Loading...
1995-07-06REMINDER: THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1995 AT 7:30 O'CLOCK P. M. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Agenda July 6, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll CaII 3. Agenda Adoption 4. Approval of June 20th Minutes. 5. Consent Calendar a. Acknowledgment of the June 14th Airport Relations Commission Minutes. (Available Wednesday) b. Acknowledgment of the June 27th Planning Commission Minutes. c. Approval to Issue Building Permit for Exterior Remodeling for Farmer's Insurance located at 800 South Plaza Drive. d. Approval of Swanson 2nd Addition Final Plat - RESOLUTION NO. 95-27 and Approval of Plans and Specifications - RESOLUTION NO. 95-28 e. Approval of Cigarette License. f. Approval of the List of Contractors. g. Approval of the List of Claims. End of Consent Calendar 6. Public Comments 7. Hearing ** a. Emerson Avenue Street Vacation - RESOLUTION NO. 95-29 8. Unfinished and New Business a. Discuss Footing and Foundation Permit Request for Visitation Convent. ** b. Discuss Request to Amend Conditional Use Permit (Case No. 95-08: King) - RESOLUTION NO. 95-30 c. 1. Case No. 95-12: Paster - Conditional Use Permit for Liquor Store - RESOLUTION NO. 95-31 2. Approval of Liquor License Application, Mendota Liquor. d. Case No. 95-09: Palmer - Wetlands Permit for Fence. e. Case No. 95-10: Mendota Heights Par 3 - Sign Size and Setback Variance. f. Case No. 95-11: McNamara : CUP for Accessory Structure and Front Yard Setback Variance - RESOLUTION NO. 95-32 Case No. 95-05: Tharaldson Enterprise - CUP for Restaurant in the "I" - Industrial Zone - RESOLUTION NO. 95-33 h. Discuss Proposed Sunfish Lake Gravity Outlet. g. * * i. Update on Marie/Lexington Pond Maintenance Project. 9. Council Comments 10. Adjourn to City Council Budget Workshop on Tuesday, July 11, 1995 at 7:00 P.M. 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 Administration at 452-1850 with requests. Page No. 4437 June 20, 1995 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 20, 1995 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Huber, Koch, Krebsbach and Smith. AGENDA ADOPTION Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Smith moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Smith moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting with corrections. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Smith moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, revised to move item e., Miller condemnation award, and item g, dispatching services cost arrangement to the regular agenda, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the June 13, 1995 Park and Recreation Commission minutes. b. Acknowledgment of the Fire Department monthly report for May. c. 'Acknowledgment of the unapproved minutes of the April 5, 1995 NDC -4 meeting and the May 3, 1995 Executive Committee meeting. d. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly report for May. e. Approval to issue a building permit to United Properties Contract Management for remodeling tenant space at 1355 Mendota Heights Road, Suite 139, in accordance with a memo from the Code Enforcement Officer dated June 14. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MILLER CONDEMNATION Page No. 4438 June 20, 1995 f. Authorization to issue tree removal permits to Donald Stein, 1033 Mayfield Heights Lane and Mr. & Mrs. Richard Askler, 1037 Mayfield Heights Lane, in accordance with the Code Enforcement Officer's memo dated June 15. g. Acknowledgment of the 1995 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Legislative Summary. h. Acknowledgment of an update on the proposed July 4th fireworks at Mendakota Country Club, and direction to staff to track all city costs for development of a fee schedule for future fireworks permits. i. Adoption of Resolution No. 95-25, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAINS, STORM SEWER AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE IVY FALLS SOUTH (IMPROVEMENT NO. 95, PROJECT NO. 3)," with direction to revise the proposed developer's agreement to add landscaping provisions for Ivy Lane. j. Approval of Supplement 3 to the existing Cooperative Agreement for the Dakota County Community Development Block Grant Program, and authorization for its execution by the Mayor and City Clerk. k. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated June 20, 1995 and attached hereto. 1. Approval of the list of claims dated June 20, 1995 and totaling $439,532.02. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson regarding the Commissioners' award in the Eric Miller easement condemnation. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he did not feel the city should spend any more money to appeal the award, commenting that the property owner needed the Ivy Falls Creek improvement more than any other property owner. He stated that although the Commissioners' award of $8,059 exceeds the city's appraised value for the drainage Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 DISPATCHING SERVICE Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ENGINEERING AIDE Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 4439 June 20, 1995 easements, the city has also incurred costs for the appraisal and Commissioner fees. Councilmember Huber moved that Council accept the Commissioners' award and affirm the Council's position to express no intent or desire to appeal the award. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lawell regarding West St. Paul dispatching billing, along with a letter from Administrator Lawell to West St. Paul City Manager Bill Craig summarizing a proposed agreement on costs and service. Mayor Mertensotto reviewed the memo and informed Council on discussions he and Administrator Lawell have had with West St. Paul representatives with respect to entering into a fixed cost dispatching arrangement. Councilmember Krebsbach moved to enter a fixed cost arrangement for dispatching services authorize settlement with the City of West St. Paul for 1994 and 1995 as outlined in the letter to Mr. Bill Craig dated June 6, 1995. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson requesting approval to hire Derrick Anderson as a temporary engineering aide. Mayor Mertensotto asked why an engineering aide is needed in addition to Tony Fotsch. Public Works Director Danielson responded that this is a particularly busy summer and two aides are necessary over summer, especially with the curb and gutter set to begin in Friendly Hills. He also informed Council that Tony Fotsch will only be working until mid-August and someone must be available through the fall months. He explained that the length of time Mr. Anderson will be needed will depend on what projects are going on in the fall, and if the Curley street project is ordered he hopes that surveying will occur in October and November. Councilmember Smith moved to authorize hiring Derick Anderson immediately as a temporary engineering aide at an hourly rate of $9.50, effective until November 15, 1995. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. BUROW FARM Page No. 4440 June 20, 1995 Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lawell regarding proposed acquisition of the Burow farm property. Mr. Ron Smith was present for the discussion. Mr. Smith informed Council that he was present to ask Council to budget for the acquisition of the farm. He described the property as a historical, working farm and reviewed its history and a proposed agreement. Mr. Smith stated that he would like the closing on the property to be in September, 1995 and monthly payments of $1,000 to Mr. Burow to begin on October 1 and continue during Mr. Burow's life estate on the property. He explained that the city would acquire the property and turn it over to a non-profit corporation, the Friends of the Burow Farm, which would manage the property. He stated that he has raised $30,000 for the Friends and the funds are being held by the St. Paul Foundation. He expressed concern that if nothing is done this year, the property will be lost. Mayor Mertensotto responded that he does not want people to get the implication that the city would not be acting in good faith, informing Council and the audience that Mr. Smith obtained the $30,000 contribution from one individual. He stated that the city did not ask for contributions and would not be acting in bad faith if it does not acquire the property. He further stated that the Planning and Park Commissions have said that the would not object to acquisition but that it would not be open space and they would not want special park fund monies to be used to pay for it. He explained that financing would have to be through a special levy. Mr. Smith responded that the commission acts under the direction of Council and Council must determine where funding should come from. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is a priority of expenditures for city funds and if funding is not available, Council would have to adopt a levy. He explained that if it were Council's judgment that the farm has a higher priority than other park expenditures the special park fund could be used to make the farm property part of the city's park system. He informed Mr. Smith that Council is not going to spend city funds for maintenance, as considerable money is currently spent on park maintenance and there is currently demand for more parks and ball fields. He asked how Council can equate those demands - Mr. Smith is asking Council to determine that the Burow farm has greater priority than the children in the Mendota Heights Athletic Association programs. Page No. 4441 June 20, 1995 Mr. Smith stated that there is little open space left in Mendota Heights, which bodes the importance of preserving the 9 acre Burow site as open space. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the city wishes to preserve open space there are other areas that would also qualify. He informed Mr. Smith that every time there is a newspaper article on the farm acquisition, residents call him and ask why Council would consider it. He further stated that residents have called him saying that the Dodge Nature Center farm serves the residents and people have asked him how there will be a benefit from the Burow farm as open space other than just to have open space. Mr. Smith responded that he is trying to save nine open acres which has historical background and also happens to be across the street from one of the nicest townhome developments in the Twin Cities area. He stated that if Mr. Burow were to move on before the end of the $55,000 contract is completed, the Friends should do fund raising to pay off the balance of the contract. Mayor Mertensotto responded that people have suggested to him that a special taxing district should be formed, of Eagle Ridge and surrounding properties, to acquire the property. He informed Mr. Smith that residents he has spoken to do not feel the farm has a community -wide benefit. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Mr. Burows could sell the property directly to the private non-profit group, which could acquire the property through fund raising. Then the city would not need to be involved or levy a tax to acquire it. Mrs. Joan Olin, 1136 Orchard Place, stated that it is hard to be against something presented the way Mr. Smith has presented the matter but that she is against using tax money for acquiring the farm. She stated that the proposed contract says that the Friends of the Burow Farm owns the property, and if they purchase the land that is all right, but it is not all right if it is purchased with tax dollars. She further stated that nowhere in the articles of incorporation of the non-profit does it state that it would be for charitable purposes and it is up to the Friends to determine whether people can come onto the property. She read for Council and the audience historical society guidelines on what makes a property a historical landmark. Mrs. Olin stated that she does not believe the farm meets any of the guidelines, and that while it has been called a working farm it produces no product. She informed Council that Dakota County does not even recognize less than 10 acres as a farm and stated that residents would not have access to the property. She stated that if the property were purchased and developed as a park, she would be Page No. 4442 June 20, 1995 in support of the proposal but that she does not support its purchase only for the benefit who live around it. She suggested that the Friends of Burow Farm purchase the property and own it. She asked Council not to spend tax money for a view for some people and a place to board horses for one person. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that the city has a four acre holding pond on the property, so effectively only five acres is left for the farm. Mr. Smith stated that the city would be holding fee title and would enter into a long term lease with the Friends. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he fails to see community support for the proposal. He further stated that he does not believe purchasing the property would be in the best interest of the city. Councilmember Smith responded that there are aspects of the proposal which appeal to her, one of which is passive open space. She stated that it is a lovely pastoral area that adds to the charm of the city but that she would place a number of conditions on any support, for instance, if the city were to spend money the farm would have to be open to the public. She noted that some of the documents that were presented to Council recommended that the city not be shown as the fee owner - she would want quite a bit of control by the city for the ultimate use of the land and if the Friends could not sustain the property, it would have to revert to the city for the park system for use as a passive park. She stated that it would have to follow the normal budget process, including commission recommendations, and if the Park Commission recommended against funding through the special park fund Council would have to find some other financing. She also expressed concern over unfunded liability. Mr. Smith responded that any public land must have public use, but the Friends would determine that use, and if it fails as far as a passive use, it would be reasonable that it revert to the city. Regarding unfunded liability, he stated that the maximum cost would be $145,000 payable at $1,000 per month. He explained that the Friends would assume the liability upon the death of Mr. Burow. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is a problem with ownership - the city's risk managers have advised not to get involved in acquiring any land where there would be animals. Page No. 4443 June 20, 1995 Mr. Smith responded that the lease to the Friends would contain indemnity and insurance provisions and the Friends would get insurance to cover it. Councilmember Huber stated that the comments he has received from residents are that it seems to be a city expenditure to benefit a few members of the community. He stated that he is sure that people surrounding a recently discussed development would have preferred that the city had acquired that land as open space. Mrs. Olin asked whose horses would be boarded at the farm, and Mr. Smith responded that the horses are his. Mrs. Olin responded that Mr. Smith does then have an interest in the acquisition. She stated that her concern is what happens if the Friends do not have $1,000 per month after they take over the property. Councilmember Smith responded that those details have not been worked out and she would not accept an unfunded liability. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she would like to see a referendum so that residents have an opportunity to vote for or against the acquisition. She further stated that she sees the farm as an amenity to the city. Mayor Mertensotto responded that running a referendum would be very expensive, and that he had suggested a special taxing district to tax the properties surrounding the farm which would receive the benefit from its acquisition by the city. He stated that the acquisition proposal does not have wide public support and he would not want to levy a tax against the entire city to acquire the farm. He suggested that perhaps a survey could be included in the next city newsletter. Mr. Smith urged Council to take action on the proposal in the upcoming budget discussions. Mayor Mertensotto responded that he cannot support the proposition and does not believe it would be a good expenditure of city funds. He informed Mr. Smith that Council will have a response back to him at budget time. MENDOTA LIQUOR Discussion on the application from Mr. Patrick Soeun for an off -sale liquor license for Mendota Liquor was tabled to July 6. CASE NO. 95-02, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TREE PLANTING Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TREE PRESERVATION Page No. 4444 June 20, 1995 Council acknowledged a memo from Administrative Assistant Batchelder regarding a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding industrial construction materials. Discussion on the proposed amendment was tabled to July 6. Council acknowledged a memo from Parks Project Manager Kullander and tabulation of quotes received for the 1995 boulevard tree planting program. Mr. Kullander explained that the low quote of $13,060 is based on 100 trees but the city has the right to add or subtract'trees. Councilmember Huber moved to award the 1995 boulevard tree planting program contract to Blaeser Landscape for its low quote of $13,060. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Council acknowledged a memo and proposed tree preservation ordinance from Administrative Assistant Batchelder, along with a letters of objection from Robert Prior, 2455 Hampshire Court and Richard Falconer, 1355 Sylvandale, and a letter from Chris Riley in support of the proposed ordinance. Assistant Batchelder gave a summary and history of the proposed ordinance. He explained that the primary purpose of the proposed ordinance is to protect large undeveloped properties in the city. He stated that over the years there have been many requests to divide large parcels of land, and the current subdivision ordinance requires a tree inventory at the time of preliminary plat submission but it does not set any standards. He informed the audience that the Planning Commission has worked over the winter and spring with the city's planning consultant to come up with a draft ordinance, using ordinances which are in force in several other communities. He then reviewed the draft ordinance. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he looks at the ordinance like the dog leash law, where half of the people are against it and have are for it. He asked how many cities in the area have similar ordinances. Mr. Batchelder responded that the commission reviewed ordinances from six cities, including Eden Prairie and Burnsville. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that when the city first considered preparing an ordinance, the intent was to look at undeveloped properties and not existing residential properties, but the draft ordinance has been expanded. Page No. 4445 June 20, 1995 Mr. Sten Gerfast, 1802 Valley Curve, stated that on June 6 he had submitted a petition containing over 100 signatures of residents against the moratorium and a preservation ordinance. He explained that he has spoken to many people and found no opposition to his petition from anyone. He then submitted additional petition signatures, and stated that on behalf of those on the petition and himself Council exclude existing single family homes and commercial property from the ordinance. He stated that that is the first comment he has heard from people - that they should be allowed to decide what to do with their own yards. Mr. Joe Stefani, 1820 Valley Cure, stated that he understands the intent of the ordinance and if it had come up when he was a member of the Planning Commission he may or may not have agreed with the proposed ordinance. He stated that when he first saw the article about the issue in the city newsletter he did not think it was a bad idea, but after thinking about it felt that it was government intrusion. He further stated that it appears to him that the areas that should be looked at are the currently undeveloped parcels of land and land that is currently proposed for development. He stated that it bothers him that the city might be thinking about a forestry department, which would be added city cost involved. Mayor Mertensotto asked Mr. Stefani if he would exclude undeveloped commercial land and industrial land. He stated that there are many parcels which will receive development pressure in the coming years. Mr. Stefani responded that if undeveloped residential land is included, undeveloped commercial land should be included as well. He felt that landscaping is affected much more in commercial and industrial development. Ms. Diane Kammerer, 660 W. Marie, stated that she is opposed to the moratorium and thinks it is an example of government going crazy. She stated that if she chooses to cut down one of the 27 trees that she planted on her 1/2 acre lot it will not affect the public health and safety of the community. She further stated that the moratorium affects every land owner and that the proposed ordinance is extremely restrictive in the kinds of trees that can be replanted. Ms. Kammerer stated that over the past 20 years she has seen many open rolling hills become developments which have more trees than were originally on the property. She felt that the ordinance and moratorium are intrusions on the rights of a property owner and create a level of bureaucracy the city does not need. Page No. 4446 June 20, 1995 Mr. Stan Gustafson, 7 Mears Avenue, stated that people wonder why the ordinary citizen is really concerned about the intrusion of government into their lives and the tree ordinance is the closest example of intrusion at the local level. He stated that he would prefer that the city do something proactive like removing dead elm trees that breed beetles which infect his trees. He did not believe the city should hire a forester to determine whether he has an 18 inch tree or a landmark tree and cannot remove it even if it becomes a hazard to his home. He stated that when he drives over the Mendota Bridge and sees the site that was clear cut he does not know what trees were there. He was bothered more by the appearance of an old house in that area and felt it was more important to remove the house. He stated that he understands that about half of the tax revenue in the city comes from industrial properties and that he has a problem if Council wants to save a maple tree at the expense of a $10 million commercial building. He asked that Council leave private home owners along and not be quick to throw out commercial developments. Mr. Stan Linnell, 1407 Cherry Hill Road, stated that it has been stated that the original intent was for large properties and not individual homes and he agreed that individual property owners should not be affected by the tree ordinance. He further stated that he knows that Council is not going to stop large commercial development to save one tree and individual home owners will not be required to replace individual trees. He stated that the ordinance is not as bad as people think and that the ordinance is in a working stage yet. He felt that the moratorium needed to be enacted because if he owned and wanted to develop a five acre parcel and the new ordinance was in draft stage he would possibly want to remove some trees before the ordinance could be adopted. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she does not know what interest Council has in individual trees at this point, further stating that the Planning Commission has put a lot of work into the ordinance but it is still a working draft. Mr. Linnell responded that there are many cities that have tree preservation ordinances and there are benefits to such an ordinance - for example, he cited a new development near his home where many trees could have been lost if it were not for the moratorium. Councilmember Krebsbach pointed out that there is no way to protect the character of an area if it develops unless there is an ordinance that gives authority and does not impact existing home owners. She explained that that has always been the Council's Page No. 4447 June 20, 1995 intent and that Council is now reacting to a very well thought out document. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the city is getting more and more specific regarding landscape plans for developer, which is why a preservation ordinance has evolved - rather than negotiating with a developer. He stated that he can also see the other side of the issue - certain types of trees are scrub trees, like boxelders and cottonwoods. Councilmember Krebsbach felt that Council is not even interested in that level of being specific, and stated that her interest has been control over undeveloped property. Mr. Gustafson stated that the only reason he is present this evening is to let Council know that there are people who do not like the proposed ordinance and would like Council to take a better look at it and change it. Mr. Gary Seivert, 724 Mohican Court, stated that he applauds the Council for looking at preserving the treed nature of the city. He stated that he lives on a cul de sac and looks at the wooded undeveloped school property. He explained that he and his neighbors value trees enough that they asked the city to plant trees and he and his neighbors maintain them. He stated that there will be a middle school built on the school property and asked how that will fit in with the tree ordinance and maintaining the nature of the area. Councilmember Krebsbach responded that she is interested in keeping a treed perimeter and stated that she thinks that is all that can be asked of a developer. She explained that her interest is that Council has some regulation to preserve the perimeter and clustering of existing vegetation. She stated that an ordinance would give Council something to stand on, but she was unsure that the proposed draft gives the perimeter protection. Mr. Seivert stated that he has spoken with his neighbors about the ordinance and the impact of development of the school district property. He stated that there are stately oaks and birch trees along the trail and the property is wooded. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council is not interested in covering every tree by the ordinance and is looking for people to work with Council and say what makes sense to the residents. She asked that residents give Council suggestions. Page No. 4448 June 20, 1995 Mr. Dave Jacobson, 728 Mohican Court, stated that he agrees with the importance of perimeter trees and stated that his neighborhood will look at the ordinance and submit comments. Mrs. Betty Schuster, 1900 Wachtler, stated that she feels single family homes should be excluded no matter what the size of the tree is. She further stated that she can see excluding some trees, such as boxelder, and that developed commercial property owners should be allowed to decide about their own property. She thought that when people in the commercial field are going to build, they are not going to destroy trees and when people buy a lot they look at the trees and place their homes accordingly. She felt that developers should be scrutinized more but that single family home owners should not have to come to city hall to protect their rights. Mr. Gerfast stated that Mendakota Country Club is very much against the ordinance as well as Royal Redeemer Church, and even the chair of the Planning Commission opposed it. Mr .Stefani asked if there would be additional city expense, hiring a forester and staff, if the ordinance is adopted. Mayor Mertensotto responded that Council is not thinking about hiring a forester. He explained that the ordinance is in a working stage and Council will listen to resident comments and work with residents to meet their desires and balance Council's concerns over undeveloped properties. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that the Planning Commission has put a lot of effort into the ordinance and has developed a model, but it is now in a different stage of the process. She explained that she is concerned about large undeveloped tracts but not about developed single family lots. Councilmember Huber agreed, stating that Council's concern is over large undeveloped land. Councilmember Smith stated that she is concerned about another level of government and asked whether tree preservation could be addressed in the subdivision ordinance. Assistant Batchelder responded that if it were just a matter of establishing standards in the subdivision ordinance, that would work, but there are no standards with which to measure tree loss or replacement. He explained that adding language to the subdivision ordinance only affects those developers who act in good faith and Page No. 4449 June 20, 1995 does not protect against those who will remove trees and then come in with a development proposal. He stated that the intent of the ordinance is to capture undeveloped lands for formal application and that something is needed to control the clear cutting and destruction of trees before a development comes before the city. Mayor Mertensotto invited residents to submit comments to Assistant Batchelder. MENDAKOTA PARK Council acknowledged a memo from Assistant Batchelder regarding backstop alternatives for foul balls at Mendakota Park. Mayor Mertensotto explained that the issue came before Council because the Mendota Heights Athletic Association has requested use of Mendakota Park ball fields for some activities rather than limiting them to adult softball. He explained that the reason the ball fields have a pinwheel design was to accommodate adult softball, and when the referendum discussions were going on the Sibley fields were to be used for youth baseball. He stated that there are about 1,100 children involved in the Association programs and Council is trying to make available as many fields and spaces as possible to accommodate their needs. He stated that if Council is going to permit the Association to use the Mendakota fields, use must be restricted to youths no more than 12 years old. He stated that there is a concern that if baseball is allowed, the backstops are not high enough, and pointed out that the back stops at Sibley are 14 feet high. Park Project Manager Kullander stated that the Sibley back stops are 14 feet high with a six foot overhang and the fields are away from the center section so that the concession stand is in the center of the outfields where foul balls are not so much of a factor. Mayor Mertensotto stated that people at Mendakota Park have to pay attention behind the back stops or they could get hit. He stated that there are no backstops that could be designed to prevent all foul balls from coming out but Council wants to stop as many as possible. He asked what can be done at Mendakota that would not destroy the visual integrity of the park. Assistant Batchelder responded that staff has outlined a number of alternatives in his memo, and he felt that the two best possibilities are to extend the back stops vertically to a higher elevation or to install hooded backstops to stop the lower level line drives from coming onto the observation decks (options one and four). He stated that the forty foot extension (option one) would involve putting Page No. 4450 June 20, 1995 telephone poles in and removing existing backstops and adding netting. He stated that this would be very effective but would cause significant destruction of existing facilities. He explained that option one is either/or - ten feet would extend the existing backstops ten feet, and the forty foot extension would require building a new pole structure. Mayor Mertensotto asked about installing a hood - bringing the fence up to 20 feet and then putting on the 45 degree slope. Mr. Kullander responded that when the hood is put on it would distort the other boards and vertical extension would not have the visual affect but would have the same affect of stopping foul balls. He stated that each of the cities he has contacted seem to approach the issue differently - every city has a different opinion on what works. He stated that cities that use netting usually use a 30 foot pole, but that has maintenance costs and visual impairment consequences. He stated that cyclone fencing is permanent and the vertical extension would save on maintenance costs. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, he stated that the overhang on the observation deck is 16 feet high. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if 10 feet were added to the existing backstop there is no way a line drive would hit the observation deck. Mr. Kullander responded that the backstop could just be extended to 20 feet to protect the observation deck and wings would not have to be added. He stated that the $10,000 bid was for creating 80 foot wide backstops on all four fields. Councilmember Huber asked what age groups MHAA wants to be allowed to play on the fields. Mr. Charlie Godbout, representing MHAA, responded that the association is not specific and plays ages 10-11, 12-13, and 8-9 as groups. Councilmember Huber stated that as everyone knows, there will be future discussion on whether MHAA can play baseball on softball fields. He stated that depending on the age group there are differences in what is needed for pitching mounds and changing from grass to skinned infields, and the fields would then become truly baseball fields and not softball fields. He stated that if he is in favor of going to fencing it would be to get more use out of the fields but that does not mean he would be willing to make changes in the mounds and infields. Page No. 4451 June 20, 1995 Mr. Godbout responded that the changes to the mounds or infields are not contemplated at all. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council would not want too many balls knocked out onto Dodd Road, which is why he wants to limit the age group to 12 year olds as a maximum age. Mr. Godbout responded that he would agree to that condition and it would be fine if only 10 and 11 year olds use the fields, which would help the association's scheduling problems. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the association is allowed to use the fields, there would be more utilization out of the fields than currently exists, pointing out that at times only one or two of the fields is being used. He explained that if Council makes a decision to increase the height of the backstops that would be a signal that it would be willing to discuss fitting the association into the schedule. Mr. Godbout informed Council that the MHAA games start at 6:30 with a time limit such that games are over by 8:30 p.m. He stated that perhaps the games could be started at 5:30 during the summer months and they would be done by 7:00 or 7:15. He stated that this would allow adults to play a second session at the fields. Councilmember Huber stated that his only comment would be that the larger question, over baseball use, is coming next month. He stated that he does not know that if agrees to extending the backstops he would be sending a signal about baseball use. He stated that there is plenty of time to do the work on the backstops and if there is intent to send a signal to MHAA, he would rather delay making a decision on the backstops until after a decision is reached on use. He stated that if he does vote in favor of the backstop extension it would not necessarily mean that he is leaning one way or the other on the issue of baseball versus softball. Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the backstops are increased, a change is being made - Council has heard that the pinwheel design is for adult softball but the fields are not being utilized as they should and MHAA has asked for baseball use. He stated that if Council decides to increase the height of the backstops it will be sending the signal to MHAA that it is willing to negotiate with them to allow baseball for up to 12 year olds. He stated that staff was to provide information on how many residents and how many non-residents are on the softball teams. Page No. 4452 June 20, 1995 Councilmember Huber stated that if Council says backstop extension will allow baseball at Mendakota, he is not willing to make a commitment until he knows whether some softball teams will be bumped off the schedule. He further stated that if he votes for the extension that would not mean that softball will have to go - he pointed out that the backstop extensions would be for safety, whether softball or baseball is played. Assistant Batchelder stated that fast pitch softball is being played at Mendakota as part of the MHAA softball program, and those games generate foul balls. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that if action is taken on the extensions, Council would not be changing anything in terms of advocating one sport over another, but rather would be acting because of safety concerns. Councilmember Huber stated that Council is still in a data collecting stage and the issue facing Council now is that of backstops. He stated that there are many reasons to increase the size of backstops but he does not want to send any signals about field use. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the signal it sends is that Council will contemplate youth baseball at Mendakota. Assistant Batchelder stated that he is attempting to coordinate schedules to set up a meeting with MHAA representatives, Sibley area fast pitch representatives and adult softball representatives. Mayor Mertensotto stated that what has come out of this evening's discussion is that it would be best to increase the backstops to a height of 26 feet for the 80 foot fence area, which would be higher than the soffit on the observation deck. He stated that Mr. Kullander must know if this is Council's desire so that he can get specific bids. Councilmember Huber responded that he is not against baseball at Mendakota and that the ideal would be that everyone can be fit in, but he did not want to make promises to both groups and then tell them that they do not fit in. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that is it her understanding that the backstop extension consideration is a safety issue and that the agreement is that Council will make every attempt to provide for softball league scheduling. TAX FORFEIT PARCELS Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CURLEY ADDITION FEASIBILITY STUDY Page No. 4453 June 20, 1995 Mr. Jim Kilburg stated that the experience from softball tournaments is that balls that come up in the concession stand or over it that are the problem. He stated that the pinwheel is so tight that there is not a lot of room and people who are watching a game on another field could get hit by a foul ball. Staff was directed to request bids for ten foot extensions on the backstops and wings for all four fields. Council acknowledged a memo from the City Clerk regarding potential use of tax forfeit parcels. After discussion, Councilmember Huber moved to approve the non - conservation classification for tax forfeit parcels, Lots 1-4, Block 1, Centre Pointe South. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Council acknowledged the feasibility report for proposed Curley Valley View Addition street reconstruction. Engineer Mark Mogan reviewed the report for Council. Councilmember Smith stated that she would like some input from the William Court property owners to see how they feel about having only mill and overlay work done on a portion of William Court. Mayor Mertensotto stated that all of the streets throughout the project should receive the same improvements, and that the entire subdivision should be treated equally. Public Works Director Danielson stated that the report will be revised to that there is one proposal to treat all of the streets the same. This would allow Council to make a decision based on the comments received at the hearing. Councilmember Smith asked about use of storm water utility funds for watermain construction costs. Engineer Mogan responded that the item was included in the report as a contingency item to cover any unforeseen problems. Councilmember Smith stated that the report recommends the use of TIF to support the assessments attributable to the north side of Mary Adele abutting the Curley redevelopment area. She stated that there was a similar situation where there was questionable benefit to properties along Dodd Road in the Friendly Hills project. Page No. 4454 June 20, 1995 Mr. Mogan responded that portions of the lots drain to the street and a case can be made for use of TIF. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he believes that the city would be better off keeping the wall of evergreen trees between the neighborhood and the commercial area and paying the assessments by TIF Public Works Director Danielson informed Council that if the lots were to ever develop a hook-up charge would be required in an amount equivalent to the assessments. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 95- 26, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND CALLING FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED STREET RECONSTRUCTION AND REHABILITATION IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE CURLEY'S VALLEY VIEW ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 93, PROJECT NO. 4)," the hearing to be held on July 18. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 BUDGET Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Lawell regarding possible budget workshop dates. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ADJOURN Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilmember Huber moved to conduct a budget workshop on July 11 at 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Smith moved that the meeting be adjourned to closed session for discussion on personnel related litigation. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:32 o'clock P.M. Kathleen M. Swanson ATTEST: City Clerk Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL June 20, 1995 Asphalt Contractor License Blacktop Driveway Arden Griepp & Sons Blacktopping, Inc. Masonry Contractor License Graf Concrete & Masonry, Inc. Gas Piping Contractor License Blaylock Plumbing Co. Hokanson Plumbing & Heating, Inc. General Contractors License All-American Recreation, Inc. John Klem Construction Twin City Acoustics, Inc. Valley Pools Inc. Tree Service & Removal Green Leaf Tree Service Inc. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on Wednesday, June 14, 1995, in the City Hall Large Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 8:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Beaty, Fitzer, Olsen, Stein and Surrisi. Commissioners Leuman and Olin were excused. Also present were City Administrator Tom Lawell and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. PRESENTATION OF AIRPORT RELOCATION OPTIONS - REMOTE RUNWAY CONCEPT Administrator Lawell introduced Mr. John Richter and Mr. Henry Snyder, proponents of relocating either all or part of MSP to a location in Dakota County. Mr. Snyder explained that the communities south of the river have the idea that by relocating the airport, it automatically means more noise in their communities. He stated that this is not the case and that it will depend upon the layout of the runway system. Mr. Snyder discussed his Strategic Vision of moving the airport. He stated that he is concerned about the economics of the Twin Cities area. Mr. Snyder stated that the Twin Cities is in a global economy. He explained that global businesses require world class air service. He stated that high tech global businesses also need around the clock air cargo capabilities. He stated this is not possible at MSP. Snyder stated that global business needs to be able to use the full range of today's biggest intercontinental planes for non-stop service which are not possible now because MSP's runways are too short. Mr. Snyder explained that since the opening of Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport, the state of Georgia has attracted over 1400 international businesses who brought with them over a hundred thousand new jobs. Mr. Snyder stated that Burlington Northern, a lifelong Twin Cities business, moved to Fort Worth, Texas because it needed a centrally located city with excellent air service. He cited several other companies who 1 relocated because better air service was needed. Mr. Snyder explained that the Twin Cities are just as close to world markets as Atlanta or Dallas -Ft. Worth. Mr. Snyder explained that over the four years ending in 1993, operations at MSP were up five percent per year and passenger load was up six percent per year. Mr. Snyder reviewed statistics regarding MSP activity from 1986 through 1993. Mr. Snyder stated that the Metropolitan Airports Commission believes that the airport will need to be expanded. He explained that whatever construction is required, labor and materials costs are almost identical anywhere in the area. He explained that by adding another runway at MSP will not solve the capacity problem. He explained that because the site is so small (3,000 acres - the second smallest air field in the country) the location of a new runway is such that we have to essentially write off the terminal and parking that is there, build new facilities on the northwest side of the property, and then build a new road network to get in and out. Mr. Snyder explained that expansion at MSP will cost, conservatively, another $2 billion to tear down hundreds of homes, insulate thousands of others against a portion of the noise, tear down four major hotels and remove all that tax revenue from the tax rolls. Mr. Snyder explained that with a new airport in Rosemount, with six runways in an L configuration, the total number of impacted residents will be 2,200, as compared to a quarter of a million should MSP be expanded. Mr. Richter stated that the City of Atlanta owns the Atlanta airport and that the City of Atlanta receives minimal air noise as most of the growth has occurred north of Atlanta. Mr. Snyder explained his Remote Runway Concept as follows: a. Keep the existing terminal and parking facilities exactly where they are. Passengers will park and check in and out exactly where they do today. b. Build a new set of runways at the Rosemount Experimental Station of the University of Minnesota. It's completely within the recommended site area selected by Met Council, and is close to the Twin Cities. The public already owns 7300 acres of flat land there (previously donated to the State), saving millions in land costs. Mr. Snyder explained that easements will need to be acquired on another 3-8,000 2 acres to allow for a proper noise buffer zone. c. Build a high speed rail link connecting the airfield to the present MSP terminal - a train every 6 minutes in each direction. Build a ravine bridge over the Minnesota River south of MSP to connect directly with the present terminal. Mr. Snyder explained that the total cost of trains, spares, new track, right-of-way and the bridge (about $240 million as of 1994) is far less than the $1.5 billion required for building the otherwise needed huge new highway network. d. Build only whatever terminal facilities are needed at the new site to take care of the hub and spoke passengers. Full services will exist only a few minutes away by high speed train. e. Sell, lease or give one runway at the present MSP site to Northwest for their maintenance base operations, thus avoiding hundred of millions in moving costs which NWA cannot afford and does not want to spend even if it could afford to do so. f. Develop the balance of MSP site to the highest and best use. g. All the businesses along the strip and all the neighbors stay put. Nothing would change except the noise, which would go away. Force the MAC to end its sweetheart charges to its tenants, and begin charging the airlines and other airport businesses at rates which are at least equal to those in most other major airports. Chair Beaty inquired how freight aircraft will be handled. Mr. Snyder responded that they would access the remote runway site and that cargo will be distributed via truck. Mr. Snyder stated that the with the Remote Runway Concept Plans there is space available in Rosemount to construct a new airport and that flights can come and go any time of the night. Regarding runway configuration, Mr. Snyder explained that the Pinwheel runway configuration is an FAA approved, most efficient runway system. The problem with this runway configuration is that noise is sent all over the place. Snyder stated that with the L configuration, less people are affected with air noise. He stated that three runways are operated at one time. Mr. Richter submitted pictures of the new Denver airport. He discussed 3 how specific companies have moved closer to the new Denver airport and that airport noise is not an issue. In response to a question from Administrator Lawell regarding walking time and baggage availability, Mr. Snyder stated that luggage will be handled as they are now and that additional walk time depends upon terminal design. He stated that trains could stop at each concourse. Mr. Snyder stated that possibly five trains could be running at any one time. Commissioner Surrisi arrived at 9:12 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Olsen inquired about the cost to construct the new airport. Mr. Snyder stated the cost would be less than the free standing airport. He stated the costs would be cheaper to start over as opposed to adding over and over again. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Olsen moved approval of the May 10, 1995 minutes. Commissioner Stein seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF VARIOUS REPORTS/CORRESPONDENCE Chair Beaty inquired if staff had received information regarding GPS. Administrator Lawell informed the Commission that he intends to invite a representative from Honeywell to attend an upcoming Airport Relations Commission meeting. Chair Beaty stated he would like the Commission to discuss the pros and cons of moving the airport in further detail. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC Technical Advisor's Report for April, 1995. Chair Beaty noted that there were only 57 Mendota Heights complaints in April. He stated that this is the lowest number of complaints in a long time. Commissioner Fitzer suggested that the City inquire with Mr. Bruce Wagoner regarding why he is not enforcing the 105 degree runway heading. 4 Chair Beaty stated that he would like to compare aircraft that have been hushkitted with aircraft that has not. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the MASAC General Meeting Minutes from April 25, 1995 and the MASAC Operations Committee Minutes from May 12, 1995. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the SMAAC Newsletter from May, 1995. Chair Beaty stated that the SMAAC should be informed of the Northern Dakota County Airport Coalition Commission. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Richfield Sun Current Article from May 31, 1995 on 4-22 Runway Extension. Chair Beaty suggested that the Airport Coalition consider discussing this issue and sending a letter regarding their opinion. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the NOISE Newsletter for May, 1995. Commissioner Surrisi suggested that a member from the Commission consider attending the Noise Conference for 1995. Administrator Lawell explained that Councilmembers usually attend conferences. He stated that the Mayor and himself had attended a conference in Seattle in 1994 regarding aircraft noise. Administrator Lawell stated he would inquire with the Council regarding sending a representative to the conference. Commissioner Surrisi suggested that Administrator Lawell consider attending the conference also. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Part 150 Buyout Update from May, 1995. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations (NDCARC) letter sent to NWA President John Dasburg, dated June 1, 1995. Commissioner Surrisi suggested that any additional correspondence sent the President of NWA should carbon copy Mr, Chris Clouser, Head of Public Relations. MISCELLANEOUS Regarding Close In vs Distant Departure Procedures, Administrator Lawell summarized the status of this issue before the MASAC Operations Committee, and the collective position of NDCARC. He stated that NWA has already designed both procedures for each aircraft type it flies and that each airport is able to designate which procedure will be flown off each runway end. Administrator Lawell stated that Mark Salmen has indicated 5 that the airline is already using, as its standard, the Close In Procedure. Commissioner Surrisi stated that the City should research specific aircraft capability of reaching higher altitudes at departure time. Administrator Lawell stated that Mr. Ron Globb, FAA, has stated that eventually all aircraft reach a specific altitude at the same time. Commissioner Surrisi stated that she would send departure information to Administrator Lawell. DISCUSS STATUS OF NIGHTTIME NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE - RUNWAY 22 STANDARD INSTRUMENT DEPARTURE (22 SID). Administrator Lawell explained that this subject was identified by the Northern Dakota County Airport Relations Coalition as one of their top three priorities for joint action. He explained that this issue has also been chosen by the MASAC Operations Committee as a topic which needs to be addressed during 1995 and discussions related to this topic began in April. Lawell explained that the MASAC Operations Committee discussed the implementation of a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) procedure proposed to be flown during nighttime hours for departures utilizing Runway 22, He explained that these departures would route aircraft south along Cedar Avenue and then southwest along the Minnesota River corridor. Lawell explained that another potential benefit to be gained by the implementation of the 22 SID is the precedent setting nature of the adoption itself. Lawell explained that unlike many airports across the country, MSP does not currently make use of noise abatement SIDs to any appreciable degree. He stated that the successful implementation of a 22 SID would hopefully open the possibility of enacting other SIDs at the airport, -some of which might prove directly beneficial to Mendota Heights. The Commission was of the consensus that they would like the FAA to be comfortable with enacting the 22 SID. DISCUSS STATUS OF NON -SIMULTANEOUS DEPARTURE NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURE - CORRIDOR CROSSING PROCEDURE Lawell explained that in May, the Commission was informed of the status of 6 non -simultaneous aircraft departure procedure and its related environmental review. He reminded the Commission that MAC Deputy director Nigel Finney has authorized the consulting firm of HNTB to conduct the necessary review and to prepare the required environmental documentation for FAA review. Lawell explained that on Wednesday, June 7th, he met with Mr. Foggia, the MAC staff member who is coordinating HNTB's work on this project to inquire about its status. Foggia explained that he would be meeting with an HNTB representative and that he would in touch with City officials. Lawell explained that since that date, Mr. Foggia informed the City that the FAA is uncomfortable in answering any questions regarding this matter as there is active litigation regarding the 4-22 runway expansion. Chair Beaty stated that the FAA should know that this item is of top priority ranking between the Northern Dakota County Airport Relation Commission. The Commission discussed sending correspondence to Washington officials, carbon copying the Minneapolis Tribune and St. Paul paper regarding this issue. Chair Beaty stated that he would inform the Coalition of the City's stance. DISCUSS METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PLANNING PROCESS RELATED TO COLLABORATIVE AIRPORT PLANNING The Commission was of the consensus to table this item until their July 12th meeting. REMINDER OF UPCOMING PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL SCHEDULED FOR JULY 18, 1995 Chair Beaty reminded the Commission of their presentation to the City Council scheduled for July 18, 1995. 7 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Airport Relations Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 10:40 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary 8 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 27, 1995 The regular meeting of the Mendota -.Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 27, 1995, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Dwyer, Koll, Betlej, Lorberbaum, Tilsen. Commissioners Friel and Duggan were excused. Also present were Engineer Marc Mogan, Planning Consultant John Uban, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Koll moved approval of the May 23, 1995 minutes with corrections. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 95-09: PALMER - WETLANDS PERMIT Mrs. LuDelia Palmer, of 675 Ivy Falls Court, was present to discuss her request for a Wetlands Permit which would allow the installation of a fence, within 100 feet of Ivy Falls Creek, in her rear yard. The proposed fence will be split rail with wire mesh backing and 48 inches in height. Ms. Palmer stated that her intentions are to keep her pets inside her property without obstructing her view of the creek. She explained that the fence will be installed entirely on the mowed area in her rear yard and that landscaping will be installed. Chair Dwyer stated that all signatures of consent have been received. Mrs. Palmer informed the Commission that her neighbor had recently moved and that she has been in contact with the new owners. Mrs. Palmer stated that her new neighbors have verbally agreed with her proposed fence 1 installation. Chair Dwyer moved to waive the public hearing. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Mrs. Palmer informed the Commission that a professional survey will be completed prior to the installation of the fence. Commissioner Lorberbaum inquired about the 10 site plan requirements for a Wetlands Permit process. Planner Uban explained that a number of the conditions do not apply because the Wetlands Permit request is for the installation of a fence. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated, according to the Wetlands Permit process, that a time period for completion of the development including timing for staging of development is required. Mrs. Palmer stated that she hopes to begin the fence installation in mid July. Planner Uban informed Mrs. Palmer that a fence permit is required. Commissioner Koll stated that a survey is needed. She stated that Mrs. Palmer's new neighbors need to submit their consensus in writing. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Wetlands Permit which would allow the construction of a 48 inch high, split rail with wire mesh backing fence within 50 feet of Ivy Falls Creek conditioned upon Mrs. Palmer receiving a professional survey. Chair Dwyer seconded the motion. Commissioner Lorberbaum offered a friendly amendment stating that construction of the fence by completed by September 1, 1995. Commissioner Koll and Chair Dwyer accepted the Friendly Amendment. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 95-02: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS - ATHLETIC STADIUM ORDINANCE Chair Dwyer explained that at the City Council's request, the Planning 2 Commission considered some changes to the Athletic Stadium Ordinance that were submitted by the City Attorney and St. Thomas Academy. Chair Dwyer explained that in April, a sub -committee of Commissioner Friel and himself were directed to meet with City Attorney Tom Hart to discuss suggested changes to the proposed Ordinance. Dwyer explained that in May, the Committee met and a revised ordinance was drafted. Administrative Assistant Batchelder explained that Commissioner Friel was concerned about adding this use within the "1" District. Batchelder explained that Commissioner Friel feels that allowing Athletic Stadiums in the R-1 and B-3 Districts are sufficient. Batchelder explained that three amendments have been proposed in the draft Ordinance: 1. Section 7.2(11) has been added to those uses listed as Conditional Uses in Section 7.2 of the R-1 - One Family Residential District. 2. Section 19.2(14) has been added to those uses listed as Conditional Uses in Section 19.2 of the I - Industrial District. 3. Section 21.6 has been created defining standards for Athletic Stadiums. Commissioner Tilsen inquired where a trade school might be located. Administrative Assistant Batchelder responded it is a permitted use within the "I" - District. Tilsen stated that trade schools are not allowed in the R-1 and B-3 Districts. He stated that by eliminating the Athletic Stadium as a Conditional Use within the "1" District, then trade schools (which are an allowed use in the "I" - District) are not allowed to have an Athletic Stadium. Chair Dwyer stated that Commissioner Friel's concerns regarding "I" District Athletic Stadiums was not discussed during the sub -committee meeting in May. Chair Dwyer inquired if St. Thomas Academy, Visitation and ISD No. 197 were informed of tonight's discussion on Athletic Stadiums. Batchelder responded yes. Commissioner Lorberbaum pointed out that under the proposed Athletic Stadium Ordinance, stadiums are not allowed if it is not associated with a school. 3 Commissioner Betlej stated that the Ordinance should have guidelines regarding the quality of materials an athletic stadium should be constructed of. Commissioner Koll concurred with Commissioner Lorberbaum and stated that private enterprises should not be excluded from the ordinance. Commissioner Betlej concurred. Chair Dwyer pointed out that the MIST proposal, years back, proposed a soccer stadium, and that under the proposed Athletic Stadium Ordinance, it would not be allowed. Chair Dwyer moved that discussion regarding the Athletic Stadium Ordinance be tabled until the sub -committee of Commissioner Friel, City Attorney Tom Hart and himself can meet to discuss issues regarding the Industrial District and Quality/Exterior materials concerns. CONTINUED HEARING: 95-05: THARALDSON ENTERPRISES (HERITAGE INN) - CUP FOR RESTAURANT Chair Dwyer explained that the May 23, 1995 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the Tharaldson Enterprises application for a Conditional Use Permit for Restaurant in the "I" Zoning District. He explained that the hearing was continued to allow representatives from the Heritage Inn an opportunity to prepare additional materials regarding restaurant operations, liquor service, parking and public use. He explained that the Planning Commission also directed staff to review the terms and conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit approval. Chair Dwyer explained that during staff's review, it was discovered that after the original site plan was approved by the Planning Commission in 1993, Tharaldson Development returned a few months later with a revised building plan that was approved by the City Council. He explained that the revisions included a spa, a kitchen, eight additional hotel rooms and a second elevator. Chair Dwyer stated that according to Mr. David Toay, Manager of Bon Appetit, the hours of operation will be: Breakfast - 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. - Monday -Sunday Lunch - 11:30 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. - Monday -Sunday 4 Dinner - 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. - Monday -Saturday Dinner - 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. - Sunday only Chair Dwyer stated that Mr. Toay has indicated that no signs will be necessary as the opening of the restaurant to the public will be marketed through personalized company invitations and announcements. Chair Dwyer stated that the Heritage Inn will be requesting and applying for an On Sale Strong Beer and Wine License for the Heritage Cafe. Dwyer explained that Mr. Gartland has indicated that wine and beer will be sold in the Cafe only and will be available for lunch, dinner and a 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. social hour Monday- Friday. Chair Dwyer inquired if the kitchen meets health requirements. Mr. Gartland explained that Mr. Gill, Mendota Heights City Inspector, had been out to inspect the structure and that some minor changes need to be completed. Chair Dwyer explained that Mr. Gartland conducted a parking study between June 2 and June 8 and that the count was done during the hours of 4:00 a.m. and Midnight. Dwyer stated that the study indicated an average of 35 parked cars per day. Overall, 29 percent of occupied rooms have a vehicle in the lot. Mr. Gartland informed the Commission that 2 vans transport NWA employees. In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Mr. Gartland stated that there is seating for 44 in the main dining room and 24 in the second dining room (which is used for mostly catering functions). Gartland explained that according to City Inspector Gill, a maximum of 50 people in the main dining room is allowed and 28 people in the second dining room. Mr. Gartland stated that there are presently 73 parking spaces available and that the proposed restaurant would require 26 spaces. In response to a question from Commission Koli, Mr. Gartland stated that peak periods for parking purposes are early morning hours and late night hours. Mr. Gartland stated there are 45 employees at the Heritage Inn. He explained that the daily average of employees is 15. Mr. Gartland informed the Commission that it was a corporate decision by the Marriott to close their restaurant. He informed the Commission that the Courtyard's local management would have liked to keep the restaurant open. 5 Commissioner Koll stated that she believes the restaurant will be a success and that she is concerned that there will not be enough parking available to the public. Mr. Gartland responded that he has discussed, with Courtyard Management, that the Marriott's parking lot could be used for overflow parking. Commissioner Tilsen stated that if the Heritage Inn is successful, another company may want open a restaurant next door. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the Planning Commission cannot count on the Heritage Inn's neighbor (Courtyard by Marriott) parking lot available for overflow parking. Mr. Gartland responded that the restaurant is for a "captive audience", not so much to get into the restaurant business. The Planning Commission discussed that 143 parking spaces are needed for both a public hotel and public restaurant and that there are 73 existing spaces. They discussed the proof -of -parking to be at 44. It was noted that the Heritage Inn is 26 spaces short. Commissioner Betlej stated that 26 is based on the formula for seating capacity in the restaurant. Betlej calculated 73 existing spaces, with 26 spaces needed for the restaurant, leaving 47 spaces available for hotel parking. Commissioner Tilsen stated that it is difficult for the City to limit the Conditional Use Permit for 10 years, or when the lease becomes void. Commissioner Betlej reminded the Planning Commission of City Resolution No. 93-73A which stipulates a specific condition for the removal of the restaurant should the hotel go public. In response to a question from Commission Betlej, Mr. Gartland explained that the service drive for rubbish and deliveries is located on the east side of the building and that the parking lot is not used. A brief discussion was held regarding the proposed liquor policy. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the Planning Commission was under the impression that lunch was only going to be served and now dinner has been added. Lorberbaum noted the calculation for seating capacity is confusing and she asked for clarification. Commissioner Betlej informed the Commission that he conducted a parking study on a Sunday at 8:51 A.M. He stated there were 44 cars in the lot. He noted his concern in how the Inn will be able to accommodate parking. He inquired if Mr. Gartland intends to hire additional employees. Mr. Gartland responded maybe two. Mr. Toay, of Bon Appetit, stated that the lunch period is only two hours long. He stated that they want an opportunity to do more business and that 66 people will not come to the restaurant at one time. He stated that the restaurant will have clientele from word of mouth. Mr. Toay stated that 6 clientele come and go and that parking should not be a problem. Chair Dwyer stated that he is troubled with two issues: liquor license and parking availability to the public. Mr. Ken Scheel, Tharaldson Enterprises, 'suggested that an interim condition be considered. He suggested that the parking situation should be watched and that if it becomes problematic, then the proof -of -parking should be implemented. He stated that if they thought parking was needed, they would build it. Commissioner Tilsen inquired how does the City ensure that off street parking will not occur. Mr. Scheel stated that this restaurant will not be making a significant amount of money. He stated that a condition could be placed which would allow the restaurant to build clientele for six months. He stated that at the end of six months, if there is a problem, then the proof -of -parking would be installed. Chair Dwyer inquired about foot traffic from the Marriott. He noted his concern during winter time. Mr. Scheel stated that the original plans with Marriott was to construct a walkway between the two hotels. He explained that at that time, the ADA required the construction of a ramp. He stated the ADA requirements are not as strict and that steps and railings can be installed. Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public. There was no one present to discuss this request. Commissioner Tilsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Betlej moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Restaurant in the Industrial District conditioned upon the following: 1. That the City may request the implementation of the proof -of -parking at any time. 2. That all requirements of the Code Enforcement Department be completed and approved prior to going to the City Council. 7 Chair Dwyer seconded the motion and included a third condition: 3. That a walkway be installed between the Marriott and Heritage. Commissioner Lorberbaum offered another condition requiring an easement from Marriott to allow overflow parking. ' The Commission discussed this condition and Commissioner Koll amended the condition as follows: 4. That a written agreement for overflow parking between the Marriott and Heritage Inn be submitted. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 CONTINUED HEARING: CASE NO. 95-06: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Greg Kincaid and Mr. Woody Woodruff, representing MnDOT, were present to discuss their request for a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure in the Industrial Zone which would allow the construction of a Salt Storage building at 2229 Pilot Knob Road. Chair Dwyer stated that Planner Uban has raised numerous concerns and in particular, the property lines have not been properly defined. Mr. Woodruff stated that the property lines have been defined on the plans and that they are not constructing the building outside of their property lines. Commissioner Koll inquired about water run-off. Mr. Woodruff explained that the water drains from the parking lot to the catch basins to the pond. He explained that the salt hydrates out of the water before it spills over the outlet. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the topography from the County is different than what MnDOT has submitted. He stated that the existing pond is shown to be larger than the proposed pond on the site plan. Mr. Kincaid stated that the size of the pond has decreased and that the depth of the pond has increased by three feet. Commissioner Tilsen noted his concern that the NURP pond standards are not being followed properly. Mr. Woodruff stated that the pond is shelved twelve feet wide around the edge for maintenance equipment accessibility. Mr. Kincaid stated that the 8 maximum depth is at 5 112 feet and that the overflow has been designed for a 100 year storm at eight feet. Engineer Mogan stated the deeper the pond, the better for water quality. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the property line depiction is not accurate and that he is concerned about private property to the north and the trail to the west. Mr. Woodruff stated that there is a silt fence on the west and north and that they have been in contact with Acacia Cemetery. In response to a question from Commissioner Lorberbaum, Planner Uban stated that the landscape plan, dimension plan and site plan show different parking configurations. He further stated that no property lines or setbacks are depicted. He stated that he is concerned that the pavement is moving closer to Acacia Cemetery. Mr. Woodruff responded that the bituminous pavement is only being expanded to the south, not towards the north and west. In response to a question from Commissioner Betlej regarding slope maintenance, Planner Uban stated that the steep slopes are proposed and that some are being regraded. He stated he is unclear if a typical seed mix will be used to control the erosion. He stated that this information has not been specified on the plans. Commissioner Betlej stated he does not want to see this area overgrown with vegetation. Planner Uban explained that natural prairie grass has been used in corporate settings and can be done with proper maintenance. He stated that this would difficult to maintain if the slopes stay steep. Commissioner Betlej stated that the south boundary lines should have border plantings. He stated that the height of the trees should be upgrade to City standards. He stated that additional landscaping should be considered. He informed MnDOT of the City's high quality industrial park and that aesthetics are an important -quality of the industrial park. Regarding the slope issue, Mr. Kincaid stated that the slope closest to Acacia Cemetery has been cut from 1:1 slope to a 4:1 slope. He stated that lawn equipment can access this area. He stated that seeding will be done this fall. Mr. Kincaid stated that a two foot berm with plantings is proposed. Chair Dwyer stated that MnDOT is moving a lot of dirt and that an Conditional Use Permit is needed. Mr. Woodruff stated that MnDOT received permission from City staff to move dirt during the Mendota Bridge reconstruction. 9 Commissioner Betlej moved to table MnDOT's request for a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure until July 25, 1995 at 8:00 o'clock P.M. which would allow MnDOT time to prepare additional information as per City Planner's Report dated June 27, 1995: 1. Revise Dimension, Landscape and Grading Plans to show property lines, building location, paving pattern, holding pond, erosion control and pond access. 2. MnDOT should provide detailed turf establishment specifications and details for steel slope areas. 3. Additional screening is needed along Acacia Cemetery and along the west side next to Sibley Memorial Highway and Regional Trail. All plant material to be sized to meet City Ordinance requirements. Chair Dwyer called a recess at 9:21 o'clock P.M. Chair Dwyer reconvened the meeting at 9:30 o'clock P.M. HEARING: CASE NO. 95-11: MCNAMARA - CUP AND VARIANCE Mr. and Mrs. Thomas McNamara, of 2371 Swan Drive, were present to discuss their request for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance which would allow them to construct a 384 square foot accessory storage structure approximately 15 feet from Lake Drive. Mr. McNamara explained that there is an existing 7' by 9' shed with a 6' by 6' adjoining shed that they would like to replace with a 16' by 24' shed for storage of yard and recreational equipment in his back yard. Commissioner Tilsen stated that additional information is needed regarding structure details on the doors, architectural designs, compatibility with the house, color and a door apron. Mr. McNamara stated that a standard garage door is proposed. Mrs. McNamara stated that they intend to match the shed with the color of their house (a neutral color). She stated that the Planner suggested matching the shed with the surrounding trees and that they do not have a problem with this suggestion. She stated that they would like to have the option to paint the shed a color that is agreeable with their neighbors. She stated they would like to match their house. 10 In response to a question from Commissioner Tilsen, Mrs. McNamara stated that the shed is the style of a garage. She stated that there is a limitation on how high the roof can be. Regarding the setback location, Mr. McNamara stated that a pre existing condition exists and that constructing a new shed will not harm the tree root line and that he would like to keep the shed setback at 15 feet. Commissioner Tilsen stated that Planner Uban suggests an 18 foot setback. Mr. McNamara stated that a stab already exists and that he would like to use it. Regarding the proposed shed door, Mrs. McNamara stated that door will face the house, not the street. She stated she would prefer an apron instead of grass in front of the shed. She stated it will be much easier to move tractor equipment and bicycles in and out of the shed. She stated that they will preserve the existing vegetation and add some on the north side of the yard. In response to a question from Commissioner Lorberbaum, Planner Uban stated that he would prefer to see the shed not look like a garage. He stated that a future owner may be tempted to use the shed as a garage. He stated there are several ideas the McNamara's can pursue to make the shed match their house. Commissioner Betlej concurred with Planner Uban. He stated that the shed does not look like a part of their home. He stated that the McNamara's should research different architectural ideas. He stated that in the long run, the McNamara's will be happier with the consistency between the house and shed and that more value will be added to the property. In response to a question from Commissioner Betlej, Planner Uban stated that he is concerned that the footprint of the building will compact and may destroy the tree roots and that is why he suggested an 18' setback instead of a 15' foot setback. Commissioner Koll stated that the existing shed is well hidden and the new shed will be well hidden also. She stated that a garage door makes the shed look like a garage. She inquired if they will be using a garage door opener. Mrs. McNamara stated they are considering this option. She stated a garage door opener would be an easier way for her children to access the shed for their bicycles. Commissioner Betlej suggested that the McNamara's consider increasing the 11 pitch of the roof and a large overhang to match the house. 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 Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that the City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure and a Front Yard Setback Variance of twelve feet (12') to allow construction of a 384 square foot storage shed, as proposed, and to be located eighteen feet (18') from the property line with the following condition: 1. That the architectural design of the shed be revised to match the existing structure and that revised sketch elevations be submitted to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 HEARING: CASE NO. 95-12: MENDOTA MALL ASSOCIATES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Edward Paster, owner of Mendota Mall, and Mr. Patrick Soeun, owner of Mendota Liquor, located at 750 Highway 110, were present to discuss their request for a Conditional Use Permit which would allow the operation of a liquor store in the B-4 District. Mr. Paster explained that he and Mr. Soeun, appeared before the City Council on June 6, 1995 to request a liquor licenses for the new liquor store in the Mendota Plaza that will be approximately 1/2 the size of the old MGM Liquor store. He explained that before the second reading of the liquor license approval City staff found that a Conditional Use Permit was needed. Mr. Paster stated that MGM Liquor has been closed approximately 1 1/2 12 years and the ordinance requires that there be a new Conditional Use Permit after a period of non-use for longer than six months. A brief discussion was held regarding hours of operations and where signs will be located. It was noted that Mr. Soeun is aware of the City's Liquor Ordinance requirements for hours of operation. Mr. Paster stated that there will be signs above the liquor store door and on the Mendota Plaza pylon. In response to a question from Commissioner Betlej, Mr. Paster stated that there will be landscaping improvements done to the center including an irrigation system with the parking lot project. 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 Betlej seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a liquor store in the B-4 District. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 HEARING: CASE NO. 95-10: MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3 - VARIANCES Mr. Michael Cashill and Mr. Allen Spaulding, owners of Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course, located at 1695 Dodd Road, were present to discuss their request for a sign size variance and setback variance. Chair Dwyer stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows one name plate sign for a Use other than residential such that the sign does not exceed 12 square feet in area per surface. He further stated that the preexisting sign had 35 square feet per surface and the proposed new sign has 48 square feet per surface. Chair Dwyer inquired about practical difficulty and 13 hardship. Mr. Cashill stated that the R-1 District rules are for single family homes. He stated that sign regulations were established in the R-1 District to regulate signs such as real estate signs. He stated that the Mendota Heights Par 3 is a business which operates in the R-1 District and that a larger sign is needed because it is a business. He stated that sign has been there for 33 years. He stated that the new sign was installed using the old posts. He explained that the size was expanded six inches on all sides and lowered 12 inches. Mr. Cashill explained that they researched setting the sign back further onto their property. He stated that if the sign were placed back further, the sight lines would be screened because of the parking lot. He stated that if the sign were moved further to the north, then it would be in the tee box or practice green area. Mr. Spaulding stated there were two existing signs and that one was removed. He stated the new sign is nearly identical to the old sign. He stated the new sign is a subtle sign for business advertisement. He explained that the old sign was in poor condition and that they considered re -painting it, however, it was rotted. He stated that they would consider any other proposal, but that the old posts already existed. Mr. Spaulding stated that the sign is 7 feet high and that theyintend to landscape around the sign. Commissioner Koll stated that the sign is .dark and subtle. She suggested that bright flowers may be more appropriate than greenery around the sign. Commissioner Betlej inquired if MnDOT has any plans to widen Dodd Road. He stated that if the road is widened, then the placement of the sign may become a safety issue. He inquired who has the right to condemn the sign. Planner Uban responded MnDOT would condemn the sign and that it would have to be replaced, under that scenario. Chair Dwyer stated that the owners of Par 3 have set a bad precedent in that commercial property owners can put up signs and appeal for variances if they are caught. Mr. Cashill stated that the sign has existed for 33 years and that the square footage is only slightly larger. He stated that a 4' by 6' sign was taken down and that the 5° by 7' sign was replaced with a 6' by 8' sign. He stated that both signs were in terrible shape. He stated that they considered repainting the signs but felt that replacement would be better. 14 Commissioner Tilsen stated that their request was a reasonable request. He inquired if the red neon sign in the window is turned off at night. Mr. Spaulding responded that a complaint had been received and that the manager is now responsible in turning off the neon light. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that the improvements have been excellent and that there is a clear view of traffic. She inquired if the two green poles from the old sign, which was removed, will be taken down. Mr. Spaulding stated that the poles will be removed. Chair Dwyer opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Jim Gryc, Evergreen Knolls, stated that he owns the house on Dodd Road and that the driveway access is to Dodd Road. He stated that the old sign screened the view from the driveway and that he is glad the old sign has been removed and that now the poles will be removed. He stated that the new sign is great and that it is subtle. He stated that the new owners of the golf course have done a nice job with the improvements to the course. Chair Dwyer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Lorberbaum moved to recommend that the City Council grant a sign size variance and a sign setback variance to Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course with a proven hardship being that visible signage is needed in order for the business to operate and that the combined total square feet of signs has been reduced with the condition that the 2 poles next to the driveway on Dodd Road be removed. Chair Dwyer seconded the motion. Commissioner Betlej offered another condition that a 25 square foot of landscaping be installed around the sign. Commissioner Lorberbaum and Chair Dwyer accepted the friendly amendment. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 15 VERBAL REVIEW Administrative Assistant Batchelder updated the Planning Commission on City Council actions regarding recent planning cases. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 10:30 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 26, 1995 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer U R' 6, SUBJECT: Farmer's Insurance - Exterior Remodeling 800 South Plaza Drive - INTRODUCTION Mr. Wesley McCallum, of Chanhassen Kitchen and Bath, has submitted a building permit for proposed remodeling to the Farmer's Insurance building located at 800 South Plaza Drive. DISCUSSION Part of the proposed remodeling will be on the exterior of the building. (See existing and proposed drawings and pictures). On the west side of the building a door and stair system will be removed and the existing door opening will be replaced with a new window, (non operable), the same size as the door proposed to be removed. On the south side of the building there is a sliding door which accesses an exterior balcony. In order to provide a direct means of egress from the upper story, a code complying set of steps to grade from the existing balcony is proposed. A code complying guardrail system is also proposed to be installed on the existing balcony. RECOMMENDATION I recommend approval of the proposed exterior work at 800 South Plaza Drive which includes: 1. Changing the existing exterior door to a full view, inoperable window. 2. Removal of the existing stair system at the same location (west side of the building). 3. On the south side of the building, the removal of the existing non- complying guardrail system and the replacement of same with a code complying guardrail system. 4. Construction of a code complying set of steps from the existing balcony to grade. ACTION REQUIRED If Council wishes to implement the above recommendation, a motion should be passed authorizing the Code Enforcement Office to issue a building permit which allows exterior remodeling at 800 South Plaza Drive. PRB: kkb ak 1 ii14,14"21rikiks oeit'.14,4i. 141'4* • . . ilfir \ ; I '4.. -,--<':,---,i---, — --..z• 1 z.• - .4 --'c•-''''..-„,,,,,i, -`.. S:''..'" '---..-'-.:,;-*, 1 - -....t.l'• ,, '::...4:;4,1;'; 1 -•&"-.. =:--=,.;-Vc".!......, ,.4- 1 4..."-• -'1.4'0,--,v,. • j, gihr.'*,,,,,..,.'rt„ ::1•M„:,4... >1...:T:',1'..1,,, .1 ":4...4-,'L 741 ....”... !:. u...1.":"..,7* -)..,.:,..)....„..7 41. ', - • l' . /. 4.41i- ' w •-- ,L.. -!?4,,,, , , - . ...... .1.. -...i., -(=-5:,..,..r.... x, ...&.. • .:...--- , - - 04.---.-,..‘„,..0..............-..,-....er, x 1" . , ....' -Aff1"*-1°' lt,, ":' • r ., . ' ' :' -.''''''''',. ''' ."'...4?....,. - - , It ' ''' ''''' . . -. .. 4 • o ..,: . , _ita , ..',... .ixre i ••••'< ....4..../ 4....' ..,, i......" - 4.::"...Z .. ' ' "•" ,..".." ,.., -,n.,,, , ,. , , --1'"?'",, -...-' • 4.:,'."- -.'"' A0.0 , , , N., '' •.. '' . '. t ,y, % , 1,44? .,:i 7/4.4,41, t,0.4).0,,,,q+iii, 4 ?, . %t ,,,,-'al .‘ • - . ' • .1 ..1 ''' .; ".,,,,, , L., ,,,,., .z„- 4.4-,. , ..,. _ , . •, ,,, , , ,•.....,,,,4°, . J.; 44.26_..(44PAI:evaitzgren via ..4M11111M • ; -•e • • ,Asi aft Li ,ovf 41/Eg /14'. 'Ll!gai 44- - , Antillikrfirralar"v. • tot e'• 't • .1- • *4 e, ti I �1 i' i J • / 1/• .17 g"f4;V .10.7 • • f • i 9. l• • b•••••••.....7. efr-rA, Pect,ibt-e, * — ....1•••••••••...01 • ------;• • --- ' • qrVii - !izirwj w M1:f1-- 11 n r-•-P7er,, al t-irra.,:m.4 /tv.tkt-f-- e7ry4142Z1z- Ai- t•TT(2 Fft Ar -41> tJOT Cg- th,13.1.1 ‘50-ki g -R" e-^qc-r1 11. -AF -0.• 1-71:E;12•I, .et tAs-,N1 (PK,O.Peet5S1).5./A/A SYS/VM) wIAISLOGuAtebR II IL, 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 23, 1995 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator James E. Daniel Public Works D Swanson 2nd Addition Final Plat Plans & Specification Review and Approval DISCUSSION: Council approved the preliminary plat for Swanson's 2nd Addition subdivision at their March 7, 1995 meeting (see attached letter of notification). All the conditions specified in that letter have been, or will be satisfied. * All the appropriate right-of-ways and easements have been included on the fmal plat (#1, 2, 3, 7, and 8). * The Conservation Easement protecting the slopes and trees has been submitted and is attached for your review (# 4, 5, and 9). * The fmal grading plan is attached (#6). * The existing honeysuckle hedge located along Lot 4 is diseased and dying and will be replaced. The abutting neighbor has seen and agreed to the replacement plan. She has signed the attached letter of consent (#10). * The home setbacks as shown on the preliminary plat will be adhered to.et i ( ) The Developer desires to begin site grading later in July. The first phase of his grading operations will be to remove the trees that interfere with grading. See the grading plan for the grading limits. The lots will be left undisturbed outside the grading limits with tree removal determined and customized for each home as it is constructed. Plans And Specifications The Developer submitted the required petition for public improvements after his preliminary plat was approved. The plans are now completed and are attached for Council review and approval. If approved, bids will be advertised for and opened July 31, 1995. The results will be available for Council consideration at their August 1, 1995, meeting. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the fmal plat be approved as submitted, I also recommend that the plans and specifications be approved and that Council authorize advertisement for bids. Because this plat abuts a County road, approval of the plat should be contingent upon fmal review and approval by Dakota County. I also recommend that Council grant a tree permit authorizing the Developer to remove the trees located within the grading limits. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the recommendation they should pass motions adopting Resolution No. 95-_ RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR SWANSON'S 2ND ADDITION, and Resolution No. 95-_, RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR SANITARY SEWERS, WATERMIANS, STORM SEWERS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE SWANSON'S 2ND ADDITION (IM1!ROVEMENT NO. 95, PROEJCT NO. 2) and granting a tree removal permit authorizing the Developer to remove the trees located within the grading limits. JED:dfw City of JAA.AAA Mendota Heights March 10, 1995 Mr. Dave Bjorklund Bjorklund Development Company 2511 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Bjorklund: I am writing to formally notify you that the City Council, at their March 7, 1995 meeting, approved your request for a Preliminary Plat for the Swanson property and for Front Yard Variances for Lots 5 and 6, as proposed in Planning Case File No. 94-40. The front yard variances for Lots 5 and 6 allow a minimum front yard setback at the point of the lot where there is one hundred feet (100') of lot width. The approval of the Preliminary Plat is subject to a number of conditions that were placed upon the approval. The Preliminary Plat is subject to the following conditions: 1. The eleven conditions listed in the recommendation of the Planning Commission, as follows: * The plat is to show additional right-of-way dedication on Lot 7. 2 * That sewer and water easements be shown on the plat. * That the storm water retention pond easement be included on the plat. 4 * That a Conservation Easement document be submitted to the City Council. S * That slope protection easements be shown on the plat. * That custom grading of each individual lot be shown on the plans. 7 * That the street right-of-way be sixty feet (60'). * That the Rolf's and Bjorklund's agree to a thirty foot (30') right-of-way on the Rolf property for the new road leading into the new "Swanson property" subdivision. (The City Council stated they are not willing to condemn property for road access.) * That the plans reflect tree preservation measures. fa * That a landscape easement along Lot 4 protecting the lilac hedge be shown. // * That specific home setbacks for Lots 5 and 6 be identified on the plans. 2. That a Conservation Easement, for the purpose of identifying those trees to be saved, be included in revised Preliminary Plat drawings, to be approved by the Engineering Department. The Conservation Easement is to be included on the Final Plat and filed with Dakota County. Evidence of filing is required to be submitted to the City of 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN - 55118 452.1850 Mr. Dave Bjorklund March 10, 1995 Page two Mendota Heights. The Conservation Easement should include the areas of steep _ slopes, the areas where trees are to be preserved, and perimeter of the property (where appropriate). The Conservation Easement should restrict the property from future subdivisions. 3. The execution of the Developer's Agreement. 4. That the developer obtain Dakota County's approval for the proposed access point from Lexington Avenue. 5. That additional tree replacement be provided by the developer along Lexington Avenue should it be necessary to extend a long storm sewer pipe along Lexington Avenue from the Rolf property line to Orchard Place. 6. That the proposed center island at the intersection of the cul-de-sac and Lexington Avenue be shown on the preliminary plat. Due to the requirement to show a Conservation Easement on the Preliminary Plat as described above in Item //2, it will be necessary for your surveyor to submit three copies of a revised Preliminary Plat to the Engineering/Planning Department for their review. Please make sure these revised plans are dated and titled as Revised Plans to Incorporate City Council Requests of 3-7-95. Many of the items in the Planning Commission's recommendation can be achieved by incorporation into the Conservation Easement. This includes the following recommendations by the Planning Commission: * That a Conservation Easement document be submitted to the City Council. * That slope protection easements be shown on the plat. * That the plans reflect tree preservation measures. * That a landscape easement along Lot 4 protecting the lilac hedge be shown. Also, due to the Tree Preservation Ordinance Moratorium passed by City Council later in the meeting on March 7, 1995, the City Council will consider issuing a Tree Permit for this subdivision when they receive the Engineering Department's recommendation on the Conservation Easement. The requirement of showing the custom grading of each individual lot on the plans, will be enforced at the time of the individual building permits, to be reviewed by the Code Enforcement Office. Mr. Dave Bjorklund March 10, 1995 Page 3 Your next step should be to prepare the revised Preliminary Plats for review of the Conservation Easement by the Engineering Department. Please contact Jim Danielson, at 452-1086, to coordinate the submission of the required revised plans. Sincerely, (C( .. i3ct/t4.c a_ Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant cc: James Danielson Paul Berg Dick Gill Paul McGinley City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 95 - RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR SWANSON'S 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, a fmal plat for Swanson's 2nd Addition has been submitted to the Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said fmal plat. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the fmal plat of Swanson's 2nd Addition submitted at this meeting is hereby approved. 2. That the appropriate City officials be and they are hereby authorized to execute the fmal plat on behalf of the City of Mendota Heights. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of July, 1995. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 95 - RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR SANITARY SEWERS, WATERMAINS, STORM SEWERS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE SWANSON'S 2ND ADDITION (IMPROVEMENT NO. 95, PROJECT NO. 2) WHEREAS, the City Engineer reported that the proposed improvements and construction thereof were feasible and desirable and further reported on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction thereof; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore directed that the City Engineer proceed with the preparation of plans and specifications thereof; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for said improvements and has presented such plans and specifications to the City Council for approval. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the plans and specifications for said improvements be and they are hereby in all respects approved. 2. That the City Clerk with the aid and assistance of the City Engineer be and is hereby authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said improvements all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, such bids to be received at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights by 10:00 o'clock A.M., Monday, July 31, 1995, at which time they will be publicly opened in the City Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Engineer will then be tabulated, and will then be considered by the City Council at its next regular Council meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of July, 1995. ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor JUN 23 '95 09:39 BJORKLUND CO. 6124529278 JUNE 17, 1995 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: TO: 612 452 8940 P02 Rin tTlahmn%] Aug' v: sM.= Wit .1 -IL! CONSTRUCTION I i , e )11 k rELAS, residing at , Mendota Heights, have no objection to the removal of the existing hedge and plantings on the West boundary of my property, to be replaced by new plantings per a drawing by Southview Design & Landscaping, left with me this day of June 17, 1995. Signed: wzzic B 6eag Prepared by: Bjorklund Const. Cb. 2511 Dodd Rd. Mendota Hts., MN 55120 2511 Dodd Road • Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Phone: 452-3434 Residential and Commercial PLANNERS liC`-ENGINEERS SURVEYOR S DESIGNERS cAssocUItes, _JnC ARCHEOLOGISTS Swanson 2nd Addition Proposed Conservancy Easements (6/30/95) I. The City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission and City Council required that the developer of this site grant easements to the City of Mendota Heights for three purposes. A. Restrict tree removal from certain areas - particularly the eastern slopes facing Lexington Avenue, the slopes abutting Orchard Place and the west and south perimeter areas. B. Restrict construction of homes in the areas of steeper slopes. (This is also restricted by City ordinance on all slopes over 18%, which we are duplicating by these easement areas.) C. Prevent further subdivision of the lots. These easements accomplish that by prohibiting home construction in these easements and configuring the easements so each lot has less than 30,000 square feet of area left outside its easement area. A provision would be put in the easement stipulating that the easement area cannot be considered as buildable lot area for determining any future lot size. Without 30,000 square feet of lot area left, no lot could be divided into two 15,000 square foot lots, as required by ordinance. II. Following are the legal descriptions of the areas to be subjected to the conservancy easements: Lot 1 The east 120.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, SWANSON 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. Lot 2 The east 120.00 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, SWANSON 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. 7200 HEMLOCK LANE, SUITE 300, MAPLE GROVE, MINNESOTA 55369-5592 TEL: (612) 424-5505 FAx: (612) 424-5822 Lot 3 The east 120.00 feet of Lot 3, Block 1, SWANSON 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. Lot 4 The north 50.00 feet of Lot 4, Block 1, excepting the east 20.00 feet thereof, SWANSON 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. (NO LE: The east 20.00 feet was left out in Lot 4 above to allow for a trail in that area, from the cul-de-sac to Orchard Place, and specific landscaping to be done for that trail and for the purpose of screening the trail to benefit the landowner east of Lot 4.) Lot 5 The north 50.00 feet and the west 20.00 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, SWANSON 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. Lot 6 The west 10.00 feet, the north 20.00 feet of the west 160.00 feet, and the south 25.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 1, SWANSON 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. Lot 7 The south 20.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 1, SWANSON 2ND ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota. III. The net areas of each lot after removing the conservancy easement area are approximately as follows: Lot 1 18,930 sq. ft. Lot 2 22,700 sq. ft. Lot 3 25,020 sq. ft. Lot 4 14,720 sq. ft. Lot 5 23,180 sq. ft. Lot 6 29,800 sq. ft. Lot 7 22,240 sq. ft. IV. We have included a reduced print of the grading plan with these easement areas cross hatched on each lot. TADA City of Mendota Heights OFFICE OF CITY CLERK APPLICATION FOR /iS�T?� /RENEWAL LICENSE NEW I, P4TP,/ci< $O491,/ ri/ hereby apply for a license for the term of One Year in the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, State of Minnesota. Firm Name D117) 10.4 U f),Q Address 73 ivy // -* Pi� 5,46/0 1,1,.( ti City %1•/✓1 do GcJ/1215//v/Es State ' 29 n Telephone Number (f Z) t' 3-- 9 3 (P Zip Code .557-20 Is this a firm, corporation, partnership, or •rivate ownership (Circle One) nelY Officers: P ' 're fE t' yLt'rt� )n e ° �Ylr � i e S oe t Yl Vice President Secretary Treasurer What cities have you been licensed in? The undersigned applicant makes this application pursuant to all the laws of the State of Minnesota and such rules and regulations of the Council of the City of Mendota Heights may from time to time prescibe. Date of Application 7 -- J� 5 Signed CZ2t1, - &-, For office reference only: License Fee Paid 1-t Amount ,.• Receipt No. 13 ? 2 Bond Expires Certificate of Insurance Expires 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452-1850 LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL July 6, 1995 Excavating Contractor License Daves Excavating Inc. Glen Rehbein Excavating, Icne Gas Piping Contractor License Climate Engineering Co. Cronstrom's Heating & A/C Minnegasco, A Division of Noram Energy Corp. HVAC Contractor License Climate Engineering Co. Cronstrom's Heating & A/C LSV Metals Inc. Minnegasco, A Division of Norma Energy Corp. General Contractors License C & M Specialty Sales, Inc. dba Chanhassen Kitchen & Bath Russell J. Gagner Nardini Fire Equipment Twin City Acoustics 0 0 '"1 CO C,) VD CO Gt. CON N n n O LO H e-1 N. O .-1 0) CO U) (0 ICO tL) CV l0 N 4-1 G) V >. 44 1 CV5- i N 3 > 1 602j) W C U Y C CJ i v) L) U -0 C-) +) i i Dl a)3a) 4-r°h rdx i Z e;: c 0. 0 IU .1) 0 1 '0 D .-i u] - I .-r 6 Cl. s• 0 10 c0 UI I .-i c0 s_�T W W 6 fl I N 4..). Le) 0O 10 G) 01 CV a+ N •r- N C U N 'V r- -IC C >,E rO •r- L et U •.- O -1- rO e- N C Cr=a a. 0.' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 000011)0 4-) 0. v O N U S- E 0»- L0 - C. o ..- Q 1.00 L1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0U) oo o -4NNM c1'. Y cu N 01 u S JI H J 0 9 'O ti w .J 4- 0 0 U) 01 H Comments Account Code co Cry C C G 0 Q mmmroCO � S0U5.1CU (1 , 4-c0 M x x U U U U U 0) >>>>> 7, >,7, 01 111010110111 .-i n .-i >I i C. k. C 5. a s a. 3 3 1 7 01010 a , ,.-) ,-1 0 6 U1 re friendly hills exp reimb c0 I � CO 1 F- 1 O~i f. 03 oo CU r 9 0 h r 9 6 ,- 6 1 I I I 1 1 (0 7 I 6 6476+95 1 1a 6 Nt 6 ri1 1O 6 6 6 1- 1g r- 4 0) 3 117 (3 67 JO 6 y pj 6 Ch CU CU CU CU N 5.7 5.1 6 ti) 4- -t�a-t4 ro 4 11 ,-i w CO .'-i -1 1 11 6 CU 6650) 6 f+1 0 6 Ill 6 t0 (0 h • 0.1 0 5_ 5 01 w 0) n .n U E z ,1 z +0 011 a1 i 0 •.1 0 33 33 -o 0,30 cto w in W 0 II CL] S. 11 i) 0 s s. E Z 0 xZS 0) z 0 01 31 - c 0l 01 0l 1.. r n .r 1 01 Q (1 CC 01 U N Ol ¢ r..410 s ti -3 a. 1J al W ri .-i 1 f9 0 L.7 CU 1 CU 0 a. E a; Jo r a .y E 01 L E 9 1- al I- U 3 •1 LL 1- Z Ti 01011.11111111 5-5.5-5-5- 0) 01 01 01 at 0 1 1 5- ) 0 0 0 0 0 ro 0110010101 3 117 1n n 0101414101 .H •14 -n ,1 0101010101 01010)0)0) 0 0 0 0 4001-10 01 W N W N 4-54f)4V 4) 33333 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 0 0 0 0 0 vv u01n 5. 5- 5_ s, 4:- 00000 Rs 1 G N 0 0 0 0 0 t14 Si JYi CCI (1fq(1(917 1 Temp Check Nurnber Temp Check Nurnber Temp Check Number CR 0) N E '0 Z 01 Y 0 0 .1 U al 01 I- (11N Ni -4 (0 V' 1 Q' G 1- Ternp Check Nurnber 5• .0 • z 5. Y 01 U .4 U 5- 03 c. 5-- 1- -J -J(0 01 1 N+) 0 Temp Check Nurnber 5- 01 .0 z -4 U w 0. U 01i t0 1 10 +) 1-"- Temp Check Nurnber Collins Electrical Const :i C;; C C C C 0 0 0 0 0 N m DI k Ci 0 ▪ c0 1 EI a PI I M CU I N Cc rnrnent s Account Code fq 1 M 4 1 4' • 1 • I L1 meter ch❑ 610 • I M 1 M 10 1 10 -r: J 0 N 5- . L. L 0 Ti O. C. a .n 0. 5. i 5_ U 0 I M 10t`c0&D r (1� 6 I I 1 1 I B G G. 0) �+ S f')MMM 1 G 50 U0N1050 6 N ri ('*l I l PI M 51 '� �- 44 4. 4. 4 4 -...4 *+ 10 If) � -...4+ • CO G. Cn 66NN e 9 N N N N U m J (j1 N C Q V) 0 4. 13 -i .r 01 5. 01 5' S- 5- 1.y 5- N n a .a .0 .0 E E • c a 6 1 .3, 07 1 • 1n In 1 N M re audit confirm 01-4490-110-10 01 5_ 4) 4. M Jul allow 11074 & `9 CU �N G 10 CU G 6 i 6 U 4 4. I 1 CU • M0 4' N N N 04 3 E 0 3 s E U E lb 3 z k Z Z 0 Z h Z 1- Z .4 Y 4) Y L i L. Y 5. Y >, .Y T. Y E0.1 0 w U 01 0 0 0 0 01 .+a Ol �' 01 s 0, >` .0 i .4 .c 5. AAAA .0 5- 0 .c i t 1- 7 r .a }-I U '-I Ll m -, E U N 0 0 w 0 C3 2 a 0. A ti U D "0 17 0 0 A U +I' 0 0 7 0. E S i 5_ 5- a E S. a a `� Z 0 01 (1 Z A d 3 0 0 0 0 E 7 b 0 7 10 0 it e0. '0 f= 1- T. I- Z 3 3 3 3 I- Z t I� Z ++ 01 Z - 5: S Y 0. Y tG 16 0 W Y N Y .z ~ 0 F- -I ,' 01 > U .-11 01 tn Cl .N Q1 C.301 -)C.3 - 01 0 -4 QQ A ..I V rG -I PG as ru ni OI A r+ ra 3 N U O. O N c0 I c0 U 0 cT I Ut 0 0 &@& 1S I d G U .N•+ I, O V CLI 1 N' U M I M 44 1 a E 01 .0 r- a I-- a I- p. I- 0. t- a i1 I N - E I - y L. 01 F- 1.3 0 IL I- Z a 0 (` r0eic €" C CJtita) Ten Terr Temp Check Number 14 James Danielson 10 Temp Check Number N T 0-1a N 01-4300-110-10 Day Timers N N f_ • 01 ,) jj \\ -4 jw / 0 r Ternp Check Number U C S g S S O O 0 O O q S 9 O q O Comments Account Code Vendor Name § % \ % \ 03 re rnh/dodd signals § ) §\1\ / \ 01�I03 \ / $ \ t : ) CI � » > j} \ / ƒ ) / } ) \ ) / } \ \ N § ) 0. } j I / • . . , I 2 ) \ \ \ \ % ƒ ƒ ƒ f ƒ } ƒ ƒ 10 2 ± % N \ ± Q Q Cr. 2 % Q 3 2 k z ) \ ( \ (\L I 0 @= e I- 2 N % % % 5- k 0 k \ a Z Z w 2 0 § \ / } 6 $ \ 6 % / § $ 2 \ f E a a f f a= \ •§ l \ / z } { U1 u k , q© 2 k b| , ■ 0 a O ■ U.. a. 10,10j ) w�&} § CO�C4, § Olm,03} --I\/� % / Ternp Check Number Dermis Delmont Ternp Check Number Tea Temp Check Number 20 Fortis Benefits Ins Co 3 Temp Check Number CU Temp Check Number 22 Globe Printing & Supplies C C. C. C C. C C 44 01 1- ro c0l01 a 0 " 1 R I • h I C- Comments Account Code 10iD u) c0 .57 ,-i ,-A N N >. al al L7 r m CU C 0 C u 10 N 1 t0 0) I OJI Cu 6 Cn 1 Cn m ti July garlack Jul prem kullander 6 10 1 6 ry 6 6 10 CU 10 01 CU ,ti 6 6 6 5 10 CU Cn 't OJ 6 .5 4 d' G. .1 1 6 6 6 1 W 01 CO 11 ED Y7 CO ,y '.4 ? �' , 41- ~ I0 6 CU 6 6 CO 6 4 6 10 CU CU OJ 01 ED f ED 616 • 1 • 6 I u1 0 6 CU 6 t 0.1 r ,-4 of V s: ti 3 0 ,y N .4 11 T >= iN U m� E 8 m 01-4490-070-70 ON CO 1( 4 "4 jun svc 6 6 6 55 • °? CO 6 6 EP 6 6 10 0 6ED ED 4.4 6 I 1 U1 6 0) Cq Al 10 Y�1 r+7 i 4 4 4' cu 4 u) 6 CS, N 6 a0 6 cu CU 01 Y N 0 0 01 r-1 .. S, 0.1 r-4 0. Y7 N N CU 1 OJ S. S- COC0 CU U CUCn a CU S_ 0 0 S- i S- 0- S CO A Ul U1 .n ` E alN .E E .n .0E .0 0- c 5 a"i ' a1 at 3 S. .i 0 7 ....7 7. 7 Z UU Z 01 Z S Z Z Z • 01 � •.+ ry s:. Y >> Y . W Y Y Y ++ Y 0 0-5- u 0z u t u u � S. YA YA C ' 01 t i 44 L ' r C. N N .r0 S. ti L CJ of U Ol 4- U 01 40 U Ol 0 s- J7 S_ S. .0 E d a! -0 U .0 O O 0 .n X CJ CL a 01 10 10 a s a g 1 a E 01 0. E 0 W N al al 0 7 E 0 0 7 r� E 3 00 00 a 3 L E >, >, m 2 to N n", Y 'a 0 h Y n) F- Y h Y Z h 8 h z 5 E F- 0at 2 F-- 0 . .1 GI O w. N Y9 00 al O ri al CO -4 01 1 W N T Z . i 01 J 4 t '6 t 10 ,1 LI .Y 5_ CU I 4. 44 U 01 CO I u) 4.+ U 4' 14• •+4 U I0 I 0 •N U LD I 0 4 U r N I 4' + U W 1 c0 . 3 n U N OJ 1 4 0 CO OJ f 4' 0 OJ 1 OJ 0 CU f (0 0[i CU I (0 I0 tl OJ CO I ti a -Y til J 6 LL V ,t Q Comments Account Code CT0 CU Cn UD .-6 Cn I Cn fru I CU I 6 4• 1 1- c0 P7 n 1 h ,t1 44' jun SVC 0 a3 $ n 6 6MT+6 pl X66 •-4nI17- 4 co 4 1 6 U 6 SOtt3MMy+ 6 U76. -'N W 43JOA 3 an.n.na 2E2 0 N 22222 S.. S. S. 16 U .. W W W 5UI N f f S f. S- 0_ 0. O. , a x x x a a a a a IO 0111111.,.P xxxxx '� 01W7UNN fC 9 6 66610 6 9 6661 0 G 0 4 6 6.01n 6 .y .� 6 I n n n 1 in 117 1A 00100 06 .-4T-4 .-, .-4 Tt to d' to M 444 4 I �' 4. 4-4- 4 '~1111 '' Wnn117 6 Ch 6 6 6-, W CU 0.16 rU (64 M ti m m OJ _n ID J rr% n Z Y a W .--, I- n; a L0 c.6 U Y S. m I m. 0 1 a a U O PJ I Irl QI9 1- 3 S. �1 I- U = •l U. F^ Z Ternp Check Number L N •.i _co 9 , Cr Check Number 01-4300-110-10 ri C� �� 14 m -o >N. .o .a 9 5 0 (1) 7E. a Z Z N Z Z ui U .C.CtL U 0 V v i i i i L 111 4.44-Y.4 N .� W N N W N 111 Ll r L C YC'. Y. C U ID U roro000 N s k C C a c Y Y X Y d 04 .t7 .D .--ii .-i w .-4 .-4 N N N N o' 3 0.= Cp tl r r 0 Z ? 0 0 ,6 ID Z C 0 Z J 0 Z Y Y Y Y Y N u aC .G0 0 0 N u I ~ Y UJ Y T T >, ''$' T .-4 L F" N N F- •`1 N Y .-Ni W J ,.N4 u 7? 7 0 ,G . W U CJ C9 U' C9 T+ I . U CU OJ CU CU I U) .p U M I M 4.) U 4 1 4 +) U Irl In IA 117 117 M I MFO_ I . a MMr ri I CU 4 M I r0 G 11 1 MFG M MMM M. -I I- 1- a Ci Ternp Check Number Kimball Midwest Ln 6117h76 CG0 �rir 6666n ,y ISI vl .,4- 1 1 1 I 1 6r 44.114.4* N d' �'4 M 6 r- 6GGmrq Ten T T T is '0 0 0 0 C C C• C 0 0 0 0 0 00 01 +, a "-- W 'G J ,t CI 0 U7 E N Temp Check Number 0 Comments Account Cade Vendor Name exp reirnb CU M v4 w S S 6 deductible lerbs Jul allow 111 r - PI P) 4- .4 ,; 41 1. N M CU o re water tower arrnl conf exp N 4'W99IN. w 9U)V]9(llr ) rro4-1 P) 0.1 P.- ro cu r') u'1 lD uo to CU ,i CU ,+ o 0 0 0 01 S. S.01 5L S.03SS- 0. 0 as a a as H H H ,-4 r-1 CD j/ H N6 & 9 999SS I 11 -1 CU 1 In N I 1 I I 6 (S) 5 99 IT 9 I9mm6A 6 C'GI 1 ,.I , , 0.4 P- M r4 CU 4 In N a) 1 In _ �' N H 9 C9 4' y 1-1 v4 v4 v4 v4 vI «1 CU .t P. H r4 ro 'f 9 w ,-I .-/ ., w 't �" 1U d d 4' 4' 4- 4 4 II I 1 1 1 CU 111111 .4i -t w N w w '4 w 14w ,4 .4 9 In 6 u) 6 N 999 a) (1 CR S 9 999959 P) M (9 P) M 4' Guy Kullander Tem Temp Check Number Thomas Lawe11 Temp Check. Number L O1 b 3 44 •N4 Z_ 4- 4- 4- .Y 010101 u 003 QI S7. .0 iZ & CC a ono aI UUU 1- Ir. c J.J.J H fa WCOCO 14 MM0 r�7 y0 m M Ternp Check Nurnber Maier Stewart & Assoc S S- S ij .n in n 3 3 Z O O 03 0 N 0 N W W N N •i) •N •N y .N 44 O. 0 s N N W N d a. aI.LO.0.C1 1x1121 a N • Z N Z UUU(.1 3 0.10.11110.111101 N N H 0 '7 - QI EEEEEE ol r m cn I m 4.1 - U S I 9 d) v4 ., ,r w .•r w M I (1 I- 0 a -t 14 0 4. 4 4' 4 .t 4 15 v 1- (7) T ,'t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 01 s • acU4U c. mmoU a u)u75 CU i. CU 10 •+ u) ,Y 4- Ternp Check Nurnber Camrnent s Account Code Vendor Name a 0 01 WA I-0 z 11 742. 76 0 5 6 65 d"I N I CU 1010-t CU 5 6h766 10 CU I CU .-1Cn3'I0 U 4.1oi 0 n Lil 19 rq 1 f) 0•-.1 -4 ri CU h7 r t` r9 ,.a .� 4 -Y or (0 t� t - N L71 al c 01 .0 . S_ > 0 U 01 0 c 4- U W W W U U U U S` e S. iN 01>> u +4 +4 a s 0. N N N N N 4- •.t S. 0 ., r. >, >,'4 .. Ste- W S. a N J J J T IV J= Irl .N W W •./ ')r1 s E t1 a a S.. -0 work gloves S E E 4 Q W W W S. S. i S- O . a _as as 11ED ED �6ED 1.0 6 u) U EDaD ED ED ED 66 6 666 I I 1 I 101 •'+ (U n 10 r56.ED U) uj7 6 6 6666 I I I I ••+66 6 6 C. d4.•I,-� 0 T4 OU O0f` I I I I 16 "'6�' M -.,-.') al10m10 1 665.6 .0 t,:.I,� 6666 01 7'�Q 4U)4- I r9 Mr9r9r9 h5') G,4,4M 4'4-4-4- 4' C� d 4-4' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I 1 I G. 6 ,-1 1-1 .+ ,-1 .-4 cu s 6 M 6 6 Si 6 4- 5 01 6 m 6 6 u] 4 4- 4. CU 4 S. S. i W .' r{ .-1:A N .0 0 0 0 c .0 E S. J +P i-) +1 4-, > I1 LL Ll Z C S- C C Z 0 Z Z SICS _Y 0000 Y 100 .0 Y N N N 0 U .,t CJ U S. L. i t. i 4. +. 4. +. i S- '0 .0 i 01 W W W 0W N N N N U W CY U 01 C.3 4 +. 4 .0 111 •U t0 10 .0 0 S. Cuw a E 3333 0. 01 .p a N 0 O 000 W 2 0 0 0 0 W Z W 01Z (OWLI3r9 W V v v I - S. 4444 4 t- v 3 N 1- Ill 01 W 1A F E N U ., N U +LCLaa 01 E .-1 W E E Z E .-N+ IV ol 1-1 r+ .-. i Ch U CU N CU OU I Q) 4• 0 r9 1 (i44it U 4 T fi .1 i i0 44 441 1 I 43 0 a ,'d 314- 1 U3 0 a d 14'G_ a t3�i'4 1 I's 0 .I .1 1-- Teri Terr Ten 'f Temp Check Number 45 Minnesota Glove Inc Check Nurnber Temp Check Nurnber 10 .744-,' 1 W 0 r 4. Ternp Check Nurnber �.= '0 C. C C C- C G C; O O 4:l 0 61 01 y • m4r.U0101 u 0 0 C0 1 0 or 0 0 [I �:,cD W 4Nt3115 0PIr- 401074 07 07 01 Comments C C C C C C 1,447. 09 1,447.09 uD 4 CU 6161610161 CU a a a 0) a O 01 . 0. Q +y N N N N N N N N•4 N +4 +,+.,-1., .1 D D D .-1 r-1 .-i J J� `J J J a /6 16 10 (fj (6 a a a a L ,.-')-.1 ,�.-J S.. a00aa i. N N N 0 PO U7 .4 c0 0 0 N 4 U- 61 . 01 ) 1.0o0f1 H .i 07N CCnn 01 01 N fa J;-) 0 N U 5_ W 'E ,4- 0 000000 0 00000 Si 0 ,-I CU 07 1-- .i 1.0 1 07 i 1.0 i CU CCU 07 U ri & 11 Ul +' L 0000070 0 1 1 1 1 I I U 0 4 CU 0 5 0 6 0 m 6 r,0 01 4 0 0 0 0 0 07 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 00044 0044 r� 01 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -p moi.. ,•i .i ,•i ,-4 ,- ,+ O E0A �C I-PIMMfgf1M 55+ 0 SM0) 01 0.1 ..4.4 z 0 ,4 •4 .ti ,•i .i .i f'l fl 07 tl t1 01 M 01 01 to tl u1 CV 0 (' 4-d 1.444 4444 4.4 O 1 1 .1i ,1+ 1 O1 O1 1 1 1 i 1 11 0 • 000000.4 ,•i ,+N.1,-1 ,-i .i,y.•i.i I vA I r 0 (p 00,+00 m 0 0 00 0 0 .r 00 d 4 d' 07 S O 07 4 Nof N 141 N N 1.4 N N 5- C C C C C C C 61 .0 •H•i4.IJ 4.,4N4.,•4-, NS 4 4-- 4- 14- 4- w4- Z 111610)01616161 C. 5 £ k C s 01 CO XI CO , al i 0 fl � m M 4 M 41 IV 6 0 6 U Z 4)+++:' +•+.1•)+.4) S_ N N N N N N N0 a Z 0 01010)0)010)61 m rY t) C 5:C C C C C 1- Y1 U Q1 1`, .k, .4 x. :'14 01 > E£E£E£E •-i c.7, ,-4 0 .Y S. rrrrrrr 1 0)•v 0. 0 6 4 4 Nt 4 4 4 a I CU 0 1 0. E 61p 1 ft) 1-- (S_ 01 I-03 I I.L. 1- Z Ternp Check Number m 4• 6. al .tl 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 5 i •rl .N •r • i H 43 > > > > > U Z Ol WW 61 61 I- • 01 00000 +1G+ U n (646 (0(0 % 0 0- 13 Ci. CL O. CL CL La E Q1 Z 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 U O 0 0 O 0 •r, N N £ N III £EEE£ .r CO I CO 44 0 0101 0101 01 1 1( 44 4 14'1- 0 a 44444 1410 Ternp Check Number Tern 0 Temp Check Number Check Number 07 L -0 3 3 0. 0. Z 0) 01 0 IVro O! +•+ •V U S- 010 0. 13 S5- s£. S. S. a S Ste, SC. E tb 01 Z L C .c 001 Z .0 c 1-- ++4)+.44.4 M 4++4 S_ S. S. S. - S. S_ i • 01 Z ZZZ .-N1 Ql Z .- Z (0 6 •) 0 +-i .-s ,•i ,r ( 4. 4 0 •1 -v U (U N 1 10 I0 a 07 07 07 10 1 6U 0 141 10 Temp L L' 0 • Cn W .0 01 £ co 0354-4747 W W Cn476 CL 0 5.4 CU •-'1-W W 030-40 a iilu)010SCUCUELI u).+ 0)0).+,-+NInClEn65 CU 01 !U 4. 4 - Ccmrnents Account Code 01 47 47 S. S. $_ S. S. 5_ S- S. L. S. 5_ S. S. S. 5. 'WWW WWWW W W W W W W W W W 3333333333 .r1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 A all 11 l.lall ❑. 110.a as EL 0. Z W W W W W W Will WW WWW W 4.4.4. +... +. +. 4. +. A. Y ti M (6ra M r6 ti M it ti W m (0 rG 0 0 +> +. 4. A. +1 +> +> 4. +. 4. W +> +> A. 4. W (ID 0) 0) 01C0(003(3COCO V (00100 U £ £ £ £ £ £ S: £ £ £ .7 £ C s: s_ S. S_ S. S. S_ S_ i S- S_ a S- S- S. S. a W W W WWW W W W W EW WWWW .C.'"C I: .1: L 1: /: 1: 1: J: W Z W W W W +4a++.+.+.+, v 4. 4. h +� +�+�+� 1- s s x s S s s s i s - s- s_ s_ s. y' 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to .. > ZZZZZZZ zzz - W ZZZZ r, £.-' 1x 1 01N01CU0101 U01CUCU 1 444 U 1.101rO01 1 CU 4. a Q 0 O 414147474�41474747N I CU 41474747 1 •-' 0 'A 0 W1:;_ I u3 1-- a 1 OJh 5 L W I- U 7 O Lt. h Z 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U'0 r -i r1 r1 ri ri N ,-i rM vi ri 3 "l T7 el 7 el el rJ "x"1"7 •.5600166W4 01 5 W rO u0 [n 6 H W CU 476 W 447 r W in .4 Cn r1) H CU H PO 00 ri 16, 869. 00 16, 869. 00 0000 0) > > > > NNNN N NtiNul N41NU1N v NN >, TL >. >4 )., ,N >1 >1 (0 r4.-1,12-4 r1. 4 (31 M r1 r4 ry M H J $_ S. :7, Z aaaaaaaaa r1'1'").'1 0 t0 3 N N U1 01 N 0 113 a n 6666666665 6665 6,4766047Cn66 G ri u) 0, t0b'7 i u3 ED 47 11 '70 LD HHHH..i.r6H,•1 0J T0- 6ED66666666 5666 6u;664741Ot6 16 6 AA 1414 CU66•.4 v44465 CU6016 .... 6.-iH666HH (14 CriCn r001r04 ED0301 PO6 M .4t CD �• .~HHHHH.-,Hv 6 4.4- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 CU CU CU CUCU-1H,i.•1H 441444v-1 66.•1656666 J H . 01 -/ .-1 .•i H H .-1 H H H H R H 6 6 6 6 6 6 Cit 6 6 .4 03 PD. CUCUU4UCUCUOU01CU 0101tU01 01 01 01 Or9194'MM O 4-�i 4 t 44-44 i 4.44 4.4 4 i -7i3t 4 44I --147H47C0.4 W47 W 4 H 1 11 6,�6H866�1U6 01 Sn6. 0) 6ED66mED666 4 HH 47 47 41 6 A 4 47 0) 47 :r Tern Temp Check Number �.0 z 0 X X x X X x X X X .L EErti EEEEEEE U u 0 u 0 u u 0 u u W •A •A •A •A •A •A •A •A •A F- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4. 4- C7 0 C7 c7 C3 C7 C3 C7 C3 -OOC700gC7tlC3 r4 1011101.1141041710)0 1 4'F- 41 0 4 S. .0 W E as 0) 7 S- S. 0 Z 4444 Z ww x N W W 00) U W (0 (0 U C 5 C0rA a 0 Z W N 1-- W 0 0 0 01 ri W aa r1 f0 fp 114170 47 1 44V 4N 1 . -CO r0 h- 0. 1 .1 h- Temp Check Number 55 Polar Chev Tem C W 01 =5 M1 6 >0 0 51- a Q 0700 0 ul CU CU n U7 Comments Account Code 0 00 0 0 9 0 0 0 re) 1 ro CU ICU0, in I cD M .Y 5_ 0 (0 N CU U7 L0 .Y Y 4 u.) 1.0 U7 5 5 CU 4 OJ ro mem *+ U7rod W 0 C. f0 CU I,' f6 M M S= at O 0 0 0 cu (U U Y til T 0 i N N N N N N N � >, >,' • H H d4 d d •�� d r0 i 44. CC C S- L N N N 3 N 2 (.1 N N rr'I .") @6 0 01 6 6� 5 UHU75 6U75 Ill J h " .Y W0 A A A A A A A A 11 1 1 1 1 U)tD iUf') rod' U7 CU Ill MMM d' 4 6 6 5 6 5 5 .y w 5 .y .y .y 66 Aa AA 1,1 1 NIi7U7 AAA En to . 5 Y rorl roro 4 CD CD CU �' 4 44 4-d 4 4d� H� i .I, I I I III U7 In - .-1 If) N 99 N 99 co 5 A 01 5 5 6 .-+ 6 96 (0 65.Y U7 U7 U7 N u) LO 1`k DI 01 CO m U7 U7 CO 0) lb w5 40 13 in 3 J 1 z Z .0 Y 01 •45_ s• u 0x rt 4 .. 01 ID alF. (0 C L al _c W W CJ o N a U cr or a S. 5 1 cc cc aS. 0 Y Y 01 Z W 0 1-- 0 'O F- IV y 1' N > I a rN U 0,0 ots O 0 N W CC CC -+ ;_ '-4 V x ;_ r r 1 a 4' 1 uD y a 501.0 til Ill 4Fv 0. 117u`i 1 0 .4 S N E 1 t F . 3 i 01 I- Ll 7 LL 1- Z 0 0 Ternp Check Nurnber Check Nurnber 0 5 ,Y tri F- u) 5- `D 0 v v � cD n n sxz .0 z N 32. 0 0 0 3 F7 h h O Z s. Z a a a Z >N> 1.0 `+ tfi .X ro x N N N N N N N a a NNel a $02 s ts_ U 1 s- 522. r. z. zcr W U wL) N S. 0. S. 6 W mai m 0 a t a c 7 000 e 5 a41a .CLL z FW' Z = F . Z 1)1 01 Q£til1 1- Z to to (A L x ry ..Y >>> . WWW O N 0 .0 N0. WWW N u),(0 We 0) ro 01 to0)rn N UI JJJ 5 1 6+> U .Y I -,4a U CU01CU I U3.1.p U roh7M LO I c0 h a F tD 1 (0 u a (D '.D '.D I t0 o tD uD cD 1 '+ F•- 0. N I- Ternp Check Number 0 :s .4 4) 01 i 3 655 re 0 u) �+ it Cc) 4 .4 M u3 Comments Account Cade • 1 . W 1-[D 0h1ID-4 .4lr(0N- M N0) ) 606.44• 4NcOh7u3U)cc; 4 CU 031(r-01(1(14• M.? -4 60.4 .4 ED N m 4 03 4• tD 4 J u7 N 6 M 11) R u] CU N -4 .4 01 01 U 00000000 UI 01 01 v S- M. > >>>>>>>> 5-5.5. S- N N In N U1 N N N N a a a a 5- 7 i 1- k. C 5. ££ C N M r4 3 3 a a 10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 77 N ,.. A3 7777 7 '7''7'7 '7777 0)0)0)tG. h 55 50611)0500 @555 1 h(1(3 .4N4•-41416/h7n CU Inh--4 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CU U7 50 5551(15055 6665 61 P3 (0 0 0101 .4 N4.54.0M if) 1,- Nh71,-4 .4 .4 .461 4. 4• •4 5 6 .4 5 5 6 6 0 0 5-4 .4 11 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ED h7 69 55556669 4.4.4-4 CU 01 CU 6- 61 0 MM .4.4-4.4.4.4.4.4 (1(01.161 0.1 CU CU ED 44 3 4.C.4_ W 44 (' MM NNNNNtUIUN 4.4.4.4 Q d- 4. 4 t 4 4" 4. 4 4 4 4 4 4• -4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NSN m 516 4- s1 In EDm 0) 030 EDin ,-fssl D r 01A@ED 1.0 II) m cu1u3 4.0 00000000 ,o • ccccccc 1 5- 5-5 i A A .p 17 h )-) 1-7 01 01 c c >,>,T Z Ci 2 Z r+'G.a Z N N N Fi w U U N N N X .Y . .0.0 . W QI 01 U '1 .4 U U 0 0 U CO rcr f i- .3 3 .f 0. 1: S. at al 01 2 al 3 al .0o 3 A U A al 4. 4 U 'G 1e N a 0 E is a 01 0. fl C 5. Lr.t t 3 w 3 0 .v4' n 0 Nit)D7 N 2_ 01 01 Ul Z 0- W Z NfA 411 (I .1 ° w w w 6-x m (0 4. t s 1- t' . • - •r1 t- 01 (0 U to -4 v 01 > J _J J >1 01 (7 U) .N 01 r 1 -4i N I I-- .N4 )-4 0 _Y 5. Mh]M 104 0 -7d I (04' 0 h'1 1 1174 0 Nu) I N•N 0.0 W 0(00D I f, q 0)40(0.10 40 1 t0 0 IA la I M 0 r3 0 v s a 1 60 t•- a I -4 I- a t- a I-4 t- 50. 411 t-03 M u. h Z Ten. Tem Tem Ternp Check Number 5. 44 44 44 ▪ m 0 n uuuuuu00 •N • .4 • • •r1 .N C £C 5=5:0=01£0::s1 Z3 3 J 3 J 3 3 c c c c c c 01 y .( P S U I00000000 . 0 •N 4) 4) 4) -P 4, 111141111n1111$111101 a 3 3 3 3 CU 3 3 3 3 011 0)030)03(0(1)0)01 momnn r-• 0�400�LOw1PIa 1Nr Ternp Check Number t0COM 10 U)Nu)0) 4) 91 dl • L7 G O !U VI a 2 • W r7 •y N Gc rnrnent s r 6+ M 0.1 1-7 L7 4) U d :u .0 N N .0 J 3 Y O. O..c y 1. (6 ▪ 03 r 0) d d a 0 Si 0 - C 0 S.. i Nsr -1 .•i U 0 Q) a) 40 U +/ U •r 4) 40 -sr, 4- O.= i 5- O. 1-4E C0. ` a) 4-0 4- Q) 4T.1 1- 0 0. i S-- M S- 4-Q) 4-1-4-)0CN40 iN r 0a)7 CU •r- a)a)O•r a)40\ 4- '0- T)4- CI. 5- Ut4 3 340 a) c .r.1C 4.) W W C c 4/1 le N U ¢ .- Q) J: W C to fi� N - U M i 0 1-9(q(7)'-(3 ¢ J 04 4) a) 4.. "i 4 U a) N Y O O_ U +1 0...,40,404- 04,0=000-...(0 Y O Y U 4- J;) *---_cc c 04,0=Ccc�.O 00_0 CO W.C1/1.4.3 ° c (0 4.) 0)) IOUm >m 40+1 U1-0 N r• •N •a N +) U •r'U N =3.1-1. a) 4--o EC a) r• N a) b .0 3 i 0. 0) N i6 40 40 r• 0 "i 5- O•rr i4-1= •ro) 41) a) 41) i +) +1 +1 +) O0. EE >1E C+1 •r C O C O O 0 i. �0. >l E.,- 9.- C 404-1 E C RY 0_N= E C 0 C 1 .) E. >)N U4 �0. CO)OOO� NU4..)SN=C 'Uix C7=O0U=040.0 u OG to s- > Q) ll 0M N.01OOO u)MOBO.-1 O 1)) (DV'el' 1V 00000 tet C0O - U • 10GOu)eY.-1000101�000NO1))OOOI�10OOOehO01•4'10O e U U •-15 tHNO00nn1)>tnOO.-I1�InNMnT.,WWW101npppp0100O •,yWi1 I ilg M'.N0 uOMMO O 0 M ...WW � W 0 0 Ntu40r11r^' MNet .-lOehct0 ^M N et n1- 0f04'J.-iNu)01W M. P.) � 4' (i) L7 LD .-I s N 1-1 M •�M U1.13 • I.13 Cr) • C M 1 1 1 .1 u) 1. 000)0(') Mctu) 401- 010 11V ar 4)) 401 000)0.-INMc!'4)) NN NNNMM4') 4')MMMM 404040ctctetctctct(4)4)1))4')(4)4') 4'))1)MM4')4')M4+))•)Mn'))•) MMM 4')MMM 4') 4') 4") 41') M0)C)MM l'•- 11-1 .1 '.W -I .1ft - -1-1 1tn4 .moi .-I-1 rl .-1 .moi -1-1 .-4-4 ..1 -4.1 .W-1 .W-1 1 1 r1 .i .'-1 rl .moi ri .-1 •+11 .1 (0 s = _ sewer -bills Account MANUA( 0 En 4'3 s_ s- 0) v .0 A 5 311 z z Ill a! 4- 4- . )• -.i-.-' U u 0) --I ...1 N 01 O .1_ 1- 0. .0 ▪ ,-.4.-4 U 13 2 N N a .A 0 U p- 0 41 N N0 0 2 U N .7 > > 1- 1- .-i . ...1 U N 0 C N 0 0 .) l.) -14- N > a -. W > •' 0 01- .a s= •--1 U Y i 00 m 1 m -p U Ol 1 LT) +1 I N~ a u ID 1D40 1& 0 (01(00 1013 '- • WCE • 0a7 141- 0. 1- IGC B INW S� 1- 1-U2 1- (J :h n .. - CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 30, 1995 _ To: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assis Subject: Request for Footing and Foundation Permit for Screen House Convent of the Visitation DISCUSSION The Monastery of the Visitation is requesting that City Council authorize a footing and foundation permit so that they may begin construction of a screen house on the Monastery portion of their property. The proposed screen house is considered a Conditional Use in the R-1 zone and Visitation will be making an application for a Conditional Use Permit that will appear before the Planning Commission on July 25, 1995 for recommendation to the August 1, 1995 City Council meeting. (Please see attached letter of request, site plans and sketch elevations.) The screen house is a donation to the Monastery of the Visitation as a memorial. The donor family has already made travel plans to be in St. Paul in mid-August and Visitation's contractor has informed them it won't be possible to finish the structure in time for the planned dedication of the memorial. Therefore, they are requesting an early start with a footing and foundation approval. The city has approved footing and foundation permits for developers in the past, pending planning approvals, at their own risk. The structure is proposed to be on the private grounds that are restricted for use by the monastery. The structure would not be visible from any public roads that abut the Visitation property. The existing vegetation also screens the structure from Visitation Drive, as well. A path is proposed so that the screen house will be accessible by wheelchair from the Monastery. The Monastery of the Visitation has notified the Planning Commission by letter of their intent to seek a footing and foundation approval prior to their public hearing, which will be scheduled for July 25, 1995. ACTION REQUIRED Meet with the applicants and consider their request for a footing and foundation approval that would allow an early start on the structure. If the City Council desires to grant the request, they should pass a motion approving a footing and foundation approval, at their own risk, pending an application for a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure. Monastery of the Visitation Mayor Charles Mertensotto 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Mn. 55118 Dear Mayor Mertensotto and Members of the City Council, Attached is a copy of an architects drawing of a proposed screen gazebo we are planning to construct on our Monastery property. In order to accommodate the 22 sisters in our religious community we are in need of a structure that would be 29" by 31". Our architect, Linda Ostberg of The Ostberg Architects, has informed us that the proposed 899 square foot porch exceeds the 144 square foot limit in the building code and we need to obtain a conditional use permit from the City of Mendota Heights. We have begun the process of applying for our conditional use permit and are scheduled to meet with the Planning Commission at their July 25 meeting. However, some personal requests of the donor's family have compelled us to come before you tonight to request a footing and foundation permit which will allow us to begin the construction of our gazebo. The gazebo is being built as a result of a memorial gift given to us by the family of an alumnae of our school. In addition to the gazebo, one of the daughters who lives in New York , is also donating in her mother's memory, a rose garden for the front of the structure. The entire family is planning to travel to St Paul in mid-August in order to have a reunion and participate in the dedication of their mother "Rose" Mary's, memorial gazebo and rose garden. In order to accommodate the families travel arrangements and reunion, we are hoping to expedite our construction plans so that the gazebo and garden are completed by mid-August. Obviously we will be unable to meet this deadline if we delay beginning construction until after the July 25 Planning Commission Meeting and August 1 City Council Meeting. We have every intention of meeting all of the required building codes in the construction of our gazebo. We also wish to honor the donor's family request. Due to the timing of their family reunion in August, we are here to request your prior authorization for a footing and foundation permit so that we may begin our gazebo. We would be happy to meet with any members of the Council individually and/or provide a tour of the site in the monastery yard. The Visitation Community is grateful for the opportunity to appear before the Council and explain our situation.Thank yqu, for your thoughtful consideration of our request. file,Ler0 Gratefully, The Visitation Sisters of Mendota Heights 2455 Visitation Dri • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1677 • (612) 454-6474 1 12%0" -r p so! on Floor FL -4,W LJoIZrH A�/►"If%n Yb"=I'o Q Cr- FIN. F[,00 . 1- o" U12aa0 - L/A7lo nU 11 VIIIMMItner 1&4 4 I'- I_ i i _ 1 < C.5 U O� 1z60Wo0G' :_ . _ . 17P. �.�T._VAT] 01--1 THE OSTBERG ARCHITECTS 612 647 9682 612 647 9635 FAX 475 Cleveland Avenue North Suite 202 St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 NEW SCREEN HOUSE CONVENT OF THE VISITATION Mendota Heights A-1 A rF fi G T1C FretD SOFTBALL Fte�.D PARKIN IENI4P5 M 1/ x SAINT THOMAS ACADEMY FAaxu.ic t'P;72 1t,wc•iztal Vy� CONV . 11 NTGIF THE VISITATION PoNt7 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD SCALE - .••r bNV TATION PROPERTY r crQ- THE OSTBERG ARCHITECTS 612 647 9682 612 647 9635 FAX 475 Cleveland Avenue North Suite 202 St. Paul, Minnesota 55104 NEW SCREEN HOUSE CONVENT OF THE VISITATION Mendota Heights c-1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 30, 1995 To: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assi.ta Subject: Request to Amend Conditional Use Permit and Variances for Garage Planning Case No. 95-08: Lawrence King - 5 Beebe Avenue DISCUSSION On June 6, 1995, City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for a Detached Garage and four variances for Lawrence and Margaret King, of 5 Beebe Avenue. These approvals would allow the King's to expand their garage three feet (3') towards Ashley Lane, which abuts their rear property line, and to raise the roof of the garage for a second story storage area. (Please see attached Resolution No. 95-24.) The Kings are requesting that City Council consider amending the Conditional Use Permit for a Detached Garage because they have discovered that they cannot implement their plans and comply with the building code. The foundation of the garage (built in 1938) is not sufficient to modify the structure, as approved. Any modifications of the structure would result in a condemnation. Becausethe old slab and foundation have to be removed, the Kings are proposing an alternative plan that is not restricted by the existing foundation. The alternative plan would also eliminate two of the four variances that were granted, and would reduce the size of a third variance. (Please see attached letter of request, site plan and sketch elevations.) The Kings are requesting that Council modify the CUP to allow a detached garage of 576 sq. ft. (24' x 24'). The previously approved garage was less than the minimum size of 440 sq. ft. and needed a Size Variance of twenty two (22) sq. ft.. Instead of expanding the garage towards Ashley Lane, as approved, the Kings would like to expand the footprint of the garage into their property, towards their home, from their existing garage location. The following chart outlines the different planning approvals in the amended plan that they are requesting: Approved Version Proposed Amended Plan 1. Front Yard Variance 17' 3" 14' 3" 2. Side Yard Variance 2' 2' 3. Height Variance 2' not required 4. Area Variance 22' not required The garage, in its existing status, is a legal non -conforming structure that is "grandfathered". If demolished to build the garage under the proposed revised plan, a front yard setback variance (14' 3") and a side yard setback variance (2') will be necessary to bring the garage into compliance with the code, if they rebuild in its existing location. (Please see condition #3 in the Resolution of approval.) To fully comply with the code and meet the required thirty foot (30') setback, the Kings would have to dig up most of their rear yard. The proposed garage will still have the second story access from the rear of the garage, however, its height (14') will not require a height variance. Detached garages are subject to a minimum size of 440 sq. ft. and a maximum size of 750 sq. ft. The proposed garage is 576 sq. ft. (24' x 24'), eliminating the need for a size variance. City Council should consider whether they should amend the Conditional Use Permit to allow the revised plans for a detached garage to be approved. Mr. King will be out of town on Thursday evening, however, he will be represented by his builder, Mr. Wally Pischke. ACTION REQUIRED Meet with the applicant's representative. If the Council desires to grant the King's request for an Amended Conditional Use Permit, they should pass a motion approving the revised plans and direct staff to prepare Resolution No. 95-30, A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 95-24 TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE AT 5 BEEBE AVENUE. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 95- z'-( A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED GARAGE AND VARIANCES FOR 5 BEEBE AVENUE WHEREAS, Lawrence and Margaret King, of 5 Beebe Avenue, have made application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Detached Garage, a Side Yard Setback Variance of two feet (2'), a Front Yard Variance of seventeen feet, three inches (17' 3"), a Height Variance of two feet (2'), and an Area Variance of twenty two feet (22') to allow expansion of an existing, legal, non -conforming detached garage; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on May 23, 1995 to consider the application; and WHEREAS, based upon the public record transcribed on May 23, 1995, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission voted 5-2 to recommend to the Mendota Heights City Council that the above described Conditional Use Permit and Variances be approved with the condition that the rain gutters on the south side of the garage direct their water towards Beebe Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the King application on June 6, 1995. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Variances will have no adverse effect on the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the community and the surrounding land and that said expansion of detached garage is not adverse to the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Conditional Use Permit for Detached Garage, a Side Yard Setback Variance of two feet (2'), a Front Yard Variance of seventeen feet, three inches (17' 3"), a Height Variance of two feet (2'), and an Area Variance of twenty two feet (22') be approved to allow expansion of an existing, legal, non -conforming detached garage,' according to the plans submitted in Case File No. 95-08, with the following conditions: 1. That a drainage plan be prepared for approval by City Engineering that shows the rain gutters on the south side of the garage directing their water towards Beebe Avenue; and 2. That the second level of the proposed garage be for storage purposes only and that no living quarters, of any fashion, be allowed; and 3. If the structure is destroyed, said Conditional Use Permit lapses and any replacement structure will be required to meet all applicable city codes and ordinances; and 4. If the above stated conditions are violated in any manner, said Conditional Use Permit is revoked. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of June, 1995. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Bytg Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: thleen M. Swanson, City Clerk Lawrence H. and Margaret R. King 5 Beebe Avenue Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 612 450-7479 June 28, 1995 Dear City Council Members: This letter is a request to amend the Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure approved as Resolution 95-24 on June 5, 1995. That CUP allowed for a front yard setback variance of 17' 3", an accessory structure height variance of 2', a side yard setback variance of 2 feet, and a 22 sq. ft area variance in order to allow expansion of our garage, an existing, legal, non -conforming accessory structure. In the process of applying for a building permit, the city inspector determined that the plan as approved could not meet the building code, and that any modification of the structure would result in a condemnation. We are proposing an altemative plan which better meets the needs of both our property and the surrounding neighborhood. The new plan calls for a structure which is no closer to the property set backs than the existing structure; which does not exceed the height limitation; and which is greater than the minimum area for an accessory structure. We request allowance variances of a side yard setback of 2' and a front yard setback of 15'9", which are the current boundaries of the structure. We encourage any members to visit our property if that will help their determination. Unfortunately, we will be out of town next week and are not able to attend the City Council Meeting. Our builder, Wally Pischke will be glad to appear at that meeting to answer any questions. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, wrence H. and Margaret R. King 51TE ?LAO X14111 Pt 01565 eg Co �s- cis Ka ' " • a.* / Nam., .....•-•••• ..FP:.;eRa-f/so • I / 4" Zoo,- r•-•--. tate.totto v4.410.. Taro., / 11 I / .1 • - • - ; itt srn — — 1 f‘•00••••.?4,•••••-1- 4/"MA-14-44 4 3 • • IIP •••., 0 I ! Ib . T. to:. O. 1. -0' 0S+#.4••' _ . • " _ ft•44-14 • • ....le :r I V\••••ftelk - . - • 4.04.14. • .5to ft E•••,..4.4. 11111011111 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 28, 1995 To: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assi1 Subject: Planning Case No. 95-12: Paster - Conditional Use Permit for Liquor Store DISCUSSION Mr. Ed Paster, owner of the Mendota Plaza, and Mr. Patrick Soen, tenant, appeared at a public hearing before the Planning Commission at their June 27, 1995 meeting to request a Conditional Use Permit for a Liquor Store in the B-4 Zoning District. Mendota Mall Associates are the applicants for the CUP. Mr. Patrick Soen is the prospective proprietor of the proposed liquor store. (Please see attached Planner's Report and Application.) The Planning Commission expressed no concerns over the proposed liquor store, which will be occupying space in an existing mall. The Planner's Report indicated that site improvements may not be needed in an existing mall that has established parking and traffic patterns at the proposed location and the Planning Commission was in agreement. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to close the public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Liquor Store in the B-4 Zoning District for Mendota Mall Associates, as proposed for Mendota Liquor. ACTION REQUIRED Meet with the applicant. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation of the Planning Commission, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 95-_, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MENDOTA LIQUOR. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MENDOTA LIQUOR WHEREAS, Mendota Mall Associates, owners of the Mendota Plaza, have made application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Liquor Store in the B-4 Zoning District, to allow Mr. Patrick Soen, proprietor of Mendota Liquor, to operate a liquor store as a tenant of the Mendota Plaza; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 27, 1995 to consider said application; and WHEREAS, based upon the public record transcribed on June 27, 1995, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend to the Mendota Heights City Council that the above described Conditional Use Permit for Liquor Store be approved; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Conditional Use Permit application on July 6, 1995. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the proposed Conditional Use Permit for Liquor Store will have no adverse effect on the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the community and the surrounding land and that said proposed occupancy is not adverse to the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Conditional Use Permit for Liquor Store be approved to allow Mendota Liquor to occupy the Mendota Plaza, as proposed on the plans submitted in Case File No. 95-12. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of July, 1995. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612-3.39.3.300 PLANNING REPORT DALE: - June 27, 1995 CASE NO: 95-12 APPLICANT: Mendota Mall Associates Ed Paster LOCATION: 750 Highway 110 ACTION REQUESTED: Conditional Use Permit for Liquor Store PREPARED BY: C. John Uban PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Background The application is for a Conditional Use Permit for a liquor store in the existing Mendota Plaza. The Plan was approved and developed under a PUD as a shopping center in the B-4 District. The B-4 District requires a Conditional Use Permit for a liquor store. MGM Liquors previously was located in the Mendota Plaza and received a Conditional Use Permit in 1988 when they opened for business. MGM has been gone for approximately for 1 'A years and the ordinance requires that there be a new Conditional Use Permit after a period of non-use for longer than six (6) months. The Conditional Use Permit for the liquor store that was issued to Mr. Edward Paster is no longer valid and a new Conditional Use Permit application must be approved for the new liquor store owner. Mr. Edward Paster and Mr. Patrick Soen, appeared before the City Council on June 6, 1995 to request a liquor license for the new liquor store in the Mendota Plaza that will be approximately'/2 the size of the old MGM Liquor store. After the first reading for the Liquor License on June 6,Mr. Paster appeared before the June 20th City Council Meeting for the second reading of the Liquor License approval. June 21, 1995 Case 95-12 Page 2 The previous MGM Conditional Use Permit required the Mendota Plaza owner to upgrade the exterior of the shopping center. This has been accomplished, and a new and similar tenant is being included in the shopping center. City Staff will be publishing notice in the Southwest Review for a Public Hearing on June 27, 1995 at the Planning Commission Meeting. Conditional Use Permit Since the major conditions of the past approval for the MGM Liquor Store have been met and the shopping center already has a full compliment of parking, site improvement conditions may not be needed. With the liquor store's generally in the middle of the building, it will not create any circulation or traffic problems. Mr. Patrick Soen, future owner of the liquor store, has agreed to meet with Dakota Alliance for Prevention to discuss alcohol abuse by minors as a condition of his Liquor License approval. Generally with a liquor store, the hours of operation and exterior advertising are the critical issues. Within the shopping center, temporary advertising in windows for specials including flags, banners, and other devices used to attract customers, detract from the overall appearance of the center for other tenants. Store hours should match the general hours of the shopping center and not create a situation where a single store may be open much longer than the rest making the use generally isolated during the late hours. Action Hold public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council for the Conditional Use Permit. - Uti/12/Ua 12:14 FAX 612 452 8940MENDOTA HEIGHTS (j002 .City of Mendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION FAY (Pq co_ f 3 M OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. q5— !_3' Date of Application (o- t &4 Q -- Fee Fee Paid Applicant Name: 4461667� Ail /so c//I& PH:6 1.6 —/1B/ (Last) wino (MD Address: ,U2 7 Owl des (7\/ f iv, S 1~ 6/14//k/h/4/ ‘170/4 - (Number & Street) (City) (State) (rip) Owner Name: Meg 04 /kW/ A- oc f,it S cast) %� Ay: c� ) t) ( Address: 2.227 (%',1 s1 ( i "` 1 < ti,/ 44//4/A,c a7/ +4 (N & Street) (City)[�(State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: 1S?0 M C -&4y /10 Ne466774 i , ,*/4w Legal Description of Property: Ec l,2 /3 J/ 7f Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit ✓ Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval Comprehensive Pian Amendment Applicable Qty Ordinance Number 419 Present Zoning of•Property 8-# Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property : —^ Proposed Use Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Other (attach explanation) Section S.6 C4-9 Shoff/A/6- I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on material are true. e additional (Signature of Applicant) 6//4/9S-- (Date) 4/qs (Date) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights. MN • 55118 452.1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING June 12, 1995 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 9:00 o'clock P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, June 27, 1995, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Mr. Edward Paster, of Paster Enterprises, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a liquor store on the following described property: Lot 2, Block 1, Mendota Plaza More particularly, this property is located in the Mendota Plaza Shopping Center, 750 South Plaza Drive. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Ordinance No. 401.. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the request for a 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 Tess 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. City of .�...A Mendota Heights June 23, 1995 VIA FACSIMILE: 646-1389 Mr. Edward Paster Paster Enterprises 2227 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55114 Dear Mr. Paster: Your application for a Conditional Use Permit will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, June 27, 1995. The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here are City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 City of Mendota Heights June 30, 1995 Mr. Edward Paster Paster Enterprises 2227 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55114 Dear Mr. Paster: Your application for a Conditional Use Permit will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Thursday, July 6, 1995. The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting in order that your application will receive Council consideration . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, jj1,1W-CYI&A3fakiLiCUL Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN - 55118 452.1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 28, 1995 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator FROM: Kathleen M. Swanso<tAA City Clerk SUBJECT: Liquor License Application, Mendota Liquor INFORMATION On June 6, Council conducted a public hearing on an application for an off -sale liquor license for Mendota Liquor. Action on the application should have been scheduled for June 20, but discussion was tabled pending the outcome of a Planning Commission hearing and recommendation on a conditional use permit for the proposed liquor store. The hearing has been conducted and the Commission has recommended approval of the conditional use permit. Police Chief Delmont and I have reviewed the liquor license application, and an investigation has been done on the owner and other parties to the application. The license application is complete and meets liquor ordinance requirements. Mr. Soeun has been very cooperative throughout the application process, and has, at Council's request, arranged to meet with DAP representatives. That meeting is scheduled for next week. RECOMMENDATION Subject to approval of the conditional use permit, Police Chief Delmont and I recommend that Council approve the liquor license application and authorize issuance of an off - sale license. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs in the recommendation, it should authorize the issuance of an off -sale intoxicating liquor license to Mr. Patrick Souen for the Mendota Liquor facility. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 22, 1995 TO: FROM: James E. Daniel Public Works Dir Mayor, City Council and City Administrator SUBJECT: Emerson Avenue Street Vacation DISCUSSION: Mr. Terrance Fenelon, 670 Laura Court, recently attended a meeting with the City Planner to discuss an addition to the rear of his home. Mr. Fenelon's lot is very shallow (approximately 100 feet) and the addition would need a variance to the rear yard setback. Mr. Fenelon's lot is actually a through lot with his rear yard abutting Emerson Avenue at a location where it is unbuilt. Because Emerson Avenue would never be built at this location, staff discussed the option of vacating Emerson Avenue with Mr. Fenelon. This option would avoid him having to obtain a variance. Mr. Fenelon preferred the street vacation option to the variance option, however, he is in a hurry to have his addition completed this summer so he said that he would apply for both the street vacation and the variance. This will cover the option if the street vacation is denied, but would slow down his process until the August Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Emerson Avenue will never be built as a street in this location so I recommend that it be vacated. I do recommend that the City retain a drainage and utility easement over the area. Drainage and utility easements are not uncommon within a back yard and will protect the City should the area ever be needed for those purposes. ACTION REQUIRED: Conduct the required public hearing and then if Council desires to implement the recommendation, pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 95-_, APPROVING VACATION OF A PORTION OF EMERSON AVENUE STREET RIGHT-OF- WAY. JED:dfw City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 95 - APPROVING VACATION OF A PORTION OF EMERSON AVENUE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is the current record owner of right-of- way as described as follows; and The north half of Emerson Avenue abutting Lot 10, Block 3, Ivy Falls 2nd Addition, located in Section 13, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, Dakota County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, a notice of hearing on said vacation has been duly published and posted more than two weeks before the date scheduled for the hearing on said vacation, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vacation on July 6, 1995 at 8:00 o'clock P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, at the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said vacation and all persons were afforded an opportunity to present their views and objections to the granting of said petition. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the vacation of the right-of-way described above, situated in the City of Mendota Heights, is in the best interest of the public and the City, and is not detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. That the above described street vacation be and the same is hereby vacated, reserving from said vacation a permanent drainage and utility easement over and across vacated Emerson Avenue. 3. That the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and present to the proper Dakota County officials a notice of completion of these vacation proceedings, all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of July, 1995. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor June 20, 1995 REQUEST FOR VACATING LAND To Whom It May Concern: I respectfully request the city of Mendota vacate the land directly behind my property at 670 Laura Court. Attached is a schematic of a proposed addition to the rear of my home. As you can see my lot is quite narrow, and the cities set back requirement would not allow this construction without a variance to this set back. The requested land to be vacated is an easement for the continuation of Emerson Avenue. Which homes have been built around and will obviously never be used as a street. There are several elm trees on the property which will need removal in the next few years, which I would agree to care for. as a fair trade to take ownership of this additional land. The increase in the value of my property, due to this increased lot size, will add to your tax base and, as mentioned, will ease some liabilities from cities maintenance staff. A win, win situation! Respectfu submitted, e rance Fenelon Resident Terrance Fenelon 670 Laura Court Lilydale, MN 55118 (612) 457-2518 home (612) 490-1665 work 1 • ‘,-- 2aot - - � � 1�` / co' I - /16",%0 it A r .--. n p I Ai �=- mCity of ...... • Mendota Heights Vacation of Emerson for 670 Laura Court - Fenelon 30' x 200' of North right-of-way of unimproved Emerson 1101 VICTORIA CURVE • MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (612) 452-1850 6-21-95 1 v v rZ O C rio O70 m m P1 i) > -< m m -c0 00 °tet -� _0 -1 C. -i C< 731 Z Z m Z oc �® mx, 2 �1 �r o� c 0 Z 0 c -< m- mn 0o s0 o� 7J� —i m 0= aW `�( Z O`• Or 0 K Z c om D m -< Z u) 0 u) '1 0 C m Z mn Z _ = c0 O K m z m X 0m -I > V) V) _ 0 z m 1 m 1333 0i 0 :I7 CD ip Z rn Z D 2:10 31^1 A8 03A3ANf1S SV ONZ v 0 z THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A 811H 13S330 S310N3O z 1N3WI1NOW S310N30 NOTE: CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY DRIVEWAY NVH1 2J31-10 S1N3043SV3 X O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000-i V) N U) 0 13 13 X > o u) z 0 P1 0 m > m z v m c j pp r- 0 Z m z n 0 al 2 H m P1 Z TOP OF BLOCK ELEVATION: GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION: :NOIIVA313 ZIOOI.J IS3M01 NOTE: PROPOSED GRADES SHOWN PER GRADING PLAN BY: I• • • • 111 • • m 30 I2 m xi N (i) / p i z > E m � v 30 N ^Co 00 >0z �J p -<Z = O � C _ D'\ —I N MCO crtZ7 0 --i v rn v c c /w� o V/ 0T 0 r 0 m # 8 N • as N N v 0 !*m OBD =m IS al. -Pi �t0-. ..i rtN N fD 0 z(D X •• N 03 0 03 J CO 7 c)3 00 015-00 025-00 032-00 J 1—IVY--PALLS- 028-00 0UTL0T A ( 020-17 081-01 040-17 030-17 19 010-19 020-20 O �•���-�� X XXX N �twfa'.i`��:;� �� -,iai��l'�.li� as `�t vq 1 5 3 2 1 9 -Ig 1 1 ` 1 1 1 (4 . 3 . 2 1,01 ‘9t 1.51 I c- --L--I�_ 7 7 11 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 29, 1995 To: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assi Subject: Planning Case No. 95-09: Palmer - Wetlands Permit for Fence DISCUSSION Mrs. LuDelia Palmer, of 675 Ivy Falls Court, appeared at the June 27, 1995 Planning Commission meeting to request a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a fence in her rear yard to within fifty feet (50') of Ivy Falls Creek, a designated City wetlands. The fence is proposed to be a split rail design with three rails and a wire mesh backing that would be forty eight inches (48") in height. (Please see attached Planner's Report and Application.) The Planning Commission had no concerns about the proposed fence, as existing vegetation will not be removed. Mrs. Palmer had received signatures of consent from all her immediate neighbors and the Planning Commission waived the requirement for a public hearing. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission waived the requirement for a public hearing, as all signatures of consent were received. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that City Council approve a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a fence, as proposed, to within fifty feet (50') of Ivy Falls Creek, with the following conditions: 1. That a copy of the survey being prepared on behalf of the Palmer's be submitted to the City, to be filed in Case File No. 95-09; and 2. That the construction of the fence be completed by September 1, 1995. ACTION REQUIRED Meet with the applicant. If the City Council desires to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation they should pass a motion approving a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a fence, as proposed, to within fifty feet (50') of Ivy Falls Creek, with the following conditions: 1. That a copy of the survey being prepared on behalf of the Palmer's be submitted to the City, to be filed in Case File No. 95-09; and 2. That the construction of the fence be completed by September 1, 1995. DAHLGRE 'SHARDLO AID • UBAN CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55-101 612-.339.330(1 PLANNING REPORT DATE: June 27, 1995 CASE NO: 95-09 APPLICANT: Dave and LuDelia Palmer LOCATION: 675 Ivy Falls Court ACTION REQUESTED: Wetlands Permit PREPARED BY: C. John Uban PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Background Mr. and Mrs. Palmer have made application for a wetlands permit in order to install a fence in their rear yard. The proposed fence is within 100 feet of Ivy Falls Creek and requires a wetlands permit. The fence is a 48 inch high split rail with wire mesh backing. The rear yard is within the construction zone for the Ivy Falls Creek restoration project and creek improvements have occurred on this property. Restoration work is scheduled for this summer to complete this project. The Palmer's have submitted signatures of consent from the immediate neighbors that are currently residing in the homes adjacent to their property. The Planning Commission may consider waiving the public hearing. Wetlands Permit The fence forms the perimeter to their manicured yard and no vegetation will be removed for its installation. At the closest point the fence is approximately 50 feet from Ivy Falls Creek, but is located above the slope to the creek itself. The wooded area adjacent to the creek will not be fenced in. The applicant has submitted plans for the fence which are similar to other fences in the neighborhood. June 27, 1995 Case 95-09 Page 2 It is only 48 inches in height and will be landscaped with vines and shrubs to help it blend into the area. The rail frame design with wire mesh on the inside restricts pets to the yard and allows for the free flow of air and does not impair the openness of the neighborhood. The proposed fence with its location and design will not disturb the environment of the area and in fact will help control pets to within the maintainable portion of the yard while keeping the wooded slopes to the creek open and in their natural state. Action Review wetland permit and fence request and make a recommendation to the City Council. 0 x0 z� 8 rn Ei 0 W-1 F W Et scz 00 1 Z Lo r1.1 cm rx, 6 0 H 0 0 DAVE & LUDELIA PALMER 675 IVY FALLS COURT MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (612) 457-4755 5 June 1995 SUBJECT: Letter of intent TO: City Planning Commission Mendota Heights, Minnesota 1. This letter is submitted pursuant to our request for a "wetlands permit" to fence in a portion of our property at 675 Ivy Falls Court, Mendota Heights. A small creek runs along the rear of the property. Because parts of the fence would be within 100 feet of the edge of that creek, the provisions of City Ordinance no. 402 apparently apply. 2. Our property is a city lot with a single-family dwelling. Our intent is to fence in a portion of the back yard in order to keep our two pet dogs from straying. 3. The area to be enclosed is not in any way a wet lands area; it is high and dry, being at the top of a cliff rising about 20 feet above the bed of the creek. The fence will in no way disturb the natural environment. It will not affect drainage, nor will any of the existing earth be moved or disturbed (except, of course, in placing the 4" by 4" posts into the ground), nor will any vegetation be removed or disturbed. On that last point, in fact, we intend after the construction of the fence to add landscaping, putting in plants which will actually increase the resistance of the area to erosion and will increase the esthetic beauty of the area. 4. The fence will be a split -rail type, made of natural wood. It will have three rails with welded galvanized wire along the inside, and will be four feet high. Posts will be placed about eight feet apart, and there will be two gates. It will match several similar type fences previously installed in the neighborhood. In esthetic terms, it will improve the overall appearance of the area. The Home Owners' Association has approved our plan, and has been strongly supportive of us in our efforts to get it approved by the City. 6. We have had two coordination meetings with City engineering and planning officials. Enclosed with this letter are all of the items we were told by them to submit. If any more information is needed, please contact us. LuDelia C. Palmer Dave R. Palmer City of ..... A Mendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Applicant Name: �Q/,n-t-- (Last) Address: 6 7 5 /17 (Number & Street) Owner Name: Paime Del (Last) Case No. `hS ()`i Date of Application Co -5-9.5- Fee S—isFee Paid )-.15.C.)0 g PH: 1-S7 7 -- - 7c3 (Mn adert4 hits /1X sY7/ & (City) (State) (Zip) 4- 44 D-el,tc,_ (F ) (MD Address: C 7J !U y 1 tl S CT k%,etiaPo ra (Number & Street) (City) Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description of Property: /I'V 5 -s -/I e (State) (Zip) C 7S` 4 y - its Cm4e.r-r AeneQm- -'t 142 e qSirs 4(4' 601 l3hk Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zoning of Property Present Use Variance Subdivision Approval )( Wetlands Permit Other (attach explanation) Section 6 l(1 1 -6m; fly d4,e411 ((((JjJJ Proposed Zoning of Property ; Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on ; additional material are true. (Sr of Applicant) 4 T -<-- L 7?J' ;;4 ate/ (Date) a! &f, Q , eceived by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, 1ViN • 55118 452.1850 Ivy Falls Home owners' Association 1200 Falls View Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 May 19, 1995 Mr. & Mrs. Palmer 675 Ivy Falls Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Palmer, The Architecture Committee has reconsidered your plan to install a split rail fence covered with a wire grid, to be located in your back yard, lot 4, block 1, Ivy Falls Second Addition. The Committee understands that you will follow the City of Mendota Heights requirements relative to location within property boundaries and with respect to the creek, as well as any other requirements the City may impose. The Home Owners' Association Architecture Committee believes your proposed fence plan is consistent with Association requirements and hereby approves your plan to install the fence. For the Committee, �.� ago Patricia Davies, Secretary cc: J. Brassard C. Bute Dr. J. Jaffe J. Alton City of Mendota Heights SIGNATURES OF CONSENT FOR VARIANCE REOUEST TO: The Planning Commission, City of Mendota Heights FROM: Property Owners of RE: 4.6 ip75 -i-v7 cols c - Pe f is r reo c.a.. .61 - 3. r-tx.t 1S 4 -(is" h ti k We the undersigned have reviewed the plans for -abw�e.e^ : and understand the terms and conditions of the requested variance for We have no objections to this request and do hereby give our written consent and consent to waiver of public hearing. Sincerely, NAME (Please Print) laatC.MAekiNtJ SIGNATURE v ADDRESS (INCL. LOT) Cir 2 ur F1 u..s COt tT 00),A O5rr. (c,g J N4 i1 tti(d /h5/ 7�'c 663 NW Pag, DA talo itipte YUK DR . 44 7/u. Amis { /45 6-,i1 .s6/m, � be/1, m4prnees 6-G14 vv 4,4,1y /99re /i.mmaa- at <- gall VV /4°0- irc J a~!L- /749c- 57`�r , l�U� d�scu.5s 2 D- -euce .�- art' by 7--e1eloier-c,) 04.,,E / IS� Iv 6AS .e6. --rich- c cPJW ers a i10 y) et--L7lEtre taa/o, ms -c 4 72c4<-4.. i?'?5� 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 /Va7'-J1»2 Sketch) Fen ce__ 6 %6 /v, /'//s ce-t- /11e4e o7-411e/Fees • Psis aka 4 ) yet Aid ° Rails aktpu7L 6 le:e - /ej (Can vcu to marc/ -the Z1ace. 'the ThIc e_ mast 4804,) o Rails p 'sr.s arc oki hQ tuvrii 4-1,06)4. m Srn4111 ffuad,e ga /vc hfrO Gail -e, cyn ihy-et-4w' sick o iJhGtds aad 17/(nes w'7/ i e_. Planted 4'" - Ie )'&1ce_ fin 07 , e fence I'S des, qN GOn the 7f er5 yet z'v .Beeps 0i`57`4,5 meet%- l� f�r�t7`c es 6ereraio Sita l (2k- - i 'h -e. di e0A.60r �vm�, U City of Mendota Heights June 22, 1995 Mr. and Mrs. Dave Palmer 675 Ivy Falls Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Palmer: Your application for a Wetlands Permit will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, June 27, 1995. The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here are City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, VV"-)�-ri� Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB: kkb Enclosures I L-Qb 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 nimmilliajA AA AAAA City of Mendota Heights June 30, 1995 Mrs. LuDelia Palmer 675 Ivy Falls Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mrs. Palmer: Your application for a Wetlands Permit will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Thursday, July 6, 1995. The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting in order that your application will receive Council consideration . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, _ ale.wc.N./Bck+chscavfoce) Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 r _ 6°- 1 Da ye_ +- L6, Pohrler- ,67.5- ivy Fci, c 0-, IVY F-74L.L..S 2A.1 /xle, j -c -r /1-76 45 7—'1 755- CITY OF MENDOTA H H;IGHTS MEMO June 29, 1995 To: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assis---) Subject: Planning Case No. 95-10: Mendota Heights Par 3 - Sign Size and Setback Variance DISCUSSION Mr. Mike Cashill and Mr. Alan Spaulding, owners of the Mendota Heights Par 3, appeared at a public hearing before the June 27, 1995 Planning Commission meeting to request a Sign Size Variance and a Sign Setback Variance. This request is to allow a forty eight (48) sq. ft. business sign for the golf course to be placed within three feet (3') of the property line along Dodd Road. The proposed sign has been erected at the same location as the old sign for the golf course that was used by the previous owners and this application for Variances would allow it to remain. In the R-1 district, twelve (12) sq. ft. is the maximum sign size and a ten foot (10') setback is required. (Please see attached Planner's Report and Application.) The Planning Commission discussed practical difficulty, and hardship with the applicants. The Commission felt that a business, which is a conditional use in the R-1, had a need for visible signs and that the actual total sign space had been reduced because a second sign, located to the north, had been removed. One member of the public attended the hearing. Mr. Jim Gryc, the neighbor to the north on Dodd Road, stated that the new sign was an improvement and he was happy that the second sign, near his property, had been removed. RECOMMI✓NDATION The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to close the public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that the City Council approve a thirty six (36) sq. ft. Sign Size Variance and a seven foot (7') Sign Setback Variance to allow the proposed sign, as per the site plan in Case File No. 95-10, with the condition that twenty five (25) sq. ft. of landscaping be installed around the sign and that the two sign poles be removed. ACTION REQUIRED Meet with the applicants. If the City Council desires to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation, they should pass a motion approving a thirty six (36) sq. ft. Sign Size Variance and a seven foot (7') Sign Setback Variance to allow the proposed sign, as per the site plan in Case File No. 95-10, with the condition that twenty five (25) sq. ft. of landscaping be installed around the sign and that the two sign poles be removed. PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT: I N (: (1I: I'(11Z.\ 1'1 11 CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612.339.3300 June 27, 1995 95-10 Michael Cashil, Owner Mendota Heights Par Three Golf Course LOCATION: 1695 Dodd Road ACTION REQUESTED: Sign size and setback variance PREPARED BY: C. John Uban PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Background The Mendota Heights Par Three Golf Course was recently purchased by Mr. Cashil, who has been making extensive improvements to the facility. The Par Three Course is approximately 18 acres in size with about 400 feet of frontage along Dodd Road. The facility, with its associated signs, has been in place for at least 33 years and the proponent has replaced an existing name plate sign in front of the facility. Since the golf course is a Conditional Use within R-1 District, the R-1 Sign Ordinance generally applies. The variance sought to allow the replacement of the existing sign since the old one had become dilapidated and unsightly. The golf course is a low intensity Commercial Recreational use that has been part of this neighborhood for quite some time. It's ability to operate depends to some degree on signage. What is reasonable in this neighborhood is set in precedence in part by the preexisting condition. Our understanding is that the sign has been placed in the exact location of the previous sign and has been enlarged by 1 foot in either dimension without raising its height. City staffmailed notice to property owners within 100 feet of the subject property for public hearing to consider the requested variances. The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. June 27, 1995 Case 95-10 Page 2 Sign Variances The sign as proposed needs a variance for size and for setback. The ordinance allows one name plate sign for a Conditional Use permitted other than residential such that the sign does not exceed 12 square feet in area per surface. The preexisting sign had 35 square feet per surface and the proposed new sign has 48 square feet per surface,, The applicant constructed a larger sign prion to conferring with the City as to conditions that may apply to this particular sign. To a certain extend, the City can view the previous sign as being legal non -conforming which could have been maintained over time at its location and size. With the increase in size, (which has already been installed), a size variance is necessary for the sign to remain. The golf course facility uses just this one sign for advertising purposes to identify its name along Dodd Road. The applicant has suggested at meetings with staff that there will be additional landscaping placed around the sign. Landscape plans were not included in the application. The ordinance allowing 12 square feet is viewed generally for uses that would take place on lots of similar size to single family lots within a residential neighborhood. The golf course could easily be developed into at least 18 single family lots each with some sort of allowed signage whose aggregate could far exceed the sign size that is applied for. In order to identify business along a major road, a sign larger than 12 sq. ft. would be necessary. The additional size appears only to be warranted by the fact that the, sign has already been constructed and installed and would be of some expense to rebuild the sign to its previous size. This sign also requires a set back variance from Dodd Road. Required setback is 10 ft. and the requested setback is 3 ft. According to the sketch, if the sign were moved further from Dodd Road, it would be behind the parking area and screened from view. This would require raising the sign above the parking lot which would then exceed the 10 ft. height allowed in the residential district. The sign was actually mounted on the existing poles. To meet the required setback the sign would have to be moved away from the clubhouse area for visibility. The sign appears not to create any public safety issue, but would be impacted if it became necessary to enlarge Dodd Road. The requested variances appear to be based on the hardship of maintaining an existing condition that already has been improved. With some expense, the sign could be rebuilt in a new location, but with less effective placement in relationship to the clubhouse. I believe it is better to keep the sign close to the clubhouse parldng in order to minimize the sense of expansion of the commercial impact along Dodd Road. No lighting plan was submitted, but the applicant has indicated while meeting with City staff that no lights will be used for the sign. The conditions of no lighting and increased landscaping of the area around the sign could be mitigating conditions to the requested variances. June 27, 1995 Case 95-10 Action Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. Page 3 z 0) 111 00 SD H y N O O CO tij 01 I z Id Oo 1-3 z y --> 111 ti 3 4 p A R T H R E F C C OURS C H Letter of Intent Dear Council Members: As an owner of the Mendota Heights Par Three, located in the R1 -Single Family Zoning District, we would like to have a size variance to have a larger sign on the golf course. Currently, we have conditional use in the R-1 Zone, but our specific hardship is that we need a larger sign than is permitted in a single family residence zone. When we first bought the business, we wanted to insure that the sign met all city requirements. We needed to replace the former sign as it was constructed of 33 year old plywood which was rotting. This improvement was for both practical and aesthetic reasons and involves only minor changes in the actual appearance of the sign. As the former sign was in such desperate need of improvement, we believe that the new sign should have been 'grandfathered in' as it is so similar to the old sign which stood in that location for 33 years. The only minor change was in height and was five feet by seven feet and the new eight feet. The new width; the old sign sign is six feet by old sign as ground. The old sign was falling apart, but we were able to use the existing poles of sign is no higher than the we extended the sign closer to the 1695 Dodd RoAd • MENdoTA HEIgNTS • MN • 55118 • (612)454.9822 M D r 3 Q A R THRE E COURS EIG H the old sign. The new sign looks professional and does not interfere with any vehicle site lines. We encourage the City Council members and the Planning Committee to visit the site at their earliest convenience. I would be happy to meet with them at any time. Please call me at 225-8227. Sincerely, Mike Cashill Managing Partner Mendota Heights Par Three 1695 Dodd Road EN HEi' TS- MN •X511 {612)454.98; City of !22J Mendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. q b-ic) Date of Application (o—t-o- 95 Applicant Name: e2",--1.4// .GIS/ 2-,""c,�-5- S- �� `- PH: (Last) (First) (MI) Address: 64' G:1-,ct,4 _e.. S/ Pa,/ /�/j/ ,57.5_ (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: e.i,S ", ,A-1-' % e Fee Paid OD • CO qr." CAt. H g5 - (Last) Address: /1/Y'-) (Number & Street) (Fust) (MI) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question:fid; l�'$T 274" Legal Description of Property: .S/�e 7�4 Type of Request: Rezoning ✓ Variance Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit Plan Approval Other (attach explanation) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number � / Section Present Zoning ofPmperty ' / Present Use ��� C�Otirs.e Proposed Zoning of Property : / Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. (Signature of Applicant) (Date) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 M floc. .i• 11 Ira. 1 t'.r.Ill. uk■1{6761 tr.n.r �. •.eii. Co. ...Iw�twn w 1 •.lnor.Ala• fG.11.r —, , No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( )filed ( )not required , 19_ County Auditor Ily Deputy (reserved for mortgage registry tax payment data) (reserved for recording data) MORTGAGE REGISTRY TAX DUE HEREON: -0- Date: January 1fl1L COMBINATION '!'PIIS CONTRACT FOR DEED is :nude on the above date by AND SECURITY AGREEMENT ("Contract") Par 3 Golf, Inc. Seller, and corporation 'tnder the laws of Minnesota - Cashill-Spaulding Pron rties nc. a M nae of or t Seller and Purchaser agree to the 1. PROPERTY llESCRIPTION. Seller akote , Purchaser (whether one or more). following terms: hereby sells, and Purchaser hereby buys, real property in County, •Minnesota, described as folluwe: Lot'Forty-Two (42) of Auditor's Subdivision No. 3, Mendota, according to the plat thereof now on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds within and for said County and State. together with all hereditaments and apply tcnances belonging thereto (the P 2. TITLE. Serer warrants that tilts to the Property is, on the date o roperty), f this contract, subject only to the following exceptions: (a) Covenants, conditions, restrictions, declarations and easements of.rec (b) Reservations of minerals or mineral rights by the State of Minnesota (c) Building, zoning and subdivision laws and regulations; record, if any; (d) The lien � if any; of real estate taxes and installments of special assessments which are payable by1 orritil.:pr 1•11r';,i .,.t l.. •i.....i... •...f r • f ti i i. . f 7C1 Int .-1 ci0Tc-7C7_77'tl !ter •nn .-rrr an, rrr w;(`( Gv/d L e trs_ -Ther: haS bcc� s : Or", &/oca7L. a., for zzhc. /asZ 3 3 y cae--s, (EA(1Th ft///fJS Pm 3 P16r DR1314711(0 -2)00/0/ U/ paorms — s,sei reel - 3 Pc ay 6c,a/e vcp,-71-----------3:----- I 4 iffr- CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING June 14, 1995 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 9:15 o'clock P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, June 27, 1995, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Mr. Michael Cashill, owner of the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course, for a sign size variance and sign setback variance on the following described property: Lot Forty -Two (42) of Auditor's Subdivision No. 3, Mendota, according to the plat thereof now on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds within and for said County and State. More particularly, this property is located at 1695 Dodd Road. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Ordinance No. 401. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the request for a Sign Size Variance and Sign Setback Variance 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. AAA A AA City of Mendota Heights June 22, 1995 VIA FACSIMILE: 292-9188 Mr. Michael Cashill 616 Lincoln Avenue St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Mr. Cashill: Your application for a sign size variance and sign setback variance will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, June 27, 1995. The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here are City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, lif<AXA350&-CY-eiCtitr I ib?N.3 Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 amiljAA AAAA City of Mendota Heights June 30, 1995 Mr. Michael Cashill 616 Lincoln Avenue St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Mr. Cashill: Your application for a Sign Size Variance and Sign Setback Variance will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Thursday, July 6, 1995. The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting in order that your application will receive Council consideration If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, eli30jUM Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452-1850 0 0 -cl *--C) rn CZ Fn . — 11 <1" r-1 p1 NJ r— o 6 o cr) 3 6 VIDSV.J 9x I. p10 5; 3QIM .0-.91 c) r*i 5C --)Z Irv_ -<0 Z7 1-T1 Om0TI D�n cnK 71 r -i X ZO 'lD UN DC 0 0D r- 00 CZ -z ---1 Z7 0 Z 0 (r)m D 1 0 m O cnZ WRil 3>1V i 9x l N} BLOCK DOWN FOR OPTIONAL DOOR n THIS BREAK LINE RELATES TO THE LOCATION OF THE BREAK LINE FOR ALL PLAN OPTIONS OPTIONAL LIGHT FIXTURE THIS AREA SHOWS SLAB CONSTRUCTION 2 1Q 2'-0" 3 -5.1/2" 7.1/2" 1 OPTIONAL ELECTRICAL OUTLET - N W 0- O T- 1" RECESSED \ RAIN LEDGE 9'-1" _40-8" TYP. G i O -12" TYP. 7.1 /2' - 2'-0"_ l2 3'-5.1/2" 1 6'-O" FOUNDATION PLAN DEPTH OPTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" VIDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS ONE SIVE DOOR m/ /(//epar/2)17;1%,_7„p.4,,,' 4,Fait/1111/ but said lot of record shall not be more intensively developed unless combined with one (1) or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this Ordinance. 4.4(2) Except in the case of Planned Unit Developments and apartment estates as provided for hereinafter, not more than one principal building shall be located on a zoning lot 4.4(3) On a through lot, both street lines shall be front lot lines for applying the yard and parking regulations of this Ordinance 4.5 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 4.5(1) No accessory building or structure, including parking area, shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. 4.5(2) 1 4.5(3) In all "R" Districts. accessory buildings other than detached. private garages shall not 1 exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet. Detached. private garages shall be subject to the size and permit requirements described in Section 7.2(10). Accessory buildings other than detached. private garages shall be subject to the size and permit requirements described in Section 7.3(10).1 4.5(4) No detached garage or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal building on that lot. All accessory buildings greater than 144 square feet on through lots located in "R" Districts shall require a conditional use permit. No cellar, no basement, no tent, no tent trailer, or accessory building shall at any time be used as an occupied dwelling primarily for human habitation. No accessory building or structure shall be erected, altered, or moved within five (5) feet of the principal building. In all "R" districts, the floor of a garage shall be at least one and one-half (1 1/2) feet above the street grade at the curb unless a deviation is granted by the Public Works Director upon determination that a lower elevation is appropriate. No accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building. However in no case shall such accessory building exceed fifteen (15) feet in height, in the "R" Districts. 1 11 , 11 4.5(5) 1 4.5(6) 1 4.5(7) 1 4.5(8) t Amended by Ordinance No. 301, February 21, 1995 1 (401) 19 1 1 SECTION 7. "R-1" ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 7.1 PERMITTED USES Within any "R-1", One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used except for one (1) or more of the following uses: 7.1(1) One family detached dwellings. 7.1(2) Public parks and playgrounds. 7.1(3) Public and parochial schools provided no building shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" Use District and that a fence be erected fifteen (15) feet or more from all street lot lines where the abutting use is for open play. 7.1(4) Municipal buildings and structures provided that no such building or structure shall be located less than fifty (50) feet from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" use district. 7.1(5) Those uses as permitted and regulated in Section 4 of this Ordinance. 7.2 CONDITIONAL USES Within any "R-1 ", One Family Use District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. 7.2(1) Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimming pools serving more than one (1) family. The principal structure for any of the above list@d uses shall be 100 feet or more from any abutting lot in an "R" District, and accessory structure shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet from any lot line. 7.2(2) Operation of through trains, but not switching, storage or any other railroad operation. 7.2(3) Essential service structures, including but not limited to, buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells and pumping stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power sub -stations, provided no such building shall be located within fifty (50) feet from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structure is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare. 7.2(4) Hospitals for human care, sanitariums, rest homes and nursing homes, provided that all structures except fences shall be located one hundred (100) feet or more from the lot line of any abutting lot in an "R" District. (401)47 7.2(5) Off-street parking when the proposed site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in the "B" or "I" Districts and subject to those conditions set forth in Section 21 and such other conditions as found necessary by the Council to carry out the intent of this Ordinance. 7.2(6) Churches including those related structures located on the same site which are an integral part of the church proper, convent or homes for persons related to a religious function on the same site provided no more than ten (10) persons shall reside on the site and no building shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. 7.2(7) (111) cguare f et i area. Accessory structures (except those regulated by other specific provisions of this ordinance or by other ordinances, e.g. signs, swimming pools, etc.) in excess of the limits prescribed in 7.3(10)1 7.2(8) Private nursery and/or day care schools provided: (a) that the principal structure shall be located at least fifty (50) feet from any adjacent lot in an "R" District; (b) that the minimum lot size shall be at least one (1) acre; and (c) that said nursery and/or day care school is registered with the State of Minnesota and meets the standards for said schools specified by the State of Minnesota. 7.2(9) Cemeteries and/or cemetery structures, provided that no buildings shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any abutting property line. 7.2(10) Detached. private garages with a minimum floor area of four hundred forty (440) square feet and a maximum floor area of seven hundred fifty (750) square feet. Only one private garage. either attached or detached. is allowed for each principal residential Structure 2 7.3 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES 7.3(1) Within the "R-1", One Family Residential District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses. parking space. One private garage. attached. or part of the principal structure, and parking space?. ' Amended by Ordinance No.289, April 20, 1993 2 Amending language added by Ordinance No.301, February 21, 1995 3 Amending language Ordinance No. 301, February 21, 1995 (401) 48 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 i 1 7.3(2) Private swimming pool, as regulated by provisions of this and any other City ordinances, and tennis courts. 7.3(3) Home occupation as regulated by this Ordinance. 7.3(4) Signs as tegulated in this Ordinance. - 7.3(5) Buildings temporarily located for purposes of constructing on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary for such constructing. 7.3(6) Gardening and other horticultural uses where no sale of products is conducted on the premises. 7.3(7) Fences as regulated in this Ordinance. 7.3(8) Decorative landscape features. 7.3(9) The keeping of pleasure animals for non-commercial purposes including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises, provided that any accessory building used for housing such animals shall be located not less than one hundred (100) feet from the nearest residence. 7.3(10) 7.3(10) Accessory structures as follows: . Al a. Not more than one hundred forty-four (144) square feet if the area of the property on which such structure is to be located is four (4) acres or )ess: b . Not more than four hundred twenty-five (425) square feet if the area of the property on which such structures are to be located is more than four (4) acres, provided that no single structure shall exceed two hundred twenty-five (225) square feet and no more than three (3) accessory structures may be erected. In computing the area of the property on which an accessory structure is to be located, any part which is a lake or a wetland, as defined in any city ordinance or by state or federal law, any part which is subject to an easement for a street. alley or private roadway. and any part which is in the critical area and below the bluff line. as defined in Ordinance No. 403 (the Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance) shall be excluded. 1 In the event that any property upon which an accessory structure or structures have been erected shall later be subdivided, then the number and size of accessory structures on the Subdivided property shall conform to the requirements of this ordinance and those which do not conform shall be relocated. removed or reconstructed so that they do conform. Amending Ordinance No. 289, April 20, 1993 (401) 49 7.4 LOT AREA, HEIGHT, LOT WIDTH AND YARD REOUIREMENTS 7.4(1) No structure or building shall exceed two (2) stories or twenty-five (25) feet in height, whichever is lesser in height, except as provided in Section 20 of this Ordinance. 7.4(2) _ A side yard abutting a street shall not be less than thirty (30) feet in width. 7.4(3) The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to the additional requirements, exceptions and modifications as set forth in this Section and Section 23. Height 1&2 stories Lot Lot Front Area Width Yad 15,000 100 feet 30 feet square feet Side Yard 10 feet on each side or 1/2 of the height of the structure contiguous to the side - yard, whichever is greater, to a maximum of 15 feet . i 7.5 Minimum requirements as specified in Section 4.18. (401)50 Rear lad 30 ft. or 20% of the average lot depth whichever is greater CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 29, 1995 To: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assis Subject: Planning Case No. 95-11: McNamara - Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure and Front Yard Setback Variance DISCUSSION Mr. and Mrs. McNamara, of 2371 Swan Drive, appeared at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on June 27, 1995 to request a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Structure and a Front Yard Setback Variance. The McNamara's desire to build a storage shed of 384 sq. ft. (16' x 24') in their rear yard to replace two old, existing sheds in the same location. Because this is a corner lot, their yard abutting Lake Drive is considered a front yard, which requires a thirty foot (30') setback. The McNamara's desire a setback variance of fifteen feet (15') to allow the storage shed to be built fifteen feet (15') from the property line. (Please see attached Planner's Report and Application.) At the Planning Commission meeting, members of the Commission expressed reservations about potential automobile storage and the proposed garage door. The Commission felt that this structure looked too much like a garage and requested that the architecture be redesigned to more closely match the existing home, in particular, the roof pitch and roof line, the overhang, the exterior materials and the colors. Mr. McNamara has agreed to bring revised sketch elevations to the City Council meeting on Thursday evening. The Planning Commission also desired that the shed be placed at eighteen feet (18') from the property line to help protect and preserve the existing pine trees. There were no neighbors present at the public hearing to voice opposition or support of this proposal. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to close the public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure and a Front Yard Setback Variance of twelve feet (12') to allow construction of a 384 sq. ft. storage shed, as proposed, and to be located eighteen feet (18') from the property line with the following condition: 1. That the architectural design of the shed be revised to match the existing structure and that revised sketch elevations be submitted to City Council for approval. ACTION REQUIRED Meet with the applicants. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation of the Planning Commission, they should pass a motion to approve Resolution No. 95-, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 2371 SWAN DRIVE. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 2371 SWAN DRIVE WHEREAS, Tom and Sally McNamara, of 2371 Swan Drive, have made application for a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure and a Front Yard Setback Variance to allow construction of a 384 sq. ft. storage shed, proposed to be located fifteen feet (15') from the property line abutting Lake Drive; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 27, 1995 to consider said application; and WHEREAS, based upon the public record transcribed on June 27, 1995, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend to the Mendota Heights City Council that the above described Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure and a Front Yard Setback of twelve feet (12') be approved, with the following condition: 1. That the architectural design of the shed be revised to match the existing structure and that revised sketch elevations be submitted to City Council for approval. WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Conditional Use Permit and Front Yard Setback Variance application on July 6, 1995. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the proposed Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure and Front Yard Setback Variance will have no adverse effect on the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the community and the surrounding land and that said proposed storage shed is not adverse to the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure and a Front Yard Setback Variance of twelve feet (12') be approved to allow construction of a 384 sq. ft. storage shed, as revised, to be located eighteen feet (18') from the southerly property line, as revised for the July 6, 1995 City Council meeting, on file in Case File No. 95-11. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of July, 1995. ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN .. 401 612.339.3300 PLANNING REPORT DATE: June 27, 1995 CASE NO: 95-11 APPLICANT: Thomas and Sally McNamara LOCATION: 2371 Swan Drive ACTION REQUESTED: Conditional Use Permit and Setback Variance for Accessory Structure PREPARED BY: C. John Uban PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Background Mr. and Mrs. McNamara have submitted a planning application to construct an accessory storage structure on their property, which is a corner lot on Lake Drive and Swan Drive. There is an existing 7' by 9' shed with a 6' x 6' adjoining shed that they would like to replace with a 16' by 24' shed for storage of yard and recreational equipment. This proposed change increases the storage area from 99 square feet to 384 square feet. Because the proposed structure is larger than 144 square feet and the lot is not over 4 acres, a Conditional Use Permit is required for the requested accessory structure. A Setback Variance is also required to locate the accessory structure approximately 15 feet from Lake Drive instead of the required 30 feet. The McNamaras have chosen to locate the structure in the same place as the preexisting sheds because they feel it will be hidden by the existing trees along Lake Drive and also allows them to maintain the view from the rear of their home to Rogers Lake. The structure is over 100 feet away fro the lake and a Wetland Permit is not necessary. City staff has published and mailed notice to adjacent property owners. The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Conditional Use Permit and Setback Variance. June 22, 1995 Case Page 2 Accessory Structure CUP The applicants have stated their need for additional storage and that they believe the most reasonable method is to build a storage shed to protect equipment and furniture that is now stored outside. Their yard is about three times the size of a normal city yard which allows some flexibility for the location of the structure on the site. Their home is oriented toward Rogers Lake with an open backyard. The edges of the yard have been screened along Lake Drive by large pines which provide privacy and have hidden previous structures located along the Lake Drive right-of-way. They have explored enlarging the home in order to accommodate additional garage space but have found it problematic. Originally the McNamaras approached City staff with the desire to build a 20' by 30' structure, but have downsized their request to the minimum needed for their lawn equipment and other storage requirements. The submitted plans indicate a fairly plain looking garage type structure and it is unclear whether or not the material, color, and design match the existing home. Further detail is necessary along with the construction techniques to preserve the screening of trees. Because the proposed structure has a garage -like appearance to it, I would suggest changing from an overhead door to a double hung barn -type door without any paved apron for the door opening. Because the location is adjacent to Lake Drive, there should not be any miss use by a future owner using this facility as an additional garage. The proposed placement of the structure is such that it maintains the trees in the yard as shown on the applicant's Site Sketch. It appears to be well hidden by existing trees and they have indicated additional landscaping will be placed next to the structure and to the north to help screen the view from their adjacent neighbor. In order for the structure to blend with existing evergreens, I suggest the building be painted to blend with the color of the evergreens. Based on extensive screening, redesign of the structure to have less of a garage appearance, and no exterior apron or drive way, the structure should have minimal impact on the adjacent neighbors and will not diminish others enjoyment of the area or views of the lake. Setback Variance The proposed shed is to be located 15 feet from the ROW of Lake Drive. This is in the same position as the previous structures where the applicants hope to minimize impacts on adjacent trees and not place the structure directly behind their home thus reducing their views of the lake from their screened in porch area. The required 30 foot setback would have some impact on their enjoyment of the yard, views of the lake, and adjustment to existing trees in the yard. Maintaining the existing large pine trees becomes imperative as a condition to screening the structure only 15 feet from the ROW. Lake Drive creates about a 400 foot frontage along the south side of the property which reduces the usable side yard condition significantly for this property. This lot configuration with excessive street frontage can be viewed as a hard ship for placement of an accessory structure. I would recommend the setback to be 18 feet instead of 15 feet so that the construction of the larger structure will not damage the roots of the pine trees. June 22, 1995 Case Action Review applicants request and make a recommendation tot he City Council. Considerations Page 3 1. Further structure details on doors, architectural design, compatibility with the house, color, and a door apron. 2. Preservation of during construction of existing trees and additional landscaping. 3. No drive way connection to Lake Drive. 4. Setback of 18 feet to help protect tree roots. alw a� 131 0 zg U Date: June 6, 1995 To: City of Mendota. Heights Subject: Request for Variance Request for Conditional Use Permit From: Thomas & Sally McNamara 2371 Swan Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 456-5779 Address of Residence: 2371 Swan Drive, Maidota Heights - the caner lake lot at Swan & Lake Statement of Repose: There is a need for storage of yard care and roe+eational equipment which exceeds the homes' existing standard two car garage . These items are currently stored in misoellanous locations around the yard which is unsightly, unsafe and detrimental to the long term life of the items. We are reeling a permit to construct a 16' X 24' storage building on the site of two existing storage sheds. Statement of Intent: Currently there are two continguous decripid sheds toward the south edge of the yard about 100 foot wast of the home. Our intent is to remove those sheds and replace them with one larger sttusture in the same location. For the following listed reasons we feet that a single garage type structure ads, sire 16' X 24' in the same location is the best solution for our storage needs. We have boon struggling with this problem in the nino yens we have owned the property and feel that this is the best solution to balance our needs and the needs of the neighboring Location choice: Removal of these sheds will reveal the backs of evergreens with unsightly lower suctions on the Hath sides duo to growing up beside the existing sheds. Placing dere now structure in the same location covers the backs of these evergreens again and reuses them as a screen for the building from the street. Any other location on the lot either blocks lake views or requires tree removal. Need for Variance - the existing sheds begin at 30 feet from the street which is only 15 feet from our lot line. If we naw the nod structure over 15 feet we impinge on the lawn and lake view in a vastly different way. Also there will remain 15 feet of unused, ugly area whore the existing structures have killed the evagreaus for all these years. Without the variance on the lot line, this building does not work. Obvious question - why don't we expand our current garage? Two answers - size and value. To maintain design integrity of the house it would require completely aging the existing roofinc ovrr the garage and the family room and moving a bac wall to add one garage stall, with slightly less resulting storage than our proposed structure. We would be foxed to remodel the family room and the dining room to accomodate the new roof lines. We do not feel such a project is justified when a simple outbuilding will meet our needs. Size - without moving any frees we feel that the location would support a 20' X 30' structure. We have calculated the items we need to store and we feel that a structure 16' X 24' is the smallest structure that will meet our needs. We would build the larger structure if permission were so granted. • Landscaping - we intend to plant a berry garden using the north side of the structure as support. We also intend to replant the northern property boundary with a screen of evergreen and deciduous shrubs to replace the currently existing scruff. Construction - the building will be sided and painted to match the house. There will be not driveways as this is for storage only. 11.2 City of Mendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Applicant Name: ni etc, MB r i hkt S /14 PH: 11 b S 77 `7 Case No. — I .51—/ Date of Application (, _ Lp-915— Fee 1 jFee Paid (Last) (First) (MI) Address: a 3'?) -,..(v n vaA`1- J T e,n�.Qv - 11 JZA // S' S -/2v (Number & Street) (City) (tate) Cep) Owner Name: J ' ar yAtb to -ON) O,} i yti,.a S . M (Last) �—� (First) J (MI) Address: 4:-;2- 391 . C�.�int t.. J>J�vt m Q•11J Ijy/ MN Ss'/.ar) (Number & Street) /City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: a % / ..5.112W A a-' 1._a-1—ICP , 1_\ % t R ' e, l _to, 102: n here. Legal Description of Property: a3 9/ c�L O r Type of Request: Rezoning 1Conditional UsePennit3FJC� Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment cvQ A.--/1.74-1?-, •"PLA Variance 50 Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Other (attach explanation) Applicable Qty Ordinance Number Section Present Zoning of Property Present Use a ez; s,,, Proposed Zoning of Property , Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and" additional material are true. 4I f Applicant) (Date) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING June 7, 1995 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 8:30 o'clock P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, June 27, 1995, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Mr. Thomas McNamara for a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure and Setback Variance on the following described property: Lot 16, Roger's Lakeshore Addition More particularly, this property is located at 2371 Swan Drive.. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Ordinance No. 401. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Setback Variance 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. City of Mendota Heights June 22, 1995 Mr. Thomas McNamara 2371 Swan Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. McNamara: Your application for a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure and Setback Variance will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, June 27, 1995. The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here are City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, -i-cd-auachr Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 nim.2.1.64•AAAA City of Mendota Heights June 30, 1995 Mr. Thomas McNamara 2371 Swan Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. McNamara: Your application for a Conditional Use Permit and Setback Variance will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Thursday, July 6, 1995. The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting in order that your application will receive Council consideration . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 60- ! K,o_b Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, .1ViN • 55118 452.1850 Cwt S e-�- 4 0 0 • 1 U 0 (-iv;vtgates h v -I— -, 6e Ckmv`q PSG% - h0 �v'i IcLA./ 6e acitdPmt `- u��— he w -Pnopo;.e ( Oui--bu;1d;ver Ex i Si - :v• ,_ Qu`� ov �cfl:va +ruve (A-11 CVVer u I-ev- ®o.oy 90 lu}-,cit,xz'D. 610 xyoo) 0. Idea/?3x3 D' ?/lc p o s eJ J )Q c/' cx1 z d-. 9?' x 9 S, 1e �t lug ?1\-0.3?c.) .-.2Q31 ki--*L LA.7 (_Q_Of\..- -Q3(2( u)air.�h 1 a L 1 1 C %U a w- Q r c.. Sic -.5- 7 7 9 CD TYPICAL FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1 /4" = 1'-0" 16'-0' NDE 4/12 ROOF PITCH GhI =FT ALL DEPTH OPTIONS ONE SINGLE DOOR REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 16'-0' WIDE 4/12 ROOF PITCH ALL DEPTH OPTIONS. 1x6 RAKE TRIM BRlC^ MOULDING N W/10" EXPOSURE PREFORMED OUTSIDE CORNERS FOR LAP SIDING -� GRADE SEE FRONT FRAMING ELEVATIONS FOR EXACT DOOR CONFIGURATIONS 0 TYPICAL R15HT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 161-0' WIDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS 4/12 ROOF PITCH WITH OPTIONAL PERSOMIEL DOOR 41. COMPOSITION SHINGLES 1x6 FASCIA 1x2 FRIEZE BD BEGIN STUD SPACING ® 16" O.C. FROM.. THIS CORNER OPTIONAL 2'8x6'8 PERSONNEL DOOR 20'-0" ELEVATION SHOWN - ADD TO LENGTH FOR LONGER OPTIONS AT BREAK LINES GRADE OPTIONAL WINDOW TYPICAL LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" I6'-0' WIDE 4,/12 ROOF PITCH 2x8 RIDGE -t I cc ALL DEPTH OPTIONS WIT14 OPTIONAL V1t•OOY't it RA'r:,_. GRADE 1 WALL FRAMING V. PO' --`F F ,AMiNG Or MATERIALS LIST FOR 16 x 24 GARAGE USAGE DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT SIZE Anchor Botts (length per code) 23 ea. 1 2'dia. x10" Sill Sealer 1 roll 4' x 100' Mudsill (pressure treated) 1 ea. Mudsill (pressure treated) 1 2 x 4 x Mudsill (pressure 2 x 4 x 1 12' (pr_P ssure treated) a ea. 2 x 4 x 12' Pre-cut wall studs 84 ea. Double top plate 4 2 x 4 x 82-5 8" Double too plate 8 ea. 2 x 4 x Header `� Overhead Door 2 ea. 2x1ed' 2 x x 1 ib 2x10' ' Let -in SraC:rg ea - •4 Blocking arourc 0 H. Door 4cer,rrg _ e. K K '0 SIcc ;r drourC L. '; Dr - x 4 x tl 1 4 , 3 ESC Cr^mCr 2 C DJmmcr Rar:ers ? 72 roc' _.. ar T.e, Wall Ties 5 Either Spacer ;El) Wail Ties Hanger for Wail Ties (4,12 roof' Or Hanger for Wall Ties (8112 roof) 3 Either Or Gacie Stud .4.12 roof: 6 Gable Stud ;8/12 roof) 10 Either Eave Soffit Framing Or Rake Tam :4 12 roof; 41 Rake Trim (8;12 roof) 4 Fascia Tram, 2 Fascia Trim 2 Either Plywood Roof Sceatring. induces header spacers .4 112 roof i 15 Or Plywood Roof Sheathing; includes header spacers (8/12 roof) 17 Either Drip Edge Flashing (4,12 roof) 5 Or Rake Edge Flashing ;4.12 roof) 4 Drip Edge Flashing (8/12 roof) 5 Either Rake Edge Flashing (8/12 roof) 5 15 # Roofing Felt (4/12 roof) 2 Or 15#iRoofing Felt (8/12 roof) 2 Either Shingles (4/12 roof) 15 Or Shingles (8/12 roof) 18 SIDING AND TRIM Lap Siding Either Lap Siding:10" Exposure (4/12 roof) 690 lin. ft. 12" Or Lap Siding; 10- Exposure (8/12 Pre -formed Outside Corners 40 in. 12' Siding Nails 10 ea. Either lbs. 8dx 4' Or Wall Sheathing (4/12 root) 23 Wall Sheathing (8/12 roof) 25 ea. 1.`2" x 4' x 8' PI Nails for Wall Sheathing 15 lbs 8d Box 4'x 8 ywood or Other Sheet Siding Package Or Either Siding (4/12 roof) 23 sheets Siding (8/12 roof) 25 4'x 8' sheets 4' x 8' Corner Trim 8 ea. 1 x 4 x 10' General Siding Nails 10 lbs 8d GaIv. Soffit Plywood 2 ea. 348' x 4' x 8' Flashing above O.H. Door 1 ea. 10' Brickmold Trim @ O.H. Door 26 lin.ft. Jamb @ O.H. Door 2 ea. 1 x 6 x 8' Jamb @ O.H. Door 1 ea. 1 x 6 x 10' Garage Door Stop 2 ea. 1 x 3 x 8' Garage Door Stop 1 ea. 1 x 3 x 10' Frieze Trim at Eaves 3 ea. 1 x 2 x 10' Frieze Trim at Eaves 2 ea. 1 x 2 x 12' Overhead Garage Door 1 ea. 9' x 7' Y ea 2 Y (' 2' _a. 2.x6x8 ea. 2x4: 16' ea. 2K4x 10' ea. 2x6x16' ea. 2x6x12' ea 2x4x8' ea. 2x4x8' ea. 2:2.x8' ea,'x 6x10' ea. 8x12' ea. ' x6x12 eZ x6x12 sheets 1 2- x 4 x 8' sheets 4'81,7x' ea. 10' ea. 10 ea. 10' ea. 10' rolls 432 sq.ft_'roll Jolts 432 sq.ft/roll bndls. lards. MISCELLANEOUS Personnel Door OPTIONS Personnel Door Window t GABLE OVERHANGS Pre -Hung Exterior Personnel Door ea 2'-8- x e' -a - Header for Personnel Door 1 aa. 2 x o x 3' Brickrno)d Tnrn for Personnel Door 18 .in. ft. Keyed Lockset for Personnel Door 1 Fiashing above Door 1 ea. 10 Nails for Rough Framing 15 lbs., 16d Box Naris for Rough Framing 10 lbs. 12d Box Nails for Roof Sheathing 10 lbs. 8d Box Roofing Nails 8 lbs. 1-1 4" Gaily. Casing Nails for Trim 4 lbs. 10d Galv. Shim Stock 1 bundle Pre -Hung Exterior Personnel Door 1 ea. 2'-8" x 6'-8" Header for Personnel Door 1 ea. 2 x 6 x 8' Brickmold Trim for Personnel Door 18 lin. ft. ' Keyed Lockset for Personnel Door 1 ea. Flashing above Door 1 ea. 10' Window (approx. 3' x 3') 1 ea. 3' x 3' Header for Window (verity size) 1 ea. 2 x 6 x 8' Brickmold Trim for Window 14 lin. ft. Flashing above Window 1 ea. 10' Either Framing for Gable Overhangs (4/12 roof) 2 ea 2 x 4 x 8' Framing for Gable Overhangs (4/12 roof) 8 ea. 2 x 4 x 10' Framing for Gable Overhangs (8/12 roof) 2 ea. 2x 4 x 10'. Framing for Gable Overhangs (8/12 roof) 8 ea. 2 x 4 x 12' additional Plywood Roof Sheathing 3 sheets 1;2- x 4' x 8' additional Soffit Plywood 2 ea 3/8" x 4' x 8' additional Frieze Trim ( 4/12 roof) 4 ea. 1 x 2 x 10' additional Frieze Trim (8/12 roof) 4 ea. 1 x 2 x 12' Or Either or Gutters Connectors if needed Preformed Gutter 5 ea. 10' length Spikes 24 ea. 24" oc Ferrules 24 ea. 24- oc Slip Joint Connectors 4 ea. Outlet Section 2 ea. Elbow 6 ea. Downspout 2 ea. 10' length Downspout Strap 4 ea. Right End Cap 2 ea. Left End Cap 2 ea. Gutter Seal 1 tuoes Concrete Solash Block 2 ea. Rivets 1 ea. Hurricane Anchors for Mudstll and Studs Verily quantity aro style Hurricane Anchors for Trusses Verify quantity and style . p Bracing for Trussed Roof As Required By Manufacturer Trusses • Either Roof Trusses (4.12 roof) 11 ea. Roof Trusses 14.12 roof) 2 ea. Or Roof Trusses .3::2 rcofi ea. Roc! Tr == ' 2 reef _ ea. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 29, 1995 To: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant Subject: Planning Case No. 95-05: Tharaldson Enterprises - Conditional Use Permit for Restaurant in the "I" - Industrial Zone DISCUSSION Mr. Keith Garland, manager of Heritage Inn, appeared at public hearings before the Planning Commission at their April, May and June meetings to request a Conditional Use Permit for a Restaurant in the "I" - Industrial Zoning District. This request is to allow the Heritage Inn to operate a public restaurant using their existing kitchen facilities. (Please see attached Planner's Report, Application and staff memos.) The Planning Commission had expressed concerns regarding the amount of parking at the Heritage Inn, which is 73 existing parking spaces. The Planning Commission's concern was that a public restaurant would tax the existing parking lot and that if the hotel went public in the future the proof of parking agreement between the City and Tharaldson Company would not be sufficient for both a hotel and restaurant. The existing proof of parking agreement with Tharaldson Company would require a total of 125spaces (one per unit) and may be ordered by the City for any reason. The restaurant seating capacity, as proposed, would require 26 spaces. On November 16, 1993, Tharaldson Company received a revised site plan approval from City Council to add the kitchen to the approved hotel. A condition of approval in Resolution No. 93-73A stated that if the hotel were to go public, the restaurant would be removed and replaced with a swimming pool. Swimming pools, for use by hotel guests, do not require additional parking. Therefore, should the hotel go public and the kitchen be converted to a swimming pool, as required by the current CUP, parking would be required on a per unit basis for the hotel. (Please see attached June 20, 1995 memo from Dick Gill including Resolution No. 93-73A.) Because this condition of approval allows the City to control parking at the Heritage Inn, the Planning Commission's only parking concern centered on whether there would be sufficient parking for a private hotel with a public restaurant. Tharaldson Company agreed to implement the existing proof -of -parking plan, if it is determined after a six month trial basis, that extra parking is needed due to the proposed public restaurant. This offer satisfied the Planning Commission. Heritage Inn is not requesting any signs for the restaurant and they have submitted written policy statements to guide hours of operation, liquor service, liquor restrictions imposed by Northwest Airlines, kitchen capacity for service and health code compliance. (Please see attached June 16, 1995 letter from Bon Appetit and June 14, 1995 letter from Mr. Keith Gartland.) The Planning Commission desired that Mr. Gartland finish all required code compliance improvements to Mr. Dick -Gill's satisfaction before appearing on the City Council's agenda. Mr. Gartland has indicated to staff that he would attempt to schedule an inspection for these items prior to Thursday evening. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to close the public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that City Council approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Restaurant in the Industrial District with the following conditions: 1. That the City may request the implementation of the proof -of -parking agreement at any time. 2. That all requirements of the Code Enforcement Department be completed and approved prior to going to the City Council. 3. That a walkway be installed between the Marriott Courtyard and the Heritage Inn. 4. That a written agreement for overflow parking between the Marriott Courtyard and the. Heritage Inn be submitted. ACTION REQUIRED Meet with the applicant. If the City Council desires to implement the recommendation of the Planning Commission, they should pass a motion to adopt Resolution No. 95-_, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT FOR HERITAGE INN. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT FOR HERITAGE INN WHEREAS, Tharaldson Development Company, owners of the Heritage Inn, have made application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Restaurant in the "I" - Industrial Zoning District, to allow Heritage Inn, located at 1330 Northland Drive, to operate a public restaurant; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 25, May 23, and June 27, 1995 to consider said application; and WHEREAS, based upon the public record transcribed at said public hearings, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend to the Mendota Heights City Council that the above described Conditional Use Permit for a Restaurant be approved with the following conditions: 1. That the City may request the implementation of the proof -of -parking agreement at any time. 2. That all requirements of the Code Enforcement Department be completed and approved prior to going to the City Council. 3. That a walkway be installed between the Marriott Courtyard and the Heritage Inn. 4. That a written agreement for overflow parking between the Marriott Courtyard and the Heritage Inn be submitted; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said Conditional Use Permit application on July 6, 1995. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the proposed Conditional Use Permit for Restaurant will have no adverse effect on the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the community and the surrounding land and that said proposed restaurant is not adverse to the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Conditional Use Permit for Restaurant be approved to allow Tharaldson Development Company and Heritage Inn to operate a restaurant, as proposed on the plans and written policies submitted in Case File No. 95-05, with the following conditions: 1. That the City may request the implementation of the proof -of -parking agreement at any time. 2. That all requirements of the Code Enforcement Department be completed and approved prior to going to the City Council. 3. That a walkway be installed between the Marriott Courtyard and the Heritage Inn. 4. That a written agreement for overflow parking between the Marriott Courtyard and the Heritage Inn be submitted. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of July, 1995. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Planning Commission June 20, 1995 FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direct Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assis SUBJECT: Case No. 95-05: Tharaldson Enterprises - Heritage Inn DISCUSSION At the May 23, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the Tharaldson Enterprises' (Heritage Inn) application for Conditional Use Permit for Restaurant in the "I" Zoning District. The public hearing was continued to allow representatives of Heritage Inn an opportunity to prepare additional materials regarding restaurant operations, liquor service, parking and public use. In addition, the Planning Commission requested that staff review the terms and conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit approval. (Please see attached May 25, 1995 letter addressed to Mr. Keith Gartland, Manager of the Heritage Inn). As requested, Mr. Gartland has submitted a number of documents to address each of the Planning Commission's concerns, as follows: 1. A June 16, 1995 letter from Mr. David Toay, Area Manager of Bon Appetit, has been submitted to address restaurant operations, signs, liquor license request and food preparation. (Please see attached). 2. To address restrictions on liquor service imposed by Northwest Airlines, Mr. Keith Gartland has submitted a written policy dated June 14, 1995. (Please see attached). 3. Analysis of food preparation and kitchen facilities is included in Mr. Toay's June 16, 1995 letter. 4. A parking study has been submitted by Heritage Inn in a letter from Mr. Gartland dated June 12, 1995. (Please see attached). During a one week period, cars were counted on an hourly basis between 4:00 A.M. and 12:00 A.M. (Midnight). According to their counts, there are an average of 35 cars per day with approximately 29 percent of the occupied rooms having a vehicle in the lot. 5. A proof -of -parking request has been submitted on Heritage Inn letterhead dated June 18, 1995. (Please see attached). They feel the original proof -of -parking plan is sufficient for both restaurant and hotel use. The original proof -of -parking plan allowed 69 parking stalls to be built (73 existing) with 121 parking stalls required, if deemed necessary by the City, a difference of 48 stalls. A plan is on file showing where these spaces would be constructed. Original Site Plan Approval The original site plan provided to the Planning Commission in 1993 showed only a dining room to be used for continental breakfast and this plan was later approved by City Council. However, Tharaldson Development returned a few months later with a revised building plan that was approved by City Council. The revisions included a spa, a kitchen, eight additional hotel rooms and a second elevator. The footprint and exterior design of the hotel remained essentially the same as some larger rooms were reduced in size. As requested by the Planning Commission, Dick Gill, Code Enforcement Officer, has provided a memorandum dated June 20, 1995 that explains the details of the approved revisions. This memo includes minutes, floor plan revisions and Resolution of Approval (No. 93-73A). (Please see attached memo). The terms and conditions of approval for the revised site plan, which included the restaurant, state that should the hotel go public, the restaurant will be replaced by a swimming pool. This change in use of the building, should it go public, was at Tharaldson Development's request and is typical of Heritage Inn's operations elsewhere. Swimming pools, for use by hotel guests, do not require additional parking. Therefore, should the hotel go public and the kitchen be converted to a pool, parking will be required for a 125 unit motel as per Condition No. 2 in Resolution No. 93-73A. The April 25, 1995 excerpts from the Planning Commission minutes are attached. Site plans and information supplied to the Commissioners at preceding meetings have not been duplicated again. Should any Commissioner need a second set of materials, please contact Kim Blaeser at 452-1850. ACTION REQUIRED Conduct the continued public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council on the requested Conditional Use Permit for Restaurant. JED/KLB:kkb 1\-la A6, 1 (113 1'` Ji'ckC'1y. Duggan stated that this suggestion would cause tree loss. Commissioner Duggan inquired how visitors will park. Mr. King stated that a circular driveway will be constructed at the front of the home which will alleviate street parking. He stated there will no longer be an entrance from the rear of the house. He stated that his contractor will work the City's Engineering Department to determine proper elevation of the driveway. Commissioner Duggan stated that excavating towards the house is not a wise idea and that adding another garage is a silly idea. He stated that attaching a garage does not make sense. Commissioner Friel stated that demolishing the garage and re -excavating is expensive and that it avoids setback variances. He stated that this process would also do away with an undersized garage. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that the City Council grant a 22 square foot variance to garage size, a 2' side yard setback, a 2' height variance and 17'3" front yard setback variance. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion and stated that the current City Councilmembers approved this request four years ago. AYES: 5 NAYS: 2, LORBERBAUM, FRIEL CONTINUED HEARING: CASE NO. 95-05: THARALDSON ENTERPRISES - (HERITAGE INN) - CUP FOR RESTAURANT Chair Dwyer introduced this request by explaining that representatives from the Heritage Inn, located at 1330 Northland Drive, were present at the April Planning Commission meeting requesting a Conditional Use Permit which would allow the Heritage Inn to operate a public restaurant in the Industrial District. He explained that the Planning Commission continued the hearing to its May meeting to allow representatives from the Heritage Inn to submit information on parking and restaurant floor plans. Chair Dwyer explained that 143 stalls are needed if both the hotel and restaurant are used for public use. He stated 73 stalls exists and that Tharaldson Enterprises has submitted 44 proposed parking stalls as proof of parking. He stated that there is a total of 117 stalls and that 26 stalls are still needed. He stated that according to Tharaldson, the restaurant 6 proposes to seat 66 people. Chair Dwyer stated that there are a number of issues which greatly concern him: 1. According to the original Tharaldson proposal for the hotel, no restaurant was proposed, although one was built. 2. As built plans, as required by the City's Code Enforcement Department, were not provided. 3. A liquor license is now being requested. He stated that in April, the Planning Commission was informed that a liquor license was not going to be requested. Mr. Keith Gartland, Manager of the Heritage Inn, informed the Commission that he has brought the as built plans and he provided them to staff. Chair Dwyer informed Mr. Gartland that what was constructed is different than what was originally proposed to the City. Mr. Ken Scheel, Tharaldson Enterprises, explained that the in house plumbing changes regarding venting are minor. He further stated that the Code Enforcement Department was aware that the restaurant was to be constructed. Chair Dwyer responded that the City was told that a continental breakfast was to be served in this hotel with additional food being catered in to the facility. He stated that no restaurant was planned. Mr. Scheel responded that the City's Code Enforcement Department was aware of the restaurant. Commissioner Duggan informed Mr. Scheel that serving liquor in an establishment which is privately used by:pilots.is not a good idea. In response to parking concerns raised by the Commission, Mr. Scheel stated that the parking study provided to the City a couple of years ago indicated that even at 100 percent occupancy, parking is sufficient as most of the people using the Inn are bused in. He stated that normally 30 to 40 spaces are occupied and that parking will not be a problem. He stated that there is not enough property for all required spaces as per the City's Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Friel stated that the City was informed that there would be no liquor served at this establishment two years ago. He further stated that at the April meeting, Mr. Gartland informed the Commission that they would 7 not be requesting a liquor license. Chair Dwyer stated that minutes from the last meeting should be reviewed. Mr. Gartland stated that they intend on serving only beer and wine. He stated that consumption will be at the facility. He stated that not serving liquor, guests will not be traveling from the hotel to consume alcohol. Chair Dwyer stated that there will still be traveling with the limited liquor license. Mr. Gartland responded yes and that it cannot be eliminated._ Commissioner Friel moved to continue the public hearing which would allow the applicant to submit additional information. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. Commissioner Duggan inquired if the restaurant will be open for public use. He stated he would like this confirmed. He further inquired if the restaurant will be open for one meal. He further stated that signage has not been requested. He inquired what the policy is on public use of a restaurant. He stated that traffic/parking studies should be resubmitted. He stated that he still needs to be convinced that stalls are not necessary. He stated that if the restaurant is successful, more parking stalls will be needed. Commissioner Tilsen suggested that the number of seats in the restaurant could be eliminated which would reduce the number of parking stalls required. Commissioner Lorberbaum stated that she visited the site and that food was available at 2:40 p.m. (buffet style). She stated that the box lunches were not refrigerated. Commissioner Betlej inquired if there is undeveloped property adjacent to the hotel. Mr. Scheel responded yes. He explained that the lot adjacent to the hotel is five feet higher than the Heritage Inn property. He stated that ADA requirements call for the availability of ramps along with stairs. He stated that due to the higher elevation of the adjacent land, it is impossible to construct a ramp. Commissioner Friel moved to continue the public hearing to the June 27, 1995 Planning Commission meeting and directed City staff and the applicant to submit the following information: 1. Original plans submitted to the Code Enforcement Office. 2. Original site plans and application information as was submitted to the Planning Commission two years ago. 3. Cable video tapes from the April Planning Commission meeting. 4. Calculation of prep area for serving 66 people 8 Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 The Commission directed the applicant to submit the required information to City staff by June 15, 1995. HEARING: CASE NO. 95-06: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Chair Dwyer introduced this application by stating that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is proposing to replace their existing salt storage shed, located at 2229 Pilot Knob Road, with a larger structure located in approximately the same position on the site. He explained that the replacement structure will be larger so that it will store more equipment and material can be kept inside. He explained that MnDOT intends to raise the paved area and reconstruct the drainage control to a new pond. Chair Dwyer explained that Acacia Cemetery has informed the City of their erosion and drainage concerns. He further stated that Planner Uban has suggested that MnDOT review their landscape plan to meet ordinance requirements and that additional screening is necessary to help blend the facility into the existing industrial park and cemetery setting. Dwyer further stated that Planner Uban has suggested that MnDOT should submit color designation and lighting plan information for City review. He also noted that additional grading information with erosion control measures that clearly demonstrates the slopes and berms along with views from adjacent property is also needed. Mr. John Pirkl, representing MnDOT, informed the Commission that there is screening in place, but sparse. He stated that in the northwest corner of the property they propose to install three foot high trees. Chair Dwyer stated that three foot high trees do not provide adequate screening. Mr. Pirkl stated that the plan submitted is not a true landscape plan but a concept plan. Chair Dwyer informed Mr. Pirkl of Acacia Cemetery's concerns with runoff and debris flying onto their property. Mr. Pirkl stated that there has been debris blown onto Acacia's property and that the MnDOT groundskeeper has been informed of the problem. He explained that they intend to 9 A-pnf icgS HEARING: CASE NO. 95-05: THARALDSON ENTERPRISES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RESTAURANT IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE Mr. Keith Gartland, Heritage Inn Manager, located at 1330 Northland Drive, was present to discuss a recent request for a Conditional Use Permit which would allow a full service restaurant and dining room with seating capacity for 75 people. Chair Dwyer inquired why there is a full service restaurant/kitchen included within the Heritage Inn. He stated that the original plan only included a continental breakfast room. Mr. Gartland stated that the original intent was to have a continental breakfast area. He stated that a full service restaurant was constructed and they have a restaurant license from the State of Minnesota. Mr. Gartland stated that they are serving Northwest pilots now and that they want to provide similar services as the Courtyard, who is open to the public. Mr. Gartland stated that the Courtyard is no longer open for lunch, only breakfast. Chair Dwyer inquired if it will be profitable to have a full service restaurant open. Commissioner Duggan noted that the first Tharaldson proposal died and that their second proposal was to be a private hotel to serve Northwest pilots and that this proposal included a continental breakfast facility. Mr. David Toye, Bon Appetite, stated that the hotel was constructed for use by Northwest pilots. He stated that by opening the restaurant to the public probably will not be profitable. He stated_to serve a few more guests makes it easier for service to provide menu to guests and pilots. Mr. Toye stated that the restaurant has been inspected by state health officials and the City fire marshal. In response to questions from Commissioner Duggan, Mr. Toye stated that his company is a contractor in providing food services to businesses. He stated that in many cases, corporations subsidize the food service. He stated that the restaurant will not be profitable and that they have built these rates into room charges. Chair Dwyer stated that the building was set up for 121 parking stalls and that 73 were constructed under a proof of parking agreement. He stated that 146 16 parking stalls are needed for the motel/restaurant operation. He inquired about proof of parking plan. Mr. Gartland stated that Northwest pilots are bused in using shuttle vans. He stated that they are not expecting a great number of people because there will be no advertising. _Commissioner Friel inquired if we can establish 146 proof of parking spaces. Planner Uban explained that if both the restaurant and hotel go public, parking will be needed. He stated' that the City needs further information. Mr. Gartland stated that Northwest' has a contract for 10 years. Chair Dwyer stated that additional information is needed and that the applicant should come back in May. He inquired about liquor license information. Mr. Gartland stated that has been considered and that Northwest has indicated that they will impose strict conditions. Commissioner Tilsen moved to continue the public hearing to May 23, 1995 at 8:00 o'clock P.M. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Duggan stated that Mr. Gartland needs to determine the ability to have proof of parking. and when parking will be made available. Mr. Gartland stated that the corporate office will need to determine if constructing additional parking is worthwhile. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission moved to adjourn its meeting at 11:16 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary 17 City of .. !.r.. Mendota Heights May 25, 1995 Mr. Keith Gartland, Manager Heritage Inn 1330 Northland Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Gartland: I am writing to formally notify you that the Planning Commission, at their May 23, 1995 meeting, continued the public hearing on your application for a Conditional Use Permit until their meeting on June 27, 1995. The public hearing was continued to allow you time to prepare additional information that was requested by the Planning Commission and to allow city staff time to review the terms and conditions of the original approval of the Heritage Inn. The Planning Commission requested that the following information be provided: 1. A written policy be prepared that outlines the public use of the proposed restaurant including hours of operation and any signs that may be necessary for public use of the restaurant. If signs are proposed, a sign plan identifying size, location, number and type of signs should be included. 2. A written policy be prepared that outlines the proposed liquor operations including the type of liquor license being applied for, the proposed hours of service, restrictions to be imposed by Northwest Airlines and the public use of the proposed liquor operations. 3. An analysis of the food preparation area and kitchen facilities and their ability to serve a 66 seat restaurant, as proposed. 4. A traffic and parking study should be submitted demonstrating that the number of proposed parking stalls are sufficient. 5. A proof of parking plan should be submitted that addresses the amount of hotel space and proposed public seating for the restaurant. use. If a variance is being requested for the number of parking stalls that would be required and the proof of parking plan does not provide the total number of stalls required, a statement of hardship should be included with the proof of parking plan. 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 Mr. Keith Gartland May 25, 1995 Page two In addition to the requests for information, the Planning Commission also requested that city staff research the terms and conditions of the original approval of CUP for Private Motel. They requested an analysis of the original site plan submitted by T haraldson Co. and whether this included restaurant facilities, the site plan that was approved by City Council, the videotapes and minutes of the April 25, 1995 Planning Commission meeting regarding the discussions about liquor licensing and information from the Code Enforcement Office regarding the inclusion of restaurant facilities during the construction process. In order that you may be placed on the agenda for the June 27, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, it will be necessary for you to submit the requested materials no later than June 19, 1995. Should you have any questions, or concerns, please contact me at 452-1850. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant cc: John Uban, Planning Consultant CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 20, 1995 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Richard A. Gill, Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Restaurant at the Heritage Inn INTRODUCTION At the May Planning Commission meeting when the Heritage Inn restaurant proposal was considered, the Planning Commission was unaware of the history of the dining room proposal and asked the Code Enforcement Office to provide some background. DISCUSSION In September of 1993, Tharaldson Development Company submitted plans and received approval from the Planning Commission and City Council for the Heritage Inn. They had proposed a dining room in which food would be catered. (see plan noted as No.1). Tharaldson later returned to the City Council in November of 1993 (please see attached minutes) to request the addition of a second spa, a second elevator, eight more sleeping rooms and a kitchen (see plan noted as No. 2). The City Council approved these changes with four conditions as stated in Resolution No. 93-73A (see attached) and the building permit was then issued. The fourth condition states that if the motel is converted to an "open to the public" retail operation, the kitchen will be eliminated and a swimming pool will be built in its place. On October 6, 1994, I issued a contingent Certificate of Occupancy for the motel with the understanding that they would submit "as -built" plumbing and utility plans and call for inspections of the make up air unit on the roof, kitchen, and dining rooms when they were completed at the May Planning Commission meeting. They submitted as -built plans. These plans are unsatisfactory and they have yet to accomplish any of the other requirements. ACTION REQUIRED None. This is for information only. RAG:kkb Page No. 3822 November 16, 1993 f. Approval of the continuation of the Skemp stop sign request to the December 7th meeting. g. Authorization for the purchase of an IBM compatible computer system with alternates for the Administration department from Spectrum Computer and Printer Repair, Inc., for its low quote of $4,484.00. h. Approval of the List of Claims dated: November 16, 1993 and totalling $426,616.49. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 THARALDSON DEVELOPMENT Mr. Ken Scheel, from Tharaldson Development Company was present to request approval for an increase in the number of units which had been approved for Tharaldson's hotel. He explained that Tharaldson has finalized its agreement with Northwest Airlines and Northwest has asked that a second spa, a second elevator, a small kitchen and 8 rooms be added to the plan. He explained that the plan which has been approved provides a 50/50 mix of 12 foot and 12'6" width rooms and Tharaldson now proposes to accommodate the Northwest request by having a standard room width of 12 feet and by adding one bay to the building to provide four additional units on the front of the building and four on the back. Mayor Mertensotto asked if the parking requirements will chahge when the hotel becomes a retail facility. Mr. Scheel responded that he does not believe so because in the initial site plan the parking area was oversized and Tharaldson was asked by the city to reduce the number of parking spaces. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that at such time as the facility is opened to the public, Tharaldson will have to appear before Council for approval of a revised parking plan and build parking according to that plan. He stated that if the proposed building revisions are approved, Council should adopt another resolution showing the nature of the revisions and delineating that all the terms and conditions of the original resolution which Page No. 3823 November 16, 1993 Councilmember Huber stated that during discussion on the conditional use permit, Council had discussed the issue of a kitchen because Council does not want the facility to include a restaurant when it becomes a retail hotel. He asked if the kitchen which is now being proposed will have the capacity to take on a food service function. Mr. Scheel responded that if the facility ever becomes a full service retail hotel, the kitchen would be removed and a pool would take its place. He suggested that this condition be placed in the approving resolution. Councilmember Huber stated that providing food service to a 125 room complex may require proper docking for food service vehicles. Mr. Scheel responded that given the way the Northwest employees will flow in and out of the building and the change over between shifts there will probably only be between 60 and 70 people in the hotel at any given time. About 2/3 would be occupied and 1/3 will be constantly shifting. He explained that Northwest will provide the food service. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the proposed resolution will include a requirement that public health requirement regarding food service must be met. Mr. Scheel responded that he is in the process of preparing plans for submission to the health department and will send a copy of the application to 'pie city when it is submitted to the state. Councilmember Smith moved adoption of Resolution No. 93-73A, "RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 93-60, RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN, VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING A 117 UNIT HOTEL IN THE "I" INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT," to allow 125 units, with terms and conditions of Resolution No. 93-60 to stay in full force and effect, and on the condition that when the facility is no longer used for contract purposes the intent of the owner is to transfer the kitchen facility into a swimming pool, and to grant an amended building permit subject to review and approval of the plans and specifications by /he. Code 174.-ee e )4... - 50'-5 1/2' 41'—e- 314' 100-6' • 10'-6' it 11'-8 3/4' 'Dn i iG'RM. • IEE -n1" IG ROOM —� 4 :•LOBBY • -915 PuaLtc; f 5 AS MEC EQ( DRYER DRYER DRYER LECEl— EC 1AM 1 4 12'-8 3/4' KITCHEN STORAGE Oj 8'-6' 204'-0` 60'-5 1/2' 10'-0' n 3_UTILITY TRAY LINEN/ STORAGE 1 VENDING FIRE :On N. 11 2X4 SMOKE CURTAINS if II • 7' AFF (TYP. ALL FLRS.)-1' 11 9 8'-6' 12 3r k) NOTE' CONCERNING ALL TRADES WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE KITCHEN AREA, CONTE ST • D L HEAL >? A.a CO ' #O CAL BEGI IN� THE 's TCS N A STO 'EA AS PER STATE AND LOCAL CODES DINT 0 J m, J. 0 4 4 a U) W 4 MEETING ROOM LOBBY 12'-8' 3/4' 4,2'1, W 0 1 4 0. LOCKERS/ STORAGE 4 OCL 4 20' 6' 29'-8 3/4' 12'-0' 0 1,2'1, 12'-8 3/4' 18'-8 3/4' N VESTIBULE 1 2' -Ow 2' City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 93- 73A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 93-60 APPROVING A SITE PLAN VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING A 117 UNIT MOTEL IN THE "I" INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, Tharaldson Development Company in their fmal negotiations with Northwest Airlines for exclusive use of a private motel located at 1330 Northland Drive in the City's Industrial Park were required to amend their proposal to include the following: a. A second spa b. A second elevator c. A kitchen d. Eight more sleeping rooms; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights City Council had previously approved the motel development without these changes in Resolution No. 93-60. NOW THEREFORE, IT LS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that Resolution 93-60 be amended to allow for a second spa, a second elevator, a kitchen and eight more sleeping rooms subject to the following conditions: 1. All the other terms and conditions of the original approval will remain in full force and effect. 2. The parking requirement variance will remain in effect as approved however if and when the motel reverts to a for rent facility available to the general public, parking will be constructed to meet the City's minimum requirements for an 125 unit motel. 3. All public health requirements will be met for the new kitchen facility. A copy of the application to the Health Department and any reports of inspection will be submitted to the City. 4. Once the motel is no longer utilized as a private contract motel and the facility is converted to retail, the kitchen will be eliminated and the kitchen area will be constructed as a swimming pool. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 16th day of November 1993. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By 22-44-4 Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor Attest: /Of K4athleen M. Swanson, City Clerk June 16, 1995 City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Planning Commission: ON AP 1'Erl'1 A N A G ( 61 r. N I POMP 1llli\\ F_yl' Ii1;CNIN II P. 'i Ut l':11('1'li ltS C P;17 \14 Ilt'l;;11T:Ss t:l:N Il;f 1801 FAS I' 7v'1'11 s'I l{1:1:1' 111': 1h; 4PUI.IS. 111 4I?J��1.911.i11 F\501�.7t'i l.�Ivl The following is Bon Appetit's response, addressing questions # 1, 2 & 3 of your letter to Keith Gartland, dated May 25. Response To Question #1 The Heritage Cafe Hours of Operation Are: Breakfast - 6:30 - 9:00 a.m. Monday - Sunday Lunch - 11:30 - 1:15 p.m. Monday - Sunday Dinner - 5:30 - 9:00 p.m. Monday - Saturday Dinner* - 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. Sunday Only The Heritage Cafe's hours of operation as stated above will apply to both the hotel guests and the general public. The opening of the restaurant to the public will be marketed through personalized company invitations and announcements. Our primary marketing focus will cater to the surrounding business parks and nearby community business. We are looking to build our customer base by an additional 75 guests per day. This number of guests represents a very small percentage of the surrounding area employee population. Our performance on a day to day basis will provide us with the "word of mouth advertising" necessary for us to meet our business objectives. With our request to open for the public, we do not see a need for any restaurant signage. A Response To Question #2 We are requesting and will be applying for an On Sale Strong Beer & Wine License for the Heritage Cafe. Wine and beer will be sold in the Cafe only and will be available for lunch, dinner and a 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. social Monday - Friday%: The social will include wine and beer at reduced costs and light hors d'oeuvres will be offered. Our social will be marketed to our hotel guests only. AH alcoholic beverage sales and marketing will be in compliance with all state and local laws. All Food & Beverage Servers and Management involved in the serving of alcoholic beverages will complete and be certified in Miles Canning's State recognized Program, "Serving Alcohol & Liability Training" by MBC presentations. Response To Question #3 The Heritage Cafe was professionally designed with adequate storage, refrigeration, and commercial kitchen equipment and can accommodate the demand of a 66 seat restaurant. All kitchen equipment meets the NSF requirements and was inspected prior to opening by the licensing governing agency of Mendota Heights. Upon passing our final kitchen inspection by the Minnesota Department of Health a food license and use permit was issued. All Bon Appetit food handling personnel has been trained in Quality Assurance through Dr. Snyder and the Hospitality Institutes Q.A. program. Sincere) o) David S.Toay Area Manager, Bon Appetit Cc: Keith Gartland John Nelson Elliot Meier HERITAGE INN 1330 Northland Drive • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 • (612) 454-1978 June 14, 19'.::15 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 551125 To the Planning Commission: Management of the heritage Inn has discussed the restrictions to be imposed by Northwest Airlines concerning the proposed liquor operations. Northwest Airlines wishes that no alcohol be served prior to .11:59 AM. Alcohol will only be served in conjunction with the food service, and at the times we are open to the public. At no time will a bar atmosphere be allowed to exist. The liquor license will be limited to a beer and wine license only. The license is .for a limited service facility. Sincerely, Keith Gartland General Manager cc:Larry Davis, Regional Director Bill Fitzgerald, NWA Sr. Planner Tom Schneider, Distri ot Director. HERITAGE INN 1330 Nortt land Drive • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 • (612) 454-1978 June 12, .1995 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 To the Planning Commission: The Heritage Inn has done a car count in our parking lot. This count took place between June 2 and the 8th. The count was done during the hours of 4:00 AM and Midnight. JUNE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Average number of cars 37 36 38 35 34 33 34 in lot during day. Occupancy on these days % 88 83 96 95 98 98 93 Number of rooms Occupied 105 100 117 115 119 119 116 Listed below is the seven day average for cars in .our lot broken down on a per hour basis. 4 AM 42.7 1 PM 32.8 5 41.7 2 30.7 6 42.0 3 31.2 7 42.1 4 29.2 8 35.7 5 31.2 9 35.5 6 32.8 10 35.0 7 32.5 11 32.2 8 34.0 Noon 34.7 9 34.0 10 34.8 11 34.8 Midnight 35.4 Overall 29% of occupied rooms have a vehicle in the lot. Sincerely, Keith Gartland, General Manager HERITAGE INN 1330 Northland Drive • Mendota Heights, K4innexo1a 55120 • (612) 454-1978 June 18, 1995 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Planning Commission: With the hotel and restaurant both being open to the public, the ordinances state we are to have 146 parking stalls. This would accommodate a 75 seat restaurant. Originally a variance was granted that allowed the hotel to operate with out meeting the full requirement. Presently only 30 'A of the hotel visitors are using a parking space. Hotel visitors include our guests and employees. This means that at peak periods ( after midnight ) there are only 36.3 parking spaces being used. Maximum seating for our two dining rooms will not exceed 74 seats. To meet code we need 25 parking spaces for these people. Combining the maximum number of spaces for the restaurant which is 25. Plus the maximum number needed for the hotel at peak period which is 36. These two added together is 61. Our present parking lot has 73. This leaves an additional 12 spaces alloted for cushion. The original variance granted is sufficient to operate the hotel privately and the restaurant publicly. Please note our exceptions. There is a Ten year contract with Northwest Airlines for the entire hotel. This is a renewable term contract. The feasibility of purchasing land next door for additional parking is not practical. For the cost greatly out ways the benefits of this action. CONSUL, INc: YLANNEi: LANDSCAPE' ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST' AVENUE NOR-I i 1 SUITE 210 MINNEAPOI IS, MN 56301 61 . 339.A30i1 PLANNING REPORT DATE: April 25, 1995 CASE NO: 95-05 APPLICANT: Keith Gartland, Tharaldson Enterprises LOCATION: 1330 Northland Drive /Heritage Inn ACTION REQUESTED: Conditional Use Permit for Restaurant in an Industrial Zone PREPARED BY: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Background C. John Uban The Heritage Inn was approved in October, 1992 (Resolution No. 92-64) as a private hotel for the sole use ofNorthwest employees who would be shuttled to the facility. Aproof of parking plan was required and the remaining parking had to be built if the hotel was made available to the general public. The initial plans that were reviewed and approved by the City showed a continental breakfast room for serving juices, rolls, and breakfast food. What was actually built was a full service restaurant and dining room with seating capacity for 75 people. This type of facility was not addressed in the original approval and the parking requirements were not calculated for this type of facility. The hotel has 114 rooms and the full parking compliment including proof of parking, was approved at 121 parking stalls. To date, 73 parking stalls have been built and the remainder would have to be built if the hotel was open to the public. Based on restaurant seating, the parking requirements would increase by 25 stalls to serve the restaurant with the existing seating. This would bring the full compliment of required parking for public use of the hotel to 146. What is being proposed is to keep the hotel primarily for Northwest employees, but to allow the kitchen and dining facility to be open to the public for breakfast and lunch to serve the general customer base found in the immediate area. The applicant has reported that during the lunch hour, approximately 30 stalls are vacant which could April 25, 1995 Case 95-05 Page 2 be used for restaurant customers. Because of the unique operation of this facility, a blend of public and private operation is being requested. Public notices have been mailed and a public hearing is required. Conditional Use Permit - The applicant has submitted written narrative explaining the operation and some generalized seating plans of the facility. Signage plans and full and accurate site plans showing both existing and all required proof of parking areas have not been submitted. Additionally, the original site plan only accommodated 121 parking stalls, and the combined restaurant and hotel use would require 146 as required in the City Ordinance. A new proof of parking plan would have to be created and submitted for review by the City. Technically, the restaurant was not part of the original Conditional Use Permit and should not have been operated as a restaurant, but just as a breakfast room. Based on the reported availability of parking during the lunch hour, because Northwest employees are generally absent, there appears to be a shared parking overlap sufficient for operating a public restaurant. A temporary situation can be accommodated but the long term operation must be clarified. Should the hotel go public and not enough parking is available, the restaurant may have to be eliminated. I believe additional information on the actual capacity of the site to provide all required parking needs to be submitted before action can be taken. An eventual condition of approval may also restrict hours of operation and other restrictive conditions relating to parking and the loss of license if these conditions are not met. It would be beneficial to the City to come to an agreement with the restaurant operation as it could provide a needed service to the employees in the industrial park. To my knowledge, no parking problem has been experienced in the area, and a variance with shared parking could also be considered with proper documentation and study by a traffic engineer. - Action Hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council or request additional information for further review of the restaurant request. V( r - J 3AINC 3GI?JN2IN2 L J L \ L Lj IAA 9ON11 10111 3 0 xc E-..-1 2;1 \ , \ \\ �\ \\ \\ \ \\�/ r \\ ,/ 1 r\ - \\ \---_ww ` ---0,---- ------, -- J TT • N / , 1 1lr ' 1\\ tl (t \\I 1 \ '��1 I� 1 L /, HERITAGE INN 1330 Northland Drive • Mendota Heihts'M}One8Ota 55100 • (612) 454-1978 ;.4pril 3, 1995 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 To City Council; This is to serve as my letter of intent. By filing for a Conditional Use Permit we hope to open our restaurant up to the public. Mainly we are s?e4ing to offer the lunch available to the surrounding business. We do not see a demand for breakfast or dinner in the area. By opening for lunch we will benefit many surrounding businesses and the community. The Marriott Courtyard presently does not serve lunch to the public. We do not expect to draw more then 30 people a day from the.area so no other businesses will feel the effect. By opening to the public our restaurant will be able to financially provide a wider menu and greater service for both the public and Northwest. A c�ncern may be our parking. We presently have 73 parking spac^-s. If we have 30 people dining it would place a demand for 15 spaces maximum. City code says one space spare for 3 seats. Presently we are able to seat 70 people total with our dining area and private lunch room. Any given time there are 20 empty spaces at the hotel at least. We do acknowltedge that if the hotel is to ever open to the public, additiona: parking will be added so as to meet the codes of one space for very room, and one space for every three chairs in the dining roox. Included with this are the built "as planned" blueprints, Interior plans, abstract certificate, and site plans. Sinc/rely, Keith Gartland General Manager City of !DJ Mendota Heights Applicant Name: Address: APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. (3 Date of Ap ' lication - (i- q Fee Paid 6;1 r n d e ./-A 7 PH: `'S V—/ 7 7c? (Last) (First) (MI) / 3.7n //1c /' // d zile,,doi1 )/e X/s. /f'/� Jf7 o (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: 717 cton (Last) Address: / D c (Number & Street) E. r ?� ^ .ffi1.re I r (First) (MI) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: 13 3 0 4k Legal Description of Property: Wei/ /75 ,Ce e f e.,c L.• f 33 ,6 /c c Al ('F1 o,LA He /. .T/t GL a .i .7/,‘• c: ,i /1 /t Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number /10 ( Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Other (attach explanation) Present Zoning of Property 2- Present Use Section $ . 6 / ,4C/E % Proposed Zoning of Property . Proposed Use cc. I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. (Signature of Applicant) (Date) (Received by - Title) 1101 Victoria Curve • 1Viendota Heights, MN • 5M18 452.1850 HERITAGE INN 1330 Northland Drive • Mendota Heiht'Mklne8OtO 55120 • (612) 454-1978 April 13, 1995 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 To The Planning Commission: This letter is to provide more detail information for you. Our present main dining room seats 42. When we rearrange the tables it will seat 50 people. Our second dining room seats 24 people. Present hours of operation are: Complimentary coffee till 6:30 Breakfast 6:30 AM to 9:00 AM. Lunch 11:30 AM to 1:15 PM ( soup & sandwich buffet) 1:30 PM to 5:00 PM Dinner 5:30 PM to 9:00 PM A copy of a present flyer and menu is included. Our restaurant is presently called the Heritage Cafe. We may be more creative in the future, but we are .not planning on any signs on the street at all. For marketing we do oot,plan on flyers under wipers or anything of that nature. We do plan on going to the businesses in the nearby area and doing.personal sales calls to inform them of this. There are no plans for any marketing programs. We hope to offer a quiet, quaint establishment. Using both dining rooms we can only seat 75 people. We will be sure that hotel guests are not being put out by opening to the public. We desire the food quality to be the freshest and most pleasant. Decorations presently are scarce. We are looking for the personal touch with very few but good quality items. There will be some strings of peppers hanging and jars of beans with oil .itting about. We plan to get very few people joining us for breakfast. Our hotel guests presently occupy mnct the dining room. The area surrounding us does not need breskf�st merved generally. We do not plan on advertising for this meal period. For lunch we believe there is a need for this type of service. With us being in the industrial area we are hoping to attract these people. Our goal is to get 20 to 30 people each day from the area business to join us. As stated before, we plan on telling them in person that we are available. Upon opening to the public we are ' pi/', expand our lunch menu and hours. We would like to do this to the guests recieve a greater benefit. HERITAGE INN 1330 Northland Drive • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 • (612) 454-1978 page two For dinner we do not expect much participation from the area. Most people are headed home' -so we do not see a demand. With the Courtyard cloed for lunch we are hoping to attract some of their customers over to our establishment for dining. This would benefit both the?, and us. Also we know that Northland Insurance has a cafeteria for their employees. We would like to offer them an alternative for lunch. Most of these people may walk over here. We would like to be able to invite people from Northwest operations buildings at the airport over for breakfast or lunch. There is potential here for several thousand employees to -come here. We already provide a shuttle for them to ride every half hour. They are also able to hold meetings in a private room. Our present equipment makes it possible to serve a buffet while the food is under constant temperature. We do not need to use ice for a salad bar for our unit has refrigeration in it. We already have a state license, and meet all health requirements. There is a proofer and steamer on property so food such as baked goods are made from scratch. They are mixed, left to rise, and baked in this oven. The steamer lets us prepare the foods in the healthiest way. The restaurant operation is run by Bon Appetit Management Company. They presently run the food service operations at these other locations; Cray research, Taroet headquarters, The Carlson Companies towers, Minnesota history center, and the Minnesota Club. I have included a packet of information on this company. We want to open to the public slowly and properly. The reason is to help us make our operationmore profitable and to serve our customer, Northwest in a greater fashion. Come summer we would like to be able to offer a picnic table or two for the customers to eat at and to relax around. Our customers are here for training and this is their home for up to three months. H K• 'a a LU H O v) fl Uay�f:� 14v,' »,,,.o a)•AJ,f 04 �4 rel .. rJLva 7 / ?}/ ".9 a>ro�aJl 7 ILrr a._L_ 8 1 ••••••••••\ THE HERITAGE CAFE By Bon Appetit Management Co. BREAKFAST MENU 7 Days a week 6:30-9:00 a.m. Cold Breakfast Buffet Country Breakfast assorted cereals, freshly baked ' - two eggs any style, hashbrowns, toast and muffins, bagels, bacon or sausage melons & fruit with juice and coffee $3.99 $4.25 Cinnamon French Toast with fresh fruit 3.25 Three Buttermilk Pancakes with bacon or sausage 3.99 And MUCH more to choose from! LUNCH MENU 11:30a.m- 1:15p.m Monday - Sunday Starters Salads Soup of the Day Ham & Turkey Chef Salad Cup $1.50 Bowl $1.95 wl mixed greens & fresh vegetables Chili $4.95 Cup $1.95 Bowl $2.50 House Salad wl mixed greens & fresh vegetables $1.75 Sandwiches Heritage Smoked Turkey on multi grain bread wl lettuce, tomato and mayo served with a specialty salad $4.95 Flame Broiled Burger on a fresh baked bun wl lettuce, tomato and a pickle served wl french fries or specialty salad $4.95 With Cheese: (American,Swiss, cheddar or pepper jack) $5.75 Call and ask about our "Daily Specials." If calling from outside the hotel feel free to place your order ahead of time and our staff will have it ready when you get here. BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY Midwest Client Reference List Cray Research Headquarters Eric Lindahl Target Stores Headquarters Al Hodges Carlson Companies Headquarters Karen Burke Pillsbury Technical Center Audrey DelGreco Minnesota Historical Society Chuck Lawrence History Center The Minnesota Club Vance Opperman President, West Publishing Co. Fond du Lac Development Gary Harms Cloquet, Minnesota Cuna Mutual Insurance Company Bill Stevenson Madison, Wisconsin (612) 683-5384 (612) 370-6147 (612) 540-5766 (612) 330-4672 (612) 287-7849 (612) 687-4777 (218) 879-4593 (608) 231-8864 CALIFORNIA Amdahl Corporation Santa Clara BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT CO. CORPORATE FOODSERVICE Mervyn's Headquarters Fond du Lac Management, Inc. Hayward Carlton Applied Materials, Inc. MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc. Minnesota History Center Santa Clara Sunnyvale St. Paul Bank of America Data Center National Semiconductor Corporation San Francisco Santa Clara Bank of America Technology Center Concord Bank of America Tower - Floor Fifty Los Angeles Cadence Design Systems, Inc.: San Jose Cafe Bon Appetit Resta Imperial Bank Building San Diego '' { Sony Music OREGON Los Angeles Cisco Systems, Inc. Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. San Jose Sundeck Restaurant Beaverton Ford Land Company Menlo Park Minnesota Club St. Paul Octel Communications Corporation Pillsbury Company Milpitas Minneapolis Oracle Corporation Belmont ROLM Systems Santa Clara °Sil'con Graphics Mountain View Target Stores Minneapolis OKLAHOMA 'Cheyenne and Arapaho Business Development Corp. El Reno Claris Corporation Santa Clara TEXAS SynOptics Communications, Inc. Bank of America Hewlett Packard Santa Clara Irving Rohnert Park Tandem Computers, Inc. BMC Software, Inc. Hewlett Packard Cupertino Houston Santa Rosa Hitachi Data Systems Santa Clara GEORGIA UTAH Dun & Bradstreet Software Services Mervyn's Atlanta Salt Lake City IBM Santa Teresa Laboratories MINNESOTA WISCONSIN San Jose Carlson Companies, Inc. CUNA Mutual Insurance Society Kabi Pharmacia Ophthalmics, Inc. Minnetonka Madison Monrovia Cray Research, Inc. Measurex Corporation Eagan 5/94 Cupertino CALIFORNIA Bethany College Scotts Valley Biola University La Mirada California Institute of the Arts Valencia Dominican College San Rafael Loyola Jesuit Community Los Angeles Marymount College Palos Verdes Santa Catalina Scli615 Monterey Stanford Business School Stanford Stanford University Stanford The Master's College Newhall Thacher School Ojai Tropicana Gardens Goleta Woodbury University Burbank BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT CO. EDUCATION FOODSERVICE MINNESOTA Northwestern College St. Paul OREGON Lewis & Clark College Portland Reed College Portland University of Portland Portland Willamette University Salem WASHINGTON Seattle University Seattle 5/94 A PassionforF�od Unites 1992 Ivy Winners These stars are bold ones: There's nothing bland about their philosophies or their food. VILI If you can't take the heat, don't get into the kitchen—or the business— of any of this year's Ivy winners. Theirs are not environments for the faint, of heart. Years of experience have only added fuel to their fires, and if one common characteristic unites them—from fine dining to ebullient bistro, from contract company to college campus -it's a grand passion for food. The food this year reflects their zeal: When it's elegant, it's also ample and uncontrived; when it's healthful, it's also hearty and sensual; and when it's basic, it's also creative and brimming with style. The food on their menus is a product of their kitchens, their staff and their customers. So turn the pages as R&I proudly showcases the 22nd annual Ivy Award winners, their operations and their food. Text by Nancy Ross Ryan Photography by Eric Futran Bon Appetit photos by Richard Tauber IIY VINNERS ro110 proprietors to r.) Mark Levy, oitg, Roth, Larry Levy. ire `Chef and --t i<Partner Robert Del Giande in prep kitch n. Cafe Annie Manager and General Partner Mimi Del Grande in dining room. A PRESENTING THE 1992 IVY :AWARDS Bistro 110 {`hicago Doug Roth Larry Levy Mark Levy Bon Appetit. Management Co. San Francisco Fedele Bauccio Ernest Collins • -Cafe Annie Houston Robert Del Grande Mimi Del Grande Cote Cafe Santa= Fe, N.M.... Mark Miller �uI seasons Hotel, Chicago Hans Willimann San Domenico NY New York Tony May University of Richmond Richmond, Va. D. Ronald Inlow Coyote Cafe chef -proprie- tor Mark Miller has three new books in progress. Four Season's neral;. Manager Hans i hman in elegant lobby.., San Domenico proprietor Tony May with noteworthy collection of gr`appas. University of Richmond Director of Food and Aux- iliary Services Ron Inlow (third from I.) with team: (1. to r.) Diane Hardy, Randy Moran and Donna Case. Reprinted from RESTAURANTS AND INSTITUTIONS May 20, 1992 © 1992 by CANNERS PUBLISHING COMPANY November 15, 199 A BILL PUBLICATION Vol. 6 No.11 BON APPETIT'S FORMULA: CUSTOMIZING EACH LOCATION Co-founders Fedele Bauccio and Ernie Collins expect Bon Appetit to grow 25%-35% over the next 3 to 5 years behind a selective geographic expansion from its Menlo Park, CA operating base. ©Reprinted from FoodService Director NOVEMBER 15, 1993 by Karen 11 eisher,i Li/LIi U'1'1 V Li HV'1'L1LV 1ti W CUSTOMIZING EACH LOCATION Co-founders Fedele Bauccio and Ernie Collins expect Bon Appetit to grow 25%-35% over the next 3 to 5 years behind a selective geographic expansion from its Menlo Park, CA operating base. In just six short, challenging, but fun -filled years, Fedele Bauccio (ceo), and co-founder Ernie Collins (pres. and cfo) have brought Bon Appetit Management Company from ground zero into position as a strong third -tier player with sales in excess of $43,200,000. That's up 37% over 1991-92 figures and, by Bauccio's estimate, the contract firm will bound ahead another 25%-35% over the next 3-5 years. Both executives have their roots in old Saga Corp., where Bauccio's .ereer spanned 26 years from 1960- 1986. Starting out in the company's educational f/s div., he eventually became pres. of its specialty f/s div. comprising the business f/s div., The Velvet Turtle Restaurants, the hotel f/s div. and Spoons casual dining restaurants. Collins served as Saga's v.p., general counsel and secretary. Bon Appetit fust opened its doors as a San Francisco -based catering com- pany, but it's now headquartered in Menlo Park, CA. It expanded almost immediately into corporate and food service management, today serving 37 corporate and 17 college/university accounts, the majority being Califor- nia-based B&I locations. But a recent education div. foray to the East Coast via the SUNY/Farm- ingdale, NY account, appears to signal an eastward expansion mode to come. At the core of the company's rapid growth lies an unswerving dedica- tion to "excellency, not adequacy," as well as "fanatical attention to detail," Bauccio contends. Quality food first "Why are our sales up 37% in a floundering economy? Our growth has to do with the prod- uct we're delivering. We're highly focused in terms of food and quality. n that, we're almost identical to (NYC -based) Restaurant Associates. We deliver very restaurant -oriented retail f/s that excites customers. "And we have some terrific people who execute that very well. The com- panies we deal with want to offer a service and a benefit to attract employees. We're able to customize our services, so we're bringing some- thing unique to each client," he says. Bauccio admits there's been some economy -related fallout in a few places, but since a great deal of its business is with software companies that are continuing "to grow nicely," rather than aerospace companies, the impact has been negligible. In Collins' view, it's the steady increase in new business plus a rosy picture on the education side that has and will continue to favorably impact the bottom line. Healthy diversity "We have an excel- lent mix of accounts. Some have downsized, some have closed their f/s operations, but we're adding new accounts at such a pace to more than counter the adverse effects. For example, several computer hardware companies have been impacted. But we've added some fast-growing soft- ware companies. "And the college market has not been affected as much. We've seen an increase in boarders and the demo- graphic statistics show the number of high school grads will be increasing— a reverse of a 10 -year trend." Reasoning that diversification of business is the smart route to go, geographical diversity is similarly viewed as advantageous. Presently, the contractor operates accounts in California (B&I and education), Georgia (B&I), Texas (B&I), Min- nesota (B&I), Oregon (B&I and edu- cation) and New York (education). Collins explains the rationale for the spread. "Our plate is pretty full with our two sectors and new geo- graphic markets. Minnesota was an excellent opportunity. John Nelson (also a former Saga man and now Bon Appetit's regional v.p. in the mid -U.S.) had started a f/s division for a restau- rant company out there. He adopted our strategies in developing his busi- ness, but when the restaurant compa- ny floundered in 1991, we acquired his accounts (i.e. the f/s mgmt. div. of Consul Restaurants Corp.). "Then, we wound up with the Dun & Bradstreet account in Atlanta because we were doing their location in Minnesota. The same thing hap- pened in Texas where Bink of America opened up and asked us to come in. We've kind of been oppor- tunistic in our growth, but now our objective is to build up our mar- kets," Collins contends. The education division—albeit the smaller one to date—appears geared to take off. Brother Michael Bauccio serves as v.p. and gen. mgr. of the 'Why are our sales up 37% in a foundering economy? [Because] we're highly focused in terms of food and quality...We deliver very restau- rant -oriented f/s that excites the customer...' 'Our dream was to customize each location, like a chain of restaurants. We saw no reason why you can't deliver a terrific product at .a fair price...or why it couldn't be done in colleges.' division since 1988 (he most recently served as education div. v.p. for Mar- riott Corp.), and John Engstrom as Eastern v.p. for education. Bon Appetit's recent expansion to the East Coast is expected to be only the first such penetration in the education sector in that region, according to ceo Bauccio. "We saw the SUNY/Farmingdale account as an opportunity to bring restaurant -quality food to the col- lege market on the East Coast. We'll be highly targeted to only the East Coast college market." Declining balance benefit: The campus trend toward a declining balance sys- tem is one that Collins believes will work in his company's favor. "Under an all -you -can -eat board program, the rate of participation increases and our program tends to make us more expensive. Because our food is good, they want to eat. Now we see a trend toward a declin- ing balance system. "They pay for all they consume. That policy plays to our strength. It's more of a retail program and kids get value for their money. We see more schools turning toward that system and that will help Bon Appetit." As branded concepts are more and more prevalent on campus, the con- tractor has been slow to follow the trends. But this year it began licens- ing from Taco Bell and Pizza Hut for two campus accounts. (Both branded concepts started up in Sept. at Seat- tle Univ. and Taco Bell is slated for a Jan. '94 debut at Stanford Univ.) Easy way out: "We want to meet our clients' desires—and we know the demand from the teens is there— although we don't feel it fits philo- sophically with us. We think branding is an easy way out for contractors and therefore not the answer. But proba- bly on a college campus with a large population, it's another offering to choose," Collins grudgingly admits. Both Collins and Bauccio make it clear that they won't take on just any B&I or education account that Reprinted from the November 15, 1993 issue of Foodservice Director Magazine. Copyright 1993 comes their way. "In the past, it's been the case of colleges and universities looking for a capital investment. But not with us. We promise improved catering on campus—that's our big focus. On occasion, we've made an investment where we can improve the facilities to really show us off—but that's the exception," Collins points out. "We turn down a lot of business if we don't believe it fits. You need a good match to have a good fit," Bauccio adds. The "fit" refers not only to the physical set-up of the account—and having a workable back of the house area, preferably with on-site baking capacity—but also a Bon Appetit staffing "fit." Restaurateurs' haven: "Ours is not a commissary -type company, although I think you could do a centralized bak- ery operation. If we can't bake on- site—and we try to as much as possi- ble—then we can do 'buy-outs' (that is. purchase from a local bakery). But the key to our business is the chef and manager who are allowed to think and behave like restaurateurs." Picking the right people, then keep- ing them. is a matter of the contrac- tor's "culture," he believes. "It takes everyone in the company. We try to give them the freedom to make deci- sions, to allow them to make mis- takes. to he creative. entrepreneurial. \\e really believe that's why we've been successful with a low turnover... Once the "right" people have been hired, the contractor relies heavily upon on-the-job training by unit managers. According to Collins. since the company is growing so fast, that's about the only way to do it. In addition, reimbursements are provided for employees who choose to enroll in outside classes to improve their culinary talents. "We're emphasizing the HMO approach. We think that's a letter way of managing healthcare costs for 0111- more than 1.60(1 F'I'Es. 111 regard to the ('resident's healthcare proposals, I'm taking a wait and see attitude, then we'll adjust as we have to. What we offer our employ- ees is in excess of what will be required, but for our 600 part-time workers, we don't know." As to finding the "right" employees in the first place, Collins figures the fine reputation of the company is a positive draw. He also notes a growing interest in the culinary arts—enroll- ment at the San Francisco Culinary Academy has recently doubled—that will work in the contractor's favor. Brainstorming benefits: To strengthen on-line expertise while at the same time enhancing corporate esprit de corps, a Chefs' Council, now com- prised of 30 executive chefs, meets on a bi-monthly basis to share informa- tion on new products they've tried and recipes they've developed. It's actually a brainstorming session on how to make Bon Appetit even better. Occasionally. manufacturers and distributors host the sessions off-site and offer demonstrations of their wares. (For example, distributor RykofT recently detailed their comput- erized purchasing programs.) On balance. the co-founders are of one mind—they're in the industry because it's exciting and FUN. Bauc- ciu, whose entree to the field was washing dishes to put himself through college. recall that in the aftermat of the Saga acqui-ition. he lilt the con- i -act business needed "new life.- -Five ift "..Five or six years ago, no one real- ly focused on product the way I thought it should he. The dream was to customize each location, like a chain of restaurants. I saw no rea- son why you couldn't deliver a ter- rific product at a fair price—and I saw 00 reason why this couldn't also he done in colleges. "Bon Appetit was talking restau- rants and retail before anyone else. t We strive to serve good quality food from scratch...or people will ge Out- side ;rad there won') he ;my runt rata husinoss .. h.' Korea (1 ri.,hrv;y BON APPETIT'S FORMULA: Developing restaurant concepts with heart -healthy flavors CORPORATE CREATIONS: Becoming a fast-food franchisee is viewed as "an easy way out" for contractors, according to Collins, but creating signature con- cepts is encouraged. Since the entrepreneurial flair is reinforced and each cafe (never "cafeteria") should be operated like a one -of -a -kind restaurant, even "corporate" signatures are not to be found in all accounts, he feels. And when they are included, they're rarely "cookie -cutter copies." • "We have concepts of our own like La Tacaria, a Mexican concept with burritos and tostadas. We opted to marry this San Francisco Mission Dis- trict concept to our B&I locations. Sometimes it's a regular station, on all the time, while in others it's periodic. But our signature is really `fresh cooking,"' Collins notes. • And in almost every unit (B&I and education), exhibition cooking—from stir -fry to grilled swordfish is featured, with the chef and sous chef prepar- ing items to -order on the line. • Other concepts include: Panino Mino la hot panini sandwich) and, in larg- er cafes, the "Frugal Buffet" or "Etc.." including an Oriental sampler plate or Oriental Noodle Bar. And units often menu value meals—five different combos for under $3 (soup or chili and a sandwich, for example). HEART HEALTHY PARAMETERS: Bon Appetit menus stress low fat and low cholesterol. within American Heart Assn. guidelines, Collins and Bauccio point out. These parameters (as well as definitions and tips on achieving them( are distributed to the managers and chefs at each location. "Our cor- porate program designation is 'Heart Healthy,' but the exact name varies from one location to another." Collins says. Chefs an encouraged to refer to any of eight reference books (including the American Heart Assn. Cookbook. Cooking Light, etc.), several light - cookery magazines and to access any of three computer analysis programs. They can input their own recipes as well, and get a nutritional printout to ensure they're within the "Heart Healthy" parameters. AWARDING EXCELLENCE: Quarterly objectives are set with area managers and units are encouraged to set their goals within the cafe, rather than in com- petition with others. But a quarterly Pizzazz Award is given to an account in recognition of "exceptional marketing." Last quarter, Mountain View, CA -based Silicon Graphics received the award based on several co-op promo- tions run with the Beef Council and the Pork Advisory Board. ACCOUNT -ABILITY: Leading accounts include: Carlson Cos., Inc., Minnetonka, MN; Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA: Silicon Graphics, Mountain View, CA: Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA: Bank of America. Irving, TX: Reed Col- lege, Portland. OR: Natl. Semiconductor Corp., Santa Clara, CA; Seattle Univ.. Seattle. \\'A. BO\ APPETIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY 2730 SAND HILL ROAD • SUITE 100 • MENLO PARK • CA 94025 415-233-7800 LOS ANGELES, CA 714-523-2850 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 612-888-6320 PORTLAND, OR 503-768-7891 BLACKSBURG, VA 703-951-0901 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING April 5, 1995 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 8:30 o'clock P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on Tuesday, April 25, 1995, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Tharaldson Enterprises for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a public restaurant during lunch hours on the following described property: The West 175 feet of Lot 3, Block 6, Mendota Heights Industrial Park. More particularly, this property is located at 1330 Northland Drive. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Ordinance No. 401. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed Conditional Use Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk 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 Administration at 452- 1850 with requests. CATCH #2 1.83 INV. 866.29A 0 El 07 RIM. 873.5 ./ 11:1Rif 22 -?1. r9 1\ 1 ) 1/ Mit COM CATCH #3 tic RIM, 871.83 I/— NV. 887.11 1.; TATER CAS 114 VOICtiP J ELECT. CRTC #4 RIM. 871.25 .INV. 888.25 a 0 /ii.,141.7it> i tt� JtK V ll t,� UUUK` 10,-0' 1 KITCHEN STORAGE •Oj \ i 1 NOTE1 • CONCERNING ALL TRADES WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE KITCHEN AREA, ESTE.. D L CO 01- " CAL THE 1C'•NAN EA ,* \---1E INS` AS PER STATE AND LOCAL CODES CONT HEAL BEGI STOR DINI E2 FIRE . ii EXTIN. II n 11 u 3/4' I_Z' 29'-8 3/4' ,d11466% HERITAGE INN OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1330 NORTHLAND DRIVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 i 20' 7 1 9® OR A .7E12 LOCKERS/ STORAGE ; VESTIBULE 111 4 0 ' OFFICE W 0. 2' 12'-8 3/4' 18'-8 3/4' 2' HERITAGE INN OF MENDOTA HEIGh , 1330 NORTHLAND DRIVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 --EQL1F. SCI lEEDULE- TYPE DESCRIPTION 1 WIRE SHELVING 24"X48" 2 W1RE SHELVING 14"X48" 3 W1RE SHELVING 14"X36" 4 REFRIG./FREEZER 5 MIXER W/ STAND 6 KETTLE W/ STAND 7 PROOFER 8 WORK TABLE 9 WORK TABLE W/ DRAWERS 10 MOP S1NK - 11 WALK-IN COOLER 12 COMPRESSOR W/ WALL RACK 13 3 COMPARTMENT SINK 14 [DISHWASHER 15 RACK SHELF 16 REFRIG. 17 FREEZER 18 FRYER DUMP STATION 19 FRYER _. 20 RANGE 21----- EXHAUST HOOD 22 BROILER 23 COLD PREP. TABLE 24 _ 25 HOT PREP. TABLE STEAMER 26 MICROMAVE W/ SHELF 27 TOASTER 28 PASS SHELF W/ HEAT I -MPS 29 DROP-IN COLD TABLE 30 DROP-IN HOT TABLE 31 SLICER W/ STAND 32 HAND S1NK 33 WORK TABLE W/ STOR. BELOW W•••WaNne.mr.•••••••10 i 1 6 • 11 1 / 1 7 _11 / / / /, / / I / / / -/ 31 / / / / / / • ". 10 - • 32 '12 _izammwitimiasmismemgm, 16 17 -18 19 1--20 21 22 27-..Hitio 2 ti ---,-• .1 25 • • 1 City of Mendota Heights April 20, 1995 Mr. Keith Gartland Heritage Inn 1330 Northland Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Gartland: Your application for Variance will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, April 25, 1995. The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here are City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS. DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 92-64 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SITE PLAN, A SUBDIVISION, VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING A 114 UNIT HERITAGE INN IN -THE "I" - INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, Tharaldson Development Company has made application for a Site Plan Review, a Subdivision, a Sign Setback Variance of 20', a proof of parking Variance and a Conditional Use Permit to operate a private motel in the Mendota Heights Business Park in the "I" - Industrial Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Mendota Heights Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 22, 1992 to consider above said application; and WHEREAS, based upon the public record transcribed on September 22, 1992 the Mendota Heights Planning Commission recommended to the Mendota Heights City Council that the Site Plan, a Sign Setback Variance, a Proof of Parking Variance be approved and that the Conditional Use Permit be approved with the following conditions: 1. That a storm pond be designed to accommodate the City's storm water needs in the area as approved by the City's Engineering Department. 2. That a landscape plan be submitted that is adjusted for the revised site plan known as Plan B. 3. That the site development plan address Section 5.6(2)b.2 of the Zoning Ordinance locating all buildings within 350 feet. 4. That a lighting plan be submitted. 5. That all fire codes are satisfied and that an emergency vehicle turnaround be provided at the south end of the parking lot. 6. That Plan B be revised so that no variances are necessary (with the exception of a 20 foot setback variance for the sign in accordance with the Mendota Heights Business Park Sign Policy) . 7. That a sign policy be submitted. WHEREAS, Tharaldson Development Company submitted revised plans in response to the Planning Commission's above stated conditions, said revised plans labeled as Site Plan 1 and Site Plan la including a Proof of Parking Plan and Letter of Agreement; and WHEREAS, The City Council conducted their regularly scheduled meeting on October 6, 1992 to consider the Tharaldson Development Company's application for a Heritage Inn Motel. NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the proposed Site Plan, Subdivision, Variances and Conditional Use Permit will have no adverse affect on -the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the community and the surrounding land; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED;' -that construction of said private motel is not adverse to the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Site Plan, Subdivision, Variances and Conditional Use Permit for a 114 unit Heritage Inn Motel be approved according to the plans submitted and revised as per the September 22, 1992 Planning Commission recommendation, said plans labeled Site Plan 1 and Site Plan IA including Proof of Parking plan and Letter of Agreement, with the following condition: 1. That elevation drawings be prepared and submitted for City staff approval, said drawings to accurately represent the exterior materials, trim and colors displayed and presented at the October 6, 1992 City Council meeting. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day of October, 1992. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By-�.,-., •� a/6,..-&,-441-. Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor ATTEST: K thleen M. Swanson, City Clerk O OJ OQdsoutDeveQoptilecit Co. P. O. Box 10519 Fargo, ND 58106 PHONE: (701) 235-1167 FAX: (701) 235-1262 September 24, 1992 City Council City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 RE: Proof of parking, Heritage Inn To Whom It May Concern: In return for a waiver of parking requirements, Tharaldson Development and/or it's assigns hereby agrees to the following: Should the agreement with the single user be terminated, additional parking as shown on sheet 1A, future site plan and sign detail (attached as exhibit A) shall be installed before the motel is made available to the general public. Roger Swahn Vice President, Land acquisition and Finance RS/mkp cc: Gary Tharaldson Don Kauers 0 0 ts- hfi .0Y .0Z p MUDS .OL V v w INFORMATION: .ZZ .0Z .6 J 11 1 f, ,FIT V) W )---) w Q W 1"j0 W W S U U U U aaa a d wb t• a a_ a_ a_ a_ C�- O a• V) V) V) V) > . rn N N 00 d t-- 0 0 ,- tr) 't (Ni in co \IS - V) V) W W b.:0 0 (f) V) a_ 0- W —"t00NL() rn W(f)V) 0 00 0 0 N (0 Q0in000 M <O W 11 �. to rr) CO r- 0) 0_ Q W V ! Q• - Md- 01�v0 J E3 J I- Z a- Q 0 Z <:2 0 Z DIW F -- a_0 Q Y J O'O'O o� I 1 t W O 00 Z Q p NNN 00-I (LXXX z z V) J. z b b b ' U Q Y 1 1 1 w m-..a'Q Z 1- �. 1_- w D<o O O aC)N0, V) ~'ma_0 0 1-- a 11Nii VT I (1 ],:OdO?Id I..I� '� .(21_14 f{ I. U 01 cr 0 a CTZO G00v4 Lr 0 I-4"„ (.7~QZ —' (L a ♦-JD w J Z M L _ < CO c 0 w rX W W ce N Z 0 U W m a4- 0 -..I J S.F.) COVERAGE 15.0% 34.0% 49.5% 2.0% 2.2812 ACRES 58 SPACES DACES 4 SPACES PACES 7 SPACES 69 SPACES 'ARO POST CONCRETE TO MATCH EXTERIOR �0 II CLOSURE UNIT vi/ GIrY t/ 1 N N ONCE ,+—e_ ?c— ioin.nciarr a COcci H0• 20' n NORTHLAND DRIVE 175.00' SI' It EMERGENCY VEHICLES OILY — NO PARKING BEYOND TH S POINT DRY-VIT TO MATCH 1-- BUILDING EXTERIOR 64' 2' r 60' REFUSE ENC DETAIL THIS SS3003 go al .0t .0Z SSAIDNI .z INFORMATION: UJ (1) LU 0 jNNO OO > 0 0 10 LO 0Q3606c3 0—NrK) .L'IL 2.2812 ACRES r I .LT. : !lILI.;‘ '41 a 5E' (f) (f) V) V) WWW 000 0 < < .r4t 0_ a. 0_ a_ (f) (f) (J) V) 0N 'st -V I _ i ov) 141 Lil 00 I ...--, < < (f) LL: (f) °-- w cp "'"'(-0 0 00 to 01 < a- tjj a_ .t.r) w (YL00-0 M _J - I < T— '4' tt)< 01 Z-- < 0 ca D = LI F-- ! Z i i /-- E: 00 1 0--.1 (/) < bbo 1 o I 1 I ZW b a.) z z -.. 2?<xx F- CC I 1 1 0 -<''- COMOUH-a.. 0) N 0) • .r.) • S PACES SPACES :ES I;UVLKAUL 1 6.0% 45.0% 38.5% 0.5% 2.2812 ACRES 110 SPACES 4 SPACES 7 'SPACES -PtoLvt TN 'ER LETTERS iV 4 1 /2" I OTA HEIGHTS, INC. cci ca 2 el' 5' 22' 10• a 14' 64' 57' REFUSE ENC DETAIL THIS 30' 10 22' 27' IJ I 1 l I 81' se 1 FUTURE PARKING 33. 81' 22' FUTURE PARKING N -+r Y' /3' City of JJ Mendota Heights June 30, 1995 Mr. Keith Gartland Heritage Inn 1330 Northland Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Cashill: Your application for a Conditional Use Permit will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Thursday, July 6, 1995. The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting in order that your application will receive Council consideration . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, `(WJL \ Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures 1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 6/29 13:39 1995 FROM: 612 454 1978 TO: 6128963333 JUN -29-95 THU 13:27 MENDOTA HERITAGE INN 612 454 1978 HERITAGE INN PAGE: 17 P. 17 1330 Northland Drive • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 m (612) 454-1978 June 12, 1995 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota !eights, NN 55118 To the Planning Commission: The Heritage Inn has done a car count in our parking lot. This i:ourlt took place between June 2 and the 8th. • The count was done during the hours of 4:00 An and Midnight. Average number of cars in lot during day. JUNE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 37 36 38 35 34 33 34 Uccupancy on these days % 88 83 96 95 98 98 93 Number o.t, rooms Occupied 105 100 117 115 119 119 116 Listed below is the seven day average for cars in our lot broken down on a per hour basis. 4 AM 42.7 1 PPI 32.8 5 4.1.7 2 30.7 G 42.0 3 31.2 7 42.1 4 29.2 a 35.7 5 31.2 `1 35.5 6 32.8 10 35.0 7 32.5 11 32.2 8 34.0 Noon 34.7 9 34.0 10 34.8 11 34.8 Midnight 35.4 Overall 2.9% of occupied rooms have a vehicle in the lot. Sincerely, Keith Gartland, General Manager 07/06/1995 13:45 6127276741 N7290 March 9, 1995 Heritage Inn Mr. Keith Gartland - Gen. Mgr. 1330 Northland Drive Mendota Heights, Mn. 55120 Dear Keith; NORTHWEST AIRLINES PAGE 01 This letter will serve as a follow-up to our recent conversations concerning the ability of your hotel to open the restaurant facility for full service lunch. Upon consulting with our Flight Administration and Hotel Administration Divisions it appears that it is in the best interest of Northwest Airlines for this facility to re -open for full luncheon service at your earliest convenience. In addition, we feel that opening the facility for lunch to the general public between limited hours also best serves our joint interests in providing quality service to our Corporate guests. If you have any further concerns or questions concerning our position, please do not hesitate to contact us, Yours truly, NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC. R. W. Crowley. Director - Training Planning, Scheduling and Records 07/06/1995 13:45 6127276741 From: WMFITZG--NWAOFV1 To: HTGINN--NWAOFV1 cc: CECOMPT --NWAOFV1 GMLABAN--NWAOFV1 NORTHWEST AIRLINES PAGE 02 VIEW THE NOTE E20 Date and time 02/27/95 13:06:25 RWCROWL--NWAOFV1 AMMALON--NWAOFV1 FROM: WILLIAM M. FITZGERALD SUBJECT: Restaurant C. Foushee, VP Flight Operations has approved the serving of Beer & wine in the hotel restaurant facility. The service of these beverages will only be in conjunction with food service during the time the facility is open to the public - lunch and dinner. Under no circumstances will a bar atmosphere be allowed to exist. END OF NOTE PF1 Alternate PFs PF2 Copy to PF3 Keep PF4 Erase PF5 Forward Note PF6 Reply PF7 Resend PF8 Print PF9,Help PF10 Next PF11 Previous PF12 Return CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 29, 1995 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Marc S. MoganI•ASO Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed Sunfish Lake Gravity Outlet DISCUSSION: Sunfish Lake is a lake which is presently landlocked. Periodic high lake levels on occasion have prompted the City of Sunfish Lake to consider providing a lake outlet. Lake water levels have recently risen over a period of time to elevations which currently threaten to flood private homes. Any further increase in the level of Sunfish Lake could cause flooding. In an effort to protect private property, Sunfish Lake has approached Mendota Heights with a proposal to construct a simple lake outlet control structure, ultimately draining to Mendota Heights, which would regulate the elevation of Sunfish Lake. The Water Resources Management Plans for Mendota Heights and Sunfish Lake both acknowledge the possible need for a lake outlet for Sunfish Lake to protect private property. These plans suggest a lake outlet design which could be regulated to discharge at times which do no overload the Mendota Heights storm water system. The proposed Sunfish Lake outlet control structure would consist of a 12" diameter polyethylene gravity storm sewer conduit with an integral valve, and tamper resistant locking mechanism, which could be opened or closed by City personnel as conditions warrant. Lake discharge from the control structure would flow westerly to the intersection of Charlton Road and Delaware Avenue in the drainage ditch on the south side of Charlton Road. Flows would be conveyed, from that point, approximately 450 feet southerly to a culvert draining west under Delaware Avenue within the drainage ditch on the east side of Delaware Avenue. The culvert under Delaware Avenue connects to the Stone Road/Fieldstone Drive storm sewer system in Mendota Heights which discharges to Copperfield Pond (see attached exhibits). The discharge from this lake outlet structure, even at high lake levels would be small relative to the downstream capacity of the Mendota Heights storm sewer system. These minor flows, when combined with the flexibility of this system to control when discharge occurs, should insure that the design capabilities of the Mendota Heights storm sewer system are not compromised. The entire cost of this Sunfish Lake outlet improvement project would be paid by the Sunfish Lake Association at no cost to Mendota Heights. A DNR permit for this project is not required because construction occurs above the normal ordinary high water level (937.0) established by the DNR. This proposal was presented and approved at the June 15, 1995 Lower Mississippi River Watershed Management Organization subject to execution of a joint powers agreement between Mendota Heights and Sunfish Lake. The Sunfish Lake Planning Commission considered this proposal at a public hearing held on June 21, 1995 and made a motion to recommend construction of the improvement subject to Sunfish Lake preparing a joint powers agreement which would be executed with Mendota Heights to cover the operation of the lake outlet. The City of Sunfish Lake has all the necessary permits to construct these improvements, with the exception of the joint powers agreement with Mendota Heights, and is anxious to construct this project as soon as possible given the current flood damage potential. RECOMMENDATION: The improvements as proposed have been designed in conformance with the Mendota Heights and Sunfish Lake Water Resources Management Plans, and are a simple and inexpensive solution to prevent potentially costly damages to property. Due to its size and design safeguards, this proposed project should not compromise the operation of the storm sewer system in Mendota Heights. I recommend that Mendota Heights participate in developing a joint powers agreement prepared by the City of Sunfish Lake covering the operation of a lake outlet system as a means of protecting private property by regulating Sunfish Lake levels for the reasons stated above. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with this recommendation, they should direct staff to participate with the City of Sunfish Lake in developing a joint powers agreement which addresses the interests of both cities for this project for Council action at a later date. MSM:dfw to. C:C SALVAGED APRON Charlton Road Ex. 15 CMP CULVERT NOTE: 1. Existing brush/trees to be cleared by Lakeowners Association. 2. Prinsco DOS—IR Valve and Box to be modified with locking mechanism. 3. Existing 3" rock in ditch to be salvaged and replaced over new pipe. 4. Normal ordinary high water mark (NOHW) set by Department of Natural Resources. CONNECT Ex. 12" HOPE PIPE TO MANHOLE REMOVE Ex. 12" HDP 12" APRON •) 1 r 2166 -. l � I L.f l / {1 PRINSCO 005—I _ VALVE & 80 i � v•,.�AJ..uJJlM�1• 12180 y INSET 'B' { STANDARD 4" DIA. MANHOLE w/R1642111 CASTING 0 SUNFISH LAKE NOHW = 937.0 (DNR) I 0 100 Seale in feet { 1- 950 APROv v4/140:Y•,:CL,:::3 ••-111P-RAP •, MANHOLE •9:as:a APRON 940 ............................ PIPE :: .40 .............:::::::::::::::::::.PIPE:. ... 40%..... 930 13E. :INST:! •e -0+841 •4 0 C 0 4a rn m:c to•a; 0.0 0 3 1 2 St. Paul • A/ilnauk•a 4I !IGEN a 0 051795 1 1 ST. PAUL SWANSON'S 2ND ADDITION 135E) CAREN city DIANE )OUGLAS O. 0 o OVERLOOK RD. SIEY 0 0 / CT. Lln� /ORCHARD L FL. CIR. S. a a •Ss. Atr r C J x z Lu U -J W z ULLIGAN LA. )/MARIE] VERONICA 0 LA. 0 401 J CC ,0% RD. H NIGHVIEn CIR• HIG>� EN CIR. U Jvcc 2 cc ROLL> -J M ^ � N VICTORIA CT. IC TOR IA Ell E 0 A OM LV LU PROJECT LOCATION MAP 16 '/z' i N TYPICAL STREET SECTION 30' 30' ORCHARD PLACE z O 0 0 z J 0 MARIE AVENUE POND ORCHARD HILL MH3 MH2g32A, • 10' ROLF PROJECT SITE MAP TACK 16 EL. STREET L. TOP OF CURB B 618 C.Ex G. 11/2" WEAR 2341 2" BASE 2331 6" CL.5 CRUSHED ROCK 0 5 VA 'I , NORTH G WEST ' Q SIDE OF STREET; ; N I WATER MAIN I � I , II I ' i I 1" COPPER i I' ' i I' r L J SERVICE BY ST. PAUL MARK . WITH 4x4 I! 1/...! --WHEN POSSIBLE STUBS WILL CONNECT TO MANHOLE. SEE PLANS FOR , LOCATIONS 9' With Sidewalk 7 ; Without TER SHUT OFF 5 CONC. WALK 7'-6" COVER OVER z z WATER WATER SERVICE PROPERTY LINE UTILITY EASEMENT 3% • 4" CONC. WITH 6x6 W.W.F. OR •6"CONC. WITH NO REINFORCING •2" SAND CUSHION MARK END OF WATER b SEWER SERVICES WITH 2 x 2'a -_ TYPICAL 17' TAIL 19' WITH SIDEWALK END OF STUB 10' BELOW TOP OF CURB 4" SDR 26 PVC SANITRRY SERVICE EASY TO REMOVE CAP OR PLUG LEXINGTON .m. City of Mendota Heights 1101 VICTORIA CURVE • MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 SWANSONS 2ND ADDITION GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS THE 1988 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION (AS AMENDED BY THE MAY 2, 1994, SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS) SHALL GOVERN BEFORE EXCAVATION CHECK UTILITY IA)CATIONS GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 454.0002 GAS: Northern States Power 221-4444 ELECTRICAL: Northern States Power 221 4444 TELEPHONE: US West Dial "0" Ask Operator for Zenith 2345 CABLE TV: Continental Cablevision 292-01 18 ST. PAUL WATER UTILITY - Engineering Inspection & Testing 266-6210 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PUBLIC WORKS 454-4059 MENDOTA HEIGHTS ENGINEERING DEPT Design, Survey & Inspection 452-1850 SHEET DESCRIPTION /. T/TLE PAGE, PROJECT LOCATION MAP, PROJECT SITE MAP, AND DETAILS 2. WATERMA/N AND SANITARY SEWER S TREE TS AND STORM SEWER. DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REG.NO ENGR APPROVED 19 MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL I JOB 9509 IMP 95-2 SHEET I OF 2 92.5 9.20 9.15 9.10 90.5 #1851 5 #1853 6 HYCF;ANT- 6 +3 2 6"C./ & BOX -6+I6 -1 / :`2END;. F +02 B"x 6" RELUCER 54-89 MH6 ri\N STA 4+77- IO' L AIR VENT BY ST. PAUL WATER -I855 7 STA 4+DC, I IL 8" x 221/2° BEND STA 3+59 5' L 8"x 8" TEE 7-- STA 3+23- I O' L 8"x 45° BEND 25'- S"D.I.P W/ 34'-8"PVC @ 2.00% STA 3+3 8"x 6" TEE 8'L 6" GV I2'L Tr, HYDRANT 25' L Q) M P MH 3 • #1861 • 10. 4 #1850 3 #1854 2 #1858 12" x 8" WET TAP 81 VALVE -BY ST. PAUL WATER ;eta EX 9" V.C.S. P. WI LkJi QI RESTORE LEXINGTON AVE AS SPECIFIED— i • 1 MH I UT 0 i0 co m #I 853 6 Cup -DE -SAC J... LU a) u.i I— I�— N 431 QI J PC = 2+50.20 PT =. 4+23.32 R = 140.00 D = 40.925557 A = 70" 51' 05" L = 173.12 T = 99.59 7 #1855 VPI. 4+-45 EL= 929.; V C = 150' M= -2.I2 N- C1/4.1 rn U 0 - CBMH 3 #1850 3 INSTALL 24" RC APRON AND GRADE AROUND APRON. #1854 2 #1858 STA 0+40 BEGIN CURB 84 GUTTER CB 2A STA 0+45 I8.7'R GUTTER =398.8 INV = 895.0 46'- 12" RCP @ 1.08% +i 2c-12"RCP @ 100/0 !NCLUDIN APRON INV. = 897.0 GRADE DITCH TO APRON W I REINSTALL I SURGE BASIN AS SPECIFIED Q� OI I I W' vI ,/ CLEAR DESIGNATED TREES RESTORE LEXINGTON AVE AND PED. TRAIL AS SPECIFIED co tv.l C/) N- CV S!? oI .11 w cc 925 919:I6 SE 90.0 8.95 8.90 8.8.5 OO Q+ c.Q 0 0-0 z 0 z X —J 92.0 9.1.5 0 VC: -: 86' - 0 M-41:26 — w co po N') co 6 0 N - 9.1.0 :Q. N... 884.85± ......................... ......................... 2 +.00 1100 =8945 E -894 3 S:7:89:4 8 0 o+oo 9.0.5 9.0.0 8.9.5.... 8.9.0 6: --OO 5+00 4+00 3 00 2+00 +p 0:+00 6 00 5+00 4+00 4+0:0 3+00 City of Mendota Heights SWANSON S 2ND ADDITION SANITARY SEWER, WATERMA IN, STORM SEWER AND STREET CONSTRUCTION 1101 VICTORIA CURVE • MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118 (612) 452-1850 SCALE: PLAN /"=.50' PROF/LE HOR/Z. VERT /' 5' JOB 9509 IMP 93-2 Sheet No. 2 of 3 Sheets p 910 912 0. {. .925 ,1" 924 9 3 0....:,:mm ''3'I 4 9 4 I)., III PP Om 0 gO CA O 141 Gtll� r l4 +'i ul T;1 flflTl N88 52'21"E 278. S 0' • ' 0 RC HARD PLACE I.I'TEO Ex STING )01,1 S E; N8 v'52' 1"E 2:7. I0' 1 F N88'52'21"E a' 124,00' hI, C ��"III'Ill� i40 n:m,y TO 40 J 111 'GRADING 1WIIf=3.83. STMT 1 X927. Il ,I .a SILT, PENCE & TREE TAPE -� 71 mmlt� I Imo 2 8 II '50 umm� tnl vt:nulillmuv n4Im10 IICIa I !Im aIN Anlrfl�G m 414 Pm Call, IMO mllflh 01 85.00 S8';'52'21” 936 934 9 30 9 26 GENERAL NOTE 1 INDIVIDUAL HOME SITES TO BE GRADED BASED UPON SPECIFIC HOUSE STYLE AT THE TIME OF HOME CONSTRUCTION. NO GRADING OF PADS AT THIS TIME. 2 TREES WITHIN GRADING LIMITS TO BE REMOVED AND TRANSPLANTED or FEASIBLE) TO OTHER AREAS OF THE SITE. 3 GRADING LIMITS TO BE MARKED WITH SILT FENCE. AND TREE PROTECTION TAPE (SEE SHEET C8-1). ALL TREES OUTSIDE THESE LIMITS ARE TO BE PRESERVED. 4 FINAL STREET GRADE TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY. (CONFIRM CENTERLINE GRADES WITH FINAL STREET DESIGN). 5. STORM SEWER TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY. -arpllL!Cmv 7111, .11!71 N1iII�I 11 898 . �nulf SEDIMENT TRAP'S TO BE PLACED AROUND ALL CATCH BASIN'S (TYP). - ,_al LEGEND CON.iTOURS ,W WATER SERVICE -,'a SANITARY SERVICE MANHOLE ATCH BASIN HYDRANT & VALVE "J .SA .., N 1 TORY SEWER ._,S)TORM SEWER WATERMAIN SPOT ELEVATION DIRECTION OF FLOW SILT FENCE CURB & GUTTER SOIL BORINGS RETAINING WALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CONNECT TO EXISTING P44 ROCK ENTRANCE PAD EX STING HYDRANT AND POIER LINE TO BE MO ED TO NEW LOCATION. (A TUAL LOCATION TO BE DE ERMINED BY INDIVIDUAL UTLITY COMPANY). NORTH PROPOSED EXISTING 0 • 111131119111 P111IIIf9 3iII1I11310 U 0 0 CI T Y OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MINNESOTA OWNER/DEVELOPER Bjorklund CONSTRUCTION 2511 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, Mn, 55120 1—(612)-452-3434 KEY PLAN SHEET INDEX SHEET TITLE CO -1 TITLE SHEET C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 SOILS MAP C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C4-1 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C6-1 PRELIMINARY PLAT C8-1 DETAIL SHEET hereby certify that this plea, specification or report was prepared by m• or under my direct supervision and that t am a duly registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of ldl}ne.ote. 19624 D.t. DATE REVISION 1 12-6-94 PRE -PLAT SUBMITTAL (ALL SHEETS) 1-18-95 REVISE AND RE -SUBMIT 4-I1-95 REVISE AND RE -SUBMIT 5 -II -95 REVISE GRADING AND STORM SEWER 6-19-95 FINAL PLAN SUBMITTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT REVIEW: BY- DATE: Planners • Engineers • Surveyors • Designers • Archeologists 7200 Hemlock lane, Suite 300, Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369-5512 Telephone•. (612)424-5505 Far. (812)424-5622 ® 1994 FINAL GRADING PLAN PROJECT NO 94-160 C3-1 C3010B1! GRADING/EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 1. WHERE SOIL CORRECTIONS AND/OR FILLING OCCUR WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% OF THE STANDARD MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP OF SOILS (ASTM D-698-70) EXCEPT THE TOP THREE FEET (3') OF THE BACK- FILL WHICH SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 100% DENSITY. AN INDEPENDENT TESTING FIRM SHALL TEST THE STREET SECTION IN FILL AREAS AND PROVIDE THE RESULTS OF THESE TESTS TO THE CITY, ENGINEER AND THE CLIENT. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO COMMENCING GRADING ACTIVITIES AND SHALL MAINTAIN SAID FENCE FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIiS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT HIS ACTIVITIES TO THE GRADING LIMITS SHOWN ON THE GRADING PLAN. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL ORDINANCE. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SNOW FENCE, AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER, TO PROTECT TREE ROOTS. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE HIS OPERATIONS TO MINIMIZE THE DISTURBED AREA AT ANY GIVEN TIME. 6. ALL DISTURBED NON -STREET AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED WITH A MINIMUM OF 4" TOP SOIL AND SEED OR SOD AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER WITHIN 72 HOURS OF COMPLETION OF THE GRADING ACTIVITY IN THAT PERTICULAR AREA A. ALL SEED, SOD, MULCH AND FERTILIZER SHALL CONFORM WITH THE FOLLOWING MN/DOT SPECIFICATIONS, AS MODIFIED BELOW: ITEM SPECIFICATION NUMBER SOD SEED MULCH(TYPE 1,DISC ANCHORED) FERTILIZER GENERAL PLACEMENT 3878 3876 3882 3881 2575 B. SOD SHALL BE PLACED BEHIND CURB IMMEADIATELY FOLLOWING THE BACKFILLING UNDER CITY STREET AND UTILITY PROJECT. C. THE SEED MIXTURE SHALL CONSIST OF A MN/DOT TYPE 500 UNLESS NOTED ELSE- WHERE ON THE PLAN. 7. FOLLOWING STREET CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL CLEAN THE STREETS ON AN ON- GOING BASIS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. 8. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE SILTATION PONDS ARE TEMPORARY, AND SHALL BE REMOVED AND RESTORED TO THE ORIGINAL CONTOUR BY THE DEVELOPER FOLLOWING THE PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT OF TURF ON 76% OF THE DRAINAGE AREA. THE PONDS AND POND OUTLETS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE GRADING CONTRACT. 9. RIP -RAP SHALL BE PLACED AT ALL STORM SEWER OUTLETS UNDER THE UTILITY CONTRACT AND SHALL CONFORM WITH APPLICABLE CITY AND WATERSHED DISTRICT STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 10. VERTICAL GRADING TOLERANCE SHALL BE WITHIN 0.2 FEET OF THE CITY APPROVED GRADING PLAN. TREE PRESERVATION The CONTRACTOR shall avoid all areas outside the construction limits to prevent compaction of soil around tree roots. The CONTRACTOR shall install protection around specific significant trees designated for preservation by the OWNER. All tree protection zones shall be delineated with plastic tape. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for any changes for any damage done to trees marked to be saved by the OWNER or ENGINEER. The CONTRACTOR shall have "tree paint" on site at all times. If an Oak is wounded during construction, the CONTRACTOR must immediately apply paint to the wound in order to prevent Oak Wilt fungus from entering the tree. If an Oak is believed to be infected by Oak Wilt, the CONTRACTOR shall immediately contact the OWNER, who will in turn contact the City Forester and/or other private consultants. !TREE PROTECTION ZONE — KEEP OUT 1 TREE PROTECTION) TYPICAL PLASTIC TAPE (NTS) IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 1 Install Silt Fence 2. Begin Grading Operations: a. b. Stockpile topsoil Grade site Re-establish topsoil in disturbed areas 3. Temporary Restoration: a. Seed and mulch disturbed areas (sod where necessary) 4. Utility Installation: a. Sanitary Sewer b. Watermain Storm Sewer (All RCP outlets to be riprapped at time of culvert installation.) 5. Street Construction: Final street grading b. Curb and gutter installation c. Bituminous paving 6. Restoration: Seed and mulch disturbed areas (sod where necessary) b. Seeding and mulching to be completed within 72 hours after completion of grading. 7. Housing Construction with Final Turf Establishment. 4% MIN TO 3'.1 MAX 4% MIN TO 3:1 MAX R/W 60' R/W 14' 32' 14' CURB & GUTTER D412 Q R/W 16' 16' 2% 2% 1 8" 4" TOPSOIL 1/21 1 LI & SEED (OR SEED, MULCH. AND DISC ANCHOR) R/W -4404110L- TYPICAL STREET SECTION 60' 4% —n r J1 1/2 J 1 / BIT. WEAR (MN/DOT 2331 TYPE 41) BIT. BASE (MN/DOT 2331 TYPE 31) GRAVEL BASE (MN/DOT 3138 CLASS 5) SUBGRADE PREPARATION R/W 11' 14' Q R/W 5' 5 14' 11, CURB & GUTTER D412 SURMOUNTABLE 2% 4" TOPSOIL L \— Si SEED (OR SEED. MULCH, AND DISC ANCHOR) 2 — St a 2% 1 1/2 TYPICAL STREET SECTION WITH CENTER ISLAND 1 Hard surface public rood r 1 1/2 BIT. WEAR (MN/DOT 2331 TYPE 41) BIT. BASE (MN/DOT 2331 TYPE 31) GRAVEL BASE (MN/DOT 3138 CLASS 5) SUBGRADE PREPARATION I" to 2" Woshed rock NOTE: Rock size should be I" to 2" in size such as MnDOT CA—I or CA -2 course aggregate. A geotextils fabric may be used under the rock to prevent migration of the underlying soil into the stone. ROCK ENTRANCE TO CONSTRUCTDN SITE 4% MIN TO 3:1 MAX 4% MIN TO 3: 1 MAX I. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE A 4"x4" TRENCH UPSLOPE ALONG THE LINE OF POSTS. 3. ATTACH THE FILTER FABRIC TO THE WIRE FENCE AND EXTEND IT INTO THE TRENCH. 7 95 2. STAPLE WIRE FENCING TO THE POSTS, (IN HIGH FLOW AREAS ONLY) STEEP SLOPES. 4. BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE SOIL CONSTRUCTION OF A SILT FENCE SILT FENCE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM INSPECTION — SILT FENCES SNAIL BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED RAINFALL ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. REPLACEMENT — FABRIC SHALL BE REPLACED PROMPTLY WHEN IT DECOMPOSES OR BECOMES INEFFECTIVE BEFORE THE BARRIER L9 NO LONGER NECESSARY. SEDIMENT REMOVAL — SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED AFTER EACH STORM EVENT. THEY MUST BE REMOVED WHEN DEPOSITS REACH APPROXIMATELY ONE—HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER SILT FENCE DETAIL PLACE FLAT ON GRADE WHEN PLACED ON PAVED SURFACE AND MOUND SOIL 4" HIGH AROUND PERIMETER C t I I ' 41 .) 4 I I VlI'R• �� I ►1.11 l►�� ilii i111'k 1111111(III IIIiIIIIIII II III =�-1I I_ II I II -t i STRAW BALE TYP. STRAW BALE IMBED 4" WHEN PLACED ON EARTH 17 - SURFACE �— #5x3' REBAR TWO (2) EACH BALE EXTENDED 8" INTO SOIL/PAVEMENT NOTE: INSTALL AND MAINTAIN AROUND CATCH BASINS UNTIL TURF IS ESTABLISHED CATCH BASIN SILT PROTECTION BALES CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MINNESOTA OWNER/DEVELOPER B jorklund CONSTRUCTION 2511 Dodd Road Mendota Heights, Mn. 55120 1—(612)-452-3434 KEY PLAN SHEET SHEET INDEX TITLE CO -1 C1-1 Cl -2 C2-1 C3-1 C4-1 C6-1 TITLE SHEET EXISTING CONDITIONS SOILS MAP SITE PLAN/LANDSCAPE PLAN PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT t hereby certify that this plan specification nr report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I em a duly registered Professional Engineer under the lera of the State yNlnice-sots. Reg No. 19624 Date 7*-fr DATE REVISION 12-e-94 PRE -PWT SUBMITTAL (AIL SHEETS) I-18-95 REVISED AND RE -SUBMIT e -19-9S FINAL PLAN SUBMITTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT REVIEW. BY' DATE' sedates, Planners • Engineers • Suneyors • Designers • Ambeologists 7200 Hemlock lane. Sulo 100, Wple Grove, Illoneeola 55989-5512 Telephone: (612)424-5505 Ten: 1612)424-5522 © 1994 DETAILS PROJECT NO. 94-160 C8-1 C8010RMH SWANSON 2ND ADDITION L1 r\1 I A E,r. VI \moi r1 r11 \Ll CJI n i+ r- LnvL_ N88'52'21"E 278.00 ORCHARD PLACE N88 -52'21"E 278.00 NW corner of SWANSON'S , FIRST ADDITION 218.05 Cw o y t " o6 0 N°t « b7- wcn :1"J o ) CJJ r N88'52'21"E / 120.00 CT) 0) Cs NO0'41 '29"W N8731.37W 186.38 3 N North line of the -/ NE 1/4 Sec. 27 407.00 \- A line parallel to the North line of the NE 1/4 Sec. 27 \ �I v NE corner of the - NE 1/4 Sec. 27 ,— A line parallel to the North / line of the NE 1/4 Sec. 27 N88'52'21 "E • 237.070 34056 j1710'3i '' 2 2 27 2 1 57710'32!-14 112.41 \OI l 60. /7 156.80 WIit 278.00 S88'52 121"W 338.36 �- A line parallel to the North line of the NE 1/4 Sec. 27 7 /?-.i• 4 3d, 00 1 287.00 \ o,� 09 os0 \ �y \\ N. w 0 IK 40 T. OC 58652'21"W 200.43 HILL 250.20 S88'52'21'W 8 v v 0 0 v) 33 50.00 -- 50 W z �i LEXINGTON 50 0 0 0 n S88'52'21"W 249.97 33 O 0 S00'41 '29"E 50 50 Lti _1 — 7 / 'l 0 I- — N -- 7 G — N I � L. I J ri-0-9S 6a, State Trunk Hwy VICINITY MAP SECTION 27, T2BN, R23W (NO SCALE) THE EAST UNE OF SEC. 27, T. 28 N, R. 23 W IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF SO0'41'29"E. • DENOTES 3/4 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPE SET, MARKED WITH MINNESOTA REG. NO. 16099 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: 10.00 --111-1 1 J 4 BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING STREET LINES AND RIGHT OF WAY LINES, AND BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON PLAT. NORTH 0 50 100 150 SCALE IN FEET PAUL R. McLAGAN & SON MINNESOTA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS SITE (612) 467.3645 Fax (612)457.6642 940 SOUTH ROBERT ST. WEST ST. PAUL MN. 66118 SHEET 2 --O _2--_-SHFFTS. 16594