 (�= 35 Knox Commercial Credit 01-4305-030-30 spzvs 55.1+ 35 -Knox -Commerc iaz_CrRdit ��� � 35 Knox Commercial Credit 01-4330-e15-70 spzys 52.83 ° 35 xnnu Commercial Credit 01-4305-030-30 snzys 14.89 ��.nox-ounmeoqi a.1 _Credit_ _& �e2�x�----------------------'---�s�7u � 35 Knox Commercial o~eu/t �08-*:335-mft-00 splvs Ci.56�--' ------- ------ - ------~� �^ --_ 794.25--_-_ Totals rewn Check Number 35 � � _Temp Check wumuer oa Knox commercial Credit 01-4305-070-70 solys 51.61 --_-- -_ '3e 51^61 Totals Temp Check Number 36 Temp Check Number 37 - 37 xiwanis . . m1-++mm-1x0-1A 3rd qtr *ues _ 0o.ww � ---__- -_ a7 105.00 Totals Temo Check Number 37 Temp Check Number 38 29 AU 97 Claims List Plage 7 Fri I AM City of Mendota K is Temp Check Number 38 Temp. Check -Number Vendor Name --Account-Code. Comments Amount 38 L E L S 01-2075 Sept dues 396.00 38 396.00 Totals Temo Check Number 38 -Temp Check Number 39 39 L M C I _T__ sept�_prem._ 432.78 39 L M C I T 01-4131-020-20 Sept orem 161.46 Totals Temo Check Number 39 __Temp_Check_Number_.___4@L 40 Lanerouist Corp 08-4335-000-00 Sept Svc 100.45 40 100.45 Totals Temp Check Number 40 Temp Check Number 41 41_Larsc,r.L_1r_r_igat_ion _27=AAr*0=Z2,1=0Q_ lAerivs— 52.50 41 52.5@ 'ic _ _Tat a Is __Tema_Check_Number_________4 Temp Check Number 4 42 Lincoln Benefit 01-4131-020-20 Sept prem 296.17 42 Lincoln Benefit 01-4131-110-10 sent prern 167.56 84 463.73 Totals Temo Check Number 42 Temo Check Number 43 43 Lucent Technologies 01-42107060-50 Sept Svc 11.26 43 Lucent Technologies 01-4210-070-70 Sept Svc 11.26 43 Lucent Technologies 15-4210-060-60 Sept Svc 11.27 129 33.79 Totals TemD Check Number 43 Temp Check Number 44 44 Mac Connection 0174620-030-30 Comm eq 2.995.85 44 2, 995. 85 Totals Temp Check Number 44 Temp Check Number 45 29 A, 997 Claims List Page 8 Fri ) AM City of Mendota H, is Temp Check Number 45 Tema. Check -Number Vendor Name _ - _ ._ _ _ ...... Account_ Code____--_ -__._ _ .. -....Comments Amount _ Temp Check Number 49 45 Mc Combs Frank Roos Assoc 01-4221-135-80 Jun/Jul Svc 2,b00.00 G-� - 01-4300-020-20 — - -- splys - 45 --- - - 2, 600.00 splys 113.16 M_ P. G_____•-____-- ---- Totals Tema Check Number 45 %5_0, 10 = --------------..._.-._...- - 49 M P G 01-4300-080-80 - Temp Check Number 46 49 M P -------•--••--•- ------_. __._ ._ . __ _ _ _+ : 113.15 49 M P G_ 01-4220-050-50 Julsv_c....-- _-----•-----._.,_,..-_-•- _-.46.00_._ 49 M P _• _-- --• _.. _ G ,-. 46 13.42cr 49 M P 46. 00 01-4.300-020-20 solys 222.59 Totals Ternp_Check-Number 46 01-4300-020720 _ _-- _ -_ discount - - _. 4. 18cr - -�- - 49 M P G -- _ _ 01-4300-110-10 splys 70.29 49 M P G 01-4300-030-30 " Temp Check Number 47 49 M P G 01-4300-050-50 -- 70.29 - 47 MHAA 01-4435-200-70 _ re t ball subsidy 4, 095. 00 1,364.78 Totals Temp Check Number 49 47 MHAA 01-4200-610-70 1/2 biffs costs 215.00cr - 94 G 01-4300-070-70 3,860.00 23 r, = Totals Tema Check Number 47 Temp Check Number 48 1331 - 48--Metrss_COigCtc_l`.l-En�irrr 1mer�tSvc 15-4448-060-60 iul sac char 48, 600. 00 36 48 Metro Council EnvironmentSvc 15-.S615 Jul sac chgs 466.00cr C=' 48 Metro Council Environment Svc 15-4449-060-60 sept Svc 68,700.00 39 - 48_Metr_o___QPvngL EnvironmentSvc 17-3575 sept Svc 2,796.00cr .10, __ 3, 114 ::2 192 114, 018.00 3; _ _- Totals-Temo-Check._.Numr be48 Temp Check Number 49 - .1: - -49 M P G-� - 01-4300-020-20 — - -- splys - 234.30 - 49 M P G 01-4300-110-10 splys 113.16 M_ P. G_____•-____-- ---- 01-4300-0040-40- -"---- splys--•--- •----splys113.-16 %5_0, 10 = --------------..._.-._...- - 49 M P G 01-4300-080-80 49 M P G 05-4300-105-15 splys 113.15 49 M P G_ -4300-060--6D -- solys 125.05 49 M P _• _-- --• _.. _ G . _ ....._I5 01-4300-040-40 discount 13.42cr 49 M P G 01-4.300-020-20 solys 222.59 49 M P G . 01-4300-020720 _ _-- _ -_ discount - - _. 4. 18cr - -�- - 49 M P G -- _ _ 01-4300-110-10 splys 70.29 49 M P G 01-4300-030-30 solys 70.29 49 M P G 01-4300-050-50 splys 70.29 - 588 1,364.78 Totals Temp Check Number 49 Tema Check Nurnber, 50 50 M P G 01-4300-070-70 solys 70.29 29 n s97 Claims Lis' Pane e Fri o om City of Mendota | its Temp Check Number om � /emo, Check wumuer.vendor.wame - - Account -Code Comment Amount om m n a 05-+300-105-15 splys 70.e9 -- 50 m v'6 -snlys 70.29 50 m n a 01 -*300-110-10 discount 7-eecr e02.e5 � Totals Temp Check Number 50 ' _-Temp Check Number ____o1_________ ' 51 Minn Mutual Life Ins 01-207* sept prem 19*.15 �_-----o�_minrL-mutual..Life-zns(Dl=4,1,31=1.10=10 ept-prqm_-__ � 51 Minn Mutual Life Ins 01 -4131 -0e0 -e0 sept prem *8.55 51 Minn mutual Life Ins ^ 01-+131-050-50 soot prem 3.e0 51 Minn mvt^az Lire Ins 01 -+131 -040 -*0 seo* prem 1e.15 51 Minn mutual Life Ins 05 -*131-105-15 sept prem 39.80 _51-min,^mutva��Life-zns___-_--__'ma=e�a��'�m=mm __-_-sen* orem__�___- __--.�1�.yw_'_-_-_-_- --__-- ' --- 40e 319.55 �^ 'zot azs-Temn'Chec1i_mvmue,_-_______��____--___ Temp Check wmnuer 52 52 Minnesota Benefit Assn 01-2074 sept prern 227.89 oe Minnesota Benefit Assn 01 -*131-020-20 sen* prem oe*.eo 62. 36 52 mimnwsota Benefit Assn 01-4131-070-70 soot orow 286,91 i= 5P Minnesota Benefit Assn m1-^za1-11w-1w swn* prem 32. 2:4 5=+131=105=1 ___--swnt_Pr_pm�___ 152.50L--__-____' 52 Minnesota Benefit Assn 15-+131-060-60 sept prem 68.62 _------- . �__oa+_______�_ --_ -____�____��_____��-_______��___��_-__._�� � .. Totals Temp Check Number 5e -Temp Check Number _ 53 53 Motor Parts Service 01-4305-050-50 snlv e1'45 53 Motor -.Parts Service 01-+305-070-70 _ splxs' � - � e1'45 ._ _ 53 motor Parts Service 15-4305-060-60 splvs ez.�r --_-- -__ 159 64.37 Totals remo Check Number 53 Temp Check Number 54 o+ Neenah Foundry ee-4337-000-00 orate 136'3e 54 1aa'oe Totals remo Check Number 54 TempCheck Number 55 __-_o��u}o��hzanu''2a,��ecs'___ __�����aw�o0N�m�-_'____--'__-_-..-_�/e�s^�re_��pr__13,eaa.36 2e Al, '497 Claims List pane xm . . Fri . / om oi+v of Mendota H` ts Temp Check Number 55 Temp. - ' Check Number Vendor Name '-' -_ _ Account Code -'--- - Comment s Amount ' -- 13,268.36 Totals nsmo Check Number 55 � ----Temp u��.___�_5a_____---__--__-_--___.__--_.-__-_--_'_ Check.wvm-_-_ ___ - 56Northern StatePower01-4212-315-30 Sept Svc 88^97 .� s,c�______ __ _ 35. 50 w o� . Northern State 01-4212-310-7001-4212-310-70sSept�� _ o�. ,. 56 Northern State Power 15 -421e -310-e0 Sept svr 35.50 56-moct.hecr-St ate-Rnwec�--___- � -__--s�n��-��n�_____-_�__-__-_-__---_�-'�a,66__-_--__-_ � -----'� oa Northern State Power 15 -*21e-400-60 sept svc 1+~ 1 � 56 Northern State Power ' 08-*21e-000-wm sept svc 32. 25 5 Northerri State Power 01-4211-315=3 Sept Svc 599'18----'---------------���� 56 Northern State power 01-4211-310-50 sent s,c 248.85 = n6Northern State Power 01-4e11-310-70 sent s"c e+a.ms 55 = -Nn 56 Northern State power e8 -4e11 -00* -00 Sept svc oa+.ao = --_ __---__- =` 81Z_______ .""=^= .=., Check .,.~.~r ~. E_T-emp-Cb.eck--.Number !25, C= 57 Northern State power 01 -+e11 -30w-50 Sept svo 4ee^88 :0 Aorthern State Power 01-4211-420-50 S 2t Svc 353.12 - 57 Northern State Power Sept Svc 1.415~35 e45.63 �= 57 Northern State Power 01-+211-320-70 Sept svc 57_mocxh,rr_St a*e_ � =62___________________�_�� -��%Y - -_- 285 3.040.60 |� - Inta�s�)�mp � � Temp Check Number oa , �----'-58 Peterbuilt-North �-------------01-433w-44m-em ----�------'-'---� part 9.69 --- -__- --- -� ---- ' -_ .58 ___ ___ e,69._- rotals Temp Check Number 58 _Temn Check Number 59 og n u * whse 01-4305-070-70 spzxs e28.73 ---__- ' -_ �o ' �a uue ^ Totals Temp Check Number 5e ' Temp Check Number aw am Perfect Surface Co 01-4330-215-70 re tennis courts e,aum-wm __--_-_- -_ am 2~880.00 Totals Temp Check Number 60 29 F 397 Claims List Fri _ 0 AM City of Mendota NL ,,its Temp Check Number 60 Temp. Page 11 Check Number Vendor Name Account Code-_-.-____-.._ _. Comments Amount Temp Check Number 61 Fred Pfeiffer 15-4410-060-60 exp reimb 113.05 sCF 61 _ 113. L45 Totals Temp Check Number 61 Temp Check Number 6' _stump_.remoyal,_____--_ 70.00 ___•_______ 62 70. 00 _ ..'___,__Tota is -Temp Check. Number._ -.--_---- 62_— ----_--- -__..._,.._._-_-• — --_-- --_ _--._-•- --�--- -__-•- _- _ __-. _ __- _-_._ .__... _..__ =' Temp Check Number 63 #"[ ^a. 63 Principal Mutual 01-2071 septprem 94.70 63 Principal Mutual 01-4132-020-20 sect prem 59.71 - _63_Fr_inciPal _Mut ual,._--___—_ _ Q!1J132_050-5�d. ___. __._ —sept _ prem_,__--_____ 21.97 63 Principal Mutual 01-4132-070-70 sect prem 53.91 ' 63 Principal Mutual 15-4132-060-60 sept prem 25.10 _ 315— 245.39 37 Totals Temp Check Number 63 a. Temp Check Number 64 6:4•_Pro_Shot_Photo...--0.1._9435_200_70 —-re_safgty_cam 64 ----Totals _Temp Check_Number —. 64___._— Temp Check Number 65 65 Professional Turf & Renovation 01-4330-215-70 lawn solys 65 Totals Temp Check Number 65 Temp Check Number 66� 66 Road Rescue 01-4305-030-30 part 66 Totals Temp Check Number 66 Temp Check Number 67 67 R D 0 Eo Co 01-4330-490-50 parts 311 67 Totals -Temp -Check -Number _. _67_- -„-_____—_.__..-_—.--_--.._.-•-- 66.00 _ 3,510.50 3.510.50 19.49 19.49 937.73 937.73 29 n' 9e7 Claims Lis* pane 12 Fri � om city or Mendota x its Temp Check Number 67 remp' Check ' Number ve^uqr Name -� _ ___ _' _Account Code-_... -_-. � Comments � � Amount � __Temp. Check wumuer--- ' ^ ag Brad Ragan Inc 01 rprs 50.63 -___- �l[ '�--- _-=_ -__---__-_-__-__-_ ---- ---'-- -_____ __----___'__ --� -----�—'------'-- - ----'-----' _ '��3���--- '----'- _--___- ' --�� -- Totals Temp Check Number 68 '^r � .' Temp Check Number ag ' __'-_ ' ` ae zo�,�s_ne�u_mss� - t=�* __ -'_-_ ---___-_--- _____- -_�u����m-brny _-__------___-_-_____� ���`��--__' ---__- ` � __ ag ^ oam'ww '^ .~ n���n�r�mo_ohe����u --� ___---� Temp Check Number 70 �* ' � ` -_ ------ nil 152.95 12. Totals Temp Check Number 70 131 � 71 L s Shaughnessy 01-4e20-132-10 a°g svc 1^732.50 71 L E Shaughnessy 15-4220-132-60 aug SVC 257.25 71 L s 84.00 a up Svc 194.25' 7/ L s Shaughnessy 03-+220-132-00 avu svc 215.25 � � 71 L s Shaughnessy 16-42e0-132-00 avy svc 2,5a8,e5 497 -----'-----------'-------'���Sm���----'----- ----- �, ` Totals Temp Check Number 71 � Temp Check Number 7e re s:els Auto Electric . _ wx����m���m��w _ . �rprs _ '_ _ . 43-99� --__- . -_ 72 43.99 Totals Temp Check Number � 7e Temp Check wmouer 73 73 Sncmo°iew oesion e7-4460-721-00 snxzr rprs tizsen 349.e0 73 oouthvie~ Design 27-4*6w-721-00 ^ 361.90 73 eouthview Design 27 -*460-721-00_ '' 375.Ota 73 oouthview oesien 27-+460-721-00 '' 392.70 73 aouthview Design 27-4460-721-00 '' 362.90 73 anutovie= oesisn 27 -+*60-7e1-00 '' 4e4'85 _-----_- --- *aa e,267.e5 Totals remn Check Number 73 _ � ^ ^ za o 397 Claims List Page 13 rese�s�rcee-ovo " Fri ^ 0 nm City or Mendota HL ,its -- � = 77 Temp Check Number ro _----- 150.00 -_'--'-TotaIs'remn-cxeck-mumbez� - .emp' ~ Temp Check Number ra Check �) ' 78 Suburban caroet Care -- 01-4335-315-30 Number Vendor Name Account cuue _ _'-_ Comment Amount ` Temp Check Number._ . - 74 Totals Temp Check Number ra � 74 St Paul Stamp Works z splys 61'96 rs rapco -- � r� spz�s aoa'us az'ea � .'� � Totals Temp Check Number 74 Totals Temp o`e=x Number rs ` � Temp cxe�u Number 75 Temp Check Number am _-_�o -Stanley- o� xman -_- an e� ac --_---___-___ -- uz=x�am=zu�=mm ------__��-_---_____-sp u� ��z r_rnrs- �ens--_--_ _� ___3134.00 ------ .^� ' rm . 1,532'81 384. 00 `' = _Totazs'Temp-chec:-wumc--____-_ ue�n� .. ------_'__'__--�--- ------�---------- -- -' '----''------s� Temp Check Number 76 � . ' 76 state Mutual Ins 01-2074 sept prem 150'11 ~ ( - 76 State mutual Ins 01 -4131 -0e0 -e0 sept Prem 2,473'53 -------- �[ ' 152 ____________''____ e,6e3.64 = Totals Temp Check Number ra � '^ Temp Check Number rr �= '` rese�s�rcee-ovo " 01 rg!�qoval 150. 00 ^. -- � = 77 _----- 150.00 -_'--'-TotaIs'remn-cxeck-mumbez� - ~ Temp Check Number ra �) ' 78 Suburban caroet Care -- 01-4335-315-30 cInu —159.75'-'' ----------------�� ------ ra � � _ _ _ _ _ . _ 159'75 Totals Temp Check Number ra Temp Check Number rs ' rs rapco -- 01-44e0-050-50 spz�s aoa'us r9 ------ aaa'uy Totals Temp o`e=x Number rs Temp Check Number am uw u a west Communications 01-4210-110-10 sept. svc, oee'ya uw u a West Communications wl-4e10-0e0-20 a"n ual sept svc 1,532'81 aw u e west Communications 01-4210-040-40 sen* svc 71'98 80u e west Communications 05-4e10-105-/5 sent s"c 214'78 Temp Check Number 85 85 Zacks Inc 01-4305-050-50 splys 114.414 1 29 A 997 Claims Lisi Page 14 Fri b AM City of Mendota h its Temp Check Number 80 Temp. Check Number Vendor Name _- Account Code ___ - - Comments Amount 80 U S West Communications 15-4210-060-60 sept Svc 436.61 _ 80 U S West Communications @1421=Q�30=3�1. sept Svc 143.77 80 U S West Communications 01-4210-050-50 sept Svc 38.50 80 U S West Communications 01-4210-070-70 sept Svc 90.68 640 2,922.11 Totals Temp Check Number 80 -- Temp Check Number- --- --- - 81 --•—_-- ------•--- - - - - - --- - - - - - • -- . - —sept__prem.____ ____ __—__. -___- _- , 43. 54•_--..— _ _ _.___—_ _-______ 81 Universal Life 01-4131-040-40 sept prem 158.20 81 Universal Life 01-4131-050-50 sept prem 242.26 __81 -Universal -Life __-Al 44131=07!d�%a Sept______— -prem_--_- ----.506. 34_ _ 81 Universal Life 15-4131-060-60 sept prem 400.41 =5 81 Universal Life 05-4131-105-15 sept prem 136.93 486 --- --�• 1,487.68 -------- =' Totals Temp Check Number 81 1 a,• 3 Temp Check Number 82 82_-Unit-ed_Elect_r_i.c-,CA %1-4305=.000-30 - splys --_ 103.72 -8 103.729: 7tl _�.otals__T.ernp-Che�k�u¢�ber 82 '�a = Temp Check Number 83 United Way St Paul 01-2070 sept contr 70.40 y' - --_ __83 - --- -- ------ - -- -- - Totals Temp Check Number 83 ----------- - - --------70.40 --- - _-Temp Check Number _ 84 ....... 84 Winthrop & Weinstine 2-4475-000-00 may Svc re torn tnurnb 537.73 84 Winthrop & Weinstine _ 01-4221-120-10 _ may retainer 505.40 84 Winthrop & Weinstine 16-4220-120-00 may Svc re opus 518.00 84 Winthrop & Weinstine 16-42e0-1214-00 may Svc re brown inst 1,279.24 84 Winthrop & Weinstine 16-4220-120-00 ,jun svc re brown inst 1,807.40 84 Winthrop & Weinstine 16-42[0-1214-00 ,dun svc re brown inst 1,957.11 84 Winthrop & Weinstine 01-4221-120-10 jun retainer 506.00 84 Winthrop & Weinstine 16-9220-1214-00 ,dun svc re me neill 357.00 672 7,467.88 Totals Temp Check Number 84 Temp Check Number 85 85 Zacks Inc 01-4305-050-50 splys 114.414 ra . eer Fri jw m* Temp Check Number reran' Check Number Vendor Name ao zacxs Inc 85 racks Inc --- 255 `-~-`~ `~~~ ~^~~" "'-^-- uo Claims Lis City of Mendota HL—gnts Account Code 01-4305-070-70 15-4305-060=60 Page 15 Comments � Amount splvs 114'40 snlys 11*'34 ' ------ o4o'14 , �, ..~~ - ' Temp Check Number as |^' _ --- ' '---- — aa zee Medical Svc -------------- ---'-- ' - '-- ' --'- - ---- -- snzys -'--` -- ------ ` ` ' . Totals �ewo Check Number . as - � -�--- -zw1e5 ---------- e/m,mya'aw �' Grand�ro�a� _--__---_---'.-- ^^���^�8 ����a^����"/ ^ " H� // � ^�8 . ,^.`v .~. ��5 p�rlD_' s�-�--'------------'------- ��7--"-------''------'--- " - -----------------'-'---�--' � 16675 310'00 Great Neat L & A16576 968.00 1CMA RT '36 16578 245'V0 MSnS " =� '.ota ount 7* 0 405.00 Dakota Bank`------�' ��—�----------�� 16581 -. _'----_- - _---_-__--regr .° 15583 152.00 LRadisson Plaza -fire ch conf 16684 65'00 Anoka County warrant � 10 ---------ex& 'ei@» ��'l� �eff Menden -" ----- ------'----'----------'---- '-' -'----- � - ---- - /oxu/ z:y'7u uest Buy software ' _ 16588100'00 David Plum rfd planning fee 16589 145'00 _ Fira Chief ounf re9r 16590 76.00 Radisson Plaza fire chief gonf 16591 _�6,114.20 State.:apitvl C U 8/29 payroll ' 77,279'84 A CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS August 29, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Marc S. Mogant-A S M Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Victoria Curve Safety Improvements Job No. 9616, Imp. No. 97, Project No. 3 DISCUSSION: Council directed the Engineering Department to prepare plans and specifications for the Victoria Curve Safety Improvements at the September 3, 1996 meeting. This memo will summarize my recommendations for this project relative to the design, costs, and financing of these improvements. Plans call for the construction of 1,200 lineal feet of bituminous walk from Hunter Lane to the west side of the parking lot entrance to City Hall. The bituminous walk will be 8 feet wide where the walk does not abut Victoria Curve. Due to steep slopes, vegetation, or wetland protection legislation affecting the construction in the vicinity of the DNR protected wetland west of City Hall, the walk will be constructed 7 feet wide beyond new concrete curb and gutter constructed contiguous with the existing edge of pavement on Victoria Curve for the segments adjacent to the wetland, and from Hunter Lane to the west parking lot entrance to Beth Jacob (see exhibit). This bituminous walk design section accommodates pedestrian traffic while avoiding trees, or minimizing wetland impacts. In an attempt to help beautify the entrance to City Hall, the plan also calls for the construction of concrete curb and gutter between the entrance to City Hall and Lexington Avenue on the north side of the frontage road. The existing ditch could remain as is, but we have proposed that storm sewer pipe be installed to connect the culvert under the entrance to City Hall to the existing storm manhole in the northwest comer of Lexington Avenue and Victoria Curve, and that the ditch be filled and sodded. The City has made application for a permit from the Minnesota Department of Transportation to construct these improvements on MnDot right-of-way. Advertisements for bids may occur anytime, but we will try to schedule the bid opening so that any revisions that MnDot might require are incorporated into the contract documents. The estimated project cost for this work is $55,000 including contingencies, administration, and engineering overhead. FUNDING: This project is an extension of the improvements constructed in conjunction with the Mendota Interchange project which has yet to be fmaled. Those improvements were funded by Tax Increment Financing. Consequently, it would be proper and appropriate for Council to utilize Tax Increment Financing to finance this project. RECOAD4ENDATION: I recommend that Council approve the plans and specifications for the Victoria Curve Safety Improvements, authorize the Engineering Staff to advertise this project for bids, and that the project costs of these improvements be funded by Tax Increment Financing. ACTION REOUIRED: If Council desires to implement the above recommendation they should pass a motion approving the plans and specifications for the Victoria Curve Safety Improvements, authorize the Engineering Staff to advertise this project for bids, and stipulate that the project costs of these improvements be funded by Tax Increment Financing. MSM IJ ' : ------ - : : Z• -.. :Z: ; : : 1 • + 1 ; fJ 1 I • r 4� BETH JACOB N w E <4 CONSTRUCT PED. RAMPS INSTALL C&G— T, 1-10 ....__... uj: :z UJ: .: CITY HALL L s' ;Z; ' : ------------- •< `"�,'�}}`�,.- •`�`._'`+-_ EXISTING �� STORM MANHOLE ; <� � *'♦ � FILL : " ! CONSTRUCT ; • ' : EXISTING G PED. RAMPS MOVE" I~ ♦TREES ,' � r _-- INSTALL 15" CP PIPE ` r BALL F9ELD <^ ,* INSTALL 'A:0 CSG ' • ; i i INSTALL + < t 12" CP PIPE ; •. e c cz 0 • , -------------- -- -- F�-�_INSTALL O�TAGRO-- ROAD WESTBp` -------------------- ------- ------ - -- UNp---_._------• - __.__---_•------ -_.__. _ --------- ------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H11 EASTBOUND -----------------------------------------------------------------T------------------------------------ ------- -__•---- ---___ _•----------------------_- --------------------------------------------------------• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100' r V' 100' 200' MiMendota l Heights DRAWN BY CMW VICTORIA CURVE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS DATE: 8-29-97 Z• -.. : : 1 • + 1 ; fJ 1 I • r 4� + y IM ' CONSTRUCT r . . , f 1 i • CB t • 1-._ �+ ►"".....-...---- -----------.---� _+ 10 CONSTRUCT PED. RAMPS INSTALL C&G— T, 1-10 ....__... uj: :z UJ: .: CITY HALL L s' ;Z; ' : ------------- •< `"�,'�}}`�,.- •`�`._'`+-_ EXISTING �� STORM MANHOLE ; <� � *'♦ � FILL : " ! CONSTRUCT ; • ' : EXISTING G PED. RAMPS MOVE" I~ ♦TREES ,' � r _-- INSTALL 15" CP PIPE ` r BALL F9ELD <^ ,* INSTALL 'A:0 CSG ' • ; i i INSTALL + < t 12" CP PIPE ; •. e c cz 0 • , -------------- -- -- F�-�_INSTALL O�TAGRO-- ROAD WESTBp` -------------------- ------- ------ - -- UNp---_._------• - __.__---_•------ -_.__. _ --------- ------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- H11 EASTBOUND -----------------------------------------------------------------T------------------------------------ ------- -__•---- ---___ _•----------------------_- --------------------------------------------------------• ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 100' r V' 100' 200' MiMendota l Heights DRAWN BY CMW VICTORIA CURVE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS DATE: 8-29-97 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS August 29, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Marc S. Mogan Civil Engineer SUBJECT: School Speed Zone - Mendota Heights Road DISCUSSION: The City contacted MnDot requesting that a speed study be conducted to establish speed limits in a school zone at the new middle school. Last winter the City was notified by the State that they preferred to conduct the studies necessary to establish any needed school zones after the school was open (letter attached). School opens Tuesday September 2nd. The City has received a number of calls concerned about traffic safety within the last week. The State requires a resolution of request from the City before they will initiate any study. RECOMMENDATION: In order initiate a speed study to establish speed limits in school zones on Mendota Heights Road in the vicinity of the new Friendly Hills Middle School, I recommend that Council adopt a resolution requesting that the Minnesota Department of Transportation perform a speed study to establish speed limits in school zones on Mendota Heights Road between Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue, and on Huber Drive from Mendota Heights Road to Decorah Lane. ACTION REOUIRED• If Council desires to implement the recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 97- , "RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PERFORM SPEED STUDIES, AND TO ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS IN SCHOOL ZONES ON MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD BETWEEN DODD ROAD AND DELAWARE AVENUE, AND ON HUBER DRIVE FROM MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD TO DECORAH LANE IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS." CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 97 - RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PERFORM SPEED STUDIES AND TO ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS IN SCHOOL ZONES ON MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD BETWEEN DODD ROAD AND DELAWARE AVENUE IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation Commissioner does establish speed zones on public roadways, and WHEREAS, the Metro District Traffic Engineer is responsible for conducting speed zone studies within the City of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is concerned about the speed limits in school zones on Mendota Heights Road between Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue, and Huber Drive from Mendota Heights Road to Decorah Lane in conjunction with the opening of the Friendly Hills Middle School. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Mendota Heights, that the Commissioner of Transportation perform a speed study and establish speed limits in school zones on certain streets within the City of Mendota Heights as follows: Mendota Heights Road from Dodd Road to Delaware Avenue, and Huber Drive from Mendota Heights Road to Decorah Lane BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Minnesota Department of Highways. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of September, 1997. 0 ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor oet�r'"�OTq� Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Golden Valley Office 2055 North Lilac Drive rOF TR Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 February 24, 1997 L r Mr. James E. Danielson Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118-1850 Re: Speed Zoning - City of Mendota Heights Dear Mr. Danielson: A copy of the booklet "A Guide To Establishing Speed Limits in School Zones" is enclosed as requested in your telephone conversation with Ed Brown. The booklet outlines the engineering and traffic investigation required to establish.school speed limits. Each road authority (city, county, state, etc.) is responsible for conducting investigations for roads under their respective jurisdictions. It might be of interest that based on studies conducted shortly after Minnesota's school speed limit law was enacted, school speed limits can not be expected to change existing speed patterns. Measurement of speeds before and after the school speed limits were established indicated that drivers were reducing speed by approximately five miles per hour when children were present. It might therefore be inferred that school speed limits serve mainly as an aid in enforcement of the speed reduction which occurs with the presence of children. Your inquiry also concerned reduction of the existing authorized speed limit on a municipal state aid street in the vicinity of a future new school. A traffic and engineering investigation to determine reasonable and safe speed limits will need to be conducted by Mn/DOT before a new speed limit authorization can be issued. A formal request from Mendota Heights is necessary to initiate the investigation. An Equal Opportunity Employer James E. Danielson February 24, 1997 Page 2 A request can be submitted at any time, but since traffic conditions can change significantly because of the school we suggest delaying the study until after the new school opens. The preferred means of request is by city council resolution. Please direct any speed zoning requests to me at the above Golden Valley address. If you have questions please feel free to contact either Ed (797- 3129) or myself (7S7-3 ) Sincerely, AI( Michael T. Schadegg Traffic Studies Engineer MTS:pI:EB CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 26, 1996 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Admini .. FROM: John P. Maczko, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Appointment of New Fire Fighters to Probationary Fire Fighter Positions DISCUSSION: Since April, the Executive Board of the Fire Department has been going through the selection process to appoint new fire fighters to the fire fighting force. The process was long, but did bring out quality candidates that were not only available for fire fighter response, but available for fire fighter response during the daytime hours. This is a very critical time for a volunteer fire service. There was a very lengthy process to pick the candidates. First we advertised the position in the Heights Highlites and invited them to attend one of two orientation sessions. Candidates needed to live or work within six minutes of the fire station and be able to respond to daytime calls. If people were interested after the orientation they filled out and returned the application. We then sent written questions to the qualified candidates which were evaluated by the Executive Board and City Administrator. Each candidate was then invited to participate in a physical agility test and those candidates that passed were invited to an oral interview with the Executive Board and City Administrator. Through this selection process the following people are being recommended by the Executive Board and City Administrator for appointment to the position of probationary fire fighter. They will begin their one year probationary status and become enrolled in Fire Fighter I training that begins September 15, 1997 at the Dakota County Vocational Technical College. These names are in no particular order: Rob Galezewski, Tracy Wilcziek, John Boland, Richard Burrows, and David Bell (short summary attached). The positions that these five are replacing include fire fighter Bill Lerbs, Assistant Chief John Neska, fire fighter Mike Brennan. Also the retirements of Paul Dreelan and Richard Zwirn, effective by December 31, 1997 (see attached). ACTION REOUIRED: If Council so desires, appoint Rob Galezewski, Tracy Wilcziek, John Boland, Richard Burrows, and David Bell to the position of probationary fire fighter effective September 2, 1997 with the following conditions: That they satisfactorily pass a city physical, pass a criminal history background check and that they sign a letter of understanding regarding their availability for daytime emergency response. BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF FIRE FIGHTER APPOINTEES TRACY WILCZIEK Tracy is a resident of Mendota and lives on the 1200 block of Highway 13. Tracy is self-employed and is the owner/operator of Mendota Furnace Cleaning. DAVID BELL David lives in the 700 block of First Avenue in Mendota Heights. He is a manager of Business Services for Frontier Communications, but is officed out of his home a majority of the time. JOHN BOLAND John resides in the 2200 block of Apache Street and is currently employed by the City of Mendota Heights in the Parks Department. ROBERT GALEZEWSKI Robert lives in the 2200 block of Apache Streets and is a General Manager of One Call Concepts. RICHARD BURROWS Richard lives in the 600 block of First Avenue in Mendota Heights and is currently employed by the City of Mendota Heights in the Street Maintenance Division. August 21, 1997 Mr. John Maczko f Fire Chief Mendota Heights Fire Department Dear John: This letter is to inform you, as you have requested, that I am planning on retiring from the Mendota Heights Fire Department on December 31, 1997, 21+ years of service to the community. This is not a letter of retirement, but a notice of my intentions. Thank you. Sincerely, pnl� Paul L. Dreelan CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 27, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Admi for FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Moen-Leuer: Tousignant Property Planning Case No. 97-23 Discussion Moen-Leuer has withdrawn their application for an office -warehouse development for the Tousignant site (Planning Case #97-23). Moen-Leuer was scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission at their July 29, 1997 meeting, but requested that discussion of their application be tabled to the August 26, 1997 meeting of the Planning Commission. In mid-August, Staff heard that United Properties had purchased the Tousignant parcel. Both United Properties and Moen-Leuer confirmed verbally that this was the case. United Properties told Staff that they did not intend to pursue the Moen-Leuer application and would be coming forward with a different application for the site later. United Properties also said that they would prefer that the City acknowledge the withdrawal of Moen-Leuer's application rather than "reject" Moen-Leuer's application. Staff spoke to Moen-Leuer on August 26 and Moen-Leuer indicated that they wished to withdraw their application for development on the Tousignant parcel and agreed to send the City a letter to that effect. Staff also extended the 60 -day review period for the application for an additional sixty days in order to allow the City Council to formally acknowledge the withdrawal of Moen-Leuer's application at their September 2, 1997 meeting. Please see the attached correspondence between the City and Moen-Leuer on this matter. Action Required Acknowledge the withdrawal of Moen-Leuer's application for the Tousignant site, Planning Application 97-23. city Of �.,. Mendota Heights August 27, 1997 Brad Moen Moen Leuer Construction, Inc. 3058 Ranchview Lane North Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Dear Mr. Moen: This letter is to confirm our phone conversation yesterday in which you indicated the following regarding the Tousignant parcel in Mendota Heights and your application for development on that parcel (Planning Case #97-23): 1. That Moen-Leuer has transferred its interest in the Tousignant parcel to United Properties. 2. That Moen-Leuer therefore wishes to withdraw its application for development on the Tousignant parcel, and that Moen-Leuer would be sending the City ofMendota Heights a letter indicating their withdrawal immediately. In anticipation of the above letter, the City of Mendota Heights has extended the 60 -day review period for your application for an additional sixty days in order to allow the City Council to formally acknowledge the withdrawal of Moen-Leuer's application at their September 2, 1997 meeting. (This is in addition to the extra month granted to us by you when you requested that your application be tabled from the July meeting to the August meeting of the Planning Commission.) Please FAX the letter of withdrawal to the City by noon tomorrow. Sin erely, Patrick C. Hollister ' Administrative Assistant 1101 Victoria Curve - Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 (612) 452-1850 - FAX 452-8940 M r- be rKUM M L b1L-��b-5y1J EN 1ER Angust 26, 1997 City of Mendota Heights Atter: Patrick HoIIister 1101 Victoria C,`MW Mffidota Heisfits NN $5118 Derr Mr. Hollister. This is to caufiun our conversation. regarding ownership of the " I'ousignant" property located in Section 35, Township 28, Range 23 of Dakota County- The firm of Moen Lever Construction, Inc., has sold to United Properties the above named property. Any further quem ms can be directed to Dale CAawa at United Properties, 3500 W 80th St, Minneapolis, ,MN 5543I, 831-1000, Sin ly yours, Bradley L Moen. Moen-Leuer Construction, Inc. BIM *L 3058 Ranchv►iew Lane North - Plymouth, MN 55447 - Office (612) 550-1961 Pax (612) 550-3913 UNITED PROPERTIES August 29, 1997 Mr. Patrick Hollister E City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights; MN 55118 RE: Tousignant Property Dear Patrick: This is to advise you that United Properties has agreed to acquire the Tousignant property, approximately 20 acres located on the south side of Mendota Heights Road near St. Thomas Academy. Please be advised that United Properties is not interested in the development plan previously submitted by Moen Leuer for this property. We understand that Moen Leur has notified the City requesting the withdraw of their application for this project, which action we approve. Please call me if you have additional questions. Very truly yours, Dale J. Glowa Senior Vice President Development DJG/bls 3500 West 80th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 612 831-1000 Fax: 612 893-8804 d CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 29, 1997 To: Mayor and City Council ��,,��,, From: Kevin Batchelder, City Atr � r Subject: Acknowledge MCTO Bus Route Proposals DISCUSSION At the August 5, 1997 meeting, the City Council reviewed information from the Metropolitan Council Transit Operations (MCTO) regarding the delay in implementation of the proposed transit redesign, as well as, changes in existing routes and proposed new service in Mendota Heights. (Please see attached August 1, 1997 memo.) MCTO is proposing new bus service to the Brown Institute on the new Route #415 which will provide morning and afternoon service from/to the Mall of America. They are requesting concurrence from the City of Mendota Heights to use At the August 5, 1997 meeting, some Councilmembers expressed a concern about the use of Mendota Heights Road for bus service and requested that other options be explored. In particular, Council wanted Lexington Avenue and Wagon Wheel Trail considered as alternative routes for this new service. In response to this request, MCTO has stated that they are willing to consider route changes if there is a compelling safety reason or a demonstrated need for service on an alternate route. Council desired that a survey be conducted of the residents along Wagon Wheel Trail and Lexington Avenue to determine if there was a need for service or concerns about bus service along these streets. Every property owner along Lexington Avenue and Wagon Wheel Trail was sent a letter requesting their concerns and comments about this alternative. (Please see attached August 13, 1997 letter.) The city received five letters and four telephone calls in response to our survey letter. Six respondents were opposed to more buses on Lexington and Wagon Wheel and two favored more service. (Please see attached letters and telephone log.) Both Lexington Avenue and Wagon Wheel Trail are narrow, two lane roads with residential properties. They are both served by Route 7F which provides a minimal level of commuter service to St. Paul. Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road are designed to handle a higher level of traffic and have controlled intersections. MCTO has indicated that they would prefer to use these roads for the new routes 415 and 95MU and they are seeking Council concurrence. If Council so desires, they should acknowledge the survey results and provide direction to staff and MCTO. If Council so desires, they should pass a motion concurring with MCTO to use Northland Drive and Mendota Heights Road west of Pilot Knob Road and east of Northland Drive (at Lloyd's Meats). CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 1, 1997 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kevin Batchelder, City Adnui O'stra Subject: Acknowledge MCTO Delays and Bus Route Changes DISCUSSION The City has been notified by MCTO that the proposed transit redesign plans that were presented to City Council in May have been placed on hold for one year. This decision by MCTO is due to complications in locating a transit hub in the Robert Street/Marie Avenue area of West St. Paul. Without the transit hub, the other phase of their redesign will not function. (Please see attached letter from MCTO.) In addition, MCTO is announcing a few changes to service in Mendota Heights. Routes 5 and 7 currently end at Pagel and Dodd Road. On September 22, 1997, the terminal for these routes will be moved to the new Parkview Plaza turnaround at the end of South Plaza Drive. Another change will bring 95MU service to the Parkview Plaza turnaround. The 95MU currently begins in West St. Paul and provides non-stop service to downtown Minneapolis via I-94. With the 95MU beginning at Parkview Plaza, service to downtown Minneapolis is estimated to be 48 minutes. Finally, MCTO is announcing service to the Brown Institute on the new Route #415 which will provide morning and afternoon service from/to the Mall of America. ACTION REQUIRED Acknowledge delay in the transit redesign plan and the proposed new service for Mendota Heights. There is no action required, unless Council wishes to express any concerns. Metropolitan Council I./ Working for the Region, Planning for the Future September 23, 1997 Mr. Kevin Batchelder City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Batchelder, 3& 2 Q 1957 Transit Operations This spring Metro Transit held a series of meetings with officials from West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights to gather input on proposed transit changes in your area. We also held two public hearings in May. Unfortunately, complications will delay implementation of those changes until fall 1998. As you may remember, implementation of the first phase of the plan was dependent on the creation of a temporary transit hub facility near Robert Street and Marie Avenue in West St. Paul. Despite negotiations between Metro Transit and local businesses and property owners, no site could be identified in time to allow a September implementation. Without a temporary facility, revised transit service will not begin until September 1998, when a permanent transit hub site will be completed. At that time we will implement the previously discussed changes to maintain service to existing customers and to improve transportation options for other northern Dakota County residents. With the redesign plan delayed, no significant changes are planned for routes 5, 7, 8, 11 or 29 in northern Dakota County and proposed routes 412, 451 and 452 will not start this Fall. We hope this delay will not cause inconvenience for our customers in northern Dakota County. I also want to take this opportunity to let you know about a few changes to transit service in northern Dakota County that will be implemented this September. A minor change will be made to routes 5 and 7 in Mendota.Heights. These routes currently end at Dodd and Pagel roads. On September 22, the terminal for these routes will be moved to the new Parkview Plaza residence, on South Plaza Drive just east of Dodd Road. This area is just behind Mendota Plaza Center, at Highway 110 and Dodd Road. Additionally, two service expansions are planned for September. Route 95MU, which runs non- stop from West St. Paul to downtown Nlinneapolis will be extended to serve Mendota Heights. Route 95MU buses will start at Parkview Plaza, travel on South Plaza Drive, Dodd Road, Highway 110, Mendota Road and Livingston Avenue, and continue along the existing route from ko Soo Sixth Avenue North Minneapolis. Minnesota 55411-4398 (612) 349-7400 Transit Info 373-3333 TrY 341-01-40 An equal Opportunity E-Ployer Marie and Livingston. Travel time from Mendota Heights to downtown Minneapolis will be approximately 48 minutes. Finally, a brand new route, Route 415, will serve commuters to the new Brown Institute campus in Mendota Heights and to institutions and businesses along Mendota Heights Road. Morning L- and afternoon trips will be provided from Mall of America. If this small route is successful, future expansion to serve more residents on northern Dakota County is likely. If you have any questions about changes occurring in September or about the delay of transit revisions, please call me at 349-7789. Regards, 6/41p, Z'O,'--'� John Levin Associate Transit Planner Metro Transit CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO July 31, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dir cto SUBJECT: New Metro Transit Bus Route DISCUSSION Metro Transit is planning on establishing a new bus route in Mendota Heights that provides service to the Brown Institute (see attached letter). Buses providing this service will travel over some new City streets and the Transit Authority is requesting approval from the City to use these streets. RECOMMENDATION Mendota Heights Road and Northland Drive are the two streets that Metro Transit is requesting for use in their bus service, and both streets are nine ton design industrial type streets. They are both totally capable of handling the Metro Transit buses, and I recommend that their request be granted. ACTION REQUIRED Review Metro Transit's request and then if Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion approving Metro Transits' request to use Mendota Heights Road and Northland Drive for their new bus route providing service to Brown Institute. JED:kkb Metropolitan Council V Working for the Region. Planning for the Future Transit Operations July 24, 1997 Kevin Batchelder City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 5518 Dear Mr. Batchelder, Metro Transit is planning to operate a new route in Mendota Heights, starting September 22, 1997. Route 415 will run between the Mall of America and Parkview Plaza, serving the new Brown Institute campus and businesses along Mendota Heights Road between Dodd Road and Pilot Knob Road. The new route will operate almost exclusively on streets already served by Metro Transit or Minnesota Valley Transit Authority routes. In order to serve Brown Institute effectively, however, the route will operate on Northland Drive and Mendota Heights Road west of Pilot Knob Road. Service will initially be limited to five morning, two midday, and six evening trips, but may increase in the future as demand for service increases. Metro Transit requests concurrence from the City of Mendota Heights to operate on Northland Drive west of Pilot Knob Road and south of Mendota Heights Road and on Mendota Heights west of Pilot Knob Road and east of Northland Drive (the streets highlighted on the enclosed map). If you have questions, please call me at 349-7789 by August 8th. If you wish to send your response by FAX, the number is 349-7675. Sincerely, LQ " jW John Levin Associate Transit Planner Metro Transit cc: Annette Floysand, Metro Transit Street Operations 560 Sixth Avenue North Nfinneapolis. blinnesom 55411-4398 (6121 349-74CO Tnuisn Info 373-1,333 TTY 341-0140 an Eatr1 Oppx--untty Employe- 760 1-0 South Garage I MOA Turnaround I Mall of America m of America (n E 0; 1' Nr Nr El Time Point Point of Interest Layover Point A Park & Ride 0000 Pull -Out Pull -In Route Fares: Off-Peak/Peak $1.00/$1.50 Mendota Heights Mevidota Plaza —('nvst.r Mail of America Mpls Rts.: 5, 7, 15, ig, 42, 52A, 53M, 77, 00, 88, 89 St. Paul Rts.: 4, 54 Bloomington Parkview Plaza Parkview Plaza Detail h1orldola P1 0: 0 C) ouch D,. za ParkyC5D, Plaza EA City of .., � Alendota Heights August 13, 1997 Dear Resident, The City of Mendota Heights is conducting an informal survey of your neighborhood regarding your concerns and comments about the need for transit services along Lexington Avenue and Wagon Wheel Trail. Recently, the City was notified by the Metropolitan Council Transit Operations (MCTO) about potential increases in the bus service provided to Mendota Heights. In order to properly examine all possible route options, the City desires to seek input from your neighborhood. Currently, the MCTO is planning to provide this new service to the Mendota Heights Business Park from the Mall of America and to downtown Minneapolis from South Plaza Drive. The intended route is along Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road. The City is interested in knowing if you would have any desires to have this service routed down Lexington Avenue and Wagon Wheel or any concerns about service along Lexington Avenue and Wagon Wheel. We would like to know if there are any additional transit service needs in your neighborhood. If you have any thoughts or comments on this issue, we encourage you to send a letter to addressed to the City Council, c/o Kevin Batchelder, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118. I may also be reached at 452-1850 and would.be happy to discuss this matter with you. We would respectfully request that all comments be submitted prior to Wednesday, August 27, 1997 in order that they may be reviewed and forwarded to City Council for their meeting on September 2, 1997. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder City Administrator cc: John Levin, MCTO 1101 Victoria Curve - Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 (612) 452-1850 - FAX 452-8940 i t -'4 August 21, 1997 Sue Light 970 Wagon Wheel Trail Mendota Heights MN 55120 City Council c/o Kevin Batchelder 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Members of Mendota Heights City Council: I am glad to have the opportunity to give my opinion about the proposed bus service to Mendota Heights. I am glad that increased bus service is being proposed along Mendota Heights Road and Dodd Road. It will serve the new business that are moving in to the area. I would not, however, like to see increased bus traffic on Wagon Wheel Trail. I live on Wagon Wheel Trail, and use it to run, walk, and bike. The road is too narrow and winding to support more bus traffic without jeopardizing the safety of residents and others who use the road without a car. I also would not support widening the road to accommodate more busses, because that would also increase car traffic on Wagon Wheel Trail. That would interfere with nesting sights of many birds who use Rogers Lake on both sides of Wagon Wheel. Increased traffic would also mean more trash thrown into the lake from cars and more pollution from exhaust. Sincerely, Sue Light Date: August 18, 1995 To: Kevin Batchelder City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 From: Mark Ascher Melissa Maude 2061 Patricia Street Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Subject: MCTO Operations Dear Mr. Batchelder, 0 This response is in regards to a letter we received on Saturday, August 16, 1997 about the possibility of increased bus service on Lexington Avenue. As a point of reference, our house backs up to Lexington, looking out across to the GNB parking lot. We have some concerns about this, as there is bus service that already runs down Lexington, in addition to loud traffic from tractor -trailers and other large commercial vehicles that use Lexington (which I don't know whether is legal or not) probably as a short cut. With the impending opening of the new SuperAmerica and Dakota Bank, and existing traffic in and out of GNB and a constant flow of typically speeding and sometimes loud, unmaintained vehicles to and from Lexington Heights Apartments, we believe that Lexington has enough traffic as is. Lexington is a narrow road, and is often used by bikes and walkers, and in my experience can be quite hazardous as most vehicles are traveling too fast and simply expect you to get out of their way. Also, on an almost daily basis either one but typically two police cruisers will scream down Lexington presumably to calls at the Lexington Heights Apartments. I find this very disconcerting. Remember, with the exception of GNB, this is a residential neighborhood. We feel that Lexington Avenue in it's current configuration, a narrow 2 lane road with no stops between 110 and Mendota Heights Road is at or near its design limit. We do not support additional bus traffic and would strongly support a change in lowering the speed limit from 40 to a more tolerable 30 - with enforcement. Regards, Mark Ascher Melissa Maude H - 612.861.6547 Marilyn R. Hays 2085 Patricia Street Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1326 August 17, 1997 Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr Batchelder: 2085 Patricia Street Mendota Heights, MN 55120-1326 612-686-5762 Fax: 612-686-5762 I am opposed to having any more traffic on Lexington as a major complaint of potential buyers to my home was the traffic and the noise from the traffic, ( I put my home up for sale in the summer of 1996). We have to contend with the noise pollution from the airport and the destruction of the land around us for more ugly office buildings that the average citizen of Mendota Heights does not need but "City Hall" wants as a tax base, nonsense! When I first moved to Mendota Heights in 1971, there was a weight restriction and speed limit on Lexington and as time has gone forward, this has eroded. Lexington has become a speedway for the industrial park and all the resident gets is noise pollution and the noxious fumes left behind by the cars. Is anyone at the Mendota Heights City Hall listening to the "customer", the taxpayer of this community? Please save us from any more traffic. Leave the bus on Dodd Road!!! One has to run across the road when walking as on coming traffic does not stop for pedestrians. Sincerely, Marilyn R. Hays Y'Y) a -1� . 4ai—r August 20, 1997 City of Mendota Heights City Council 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 c/o Kevin Batchelder Dear City Council, With reference to your letter dated August 13 in regard to bus service on Lexington Avenue & Wagon Wheel Trail. I would be for bus service on these two routes. Sincerely, Lawrence Wenzel Landowner on Wagon Wheel Trail August 18, 1997 Dear Mr. Batchelder: -FCI� 07�(, 22�rtis . As per your request, I am writing on the proposed bus route along Lexington Avenue. I have two teenagers right now that are in need of transportation to the Mall and the downtown areas. When they become employed next year, this service will open a wide variety of work opportunities for them to be able to get to. Even for my husband and myself, it would be nice to have bus routes going by our workplaces in case of car trouble. As more and more people age in this area and can no longer drive, I think it is ESSENTIAL that bus transporation be provided so they can stay in their Mendota Hts homes and still be somewhat independent with bus service helping them get to where the shopping is. There is also a need for a bus to go to Robert Street. I currently have a child working in this area, and it is a long bike ride or walk in the winter to get there. Is there any plan to provide busses going to Robert Street? Thank you for letting us share our ideas with you. Sincerely, Debbie Smith 1088 William Ct. Mendota Hts, MN 55120 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS August 29, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Admims for FROM: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager SUBJECT: Picnic Shelters in Wentworth Park The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that City Council authorize funds from the Special Park Fund to construct two picnic shelters in Wentworth Park that were similar to the two shelters constructed in South Kensington Park in late summer of 1992. The budget for the two shelters was to be $25,000 to $30,000. This budget was based on costs of the 1992 Kensington Park buildings (comfort station and two shelters). Although the 1992 project was much larger in scale, I estimated that with reasonable bids the cost of the Wentworth Shelters could be built for under $30,000. Plans and Specifications were sent to thirteen contractors, including many local contractors with offices in the City, and to many contractors currently working on homes under construction in the City. Only one bid was received from Image Builders of West St. Paul in the amount of $45,240.00. This firm performed most of the finish work on the Kensignton Comfort Station and Picnic Shelters in 1992 and again in 1994 was the lower bidder and installed the dividing wall for the Police file storage area in City Hall. The firm of Image Builders is a capable firm that has been the low bidder on two previous City projects. Their bid to construct two picnic shelters in Wentworth Park is fifty percent (50%) over the budget recommended by the Park Commission. Funds for this project would come from the Special Park Fund, Council needs to determine if they desire to spend the additional amount. Council needs to determine if they desire to appropriate the additional funding, and if they so desire, award a contract to Image Builders for their bid of $45,240 to construct the two shelters in Wentworth Park. r-'eb,9- ,-- S8"-` 1 WENTWORTH PARK PICNIC SHELTERS FOR CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS JOB NO. 9709 IMPROVEMENT NO. 97 PROJECT NO. 4 CONTRACTORS BID FORM Bids due on or before August 28, 1997, 3:00 P.M. CDST FAXED BIDS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BID BOND IS NOT REQUIRED. Deliver bids to: City Of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 (612) 452-1850 Dear Sir/Madam: The undersigned having familiarized myself with the local conditions affecting the cost of the work and the Contract Documents including Advertisement for Bids, Instruction to Bidders, Bid Proposal, Specifications, Plans and Drawings, hereby proposes the furnishing of all labor, equipment, material, and skill necessary for the construction of Two Picnic Shelters for the City of Mendota Heights, MN, for the lump sum prices as set forth thereinafter, and in accordance with all Sections of the Specifications. CONSTRUCTION TWO SHELTERS LUMP SUM BID $ y54 2 �9'a . (Basis for Award Bid) ALTERNATE DEDUCT - Use 240 pound self sealing fiberglass shingles with 25 year warrant in lieu of cedar shakes DEDUCT $ 35 00 . 2-0 In submitting this Bid, it is understood that the right is reserved by the City to reject any and all bids or to make award on the basis most advantageous to the City, and it is agreed that this Bid may not be withdrawn for a period of thirty (30) days after the opening of bids. FIRM NAME: ��,,,,� psa P, 7�'AAAf- c (Y'^ ,% . 3,99 BY: e- TITLE: OFFICIAL ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP: Lo SA `-PJ ;M^. SS I I A PHONE: qS5-- S'T S"S FAX: A- R WENTWORTH PARK PICNIC SHELTERS CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager SUBJECT: North Kensington Park Landscape Improvements DISCUSSION: The following bids were received: September 2, 1997 Trees, etc. Total: $24,088 $40,116 No Bid No Bid No Bid $26,488 9($36,828) $38,096 0($53,746) $28,021 $53,656 Grading: Native Plants: R.L. Reynolds Constr. $9,763 $6,265 Inver Grove Heights, MN10($1,665) Hoogheen Excavating $16,238 No Bid Chisago City, MN Prairie Restorations No Bid $3,540 Princeton, MN 01($2,790) Max Steininger $15,700 No Bid Eagan, MN Natural Landscape $10,340 No Bid Eagan, MN Demex Contracting $15,650 No Bid Rogers, MN Friedges, Inc. $15,510 $10,125 Lakeville, MN 01 Portion of bid for seeding of native grasses/forbes OO Only bid for two of three "specialties" September 2, 1997 Trees, etc. Total: $24,088 $40,116 No Bid No Bid No Bid $26,488 9($36,828) $38,096 0($53,746) $28,021 $53,656 A single prime contractor was desired for this project. The firm of R.L. Reynolds Construction submitted a combined bid that is lower than any individual combination of "speciality" single item bids. The bids are on a unit price and lump sum basis which allows the City to increase or decrease bid items. The low bidder has bid $4,600 for the pond plants that would be installed in the spring. Most of the proposed pond plant species are currently growing around the pond. If natural reseeding occurs on the disturbed edge of the pond this item could be eliminated resulting in a lowering of the total project cost. The bid received from R.L. Reynolds Construction is within the $30,000 to $45,000 budget range presented to Council on July 15, (see attached memo), therefore I recommend that this firm be awarded the contract for improvements in this park. If Council so desires to implement the recommendation, they should award the contract for landscape improvements in North Kensington Park to the firm of R.L. Reynolds Construction for the amount of $40,116. Attachment: July 11, 1997 City Council memo TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Mayor, City Council and City Administrator Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager i \Vlw tql July 11, 1997 Concept Approval of North Kensington Park Improvements Several plans have been developed during the past several years for improvements to North Kensington Park. Input from the neighbors indicated that a non-active park was desired. Council decided that a design plan, described as "a backyard concept" be developed. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that Joanie Giese, a student at the University of School of Landscape Architecture, be retained to prepare preliminary and final plans and specifications. Plans were approved and bids taken which far exceeded the original cost estimates. Bids were not awarded. A re-evaluation of the project was begun. City Council suggested reducing the amount of area devoted to native and prairie grasses and incorporating some traditional maintained turf areas in the overall design. A working group, consisting of Councilmember Smith, Parks Commissioner Linnel, City Administrator Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant Patrick Hollister, and myself met on two occasions to develop a design concept that would keep the original elements of Joanie Giese's plan, but include traditional maintained turf areas. Elements of the compromised plan are: Modest enlargement of the pond, eastward, to develop a small island for wildlife habitat (buried pipeline not disturbed). 2. Introduction of native pond edge plantings to promote better filtration of stormwater runoff. 3. Wildflower and prairie grass plantings along south and east side of pond. 4. Establishment of two long berm areas parallel to the shrub plantings that provide habitat and edible berries for wildlife. Planting area would be mulched with wood chips and allowed to develop naturally and require minimal maintenance. 5. Native tree species will be planted along the trail from Mendota Heights Road to Stockbridge Road. 6. The original concept of "turf area rooms" would remain. Four such areas, each approximately 100 feet in diameter are planned. Stone benches and picnic tables would be in each "room". 7. Maintained turf would surround the berm plantings and also separate these areas from the native plantings near the pond edges. 8. Turf improvements and a small landscaped planting bed are planned for the south end of the park where the existing trail meets Stockbridge Road to better "tie" the north and south segments of the park together. ACTION EQTI F.D- Review and comment on the plan to be presented Tuesday evening. If approved, final drawings will be prepared and bids taken for construction in August/September. NORTH KENSINGTON PARK IMPROVEMENTS Cost Estimate: 1. Pond Excavation $ 7,000 to $ 9,500 2. Trees (33) $ 4,000 to $ 7,000 3. Shrubs (300) $ 4,000 to $ 6,000 4. Native Grasses/Plants $ 5,000 to $ 6,000 5. Turf (sod, dirt and seed) $ 3,000 to $ 5,000 6. Grading, Stone Work, Etc. $ 3,000 to $ 5,000 7. Sign & Planting Bed $ 1,000 to $ 1,500 8. Landscape Edging and Mulch $ 3,000 to $ 5,000 Plus a 10% contingency $30,000 to $45,000 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS August 29, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Guy Kullander, Parks Project Manager SUBJECT: North Kensington Park Landscape Improvements Bids have been sent to a number of contractors seeking one Prime Contractor to coordinate the entire project for North Kensington Park Landscape Improvements. This bid is structured so that, in the event no prime contractor bids, individual bids could be awarded for one of three segments of the project. The planned improvements fall into the following "specialties": 1. Grading and excavation of the pond 2. Installation of trees, shrubs and turf areas 3. Installation of native grasses, wildflowers and pond edge plants. A single prime contractor is preferred, but if one does not provide an acceptable bid, the City (Engineering staff) would act as the General Contractor and coordinate the work of three "speciality" contractors to complete this improvement. Bids will be received on Tuesday September 2°d, at 10:00 A.M. and will be presented to City Council for review that evening. None, for your information only. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1 -) TO: Mayor, City Council and City Adman- ator FROM: Guy Kullander, Engineering Technician SUBJECT: 1997 Boulevard Tree Planting Program August 29, 1997 Bid packets were sent to eleven tree contractors requesting bids to provide and install eighty to one hundred boulevard trees to City residents participating in the program. Contractors were asked to bid on eighty trees with the option for the City to increase that number if the bids were low and funds for additional trees became available. BID RESULTS: Three contractors submitted bids: Greenworks, Inc. of Loretto, Minnesota $11,200.00 Lundgaard Landscaping of St. Paul, Minnesota $11,550.00 Friedges Landscaping, Inc.of Lakeville, Minnesota $13,075.00 Greenworks, Inc. was the low bidder for the 1996 Boulevard Tree Program. Their trees were of excellent quality with several residents who had gotten a tree in earlier years, commenting on how the 1996 tree was of better quality. This contractor requested an increase for additional hand digging of trees installation in 1996. Their request was denied by City Council. Greenworks was also the low bidder the first and second years of this program, in 1988 and 1989. I recommend that Council accept the bids and award the contract to Greenworks, Inc for their low bid of $11,200. If Council so desires to implement the recommendation, they should award the 1997 Boulevard Tree Planting Program contract to the firm of Greenworks, Inc. for their low bid of $11,200.00 1997 TREE PLANTING FOR CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MR4NESOTA CONTRACTOR'S BID FORM to QK MW111001 4 2mat Faxed Bids will not be accepted Bid Bond is not required TO: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 452-1850 Dear Sir/Madam: I hereby submit my bid for furnishing and planting of Nursery Grade Deciduous Trees varieties specified in the special provisions and agree to comply with the bidding requirements attached hereto and on file with the City Engineer's office as follows: Furnish, Plant and Maintain Trees as per specification. 1. 10 Emerald Luster Maple (Acer platanoides "Pond") balled and burlaped, 1-'h" caliper. 2. 10 European Little Leaf Linden (Tilla Cordata), balled and burlaped, I -1h" caliper. 3. 5 Common Hackberry (Celtis Occidentalis), balled and burlaped, 1-1h" caliper. 4. 10 Japanese Lilac Tree (Syringa Reticulata) burlaped, 1-1h" caliper. 5. 20 Autumn Blaze Maple (Acer x Freemanii "Jeffersred"), balled and burlaped, 1-1/2" caliper. $ 140.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 140.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 140.00 $ 700.00 $ 140.00 $ 1,400.00 1� 140.00 IR 2.800-00 Mm k 6�. 10 Autumn Blaze Ash (Fraxinus Americana, "Autumn Blaze"), balled and burlaped, 1-1/2" caliper. 15 Honey Locust, Thornless (Gleditsia Triacanthos Inermis) 1-1/2" caliper. 80 TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $ 140.00 $__1_1400.00 $ 140.00 $ 2,100.00 0 11 -onr) nn Alternate Bid items will not be used to determine low bidder. Alternate Bid Item I (Item 22) Staking (if required by Engineer) $ 8.00 per tree Alternate Bid Item 2 (item 22) Select topsoil borrow for planting area (if required by Engineer) $ 8.00 per CY List Exceptions This project will be awarded on the basis of the total bid. It is understood that the City of Mendota Heights reserves the right to reject any or all bids. 41-1433916 Bidd Treasury Number Sign Title Official Address 8940 GREENFIELD ROAD T ORETTO MN 55357 Date 8/28/97 Phone 612/498-7696 Fax 612/498-7524 rr CITY OF M ENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 29, 1997 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kevin Batchelder, City Ad=Z Subject: Presentation of Air Noise Plan of Action DISCUSSION The City's Airport Relations Commission has been reviewing and updating its Air Noise Plan of Action over the last several months. The Commission has finished their work and would like to present to the Council their recommended Airport Noise Plan of Action for consideration. The original Airport Noise Plan of Action was accepted by City Council on August 2, 1994 and has served the City well over the last three years. Many of the items in the original plan have been completed successfully. Over the last year the Commission has successfully assisted the City Council with the MSP Mitigation Committee efforts, the negotiations over the third parallel runway contract, the implement -a --tion of a -new tower order for non -simultaneous on MASAC and -MAC and efforts on night-time noise restrictions. In addition, several Commissioners have been involved in multi -community issues through their efforts with the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Commission. Mendota Heights recently hosted a joint workshop for Airport Relations Commissioners from Inver Grove Heights, Eagan and Mendota Heights. As a blueprint for action, the plan has greatly assisted the Commission, the Council and staff in focusing on air noise reduction and mitigation priorities. The Commission has chosen to use the same model as in past years to develop the updated plan. This model includes five basic steps, as follows: 1. Identify focus issues 2. Identify specific goals 3. List what needs to be done - Action Steps 4. Identify who will work on each action step 5. Determine when each action step will be addressed Based on this model, the Commission has identified six broad "focus" issues, as follows: 1. Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures 2. Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns 3. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan 4. Conversion to Stage III Quieter Aircraft 5. Noise Reduction through Litigation 6. Assure Eligibility for Part 150 Sound Insulation in Affected Areas Recognizing the changing and dynamic nature of the airport and its associated air noise impacts, it is acknowledged that this Plan of Action will need to be updated from time to time. Mr. Scott Beaty, Chair of the Airport Relations Commission, and other Commissioners will be present on Tuesday evening to present the recommended plan of action. It is recommended that the Draft Air Noise Plan of Action be accepted as the document which will guide the City's air noise mitigation efforts over the course of the next year. RECOMWENDATION The Airport Relations Commission, at their meeting of August 13, 1997, voted unanimously to recommend that City Council accept the Draft Air Noise Plan of Action. ACTION REQUIRED City Council should receive the presentation from the Airport Relations Commission of the Draft Airport Noise Plan of Action and should offer any suggestions, modifications or additions. Subject to this discussion, City Council should consider a motion to accept the Airport Noise Plan of Action as the blueprint which will guide our efforts to reduce and mitigate air noise exposure within the community for the next year. MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TOPICS OF INTEREST Updated and Prioritized August 13, 1997 HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES 1. MAC and MASAC Representation. 2. Equity of Current Runway Use System. 3. Noise Abatement Departure Profiles. 4. Global Positioning Satellite Technology. 5. Nighttime Restrictions on Aircraft Operations. MEDIUM PRIORITY ISSUES 6. MSP Long -Term Comprehensive Planning Issues - Expansion of Existing Airport. 7. Prevention of Third Parallel Runway - Monitoring Contract with MAC. 8. Noise Measurement Issues - a. Usefulness of Ldn 65 Contour b. Expansion of MAC Aircraft Noise Operations Monitoring System (ANOMS). 9. Implementation of MSP Mitigation Committee's Comprehensive Plan. LOW PRIORITY ISSUES 10. Corridor Definition/Compliance Issues. 11. Non -Simultaneous< Departure Procedures. 12. Metropolitan Council "Noise Zone Map" Update and Related Land Use Controls. 13. Phase Out of Noisy Stage II Aircraft. 14. Aircraft Engine Run -Up Noise and Aircraft Ground Noise During Periods of Departure Over Minneapolis. TOPICS97.INT AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION FOCUS ISSUES 1. Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures A. Implementation of Non -Simultaneous Procedures B. Adoption of "Close In" vs. "Distant" Departure Procedures C. Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations D. Implementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor 2. Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns A. Advertising the MAC Air Noise Complaint Line B. Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information C. Appointment of City Resident to the Metropolitan Airports Commission D. Advocate for Equitable MASAC and MAC Representation 3. MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan A. Monitor Contract with MAC on Third Parallel Runway B. Implement MSP Mitigation Committee's Comprehensive Plan 4. Conversion to Stage III Quieter Aircraft 5. Noise Reduction Through Litigation 6. Expand Eligibility for Part 150 Sound Insulation Program in Affected Areas AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Implementation of Non -Simultaneous Takeoff Procedures Which Minimize Mendota Heights Air Noise Exposure Action Steps: Who When 1. Request Copy of Tower Order that Staff July Implements NSDP's 2. Monitor Compliance with Tower Order Staff/ Continous ARC 3. NSDP's - Request Compliance Staff Sept. ARC 4. Pursue Magnetic Shift Affect on Staff/ARC FAA is 105 Degree Heading on 11 L implementing AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Adoption of "Close -In" vs. "Distant" Takeoff Procedures to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights. Action Steps: Who When 1. Seek Political Assistance from Staff/ARC August legislative leaders - Send Correspondence to MAC 2. MAC Planning and Environment reports Staff/ARC August recommendation to MAC. 3. MAC recommends to FAA procedure to be implemented. 4. FAA implements tower order. Staff/ARC Staff/ARC 5. FAA begins NADPs. Staff/ARC 2 AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Adoption of Mandatory Nighttime Takeoff Regulations to Reduce Noise Generation Over Mendota Heights Action Steps: Who When 1. Inquire with FAA Control Tower about Staff August current head-to-head operations 2. Suggest Using crosswind runway more ARC Fall 1997 frequently during head-to-head operations. 3. Monitor MSP Mitigation Comprehensive Plan ARC/ 1997 designated Stage III only from10:30 p.m. Council until 6:00 a.m. and assist MAC in Implementing Voluntary Agreements with Airlines 3 AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Modified Takeoff Procedures Goal: Implementation of Narrowed Air Traffic Corridor which Minimizes Mendota Heights Air Noise Exposure Action Steps Who When 1. Advocate for Maintenance of 5 mile final Staff/ARC Continuous arrivals and 3 mile corridor for departures 2. Pursue the benefit of updating Tower orders to original intent before shift in magnetic headings 3. Presentation to Commission on GPS by MAC or other expert (Mr. Harold Pierce) 0 Staff/ARC Fall 1997 Staff Fall 1997 AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Expand Distribution of Air Noise Related Information Action Steps: Who When 1. Continue to inform the community on Staff/ARC Continuous ARC projects and concerns using the City's newsletter and separate single page mailings. 2. Work with Northern Dakota County Airport Staff/ARC Continuous Relations Commission on possible Legislation for MAC representation. 3. Mail letters and Heights Highlites to Staff Continuous State Senators and Representatives regarding ARC issues 4. Invite guests to monthly ARC meetings Staff Continuous (i.e., Mr. Hamiel, Mr. Wagoner, State (Quarterly) elected officials) 5. Expand coverage of air noise issues Staff 1997 by pursuing informational meetings with Council editorial staffs of major papers 6. Continue to send press releases to Staff Continuous newspapers, State Senators and Reps. 7. Update and Promote air noise Staff/ARC Annually mitigation document. AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Heighten Awareness of Mendota Heights Air Noise Concerns Goal: Appointment of City Resident to the Metropolitan Airports Commission Action Steps: Who When M 1. Discuss concerns with State Senators ARC/ Dec. 97/Jan.98 and Reps. regarding composition of Council MAC. Pursue legislation to amend MAC Commissioner appointment process. 2. Discuss and Compare cities affected by ARC 1998 air noise to MAC representatives 3. Review MASAC representation and ARC/Staff 1997/1998 MAC representation with Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Commission. Propose new structure and representation on MASAC. ro AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Goal: Prevent Construction of Third North Parallel Runway Action Steps: Who When 1. Monitor MAC Compliance with Contract Staff/ARC Continuous 2. Research MAC Acquisition of Bureau of Mines property and MAC interest in off airport properties in 3rd runway area 3. Monitor EIS Process for N/S Runway 4. Monitor EIS for 12,000 foot Runway rl Staff 1997 Staff/ARC 1997/1998 Staff/ARC 1997 AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: MSP Long Term Comprehensive Plan Goal: Implement Noise Mitigation Requirements in MSP Mitigation Committee's Comprehensive Plan Action Steps Who When 1. Implement MAC's MSP Mitigation Plan Staff/ARC 1997/1998 a. MASAC Action Plan for Implementation b. Joint Efforts with NDCARC C. Dakota County Assistance d. Legislative Assistance AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Conversion to Stage III Quieter Aircraft Goal: Assure Conversion by Federal Deadline of Year 2000 Action Steps: 1. Work with MAC to assure 1996 legislation to convert to all Stage III aircraft by Year 2000 is implemented 2. Consider Backsliding of Stage III Conversion 3. MASAC Consideration of Stage III compliance �'7 Who When Staff Completed ARC Upon response of NWA ARC/Council Periodic AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Noise Reduction Through Litigation Goal: Determine Feasibility of a Legal Challenge to Current Air Noise Distribution Action Steps: Who When 1. Continue to be kept abreast of other Staff/ARC Continuous communities' issues and possible litigation process 2. Consider Freedom of Information Request Staff/ARC 1997 for EIS or FONSI's on Increased Operations 3. Consider Legal Challenge Options if North/South Runway is Delayed 10 Staff/ARC 1997/1998 a AIR NOISE PLAN OF ACTION Issue: Expand Eligibility for Part 150 Sound Insulation Program in Areas Affected by Air Noise Exposure Goal: Air Noise Mitigation Through Sound Insulation Action Steps: 1. Continue to monitor changes in the Ldn contours and monitor the Part 150 Sound Insulation program completion process. 2. Examine the feasibility of purchase or acquisition through Part 150 for severly impacted areas Who When Staff/ARC On-going ARC/Council 1998 3. Ensure ANOMS data used for Noise Contour Staff/ARC Generation for 2005 Part 150 DNL 60 * Updated August 11, 1997 ACTION.PLN 11 1998 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 27, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Admmstr r FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Tempco TIF Agreement Discussion The City Council, at their regular meeting on August 5, 1997, granted Conceptual Approval for Tax Increment Financing participation on behalf of the City for improvements to the Tempco site at 2475 Highway 55 with the additional item of repainting the windows. (The color and cost for repainting the windows has been estimated by the City's Architectural Consultant, Darrell Anderson.) Tempco also agreed to the usual conditions of a TIF agreement with the City of Mendota Heights. The most significant of these conditions revolve around penalties for transfer of the improved property prior to the expiration of the TIF district. At the August 5, 1997 meeting the Council also authorized Staff to issue a building permit for the plans submitted by Tempco to Jim Danielson, Director of Public Works on the evening of August 5, 1997. (This Preliminary TIF agreement, building permit approval, and other related materials have now been assigned to Planning Case File 97- 33.) Please see the following attached materials: 1. Draft TIF agreement between the City of Mendota Heights and Tempco, prepared by the City Attorney 2. Spreadsheet showing the expenses and revenues for improvements to the Tempco site, including painting the windows (under the assumption that there are five windows to be painted) 3. Memo from Darrell Anderson on the cost of painting the windows Representatives from Tempco will be present at the September 2, 1997 meeting of the Council to discuss the TIF Agreement. Architect Darrell Anderson has also indicated that he would be available that evening upon request. Action Required Discuss the draft TIF agreement with representatives of Tempco. If the Council wishes, the Council may authorize execution of the attached TIF Agreement, or make any additional revisions to this Agreement the Council deems necessary. WINTHROP & WEINSTINE A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION SHERMAN WINTHROP JON J. HOGANSON ROBERTR. WEINSTINE SANDRA J. MARTIN 'D A. HOEL TODD B. URNESS D. GORDON TIMOTHY M. BARNETT St— N C. TOUREK SCOTTJ. DONGOSKE STEPHEN J. SNYDER PETER J. GLEEKEL MARVIN C. INGBER EDWARD I DRENTTEL HART KULLER JEFFREY R. ANSEL DAVID E PEARSON LAURIE A. KNOCKE THOMAS M. HART N LLOYD W. GROOMS DARRON C. KNUTSON MARK T. JOHNSON JOHN A. KNAPP BROOKS F. FOLEY ERIC 0. MADSON THOMAS H. BOYD K CRAIG WI DFANG DANIEL C. BECK MICHELE D. VAILIANCOURT ERIC J. NYSTROM DAVID E. MORAN. JR. JOANNE L MATgN DONALD J. BROWN PATRICK W. WEBER Direct Dial (612) 290-8512 Via Facsmilie (612) 452-1125 Attorneys and Counselors at Law 3200 Minnesota World TYade Center 30 East Seventh Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 290-8400 Fax (612) 292-9347 3000 Dain Bosworth Plaza 60 South Sixth Street Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 347-0700 Fax (612) 347-0600 apu0@vinthrup.— August 20, 1997 Mr. Jerry Lansink Tempco Manufacturing Company, Incorporated 2475 Highway 55 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 lm— Re: Contract for Private Development Dear Mr. Lansink: PAUL W. MARKWARDT KRISTIN PETERSON LeBRE THOMAS A. WALKER CRAIG A. BRANDT JAMES W. DIERKING THERESE M. MARSO MELISSA A. ARNDT SUZANNE M. SPELLACY CHRISTOPHER W. MADEL TREVOR V. GUNDERSON JEFFREY LECLERC JOHN C. HOLM M. CATHERINS POWELL TIFFANY A. BLOFIELD ANDREA HAGEMAN SNOOK ANDREW D. PUGH NANCY L MOERSCH &Tly'to St. Paul BETH GERSTEINTIMM AUDREY L SANISLO SEAN P. KEARNEY JULIE A. SH.VBRMAN LAURA A. PFEI+FER CRAIG S. KRUMMEN CE ate' J. TAYLOR JOHN B. VAN de NORTH M DAVID M. HOPPER RICHARD W. BLACK KERI L BARNEY PAUL A.BOLIN C HARIES ISCHOENWETIER JOSEPH S. FRIEDBERG DANIEL W. HARDY ofCnowd Enclosed herewith you will find draft documents for the proposed Tax Increment Financing project with the City of Mendota Heights. Please review the documents at your earliest convenience and get back to me with your comments. Thank you for your assistance on this matter. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Very truly yours, WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A. By - � A Andrew D. Pugh ADP/kmt Enclosures cc: 'Larry Shaughnessy Thomas Hart STPI: 421676-1 CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPAI NVT THIS CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ("AGR JD4ENT"), made effective on or as of the day of August, 1997, by and between THE CITY OF 1VIENDOTA HEIGHTS (the "City"), a statutory city of the State of Minnesota, having its principal offices at 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 and Tempco Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation (the "Developer"), with its principal office at 2475 Highway 55, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is a statutory city of the fourth class organized and existing pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and is governed by the City Council (the "Council") of the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Development Districts Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.134, as amended (the "Act"), the Council is authorized to establish development districts in order to provide for the development and redevelopment of the City; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 e (the "Tax Increment Act"), as amended, the Council is authorized to finance the capital and administration costs of a development district with tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district established within such development district; and WHEREAS, the Council adopted the Development Program (the "Development Plan") on May 5, 1981 creating Development District Number 1 (the "Development District") pursuant to the Act; and WHEREAS, in connection with the Development Plan the Council has established a tax increment financing district pursuant to the Tax Increment Act (the "Tax Increment District"); and WHEREAS, the City believes that the development of the Development District pursuant to this Agreement, and fulfillment generally of the terms of this Agreement, are in the best interests of the City and the health, safety, morals and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable federal, state and local laws under which the Development Plan is being undertaken and assisted; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve the objectives of the Development Plan, the City is prepared to provide the Developer with financial assistance for Reimbursable Costs (as defined herein) in order to encourage the Developer to rehabilitate the Development Property (as defined herein). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual promises, representations and undertakings of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS Section 1.1. Defmitions. When used in this Agreement the following terms shall have the meanings specified in this Article I. Each definition or pronoun herein shall be deemed to refer to the singular, plural, masculine, feminine or neuter as the context requires. Words such as "herein," "hereinafter," "hereof," "hereto," and "hereunder," when used in reference to this Agreement, refer to this Agreement as a whole, unless the context requires otherwise: "Act" means the City Development Districts Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 through 469.134 as amended. "Actual Knowledge" means, with respect to any representation made herein, the awareness of facts or information, or the absence of facts or information, by a natural person, or, in the case of a legal entity, any officer of such entity. For purposes of this Agreement, Actual Knowledge shall include any facts discoverable by any person in the exercise of reasonable diligence. "Agreement" means this Contract for Private Development, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended, or supplemented. "City" means the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota. "Construction Plans" means the plans, specifications, drawings and documents related to the Development Property and the construction work to be performed by the Developer on the Development Property as approved by the City. "Council" means the elected city council of the City. "County" means the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota. "Developer" means Tempco Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation. "Development District" means Development District Number 1 created by the City pursuant to the Development Plan. "Development Plan" means the Development Program for Development District Number 1 adopted by the Council on May 5, 1981, as the same has been and may hereafter be amended. "Development Property" means the real property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. "Event of Default" means an action or occurrence described in Section 7.1 of this Agreement. "Final Certificate of Completion" means the written certification by the City that the Minimum Improvements have been completed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. "Interim Certificate of Completion" means the written certification by the City that the addition to the Development Property and the sprinkler system therefor have been completed in accordance with the Construction Plans. -2- "Minimum Improvements" means the rehabilitation of the Development Property in accordance with the Construction Plans. "Permitted Transfer" means any conveyance or disposition of the Development Property or the Developer which is excepted from the definition of Transfer set forth in this Article. "Preliminary Development Plan" shall mean, collectively, the Construction Plans and all other writings, drawings illustrations or other artistic renderings, applications, agreements or other documents submitted to and approved by the City in connection with this Agreement and/or the Project. "Project" means the rehabilitation of the Development Property in accordance with the Construction Plans. "Reimbursable Costs" means the Project costs for which the City is reimbursing the Developer pursuant to this Agreement, as set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein. "State" means the State of Minnesota. "Tax Increment" means that portion of the real estate taxes paid with respect to the Development Property which is remitted to the City as tax increment pursuant to the Tax Increment Act. "Tax Increment Act" means the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174-469.179, as amended. "Tax Increment District" means Tax Increment Financing District Number 1 created and amended by the City pursuant to the Tax Increment Plan adopted in connection with the Development Plan. "Tax Increment Plan" means the Tax Increment Financing Plan adopted by the City on May 5, 1981, in connection with the creation of the Tax Increment District, as the same has been or may be amended from time to time. "Tax Official" means any City or county assessor; County auditor; City, County or State board of equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any State or federal district court, the tax court of the State, or the State Supreme Court. "Transfer" means any cessation of possession of the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements by the Developer for any reason. "Unavoidable Delays" means delays which are the direct result of strikes, shortages of materials, war or civil commotion, delays which are the direct result of unforeseeable and unavoidable casualties to the Minimum Improvements, the Development Property or the equipment used to construct the Minimum Improvements, delays which are the direct result of governmental action or inaction beyond the control of Developer, delays which are the direct result of judicial action commenced by third parties, citizen opposition or action affecting the Project or adverse weather conditions, or to any other cause or action beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking to be excused as a result of its occurrence. -3- ARTICLE H. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Section 2.1. Representations by the City. The City makes the following representations as the basis for the undertaking on its part herein contained: a. Status of City. The City is a statutory city of the State with all the powers of a statutory city of the fourth class duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. Under the provisions of the Act and any other applicable laws, the City has the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder. b. Compliance with Laws. The City has created, adopted and approved the Development District, the Development Plan, and Tax Increment District in accordance with the respective terms of the Act and the Tax Increment Act, and the same remain in full force and effect. C. No Warranty as to Development Property. Except as specifically provided herein, the City makes no representation, guaranty or warranty, either express or implied, as to any matter, including specifically, but without limitation of the generality of the foregoing, (i) the state of title to or the condition of the Development Property, (ii) the suitability of the Development Property for the Developer's purposes or needs, or (iii) the economic feasibility of the Project. Section 2.2. Representations Covenants and Warranties by the Developer. The Developer represents and warrants that: a. Good Standing. Developer is a corporation duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota and has full power and authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby. b. Authority. This Agreement has been duly and validly executed and delivered by Developer and constitutes the valid and binding obligation of Developer according to its terms, enforceable against Developer except as the enforcement thereof may be limited by bankruptcy and other laws of general application relating to creditors' rights or general principles of equity. The execution of this Agreement by Developer has been duly authorized by the appropriate officers of Developer, and no further action is required for the performance by Developer of its obligations hereunder. C. Consents. Ekcept as disclosed in this Agreement, no consent, approval, order, authorization, registration, declaration, filing, waiver or notice to any government entity or third party is required or necessary to be obtained by Developer in connection with the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. d. No Violation. Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, the acquisition, construction and development of the Development Property, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflict with or result in a breach of, the terms, conditions or provisions or any corporate restriction or any evidences of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the me Developer is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. e. n1e. Subject to the provisions of Section 6.2 (Consequences of Transfer), the Developer is and shall be the owner of the Development Property. Except for matters disclosed in this Agreement, there are no pending or threatened claims, lawsuits, or disputes with respect to the Development Property or Developer's ownership thereof. f. Compliance with Laws. The Developer shall operate and maintain the Minimum Improvements in all material aspects in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Development Plan and all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws and regulations). g. Eng ra Conservation. The Developer shall construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance with all applicable local, state or federal energy -conservation laws or regulations. h. Permits and Licenses. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer shall obtain, in' a timely manner, all required permits, reviews, clearances, licenses and approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, the requirements of all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Minimum Improvements may be lawfully constructed. L Cost of Minimum Improvements. The Developer covenants that the cost of the Minimum Improvements to be completed on the Development Property shall be not less than One Hundred Seventy -Nine Thousand Four Hundred Seventy -Four Dollars ($179,474.00). j. Necessity of Assistance. The Developer acknowledges, represents and agrees that, but for the assistance provided by the City under the Agreement, it would not be able to undertake the Project within the foreseeable future. k. Zoning. The Minimum Improvements, as of the date of this Agreement, are a permitted use under the provisions of the zoning ordinance of the City applicable to the Development Property. 1. Hazardous Waste. No asbestos, urea formaldehyde, polychlorinated biphenyls, nuclear fuel or materials, chemical waste, radioactive materials, explosives, known carcinogens, petroleum products or other pollutants, contaminants, chemicals, materials or substances defined as "hazardous waste," "hazardous substance," "hazardous constituent," "solid waste," or "toxic substance" (all of the foregoing are referred to collectively hereinafter as "Hazardous Materials") the release or disposal of which is regulated by any federal, state or local statute, regulation, order, treaty, code, publication or ordinance (or any amendment thereto) related to human health or the environment including, without limitation, any law, regulation or ordinance concerning the protection and preservation of natural resources, air, water, noise or soil pollution or contamination, or Hazardous Materials use, generation, storage or disposal, ("Environmental Law") are, to the best of Developer's Actual Knowledge, located on, in, about or under the -5- Development Property, and, to the best of Developer's Actual Knowledge, none of Development Property has ever been utilized for the storage, manufacture, disposal, handling, transportation or use of any Hazardous Materials. m. Materials Permits. All permits, licenses and similar authorizations and approvals necessary or required under all Environmental Laws, including those for any Hazardous Materials stored, used or manufactured within or on the Development Property have, to the best of Developer's Actual Knowledge, been obtained, are being complied with and are in full force and effect, and the Developer has complied with all other reporting, filing and other requirements under the Environmental Laws. n. No Environmental Proceedings. There are no existing, proposed, threatened, or pending investigations, administrative proceedings, litigation, regulatory hearings or other actions concerning any the Development Property and alleging noncompliance with or violation of any Environmental Law or relating to any required environmental permits or licenses. o. No Environmental Listing. No portion of the Development Property is listed in the United States Environmental Protection Agency's National Priorities List of Hazardous Waste Sites nor any other list, schedule, log, inventory or record of hazardous waste sites maintained by any federal, state or local agency. p. No Required Testing. The Developer has not received any written notification from any city, county, state or federal governmental authority, agency or instrumentality requiring any work or testing to be done on or about the Development Property. q. Disclosure. No representation or warranty of Developer in this Agreement and no statement contained in this Agreement or in any document delivered or to be delivered pursuant hereto contains or will contain an untrue statement of material fact or omits or will omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements herein or therein contained, in light of the circumstances under which made, not misleading; it being understood that as used in this subparagraph "material" means material to any individual statement or omission and in the aggregate as to all statements and omissions. All reports and investigations commissioned or otherwise received by the Developer concerning the Development Property and relating to Hazardous Materials have been disclosed to the City. r. Reliance. The foregoing representations, warranties and covenants are made by Developer with the knowledge and expectation that the City is relying thereon. S. Survival. The foregoing representations, warranties and covenants, together with any and all other representations, warranties and covenants contained in this Agreement, shall survive consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. ARTICLE III. UNDERTAKINGS OF CITY AND DEVELOPER Section 3.1. Place of Document Execution. Delivery and Recording. Unless otherwise mutually agreed by the City and the Developer, the execution and delivery of all documents and payment of any amounts due hereunder shall be made at the offices of the City. EN. Section 3.2. Reimbursable Costs. a. Interim Certification of Completion. Upon issuance of an Interim Certificate of Completion by the City, the City shall reimburse the Developer the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) (the "Interim Payment") b. - Final Certificate of Completion. Upon issuance of the Final Certificate of Completion by the City, the City shall reimburse the Developer for the lesser of (i) actual costs of completion of the Reimbursable Costs less the Interim Payment; and (ii) the sum of Forty -Six Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Dollars ($46,360.00) payable in eighteen (18) equal semi-annual payments commencing on August 1, 1998 and continuing on the first day of each February 1 and August 1 each year thereafter through and until February 1, 2007 (the "Scheduled Payments"). The City shall forever be relieved of its obligation to make Scheduled Payments hereunder in the event that the Developer shall cause or suffer a Transfer of the Development Property at any time after the issuance of the Final Certificate of Completion. All Scheduled Payments hereunder are special and limited obligations and not general obligations of the City. Section 3.3. Public Costs. The City and the Developer hereby stipulate and agree that the assistance provided pursuant to this Agreement is intended to reimburse the Developer for the Reimbursable Costs listed on Exhibit B attached hereto, and that such assistance is in furtherance of the purposes of the Development Plan, the Act, the Tax Increment Act, and/or necessitated by the unique characteristics of the Development Property. Section 3.4. Conditions to City's Reimbursement Obligation. In connection with performance by the City with respect to its other obligations pursuant to this Agreement, and as a condition precedent thereto, the City may, in its sole discretion, require the Developer to (i) submit evidence of compliance by the Developer with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, (ii) provide an opinion of counsel acceptable to the City that the financial assistance provided hereunder is a permissible expenditure of funds pursuant to the Act and the Tax Increment Act, and (iii) pay the City's expenses of counsel in connection with the preparation, execution, and filing of this Agreement. ARTICLE IV. CONSTRUCTION OF MINIlVIUM IlVIPROVEIVM I'S Section 4.1. Construction of AEnimum Improvements. The Developer agrees that it will construct the Minimum Improvements on the Development Property in accordance with the approved Preliminary Development Plan. -7- Section 4.2: Preliminary Development Plan. Prior to commencement of construction of the Minimum Improvements, the Developer shall submit the Preliminary Development Plan to the City for approval. The Preliminary Development Plan shall be consistent in all respects with any description of the Project provided to the Council by the Developer in connection with the Developer's request for assistance provided pursuant to this Agreement. The City may reject the Preliminary Development Plan, or request changes thereto, in its sole discretion. a. Approval of Preliminary Development Plan. The City's performance hereunder is conditioned upon and subject in its entirety to its review and approval of the Preliminary Development Plan, and upon compliance by the Developer with all applicable laws and satisfaction of all City requirements (including planning and zoning, building codes, etc.) for projects of this nature. b. Changes in Plans. If the Developer desires to make any material change in the Preliminary Development Plan, the Developer shall submit the proposed change to the City for its approval. The Developer acknowledges that upon entering this Agreement, the City in no way waives its right of final approval of materials and submissions required herein, including, but not limited to, final Construction Plans, and the City expressly reserves its right to deny approval of any.plans and permits should the Developer fail to proceed in accordance with this Agreement and/or fail to perform in total compliance with the obligations herein and the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance and City's Subdivision Ordinance and other applicable City codes and ordinances affecting the Construction Plans and/or the Development Property. - C. Effect of. City Aourowd. Except as specifically provided in writing by the City or any department or official thereof for the specific, limited purpose of such writing, the approval of the Preliminary Development Plan (or any amendments thereto) by the City or the Council shall not constitute a representation or warranty that such plans, the Minimum Improvements, or the Development Property comply with any applicable building code, health or safety regulation, environmental law, or other law or regulation, or that. the Minimum Improvements will meet the qualifications for issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Approval of the Developer's plans by the City or any department or official thereof shall not constitute a waiver by the City of any Event of Default occurring hereunder. Section 4.3. Completion of Construction. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Developer shall achieve final completion of the construction of the Minimum Improvements on or before , 1998. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed or provided by the Developer on the Development Property shall be done in a good and worlananlike manner with quality materials and in strict compliance with the Preliminary Development Plan as submitted by the Developer and approved by the City. Developer hereby grants the City reasonable access to the Development Property and the Minimum Improvements. The Developer agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Development Property, or any part thereof, that the Developer, and such successors and assigns, shall diligently prosecute to completion the development of the Development Property through the construction of the Minimum Improvements thereon, and that such construction shall in any event be completed within the period specified in this section. During construction of the Minimum Improvements, the Developer shall make reports, in such detail and at such times as may reasonably be requested by the City, as to the actual progress of the Developer with respect to such construction.. In Section 4.4. Completion of Minimum bnprovements. a. Notification of City. The Developer will notify the City when construction of the Minimum Improvements has been completed. The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to inspect the Development Property and/or the Minimum Improvements upon notice of completion from the Developer. Inspection of the Development Property by the City shall not constitute a representation or warranty by the City that the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements comply with any applicable building code, health or safety regulation, zoning regulation, environmental law, that the Minimum Improvements will qualify for a certificate of occupancy, or that the Minimum Improvements will meet the requirements of Developer or any other user of the Minimum Improvements. b. Notice of Defects. If the City shall find the state of the Minimum Improvements or Developer's documentary evidence thereof unacceptable, the City shall, within ten (10) days after written request by the Developer, provide the Developer with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Developer has failed to complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts will be necessary, in the opinion of the City, for the Developer to take or perform in order to remedy any such condition. Section 4.5. Additional Res gonsibilities of Developer. a. Maintenance of Public Easements. The Developer will not construct any building, structure, or improvement on, over, or within the boundary lines of any public utility easement unless such construction is provided for in such easement or has been approved by the utility involved. b. Utility Installation. Developer shall be responsible for the full and prompt payment of all utility access charges with respect to the Minimum Improvements (including SAC and WAC). Developer shall further bear the cost of the relocation of any existing public or private utilities which may be caused or necessitated by the construction of the Minimum Improvements. C. Repair of Public Facilities. Developer shall, at its sole cost and expense, replace any public facilities or public utilities damaged in connection with the construction of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the technical specifications, standards and practices of the owner thereof. ARTICLE V. INSURANCE Section 5.1. During Development. The Developer shall provide and maintain at all times during the process of constructing the Minimum Improvements for the benefit of the Developer and the City and, from time to time at the request of the City, furnish the City with proof of payment of premiums on: 0 a. Builder's Risk. Builder's risk insurance, written on the so-called "Builder's Risk — Completed Value Basis," in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the replacement value of the Minimum Improvements as of the date of completion, and with coverage available in nonreporting form on the so-called "all risk" form of policy. b. General Liability. Comprehensive general liability insurance (including liability arising from operations, contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations and contractual liability insurance) together with an Owner's Contractor's Policy with limits against bodily injury and property damage of not less than $3,000,000 for each occurrence (to accomplish the above -required limits, an umbrella excess, liability policy may be used). C. Worker's Compensation. Worker's compensation insurance, with statutory coverage. Section 5.2. Other Terms. All insurance required pursuant to this Article shall be taken out and maintained with insurance companies reasonably acceptable to the City and authorized under the laws of the State to assume the risks covered thereby. The Developer will deliver to the City policies evidencing all such insurance, or a certificate or certificates or binders of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in full force and effect. ARTICLE VI. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER Section 6.1. Identity of Developer. The Developer recognizes that, in view of (a) the importance of the rehabilitation of the Development Property to the general welfare of the City and (b) the substantial financing and other public aids that have been made available by the City for the purpose of making such development possible, the qualifications and identity of the Developer is of particular concern to the community and the City. The Developer further recognizes that it is because of such qualifications and identity that the City is entering into the Agreement with the Developer, an d; in so doing, is further willing to accept and rely on the obligations of the Developer for the faithful performance of all undertakings and covenants hereby by the Developer to be performed. Section 6.2. Lunitations on Transfer. Except as specifically provided in this Agreement, Developer shall not sell, assign, convey, lease or transfer (i) this Agreement, (ii) the Development Property, or (iii) the Minimum Improvements, without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall specifically reference this provision. Section 6.3. Consequences of Transfer. For the reasons stated in Section 6.1 (Identity of Developer) hereof, the Developer represents and agrees that: a. No Transfers. Except for Permitted Transfers, or by way of security for, and only for, the purpose of obtaining financing to assist or enable the Developer to perform its obligations with respect to constructing the Minimum Improvements under the Agreement, and any other purpose authorized by the Agreement, the Developer has not made or created, and will not make or create or suffer to be made or created, any Transfer of the Development Property or any part thereof or any interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do any of the same. -10- b. Consequences of Transfer. No Transfer of the Development Property shall operate, legally or practically, to deprive or limit the City of or with respect to any rights or remedies or controls provided in or resulting from the Agreement with respect to the Development Property and the construction of the Minimum Improvements that the City would have had, had there been no such transfer or change. No Transfer shall be deemed to relieve the Developer, or any other party bound in any way by the Agreement or otherwise with respect to the construction of the Minimum Improvements, from any of its obligations with respect thereto or from any of its other obligations under this Agreement. C. Cessation of City Obligations. Any Transfer of the Development Property, other than a Permitted Transfer, shall relieve the City of any and all obligations under this Agreement. d. No Restriction on Sale. Nothing in this Section shall constitute a restraint on alienation or prohibition with respect to the conveyance of the Development Property. e. Developer Repayment Obligation. If the Developer Transfers the Property, the Developer shall repay to the City all Reimbursable Costs pursuant to the schedule attached hereto on Exhibit C. In addition, the City shall forever be relieved of its obligation to make Scheduled Payments hereunder. Section 6.4. Permitted Financings. Nothing herein shall prohibit or prevent the Developer from encumbering the Development Property in order to obtain suitable, bona fide financing in connection with the development, construction, ownership, expansion or restoration of the Development Property or the Minimum Improvements. Section 6.5. No Agignnient. Except as provided in this Article, this Agreement and the rights, duties and obligations of the Developer hereunder shall not be assigned, conveyed, or transferred, and any purported transfer in violation of this provision shall be null, void, and of no effect. ARTICLE VII. EVENTS OF DEFAULT; REMEDIES Section 7.1. Event of Default. The term "Event of Default" shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement (unless the context otherwise provides): a. Failure of Timely Completion. Failure by the Developer to complete the Development Property on or before the date specified in Section 4.3 (Completion of Construction) in conformance with the terms, conditions, and limitations of this Agreement; b. Breach of Developer Obligations. Failure by the Developer to observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation, or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement and the continuance of such failure for ten (10) days after written notice thereof from the City; or C. Bankruptcy of Developer. A petition of, or claim for relief in, bankruptcy or insolvency is filed pursuant to any current or future bankruptcy or insolvency laws naming the Developer as debtor, and such petition is not dismissed within ninety (90) days of the date of filing thereof. -11- Section 7.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default occurs, in addition to all other remedies available to the City at law or in equity or elsewhere in this Agreement, the City may take any one or more of the following actions: a. Suspension of Performance. The City may suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives adequate assurances from Developer that Developer will cure the Event of Default and thereafter remain in compliance with its obligations under this Agreement and all related or collateral agreements with the City. b. Termination of Agreement. The City may terminate this Agreement, cease any and all performance under this Agreement, and pursue all available remedies. C. Suit for Damages. The City may initiate an action seeking damages, specific performance, or any other relief available at law or in equity, other than and except for the remedy of specific performance. The parties hereby agree that all costs, direct or indirect, paid or incurred by the City in connection with this Agreement or the Project, including without limitation all sums advanced to or for the benefit of the Developer hereunder and the costs of pursuing the City's remedies hereunder, shall constitute damages of the City for purposes hereof. Section 7.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to the parties is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement, whether now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. In order to entitle the parties to exercise any remedy reserved to them, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required by this Article VII. Section 7.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder. ARTICLE VIII. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS Section 8.1. Conflict of Interests: City Representatives Not Individually Liable. No member, official, or employee of the City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, association or other entity in which he is, directly or indirectly, interested. No member, official, agent, or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Developer, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Developer or successor or on any obligations under the terms of the Agreement. Section 8.2. Non -Discrimination. During the term of this Agreement, the Developer shall not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex, affectational preference, age, religion or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or in the use or occupancy of the Development Property -12- or the Minimum Improvements erected or to be erected thereon, or any part thereof. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 181.59, which relate to civil rights and non- discrimination, are hereby adopted and incorporated as part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. Section 8.3. Fqual Fanployment Opportunity. Developer agrees, for itself and its assigns, that during construction of the Minimum Improvements: a. EmploM. Developer will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, affectational preference, disability, age, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, or national origin teach such status is referred to hereinafter as a "Protected Class"). Developer will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to membership in any Protected Class. Developer shall further abide by all other applicable federal, state and local laws regarding equal employment opportunity. b. Advertising. Developer will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Developer, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to membership in any Protected Class. C. Contracts. Developer will include the provisions of this Section 8.3 in every contract, subcontract and purchase order, so that such provisions will be binding. upon each such contractor, subcontractor, or vendor, as the case may be. Developer will take such action with respect to any contract, subcontract or purchase order as the City may direct or advise as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for non- compliance. Section 8.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed. None of the provisions of this Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by reason of any deed transferring any interest in the Development Property and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or impair the provisions and covenants of this Agreement. Section 8.5. Wes of Articles and Sections. Any titles, headings, or captions of the several parts, articles, and sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. Section 8.6. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by any party to any other party shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally; and a. Dvelovcsr. In the case of the Developer, is addressed to or delivered personally to the Developer at: Tempco Manufacturing Company, Incorporated 2475 Highway 55 Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 Attn: -13- b. Cert . In the case of the City, is addressed to or delivered personally to the City at: City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota- 55118 Attn: City Administrator or at such other address as the City may, from time to time designate in writing and forward to the Developer. Section 8.7. Indemnification. The Developer shall cooperate with the City with respect to any litigation commenced with respect to the Development Plan or the Project. Except for any willful or wanton misconduct of the City, its employees, Council members, officers or employees, the Developer shall save, hold harmless, and indemnify the City from and against any and all costs, including reasonable costs of defense incurred by the City through an attorney of its choosing, with respect to any litigation in connection with the Project or this Agreement. a. Release of City. Developer agrees,. that anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, the City and its agents, officers, Council members, and employees shall not be liable or responsible in any manner to the Developer, the Developer's contractors, suppliers, vendors, material men, laborers, lienors, mortgagees, or to any other person or persons whomsoever, for any claim, demand, damage, cost, or loss of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this Agreement, the transactions contemplated hereby, the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership or operation of the Project, the Minimum Improvements and/or the Development Property. b. Indemnification of City. The Developer shall indemnify, save and hold harmless the City from and against any and all claims, demands, actions or causes of action (including specifically, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the costs of defending the same, costs and expenses for City administrative time and labor, costs of engineering and planning services, costs of all legal services rendered, direct out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with defending such claims, and amounts paid as damages or in settlement or compromise of any such action or proceeding) as may be brought against the City for acts or omissions in any way related to the construction, operation or financing of the Minimum Improvements, and/or the Development Property. C. Reimbursement of Costs. Developer shall reimburse the City for any and all costs and expenses, including without limitation, attorneys' fees, paid or incurred by the City in connection with- or relating to enforcing performance of (or seeking damages for Developer's failure_ to perform) any covenant or obligation of Developer under this Agreement. d. Hazardous Waste Indemnity. The indemnification obligation of Developer shall include, without limitation, any liability, damages, claims or costs incurred or asserted against the City relating to the alleged presence or release of hazardous or toxic substances on, under or about the Development Property. e. Tax Increment Indemnity. Developer shall further save, indemnify and hold harmless the City from and against any and all costs, damages, liabilities or expenditures incurred by the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.1771, subd. 3, as a result of the assistance provided to the Developer pursuant to this Agreement. -14- f. Reduction in State Aids. Developer shall further save, indemnify and hold harmless the City from and against all costs, damages, liabilities or expenditures incurred by the City in the event that local government aid, homestead and agricultural credit aid or other aids or payments to the City from the State of Minnesota are reduced under Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399 or other law. Section 8.8. Covenants of Principal. All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the City and not of any Council member, officer, agent, servant, employee, independent contractor, consultant and/or legal counsel of the City. Section 8.9. Governing Law. The parties agree that this Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and acknowledge that this Agreement is the type of agreement described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, subd. 5. Section 8.10. Time is of the Essence. Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement. Section 8.11. Counterparj;& This Agreement is executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 8.12. Interpretation and Severability. If any one or more of the provisions, sentences, phrases or words of this Agreement or any application thereof shall be held or determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions, sentences, phrases or words of this Agreement and any other application thereof shall in no way be affected or impaired and shall remain in full force and effect. Section 8.13. Successors and Assign. This Agreement is binding on and inures to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, provided, however, that this Agreement may not be assigned by any of the parties hereto except as specifically provided herein. Any successor shall absolutely and unconditionally assume all of the rights, duties and obligations of their assignee hereunder. Section 8.14. Modification/Entire Agreement. This Agreement may not be altered, modified or amended except by an instrument in writing signed by all of the parties hereto. No person, whether or not an officer, agent, employee or representative of any party, has made or has any authority to make for or on behalf of that party any agreement, representation, warranty, statement, promise, arrangement or understanding not expressly set forth in this Agreement or in any other document executed by the parties concurrently herewith ("Parol Agreements"). This Agreement and all other documents executed by the parties concurrently herewith constitute the entire agreement between the parties and supersede all express or implied, prior or concurrent, Parol Agreements and prior written agreements with respect to the subject matter hereof The parties acknowledge that in entering into this Agreement, they have not relied and will not in any way rely upon any Parol Agreements. -15- IN WITNESS WIIEREOF, the City has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its name and behalf and its seal to be hereunto duly affixed and the Developer has caused this Agreement to be duly executed on or as of the day and year first above written. 0 1 Attest: Its City Clerk STPI: 421428-2 :1 I �31UG K's :1 By: Charles E. Mertensotto Its Mayor TEMIPCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INCORPORATED, z Minnesota corporation By: Its: -16- SCHEDULE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Legal Description of Development Property Exhibit B Reimbursable Costs Exhibit C Repayment Schedule 11: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY LEMAYS ADDITION LOT 10 EX PT TO VILL EX COM S LINE L 10 9.22 FT E OF NW COR SW 'l4 OF SE 1/ 34-28-23 R 90D 255.18 FT R 39D 47H 261.55 FT TO SW R/W RR NW ON R/W TO PT 125 FT NW OF ITS INT WITH N & S LINE SEC 34-28-23 DUE S TO S LINE E TO BEG EX PT LYING SE OF S R/W MEN HGTS RD & SW OF W R/W CMSTP & P RR & N OF LOT 1 BLK 5 MEN HGHTS IND PK I WAV, I 11.) .11 REIMBURSABLE COSTS Estimate 1. Sprinkler System 61,690.00 2. Replacement of Russian Olive Trees 13,300.00 3. Narrowing of Front Driveway and 15,370.00 Landing 4. Architect's Fees 6,000.00 TOTAL 96,360.00 CijY Cost 61,690.00 13,300.00 15,370.00 I Dkqolli Y REPAYMENT SCHEDULE (Insert Repayment Schedule which will be in effect if Tempco Sells the Development Property) Expenses , Item # Description City Contribution Tempco Contribution $ Total Estimated Cost $ 1 Addition to building $ - $ 33,000.00 $ 33,000.00 2 Sprinkling $ 61,690.00 $ - $ 61,690.00 3 Replacement of Russian Olive Trees $ 13,300.00 $ - $ 13,300.00 4 Narrowing of Front Driveway and Landscaping $ 15,370.00 $ - $ 15,370.00 5 Blocking off RR ROW Trail $ - $ 1,014.00 $ 1,014.00 6 Eliminating one Access Drive $ - $ 2,800.00 $ 2,800.00 7 Minor Cosmetic Improvements (Painting) $ - $ 9,700.00 $ 9,700.00 8 Painting of Windows (5) $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 9 Lawn Sprinkler System $ - $ 15,500.00 $ 15,500.00 10 Striping of Rear Parking Lot $ - $ 1,300.00 $ 1,300.00 11 Addition of Handicapped Parking Spaces (incl.) $ - $ - $ - 12 Addition of Wheelchair Ramps (2) $ - $ 19,800.00 $ 19,800.00 13 Architects Fees $ 6,000.00 $ - $ 6,000.00 Total $ 96,360.00 $ 86,114.00 $ 182,474.00 City Contribution Schedule Year Amount Paid to Tempco 1997 $ 1998 $ 1999 $ 2000 $ 2001 $ 2002 $ 2003 $ 2004 $ 2005 $ 2006 $ Total $ 96,360.00 Percent Returned if Building Is Sold Amount Returned If Building Is Sold 100% Running Total Received 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 5,151.11 $ 55,151.11 5,151.11 $ 60,302.22 5,151.11 $ 65,453.33 5,151.11 $ 70,604.44 5,151.11 $ 75,755.55 5,151.11 $ 80,906.66 5,151.11 $ 86,057.77 5,151.11 $ 91,208.88 5,151.12 $ 96,360.00 96,360.00 Percent Returned if Building Is Sold Amount Returned If Building Is Sold 100% $ 50,000.00 89% $ 49,023.82 78% $ 46,903.07 67% $ 43,637.74 56% $ 39,227.83 44% $ 33,673.34 33% $ 26,974.28 22% $ 19,130.64 11% $ 10,142.43 0% $ - Notes: The $50,000 up front payment in 1997 will be available after the building addition and sprinkling are completed. The yearly $5,151.11 payments will commence after all other work has been completed. Line Items The following is a description of each line item on the attached spreadsheet under the heading Expenses: Addition to Building. This refers to the squared -off comer attachment to the south side of the building with a higher roof to accommodate the new stamping machine and only one garage door instead of the current three in that area. The $33,000 cost figure refers to the additional cost of this southward expansion over the cost of the earlier proposal submitted to the City to merely raise part of the roof of the existing structure. 2. Sprinkling. The City Fire Marshal has determined that squaring off the comer of the building will require Tempco to sprinkle the entire building. Tempco has estimated the cost of sprinkling to be about $61,690. This sprinkling requirement would not exist if Tempco were to merely raise a portion of the roof as first proposed to Council. This is a justifiable expense on the part of the City as a life -safety issue. 3. Replacement of Russian Olive Trees. This refers to the dying Russian Olive Trees along the south side of the Tempco building. The City would pay the expense of replacing these trees with plantings which would more adequately screen the building from Mendota Heights Road, justified as an aesthetic issue. (The specie, size and number of the replacement trees will most likely be selected by the City's architect.) 4. Narrowing of front driveway and landscaping. This refers to the driveway along the south of the building parallel to Mendota Heights Road. The City would pay for narrowing the drive and separating it from the building with green space and plantings. This would be justified as an aesthetic issue. 5. Blocking of the Railroad Right -of -Way Trail. Tempco would pay to have the Railroad ROW Trail blocked off from the Tempco building in order to prevent vehicles from using the trail to access the building and for the safety of pedestrians on the trail. Tempco would leave enough room in the area for 75' trucks to back into the truck dock. 6. Eliminating one access drive. Tempco will pay for the elimination of the western access drive on the south side of the building and replace the area with landscaping. (Tempco feels that our architect's estimate of $2,800 for this item may be too low.) 7. Minor Cosmetic Improvements. Tempco shall pay for repainting orange doors, repainting potions of the building, blending in scuppers and flashing, etc. This does not include painting windows. 8. , Painting of Windows (5). This refers to the white -clad windows on the south side of the building. Tempco shall pay the cost of painting all five windows to blend in better with the building, using the product and color selected by the City's Architect. 9. Lawn Sprinkler System. Tempco will pay for this item. 10. Striping of Rear Parking Lot. Tempco will pay for this item to allow more cars to be parked in the rear and to ban all parking at the front (south) of the building with the one exception of a handicapped parking space for the president of the Company. 11. Addition of Handicapped Parking Space. Tempco shall pay for one handicapped parking space for the front (south) of the building for the president. The cost of this item is included in Item 9. 12. Addition of Wheelchair Ramps. Tempco shall pay for the addition of two wheelchair ramps for the front and rear of the building for access to the office portion of the building. (Tempco may be released from this requirement if they can demonstrate that they can fully comply with current ADA standards regarding access to the building by some other, less costly, means.) 13. Architect's Design Fees. The City shall pay for this expense. LES I GN PAPTNEP_SH I P MEMORANDUM P O Z THE DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LTD. We have researched the painting requirements for the vinyl clad for aluminum) windows at the Ternpco building. The paint suppliers indicate that the surface is paintable, but requires special treatment. We also talked with two painting contractors, as well as researched the estimators hand book. Arohitecture Our opinion is that the paint project, If done along with the base building, would cost Plenrino about *800,00 per window location, of which there are 5 locations, for a total of Intu iurd 93,000.00. If the painting was done separately, an additional 30% would have to be added for project startup and extra job time. 111 Third Avenue South sults leo Should you have an questions, lease give us a call. Mlnneepolle, MN 66401 Y Y q P Phone 012 338 0889 21 South Barstow Street End of Memorandum Suite 211 Eau Cleira, WI 64701 Phone 716 833 8680 Date: Au®ust 27, 1997 By: Darrell D. Anderson RO Re: Tempoo Industries, Mendota Heights Painting of Vinyl Clad Windows Proj. No.: A97038 ��s•■•+ Copies: Patrick Hollister/City of Mendota Heights; file P O Z THE DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LTD. We have researched the painting requirements for the vinyl clad for aluminum) windows at the Ternpco building. The paint suppliers indicate that the surface is paintable, but requires special treatment. We also talked with two painting contractors, as well as researched the estimators hand book. Arohitecture Our opinion is that the paint project, If done along with the base building, would cost Plenrino about *800,00 per window location, of which there are 5 locations, for a total of Intu iurd 93,000.00. If the painting was done separately, an additional 30% would have to be added for project startup and extra job time. 111 Third Avenue South sults leo Should you have an questions, lease give us a call. Mlnneepolle, MN 66401 Y Y q P Phone 012 338 0889 21 South Barstow Street End of Memorandum Suite 211 Eau Cleira, WI 64701 Phone 716 833 8680 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: oW CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS August 29, 1997 Mayor, City Council and City Administrator James E. Danielson, Public Works Dir cto Dakota Bank Frontage Road Name Request Council recently considered a request from Mr. John Seidel, Dakota Bank President, to change the name of the TH 110/Lexington Avenue Frontage Road to "Dakota Drive". Council directed me to contact all of the affected property owners for their input before making a decision. After sending the notice I received a letter circulated by Mr. Delaugherty signed by all the property owners opposing the change (see attached). More recently I have received the attached letter from Mr. Seidel saying that he has now received approval from three of the property owners. I am sending notice to all six affected property owners informing them that this request will be on the September 2'd agenda. Review Mr. Seidel's street name request with the affected property owners and determine whether or not to grant his request. AUG 28 '97 11:05AM DAKOTA BANK P.2 *-DAKOTA JffAJW MEMBER FDIC 19AIR Orrice 750 SOUTH FLVA DNve • MennotA HCIQATS. MM 55120.1586 • (612) 452.1320 • PAX (612) 4524651 August 28, 1997 y Dear Home Owners and Business Owners: As you may be aware, on September 2 the Mendota Heights City Council will be reviewing Dakota Bank's proposal to have the new frontage road renamed to Dakota Drive. I have discussed this issue with both owners of Mendota Heights Schwinn and Curley Furniture, along with one home owner - Hugo Blackfelner; Dakota Bank greatly appreciates your cooperation and acceptance of the name change. The other home owners I have been unable to contact (Mohamed & Kathleen Eldeeb and Gerald & Arlene Delougherty), Dakota Bank is willing to contribute 5300.00 to each of the businesses and $150.00 to each of the home owners for any inconvenience that may arise with the road's name change. I will be in attendance at the city council meeting on September 2 as the city council members entertain Dakota Bank's proposal of the name change. If you have any questions in the interim, please don't hesitate to contact me at 452-1320. We look forward to our relocation and having you as our neighbors. Sincerely, A06P.eidel President TPS/mo cc: Kevin Batchelder LRM GRove Furans Onwz rfiAW orr+d NKMA m Ornc 1429 MMtueD Ave. E. 2310 West 9ev=m STE= 51. PAUL. MK 55106.2800 8T YAUI. Mn 551162824 (612) 7749531 (0 12) 6960253 FAX (6 12) 7749536 FAX (6 12) 6969263 r4 w or 7055 Cmmu Ave. 2109 CLErr Rom tMVCR GROVe IWOMM, M1155076.2501 CAoan, MN 551223001 (612) 455.2900 (612) 454.4840 FAX (612) 4558955 FAX (612) 454.1354 August. 11, 1997 Gerald & Arlene Delougherty 1036 Highway 110 Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4103 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Delougherty : City of Mendota Heights At their August 5th meeting the Mendota Heights City Council considered a request from Mr. John Seidel, President Dakota Bank to name the frontage road on which you live, "Dakota Drive". The City Council asked me to inform all the other affected landowners of this request and solicit their input and opinions of the proposed name change before they make a decision. Please contact me either by phone or by letter before August 22, 1997 if you desire to be heard on this request, thank you. I _ 17 Sincerely, es E. Danielson blic Works Director _ _ �� vf� / V"' - p- -, Ae 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 August 11, 1997 Hugo A. Blackfelner 1026 Highway 110 Mendota Heights, MN 55118-4103 Dear Mr. Biacideiner: City of Mendota Heights At their August 5th meeting the Mendota Heights City Council considered a request from Mr. John Seidel, President Dakota Bank to name the frontage road on which you live, "Dakota Drive". The City Council asked me to inform all the other affectedlandowners of this -request and solicit their input and opinions of the proposed.name change before they make a derision. Please contact me either by phone or by letter before August 22,- 1.997 if you desire to be heard on this request,. thank you. Sincerely;' -_ Jes E. Danielson tblic Works Director i J G�c� �`�' �� ✓ ; �. .�c�-mac. 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendo a Heights, MN - 55118 2.1850 I TO: FROM: SUBJECT CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS August 26, 1997 Mayor, City Council and City Admin stra or James E. Danielson, Public Huber/Delaware Turn Lane Works Direc t), -,- Last fall based on some resident complaints, the City requested that Dakota County add a right tum lane on Delaware Avenue at Huber Drive (minutes attached). Dakota County concurred with the request and this summer they designed the project. During the design they determined that some additional right-of-way was needed from the Shepards, 2155 Delaware Avenue (map attached). When the County approached the Shepards to describe the project and negotiate a purchase price for the needed right-of-way, the Shepards expressed their concern for the project. The Shepards have sent the attached letter requesting that the City Council reconsider their decision and ask Dakota County not to construct the turn lane. It is the County's preference to obtain right-of-way through negotiated settlements with landowners. If they are unable to arrive at negotiated settlements, there are two options; 1. Wait until the land is platted and require that the needed County right-of-way be dedicated as a condition of platting, or 2. Condemn the right-of-way. The County would only begin condemnation action at the City's request. --1T-a)1MrFT11 The Shepards make several inaccurate statements within their letter. 1. A turn lane will not make the intersection more hazardous and "guarantee serious accidents". Turn lanes are in common use and they do improve traffic safety. A good example of how this proposed turn lane will look and function can be viewed 1/2 mile farther south on Delaware Avenue at Mendota Heights Road, where a similar turn lane has been in use for many years. 2. The average daily traffic volume on Delaware Avenue is approximately 3,900 north of Huber Drive and 2,900 south. These are low volumes for a County Road and the construction of Copperfield did not "overwhelm the capacity". m 3. Construction of a turn lane will not "degrade air quality and increase noise." A new turn lane will calm down traffic and make it flow more evenly and safely, thus reducing air pollution and noise. 4. Both the City and County Staff's continue to recommend construction of a turn lane at Huber Drive. Review the Shepard's request to abort the right turn lane project. If Council desires to grant the request, nothing needs to be done and the project will die for lack of right-of-way. If Council desires to proceed with the project, they need to authorize Dakota County to begin the condemnation process for the needed right-of-way. At the very least, unless the Shepard's are willing to work with the City and County to negotiate a purchase of the right-of-way, the project will be delayed until next year to allow time for condemnation. Page No. 22 October 15, 1996 two homes are included in the program. He stated that the MAC staff has agreed there was an error and the city has asked MAC to make a decision - the other homes should be included if the boundary maps are correct. Councilmember Huber asked what the city can do for the Pinces and stated that the city should at least get MAC to admit that the properties should be included in the program Mayor Mertensotto stated that he believes the Part 150 money for 1997 and 1998 will principally go to Minneapolis and perhaps Bloomington if the 422 runway recommendation is approved. Mr. Pince stated that the planes are coming more rapidly - every forty seconds, and the ones between 9:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. are the most bothersome. Councilmember Smith stated that she pointed out at the MASAC meeting that the number of planes seems to be increasing and they are flying later. She stated that since MAC has little control over the planes that are delayed in the evening, she suggested cutting back on the shoulder hours. Administrator Batchelder stated that he will be at the MAC on October 16 and will try to get a confirmation from Mr. Vecchi that the homes on Wagon Wheel will be included in the program. It was the consensus of Council to approve the recommendations of the Airport Relations Commission and direct the Mayor to advocate inclusion of the Airport Relations Commission's recommendations in the MSP Mitigation Commission recommendations. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Huber informed Council on comments he has received from Friendly Hills residents wanting a stop sign at Decorah and Apache. The matter was referred to the Police Department for review. ouncilmembe 676 —k- concerti ove='safetyon Delawaiey venue'at`Fiuber Drive."He stated that"althouglt�iere�is a=no-N,°, issing ion o DeIaware;-peoplegoirig soi_iih on•DeI'aware tryto g�' Hund c azturiung, onto Huber and thele is very poo '�"" to_ the ml TURN LANE IN �L 0 END CURB WITH TAPER CONSTRUCTION LIMITS NEW EDGE OF BIT, NEW R/W co C) + ��� BRUSH —� CD ,D d, ,o N a LD - - — — 14#00 15+0-0 12' 1 +00 00 18+00 63 SAWCUT o — M CD CTS rlz Lo + d gip. .A Sg, Ia. TA, 13+57,98 CD Z /L HUBER DR, JP. 21'x15"x76' CSAC —SALVAGE 4STALL 21' X 15' X 76' CSAC &I21'X15'X6"CSAC & I 1-21' SPAN GS ARCH APRON FOR INLET END OF CULVERT JLET ELEV. = 920,0 UTLET ELEV. = 916.5 ExtsTrr r— PAIN TAPE. 17 +78 PLAT OF DELAWARE AV F 1 t F V _ __.9.2 3.3 9 --- 1--- �- �_ ---- , -- —�— —a---- ---�-- --, ��---� -- -� -- --- - --- - Roger B. Shepard, Jr. 2155 Delaware Ave. St. Paul, Minnesota 55118 Aug. 23rd, '97 To: Mayor Mertensotto and the City Council of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights MN. 55118 MAT AV 1997 My husband, Roger Shepard and I have lived at 2155 Delaware Ave., which has been our homestead, since 1960. In 1976 we bought the six acre field to the east of us between us and Delaware Ave. We eventually intended to sell this field in lots of an appropriate size for this still rural area, and use the proceeds of the sale to maintain our original nine acres. The Copperfield development required us to incur a considerable debt when we were assessed for city water and storm sewers. We were the property owner who was most affected because our land is bordered by both Huber and Delaware. These amenities were not something we wanted for ourselves, but, of course, we were not given a choice. We were allowed to defer payment until we sold the land and this debt has now grown to $100,000.00. This means we must realize more than we intended in the sale of the field. Another piece of our land had been taken two years after we bought it by the city for a bicycle path. This, again, was not something we believed was practical and it was not anything we wanted. Last winter, the time came when we needed to sell the field to have the resources to keep up our original 9 acres, just as we had planned. We notified Mendota Heights of our plan and had begun drawings and negotiations with various developers when we were suddenly notified that we should be aware that another .4 acres was going to be dedicated for a "right tum lane" from near our front gate to Huber Drive; a distance of 500 feet and 60 feet in width. We asked why this was necessary and were told it was in the interest of safety for the heavy traffic which used Delaware and needed to tum into Huber. We were also told that this plan originated in a request to the Mendota Heights Council by residents of Copperfield and had been approved without dissent. After looking at the map provided for us by the County, it became apparent that this was not a right tum lane as it was originally described to us, but a new lane for Delaware Ave, running roughly from our gate to Huber Ave. There is nothing like it on Delaware anywhere else; right tums onto 110 from Dodd and Delaware are much shorter. The reason for it, we were told, was that cars going south on Delaware were unhappy about having to slow down as Copperfield residents ahead of them turned right into Huber drive. They tended, in their impatience, to either rear -end the right -turning cars or go around them, using the lane for north bound traffic causing many near accidents. We were dismayed that this decision to take more of our land was not made without consulting us. Now we are told that at the county level, there is nowhere we can appeal the decision or get a hearing, If we had been notified that this was about to be done to us and if we had been allowed to have something to say about it, here are some of the things we would have said: Jerry Kingrey, Right of Way manager of the highway department of Dakota County told us that widening Delaware Ave. to more than two lanes was going to be inevitable. If it was known that the planned density of Copperfield would overwhelm the capacity of a county road like Delaware, we should have been told when it was developed. The planners must have known. But presently, we do not believe Coppefield traffic is the problem. The problem stems from the fact that commuters to Apple Valley and Burnsville are using county and country roads to bypass the thruways we built for them with our taxes. They drive on these county roads much too fast. Sunfish Lake has complained about the speeders on Salem Church Road and it has become hazardous for us to cross Delaware on foot to get our mail. Sunfish Lake has been told that speeders will not be tagged unless they have been seen traveling ten miles an hour above the speed limit. Our Mendota Heights police force cannot maintain a constant patrol so that is unlikely to happen as the speeders know. Despite the obvious need for public transportation, there seems to be no hope of that so the volume of single occupant cars is bound to increase. That being the case, we must be concerned about safety. We don't want accidents either and it has become increasingly difficult at times to get out of our driveway. The same can be said of three driveways to the north of us. We all would like to feel safer. But what this proposal does is make Delaware even more hazardous. We cannot understand why Copperfield residents would believe this would make entry into Delaware safer for them. Exits out of Huber onto Delaware will have to be done with visibility to the north blocked by cars waiting to tum into Huber. A widened Delaware Avenue will only increase the number of cars and tempt them to speed more. This isn't just our opinion but was said to us by one of the policemen who patrols Mendota Heights. Bicyclers would simply be wiped out. According to Jane Jacobs, a long time respected city planner, the way to discourage traffic and or slow it down is to put stop signs at dangerous intersections. I'm told that the county engineer doesn't think such devices are safe but, again, our policeman does. It works very well on the stretch of Delaware north of 110 where there are four way stop signs on Wentworth and Marie and the traffic is slower and thinner. It seems to us that there is a policy in place which is driven entirely by the needs of automobiles and drivers who are not required or expected to obey traffic laws. 2 Environmental considerations as well as property rights no longer are entitled to any consideration; only the convenience of commuters. We are dismayed that our neighbors would want to take part of our land from us without even asking. We are shocked that our city would ratify such a decision without notifying us or giving us a chance to present our point of view. But most importantly, we believe this plan for Delaware Ave. will practically guarantee serious accidents. It will degrade air quality and increase noise for our new lots which will have lost their noise barrier. We urge you uo to reconsider. c.c David Edwards, Dakota County Highway Dep 'm nt Jim Danielson, Dir. Pof Public Works, Mendota Heights Mendota Heights City Council 3 August 29, 1997 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator SUBJECT: Request to Release MNDOT Right of Way Discussion On July 22, 1997 City Staff met with Mr. Tom Leach to discuss his proposal to acquire right of way property from the Minnesota Department of Transportation. This property is located at the north east comer of Trunk Highway 110 and Dodd Road immediately south of Fina Mart. See attached map. Mr. Leach had been in contact with MNDOT Transportation Planners to discuss the release of this land. As per MNDOT policy, MNDOT is requesting that Mr. Leach approach the City Council to request a release of this property. City Council's policy on the release of this MNDOT land is that MNDOT should retain the roadway easement for future public roadway purposes, exclusive of the land south of South Plaza Drive. Please see attached December 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Lari of MNDOT. Mr. Leach has not presented any plans to City Staff regarding the layout or site design for his proposed car wash. Mr. Leach has indicated in conversations with Staff that MNDOT has indicated that there would only be one way access into this property from Dodd Road and that an exit would have to be established to the east of the property. City Council should discuss this request with Mr. Leach and provide direction to City Staff. Action Required Meet with Mr. Leach and determine a course of action. T.H. 149 VACANT RIGHT-OF-WAY RELEASE REQUEST 'S1 5 10% 0 August 3, 1997 Mr. Kevin Batchedler City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Hts., MN 55118 Dear Mr. Batchedler: We are interested in purchasing and developing the parcel of property in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway 110 and Dodd Road. We have spoken to various Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), representatives who have informed us the property will not be available unless the City of Mendota Heights has no interest in the subject property. By this letter we are requesting a letter from the City of Mendota Heights as to your interest, or lack there of, in acquisition of the subject property. Please put this topic on the agenda for the next City Council meeting and inform us of that date. If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact either of us at the numbers listed below. Thank you in advance for your attention to this request. Sincerely, J, each 1 4 Cherry Hill Road Mendota Hts., MN 55120 450-7566 r Tom Leach 454-7526 City of !,AAnLAAJ J%endota Heights December 20, 1993 Mr. Adeel Z. Lari. Minnesota Department of Transportation 3485 Hadley Avenue North Oakdale, MU 55109 Dear Mr. Lari: I am writing to you on behalf of the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights regarding the roadway easement held by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) in the State Trunk Highway 149/State Trunk Highway 110 area. of Mendota Heights. MnDOT is currently considering the disposition of this easement and you have asked the City to review its long range plans for this area to assess their relationship to the easement area. As you are aware, the City Council of Mendota Heights has wrestled with this issue for over a year. Numerous public hearings have been held and the City commissioned a community survey -this past summer to gauge community. sentiment regarding the possible turnback of this roadway easement. On December 7, 1993 the City Council formally adopted a motion requesting that MnDOT retain the roadway easement for future public roadway purposes, exclusive of the land south of South Plaza. Drive (See attached excerpt from draft City Council meeting minutes dated December 7, 1993). - The City .can foresee that the -traffic on both TH 110 and TH 149 will increase in the not too distant future. Traffic volumes on TH 110 will increase with the opening of the new Mendota Bridge and the continued development- of northern and central Dakota County. Additionally, traffic volumes on TH 149 will also see an increase due to continued commercial development is northern Ragan and residential development in southern Mendota Heights. Without the reservation of the roadway easement in this area, the ability to make needed traffic circulation improvements in our community could be severely hampered. If we are to adequately preserve our options to address these potential traffic needs, the MnDOT roadway easement needs to. be maintained. 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights,'MN - 55118- ..452=1850 Mr. Adeel Z. Lari December 20, 1993 Page 2 After comprehensive consideration of all the current and future land uses in this area, and after reviewing the perceptions' and desires of the residents of our community, our City Council feels there is an overwhelming need for preserving this area for future roadway use. As such, we request MnDOT to retain ownership of the roadway easement. As you know, the City has designated South Plaza Drive and a portion of the TH 149 roadway easement as part of the Municipal State Aid (MSA) system to preserve the option of adding a future overpass over Highway 110 should traffic levels someday make such an improvement necessary. While it does not appear such a linkage will be needed in the near term, the connection remains designated as part of the State's MSA roadway system. The City desires that this roadway easement be retained by MnDOT to provide adequate ingress and egress to nearby development sites. In order to achieve and highest and best land uses in this area of our City, adequate .roadway access is essential. For example, the City of Mendota Heights, through the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, is currently considering the construction of a senior housing facility in the City. Several of the sites being considered are in the TH 149/ TH 110 area and site accessibility is a major issue currently =being= evaluated. Roadway development with the easement area may be necessary to adequately serve the senior housing site which is ultimately chosen. In the longer term, the Dual Track Airport Planning Study is currently addressing whether or not to relocate Minneapolis/ St. Paul International Airport to southern Dakota County. The draft Alternative Environmental Document which has been prepared by the Metropolitan Airports Commission for the new site describes significant roadway modifications in northern Dakota County which would be necessary to accommodate access to the new site. Until the true impacts of such a decision are known, the City believes it is inadvisable for MnDOT to dispose of the TH 149/ TH 110 roadway easement. As mentioned earlier, the City desires that the roadway easement be retained, exclusive of that land south of South Plaza Drive. The City Council's review of the roadway easement has shown that the land south of South Plaza Drive is not anticipated to be needed for roadway purposes. However, other compelling public purposes, such as parks and trail connections, are seen as appropriate for this property. The City would be interested in discussing with you how it might obtain use or ownership of this property for such public purposes. Mr. Adeel Z. Lari December 20, 1993 Page 3 . Lastly, the City Council has expressed concern regarding the condition of the TH .149 roadway easement north of TH 110.. This .area. shows evidence of highway grading work which was left incomplete many years ago. The condition of the property is an aesthetic liability to our commercial area and we would like to explore with you possible options for improving the appearance of this area. Thank you for your consideration of the City's above described requests. Should you have questions regarding the City's position on these matters, please feel free to give me a call. We look forward to working with you to insure the continued provision of high quality surface transportation within our City. Sincerely, CITY OF HEIGHTS M. Thomas Lawell City Administrator cc:Mr. Jim Danielson . Mr. Brian Birch CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 27, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Admini �L) FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Roseville Property Management Company: Simple Lot Division Planning Case No. 97-27 Discussion Mr. Hugh Cullen appeared before the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on August 26, 1997 on behalf of Roseville Properties to discuss their application for a Simple Lot Division. Mr. Cullen wishes to readjust the lot line between Lot 6 and Lot 5 of Block 1, Yorkton Centre Pointe South. Please see the attached items of public record pertaining to this application. Mr. Cullen will be present at the September 2, 1997 meeting of the City Council to discuss the Simple Lot Division application. Recommendation At their regular meeting on August 26, 1997 the Planning Commission voted 6-0 (with Commissioner Friel absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the Simple Lot Division on the condition that 5' easements be granted to the City for utility purposes along all new lot lines, per standard practice. Action Required Discuss the Simple Lot Division application with Mr. Cullen. If the Council agrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Council may adopt the attached RESOLUTION 97- : A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SIMPLE LOT DIVISION TO ROSEVILLE PROPERTIES FOR YORKTON CENTRE POINTE SOUTH, LOTS 5 AND 6 OF BLOCK 1, placing any additional conditions upon these plans the Council deems necessary. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SIMPLE LOT DIVISION TO ROSEVILLE PROPERTIES FOR YORKTON CENTRE POINTE SOUTH, LOTS 5 AND 6 OF BLOCK 1 WHEREAS, Mr. Hugh Cullen of Roseville Properties has requested a Simple Lot Division for Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1, Yorkton Centre Pointe South, as proposed on plans on file in Planning Case No. 97-27; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of Mendota Heights discussed this application at their August 26, 1997 meeting; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission voted 6-0 (with one Commissioner absent) on August 26, 1997 to recommend that the City Council approve this application upon the condition enumerated below, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that a Simple Lot Division for Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Yorkton Centre Pointe South, as proposed on plans on file in Planning Case No. 97-27 is hereby granted upon the following condition: 1. That Roseville Properties grant a utility easement to the City of Mendota Heights for 5' along all new property lines created, as is standard practice. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the proposed Simple Lot Division for Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Yorkton Centre Pointe South, as proposed on plans on file in Planning Case No. 97-27 under the above condition will have no adverse impact on the health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the community and the surrounding land, and would not be adverse to the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of September, 1997. ATTEST: By Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor :�k �4 'Ttry 30-220 8.0 2295 40 '_'II 1- -*0- Lot Split and Lot Cons&iddtion Sketch For. - RU' N' 'HIGHWAY �"'O. 'T" 4'R�--,, 2,,,vE H S84 025 58 IS- I L=202.80 Roseville Properties ffanagement Company 226.6J NOT TANGENT Mu S DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS W PER PLAT Or YORKTON CENTRE - 10 POINTE SOUTH PARCEL A Lot 6, and the north 60.00 feet of the east 520.24 feet of Lot 5, X35.00 Block 1, YORKTON CENTRE POINTE SOUTH, according to the recorded A plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota. 1� AREA: 205,456 Square Feet • L � `��\,��,0 i^{ � _ D 4.717 Acres 4� A, N, 1141 _ -0 0 "'{ � C �PARCEL B 'AM q C3 Lot 5, Block 1, YORKTON CENTRE POINTE SOUTH, according to the 100 4 recorded plot thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota, EXCEPT the north 60.00 feet of the east 520.24 feet of said Lot 5. N. LINE OF LOT 5. AREA: 283,818 Square Feet 6.5156 Acres Zt BLOCK I N89015'19" 70.03 10 1-60.00-- 180.00 7- APPLICANT & DEVELOPER: Roseville Properties Management Company =+69-0.27— oil U" 0 02575 No. Fairview Avenue DRAINAGE 520.24 -j Suite 250 UTIUTY EASEMENT Li IA - PER PLAT OF % 0 Roseville, MN 55113 w YORKTON CENTRE 1z J, LAJ Contact: Mr. Hugh Cullen POINTE SOUTH % z N89015'191F 520.24 :3 8 to VL W W in W �iz z r\ 77 % In a3 C 0 W Q0 I I p tV < We hereby certify that this sketch, plan or report was C; ` v 0J L I J �1' `� prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. LW 0F L7 62 -4j z Dated this 9th day of July 1997 0 N CD SUNDE LAND SURVEYING INC By W \ C L 1Edward H. Sunde, R.L.S. Minn. Reg. No. 8612 %A REVISED: July 31, 1997 (Add zoning and applicant information) DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT L PER PLAT OF YORKTON CENTRE \0 POINTE SOUTH 10 % 100 N 97-170 Ref. 450/14 T.28 R.23 S.27 SMT 9717000 I.dwg S89 15 19"W 544.00 A 9001 E. Bloomington Freeway (35W) 20NEDrtB—1 (LIMITED, BUSINESS DISTRICT) Bloomington, MN 55420 (612) 881-2455 FAX (612) 888-9526 rT McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 MEMORANDUM Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors TO: Planning Commissioners of Mendota Heights FROM: Meg McMonigal, City Plannerj(1) U DATE: August 18, 1997 MEETING DATE: August 26, 1997 SUBJECT: Subdivision Approval for Lot Reconfiguration MFRA # 11371 APPLICANTS: Roseville Properties LOCATION: 2025 Centre Pointe Boulevard ZONING: B-1, Limited Business L GUIDE PLAN: Limited Business Description of Request Roseville Properties is requesting approval to reconfigure two (2) lots by adjusting a common lot line. The request is to transfer .72 acres from one platted parcel to the adjacent platted parcel. This may be accomplished by a Certificate of Survey, as allowed under Section 11.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Background Information When the Centre Pointe building was constructed on Lot 6, Block 1, Yorkton Centre Pointe South, the parking lot was built across the southern lot line. At that time the properties were under common ownership and it was presumed that the lots would be consolidated. The lots were never consolidated. Roseville Properties would like to reconfigure the lots by adjusting the common lot line in order that the parking is all on Parcel A. There will not be any new lots created, and no impact except to bring the lots into conformance with the setback requirements. An Equal Opportunity Employer City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission Roseville Properties August 26, 1997 Page 2 Staff met with the applicant on April 21, 1997, and determined that adjusting a lot line between two property owners could be accomplished by filing a Certificate of Survey with Dakota County, under the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 11.3 "Exceptions" as follows: 11.3 EXCEPTIONS When requesting a subdivision, if either of the two following conditions exist, the City Administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the Planning Commission whereupon, they shall review said request and exempt the subdivider from complying with any inappropriate requirements of this Ordinance. 11.3 (1) In the case of a request to divide a lot which is apart of a recorded plat where the division is to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot or to create two lots and the newly created property line will not cause the other remaining portion of the lot to be in violation with this Ordinance or the zoning ordinance. The exceptions to the ordinance were written for this type of lot reconfiguration; no dedication is required. Both lots will meet all of the zoning requirements. A Certificate of Survey has been submitted to show the adjusted lot boundaries. Legal descriptions of the new property lines are attached. The Survey needs to be filed with the County to accomplish the transfer. Action Requested: The Planning Commission can recommend: (1) approval (2) approval with conditions (3) denial Staff Recommendation: The City Planner recommends this Lot Reconfiguration by Certificate of Survey for Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Yorkton Centre Point South be approved for filing at the County, as it meets the requirements and intent of the Subdivision Ordinance. MATERIALS REVIEWED: 1. Application for consideration of a Planning Request, signed and dated August 5, 1997. 2. Letter of Intent from Hugh Cullen, Roseville Properties, dated August 5, 1997. 3. Certificate of Survey, showing legal descriptions and new configurations of Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, Yorkton Centre Point South. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Roseville Properties ,® 15050 23rd Ave. N. Engineers Lot Reconfiguration Plymouth. MN 55447 Planners 6121476-6010 Surveyors �� City o� �.� �,.� � 1Viendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. c 7— C� Date of Application Fee Paid 135.00_ Applicant Name: Roseville Pr�rty Management Crnpa„g PH:_ (612)631-6-41? (Last) (First) 04 Address: 2575 N. Fairview Ave., Suite 2500 Rasevi 11 P , mN 55.113 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: Centre Pointe, LLP (Last) (First) (MI) Address: Same as above. (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Properly in Question: 2025 Centre Pointe Rl vr1 Legal Description of Property: See Attached Survey - Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit X Other (attach explanation) Section Present Zoning of Property B-1 Present Use Off i rp igui 1 di nq Proposed Zoning of Property B-1 Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the, additional material are true. (Signatiac of PP}i �-S--9 (Date) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 V(/LL/.7! lY. i7a rt1A OlL YVL VDYV Date: Applicant: Phone # / Fax #: Location of Property: Other Approvals Needed: Case No: Relevant Ordinances/Sections: CITY PROCESS City of Mendota Heights Prelimioa Plat Checklist gal q7 f�s l Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. If pr r d complete application materials and supportive documents are submitted by q %(date) then the public hearing or review of your case will be conducted by the Planning Commission on !1,)�V'7 (date). Following completion of the public hearing, or Planning Commission review, the City Council may consider your application on (date). APPLICANT REQUIREMENTS The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: __ 1. jFee: $335 ' �� Completed Application Form WIT r'll- TVLLCMI eF— - Rcsevl ile ay 6W.: u/p, wlbl- PWV1 DF Letter of Intent. - RDSvi'l �_' NJA 4. Abstract Listing of owners located within 350 feet of property. By State Law, this must be provided and certified by an Abstract Company. Contents. The Preliminary Plat shall contain the following information: Irl A a. Proposed name of subdivision; names shall not duplicate or too closely resemble names of existing subdivisions. I b.)Location of boundary lines in relation to a known section, quarter section or - 5(ihik', �� quarter -quarter section lines comprising a legal description of the property. Names and addresses of the developer and the designer making the plat.--�hk d.J Scale of plat, not less than one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet. __0 Date and northpoint. -Su h k U(/LL/y( 14: SU NAI b1L 4OZ OU4U UIZINVUln nl.l%anla w.Jvvi Existing Conditions: Boundary line of proposed subdivision, clearly indicated and to a close degree of -S tiWG accuracy. Existing zoning classifications for land within and abutting the subdivision. -SU hGl2 — A general statement on the approximate acreage and dimensions of the lots. f Glti �J}# d. Location, right-of-way width, and names of existing or platted streets, or other public ways, parks, and other public lands, permanent buildings and structures, easements and section and corporate lines within the plan and to a distance on hundred fifty (150) feet beyond shall also be indicated. 61-t ( 5TIY e. Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land, within one hundred fifty (150) feet, identified by name and ownership, including all contiguous land owned or controlled by the subdivider. G("t IJ-tW f. Topographic data, including contours at vertical intervals of not more than two (2) feet. Water courses, marshes, rock outcrops, power transmission lines, and other significant features shall also be shown. U.S.G.S. data shall be used for all topographic mapping where feasible. N/ -k- g. An accurate soil survey of the subdivision prepared by a qualified person. Proposed Design Features: RVA -a. Layout of proposed streets showing the right-of-way widths, center -line gradients, typical cross sections, and proposed names of streets. The name of any street heretofore used in the county or its environs shall not be used unless the proposed street is a logical extension of an already named street, in which event the same name shall be used. Street names shall conform to the master street name and �rr numbering system as adopted. Ivb. Locations and widths of proposed alleys and pedestrian ways. NIA -c. Layout, numbers and preliminary dimensions of lots and blocks. I d. Minimum front and side street building setback lines. NA- e. When lots are located on a curve, the width of the lot at the building setback line. Areas, other than streets, alleys, pedestrian ways and utility easements, intended -sUhG. to be dedicated or reserved for public use, including the size of such area or areas in acres. --0 Size of individual lot areas noted in square footage. g1 jik 2 .11 c&' Vi Inn U— z., I. .,..z.. Other Information: RIA a. Statement of the proposed use of lots stating types of residential buildings with number or proposed dwelling units and type of business or industry, so as to reveal the effect of the development on traffic, fire hazards, and congestion of population. b. Provision for surface water disposal, drainage, and flood control. Wkc. If any zoning changes are contemplated, the proposed zoning plan for the areas. d. Where the subdivider owns property adjacent to that which is being proposed for the subdivision, the Planning Commission shall require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan of the remainder of the property so as to show the possible relationships between the proposed subdivision and the future subdivision. In any event, all subdivisions shall be shown to relate well with existing or potential adjacent subdivisions. N11L e. Where structures are to be placed on large lots (over 30,000 square feet), the preliminary plat shall indicate placement of structures so that lots may be further subdivided. NIA -f. Potential resubdivision and use of excessively deep (over 200 feet) lots shall be shown and the preliminary plat shall indicate placement of structures so that lots may be further subdivided. `4�� g. A plan for soil erosion and sediment control both during construction and after development. The plan shall include gradients of waterways, design of velocity and erosion control ,measures, and landscaping of the erosion and sediment control system. h. A vegetation preservation and protection plan that shows those trees proposed to be removed, those to remain, the types and locations of trees and other vegetation that are to be planted. i. Such other information as may be requested by the Engineer, Surveyor, or Planning Commission. Note: Dated originals plus twenty dated copies of all of the above materials, including this checklist, must be submitted in person to Kim Blaeser, Senior Secretary by noon on the first Tuesday of the month. All materials larger than S%s" x 11" must be folded to that size. (Note: Copies of this completed form will be given to both the applicant and the Senior Secretary.) RosEviLLE PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY August 5 ,1997 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 Re: Letter of Intent - Subdivision Request Parcel A, Lot 6, Yorkton Centre Pointe South Parcel B, Lot 5, Block 1, Yorkton Centre Pointe South Commission Members: An Easement currently exits for approximately 60 feet between Parcels A & B, as indicated on the attached site plan. Both parcel owners wish to permanently attach the Easement area to Parcel A. We understand that this could be accomplished, with your approval, through a "lot sub- division" action. Please consider this letter as part of.the required application materials and supportive documents in anticipation of review at your August 26, 1997 meeting. Very ly yours, Hugh R.'��n, Owner Parcel B attachments 2575 N. Fairview - Suite 250 - Roseville, MN 55113 - (612) 633-6312 - Fax 633-9221 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 27, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Adminisii� FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Eric Schneeman, 868 Bluff Circle Variance to Zoning Ordinance Section 4.8(1)b Locating a Fence on City Property Planning Case #97-32 Discussion Mr. Eric Schneeman appeared before the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on August 26, 1997 to discuss his application for a variance to Zoning Ordinance Section 4.8(1)b for a fence that would rest in part on City property. Mr. Schneeman provided several reasons why he felt the fence was necessary, including the need to prevent objects from rolling down the hill and the need to discourage the public using the trail from traversing Mr. Schneeman's property. (Please see the portion of the Planning Commission minutes from the August 26, 1997 meeting pertaining to this application.) During discussion of this request, the Planning Commission raised the following concerns: 1. Some Commissioners felt that granting a variance to locate a fence on City property could set a questionable precedent 2. Some Commissioners felt that the City should not approve the Variance request without a more accurate description of the exact location of the fence. 3. Some Commissioners felt that although the Schneemans had good reasons why they =1 needed a fence, the fi nice should be on the Schneemans' own property. 4. Some Commissioners felt that the Schneemans had not demonstrated a hardship sufficient to justify the Variance, but merely the desire to not shrink the usable space in the vicinity of their back yard. Commissioner Tilsen was in favor of installing the fence, but felt that it should be handled in a manner different from a variance application and approval. Commissioner Tilsen suggested that the Schneemans pay for the fence and donate that portion of the 0 fence on City property to the City. The City and the Schneemans could then execute an agreement for the maintenance of the fence and surrounding area. Mr. Schneeman said that he would be happy to donate the fence to the City under those conditions. Some other Commissioners seemed to agree with that idea. Please see the attached items of public record pertaining to this application. Mr. Schneeman will be present at the September 2, 1997 meeting of the City Council to discuss the Variance request. Please note that although the Schneemans had originally applied for a front yard setback variance and a side yard setback variance for the fence, Staff has since determined that the fence instead would require a variance to Section 4.8(1)b requiring that all fences be located on one's own property, and would also require permission from the City as the adjacent property owner to place the fence on City property. Recommendation At their regular meeting on August 26, 1997 the Planning Commission voted 3-3 (with Commissioner Friel absent and Commissioners Koll, Dwyer and Tilsen voting in the negative) to recommend that the Council grant a seven foot front yard variance and an eight foot rear yard variance, allowing the fence to be set back 13' from the curb, 7' into the City right-of-way, and 8' from the City trail. The Planning Commission then voted 3- 3 (with Commissioner Friel absent and Commissioners Duggan, Lorberbaum, and Betlej voting in the negative) to recommend that the Council deny the variance request. Thus neither motion passed, and Chairman Dwyer instructed Staff to report this impasse to the Council. Action Required Discuss the variance application with Mr. Schneeman and provide direction to Staff. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners of Mendota Heights FROM: Meg J. McMonigal, City Planner{ly}� 11'1__ DATE: August 19 1997 Uu MEETING DATE: August 26, 1997 SUBJECT: Fence Variances APPLICANTS: Kathryn Schneeman LOCATION: 868 Bluff Circle ZONING: R-1 GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Description of Request The request is for two (2) variances to install a split rail fence on city property adjacent to the Schneeman's home. Requested is a variance to: (1) install a fence within 6-8 feet of the curb in the front yard on the cul-de-sac and (2) to install a fence in the side/rear yard area on city property adjacent to the city's pathway. Property owners within 100 feet signed the written consent form to waive a public hearing. Background Information The proposal is to install a split rail fence on the side and rear sides of 868 Bluff Circle, on city right-of-way. The lot on a cul-de-sac and adjacent to a City pathway, which runs along the side yard of the lot and drops off steeply to the back. An Equal Opportunity Employer City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission Schneeman Fence Variance August 26, 1997 Page 2 The Schneeman's would like to install the fence off of their property on City right-of-way, within 6' to 8' of the curb in the front yard and between the property line and the pathway in the rear yard. The Zoning Ordinance requires in Section 4.8(1)b: All fences shall be located entirely upon the private property of the persons, firms or corporations constructing or causing the construction of such fence unless the owner of the property adjoining agrees in writing that such fence may be erected on the division line of the respective properties. The variances are requested to erect the fence off of the owner's property and on the City's right- of-way. Variance Criteria The variance criteria is outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, and includes: (1) special conditions apply to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district; (2) variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property; (3) adequate supply of light and air will be available to adjacent property; (4) the congestion of public street will not be reasonably increased; (5) the danger of fire or public safety will not be increased; (6) property values will not be impaired in the surrounding area; (7) health, safety, comfort and morals will not be impaired; (8) variance will not merely serve as a convenience, but is necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. Evaluation of Request There is an extra wide right-of-way on this cul-de-sac; it is approximately 20' in width versus the typical 13'. Because there is extra snow in cul-de-sacs, the extra space is utilized for snow storage. The Public Works Department does not wish to have a fence within the City right -of - w The fence may be located at the property line without a variance, to a maximum height of �6 feet. There does not appear to be a hardship related to the land with this request for a front / `yard 'ance. The rear fence variance request is to be constructed on the City right-of-way as well, adjacent to the pathway that runs along the side line of the Schneeman's lot. The Public Works Department would allow the rear fence on city property (if a variance is approved), as there is not a need for the City to utilize the property. There is a steep drop off to the rear of the Schneeman's lot, however, the drawings submitted do not show an exact location for this proposed fence. It appears it would be located where the pathway turns. There may be a hardship related to the steepness of the slope, however it has not been demonstrated that the fence needs to be located on the City property City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission Schneeman Fence Variance August 26, 1997 Page 3 Action Requested: The Planning Commission can recommend: (1) approval (2) approval with conditions (3) denial Staff Recommendation: The City Planner recommends that the front yard fence variance be denied because of the city's need to utilize the boulevard area of this lot for snow storage and because a hardship on this property has not been demonstrated. The City Planner also recommends that the rear fence variance be denied, unless a hardship related to the location of the fence can be demonstrated. MATERIALS REVIEWED: 1. Application for consideration of a Planning Request, signed and dated August 8, 1997. 2. Letter of Intent from Kathryn Schneeman. 3. Signatures of consent to waive a public hearing. 4. Site drawing by Dakota Fence. 5. Survey of lot. J, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Schneeman, 864 Bluff Circle ,® 1505023rd Ave. N. Engineers Variance Plymouth. MN 55447 Planners 612,476-6010 Surveyors Fence ! A A A, A A 21"JA City of Mendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. Date of Application , , / 5 7 Fee Paid Applicant Name: (Last) (First) Address: G�� c� S ILrTi i�G / /�"i55&2) (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: c�.�eerna,-? er;(' /=- (Last) -a (First) Address: 13L4 zF 61V1 Liz. 14 /1/xA - 5 S )/ (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) �L Street Location of Property in Question: 2)1,A �- Ci lc uz �[.� i ,u Sec !'�-�Q Legal Description of Property: L / F Z QAQ-1- PLAC-E /DD4 Type of Request: Rezoning Variance Conditional Use Pepnit Subdivision Approval Conditional Use Permit for. P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Plan Approval Other (attach explanation) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number +Q Section Present Zoning of -Property Present Use ��'�G LH F14w Gc- H 1-4%AA E_ Proposed Zoning of Property � Proposed Use S / A)GC_.� F''n1Lc.. r� I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. A- v (Suture of Applicant) ; i (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN - 55118 452.1850 City of Mendota Heights Variance Checklist Date of Pre -Application Meeting: 46(6_1'q 7y Applicant: Phone # / Fax #: S Location of Property: Other Approvals Needed: Case No: Relevant Ordinances/Sections CITY PROCESS Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. If piper and complete application materials and supportive documents are submitted by (date) then the public hearing or review of your case will be conducted by the Planning Commission on ���-6 `��_ (date). Following completion of the public hearing, or Planning Commission review, the City Council may consider your application on ql� & 7 (date). APPLICANT REQUIREMENTS The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: �a. Fee ($50 Residential, $100 Commercial) ✓b. Completed and Signed Application Form C. Letter of Intent summarizing the proposal, including an explanation of hardship or Ste* r - practical difficulty justifying the variance. G 0/_ d. Abstract Listing of owners located within 100 feet of property. By State Law, this must be provided and certified by an Abstract Company. �e. Sketch plan showing all pertinent dimensions, and including the location of any easements, having an influence upon the variance request. A. Written consent by the owners of property within 100 feet of the boundaries of the property for which the variance is requested, accompanied by a map indicating the location of the property in question and the location of property owners who have given consent. If the signatures of all neighbors within 100 feet of the property in item (f) are not obtained by , then the City will mail a notice to all residents within 100 feet of the owner's property at least 10 days in advance of the Planning Commission meeting on �I�CL`�7 The Planning Commission will open a public hearing at the meeting and allow residents to speak on the subject of the Variance. If the signatures in item (f) are obtained by then the City will not mail notices to all neighbors within 100 feet of the property and the Planning Commission may waive the Public Hearing at its meeting on f7if it so chooses. There is no publishing requirement for a Variance. /9- If topography or extreme grade is the basis on which the request is made, all topographic contours shall be submitted. fth. If the application involves a cutting of a curb for a driveway or grading a driveway, the applicant shall have his plan approved by the City's Public Works Director. Dated originals plus twenty dated copies of all of the above materials, including this checklist, must be submitted in person to Kim Blaeser, Senior Secretary by the aforementioned date. All materials larger than 8%" x 11" must be folded to that size. (Note: Copies of this completed form will be given to both the applicant and the Senior Secretary.) Notes: 2 Letter of Intent Variance for 868 Bluff Circle We are asking the City of Mendota Heights to grant us variances in two locations of our yard for a split rail fence. The variances are needed for safety and aesthsetic reasons. Front yard variance - We are requesting a variance to ... have the fence placed approximately. 6' to 10` from the curb. Our property line begins 15' to 20' from the curb. We would like to anchor the fence with lamp post to help navigate our driveway at night and early morning. Our driveway is approximately 130' long and difficult to see when it is dark. This has become increasingly necessary,-- since ecessary;- since we now have 15 small children living in'the four - Douses on our_cul du.sac. We will be planting a variety of perennial flowers along the fence which will add to the enjoyment of the many walkers, joggers and bikers that use the Mendota Heights trail. Side yard variance - We are requesting to have the fence run within 6' - 8' of the Mendota Heights trail. This is a safety issue. The trail becomes very steep and many items (lawn mowers, strollers, balls, etc) from our driveway have ended up at the bottom of the hill. So far nobody has been hurt, but we feel it is a matter of time before an accident happens. SIGNATURES OF CONSENT FOR VARIANCE REQUEST TO: The Planning Commission, City of Mendota Heights FROM: Property Owners oCA (ZC.Cz;7 We the undersigned have reviewed the plans for AGS s� � ) A-ej A -Q C,E : and understand the terms and conditions of the requested %variance for, Ste( �,42GC_ -4 :. t We have no obj written conser. Sincerely, NAME (Please Print) l�Av Y P�ss-,�l L C'6 jc—'sse� :tions to this request ana ao nere.Dy give our and consent to waiver of public hearing. -SIP,NATURE ADDRESS (INCL. LOT'S xo+�lT�/ �..,-637-0 C-L✓t�c, r �.. ��c 1�,•�e�s Ass . P # z s7, �1 3 .�r_N:K C0/ 7 REMITTANCE ADDRESS: P.O. Box 18 DAKOTAS FENCE OF MINNESOTA, ik.- 3480 Upper 149th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 612-423995 '512-455-8534 -?130 �o WORK ORDER # SHOP ADDRESS: 4600 Akron Avenue E,,^+ Rosemount, MN 55068 Fax -&12-423-3996 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55 Name t- ;:?"rt L.�a x,. _ s:J Job Site. Address ^'�T,L �A- Hudson Page' Date City/State Us, 0 -11---'Tia 'r� K tZ-1— Zip Phone sS;c) ng r .\1 Chain Link: Other Permit: Dakota Fence PQ Customer❑ Not needed Footage Wood: R/W (-C ar Rail Special Instructions_ Height Footage Gauge Style-) xA`AN%' Term posts Milling ___► t_�! �.;'�t._:._. _..___.____. .__.___.___;_._. Line posts Height • t_.. _ ��.`_ �_.:� _`,s,__ �; s-�.,-- �... L _ ��►: ;�.�i,~ Top rail Posts . �,.•_.,_� _ `, �,. ,.{; , Z;,::... r--_,_.:�- i - .�.,. .-Walk gates Rail ;( _ ` :, :S �. • ' - r�� �... , ._. �.t�;::i i� '�.i.t: �=-- --- ----- Drive aates Gates _ _ _.. r ._�._� �l.t �..__. ,;l ;,,; �' --� -� = ----- We propose to furnish and install in accordancg with the above specifications for the sum of "`+:;t� ) '.;. with payment to be made as follows: DeDOSit Balances over 30 days are subject to a finance charge of 1.5% per month (18% annual) or $1.50 minimum charge. SEE BACK FOR TERMS, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTY INFORMATION ANY CHANGES TO THIS AGREEMENT ARE SUBJECT -0 ADJUSTMENT BASED ON PRICING ATTIME OF ORDER. Acceptance of proposal: The price and specifications are satisfactory and acceptable: I/we hereby authorize you to proceed with the work as specified. I/we agree to the payment schedule as outlin d. Accepted by, ; z Scld o t : Cute , Authorized Representative__. This proposal valid for -- days. Buyer agrees that all warranties made are Bold if the payment terms hereof are not met. .7 .1 .. j� 1,o JOT 7. F' ,A I f4k4% Ir. q X_ WX uhtp ;WIQ :Ir•r'•f �. �: .a. I 7 -1r r .yf s - 1,''r.+ t �S+ • i j' �f. .t %v . (`�w. .,� • � � t * y • y yr r t , i.ItsK Ai' e � � ,`w'.. i q ... orf '•aNy� •',( T ,, 7 4� ? i ,,,. •f i � �,�"/t1' �e. . ,..• . 5 •i•f •tii.�'� 41 " �• .. •r .rr #.Pj, � 'r R ��. ,L:- r ,• �{,,�'>,t#i,�,. ,� • r' r ,e:i�"1 ?.,t` t��F} r .. . t' '• •, f •✓ rT' i y�'.'�tf �ti) j'ftl' Tr '' r r• . ' .+T • 1 yr'++. .-� +'7�t„ • r'/� � �1t .t(yS�R;,f`�C� ¢.f,i� .,i 4, 1Z� r:'�d�. • �'„ 4 .. w ��•:' .•�, niI•+ .. 4s. • }..E'!' 4 vet `�< ;�+�' h �•l�tiy".Yr,�W','�'X✓%' rk{'a6� i ✓ �(t .J „,,'. �,. �.. ^1 Y 1 ' ,^ ,. tl" � K ♦ vi Y � r trrSh•t kY t .`u4 , • . X S 1 � � , , ) ., •'R Y,, .,• f n � Y^#�`+p•,ai } i. N y2•,Lf � • ` \ � 1' i, .'..jr � Ch�;�"`:•� N�' 3#t• af",w� �y_ t, i. +`, � A'," a ;r t t "4-., w �, t.• j• V, r• �. • - ~tea },�-„��� 7 ";� `. r .� f j ,+" �'• �t.++c . "! � �� J �.jgttA.rrpt T n•JJ'/ , fv �;t�iA `! y,,, . . r� �•.` L� y� J: M ti ,.,t�jj • E•r„.' .1 .•� ,, S. X„ A.0 '# �'•'rh t� � C,t + fT 7$ � °r, ,:1 clf'r' t �r T' �.+ y•, . ', ,`,1 CXa ;,! .a. * 7 T + r, �I r✓�.tVfioi.'�.'.;, •r . • •„t�", r.yia{7L/01ry14••y� f^ '.r+' �'�r.•' 1+ / ll .,••�17 . , '�'{',w• ✓.r •.'y 'ia� y•s}a H, ,'•' "�rt1� 'i. ".•r„'w+ M�%1r ' !✓ Yi ��r4w, , .1yr�{ • ♦ �,7, w.ot ,j�.� •+ "�'}����t ��'yrft1t54+.f�'�'r ff . �'4, u'.5.'f.�.t�a;7.1.,;,� ,y � .,..t ? wi»� kiv • = �4T;'�. �1 ?� `�iW,�� ... 't �k .L,�r; �..'•' Y, •.j�`r,. t yya.. � y � 5r '� t �r jp s t ; "4• � �rpw�►K�t '� � ''Y+� , y � ZZ '�j ' .�� ��' �L. it/!r .:, ,�'.;1'�rj"' , . k�Rit t{ N'rlt f4 )l:} 1 :� i n�S pyf�;ll``yy�t •R�' •h r �y,'7 tC ' rf i h ►!►s. y�� ti o.. to't Ry x ,. r .. yy r =M.` x,� •�.'R� ��J1d�3•Sff1y. r tx fRAt'{h�i(h'. NFt.;"'-J�tT' �yif�Yti���N���a l ,"• „�4 +ti., S: a. ,• ltx.} �..•.. � ,, ',�t1 y•• rs�yyy}yry 14. td Jt t't`IY� 61 �. t J�r F f'TMr'� ,1/,'j. G'i ,i �fn,� " {L �.t wtA .. ";,+.. :.i� •.x .t }}�t ►� yt. ,A'�.. '•'� ort• �• wry••• _r #: i�•"y � �` ,iGj ly j T t�.• Q'^r' r, y S �. y • A 4f 7 .i 'r7• I a f. .; a:� 4 n.7 T tr 7'.:'lwJ ".�1. i��/'t Y�.A}i�✓J •R.. ,%. `4'1 .`f�' t ,� ,l hw�.,t,'`: .i',j! yr,,: YM, y L• !i=f.lTin}#f•�r�,y'aYiNt {{�`t �iuNH-.� ! lt�t'`'^#4!!,T€�r4 X^!"xr-+�, .^ p,; �t "77.7/x'%1. -i•r. + »,1.t7,a� t •'ri:, R •S f jjr tt +,1:jr t} i }{ ,� /�,�i^Y. YYY �,, ,/ �.p 7i 1,r '..f ,♦, ' y�" 5,,./•#!t7 }•'� #V'rr� �a>✓ 'L[}I n r7�L✓ , LY • t "�+,fr�'..4'r,•f ♦ •` y •`° ``. }!'t`('�y ,�yl�t {1C, �y���� �' / .P t��ji.a, f s t y, • . t 1C t4r }' Ily�J+ t� t r 4.. h;•jy1 T N17 1 �•,'C rr S: i ; �/ Y � 6.+ t i •,' ��y., }, SRA.�wtrT ,1erjt., il:aF'i •r"'}�rT�Ka J",�t); kt;a� p��gf �h "a1f, �d }✓ :Jfta`�3tr`t,!yTif'{Jr'iI�'4 rJ ✓'. `"`�4`JjF°s '`,if�Y�•./fT���,�rTTi•,T�.++.i•1�rrht �i�"!�•'•�}3.,`:•Yfi�`r•�'sR }�x�' ' ♦ /4�f'7„,y'1, j• K 4?. �J.f� f n_44�• .7•t�t+.`'�:iN®R �•Na4' h!1� •tI�,�y'ew�)��y'7t{ ��"it„��..�.;tr��5L�' r,.�. r�1 �.��:: � Ffi.h�•»r � ♦t '4i M•. ”%a,f+'l, rr✓d y,�irli�4 `fi.t J,,!`�iq�',���"r�»]y,yk., I'�."'t,(�twVM"t'� ?'%,tdi it , •(j?. •"nwY•' r +r4 •.- 74.b� 7 {,ff!',T�., t'A j Ty(�"r ;.� f(` .��,• t, Th1s 'M. ,. a'r't '1` i f Tilt .'�,Si{{jj++tt r . �' ��fS�ld. f �'i"; �K°,y`a a��� � � •� a „ r � .C�tl�:'�1!� .<.��t��'�',��,� °i�`r �r �J4ra u , ., f ✓ { `I* ,, •;r�.'twt f afl' X. w�1!"•fi {�{ 1 a •F _ My,t 1, 1:��.. `wttjr, #'! .'it y r'{`µ rrr`f' t'' ,„, ,3•,,f',t v ,^,. ,' /}''' .� f'ir' 1 F1 7 rte. •`y', T , t �'. h i },�. ', .t ata, •j: v ,,t i .? . At.y>± ��.tX,�%i.'`1�.,�evCi"rg�,k r .'y't� Hr� .fir a '..7 yp ,,T • H r,� ,,,.rt,.y 4 , 'Y J,, ``�.tk�• r .+' a � , y�'f+•". *' J !J Y # �'.rr � �' tt"' j r ` 1# t .. .. r +. y ys .< Y'x t ' `� t yrii, y.y Y�'fY Ni .Yir� V + 'r' � •, '�'i • R M � ,T�t. tn!„i.� W '�sj�i,{ i�Y''Lfr� �t r�, N , �'+i • t � . �.•t�a'!4•+ ,3. a'i , • 1 d • 1., �`Tj� �{ F �rrJ ''. ii. �� � �• ,,y i �rr'��;,�'l t 'i?ty���'t'}#nlr, f !,�{� 'kdC�� �r�� 't"f+r�� � •• i � r� � r U' f:la���t �d 1. .. ,t• �n C'1 _ "} iT�, ';•t Y t•• •.i+tx,'r+ '"T �'� a� � f%r i ;�. ''i�€,hr� % y .��;• � 'L . .,t '. t'�a ita. J•�o� .i. I � '-,�';`y .Ta'}�..t� ?'fir. �. ;,. i-�fi ,` •rte AY �xrr'� ��'• ��i�fyja��j��.j�4r;���ty���l.� - '�. y7 Ad„ d'' -r Tt'• ' r Q .JM1 :R' R. F,. j - .ti Tf_♦ .�+«'S""`tyt i { .+•, .'' f t �'+•:t •• 4 R � 4t, •• '. 1+.�`1 " „t , � ' r r r rX,� r T.'+r •" n } t ' !: • , � r���yys s4 c � }., ,K t� . �:" � :��;7 ,���iY� j �} �ar tSP �'�Ai t ro}• rtr �. , ty YR"'1". t �tiw i P },�' ��rt j ,`E i �y wfy;}� !' n '�+ •`�+!.� '�'iL ✓•�+ 3r f - + • %li� +..iU '1�i'i 1•fi �',1 . ,.is a ly rra ��' �cr � 7 t� �t�„IvZ,{I`il '�C••yr�''15t- a«`/yi a i� � .�:r a rt lar, a iKa y, � �...� f.. +• w1 1 . � 1J ]� f.4 a 9 r l v ri ...y � -.. •yfd F � ly.. q.nr K,te( r. ,{ � P: y' ♦ J4 /!+ i.' ;l 1 �� + r d ., � '�.�fy I 7"• '{a `�',�`.,. •i 11 ',r ,/yS'•1�y� ut+L�„•''v.� t`{ .4Ya� �f, SA'¢r' 1t;!�� Y,a:r-1.+'a'r i �1F6r"�”'—• • "j'a fAr;fT ./ a ,�,ttjj lw�f 3•f'- +� L a f ��?r 't ,/, MAX �ra i . +'t� � `fr� •��'%`f..la��?K'1 :,a.� .a t t '� •, If � �^� f '.Y ���^� ltf` r '�•y3f. is 41ir�`/ �. �i.�F r`Cr. , 'Zrf ao ..•. �If,, �.s t"• a 1 r r ti �V • AV! - h'd \:.G..I Ss^' �,y•�ii•t�`i� _ h X'tl �- 1 V J. / ;'n lit >� J' .. � w f ` . 'cam +�.5 -c ••� "t i M a c� .. �y.5 .� r ,y � �y+� „k v -,;.. u y `+��.C,e�. .r� '. -, � nom,,, .� r ,R•' s •,n. k--atiS .. r .•+- T.I S S ' , . x T .'r��,,.ee�• .r : •#�' Ts 74 5 " wn"! �� a � "C i i ^` Y 3�� '^..�s `.. �-` �Yr _�.r,• .�*�a ""a.1 s'� r� -`J. �µ��K S 1 y �� :nom � =;.t �� •_ /,: y:r r "I `_= ice. - J. � _ - iP:tK��_ -- •" ],,T `.t•3 !y 14 WNW n'A 4 tu - v • l__ ", .ve I?, -ilk wl� T , 41 IL YIN VA.M.44.1,4; �d �lk;"" Rf rl TI --p -w fvv TI v - :" _;UAW rN 'El & ;flit-,� 1!4 W 44 . . .... "%�R(•• ly I, I �'� R 7- !J41- V-'Nq� "it iR.-il irxy 4 lk m Air 7 Xi."v 'OSW M TV' -3�. , !%tr Zi ilk V1 XIN 40 14* 14 +"z� "'! +,r'Z"t"� f thy. � 'iN�'`�,'{ r! ]]�tYa �./•1�+. -ilk wl� T , 41 IL YIN VA.M.44.1,4; �d �lk;"" Rf rl TI --p -w fvv TI v - :" _;UAW rN 'El & ;flit-,� 1!4 W 44 . . .... "%�R(•• ly I, I �'� R 7- !J41- V-'Nq� "it iR.-il irxy 4 lk m Air 7 Xi."v 'OSW M TV' -3�. , !%tr Zi ilk V1 XIN P.n4 7�• 2422 Enterprise Drive �( Mendota Heights, MN 55124 piamm LAND SURVE•rofts • OVIL ENGiNFERS__ (612) 881-�1914•FUX 681-9488 �r��ltriin�ieir. LAND PLANNERS . LANDSCAPE ARcttitecrs 625 Highway 10 North000t 8lolne, MN 55434 (612) 783-1880•Fox 783-1883 Certificate of St,irvey for: JMS 1-+omGs_, 1t"1C. �,tY !-louse address: 13luff Circle, MendcSta !JoI hits, MN ��r✓ BLUFF CIRCLE �n.Vp rt qq 1 r ��-� A55�v�4({ E{ft'• c 00.00 t Ct lot). 00 -�" � _'. ' ` A — 72'67`03, Iv1•+ t7G..3f� 41 OR WAY o 17, rs1• 7- i 1 . / %O/�`.` tZ C � HdusE tZls H ;0 19.000 L � lK qffi v X 940.0 Denotes Existing Elevation E99POSED MOUSE ELLYA21ON x oo. Denotes Proposed Etevotion Lowest Floor Elevation: 43,5Z Denotes Drainage do Utility Easement To of ©lock Elevation: 10143, — Denotes Drainage Flow Direction P ---o— Denotes Monument Garage Slab Elevation: sol, 3 ___&_ Denotes Offset Hub Bearings :shown are assumed LOT 1 BLOCK 2 PARK PLACE DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report wals p epared by me or under my direct supervision end that l em duly tleglste,ed Lend Survey( under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dated thisday of ft�n�o fv q,p, 19 9'L S G C1 i G : •--� Itis s L�. �}!ees � . - ��=. �-.r�'>.t. _ i.'4 �t,. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 27, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City A r FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Brian Convery, 1193 Victoria Curve: CUP for Detached Garage Planning Case No. 97-28 Discussion Brian Convery appeared before the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on August 26, 1997 on behalf of United Properties to discuss his application for a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage. Please see the attached items of public record pertaining to this application. Mr. Convery will be present at the September 2, 1997 meeting of the City Council to discuss his CUP application. Recommendation At their regular meeting on August 26, 1997 the Planning Commission voted 6-0 (with Commissioner Friel absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage, as presented. Action Required Discuss the Conditional Use Permit application with Mr. Convery. If the Council agrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Council may adopt the attached RESOLUTION 97- : A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE FOR 1193 VICTORIA CURVE, placing any additional conditions upon this approval the Council deems necessary. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE FOR 1193 VICTORIA CURVE WHEREAS, Mr. Brian Convery of 1193 Victoria Curve has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage, as proposed on plans on file in Planning Case No. 97-28; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of Mendota Heights held a public hearing on this application at their August 26, 1997 meeting; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission voted 6-0 (with one Commissioner absent) on August 26, 1997 to recommend that the City Council approve this application, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage, as proposed on plans on file in Planning Case No. 97-28 is hereby granted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage, as proposed on plans on file in Planning Case No. 97-28 will have no adverse impact on the health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the community and the surrounding land, and would not be adverse to the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of September, 1997. ATTEST: By Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners of Mendota Heights FROM: Meg McMonigal, City Plannern/Ikjl _ (� DATE: August 19, 1997 MEETING DATE: August 26, 1997 SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit for a Detached Garage APPLICANTS: Brian Convery LOCATION: 1193 Victoria Curve ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Description of Request Brian Convery has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage. Conditional Use Permits are required for all detached garages. A public hearing has been advertised for this request. Background Information Mr. Convery is proposing to build a two -car garage of 24' by 28' in his rear yard. There is not a garage existing on the property and it is not possible to attach a garage to this home. The building materials and roof pitch would match the primary structure. Conditional Use Permits Conditional Use Permits are required for detached garages. Conditional uses are those that because of their unique characteristics, require special consideration and a public hearing. The City may impose extra conditions and safeguards to ensure that the purpose and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance is carried out. An Equal Opportunity Employer City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission Convery Conditional Use Permit August 26, 1997 Page 2 Evaluation of Request The proposed garage meets the intent of the City's Ordinances and meets the 10' side yard setback requirement. It is in the most appropriate location on the lot, as there is an existing driveway to the rear of the lot. Mr. Convery proposes to improve his driveway by paving the portion that is currently unpaved. He also proposes that the building roof pitch and materials will match the existing home. Action Requested.- The equested.The Planning Commission can recommend: (1) approval (2) approval with conditions (3) denial Staff Recommendation: The City Planner recommends that the Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage at 1193 Victoria Curve be granted, as it meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. MATERIALS REVIEWED: I . Application for consideration of"a Planning Request, signed and dated August 5, 1997. 2. Letter of Intent from Brian Convery, dated August 5 1997. 3. Site Plan showing proposed garage location. 4. Building elevations. 5. Location map. V, `\ 1 I ' civic �.. CENTER SITE - A -!V, PP% McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Convery, 1193 Victoria Curve 40 15050 23rd Ave. N. Engineers Conditional Use Permit Plymouth. 55447 Planners Detached Garage 612/476-60101 0 Surveyors 1 � L -A K- A- `\ 1 I ' civic �.. CENTER SITE - A -!V, PP% McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Convery, 1193 Victoria Curve 40 15050 23rd Ave. N. Engineers Conditional Use Permit Plymouth. 55447 Planners Detached Garage 612/476-60101 0 Surveyors City of lAendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. �& Date of Application A t 5 1997 Fee Paid $350.0072) Applicant Name: CONVERY, BRIAN J. PEI: 687-9882 (Last) (First) (Mn Address: 1193 VICTORIA CURVE, ME\IDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: (SAME AS APPLICANT) (Last) (First) (MI) Address: (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: 1193 VICTORIA CURVE Legal Description of Property: ?_iyY1nS y3 -%i FT E;X N 1 l.o FT of i.0"1' y A Nl� W 31.o. iv r -T EX N 1 bo FT QF: 1c _ Type of Request: Rezoning Variance _ Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit _ Plan Approval Other (attach explanation) Comprebensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number -1- Z607 Section ���2ched via sA, Present Zoning. of Property1 Present Use S vett i e�w-st Proposed Zoning of Property R-1 Proposed Use �avy�� 1nov�ne I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and the addi o al t�materia} are true. (Signature off Appli t) --' (Date)� i- 9 (Received by - Title) 1101 'Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN -55118 452.1850 City of Mendota Heights Conditional Use Permit Checklist Date: Applicant: Case No: CITY PROCESS Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. If proper and complete application materials and supportive documents are submitted by 7 (date) then the public hearing r review of your case will be conducted by the Planning Commission on -),� 7 (date). Following completion of the public hearing, or Planning Commission review, the City Council may consider your application on (date). APPLICANT REQUIREMENTS The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: a. Fee: ($350 Normal, $500 for Planned Unit Development) b. Completed Application Form c. Letter of Intent d. Abstract Listing of owners located within 350 feet of property. All applications for a conditional use permit which are initiated by the petition of the owner or owners of the property in question shall be filled with the City Clerk no later than twenty-one (21) days preceding the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission building. All applications for a conditional use permit shall be accompanied by twenty (20) copies of a set of plans and graphics containing the following information and folded, where necessary, to the size of eight and one-half by eleven (8 1/2 x 11) inches. The Site Development Plan shall include: 1. Location of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and proposed structures. ✓ 2. Location of all adjacent buildings located within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property in question. OJ A 3. Floor area ratio. V 4. Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces. ✓5. Vehicular circulation. v/ 6. Architectural elevations (type and materials used of all external surface). tJ/- 7. Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed. \/ 8. Location and candle power of all illuminaries. NOOE 9. Location of all existing easements. The Dimension Plan shall include: ✓1. Lot dimensions and area. v 2. Dimensions of proposed and existing structures. ,/ 3. "Typical" floor plan and "typical" room plan. 4. Setbacks on all buildings located on property in question. ✓ 5. Proposed setbacks. The Grading Plan shall include: 1. Existing contour. v,' 2. Proposed grading elevations. — 3. Drainage configuration. 4. Storm sewer catch basins and invert elevations. 5. Spot elevations. — 6. Proposed road profile. 0) The Landscape Plan shall include: ✓1. Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed. ✓2. Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings. V3. Location and material used of all screening devices. Note: Dated originals plus twenty dated copies of all of the above materials must be submitted by noon on the first Tuesday of the month. All materials larger than 8'/s" x 11" must be folded to that size. (Note: Copies of this completed form will be given to both the applicant and the Senior Secretary.) Notes: 3 BRIAN J. CONVERY 1193 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 (612) 687-9882 August 5, 1997 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Conditional Use Permit Application for Garage/Accessory Structure to 1193 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights Planning Commission: I am the owner of the property known as 1193 Victoria Curve. This letter will serve as a Letter of Intent for my application for a conditional use permit for the proposed construction of a detached garage for the existing home located at 1193 Victoria Curve. The proposed garage is a two -car garage, having the dimensions of 24 feet by 28 feet, to be built on the northeast comer of the residential lot and would have a roof pitch and building materials to match the primary structure, which is a one and one-half story home. The proposed garage will be constructed on a floating slab. There are no proposed changes to the existing grade and I intend to pave the driveway (which is now class 5 gravel) from Victoria Curve to the proposed structure. There is no electric proposed for the garage nor will there be any trees removed for its construction. Presently, there is no garage structure on the property. A detached structure is necessary because it would be impossible to attach a structure due to property line setbacks on the west and east sides of the residence and due to the large existing deck on the north side of the residence. It should be noted that the neighbors on the east side of the residence have a detached garage similar in size and location to the proposed structure. If this permit is granted, building would be anticipated to begin by the Fall of 1997. Enclosed, please find the following materials required for this application: 1. a completed Application Form; 2. a check in the amount of $350.00 for the required application fee; 3. an abstract listing of owners located within 350 feet of the property; and 4. 20 copies of a set of plans. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, t (rii2J. Conve Enc. CONVERWIU-GARGAPP CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING August 7, 1997 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 7:45 p.m. o'clock P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, August 26, 1997, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1 101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Mr. Brian Convery for a Conditional Use Permit which would allow the replacement of single car garage with a two car garage measuring 24' x 28' on the following property: Burns Heights E 43.4 feet EX N 160 ft of Lot 4 and W 36.6 ft EX N 160 ft of Lot. More particularly, this property is located at 1 193 Victoria Curve. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance No. 401. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the request for the Conditional Use Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administrator at 452-1850. W, 0 'Alky/fii Wi a "Al; m 0 E3 i/ARZ rjt! F%4%k ♦,0 T� In 20 �--g0� - Ou 11 SGALE � 1��=2Oi-Op I tJ oRTH TYPICAL FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 24'-O' WIDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS 4/12 ROOF PITCH ONE DOUBLE GARA&E DOOR SEE FRONT FRAMING ELEVATION5 FOR EY.ACT DOOR CONFIGURATIONS. TYPICAL REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 24'-0' WIDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS 4/12 ROOF PITCH 2xEA PIDGE — __....-- 2x6 PNFTER5 0 16" O.G. — - ...... — Ixb RAKE TRIM BEGIN 5TUD 5PA.rIN& ® 16" O.G. FROM THI5 CORNER 2x4 STUDS a Ib" O.r — 1/7.' PL i P100D 51 IEAT 1111 n FPON i WALL --- — BRICK MOULDING m DOOR5 AND WIND0645 TYPICAL 12' LAP SIDING WIO' EXPOSURE PREFORMED OUTSIDE CORNER5 FOR LAP SIDING GRADE REFER 'f0 DETAIL FOR CORNEA, Ix4 LET -IN BRACING B SIDES AND PEAR — — GRADE 24"WIDE GARAG ES FRONT FRAMING ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0" 24'-0' WIDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS 4/12 ROOF PITCH ONE DOUBLE GARAGE DOOR - I" REGE55ED ------ — — — — — RAIN LEDGE -- '''j--------------------- --- 2'-5' .F8.1/2' 5.1/2' 2'-5' i24'-0" 1 r FOUNDATION FLAN 51—ALE: 1/4" = V -O" 24'-0" WIDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS ONE DOUBLE GARAGE DOOR BEGIN STUD 5PAGING Ib" O.G. REAR FRAMING ELEVATION 5e -ALE: 1/4"= I' -O" 24'-0' WIDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS 4/12 ROOF PITCH RAFTER. TAILS NOT SHOVIN TYPICAL RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 7 vvr SCALE: I/4" = I' -O" 24'-08 WIDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS 4/12 ROM PITCH WITH OPTIONAL PERIL DOOR TYPICAL LEFT BIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 24'-0' WDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS 4/12 ROOF PITCH HTH OPTIONAL WINDOW COMPOSITION 5HINGLE5 Ixb FASCIA Ix2 FRIEZE BD 2-2x6 HEADER— BEGIN STUD 5PAGIP ® I6" O.G. FROM THI5 CORNER OPTIONAL 2'8x6'8 PER50NNEL DOOR 22'-0" ELEVATION 5HOWN - ADD TO LENGTH FOR ALL DEPTH OPTION BREAK LINES GRADE 22'-0" ELEVATION 5HOWN - ADD TO LENGTH FOR ALL DEPTH OPTION BREAK LINES 2x8 RIDGE 2x6 COLLAR TIES ® 48" O.G. 2x4 GABLE 5TUD ® 16" O.G.- 2x6 HANGER ® 45" O.G. 2x4 WALL TIES ® 45" O.G. 2-2x6 HEADER OPTIONAL WINDOW 2x4 5TUD5 ® 16" O.G. Ix4 LET -IN BRACING 51DES AND REAR GRADE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 27, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Adminis�Lr FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Dave Palme, 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail CUP for a Detached Garage and Side -Yard Setback Variances Planning Case No. 97-29 Discussion Mr. Dave Palme appeared before the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on August 26, 1997 to discuss his application for a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage and side -yard setback variances for the location of his garage and driveway on his property at 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail. Mr. Palme would like to place the new detached garage in the same location as his existing detached garage, which he tore down about one month ago. Mr. Palme is claiming a hardship based upon the configuration of his house and lot. According to Mr. Palme, moving the home closer to his yard would cut off access to his back yard, force him to cut down an apple tree, cause drainage problems on the property, and cause snow storage problems on the site. Commissioner Tilsen added that a claim for a hardship could also be derived from the narrowness of his lot and the fact that MnDOT had taken a portion of his 65 foot wide parcel for right-of-way. Please see the attached items of public record pertaining to this application. Mr. Palme will be present at the September 2, 1997 meeting of the City Council to discuss his application. Recommendation At their regular meeting on August 26, 1997 the Planning Commission voted 6-0 (with Commissioner Friel absent) to recommend that the Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage, a 9' side yard setback variance for the garage and a 4' side yard setback variance for the driveway. Action Required Discuss the Conditional Use Permit and variance application with Mr. Palme. If the Council agrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Council may adopt the attached RESOLUTION 97- : A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, A 9' SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE AND A 4' SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY FOR 1053 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL, placing any additional conditions upon this approval the Council deems necessary. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE, A 9' SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE GARAGE AND A 4' SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY FOR 1053 WAGON WHEEL TRAIL WHEREAS, Mr. Dave Palme of 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail has requested a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance for a detached garage, as proposed on plans on file in Planning Case No. 97-29; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of Mendota Heights held a public hearing on this application at their August 26, 1997 meeting; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission voted 6-0 (with one Commissioner absent) on August 26, 1997 to recommend that the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage, a 9' side yard setback variance for the garage, and a 4' setback variance for the driveway, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage, a 9' side yard setback variance for the garage and a 4' side yard setback variance for the driveway as proposed on plans on file in Planning Case No. 97-29 is hereby granted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage, a 9' side yard setback variance for the garage and a 4' side yard setback variance for the driveway as proposed on plans on file in Planning Case No. 97-29 is nece9sary to alleviate a hardship or practical difficulty and will have no adverse impact on the health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the community and the surrounding land, and would not be adverse to the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of September, 1997. ATTEST: By Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor 05003` 0', I 'SCIP'L-E = ve = l'o" MWAVAM 9 s"EIIAN, PFNL-me 105-1 Wg(sum \&/"EEL-Tapss�- Memaon,, Hei6Nrrsl M' A 55120 5001 Orr PF,f)Pc)aF-n �`)izF P 4,i AcruRL Loi 8 ag- _ 47� -5 00 LOT .7 I 4bAc12 I 1-70 820 24"WIDE GARAGES FRONT FRAMING ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4".= 1'-0" 24'-0' KDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS 4/12 ROOF PITCH ONE DOUBLE GARAGE DOOR REGE55ED RAIN L----------------1LIl---" — -------J /2" 5'-11.1/2" M 24'-O" 8.1/2" 2'-5" 5'-11.1/2" FOLMDATION PLAN 5GALE: 1/4" = 1'-O" 24'-O' WIDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS ONE DOUBLE GARAGE DOOR BEGIN 5TUP 5PAGING 16" O.G. REAR FRAMING ELEVATION 5GALE: 1/4" = 1'-O" 24'-00 WIDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS 4/12 ROOF PITCH RAFTER TAIL5 NOT 5HOWN FOR GLARITY. U T � clLcotic�`Cm�k) o 0 ��a�oa�a� c�oNa`�'im� p � U o c �(07tnN W N c T� O�•V� N 0 ov 0.m CL -6 -C.: n T � _ ui co�X�o � UNiU (b F�Ca) W:" Q(O�Y O CL- T Cro.D O N (D U V ooa?Ec`o n C• o�na�00).1 O C E �.� O C C t-aO Q 3uio-o 0 C � 'O •ca Tpf f0 cc i�vN�c�O o5E t U) N U= O O U �� c c`.9 �E 0 'cao' Cry ON j0In LL Cc: c OL O V 70in fn C •� 3�0NUC i+�+ 2coC3c�cCN F -.L CL.- •, C to T= QQ Q oC•o.jo.ss3 Ca) Uro7i70C O a),o �O:_ �C O — cn O (O7�UN�Cro7 �•�U 0.7ro`O •� O N�YO 0. OO Vl=(0 C N� o m.8 c�S EL tf" oc oo.caN-O-,T•= 7- •p oN D 4—Q?'QT�OV 0 _ab :a E' N N y C 0 CN O OC L 052 U O �C N'. > �a��i0==�oor- N U 3f` �-' QaL] C N a N d�C y�� Epi ij ,0 ivy W a) ,n jcxs (bL1] NAL O (0 QL C 0�.0.E TOS O (o N Z tO •- N (�c0)- w'r-U)C`7N }aro poV M' aniornmN�a�i0�3; in E QHo-�od0ocaE h Lu Q a Q r con • • McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners of Mendota Heights FROM: Meg McMonigal, City Planne4l DATE: August 19, 1997 MEETING DATE: August 26, 1997 SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit and Variance to Replace a Detached Garage APPLICANTS: David Palme LOCATION: 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Description of Request David Palme has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a side yard setback variance to replace his existing detached garage. Conditional Use Permits are required for all detached garages. A public hearing has been advertised for this request. Background Information Mr. Palme is proposing to construct a detached garage on his property. There was a detached garage on the property that was torn down. He proposes to put the new garage in the same location as the old one. The submitted site plan is in error and a variance of 10' will be required to place the new garage in the same location as the old one. A side yard setback of 10' is required for garages. There are not any neighbors on this side of the lot; a city pathway runs along side of it on MnDOT right-of- way. Further east is I -35E. An Equal Opportunity Employer City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission Palme Conditional Use Permit and Variance August 26, 1997 Page 2 Conditional Use Permits Conditional Use Permits are required for detached garages. Conditional uses are those that because of their unique characteristics, require special consideration and a public hearing. The City may impose extra conditions and safeguards to ensure that the purpose and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance is carried out. I Variance Criteria The variance criteria is outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, and includes: (1) special conditions apply to the structure or land in question are peculiar to the property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district; (2) variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property; (3) adequate supply of light and air will be available to adjacent property; (4) the congestion of public street will not be reasonably increased; (5) the danger of fire or public safety will not be increased; (6) property values will not be impaired in the surrounding area; (7) health, safety, comfort and morals will not be impaired; (8) variance will not merely serve as a convenience, but is necessary to alleviate undue hardship or difficulty. Evaluation ofReques Replacing the garage as requested will not impact public safety, limit the supply of light and air available to adjacent properties, have any effect on the congestion of public streets, impact property values or impair health, safety, comfort or morals of the community or surrounding neighborhood. This lot is somewhat unusual in that it is adjacent to a pathway and MnDOT right-of-way. There are not any adjacent neighbors to the east that would be impacted. by locating the garage on the property line. It appears that the garage could be placed 10' from the property line and meet the setback requirement. However the lot is only 67 feet wide and if the garage is shifted 10 feet to the west, the rear yard is narrowed. Action Requested: The Planning Commission can recommend: (1) approval (2) approval with conditions (3) denial Staff Recommendation: The City Planner recommends that the variance request be denied, because there are alternatives available for locating the garage on this site within the required side yard setback. It is recommended the Conditional Use Permit be issued for the garage at 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail, with the following conditions: City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission Palme Conditional Use Permit and Variance August 26, 1997 Page 3 The garage is shifted to meet the 10 -foot setback requirement OR 1. A variance is granted allowing the garage to be built as proposed. 2. The materials and colors of the new garage complement the existing home. MATERIALS REVIEWED: 1. Application for consideration of a Planning Request, signed and dated August 5, 1997. 2. Letter of Intent from David Palme, dated August 4, 1997. 3. Site Plan showing proposed garage location. 4. City GIS map showing former garage. rfTo -00 Al j� I I 1 �� � �� '% ill � l� •j / / 1 l 6 Fl McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Palme, 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail �® 1505023rd Ave. N. Engineers Conditional Use Permit Plymouth, MN 55447 Planners 612/476-6010 Surveyors Detached Garage I nAi City of JA Aiendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION O" PLANNING REQUEST —I Case No. Date of AP Iication Fee Paid l Applicant Name: 4e PH: (i.ast) (First) Address: ��,� � �v�Soy,/ (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: (Last) (First) (MI) Address: Z," - (Number , (Number & Street) (City) (Sra."Z'o trip) / Street Location of Property in Quesuon: Legal Description of Property: --rvL �e, l.0 e S- = 4-'t n�E L 1') Q-iC C 4.�'t" `k -V -.q -r R a rte}- Type of .Request: Rezoning _ Z Conditional Use Permit _ Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment �s fig. r-c.�\ �30Cr o ►-ti �-L,,.Q,, o -z •p -E- o `c Y"_ y�se. K i _ Variance _ Subdivision Approval _ Wetlands Permit Other (attach explanation) o rapt livable City Ord; -,lance Number Ll D ( Section -:7. 2 (1 0 — Present Zoning of Property • Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. —i .Mature o Applicant) (Date) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 City of Mendota Heights Conditional Use Permit Checklist Date: 7 Applicant: WhAavW-1-T"L Case No: Relevant Ordinances/Sections: CITY PROCESS Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. If proper and complete application materials and supportive documents are submitted by 41 5197 (date) then the public h arin or review of your case will be conducted by the Planning Commission on (date). Following completion of the public hearing, o Planning Commission review, the City Council may consider your application on (date). APPLICANT REQUIREMENTS The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: '_�Ia. Fee: ($350 Normal, $500 for Planned Unit Development) b. Completed Application Form c. Letter of Intent d. Abstract Listing of owners located within 350 feet of property. All applications for a conditional use permit which are initiated by the petition of the owner or owners of the property in question shall be filled with the City Clerk no later than twenty-one (21) dans preceding the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission building. All applications for a conditional use permit shall be accompanied by twenty (20) copies of a set of plans and graphics containing the following information and folded, where necessary, to the size of eight and one-half by eleven (8 1/2 x 11) inches. The Site Development Plan shall include: 1. Location of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and proposed structures. 6W2. Location of all adjacent buildings located within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property in question. N63. Floor area ratio. Nk4. Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces. 5. Vehicular circulation. 6. Architectural elevations (type and materials used of all external surface). �4le l;l 7. Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed. A/#8. Location and candle power of all illuminaries.c,"'O 5TW-F'-9. Location of all existing easements. The Dimension Plan shall include: 1. Lot dimensions and area. -,-�2. "Dimensions of proposed and existing structures. NL I "Typical" floor plan and "typical" room plan. 4. Setbacks on all buildings located on property in question. 5. Proposed setbacks. The Grading Plan shall include: 6��, -Existing contour. 2. Proposed grading elevations. NftJ57FO_3. Drainage configuration. Nh4. Storm sewer catch basins and invert elevations. 2 6 5. Spot elevations. N� 6. Proposed road profile. The Landscape Plan shall include: O1. Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed. A/ 2. Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings. V 3. Location and material used of all screening devices. Note: Dated originals plus twenty dated copies of all of the above materials, including this checklist, must be submitted by noon on the first Tuesday of the month. All materials larger than 8%" x 11" must be folded to that size. (Note: Copies of this completed form will be given to both the applicant and the Senior Secretary.) Notes: RAN No'-F(OS TO 3 August 4, 1997 Letter of Intent Our plan is to tear down the old garage and build a new 24 x 24 two -car garage. The new concrete slab will consist of added granular materials (SW or SP fill) to level surrounding area. The slab will have 4 inches of gravel including a 6 -mil plastic vapor barrier underneath it. The perimeters of the slab (footing trench) will be 12" x12" with steel reinforcing rods followed by reinforcing wire that covers the entire slab. There will be one coarse of block laid on top of slab to insure that siding of garage is high enough to prevent wood -rot. The actual structure of garage will have green treated sole plates. The walls will be studded at 16" on center with 5/8" (19/32) - 4' x 8' pine 8" on center siding, painted a light cream color. The roof structure will be constructed with 24' standard 4/12 pitch truss with a 2' overhang. The roof will also be constructed with 1/2 inch (15/32)- 4' x 8' rated pine CDX plywood followed by the supreme fiberglass 25 year singles (aspen gray colored). The eves, soffits, and fascia will be finished in pre -painted white aluminum. There will be one service door, one window, and one 16' x 7' white insulated raised panel door. The over all structure and colors will match existing shed. Application, abstract listing, twenty plans, and description of materials are enclosed with this letter. Sincerely, Dave Palme CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING August 7, 1997 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 8:00 p.m. o'clock P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, August 26, 1997, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1 101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Mr. David Palme for a Conditional Use Permit which would allow the replacement of single car garage with a two car garage measuring 24' x 24' on the following property: The West 67 Feet of Lot 7, Caroline's Lake View, EXCEPT .01 Acres Highway and EXCEPT Parcel 230C of STH Right of Way Plat 19-37. More particularly, this property is located at 1053 Wagon Wheel Trail. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance No. 401. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the request for the Conditional Use Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administrator at 452-1850. MAT' FOR : AL 55 P, MN 55555 55 555-5555 6/97 SKU Estimate From CUxdQ9&z 1441 SOUTH ROBERT STREET WEST ST. PAUL, MN 55118 PHONE: (612) 457-2609 ESTIMATED BY : EWW UMBER DESCRIPTION -1091 2X4-92 5/811 STUD GRADE 2-1101 2X4-8' STUD/STD+BTR GRADE 2-1127 2X4-12' STD+BTR SPF 3-1130 2X4-14' STD+BTR SPF 2-1143 2X4-16' STD+BTR SPF 2-1745 2X6-6' #2 + BETTER 2-1758 2X6-8' #2+BTR SPF 2-2197 2X12-18' CONSTRUCTION LBR 3-1 1X4-10' #3 STANDARD BOARD 3-1133 1X6-12' #3 STANDARD BOARD 3-1146 1X6-14' #3 STANDARD BOARD -1159 1X6-16' #3 STANDARD BOARD 3-3432 1X4X8' #2 QUALITY BOARD BLUE END -3445 1X4X10' #2 QUALITY BOARD BLUE END -3539 1X6X8' #2 QUALITY BOARD BLUE END , -3542 1X6X10' #2 QUALITY BOARD BLUE END -5030 2X4-8' GREEN TREAT -5056 2X4-12' GREEN TREAT -1085 1/2" (15/32)-4'X8' 32/16 RATED PINE CDX -1140 5/8" (19/32)-4'X8' PINE 8" OC SIDING QTY TO ORDER 95 10 4 6 17 1 1 2 6 2 2 4 3 9 3 1 1 6 26 29 PAGE 1 OF 3 ESTIMATE # 701512 ON SALE THRU 8/3,197 ON SALE THRU 8/3/97 ON SALE THRU 8/3/97 ON SALE THRU 8/3/97 ON SALE THRU 8/3/97 ON SALE THRU 8/3/97 ON SALE THRU 8/3/97 ON SALE THRU 8/3/97 CONTINUED astimate. It is given only for general price information. This is not an offer and there can be no legally binding9 contract he parties based upon this estimate. The prices stated herein are subject to change depending upon market The prices stated on this estimate are not firm for any time period unless specifically written otherwise on this form. bilityy of materials is subject to inventory conditions. MENARDS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS INCURRED BY 'OMER WHO RELIES ON PRICES SET FORTH HEREIN OR ON THE AVAILABILITY OF ANY OFTHE MATERIALS STATED .II information on this form, other than price, has been provided by customer and Menards is not responsible for any he information on this estimate, including but not limited to quantity, dimension and quality. Please examine this stim Is given only for general price information. This is not an offer and there can be no le ally binding contract e parties based upon this estimate. The prices stated herein are subject to change depending upon the market The prices stated on this estimate are not firm for anytime period unless specifically written otherwise on this form. iliiy of materials is subject to inventory conditions. MENARDS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS INCURRED BY )MER WHO RELIES ON PRICES SET FORTH HEREIN OR ON THE AVAILABILITY OF ANY OFTHE MATERIALS STATED I information on this form, other than price, has been provided by customer and Menards is not responsible for any e information on this estimate, including but not limited to quantity, dimension and quality Please examine this Irefully. MENARDS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL, WRITTEN OR OTHERWISE THAT THE MATERIALS = (;IllTlol.c cr)o Ct1v ofIPPr)gF_ 9E!NG C0M91QRgEp 9Y TUR'Vj9TOr .Ic'z 11ycc np w-- •!Iolp-Y)M9 "t t r - Estimate From TATE FOR 1441 SOUTH ROBERT STREET .LME WEST ST. PAUL, MN 55118 PAGE 2 OF 3 ;5 PHONE: (612) 457-2609 ESTIMATE # , 55555 701512 -5 555-5555 /97 ESTIMATED BY : EWW KU QTY TO MBER DESCRIPTION ORDER -1789 SHINGLE UNDERLAYMENT FELT 3 4 SQUARE -5076 SUPREME FBGLS 25YR 26 ASPEN GRAY -8801 10 OZ BLK JACK ROOF CEMEN 2 #2172-900-66 -1095 Z FLASHING 5/8 50/CTN 5 858A BROWN ALUM „ -1134 10' STYLE D ROOF EDGE 11 WHITE #880DWH -1402 12' WHITE FRIEZE RUNNER 10 PART FR -1486 WHITE VENTED SOFFIT PANEL 10 16"X12' 4US16 —1554 10' WHITE WINDOW/DOOR 4 -` DRIP CAP #815WH -15L7 6"X12' WHITE FASCIA 10 ROUGH SAWN #F6R -160-. 1# WHITE 1-1/4" NAILS 1 PART -TN -1605 6" X 50' SILL SEALER 2 FOAM -1306 24' STANDARD 4/12 PITCH 11 TRUSS/2' OVERHA -1322 24' STUDDED END TRUSS 2 4/12 PITCH TRUS -7503 2 -CAR GABLE._ 241WIDE 1 �>>! G06003 -8418 PB ENTRY KWIKSET TYLO 1 ON SALE THRU 8/10/97 400TAL3CPK3RCS -1400 1/2"PLYWD CLIP ALUM 25/BG, 5 S56 -BMC 10BGS/ -1646 RAFTER TIE U SHAPED IPC 22 RT15 100/ -1972 NAIL81) HARDBOARD SIDING 3 5 LB BOX SMOOTH -5350 NAIL 10D C. C. SINKER 3 5 LB BOX -5363 NAIL 16D C.C. SINKER 5 5 LB BOX CONTINUED stim Is given only for general price information. This is not an offer and there can be no le ally binding contract e parties based upon this estimate. The prices stated herein are subject to change depending upon the market The prices stated on this estimate are not firm for anytime period unless specifically written otherwise on this form. iliiy of materials is subject to inventory conditions. MENARDS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS INCURRED BY )MER WHO RELIES ON PRICES SET FORTH HEREIN OR ON THE AVAILABILITY OF ANY OFTHE MATERIALS STATED I information on this form, other than price, has been provided by customer and Menards is not responsible for any e information on this estimate, including but not limited to quantity, dimension and quality Please examine this Irefully. MENARDS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL, WRITTEN OR OTHERWISE THAT THE MATERIALS = (;IllTlol.c cr)o Ct1v ofIPPr)gF_ 9E!NG C0M91QRgEp 9Y TUR'Vj9TOr .Ic'z 11ycc np w-- •!Iolp-Y)M9 "t Estimate From ATE FOR 1441 SOUTH ROBERT STREET '_ME WEST ST. PAUL, MN 55118 3 PHONE: (612) 457-2609 ' '5555 3 5-j-5555 197 ESTIMATED BY : EWW ;U QTY TO IBER DESCRIPTION ORDER •5554 NAIL 8D GALVANIZED BOX 4 5 LB BOX 5635 NAIL lOD GALV CASING 3 1 LB BOX 5758 NAIL 1-3/4" GALV ROOFING 2 1 LB BOX 3790 NAIL 1-1/4" GALV ROOFING 2 5 LB BOX 5518 3OX36 WHT VINYL SGL HUNG 1 VSH1-2630-WOIB1 1062 P-1 FLUSH STEEL DOOR PH 1 36"X80" RH SB 1595 8' PINE BRICKMOULD WM180 2 1-1/4 X 2 1618 17' PINE BRICKMOULD WM180 1 1-1/4 X 2 :172 16X7 WHITE INSUL RAISED 1 PNL EXTSP S4RSF �2: SHIMS PINE 3/8X1 -1/2X9 2 TAPERED •015 RED DEVIL ACRYLIC WHITE 1 0846 12/CTN PAGE 3 OF 3 ESTIMATE # 701512 ON SALE THRU 8/3/97 PRE-TAX TOTAL ate van only for general price information. This is not an offer and there can be no legally binding contract rtie ad upon this estimate. The prices stated herein are subject to change depending upon the market pricey stated on this estimate are not firm for any time period unless specifically written otherwise on this form. of materials is subject to inventory conditions. MENARDS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LOSS INCURRED BY I WHO RELIES ON PRICES SETFORTH HEREINOR ON THE AVAILABILITY OF ANY OFTHE MATERIALS STATED .rmation on this form, other than price, has been provided by customer and Menards is not responsible for any ormation on this estimate, including but not limited to quantity, dimension and quality. Please examine this 1y. MENARDS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL, WRITTEN OR OTHERWISE THAT THE MATERIALS (TABLE FOR ANY PURPOSE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE CUSTOMER. BECAUSE OF WIDE VARIATIONS IN QRE NO RF_ogFSFNTAT'nN4 TU AT TUC 1.4 %TC71.I c • 3,104.64 I" CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 27, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Convent of the Visitation: Conditional Use Permit Planning Case #97-30 Discussion Mr. Gary Ostberg of Ostberg Architects appeared before the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on August 26, 1997 on behalf of Convent of the Visitation to discuss their application for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Early Childhood Center as required in Section 7.2(8) of the Zoning Ordinance. During discussion of the application, the Planning Commission raised a concern about the size of the parking spaces shown on the plans submitted. Mr. Ostberg's original drawing showed the spaces to be 9' x 18', rather than 9' x 20', which is the City's standard. Mr. Ostberg agreed to increase the size of the parking stalls to 9' x 20'. Please see the attached items of public record pertaining to this application. Gary Ostberg will be present at the September 2, 1997 meeting of the City Council to discuss the Early Childhood Center. Recommendation At their regular meeting on August 26, 1997 the Planning Commission voted 6-0 (with Commissioner Friel absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Early Childhood Center as presented on the condition that the parking spaces be 9' x 20'. Action Required Discuss the CUP Application with Mr. Ostberg. If the Council agrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Council may adopt the attached RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVENT OF THE VISITATION SCHOOL FOR A DAY CARE SCHOOL, placing any additional conditions upon these plans the Council deems necessary. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONVENT OF THE VISITATION SCHOOL FOR A DAY CARE SCHOOL WHEREAS, Mr. Gary Ostberg representing Convent of the Visitation School has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care School, as proposed on plans on file in Planning Case No. 97-30; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of Mendota Heights held a Public hearing on this application at their August 26, 1997 meeting; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission voted 6-0 (with one Commissioner absent) on August 26, 1997 to recommend that the City Council approve this application upon the condition enumerated below, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care School for Convent of the Visitation School, as proposed on plans on file in Planning Case No. 97- 30 is hereby granted upon the following condition: 1. that all parking spaces be 9' x 20'. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care School for Convent of the Visitation School, as proposed on plans on file in Planning Case No. 97-30 under the above condition will have no adverse impact on the health, safety or general welfare of the citizens of the community and the surrounding land, and would not be adverse to the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of September,, 1997. ATTEST: By Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor �® McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioners of Mendota Heights FROM: Meg McMonigal, City Planne"YA Marc Weigle, Planner DATE: August 19, 1997 MEETING DATE: August 26, 1997 SUBJECT: Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for a Building Addition APPLICANTS: Convent of the Visitation School LOCATION: 2455 Visitation Drive ZONING: R-1, Single Family Residential GUIDE PLAN: Low Density Residential Description of Request Convent of the Visitation School has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to build an Early Childhood Center. The building will be approximately 6,700 square ft. and connected to the existing building. The number of children attending the school is not increasing with this construction. Background Information This building is part of Phase 1 of the project reviewed by the City Council a few months ago. The project includes the Athletic Facility/Rehearsal Area, 8 new tennis courts and a new parking lot. Evaluation of Request The proposed Early Childhood Center would be located on the existing Visitation School campus. The site is currently zoned R-1, which allows private nurseries and/or day care as a conditional use. An Equal Opportunity Employer City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission Visitation Conditional Use Permit, Early Childhood Center August 26, 1997 Page 2 The proposed building is approximately 6,700 square ft. It would be connected to the existing building at the northeast corner and oriented toward the reconstructed parking facility to the north of the school. The building will contain an office, some storage space and five program rooms. The program rooms are designated for infant care (8 children), toddlers (14), pre-school (20), Montessori (20), and extended day (16-22). Access - Since the Early Childhood Center will utilize the same driveway already in use by Visitation, access problems are not anticipated. Building Design - The proposed building materials and colors are consistent with the existing buildings. Parking - According to City code, Day Care Centers are required to provide four (4) parking spaces plus one (1) for each five hundred (500) square feet in excess of one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor space in the principal structure. Applying these standards would result in a required 15 parking spaces. The Early Childhood Center will share the parking lot with the school. The reconstructed parking lot for both facilities will accommodate 234 vehicles. This meets the City's parking ordinance. Parking spaces are shown to be 9 feet wide and 18 feet in length. The Zoning Ordinance [Section 21.1(2)d] requires off-street parking spaces to be 9 x 20 feet. Signage - No additional signs have been proposed. Action Requested: The Planning Commission can recommend: (1) approval (2) approval with conditions (3) denial, with findings Planning Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit contingent upon the City Engineer's review and approval of the grading and drainage, and utility plans. MATERIALS REVIEWED: 1. Application for consideration of a Planning Request, signed and dated August 5, 1997. 2. Letter of Intent from Richard J. Davern, Director of Finance and Operations, Convent of the Visitation School, dated August 4, 1997. 3. Site and landscape plans. F _g 0 - SL THOMAS KLDEY/ IPA. SOWS SCHOOL McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Visitation School ,® 15050 23rd Ave. R engineers Conditional Use Permit Plymouth, MN 55447 Planners Early Education Center 612/476-6010 Surveyors "r �Hf�p )ESTRIAN 60' 18. 24' 18- RB RAMP 60- is, P) (Typ.) 27' 20' 24' ♦ SIDEWALK EXIST.----: )GST. CURB' TO EMAIN tik 861 CU Typ) ♦ R-20' R-100' Er a, 84481, EXISTING HMHIHMHI 14 R-46. ARTS CENTER 5- (TYP,) PED. RAMPS' PROPOSED�-_ -EARLY C I RLDHOW OROb" FACILITY EXISTING BUILDING EXIST. DOOR & STEPS :Kv. eas 3 NIG tr. I McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Visitation School ,® 15050 23rd Ave. N. Engineers Conditional Use Permit Plymouth, MN 55447 Planners 612/476-6010 Surveyors Early Education Center 4) �r iS74(, iv Mr. Patrick Hohster Administrative Assistant City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Conditional Use Permit Application Early Childhood Center Visitation School, Mendota Heights, MN. Dear Mr. Holister, Enclosed are twenty sets of the submittal drawings for the Conditional Use Permit Application for the construction of a new Early Childhood Center for our school. These drawings include the Site Plan, Grading Plan, Uitility Plan, Landscape Plan, Floor Plan, and Exterior Elevations for this building. This building will include the following programs; infant care (8 children), toddlers (14 children), pre-school (20 children), mon- tessori (20 children), and extended day (16-22). The number of children is not increasing with the construction of a new building. Including the connecting link to the existing Lower School Building, the additional square feet will be approximately 6,700 square ft.. We hope to begin construction of this building in mid-September, 1997. This work is part of the ongoing project shown to the City Council a few months ago. This project also includes an Athletic Facility\Rehersal Area, 8 new tennis courts, and changes to the parking lot. Thank you in advance for your help and if you have questions please call me at.683-1701 or the architect Gary Ostberg at 647-9682. Sincerely, IcPar J.Davern Director, Finance\Operations Convent of the Visitation School 2455 Visitation Drive ♦ Mendota Heights, MN 55120496 ♦ (612) 683-1700 ♦ Fax (612) 454-7144 cc: Greg Kopischke, Westwood Professional Services Monica Dahms, McGough Construction Co. Inc. Gary Ostberg, The Ostberg Architects Dan Commers bldgpro3 __.. 11", City of A AAA, A A J, Mendota Heights 2LA 2A APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNINGREQUEST Legal Description of Property: Type of Request: —Rezoning Variance x Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Plan Approval Other (attach explanation) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Section — Present Zoning of Property R-1 Present Use School Propesed Zoning of Property Same proposed Use I hereby de: tare that all' statements made in thin re-uest matcdal are true. (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN - 55118 452.1850 3 0 Case No. Date of Application� - _S__9 71 Fee Paid U. C C;:tt_:_Zj Applicant.Name: Davern Ric PH: (612)-683-1701 (Last) (First) Address: 2455 Visftatfon Drive Mendota Heights Minnesota 55120 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Convent of the Visi'tati'on School Owner Name: (Last) (First) OVM 2455 Visitation Drive Mendota Heights Minnesota 55120 Address: (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: Mendota Heights Road & Dodd Road Legal Description of Property: Type of Request: —Rezoning Variance x Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Plan Approval Other (attach explanation) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Section — Present Zoning of Property R-1 Present Use School Propesed Zoning of Property Same proposed Use I hereby de: tare that all' statements made in thin re-uest matcdal are true. (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN - 55118 452.1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS August 7, 1997 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 8:15 p.m. o'clock P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, August 26, 1997, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Mr. Gary Ostberg, representing the Convent of Visitation, for a Conditional Use Permit which would allow the construction of a new Early Childhood Center for Visitation School on the following property: Section 35 Twn 28 Range 23 S 3/4 of S Y2 of NE 1/4 lying W of Jefferson Hwy ex N 600 ft & Ex W 200 ft ex pt in parcel 202 of STH R/W Plat No. 19-53. Section 35 Twn 28 Range 23 N 198 Ft of SE 1/4 lying W of Jefferson Hwy Ex W 200 Ft of S 330 Ft pt M 528 Ft of NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 lying W of Hwy. Section 35 Twn 28 Range 23 S 20 R of N 32 R of W Y2 of SE 1/4 Ex W 200 Ft. Section 35 Twn 28 Range 23 W of Hwy of S 20 R of N 32 R of NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 & EX N 6 Ft. Section 35 Twn 29 Range 23 S 48 R of N Y2 of SE 1/4 W of Dodd Road ex com at pt in cen of Hwy 1668.4 ft N of int with S line of SE 1/4 W 724 Ft N 174.6 ft E 772.4 ft to cen of Hwy SW 1809 ft to beg ex W 200 ft. More particularly, this property is located at 2455 Visitation Drive. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance No. 401. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the request for the Conditional Use Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Auxiliary aids for disabled persons are available upon request at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids, however, this may not be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administrator at 452-1850. VU --t♦Ji 1\/. JV L__L.l �J L� YJ�_ 0,;4l/ City of Mendota Heights Conditional Use Permit Checklist Date: Applicant: Case No: Relevant Ordinances/Sections: CITY PROCESS s i `1s —a i %' Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. If proper and complete application materials and supportive documents are submitted by (date) then the public hearin�or review of your case will be conducted by the Planning Commission on /�j� (date). Following completion of the public hearing, or Plannin Commission review, the City Council may consider your application on (date). APPLICANT REQUIREMENTS The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: X a. Fee: ($350 Normal, $500 for Planned Unit Development) x b. Completed Application Form X c. Letter of Intent x d. Abstract Listing of owners located within 350 feet of property. All applications for a conditional use permit which are initiated by the petition of the owner or owners of the property in question shall be filled with the City Clerk no later than twenty-one (21) days preceding the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission building. All applications for a conditional use permit shall be accompanied by twenty (20) copies of a set of plans and graphics containing the following information and folded, where necessary, to the size of eight and one-half by eleven (8 1/22 x 11) inches. UUP The Site Development Plan shall include: x 1. Location of all buildings on the property in question including both existing and proposed structures. X 2. Location of all adjacent buildings located within three hundred fifty (350) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property in question. 3. FIoor area ratio. —X 4. Location and number of existing and proposed parking spaces. X 5. Vehicular circulation. X 6. Architectural elevations (type and materials used of all external surface). x 7. Sewer and water alignment, existing and proposed. _ 8. Location and candle power of all illuminaries. X 9. Location of all existing easements. The Dimension Plan shall include: 1. Lot dimensions and area. X 2. Dimensions of proposed and existing structures. X 3. "Typical" floor plan and "typical" room plan. X 4. Setbacks on all buildings located on property in question. 5. Proposed setbacks. The Grading Plan shall include: x 1. Existing contour. X 2. Proposed grading elevations. X 3. Drainage configuration. X 4. Storm sewer catch basins and invert elevations. 2 X 5. Spot elevations. X 6. Proposed road profile. The Landscape Plan shall include: X 1. Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and whicb trees will be removed. X 2. Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings. — 3. Location and material used of all screening devices. Note: Dated originals plus twenty dated copies of all of the abovematerials, including this checklist, must be submitted by noon on the first Tuesday of the month. All materials large: than 81" x 11" must be folded to that size. (Note: Copies of this completed form will be given to both the applicant and the Senior Secretary.) Notes: TI IOMAS U X SALI Y MCNAI 23 h 6WAN OR VISITATION'S NORTHERN NEIGHBORS - ------------ JENNIFER L NMS 11013ERT LOCKARD 2370 SWAN DR 2370 ROGERS AVE LANYVELMAK ILES& AMERTbadITO MARK N &JEANIE D KUSIE LYON A ADELL-1PRENGE1. Ej EL 2371 DMO RD 2371 ROGER AVE 2371 KRESSill I i 717n i(RFS5tN 4 UU/ _4 .41 lu : Ji II.A-i 01: 4 J --' 0 J 4 U lj 1L.% I) ki I zt. fil'. L Wl 13 ..-. — —.—, Eq-, u u 0 VISITATION'S EASTERN NEIGHBORS W E b-LI'l.F-LNIAK ELL SFRENGE'SAL 237t CCDD RD RA"MONDQ ELOHASELSERGER: 23STRAGGEL RD RICHARD L &PAWN VCLKSR 2400.0000 RD JOHN tii!ANQRAACBRIEM .4 JAMW.j 2aYD:, aO9 HA'ZE*L*CT alIKAZELC;- SrFVEN R CLSE34 2469 WESTVIEVU TERR jXME3 D 11 & SHEILi ANDERSCN----� 2475 'VVESTVIeJV TERR W GARY GA -ASS 845 WESMEW CIR NATHANIEL KEIT 19'J'JFMfEWClR ST THOMAS ACADEMY 949 kiftMTA HEIGHTS RD VICTOR 9 M 10U50ANT % ROBERT C TOUSIGNANIr C., VISITATION'S SOUTHWESTERN NEIGHBORS VISITAIMMONASIERY 2455VII311AI04DR D IL D PROPERTIES 2611 DODD RD cc. NORTH ELEVATION & DOOR FRAMES NORTH ELEVATION SCAU:1/16'-I'-O 0 0 Z "T, a Looq CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 27, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Admini k�) FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Hoffman Homes, Resurrection Cemetery Property: Concept Plan Planning Case No. 97-31 Discussion Patrick Hoffman, Brian Coyle, and John Ruggieri appeared before the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on August 26, 1997 on behalf of Hoffman Homes to present their Concept Plan for 60 townhouses on the isthmus between Lake Augusta and Lake Lemay on Resurrection Cemetery property. The discussion between Hoffman Homes and the Planning Commission was quite involved and including the following issues: 1. Air Noise. The Planning Commission was concerned that regardless of how the City regarded Hoffman Homes' proposal, the Metropolitan Council may not permit the development because of the newly expanded air noise contours. Please see the attached information recently received from the Metropolitan Airports Commission on the newly redrawn Noise Zone 3. The proposed subdivision is entirely within the new Noise Zone 3, which considers residential uses to be inconsistent with the Aviation Guide Plan policies. A Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Metropolitan Council would be necessary to change the current guide plan from Cemetery to Residential, and we can only speculate whether the Metropolitan Council would approve a request that their guide plan considers inconsistent. Hoffman Homes has stated that, all other considerations aside, they would be willing to explore possible options with the Metropolitan Council. 2. Cul-de-sac length. The Planning Commission was concerned about the length of the cul-de-sacs proposed by Hoffman Homes for emergency access reasons. Hoffman Homes said that various scenarios for a northern access point were discussed between Hoffman Homes and MnDOT, but dismissed as unfeasible. The Planning Commission appeared not to accept the argument that a northern access point could not be constructed. 3. Layout. Several Commissioners likened the proposed layout of housing units to a "wall", and felt that a more varied or clustered layout design would break up some of the monotony. Hoffman Homes replied that although this development featured twin townhomes their scale, including setbacks, would be very similar to single family homes. Commissioner Duggan asked Hoffman Homes to present to the City Council three or four site scenarios for consideration featuring clustering or other techniques to create more interest. Hoffman Homes said that they were willing to do this. Please see minutes from the discussion of the Concept Plan at the August 26, 1997 meeting, along with the other attached items of public record pertaining to this application. Representatives of Hoffman Homes will be present at the September 2, 1997 meeting of the City Council to discuss the Concept Plan. Recommendation At their regular meeting on August 26, 1997 the Planning Commission made no specific recommendation regarding this Concept Plan, but asked Staff to convey their comments to the Council in advance of the September 2, 1997 meeting. Action Required Discuss the Concept Plan with representatives of Hoffman Homes and provide direction to the applicant and Staff. The intent of the Concept Plan is to make recommendations and comments to the developer regarding the proposed Planned Unit Development. Comments made by the City at this stage are not and are not intended to be binding on the City in any way, but is simply advisory to the applicant on a preliminary basis only. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1 �7 TO: Planning Commission August 22, 1997 FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Director and Patrick Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Revised Air Noise Policy On August 19th the City received the attached Aviation Development Guide Chapter from Metropolitan Council. As you can see from the cover letter, Met Council is instructing the City to implement these air noise changes concurrent with our Comprehensive Plan Update which due to be completed by the end of next year. This new guide greatly expands air noise zone boundaries and instructs us to make our ordinance language more strict. The Hoffman application was reviewed by staff under the guidelines of our existing ordinance, and the proposed development is almost entirely within Noise Zone 4. Under the City's existing ordinances, Hoffman's townhouse proposal is allowed as a conditional use, with the condition being that sound attenuation construction occur. Under these new rules received from Met Council, Hoffman's proposal will now be entirely in Noise Zone 3 and the new ordinance language would not allow any residential development with that noise zone. Mr. Hoffman's proposal does require that a comprehensive plan change be processed to change the development area designation from "C" Cemetery to "LR" Low Density Residential. All Comprehensive Plan changes need to be approved by Metropolitan Council, and we are unsure yet, if they will approve the change given their new, expanded, and more restrictive air noise policy guidelines. We are looking for Planning Commission input on all aspects of the development tonight, so that when we do have conversations with Met Council concerning their air noise issues, we know the Planning Commission's feeling on the viability of residential development for the site. Metro-politan Council Working, for the Region. Planning for the Future Date: August 14, 1997 {/// 4U/'^ -"' I' V V To: Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Area Communities-, 1 19 1,9 9? Minneapolis, St. Paul, St. Louis Park, Edina, Richfield, Mendota, Lilydale, Mendota Heights, West SL Paul, Sunfish Lake, Eagan Bloomington, Burnsville, Inver Grove Heights. From: Chauncey Case - Transportation Planning (602-1724) cc Tom Caswell, Carl Schenk, John Kari, Rick Gelbmann Subject: MSP Noise Policy Area Map In December 1996 the Metropolitan Council adopted a revised Aviation Development Guide Chapter. A new Noise Policy Area for MSP International airport was included in the Aviation Guide and aviation System Statements were u-ansmitted to the affected communities. Attached for your use is a copy of the Geographic Information System map depicting the MSP noise policy area. Additional copies of this map are avatiable by calling me. An explanation of the noise policy area, and the associated aircraft noise contours, can be found in the December, 1996 Aviation Guide Chapter starting on page 66. Information on application of the noise policy ares can also be found in the Aviation Guide in the section on Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft 'Noise (see pace 61). The noise policy area for MSP includes both the Corrective and Preventive land use compatiowty measures. T -he noise policy contours for the existing runways are the same as those used for the cmrentiv approver FAR Part -160 proo—ram. The MSP noise policv'area is an overlay zone that should be included in the local community comprehensive plan update for December 1998. Apulication of these noise zones and associated land use compatibility guidelines should be reflected in the community land use plan and in local codes and ordinances. System Implementation Procedures Guidelines For Content and Preparation of a Long -Term Comprehensive Airport Pian Planning Context The longi -teem comprehensive airport plan (LTCP) is intended to integrate all information pertinent to planning, developing and operating an airport in a manner compatible with its surrounding environs. This document is to be prepared according to the procedure and priorit thereaftery schedule described below, and reassessed every free years The plan content guidelines apply to major, intermediate and minor airports. Therefore, some flexibility for differences in emphasis or level of detail on certain plan elements will be necessary. Plans should be reassessed Periodically and updated when necessary. The reassessment involves reviewing the. prior forecasts against actual airport activity, checking the progress of implementation efforts (e.g. individual project planning, EIS's and capital program), and identifying any other issues or changes that may warrant continued monitoring, interim action or establish a need for a plan update. The LTCP does not replace any other planning. or reporting requirements of another governmental unit. The scope and emphasis of a long-term comprehensive airport plan should reflect the airport's system role and the objectives for each plan content category as described below. Table 5 SCHEDULE FOR PREPARING/UPDATING LONG-TERM COMPREHENSIVE AIRPORT PLANS Airport Status ! 5 -Year Update Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Plan -Reviewed 1996 2001 St. Paul Downtown Pian Reviewed -1992 1997 Airlake Anoka County - Blaine Updated Pian Review Anticipated - 1997 Updated Plan Review Anticipated - 1997 ( 2002 2002 Crystal Updated Plan Review Anticipated -1997 2002 Plying CIoud Plan Reviewed -1996 2001 Lake Elmo Tlan Reviewed -1994 1999 South St. Paul Municipal Update Recommended - 1996 2001 Plan Content Airport Development Objective: To pommy the type and location of airport physical and operational development in a systematic fashion, reflecting both the historical and forernst levels of unconstrained aviation demand. The plan should include: • Backuound data including a description of previous planning studies and development efforts. Each item described should contain a synopsis of pertinent dates, funding sourca(s), objectives and results. It should also include an overview of historical and forest aviation activity (number of based aircraft; aircr aft mix., number of annual aircraft operations) and the demand compared to the capacity of existing and proposed facilities. An airport map showing Iand use areas, by type, within the airport grope: ty boundary or under, airport control. Mans) showing airport development phasing based upon key demand and capacity levels. A description of facilities waging, by phase, for specific land -use areas. A copy of the current FAA -approved airport Iavout Plan map with associated data tables as descn'oed in FAA ACISO/:070-6. 400 A LARCH M r r OPOLtTAN DEVELOPMEWt GUIDE December 1996 Airport and Airspace Safety Objective: To identify planning and operating practices required to ensure the safety of aircraft operations and V I protect the regional airspace resource. The plan should include: 0 An airport map depicting the air -port zoning district, land -use safety zones and a description of the associated airport zoning ordinance as required under Minn. Stat. 360.061-360.074 and defined in Minn Rules, Sec. 8360.2400. This map should contain appropriate topographical reference and depict those areas under aviation easements. • An =area man showing the FAA FAR Part 7/7 airspace surprofaces, including an approach t2 I plan as ed in FkA AC150/5070-6. 0 A mat) of aircraft flight tracks depicting the local aircraft traffic pattern and general description of operating parameters in relation tothephysical and operational development phase of the airport. Airport and Aircraft Environmental Capability Objective: To define aviation impacts and measures needed to meet both social and natural environmental needs of the region. The plan should include: • Aircraft on -ground and overflight activities described within an historical and forecast coate-ct, including seasonal and daily traffic. Maps of aircraft noise impact areas depicted by contours of noise levels for annualized and single -event aircraft activity Description of noise abatement operations measures, identifying those evaluated and those adopted. • Description of abatement measures and proposed strategy for off -airport land uses affected by aircraft noise, including recommended priorities and identification of parties responsible for hnplemexrtaricn. • Description of aircraft; ground vehicle and point source as pollution emissions within a historical and forecast cone.; including definition of the seasonal and daily operating enviroinnent Identify ctisting and potential aa' -quality problem m*s). 0 Description and map of emsting drainage system including natural drairtagevrays and wetlands by type. Provide map and description of proposed surface water management plan for water quantity and quality including proposed facilities, storage volumes, rates and volumes of runoff from the sire, and pollutant loadings associated with planned airport site facilities that could affect surface water quality. Proposed mitigation measures and facilities (during construction and long term) to avoid off-site Blooding flo minimi polluting of surface waters. A description of measures to midgare the potential impact or compensate for the loss or alteration of wetlands. • Description of the types of potential grouadwater contaminants present on the site and proposed measures for the see handling, storage and disposal of these substances to protect ground war,--, including a description of the Metropolitan Airports Commission's and private Operators' roles for managing these materials. • Projection Of the average annuar4olume of wastewater to be generated for the a= 20 years by five year increments from terminals and operators and the proposed facilities (description and map) for handling and treating wastewater including ice, private treatment plants and individual on-site sewage g public sewer sem disposal systems. Include a description of the proposed management program for private facilities and the roles Of the Metropolitan Airports Commission and private operators in implementing this proggram. • Description of recommended air, waxer and noise control plans, including, monitoring programs. Compatibility with Hetropolkan and Local Systems Objective: To identify demand;nd-capaciry relationships benve-en airport and community systems and define a management plan for maintaining compatibility. The plan should include: • Description of historical and for'L--ast ground vehicle traffic amvities, including average and peak -flow ch=c' teristics on a seasonal, daily and peak hour bases. Map showing location of ground access points, parking areas and associated traffic counts. Definition of potential problem areas and plan for traffic managgement. • Desc&7ption of water supply, sanitary and storm sewer and solid waste systems. Definition of historical and forecast use levels and c'anacities. Depiction of locations where airport systems interface with local or regional systems. Identification of potential problem areas and the plan(s) for -waste management. • Description of other airport ser-nc: needs (for example, gpolice and fire) that may require Changes in agreements or typeievels of governmental and/or general public support AWIJVIQN METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE December 1996 400 Implementation Strategy Objectives: To establish the type, scope and economic feasibility of airport development and recommended actions to implement a compatible airport and community plan. The plan should include: Description of the overall physical and operational development phasing needed over the (next) ten years. A capital improvement plan to cover a ten-year prospective period The fust five years of the development plan should be project -specific, much like the present MAC plan, and the second five years of the plan, including projects of more than five years duration and new projects, may be limited to aggregate projections. Estimates Of fedeal, state and local finding shares should be included for all projects included in the plans. • Identification of the planning activities needed for implementation of the comprehensive airport plan. Aviation System Content Requirements for Local Comprehensive Puns Under the 1995 Metropolitan Land Planning Act, local governments are to prepare comprehensive plans and submit them to the Council to determine their consistency with metropolitan system plans. Each municipality in the metro area will review and, if necessary, update its' comprehensive plan, fiscal devices, and official controls by December 31, 1998, and at least every 10 years thereafter. Local comprehensive plans are to include land use and public facilities plans with sufficient information to determine the effects on departures from metropolitan systems plans. The public facilities plan should include an aviation element describing, designating- and scheduling the location, extent,facilities. ction, se.-vtcing fa aviation and protection requirements of existing and proposed regional and local public and private The Council is required to regularly re-evaluate regional system plans. In turn, the Council is to notify local governmental omits of systemchanges, and indicate appropriate mo&flca tions to Local comprehensive pIaas. To reduce confusion about what change in regional aviation plans directly affect individual local governments, metropolitan systems statements will clearly indicate which geographic arcs and/or population groups will be most affected by the changes, In addition, the Council will transmit all system changes that occur in a calendar year as a single System statement. This means local governmental units can consider concurrently all system plan changes made during a 12 -month penodin updating theme plans by the 1998 deadIke, local governments are required to consider the metropolitan policy plans that are in effect on December 31, 1996. Described below are specific local plan content requirements that in many uses wilt be needed to demonstrate --Insistency with the rwrised aviation system plan. Also noted below are recommended, but nonmandatory, plan merits. Mandatory Menwntr • Adopted Land use compattlility guidelines for aircraft noise (note. the guidelines to be used are desctiaed in the nett section of this document). Map depicting aircraft noise zones of any adjacent airport(s) impacting the community, Identification of incompatible land use activities, recommended plan and strati to remove incompatibility Description of overlay zoning ordinance to be adopred for attenuation of aircraft noise. Description of local building codes as part of a strategy, to implement noise attenuation overlay ordinance, • Maps depicting airport airspace zones and land use safe,.y zones based upon federal and state rite:is Freparatiori of aisoort land -use safety ordinance (applies formation o£, and participation on, joint zoning boardsin the case of NAC airports). • For communities sponsoring the development of an intermediate or maior heliport. a heliport development plan must be prepared that evaluates alternative sites. land use impact, aces, safety zones, noise and other environmental concerns. The development plan is submitted for review to the Council along with notifications to the FAA and N DOT. The Council's review of the development plan provides the basis for the community's comprehensive plan amendment • Identification of permanent private. and emergencv-=se airports and heliports allowed under local zoning and/or permit. • Map deaicmg permitted seaplane surface water use ares under N DOT rules and regulation. Zoning Ordinance for protection of special aviation raciiinesrfunc.ions in ori airport areas (including easement): for example, navigation or landing aids such as a VOR ILS -Marker, enroute radar, approach lishring and beacons. 41MO A LRnQii METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE December 1996 • Identification of all man-made structures 500 feet above ground Ievel (or office or residential buildings more then 10 stories high requiring emergency evacuation plan by helicopter). Local ordinance controlling height of structures allowed under conditional or special use permit within areas of the communities' general -airspace area and not included within an airport zoning district Incorporation of Mn/DOT notification and reporting procedure for structures 350 or more feet above ground level at the site. • Integration of airport infrastructure and service requirement needs with local plans and facilities. Identification of sensitive land uses and activities, easements and effects on special districts. Also Iocal financial and capital plans/s=-Aces. Xon-Mandaxvey Elements • Identification of local participation process for input to aviation planmina, development and promotion activities to be coordinated with affected agencies. • Airport -related economic development plan, including cost sharin, or other development tools and Proposals for relating community to airport services in cooperation with airport owner, users and other affected governmental units. Land -Use Compatibility Guidelines Process In 1976, the legislature enacted the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. This act required that all local governmental units prepare a comprehensive land -use plan and submit it for review by the Nfetropolitan Council. The aviation system content requirements for local comprehensive plans are described earlier in this document. In addition, land -use compatibility guidelines -for aircraft -noise have been adopted by the Council. These guidelines are to be used in local comprehensive plans/plan amendments. The following overall process and schedule should be used: • The Nfetr000litan Council will transmit the adopted revised aviation chapter to local gove.,7tmeuts affected by the metropolitan airports system as part of its next annual systems information statement • Each community, within nitre months after rereipt of the systems statements, must review its comprehensive plan and determine if a plan amendment is needed to ensure consistency with the aviation chapter If an amendment is needed, the community must prepare an amendment and submit it to the Meaopolitan Counc•I£ as required under the Metropolitan Laud Planning Act • The Metropolitan Courted reviews each local comprehensive pian amendment, and an or requires a Plan modification. The Council also reviews and comments on any proposed variance request or other interim measures, to address inconsistent -land uses. • Each communiry and airpor /b6port owner prepares a detailed implementation program to reduce, prevent or mitigate aircraftnoise impacts on land uses that are inconsistent with the ,iide!ines. The detailed program is prepared in conjunction with development of each long-term comprehensive aimorvheliport plan. • The airport operator submits Iong-term comprehensive airporvheliport plans (includin_s a strategy for implementing compatible land uses) to the M=;polimn Councu for review and approval. • The. Metropolitan Council prepares a final retort on a len; te.:n program forimpietnentin, noise -control strategies on a system wide Basis (1995). • The third set of guidelines pertain to heliport piannine and deve!opment. AIUVIO 1 METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE DecV^ter 1996 400 Compatibility Guidelines A significant airport environmental issue of public concern in the Twin Cities Area is the noise generated by aircraft takeoffs and landings. This element of the Aviation Chapter of the ivferr000litan Development Guide includes guidelines communities around the airports should use to discourage incompatible land uses and encourage compatible ones. Three sets of guidelines are included in this section: • The fust set guides land uses in communities around Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport OVISP), and SL Paul Downtown Airport. MSP International and SL Paul Downtown are , currently operating as the major and intermediate airports, respectively, in the metropolitan airports system. Compatible land uses for these airports are summarized in Table 6. The land use guidelines apply to noise exposure zones I through 4 as described in the next section. • The second set of guidelines is for land uses around six minor airports in suburban and rural parts of the Twin Cities Area. Compatible land uses for these airports are summarized in Table 7. The guidelines apply to noise exposure zones A through D as described in the next section. • The third set of guidelines pertain to heliport planning and development Table 6 Major & intermediate Airports Land -Use Types /Nowe Exposure Zones Land --Use New Development Infill - Reconstruction or Compatibility jor Redevelopment Ma Additions to Egg StructuresGuideiiaes 2 3 4 1 I2 3 Residential Single / Multiplex Wifa INCO' INCO INCO COND COND COND COND COND Individual Mairanct Multiplex / Apartment wits INCO INCO INCO COND COND PROV PROV PROV Shared Enm=c_- Mobile Home INCO INCO INCO COND COND COND CONI) COND Educational and Medical Schoo1s, Churches, Hospitals. INCO INCO INCO PROV COND COND COND PROV Nursing Homes Cuitural, Entertainrac:ar, Rec-reational Indoor COND: COND COND PROV COND PROV PROV PROV Outdoor COND CON -D cor4l) 04 5 T COND COND COND CNST Office, CorarneraW, Retail COND I PROV ?ROV CqS-1 PROV I PROV I ?ROV I CN57 TrA=vortacion-?ass,--g.r COND ?ROV ?ROV CNST COND ?ROV PROV CNST Transient Loci ng INCO PROV PROV COND 1 PROV I PROV PROV Other Medical. tie-aith and COND ?ROV l ?ROV CN -S-, CON- i ?RC -V ?ROV CN57 H,4ucaraonal Services Other Services COND R OV ?ROV CN57 COND P.ROV PROV CNS -1 LndusaW, Communicaaon, PRO' Cyz7 i C ---%z7 I CNST I ?ROV CN*S7 I CN*57 CN -5 Ualicy ij Agricultural Land, Water CNST- CNST CNST I CN -ST CN -7T C?IS7 I CN57 CNST Areas, Resource F-%-Lracdon 41� '[.NCO means Inconsistent AV1=10W METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE December 1996 'COND means Conditional I PROV rne3ris Definition of Compatible Land Uses An explanation of the four land use ratings of land used in Tables 6 and 7 (consistent. provisional, conditional and :inconsistent land uses) follows: • Consistent: Land uses that are acceptable. • Provisional: Land uses must comolY with c-rMm rauctured performance standards to be acceptable according to i&(S 473.192 ('Metropolitan Area Aircraft Noise Attenuation Act). Structures built after December 1983 shall be acoustically constructed so as to achieve the interior sound levels described in Table 8. Table 7 Minor Airports L=d-Usc Types pes I'Noise Exposure Zones land --Use New Development InU - Reconstruction or Compatibility Guidelines Major Redevelopment Addidons W Existing Structures C D A i B C D Residential Single / Multiple.- with INCO` NCO INCO COND CONED COND COND COND MuEdgi= /.Amrm=t -itis INCO ?ROV PROV ROV COND ROV PROV PROV Shared =-=Ancr Mobile Home INCO INCO NCO CONM COND COND COND COND Edu=donal and Medical Sc.: -.00L-,. Chureaes. Hosottaij. INCO INCO WCO ?ROV COND COND COND ?ROV Nursing Hones C-111=1111. Entertainxn=t. lec=Monal Indoor CO.NV ?.WV ?ROV ?ROV COND ?ROV PROV ?ROV Outdoor COND COND COND CNS T CoND COND COND (=4'5 —I Offic-- Commercial. Retail coma ?ROV ?ROV cN.5-z ?ROV PROV PROV CNS 4ztrvices Zu=ormdon-?2ss---.gC: COND ?ROV ?ROV CNST COND ?ROV ?ROV CNIST Faesides Trziment Lodging LNCII ?ILC.V ?ROV ?ROV COND ?ROV ?ROV ?ROV Other 'Aedi(=i. F=kart di-' C --'.N D ?ROV ?ROV CN57, C:3"40 ?ROV ?ROV CN. 5 -1 Educitiortai Serilces Other Se rtces ?( tov ?ROV I CNSTI COND ?ROV ?ROV CNIST 1ndus4n4 Commurucaucr- CN -ST I NS" CNST ?ROV CMC T, Agncuiruraj Land.Watcr c, 67 cm, CN57- CN -S T CBS-, cNST Rtsoura. Extraccon Now For nriii. reconsLuc;ors =,d -'C7 Z:.-= ard uses are =re. _===t=3 couid jusafy the pmic-c. and .hc 3,-Lic :r.15 ::::s Utar. 3S acarco:=Ee, NCOncans Inconsistent COND means CandWonai 'FQOV means Provistonai * CNST mearts Conastent AWIMIGH METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE Cecemter 19-c-3 41ff- Table 3 Structure Performance Standards' Land Use ( Interior Sound Level= Residential 45dBA EducationaVN[edical 45dBA Cultural/Enterminmenr/Recreational 50dBA3 Office/Commercial/Remil Services 50dBA Industrial/Communicadon/Udlity 6OdBA Agricultural Land/Water/Area/Resource Extraction 63dBA ` These performance standards do not apply to buildings, accessory buildings, or portions of buildings that are not normally occupied by people (Ste Appendix A). The federal DNL descriptor is used to delineate all the system airport noise policy zones. Special attention is required for ccrrtain noise seasidve uses, for example, concert halls. Table 9 Conditional Land -Use Review Factors I. Specific nature of the proposed use, including extent of assomd ourdeor aetivides 2. Rzadonsirijo of proposed use to other planning considerations, including adjace*u land use activities, consistency with overall comprehensive planning and rekon to other metropolitan systems. I Frequency of cmosure of proposed uses to aircraft overflight. r. Location of proposed use .-eadve to aircraft flight trw!Z and aircran on -Around operating and maintenance arm. 5. Location, site design and construction resiricsons to be imposed on the proposed use by the community with re vett to reduction of exterior to interior noise can rr ' ,orLs. and shie?ding of outdoor activities. 6. 'Method community will use to inform future occupants of proposed POE dal r10Le from aircraft operations. 7. Extern co whicei commurtity resLL ors the building from having faeiities for outdoor acavides as, --orated with the use. S. Dism ce of proposed use from -rusting or proposed mro ads. parade; ta.,aYays. or engine runt -up arc=s. 400 PV1=101i METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE December 1996 Conditionnl: Land uses that may be identified as conditionally acceptable in local comprehensive plans. The Metropolitan Council will review and authorize conditional uses incorporated in local comprehensive plan amendments for compliance with the factors set forth in Table 9. Following the approval and adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments, individual conditional use proposals will not be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council unless indicated in the plan amerdmenL When a local government submits a land use plan amendment proposing the potential authorization of uses identified as conditional in these g.iidelines, the Metropolitan Council will use the following- factors in determining whether or not to approve the provisions relating to proposed conditional uses: 0 Inconsistent: Land uses that are not acceptable even if acoustical treatment were incorporated in the stucntre and outside uses were restricted. Each local unit of government with Iand within the airport noise zones will be responsible for implementing and enforcing the structure performance standards in its jurisdiction The Metropolitan Council will review the adequacy of these standards as pan of its review of amendments to each community's comprehensive plan. Land uses identified in Tables 6 and 7 are categorized imp two groups; those dealing with new development(major red`velopmeat, or infill development and reconstruction or additions to exisrmg structures. -New Development and mor Redevelopment." "New development" means a relatively large, undeveloped tract of land proposed for development (for entitple, a residential subdivision, industrial park or shopping center). "Major rdevelopmear means a relatively large parcel of land with old structures proposed for edeosive rehabilitation or demolition and different uses (for example, demolition of a square block of old office and hotel buildings for new housing, office, commercial uses; conversion of warehouse to office and commercial uses}. In jrll Develo=enr and Reconstr=on or ld:k oar to Existing Sb=cuves The term "InU development" pertains to an undeveloped parcai or parcels of land proposed for development similar to or less noise -sensitive than the developed parcels surrounding the undeveloped pare l (for example, a new house on a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood, or a new industry on a vacant parcel in an established industrial area). °-Reconstruction or additions to existing struC:trres" pctains to replacing a structure destroyed by fire, are, etc., to accommodate the same use that e..,dstd before destruction, or expanding a strucrure to accommodate increased demand for wdstin; use (for example, rebuilding and mode-mzing an old hotel, or adding a room to a house). Decks, patios and swimming pools are considered allowable uses in all cases. It is recognized that certain edsdng land uses, =onstrucaon projects and irtnIl development are not consistent with the �iide!ines for new development and major redeve!opment, and aci-.ievement of consistency between such uses and the noise exposure zones may remain dimcalt or imuossiole in the short te-m. Where such consistency is impracrical in the short rem. interim measureswill be necessary. Such interim measures may include appiication to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for a variance from state noise standards. The long-range achievement of compatibility szould be addressed thrown stratemies that eventually wiiI reduce or eliminate inconsistencies. This progr tm may include acquisition, insuiation, lone -range planning and devetoeme^r, modification of airport ooe-ations and zound noise attenuation. Program costs. nnancing methods, prioritization and an imuiernentation schedule should be identified as part of the process and included in zhe strategies. AVI=7CM METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT GUIDE De a—nber 19S6 Noise E=osto e Zones for Major and Intermediate Airports Both the extsnng and expected noise intensity in the area are severe and permanent. No new development other than that dedicated to nonnoise-sensitive land uses should be considered. In addition to preventing future noise problems, t� verely noise -impacted areas surrounding ivfSP should be fully evaluated to determine alternative land -use S Jes including eventual changes in existing land uses. Four aircraft noise exposure zones are defined within the noise policy area. Those zones can be classified as severe, serious, significant and moderate, respectively. They are described below. Noise Ernosw-e Zone 1 Zone I occurs on, and immediately adjacent to the airport property and can be generally described as having severe noise problem. It is projected to be subjected to aircraft noise greater than 75 DNL. It is an area frequently affected by both takeoff and landing operations. In addition, the proximity of the airport operating area, particularly the runway thresholds, reduces the probability of relief resulting from future changes in the operating charactenstics of either the aircraft or the airport. Noise Ezztoma-e Zone 2 The noise impacts in zone 2 are generally sustained, especially close to the runway ends. Zone 2 is exposed to aircraft noise of 70 to 75 DNL for takeoffs and landings. Based on the proximity of the affected area to the ahWM the seriousness of the noise exposure is such that sleep and speech interference can be routinely expected. The noise intensity in this area is generally serious and oftentimes continuing. New development should be limited to uses that have been construcred to achieve c --Main interior-w-exteror noise attenuation and that discourage certain outdoor uses. Noise Ezposrrre Zone 3 Aird noise impacts in zone 3 can also be categorized as sustaining. However, the intensity is such that it should be considered significant: or somewhat less than serious. Zone 3 is exposed to aircraft noise of 65 to 70 DNL for takeoffs and landings. in addition to the intensity of the noise, the I&zdon of buildings receiving the noise must also be fully considered. Operational changes can provide some relief for certain uses in this area, Residential development may be acceptable if it is located outside areas that are exposed to frequent arrivals and '-parttses, is constructed to achieve certain interior to exterior noise attenuation, and is restrictive as to outdoor e. Ca -taro medical and educational facilities that involve permanent lodging and outdoor use should be ,ascouraged. Noise Fxaosure Zone 4 Zone 4 is best described as a transitional area where aircraft noise exposure might be considered moderate. It is exposed to aircraft noise 60 to 65 DNL. Noise exposure is predominantly related to takeoffs. Land uses are anges in operations. The area is considered transitional bemuse likely to receive the most benefit from ch potential changes in airport and aircraft operaan, ptnceaures could lower or raise noise levels. At iMSP, this noise zone includes the DN -L^60 plus one -mile butler zone to address this variability in noise impact and also allow imtylementation of additional local noise mitigation efforts as discussed on page 74 of this gaide chanter or defined under sate law: Development in this area may be generally free from land -use restrictions as such, but can benefit from insulation Teves above typical new construction standards in ?Minnesota R+hrile such measures may abate the level of interior noise, insulation cannot eliminate outdoor noise problems. Building Iocations and site planning can help mitigate both interior and exterior noise in some cases and must be encourased. 400 AtIMiOH MtETROPOLI TA,N DEVELOPMENT GUIDE December 1996 A new noise policy area has been developed for use by affected communities in defining noise mitigation measures. This includes an amendment of local comprehensive plans and designations of compatible land uses and zoning of undeveloped properties according to the land -use compatibility guidelines defined in this Aviation Chapter. The new noise policy areas, shown in Figure 15, consists of a combination of: 1) the 1996 DNL 60 noise contour for the parallel runways, 2) the 2005 DNL 60 noise contour reflecting the projected operations on the proposed new North/South runway, and 3) addition of a one -mile area outside the DNL 60 contour as defined under the 1996 noise mitigation legislation. T-ne new Noise Policy Area for MSP was included to meet several objectives: I ) Replace the old "hybri(r Noise Policy Contour, in use since 1983 for local plan reviews, with an updated contour that reflects more recent air traffic activity Ievels and other noise modeling parameters, 2) Change the noise metric to the federal DNL descriptor to reflect dual -track recommendations and provide consistency with other MAC studies/programs such as the FAR Part -150 noise program which addresses "corrective" land use compatibility measures, - 3) Protect undeveloped/companble land uses, especially in the Mendota Heights -Eagan Corridor, from market pressures to convert to incompatible land uses, by not using the year 2005 contour but the 1996 DNL 60 _ one - mile contour. The 1996 contour was selected since it was already being used in the part -150 program, provide the most protection for "preventive" land use measures both geographically, and provides a certain period of time to see whether actual noise reductions (as recorded by the AXIOMS monitoring system) occurs as expected. Maintaining the current reservoir of compatible commercial and industrial land uses in this corridor serves not only the interests of the airport system but also provides potential for firtre economic development for employees located in the central cities and businesses serving air -transportation. 4) Provide guidance for areas to be affected by the year 2005 by operations off the new north/south runway. This is consistent with earlier preferences voiced by the City of Bloomington in discussion of the runway 4M issues, and it provides ability to address potential fUn re noise issues in Bloomington and Eagan during the 1997-98 local plan updates. 5) It is consistent with the 1996 legislation for the ability to use air=aft noise as defining a "blighting" condition in establishment of a Tax Increment Financing District in affected communities around MSP. An important feature of that TEF legislation is ability to change land uses from housing to other more compatible land uses. 6) The one -mile buffer area provides additional fle:aoility to communities in implementation of measum reflecting local land use concerns. Figure 16 depicts the five-year (projected to 1996) noise contour for MSP prepared by the MAC using the Integrated Noise Model. The originally approved Part 150 contour assumed the physical extension of runway 4/22 including redi=ibution of aircraft from the parallel runways to more depamres on runway 22, to the southwest the "Build" option. The Council has approved the physical extension of runway 4/222 as a MAC capital improvement project The redistribution of noise through a new runway use system was submitted to mediation due to litigation. Because of the pending legal issues and the reconstruction of runway 29 L, the items associated with the new runway use Sys'erU (such as the queing ta:dway), would not be included until the MAC 1999 annual CIP. At that point the implementation status of the ge:ry North-South runway will be better known and, therefore, it will be possible to better determine the potential cos -e iccavettess of impiemendrig the 4/22 runway use system. ffli/UVION METROPOLITAN DEVE_OPMEwr GUIDE Dec=niber 1996 4a Noise Policy Area - Minuchappli's-S �t. Paul International Airport II r � -f 1•\�•. � 1 Il liti. � � r� ��` �� �l'1pR•��((I° '��I,'('fyjl Ik r(y��, �.F�{I � I' i , ''. lilts(;.(,, �t I�t,,;�R !I' Jr`l:l �a+1 R•��; �lt�' ,:�i�i + � r �•{ F��,: i ( i '?J•��1� �`4V�fri11�'•+ r�lrfjl` �IRY�� y, �11 1l I(V fA �'il'�1,i14r1r1.��{•�ll�i,�'ti' �'�)'1,'::?:,1;pi"�1��1 411(, i�l�rl `4�I•'�Il�it+�+{ \ 1 1 r 1 1 i t f1�■1 � � I R r. ' 1` �, f.1F I �,•rR ,+ ti j , ,I! t t f�, r ,� r � 1' i1 4% N, �' -\\\�(��,� •( , 1 \ lllt fill (,Il ,''f)�f ,1�;{1� �r11 (!iGf If,i�\1?�'R(ll,I� ��j•� u�dlr'I,;�r ! %4` r i 1 1/�% [[� it k til• II �'!'� (` l+i'+`+i' �J 1tY ` 'i')i\d t �(li )' ll�� ���; ,;, RI ;� .,r• 1,, tom. (�11 �IY1y;rr �fR)r,ati { ,� �t��l 1 .,�I�i +1�',,, I �)`�IFI��y��'I "'�" •r.� I'�r���: ;I���x�\ !/ "(`y4" �✓I f • � .. y .}7 ( � r,,. �r� 1 1 ! .t I ('v 1,L,n .•1,• I: -I•Rl% ' r) r �i Y I is {�-�rcr,•�rpp ; `I•� �,�o;.�+y�R�'�,��Y+, �11 `p�r 4 ��;���(i,i 4j' ��,,, )`\\\�` �r�'. I � f �, IR r'.',l ,i '�nP�r�t�� Otrttt�,ii, ti • .,�4��%!�1 ����"�' IY}�! �iR:f7t.. 1 I`! rl T 11 �} � ��� "'r{l�1'.j I *a / '�j 1 "�``I ��� f){_' �n�'rRf ( A + li'l"r h�• I • �� 1{�, �, y�ps'.t `�'�� ,I�l fi j' ' c'�{•� (: "' ,� :�:•4?rl,. �{� y I„1 S' �', j � ,•�� Ie�l l�rfl�!!N/J `����ggtilF1�< ��I �.� il'�R./"��' 1 ��� •l,.rt„ I(.�:;�ci{I,flq.11� {( �j+4li �n , i{I �I• n� � 1 Ilr ,., IW,•'��,J'°, •ll• I .Il�l�lli r�P�(�4� 1 .�r �� rift I, },I R� f 1kir. Y r 1 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: ZONING: GUIDE PLAN: Telephone Engineers 6121476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors Planning Commissioners of Mendota Heights Meg McMonigal, City Planner^-� Marc Weigle, Planner August 19, 1997 August 26, 1997 Augusta Shores - Concept Plan for a Planned Unit Development on a portion of Resurrection Cemetery Property Hoffman Homes, Inc., Burnsville Southeast quadrant of Highways 110 and 55, west of Lake Augusta and north of Lemay Lake R-1, Single Family Residential Cemetery Description of Request Hoffman Homes has submitted a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan to develop 30 side-by-side townhomes (60 units) on 27.1 acres located generally west of Lake Augusta and north of Lemay Lake. Approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Cemetery to Low Density Residential would also be required. A comprehensive plan amendment would require a Public Hearing and submittal to the Metropolitan Council for approval. The townhomes are proposed to be rambler units with full basements and many will have walkouts. The prices range from approximately $175,000 to $300,000. Background Information The purpose of a concept plan is to provide the applicant with information and guidance before the applicant enters a binding agreement or incurs substantial expense. It also provides the community and staff an opportunity to shape a development from the beginning of the process. An Equal Opportunity Employer City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission Concept Site Plan, Hoffman Homes, Inc. August 26, 1997 Page 2 The purpose of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) is to: 1) Encourage flexibility in the design and development of land 2) Preserve the natural and scenic quality of open areas 3) Encourage a diversity of housing types within a development 4) Permit a mixture of several zoning district uses within a development project 5) Permit modification and variance of zoning district requirements 6) Limit development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land uses Concent Plan Review The proposed PUD is located on a ridge along the west shore of Lake Augusta. The ridge slopes steeply toward the lake and is heavily wooded. To the west the site slopes steeply toward a low- lying area with small wetlands and then rises up again to meet Highway #13. We visited this site on August 13 and have the following comments and concerns with this concept site plan: Access and Streets • The street right-of-way is shown on the concept plan to be fifty (50) feet wide. The City typically requires a sixty (60) foot right-of-way, however, a PUD allows variations from standards to preserve the natural amenities. In this case a narrower road might be preferable. On -street parking could be restricted to one side of the street. • The Subdivision Ordinance, Section 5.3(2), suggests cul-de-sacs be no longer than five hundred (500) feet. The development essentially forms two cul-de-sacs because it has only one point of access. Their lengths are approximately twelve hundred (1200) and fourteen hundred (1400) feet long. • The plan shows the access drive intersecting at a point where Highway #13 is beginning to slope. Visibility for traffic approaching the intersection appears to be poor. • The proposed access road slopes steeply down from Highway #13 and then back up the ridge where the townhome units would be located. This is a 35-40 foot elevation change in each direction. Outbound cars will have difficulty approaching the intersection unless substantial grading is done to raise the access drive. This also presents serious safety concerns for emergency vehicles and winter driving conditions. • Access may have to be from the north end of the site, off of Centre Point Boulevard. This will result in a long cul-de-sac, but is preferable to a steep road requiring significant grading. City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission Concept Site Plan, Hoffman Homes, Inc. August 26, 1997 Page 3 Site Grading and the Environment A grading plan is not required for a concept plan review. Preliminary plat will require detailed grading and tree protection plans to minimize runoff and preserve the significant features and views. The developer states that the natural and scenic qualities of the shoreland and slope leading to Lake Augusta will remain untouched. However, lots are platted up to and beyond the lakeshore. This may allow property owners'to clear their property as they wish. In addition, significant trees (meaning those of substantial size and quality) have already been identified and marked with a ribbon along the shoreline. What will the future of this shoreline and slope look like? What lake uses will be allowed? The City will need to determine if they want to acquire parkland along the shore, require development restrictions (such as a scenic easement) on lakeshore property owners to protect the existing vegetation, or do nothing. • This development will result in a drastic change to the landscape. Perhaps more individual designing and grading should be pursued to better preserve the landscape. The Subdivision Ordinance, Section 5.8, restricts construction and grading on slopes steeper than 18%. There are proposed house pads and street grades exceeding this limitation. Airport Noise Zones • A majority of the site is located within Airport Noise Reduction Zone 4. This zone allows single/multiplexes with individual entrances as long as construction meets the noise reduction level numbers established by the Aircraft Noise Attenuation Ordinance. The southern portion of the site plan is within Zone 3 of the airport noise reduction area. Residential units with individual entrances are not allowed in Zone 3. However, it appears some of the proposed housing units may be located within Zone 3. • The Metropolitan Council has expanded the airport noise zones, which may impact this site. The City has not adopted these new zones at this time, however, if adopted this site would be located in Zone 3. Zone 3 is more restrictive than Zone 4 and the new Met Council guidelines prohibit residential development in Zone 3. Housing Design and Density The orientation of the townhomes in addition to the relatively straight road may produce a monotonous landscape. The curb appeal could be improved by orienting the units in different directions or providing a mix of housing units. Wetlands and street right-of-way need to be deducted from the net area for density calculations. City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission Concept Site Plan, Hoffman Homes, Inc. August 26, 1997 Page 4 Parks and Recreation Commission Comments: The Commission requested a trail link on the north end of the development and would like the developer to investigate the potential for a scenic overlook • Would it be appropriate to consider public access to the lake from this property? Expressed preference for one large building on the north end to preserve the remainder of the site Action Requested: If Planning Commissioners can visit the site, the proposed street access point off of Highway #13 can be viewed just north of Larson's Greenhouse. You can also walk the site by parking on Centre Point Boulevard just south of the Highway 110 and 13 intersection. There is a trail running along the top of the ridge and some trails along the lakeshore. Is this is an appropriate place for residential development given its location adjacent to major highways and within the airport noise zones? Are there ways Hoffman Homes, Inc. could better use and design this site? Planning Staff Recommendation - The applicant should consider the comments made above when preparing the preliminary plan. In particular, the access location point should be reconsidered, the style and orientation of the units should be more varied, and all lots should be located within the Airport Noise Zone 4. All future plans should show the location of the Airport Noise Reduction Zones. MATERIALS REVIEWED: 1. Application for consideration of a Planning Request, signed and dated August 5, 1997. 2. Letter of Intent from Hoffman Homes dated August 5, 1997. 3. Concept Site Plan McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Hoffman Homes, Inc. ilk 15050 23rd Ave. N. Engineers Plymouth, MN 55447 Planners Concept Plan 612/476-6010 Surveyors I City of Aiendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST f Case No. _ t Date of Applicadon Fee Paid No Applicant Name: 'r4 o fT t-tk0 k c 6S '_—r0c. PH: S`t 4 -RS 0'+ (Last) (First) (Mn Address: _ zz► y E. 1 i ��t} STQr--�T' Uur s� : 1ti1►. SS33� (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: CA t}o L ice- �Er'`E s� �S� L:Ty, (Last) (First) . (W Address: 1!_00 SC._LlA \ L P tAe ST , _?A x L 5S 1 Q a - (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: �w` i s 1 \ 0 �S 5 uz LVz i Legal Description of Property: '\AQ1 `V1Q_L Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit >c,_ Other (attach explanation), �NckP-r PLAI,-J 1%PPA4oVA%-1 Section Present Zoning. of.Property 6-5-4` Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property -rig P Q0 Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request an a nal material are true. _ (Sigaanire of Applicant) c„ 6/5h- " (Date) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO July 31, 1997 Dennis Delmont Police Chief ,yj ----> John Maczko Fire Chief Kevin Batchelder, City Administrator Jim Danielson, Public Works Director Kim Blaeser, Senior Secretary -7-D` M: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Cul -De -Sac Length for Proposed Development Please review the attached letter and comment to me be noon on Friday, August 1. Hoffman homes intends to make an application for a townhome development on part of Resurrection Cemetery property by Tuesday, August 2, 1997, and would like to know any concerns the emergency service departments may have about the proposed cul-de- sac. v\ OF �y112k 6v�� c �aLnl�j + 2`4 ' AC-&0,,jA-y NO O U e 20 c) P A-QD-'u..Q._ amu- 2_6v .4 f ( .y C� l ckL IA, iD /4h) AUG -06-1997 11:39 P.02 PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION MENDOTA HEIGHTS All of lots 12, 22, 25, 26,-27,eand,ieall in AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 34, MEADOTA, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Registrar of Titles, Dakota County Minnesota. And That part of lots 13, 20,e- andof said AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NO. 34, MEN OTA, which lies southerly, southeasterly and easterly of MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLATS N0. ,J$—' 012w9r, 19-98 AND 19-99, according to the recorded plats thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota. C� Mendota Heights PUD Concept Plan Checklist Date: Applicant: Phone # / Fax #: Location of Property: Other Approvals Needed: Case No: Relevant Ordinances/Sections: CITY PROCESS IN#Il�tt�� Applications will be scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council only after all required materials have been submitted. Late or incomplete applications will not be put on the agenda. If qper and corn Tete application materials and supportive documents are submitted by �% IT (date) then the public hearing r eview of your case will be conducted by the Planning Commission on -j l 777 (date). Following completion of the public hearing, or Planning Commission review, the City Council may consider your application on �f- //, 4 q Z (date). APPLICANT REQUIREMENTS The following materials must be submitted for the application to be considered complete: The applicant shall provide to the Planning Commission and the Council at the pre - application conference the Concept Plan and other information specified in Section 22.5. A Concept Plan must include both maps and a written statement, and must show enough of the area surrounding the proposed Planned Unit Development to demonstrate the relationship of the Planned Unit Development to adjoining uses, both existing and proposed. The maps which are part of the Concept Plan may be in general schematic form, and must contain the following information: a. The existing topographic character of the land. _ b. Existing and proposed land uses and the approximate location of buildings, utilities, and unique development features of the site. c. The location of major thoroughfares. d. Public uses, including schools, parks, playgrounds, and other open spaces. August 5, 1997 City of Mendota Heights Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Submittal Resurrection Cemetery Site Hoffman Homes, Inc. AUGUSTA SHORES The following information is submitted in accordance with section 22.5(4), items a thru i, of the City of Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance dated July 1996. A. Character of Planned Unit Development, consistency with Planned Unit Development provisions: The proposed development site, located at the southeast quadrant of Minnesota Trunk Highways 110 and 55 in northern Mendota Heights lies west of Lake Augusta and north of Lemay Lake. The topography of the area is that of a glacial ridge running parallel to the western shore of Lake Augusta. The slopes are heavily wooded with hardwoods while the top of the ridge is relatively open with occasional clusters of vegetation. A natural saddle runs just west of the ridge, from a small pond on the north to Lemay Lake on the south. The project site enjoys an abundance of natural amenities, a location convenient to both downtowns, and easy accessibility to major highways. These attributes combine to provide a highly desirable opportunity to develop upscale twinhomes in a private, wooded setting. The character of the Planned Unit Development will take advantage of the natural resources by providing views of Lake Augusta while maintaining the heavily wooded slopes which characterize the existing topography. The layout of the roadways, utility infrastructure and housing units take into account the existing water resources, vegetation and slopes to minimize the impact to the site. A divided roadway is planned for the entrance to the development to provide safe ingress and egress, as well as an aestetic, landscaped access for the public. The unit locations closely follow the contours, allowing for most of the units to have walkout basements with backyard patios. The site plan provides for all of the homes to back to open space rather than to other homes. All homes will be nestled into existing wooded areas and to Lake Augusta for privacy and enjoyment of the secluded location. The proposal consists of thirty upscale townhome buildings, designed as side-by-side duplex units, for a total of sixty units. All buildings will be rambler units with full basements, the majority featuring walkouts This design, character of the development and the homes amenities attracts empty nesters. The average sales price in Augusta Shores is expected to exceed $200,000, with a range from approximately $175,000 to $300,000. Several floor plans are available. Square footage on the main level will range from approximately 1,600 square feet to over 2,000 square feet. Total finished square feet with both main floor and lower level finished will range from approximately 2,300 square feet to 3,600 square feet. All homes will feature the following standard amenities: vaulted ceilings, gas fireplace, air conditioning, all upgrade appliances, wood floors, princeton trim, six panel doors, tile bath floors, master bath whirlpool tub, walk-in closets, and many other standard features. Homes in Augusta Shores will be constructed to meet Mendota Heights Ordinance for Aircraft Noise Attenuation, including the noise reduction standards, by careful selection of materials and by design of the homes. The design of the concept plan complies with the P.U.D. provisions by increasing densities or clustering residential units along the ridge, allowing for preservation of the natural amenities. The natural and scenic qualities of the open area around the pond and Lemay Lake will remain untouched as will the shoreland and slope leading to Lake Augusta. B. Proposed Financing: All utilities and streets will be constructed and privately financed by Hoffman Homes, Inc. C. Ownership of the Land: The Property under consideration is owned by Catholic Cemeteries, Ltd. Hoffman Homes, Inc. has a contingent interest on the parcel. D. Expected Schedule of Development: The project will be constructed in one phase with grading commencing in either late fall, 1997 or spring, 1998. It is anticipated that all units will be constructed and sold within three years. E. Character and Density: The project will consist of thirty twinhome buildings for a total of sixty units. The total acreage of the property is 27.1 acres, providing for a density of 2.21 units per acre. All units will back to either Lake Augusta or existing woods providing an open, nature filled living environment. The homes will be an upscale product with double attached garages, partial brick facade and steeply pitched roof lines. The offset garage faces, bay windows and recessed entry provide for texture on the front facade. The sides and rear of the homes have box out windows, four season porches, bays and patio doors to provide for an attractive elevation. Similar homes have been constructed in the suburban Twin Cities which have resulted in an upscale suburban neighborhood which attracts an empty nester population. F. Industrial, Commercial: acreage: Not applicable. G. Estimated Square Footage Commercial: Not applicable. H. Estimated open space and impervious surface estimate: As shown on the Conceptual Site Plan, there will be 7.4 acres of open space within the proposed development. 24.4% of the 27.1 acre site will be impervious. I. Projected Traffic: According to the 5th Addition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the trip generation per dwelling unit for a 24 hour period on a weekday is 5.86. Based on 60 dwelling units this would calculated to a weekday ADT of 352 vehicles. Lemay Lake Road has capacity for this additional traffic. . WY MINNETONKADESIGN, INC. HOFFMAN HOMES, INC. 35 W. Ism sf, suw 315 THE "STERLING" No y oma+ cna„h m aur 55317 `n: �ncwc w .`mac w«a 7:� (619) a3,-7..5 rAX (61:) W-.355 w v t,s» s 1 W IOi[1MI W6 K! �a/D4 rwOtl� O1 f�e1..K at trn MINNETONKA DESIGN, INC. so I. Ism 6t, S""' SID C%w.%.-M YN 063f7 UL {Srs} ts#-rwo 1." (M) 0u-43" vMM1 W ii[i.`O ------------ w I Y1Ml W >?mG f K1T aaq W 3 HOFFMAN HOMES, INC. THE "TRENTON" T6 m d CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ` ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC. IUAM MftU It A91II 1 WA41):391— _ awe �'�,�„ - - Vis- J ` V" c •1 • - _ - `'" _ 1 't Jr' 'VVI' '�• •' . -/1 (j - _ 1 , �(_a A i ='; ,• s --------Ir/" r-----------.«LY,i. el.'i.�. •i'Y ;e 1 rra~"Arl crl r ' _ r, , f' 1 ._- • �_- -�'', ,1,,, r ; t,,= •/ ' •WM NClirw �' j ___.. .:� 1 ., ,,; �^!�, • - - -• ii ''' ' ' 1 , r �, . 0-A Je AZ '/ �•. •1.11' 1 r_ f ! •��� t ,, t •, i I i �.�:• , ��/• 44 In Ilk 41A ' \11� ii : il' % ' ad• i .yam /l•,�w'. 11" 1' `-; , � ' �' -i21) - •� If. i3 i /i � •p�'1' ' ' i " ,'' ' ' ' e''' \r . ..4a ' w. , �• ! i I NI.NN'Arl IIA6111r1 �O •.NIIfY' • 1„ . •a: r + I= y i 1 1 I �i 1 rNCa If WD tm Ntol Bm ti . t 1 1 i YniliYa..,'�r`�i „'l.,�'r1 r'.vniu raie i\• ltl'4 .: w • �, 1 1 11 N .1 Nr'r. 1L IY if. IL D. ]h U r. M N r � '� N1 +` 1• ;'J-' I 61 •1 I• m11M 1N Is,RINen\ mtl•J[/. •+w 11• M/+�I111,1,Iw,1 M1.1, ,«.wN ,Iat. ,171NIw w. r.n y«IN,.nN.I D•«. '',.:, .� Nrlr • ,. '� , 1 �± • 1 w wl N Yl.'s n IL N.... u d w "pzrsl I 1•` i . �j , ,- - - NnV•i1 NI N. 1,0011-, AM Y. w,1.1• NN T9UNN HIGHWAY110. 35 1a. PA"'s w.r w -n .o'r111 '•-•> •.1 lr w \ «« r .. ,..N\., �.... nr • . A:•. •• wr+1. b \....1r INV .ar.•I )1 ...•"...• .. Iwr .• 11 «•d,1.. r'r1). r..«1 h 1, fh.•11 Irw«, I , •� YM..t111r.,..N1 a l..r••I r1>- 1•••n f•.IA Vn..•N .,•«. 1 Mb I.4A Mff"- 4Y4 r11n17-.r M Qdl QMtwe+t mb • Irum ,. NN •'r 11 IIJI •AI M YY pit I ; rNIf/ I, . a ILNt1 t:M M')m 11AV01:! IIIb• ronnf "I IK Iwwlf'MAq 90 ND NYYNn a 1•N.Q • rt"S l l r.41`1 r ♦ IKMswIt f 9m, %.I YY.m At .NAlP — for," —.Mum /4a • 10MI.I111 N•_.Nr.1 01/111YLT1N QV(On • roots t•n AM IN/•, .11'-11 Amm" ID' %gw.rla• .=LIMP hI. M 014 \I If W "rW% a411fA/N' 1h aA V11OIIA.V:1 I..rt«, .' r.Y911r IVN:IM.19. IU\PMIATM w'r 11 \\1 MI It, 71-19 til .id 1. , A.NI«I A 1.1 YZI.• IrrI.1 r•. I,d,fl d I• Mw� r'n l/, wY I_O�I YIM•DI �• 11, YL K•l.\ 1\r. r.rNrl« 1• f IMI . I. INI h. I r/ YI b 1 fYN/ A N f f•,n I•.r-.rl .Y.r .1 rY I .,/ Ir>IIM In, 1.«\ IM•.,IYI W :1.1 IM .1 .N N r. L «Ill N1'n"Y smuo/N M 14 VIMIfA Ad ..W .N411 N V. LrV'r !: ./ "I n...In,11 ln..1tM VI 70; m,_Itr.l� , •,rl .. N NY .. 11 •+ IV \L lM �1 1�'! N w!' I.vM r♦ V.s �,n►r'w"'►I N NI .•.. 11 •1 .aY YAtlY7 •.tOr►'JI N_. N. n•u/. .I -..1•w .I WI VI ILIhrY. 1� M -r. yI,. fbM 1x11., 11 M•r bV1 ••• M++N« .IMb d Wr1. r^••0' YM..,s M 4r 'I•) N I.I.Ja /•I. q'. r� m J Q F- 0 F- i CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS August 29, 1997 AM TO: Mayor, City Council and City A r FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direc SUBJECT: McNeill Property Acquisition Update DISCUSSION: In June the City Council reviewed the attached June 121 memo from me, and authorized the City Attorney to begin acquisition actions on the McNeill site. Tom Hart has prepared the needed condemnation paperwork and completed a title update for the property. Ownership is still in the estate of John McNeill, who has been deceased for many years. Since that June meeting, City Staff received the attached letter from Ms. Lynn Thompson, Dakota County Environmental Management Supervisor. Of specific concern in her letter was that she informed us that the McNeill property could not be used as a street sweeping deposit site. Upon receiving the letter staff put all actions on hold pending a final determination from the County whether or not we could use the site for street sweeping as was the intent. Recently Ms. Thompson contacted me again to say that, upon considerable deliberation, the County had determined that, under certain conditions, they would allow street sweepings to be stored at this site. They are currently in the process of preparing a policy that will address those conditions, but she said that if the sweepings are screened to remove leaves and trash and tested periodically for the presence of any hazardous substances, street sweeping disposal at the McNeill site would be allowed. She told me that a County policy addressing street sweeping disposal will be completed within a couple of weeks. Based on Ms. Thompson's latest assurances, I believe that it is once again feasible to begin acquisition of the site for use as the City's street sweeping disposal site. If we desire to move forward with the acquisition at this time we need to: 1. Determine what level of Environmental investigation we should conclude before proceeding in earnest with condemnation. The condemnation papers have been prepared and are being held by the City Attorney. If a serious environmental problem were detected, it would be preferable to have that information at a very early stage. Once this action goes to condemning authorities for determination, it is more difficult to withdraw the petition. 2. Council needs to make a decision to either engage Barr Engineering to perform the tasks in their proposal (see Jun Langseth's attached letter) or modify the scope of the investigation as determined by the Council. Cost Estimate: An estimate of the total acquisition costs for the McNeill property is as follows: c 'vi Barr Engineering MPCA Blake Davis (Appraisal) Winthrop & Weinstine (Legal) City (Engineering) Clean Up Costs Land Costs Contingency Costs Spent to Date Future $13,038.18 $ 12,650 $ 3,000 $ 2,500.00 $ $ 11,000 $ 5,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 10,000 Total Estimated Remaining Cost $141,650 The previous resident of the mobile home located on the site has moved out and no business activity has been observed on the site recently, therefore no relocation costs have been included in this latest estimate. This memo is for Council information and possible action. If Council desires to proceed with condemnation at this time, Barr Engineering needs to be authorized to proceed with an environmental analysis (Jim Langseth's August 12, 1997 letter) and the City Attorney needs to be authorized to proceed with condemnation actions. DAKOTA COUNTY BARRD C. ECSCCHADE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 14955 GALAXIE AVENUE July 10, 1997 Mr. Jim Danielson City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: McNeill Property, Perron Road Dear Mr. Danielson: (612) 891-7011 FAX (612) 891-7031 APPLE VALLEY, MINNESOTA 55124-8579 The Dakota County Environmental Management Department (the Department) has received a copy of the Phase I Site Assessment/Voluntary Response Action Plan (McNiell Property) prepared for the City of Mendota Heights by Barr Engineering, and the June 6, 1997, correspondence from the MPCA to the City. Department staff concurs with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) Unit's evaluation of the Response Action Plan and the modifications proposed in Attachment B of the June 6 correspondence from VIC. Department staff may be able to provide some assistance, although there are no funds available for hazardous waste disposal. Regarding the proposed future use of the property as a street sweeping disposal area, Dakota County Ordinance No. 110, Solid Waste Management (the Ordinance) does allow the use of inert solid waste as fill for a "beneficial land use project" under very specific circumstances. However, the Ordinance requires that the Department review and approve such projects. I am enclosing a copy of Section 6.08 of the Ordinance, which outlines the application procedure, for your review. If you have any questions, please call me at 891-7042 or Jon Springsted at 891.-7545. `Sincerely, , Lynn Thompson ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SUPERVISOR Enclosure c: Deborah DeLuca, MPCA VIC Ken Haberman, Barr Engineering swAsiteslmcniell perron rd letter Printed on recycled paper, 20% post -consumer ca AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS June 12, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Director SUBJECT: McNeill Property Acquisition At the April 15, 1997 meeting, Staff presented a plan to the City Council for acquisition of the McNeill site using the City's Rights of Eminent Domain. At that meeting the project was put on hold pending the results of some ongoing negotiations between the landowner and the Mayor. That landowner is now deceased. Due to the death of the landowner the City now needs to reconsider its method of acquisition. Because of the uncertainties with the ownership of the property, it is recommended that the City once again proceed on a course of acquisition of this site by means of Eminent Domain (Condemnation). Legal Assistance If the City decides to acquire the McNeill property through Condemnation, we will need to utilize a consultant for legal advice. In this respect, we have asked City Attorney, Tom Hart, to prepare a proposal for use of his firm to provide that service (see attached letters dated April 11, 1997). Environmental Consultant Assistance The City has now received approval of our Contingency Plan from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). That Contingency Plan was prepared for the City by Mr. Ken Haberman of Barr Engineering. The MPCA letter now authorizes the City to prepare an Implementation Plan. Mr. Haberman has submitted the attached proposal to provide his services for preparation of the Implementation Plan, and to carry out the Plan (see attached proposal). If authorized, Ken could begin immediately to prepare the, Implementation Plan, but would need to wait until the City has ownership of the site before starting to complying with the clean up phase (Tasks 5-9). Mr. Haberman will be present to discuss his proposal. Relocation Requirements Because this is a public acquisition of an occupied parcel, the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act must be followed. The Dakota County HRA has relocation specialists with the trained expertise to handle this obligation for the City. They have forwarded a draft agreement to the City of Mendota Heights under which they would provide these professional services at a cost not to exceed $1,000 (Please see draft agreement). This agreement covers only the costs of administration of relocation, not the actual relocation expenses. AINK91 Determine if the City should begin to acquire the McNeill site via the City's Rights of Eminent Domain and if so to accept the proposals from the City Attorney, Barr Engineering and Dakota County HRA to provide the City with the professional services required to complete the acquisition. Harr Engineering Company August 12, 1997 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Charles E. Mertensotto City of Mendota Heights Jill Smith 1101 Victoria Curve John Huber Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Christine Koch Sandra Krebsbach Re: McNeil Property—Status Report Environmental Work Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: The purpose of this letter is to summarize what has been accomplished to date at the McNeil property (Property) in order to identify and address environmental conditions. This letter also describes the steps Barr Engineering Company (Barr) believes are still needed in order for the city of Mendota Heights (City) to acquire the Property and make it suitable for the storage of street sweepings. Tasks Accomplished The goals of the project, as described in a September 10, 1996 proposal, have been to: 1. Assess the environmental conditions of the Property in accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) guidelines and Dakota County requirements. 2. Develop and implement a response action plan based on the planned use of the Property to be approved by the MPCA and Dakota County. 3. Conduct all activities in a manner to ensure that the City receives liability protection prior to acquisition of the Property. 4. Conduct the work in an efficient and cost-effective manner. MPCA guidelines require that voluntary parties, such as the City, adhere to certain standards in the investigation, evaluation, and cleanup process. A copy of MPCA's guidance document explaining those standards is attached. Barr's work to date has been conducted in accordance with MPCA guidelines. The investigation and cleanup process has been conducted in a phased approach to hell) ensure that the necessary investigation information is collected and reviewed before proceeding to the cleanup decision phase. Typically, the investigation and cleanup process involves the following phases: 28300 Norman Center Drive :j 555 West 27th Street 1202 West Superior Street Minneapolis, MN 55437-1026 Hibbing, MN 55746 Duluth, MN 55802 Phone: (612) 832-2600 Phone., (218) 262-3465 Phone: (218) 727-5218 Fax: (612) 832-2601 Fax. (218) 262-3460 Fax: (218) 727-5150 0 P.O. Box 130917 Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0917 Phone: (313) 327-1200 Fax: (313) 327-1212 The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members August 12, 1997 Page 2 1. Phase I Assessment 2. Phase I Assessment Report 3. Phase II Investigation Work Plan 4. Phase II Investigation 5. Phase II Investigation Report 6. Focused Feasibility Study 7. Response Action Plan S. Response Action Design and Implementation Plan 9. Response Action Implementation 10. Response Action Implementation Report Using information from previous investigations conducted at the Property and knowing the planned future use of the Property, Barr proposed and was able to streamline the process and combine the first seven phases into one step and one report. The Phase I Site Assessment Voluntary Response Action Plait Report (Report) was submitted and approved by the MPCA. The work conducted to date has also met the requirements of Dakota County. The total cost for this work has been $13,038.18. Remaining Tasks As noted above, phases one through seven of the standard process have been completed, and the MPCA and Dakota County have agreed with the recommendations in the Report. The following tasks still need to be completed in order for the City to acquire and use the Property to store street sweepings and receive approval and liability protections from the MPCA. Each task's relation to the above 10 -phase process is noted in parentheses. 1. Characterize and remove the chemicals, debris and structures from the Property. (8. Response Action Design and Implementation Plan, and 9. Response Action Implementation) 2. Abandon the well and septic tank/drainfield. (9. Response Action Implementation) 3. Submit all relevant data and results to the MPCA (10. Response Action Implementation Report) Barr's April 10, 1997, proposal, which is attached, describes the steps to accomplish these remaining tasks, and presents the budget for those tasks which Barr performs or has the information needed to provide a firm estimate. In order to complete the first two tasks and determine associated costs, it is first necessary to obtain bids from qualified contractors. Our April 10 proposal included a description to obtain bids, select contractor(s), and prepare an implementation (design) plan. Our April 10 proposal did not include estimated costs to remove the debris, structures and chemicals at the Property (Task 2). These cost estimates would be provided once the contractors have an opportunity to bid on the work. -The costs of removal will largely depend on the ability to recycle the chemicals and materials- instead of disposing of them at a landfill. Disposal costs will be higher than recycling, but recycling may not be feasible. In the absence of quotes from contractors for Task 2 work, Barr has estimated that the total cost of the three tasks identified above should not exceed $50,000, as stated in a March 28, 1997, memo from James Danielson. Taking into account the cost to date ($13,038.18), the total cost for the investigation and cleanup of this Property, based on the April 10, 1997, proposal and the March 28, 1997, memo, is estimated to be less than $64,000. The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members August 12, 1997 Page 3 The Phase I Site Assessment/Voluntary Response Action Plan described an optional baseline soil quality investigation. The April 10 proposal also did not include estimated costs for conducting a baseline soil quality study, as it was not clear at the time whether they MPCA would require such a study. As stated in the June 6, 1997, approval letter, the MPCA will require that a baseline soil quality study be conducted after the surface debris, structures, and chemical containers are removed from the Property and before the City commences storage of the street sweepings. Assuming standard turnaround times for laboratory analysis, the estimated costs of the study are $2,100 for Barr labor and expenses, and $2,600 for laboratory analyses. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any questions, please contact me or Ken Haberman at 832-2648. Sincerely, aures R. Langse JRL/lah Enclosures c: Jim Danielson, City of Mendota Heights Tom Hart, Winthrop & Weinsteine 00033AR.151860-1 �,';+..:.y:.t �- .� �e.+,'.� ... � �:2'. . '•M ,... ....t '� 0. :1:.�.:...t Y..•.•.:w � .w... a.r- ti.:�; + i��. Barr Engineering Company April 10, 1997 Mr. Jim Danielson City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 8300 Norman Center Dnve 555 West 27th Street Minneapolis. MN 55437-1026 Hibbing, MN 55746 Phone: (612) 832-2600 Phone: (218) 252-3465 Fax. (612) 832-2601 Fax. (218) 262-3460 Re: Property Cleanup Implementation Plan—Proposal McNeill Property, 1455 Perron Road, Mendota Heights Dear Mr. Danielson: 202 West Supenor Street Duluth, MN 55802 Phone: (218) 727-5218 Fax: (218) 727-6450 Thank you for the continued opportunity to provide assistance in planning the cleanup of the above - referenced property. Our March 1997 Phase I Site Assessment/Voluntary Response Action Plan report identified the presence of regulated materials (e.g., aboveground petroleum tanks (AST); partially full chemical, gasoline, -and oil containers; car batteries; appliances), nonregulated materials (tree trunks, junked vehicles, old trucks, rubber tires, scrap metal, electrical and construction equipment), a residential drinking water well, and a septic tank at the property. As it is the City of Mendota Heights' (City's) intent to use the property to store street sweepings, the report recommended, among other things, that the well and septic tank/drainfield be properly abandoned and that the chemicals, materials, and garbage be removed from the property. The Voluntary Response Action Plan (VRAP) described the tasks necessary to prepare the property for storage of street sweepings. Those tasks are shown on the VRAP schedule on Figure 1. This proposal describes the scope of work and estimated costs- associated with Task 4 of the VRAP: developing an Implementation Plan for clearing the property and abandoning the well and septic tank/drainfield. Scope Given the large quantities and wide variety of materials present at the property, the VRAP recommended that an Implementation Plan (IP) describing how, by whom, and when materials would be removed from the property be developed. The IP would be developed by contacting the following programs or contractors to arrange property visits and obtain cost estimates and scheduling information: oil recycling contractors; Dakota County or water well contractor; hazardous waste contractors, in conjunction with the Dakota County Household Hazardous Waste Program; and salvage or demolition contractors. As it is our understanding that the City would like to contract directly with these contractors and have Barr Engineering Company (Barr) provide coordination and contract management services, the scope of IP development for Barr consists of the following tasks: arranging for AST products to be sampled; preparing technical specifications for inclusion in City contract documents; assisting in contractor selection, including visiting the property with potential contractors and Dakota County and obtaining bids; and preparing an IP for submittal to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Each of these tasks is described below. Mr. Jim Danielson April 10, 1997 Page 2 Sample Tank Liquids Barr will hire an oil recycling vendor to obtain samples of the liquids present in the ASTs at the property and accompany the vendor during sampling. One sample from each tank for each potential oil recycling vendor to bid on the work will be obtained. Each bidder will provide disposal costs based on these samples. Prepare Contract Documents Barr will prepare separate technical specifications and bid sheets for the following contractors and activities: • Water well contractor to properly abandon the on-site well. Hazardous waste contractors, in conjunction with the Dakota County Household Hazardous Waste Program, to prepare the property for staging wastes; collect, sort, classify, stage, and consolidate regulated waste streams (petroleum and nonpetroleum); provide equipment (such as a backhoe) to facilitate collection and sorting; scrape and properly stockpile or containerize grossly contaminated surface soil potentially encountered during cleanup operations; sample and characterize waste streams for disposal; fill out necessary waste stream profiles and obtain waste approvals from disposal vendors; and arrange for the transport and proper disposal of regulated materials from the property. • Salvage or demolition contractors to inventory and manage removal of tires, vehicles, scrap metal, garbage, trailers, buildings, equipment, etc., burn or remove tree stumps from the property, and transport ash, unburned stumps, general refuse, and demolition rubble to a Subtitle D nonhazardous waste landfill or demolition landfill as appropriate. Using the City's standard agreement with and insurance requirements of its subcontractors, Barr will assemble and prepare copies of the contract documents for review by the City and subsequent distribution to potential contractors. The contract documents will specify that all materials be removed from the property by October 1, 1997. _ Select Contractors Barr understands that the bidding process must be public. As such, Barr will assist the City in advertising for and obtaining bids from potential contractors. Barr will also arrange and attend an_ on-site pre-bid meeting with all potential contractors and Dakota County, and after the pre-bid meeting, issue addenda as appropriate to clarify in the bidding documents Dakota County's role in the cleanup. Barr will consult with and advise the City as to the technical qualifications of the contractors and the acceptability of substitute materials, equipment, and methods proposed by the contractors. Barr will attend the bid opening and assist the City in evaluating bids and in assembling and awarding contracts. ' Prepare Implementation Plan Using the cost and scheduling information obtained from the contractors, an IP describing the schedule and budget for implementing the work will be prepared and submitted to the City for review. After incorporating City comments, the entire IP, including contract documents, will be submitted to the NfPCA prior to implementation of the cleanup. Mr. Jim Danielson April 10, 1997 Page 3 Project Team The project team will include the following individuals: Jim Langseth, principal in charge, will be responsible for overall project management and work authorization for Barr. Jim has 14 years of experience in environmental investigation and remediation and 15 years of water resource management experience. Ken Haberman, senior environmental scientist, will serve as technical regulatory expert. Ken will be responsible for communications with the client and with the MPCA and Dakota County. He will also review all submittals and take the lead in negotiations and communications with the MPCA. Ken has 17 years of experience in the areas of environmental permitting, environmental review and planning, and hazardous waste investigation and remediation. Until recently, he was responsible for management and staff supervision of the MPCA's Voluntary Cleanup and Investigation Program. Karlene French, senior hydrogeologist, will serve as project manager and will be responsible for preparing the IP, managing the team, and coordinating with the client. Karlene has 9 years of experience in the areas of environmental site assessments and remedial investigations and has coordinated several large field projects requiring contracting with more than one contractor. Greg Patten, regulatory compliance specialist, will serve as a technical specialist for removal of regulated and nonregulated materials from the property. Greg has 10 years of experience in conducting hazardous waste disposal and site remediation. Greg will prepare the technical specifications for the work, attend and coordinate the on-site pre-bid meeting with potential contractors, and assist with contractor selection and preparation of the IP. Schedule Assuming an Agreement between Barr and the City regarding this work can be negotiated by April 30, 1997, the liquids in the ASTs can be sampled and the contract documents completed by mid-May. As shown on Figure 1, contractor selection, including the pre-bid meeting on site, can be completed by the end of May and the IP by the end of June. Cost Estimate The attached table summarizes estimated costs for completing the IP development tasks and for project management and communications. The total estimated cost for this work is $12,600. We propose to complete the work on a time -and -materials basis and will not invoice for more than $12,600 without prior approval by the City. The estimated costs are for work through submittal of the IP to the MPCA. Costs associated with project management include administrative activities and communications with the client to discuss and.plan the work. If necessary, meetings can be arranged at additional cost. Detailed cost estimates for implementing the cleanup will be included in the IP_ At the discretion of the City, Barr will either prepare a Consulting Services Agreement (Agreement) for the work in this proposal for review by the City or review an agreement prepared by the City. The Agreement will include this proposal as a work order describing the .project scope, schedule, and budget. Barr's prototype Agreement is attached for your consideration. Mr. Jim Danielson April 10, 1997 Page 4 Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide assistance. Please call either me at 832-2648 or Karlene French at 832-2694 with any questions. Sincerely, Kenneth M. Haberman KMH/tmn Enclosure 2319404\48965-1 Cost Estimate Task 4: Property Cleanup Implementation Plan McNeill Property Task Description Estimated Cost ($) Sample Tank Liquids(') $900 Prepare Contract Documents (2) $5,100 Select Contractors (3) $3,600 Prepare Implementation Plan $2,000 Project Management and Communications (4) $500 Total Estimated Cost $12,100 t1i Assumes six hours on-site for one Barr staff representative and one oil recycling vendor representative. (2) Assumes City provides its standard agreement and insurance requirements for inclusion in the contract documents. Also assumes two days of preparation for each of three technical specifications and all duplication, binding, and distribution expenses. (3) Assumes public bidding process. Also assumes one on-site pre-bid meeting with potential contractors, one addendum to appropriate contract documents to clarify. Dakota County's role in the cleanup, attendance at a bid opening meeting, and four hours of consultation with the City in regard to contractor selection. (4) Assumes no additional meetings. 2319404\48965-1\TMN P:2319404 timelinexdr Figure 1 VOLUNTARY RESPONSE ACTION SCHEDULE McNeill Property April May MPCA Coordination Task 1 Meeting with MPCA/Dakota County Task 2 Submit Phase IN -RAP and VICNPIC Application MPCA Review Property Cleanup Task 3 Permits and Notifications Obtain EPA ID Number Obtain Demolition Permit Obtain Burn Permit Obtain Well Abandonment Permit Task 4 Implementation Plan/Contracts Sample Tank Products/Contracts Visit Property with Contractors/Obtain Bids Choose Contractors Prepare Implementation Plan Submit Implementation Plan to MPCA MPCA Review Task 5 Well/Septic System Abandonment Task 6 Regulated/Petroleum Materials Removal Prepare Site Collect Regulated Materials Transport/Dispose Materials Task 7 Non -Regulated Materials Removal Remove Tires Remove Vehicles and Scrap Metal Remove Buildings Burn Stumps Remove Debris/Ash Baseline Soil Quality Sampling and Analysis Task 8 Baseline Soil Quality Sampling & Analysis (Optional) Response Action Implementation Report to MPCA Task 9 Submit Implementation Report to MPCA s Submittal to MPCA • Meeting tv — to permit is required to meet schedule June July August , September, October , November , Bukn Plermlt CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO August 27, 1997 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator FROM: Patrick C. Hollister, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Lilydale Comprehensive Plan Discussion Attached is a portion of the proposed new Comprehensive Plan for the City of Lilydale currently under review by the Metropolitan Council, along with Metropolitan Council staff comments on the plan. (A copy of the entire proposed Comprehensive Plan will be available Tuesday evening.) The Community Development Committee of the Metropolitan Council is scheduled to review this plan at noon on September 2, 1997, and make a recommendation to the Council. The Council is then expected to vote on this plan on September 11, 1997. According to Metropolitan Council staff, the Metropolitan Council reviews all Comprehensive Plans solely for consistency with its own regional system plans. As shown in -the attached staff report, Metropolitan Council staff have given a favorable recommendation to the CDC regarding this plan. Shiely Property The most significant change anticipated in Lilydale is the redevelopment of the Shiely . property at the intersection of Highway 13 and Highway 35E. The Shiely site is a total of 27 acres in size, some of which is anticipated to be used for a turn lane connecting 35E and Highway 13. The Lilydale Comprehensive Plan calls for a mixed use development on the site, featuring office and commercial uses along the highways, and a residential component, possibly including up to 200 upscale condominium units, facing the river. Lilydale also states that they will insist that the Shiely redevelopment be a high-quality product conforming to high performance standards, strict architectural controls, and protection of existing vegetation. (Please see pages 52-55 of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and the Metropolitan Staff report.) Upon reviewing Lilydale's concept for the Shiely property, Staff called the Metropolitan Council and inquired about traffic impact. Metropolitan Council staff replied that Trunk Highway 13 and Interstate 35E have more than enough capacity to accommodate this redevelopment, and that the sewer system likewise has plenty of capacity to accommodate the redevelopment of the site. Met Council staff also said that they favor Lilydale's redevelopment concept for the Shiely property for several reasons, including the fact that this development exemplifies many of the Metropolitan Council's goals for 1 development within the current MUSA line, including mixed uses, higher density, pedestrian access, etc. Metropolitan Council staff have told Mendota Heights City staff that any comments about Lilydale's proposed Comprehensive Plan should be directed to the City of Lilydale, not the Metropolitan Council. Lilydale City Staff have said that no application has been submitted to Lilydale for the redevelopment of the Shiely site, but that they were aware of four developers looking at the site. Redevelopment of the Shiely site will pose several challenges to any developer including Critical Area issues, drainage, highway access, etc. Lilydale does not anticipate redevelopment on the site to occur for at least another year. (Commissioner Betlej told Staff at the Planning Commission meeting on August 26, 1997, that redevelopment of the site could occur in less than one year, citing "insider information.") Staff presented the Shiely redevelopment concept to the Planning Commission as an information item at their August 26, 1997 meeting. Commissioner Tilsen commented that a significant backup of traffic was already occurring on Highway 13 all the way to Victoria Avenue during rush hour. Commissioner Tilsen further said that the redevelopment of the Shiely property along the lines of the draft Comprehensive Plan would further aggravate the situation. Commissioner Tilsen recommended that the City of Mendota Heights contact the City of Lilydale, MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council and ask for a traffic study, including the scenario of a signalized intersection for 35E and Highway 13. Diamond Jim's Mall Please also not that while both the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Met Council staff report discuss the potential redevelopment of Diamond Jim's Mall, Lilydale staff have said that such redevelopment is not expected to happen any time soon. Staff plans to attend the September 2, 1997 meeting of the Community Development Committee. Action Required Review the attached materials and advise Staff whether or not to make any comments to the City of Lilydale. •AUG -27 97 06:55 FROM: TO:612 452 8940 PAGE:01/11 Community Development Committee Meeting ot'Sepcember2 METROPOLITAP Mears Park Centre. 230 East Fifth Stre 612 291-6359 TDD i Post -It° Fax Note 7671 Date� cages► 11 To pWtaj LV HOLLlS From - I r1�e-t at.4-S Co.IDeprkLXMeTA Pegswis Co. "*Ay -p Cwk1C-I,l-, Phone a �'- Phone s I002- lb Fax a y52.— Fax TO: Chair and Members of Community Development Committee FROM: Victoria Boers, Principal Reviewer. Office of Local Assistance (602-1621) SUBJECT: Ciry of Lilydale Comprehensive Plan Update Year 2020 Comprehensive Plan and Mississippi River Critical Area Plan Metropolitan Council' District No. 6 Metropolitan Council Referral Pile No. 16535-1 ISSUE: Should the Council permit the city of Lilydale to put its Year 2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Mississippi River Critical Area Plan (subject to DNR approval) into effect? Should the Council recommend approval of the Lilydale Critical Area Plan to the Department of Natural Resources? POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Council's Regional Growth Strategy identifies Lilydale as "urban area". in this policy area the Council anticipates efficient land use and redevelopment, higher density, mixed use development, and use of existing infrastructure. The city's comprehensive plan update conforms with metropolitan system plans and policies, is consistent with other adopted plans of the Council, and is compatible with the plans of adjacent governmental units and school districts. The Critical Area plan is consistent with the state Critical Areas Act. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS: None. PREVIOUS ACTIONS: The Metropolitan Council initially reviewed Lilydale's comprehensive plan and Critical Area Plan in October, 1979 (MC Referral File No. 6477.2). The Council reviewed the city's water management plan in July, 1997 (MC Referral File No. 16535-2). DISCUSSION: The city of Lilydale's 2020 Comprehensive Land Use and Critical Area Plan is intended to meet all 1995 Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements. The entire city is located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and the Mississippi National River and Recreational Area (MNRRA). Therefore, the city has combined land use with critical area planning, and this report includes a review of both. The city's Critical Area plan is consistent with the state Critical Areas Act. However, the Minnesota Department of Naarral Resources has approval authority of all critical area pians. The Critical Area plan is not consistent with the voluntary provisions of the Mississippi National River and .Recreation Comprehensive Management Plan (MNRRA-CMP) and the city should continue planning efforts with the National Park Service and the cities of Mendota and Mendota Heights to address other voluntary provisions of the MNRRA-CMP. RECOMMENDATION: That the Metropolitan Council adopt the attached Review Record with the following recommendations: I. That the city may place its 2020 Comprehensive Plan and Mississippi River Critical Area Plan into effect and no modification is required. The comprehensive plan fully satisfies the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act which requires a plan update by 1998, and no further submittal is required. 2. That the Council recommend approval of the Critical Area Plan to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 3. That the Council recommend that the city continue planning efforts with the National Park Service and the cities of Mendota and Mendota Heights to address other voluntary provisions of the MNRRA-CMP. AUG -27 97 06:55 FROM: TO:612 452 8940 PAGE:02/11 ATTACHMENT A: REVIEW RECORD BACKGROUND The city of Lilydale is a 576 -acre community (less than 1 square mile) located south of downtown Saint Paul, between the Mississippi River and Highway 13 in Dakota County (see Attachment 1). Lilydale is a fully developed community, located within the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area and the Mississippi National River and Recreational Area. 82.5 percent of the city is undevelopable land such as park, trails: water and road rights-of-way. The remaining 17.5 percent of the city's land use is residential, commercial and industrial. The Harriet Island - Lilydale Regional Park constitutes 56 percent (about 325 acres) of Lilydale's existing land use. 506 acres of the City are in the designated Mississippi River Critical Area and Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA). AUTHORITY FOR REVIEW The Council has the authority to review and comment on comprehensive plans and plan amendments, and may in certain circumstances require a plan modification, after it makes a finding that the plan or amendment may have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans (Minn. Stat. § 473.175, Subd. 1). The Council shall return to the local governmental unit a statement containing its comments and, by resolution, its decision, if any, to require modifications to assure conformance with the metropolitan system plans (Minn. Stat. § 473.175, Subd. 2). The Council is also required by the state Critical .Areas Act (Minn. Stat. Chap. 116(G) and .Executive Order 79-19 to review plans and regulations prepared by local governments within the permanently designated Mississippi River Critical Area for consistency with Executive Order 79-19 and MN Stat. 116, Critical Areas Act and to make recommendations to the Department of Natural Resources (DNI), The DNR must approve local Critical Area plans, regulations and amendments before they can be put into effect, .1n.1988, the Mississippi River Critical Area was also designated as the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA). Under a cooperative agreement with the National Park Service. the Metropolitan Council reviews local plans and amendments affecting the MNRRA Corridorfor voluntary consistency with the ,1995 MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan and makes recommendations to the National Park Service. Communities with MNRRA-consistent plans are eligible far federal grants, when appropriated by Congress. The Council has the same authority to review amendments to Critical Area plans. ANALYSIS Staff reviewed the plan update for conformity with regional system plans for Aviation, Recreation Open Space, Transportation and Water Resources Management, for consistency with the Regional Blueprint and other chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide, and for compatibility with the plans of adjacent govemmental units and school districts. Staff reviewed the critical area plan for consistency with State Critical Areas Act and Executive Order 79-19, and for voluntary conformance with the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan. Regjonal Blueprint (Tori Boers, 1621) The following table compares Lilydale's residential mix and density of both historic (column 2) and forecasted (column 3) development, as well as that proposed in the comprehensive plan (column 4). AUG -27 97 06:56 FROM: TO:612 452 8940 PRGE:03111 City of Lilydale Historic Trends Growth Strategy Assumption This Plan Update Housing Mix Single Family 11.0 percent 9.0 percent 1.3 percent Multiple Family 89.0 percent 91.0 percent 98.7 percent Density Single Family 0.4 units/acre 3.0 units/acre 1.1 units/acre Multiple Family 18.1 units/acre 15.0 units/acre 12.0 units/acre The Council's demographic figures for Lilydale indicate a total 416 people and 306 households in 1995, and forecast a total 630 people and 400 households by 2020. The city's housing inventory indicates a current population of almost 600 residents, substantially greater than the Council's numbers. The plan forecasts 950 people and 600 households by 2020, reflecting redevelopment of the Shiely site with approximately 200 multifamily residential units by 2010. (The Shiely property is located immediately south of the 35E bridge and west of the 35E and Highway 13 interchange.) The Council and city staff have agreed to use 1996 estimates of 600 people and 418 households as a forecast base. The Council agrees to use the city's household forecasts for 2000, 2010 and 2020 (of 450, 600 and 600 respectively) for regional planning purposes. Lilydale is a fully developed community. However, the city has about 27 acres of industrial land available for redevelopment; currently a gravel storage area owned by the Shiely Company. About 53 percent of Lilydale's existing housing is condominiums; about 98 percent of all Lilydale's existing housing is multifamily. Redevelopment of the Shiely property will occur prior to 2020 and is intended to be a mixed use, village style development that integrates office and commercial uses with townhomes, apartments and condominiums. The Council's Regional Growth Strategy identifies Lilydale as "urban area", and assumes future residential densities of 3.0 for single family, 15.0 for multifamily and 11.0 overall for the city of Lilydale (see Attachment 2). The city's plan is consistent with these assumptions, proposing future residential densities of an overall 12 units per acre. Lilydale has no Capital Improvement Program (CIP), nor intends to develop one in the future. The city does not own any community facilities and contracts for, or relies on other jurisdictions to provide services. The city works closely with adjacent jurisdictions to provide community facilities, including police and fire, sewer and water, a public library, schools and recreational facilities. The Harriet Island- Lilydale Regional Park is operated by the city of Saint Paul. Staff finds that the proposed comprehensive plan has no adverse impacts on, nor represents a substantial departure from the regional systems plans and policies. The plan is in conformity with the regional system plans for Aviation, Recreation Open Space, Transportation and Water Resources Management. Aviation (Deb Nelles, 1716) The comprehensive plan is in conformity with the Aviation policy plan. N AUG -27 97 06:56 FROM: Recreation Open Space (Phyllis Hanson, 1566) TO:612 452 9940 PAGE:04/11 The comprehensive plan is in conformity with the Recreation Open Space policy plan. On May 22, 1997, the Metropolitan Council approved the preferred corridor location of the Dakota North Urban Regional Trail, Part of this approval requires Dakota County and Lilydale to enter into a joint powers agreement to define corridor development, operations and maintenance issues. The Metropolitan Council's recommendations included future development oftrailhead facilities in the Harriet Island - Lilydale Regional Park. Transportation (Ann Braden, 1705) The comprehensive plan is in conformity with the Transportation policy plan and meets regional requirements for the transportation element of the city's comprehensive plan for the year 2020. The plan includes year 2020 traffic forecasts for TH 13 (a two-lane collector ) and I -35E (a principal arterial) that are consistent with the Council's 2020 regional transportation forecasts and are appropriate for the city's level of analysis. The city's plans to accommodate a higher 2020 household forecast will not impact the capacity of the regional transportation system. The city will need to assign its forecasted socio-economic numbers (population, households and employment .figures) to traffic analysis zones (TAZs). The TAZ allocations will be used to update transportation data in the next regional traffic forecasting process. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is scheduled to rebuild the 1-35E bridge in 2001 or 2002. A new southbound off -ramp at Hwy 13 will require additional right-of-way from the property currently owned by the Shiely Company. Although the bridge plans are still preliminary, the city recognizes that any redevelopment of the Shiely site will need to be coordinated with MnDOT's plans for reconstruction of the ramps. The city also sees the bridge reconstruction as an opportunity to work with MnDOT to provide pedestrian access. The city's plan also proposes redevelopment of the Diamond Jim Mall, a commercial strip mail. The plan recommends that redevelopment of both the mall and the Shiely site will require traffic studies that address trip generation, minimize impacts to Highway 13 and identify needed highway improvements. The plan also encourages consolidation of Highway 13 curb cuts and driveway accesses. The city does not have Metropolitan Transit service, although it does contribute funding to the regional transit system. A Minnesota Valley Transit Company route from Highway 110 and Dodd Road in Mendota Heights, to downtown Saint Paul is the closest bus service for Lilydale residents. The city is interested in having the Valley Transit bus stop along Highway 13 to serve Lilydale's older population and will continue to discuss bus service with Metro Transit and with the Minnesota Valley Transit company. As part of the Northern Dakota County Transit Redesign Project, the Metropolitan Council will consider Lilydale in the transit service plan, which may include some non -rush hour dial -a -ride service. Water Resources Management (Jack Frost, 1078) The comprehensive plan is in conformity with the Water Resources Management policy plan. The Lower Minnesota River Management Watershed District does not have an approved management plan. Therefore, Lilydale is not actually required to complete its local water management plan until the watershed district plan is approved by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). However, Lilydale has completed a surface water/stormwater management plan and submitted the information to the Council staff for review. Council staff completed its review on July 15, 1997. The city will adopt the Council's Interim Strategy to reduce nonpoint source pollution by December 31, 1997 to apply National Urban Runoff Program and Best Management Practices standards. -AUG -27 97 06:57 FROM: Housing (Audrey Dougherty, 13 80) TO:612 452 8940 PAGE:05/11 The comprehensive plan's housing component is consistent with regional housing requirements and encourages a high quality living environment for residents in all residential neighborhoods. Lilydale is not a participant in the Livable Communities Act (LCA). However, evaluating the city based on LCA affordability, diversity and density criteria, Lilydale exceeds LCA housing diversity and density benchmarks, but does not meet the affordability benchmark for fully developed communities. The plan includes implementation steps to work with the Dakota County Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) and to inform residents of the HRA's programs. The housing implementation section indicates that the city will take steps to maintain and improve its housing stock. However, the plan should specify how the city will strengthen its housing inspection program. The Minnesota Housing finance Agency (MHFA) has several programs that address housing maintenance, and the plan should indicate that the city will work with the MHFA to develop a housing maintenance code. Water Supply Plan (Marsha Honold, 1066) Lilydale does not have a municipal water supply and is not required to complete a water supply plan. The city's public water is supplied by the city of Mendota Heights. State Critical Area and Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) (Sandra Pinel, 1513) rare Cirical Area requirements: The revised Critical Area plan, originally submitted for formal review on May 30, 1997, was withdrawn for revisions and resubmitted for Critical Area review on July 22, 1997. The city made additional changes on August 11 and August IS. Lilydale is within the Critical Area Urban Open Space District. Lands and waters within the district are to be managed to conserve and protect existing and potential recreational, scenic, natural and historic resources and uses for the enjoyment of the surrounding region. Open space shall be provided for public use and protection of unique resources in the open river valley lands, and the transportation role of the river shall be protected. Over 56 percent of the land within Lilydale is designated as park and open space as the Harriet island - Lilydale Regional Park and the new Big Rivers Regional Trail. The plan strengthens policies for landscaping and screening of existing development that constitutes a visual and includes principles for redevelopment of a 26 -acre industrial site between State Highway 13 and the river bluffs. The development concept integrates public open space with residential and commercial development and bluff protection. The plan also -identifies a county trail along the river, updates natural resource inventories and includes provisions for existing development, consistent with Critical Area requirements. Requirements for reducing and improving the quality of runoff into the river will be addressed with then city adopts Council's Interim Strategy to reduce nonpoint source pollution by December 31, 1997 to apply National Urban Runoff Program and Best Management Practices standards. With the changes submitted, the plan is consistent with state Critical Area requirements. 4 AUG -27 97 06:57 FROM: TO:612 452 8940 PAGE:06/11 JjV,[#,Vf;T.7.lT#7UrJ'I RUIFFAViTONNINYM The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area was designated to preserve, protect and enhance the significant historical, cultural, natural, scenic, scientific, economic and recreational resources of the river corridor. The Lilydale Comprehensive/Critical Area plan references MNRRA and includes a goal, "To work to enhance the Mississippi River and Critical Area corridor for its long term protection and enjoyment for all. " It includes the policy that redevelopment proposals be consistent with the MNRRA designation. The plan is consistent with open space goals. It includes a commitment to protect resources in the Harriet Island - Lilydale Regional Park and to include public open space as part a mixed use redevelopment of the Shiely industrial site. The plan proposes cooperation with MnDOT and Dakota County to provide pedestrian trails and bridges along the corridor and to the Harriet Island-Lilydale Regional Park. The plan is partially consistent with natural resource protection policies. It includes a commitment to work with land owners, the DNR and the National Park Service on beautification and land restoration. However, the plan does not include an inventory of habitats, native flora or fauna, or restoration areas and does not address all the bluff protection and buffering standards in the MNRRA plan. The criteria for site redevelopment do not address all the MNRRA standards for aesthetic design, bluff protection, and views from the river (height and setback standards). The city should develop aesthetic and design standards for road construction and development along the river corridor and Highway 13, incorporate additional MNRRA provisions for bluff and vegetative protection into standards for redevelopment, and document natural resources and natural resource protection strategies in order to improve consistency with the MNRRA-CMP. Water quality provisions could be more fully addressed through the completion of the city of Lilydale Surface Water Quality Plan, once a plan is completed by the Watershed. On July 8, 1997 Lilydale received planning funds from the National Park Service through the Metropolitan Council to work with the neighboring cities of Mendota and Mendota Heights to address provisions of the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP). Subsequent to Council and 'DNR review of the Critical Area Plan, the city has agreed to continue corridor planning along Highway 13 with neighboring cities and consider additional amendments for conformance with the MNRRA CMP. COMEPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. In response to significant population growth projected in the region over the next 25 years, the Metropolitan Council has adopted a Regional Growth Strategy as part of the Regional Blueprint. 2. Under Minnesota Statutes § 473.175, Subd. 1, the Metropolitan Council may require a local governmental unit to modify any comprehensive plan or part thereof which may have a substantial impact on, or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans. Substantial impact or departure in this case may extend beyond an individual plan to include the potential "cumulative effect" of similar plans by other communities. 3. The proposed comprehensive plan has no adverse impacts on, nor represents a departure from the regional systems plans and policies. The plan is in conformity with the regional system plans for Aviation, Recreation Open Space, Transportation and Wastewater Treatment and Handling. -AUG -27 97 06:58 FROM: TO:612 452 8940 PAGE:07/11 4. Lilydale is a fully developed community; any redevelopment will be in a mixed-use, village -style design. The plan is consistent with the Council's density assumptions, proposing overall future residential densities of 12 units per acre. CRITICAL AREA AND MNRRA FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Critical Area requirements 1. The city of Lilydale is within the Mississippi River Critical Area urban open space district. The Critical Area plan update is consistent with Executive Order 79-19 guidelines for the Urban Open Space District. 2. The plan establishes guidelines for redevelopment and updates other sections of the 1980 plan by identifying county trails, including natural resource inventories, addressing drainage issues and including provisions for existing development, consistent with Critical Area requirements. 3. Staff finds that with the changes submitted on August 1 I and 15, 1997, the plan meets all the requirements of Executive Order 79-19 for the Mississippi River Critical Area. MNRRA-GMP voluntary consistency The plan addresses some of the goals for the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area and specifies that redevelopment be of high quality and consistent with the MNRRA designation. Staff finds the Lilydale Comprehensive Plan/Critical Area Plan generally consistent with 1vINRRA, but lacking in some of the detail and intergovernmental coordination needed to be fully consistent with the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan. In order to be more fully consistent, the city plans should: 1. document significant natural resources, vegetation and habitat for protection or restoration 2. establish set -back and height standards for development within 100 feet of the bluff to limit height to 30 feet. Preserve or restore to a natural state areas within 40 feet of the bluff to screen development from the opposite shore; 3. establish scenic road design and architectural design standards for development along highways- to enhance the river environment; 4. strengthen policies to improve the quality of surface water runoff and reduce erosion; and 5, add a strategy to reduce the negative impacts on the river corridor from existing development and or to educate land owners on practices that would reduce pollution or erosion and enhance resources. RECOMMENDATIONS That the Metropolitan Council adopt the attached Findings and Conclusions with the following recommendations: 1, That the city may place its 2020 Comprehensive Plan and Mississippi River Critical Area Plan into effect and no modification is required. The comprehensive plan fully satisfies the requirements of 6 AUG -27 97 06:59 FROM: TO:612 452 8940 PAGE:08/11 the Metropolitan Land Planning Act which requires a plan update by 1998, and no further submittal is required. 2. That the Council recommend approval of the Critical Area Plan to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 3. That the Council recommend that the city continue planning efforts with the National Park Service and the cities of Mendota and Mendota Heights to address other voluntary provisions of the MNRRA-CMP as described under findings. AUG -27 97 06:59 FROM: TO:612 452 8940 Location Map --City of Lilydale St. Paul st t� SG HVINO.NIL Arm, ^f M 'St. Pa N PAGE: O9/11 ATTACHMENT Vie:; � • . �� 'Q :.: .� �:,::, } : war Ir � m C? 1 Mendota -Heights z . b Lake's c. Q F♦ tiff ' • --0 1 2 3 Mites 10% a 0-1 r qUG-27 97 07:00 FROM: TO:612 452 8940 PAGE:11111 ATTACHMENTS Regional Systems Recreation Open Space M Federal Lands Regional Park Reserves Regional Parks and Special Recreation Features State Lands N 0 1 2 3 4 Milo MCES Interceptors ■ WWTPs (non-MCES) Major Highways ® Regional Airports older structure that has had deferred maintenance and is in need of major improvements to bring it up to code. This site is an excellent redevelopment opportunity and the City should work with the land owners to encourage its improvement. There is potential that this site could be a mixed-use development because of underutilized views of the river. Implementation Strategies: ■ Appropriate zoning in the commercial areas is B-1. ■ Performance standards and zoning regulations should be reviewed, and strengthened if needed, to ensure that commercial areas do not adversely impact residential areas. ■ Encourage the renovation or redevelopment of the Diamond Jim Mall to a modem community commercial area, perhaps intermixed with housing as part of a mixed-use project. 1. Existing Development Industrial development and manufacturing in Lilydale has played a small role in the City's economic past with only one industrial site located in the City, that being the 26 -acre Shiely site. There is no actual mining of gravel at this site as it used for the storage and transferring of gravel from batges adjacent to the property along the Mississippi River. Shiely has indicated that they will be consolidating their properties within the next few years and that the Lilydale property will be put up for sale. This is an excellent opportunity for redevelopment of the site and could bring additional multi -family residential, commercial, and office development to an otherwise fully developed City. As mentioned above, the Shiely property is planned for a high quality mixed -used development that incorporates multi- family housing, retail and office/commercial in a village concept that also includes an open space element. Principles for the Shiely property are further described below. After Shiely and Cemstone have moved from this site, there will be no other industrial areas in the City. Implementation Strategies: ■ Shiely property should be rezoned to accommodate residential and commercial uses. ■ Performance standards and zoning regulations should be reviewed and strengthened if needed, to ensure that industrial areas do not adversely impact residential areas. ■ Encourage the renovation or redevelopment of the Shiely site to a mixed- use office/commercial/residential area, built on "village" principles (described below). Lilydale Comprehensive Plan -- General Plan Page 51 1. Shiely Property As mentioned above, Shiely has indicated that it intends on ceasing operations at its property adjacent the River and Interstate 35E. Since the site is no longer appropriate for industrial use, the City will work closely with any potential new owner of the Shiely property to ensure that the following principles are met in regards to the- redevelopment of this important site. ■ Redevelopment should be a first class, mixed -used development with a village theme. It is anticipated that commercial/office will front along Highway 13 and Interstate 35E, while multi -family residential (either rental or condominium) will take advantage of the River amenity. ■ Specific redevelopment concerns include traffic generation, access, and the impact on Highway 13 and the interchange with I -35E. Any redevelopment will have to demonstrate how these concerns will be mitigated through a traffic analysis study. Improvements needed to accommodate increased development may include additional traffic lanes and signalization. ■ A storm water management system will be necessary. Also improvements to the water supply and sanitary sewer should be encouraged with any redevelopment. ■ Using the park dedication provisions found in the City's subdivision ordinance, the site should include a public park for an informal garden and gathering spot and pedestrian i,'nkage to the rest of the City. ■ The site should be developed in such a way as to be protected from highway noise. ■ The redevelopment should include high performance standards with architectural controls and the use of quality building materials and landscape plantings combined with an integrated site design. Critical Area requirements on setbacks, vegetation protection, etc. should be followed, whenever possible. ■ Issues of storm water drainage, and the provision of sewer and water will have to be resolved prior to any redevelopment of the site. .............5....2.....................................................................................h........ensi..........P........n.-IG.......e....... neral.........l...an.. Page Liiydale Compreve laP As conceptualized in Figure 8, it is anticipated that retail commercial will front along Highway 13. This area is three acres in size and would likely develop as a community commercial site, with goods and services that serve both the residents of Lilydale and the traveling public along Highway 13. The office commercial area is approximately 6.5 acres in size and would take advantage of the visibility and access provided by Highway 13 and the views of the River and Downtown St. Paul to create a high amenity office site. Multi -family residential would take up the rest of the site on approximately 16.5 acres. Townhomes, apartments and condominiums would be appropriate with an overall site density of about 12 units per acre. At this density, approximately 200 additional multi -family units would be created in the City. Village Concept. The entire site should be integrated together as a village concept that allows pedestrians to easily access the office and commercial areas. Multi -family residential should be integrated thematically with supportive office and commercial uses while all segments of the property should be within walking distance of each other and have a strong pedestrian element and scale. Parking should either be underground or screened from pedestrian ways. An open space element should also be included that would allow passive recreational opportunities and a formal gathering place for Lilydale residents to enjoy views of the river and to congregate as a community. Retail commercial would be included on the street level and would include those goods and services needed by the local residents. All buildings would be of high quality and have interesting and integrated architectural details and features. 2. Diamond Jims There is also an opportunity to redevelop the Diamond Jim Mall since this building is aging and in nonconformance with fire codes, parking and Critical Area requirements on bluff protection and setbacks. When redeveloped, the Diamond Jim site should adhere to the following principles: ■ The site should be redeveloped into a modem retail complex focusing on those uses that support Lilydale's older population including such stores and services as Drug Store, convenience store/market, bank, clinic and he*lth care clinic. ■ At a minimum, the facilities should be upgraded to meet modem fire codes, parking requirements, and be in compliance with City and Critical area setbacks. The City would entertain a mixed-use redevelopment project on this site that incorporates residential units above the ground floor retail. These residential units could then take advantage of the underutilized views of the river and provide an opportunity to have ramped or underground parking for the entire site. Lilydale Comprehensive Plan -- General Plan Page 55 ■ Specific redevelopment concerns include traffic generation, access, and the impact on Highway 13. Any redevelopment will have to demonstrate how these concerns will be mitigated through a traffic analysis study. Uses such as a gun shop, liquor store, lounges, bars and any adult- oriented use is generally incompatible with the City and should be spaced so that they are not closer than 1,500 feet of each other or 2,000 feet of residential areas, schools, parks or other areas that attract people under 18 years of age. ■ The redevelopment should include high performance standards with architectural controls and the use of building materials and landscape design combined with an integrated site design. ■ As this site is potentially blighted, the City would examine the use of TIF funds to help with site clean-up. .............................................................................................................................................................. Page 56 Lilydale Comprehensive Plan -- General Plan