Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1991-07-02
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA JULY 2, 1991 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Adoption 4. Approval of the June 18th Council Minutes 5. Consent Calendar * ** a. Acknowledgment of the June Building Report. b. Acknowledgment of the May Fire Department Report. c. Acknowledgment of the June 25th Draft Planning Commission Minutes. d. Acknowledgment of the Wetlands Permit - Public Hearing Policy. e. Approval to Award Bid for the 1991 Tree Planting Program. f. Approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a single family home - Charles Cudd Company - CASE NO. 91-21. g. Approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a deck addition - Nygaard - CASE NO. 91-22. h. Approval of a Variance to allow construction of a screened porch - Seymour - CASE NO. 91-19. i. Consider Offer to Purchase Property - 27-57000-131-02. j. Approval of the List of Contractors. k. Approval of the List of Claims (See Attached). 1. Approval of Personnel Actions Related to Leave Request End,of Consent Calendar 6. Public Comments 7. Introductions a. Introduction of New Fire Department Personnel. 8. Hearing a. CASE NO. 91-18: Divine - Minor Conditional Use Permit ** 8:00 ** 9. Unfinished and New Business a. CASE NO. 91-20: Heller (Subway Sandwiches) - Variance b. Dodd Road/T.H. 110 Feasibility Study Update - RESOLUTION NO. 91-36 * c. Discuss Airport Noise Issues - See Attached Letters d. CASE NO. 91-17: Owens - Lot Split - RESOLUTION NO. 91-37 e. Review of Centex Development Proposal for Southeast Area 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO July 2, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administr SUBJECT: Add on Agenda for July 2nd Council Meeting Additional information is being submitted for two items already scheduled on the'agenda, items 5k and 9c (*). One additional item has been added to the consent calendar, item 51 (**). 3. Agenda Adoption It is recommended that Council adopt the agenda printed on pink paper. 5k. List of Claims See attached claims list. 51. Approval of Personnel Actions Related to Leave Request See attached memo. 9c. Discuss Airport Noise Issues See attached letters from Senators Metzen and Belanger. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA JULY 2, 1991 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Agenda Adoption 4. Approval of the June 18th Council Minutes 5. Consent Calendar a. Acknowledgment of the June Building Report. b. Acknowledgment of the May Fire Department Report. c. Acknowledgment of the June 25th Draft Planning Commission Minutes. d. Acknowledgment of the Wetlands.Permit - Public.. - Hearing Policy. e. Approval to Award Bid for the 1991 Tree Planting Program. f. Approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a single family home - Charles Cudd Company - CASE NO. 91-21. g. Approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a deck addition - Nygaard - CASE NO. 91-22. h. Approval of a Variance to allow construction of a screened porch - Seymour - CASE NO. 91-19. i. Consider Offer to Purchase Property - 27-57000-131-02. j. Approval of the List of Contractors. k. Approval of the List of Claims (Available on Tuesday). End of Consent Calendar 6. Public Comments 7. Introductions a. Introduction of New Fire Department Personnel. 8. Hearing a. CASE NO. 91-18: Divine - Minor Conditional Use Permit ** 8:00 ** 9. Unfinished and New Business a. CASE NO. 91-20: Heller (Subway Sandwiches) - Variance b. Dodd Road/T.H. 110 Feasibility Study Update - RESOLUTION NO. 91-36 c. Discuss Airport Noise Issues d. CASE NO. 91-17: Owens - Lot Split - RESOLUTION NO. 91-37 e. Review of Centex Development Proposal for Southeast Area 10. Council Comments 11. Adjourn Page No. 3031 June 18, 1991 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 18, 1991 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 Cummins, Koch and Smith. Councilmember Biesener had notified the Council that she would be absent. AGENDA ADOPTION Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Smith moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting, revised to move item 5f to 9b on the agenda. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Councilmember Koch moved approval of the minutes of the June 4, 1991 regular meeting. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Councilmember Koch moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the June 11th Park and Recreation Commission meeting. b. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly report for May. c. Acknowledgment of a letter from Goodwill Industries regarding the relocation of the attended donation center to the Menards Plaza. d. Adoption of Resolution No. 91-30, "A RESOLUTION REQUESTING A BUDGET REVISION TO THE 1991 SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT." Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 AIRPORT ISSUES Page No. 3032 June 18, 1991 e. Adoption of Resolution No. 91-31, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR VICTORIA HIGHLANDS 10TH ADDITION." f. Adoption of Resolution No. 91-32, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT, AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN, STORM SEWER AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE THE LENNOX SITE (IMPROVEMENT NO. 91, PROJECT NO. 3)." Adoption of Resolution No. 91-33, "RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FIRE PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT USE FEES FOR SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT." g. h. Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated and attached hereto. i. Approval of the list of totalling $405,642.44. Councilmember Smith seconded claims dated and the motion. Mr. Nigel Finney, Metropolitan Airports Commission Deputy Executive Director for Planning and Environment, and Mr. Walter Rockenstein,' Chair of the Interactive Planning Committee, were present to discuss six concepts currently under study for the MSP Airport. Mr. Rockenstein informed Council and the audience that this evening's discussion is one part of a dual track process mandated by the State Legislature to look at how to provide services to the Twin Cities. The dual track process consists of MAC study of the six MSP expansion concepts and Metropolitan - Council selection of a potential site for a new airport in the metropolitan area. By the end of the year, MAC must select one of the six options by the Metropolitan Council must select one of the sites. He explained the charge of the Interactive Planning Committee and informed the audience that Mayor Mertensotto is a member of the committee. Mr. Finney then gave a presentation on the six development concepts, distributing to the Council and audience copies of a MAC report Page No. 3033 June 18, 1991 entitled "Description of Six Airport Development Concepts under Study for the Long• Term Comprehensive Plan," and dated April, 1991. Mayor Mertensotto informed the audience that the purpose of this meeting is to provide information and gather feedback from the community. He stated that the north parallel runway concept would impact Mendota Heights the most, even though it is stated only to be a landing runway. MAC is projecting an increase in operations of almost 100,000 annually over a twenty year period, which means that runways 11L and 11R will be primarily used for take -offs. It can be assumed that the number of take -offs and landings are equal, but take -offs would increase on the two existing parallel runways, over Mendota Heights. If the traffic increases as projected, air noise over the City will increase. He asked Mr. Finney how many daily operations there are, and how many departures are from runways 11 R/11L. Mr. Finney responded that there are 1,000 operations daily, which could increase to 1,500 per day by the year 2020. He stated that although the north parallel runway would be used predominantly for landings, that does not mean it will not be used for departures. He further stated that 50 to 60% of the landings and 50-60% of the departures come into the Mendota Heights/Eagan corridor. When runway 4 is being used to the north east, some of those flights come over Mendota Heights. If the north/south runway concept was selected, it would dramatically reduce the use of the parallel runways, but if the total operations increase the City might see more air traffic activity than today. He agreed that the north parallel runway would have the greatest impact on Mendota Heights, since about 60% of the airport activity would take place on the north side. In his presentation, Mr. Finney had stated that by the year 2000, 85% of the DC 9's and 727's would be phased out because of legislation requiring Stage 3 aircraft. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that Northwest Airlines has asked for an extension of the requirement for Stage 3 aircraft. Mr. Finney responded that this has not been taken into Page No. 3034 June 18, 1991 account yet. He stated that Northwest has the oldest fleet of any carrier in the country and that at a minimum the legislation requires that 85% of a fleet by Stage 3 by 1999. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. Mr. Joe Maegher asked for information on prevailing winds. Mr. Rockenstein responded that he believes the prevailing winds in summer are from south/southeast and north/northwest in winter, which is why the current runways are oriented as they are. Mr. Maegher stated that runways 11L and 11R are still used when the winds are from the east. He asked why planes come off 11L and turn over Mendota School. He stated that nothing has been done to keep planes in the corridor and now the audience is being told another runway is needed. He asked where residents can go with their complaints. Mr. Rockenstein responded that until the crosswind component reaches about 14 knots, the FAA permits departures or landings without respect to wind. He stated -that one of the options the legislature is looking at is additional runways at the airport. With respect to complaints, he stated that calls should go to the MAC and MASAC, but that aircraft will continue to take off on the north runway regardless of who is called. Mr. James Losleben stated that he has lived in the City for 22 years. He asked why the noise contour lines go so far towards southeast than northwest. Mr. Finney responded that more activity occurs in that area - more departures, which drive the size of the contour. Mr. Losleben stated that an additional runway will impact the City dramatically. He further stated that he is not in favor of moving the airport but objects very much to the increased airport noise. MSP has the fourth highest number of stage 2 aircraft, and the city is saturated with noise. He suggested that the corridor be defined on the ground and that pilots be required to fly in the corridor. If this were to happen, people could make decisions on where they want to live. He Page No. 3035 June 18, 1991 stated that he was on a recent flight that took a dramatic turn to the left over Mendota Heights and then a big shift to the right, yet there were no other planes in the area. Mr. Gene Esche stated that during the last two months a corridor request was made by the City and was sent to the FAA. He stated that he called the airport hot line and was told they do not know anything about the matter. He asked how, where and when the corridor request will be put into effect. Mr. Finney responded that the issue goes back a number of years - an attempt to define the north/south boundary within which aircraft will operate. As a result of discussions, the committee working on the north/south boundary issue agreed to how operations should occur when both runways are needed for simultaneous take -off, and when there is only one departure. The MAC adopted the committee recommendation and referred it to the FAA for implementation. The local FAA tower manager found it acceptable and sent it to the Chicago regional office. He informed Council that he will be in Chicago next week and intends to find out the status of the proposal and when a decision and implementation of the corridor will occur. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the non - simultaneous procedure, flying down the center of the corridor, should have been implemented long ago. Mr. Finney responded that the procedure could have been enacted the day after it was recommended and that he does not know why it has not been implemented. He further stated that the local tower chief is confident in the procedure and that it appears that the problem is with the regional office. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that airport noise is a significant issue for the City. The City does everything possible to get answers and implementation of changes, and he expressed frustration that the FAA is not cooperating. He felt that the failure to cooperate will work contrary to expansion of the airport. He pointed out that there is movement in Minneapolis for the relocation of the airport, and it seems that the FAA is Page No. 3036 June 18, 1991 doing all in its power to convince Mendota Heights to support that position. Councilmember Cummins asked which of the three proposed runway configurations would benefit the airport most in terms of operations. He stated that there is currently 15 degree separation on simultaneous operations and asked whether the additional runway separation would allow the two runways to operate simultaneously on instrument conditions. Mr. Finney responded that the north/south runway provides somewhat less delay than either of the parallel runways. He stated that there currently must be a 4300 foot separation on take -offs and the FAA is reducing that to 3,400 feet. Currently they are 3,300 feet apart - we anticipate in one to two years, that the existing runway configuration will be approved for simultaneous. Councilmember Cummins stated that a legislative decision on whether to expand MSP or build a new airport will not be made until 1996, and a new airport could not be built until 2010 -or so. He stated that he has talked to MAC members who say it will be necessary to continue to improve and expand the current airport. He asked when MAC will make a decision on the three runway options and what opportunity the City will have in the decision making process. Mr. Finney responded that there will be no decision until after the legislature makes clear its intentions for the future: 1996 is the earliest that a decision will be made on any of the runway options. There would then be a very comprehensive environmental process, including public hearing, before deciding on a runway. Ms. Liz Petchell stated that planes do not use runway 11R even for non -simultaneous take- offs, and that pattern is consistent all week, including the weekend. She stated that residents are encouraged to call the MAC with noise complaints but that when she recently saw a 727 or DC 9 or 10 fly over her house and called, she was told that she was mistaken and that the plane was over Burnsville._ When she called to complain about the pattern of Page No. 3037 June 18, 1991 flights over her neighborhood for an extended period of time and asked why planes were not using 11R or flying down the corridor centerline, she was told the planes were where they were supposed to be. She stated that she does not believe there is any credibility to what the MAC says and does not understand the increase in activity since she purchased her lot in 1987. She further stated that planes are routinely flying over T.H. 110 and take- offs have been extended from 10:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M., all without benefit of an environmental impact study. Mr. Jim McGlauflin stated that he moved to Cullen Avenue from the Washington D.C. area a year ago. The D.C. airport was closed from 11 P.M. to 7 A.M. and there was a restriction on aircraft types. Mr. Finney responded that MAC is in the process of looking at a night-time restriction. A public hearing will be initiated for elimination of flights between 11 P.M. and 6 A.M., and the group working on the proposal will also be looking at a 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. restriction and action to adopt local regulations stricter than federal legislation on Stage 3 aircraft. Councilmember Cummins informed Mr. Finney of the Council's recent resolution urging that negotiations with Northwest on issuing bonds include a very strict timetable for Stage 3 aircraft. He strongly urged the MAC to take that into consideration in negotiations and pointed out that to the Mendota Heights residents this is not a peripheral issue - the City wants reduced operations using stage 2 aircraft. Mr. Finney responded that the MAC has adopted six negotiation positions, one of which was the condition that Northwest cooperate with noise abatement. Mr. Drew Drake, 580 Watersedge, stated that he bought his home two years ago and checked it out carefully before purchase. He did not hear much air noise at that time but recently it has gotten very bad. One of the problems is 11 P.M. departures, and another is throttle procedure. He asked what can be pursued to reduce the noise. Page No. 3038 June 18, 1991 Mr. Finney responded that any regulation would be an ordinance by MAC, enforced by MAC. The 10 P.M. to 11 P.M. time period will be reviewed this summer by a group that is looking at stage 3 restrictions. Throttle reductions on departures is controlled closely by the airlines and the FAA. Mr. Craig Olson stated that it is proposed that either of the runways would predominantly a landing runway. He asked whether that means the majority of departures will be over Mendota Heights. He asked what will stop the MAC from building a north runway in the future if the north/south runway option is selected now. Mr. Finney stated that in terms of the operation of the north runways, when the airport is operating to the southeast, landings would occur on the north runway; when it is operating on the northwest, departures would be to the west. Mr. Ultan Duggan, 2331 Copperfield, stated that he thought_he had made reasonable investigation before purchasing his lot. He saw little improvement in the current and projected future noise contours. He did not believe that -the noise situation will improve and felt that Mendota Heights will continue to get half of the departures. Mr. Dennis Abrams, 627 Pondview Drive, stated that credibility is a problem and asked who people can contact in Chicago. He stated that the FAA has •stated that it has policies with. respect minimum separation and safety of the aircraft, yet he has seen the same trajectory for departures every 30 seconds many times. Mr. Finney responded to questions regarding MAC funding for the Part 150 program, installation of noise monitors and preparation of new contours when information from the monitors is available. Responding to a question from the audience, Councilmember stated that he expects that the Council in the near future will adopt a resolution supporting concept 5 or 6. Mr. Rockenstein stated that he understands the frustration expressed by the Council_ and audience. He lives on the other end of the RECESS HEARING: LEXINGTON AVENUE STREET VACATION Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 SYLVANDALE STORM WATER PROJECT Page No. 3039 June 18, 1991 runway, about 250 feet off of the centerline. He stated that being realistic, a decision on what to do will come down to sheer politics. No one has been able to prove air noise has a direct impact on health, and there are few people impacted by the noise compared to the many who benefit from the airport. Those who benefit want to have convenient air travel, those who get the noise will get the "short end of the stick," because they do not have the same level of power as those who benefit from the noise. Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 9:45. The meeting was reconvened at 9:55 P.M. Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of unneeded Lexington Avenue right-of-way adjacent to the Associated General Contractors property. Public Works Director Danielson informed Council that the County has negotiated with the property owners to trade a portion_of the right-of-way for new right-of-way. He recommended approval subject to City retention of a utility and drainage easement over the vacation area. Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be closed. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. Councilmember Smith moved adoption of Resolution No. 91-33, "RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION OF A STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY," with the condition that the drainage and utility easement be reserved by the City. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Council acknowledged and briefly discussed a memo from the Public Works Director recommending approval of Mn/DOT plans and specifications for the Sylvandale storm water project. Responding to a question from Mayor Mertensotto, Mr. Danielson stated that the City has agreed to pay for the line from the east half of T.H. 13 to its connection into Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 MULVIHILL PROPERTY PURCHASE Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 3040 June 18, 1991 the existing storm sewer line in Ivy Hills Park, at an approximate City cost of $25,000. Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of Resolution No. 91-34, "RESOLUTION APPROVING MN/DOT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BROMPTON/SYLVANDALE STORM WATER PROJECT," in accordance with the previously approved funding agreement between the City and Mn/DOT. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from Treasurer Shaughnessy regarding the tax increment district acquisition of the Art Mulvihill property on T.H. 55. Responding to a question from Councilmember Cummins regarding the purchase of the Mulvihill family property, Mr. Shaughnessy stated that there are several family members to deal with on that parcel. He indicated that three of the family members have indicated they would be willing to sell and Art Mulvihill strongly supports the saleand hopes to convince the remainder of the family members. Treasurer Shaughnesssy informed Council that this is a voluntary sale and would not involve relocation benefits. He further stated that the renter currently occupying the structure has indicated that he intends to move by October 1st, and preparation of agreements, etc., will take at least until that time. Councilmember Cummins asked whether there would be an advantage in delaying the purchase until a package for purchase of the total Mulvihill properties can be developed. Mr. Shaughnessy responded that he feels the City would be better off purchasing the parcel at this time. He also explained why the properties are included in the TIF District: Councilmember Cummins moved to accept the offer of Art Mulvihill for the sale of his property on T.H. 55 for the purchase price of $25,500, including appraisal and abstract costs, with the condition that the property be vacant at the time of closing and that closing will not occur before October 1, 1991. Councilmember Koch seconded the motion. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Page No. 3041 June 18, 1991 Mayor Mertensotto asked about a lot on Westview Court where considerable filling and compacting appears to have occurred. Public Works Director Danielson stated that where filling and compacting occurs, property owners are required to submit a certified statement as to foundation capacity from a soils engineer and that the City is protected from any liability. There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Cummins moved that the meeting be adjourned to closed session for discussion of Centex litigation matters. Councilmember Smith seconded the motion. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 o'clock P.M. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMO Date: 6-24-91 Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer Building Activity Report for June 1991 CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE 91 YEAR TO DATE 90 BUILDING PERMITS: No. Valuation Fee Collected No. Valuation Fee Collected No. Valuation Fee Collected SFD 13 1,817,459.00 16,754.30 40 6,065,341.00 54,235.76 33 5,506,157.00 47,068.15 APT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOWNHOUSE 2 285,604.00 2,607.01 5 563,645.00 5,624.05 5 638,665.00 6,023.34 CONDO 8 637,572.00 4,048.28 16 1,300,243.00 8,220.31 0 0 0 MISC. 39 199,052.00 4,114.93 93 700,396.00 11,761.23 117 960,552.00 16,611.69 C/I 3 436,000.00 3,411.38 29 8,473,444.00 40,490.41 15 407,574.00 4,390.33 Sub Total 65 3,375,687.00 30,935.90 183 17,103,069.00 120,331.76 170 7,512,948.00 74,093.51 TRADE PERMITS: Plumbing 22 879.00 70 2,726.00 55 Water 25 125.00 66 330.00 40 Sewer 22 385.00 47 1,015.00 40 Heat, AC, & Gas 34 1,563.00 64 6,983.50 75 2,196.00 200.00 700.00 4,514.35 Sub Total 103 2,952.00 247 11,054.50 210 Licensing: Contractor's Licenses 47 1,175.00 357 8,925.00 7,610.35 338 8,450.00 Total 215 3,375,687.00 35,062.90 1 787 17,103,069.00 140,311.26 1 718 7,512,948.00 90,153.86 NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac, and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee, and valuation amounts. MENDOTA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT MAY 1991 MONTHLY REPORT FIRE CALLS NO. 91079 - 91106 NUMBER OF CALLS: 28 rIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED: NUMBER ACTUAL FIRES Structure - MH Commercial Structure - MH Residential 1 Structure - Contract Areas Vehicle - MH 2 Vehicle - Contract Areas Grass/Brush/No Value MH 1 Grass/Brush/No Value Contrac 1 MEDICAL Assist 6 Extrication 1 HAZARDOUS SITUATION Spills/Leaks Arcing/Shorting 1 Chemical Power Line Down FALSE ALARM Residential Malfunction 7 Commercial Malfunction 4 Unintentional - Commercial 1 Unintentional - Residential Criminal GOOD INTENT Smoke Scare Steam Mistaken for Smoke Other 3 MUTUAL AID TOTAL CALLS 28 STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC. TOTALS TO DATE $0 $400 $6,700 $100 $1,000 $5,000 TOTAL MONTHLY FIRE LOSSES $0 $400 $1,000 $1,000 FIRE LOSS TOTALS MENDOTA HEIGHTS ALL FIRES, ALL AREAS (MONTH) $1,400 MEND. HTS. ONLY STRUCT/CONTENTS MEND. HTS. ONLY MISCELLANEOUS MEND. HTS. TOTAL LOSS TO DATE $12,800 $6,200 $5,500 $11,700 LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS: TO DATE LAST YEAR MENDOTA HEIGHTS 21 80 76 MENDOTA 1 2 6 SUNFISH LAKE 3 7 6 LILYDALE 3 15 7 OTHER 2 2 TOTAL 28 106 97 WORK PERFORMED HOURS TO DATE LAST YEAR FIRE CALLS 448 1858.5 1987 MEETINGS 54 275.5 311.5 DRILLS 96 547 357 WEEKLY CLEAN-UP 27 142 462 SPECIAL ACTIVITY 98 1088.5 195 ADMINISTATIVE 45 501 703 FIRE MARSHAL 93 438.5 370.5 TOTALS 861 4851 4386 BILLING FOR SERVICES AGENCY THIS MONTH TO DATE MN/DOT $0 MILW. RR $0 CNR RR $0 011 -ERS: TOTALS: $0, $0 $0 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH INSPECTIONS INVESTIGATIONS RE -INSPECTION MEETINGS ADMINISTRATION SPECIAL PROJECTS TOTAL 30.5 2 5 25 29.5 93 REMARKS: SEE OTHER SIDE FOR SYNOPSIS FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY WORK PERFORMANCE FOR MAY 1991 CALLS FOR MONTH FIRE FIRE FIRE PERCENT CLEAN MONTHLY GEN OFFICER SQUAD ROOKIE SPECIAL 28 CALLS CALL CALLS ATTENDED UP DRILL MTG MTG DRILL DRILL ACT. YEAR TO DATE ATT'D HOURS ATT'D THIS 1 2 2 2 2 ADM 106 MONTH MONTH YEAR YEAR HOURS HOURS HRS. HOURS HOURS HOURS HOURS HRS CHIEF John Maczko 15 15 57 54% 2 2 2 16 69 ASST. Bill Lerbs 10 12.5 60 57% 4 4 2 2 4 3 45 CAPT. Keith Stein 20 23.5 71 67% 1 2 2 2 2 3 Paul Dreelan 18 18 59 56% 1 2 2 Mike Coonan 16 16 32 30% 2 2 Gordy Skierven 12 12 66 62% 1 2 2 2 3 Ed Adrian 16 16 68 64% 1 2 2 2 Jim Perron 11 11 46 43% 1 2 2 2 Mike Marscullio 0 0'/0 Tom Shields 18 18 68 64% 1 2 2 2 CAPT.Jamie Lerbs 18 18 59 56% 1 2 2 2 2 Bill Chisler 6 6 34 32% 1 2 2 Marc Connolly 11 14.5 43 41% 2 Dick Zwirn 16 16 57 54% 1 2 2 2 George Lowe 22 22 80 75% 1 4 2 2 2 Randy McNamara 3 3 30 28% 3 Mike Johns 3 3% David Dreelan 18 21 74 70% 1 2 2 . • 19 CAPT. Jeff Stenhaug 14 14 42 40% 1 2 2 2 Leroy Noack 17 17 86 81% 1 2 2 George Noack Jr. 9 9 34 32% 1 2 2 Tom Olund 5 7.5 22 21% 2 Mike Maczko 14 16.5 59 56% 1 2 2 Aaron Coates 12 13.5 54 51% 1 2 16 Walt Klarkowski 10 10 36 34% 1 2 2 2 Mark Kaufman 16 16 52 49% 1 2 2 16 0 0% CAPT. Jim Kilburq 17 17 64 60% 1 2 2 2 2 19 Tom Weinzettel 6 6 33 31% 1 2 2 John Neska 1 2 14.5 51 48% 2 2 2 4 Ted Husnik 8 8 35 33% 1 2 2 2 John Lapakko 18 19.5 68 64% 1 2 2 16 Kevin Perron 5 5 31 29% 1 2 2 2 Tim Oster 11 13 45 42% 1 2 2 2 Roy Kingsley 19 19 47 44% 1 2 3 TOTAL FOR MONTH 448 TOTAL ATTENDED 27 21 22 5 26 0 1 1 TOTAL FOR YEAR • 1858.5 TOTAL MAN HOURS 27 42 44 10 54 0 98 THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR AVE. RUNS/MAN 13.22 )000000000( )00000000( AVE. MEN/RUN 15.11 17.13 14.72 AVE %FOR YEAR 49.12 49,80 48.8 (y. SYNOPSIS The department responded to 28 calls during the month of May. Two calls were vehicle fires that resulted in $1,000 worth of loss and one was a structure fire resulting in $400 loss. The structure fire was reported to the department on May 4, 1991 at 6:12 P.M. Upon arrival it was discovered that a plastic lens cover for a fan in the microwave had melted. Damage was confined to the microwave. TRAINING The monthly departmental drill was spent training on our 50 foot ladder, use of hose rollers and raising and lowing of equipment on a three story building. The drill conducted at Henry Sibley High School. The monthly squad drill was spent familiarizing all firefighters with proper drafting procedures. Drafting is very important operation ecspecially in our contract areas where there are no fire hydrants. The objective of the. drill was to draft with a 6" suction on Pumper 2282 and pump a full contingent of water operations off that truck using drafting operations. The portable pump owned by the department, that pumps 140 gallons per minute, was also utilized. This pump can be used in areas with ponds or swimming pools to generate the necessary water for exposure fires. The grass rig was also utilized with its drafting capabilities for areas such as Sunfish Lake and pools, etc. Overall the drill went very well and was very informative. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINIITES JUNE 25, 1991 DRAFT The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 25, 1991, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chairperson Dwyer called the meeting to order at 7:32 o'clock P.M. The following Commission members were present: Koll, Friel, Dreelan, Dwyer, Krebsbach, Duggan and Tilsen. Also present were Public Works Director Jim Danielson, Planning Consultant John Uban, Administrative Assistant Kevin Batchelder and Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commission Tilsen moved approval of the May 28, 1991, Minutes with corrections. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. AYES: 5 NAYS: 0 ABSTAIN: Roll, Friel CASE NO. 91-17: OWENS - LOT SPLIT Dr. Frederick Owens, Jr., of 2455 Delaware Avenue, was present to discuss his request for a lot split. Dr. Owens explained that he owns a forty acre parcel and that Mr. Jim Riley has a Purchase Agreement with him to purchase 37.5 acres of the property. Dr. Owens stated that he would be left with 2.5 acre homesite. He .explained that he has held this parcel for many years pending the City's approval of any southeast area development. He stated that he can no longer continue paying the taxes and assessments on this land. In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Dr. Owens stated that no closing date has been set. Chair Dwyer stated that there is on-going litigation involving this property. Dr. Owens stated that he is fully aware of the on-going litigation. He stated that he has been working on trying to sell his property for twelve years. He stated that paying the taxes and assessments on this land has become a burden and that he is merely asking for permission to ease that burden by selling his land. Dr. Owens stated that he could sell all forty acres without any City approvals, but he wanted to retain his homesite. June 25, 1991 Page 2 The Commission briefly discussed the "Exceptions" clause to the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 11.3(2). They discussed their interpretation of the Subdivision Ordinance which does not necessarily allow for dividing Dr. Owen's property without platting because the remaining homestead parcel would be less than five acres. Commissioner Krebsbach questioned how Dr. Owens arrived at retaining only 2.5 acres. Dr. Owens stated that they selected that amount because Sunfish Lake residents are limited to a minimum of 2.5 acres of land and they felt that retaining 2.5 acres would help to satisfy any concerns the Sunfish Lake residents could have. Chair Dwyer stated that Dr. Owens has received signatures of consent from his contiguous neighbors. He further stated that Mr. Riley has also signed a consent notice agreeing to assume all the assessments for the property on the parcel he is acquiring. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City Council grant the proposed lot division. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. There was a brief discussion regarding the platting of land within Mendota Heights. Commissioner Tilsen offered a Friendly Amendment stating that the approval of the lot split is subject to the condition that Dr. Owens agree to have his 2.5 acre homesite included in the plat when the contiguous land is developed. Commissioner Friel and Chair Dwyer both questioned whether the recommendation for a lot split actually meets .the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Commissioner Duggan accepted Commissioner Tilsen's friendly amendment. Commissioner Duggan further amended his motion by adding that the City Council grant a 2.5 acre variance to Section 11.3(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance and to grant the requested lot division as proposed. AYES: 4 NAYS: 3, FRIEL, DWYER, KREBSBACH CASE NO. 91-19: SEYMOUR - VARIANCE June 25, 1991 Page 3 Mr. Larry Seymour, of 1080 Bwana Court, was present to discuss his request for a five foot (5') side yard setback variance to allow him to enclose a portion of his existing deck with a screen porch. He explained that the existing deck is located on the south side of his home. He stated that he proposes to enclose a portion of the deck with a 12' x 14' screened porch. He stated that roof would be the same as what is on the existing home. In response to a question from Chair Dwyer, Mr. Seymour stated that at this time, he has no plans to make this porch a four season porch. Commissioner Tilsen commented that Mr. Seymour's lot has an unusual configuration. Mr. Seymour stated that he has received signatures of consent from his adjoining neighbors and that his wife has spoken to the Kahnke's and they have stated that they do not have a problem with their proposal. Commissioner Koll stated that -she would like to see more shrubs installed along the portion of the addition where the neighbors adjoin. Mr. Seymour stated that there is enough_room to do so. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that the City Council approve a five foot (5') side yard variance to allow construction of a screened porch. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 CASE NO. 91-20: HELLER (SUBWAY SANDWICHES) - VARIANCE Mr. Curt Heller, owner of Subway Sandwiches located at 750 Highway 110, was present to discuss his request for a temporary sign variance. He stated that he is unable to have a road sign indicating where his establishment is. He stated that he would like to hang a banner, suspended off of the ground, which extends out from the building approximately 8 to 10 feet. Commissioner Koll questioned whether the view from inside the restaurant would be obscured. Mr. Heller responded that if he is able to get the variance, the height of the banner will not interfere with any possible view from within the restaurant. June 25, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Heller explained that he has been working with Mr. Edward Paster, owner of the Mendota Mall, to install a sign. He stated that there is presently a sign indicating the Mendota Mall off of Highway 110. He stated that due to an error in sale by the previous owner of the Mall, the sign is on McDonald's property and they will not allow him to place the Subway name, or any other restaurant, on the sign. Mr. Heller explained that the Subway Corporation runs summer and winter promotions. He stated that banners are sent out indicating the type of sandwich special. He stated that these particular banners would be the ones he would use to advertise where his Subway Restaurant is. Chair Dwyer stated that there is already a sign located on the actual building indicating that Subway is there. Mr. Heller responded that it is very hard to see that sign from Dodd Road and Highway 110. He stated that he had originally installed the banner sign indicating the special sandwich promotion not knowing that a permit was required. He stated that numerous customers stated that they were not aware that Subway was in the Mendota Mall. Commissioner Friel questioned how long Mr. Heller proposes -to have the temporary sign and where he is in the process of negotiating a permanent sign with the owner of the mall. Mr. Heller stated that he has been working with the owner for sometime and that he does not see any signs to be installed in the near future. Commissioner Duggan stated that in interest of saving the mall, it would be nice to help the applicant in recommending approval of the temporary sign variance. Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City Council grant the requested variances. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. In response to a question from Commissioner Krebsbach, Mr. Heller stated that he would like approval of the temporary sign for however long it takes to get a permanent sign installed. Commissioner Krebsbach offered a Friendly Amendment stating that the time span of the temporary sign variance will be for 2 three month periods but not to allow an open ended variance to continue indefinitely. Chair Dwyer stated that his concerns are that the other vendors within the mall will now request temporary signs. June 25, 1991 Page 5 He stated that that would be too much clutter. Mr. Heller stated that he did receive signatures of consent from the vendors within the mall along with Mr. Paster's signature. Commissioner Duggan accepted the Friendly Amendment. AYES: 3 NAYS: 4 KOLL, FRIEL, DREELAN, DWYER Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that the City Council grant the requested variances for a total of 18 months, with the applicant reapplying after each 3 month period, with subsequent variance fees being waived. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. Commissioner Duggan withdrew his second after discussion of the 18 month time limit. Commissioner Dreelan moved to recommend that the City Council grant a variance to the duration of the temporary sign of three months, allowing it to be up for 6 months, a size variance of five (5) square feet allowing the proposed thirty (30) square foot sign and a variance allowing -a banner sign. Commissioner Dreelan further moved that the applicant, if so desired, reappear after a period of three (3) months if he desires to continue use of the banner signs after the six (6) month period. She further moved that the $100.00 variance fee be waived for any subsequent variance requests for banner signs. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 4 NAYS: 3 ,KOLL, FRIEL, DWYER CASE NO..91-21: CHARLES CUDD COMPANY - WETLANDS PERMIT Mr. John Erickson, Charles Cudd Company, was present to discuss their request for a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a single family home to be located at 1875 Warrior Drive within Warrior Ponds. He stated that the reason for the Wetlands Permit request is that there is an existing sanitary sewer easement running through the center of the lot which places the construction pad toward the rear of the lot. Commissioner Tilsen questioned if the grade of the lot would be changed. Mr. Erickson stated that the existing AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 June 25, 1991 Page 6 grade should remain. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he had visited the site and noticed that there had been a bit of wash out on the northerly line and that the vegetation has been ruined. He further stated that the retaining wall located on the neighbors lot has started to let loose. Commissioner Krebsbach questioned whether this home was custom designed for the lot or homeowner. Mr. Erickson responded that it was custom designed for the homeowner. Commissioner Krebsbach stated that more of an effort should be made to construct a home that better conforms to the lot. Commissioner Koll moved to waive the public hearing. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that the City Council grant the requested' Wetlands Permit allowing construction of the proposed home to within eighty-four feet (84') of the shoreline with the condition that a silt fence be maintained until ground cover is established . Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1, RREBSBACH CASE NO. 91-22: NYGAARD - WETLANDS PERMIT Mr. John Nygaard, of 766 Marie Avenue, was present to discuss his request for a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of an addition to his existing deck. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he had visited the site., He stated that the original placement of the home was further back than the original housing pad indicated on the plat. He stated that there is a home for sale next to the Nygaard's home. He stated that he had contacted the buyers of that home and they indicated that they had no problem with the proposed addition. Commissioner Duggan questioned if a Wetlands Permit was initially issued at the time the home was constructed. Mr. Nygaard stated that there was no Wetlands Permit issued at the time of the initial construction of the June 25, 1991 Page 7 home. He stated that the contractor who will be constructing the new addition is the same contractor who built his home and was stunned when he was told that a Wetlands Permit would be required before he could get the building permit. Commissioner Koll moved to waive the public hearing. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Koll moved to recommend that the City Council grant the requested Wetlands Permit to allow the construction of the deck addition to within forty-eight feet (48') of Spring Creek. Commissioner Dreelan seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0, HEARING: CASE NO. 91-18: DIVINE - MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ms. Dianna Divine, of 1391 Cherry Hill Road, was present to discuss her request for a minor conditional use permit to allow construction of a forty-eight inch (48") high fence enclosing her rear yard. Chair Dwyer stated that Ms. Divine's lot is a corner lot and that because the fence will encroach upon a side yard .abutting a street, a public hearing for her request is required. Ms. Divine explained that the proposed fence is a black vinyl clad chain link fence that will be within four feet (4') of the property line along Wachtler Avenue. She explained that she has had problems with dogs entering her back yard. She stated that she hopes the fence will keep the dogs out of her yard. She further stated that she has two small children and that the fence would help protect them from the dogs. Commissioner Koll questioned if the Evergreen Tree would be saved. Ms. Divine stated that the Evergreen would become a part of the fence. Commissioner Tilsen stated that he had visited the site AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 June 25, 1991 Page 8 and that he has concerns with parents relying on fences to monitor their children. He further stated that he supports any ideas with respect to landscaping the area. Ms. Divine stated that landscaping will be done to help minimize the visibility of the fence. Chair Dwyer then opened the meeting to the public. There was no one present to discuss this issue. Commissioner Duggan moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council grant a minor conditional use permit to allow construction of a forty-eight inch (48") vinyl black clad chain link fence. Commissioner Koll seconded the motion. Chair Dwyer called a recess at 9:00 o'clock P.M. Chair Dwyer reconvened the meeting at 9:09 o'clock P.M. HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE RECODIFICATION Administrative Assistant Batchelder gave a brief history regarding City Council suggestions relating to the Zoning Ordinance Recodification. He stated that a public hearing is required at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels. He stated that the Planning Commission should review the changes and make any recommendations to the City Council. The following corrections were made: Page 1, Section 2 - Intent and Purpose Add - -- protecting the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the community Jun 25, 1991 Page 9 Page 11, Section 3.2(77) Mining Add - - - by the City Council to the end of Section 3.2(77). Page 26 - Section 4.13 - Mining Delete - - - The extraction of sand, gravel, or other material from the land in the amount of four hundred (400) cubic yards or more and removal thereof from the site, except grading and/or excavation in connection with an approved development or building plan for which permits have been issued. This definition appears on Page 11, Section 3.2(77). Page 30 - Section 4.17(3)a #2 Delete - Professionally designed pre -cast concrete units if the surface have been integrally treated with an applied decorative block if incorporated in a building design which is compatible with other development throughout the district may also be used. Page 30 - Section 4.17(3)e Add - -- Design and maintenance of off-street parking and loading areas shall be in accordance with Section 21 of this Ordinance. Page 36 - Section 5.3(3) Add - - - The Planning Commission, as the Zoning Board of Appeals Page 122 - Section 22.16(1) Delete - - - The Council shall issue a certificate certifying the completion of each phase of the Planned Unit June 25, 1991 Page 10 Development, and the Clerk of the Planning Commission . Should read: City Council Page 123 - Section 22.16(3)a Change - -- Any minor extensions, alterations, or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the Council if they are consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this section may increase the cube Should read: cubic feet Page 48 - Section 5.9(4)d #5 - Delete The character and approximate density of dwelling units Page 57 - Section 10.4(3) Add - 10 feet or 1/2 the height of the structure contiguous to the side yard, which ever is greater There was a brief discussion regarding Minor Conditional Use Permits. Administrative Assistant Batchelder explained that Minor Conditional Use Permits under the pew Zoning Ordinance, would be eliminated and that the variance procedure would be followed instead. The Commission briefly discussed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Chair Dwyer indicated that it would be helpful to establish a guideline policy with respect to, Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that the City Council delete Section 13 - Planned Unit Development District - and that the appropriate reconciliation be made to Section 22 - Planned Unit Development - to coincide with the deletion of Section 13. Commissioner Friel stated that Section 13 creates an inflexibility in facilitating developments within a planned unit development. He stated that this Section is restrictive and unnecessary. June 25, 1991 Page 11 Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1, KOLL Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that no portion of any Wetlands, to the average high water marking as indicated on the Wetlands map, be included for purposes of calculating land density. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 6 NAYS: 1, KOLL Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that changes be made to Sections 5.5(1) and 22.2 as detailed in the June 24, 1991, memorandum submitted by the City Clerk. Please refer to the attached memorandum. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel moved to recommend that Section 20.14 - Lighting Standards - be revised to establish performance standards. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Tilsen briefly discussed the possibility of including (within the Zoning Ordinance) Comprehensive Traffic Management. He stated that traffic management should be considered during the planned unit development process. He stated that traffic management should be considered especially in the industrial area of the City. He stated that ride shares, park and rides, etc. should all be given attention in preserving the integrity of land. He stated that the land use in the industrial area should be used more efficiently with respect to the amount of land parking space takes up. Commissioner Tilsen moved to recommend that the City Council include Comprehensive Traffic Management within the Zoning Ordinance. Chair Dwyer seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 June 25, 1991 Page 12 Chair Dwyer then opened the meeting to the public. There was no one present to discuss this issue. Commissioner Krebsbach moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 Commissioner Friel moved that the Zoning Ordinance Recodification document be transmitted to the City Council with a recommendation that it be approved and a recommendation that the City Council consider and incorporate the Planning Commission's recommended changes. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion. AYES: 7 NAYS: 0 VERBAL REVIEW Public Works Director Danielson provided a verbal review for the planning items at the previous City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned its meeting at 11:25 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, Kimberlee K. Blaeser Senior Secretary CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk June 24, 1991 SUBJECT: Recommended Changes to Draft Zoning Ordinance INFORMATION The purpose of this memo is to inform you of a correction which has been made to Section 21.1(3)a and to recommend Commission consideration of two changes proposed by Commissioner Friel for ordinance sections 5.5(1) and 22.2. Section 21.1(3)a: The capitalized, double -underlined language in this section has been corrected to read "PROPERTY LINE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND NO MORE THAN THIRTY (30) FEET IN WIDTH AT THE PROPERTY LINE IN ALL OTHER DISTRICTS," Section 5.5(1): The last sentence currently reads "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship ..." It is recommended that the word "alone" be removed. Section 22.2: The last sentence currently reads as follows: "The use of these techniques is not an assumed right, but is a discretionary privilege which may be granted if all of the conditions are adhered to and it is determined by the City Council that the use of a Planned Unit Development process and land development is in the community interest." It is recommended that this paragraph be revised to read as follows: "The use of these techniques is not an assumed right, but is a discretionary privilege which may be granted by the City Council if in its determination the use of a Planned Unit Development process and land development is in the community interest and all of the conditions are adhered • to." ACTION REQUIRED If the Commission concurs in the proposed changes, the motion to refer the Ordinance to Council would appropriately include a statement which recommends changes to Sections 5.5(1) and 22.2 as detailed in a memo from the City Clerk dated June. 24, 1991. To: From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist Subject: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 26, 199 Mayor, City Council and City Administ Wetlands Permits - Public Hearing Policy INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to highlight the policy that the City of Mendota Heights has used for exempting the public hearing requirement in the application process for Wetlands Permits in the cases of single family homes. BACKGROUND The primary intention of the Wetlands Ordinance is to protect wetlands from soil erosion, loss of significant vegetation and wildlife, and other adverse impacts resulting from the excavation associated with the construction of structures, and to insure that structures, particularly ones intended for human occupancy, were not located in areas where they would be subject to flooding. It is important to note how the Wetlands Ordinance is intended to work. It is not a variance procedure, but a permit application. While it is generally true that the aesthetic value of a wetland is more easily preserved if structures are kept as far from the shoreline as possible, the 100 foot line around wetlands and water related resources is not a setback line. The Wetlands Ordinance district boundary line (and adjacent land within 10Q feet of normal high water markers) defines the area within which the regulations of the Wetlands Systems Ordinance apply. Even within the 100 foot line, the Wetlands Ordinance allows some land use activities. In addition, many development activities can be allowed, if they meet the criteria for a wetlands permit as outlined in the Wetlands System Ordinance. DISCUSSION Section 6.A of the Wetlands Ordinance states that "No person shall perform any action upon or otherwise alter a Wetland or Water Related Resource Area without first obtaining a written permit from the City." Section 6.E Of the Wetlands Ordinance states that "Permit applications shall be processed in accordance with the procedures specified for the processing of a Conditional Use Permit under the City Zoning Ordinance." Clearly, as you are aware, a Conditional Use Permit requires a public hearing. The City is required to provide both mailed and published notice at least 10 days in advance of the public hearing, which is required at both the Planning Commission and the City Council levels. Section 8 of the Wetlands Ordinance spells out the conditions and requirements for a permit application that apply in addition to the CUP process requirements. However, Section 8.0 also provides language that has been interpreted by the City of Mendota Heights as the clause that allows the public hearing to be waived in the case of single family home. Section 8.0 reads: In the case of a minor development or change and/or development involving a single family or two (2) family residence, the City Administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the Planning Commission at its next regular meeting following receipt of an application for permit whereupon, they shall review such request and may, if they so determine, exempt the subdivider from complying with any inappropriate requirements of this ordinance. The exemption, or waiving, of the public hearing is a decision made by passing a motion at the Planning Commission and, again, at the City Council level. Staff is operating under the administrative policy that in order for an applicant to have this exemption invoked, signatures of consent from the immediate, adjoining neighbors must be obtained by the applicant. The purpose of a public hearing is to afford notice to those property owners most affected in order to provide them an opportunity to be heard. To receive an exemption to the public hearing under Wetlands Ordinance Section 8.C, staff requires the immediate, adjoining neighbors (those most affected) to sign their consent to the project. This policy is based on the notion that in order to be exempt from a public hearing (and its expense in both time and money) an applicant should at least notify the immediate, adjoining neighbors and receive their consent. CONCLUSION City policy on processing a Wetlands Permit application in the case of a single family home is that the Planning Commission and, City Council will consider waiving the public hearing if the applicant can provide signatures of consent from the immediate, adjoining property owners. aid' d� -1/4"t vwe.. c•Si o,.QQ l; crA`oi. ACTION REQUIRED This information is being provided to outline the procedures currently used to process Wetland Permit requests. Council should adopt a motion acknowledging receipt of the information and, if modifications to the process are desired, direct staff to make such modifications as necessary. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 26, 1991 To: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assista Subject: Wetlands Permits - Public Hearing Policy INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memo is to highlight the policy that the City of Mendota Heights has used for exempting the public hearing requirement in the application process for Wetlands Permits in the cases of single family homes. BACKGROUND The primary intention of the Wetlands Ordinance is to protect wetlands from soil erosion, loss of significant vegetation and wildlife, and other adverse impacts resulting from the excavation associated with the construction of structures, and to insure that structures, particularly ones intended for human occupancy, were not located in areas where they would be subject to flooding. It is important to note how the Wetlands Ordinance is intended to work. It is not a variance procedure, but a permit application. While it is generally true that the aesthetic value of a wetland is more easily preserved if structures are kept as far from the shoreline as possible, the 100 foot line around wetlands and water related resources is not a setback line. The Wetlands Ordinance district boundary line (and adjacent land within 100 feet of normal high water markers) defines the area within which the regulations of the Wetlands Systems Ordinance apply. Even within the 100 foot line, the Wetlands Ordinance allows some land use activities. In addition, many development activities can be allowed, if they meet the criteria for a wetlands permit as outlined in the Wetlands System Ordinance. DISCUSSION Section 6.A of the Wetlands Ordinance states that "No person shall perform any action upon or otherwise alter a Wetland or Water Related Resource Area without first obtaining a written permit from the City." Section 6.E of the Wetlands Ordinance states that "Permit applications shall be processed in accordance with the procedures specified for the processing of a Conditional Use Permit under the City Zoning Ordinance." ,- 4 Clearly, as you are aware, a Conditional Use Permit requires a public hearing. The City is required to provide both mailed and published notice at least 10 days in advance of the public hearing, which is required at both the Planning Commission and the City Council levels. Section 8 of the Wetlands Ordinance spells out the conditions and requirements for a permit application that apply in addition to the CUP process requirements. However, Section 8.0 also provides language that has been interpreted by the City of Mendota Heights as the clause that allows the public hearing to be waived in the case of single family home. Section 8.0 reads: In the case of a minor development or change and/or development involving a single family or two (2) family residence, the City Administrator shall bring the request to the attention of the Planning Commission at its next regular meeting following receipt of an application for permit whereupon, they shall review such request and may, if they so determine, exempt the subdivider from complying with any inappropriate requirements of this ordinance. The exemption, or waiving, of the public hearing is a decision made by passing a motion at the Planning Commission and, again, at the City Council level. Staff is operating under the administrative policy that in order for an applicant to have this exemption invoked, signatures of consent from the immediate, adjoining neighbors must be obtained by the applicant. The purpose of a public hearing is to afford notice to those property owners most affected in order to provide them an opportunity to be heard. To receive an exemption to the public hearing under Wetlands Ordinance Section 8.C, staff requires the immediate, adjoining neighbors (those most affected) to sign their consent to the project prior to the application. This policy is based on the notion that n order to be exempt from a public hearing (and its expense n both time and money) an applicant should at least notify he immediate, adjoining neighbors and receive their consent. u.ds 7///qt CONCLUSION City policy on proce-sing a Wetlands Permit application in the case of a single family ome is that the Planning Commission and City Council will con der waiving the public hearing if the applicant can provide ignatures of consent from the immediate, adjoining property own-rs at the time of application. ACTION REOUIRED This information is being provided to outline the procedures currently used to process Wetland Permit requests. Council should adopt a motion acknowledging receipt of the information and, if modifications to the process are desired, direct staff to make such modifications as necessary. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor, City Council and City Admini FROM: James E. Dani Public Works or SUBJECT: 1991 Tree P1 !%'ting Program Job No. 9103 DISCUSSION: January 9, 1991 Council again budgeted $10,000 for a residential tree plant- ing program. Residents pay $50 per tree and the City pays the rest with planting taking place in the fall. Staff solicited the following bids: Southview Landscaping Blaeser Landscape Design RECOMMENDATION: 25 Linden @ $150.00 = 25 Ash @ $125.00 = 50 Maple @ $135.00 25 Linden @ $140.00 = 25 Ash @ $126.00 = 50 Maple @ $140.00 $3,750.00 $3,125.00 $6,750.00 $13,625.00 $3,500.00 $3,150.00 $7,000.00 $13,650.00 Staff recommends awarding a purchase order to Southview Landscaping for their low bid of $13,625. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the staff recommendation they should pass a motion awarding a purchase order to Southview Landscaping for the low bid of $13,625. JED:dfw CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 27, 1991 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dire Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assista SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-21: Charles Cudd Company - Wetlands Permit DISCUSSION Mr. John Erickson, representing Charles Cudd Company, appeared before the Planning Commission at their June meeting, to request a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a single family home for the Hanebuth's at 1875 Warrior Drive. The deck for the house is proposed to be located within eighty-four feet (84') of Warrior Pond and is within the Wetlands boundary. See attached plans and memos. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 6-1 (nay: Krebsbach) to waive the public hearing and recommend that the City Council approve the requested Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a single family home to within eighty-four feet (84') of the shoreline, as proposed, with the condition that a silt fence be installed and maintained until the ground cover is re-established. ACTION REOUIRED Consider waiving the public hearing. If the City Council desires to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation, they should pass a motion approving the requested Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a single family home to within eighty-four feet (84') of the shoreline, as proposed, with the condition that a silt fence be installed and maintained until the ground cover is re-established. JED/KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Planning Commission June 19, 1991 FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dir Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Ass SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-21: Charles Cudd Company - Wetlands Permit DISCUSSION Charles Cudd Company is proposing to construct a new home for the Hanebuth's at 1875 Warrior Drive within Warrior Ponds' one hundred foot (100') wetlands protection area. The house is proposed to be eighty-four feet (84') from the shoreline. See attached plans and memos. Like the other homes on Warrior Drive, there is an existing sanitary sewer easement running through the center of the lot which places the construction pad toward the rear of the lot. The applicant has obtained signatures of consent from his immediate, adjoining neighbors. ACTION REQUIRED Consider waiving the public hearing. Meet with the applicant, review the construction within the Wetlands boundary, and make a recommendation to the City Council on the requested Wetlands Permit allowing construction of the proposed home to within eighty-four feet (84') of the shoreline. JED/KLB:kkb 1. PLANNING REPORT DATE: 25 June 1991 CASE NUMBER: 91-21 APPLICANT: John Erickson/Charles Cudd Co. LOCATION: Lot 4, Block 1 of the Ponds of Mendota Heights Subd. ACTION REQUESTED: Wetlands Permit PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The subject property is the last of the six lots that were platted on the east side of Warrior Pond in 1987. When the subdivision was platted, the utilities were installed through the front portion of the lots. A 30 -foot -wide easement was established to allow for the maintenance of these utilities. Due to the location of this easement, roughly in the center of the dry buildable portion of the property, it was understood that some latitude would be necessary with respect to the wetland ordinance. 2. The Hanebuth's home will be located approximately 151 feet from the front lot line along Warrior Drive. While there is room to locate the proposed house in the area between the utility easement and Warrior Drive, including the required front yard setback, all of the other homes in this subdivision have been built to the west of the utility easement. It would, therefore, be out of character to locate this home in front of the utility easement. As a result, the applicant is requesting a wetlands permit to'build a single-family home and outdoor deck. This pond has been designated as a protected wetland by the City of Mendota Heights as indicated on the Official Wetland Systems Map adopted as part of the Wetland Ordinance. The• deck will be situated approximately 84 feet from the shoreline of the pond as located on June 14, 1991. 3. The construction of this home will require significant excavation and the removal of vegetation. Section 6 Subdivision 4 of the Wetland Systems Ordinance requires a permit for the construction, alteration, or removal of any structure within 100 feet of a designated wetland. In John Erickson/Charles Cudd Co., Case No. 91-21 Page 2 addition, Subdivision 5 of this section requires a permit for the removal of vegetation. A permit is also required for excavation in excess of 100 cubic yards. 4. Section 7 of the Wetland Systems Ordinance outlines the standards to be met prior to the issuance of a wetlands permit. Item 11 of these standards requires the elevation of the lowest floor of a structure to be at least 3 feet above the highest known water level. The proposed home has a first floor elevation of 943, which is approximately 17 feet above the ponds current elevation. 5. Item 14 of the standards states that removal of vegetation must be limited to that which is reasonably required for the placement of structures and use of the property. The property has a fairly substantial area of vegetation adjacent to the pond. This vegetation consists primarily of aspen and birch trees, though there is also one oak and one elm among them. The stand is roughly 80 feet in depth and covers most of the width of the lot. While the type of vegetation on the property is not considered significant or especially valuable, the overall value of this stand of trees is considerable in terms of the aesthetic and natural environment around the pond. An effort should be made to insure the preservation of as many trees as possible between the proposed home and the pond. 6. When I visited the site I noticed that there is some gully erosion occurring in the northwest corner of the lot. This has resulted in some silt build-up at the edge of the pond. This erosion is partially due to the fact that the property is undeveloped and the topsoil is exposed. Precautions should be taken to minimize soil erosion during construction and until the property has been adequately landscaped. The property should be sodded and seeded as soon as possible after construction is completed. The applicant's site plan shows the location of a silt fence to be installed before construction begins. This fence should extend through the area where• erosion has occurred and should be maintained throughout the construction period and until vegetative cover has been established. 7. Based on the conditions imposed on this lot due to the location of the utility easement and the structures on the adjacent properties, the applicant's request for a wetlands permit is reasonable. VW SitWUM °4111114141111 ,fVike aSitazaillils._ 11741",P1 101111111101 _II W 1:1.111.1 gala .40 k-1 VAti/ 4 *WI .r ... il a. AM I --teem - AV= I.1 NNE mai :1.2.!. Ailit" ar El II 41. 111111 4i ;11.MINILI. 10 t4 IVE ...ENOOTA HEIGHTS FAR 3 GOLF COURSE (PUBLIC) iJ SUBJECT PROPERTY NORTH t L WM= - R. , ." • •/-1----.61$7,:„ • 2_01- z 8 0Z r M s:4 e e ok 10 28 10 L ARAN 35 �,/� 1 150 syl7tS5- C.6` h 050-26 -' 040-07 0 - 030-07 6 r�yl2 /f,14.- . 050-07 M '2. ;,20-06 1131 150 163.S3 8690 \\ .580.48 73102 /7006 . \ \ .5 m 7 '20� '6'6> , 6732 An. 12 Tai � N � .e '9 �, f '�3 -f I b 52 E 20 Jf 87 46 :j 7709 • 87 57 ' 94.89. OW 879ESL '1 879 I i 0 f 0 17 17 39 '640 S //''l� �s5231 1J� - • SE1 a„.7F� 11 A .a 100 9593 to A / ry A 7. C. 49999 2 •• 499 99 ce 0 2, YS 14 .57'52 • =!4 9957" ,N rO ^1_ys 7� a.50 .t� . • 2. 35 29b3 m ▪ .4' a2 M • � 4 .44 X39 397 SUBJECT PROPERTY 3¢Z.9S 3 ;; O 0 N 69 7A NORTH t SCALE 1 =200' O 0 .341. fs zez. es h i '3C -C4 /¢o '00 O. 4 Charles Cudd Co. DESIGNERS + BUILDERS Distinctive custom homes and neigh6orfioo&s since 1950 June 18, 1991 Planning Commission City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Re: Charles & Cynthia Hanebuth Residence 1875 Warrior Drive, Mendota Heights, 55118 Dear Commission Members: We are proposing to locate the residence -for Hanebuth's per the site plan you have been given. The drainage and utility easement in the front yard 'is located in such a way that •it is locating the house to the west of the easement, which would be closer to the pond. We feel this would be the more appropriate location to be more in line with the existing set-back'line created_by:.the existing homes on either side of Hanebuth's proposed location: Elevation of;„walkout is indicated on.the site plan and would be such that grading willbe'ab.le to:be done, back to existing, -without the need of re- taining walls on the pond side of the residence. - r .. There would be the need to remove some existing vegetationlconsisting of poplar and"other scrub growth but should not require removal.of any large trees and.;more:importantly, leaving most•of-the shoreline -.undisturbed. We have spokennwith a d jacent homeowners.and have;.,secured,.,_their signaturesr as their approval ofconstruction as Fre' have proposed 'it.'` We appreciate your attention in this matter and are looking forward to working with your staff in regards to the Hanebuth's residence. Sincerely, CHARLES C. CUDD CORP. Production Coordinator *•* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *:* * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Jr. Canniff 1883 Warrior. Drive Mr & Mrs. Mangini 1g87' Warrior Drive Ao--0 f (612) 731-313 J f 1802 Wooddale Drive, Woodbury, . MN 55125. FAX (612) 731-4869 City of Mcndota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. CI 5-0irCk E*e-lGICS ON) Date of Application LD -18` S Fee Paid 131 C#-.DthO l°I Applicant Name: C-164-415 C"©Cr. PH: -73/-31 s 3 (Last) (First) (Mi) Address: /e© 1# -L (Number & Street) (1,6 f.�C0O P3eiKc7 (City) (State) Owner Name: l ,ti, /.34,77/ Cif7PYSG 63 (Last) (First) 6--s-la (Zip) Address: X 8'75- Li/'t7 6o2 %'//leil/ o ffe-ilter5 "41.2: (Number & Street) (City) (State) (zip) Street Location of Property in Question: Cvn7Z,GGo2 © /2 - Legal Legal Description of Property: f-407-- y (?ct& / poyOS /fy/ o7 //-- c, mss/ B.11C-c•r 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 Proposed Zoning of Property ; Proposed Use /4�r Variance Subdivision Approval }� Wetlands Permit Other (attach explanation) Section I hereby declare that all statements made in this request material are true. City of Mendota Heights June 28, 1991 Mr. John Erickson Charles Cudd Company 1802 Wooddale Drive Woodbury, MN 55125 Dear Mr. Erickson: Your application for a Wetlands Permit will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will • be held on Tuesday, July 2; 1991. The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting in order that your application will receive Council consideration. . The Planning Commission recommended that the.City Council 'grant your requested Wetlands Permit. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. ICLB: kith Enclosures: City Council Agenda Staff Memo to City Council • x. • :„ ; 1,* ''.1144$.14)Aelf .1: • ; , 1 •ndot ' • Tf„,'• ak APS AAAA AA City of Mendota Heights June 20, 1991 . Mr. John Erickson Charles Cudd Company 1802 Wooddale Drive Woodbury, MN 55125 Dear Mr. Erickson: 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 25, 1991. The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M., here at the City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder;, Administrative ,Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures: Planning Commission• Agenda Planner's Report City Staff Report CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 27, 1991 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direc Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-22: Nygaard - Wetlands Permit DISCUSSION Mr. John Nygaard, of 766 Marie Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission at their June 25, 1991, meeting to request a Wetlands Permit in order to build an addition to his existing deck. This additional proposed construction is within the one hundred foot (100') boundary that defines the Wetlands area around Spring Creek. Please see attached plans and memos. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted unanimously to waive the public hearing and recommend that the City Council grant a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of the deck addition to within forty-eight feet (48') of Spring Creek. ACTION REQUIRED Consider waiving the public hearing. If the City Council desires to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation, they should pass a motion granting a Wetlands Permit to allow the construction of the deck addition to within forty-eight feet (48') of Spring Creek, as proposed in Planning Case File No. 91-22. • JED/KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Planning Commission June 19, 1991 FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dire Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assis SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-22: Nygaard/Frederick - Wetlands Permit DISCUSSION Mr. John Nygaard and Ms. Gloria Frederick, of 766 Marie Avenue, desire to build additional decking at the rear of their house. This additional proposed construction is within the one hundred foot (100') boundary that defines the Wetlands area around Spring Creek which traverses the rear of the Nygaard/Frederick property. See attached plans and memos. Although Mr. Nygaard and Ms. Frederick have labeled the new addition at sixty-six feet (66'), staff has measured it to be forty-eight feet (48') from the creek at another point. Mr. Nygaard and Ms. Frederick have submitted signatures of consent from their three immediate neighbors. ACTION REOUIRED Consider= waiving the public hearing. Meet with the applicants,• review the construction proposed within the Wetlands boundary and make a recommendation to the City Council on the requested Wetlands Permit for a deck addition to within forty-eight feet (48') of Spring Creek. JED/KLB:kkb PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: 25 June 1991 91-22 John R. Nygaard and Gloria J. Frederick 766 Marie Avenue Lot 40, Block 1 of Valley Curve Estates ACTION REQUESTED: Wetlands Permit PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The applicants' are requesting a Wetlands Permit to install an addition to the exiting deck on the rear of their residence at 766 Marie Avenue. The existing deck is located approximately 53 feet from the centerline of Spring Creek which runs through the rear yard of this property. The proposed addition to the deck would extend to within 48 feet of the centerline of the creek, 5 feet closer than the existing deck. 2. The original plat for this property showed the proposed location of the house within 40 feet of Marie Avenue. However, when the house was actually located, emphasis was placed on preserving as many trees as possible. This resulted in the house being moved substantially back on the lot. The current setback from Marie Avenue is 98 feet on the east side and 75 feet on the west side, as indicated on the applicants' site plan. This places the house approximately 65 feet from the centerline of Spring Creek and, as mentioned above, puts the existing deck 53 feet of the centerline of the creek. Apparently, no wetland review was conducted and no permit was issued when the house was located on the lot. 3. In order to establish legal status for this property, it' would be advisable to issue the permit to include the location of the house itself. At this point, we can't offer any insight regarding what occurred in the past or what the conditions were on this lot at the time the building permit was granted. We can say that the house is attractively located and that great effort has ..been made to preserve the trees on this property. The rear yard, where the deck is located, has been left in a natural condition and the existing trees surround the deck and house. John Nygaard/Gloria Frederick, Case No. 91-22 Page 2 4. The improvement proposed at this time meets all the criteria for the issuance of a wetlands permit. No vegetation would be removed to accommodate the deck and no significant excavation would need to be done. The proposed deck will not significantly alter the aesthetic or natural character of the environment adjacent to the creek. The back yard is wooded and the proposed deck would not be visible from any of the homes on adjacent properties. In addition, the deck itself has been carefully planned around the existing trees and is intended to blend with the existing deck and house. MARIE AVENUE 383 4-3 SUBJECT PROPERTY NORTH t SCALE 1°=200' .. vn 4 0 3 Hj s 198.23 olEo 110.7 rSPRING CRE N 1 CIRCLE 1 a 6 '' 43401. (� O Oj 14.93- o '' 7 0 4 �C� S ,; _ p� el 40l911 63 . 0ES I 160.27 9'N SEE �yE,_,C1 R0 P1/� 221.14 0 le r 10 0 0 N Z zi FREEWAY $/8 SSCHOOLOMERSET:PueucE.0 MERSOH evFialc COUNTRY —, • GOLF COURSE (Private) /• �.• MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3 GOLF COURSE ( PUBLIC) AVENUE SUBJECT PROPERTY 11111liliNlel (•:.11J i:j 4..� Y.:j•].t.1 11rnein HEMRT SI8&EV SEMOR •4141.1 SCHOOL wueuu TIM" R • Mendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. qt - Date of Application June 18 , 1991 Fee Paid 5 )Cf Nygaard, John R. Applicant Name: Frederick. Gloria J. (Last) (First) Address: -766 Marie Ave. PH: 688-2616 (MO Mendota Heights MN 55118 Owner Name: Address: (Number & Street) (City) Same as applicant (State) (Zip) (Last) (First) Same as applicant (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) 766 Marie Ave. Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description of Property: Valley Curve Estates Lot 40 Block 01, • (27 81150 040 01) Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval • Comprehensive Plan Amendment .. . '3,tpi123- • *- "Variance Subdivision Approval x Wetlands Permit - • • Other (attach explanation) Applicable City Oniinance Number - • • ' ,g • • Section -• • -- F , . • Present Zoning of Property Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use - - • ' • . . , - - .. - - . _•-,•0 -3 " - • • I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the adclitional - ' material are true. ... -,*, -, , '..,- -.: ,-- .: - • - ,-..,,,, - , , ,, ...., . , .......,:_.!..., '., . ..F.,‘"` 7 -,, ' : - - .. • • :.7,..-1---. ' - re. 02:I'. •.;.: • ; ti. • • ' ••'•••• . • • 0,•!.• "1 • • •4;.Siai of APPli . - June 18 1991 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Subject: Application for Wetlands Permit Planning Commission and City Council It is the intent of the undersigned to add an attached wood deck to the existing house at 766 Marie Ave. The East edge of the deck would be 66 feet from the center of Spring Creek which runs behind the house. The house has a current deck attached which is 53 feet from the center of the creek~ The attached drawings illustrate the position of the house and the current and planned decks in relation to the creek. In construction of the deck, no trees or underbrush need to be removed and the deck will be elevated approximately 34". It is for approval of the Wetlands permit that the .site plan and deck plans are submitted as well as the application. Signatures of the three adjacent neighbors approving my intent are attached to this letter. June 17 1991 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Subject: Application for Wetlands Permit Planning Commission and City Council The undersign understands and approves of John Nygaard's and Gloria Frederick's intent to add to the existing house at 766 Marie Ave, an attached wood deck. It is for approval of the Wetlands permit that this adjacent neighbors approval is required. This approval will be attached to their letter of intent addressed to -the Planning Commission and City Council. /7( June 17 1991 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Subject: Application for Wetlands Permit Planning Commission and City Council The undersign understands and approves of John Nygaard's and Gloria Frederick's.intent to add to the existing house at 766 Marie Ave, an attached wood deck. It is for approval of the Wetlands permit that this adjacent neighbors approval is required. This approval will be attached to their letter of intent addressed to the Planning Commission and City Council. June 17 1991 City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Subject: Application for Wetlands Permit Planning Commission and City Council The undersign understands and approves of John Nygaard"s and Gloria Frederick's intent to add to the existing house at 766 Marie Ave, an attached wood deck. It is for approval of the Wetlands permit that this adjacent neighbors approval is required. This approval will be attached to their letter of intent add sse to the Planning Commission and City Council. ` nmoillimilA AAAA City of Mendota Heights June 28, 1991 Mr. John Nygaard 766 Marie Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Nygaard: Your application for a Wetlands Permit will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday. July 2, 1991. The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting in order that your application will receive Council consideration. The Planning Commission recommended unanimously that the City Council grant your requested Wetlands Permit. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 1CIL4O Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures: City Council Agenda Staff Memo to City Council 1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN 55118 4524850 City of Mendota Heights June 20, 19.91 Mr. John Nygaard Ms. Gloria Frederick 766 Marie Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Nygaard and Ms. Frederick: 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 25, 1991. The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M., here at the City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin ' •Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures: Planning Commission Agenda Planner's Report City,Staff Report 11';',-;;;":.. 1.1:1 ", : ..'-•':„,: • ' X! X:. • .1 _ • "217.:Fav:l X001 _ 0 rriJ CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 27, 1991 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson,' Public Works Dire Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-19: Seymour - Variance DISCUSSION Mr. Larry Seymour, of 1080 Bwana Court, appeared before the June 25, 1991, Planning Commission requesting a five foot (5') side yard setback variance to allow him to enclose a portion of his existing deck with a screen porch. See attached plans and memos. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council grant a five foot (5') side yard setback variance to allow construction of a screened porch as proposed in Planning Case No. 91-19. ACTION REOUIRED If the Council desires to approve the Planning Commission recommendation, they should pass a motion approving a five foot (5') side yard variance for 1080 Bwana Court to allow construction of a screened porch, as proposed in Planning Case No. 91-19. JED/KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direct Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-19: Seymour - Variance to Side Yard Setback June 19, 1991 DISCUSSION • Mr. Larry Seymour, of 1080 Bwana Court, has an existing open deck within five feet (5') of his side lot line. Open decks are allowed to be constructed within five feet (5') of the side lot line. Mr. Seymour now desires to improve the deck by enclosing it with a 12' x 14' screened in porch. Covered porches must meet the ten foot (10') side yard setback requirement. See attached plans -and memos. The proposed covered porch would require a variance of five feet (5'). The applicant has submitted signatures of consent from two of his immediate neighbors. ACTION REQUIRED Review the proposal with the applicant and make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed five foot (5') side yard setback variance. JED/KLB:kkb PLANNING REPORT DATE: 25 June 1991 CASE NUMBER: 91-19 APPLICANT: Larry D. Seymour LOCATION: 1080 Bwana Court ACTION REQUESTED: Side yard setback variance. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The applicant has an existing deck on the south side of his home. The deck is located within 5-1/2 feet of the side yard as indicated on the applicant's site plan. Mr. Seymour proposes to enclose approximately the eastern half of this deck and create a screened porch. While the side yard setback in the R-1 District is 10 feet, the location of the existing deck was legal since Section 4.6(3) allows uncovered porches to encroach into a required yard area. Once the porch is covered, it becomes part of the principal structure for the purpose of applying building setbacks. Therefore, Mr. Seymour's screened porch requires a 4-1/2 foot variance. 2. There are several factors to consider when reviewing a request for a variance. Generally, the request must be based on a hardship or practical difficulty. One of the tests for determining if a hardship exists is whether the property owner would be deprived of a substantial property right without the variance. To determine this, we would examine whether the use for which the variance is requested is one that is typically enjoyed on other similar properties in the same area. For example, decks are now very common in suburban areas and are routinely considered an integral part of a single-family home. A case can also be made that in our region, where mosquitoes are so prevalent, the screened porch will eventually be as' common as decks. In recent years the popularity of screened porches has grown dramatically and is beginning to replace the open deck as one of those items that sells homes. In this case, there are other screened porches within the neighborhood where the subject property is located. Another criteria for considering the validity of a variance request is whether the conditions of this particular property are unique and do not apply generally Larry D. Seymour, Case No. 91-19 Page 2 to other properties in the same zoning district. While we have.not specifically counted them, it is likely that there are other decks within the R-1 district in Mendota Heights that would be within the 10 -foot setback from a side lot line. In theory, any of the property owners in these homes could decide to convert these decks to covered screened porches as the applicant is proposing to do. However, there are other conditions specific to this property that affect the appropriateness of the proposed deck. 3. The subject property is unusual in that the front and rear of the home are oriented parallel to the long dimension of the lot. Therefore, the yard on the south side of the house, where the deck is located, is really the back yard if we consider its relationship to the house. However, this yard meets the definition of a side yard for a corner lot. This results in the yard being much shallower than the rear yard of a typical lot in this area. This condition is offset by the fact that the adjacent lot to the south is organized with its rear yard adjacent to the side yard of the subject property. As a result, the home on the adjacent lot would be located 35 feet from the proposed screened porch. This is ample distance to eliminate any concerns regarding access to air and light, or room for fire fighting equipment. 4. The adjacent lots to the west would not be significantly affected by the proposed screened porch due to the orientation of the homes and the landscaping on these properties. The owners of the two nearest adjoining properties have indicated that they do not object to the proposed screened porch and have signed Mr. Seymour's letter of intent. 5. The materials and construction of the proposed porch are typical of enclosed screened porches and the structure will be consistent with the appearance of the existing home. 6. We believe the conditions of this property are relatively unique and constitute a minor hardship consistent with the magnitude of the applicant's variance request. The proposed deck creates no concerns regarding health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and will be consistent with the appearance of the existing home and the surrounding area. 1 e 0V5T a-59.92 - MARIE AVENUE M 76.50 cr z w01 z 0 1- z W J elyb IJ,2S0.3i a1' 240 '48 S;SS/CS io 0 ^ 145.01 t9 91 Q o 7N trr tZSa$ 6 'D 0 r 16p 111 133.89 rn of its. It". -° N(JHIHL8 SUBJECT PROPERTY 5 , r NORTH t 18 SCALE V=200' 143?•i z. 19 a. P W 1.1...1 U O P o ; 1 QI a 12 13 a 0,0 zti , s -•41.0 51 VS 41.61 40.4 L/ �: 410.14 101.51, Cf - o ` i1..4i' 115.5z L3zoa+ AVANT! DRIV`z 9o,zo .37 t a 436-53 GtA5 ,4959 41.11 .3.10 at. 7a 111 is 44 n13 a 1 2 3..14. itr.38 u�1.tJ k1.iJ 0:,64 -s 6( 3 0 3'0 tG In ro 0 z ai 09 •2 1Z3.o. `.• a'Pp:1eo. ,- s 3Z•� I 44.03 3030 ¢. t (2 g.,, o o ---r-- ao 1. E 13 g Q' P ), 9 WESTk CIRCLE 11.04 -COURT Soo -t6 4, s34 � - 55 Si.9l- --I95@.69-- 40 ZO 7 a I 'S, rr M fo• p 0 0 1l4i 10.0o . bD o9 I- o• ' tT4.iL ua.4 -�. Ir5.14 6841 tat 43 A 401.53 w N O Z•• ;� 2 lb 3 ^ 4 - t--, 7 0' •.... ‘ r 0 4 1 % 30 3o IS5.00 ♦...0 w , Zv • !4.34 U r ,i 81.71 , S ;Z3(.' N. • M' tn6.00• - ,,,,'Icoa1 1 lasB j d5•y 6 VAIL -.-- 1 .. f ;DRIVE' a t4a.zv �� •• _ 90.4 1.Ga 1e� o.00 fm � 1ll se :,111.11„,..... fo: . fOn r. ��'" LT• 1Z • , 73.8z cs A 3 r '.4 fO /p ijS 54 2 41 l/:i- t'. 197 2F:ito7 - 15.33 h;.t.4_: as I2 143.0) IT0.o0 - G.a 44-. 5 +B 5,' .00! 165.44 C.3.0o /3 [IT 4 ` n 40 16 54 111.1 1,t 79 lo4•ao 0 SUBJECT PROPERTY NORTH dt - SCALE 1"=-800' SYNAGOO7.. 3 HI G MENDAKOTA GOLF COURSE a COUNTR (PRIVATE) • N RE P NTE DRIV • • - ...... .. • JI J!I • NORTHERN —1 STATES Keigela SUO.STAT.ON • . • • E VERY 7\ ( 1 ADA W. - June 6, 1991 City of Mendota Heights Attention Kevin Batchelder 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Ladies and Gentlemen: SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION We are requesting a variance from the so-called side lot setback on our property at 1080 Bwana Court. Our proposal is to build a screened -in porch on the eastern half of our existing deck. This porch would be approximately 35 feet from the house to our south. In accordance with the attached plans, the following would be done: 1. The work will be completed by the builder Martin A. Keller. 2. The roof will resemble our existing hip roof with similar shingles. 3. The porch will be aesthetically built to blend in with the existing structure of our house. Enclosed with this letter of intent are the other materials required for your consideration. Enclosures . Susan Seymour The following neighbors have no objection to our screened -in porch • proposal. City'of ..... Mendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUESTn Case No. `1 I- lc) Applicant Name: 5-e--)/177 4'4( r� (Last) IQrry (First) Date of Application U -lfl- Fee Paid 3s •OCA • a lD 1,. PH: 44Sd—//Sol Address:. /0 8 G 8 W g h c C7L � .m a ndi iq /}J�S.l illi!/ S SJ / - (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: Se./thG GGA' (Last) L ez. re" y (rust) (MI) i. Address: /08a /3wern a G.f: ; / eeh41S4 -/'/tr.) /rIN SSJJ (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: e -- Legal Description of Property: Type of Request: • Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. = - P1an Approval -. :,.r• ,_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment' - X Variance Subdivision Approval . • Wetlands Permit • P:-.,;•'• $ Other (attach explanation Applicable,City_Ordinance Number . = i ' Section Present Zoning of Property - . - • •", Present Use • Proposed Zoning of Property Proposed Use • I hereby,declare that all statements made in this request material are true.. �.:...,. 4 2tis z� Y� ,<�„ s City of Mendota Heights June 28, 1991 Mr. Larry Seymour 1080 Bwana Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Seymour: Your application for a Variance will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, July 2, 1991. The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting in order that your application will receive Council consideration. The Planning Commission recommended unanimously that the City Council grant your requested side yard setback variance, as proposed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely ;OC\t)i\OL-6&AL13 Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures: City Council Agenda Staff Memo to City Council 1101 Victoria Curve .Mendota Heights, MN := 55118 452.1850 _ City of Mendota Heights June 20, 1991 Mr. Larry Seymour 1080 Bwana Court Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. Seymour: Your application for a Variance will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held •on Tuesday. June 25, 1991. The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M.; here at the City Hall in the. Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your - application will' receive'Commission consideration'. ' If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder,4 Administrative Assistan KLB:kkb - •-• •. Enclosures:. Planning Commission Planner's Report - City Staff Report , • „, • , • , .• ^ Agenda ti, •.? : • " `. • ....r;9.4...kp 14%; • n le V 1=05°16' 83 .7 =05°4010911 90.00 102.7 91.36 10°56134" 4:09°2910511 _ 155.54 ' 09 29 051. 4=0gog3 orf 32 14ii a:89°351 '20 00 44955 090 01 r) *Crt;)- R= 39.60 N 15 47 9 o 41 w o N D Z1-48°11'2 0co 4•/€o `:?Q0 30.00 30.0 0/9, * 4 .,� S t,1t 1 0 / �..� • 3c9 �' 2 j 6 00.,E .io� ,\ro• q 4% TWIN N 04° 04' Q7" W �i-23.91 4=01°27'29" Ac"'' 0 0 8 496 • • • • Li=278°2214W 253.04 71.37 R=20 =20 ©-85°55'53". 44955-030 0 0� CO 5 0 15389 4:48°11'23" R; ?gyp 1 . D Lu N 5, ,. 9 • *A 44 955 �c 000 it) o CD 6 O 110.87N0 O„L- 44933 -040 tib 01 to in 0 a) 4 . c, N d dr 4 15 000 1 Z d 4 S t4„�3 5 d t 0 4 0 M 1 • t3 6 co ? 4 49 55 030-01 -0 i °90 3 0 Lt)�: 15031 )‘c -Jo Rc. /4 5IIIlI Sj//Y 1 • P-) o 7- 5- ) L L .)(v. c>0,il .4- .730- 111 i ,. ;;•••,. `,.....„..• .", ',.. •1. • • . . . ..... ... .. s ..., ...... . ......„. , . • ''', • • • . ••••. . ..."... `... ...., . . `.. 4, ' . .,..,'", ... • . . • . . .. N. .... -(:) Go No • _11.51 [40 00 40 6e Qs- v.:x.0117;7j if Dr;v3 ) .\.:7‘,-/ 0 f ) 9 f's i. 00 O N -- A,/ 4% ' J-7 W7 ' 9 (sic) x 7 r:' 0-71) — � Of d - ,77%!, C1 ' , `c n7 0-3v i X'( [ r 1`_; N ` G r -V,L 2.,>e ('1') ; Ic 4) .V LI -5 d n Ni -,c7 — �cxQ0 ouycj 6 I s X9 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 28, 1991 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Adminis FROM: Lawrence E. Shaughnessy, Jr., Treasurer SUBJECT: Consider Offer to Purchase Property - 27-57000-131-02 Since our agreement to enter into the purchase of the Art Mulvihill property, we have had discussions with his brother, Bill, to acquire the family parcel located between Art's parcel and Highway 55. When we appraised this parcel in 1988, the value was placed at 85 cents per foot or a total of $51,000. Mr. Mulvihill has indicated to us that the family would .be agreeable to the sale of the parcel at a price of 90 cents per foot at $54,000. The parcel is entirely vacant land. Considering the time since our appraisal and the general land values in the area, as established by recent appraisals, I believe the proposed price is realistic and in keeping with current property values. We also usually agree to pay the added cost of updating the property abstract which is estimated at $300. ACTION REQUIRED Approve a purchase agreement to offer the Mulvihill family $54,000 for the purchase of their property plus the abstract update costs. Closing to be within ninety days. LES:kkb STATE HWY. 55 4 H 0 4 0 L NORTH 0 SCHWEICH, V:, GUZ, 0.0SA , R. SCHMIDT, M. ; MELEWSKI dh 5 •& A. & G. MULVIHILL 4 $51,000 MULVIHILL $14,500 ' #7...$87,000 FRANSON & PERRON #6...$20,000 RANSON #5...$66,000 FRANSON #10...$20,000 PERRON #9...$80,000 HARTZ PROPERTIES w H PILOT KNOB ROAD CO. STATE AID RD..31. ACACIA CEMETERY TOTAL PURCHAS= - 433 ;500 SALE 'PR S °<` 387, 000 LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL July 2, 1991 Masonry Licenses Concrete Design Specialties, Inc. D & S Cement Company Excavating Licenses Gallati Excavating, Inc. Jacobsen Excavating & Trucking, Inc. Gas Piping License PremAir Heating General Licenses Colonial Homes, LTD Dun -Rite Roofing, Etc. Eagan Pool & Spa Equipment Supply, Inc. Koppen, Mel-Stucdo Co. Midwest Builders Olson, Mark D. -Quality Construction Shapes & Surfaces, Inc. Superior Siding ' Valley Pools, Inc. Heating & Air Conditioning Licenses Brian's Heating & A/C PremAir Heating July 2, 1991 • TO: Mayor and City Council CLAIMS LIST SUMMARY: Total Claims Significant Claims $ 88,707 Banyon Data SystemHard Drive ancLinstallation 4,575 MWCC Unusual Claims Sewer Charge 36,049 BTL Construction Park Bldg 8,000 Murr Plbg II 4,822 Approved Electric . 2,557 Interstate Lumber . 2,232 Thompson Lighting ri 1,035 .. • r 2 Jul 1991 7/2/91 Claims List Tue 7:46 AM City of Mendota Heights Temp Check Number 1 Temp. Check Number Vendor Name Account Code 1 A T & T 01-4210-110-10 1 A T & T 01-4210-020-20 1 A T & T 05-4210-105-15 1 A T & T 01-4210-030-30 4 Totals Ternp Check Number 1 Ternp Check Number Dept 10 -Adm 15-Engr 20 -Police 30 -Fire 40 -CEO Dept 50-Rd&Bridge 60-Utiltities 70 -Park 80-Plannin g 85 -Recycling 90 -Animal Control Pane 1 Comment s Amount ld calls ld calls Id calls ld calls 2 AT&T 01-4210-070-70 Jun svc 2 AT&T 01-4210-020-20 Jur, svc 2 AT&T 01-4210-050-50 Jun svc 2 AT&T 01-4210-070-70 Jun svc 2 AT&T 15-4210-060-60 Jur: svc 10 Totals Ternp Check Number Temp Check Number 3 3 Albinson 05-4300-105-15 splys Totals Temp Check Number 3 Temp Check Number 4 4 Approved Electric 09-4460-000-00 1st p_vrnnt 89-6 I2 4 Approved Electric 08-4335-000-00 rprs 8 Totals Temp Check Number 4 Ternp Check Number 5 5 B T L Construction 09-4460-000-00 Re 89-6 I2 5 Totals Temp Check Number 5 Temp Check Number 6 3.16 9.18 0.40 2.21 14.97 22.90 4.40 10.53 10.53 10.52 58. 88 211.54 211.54 2.500.00 57.00 2.557.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 6 Banyan Data Systems 01-4600-110-10 Hard disk drive 1,400.00 • 6 Banyon Data Systems 15-4220-133-60 Hard disk drive 500.00 • L_! } 6 Banyan Data Systems,,.._- .___•,_- . _01-4330-490-10.,,,___ .__. _-.__._.-hard.,drive752.00 _...._ j -6 Banyon Data Systems 01-4220-133-10 svc. - 1,950.00 Cj 24_. _ -V _4,575.00, Totals Temp Check Number 6 • 2 Jul 1991 Claims List page 2 Tue 7:46 AM City of Mendota Heiohts Ternp Check Number 7 Ternp. Check Number Vendor Narne Account Code Comments Amount 7 Blaeser Landscape 08-4335-000-00 rprs 275.00 7 275.00 Totals Ternp Check Number 7 Ternp Check Number 8 8 Boland Bros 01-4335-315-30 May svc 230.00 8 230.00 Totals Ternp Check Number 8 Ternp Check Number 9 9 Boustead Electric & Mfg 01-4330-460-30 rprs 174.50 9 174.50 Totals Ternp Check Number 9 Ternp Check Number 10 10 Commissioner of Trspt 01-4211-300-50 rprs 12.08 10 12.08 Totals Ternp Check Number 10 Temp Check Number 11 11 Copy Duplicating Products 01-4300-050-50 splys 5.46 11 5.46 Totals Ternp Check Number 11 Ternp Check Number 12 12 Corcoran Hdwe 01-4330-215-70 parts 12 Corcoran Hdwe 01-4330-215-70 parts 24 Totals Temp Check Number 12 Ternp Check Number 13 87. 10 55.83 142.93 13 Corrigan Electric 01-4335-315-30 rprs 230.20 13 _.. _ ___._..._..-_ 230.20 Totals Ternp Check Number 13 Ternp Check Number 14 14 Dahlgren Shardlow Uban 01-4221-135-80 May svc • 1, 408. 00 - 2 Jul 1991 Tue 7:46 AM City of Mendota Heiohts Claims List Pane 3 Temp Check Number 14 remp' Check Number vendor Name Account Code comments Amount 01 -*220-135-80 Re S Ears'a 2,500.00 28 3,908-00 Totals Temp Check Number 14 Temp Check Number 15 James Danielson 05-4415-105-15 Jul allow 120.00 15 120.00 Totals Temp Check Number 15 Temp Check Number 16 16 Dennis Delmont 01-4415-020-e0 Jul allow 120.00 ------ za 120'00 Totals Temp Check Number 16 Temp Check Number 17 :'/ 17 Dis Com of Minnesota, Inc 01-4330-490-70 rprs 503 170'10 17 Dis Com of Minnesota,Inc01-4330-440-20 rprs 2242 164'95 -- 0------ 34 335.05 Totals Temp Check Number 17 0 Temp Check Number 18 18 Fieldstone Cabinentry Inc 01-4131-020-20 Jul in Re Garlock 78'00 () -- /a 78.00 - Totals Temp Check Number 18 (} Temp Check Number 19 ) 19 First Interstate Bank Trustee 01-e071 Jul prem 177'51 19 First Interstate Bank Trustee 01-+131-020-20 Jul prem 83'31 19 First Interstate Bank Trustee 01-4131-050-50 Jul prem 42'53 L -- 303.35 57 Totals Temp Check Number 19 0 Temp Check Number 20 C.) '- 20 Friden Alcatel._ -_ __.' '- 01-+300-110-10 ' _- -_ postage tape 44.75, ______ __ em 44.75 F) Totals Temp Check Number . Temp Check _Number . . 21 .� _ . � ^ ' 21 Holden Business Forms 01 -*300-110-10 ' .splys 278.75 , 0 2 Jul 1991 Claims List Paoe 4 Tue 7:46 AM City of Mendota Heights Ternp Check Nurnber 21 Ternp. Check Nurnber , Vendor Name Account Cade 21 Holden Business Forrns 05-4300-105-15 21 Holden Business Forms 01-4300-110-10 21 Holden Business Forms 05-4300-105-15 84 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 21 Ternp Check Number 22 22 ICHIEFS 01-4400-030-30 22 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 22 Ternp Check Nurnber 23 Comments Amount splys ' return return 278. 80 227.80cr 227. 83cr 101.92 conf reor 290.00 290.00 23 I 0 S 01-4300-110-10 toner 50.55 23 I 0 S 01-4300-030-30 toner 50.55 23 I 0 S 01-4300-040-40 toner 50.55 23 I 0 S 01-4300-050-50 toner 50.60 23 I 0 S 01-4300-070-70 tomer 50.60 23 I 0 S 05-4300-105-15 toner 50.55 23 I 0 S 15-4300-060-60 toner 50.60 161 354.00 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 23 Ternp Check Nurnber 24 241M A RT 01-2072 24 1 C 11 RT 01-4134-110-10 48 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 24 Ternp Check Nurnber 25 25 I'denti Kit co 25 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber Ternp Check Nurnber 26 26 Interstate Lumber 26 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber Ternp Check Nurnber 27 27 Interstate Diesel 01-4400-020-20 C5 09-4460-000-00 26' 6/14 payroll 175.72 6/14 payroll 91.32 .� 0 267.04 i. } qtrly rent 102.00 Re 89-6,1 2 • • • 102.00 2,232.42 0 2, 232. 42� • 0 2 Jul 1991 Claims List Page 5 Tue 7:46 AM City of Mendota Heiohts Temp Check Nurnber 27 Ternp. Check Nurnber Vendor Name Account Cade 27 Totals Ternp Check Number 27 Ternp Check Nurnber 28 28 Johns Stump Removal 01-4500-050-50 28 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 28 Ternp Check Nurnber 29 29 Paul Kaiser 01-4268-150-30 2- 9 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 29 Comments tree removal Jun svc Amount 102.59 382. 50 382. 50 1,411.80 1,411.80 Ternp Check Nurnber 30 30 Kar Products 01-4305-050-50 splys 112.45 30 Kar Products 01-4305-070-70 splys 112.45 c) 30 Kar Products 15-4305-060-60 splys 112.46 9- 0 337.36 ,.1.) Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 30 Ternp Check Nurnber 31 ( 0 31 Knox Commercial Credit 01-4337-050-50 solus 43.05 31 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 31 Ternp Check Number 32 32 Knutson Rubbish Service 32 - " Totals Ternp Check Nurnber Ternp Check Nurnber 33 33 Thomas Knuth 33 Thomas Knuth 33 Thomas Knuth 33 Thomas Knuth 33 Thomas Knuth 33 Thomas Knuth 198 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 08-4335-000-00 32 43.05 Jun svc 59.83 72-4415-835-00 rni reirnb 09-4415-000-00 mi reirnb 33-4415-841-00 mi reirnb 36-4415-843-00 rni reirnb 41-4415-846-00 mi reirnb 05-4415-105-15 Jul allow 33 59.83 59.95 85. 25 21.72 8.25 2.75 10.00 187.92 2 Jul 1991 Claims List page 6 Tue 7:46 AM City of Mendota Heights Ternp Check Nurnber 34 Ternp. Check Nurnber Vendor Name 34 LELS Account Code Comments Amount 01-2075 July dues 225. 00 34 225.00 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 34 Ternp Check Nurnber 35 35 Guy Kullander 09-4415-000-00 35 Guy Kullander 01-4415-040-40 35 Guy Kullander 05-4415-105-15 35 Guy Kullander 01-4490-109-09 35 Guy Kullander 08-4335-000-00 175 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 35 Ternp Check Nurnber 36 36 League of MN Cities 01-2074 36 League of MN Cities 01-4131-020-20 72 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 36 Ternp Check Nurnber 37 37 Langula Hdwe 01-4305-070-70 37 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 37 Ternp Check Number 38 38 M Thomas Lawell 01-4415-110-10 38 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 38 Ternp Check Nurnber 39 0 :) rni reirnb 210.17 rni reirnb 2.75 mi reirnb 10.45 exp reirnb 38.73 exp reirnb 7.70 269.80 (} Jul prern 544.84 Jul prern 813.27. 0 1,358.11 0 splys 82.95 0 82.95 0 0 Jul a11ow 175.00 175.00 ) 39 M C F O A Treas 01-4404-110-10 dues 39 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 39 Temp Check Nurnber. ., . 40 , 40 M A U M A 01-4400-110-10 7/18 meeting 40 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber - .40 25.00 25. 00 20.00 20.00 -. • - c� 2 Jul 1991 Claims List Panne 7 Tue 7:46 AM City of Mendota Heiohts Ternp Check Nurnber 41 Ternp. Check Nurnber Vendor Name Account Code Comments Amount . 41 Charles Mertensotto 01-4400-109-09 exp reirnb LMC cc.nv 283.71 41 283.71 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 41 Ternp Check Nurnber 42 42 Metro Waste Control 15-4449-060-60 42 Metro Waste Control 17-3575 84 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 42 Ternp Check Nurnber 43 Jul svc Jul svc 38,845.08 2, 796. O8cr 36,049.00 43 Midwest Business Products 01-4300-110-10 solys 66.60 43 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 43 Ternp Check Nurnber 44 44 Midwest Photo Svc 01-4305-020-20 44 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 44 Ternp Check Nurnber 45 45 Minn Cellular Tele Co 01-4200-610-20 45 Minn Cellular Tele Co 01-4200-610-20 45 Mina Cellular Tele Co 01-4200-610-30 135 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber _ 45 Temp Check Nurnber 46 Mian Mutual Life Ir.s 46 Minn Mutual Life Ins 46 Minn Mutual Life Iris 46 Minn Mutual Life Ir.s 46 Mian Mutual Life Ins 46 Minn Mutual Life Iris tTotals Ternp Check Nurnber 1 Ternp Check Nurnber ... 46 01-2072 01-2074 01-4131-110-10 01-4131-020-20 01-4131-070-70 08-4110-000-00 46 t , 47 Minnesota benefit Assn ,,.01-2074 '�• 4 ' 4 .y4 S« • -y 66. 60 Jun svc 49.74 Jun svc Jun svc Jun svc 6/28 payroll Jul prern Jul prern Jul prern Jul prern Jul prern 49.74 6.42 6.73 12.45 25. 60 400.00 163.57 1.70 3.40 3.40 1.70 573. 77 Jul prern . • •,• 194.34 2 Jul 1991 Claims List Pape 8 Tue 7:46 AM City of Mendota Heights Ternp Check Number 47 Ternp. Check Number Vendor Name Account Cade 47 Minnesota Benefit Assn 01-4131-110-10 47 Minnesota Benefit Assn 05-4131-105-15 47 Minnesota Benefit Assn 01-4131-020-20 47 Minnesota Benefit Assn 01-4131-050-50 47 Minnesota Benefit Assn 01-4131-070-70 47 Minnesota Benefit Assn 15-4131-060-60 329 Totals Ternp Check Number 47 Ternp Check Number 48 48 Minnesota Teamsters Loc 320 01-2075 48 Totals Ternp Check Number 48 Ternp Check Number 49 49 Minnesota Toro Inc 49 Minnesota Toro Inc 49 Minnesota Torc. Inc 49 Minnesota Toro Inc 49 Minnesota Taro Inc 49 Minnesota Toro Inc 49 Minnesota Toro Inc Comments Amount Jul pram 251.88 Jul prem 377.78 Jul prem 680.81 Jul prem 235.3e Jul prem 374.98 Jul prem 116.90 2, 232. 01 Jul dues 222.00 222. 00 01-4330-490-70 credit 108.90cr 01-4330-490-70 parts 287.57 01-4330-490-70 parts 228.48 01-4330-490-70 parts 7.19 01-4330-490-70 parts 982.03 01-4330-490-70 parts 160.02 01-4330-490-70 credit 2.50cr 343 Totals Ternp Check Number 49 Ternp Check Number 50 1, 553. 89 50 Jim Murr Pblg 09-4460-000-00 1/2 89-6 I 2 4,822.00 50 Totals Ternp Check Number 50 Ternp Check Number 51 51 John Neska 01-4400-030-30 51 John Neska 01-4400-030-30 102 Totals Ternp Check Number 51 :Temp Check Number .... . _ 52-« 4,822.00. exp reimo St fire cony 41.23 mi St fire conv r 52 North Star Turf Inc 01-4330-215-70 parts 52 North Star Turf Inc _. 014330-215-70 _.___Y,.,_,__,.,.__._ ,.• parts . 104 j r . " ,, ., i:_:...:__Totals Temp Check Number._.:,.,.__._., .___.52.1._...._.,_,_s. m • 145.75 186.98 11.49 19.37 86..r w —L....:-i�—e�-:1..n'.��J=w a.. J•.i..A,- ..r:..i.�.... iwL. S..rii.x+n.:...'s:.'�i..: '1 ; 0 0 0 (} 0 0 Q (-1 2 Jul 1991 Claims List Page 9 Tue 7:46 AM City of Mendota Heights Ternp Check Nurnber 53 Ternp. Check Nurnber Vendor Narne Account Code 53 Northern State Power 01-4211-300-50 53 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber Ternp Check Number 54 54 Northern Air Corp J,a 08-4335-000-00 54 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 54 Ternp Check Nurnber 55 Oakcrest Kennels 55 Oakcrest Kennels 110 Totals Ternp Check Number 55 Ternp Check Nurnber 56 01-4221-800-90 01-4225-800-90 55 Comments Jun svc rors Jury svc Jun svc 56 Oxygen Service Co 08-4335-000-00 thru 6/15 56 Oxygen Service Co 01-4305-030-30 thru 6/15 112 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 56 Ternp Check Nurnber 57 57 Kevin Perron 01-4400-030-30 5- 7 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 57 Amount 384.42 384.42 72. 50 72.50 95.00 86.00 181.00 13.50 13.50 27.00 exp reirnb St fire conv 134.75 Ternp Check Number 58 58Fred Pfeiffer 01-4410-050-50 exp reirnb 5- 8 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 58 Ternp Check Nurnber 59 59 Ruff Cut 01-4490-040-40 ; weed cutting __...,59_Ruff Cut -.-____-.,_-__.r,..._,.,_ .01-.4490-040-40-._,..._.W...-__._---.____._ .._wed .cutting____ _ 118 . ' _ Totals Ternp.Check Nurnber ._ —59_ _ Ternp Check Nurnber , 60 S & T Office Products •01-4300-020-20 } splys :.r L .n....._ 134.75 58. 04 58.04 160.00 360.00 16.20 f'• "l 0 0 2 Jul 1991 Claims List Pane 10 Tue 7:46 AM City of Mendota Heights Ternp Check Nurnber 60 Ternp. Check Nurnber Vendor Narne 60 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber Ternp Check Nurnber 61 61 L E Shaughnessy Jr 61 L E Shaughnessy Jr 61 L E Shauohnessy Jr 61 L E Shaughnessy Jr 61 L E Shaughnessy Jr 61 L E Shaughnessy Jr 61 L E Shaughnessy Jr 427 Totals Temp Check Nurnber Account Code 60 01-4220-132-10 05-4220-132-15 15-4220-132-60 03-4220-132-00 21-4220-132-00 14-4220-132-00 16-4220-132-00 61 Comments Amount Jun svc Jun svc Jun svc Jury svc Jun svc Jun svc Jun svc 16.20 1,613.75 164.25 262.80 147. b0 197. 10 1,355.10 365. 45 4,106.25 Ternp Check Number 62 62 Solidification Inc 01-4337-050-50 6/17 svc 620.00 62 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 62 Ternp Check Nurnber 63 63 Sun Newspapers 01-4240-110-10 63 Sun Newspapers 01-4240-080-80 63 Suri Newspapers 01-4240-080-80 189 Totals Temp Check Nurnber 63 Temp Check Number 64 64 Thompson Lighting 09-4460-000-00 64 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 64 Temp Check Number 65 65 Tractor Supply 65 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber......_..... re zo ord Re perrnit Divine re perrnit Divine Re 89-6 I 2 01-4305-030-30 splys Temp Check Number' 66 •. 620.00 12.40 17.98 16. 12 46. 50 1,035.50 1,035.50 14.98 14.98 66 Turf Supply to 09-4460-000-00 s._,.......___:__._- -.. ,' . return 825. @@cr .x_ 4 -� ?. k - - 4'• •<`- .,,fir:?.:�"+,;.q':''^,¢,.a. ��+,..'�. ':�,N. • 0 • , 2 Jul 1991 Tue 7:46 AM Ternp Check Nurnber 66 Ternp. Check Nurnber Vendor Name 66 Turf Supply Co Claims List Pape 11 City of Mendota Heights Account Code Comments Amount 09-4460-000-00 splys 89-6 D 1,649.45 132 824.45 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 66 Ternp Check Nurnber 67 67 U S West Communications 01-4210-110-10 67 U S West Communications 01-4210-020-20 67 U S West Communications 01-4210-040-40 67 U S West Communications 05-4210-105-15 67 U S West Communications 15-4210-060-60 67 U S West Cornrnunications 01-4210-030-30 67 U S West Communications 01-4210-050-50 67 U S West Communications 01-4210-070-70 536 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 67 Ternp Check Nurnber 68 68 United Way St Paul 01-2070 68 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 68 Temp Check Nurnber 69 69 University of Minn 01-4400-110-10 69 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 69 Ternp Check Number 70 70 Russ Wahl 01-4231-040-40 70 Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 70 Temp Check Nurnber 71 71 Western Life Ins 01-4132-031-30 71 i....,....._,Totals Temp Check Ternp Check Number 72 • ` 72 Winthrop & Weinstine - 01-4221-120-10 Jun svc Jun svc Jun svc Jun svc Jun svc Juri svc Jun svc Jun svc' Jul ccntr clerk inst regr inspections Jul prem May retainer 289.07 411.03 52.95 157.99 85.93 110.60 35.36 35.37 1, 178.30 196.00 .• y 196.00 0 270.00 270. 00 285. 00 285. 00 146.20 0 0 0 c.•) ••:> 0 0 0 2^ Jul 1991 Tue 7:46 AM Tern; Check Nurnber Ternp. Check Number Vendor Narne 72 Winthrop & Weinstine 72 Winthrop & Weinstine 216 Totals Ternp Check Number 5750 Grand Total 72 Claims List City of Mendota Heights Account Code 01-4222-120-20 01-4220-120-80 72 MANUAL CHECKS: 13179 13180 13181 13182 13183 • 13184 13185 . 13186 • 13187 131'88 13189 13190 13191 • 1'3192 3,418.82 26,422.85 2,626.00 252.49 4,434.52 20.00 457.15 8,184.51 300.00 14,389.64 4,765.93 45,127.29 58.33 65.50 13193 71.50 13194 '881.14 13195-199 75.00 '13200 . 64.25. ' 13201 263.10• 13202 27,824.30 '13203 920.70 ' 13204 17.00 .' 13205 16,926.00 13206 '580.00 '13207 390.05 13208-211 120.00 158,756.07 G.T. $247,463.34 Dakota County Bank Payroll a/c John Hayn Plaza Tire State Capitol Cr Un County Recorder Dakota County Treas PERA Dakota County Bank Comm of Revenue Payroll a/c. Bike Maczko Jamie Lerbs, Jim Kilburg Craguns • Softball umpires S & T Office -Products Earl F Anderson FF Jedlicki Commercial Asphalt Deputy Registrar Orvil Johnson Rogal Americal Hotel Dakota County -Bank Softball umpires Comments May retainer May Re Pentel Fire payroll w/h Net fire payroll easement p.d. 6/14 payroll deductions filing fee deed tax 5/31 payroll. '6/14 payroll deductions 6/14 w/h 6/14 sit 6/14 net payroll exp reimb addtl fire pay H State fire conv supplies n contract pymt'89-7 discount invoice P. D. lic tabs deferred comp Natl fire convention replenish petty cash t: 1 Pane 12 Amount 1.706.27 991.60 3.229.02 88,707.27 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO July 2, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administrator SUBJECT: Approval of Personnel Actions Related to Leave Request DISCUSSION: Senior Secretary Kim Blaeser was authorized an unpaid leave of absence related to her pregnancy at our June 4, 1991 Council meeting. While she is out, it is suggested that the position responsibilities amongst the City's support staff be reallocated as outlined below. As Senior Secretary, Kim was responsible for nearly all secretarial support related to Administration, Planning, Finance, and Parks and Recreation. Other dutids handled by Kim included scheduling Public Hearings, maintaining the City's filing system, preparing Planning Commission meeting minutes, and general backup office support. In other words, Kim's temporary departure has left a number of substantial duties in the lurch. Luckily, our present receptionist, Maria Karels, is very talented and has shown an interest helping to fill in during Kim's absence. Until Kim's return, it is suggested that Maria be reassigned to the duties of Kim's position, and that her salary be temporarily adjusted to compensate for the added duties and responsibilities. During this time period, it will also be necessary to fill in for Maria's receptionist position. When we have been shorthanded before we have hired well recommended temporary part time help, and this has worked out very well. During Kim's absence, I recommend that we bring back Jackie O'Donnell, an employee who coincidentally helped us out last year when Maria was out on parental leave.. Depending upon Jackie's availability and our identified work load, Jackie will be asked to work between 24 to 40 hours per week. BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: The personnel changes as proposed above will not adversely impact our 1991 budget. Budget savings due to Kim's absence will be approximately $7,000.00. The additional compensation proposed for Maria will be approximately $1,000.00, and the temporary hiring of Jackie will be somewhere between $2,600.00 and 4,500.00, for a total;acdditional cost of $5,500.00 maximum. Thus, the proposed changes will result in a net gain to the 1991 general fund budget of approximately $1,500. RECOMMENDATION I recommend that Maria Karels be temporarily assigned the classification of secretary, step C, at an hourly rate of $11.15 effective July 1, 1991 and continuuing until Kim's return in October 1991. In addition, I recommend that Jackie O'Donnell be hired on a part time temporary basis as receptionist, step A, at an hourly rate of $8.30 effective July 1, 1991 on an as needed basis as determined by the City Administrator. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with my recommendation, a motion should be made to authorize the personnel actions described above effective July 1, 1991. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 21, 1991 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administ FROM: John P. Macz Fire Chief SUBJECT: New Fire Personnel DISCUSSION: Over the last several months the Fire Department Executive Board and City Administrator Tom Lawell have been interviewing candidates for the position of firefighter. We currently have two openings in the authorized work force of 36. These vacancies were created by the retirement of Lambert Derks and a vacancy left by Michael Johns. Five candidates were interviewed and all were excellent candidates worthy of making excellent firefighters. The first candidate was Scott Henning. Scott is an accountant for Northwest Airlines and works at the facility off of Dodd Road and 494. When Scott was asked why he wants to become a firefighter he stated that it had to do with wanting to give back to the community something that he has gained from it and that it was also somewhat a family tradition because his father was a member of the Eagan and Mendota Heights Fire Departments. The second candidate was Gerald Nelson, Jr. who lives on the corner of Cheri Lane and Swan Drive. Jerry has been trying to join the department for a couple of years but his job responsibilities have not allowed him to participate until now. Jerry stated that his reasons for wanting to join the department was community service and he too would like to carry on a family tradition started by his father, Gerald Nelson, Sr., who dedicated 20 years with the Mendota Heights Fire Department. The third candidate, Kenneth Weisenburger, was a past member who took a leave of absence two years ago for personal reasons. Ken has now become more settle in his personal life and would again like to become a member of the department. Ken has been through all of the required training in his first 14 months as a volunteer firefighter and also is the current supervisor of public safety at the Minnesota Zoological Gardens in Apple Valley. RECOMMENDATION: At this point I would like to recommend that all three of the candidates be appointed to the position of probationary firefighter with a one year probationary period effective July 2, 1991. While there are currently two positions open, we have two firefighters that are on a leave of absence. They are firefighters Pat Knight and Mike Marscuilio. In talking with Pat Knight it is not anticipated that Pat will be able to return to the department before his leave expires in August. We also expect several retirements within the next two to three years and I feel that it would be very beneficial to bring the third individual on at this time. ACTION REQUIRED: Council should discuss the above recommendation and if Council concurs with the recommendation they should pass a motion formally appointing Scott Henning, Gerald Nelson, Jr. and Kennth Weinsenburger to one year probationary periods as firefighters on the Mendota Heights Fire Department. JPM: dfw CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 27, 1991 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dire Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-18: Divine - Minor CUP DISCUSSION At their June meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a request from Ms. Dianna Divine, 1391 Cherry Hill Road, to construct a forty-eight inch (48") high chain link fence within her thirty foot (30') side yard area abutting a street (Wachtler Avenue). There were no public comments. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the requested Minor Conditional Use Permit. ACTION REOUIRED Council needs to conduct the required public hearing and then if they desire to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation, they should pass a motion approving the Minor Conditional Use Permit allowing a fence to be constructed according to the drawing submitted with Planning Case No. 91-18. JED/KLB:kkb ;,• CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Planning Commission June 19, 1991 FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direc Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assista t(� SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-18: Divine - Minor CUP for Fence DISCUSSION Ms. Dianna Divine, of 1391 Cherry Hill Road, desires to construct a forty-eight inch (48") high fence enclosing her rear yard on a corner lot. Because this fence will encroach upon a side yard abutting a street, a public hearing for a Minor Conditional Use Permit is required (see Section 4.8(2)a). The fence is proposed to be a forty-eight inch (48") high black vinyl clad chain link fence that is within four feet (4') of the property line along Wachtler Avenue at its closest point. Where the fence connects to the home, the setback is labeled at thirty feet (30') . Staff measures the drawing at ten feet (10') in this location. Public hearing notices have been published in the Sun Current Newspaper and the notice has been mailed to all property owners within 350 feet. The applicant has stated she intends to screen the fence with landscaping. ACTION REOUIRED Conduct the public hearing. Make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed fence. JED/KLB:kkb PLANNING REPORT DATE: 25 June 1991 CASE NUMBER: 91-18 APPLICANT: Dianna L. Divine LOCATION: 1391 Cherry Hill Road ACTION REQUESTED: Fence CUP PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The applicant wishes to construct a 48 -inch -high, black vinyl clad, chain link fence to enclose the back yard of her property in the southeast quadrant of Cherry Hill Road and Wachtler Avenue. Section 4.8(2)a of the Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for any fence over 30 inches in height that extends across a front yard. Because the subject property is a corner lot, both yards adjacent to a public street are considered front yards for the purpose of regulating fences. 2. The principal reason for requiring a Conditional Use Permit for fences in excess of 30 inches in front yards is related to safety concerns for vehicular traffic. Such fences can obstruct the safe viewing distance for motorists approaching intersections. In addition, fences in front yards add to urban clutter and can diminish the aesthetic character of a neighborhood. Since the proposed fence is not located near the intersection, there is no concern with respect to the safety of motorists. However, there are some concerns related to the aesthetic impact this fence would have on the surrounding neighborhood, particularly the appearance of the area as seen from Wachtler Avenue. The area surrounding this lot is characterized by open rolling terrain with grassy swales and curbless streets. There are not many other fences along this portion of Wachtler Avenue and the• proposed fence will be somewhat out of character. The fence is to be set back 10 feet from the property line along Wachtler Avenue on the north side and only 4 feet on the south side. As a result, the fence will be visible from the surrounding properties and from Wachtler Avenue. The impact of this.situation will be increased by the fact that the fence is to be located very close to a large spruce tree in the southwest corner of the applicant's property. All of the lower branches of this tree, up to 4 feet from the ground, will most likely have to be removed. f Dianna Divine, Case No. 91-18 Page 2 If this tree were avoided, the view of the fence from the south•as seen from Wachtler Avenue would be significantly reduced. 3. There are two factors working in favor of the proposed fence that would help minimize its impact on the surrounding area. First, black vinyl clad fencing is one of the most unobtrusive types of fencing available. In addition, the house is painted black with white trim and the fence should blend in somewhat in this color scheme. 4. While we feel that a fence in this area is out of character, the proposed fence does not represent any hazard in terms of visibility for passing motorists and if the large spruce tree on the property can be avoided, the aesthetic concerns can be minimized. In addition, the fence could be made even less obtrusive if the applicant installs landscaping on the Wachtler Avenue side of the fence as mentioned on her letter of intent. The applicant's fence is consistent with the criteria for approval of a minor conditional use permit for a fence. tO7as NO EST��, .. h1 ,1A 7 0C. 2Y 69, p6.66 s 70 98 95-8 .Pc7 lh/ /S/ Petef5ca ,� z9 1FIAyNE Y 4- P44 T flC{A AgEt-S06.1 VANDALLS OUTLOTS WO LOT 7 #1668 arch • 64- Er: c� B�'-rn-r 7i4-7.174- % / 7O,*- 4 1 EO'vr//7 P ,y©/.r14ad /09A A/big doh/7.J' p 7/ .„47,c• DKV AQP -`NV • • iti 7 r - V 7Y Z /I uPPae COLOSC AL" O v T L O T 6 9A 47 94 13 z 95./4 1.67.5 - SUBJECT PROPER -SCALE f CASE O • - LETTER OF INTENT Let me begin with the reasons for installing a fence in my back yard. I have two boys ages 3 and 5 and the fence is for their security. Not only is there a great amount of traffic along Wachtler (many cars well exceeding the speed limit), but also there is usually standing water in the ditch. Quite a few dogs roam my back yard daily and my kids are afraid of the dogs so I am concerned that they will be climbing up in the swings and get scared and fall. Also, prior to letting them go out to play, I have to scan the yard for dog messes. and clean it up so it doesn't get tracked into my home. The fence is to be installed by Dakota Fence of Minnesota, Inc. I have selected a 48", 9 Gauge Black Vinyl Chain Link. It will have 2 gates. 1-8' Double Drive Gate with lockable hardware 1-31/2' Walk Gate with lockable hardware After the fence is installed, I plan on doing some landscaping (climbing rosebushes, clematis and or shrubs) particularly on the Wachtler side to blend the fence in with the surrounding nature. There is a very Targe evergreen along the Wachtler side. The fence will run slightly into the tree and back out the other side. I am concerned with preserving and not detracting from the beauty of the tree and Dakota Fence has assured me that no harm will come to the tree. In closing, may I add that I feel the cost in obtaining this permit is nearly prohibitive. I have tried to select the most unobtrusive fence for security purposes. I hope it will meet with your approval. Dianna Divine AAA AAAA City of Mendota Heights Applicant Name: APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. (11—g Date of Applicai �'qn .D- 4 - q i Fee Paid Ke . `#��oL3 jn moa Divine- Dianna L PH: YYO-9a57 (Last) (F)nn (MI) Address: •1391 Cheery n;It iRc) A1e> infa (Number & Street) " (City) Owner Name: D i v; n e Peccry (Last) (First) (MI) Address: 1-41 t Chplry • (Number & Street) Jfts 'PLO '5 //ij (State) (Zip) 3 H; it kcP ile, ata ifts HA) $s7k( (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: 1391 %y, BYY'S/' Legal Description of Property: )..of I I h c IC "7 Cherry Type of Request: Rezoning X Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number .401 Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit • Other (attach explanation) , Section 4, 8 Present Zoning of Property 12,1 Present Use �7 j Proposed Zoning of Property _ _ Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional - material are true. . . • • FREE ESTIMATE Unusual conditions that affect the cost of the project can only be judged by an on-site inspection. You can be assured that these factors will be deter- mined when bidding your job. DAKOTA FENCE DOES ALL THE WORK Our planning and advisory service will include: • Wood or wire best suited to your needs • Frame sized according to fence height and weight • Careful attention to details for customizing your installation • Select qualified installers and equipment to do the job right Our installation will include: • Carefully selected materials to meet the quality standards of your bid • Workmen who take pride in their work • All posts set with 24 inch concrete footings • Troweled concrete footings • Gates property aligned for years of trouble-free service Proper installation is just as important as the quality of the fence. Your Dakota fence will be installed by specialists with the experience and know- ledge that only years of expert service can develop. SATISFACTION GUARANTEED Buy with confidence. A full 5 year warranty is our assurance of satisfaction. 41 -LIB" q GAtx,E_ Buqc.g._ %JL.Ft4.0 Liu, B ()oozy_ altw3c... GATE._ urA 1.-0C.104Z(L. 44.01.434111_ tiQ WALL GA -TL t.ijLocjLt.)40.4uoiltik. a --a " 0 am3c_GA-Tt_ t3 -001-1:r 'POTS d TTAM i ()Ai:POSTS 411c2oct I °Si- -0 "Cclux.1-1. uec. rPos-rs 1/8"11)? T:TAL qiCt_ 113CLUOLSat-WM.1i lt,5ST ALLATi00) VAR. NOTZALI Al WAR:kills-3W LiCattlectiJ • • woommitOmm..••••••••••••••• : • : • • : • • CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING June 11, 1991 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of Mendota Heights will meet at 8:00 o'clock P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on Tuesday, July 2, 1991, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Ms. Dianna Divine, for a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a forty-eight inch (48") high black vinyl clad chain link fence enclosing her rear yard at the following described property: Lot 1, Block 4, Cherry Hill Addition More particularly, this property is located at 1391 Cherry Hill Road. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Ordinance No. 401. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed Minor Conditional Use Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING June 4, 1991 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of Mendota Heights will meet at 8:00 o'clock P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible, on Tuesday, June 25, 1991, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota, to consider an application from Ms. Dianna Divine, for a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a forty-eight inch (48") high black vinyl clad chain link fence enclosing her rear yard at the following described property: Lot 1, Block 4, Cherry Hill Addition More Hill Road This No. 401. proposed meeting. particularly, this property is located at 1391 Cherry notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Ordinance Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the Minor Conditional Use Permit will be heard at this Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk City of flJ Mendota Heights June 28, 1991 Ms. Dianna Divine 1391 Cherry Hill Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Ms. Divine: Your application for a Minor CUP will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, July 2, 1991. The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting in order that your application will receive Council consideration. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Minor Conditional Use Permit allowing a fence to be constructed according to the drawing submitted with Planning Case No. 91-18. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ez--IcAsAth‘JAICA.15 Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures: City Council Agenda Staff Memo to City Council City Council Hearing Notice 1101 Victoria Curve .Mendota Heights; `'55118 City of Mendota Heights June 20, 1991 Ms. Dianna Divine 1391 Cherry Hill Road Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Ms. Divine: Your application for a Minor Conditional Use Permit will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, June 25, 1991. The Planning Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M., here at the City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or•a representative should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, -..Kevin Batchelder - Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures: Planning Commission Agenda - Planner's Report City Staff Report Planning Commission Hearing. Notice. Q55118` "452=K18� Certificate $ .$, a 'E. h . t<' ))0•11401,,muk umtworkimomtvoymq..), ..k. c oor, "km. •••••••••,... as. tIV./ N." A..." 23) lIikiaAnuouc wisr Si.Pm.11., %IINN. $5 IN Alinucsocs Rcgisterni 1 iu,l Sun o ors I Hereby Certify.thal this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under th laws of the State of Minnesota. Surveyed For Perry Divine Date- • June 13,-19B9 Scale_ . .1 inch ,.. 30 feet Description PAUL J. McGINLEY, R.L.S. 44021,11: P• .REGISTRAllON •or 16099 Lot 1, Block 4, CHERRY HILL ADDITION according to the recorded plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota. SO 11 SO kej • C*12419 //ff0.3 cwo,eo ere4,94va 88.P.50111”E • :04 .20 (vo Nall #8.1•4/..Sre _ __ l'ILOWe4t0 L. o S'el 4" iconp;oe /€5099 • "bane/ 8.4" p4oe fVe/NO MON Par 8(/f(0, $.7 NEN Aiee' Na 160P9at,fvekvo tem. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 27, 1991 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dire Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assista SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-20: Heller (Subway Sandwiches) - Variance DISCUSSION Mr. Kurt Heller, owner of Subway Sandwiches, appeared before the June 25, 1991, Planning Commission requesting variances to the size, type and duration of temporary signage. These variances are being requested to allow the applicant to place a plastic banner sign advertising sandwich specials on a intermittent, seasonal basis. See attached plans and memos. The Planning Commission struggled to accommodate the request, yet protect the integrity of the Sign Ordinance by not encouraging precedent setting variances leading to a proliferation of banner signs and urban clutter. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended, on a 4-3 vote (nays: Dwyer, Friel and Krebsbach) to grant the following variances: 1. A variance to the duration of the temporary sign of 3 months, allowing it to be up for 6 months. 2. A size variance of five (5) square feet allowing the proposed thirty (30) square foot sign. 3. A variance allowing a banner sign (18.5(10). The Commission also recommended that Subway Sandwiches re- appear after a period of three (3) months if they desire to continue use of the banner signs after the six (6) month period. The Commission recommended that the $100.00 variance fee be waived for any subsequent variance requests for banner signs. ACTION REOUIRED If the City Council desires to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation, they should pass a motion granting the above variances with the reapplication provisions. JED/KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Planning Commission June 19, 1991 FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Di Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Ass SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-20: Heller - Sign Variance (Subway Sandwiches) DISCUSSION Mr. Curt Heller, owner of Subway Sandwiches, located in Mendota Plaza Shopping Center, desires to place a banner type sign between the pillars along the west wall of the Subway Sandwiches Store. In order to be allowed to place these types of signs the following variances would be necessary: 1. Section 18.5(11) - Temporary signs shall not exceed twenty-five (25) square feet and shall be in place no longer than three (3) months. Mr. Heller has indicated that he would like to install thirty (30) square foot plastic signs and have them placed intermittently throughout the year advertising various specials. 2. Section 18.5(10) - Paper or similar signs shall not be attached directly to the building. Mr. Heller has submitted signatures of consent from four other adjoining businesses and has obtained Mr. Ed Paster's signature as the owner of the Mall on the application. ACTION REQUIRED Meet with the applicant and review the proposed sign. Make a recommendation to the City Council on the requested variances to the size and type of sign. JED/KLB:kkb a PLANNING REPORT DATE: 25 June 1991 CASE NUMBER: 91-20 APPLICANT: Curt Heller LOCATION: 750 Hwy 110, Suite 12 ACTION REQUESTED: Sign Variance PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The applicant operates a Subway sandwich shop in the Mendota Plaza Shopping Center. Mr. Heller wishes to install a banner sign to be attached by a cord to the pillars that support the canopy over the sidewalk on the west side of his store. The banner would be 3 feet high and 10 feet long, for a total of 30 square feet of signage. The banner would be a temporary sign that Mr. Heller would change periodically as sales campaigns change. The actual content of the signs is determined by the corporation and would vary. The current banner would read: "6 Inch Cold Cut Combo $1.69". This banner is made of a durable fabric and is generally colorful with simple bold letters. 2. The Shopping Center is located within the B-4 District. The amount of business signage permitted in this district is discussed in Section 18.7(1)b in the Zoning Ordinance. This Section limits the total aggregate amount of signage per lot to 100 square feet. The shop has existing signs located over the canopy on both the north and west sides of the -building. If we include the signage for all the shops within the center, this allotment is substantially exceeded. Thus, any additional signage for this center requires a variance from this section of the Ordinance. In addition, Section 18.5(10) prohibits the the use of paper, or similar signs that are attached to buildings. Therefore, the applicant is requesting two variances, one' for the type of sign and one for the amount of signage area. 3. The intent of the signage section of the Ordinance is to minimize the urban clutter caused by excess signage and limit the number of distractions for motorists. Also, paper and wall mounted signage is generally difficult to maintain and tends to look unsightly before long. Curt Heller, Case No. 91-20 Page 2 4. The success of a restaurant, particularly a fast-food restaurant like the one operated by the applicant, is heavily dependent on visibility and signage, perhaps more than any other land use. The Mendota Plaza Shopping Center has several things working against it in this regard. First, the Center was originally planned to face the future intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110, which was to be located at the northeast corner of the property that the Center is located on. However, Dodd Road was never realigned and, as a result, the building currently faces away from the existing intersection of Dodd Road and Highway 110. In addition, the building is located far back on the property and is separated from Highway 110 by the McDonalds restaurant. The Center is also screened from the intersection of Dodd and Highway 110 by a service station building and a row of trees. 5. McDonalds, which is a direct competitor of the Subway shop has good visibility from the Highway. One unusual aspect of this case is the fact that while there is a pylon sign for the shopping center, through some platting error or other surveying discrepancy, the sign is located on the McDonalds' property. As a result, McDonalds has made an agreement with the owner of the center that prohibits other restaurants from advertising on this sign. All of these factors weigh heavily on the applicant's ability to compete effectively in the marketplace, and this represents a substantial hardship. Having said this, we believe the applicant's request for a banner sign, while it may offer some moderate temporary benefit, is not an adequate solution for the problem of poor visibility facing this business. The applicant should be encouraged to seek a more permanent, more effective, and more attractive solution. Two pylon signs have recently been approved for the shopping center, which could accommodate adequate signage for the applicant's business. According to a representative of Pastor Enterprises, the owner of Mendota Plaza Shopping Center,• the pylon signs should be installed a year from this fall. 6. The Ordinance allows temporary signage on any lot for a period of three months or less. The City has allowed such temporary signs elsewhere, one of them recently. was even of the banner type. However, it is our understanding that the applicant would like to be granted a variance that would allow him to replace the banners as ad campaigns change without having to reapply for a new variance each time. Curt Heller, Case No. 91-20 Page 3 7. We believe the applicant's request for variances to allow the banner sign should be granted as a temporary measure until he can make arrangements for more permanent signage as discussed above. The principal reason for this is that if the City allows this business to have permanent banner signs, it would be setting a precedent that other businesses in the shopping center may attempt to take advantage of. In addition, if the applicant were allowed to replace the banners without the need for additional variances, there would be less incentive for him to pursue more permanent signage. We would recommend that the City grant a permit for a temporary sign and allow a variance from the 25 -foot maximum area for temporary signs. • ff Ig nemacal ! • f i•� •1 IMF MI iimMENIS EMMEN ate..2.144, ma wits • 9 s .�r TA MENOAKOTA kIM • HIG WAY GO SUBJECT PROPERTY P NORTH T SCALE V=800' mein 1 JU - 11W.• 1U 1 J DODGE NATURE • a t ��A YAMffraeeeee■eUIHH h AMM • EMMISMEMO ItiMalICIPMEEMODOCIO POWER co' _y *SEISE Y . MARSH -PARK • as mica IsrANN THE HO W SMT I ACADEME_ -\ Of THE VISITFTgH h 1` •�' V �t. 1•A OWLS SCIOOI.I /- pummosmaggy mirismilwg sammilinz T4s =VIEW 0x17 • cc • G TS 116 ROAD 0 1 711 HAZ f t .J ��►a ,/ i� < moor. mon% dail W w IWELL J 1 i 'o Nit 1. a. ROAD 0 June 11, 1991 City of Mendota Heights: I am writing this letter to request a variance to one or more of the city codes pertaining to temporary signs, to be more specific, a banner. Subway is ibcated in the Mendota Plaza Shopping Center and at this timetwe do not have a pole sign from which I can adver- tise from. We do have a sign that advertises the mall facing Highw-ay 110, but due to an oversight by the previous owner of the mall, an arrangement was made with the current owner preventing any other restaurants from advertising on it. This pole sign does not.rest on our property, it is on McDonald's property. The current owner of the mall, Paster Enterprises, has applied for and received permits to erect a new pole sign located on the west side of the mall (Dodd Road) and one on the north side (Highway 110) in the near future. Until I am unable to receive the same roadside exposure that my competitor has, I feel that a temporary banner is the best way that I can fill that void. The banner that I currently have is the largest one that I would be putting up. It is ten feet by three feet. It will be --located on the west side of the building, attached to the wall, in between two pillars, eight feet off the ground. The banner that I will be using will be made out of plastic. Thank you for your support and understanding in this matter. Sincerely; CurtHell r la• Pi-ctsud, el- ,, (me. 647 044 End City of Mendota Heights Applicant Name: APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. qf d/b/a Subway Sandwiches Helier Curt R. (Last) (First) (M1) Date of Appliwtion June 11, 1991 Fee Paid 1 0 0 Asci PH: 612-452-4512 Address: 750 Highway 110, Suite 12 Mendota Heights MN 55118 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Owner Name: Mendota Mall Associates (Last) (First) Address: 2227 University Avenue St. Paul MN 55114 (Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: 750 Highway 110, Suite 12, Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Legal Description of Property: See attached Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number 't6( Present Zoning of Property Present Use X Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit Other (attach explanation) Section - ?e• ;••••• e Proposed Zoning of Property 15 Li Proposed Use I hereby declare that allstatem ts in this request and on the additional materi true.,.. MEN A MALL- ASSOCIATES /2. - • • .(Sigaature of Applicant) • • • June 11,..1991 ; • ictoria EXHIBIT "A-2" MENDOTA PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the West 3/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 lying Southerly of State Trunk Highway No. 110 and Easterly and Southeasterly of State Trunk Highway No. 49, except the South 200 feet of the East 600 feet of the West 800 feet of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, and except That part of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, Township 28, Range 23 described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4; thence North 67.5 feet to the centerline of S.T.H. 100; thence Easterly along said centerline 444.3' feet to Its intersection with the centerline of S.T.H. 49 as established prior to September 5, 1956; thence Southwesterly along the centerline of S.T.H. 49, 275.0, feet for point of beginning; thence Southeasterly at an angle of 9.0° 143.0 feet; thence Southwesterly at an angle of 90°''00', 117 feet; thence Northwesterly 149.29 feet to a point on the centerline of said S.T.H. 49 said point being 159.90 feet Southwesterly from the point of beginning; thence Northeasterly on the centerline of said S.T.H. 49 to point of beginning, all in Section 25, Township 28, Range 23. EXHIBIT "A-2" � City of Mendota Heights June 28, 1991 Mr. Curt Heller Subway Sandwiches 750 Highway 110, Suite 12 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Heller: Your application for a Variance will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday, July 2, 1991. The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting in order that your application will receive Council consideration. The Planning Commission recommended on a 4-3 vote that the City Council grant variances to the size, type and duration of the sign you are requesting. The specific motion and conditions are elaborated in the attached June 27, 1991, staff memo. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely,' Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures: City Council Agenda Staff Memo to City Council 1101 Victoria Curve •Mendotalleights, M .;.55118: , 1452.18 City of Mendota Heights June 20, 1991 Mr. Curt Heller Subway Sandwiches 750 Highway 110, Suite 12. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Heller: Your application for a Sian Variance will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be held on Tuesday. June 25, 1991. The Planning ' Commission meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M., here at the • City Hall in the Council •Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ic- Kevin Batchelder • Administrative Assistant- KLB:kld, Enclosures: Planning Commission Agenda Planner's Report City Staff Report. ':'s • .-""- . -... , 't ,:,-; ",„ -, „••, . ._. . -'...,... • .:- • : -. ': . . .• . : ..... . ,.... ..,' +.4 ' ' ' ' ' . '''. • - -',.;;;;I:-.,%':" ••-; •e • • • • ,f; c_tr, Colo( LA- corn6Q 1.: 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 28, 1991 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Daniel Public Works Di SUBJECT: Dodd Road/Tru k Highway 110 Feasibility Study - Update INTRODUCTION: Paster Enterprises, owners of the Mendota Plaza had worked with Mn/DOT officials for several years to develop a plan for improving the Dodd Road/Trunk Highway 110 intersection. This plan included improvements south on Dodd Road to the shopping center entrance. In December 1990, Mr. Paster had arrived at a satisfactory preliminary plan and petitioned the City to work with Mn/DOT to complete the improvements. DISCUSSION: • Since December 1990, when the City Council authorized staff to complete a feasibility study to analyze the Dodd Road/Trunk Highway 110 improvements, staff has been working with Mn/DOT and Paster's staff to finalize a plan. The process has been slow and cumbersome and we are still not done, however two reasons cause me to have to return to Council at this time: 1. I need a Resolution from Council requesting that Mn/DOT participate with the City in improving Dodd Road at Trunk Highway 110. 2. Mn/DOT has informed the City that they intend to re- lease the vacant Trunk Highway 149 right-of-way located north of Trunk Highway 110 back to Brian Birch in August of this year (see attached letter). Cooperative Agreement Although the Mn/DOT negotiations are progressing slowly, they are progressing. To date we have been working on design considerations and we now have a design established that is suitable to the Mn/DOT Oakdale office. The next step is to take this design to the Central office for approval. We are also ready to determine the extent to which Mn/DOT will participate in the project. In order to make this determi- nation, Mn/DOT needs an official request from the City. This request does not bind the City to completing the project it is only an official indication of interest to participate. Brian Birch Property Mr. Birch, owner of the underlying fee for the vacant Trunk Highway 149 right-of-way located north of Trunk Highway 110 has been anxious to have Mn/DOT return full ownership to him so that he can complete some development plans. The City has asked Mn/DOT in the past to delay returning the property to Mr. Birch until the City finishes the Dodd Road study. Mn/DOT has now informed the City that they intend to start the process of re- turning the property to Mr. Birch in August. Staff had completed an earlier study of this property (see attached). If there is any further analysis desired by Council before Mn/DOT begins its process to release the property, please direct staff this evening. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that we continue to pursue the Dodd Road im- provements along the current alignment. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council desires to implement the recommendation they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 91- , RESOLUTION REQUESTING MN/DOT TO PARTICIPATE IN A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO UPGRADE THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) INTERSECTION WITH TRUNK HIGHWAY 110. Council also needs to determine what further study or analysis theydesire, if any, before Mn/DOT releases the vacant Trunk Highway 149 north of Trunk Highway 110 back to Brian Birch. JED:dfw City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 91 - RESOLUTION REQUESTING MN/DOT TO PARTICIPATE IN A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TO UPGRADE THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 149 (DODD ROAD) INTERSECTION WITH TRUNK HIGHWAY 110. WHEREAS, City staff and Mendota Shopping Center owners have been cooperating with Mr. Bob Brown of Mn/DOT staff in attempting to develop a plan to improve the Trunk Highway 149 (Dodd Road) intersection with Trunk Highway 110; and WHEREAS, a plan has now been developed that is acceptable to both the City and the Mn/DOT Oakdale office. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights request that Mn/DOT participate in a cooperative agreement project to upgrade the intersection of Trunk Highway 149 and Trunk Highway 110. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk of r `v =u"==~=o°=Department Transportation . DistrictTransportationBuilding����� ��U���� liltl��.UnauU,U�innesota 55155 ' OF Tat" Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Oakdale Office Reply to 779-1163 Telephone No May 1, 1991 Mr. James E. Danielson, P.E. Civil Engineer City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 Dear Nr. Danielson: SUBJECT: S.P. 1917(149=1)901 Parcels 39 - F. Fischer At Trunk Highway No. 110 in Mendota Heights RECONVEYANCE REQUEST This letter is to follow-up on the status of the Department of Transportation's impending reconveyance, to Mr. Brain Birth, -of the surplus portion of the above referenced parcel located at the northeast quadrant -of Trunk Highways Numbered 149 and 110, in the City of Mendota Heights. The Department of Transportation originally received inquiries from Mr. Birch, regarding his interest in repurchasing the subject lands as early as May, 1975, and his interest has not diminished as of this date. The State has cooperated with the city by retaining this right of way within the Trunk Highway system pending various studies concerning land use in this area. Although it is in the interest of the general taxpayer not to relinquish this highway easement until there is assurance that it will not be required for public use at a later date, Minnesota Statutes 161.43, require that the easement which was acquired for highway purposes be reconveyed to the underlying fee owner at the time that it is determined it is no longer needed for that reason. As you are aware, the State has cooperated with the City for over the past five years in determining if the city would be interested in acquiring the Trunk Highway No. 149 corridor right of way for the purpose of developing these lands in the best interest of the people of Mendota Heights. Pursuant to the sequence of the reconveyance process (ie. Description preparation, Appraisals, Area computations, etc.), it is antizipated that we would not be prepared to make an offer to Mr. Birch prior tp August of this year. Hopefully this should provide the City with sufficient time to complete their study of this area. Should the City determine that the subject property is required for their development needs prior to August, the State will be more than willing to accommodate your requirements. An Equal Opportunity Employer James E. Danielson May 1, 1991 Page two • Please keep me informed of the City's decision regarding this matter. Sincerely, 4./ gip". 10 fiAdeel Z. Lari, P.E. District Right of Way Engineer CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO February 28, 1991 TO: . Mayor, City Council and City Adminis FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dir SUBJECT: Brian Birch - Request for Release of TH 9 R.O.W. INTRODUCTION: Mr. Brian Birch appeared before the last City Council meeting to request that the City rescind its previous request to MnDot to delay returning his property located within the NE intersection of Dodd Road and TH 110. At that meeting Council directed me to prepare an interim report on his property so that they could arrive at a more informed decision on Mr. Birch's request. CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROPERTY: MnDot acquired the TH 149 easterly corridor as an easement for transportation purposes in the 1950s. The property owner_was compensated for the easement at that time. Because the State only acquired an easement, the ownership to the properties remains in the hands of the underlying fee owners. This means that when MnDot no longer needs the property for transportation purposes and desires to release the property it has two options; 1.) Return the land to the underlying fee owners by selling the easement rights back to them for its appraised value or. 2.) turn the easement rights over to another agency or governmental unit that needs -it for "transportation purposes". (See attached applicable state law). If the City would desire to acquire the property for "other than" transportation purposes, it would first need to acquire the underlying fee ownership. DOWNTOWN MENDOTA HEIGHTS STUDY: In 1984 the City Council commissioned Howard Dahlgren to work with a Council appointed task force of interested citizens and commissioners to prepare a Central Commercial Area Study for this area (see attached). This study was presented to the City Council at a workshop conducted on January 29, 1985, however no official action was ever taken. I believe no action was taken because of the following reasons: 1.) The Mendakota Developer lost interest in developing their site. 2.) I-494 opened up and greatly reduced the traffic on TH 110 and improved the safety of the Dodd Road TH 110 intersection. 3.) The Shopping Center owner at the time showed no interest in expanding or improving his facility. 4.) The cost for the crossing of South Plaza Drive over TH 110 was deemed financially inappropriate at the time. MNDOT'S RESPONSE: Staff met with MnDot staff to discuss the possibility of providing a loop road connecting the north and south vacant R.O.W. as shown on Figure 14 of the Task Force Report. MnDots response was as follows: 1. They would not allow a signalized intersection at that point on TH 110. 2. They might allow a right -in -right -out connection from the south parcel. 3. They would allow a bridge or underpass, however they would not participate in any of the costs. A. Staff completed a preliminary cost estimates for constructing a bridge and found the costs to be in the $1.7 million dollar range. The costs for an underpass would be higher. B. The grades would have to be raised by a minimum of 20 feet at_TH 110 in order to get the required clearance for a bridge, these elevated grades will somewhat limit the land access for the developable parcels in the area. C. City funding for the bridge would need to be established, some possibilities include, establishing a TIF district, assessments, Municipal State Aid, (MSA). One of the primary criteria for being able to build a bridge at this location would have to be, opening up further, or strengthening this commercial node (make way for more intensive development). The current intensity of development for the area is not great enough to justify the bridge. There are other advantages to having a bridge in the area, such as uninterrupted or grade separated access for vehicles and pedestrians between the north and south parts of the City. D. The most feasible development of the area at this time seems to be to develop the north and south sides independently. OPTIONS: 1. Inform MnDot that the City does not have a transportation need for the property and suggest that they resume their negotiations to sell their property back to Mr. Birch. 2. Indicate to MnDot that the City may have a transportation need for the property and authorize staff to work with the City planner to prepare an updated proposal for Council to review for developing the area. This report could take up to 2 months to prepare and cost from $3,000 to $5,000. ACTION REQUIRED: Review the options and take action on Mr. Birch's request. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Adminis SUBJECT: Update on Pending Air Noise Issues June 28, 1991 INTRODUCTION At our last two Council meetings we have talked at length about air noise related issues. It is the intent of this memo to update Council on two topics of interest - the status of our corridor revision request, and recent activities undertaken related to the Northwest Airlines Financial Assistance Package. Corridor Revision Request Mr. Nigel Finney, MAC Deputy Executive Director, was present at the last Council meeting and indicated that the FAA Regional Office in Chicago was currently reviewing the Corridor Revision Proposal. Mr. Finney indicated that he would be in Chicago on the following Monday (June 24) and would check on its status. On Wednesday, (June 26) Mr. Finney informed me that the Minneapolis FAA Tower Chief, Mr. Jeff Griffith, was actively working on the proposal and was confident final approval would come during the next two weeks. Mr. Finney was informed that technically the - Corridor Proposal had not yet been submitted to Chicago, although a great deal of conversation regarding the issue had already occurred. Since that conversation, I have spoken with Mr. Bruce Wagner of the FAA who indicated that the final elements of the proposal were sent to Chicago on Tuesday (June 25) and he too was confident final approval would come within the next two weeks. Mr. Wagner indicated that the Corridor Test would then be able to start "shortly thereafter" after the air traffic controllers were appropriately briefed. Northwest Airlines Financial Assistance Package At a recent meeting, Council directed staff to prepare materials advocating that the aircraft noise issue be an integral part of the negotiations related to the Northwest Airline's Maintenance Base Financial Assistance Package. Attached for your information, please find a copy of the adopted Resolution, a sample letter to involved State and Federal Representatives, a related Press Release and the mailing list to those contacted on this subject. We have received several calls from the press related to this issue and anticipate coverage during the coming week. In addition, a number of other Cities have also shown an interest in adopting similar resolutions which should help add fuel to the cause. ACTION REQUIRED None. This information is provided for general Council information. If Council has further ideas on this subject, staff should be directed as appropriate. MTL:kkb s City of Mendota Heights June 21 1991 The Honorable Arne Carlson Governor of Minnesota 130 State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Governor Carlson: On behalf of the Mendota Heights City Council, I wish to bring to your attention a matter of greatconcern to ..the' citizens': o Mendota Heights. Our community, along with many others within the Twin Cities Metropolitan ,area, is afflicted, by the burden o intolerable aircraft \noise. • A great opportunity has now arisen tom effectively address this issue and we need your help.• • As you are aware, recently the , State. authorized the development of a . financial- - assistance. -package for ,--Northwest -4; Airlines as part 'of Northwest's commitment - maintenance ,facilities within the State. While we arepleased that Northwest has chosen to expand theiroperations within,Minnesota we are convinced that Northwest should, also show.their_coimitment' to the State by taking positive and aggressive steps to, becoming better neighbor with respect to aircraft noise,:;:=. --'7°:= • • . The details of the 'Financial Assistance Package to Northwest have yet , to :be negotiated. ,,,, The - opportunity ,;.to incorporate noise limitation measures as' part. of the negotiated agreetent-;should,f-no be lost, and on. June .. 41 :..-,1991 'I': the :-,Mendota ,-.Heights ..,:;,.City,COurici adopted,the..,-atticiledikReSO19..tion.:1urging-5,,y9v4: R.,assistance„,,*,regarding --. id ':i•niatter ;;''',:-.'-'' — ' . ”' ----"-PF4,--,'"F --';'-'411V1'.,.*:-•-.-,10---..- i.: ,. - - -,,- ... ar ,. Arifi,. ,.., s.---.:-Iy '.?.:,":#a,tP.,v4..:1: • ..:., •:'*: 1.Pilesc42-:, s;1- ee.P'?";AP e,..;,.4., 9ATaalra7 0,.. ain ncial-:!,-,.commitment;,-c#:ilgorthyms.t.Airl'ineN1,iiciggii.a:tante§s5the lia'goii4i, - , - if.... •;. rrti'SreiatiOnShipllitIlfeen'kth4".fisiorii.it- ies'Alfi3Yriclitee-SSing'7r, .. aircraft *noise. 'issue .early;-,inr', the relationship;kwe?Can:',bel'7assura •' -.that - the overall•best-,,-,:inteiests'Pofj`...,the4::state-1,t,:remaiiii:gati#,, . .fOrekron't during „,.,..the •negotiation process. It•ffisr•time';.f'.+-hat'f!'welit,V' recognize the', degradation aircraft noise inflicts =oMinnesota'sn quality of lifejkand'..:;'take,positive_stridestd.!:•address< '" • "" • •' • - ' • • , .". T'"-14 • ..- '; • :..:a.:-?;"! The Honorable Arne Carlson June 19, 1991 Page 2 We look forward to your support on this issue. We pledge our full assistance to you in addressing the air noise problem and encourage you to call with any questions you may have. Sincerely, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor CEM:kkb Enclosure CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 91-29 A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE INCLUSION OF AIRCRAFT NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES AS PART OF THE STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PACKAGE TO NORTHWEST AIRLINES WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is located immediately adjacent to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and is heavily impacted by the intrusion of aircraft noise, and WHEREAS, it is an accepted fact that aircraft noise intensity over southern Mendota Heights has become seriously detrimental to human health within the past four years, and WHEREAS, by the sheer volume and nature of the aircraft operations at MSP, Northwest Airlines is the prime contributor of aircraft noise affecting Mendota Heights and other communities surrounding MSP, and WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress recently enacted a Law which requires all United States Airlines to meet fleet conversion goals to quieter aircraft by the year 1999, and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota recently authorized a financial assistance package to Northwest Airlines in conjunction with the siting of two additional maintenance facilities within the State, and WHEREAS, the provisions of the financial assistance package are subject to a number of details being negotiated with Northwest. Airlines by various State Commissions and Agencies, and WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights believes that aircraft noise reduction is a valid and legitimate issue for consideration in negotiating the details of the financial assistance package. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, that efforts be made by the involved State Commissions and agencies to include provisions in the final financial assistance package which positively and aggressively address the aircraft noise concerns of the metropolitan area, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said provisions should at a minimum require Northwest Airlines to meet an accelerated fleet conversion schedule to Stage III Aircraft, and FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 21, 1991 AIRCRAFT NOISE ISSUE For more information, contact Tom Lawell, City Admin. (612) 452-1850 Mendota Heights City Council recently adopted a Resolution in its continuing campaign to minimize aircraft noise over the community. The City Council wants the aircraft noise problem in the metropolitan area to be an integral part of the Northwest Airline's Financial Assistance Package recently approved by the State of Minnesota. The purpose of the City Council's action is to hasten the conversion of Northwest's aging aircraft fleet of predominately noisy Stage II Aircraft, to the newer and less noisy Stage III Aircraft, which is vital to the City's noise problem. Last month the State enacted legislation designed -to attract two new Northwest maintenance base facilities to Minnesota by promising substantial State financial investment in the airline. The specific details of the financial package are to be worked out by a number of State Committees and Commissions over the summer, and Mendota Heights recently sent the Resolution .of the City Council to all involved parties urging them to positively and aggressively address the aircraft noise concerns in negotiating the final Financial Assistance Package. "Aircraft noise inflicts a terrible toll on Minnesota's quality of life" said Mendota Heights Mayor Charles Mertensotto. As the prime air carrier operating within the State, Northwest Airlines is responsible for approximately 85 percent of all aircraft operations at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. "The provisions of the Financial Assistance Package to Northwest should force the Airline to become a better neighbor with respect to aircraft noise", Mertensotto said. The City intends to remain active on this issue throughout the negotiating process and will also encourage other Cities with air noise concerns to adopt similar resolutions. i COUNCILMEMBER BOB LONG CITY OF ST PAUL 15 WEST KELLOGG: BOULEVARD . ST PAUL MN 55102 COUNCILMEMBER STEVE CRAMER CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 350 SOUTH FIFTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 MR TOM HEDGES CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN MN 55122 MR JOHN PIDGEON CITY MANAGER CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 2215 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 THE HONORABLE MAYOR NEIL PETERSON MAYOR OF BLOOMINGT.`ON 2215 WEST OLD SHAKOPEE ROAD BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 MR BOB SCHAEFER CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 8150 BARBARA AVENUE INVER GROVE HEIGHTS MN 55077 MR SCOTT BUNIN 1658 RANDOLEH AVENUE. ST PAUL MN 55105 MR JIM PROSSER CITY MANAGER CITY•O'F RICHFIELD ' 6700 PORTLAND AVENUE RICHFIELD MN 55423 MR JON HOHENSTEIN CITY:':OF EAGAN 3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD EAGAN MN 55122 ;IE =741Ot'MABLE-•DAV= DURENBERGER•. VITED STATES SENATE 54 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BLDG ASHINGTON D.C. 20510 HE VITED 23 RABLE P ART SENATE OFF LLSTONE THE HONORABLE PAUL WELLST.'ONE UNITED STATES SENATE 123 HART SENATE OFFICE BLDG WASHINGTON D.C. 20510 THE HONORABLE JIM RAMSTAD HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 504 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BLDG WASHINGTON D.C. 20515 THE HONORABLE BRUCE VENTO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2304 RAYBURN OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON D.C. 20515 3) THE HONORABLE JIM OBERSTAR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 231 FEDERAL BUILDING DULUTH MN 55802 THE HONORABLE ARNE CARLSON GOVERNOR OF MINNESOTA 130 STATE CAPITOL ST PAUL MN 55155 THE HONORABLE JOANELL DYRSTAD LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF MINNESOTA 121 STATE CAPITOL ST PAUL MN 55155 THE. HONORABLE HUBERT H HUMPHREY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MINNESOTA 102 STATE CAPITOL ST PAUL MN 55155 THE HONORABLE MARK DAYTON AUDITOR OFi'MINNESOTA 525 PARK STREET #400 ST PAUL MN 55103 THE HONORABLE .JOAN' GROWE SECRETARY OF'.STATE STATE OF'MINNESOTA 180 STATE OFFICE BUILDING ST PAUL MN 55155 THE HONORABLE MICHAEL A MCGRATH' TREASURER OF'MINNESOTA 3b3 STATE ADMIN'BUILDING ST PAUL MN 55155 THE HONORABLE JERRY KNICKEOCKEI HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES .15606 HIGHLAND HEIGHTS DRIVE MINNETONKA MN 55345 THE HONORABLE CHUCK HALBERG THE STATE ASSEMBLY 2707 WOODS TRAIL NORTH BURNSVIT.r,F MN 55337 THE HONORABLE JAMES P METZEN THE STATE ASSEMBLY 835 SOUTHVIEW BOULEVARD SOUTH ST PAUL MN 55075 THE HONORABLE ART SEABERG HOUSE OF' REPRESENTATIVES 393 STATE OFFICE BUILDING ST PAUL MN 55155 THE HONORABLE THOMAS W PUGH HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 833 SOUTHVIEW BOULEVARD SOUTH ST PAUL MN 55075 THE HONORABLE ROBERT MILBERT JR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 579 STATE OFFICE BUILDING ST PAUL MN 55155 THE. HONORABLE JEAN WAGENIUS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 517 STATE OFFICE BUILDING ST PAUL MN 55155 THE .HONORABLE WILLIAM BELANGER THE STATE ASSEMBLY 10716 BEARD .AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON MN 55431 THE HONORABLE BERNIE LIEDER HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 911 THORNDALE AVENUE CROOKSTON MN 56716 THE HONORABLE KEITH LANGSETH THE STATE ASSEMBLY RR 2 GLYNDON MN. 56547 - • e THE410NORABLE CAROL FLYNN THE STATE ASSEMBLY 227 CAPITOL' ST PAUL MN 55155 HUGH SCHILLING METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COM 6040 - 28th AVENUE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55411 MR JEFF HAMIEL METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COM 6040 - 28th AVENUE S BLOOMING1I'ON MN 55411 MR JOHN RILEY, COMMISSIONER MN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD #411 ST PAUL MN 55155 MS MARY ANDERSON CHAIRPERSON OF THE MET COUNCIL MEARS PARK CENTRE 230 EAST FIFTH STREET ST PAUL MN 55101 THE HONORABLEMARGARET 1CHREINER ,ZOTA COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE 1795 MONTEREY LANE EAGAN MN 55122 AIRCRAFT NOISE FAX LIST NEWSPAPERS Dennis Cassano St. Paul Edition Tribune 227-9371 Laurie Blake Tribune (Air Noise Person) 673-1711 Pat Brettingen Sun Current 890-4970 Joe Holmberg Southwest Review 777-8288 Dick Haines The Voice 457-0993 Nancy Conner, Editor St. Paul Dispatch 228-5500 4 WILLIAM V. BELANGER, JR. Senator 41st District 10716 Beard Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 Phone: (612) 881-4119 Office: 107 State Office Building St Paul, Minne6ota 55155 Phone: (612) 296-5975 June 27, 1991 The Honorable Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor, City of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Chuck: AciiS ON. x.;‘,4,,q,tp.tp -71-1-144 Senate State of Minnesota Thank you for your letter and the resolution by your Council. I am a member of the Advisory Council on Metropolitan Airport Plan- ning, but in that capacity our only function is the dual track approach to an airport site - current or new. However, I believe I can be an advocate for your position through my position as a legislator, and as a legislator who supported the NWA bill. As a resident of Bloomington, I appreciate and understand the concerns of your community relative to airport noise. shes, E GER State Senator BB:nl COMMITTEES & Administration .Thies & Ta i Lawe • Commerce • Judiciary • Legislative Commission to Review Administrative Rules • Senate Special Committee on Ethical Conduct - • ... Cd4247-1? CHAIRMAN • Bloomington Legislative Delegation 4 ad on clad Paper JAMES METZEN Senate District 39 Room 303 Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 (612) 296-4370 and 312 Deerwood Court . South St. Paul, MN.55075 (612) 451-0174 July 1, 1991 The Honorable Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor of Mendota Heights 1101 Victoria Curve Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 Dear Mayor Mertensotto: Senate State of Minnesota Thank you for your recent letter and resolution regarding Northwest Airlines and noise abatement. I have forwarded the resolution to the group overseeing negotiations with the airline, the State Interagency Task Force. Please find an enclosed copy of the Northwest Airbus legislation, with the sections highlighted which deal directly with noise limitation measures at both the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport and the Duluth Airbus and Hibbing facility. As you can see, this aspect of the legislation with regard to noise abatement will be negotiated by the State Interagency Task Force, whose members include: The Commissioner of Finance, Commissioner of Trade and Economic Development, Commissioner of Revenue, the Chair of the Metropolitan Airports Commission, the Mayors of Duluth and - Hibbing, Chair of the St. Louis County Board and the Commissioner of the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board. It is my hope that this task force will consider the issue of noise abatement during negotiations. in order to make positive strides to address the problem of airport noise. I have sent a request to the Chair of the task force encouraging such action on your behalf. If you have any further questions regarding the issue or the progress of the negotiations, please contact my office. Sincerely, S METZEN State Senator COMMITTEES • Chairman, Economic Development and Housing Committee • Chairman,. Banking Subcommittee • Member, Rules and Administration Committee • Commerce Committee • Finance Committee • Gaming Regulation Committee A 54 i AN ACT 1 CHAPTER No. :350 H.F. No. 1655 NOTE This is the '•.nzit :=_rsIon . :he 3 ! !na! ...! :ransmii a :o :he yove' _ desk. Check riouse ;coati for uoda!ed uta:.;s 2 relating to taxation; authorizing the department of 3 finance to issue obligations -to finance construction 4 of aircraft maintenance and repair facilities; 5 providing tax credits for job creation; providing an 6 exemption from sales•tax for certain equipment and 7 materials; authorizing.establishment of tax increment 8 financing districts in the cities of Duluth and 9 Hibbing and on property located at the Minneapolis -St. 10 Paul International Airport; authorizing the pledge of 11 city funds by the city of Duluth to pay debt service 12 on certain obligations; authorizing the metropolitan 13 airports commission to issue obligations to finance - 14 construction of aircraft maintenance facilities; 15 authorizing the metropolitan airports commission to 16 operate outside the metropolitan area; establishing an 17 interagency task force; appropriating money; amending 18. Minnesota.Statutes 1990, sections 272.01, subdivision 19 2; 290.06, by adding a subdivision; 360.013, 20 subdivision. 5; 360.032, subdivision 1; 360.038, 21 subdivision 4; 473.608, subdivision 1; and 473.667, • . 22 ,...._..:;•,:subdivision:.8a; and .by adding subdivisions; proposing `23-- coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapters '7.24 ;.:297A;�and ',473; proposing coding .for :new law as, •25 - _,-Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116R. 26 BE IT ENACTED -BY THEIEGISLATURE.OF •THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 27 _•... _.. ARTICLE'1 .. . 28 29 • AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE AND ENGINE REPAIR FACILITIES: STATE FINANCING 30 Section 1. (116R.01] [DEFINITIONS.] 31 Subdivision 1. (APPLICATION.] The definitions in this 32 section apply to -sections 1 'to 16. Subd."2. (BONDS.] "Bonds" means•the ::.. 34s'ection 2,` subdivision 1,"or` bonds'issued " except for def iciency'bonds. •t rt. •;j:.. :. '.....— j.Q_ S".Y.^:. `.'. C�-y`��'`'c'ar 's•. i.>, r.:`�'3`."•:zay•x 1 bonds authorized under to refundthese'bonds, 4 CHAPTER No. 350 H.F. Nn. 165.1 1 Subd. 3. [COMMISSIONER.] "Commissioner" means the 2 commissioner of finance. 3 Subd. 4. [CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS.] "Corporate 4 headquarters" means the principal office from which the business 5 of the corporation is conducted and the principal office of the 6 chief executive officer of the corporation. 7 Subd. 5. (DEFICIENCY BONDS.] "Deficiency bonds" means the 8 bonds authorized under section 13, subdivision 3, or bonds 9 issued to refund these bonds. 10 Subd. 6. [PROJECT.] "Project" means the facilities or any 11 property described in section 5, subdivisions 5 or 6, as 12 applicable; 13 • Subd. 7. [RELATED PERSON.] "Related person" means any 14 guarantor of the 'obligations of the lessee under the lease of.a 15 project and any other person whose relation to the lessee or the 16 guarantor is that -of a related person as defined in section 147 17 (a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,.as'amended through 18 December 31, 1990, and whose financial condition the 19 commissioner determines to be material for the purposes of _ 20 carrying out the due diligence duties under section 2. 21 Subd. 8. [STATE GUARANTEED BONDS.] "State guaranteed 22 bonds" means all outstanding bonds secured as provided in .23 section 2, subdivision 4, paragraph (a). 24 ' '••Subd. 9. (CASH COLLATERAL.] -"-Cash collateral" means cash =25-- •or •securities'issued or unconditionally guaranteed -as to payment 26 of principal and interest by the United States of America and 27 maturing or callable at the option of the holder within two 28 years. . . 29 Sec. 2. (116R.02] [BOND ISSUE; SALE AUTHORIZATION.] 30 Subdivision 1. [SALE AUTHORIZATION.] The commissioner of 31 finance, upon the request of the governor, may issue and sell 32 revenue bonds as provided under sections 1 to 16 in one or more 33 series or issues for the purposes provided in this section in . 34 the aggregate principal amount of up to $350,000,000, except for 35 refunding bonds. Proceeds of the bonds -and investment income on Yom._. .. rr 36 the proceeds are appropr ated4n-the amounts -and for the t• CHAPTER Nil. 150 H.F. No. 1655 1 the event of a default under the loan, lease agreement, or other 2 revenue agreement, the facility may be leased or sold to another 3 person for any lawful purpose, subject to the approval of the 4 commissioner. The approval of the commissioner is not recuired 5 if the bond trustee has taken control of the facility as a 6 result of a default. 7 Subd. 7. [AGREEMENT OF LESSEE.) (a) Before issuing the 8 bonds for the facilities, approving financial assistance, or 9 entering into loan, lease, or other revenue agreements for the 10 projects described in subdivisions 5 and 6, the commissioner 11 -shall determine•that the lessee and, if necessary, other 12 corporations'affiliatedwith by common ownership with the lessee 13 haveagreed.:torequirements satisfactory to the Commissioner' 14 Oircrafenoise abatement 15 16 subdivisions 5 and 6 must contain covenants and agreements by 17 the airline corporation and any. successor in interest providing 18 for -the retention and location of existing employees, 19 operations, and facilities, including headquarters, of the 20 airline corporation in the state until the principal and 21 interest on the last series of deficiency bonds and general 22 obligation revenue bonds issued under subdivision 4, paragraph : 23 (a), clause (2), are paid. , .241 Subd. 8. [ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.] Notwithstanding any 25,.other'1aw-or ruleno environmentaV.review mus E be'completed .26 prior to the approvalmn'applicatioriand the issuance of a . • (b) The leases for each of the facilities described in • 27conditional commitment for the loan,: -.or the taking of any other • 28 action permitted by article'l„including the issuance of bonds,' * 29 unless considered necessary or desirable by the commissioner to 30 prepare for a final commitment and to make it effective. . _ . 31 Environmental review, to the extent'required by law, shall be 32 made in -conjunction with the issuance:by state agencies of 33 .environmental permits for:the proje6t. Permits may be applied 34-sfor.prior to the-issuance*of a Conditional commitment: Action- - . - shall -be taken -as expeditiously:as:Possible on environmental.', 36 review ,• • - CHAPTER No. 150 H. E'. No. 1655 1 Subd. 9. [PROJECT COST REPORT.] Before the commissioner of 2 finance issues bonds, approves financial assistance, or enters 3 into loan, lease, or other revenue agreements for the projects 4 described in subdivisions 5 and 6, the commissioner of trade and 5 economic development shall report to the governor on total 6 public costs related to the construction of the projects. The 7 report must include: an estimate of the total state, 8 metropolitan, and local tax costs for the project; and an 9 estimate of the total state, metropolitan, and local capital 10 costs, and method of financing, of any airport and off -airport 11 improvements related to the construction of the'facilities but 12 not included in the cost of the facilities, including any runway 13 or taxiway improvements and road, highway, sewer; or other 14 public facility or utility improvement costs. Copies of the 15 report must be filed at the legislature as provided in section 16 3.195 when the' report is submitted to the governor. 17 Sec. 3. [116R.03] (GENERAL POWERS.] 18 For the purpose of exercising the specific powers 19 authorized under sections 1 to 16 and effectuating the other 20 purposes of sections 1 to 16, the commissioner may: 21 (1) acquire, hold, pledge, assign, or dispose of real or 22 personal property or any interest in property, including a 23 mortgage or security interest in a facility described in section 24 2, subdivision 5 or 6;. . .25 ... (2) enter into agreements, contracts, -or other transactions .26 with any -federal or state agency, any person and any domestic or 27 _foreign partnership, corporation, association, or organization, 28 including contracts or agreements -'for administration and 29 implementation of all or part of sections 1 to 16; 30 (3) acquire real property, or an interest therein, by 31 purchase or foreclosure, where the acquisition is necessary or 32. appropriate; .33 (4) enter into agreements with.lenders, borrowers, or the 34 issuers of securities for the purpose of regulating the _ 35, development -and management of•any facility financed in whole or 36 in part by the proceeds of bonds-or•loans; 10 • CHAPTER No. :350 H.E. No. 1655 1 potential for and effects of a decline of economic activity in 2 the metropolitan area and the state; and to ensure the 3 preservation, growth, and diversification of the tax base of the . 4 metropolitan area and the state; it is necessary and appropriate 5 and in the public interest to authorize the commission to take 6 the actions described in section 473.667, subdivision 11, and 7 section 3. 8 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 1990, section 473.667, is 9 amended by adding a subdivision to read: 10 Subd. 11. (ADD:TIONAL BONDS.] (a) The commission .aay issue • 11 general obligation revenue bonds under this section for the 12 purposes of: 13 (1) acquiring by purchase real and personal properties 14 located within the metropolitan area that are related to,airline 15 :rations to be leased to airline corporations, or -to other 16 .:orporations affiliated by common ownership with•airli�ne 17 corporations, for use in connection with their airline 18 operations, including real and personal properties for use as 19 flight training facilities; and -- 20 (2) financing or refinancing real and personal properties •- 21 owned by the commission which may. include discharging a 22 leasehold interest on the properties to be leased to airline 23 corporations and used in connection with the operations of the 24 -airline corporatioas'at:airports under the commission's • 25 jurisdiction::' - 26 • 'Prior -to the issuance of the general obligation revenue 27- bonds, the -commission shall enter into a 'lease with the airline •28 corporations, or with other corporations affiliated by common 29 ownership with airline corporations, for the use of the acquired 30 real and personal properties referenced in clause (1), and shall 31 enter into a revenue•agreement with the airline corporation for 32 the use of:the properties financed,or.refinanced referenced in 33 clause (2). --The commission shall seek to obtain the best- 34- available'terms and•security for:the lease and agreement: -The --- - ••--• . 35 `- terms:'and secfirity=•must be reasonably determined by the - r- '• 36 `commission •to be adequate Aad of tithe kind and, degree which would -_ CHAPTER No. 150 H.,F. No. 1655 1 be required by an investment banking or other financial 2 institution. All such properties are airport facilities for 3 purposes of complying with the provisions of subdivisions 3 and 4 5. 5 (b) In addition to the covenants and agreements otherwise 6 required or negotiated by the commission, the leases and revenue 7 agreements for the properties must contain covenants and 8 agreements by the airline corporation, and if the user is not 9 the airline corporation, also by the airline corporation, 10 •satisfactory to the commission providing for: • 11 (1) the payment of rents in amounts and at times adequate 12 to pay the principal and interest as due on the general 13 obligation revenue bonds issued to acquire, finance, or 14 refinance the properties and to pay the commission's costs and 15 expenses of issuing the bonds and acquiring and owning the 16. properties,'•and otherwise satisfying the requirements of section 17 469.155, subdivision 5; 18 (2) the adequate security for payment of rents so that the - 19 net unencumbered value of the leased property described in 20 paragraph (a),* clause (1), and other collateral pledged to the 21 commission from time to time by the airline corporation, as 22 .independently appraised at the time of issuance and periodically .23 to the satisfaction of the commission during the term of the 24 ,general obligation revenue bonds, is a percentage of the. 25 principal amount of the outstanding general obligation revenue 26 bonds under this subdivision as determined by the commission; ::27 provided that the percentage determined by the commission must 28 not be less than 125 percent; 29 . (3) the retention and location of operations and 30 facilities, including headquarters, of the airline corporation 31 in the metropolitan area and the state for the term of the lease 32- and iai.rpraft.i:noise-<'abatement;, .and .,33.- ,A4) early repayment, or the establishment of a defeasance •.34 account to provide for•timely repayment, of the general 35 -,obligation revenue bonds upon the occurrence .of events and upon . 36 terms. and :conditions as are satisfactory. to,the commission,' 4 Bigger airport? Add $3 billion for homes, Minneapolis says By Laurie Blake Staff Writer It would cost $3 billion to redevelop 'and provide soundproofing for resi- dential areas of south Minneapolis that would be devalued by extra jet noise if Minneapolis -St. Paul Inter- national Airport is expanded, city of- ficials,said Monday.• That $3 billion'should be considered part of the exist of expanding . the airport;) they`said. Moreover, the de- stabilizing effect on 33,000 -of the city's most -'appealing t middle-class houses should be part of the case for building a new aiiport elsewhere, , they said�dittiiig' interviews yester- m,sp, da rte"-' a e:::• iFxr F ... The piojected cost, Which approaches ie $3.7 to $4.1 billion estimated cost of a new airport, is expected.,to be controversial and disputed by some.; The city released the numbers in an attempt to quiet those who see air- port expansion as simply a matter of moving `houses out of south Minne- apolis._, .,•,i y; r isi •• . .ii. ,t f; "People. say that folks_ should,just ' •• move , out. 'They have no idea what I they're talking about," said state Rep. i,v, Jean Wagenius,'; DFL -Minneapolis. :%• • "We're :Irking • to .-put numbers on t—what they're talking about',..Y., According to city- caldulations, 1 most 1,•000,city -.blocks containing " 97,600 - people would be affected: 35,600 by relocation and 62,000 whose .homes ..would need sound- proofing. , "This is the price -of expanding and keeping the airport where it is. Peo- ple just don't want to face up to the price,'; said Minneapolis City Coun- cil Member Steve Cramer. --• •• "We're not going to let the destruc- tion of these neighborhoods slide by. If you think we're going to wreck our city on the cheap, you're wrong," he said. Star Tribune Tuesday July 2/1991 tw Read then recycle 1Be The Minneapolis statement will be followed today by a long-awaited es- timate from the Metropolitan Air- ports Commission on what it would cost to build new runways and termi- nal buildings to expand the airport. The commission asked - the cities• around the airport to estimate what expansion would do t� their commu- nities so that a mitigation plan — one to help the cities adjust — could be included in the estimated cost of the project. But the high price of the ..Minneapolis plan is expected to be controversial, and Cramer predicted that some may try to dismiss it. Airport commission officials' are in the best position to comment on the validity of the figures, but they had not received them and could not be reached for comment yesterday. Other cities around the airport have submitted ' mitigation •'plans in the millions of dollars, but; none has ap- proached the Minpeapolis estimate. Richfield has asked for $40 million or more to buyout homes in two of its neighborhoods closest to the air - Eagan has tentatively asked for $10 million to $30 million to relocate 100 to 300 homes, depending upon what residents want. It also wants $22 mil- • - lion for soundproofing -or -to buy 1,000 to 1,500 homes. Mendota Heights is considering a , plan that would call for $16 million -' to buy 146 homes and $12 million to ' soundproof 500 to 700 others. . Legislators ultimately will decide whether to build or expand, and they are not scheduled to make that deci-. sion until at least 1996. Minneapolis favors a new airport; other communi- ties around the airport have not yet ' taken a stand. . • Cramer, Wagenius, Metropolitan Airports Commissioner Jan Del. Calzo and. Minneapolis city planner , Peggy Reichert explained the Minne- apolis mitigation plan. :;,,' • r". The areas where property values are • most vulnerable are among the city's stablest middle-class neighborhoods, they said. An estimated 80 percent of the homes — in the areas around Lake Nokomis, Minnehaha Creek,' Dia- mond Lake and Lake Harriet = are valued at or above the city median of $60,000 to $70,000, and 95 percent of them are in. good or top condition. •The values in these areas' havebeen kept up during thepast 10 years by a tight housing market driven by .peo- ple in their mid 20s to mid 40s'look- ing for, their ,first homes;',Reichert said. But everyone -expects that pres- sure on the housing market -.to lessen now, that most baby boomers 'are housed, she said. And if the airport were to expand, the housing market would begin to sag, she said. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ SUBJECT: Review Draft MSP Interactive Planning Group Report June 28, 1991 INTRODUCTION The City of Mendota Heights is currently participating in discussions with the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) regarding their long term capital improvement plans for Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP). Our involvement in the MSP Interactive Planning Group will conclude in July with the issuance of a final report analyzing the impacts of the six consolidated airport expansion concepts discussed at our last Council meeting. It is the intent of this memo to discuss the section of that report which deals with impacts to the City of Mendota Heights. DISCUSSION The Interactive Planning Group is comprised of representatives from the seven communities surrounding MSP, and is Chaired by Walter Rockenstein. With the assistance of the MAC and the Consulting Firm HNTB, the Group set about to define and to quantify the effects each of the runway expansion concepts would have on each of the seven communities. The report is structured to describe in detail the various expansion concepts, describe the runway/taxiway development impacts, and describe the terminal/landside development impacts. The report will not indicate a preference for one concept over another - its only intent is to describe the associate development impacts. To no one's surprise, the predominate impact of expansion on Mendota Heights is aircraft noise. The attached draft report excerpt entitled 3.5.4. Impacts on Mendota Heights describes in detail the envisioned noise impacts. Because the full draft report is in excess of 180 pages, it has not been include with your packet. If you would like to review the full document, please let me know. Within the report, each concept is analyzed in terms of noise measurement (using both Ldn and L10 noise metrics), ground noise, community disruption, growth patterns and population movement and potential mitigation measures. As you read through the report it is helpful to remember that Concepts 1 and 2 add a new north parallel runway, Concepts 3 and 4 add a new south parallel runway and Concepts 5 and 6 add a new north -south runway along Cedar Avenue. The attached Noise Contour Maps were generated by HNTB as part of the impact analysis process. The complex computer model which is used to generate these contours relies on a number of assumptions regarding future air traffic levels and air traffic control procedures. Please note that in our section of the report we take exception to the validity of the contour assumptions and charge that the noise affects are under estimated. ACTION REQUIRED The Interactive Planning Group will be meeting to finalize the report on July 10th, 16th and 24th. Our draft section of the report is being provided to you early to allow for any input you may have. Council should review the draft report and provide staff with any suggestions you would like to- see incorporated into the document. MTL:kkb 3.5.4 Impacts on Mendota Heights In assessing aircraft noise impacts on a residential community such as Mendota Heights, one needs to be cautious of the various noise metrics used to describe noise conditions and the many assumptions which go into developing the noise contour maps. Elsewhere in this document, fleet mix and capacity assumptions were set forth which most certainly will prove incorrect - the only question being "how incorrect?". The most important assumption relative to the Mendota Heights' Analysis involves departure headings and the resultant aircraft flight tracks. For purposes of analysis, the assumed northern boundary of the Mendota Heights/Eagan Corridor for aircraft departing Runway 11L was depicted as a 100 degree magnetic bearing as measured from the 29R middle marker. This assumption is incorrect as it does not represent the current operating condition as of 1991, nor are there any assurances this traffic control measure will be implemented in the future. For this reason, the true and accurate residential noise impact on Mendota Heights is underestimated in the analysis which follows. CONCEPT 1 Land Use Compatibility Ldn Noise Contour Impacts - This Concept would most definitely increase the Ldn Noise Impacts to the community as the majority of aircraft operations would move to Runways 11C/29C and 11L/29R. Runway use projections for the year 2000 Ldn Noise Contour are included in Table 3. Figures and depict the Ldn 65/75 and Ldn 60 Contours for this Concept. Residential population and households within the Ldn Noise Contours, compared to the no -build condition and to other concepts, is presented in Table . Total population within the contours in Mendota Heights, compared to the no -build condition would be as follows: . Ldn 65 Population Ldn 60 Population Concept I No -build Concept I No -build Mendota Hts. 133 133 2,039 1,557 L10 65 Noise Contour Impacts - There would be a substantial r increase in the L10 65 Noise Impact within Mendota Heights as a result of Concept I. The,_ residential population within the contours is presented in Table . Total population within the contours for -"Mendota Heights, compared to the no -build condition, would be as follows: Mendota Heights L10 65 Population Concept 1 No -build Southeast Southeast 4,571 3,781 This concept severely impacts the City of Mendota Heights as indicated by both the L10 and the Ldn Noise Metrics. Additional land area within Mendota Heights is opened up to intense overflights as both the percentage of all takeoffs and landings increase substantially (see figure ). The increase in the overall percentage of operations, coupled with an absolute increase in the number of total operations at MSP, will result in noticeable and disturbing noise impacts within Mendota Heights. In terms of actual dwelling units, the Ldn 60 Contour increases by 174 residential units, and the L10 65 Contour increases by 285 residential units. As mentioned earlier in this section, the validity of the flight track assumptions in the noise metric calculations is questionable and in reality, the actual noise impacts on Mendota Heights are even greater than those described above. It is worth noting that the land uses lying immediately outside .of the generated noise contours are predominately single and multiple family housing. If the generated noise contours are even slightly in error, the effects are extraordinary. For example, if the Ldn 60 Noise Metric is in actuality 1,000 feet wider than indicated in Figure , an additional 280 Mendota Heights housing units are impacted, affecting in excess of 850 individual residents. Even if we assume for a moment that the contours are accurate as described, common sense indicates that the contour line is essentially meaningless to those residents in the near vicinity. One does not "step across" the contour line and notice a perceptible drop in noise awareness. The noise problems continue to be of great concern substantially beyond the contour line, thus Concept 1 has the potential of impacting a far greater number of people than is scientifically revealed. Ground Noise Impacts - Additional taxiway traffic in and around the 11C/29C and 11L/29R area will surely increase detectible ground noise levels within Mendota Heights. Many of the houses located north of Highway 110 along the Minnesota and Mississippi River bluff lines are already severely impacted by this type of noise. Any decision to further expand ground and air operations on the north side of the airport property will only worsen the already substantial problem. COMMUNITY DISRUPTION The decision to undertake construction of Concept 1 will cause substantial community disruption within Mendota Heights. In addition to the extraordinary aircraft noise impacts described above, the selection of Concept 1 as a preferred expansion alternative will introduce an uncertainty towards the future within the community, will substantially call into question the long range commercial/industrial development goals for the western most part of the City, and will forever affect the character of the community as it presently exists. In terms of uncertainty, the MAC is scheduled to select a preferred runway expansion concept in August of 1991, the Minnesota Legislature is scheduled to choose between expansion verses relocation in 1996, and actual use of a new runway would not be likely until 2000 or beyond. This nine year waiting period will be devastating to the real estate market within the community as prospective buyers are deterred from purchasing homes within Mendota Heights due to the looming questions regarding aircraft noise. Already, prospective buyers and knowledgeable realtors in the area indicate that the noise problem within Mendota Heights has contributed to lost property sales. By compounding this problem with the fear of the unknown, a new north runway would likely affect housing sales within the community for a decade and beyond. With respect to long range community planning, in 1988 the City of Mendota Heights undertook an extensive long term land use study for property along the Highway 55 corridor in westernmost Mendota Heights. As a result of a $38 million State highway improvement project scheduled to begin in late 1991, the Mendota Bridge will be completely re -decked, and Trunk Highways 13, 55 and 110 will be realigned and widened to better accommodate traffic demand in the area. This project will essentially redefine the gateway to Mendota Heights and Dakota County, and will open vast tracks of land to more intensive uses in response to increased traffic through the community and better overall access. Much of this planned development falls in an area either side of Pilot Knob Road (CR31) and is affected by the State Safety Zone B applicable to a new north parallel runway. Restrictions on development will require the examination of the City's long range comprehensive plan in this area. Depending upon the necessity to alter land use development plans, additional property acquisition by MAC in this area may also be required. With reference to community character, it was previously pointed out that Mendota Heights views itself predominately as a residential community. As two decades or more experience has taught us, residential living and aircraft operations are not compatible neighbors: The evolution of the Mendota Heights/Eagan Corridor and the many flight operation changes made over the years has widened the scope of noise impacted areas within Mendota Heights to the point that noise is a predominate community attribute - one which is better done without. To illustrate, in Concept 1 the year 2000 L10 65 Contour will include 48.5 percent of all Mendota Heights residents. To reiterate, if the north parallel runway is built, nearly half of the City residents will be contained within the L10 65 noise contour. Coupled with the fact that many more residents are noise impacted outside the corridor line, aircraft noise within Mendota Heights in 2000 will be a pervasive intruder in the lives of a vast majority of City residents. GROWTH PATTERNS AND POPULATION MOVEMENT Most of all remaining developable property within Mendota Heights lies south of Highway 110. As previously discussed in this Section, land uses in the area range from single and multiple family to commercial/industrial depending upon the specific area. The forecast increased noise impacts, and the nine year period of uncertainty associated with the expansion plans for MSP, will significantly affect growth patterns and property marketability within the community. MITIGATION While it is ill advised to further expand air noise impacts through the construction of a north parallel runway, a decision to do so will entail substantial mitigation measures. At a minimum, the mitigative strategies should include: Property acquisition - Given the inordinate reliance on aircraft operations to the southeast over Mendota Heights under this Concept, the MAC will likely need to purchase a number of noise impacted properties should Concept I be chosen. These properties include: - Furlong neighborhood east of Highway 55 south of Highway 110 - Roger's,Road area east of Highway 55 south of Furlong - South portion of Curley neighborhood east of Lexington Avenue - Homes along Wagon Wheel Trail east of Lexington Avenue - South portion of Roger's Lake neighborhood west of Dodd Road - Homes along Pilot Knob Road south of Acacia Boulevard - Homes north of Perron Road east of Highway 13 - Homes west of Lexington Avenue south of Wagon Wheel Trail Funds to undertake these acquisitions should come directly from the MAC, and only as a last resort be appropriated from the FAR Part 150 Program. Preliminary 1991 acquisition estimate for the identified 146 homes is approximately $16 million. Noise Insulation - Those housing units not acquired but remaining in noise impacted areas should be eligible for sound insulation and structural modifications as necessary to attenuate bothersome.aircraft noise. Preliminary estimates indicate that approximately 500 to 700 dwelling units should be eligible to receive sound abatement at an approximate cost of $12 million. In addition, schools in the area - St. Thomas Academy, Visitation of the Covenant and Mendota Elementary School - should also be top candidates for sound attenuation funds. Operations - As stated earlier, the flight track assumptions are an integral part of this report, and are knowingly incorrect. In order for the findings of this report to accurately depict the impacts on Mendota Heights, the following operational criteria must be adopted and maintained. - All operations to the southeast shall be contained within a 15 degree cone of operations during periods of peak activity (dual control) - Absolutely no operations shall occur north of bearing of 100 degrees (magnetic) as measured from the existing 29R middle marker and depicted as a ground track. - Operations off of existing 11L at off peak periods (single control) shall maintain a bearing of extended runway centerline to contain operations within the industrial corridor. CONCEPT 2 - Same as 3.5.4, Concept 2. CONCEPT 3 Land Use Compatibility Ldn Noise Contour Impacts - As proposed, this Concept results in a net decrease in the Ldn Noise Impacts to the community (compared to the no -build condition) because a greater number of aircraft operations are moved to the southern half of the airport property.. Under this Concept, Runways 11C/29C and 11R/29L are heavily used, drawing approximately 16 percent of total aircraft operations off of Runway 11L/29R. Runway use projections for the year 2000 Ldn Noise Contour are included in Table 3. Figures and depict the Ldn 65/75 and Ldn 60 Contours for this Concept. Residential' population and households within the Ldn Noise Contours, compared to the no -build condition and to other Concepts, is presented in Table . Total population within the Contours in MendotaHeights, compared to the no -build condition would be as follows: Ldn 65 Population Ldn 60 Population Concept 3 No -build Concept 3 No -build Mendota Hts. 133 133 809 1,465 L10 65 Noise Contour Impacts - Under this Concept there would be a decrease in the L10 65 Noise Impact on Mendota Heights. The residential population within the Contours is presented in Table . Total population within the Contours for Mendota Heights, compared to the no -build condition would be as follows: Mendota Heights L10 65 Population Concept 3 No -build Southeast Southeast 2,925 4,257 As proposed, this Concept will result in a net decrease or no change in Mendota Heights residential units within each of the study contours. These consist of an Ldn 65 decrease of zero dwelling units, and Ldn 60 decrease of 237 dwelling units and an L10 65 decrease of 481 dwelling units. As mentioned earlier in this Section, the validity of the flight track assumptions in the noise metric calculations is questionable and in reality, the actual noise impacts on Mendota Heights are greater than those described above. It is worth noting that the land uses lying immediately outside of the generated noise contours are predominately single and multiple family housing units. If the generated noise contours are even slightly in error, the effects are substantial. Despite the reduction in the percentage of aircraft utilizing Runway 11L/29R, the projected increase in total aircraft operations will continue to severely impact Mendota Heights even under Concept 3. As described in this Section under Concept 1, common sense indicates that the contour line is essentially meaningless to those residents in the near vicinity. Aircraft noise perception by community residents in areas adjacent to described contours, is indistinguishable from those who reside within the contour lines. Substantial noise problems continue well beyond the contour line generated for Concept 3 to the great detriment of the City of Mendota Heights. Ground Noise Impacts - Changes in ground noise impact associated with this concept will be minimal,. 'There may be a slight decrease in ground noise associated with the shift of a certain number of operations to the parallel runways located in the southern portion of the airport property. COMMUNITY DISRUPTION The level of community disruption to the City of Mendota Heights under Concept 3 is directly tied to the effectiveness of the flight corridor procedures utilized to the southeast of the airport. For purposes of analysis, the assumed northern boundary of the Mendota Heights/Eagan Corridor for aircraft departing 11L was stipulated at 100 degree bearing (magnetic) as measured from the 29R middle marker. As previously discussed, this assumption is incorrect as it does not represent the current operating condition as of 1991, nor are there any assurances this traffic control measure will be implemented in the future. The failure to define a northern boundary of the corridor contributes to massive community disruption within Mendota Heights under Concept 3. Unless strict operating procedures are defined and maintained, substantial residential, educational and other disruptions will occur for large portions of the day as peak hours handle additional aircraft operations to the southeast of the airport. GROWTH PATTERNS AND POPULATION MOVEMENT Growth patterns within Mendota Heights under Concept 3 will be significantly impacted, although to a lesser degree in comparison to Concepts 1 and 2. Noise sensitive land uses continue to exist in the southern portion of Mendota Heights and are highly susceptible to increased noise levels generated via increased aircraft operations at MSP. Growth patterns within Mendota Heights will most definitely be impacted by the time line being followed in selecting a preferred runway expansion alternative. Under this time line, MAC is scheduled to select its preferred Concept in August of 1991, the Minnesota Legislature is scheduled to choose between expansion verses relocation in 1996 and actual use of a new runway would not be likely until 2000 or beyond. This lengthy waiting period has and will continue to impact the real estate market within the community as prospective buyers are deterred from purchasing homes within Mendota Heights due to future uncertainties regarding aircraft noise. Although noise contour maps for Concept 3 indicate a net overall decrease in the size of the associated noise contours, the credibility of the contours and the fear of the unknown will continue to impact the growth patterns within Mendota Heights for a least the coming decade. MITIGATION While Concept 3 somewhat reduces the size of noise contours within Mendota Heights, the need for substantial noise mitigation measures will still exist within the community. At a minimum, the mitigative strategies should include: Property Acquisition - Given the continued inordinate reliance on aircraft operations to the southeast over Mendota Heights under this Concept, MAC will likely need to purchase a number of noise impacted properties should Concept 3 be chosen. These properties include: - Furlong neighborhood east of Highway 55 south of Highway 110 - Roger's Road area east of Highway 55 south of Furlong - Homes along Wagon Wheel Trail east of Lexington Avenue - Homes along Pilot Knob Road south of Acacia Boulevard - Homes north of Perron Road east of Highway 13 - Homes west of Lexington Avenue south of Wagon Wheel Trail Funds to undertake these acquisitions should come directly from the MAC and only as a last resort be appropriated from the FAR Part 150 Program. Preliminary 1991 acquisition estimates for the identified 78 homes is approximately $8.5 million. Sound Insulation - Those housing units not acquired but remaining in noise impacted areas should be eligible for sound insulation and structural modifications as necessary to attenuate bothersome aircraft noise. Preliminary estimates indicated that approximately 600 to 850 dwelling units should be eligible to receive sound attenuation at an approximate cost of $12.7 million. In addition, schools in the area - St. Thomas Academy, Visitation of the Covenant and Mendota Elementary School - should also be top candidates for sound attenuation funds. Operations - As stated earlier, the flight track assumptions are an integral part of this report, and are knowingly incorrect. In order for the findings of this report to accurately reflect the impacts on Mendota Heights, the following operational criteria must be adopted, and maintained: - All operations to the southeast shall be contained within a 15 degree cone of operations during periods of peak activity (dual control) - Absolutely no operation shall occur north of bearing 100 degrees (magnetic) as measured from the existing 29R middle marker and depicted as a ground track. - Operations off of existing 11L at off peak periods (single control) shall maintain a bearing of extended runway centerline to contain operations within the industrial corridor. CONCEPT 4 - Same as 3.5.4, Concept 3. CONCEPT 5 Land Use Compatibility Ldn Noise Contour Impacts - As proposed, this concept results in a net reduction in the Ldn Noise Impacts to the community (compared to the no -build condition) because of the reduction in use of the parallel runways. The availability of Runway 18/36 has the net result of somewhat reducing the percentage of total traffic handled by Runway 11L/29R which is responsible for the majority of noise impacts on Mendota Heights. Runway use projections for the year 2000 Ldn Noise Contour are included in Table 3. Figures and depict the Ldn 65/75 and Ldn 60 Contours for this Concept. Residential population and households within the Ldn Noise Contours, compared to the no -build condition and to other Concepts, is presented in Table . Total population within the contours of Mendota Heights, compared to the no -build condition would be as follows: Ldn 65 Population Ldn 60 Population Concept 5 No -build Concept 5 No -build Mendota Hts. 125 133 792 1,424 L10 65 Noise Contour Impacts - Under this Concept there would be no change in the L10 65 Noise Impact within Mendota Heights. The residential population within the contours is presented in Table Total population within the contours for Mendota Heights, compared to the no -build condition, would be as follows: Mendota Heights L10 65 Population Concept 5 No -build Southeast Southeast 4,169 4,169 As proposed, this Concept will result in minimal or no change in Mendota Heights residential units within two of the study contours, and a decrease in one. These consist of an Ldn 65 decrease of three dwelling units, and an Ldn 60 decrease of 228 dwelling units and an L10 65 impact which is unchanged. As mentioned earlier in this Section, the validity of the flight track assumptions in the noise metric calculations is questionable and in reality, the actual noise impacts on Mendota Heights are even greater than those detail above. It is worth noting that the land uses lying immediately outside of the generated noise contours are predominately single and multiple family housing units. If the generated noise contours are even slightly in error, the effect is substantial upon Mendota Heights. Ground Noise Impacts - Changes in ground noise impact associated with Concept 5 will be minimal within Mendota Heights. There may be a slight decrease in ground noise associated with the shift of a certain number of operations to the new Runway 18/36. However, because the parallel runways will continue to accommodate the vast majority of traffic in and out of the airport, Mendota Heights residents will not see any noticeable decrease in the occurrence of ground noise. COMMUNITY DISRUPTION The decision to undertake construction of Concept 5 would have the least community disruption within Mendota Heights compared to the other Concepts under consideration. Community disruption within Mendota Heights would be minimized with the knowledge that all areas surrounding MSP are equitably being impacted by the luxury of having a convenient, in City airport. Even with the selection of Concept 5, Mendota Heights will continue to face the issue of corridor operations and strict adherence to air traffic control restrictions to the southeast of the airport. GROWTH PATTERNS AND POPULATION MOVEMENT Growth patterns within Mendota Heights under Concept 5 will be significantly impacted, although to a lesser degree in comparison to Concepts 1 through 4. Noise sensitive land uses continue to exist in the southern portion of Mendota Heights and are highly susceptible to increased noise levels generated via increased aircraft operations at MSP. Growth patterns within Mendota Heights will most definitely be impacted by the time line being followed in selecting a preferred runway expansion alternative. Under this time line, MAC is scheduled to select its preferred Concept in August of 1991, the Minnesota Legislature is scheduled to choose between expansion verses relocation in 1996, and actual use of a new runway would not be likely until 2000 or beyond. This lengthy waiting period has and will continue to impact the real estate market •within the community as prospective buyers are deterred from purchasing homes within Mendota Heights due to future uncertainties regarding aircraft noise. Although noise contour maps for Concept 5 indicate a net overall decrease in the size of the associated noise contours, the credibility of the contours and the fear of the unknown will continue to impact the growth patterns within Mendota Heights for a least the coming decade. MITIGATION While Concept 5 somewhat reduces the size of noise contours within Mendota Heights, the need for substantial noise mitigation measures will still exist within the community. At a minimum, the mitigative strategies should include: Property Acquisition - Given the continued inordinate reliance on aircraft operations to the southeast over Mendota Heights under this Concept, MAC will likely need to purchase a number of noise impacted properties should Concept 3 be chosen. These properties include: - Furlong neighborhood east of Highway 55 south of Highway 110 - Roger's Road area east of Highway 55 south of Furlong - Homes along Pilot Knob Road south of Acacia Boulevard - Homes north of Perron Road east of Highway 13 Funds to undertake these acquisitions should come directly from the MAC and only as a last resort be appropriated from the FAR Part 150 Program. Preliminary 1991 acquisition estimates for the identified 51 homes is approximately $5.6 million. Sound Insulation - Those housing units not acquired but remaining in noise impacted areas should be eligible for sound insulation and structural modifications as necessary to attenuate bothersome aircraft noise. Preliminary estimates indicate that approximately 600 to 850 dwelling units should be eligible to receive sound attenuation at an approximate cost of $12.7 million. In addition, -schools in the area - St. Thomas Academy, Visitation of the Covenant and Mendota Elementary School - should also be top candidates for sound attenuation funds. Operations - As stated earlier, the flight track assumptions are an integral part of this report, and are knowingly incorrect. In order for the findings of this report to accurately reflect the impacts on Mendota Heights, the following operational criteria must be adopted and maintained: - All operations to the southeast shall be contained within a 15 degree cone of operations during periods of peak activity (dual control) - Absolutely no operation shall occur north of bearing 100 degrees (magnetic) as measured from the existing 29R middle marker and depicted as a ground track. - Operations off of existing 11L at off peak periods (single control) shall maintain a bearing of extended runway centerline to contain operations within the industrial corridor. CONCEPT 6 - Same as 3.5.4, Concept 5. Long -Term Comprehensive Plan ■ Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Year 2000 No Build Year 2000 Concepts 1, 2 0 1 Concepts 1 & 2 Ldn 65 & 75 5000 10000 Noise Contours Scale in■�_ Long -Term Comprehensive Plan ■ Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Year 2000 No Build Year 2000 Concepts 1, 2 0 5000 1000 Concepts 1 & 2 Ldn 60 Noise Contours ti • , ILV Long -Term Comprehen life Plan Minneapolis -St. Paul International Aim"— Year 2000 Concepts 1, 2 Yea! 2000 No Build tha a . I I COncen•e. 40- V I f ig cif Id r • tr • t... •• • • •:;-,,4" Long.. Term Year ..... Year I cs‘ 6 2000 No Build Comprehensive Plan • MinneapOlis- 4t • 2000 Concepts 3, 4 ._ • , V.4`. . - • „ . • 4:11 St. Paul Internationa • 1 A Long -Term Comprehensive Plan ■ Minneapolis -St. Year 2000 No Build ...Year _ _ Year 2000 Concepts 3, 4 Concepts 3 & o 5000 1000n Scale h 17ir Paul International Airport 4 Ldn 60 Contours Long -Term Comprehensive Plan ■ Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Year 2000 No Build . Year 2000 Concepts 3, 4 • * Average Annual Use of this 0 Configuration Concepts 3 & 4 L1065 Noise Contours 5000 10000 Runway 11 Operations Scale in Feet Long -Term Comprehensive Plan ■ Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport Concepts 5 & 6 Ldn 65 & 75 Noise Contours Year 2000 No Build . Year 2000 Concepts 5, 6 0 5000 10000 Scale in Feet Long -Term Comprehensive Plan ■ Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport -Year 2000 No Build _____.Year 2000 Concepts 5, 6 0 5000 1000r 11 SraIn in Fant Concepts 5 & 6 Ldn 60 Noise Contours Long -Term Comprehensive Plan • Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport rjr * Average Annual Use of this Configuration Year 2000 No Build Concepts 5, 6 5000 10000 Scale in Feet Concepts 5 & 6 L1065 Noise Contours Runway 11 Operations CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 27, 1991 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direct Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assista SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-17: Owens - Lot Split DISCUSSION Dr. Owens appeared before the June 25, 1991, Planning Commission meeting requesting a lot division to sell 37.5 acres and retain his 2.5 acre homesite at 2455 Delaware Avenue. Staff had interpreted that the Subdivision Ordinance would allow this land division to occur under the "Exceptions" clause (Section 11.3(2)) and be processed without platting. See attached memos and plans. Planning Commissioners felt the language in Section 11.3(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance did not necessarily allow for dividing this property without platting because the remaining homestead parcel would be less than five acres. To address this concern, the Planning Commission felt that a variance to the five acre minimum lot size should be granted in order to allow the exemption to the platting process. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission voted 4-3 (nays: Dwyer, Friel and Krebsbach) to recommend that the City Council grant a 2.5 acre variance to Section 11.3(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance and grant the requested lot division as proposed in Planning Case File No. 91-17, subject to the condition that Dr. Owens agree to have his 2.5 acre homesite included in the plat when the contiguous land is developed. ACTION REOUIRED If the City Council desires to implement the Planning Commission's recommendation, they should pass a motion approving a 2.5 acre variance allowing the "Exceptions" clause, Ordinance No. 301, Section 11.3(2) to be invoked and pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 91- , A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT DIVISION FOR 2455 DELAWARE AVENUE. JED/KLB:kkb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 91 - RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT DIVISION OF 2455 DELAWARE AVENUE WHEREAS, Dr. Frederick Owens, Jr., owner of Parcel Identification Number 27-03600-010-77, Dakota County, Minnesota, has requested from the City of Mendota Heights to divide a 37.5 acre portion according to a survey prepared by Suburban Engineering and dated March 17, 1981, said portions called Parcel A and Parcel B; and WHEREAS, Parcel A is THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 18 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE S2UTHEAST CORNER OP SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE N 0'12'37" W, BEARING ASSURED, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER,A DISTANCE OF 720.68 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 103.4D FEET SOUTHERLY OF, AS MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 30 RODS OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND THE PAINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LAND TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE N 0'12'37" W, CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 452.85 FEET; THENCE S 84'52'58" W, A DISTANCE OF 364.29 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 362.95 FEET WESTERLY OF, AS MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO, SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE N 012'37" W, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 287.00 FEET;. THENCE N 80°49'39" E, A DISTANCE OF 367.44 FEET TO SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE N 0'12'37" W, ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 327.49 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 30 RODS OF THE NORTH HALF OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE. S 89°22'52" W, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 30 RODS, A DISTANCE OF 1611.37 FEET; THENCE S 0°12'37" E, PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE 01. 990.-03 FEET TO SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 30 ROD 6S OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE N 89'22'52" E, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 30 RODS. A DISTANCE OF 139.07 FEET; THENCE S 20°16'08" E,A DISTANCE OF 109.79 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 103.40 FEET SOUTHERLY OF, AS MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO, SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 30 RODS; THENCE H 89'22'52" E, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A'DISTANCE OF 1434.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. - Dakota County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Parcel B is THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE N 0012'37" W. BEARING ASSUMED, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 1173.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LANG TO BE DESCRIB— ED; THENCE S 84°52'58" W, A DISTANCE OF 364.29 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH -AND 362.95 FEET WESTERLY OF ,A$ MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO, SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER;,THENCE N 0°12'37" W. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 287.00 FEET; THENCE N 80°49,39" E A DISTANCE OF 367.44 FEET, TO SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE 5 0°12'37" E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAS1 0UARTER. A DISTANCE OF 313.08 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Sy is the homestead site to be platted as a lot when Parcel A is platted for development; and c WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lot division and finds the same to be in order. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, that the lot division submitted at this meeting be and the same is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 2nd day of July, 1991. 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 19, 1991 FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Ditect Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-17: •Owens - Lot Split DISCUSSION Dr. Ted Owens, of 2455 Delaware Avenue, owns a forty acre parcel that is proposed to be included in the Kensington PUD. Dr. Owens has held the parcel for many years pending City approval of any southeast area development. Mr. Jim Riley has a Purchase Agreement with Dr. Owens to purchase 37.5 acres of the property leaving Dr. Owens with a 2.5 acre homesite. Dr. Owens now wants to exercise the Purchase Agreement and transfer the land to Mr. Riley to get out from under the heavy burden of assessments levied with the construction of Mendota Heights Road. (See attached plans and memos) . Staff is processing this application as a lot split under the Exceptions clause to the Subdivision Ordinance. (See Section 11.3(2)). This Section allows for large lots in excess of five acres to be subdivided without being platted. The Section exempts the subdivider from complying with any inappropriate requirements, therefore, tonight's application is not being processed as a public hearing. Dr. Owens has obtained signatures of consent from his contiguous neighbors. Mr. Riley has also signed a consent notice agreeing to assume all the assessments for the property on the parcel he is acquiring, Parcel A. ACTION REQUIRED Review the proposed lot division with the applicant and make a recommendation to the City Council. JED/KLB:kkb PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: 25 June 1991 91-17 Frederick M. and Lucy T. Owens Southwest quadrant of Mendota Heights Road and Delaware Avenue (40 Acres) ACTION REQUESTED: Lot Split PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The Owens are requesting a lot split to allow them to sell 37.6 acres of their 40.1 -acre parcel located in the southeast corner of the City. Mr. and Mrs. Owens intend to continue to live on the remaining 2.5 -acre parcel. The City has been aware of the Owens' intent to divide and sell this property for many years and development plans for the surrounding area have included the continued use of the Owens' home for1single-family occupation. 2. The property is currently zoned for single-family use with a 30,000 -square -foot !minimum lot size (R -1B). The applicant's property is located within the area that was the subject of a special land use study (Southeast Area Study) in 1985. As a !result of the findings of this study, the Land Use Guide Plan for this area was amended. The property is currently guided MR -PUD or medium density planned unit development. This designation is intended to permit multi -family development to a density of 4 units per acre. I If the property surrounding the Owens' home were to be developed for multi -family use, the remaining homestead would be out of character and there could be problems• establishing an appropriate buffer. However, in the past few years several development plans have been proposed that include the portion of the Owens' property identified as Parcel A on the applicant's survey. These plans have always accommodated the continued existence of Parcel B, the 2.5 -acre parcel 'that contains the Owens' home. Generally, these plans have included single-family development on the property surrounding Parcel B. i Frederick and Lucy Owens, Case No. 91-17 Page 2 3. Dividing the Owens' property as shown on the survey does not interfere with the future development plans for this area. Parcel B has access off of Delaware Avenue and is not inconsistent with recent plans for development of the surrounding property. 4. We believe the applicants' request is reasonable and should be approved. However, the applicants' request does not meet the strict requirements of the Ordinance for a lot split. Section 11.3 of the Mendota Heights Subdivision Ordinance allows property to be divided into lots of 5 acres or more without going through the platting and subdivision process. While Parcel A is well over 5 acres, the Owens' homestead is only 2.5 acres in area. Section 10.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance prohibits the conveyance of any parcel of land described by metes and bounds, which is 5 acres or less in area. It is, therefore, in the best interest of the Owens to have their property platted. In the interest of simplifying this process for the Owens, we would recommend that their request be approved with the condition that their 2.5 -acre parcel be platted as an outlot when the surrounding land is subdivided and platted. NY MARSN -PARK • SUBJECT PROPERTY - SEE �E -oHU 1•.:-. S NAGSTROM KING PARK 166 1 5%1 30 240 178.53 168.88 159.23 OUTLOT A 110.21 ROAD 189, 2, 189,21 1558.35 151.93 I .� 79 71.96 104.10 125 06 130 05 4 0 171.97 18 u 184.50 yMENDOT TS I f04.3.8 242.44 ,OUTLOT 8 0 0 376.64 192.44 192.44 0- 1611.37 SUBJECT PROPERTY NORTH t SCALE 1"=200' L 476-.7 Ofrve-r7s 40 Ate• 24,139-8 010-77 1432 01 I PARCEL B 1 DELAWARE AVE. Calvin 6.E Jaime Debuhr 010-78 24134-44 Phyllis /n. Fa b rin) 26131-c .9/ ,96- 020-78 4 2•/ 0 030-78 TRANSPORTATION RIGH9 T OF 19---7 N Mo i •f1 MM N N � o f m 140 AZ=89^24' 06-• i FREDERICK M. OWENS, M.D. 1 June 1991 City Council and Planning Board of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights City Hall Lexington Ave and Highway 110 Mendota Heights MN 55120 Re: Sale of and split of parcel of property It is our intention to sell 37.5 acres of our property as outlined on the enclosed plat and to retain 2,5 acres and our house facing on Delaware Avenue (2455 Delaware Ave). The reason for the sale is that we no longer are able to support the taxes and assessments which are being levied against this parcel of land. We are approaching eighty years of age, are retired and find the problems of maintaining this parcel of land a burden which we cannot continue to bear. Sincerely yours, Suc&[( Lucy T. Owens Frederick M. Owens, Jr. (also Known as Ted Owens) P.S. This attempt to sell this parcel has been known to the city council since the date of this survey, i.e.1981. 2455 Delaware Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55118 (612) 454-1800 • City of Mendota Heights APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Case No. grifSt ccigritp Date of Application (p -3-q i ii,,os4e-v,Fee Paid 355C. 12ndtr2D Applicant Name: C()EAJS z tiSE=DEM `c- I PH:(4) %Z ' rap M Address: Owner Name: (Last) (First) ( 4,45.''DeA.1� tech-r� V'� evt 5Y//g (Number & Street) (City) 41 (State) (Zip) OWE AI'S I-FREDk P to te., kilz—r (Last) (First) Address: 2-'/A ) (Number & Street) -.4. -Reg (City) (S't4te) (Zip) Street Location of Property in Question: 9.--q..5*. rE t h -bio --R -1 Legal Description of Property: Type of Request: Rezoning Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Plan Approval --. - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applicable City Ordinance Number .so Variance Subdivision Approval Wetlands Permit • PC Other (attach explanation) - . l b �Q 4-1 T Present Zoning of Property la Present Use Proposed Zoning of Property Section IL 3() s -re- F Proposed Use I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and material are true. n ditio eceivedby-Title)rF x=:_:, �urvey� ..� n� C fr, �' \-- To: City of Mendota Heights From: James Riley It is requested, as stated in the sales agreement between Dr. and Mrs. Frederick M. Owens, Jr., and Mr. James Riley, that all assessments related to Mendota Heights Road, its storm sewer, and water be assigned to Parcel A and none to Parcel B. This request is related to the part of southeast quarter of section 36, township 28 north, range 23 west, Dakota County, Minnesota as described in the enclosed survey. June 3 1991 CONSENT NOTICE TO: The Planning Commission and City Council of Mendota Heights, Minnesota I am the owner of the property that is located to the South of the property owned by Ted and Lucy Owens at 2455 Delaware Avenue in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Dr. Owens has shown the attached survey to me and has explained his intention to sell the property identified as Parcel B to Jim Riley. •I consent to the sale of Parcel B by Ted and Lucy Owens to Jim Riley. Dated: 40 / 2 , 1991. 4-4 q I-7 CONSENT NOTICE TO: The Planning Commission and City Council of Mendota Heights, Minnesota I am the owner of the property that is located to the North of the property owned by Ted and Lucy Owens at 2455 Delaware Avenue in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Dr. Owens has shown the attached survey to me and has explained his intention to sell the property identified as Parcel B to Jim Riley. .I consent to the sale of Parcel B by Ted and Lucy Owens to Jim Riley. Dated: , 1991. CONSENT NOTICE TO: The Planning Commission and City Council of Mendota Heights, Minnesota I am the owner of the property that is located to the West of the property owned by Ted and Lucy Owens at 2455 Delaware Avenue in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Dr. Owens has shown the attached survey to me and has explained his intention to sell the property identified as Parcel B to Jim Riley. .I consent to the sale of Parcel B by Ted and Lucy Owens to Jim Riley. Dated: , 1991. City of .�....♦ Mendota Heights June 28, 1991 Dr. and Mrs. Frederick Owens, Jr. 2455 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Owens: Your application for a Lot Division will be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting,- which will be held on Tuesday, July 2, 1991. The Council meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M. here at City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting in order that your application will receive Council consideration. The Planning Commission recommended on a 4-3 vote that the City Council grant a 2.5 acre variance to Section 11.3(2) of the Subdivision Ordinance and to grant the requested lot division subject to the condition that you agree to include your home site in the platting of the contiguous land when it develops. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me:'-. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder Administrative Assistant KLB:kkb Enclosures: City Council Agenda Staff Memo to City Council :1101 Victoria .Curve : Meiidota Heights IVI City of Mendota Heights June 20, 1991 Mr. and Mrs. Frederick M. Owens, Jr. 2455 Delaware Avenue Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Owens: Your application for a Lot Split will be considered by the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be 'held on Tuesday, June 25, 1991. The Planning Commission- meeting starts at 7:30 o'clock P.M., here at the City Hall in the Council Chambers. You, or a representative should plan on attending the meeting, in order that your application will receive Commission consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kevin Batchelder. F Administrative: Assistant k ,: }, ° `. - KLB:kkb - Enclosures: •Planning.Commission Agenda: Planner's Report - City Staff Report BOLA lU. /7 r�. ,P,b� / Proposed Description PARCEL A: THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SQUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE H 0'12'37° W, BEARING ASSUMED, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER,A DISTANCE OF 720.68 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 103.4D FEET SOUTHERLY OF, AS MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 30 RODS OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND THE PAINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LAND TO 8E DESCRIBED; THENCE N 0'12.37" W, CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 452.85 FEET; THENCE S 84'52'58" W, A DISTANCE OF 364.29 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 362.95 FEET WESTERLY OF, AS MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE N 0°12'37" W, ALONG SAID gARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 287.00 FEET; THENCE N 80'49'39" E, A DISTANCE OF 367.44 FEET TO SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE N 0'12'37" W, ALOVC SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 327.49 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 30 R00S OF THE NORT4 HALF OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE, 5 89°22'52" 8, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 30 RODS, A DISTANCE OF 1611.37 FEET; THENCE S 0°12'37" E, PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, A DISTANCE Oh 990.03 FEET TO SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 30 ROD55 OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE N 89'22.52" E, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 30 RODS, A DISTANCE OF 139.07 FEET; THENCE S 20°16'08" E,A DISTANCE OF 109.79 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 103.40 FEET SOUTHERLY OF. A5 MEASURED PERPENDICULAR T0, SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 30 RODS; THENCE H 89'22.52" E, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A'DISTANCE OF 1434.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO DELAWARE AVENUE. CONTAINS 1,636,643 SQ.FT. - 37.57 ACRES (Incl. road) PARCEL B: THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH. RANGE 23 WEST, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SA10 SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE H 0°12.37" W, BEARING ASSUMED, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER. A DISTANCE OF 1173.53 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LAND TO BE DESCRIB- ED; THENCE 581° 52'58" W, A DISTANCE OF 364.29 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE PARALLEL W17H.AND 362.95 FEET WESTERLY OF A5 MEASURED PERPENDICULAR T0, SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE N 0°12'37" W. ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 287.00 FEET; THENCE N 80°49'39" E A DISTANCE OF 367.11 FEET, TO SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE 5 0°12'37" E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST OUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 313.08 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBECT TO DELAWARE AVENUE. CONTAINS 108,901'50. Ft. - 2.50 Acre. (Incl. road) I hereby t or under Surveyor 1 $ Jf5975/. �irrrtr o/ Ute/,m J'6; Nr 223W.'N (Aako/v m. lbs/ /ngv7 A437.) PRINTED MAR 1'71981 =URBAN ENGINFERUS Bit Pd• 1 ortificate u•uR.AN NOINNERINO C L", ,r—INC,. 3.... t MN mY�w�J� i,M,+1MYI •Y1U r. 5810/6 Fie SO /z/6 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 27, 1991 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dire Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assi SUBJECT: Centex - Consideration of Proposed Settlement Plan BACKGROUND In August, 1990, .the Centex/Kensington Planned Unit Development failed to receive the necessary approval from the City Council to rezone the property and allow their development proposal to proceed. Subsequent to their denial, Centex Homes prepared alternative concept plans in an attempt to satisfy City Council concerns. An alternative plan was •conceptually accepted by the City Council and sent to the Planning Commission in November of 1990. Following that Planning Commission meeting, the developers felt there was no hope for an agreement and filed a lawsuit against the City for failure to rezone. Recently, City Council directed the City Planner to prepare a scoping study on the Southeast Area to investigate the possibilities for amending the City's Comprehensive Plan for this area. During the public presentation of the Planner's proposal for this study, Centex was in the audience and expressed a willingness to discuss a possible settlement. Negotiation sessions between the City and Centex began in April 1991. The City Council established a list of criteria for Centex to incorporate into the plan in order for it to be acceptable. A total of seven alternative development plans were submitted by Centex over the following three months for review by. the City Council, culminating in the attached plan dated June 27, 1991. DISCUSSION The proposed settlement plan dated June 27, 1991, addresses the criteria established by City Council and has been placed on tonight's agenda for concept approval and the ordering of public hearings at the July 23, 1991, Planning Commission meeting and the August 6, 1991, City Council meeting to consider Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, CUP for PUD and Wetlands Permit requests. As Council proceeded through the Centex settlement negotiations, they established the following criteria for a Planned Unit Development that would be acceptable: 1. Total number of units - The City Council criteria for allowable number of units in Kensington was established at 385, including the manor homes in Phase I. 2. Multi-family/Single Family - No single family units west of the power line transversing the PUD area. Single family or park along Mendota Heights Road between Huber Drive and Delaware Avenue. 3. Public R.O.W. - Required 60' R.O.W. for major roads in high density areas and 55' R.O.W. for the less traveled lower density single family residential areas. B-618 curbs required. 4. Parks - Required to provide usable park land for meeting the minimum acreage dedication. Also required was a minimum 4 acres for the northern park area to serve as as neighborhood park along Mendota Heights Road. The southern park area needed tC be of sufficient size to site one 360' x 240' soccer field and one 360' x 300' soccer field, a parking lot and an area for play equipment and amenities. Another criteria was a trail link to Delaware Avenue from the soccer field area. 5. Lot Sizes and Setbacks - For single family homes 10 percent of the total number of single family lots could be from 13,000 square feet to 13,999 square feet and another 10 percent of the total would be allowed to be 14,000 square feet., All remaining lots had to meet or exceed 15,000 square feet. None of the pond lots shall be allowed to use water in their area calculations. The typical front footage requirement for single family lots is 100'. The criteria for this PUD would be that 20 percent of the total single family lots could be between 80-89 feet of frontage and another 20 percent of the total single family lots could have a lot width between 90 and 99 feet. The remaining lots would have to meet the 100' requirement. All setback requirements in the R-1 Ordinance Section would be met. This means 10 foot side yard setbacks and 30 foot front and rear setbacks. 6. The developers would be required to submit a quality assurance plan for the public hearing. Through the above described series of proposals a plan was arrived at that meets the above criteria. The unit breakdown is as follows: * Failed August 7, 1990 * Proposed Settlement Plan Plan Manor Homes 160 80 Coach Homes 276 0 Townhomes 71 69 Back to Back Townhomes 0 138 Single Family 48 98 555 385 * Dwelling unit counts include existing Phase I. The geographical division of single family homes east of the power lines has been met, as well as the maintenance of either single family or park along Mendota Heights Road from Huber Drive to Delaware Avenue. The public rights-of-way shown in the 6-27-91 plan are of the required widths and curbing will be B-618. The park requirements have been addressed with the adequate provisions for usable acreage and trail access -that allows the City to site the desired improvements. Single family lot sizes and areas shown on the 6-27-91 plan have been met in the following fashion: Lot Size Requirements Square Foot Area Actual Criteria 13,000 - 13,999 5 or 5% 10 or 10% 14,000 - 14,999 7 or 7% 10 or 10% 15,000 +_ 86 - 88% 78 - 80% Total 98 - 100% 98 - 100% Lot Frontage Requirements Frontage in Feet Actual Criteria 80 - 89 13 or 13% 19 or 20% 90 - 99 26 or 27% 20 or 20% 100 + 59 or 60% 59 or 60% Total 98 - 100% 98 - 100% The developer intends to meet all setbacks. RECOMMENDATION Should this proposed settlement be acceptable to City Council, we recommend that City Council order public hearings for the July 23rd Planning Commission meeting and the August 6, 1991, City Council meeting to consider an application for Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, CUP for PUD and Wetlands Permits. Because this is a negotiated settlement to a previous Planning Application, we are requiring that a new application be processed with a new Certificate of Abstract and Legal Description and suggest that City Council waive the application fees. ACTION REOUIRED If Council so desires, they should pass the following motions: 1. Accepting the proposed settlement plan and ordering public hearings for the July 23, 1991, Planning Commission meeting and the August 6, 1991, City Council meeting. 2. Waiving any new application fees since the submittal of the new plan is a direct result of settlement negotiations. - - JED/KLB:kkb