1991-08-06CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
August 6, 1991 - 7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Adoption
4. Consent Calendar
a. Acknowledgment of the June 23rd Draft Planning
Commission Minutes.
b. Acknowledgment of the June Building Report.
c. Approval to purchase Fire Department Equipment.
d. Approval of permanent appointment of Officer Neil
Garlock.
e. Approval of Convent of the Visitation's request for
reservation of Roger's Lake Tennis Courts.
f. Approval of a Modified CAO to allow construction of a
single family dwelling for Dave Nelson - CAO NO. 91-02.
g. Approval of a Modified CAO to allow construction of a
kitchen and deck addition for Gordon Brown - CAO NO.
91-03.
h. Approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of
a deck/patio to within 77 feet of the Wetlands for Mr.
Raymond Ruble - CASE NO. 91-24.
i. Approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of
a porch to within 94 feet of the Wetlands for Mr. Bob
Flynn - CASE NO. 91-26.
j. Approval of the List of Contractors.
k. Approval of the List of Claims.
End of Consent Calendar
5. Public Comments
6. Hearings
a. Street Vacation - Lockwood Drive - within Kensington
** 8:00 ** PUD - Phase II - RESOLUTION NO. 91-
42 - RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION OF STREET RIGHT-OF-
WAYS AND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
b. CASE NO. 91-23: Centex Homes - Kensington PUD -
** 8:30 ** Phase II ORDINANCE NO. 277 - AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 401, ORDINANCE NO. 278
- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 401
7. Unfinished and New Business
a. CASE NO. 90-35: Duggan - Fence Permit Reconsideration
b. CASE NO. 91-25: Stehr - Variance
c. CASE NO. 91-27: Kayoum - Variance
d. CASE NO. 91-29: Catholic Cemeteries - Variances
e. Discussion on Proposed Cat Control Ordinance.
f. Approval of DNR Alternative Deer Control Program
RESOLUTION NO. 91-43
Discussion on LENNOX Building Permit and Site Plan
Approval
g.
8. Council Comments
9. Adjourn to Special Budget Workshop meeting to be held August
** 7th at 7:30 P.M. to discuss the 1992 Proposed Budget.
�'i
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
August 6, 1991
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Lawell, City AdministrP4)L
SUBJECT: Add On Agenda for August 6th Council Meeting
Additional information has been submitted for item 9. (**)
9. Special Budget Workshq
See attached memo.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
August 6, 1991 - 7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Adoption
4. Consent Calendar
a. Acknowledgment of the June 23rd Planning Commission
Minutes.
b. Acknowledgment of the June Building Report.
c. Approval to purchase Fire Department Equipment.
d. Approval of permanent appointment of Officer Neil
Garlock.
e. Approval of Convent of the Visitation's request for
reservation of Roger's Lake Tennis Courts.
f. Approval of a Modified CAO to allow construction of a
single family dwelling for Dave Nelson - CAO NO. 91-02.
g. 1 Approval of a Modified CAO to allow construction of a
kitchen and deck addition for Gordon Brown - CAO NO.
91-03.
h. Approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of -
a deck/patio to within 77 feet of the Wetlands for Mr.
Raymond Ruble - CASE NO. 91-24.
i. Approval of a Wetlands Permit to allow construction of
a porch to within 94 feet of the Wetlands for Mr. Bob
Flynn - CASE NO. 91-26.
j. Approval of the List of Contractors.
k. Approval of the List of Claims.
End of Consent Calendar
5. Public Comments
6. Hearings
a. Street Vacation - Lockwood Drive - within Kensington
** 8:00 ** PUD - Phase II - RESOLUTION NO. 91-
42 - RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION OF STREET RIGHT-OF-
WAYS AND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
b. CASE NO. 91-23: Centex Homes - Kensington PUD -
** 8:30 ** Phase II ORDINANCE NO. 277 - AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 401, ORDINANCE NO. 278
- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 401
7. Unfinished and New Business
a. CASE NO. 90-35: Duggan - Fence Permit Reconsideration
b. CASE NO. 91-25: Stehr - Variance
c. CASE NO. 91-27: Kayoum - Variance
d. CASE NO. 91-29: Catholic Cemeteries - Variances
e. Discussion on Proposed Cat Control Ordinance.
f. Approval of DNR Alternative Deer Control Program -
RESOLUTION NO. 91-43
Discussion on LENNOX Building Permit and Site Plan
Approval
g-
8. Council Comments
9. Adjourn to Special Budget Workshop meeting to be held August
7th at 7:30 P.M. to discuss the 1992 Proposed Budget.
DRAFT
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 23, 1991
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was
held on Tuesday, July 23, 1991, in the City Hall Council Chambers,
1101 Victoria Curve. Chair Mike Dwyer called the meeting to order
at 7:35 o'clock p.m. The following Commission members were
present: Koll, Friel, Dwyer, Duggan, Tilsen. Excused members
were: Krebsbach, Dreelan. Also present were City Engineer Klayton
Eckles, Planning Consultant Tim Malloy, and Administrative
Assistant Kevin Batchelder.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Duggan moved approval of the June 25, 1991
minutes with corrections. Commissioner Friel seconded
the motion.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
CASE NO. 91-24:
RUBLE WETLANDS PERMIT
Mr. Kim BeauClair, representing the Rubles of 629
Hampshire Drive, was present to discuss the requested
Wetlands Permit to allow construction of a deck and porch
in the back yard. Mr. BeauClair explained that the exact
distance to the pond was 77 feet.
Commissioner Friel moved to waive the requirement for a
public hearing. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that City Council
grant the requested Wetlands Permit to allow construction
of the proposed deck and porch to within 77 feet of high
water line of the pond.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
CASE NO. 91-25:
STEHR - VARIANCE
Mr. and Mrs. Stehr, of 6 Dorset Road, were present to
discuss their request for a side yard setback variance of
4.2 feet. Mr. Stehr stated that he desires to add a
second garage stall adjacent to their existing one car
AYES:
NAYS:
CASE NO.
FLYNN -
AYES:
NAYS:
AYES:
NAYS:
CASE NO.
JA HOMES
garage and that this requires an 8.6 foot expansion.
Commissioner Duggan inquired if 8.6 feet of additional
garage was sufficient space for a second car. Mr. Stehr
replied that it was. Mr. Stehr stated that the area of
the proposed expansion has an existing concrete pad where
their second car is currently parked. Mr. Stehr stated
that his neighbors had signed signatures of consent.
Chair Dwyer moved that the Planning Commission recommend
to City Council that a side yard variance of 4.2 feet be
granted to allow the garage addition as proposed.
Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
4
0
91-26:
WETLANDS PERMIT
Mr. Flynn, of 1299 Laura Street, was present to discuss
his plans to install a post and beam porch to the rear of
his home. Mr. Flynn stated this porch is proposed to be
14' by 14' and will come within 94 feet of Ivy Creek,
which flows along his rear property line. Mr. Flynn
stated he had the signatures of consent: from his
neighbors.
Commissioner Friel moved to waive the requirement for a
public hearing. Commissioner Duggan seconded the motion.
4
0
Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that City Council
grant the requested Wetlands Permit to allow the proposed
porch to be built within 94 feet of Ivy Creek as
proposed. Commissioner Tilsen seconded the motion.
4
0
91-28:
- LOT DIVISION
Mr. John Mathern, of JA Homes, appeared to discuss his
proposal to alter the Victoria Townhomes PUD by changing
the last building from a three unit townhome to a two
unit townhome. Mr. Mathern stated that the same building`
pad would be utilized and that the two unit design would
have larger townhomes. He stated that the Townhome
Association had signed a letter of consent.
Commissioner Duggan commented that it appeared that the
previous conversion of a three unit townhome to a two
AYES:
NAYS:
CASE NO.
unit townhome had worked well. Duggan stated he was
happy to see this reduction in units, that in this case
less is more. Commissioner Tilsen commented that it was
nice to see this project nearing completion.
Commissioner Duggan moved to waive the requirement for a
public hearing under Section 11.3(1) of the Subdivision
Ordinance and to recommend that City Council grant the
requested lot division of a three unit townhome to a two
unit townhome as proposed. Chair Dwyer seconded the
motion.
4
0
91-29:
CATHOLIC CEMETERIES -
SIGN VARIANCES
AYES:
NAYS:
CASE NO.
KAYOUM -
Mr. Dave Kemp, Operations Manager for Catholic
Cemeteries, appeared to present the request for sign
variances to allow a new sign system at Resurrection
Cemeteries. Mr. Kemp stated that they are requesting
size variances for nameplate signs at each entrance of
the cemetery and two informational signs inside the
entrances.
Chair Mike Dwyer stated that the correspondence indicated
that the signs are temporary in nature and only intended
for five years and inquired if the appearance of the
signs would deteriorate due to their temporary use. Mr.
Kemp responded that the new signs are part of a new
policy to enhance the appearance of the cemetery and its
entrances. Mr. Kemp stated that it is in the cemetery's
interest to keep the sign's appearance as high in quality
as possible.
Commissioner Duggan stated that the Commission should
consider a five year limit to the variance.
Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City
Council grant a variance to allow a total of 113 square
feet for the four proposed signs subject to a five year
time limit with City Council review after 3 1/2 years.
Commissioner Friel seconded the motion.
4
0
91-27:
FRONT YARD VARIANCE
Mr. A. Kayoum, of 706 First Avenue, appeared before the
Planning Commission to request a front yard variance of
four feet and three inches in order to construct a garage
addition to his house. Chair Dwyer stated that Mr.
Kayoum's request also included two housekeeping variances
on each side yard setback at staff's suggestion.
Mr. Kayoum explained that his garage was replaced by a
kitchen expansion and that he had been represented by a
builder, Mr. John Schwab, who had instructed him that no
variances would be needed to complete his home
improvements in which the garage addition would be built
after the kitchen expansion. Mr. Kayoum stated this
advice had left him with an unfinished kitchen and the
need to replace his garage. Mr. Kayoum stated that he
had submitted the required signatures of consent except
for the Strebigs, his neighbors who had been out of town.
Mr. Kayoum submitted the signatures of consent from the
Strebigs for the public record.
Commissioner Duggan stated that he had visited the
neighborhood and found the request to have no adverse
impact on the neighborhood and to be of a scale and scope
that would fit into the neighborhood. Duggan stated that
the neighbors gave their support to the project.
Commissioner Duggan moved to recommend that the City
Council grant the requested front yard variance of four
feet, three inches and a variance of one foot (1') to the
east side yard setback and a variance of two feet (2') to
the west side yard setback to bring the house into
conformance. Commissioner Dwyer seconded the motion.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
CENTEX HOMES
KENSINGTON PUD - PHASE II
Chair Dwyer stated that Commissioner Friel would not
participate in this public hearing as he is
professionally employed by a law firm that represents
Centex Homes. Commissioner Friel left at 8:00 o'clock
p.m.
Chair Dwyer stated that there was a lack of a quorum with
Mr. Friel's absence. Chair Dwyer read the Planning
Commission by-laws into the record and asked
Administrative Assistant Batchelder if any Commissioners
had stated they would be late. Batchelder stated that
Commissioners Krebsbach and Dreelan had phoned in to be
excused. Chair Dwyer instructed staff to .phone the
absent Commissioners and called a five minute recess.
At 8:10 o'clock p.m. Commissioner Koll arrived and
announced that she had experienced car trouble. Chair
Dwyer opened the public hearing at 8:10 o'clock p.m.
Chair Dwyer asked Administrative Assistant Batchelder to
provide a background summary for the audience of the
Kensington PUD since it was denied a rezoning by City
Council in August 1990. Batchelder stated that the
Planning Commission was reviewing the negotiated
settlement plan for Centex's proposed Kensington Planned
Unit Development - Phase II. Batchelder provided a
background history of the case by describing the failed
attempt for a rezoning, the alternative plan in November
1990, the lawsuit served on the City, the City's scoping
document to amend the Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan,
the settlement negotiations with the developer during
April, May and June and City Council's acceptance of a
conceptual settlement plan at the July 2, 1991 meeting.
Batchelder stated the City Council had accepted the
concept plan only after the developer had met all the
criteria that Council had established for an acceptable
plan. Batchelder stated that City, Council had ordered
public hearings for the consideration of the more formal,
technical plans required for rezoning and that an open
house had been conducted by staff the previous week to
inform interested residents of the settlement plan.
Chair Dwyer inquired about the Developers Agreement, if
the Commission was reviewing it that evening as stated in
the Planner's Report. Batchelder stated that the
developer's agreement usually is processed after a
development has received planning approvals and includes
any conditions City Council may have placed on the
project and the details for engineering. Batchelder
stated that staff had not yet received a proposed
developer's agreement. John Bannigan, Attorney for
Centex Homes, stated that a draft developer's agreement
had been sent to Attorney Jim Golembeck, representing the
City of Mendota Heights, but not yet to the City. Chair
Dwyer stated that the developer's agreement was not part
of the Planning Commission's review and also stated that
the final plat was usually not reviewed by the Planning
Commission either.
John Bannigan stated that Centex is before the Planning
Commission this evening because the developer and the
City Council had negotiated a settlement to the lawsuit.
Bannigan stated that the original July 8, 1991 court date
had been laid over indefinitely pending the outcome of
the settlement discussions. He stated the developers
were soliciting the Planning Commission's recommendations
tonight and were present to discuss the details of the
design. Bannigan encouraged the Planning Commission to
go through the staff reports, hear the public's comments
and make suggestions that the developer and staff can
address and prepare for the August 6th City Council
hearing.
Chair Dwyer stated that an open house had been held by
the City staff on July 18th for residents to view the
plans and then he explained the public hearing process
for the audience. Chair Dwyer stated that this would be
the public's opportunity to ask questions and make
comments for the public record which City Council would
review prior to their public hearing. Dwyer stated that
the City Council had approved the settlement plan in
concept and that it was the Planning Commission's job to
fine tune the details with the public's assistance. He
again stated that this was the audience's chance to let
the City and Centex know your ideas and feelings about
the project. Chair Dwyer stated that the planning
reports would be used as a guide and the first order of
business was to allow each Commissioner to address their
concerns and question the developer.
Commissioner Duggan stated that he was hoping for a more
detailed presentation by Centex, but that he was prepared
to proceed. Duggan stated that this area had been a
concern of his for four and one half years and that the
numbers in the project are finally down to a level that
he is comfortable with. Duggan stated he had a number of
concerns regarding the Council's compromise plan and was
concerned that some of the compromises could lead to
future problems.
Commissioner Duggan stated he had concerns with the size
of Lot 22, Block 3 and the narrow necks of Lots 32 and
30, Block 3. Duggan stated that Lot 1, Block 4 could be
combined with Lot 2, that he felt this lot to be too
small to be on the entrance to Mendota Heights Road.
Commissioner Tilsen stated that there is room for
adjustments, for instance Lots 1 and 7 could be made
equal by moving all the lot lines slightly that lie
between them.
Commissioner Duggan stated that Lot 17, Block 4 was small
and against the power line and should be massaged upwards
towards Lot 13. Duggan pointed out that the Parks
Commission had questioned the size and location of the
proposed park dedication. Duggan stated that Lot 3 and
Lot 6 in Block 1 could be equalized in size. Duggan
stated one of his main concerns is that 31 of the 98
single family lots needed Wetlands Permits. He
questioned if the square footage of the pond lots
included water, that one of the Council's criteria was
that the developer could not include water in the land
mass for the pond lots.
Dan Blake, of Centex, answered that the maps that the
Commission had included total lot square footage
including water, but that the pond lots meet Council's
criteria for dry, buildable land. Blake stated that in
working with the City Council during the negotiations,
only the land was counted towards the pond lots.
Commissioner Duggan asked Planner Malloy for a lot by lot
accounting of square footage for land on the pond lots.
Planner Malloy stated that he had measured all the pond
lots and their dry, buildable land mass and categorized
them according to the Council's criteria. He stated them
as follows:
LOT Square footage - Dry, buildable
8 35,200
9 20,460
10 20,305
11 17,360
12 19,220
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24 all over 15,000
25 17,000+
26 13,900
27 15,000+
30 16,275
31 13,500
32 14,700
35 15,000+
36 15,950
37 13,200
38 14,900
39 16,500
40 17,900
41 21,700
Planner Malloy stated that the lots that have less than
15,000 sq. ft. of dry, buildable land mass have been
included in the counts toward meeting the established
criteria for lot sizes.
Commissioner Duggan stated that a concern to him is what
will happen to the trees around the pond with the
construction of the pond lots. Duggan inquired what
safeguards will be taken and what value are the trees on
the pond lots? Duggan stated that members of the
Planning Commission should be involved in a review
committee that monitors the construction occurring on
these pond lots. Duggan stated that too often he has
heard promises of saving the trees by developers only to
discover that they have been cut. Duggan stated that it
is possible to build around trees and save them. Duggan
stated that instead of relying on promises, the City
should take an active role in determining what is
happening during construction. Duggan stated he is
searching for an extra measure by the City for leverage.
Commissioner Tilsen stated that he had relayed many of
his concerns, which were predominantly of an engineering
or technical nature, to Mr. James Danielson, Public Works
Director, and that most have been addressed in the staff
report. Tilsen indicated that engineering has reported
that they can handle these concerns during acceptance of
final grading and utility plans. Commissioner Tilsen
stated that the grading plan submitted only address spot
elevations and not contours. Tilsen stated that many of
the grade elevations shown for housing pads would need
correction.
Tilsen stated that he suggests a maximum grade for the
first 20' of driveways to be 3% as a standard. Tilsen
stated that Lot 9, Block 5 rose 6% in 40 feet and that
this is too extreme for a driveway approach to the
garage. Tilsen stated that the intersection of Abbey and
Haverton has a 5% grade at the approaches. Tilsen stated
that Haverton Circle, at a 6% grade, was too steep for a
cul-de-sac. Tilsen suggested a maximum 3% grade and
inquired what the City's grade standards are.
Klayton Eckles, City Engineer, stated a 10% grade for
streets is the maximum City standard, but that this is
allowed only in extreme cases. Eckles stated that the
City imposes a 6% grade limit in most cases. Eckles
stated that at stop intersections they allow a 2% grade
at the approach. Commissioner Tilsen suggested a
standard for this project be a 3% maximum grade for
driveway approaches, cul-de-sacs, and intersections.
Commissioner Tilsen stated that the grading plan had no
special provisions for Lots 4, 17, 18, and 22 of Block 1
where trees and grades could be protected with better
designs, for instance front walk outs. Tilsen stated
that Lot 8, Block 3 has two wetland permits proposed, one
for the front and one in the rear. Tilsen stated this is
acceptable, but could be disastrous as the drive impacts
the south pond. Tilsen stated that there may be no trees
left after the house and that design and construction
must take care to preserve Wetlands. Tilsen stated he is
concerned with blanket approvals of Wetlands Permits,
that this allows no individual reviews for houses to
preserve trees and ponds.
Chair Dwyer inquired of Commissioner Tilsen what he would
desire to recommend to City Council. Tilsen responded
that a true tree survey on the land for species, type and
quality could be conducted. Tilsen stated he realizes
this is a large expense prior to approval. Tilsen stated
that a tree survey would allow the City to individually
review each lot for the Wetlands Permits. Commissioner
Duggan agreed with Tilsen's concern and suggestion.
Tilsen stated a four inch caliper as a standard for trees
to be included in a tree survey.
Commissioner Tilsen inquired about Outlot B and if it was
a bargaining chip for the developer to throw in later.
Mr. Tom Boyce, of Centex, stated that in discussions with
Council, they had not indicated they desired this land
for parks. Tilsen inquired if Mr. Boyce was willing to
pay taxes on Outlot B. Mr. Boyce responded, yes. Tilsen
stated that Outlot B made no sense except as open space
and that it would be a maintenance and liability near the
park, someone would have to bear the responsibility.
Commissioner Tilsen stated he agreed with the staff
report that Outlot A should be denoted as a right of way
with provisions for utility easements. Tilsen stated
that any buyers of adjacent lots would then have a clear
indication of the future potential of the outlot.
Commissioner Duggan stated that Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
could be shaved to make the outlot bigger. Tilsen
suggested that the outlot be moved one lot west. Klayton
Eckles stated that the City originally considered this
location for access to the south, but that the grades
were too steep, that they would be over 10%.
Commissioner Tilsen inquired if the storm sewer
computations indicated the nature of the pond that is
proposed for the northern park area. Klayton Eckles
stated that this pond always had been envisioned as a
holding pond but that it had not been determined if this
was to be a wet pond or a dry pond. Eckles explained to
the audience that a wet pond always held water and that
a dry pond only held water during or immediately after
storm events. Tilsen stated that he also had a concern
about needing more detailed landscaping plans.
Commissioner Koll stated that she wanted to identify five
issues. Koll stated that she was a little disappointed,
her concept of Mendota Heights was one of spaciousness
and that this proposal was a large development with
multifamily. Koll stated that the issue was decided.
She stated that the first issue was the size of some of
the single family lots particularly Lot 4, Block 1 and
Lot 22, Block 3. Koll stated that lots on Mendota
Heights Road should all meet the minimum size. Koll
stated that her second issue was that lots 46 through 49,
Block 3 and Lot 17, Block 4 were adjacent to the power
lines. Koll stated that she had a concern for the
homeowners and for future liability of the City.
Commissioner Koll stated that her third concern was the
same as stated before about the preservation of trees on
the pond lots. Koll stated that she wants to see a
proposal to save the vegetation in this area. Koll
stated that her fourth concern was that there was no
street lighting allowed for in the plan. Mr. Boyce
stated that the City doesn't allow street lighting so it
was not included and that this is consistent with the
rest of the City. Koll stated that the fifth concern was
in regards to the back to back townhomes and their price
levels, were they consistent with others in the area?
Mr. Boyce responded that the carriage homes would be
similar in price structure to the manor homes. The
townhomes are the same as the previous plan of last year.
Mr. Boyce stated that the single family homes would range
from $160,000 to $400,000 and that this would be
consistent with Hampshire. Mr. Boyce stated that some
single family may be less than $160,000.
Chair Dwyer stated that there were some larger picture
issues that he felt, as an attorney, were important to
the City in his discussions with the Mayor and members of
the City Council. He stated that this settlement plan is
much preferred to a long term litigation battle that
could be very costly to the City. Dwyer stated Centex
has proven they are good 'neighbors and it is in the
City's best interest to proceed with this plan. Dwyer
stated the City Council had unanimously accepted this
plan as a concept. Dwyer stated he felt this was a good
plan compared to earlier plans, the number of units had
been reduced by 170, this provided a better buffer
between neighborhoods where the transition is either
single family homes or park and the quality of homes will
be similar. Dwyer stated this plan has no detached
garages. Dwyer stated he is sorry that the pond will not
be public domain and the trade off for single family
reduced the size of the park dedication, but that this is
what happens in a compromise.
Dwyer stated he would recommend that the Planning
Commission recommend approval to the City Council subject
to the list of concerns generated by the Planning
Commission and the public. Dwyer stated that the fine
tuning of the plan was the Commission's responsibility.
Chair Dwyer opened the hearing for comments from the
public and requested that each speaker approach the
podium and give name and address so all the comments
could be accurately relayed to the City Council.
Mr. Joe Melzarek, of 2545 Concord Way, stated when he had
purchased a manor home he had been assured that only
manor homes, not barracks, would be constructed by
Centex. He stated he first found out about this plan at
the City's Open House last week. Mr. Melzarek stated two
realtors have instructed him that his home's value would
be reduced by 15% with the added traffic and density in
this new plan. Mr. Melzarek stated the developer had
designed this plan without any input from the people most
affected by the plan, those people in the manor homes.
He stated the manor home owners bargained for something
that they are not getting.
Mr. Melzarek stated there were three choices. He stated
the first choice was a lawsuit against the City and the
developer, the second choice was compensation for lost
housing values and the third choice was compromise. Mr.
Melzarek stated this new plan was twice the density he
bargained for and all the density was being shoved up
against the manor homes. He stated the manor home owners
had bargained for an area of manor homes and are now
getting back to back townhomes.
Commissioner Duggan stated the same issues were the
concern of the Hampshire residents last August. He
stated the present concern is that they have bought manor
homes with an indication of what would be in the area
based on a representation by a sales person. Duggan
stated he felt this was a legitimate issue. Mr. Melzarek
stated all the density was shoved down by the manor homes
by the demand for single family lots.
Chair Dwyer inquired if the Phase I was all manor homes.
Mr. Boyce responded that yes it was 136 manor homes, but
Phase II will replat Phase I, so there are now only 80
manor homes proposed with back to back townhomes
(carriage homes) and townhomes replacing the coach homes,
or condominiums that had been originally proposed for the
area immediately east of Phase I. Mr. Melzarek requested
that the Planning Commission not forward this project
until the input of the manor home owners is put into the
development. Mr. Boyce stated this the purpose of the
public hearing and they would be working with staff to
fine tune the plan based on tonight's input.
Chair Dwyer asked the audience if they shared Mr.
Melzarek's concern with the carriage homes and traffic
and density. Fourteen people indicated they agreed.
Mr. Mike Kluznik, 1057 Chippewa Avenue, stated he agreed
that the City Council has an unreasonable attitude in
demanding all the single family lots in this project. He
stated he is concerned with the level of intolerance in
the community to anybody with less than a $300,000 home.
Mr. Kluznik stated he disagreed with the compromise
solution. He stated it was a travesty that the demand
for single family only had shrunk the park dedication and
there would be no public access to the ponds. Kluznik
stated the City Council had whittled away at the park
dedication that had been included in the referendum
approved by all the voters in the community. Mr. Kluznik
stated that a lawsuit had been mentioned earlier and that
lawsuits come in all manners including one over the
referendum promises. He stated there was more than one
issue and potential lawsuit. Mr. Kluznik stated he was
a member of the Citizen's Parks Review Committee that
helped design the referendum and this park had been
intended as a flagship park for the City, but .it is no
longer.
Mr. Kluznik asked Centex the difference in park land
between the two proposals. Mr. Boyce stated the last
dedication would have been 26.8 acres and this proposal
was 13.4 acres. Mr. Kluznik asked Mr. Boyce what the
community has gained. Mr. Boyce responded, that was for
the community to decide, but that they now had an
acceptable plan. Mr. Kluznik inquired if more park land
could be gained by the City, could Outlot B be dedicated
also? Mr. Boyce responded that the plan meets the
criteria established by City Council.
Mr. Kluznik stated that with the unorthodox pass vote
last August people were not getting what they bargained
for in the parks referendum. Mr. Kluznik stated that 16
years ago he moved into Mendota Heights and there was a
lot on his block that was too small to build on until the
City granted variances and now a small "barracks like"
house existed there and that these kind of things happen.
Kluznik stated he had two goals for any further
proceedings, one, that more park lands be added to this
project, and, two, is it necessary for the City to take
such a hard line stance against anything that is not a
$200,000 home.
Ms. Barb Schmidt, of 2195 Heritage Way, stated she moved
in with the understanding that only manor homes would be
in her area and she was shocked to find out at the City
Open House the density proposed. She stated the new plan
creates traffic and parking problems. Schmidt inquired
what assurance there would be that this will be owner
occupied and not rental. Schmidt stated that parking was
already a problem and stated that fire protection and
snow removal would also be problems.
Chair Dwyer inquired if any Hampshire residents were
present to speak. Mr. Don Pazdernik, of 2472 Hampshire
Court, stated he has been involved in the public hearing
process for this project all along. He stated that the
comments he has listened to tonight are similar to those
heard from Hampshire last year. Pazdernik stated
something worked, the City Council addressed the concerns
of the Hampshire residents who are now happy with the new
plan. He stated he has spoken with his neighbors, who
are familiar with the new plan, and they are very pleased
with the transition, buffers and the street design. He
stated this plan may need some fine tuning.
Mr. Jerry Morson, of 1442 Wachtler, stated he had been
following this issue for over four years and this plan
began with 576 proposed units with detached garages and
heavy objections to density. He stated many improvements
had been made to the plan and he urged "the Planning
Commission to recommend approval to the City Council.
Ms. Julie Schreader, of 594 Watersedge Terrace, stated
she is concerned about tree preservation around the ponds
and she felt the Outlot B could be included in the park
dedication. She inquired if Centex could include access
to the pond area and Outlot B. Mr. Boyce stated the
previous plan had park around Owens Pond, but he can't
provide both single family and park/pond. Ms. Schreader
stated the small lots on entrances to Mendota Heights
should be enlarged if possible.
Ms. Jane Ryan, of 2547 Concord Way, stated she had moved
to the manor homes from Fargo, ND and had been given
assurance of manor homes and four-plexes. She showed
Chair Dwyer a copy of the Phase I plat.
Mr. Olson, of the Manor Homes, stated he agrees and
disagrees with his neighbors. He stated he had known the
area east of Phase I would include carriage or coach -
houses and he thought they were nice units. He stated he
thinks the carriage homes are charming houses and are not
"barracks". He disagreed that the carriage homes will
become tenant occupied. Mr. Olson stated that the
carriage homes may be better to have across the street
from the manor homes because you will only face half the
units. He stated he would like to see the 12 unit
buildings reduced to 10 unit buildings and the 10 unit
buildings reduced to 8 unit buildings.
Mr. Olson stated he is a satisfied Centex customer and is
confident Centex will do the homes right. Mr. Olson
stated he disagrees with comments about tenements,
barracks and falling property values. He stated $60,000
is only the starting place for units and when extras are
added the prices go up appreciably.
Commissioner Tilsen asked Mr. Boyce about the market or
buyers that would be interested in the carriage homes.
Mr. Boyce stated buyers would primarily be first time
owners out of apartments or those coming down out of
large homes. Mr. Boyce stated they would be similar
buyers to the manor homes, but not as many elderly
because of the second level in the carriage homes. Chair
Dwyer inquired if Centex would care to comment on the
sentiment expressed that people were misled. Mr. John
Bannigan stated the City has had a very thorough review
process. Bannigan stated he would comment on people left
out of the process. Bannigan stated the City Council had
an obligation to the general welfare of the residents,
not particularly to the welfare of a certain group. He
stated the City Council has to balance the interest of
constituents, parks and tree preservation. Mr. Bannigan
stated the developer had given up 170 units. He stated
this was a plan that could be fine tuned prior to the
Council meeting and he recommended that the Planning
Commission include all the concerns that were raised
tonight so they can be addressed for the City Council.
Mr. James , of 747 Keokuk, stated that Mr. Tilsen's
comments should not be glossed over and that highway
noise considerations and quality of construction should -
be. considered.
Ms. Barb Schmidt inquired about square footage in the
carriage homes vs. manor homes. Mr. Boyce stated the
carriage homes are 1100 to 1300 sq. ft. Ms. Schmidt
stated her manor home is 1430 sq. ft. and that a carriage
home only opens one side to the outdoors. Mr. Olson
stated he had lived in some extremely nice apartments
around the Twin Cities and all of them opened on only one
side.
Mr. Regan , of 2546 Concord Road, stated he shared
the concerns mentioned by the manor home owners about
density and design layout. He stated he wished to see a
tree barrier along the I-494 corridor to protect the
neighborhood from sound.
Ms. Agnes , of 2502 Concord Way, inquired what the
carriage homes would look like, what exterior materials
they would be built with. Mr. Boyce showed her sketch
elevations.
Chair Dwyer stated he would entertain a motion to close
the public hearing. Commissioner Tilsen moved to close
the public hearing. Commissioner Koll seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Duggan stated he wanted the Centex attorney
to address the concern about the original developer's
agreement and the change from 136 manor homes to 80 manor
homes as proposed in the replatting of Phase I before the
public hearing is closed. Commissioner Duggan inquired
if the developer's agreement addresses the concern of the
manor home owners. Duggan inquired if the developer had
considered these concerns prior to proposing the replat.
Commissioner Duggan inquired if the switch in units is
addressed in the agreement.
Mr. Boyce responded that Phase I and Sketch Plan A and C
are exhibits to the developer's agreement and this is
being changed as a result of the negotiated settlement.
Mr. Bannigan stated the developer had worked within the
spirit of negotiations and that none of the terms,
conditions or criteria were established by the developer,
but by the City. Mr. Bannigan stated the developers are
of the opinion there is no adverse impact on the manor
home owners.
Chair Dwyer called for a vote on the motion to close the
public hearing.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
Chair Dwyer stated he would like to make a recommendation
to the City Council that included all the conditions,
suggestion or concerns the Planning Commission wishes to
attach to any recommendation for the developer to address
prior to the City Council meeting. The Planning
Commission listed their conditions as:
1. Consider adjustments to address the transition area
between the manor homes in Phase I and the carriage homes
in Phase II. Consider manor homes on both sides of
Heritage Way.
2. The Planning Commission has a primary concern for
protecting trees on the single family lots, especially
around Owens Pond and Haverton Circle. They suggested a
Tree Preservation Committee of Planning commissioners and
citizens to work closely with the developer throughout
construction and provide a quarterly report to City
Council. Perhaps document the trees with videotape.
3. A number of specific lot adjustments, or fine tuning were
recommended as conditions. They are:
Block 1, Lots 3 and 6
Lot 3 is only 13,600 sq. ft.
and Lot 6 is 24,800. Suggest a
balance in this cul-de-sac.
Block 1, Lots 4, 17, 18, 22 Grading and front walk outs
considered for these lots to
protect trees and lot grades.
Block 3, Lot 22 Too small for Mendota Hts.
Road.
Block 3, Lots 24, 25, 26,
27, 30, 31, 32
Block 3, Lot 8
Block 4, Lot 1 and 7
Block 4, Lot 17
Block 5, Lot 9
Narrow necks and the close
proximity of driveways needs
adjustment or response.
Front and rear wetlands
setbacks needed for this lot.
Tree and pond preservation plan
for the grading and
construction of this lot.
Lot I too small for Mendota
Hts. Road. Possible balance
with Lot 7 adjustment.
Possibly made bigger by
massaging lot lines up to Lot
13.
6% grade on driveway too steep.
4. Address the lots listed in the July 23, 1991 Planners Report
that are not in compliance with the established criteria.
Particularly, Block 1, Lots 5 and 6; Block 3, Lots 7 and 26;
Block 4, Lot 14, as well as the flag and neck lots.
5. Consider adjustments to and screening for parking provisions
in Carriage Home/Manor Home transition area. Also, Block 5,
Lots 4 and 8. There was not consensus on the Planning
Commission on this item, however, it was discussed.
6. A condition established was to provide a more detailed
landscaping plan. Particularly to show the berming and
screening along the I-494 corridor. Standards for the berm
were suggested to be a berm as high as possible with a 3:1
slope and a four foot top. The intent is to have the berm
above window level. There should be trees on the berm to
provide additional noise protection from the highway.
7. Address lot elevations and high water lines in Block 7 and
work with engineering staff for a report on grades and
elevations throughout the project.
8. Consider reducing back. to back townhomes in density by
changing 12 unit buildings to 10 unit buildings and 10 unit
buildings to 8 unit buildings.
9. Consider changing Claremount Drive to a public right of way.
Address snow removal plan on all private drives, especially
Block 5.
Mr. Boyce stated the owner's association would be
responsible for contracting for snow removal. The
Planning Commission requested to receive a report from
the Fire Department on the site plan and emergency
access.
Commissioner Duggan inquired if any other measures were
taken, besides the City's Noise Attenuation Ordinance, to
mitigate air noise. A manor home resident stated that
the highway noise is worse. Commissioner Duggan inquired
if the State Codes could be exceeded during construction
and stated Centex should evaluate if the noise
attenuation standards are being met.
10. Noise measurement tests should be conducted on the next series
of buildings completed to test compliance with the City's
Noise Attenuation Ordinance.
11. Outlot B should be considered for inclusion into the park
dedication.
12. Dr. Owen's homesite should be included in the platting as an
outlot.
13. Consider moving Outlot A one lot to the west. Consider
platting Outlot A as a right of way with larger than normal
utility easements and possible side yard setback variances.
14. Submit a driveway plan for Langford Circle, particularly Lots
30, 31 and 32.
15. Provide a minimum 30 ft. separation between multi -family
buildings, particularly Block 7, Lots 1 and 2. Provide a 30
ft. setback to roads, particularly Block 5, Lots 6 and 12.
16. Throughout the project, meet a suggested standard of 3%
maximum grades for the parking/driveways of the carriage
homes; for intersection approaches; and for all cul-de-sacs.
17. Consider tuck under design, or other designs to most
strategically save trees and lot grading; particularly Block
1, Lots 4, 17, 18, and 22. Consider setback variances as a
method to better design building pads for individual lots.
18. Storm water computations provided to engineering staff for
analysis. Of particular concern, is the nature of the pond in
the northern park dedication area.
The Planning Commission also recommended the developer
address any concerns listed in the staff and planner's
reports.
Chair Dwyer inquired if there was consensus on the
Commission for a recommendation based upon the conditions
and suggestions that had been discussed and agreed upon
by the Commission. Commissioner Tilsen stated that the
Commission somewhat has their hands tied on this issue,
•
there may be better plans in the long run, but you cannot
go backwards. Tilsen stated he would support approval.
Commissioner Koll commended Centex for the compromises
that have been made. Koll stated the 1985 City Council
approved a Comprehensive Plan allowing 570 units in this
area and there now has been a' reduction of 46% to 385
units. Koll stated she believes Centex will do an
overall quality project and she will pass approval on the
project. Commissioner Duggan asked for the conditions to
be read aloud by the secretary. The conditions were
repeated.
Chair Dwyer inquired if Centex would donate Outlot B to
the City as park. Mr. Boyce stated he would consider it
prior to the City Council meeting. Commissioner Koll
suggested another condition should be to address the
Police Chief's concern about the street names, Langford
Circle and Sutton Court. The Commission added this as a
condition. Commissioner Tilsen suggested a minimum of 30
ft. separation between buildings be maintained as
outlined in the Planner's Report. Tilsen suggested the
walkouts in the front be considered for Block 1, Lots 4,
17, 18, and 22. Mr. Boyce responded that tuck under
garages are not a good idea with the winters in Minnesota
and not many buyers like front walkouts. Mr. Boyce
suggested that variances to setbacks might be a better
way to address specific layouts for these lots.
Commissioner Duggan inquired if the properties would be
rental or residential. Mr. Bannigan stated the City
Attorney had opined on this issue last year and the City
cannot prevent owners from renting. Mr. Bannigan stated
Centex agreed that these should be owner occupied but
there is no legal way to stipulate this. Duggan stated
Centex advertising should focus on "residential" in order
to discourage renters, as homeowners have more care and
more pride in their homes. The Commission did not
support this suggestion.
Commissioner Duggan inquired about capped wells on the
property. Mr. Boyce stated that to his knowledge there
were no capped wells on the site. Duggan inquired about
the quality assurance plan. Mr. Boyce explained the HOW
program. Mr. Boyce stated this is the largest HOW
program in the U.S. and is 10 year warranty. He stated
it primarily provides warranty if there is defective work
according to a set of building standards, if the builder
won't fix it and it meets the standards then HOW fixes
it. Boyce stated that HOW provides specifications that
determine warranty repairs. He stated the homeowner can
request HOW to inspect if they are in dispute with Centex
and there are arbitration provisions. Boyce stated HOW
gives the homeowner peace of mind and provides standards
for warranty. Boyce stated the provisions are one year
for workmanship and materials, 2 years for mechanical and
10 years for structural warranties. Boyce explained
Centex Homes' quality assurance program. Boyce stated
Centex inquires of each owner at 30 days about any
warranty requests. Commissioner Duggan stated he would
like to see Centex keep the site clean during
construction for the surrounding neighborhoods.
Commissioner Duggan moved that the City Council approve
the settlement plan with the list of conditions generated
by the Planning Commission, including rezoning, CUP for
PUD, Preliminary Plat and Wetlands Permit. Commissioner
Koll seconded the motion.
AYES: 4
NAYS: 0
VERBAL REVIEW
ADJOURN
Administrative Assistant Batchelder provided a verbal
review of last month's planning actions taken by City
Council.
There being no further business, the Planning Commission
adjourned at 11:52 o'clock p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Batchelder
Administrative Assistant
MEMO
Date: 7-23-91
TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Administrator
FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Building Activity Report for July 1991
CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE 91 YEAR TO DATE 90
BUILDING
PERMITS: No. Valuation Fee Collected
SFD 5 765,706.00 6,823.59
APT 0 0 0
TOWNHOUSE 0 0 0
CONDO 0 0 0
MISC. 30 148,594.00 2,951.90
C/I 5 82,366.00 933.20
Sub Total 40 996,666.00 10,708.69
.BADE
PERMITS:
No. Valuation Fee Collected No. Valuation Fee Collected
45 6,831,047.00 61,059.35 42 6,786,546.00 58,754.36
0 0 0 0 0 0
5 563,645.00 5,624.05 5 638,665.00 6,023.34
16 1,300,243.00 8,220.31 16 1,278,376.00 8,116.36
123 848,990.00 14,713.13 136 1,048,771.00 18,354.64
34 8,555,810.00 41,423.61 18 987,549.00 7,087.51
223 18,099,735.00 131,040.45 217 10,739,907.00 98,336.21
Plumbing 18 1,006.00 88 3,732.00 66 3,581.00
Water 14 70.00 80 400.00 50 250.00
Sewer 14 245.00 61 1,260.00 43 752.50
Heat, AC,
& Gas 32 1,857.00 96 8,840.50 91 11,064.35
Sub Total 78 1,321.00 325 14,232.50 250 15,647.85
Licensin4:
•
Contractor's
Licenses 24
600.00
381
9,525.00
364 9,100.00
Total 142 996,666.00 12,629.69 1 929 18,099,735.00 154,797.95 1 831 10,739,907.00 24,747.85
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac, and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee, and
valuation amounts.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ
SUBJECT: Purchase of Replacement Pagers
August 2, 1991
INTRODUCTION:
The Fire Department has requested that the City authorize
the purchase of six pagers to supplement the department's radio
communication capabilities. It is the intent of this memo to
recommend that the purchase be approved through fund reallocation
within the 1991 City Budget.
BACKGROUND:
The City's entire radio communication system which serves
our Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments, was upgraded in
1987. As part of that upgrade, a total of 42 NEC Mark III m
pagers were purchased - 36 for authorized firefighters, one for
the Fire Marshal, and five spares. At the time, Chief Maczko
expressed his desire that Motorola Minitor II pagers be purchased
instead of the NECs, but based on the recommendation of our radio
consultant and financial considerations, the City purchased the
NEC equipment.
While the pagers have generally held up well, a limited
number of units have experienced recurring maintenance problems
and have been deemed unreliable by the Fire Department. For this
reason, Chief Maczko recommends that six replacement pagers be
purchased at this time.
DISCUSSION:
Further details regarding this purchase request are
summarized in the attached memo from Chief Maczko. As discussed,
the Motorola Minitor II pagers are currently offered on contract
through the Minnesota State Fire Consortium at a low bid cost of
$417.00 each, thus the total expenditure request for six pagers
comes to $2,502.00.
Chief Maczko proposes to utilize unspent funds from the 1991
Fire Department budget to cover the cost of the new equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on our maintenance experience with several of the
existing pagers, it appears prudent to provide six replacement
units to the Fire Department at this time. Based on the
identified need, and the assurance by Chief Maczko that the new
Motorola equipment will function without conflict with the
existing NEC equipment, I recommend that the purchase be approved
as described in the Chief's memo dated July 23, 1991.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Should Council concur with the recommendation to purchase
the new pager equipment as outlined in Chief Maczko's memo, a
motion to authorize the equipment purchase should be considered.
MTL:mlk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
July 23„ 1991
TO: Tom Lawell, City Administrator
FROM: John P. Maczko, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Purchase of Replacement Pagers
As per our discussion I have talked with Keith Stein regard-
ing the existing pager situation within the department. It was
Keith's strong recommendation that the fire department eight (8)
pagers but a absolute minimum of six (6) could be purchased.
The current pagers that I wish to purchase are made by
Motorola and are the Motorola Minitor II models(copy of specifi-
cation attached). They are the same pagers that West St. Paul,
Eagan, Lakeville, and Rosemount Fire Departments are utilizing at
this time. The Motorola pagers also happen to be the low bid
pagers through the Minnesota State Fire Consortium bids. Neces-
sary equipment are as follows:
Pager & Charger (as described in attached Info) $ 437.00
(MN State Contract Sheet)
Delete Extra Channel -$ 40.00
Add Dual Call to Page Individually $ 20.00
NET COST PER UNIT $ 417.00
TOTAL COST $2,502.00
Since we have an immediate need for the six pagers I recom-
mend that the funding come from the following line items:
Radio Repair $1,260
Hazardous Materials Response Contract $1,242
with St. Paul, ($3,500 was allotted
for hazardous materials response
contract with St. Paul)
The purchase of these pagers will allow us to replace pagers
that currently have excessive maintenance charges and also give
us the necessary spare equipment on hand.
I recommend that we purchase the pagers as described above
and have attached a purchase order for your signature.
If you have any questions, please call.
JPM:dfw
Mendota Heights Police Department
MEMORANDUM
July 25, 1991
TO: Mayor and City o
City Administr
FROM: Chief of Police 6,F)
SUBJECT: Permanent Appointment of Officer Neil Garlock
Discussion
As of July 16, 1991, Neil Garlock has completed his one year probation period
with the Mendota Heights Police Department. Officer Garlock's progress and
work have been excellent, and there is no reason why he should not be
permanently appointed. My staff and I agree on offering our unanimous support
of that appointment.
gecommendation
That Officer Neil Garlock, having successfully completed his one year
probation, be permanently appointed to the position of Mendota Heights Police
Officer and that appointment be retroactive to July 16, 1991.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
August , 1991
To: Mayor, City Council and City Administ
From: Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist
Subject: Convent of the Visitation School, Athletic Department
Request to Reserve Roger's Lake Tennis Courts
DISCUSSION
Ms. Lucy Stringer, of Convent of the Visitation School,
desires to reserve the tennis courts at Roger's Lake Park for the
fall girls tennis season. The requested reservation times are:
Monday through Friday from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
August 12th through October 20th
Ms. Stringer indicates that the use of this one court for the
fall season will enable her whole team to have practice facilities.
Currently, Visitation varsity practices on their own courts. The
need for Roger's Lake Park courts will enable the "B" team to
practice regularly. Ms. Stringer indicates that the Visitation
Convent is in the planning stages to provide new courts on site in
addition to their current facilities. Visitation does not use St.
Thomas Academy's courts and has not relied on them as a facility.
I recommend that City Council approve the request. If the
Council approves the request, the coaches will be provided a letter
from the City authorizing the reservation of courts during the
times requested.
ACTION REQUIRED
If the Council desires to implement the recommendation, they
should pass a motion approving the reservation of Roger's Lake Park
tennis courts by the Convent of the Visitation School for the
period of August 12th throught October 20th at the times of 3 p.m.
to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
July 18, 1991
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administt
FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer 4°
SUBJECT: Modified CAO Approval - 1905 Hunter Circle
INTRODUCTION:
Keystone Builders has made application to construct a new
home for Dave and Jo Nelson on Lot 2 Block 1 Tuminelly's Hunter
Lane Addition. This lot falls within the boundaries of the
City's Critical Area District.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has reviewed the City's topography maps and finds that
the Nelson's lot does not contain any slopes that are 40% or
greater.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend that City Council grant Keystone
Builders a Modified Critical Area Ordinance Site Plan Approval.
In addition, since staff has not had to expend additional time on
this application, Council may, if they wish, refund Keystone
Builders' $100.00 application fee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If City Council wishes to implement the staff's recommenda-
tion to (1) grant approval of the Modified CAO Site Plan and (2)
refund Keystone Builders $100.00 application fee, it should pass
a motion of approval.
PRB:mlk
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
ti
LAND SURVEYORS
Survey for:
44 9 etudgete,Ace.
5713 OurONT'AVENUE SOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINN. 15420
515.2054
KEYSTONE BUILDERS
C/Rc �..E
Ol
Mt
/Poo,
914
9_714„:* 7
•
. "16104?64,
2244/4 4'44,
.13e Ma of ha le
Ta9zzr-
/n,/4j.
Scale:
-/5z.9/- --
N89 4 3'Z8",1/
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 2, Block 1, TUMINELLY'S
OUNTER LANE ADDITION
Proposed Grades:
=301
Top of Blocks 93Gx'- Garage floor 93S1
Basement floor ?z7M
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the
boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, if any,
thereon and all visible encroachments, if.any, fr•_t or on said land.
Dated this 8th day of July ,1991.
Z7/-7/
by
Innes. a cense 'o. •0 8
Case No. CAO
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Dakota County, Minnesota
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
CRITICAL AREA DEVELOPMENT (Ordinance NO. 403)
Date of Application
Fee Paid
Receipt Number
Applicant: IJ •
Name: tti-e..4.1.SI/OPAL J3a.a)-WS Cor4D.
Last I First 1 Initial
Address: 2.40 1 fri`d1 € -1-. -S'AorP-Olcu-) M.
Number & Street `-' City State Zip Code
Phone:
Owner:
Name:
Home
Nelso
• Work
Last
Address:
Number & Street
akt,/ Et.
First Initial
No. (Nks
City State
Street Location of Property in Question:
Legal Description of Property:
2 810e.k /
i4 pc/ --e
,4h',7
:Sr/a 7
Zip Code
Type of Request: Variance
Site Plan Approval
Modified Site Plan Approval
•
Present Zoning of Property:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
$iri3 k. Fcu,i,'L1tamid //i495
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional
material are true.
Signature Applicant
Date
Received by (title)
Note: The following information shall be provided in the site plan:
1. Location of the property, including such information as the name
and numbers of adjoining roads, railroads, existing subdivisions,
or other landmarks.
2. The name and address of the owner(s) or developer(s), the section,
township, range, north point, date, and scale of drawings, and
number of sheets.
3. Existing topography as indicated
interval no greater than two (2)
shall also clearly delineate any
intermittent streams and swales,
located on the site. %,
on a contour map having a contour
feet per contour; the contour map
bluff line, all streams, including
rivers, water bodies, and wetlands
4. A plan delineating the existing drainage of the water setting forth
in which direction the volume, and at what rate the storm water is
conveyed from the site in setting forth those areas on the site where
storm water collects and is gradually percolated into the ground or
slowly released to stream or lake.
5. A description of the soils on the site including a map indicating soil
types by areas to be disturbed as well as a soil report containing
information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development
proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing
any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils
suitable. All areas proposed for grading shall be identified by
soil type, both as to soil type of existing top soil and soil type
of the new contour. The location and extent of any erosion areas
shall be included in the soils description.
6. A description of the flora and fauna, which occupy the site or are
occasionally found thereon, setting forth with detail those areas
where unique plant or animal species may be found on the site.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
July 31, 1991
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administ
FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: CAO Modified Site Plan Approval -
1034 Mayfield Heights Lane
INTRODUCTION:
cto
Mr. John Polymeros, Construction Manager with Sawhorse
Designers and Builders, has met with staff and City Planner to
pursue a building permit to add a kitchen and deck addition to
1034 Mayfield Heights Lane. See attached letter from Sawhorse.
DISCUSSION:
The above property falls within the City's Critical Area and
upon review of site plan/topography and a site visit, it can be
said that although there are two small areas with 40% slopes on
the property, both staff and planner do not feel that these small
40% slope areas constitute a bluff line. The proposed
construction therefore occurs over 40 feet from the true bluff
line.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend that City Council grant Sawhorse a
Modified Site Plan approval. In addition, Council may if they
wish, refund Sawhorse's $100 application fee.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If City Council wishes to implement the staff's
recommendation to 1) grant approval of the Modified Site Plan
and 2) refund Sawhorse's application fee, it should pass a
motion of approval.
PRB:mlk
• Unique Designs
• 1000+ References
• 10 -year Limited Warranty
• Guaranteed Price
• Financing
Sawhorse
Room Additions • Porches • Decks • Kitchens • Baths
Lowest Price for Best Value
• Licensed, Bonded, Insed r--
• Expert Project Management
• Showroom to Select
Your Products
• Guaranteed Completion
Schedule
July 18, 1991
City of Mendotat-Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights;. MN 55118
We are proposing to build a 17' X 7' kitchen addition with al
6'6" X 21' deck:at 1034 Mayfield Heights Drive. This letter!
-is to -confirm that we are applying for approval for .a modified
site plan at this address.
--We-have talked -to the City Engineer, the City:Planner and.the.
Building Official. According to them this is,the appropriate
course of action. -
,
• If you have any further questions, feel free to call me at
533-0352.
Thank:You.
John-Polymeros
Construction Supervisor
JP/fb'
.-..
4740 42nd Ave N • Robbinsdale, Minnesota 55422 • (612) 533-0352 FAX (612)533-2668
Applicant:
Name:
Address
Phone:
Owner:
Name:
Case No. CAO
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Dakota County, Minnesota
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
CRITICAL AREA DEVELOPMENT (Ordinance NO. 403)
Date of Application
Fee Paid
Receipt Number
54c,ii--10)2_S co)us-ri2_LcTrok.) (dor,/ K.) pcx.197cie4
Last First . . Initial
4740 42.--v A -Li e A.) c) R-008 Pi
Number & Street City State Zip Code
633- 03 52-
Home Work
Address
/2_ock) o D:),0 ,J(i/L)N/
First Initial
Last
/03 4- tliq•Y F/et-P 5-1075 j A) t1ei‘va-r4 63-5 17 A -I r.5'//
Number & Street City State
Street Location of Property in Question:
/c24- hAt.-1-Plet-b 1- k.)
Zip Code
Legal Description of Property:
Type of Request: Variance
Site Plan Approval
)c. Modified Site Plan Approval
"! •
Present Zoning of Property:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
I hereby declare that all statements
material are true.
made in this request and on the additional
5 pru “ o,2_s cs
Signature of Appli'ant
7//679
Date
Received by (title)
Note: The following information shall be provided in the site plan:
1. Location of the property, including such information as the name
and numbers of adjoining roads, railroads, existing subdivisions,
or other landmarks.
2. The name and address of the owner(s) or developer(s), the section,
township, range, north point, date, and scale of drawings, and
number of sheets.
3. Existing topography as indicated
interval no greater than two (2)
shall also clearly delineate any
intermittent streams and swales,
located on the site.
on a contour map having a contour
feet per contour; the contour map
bluff line, ail streams, including
rivers, water bodies, and wetlands
4. A plan delineating the existing drainage of the water setting forth
in which direction the volume, and at what rate the storm water is
conveyed from the site in setting forth those areas on the site where
storm water collects and is gradually percolated into the ground or
slowly released to stream or lake.
5. A description of the soils on the site including a map indicating soil
types by areas to be disturbed as well as a soil report containing
information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development
proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing
any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils
suitable. All areas proposed for grading shall be identified by
soil type, both as to soil type of existing top soil and soil type
of the new contour. The location and extent of any erosion areas
shall be included in the soils description.
6. A description of the flora and fauna, which occupy the site or are
occasionally found thereon, setting forth with detail those areas
where unique plant or animal species may be found on the site.
1
TO:
FROM:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
July 31, 1991
Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
James E. Danielson, Public Works Direct
Kevin L. Batchelder, Administrative Assist
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-24:
DISCUSSION:
Ruble - Wetlands Permit
Mr. Kim BeauClair, representing the Ruble's of 629
Hampshire, appeared before the July Planning Commission meeting
to present the Ruble's request for a Wetlands Permit to allow
construction of a deck and patio at 77 feet from the pond behind
their home. See attached plans and memos.
The Ruble's have submitted signatures of consent from their
neighbors. The Planning Commission expressed no concerns about
the request and waived the requirement for a public hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to waive the
public hearing and recommended that City Council grant the
Wetlands Permit to allow deck/patio construction, as proposed, to
within 77 feet of the pond.
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 allowing a
deck/patio to be constructed, as proposed, to within 77 feet of
the pond.
JED/KLB:mlk
1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
July 17, 1991
FROM:ffk
James E. Danielson, Public Works Direc
Batchelder, Administrative Assistan!
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-24: Ruble - Wetlands Permit
DISCUSSION:
Mr. and Mrs. Ruble, 629 Hampshire Drive, desire to construct
a deck and patio in their back yard. The Ruble's lot had a pre -
approved Wetlands Permit for a 90 foot setback however, their
deck plans show a deck that further encroaches on the wetlands by
another 13 feet or 77 feet from the wetlands.
The Rubles have submitted signatures of consent from their
adjoining neighbors.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Consider waiving the public hearing. Review the request
with the applicant and make a recommendation to the City Council.
JED/KLB:mlk
�, r
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: 23 July 1991
CASE NUMBER: 91-24
APPLICANT: Raymond D. Ruble
LOCATION: 629 Hampshire Drive
ACTION REQUESTED: Wetlands Permit for deck
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The subject property is one of several in this area that
have required wetlands permits in order to construct the
second story decks, which were part of the original plans
for these homes. The site plan submitted by the applicant
is not labeled as to the dimension between the deck and
the normal high water level of the pond, however, it
appears to measure approximately 80 feet. When this area
was originally platted, a wetlands permit was granted to
allow the house to be located within 90 feet of the
adjacent wetland. Therefore, the proposed modification to
the permit would be for an additional 10 feet.
At the time the original permit was granted, the City was
pursuing a slightly different policy with respect to the
regulation of decks within wetland areas. At that time,
decks were not interpreted as structures for the purpose
of the application. of the Wetland Systems Ordinance
regulations. As a result, no permit was required to
construct one. In response to growing concerns regarding
wetlands and the habitats they support the City has
recently begun to interpret the definition of a structure
more stringently to include decks.
2. The Wetland Systems Ordinance includes 23 criteria that
must be met before a permit can be approved. Many of
these criteria regulate activities such as dredging and
major excavation and are not applicable in this case. The
principal factors to consider when reviewing a request
such as the one being made by the Ruble's are related to
the removal of vegetation, the potential for any soil
erosion during construction, and the aesthetic impact on
other properties surrounding the pond.
3. Mr. Ruble's lot is located in one of the areas where there
is significant remaining vegetation. However, the area
where the deck is to be located was cleared when the house
was built and no additional vegetation is to be removed to
Raymond D. Ruble, Case No. 91-24 Page 2
accommodate the proposed deck. This fact is advantageous
in terms of the aesthetic impact the deck would have on
the surrounding area, since the remaining vegetation will
substantially screen the deck from the other properties
surrounding the pond, with the exception of the lots
immediately adjacent to the subject property. The owners
of these properties have signed the applicant's consent
form indicating that they have seen the plans for the
proposed deck and do not object to its construction.
4. Since no vegetation would be removed and no significant
excavation would be done, the applicant's request for a
modification to the existing wetlands permit is
reasonable.
4
DODGE
*ARF
•
•
•
N&Y MARSH
\III
SUBJECT PROPERTY
NORTH T
SCALE 1"=800'
730E- - -. EFMAR- - R�4
1\
PAR
2
47 97.50 105.60
0
— 4
ai (7.494. 4 8350 ' 7 6. ... 0 10 .-- —
-
/9. 02
ii ... 40 .3
12 . •1 In 0; •t. 21 ... o 43
t.
co , I I .9 n. v ...•
O 4., • ei
29
zif ..7*** --A1,.... .
4, .74 e.... o
e.----gd"-71
13
4) • 0
/ .2 4 r..."'":..... 3 /
'.
-8 ,... 119.43
-.6 is* 133
?.6: 65.62
14 4, 0
33.34
3./7 °R/
vs 3 . *Act
IC °;
ir 4, ..
160.63144
.0 • 185..48
v .w,
c.,
ca.
189 22.'-:
la
I
I
2. HAMPSHIRE
SUBJECT PROPERTY
NORTH t
-SCALE f=200'
103
S
EZ:ORD PLAT FOR 0671
4C
El G
2.
tt39.35
202.86
742.95
94
263.05
212.84
147. 7
263 55
T a 520.
o/2-9'?
0
.71
4
Raymond D. and Dawn M. Ruble
629 Hampshire Drive
Mendota Hts., MN 55120
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Hts., MN 55118
June 28, 1991
Re: Wetlands Permit for 629 Hampshire Drive, Mendota Hts., MN.
Dear Sirs:
We have plans to build a deck on the back of our house at the above
address. This deck would extend from an area of the house which was
intended for a deck at the time the house was built. The house has a
walkout basement and two existing doorways from the family room and
mud/laundry room which is on the main floor and one story above the
ground level. Both these doors are boarded at this time.
The plan submitted for approval extends along the back of the house
and allows both doors to be included in a single deck. The largest
extension from the house is from the family room door and is where
the majority of deck time will be spent.
To construct this deck we will need a Wetlands Permit. Although the
majority of the deck is in compliance with the 90 foot setback a portion
of the extension off the family room does not meet the required setback.
We are therefore applying for this permit.
J
Sincerely.
Raymond D. Ruble
Dawn M. Ruble
WETLANDS PERMIT
629 Hampshire Drive
Mendota Hts., MN 55120
Raymond D. Ruble and Dawn M. Ruble have plans to build a deck behind
their home at 629 Hampshire Drive, Mendota Hts.. The deck will be
constructed this summer. A sketch of the plan is attached. Since
construction of a portion of this deck does not meet the setback
requirements in the Mendota Heights Wetlands Ordinance, a Wetlands
Permit is required.
I/We,.the undersigned have no objection to the attached plans and
building of the deck or issuing a Wetlands Permit for this construction.
-»1
M. Jill Smith
Address Date
633 Hampshire Drive
Mendota Hts, MN
625 Hampshire Drive
Mendota Hts, MN
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
Case No. 9/.2
Date of Application
Fee Paid 7-3-91 z4/
rPAyrtcNl� PH: 4s4 —o4a
(Ffa) (MI)
Applicant Name:
(Last)
Address: a Q HAnPSNii2E D P. ME,uoorA 14.i hours , /'1,u . Ss ria
(Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip)
Owner Name: tu S ► QP,Y.10
(Last)
Address: Itta9 MA Pi P S D Q.
(Number & Street)
(First)
Street Location of Property in Question: to a 4
t E,i/ OTA
(City)
(MD
Hi -S. pi N_ s s) �b
(State) ('Zip)
MAnPsuiQ.E
ME")DCTA Hat HT'S , /?" .
Legal Description of Property: LOT 4, ILO CK 1
HAr1PSH)2E c STATES
Type of Request:
Rezoning
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D.
Plan Approval
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Variance
Subdivision Approval
Wetlands Permit
Other (attach explanation)
Applicable City Ordinance Number Section
Present Zoning of Property Present Use
Proposed Zoning of Property ; Proposed Use
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional
material are true.
(Signature of Applicant)
1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850
r11.1.1j
City of
Mendota Heights
July 18, 1991
Mr. Raymond Ruble
629 Hampshire Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Dear Mr. Ruble:
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, July 23, 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:mlk
Enclosures: Planning Commission Agenda
Planner's Report
City Staff Report
1101 Victoria .Curve ��Metidota Heights; Y.
1ViN _''55118`{=f:��452�18504.:�
MAA
City of
Mendota Heights
July 26, 1991
Mr. Raymond Ruble
629 Hampshire Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Dear Mr. Ruble:
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, August 6, 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 City Council
grant approval of a Wetlands Permit to construct the deck/patio to
within 77 feet of the wetlands.
If you have.any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kevin Batchelder
Administrative Assistant
KLB:mlk
Enclosures: City Council Agenda
Staff Memo to City Council
1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN - 55118 -452.1850
.SURVEY FOR: CENTEX HOME'S
ecv
Prepared By:
160018.0!2
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Englneers • Surveyors • Planners • Bolts Testing
10660 Wayzata Boulevard
Minnetonka. Mn. 66343
701. 646-7601
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 6 , Block 1 , KAMPSH%RF ESTATES
GENERAL NOTES:
1) o - Denotes iron monument set.
2) x(el o.$) - Denotes proposed
spot elevation per
grading plan.
3) ..— - Denotes direction of
surface drainage.
4) Proposed garage floor
elevation =869.o .
I hereby certify that this survey was
prepared under my supervision and that
I am a Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minneso.Za.
heodore 1. Kemna
Date: Aua.11, 19Be)
License No. ''006
SURVEY '013: CENTEX HOIk1ES
L8b6.o)
l3�
•
o
qy
-0(4,tess:0)
O
a
Q
xe$ 56.0).
4;0 4%/k.e0
.40
s
•
V4) 1S`
Prepared By:.
F00018 •�r2
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Englneera • Surveyors • Planners • 8olla Testing
10660 Wayzata Boulevard
Minnetonka, Mn. 65343
Tel, 648-7801
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 6 , Block 1 , KAMPSHtRe eSTAT6s
GENERAL NOTES:
1) o - Denotes iron monument set.
2) x(e'to.$) - Denotes proposed
spot elevation per
grading plan.
3) ..--- - Denotes direction of
surface drainage.
4) Proposed garage floor
elevation .549.0
I hereby certify that this survey was
prepared under my supervision and that
I am a Licensed Land Surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
heodore D. Kemna
1
lArIC
joists • 2X6 spaced 16" OC
N.
double 2X8 bearri
12'
7,
• = green treated 4 X 4
stairway 36" wide
- 5 p olao 6" OC.
•
Joist 2X8 spaced 16" 00
/ - 1 \ 11
double 2X8 beam
1
11'
9'
-- 4' —
1
T
= one foot
= two feet
=three feet
• Scale
one foot
.= two feet
= three feet
T
34'
1
-- — one foot
= two feet
=three feet
•Handrail, posts, joists all green treated
•decking either redwood or ceder
\\
9.7'
r
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
July 31, 1991
Mayor, City Council and City Adminis
James E. Danielson, Public Works Direct.,
Kevin L. Batchelder, Administrative Assist n
CASE NO. 91-26: Flynn - Wetlands Permit
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Flynn, of 1299 Laura Street, appeared before the July
Planning Commission meeting to request a Wetlands Permit to
construct a post and beam screened porch at the rear of his home.
The property abuts Ivy Creek and the proposed porch comes to
within ninety-four feet (94') of Ivy Creek.
The Flynn's have submitted signatures of consent from their
neighbors and the Planning Commission expressed no concerns over
the request.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to waive the
public hearing and recommended that the City Council grant a
Wetlands Permit allowing the proposed screened porch to within
ninety-four feet (94') of Ivy 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 approving a Wetlands Permit allowing a
screened porch to be built within ninety-four (94') of Ivy Creek.
JED/KLB:mlk
•
. a�
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
July 16, 1991
FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direc •.�
Kevin Batchelder, Administrative AssistanIV
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-26: Flynn - Wetlands Permit
DISCUSSION:
Mr. and Mrs. Flynn, of 1299 Laura Street, would like to
install a post and beam screened porch at the rear of their home
along Ivy Creek. The proposed porch is within ninety-four feet
(94') of Ivy Creek and requires Planning Commission and City
Council review to issue a Wetlands Permit. See attached plans
and memos.
The Flynn's have submitted letters of consent from their
contiguous neighbors. Staff recently prepared a Policy Statement
that was reviewed and adopted by City Council regarding Wetlands
Permits and public hearings. See attached June 26, 1991 Wetlands
Permit memo.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Consider waiving the public hearing. Review the requested
Wetlands Permit with the applicants and make a recommendation to
the City Council.
JED/KLB:mlk
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."
_
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 thepublic hearing is a decision
madelby 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 in order to be exempt from a public
hearing (and its expense in both tiiue 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 at the time of application.'
ACTION REOUIRED''
This information is being provided to outline the procedures
'urrently used to process Wetland Permit requests. Council should
.dopt a motion acknowledging receipt of the information and, if
modifications to the process are desired, direct staff to make such
modifications as necessary.
rroveQ QU(-( 2( Ifni(
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: 23 July 1991
CASE NUMBER: 91-26
APPLICANT: Home Enhancers Inc.,
Richard J. Rodney Jr.
LOCATION: 1299 Laura Street
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
Wetlands Permit for
screened porch
1. The subject property is located adjacent to one of the
three branches of Ivy Creek, which runs through the
northern portion of the City and is designated on the
Official Wetland Systems Map. The applicant in this case
is the contractor who is being hired to construct a
screened porch on the rear of the home owned by Bob and
Sharon Flynn. The porch would be located within .94 feet
of the creek as indicated on the applicant's site plan.
This plan is not a survey, and the dimensions shown on it
should be verified in the field prior to the issue of the
building permit should the wetland permit be approved.
2. The proposed porch is to be 14 feet by 14 feet in size and
is to be of simple construction with cedar posts and
decking. The roof appears to bea gable roof with
shingles to match the existing roof. The height of the
structure is well within the permitted height within the
R-1 district.
3. Since this is a wetland permit, the principal criteria for
determining whether the proposed porch meets the standards
in the Wetland Systems Ordinance are related the removal
of vegetation, or otherwise significantly affecting the
natural environment adjacent to the creek, the potential
for soil erosion during or after construction, the
aesthetic impact on the surrounding area, and the
possibility for flood damage to the structure.
4. The proposed porch will not result in the removal of any
vegetation according to the applicant. In addition, the
proposed porch is basically a deck type construction with
post footings and, therefore, requires very little
excavation. This type of construction is of little
concern with respect to soil erosion. The elevation of
Ivy Creek through this area is significantly lower than
Richard Rodney, Case No. 91-26 Page 2
the adjacent properties. The creek bed appears to be
roughly 12 to 14 feet lower than the existing grade in the
area where the porch is to be located. The porch is also
to be elevated 18 inches above the existing grade, thus,
eliminating any concern for flood damage.
5. We have little concern regarding to the aesthetic impact
on the surrounding area. The area surrounding this creek
has been fully developed for some time. The applicant's
proposed porch addition is consistent with the character
of the surrounding neighborhood. Many of the adjacent
homes have decks and porches that orient toward the creek,
which is similar to the applicant's proposed porch. Also,
the area adjacent to the creek is heavily wooded
throughout the neighborhood and, thus, the homes are well
screened from one another. In addition, the surrounding
property owners have reviewed the plans for the proposed
porch and have signed the consent form indicating that
they have no objection to its construction.
6. Without knowing some of the specific details with respect
to the interior layout of the Flynn's home we would offer
the following additional observations for consideration.
First, the size of the porch (196 square feet) is a
reasonable addition for this size home and lot. However,
it seems that the amount of encroachment on the wetland
area could be reduced in several ways. One way would be
to change the form of the porch to a rectangle. For
example, if the structure were 1.0 feet by. 19 feet, the
same basic area could be created with 4 feet less
encroachment on the 100 -foot wetland area. Another option
that could be explored involves moving the porch further
to the north since there is more room between the creek
and house on this end of the lot. Of course this
arrangement would result in the porch being accessed by a
different room in the house, which may not be appropriate.
A third option could be a combination of the previous two
suggestions, move the porch over slightly and change the
dimensions slightly.
7. While these options could reduce or eliminate the amount
of encroachment on the wetland area, the current proposed
design meets the criteria for a wetland permit and should
result in no adverse impact to the adjacent creek or the
surrounding neighborhood.
•',1)2
// '
/I`. ss s
/`_ —J —c
4 1
1 r/ ,•''
O. T
—
•
•
,,
, . i
/
•
SUBJECT PROPERTY
NORTH t
SCALE V=800'
h
tl
(i(
/
SOMERSET
COUNTRY
CLUB
8
GOLF
COURSE
( Private)
;I
-
r.1114-
44 o
10
7
J
t36.
O
c
s
C
0-
0
1
4
f
>-
49
5
CL 4
6
1
OO,-; ft B lfb'/-�
/9rx/er-sor?
Ff
0
!o
1,7 3q�
R.L.S.
B
N
s•., `,99.io
SUBJECT PROPERTY
NORTH T
SCALE 1"=200'
0
J
/SO
S
30
N
N
d
7
Sa
fi/o's.Ec//
zo61l�sKRe
!o a o
®b 2Ge7� A-� c / iGl7e-8
/114(
/4
E4f-C gSON A7 VEArf
/./
c7= -7i tl
IND. 5cHoc
z
HOME ENHANCERS, INC.
8609 Lyndale Ave. S.
Blmgtn., MN 55420
Jim Wiebusch Owner
To Whom It May Concern:
We propose to install a 14X14 Post & Beam Screen Porch for your
neighbor Bob and Sharon Flynn. This porch will be attached to
the back side of their home and will be constructed according
to the building codes depicted by the City of Mendota Heights.
The reason for this letter is to, not only inform you folks
of our intentions but to meet the requirements of the Planning
Commission and/or City Council. We are required to obtain your
consent because the structure will encroach upon the 1001(foot)
Wetlands Setback by approximately 4'(feet).
Signiture of consent:
7
3 ,7
Respectfully,
Richard J Rodney Jr.
Sales Representative
.1
HOME ENHANCERS, INC.
8609 Lyndale Ave. S.
Blmgtn., MN 55420
Jim Wiebusch Owner
To Whom It May Concern:
We propose to install a 14X14 Post & Beam Screen Porch for your
neighbor Bob and Sharon Flynn. This porch will be attached to
the back side of their home and will be constructed according
to the building codes depicted by the City of Mendota Heights.
The reason for this letter is to, not only inform you folks
of our intentions but to meet the requirements of the Planning
Commission and/or City Council. We are required to *obtain your
consent because the structure will encroach upon the 1001(foot)
Wetlands Setback by approximately 4'(feet).
Respectfully,
Si:niture of consent:
Richard J Rodney Jr.
Sales Representative
HOME ENHANCERS, INC.
8609 Lyndale Ave. S.
Blmgtn., MN 55420
Jim Wiebusch Owner
To Whom It May Concern:
We propose to install a 14X14 Post & Beam Screen Porch for your
neighbor Bob and Sharon Flynn. This porch will be attached to
the back side of their home and will be constructed according
to the building codes depicted by the City of Mendota Heights.
The reason for this letter is to, not only inform you folks
of our intentions but to meet the -requirements of the Planning
Commission and/or City Council. We are required to obtain your
consent because the structure will encroach upon the 100'(foot)
Wetlands Setback by approximately 4'(feet).
Respectfully,
Richard J Rodney Jr.
Sales Representative
Signiture of consent:
80 Sy /vAkt.dQ fe Rd,
HOME ENHANCERS, INC.
8609 Lyndale Ave. S.
Blmgtn., MN 55420
Jim Wiebusch Owner
To Whom It May Concern:
We propose to install a 14X14 Post & Beam Screen Porch for your
neighbor Bob and Sharon Flynn. This porch will be attached to
the back side of their home and will be constructed according
to the building codes depicted by the City of Mendota Heights.
The reason for this letter is to, not only inform you folks
of our intentions but to meet the requirements of the Planning
Commission and/or City Council. We are required to obtain your
consent because the structure will encroach upon the 100'(foot)
Wetlands Setback by approximately 41(feet).
Signature of consent:
y 14
Respectfully,
Richard J Rodney Jr.
Sales Representative
City of
Mendota Heights
Applicant Name:
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
Case No. q% -a%
Date of Ap lication %-9 -9/
Jjg. Fee Paid /6R. #i a4 / 3A/ °‘/3/- a0
Roth-Yt y ?iciidIRO
afl g ��.�cicS , y, 1
(Last) (First) (MI)
Address: �6' % I a 4 �Y. S. BIGt,m n� ki , /1'%1 / 6-57-4726
fie. PH: SP/- 6/O2.
Owner Name:
(Number & Street) (City) (State) (MP)
(Last)
Address: /2 99 ./.4tve,¢ �'/ -
(Number & Street)
(Ft) (M
all o t4- . W 7 gr?
(may) Mate) (ZiP)
Street Location of Property in Question: .54-m-6-
Legal
541
Legal Description of Property: - . lock 3
;f(0h
Tripe of Request:
Rezoning
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D.
Plan Approval
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Applicable City Ordinance Number Z.
Variance
Subdivision Approval
X Wetlands Permit
Other (attach explanation)
Present Zoning of Property R-1 Present Use
Section
5 t cam- (.c--
. { (no. c -e
Proposed Zoning of Property :' ( Proposed Use
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request
material are true.
tt
11
7- 9- 9,/
(Date)
ved'by -Tide)
1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights MN - 55118 452-1850
Date
v
or in thelriulding at the above job address: Home Enhancers, Inc agrees to furnish and znstall the following Materials and
GUARANTEES to do work in a-worlananhice ma -main accordance with standard Oractices, according to the following '
. • : •. • • •• , • t.,.; •
• •
'4=;':`04.-p•
- • • • • .4- • .
• •
• - =. • ";;;•.: .
•-;'&
•••• • • —
. • • -
• "
••••"'
,:s.•-•::.`•,4 •
• c.
, . •
Z4r
.19
". szs•—i•:;••;.., • •
ne:at "
.4,-
74
•.54 Aral "•-•
). '44.417:at
•••=./.4.
• .i.,":.44.:'0144j.:
•.
at; specificayisted • ed.for
• 0 -
w
• ‘••••hildbit:
.f.;*
. •
of regowithmna4wre be edconip1eziou
•
en watversto -. •
„ • : .
$
City of
Eamil Mendota Heights
July 16, 1991
Mr. & Mrs. Bob Flynn
1299 Laura Street
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Flynn:
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. July 23, 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:mlk
•
Enclosures: Planning Commission Agenda
Planner's Report
City Staff Report
011 Victoria Curve' -Mendota Heights, MN 55118 4524850
City of
Mendota Heights
July 26, 1991
Mr. Bob Flynn
1299 Laura Street
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Flynn:
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, August 6, 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 City Council
grant a Wetlands Permit allowing construction of the proposed porch
to within 94' of the wetlands.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kevin Batchelder
Administrative Assistant
KLB:mlk
Enclosures: City Council Agenda
Staff Memo to City Council
1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 -
LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
August 6, 1991
Concrete Licenses
Concrete Specialists, Inc.
Hart Masonry, Inc.
Kroon Masonry
Simon Brothers Cement Co.
SteinKraus Construction
Zierhut Brick & Stone
Excavating Licenses
Capitol Utilities
Marty Brothers
Schield Construction Co.
Gas Piping Licenses
Boehm Heating Company
Horwitz, Inc.
Johnson, Dale -Plumbing
Suburban Air
General Contractors Licenses
All Poolside Services, Inc.
Bald Eagle Siding
Barrington Homes
Bruggeman Construction
Builders & Remodelers, Inc.
Design 1 Ltd.
Fenc-co, Inc.
GenErik Htg. & Cooling, Inc.
Heartland Industries
Keystone Builders Corporation
Kopp, C.E.-Const. Co., Inc.
Lundgren Bros. Const., Inc.
Pfoser Construction Co.
Single Ply Systems
Theis Construction Co.
Van Horn & Son Const.
Heating & Air Conditioning Licenses
Horwitz, Inc.
Suburban Air Conditioning
Plaster License
Hendrickson Bros. Drywall, Inc.
Suburban Stucco
41.
•••
August 6, 1991
TO: Mayor and City Council
• CLAIMS LIST SUMMARY:
Total.C1Rimq
Significant Claims
$ 142,160
League Minn Cities Dues 5,023
Med Centers. • Health Ins 8,720
MWCC Sewer chgs 36,049
Unusual Claims
Approved Electrice Park Bldg 4,630
BOE Ornamenta 5,581
ft
Interstate Lumber 19,961
JTS Service 1,788
M. W. Cedar 4,463
Zimmerman Exteriors 2,986
Commissioner of Trspt Storm sewere Hwy 13 15,273
2 Auo 1991
Fri 2:02 PM
Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp.
Check
Nurnber Vendor Name
1 A T & T
1 A T & T
1 A T & T
1 A T & T
4
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber
1
2 AT&T
2 AT&T
2 AT&T
2 AT&T
8
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Temp Check Nurnber 3
3 Ace Hardware
Totals Ternp Check Number
Ternp Check Nurnber 4
UCill. 1V—H(LU 1/Cp1L :JV—ncia-o114yC
8/6/91 Claims List 15-Engre 60-Utiltties Parse 1
City of Mendota Heights 20 -Police 70 -Parks
30 -Fire 80 -Planning
40 -CEO 85 -Recycling
90 -Animal Control
Account Code
01-4210-110-10
01-4210-020-20
01-4210-040-40
01-4210-030-30
1
Comments Amount
ld calls
ld calls
ld calls
ld calls
16.86
5.92
1.33
5.04
29. 15
01-4210-020-20 Aug svc 14.70
01-4210-050-50 Aug svc 10.52
01-4210-070-70 Aug svc 32.53
15-4210-060-60 Aug svc 10.53
08-4335-000-00
3
68.28
splys 15.99
4 Alexander Battery North 01-4305-020-20 splys
4 Alexander Battery North 05-4300-105-15 splys
8
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 4
Ternp Check Nurnber 5
5 Air Conditioning Assoc Inc 01-4335-315-30
5
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 6'
5
6 Albinson 05-4300-105-15
6 Albinson 27-4305-836-00
12
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 6
Ternp Check Nurnber 7
7 American National Bank 25-4226-000-00
•
rprs
splys
splys
r.m
fees 78 bds
15.99
188.07
125.38
313.45
180.00
180.00
6.30
235.34
241.64
110.00
t
2 Aug 1991 Claims List. Pane 2
Fri 2:02 PM City of Mendota Heights
Ternp Check Nurnber 7
Ternp.
Check
Nurnber Vendor Name
7
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 8
8 Approved Electric
Account Code Comments Amount
110.00
7
09-4460-000-00 Re 89-6 I2 4.750.00
8 4.750.00
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 8
Ternp Check Nurnber 9
9 B T L Construction
9
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 10
09-4460-000-00
9
10 Board of Water Commissioners 08-4425-000-00
10 Board of Water Commissioners 01-4425-315-30
10 Board of Water Commissioners 15-4425-310-60
30
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 10
Ternp Check Nurnber 11
11 Blaeser Landscape
11
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Number
12 B 0 E Ornamental
12 B 0 E Ornamental
24 ....
Totals Temp Check Number
12
Ternp Check Nurnber 13
13 Boland Bros
13
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 14
14 Burnsville Lumber Co
14
08-4335-000-00
Re 89-6 I2 4.630.48
Jun svc
Jun svc
Jury svc
rprs
4. 630.48
304.28
161.32
7.13
472.73
0
125.00
125.00 0
09-4460-000-00 Re 89-6 I 2 4.196.00
094460-000-00 „ Re 89-6 I 2 1,385.00
12
01-4335-315-30
13 1-...s
05-4300-105-15
5,581.00
Jun lawn care,- , T • 230.00
splys
• 1 ... '. ._.
230. 00
•
204.96
204.96
0
C )
0
0
0
2 Aug 1991 Claims List Pape 3
Fri 2:02 PM City of Mendota Heights
Ternp Check Number 14 0
Ternp.
Check ,}
Number Vendor Name Account Cade Comments Amount
Totals Ternp Check Number 14 0
Ternp Check Number 15
15 Commissioner of Trsot 55-4460-850-00 Re 90-4 412.27
15 Commissioner of Trspt 01-4211-420-50 rprs 215.28
15 Commissioner of Trsot 17-4460-000-00 City sh storm sewer 14,645.70 -}
45 15. 273. 25 r
Totals Ternp Check Number 15
Ternp Check Number 16
?*i
16 Commercial Asphalt
01-4422-050-50 rnix
255.77
16 255.77
Totals Ternp Check Number 16
Ternp Check Number 17
17 Corrigan Electric
17
Totals Ternp Check Number
Ternp Check Number 18
18 Creative Colors
18
Totals Ternp Check Number
Ternp Check Number 19
01-4211-420-50
17
01-4424-050-50
18
19 Dakota County Auditor 01-4220-130-10
19 Dakota County Auditor 05-4220-130-15
19 Dakota County Auditor 15-4220-130-60
57
Totals Ternp Check Number 19
Ternp Check Number 20
20 Jaynes Danielson 05-4415-105-15
20
Totals Ternp Check Number 20
Ternp Check Number 21
21 Dennis Delmont
21
01-4415-020-20
rprs
63.36
63. 36
solus 249.15
rnisc audit fees
rnisc audit fees
rnisc audit fees
249.15
65.00
65. 00
65.00
195.00
Aug allow 120.00
1 20. 00
Aug allow 120.00
120.00
2 Aug 1991 Claims List Pape 4
Fri 2:02 PM City of Mendota Heights
Temp Check Number 21
Ternp.
Check
Number Vender Narne
Account Cade
Totals Ternp Check Number 21
Ternp Check Number 22
22 Dictaphone 01-4300-020-20
22
Totals Ternp Check Number 22
Ternp Check Number
23 Fieldstone Cabinentry Inc 01-4131-020-20
23
Totals Ternp Check Number 23
Ternp Check Number 24
24 Fire Watch
24
Totals Ternp Check Number
Ternp Check Number
25
01-4305-020-20
24
Cornrnent s Amount
solys
Auo Re Garlock
solys
25 First Trust 37-4226-000-00 fees 78 bds
25 First Trust 14-4226-000-00 fees 78 bds
25 First Trust 11-4226-000-00 fees 78 bds
75
Totals Ternp Check Number 25
Temp Check Number 26
26 F B S Capital Mkt Grp
26
Totals Temp Check Number
Ternp Check Number 27
01-4490-110-10
26
74.00
74.00
78.00
78. 00
46.50
46.50
129.00
230. 00
57.50
416.50
safe keeping fee 50.00
50. 00
27 Fisher Photo Supply 01-4305-020-20 spivs 11.51
27 11.51
Totals Ternp Check Number 27
Ternp Check Number 28
28 First Interstate Bank Trustee 01-2071
28 First Interstate Bank Trustee 01-4132-020-20
Aug prem
Aug prem
177.51
83.31
2 Aug 1991 Claims List Page 5
Fri 2:02 PM City of Mendota Heiohts
Ternp Check Nurnber 28
Temp.
Check
Nurnber Vendor Name Account Cade Comments Amount
28 First Interstate Bank Trustee 01-4132-050-50 Aug prem 42.53
84 303.35
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 28
Ternp Check Nurnber 29
29 Friden Alcatel 01-4300-110-10 solus 41.00
29 41.00
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 29
Ternp Check Nurnber 30
30 Goodyear Service Store 01-4330-440-20
30 Goodyear Service Store 01-4330-440-20
60
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 30
Ternp Check Nurnber 31
31 Grafix Shoppe
01-4610-020-20
rars
rprs
9.75
9.75
19.50
Re new squads 700.00
31 700.00
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 31
Ternp Check Nurnber 32
32 ICMA R T
32 1 C 11 R T
01-2072
01-4134-110-10
7/12 payroll 175.72
7/12 payroll 91.32
64 267.04
32 { )
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
(1
Ternp Check Nurnber 33
33 Interstate Lumber 09-4460-000-00 19,960.93
33 19,960.93
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 33
Ternp Check Nurnber 34
34 J T S Svcs Inc 09-4460-000-00 Re 89-6 I 2 1,183.00
34 J T S Svcs Inc 09-4460-000-00 Re 89-6 I 2 605.00
68 1,788.00
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 34
Ternp Check Nurnber 35
35 Paul Kaiser 01-4268-150-30 Jul svc 694.20
2 Aug 1991
Claims List Pape 6
Fri 2:02 PM City of Mendota Heights
Ternp Check Number 35 -1
Ternp.
Check
Number Vendor Name
Account Code
35 Paul Kaiser 01-4415-030-30
70
Comments Amount
exp reirnb 12.92
707.12
Totals Ternp Check Number 35 l
Ternp Check Number 36
.j
36 Knox Commercial Credit 08-4335-000-00 solys
36 Knox Cornrnercial Credit 09-4460-000-00 splys 89-6 I 2
36 Knox Commercial Credit 01-4330-215-70 solus li
36 Knox Commercial Credit 01-4305-050-50 splys
85.77
127.10
154.09
5.89
144
Totals Ternp Check Number 36
Ternp Check Number 37
37 Knutson Rubbish Service
37
Totals Ternp Check Number
08-4335-000-00
37
372. 85
Jul svc 60.06
60.06
:l
tl
Ternp Check Number 38
38 Thomas Knuth 72-4415-835-00 exp reirno 78.92 4:.r
38 Thomas Knuth 09-4415-000-00 exp reirnb 69.58
38 Thomas Knuth 33-4415-841-00 exp reirnb 16.50
38 Thomas Knuth 36-4415-843-00 exp reirnb 2.75 (3
38 Thomas Knuth 41-4415-846-00 exp reirnb 5.50
38 Thomas Knuth 05-4415-105-15 exp reirnb 2.75
38 Thomas Knuth 05-4415-105-15 Aug allow 10.00 it
266 186.00
Totals Temp Check Number 38 it
Ternp Check Number 39
39 Krechs Office Machines 01-4300-110-10 copier splys
39 Krechs Office Machines 01-4300-030-30 copier splys
39 Krechs Office Machines 01-4300-040-40 copier solys
39 Krechs Office Machines 01-4300-050-50 copier splys
39 Krechs Office Machines 01-4300-080-80 copier splys
39 Krechs Office Machines 05-4300-105-15 copier splys
39 Krechs Office Machines 15-4300-060-60 copier splys
39 Krechs Office Machines 01-4400-109-09 copier splys
39 Krechs Office Machines 01-4300-070-70 copier splys
351
Totals Ternp Check Number 39
Ternp Check Number 40
40 Kustarn Electronics
01-4305-020-20 splys
475. 45
79.70
71.95
37.70
161.90
311.00
37.70
71.90
37. 70
1.2285.00
51.10
2 Aug 1991
Claims List
Fri 2:02 PM City of Mendota Heights
Ternp Check Nurnber 40
Ternp.
Check
Number Vendor Name Account Code
40
Totals Temp Check Nurnber 40
Temp Check Number 41
41 L E L S 01-2075
41
Totals Temp Check Number 41
Temp Check Number 42
Comments
Auo dues
Pape 7
Amount
51.10
275.00
275.00
42 Guy Kullander 09-4415-000-00 exp reimb 226.51
42 Guy Kullander 08-4335-000-00 exp reimb 5.04
42 Guy Kullander 01-4415-110-10 exp rimb 7.42
42 Guy Kullander 01-4490-109-09 exp reimb 15.74
42 Guy Kullander 05-4415-105-15 exp reimb 7.42
210 262.13
Totals Temp Check Nurnber 42
Temp Check Number 43
43 Legal Systems Inc 01-4136-110-10
43 Legal Systems Inc 01-4136-020-20
43 Legal Systems Inc 01-4136-030-30
43 Legal Systems Inc 01-4136-040-40
43 Legal Systems Inc 01-4136-050-50
43 Legal Systems Inc 01-4136-070-70
43 Legal Systems Inc 05-4136-105-15
43 Legal Systems Inc 15-4136-060-60
344
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 43
Temp Check Number 44
44 League of MN Cities
44 League of MN Cities
88
Totals Temp Check Nurnber
Temp Check Number
45 Lakeland Ford
45
01-2074
01-4131-020-20
44
01-4330-460-30
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Aug prem
Aug prem
rprs
295.90
295.90
295.90
295.90
295.85
295.85
295.85
295.85
2.367.00
544.84
813.27
1,358.11
466.33
45
466.33
Totals Ternp Check Number 45
Temp Check Number 46
2 Aug 1991 Claims List Page 8
Fri 2:02 PM City of Mendota Heights
Temp Check Nurnber 46
Ternp.
Check
Nurnber Vendor Name
Account Code
46 M Thomas Lawell 01-4415-020-20
46
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 46
Ternp Check Nurnber 47
47 League Mn Cities 01-4404-110-10
47 League Mn Cities 01-1215
47 League Mn Cities 01-4400-110-10
141
Totals Ternp Check Number. 47
Ternp Check Nurnber 48
48 Leef Bros 01-4335-310-50
48 Leef Bros 01-4335-310-70
48 Leef Bros 15-4335-310-60
144
Totais Terno Check Nurnber 48
Ternp Check Nurnber 49
Comments Amount
Aug allow 175.00
4 rnos 91 dues
8 rnos 92 dues
Regr Lawell
Jul svc
Jul svc
Jul svc
175.00
1. 644.00
3, 289.00
90. 00
5.023.00
9.96
9..J6
9.96
29. 88
49 L & M Painting 09-4460-000-00 Re 89-6 I 2 1,435.00
49 L & M Painting 09-4460-000-00 Re 89-6F 30.00
98 1,465.00
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 49
Ternp Check Nurnber 50
50 Med Centers H P 01-2074
50 Med Centers H P 01-4131-110-10
50 Med Centers H P 01-4131-020-20
50 Med Centers H P 01-4131-040-40
50 Med Centers H P 01-4131-050-50
50 Med Centers H P 01-4131-070-70
50 Med Centers H P 05-4131-105-15
50 Med Centers H P 08-4110-000-00
50 Med Centers H P 15-4131-060-60
450
Totais Ternp Check Nurnber 50
Ternp Check Number 51
51 Mendota Heights Landscape 01-4500-050-50
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
1,406. 85
1,244.80
2,750.35
500.00
1,161.45
205.75
872.40
122.40
455.80
8,719.80
tree removal 375.00
51 375.00
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 51
r)
2 Auo 1991 Claims List Page 9
Fri 2:02 PM City of Mendota Heights
Ternp Check Number
52
Ternp.
Check
Number Vendor Narne Account Code Comments Amount
52 Metro Sales 01-4330-440-20 rntcn contract 673.00
52 Metro Sales 01-4300-020-20 toner 61.35
104 734.35
Totals Ternp Check Number 52
Ternp Check Number 53
53 Metra Waste Control 15-4449-060-60 Auo svc
53 Metro Waste Control 17-3575 Aug svc
106
Totals Ternp Check Number 53
38,845.08
2,796.08cr
36,049.00
Ternp Check Number 54
54 Midwest Business Products 01-4300-110-10 splys 36.44
54 36.44
Totals Ternp Check Number 54
Ternp Check Number =c-
55
555 Midwest Cedar Supply 09-4460-000-00 Re 89-6 I 2 4,462.81
55
Totals Ternp Check Number
Ternp Check Number 56
55
4,462.81
56 Midwest Mchy 01-4330-490-70 solus 22.65
56 22.65
Totals Ternp Check Number 56
Ternp Check Number 57
57 Minn Cellular Tele Co 01-4200-610-20
57 Minn Cellular Tele Co 01-4200-610-20
57 Minn Cellular Tele Co 01-4200-610-30
171
Totals Ternp Check Number 57
Ternp Check Number 58
58 Minnesota Playground Inc
58
Totals Ternp Check Number
Ternp Check Number 59
09-4460-000-00
58
Jul svc
Jul svc
Jul svc
9.38
15. 16
10.15
34. 69
Re Sibley 89-6 2,443.75
2,443.75
2 Aug 1991
Fri 2:02 PM
Ternp Check Nurnber
59
Claims List Page 10
City of Mendota Heights
Ternp.
Check
Nurnber Vendor Narne Account Code Comments Amount
59 Minn Sex Crime Iry Assn 01-4400-020-20 dues 30.00
59 30.00
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 59
Ternp Check Nurnber 60
60 Minn Mutual Life Iris 01-2072
60 Minn Mutual Life Ins 01-2074
60 Minn Mutual Life Ins 01-4131-110-10
60 Minn Mutual Life Ins 01-4131-020-20
60 Minn Mutual Life Ins 01-4131-070-70
60 Minn Mutual Life Ins 08-4110-000-00
360
Totals Temp Check Nurnber 60
Ternp Check Nurnber 61
61 Minnesota Benefit Assn 01-2074
61 Minnesota Benefit Assn 01-4131-110-10
61 Minnesota Benefit Assn 05-4131-105-15
61 Minnesota Benefit Assn 01-4131-020-20
61 Minnesota Benefit Assn 01-4131-050-50
61 Minnesota Benefit Assn 01-4131-070-70
61 Minnesota Benefit Assn 15-4131-060-60
427
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 61
Ternp Check Nurnber 62
62 Minn Police Recruitment System 01-4404-020-20
62
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 62
Ternp Check Nurnber 63
7/26 payroll
Aup prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aup prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aug prern
Aup prern
400. 00
229. 07
1.70
3.40
3.40
1.70
639. 27
186.84
251.88
377. 78
680.81
235.32
374.98
117.40
25.01
1991 dues 260.00
260. 00
63 Natl Fire Protection 01-4404-030-30 dues 75.00
63
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 63
Ternp Check Nurnber 64
64 National Camera Exchange 01-2127
64
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 64
Ternp Check Nurnber
65
eq
75. 00
499. 80
499. 80
2 Aug 1991 Claims List Page 11
Fri 2:02 PM City of Mendota Heights
Ternp Check Nurnber 65
Ternp.
Check
Nurnber Vendor Narne
65 Needles Co
65 Needles Co
130
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 66
Account Code Comments Amount
01-4305-030-30 splys 22.95
15-4305-060-60 splys 22.98
45. 93
65
66 Northern State Power 01-4211-300-50
Jul svc 385.87
66 385.87
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 66
Ternp Check Nurnber 67
67 Northern Air Corp
67
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 68
68 Oakcrest Kennels
68 Oakcrest Kernels
136
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
08-4335-000-00
67
01-4221-800-90
01-4225-800-90
68
rors
Jul svc
Jul svc
Ternp Check Nurnber 69
69 Osland Janitorial Sply 08-4335-000-00 splys
69
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 69
Ternp Check Nurnber 70
70 Oxygen Service Co 08-4335-000-00 act thru 7/15
70
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 70
Tenip Check Nurnber 71
71 P C Computing 01-4402-110-10 renewal
71
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 71
Ternp Check Nurnber 72
72 Pilgrim Cleaners 01-4305-020-20 cing svc
60. 00
60. 00
125.00
24.00
149.00
19.85
19.85
13.50
13.50
12.97
12.97
3.00
2 Aug 1991
Fri 2:02 PM
Ternp Check Nurnber 72
Ternp.
Check
Nurnber Vendor Narne
72
Totals Temp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 73
73 Bob Preiner
73
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 74
74 Road Rescue
74
Totals Temp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 75
75 Ruff Cut
75
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 76
76 Rossini Nelson & Rossini
76 Rossini Nelson & Rossini
76 Rossini Nelson & Rossini
76 Rossini Nelson & Rossini
76 Rossini Nelson & Rossini
76 Rossini Nelson & Rossini
76 Rossini Nelson & Rossini
76 Rossini Nelson & Rossini
608
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 77
77 Sanitary Products Co
77 Sanitary Products Co
154
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 78
p A
p A
p A
p A
p A
p A
P A
p A
78 Sensible Land Use Coalition
Claims List Page 12
City of Mendota Heights
Account Code
72
01-4330-490-70
73
01-2127
74
01-4490-040-40
75
01-4136-110-10
01-4136-020-20
01-4136-030-30
01-4136-040-40
01-4136-050-50
01-4136-070-70
05-4136-105-15
15-4136-060-60
76
08-4335-000-00
08-4335-000-00
77
01-4400-110-10
Comments
exp reirnb
squad eq
weed cutting
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
Re flex benefits
splys
splys
addtl regr
Amount
3.00
42.40
42.40
2,549.17
2.549.17
340.00
340.00
79.60
79.60
79.60
79.60
79.65
79.65
79.65
79.65
637.00
274.78
78.20
352.98
10.00
78 10.00
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
78
•
2 Aug 1991
Fri 2:02 PM
Ternp Check Number 79
Temp.
Check
Number Vendor Name
79 Seven Corners Ace Hdwe
79
Totals Ternp Check Number
Ternp Check Number 80
Claims List Page 13
City of Mendota Heights
Account Code
09-4460-000-00
79
80 L E Shaughnessy Jr 01-4220-132-10
80 L E Shauohnessy Jr 05-4220-132-15
80 L E Shaughnessy Jr 15-4220-132-60
80 L E Shauohnessy Jr 03-4220-132-00
80 L E Shaughnessy Jr 21-4220-132-00
80 L E Shaughnessy Jr 14-4220-132-00
80 L E Shaughnessy Jr 16-4220-132-00
560
Totals Ternp Check Number 80
Ternp Check Number 81
81 David Sorby 01-4410-050-50
81
Totals Ternp Check Number 81
Ternp Check Number 82
82 So St Paul Bee Line SVc 01-4330-440-20
82
Totals Ternp Check Number 82
Ternp Check Number 83
83 Southview Chev
01-4330-440-20
Comments
solys 89-6 I 2
Jul svc
Jul svc
Jul svc
Jul svc
Jul svc
Jul svc
Jul svc
Amount
32. 03
32.03
1.639.30
166.85
267.00
150.15
200. 20
1.376.50
371.25
--------
4.171.25
exp reirnb 48.94
48.94
rprs 26.50
26.50
parts 2242 5.58
83 5.58
Totals Ternp Check Number
Temp Check Number 84
84 St Paul Book & Stationery 05-4300-105-15 splys 12.09
84 12.09
Totals Ternp Check Number 84
Ternp Check Number 85
85 Station Nineteen Arch, Inc 09-4220-000-00 Re 89-6 I 2 281.73
85 281.73
Totals Ternp Check Number 85
2 Auo 1991 Claims List page 14
Fri 2:02 PM City of Mendota Heights
Ternp Check Nurnber 86
Ternp.
Check
Nurnber Vendor Name Account Code Comments Amount
86 Suri Sales 15-4305-060-60 splys 62.00
86 62.00
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 86
Ternp Check Nurnber 87
87 Sun Newspapers 01-4240-080-80 Re Centex 154.56
87 154.56
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 87
Ternp Check Nurnber 88
88 Tessrnan Seed Inc 01-4330-215-70 solys 148.33
88 148.33
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 88
Ternp Check Nurnber 89
89 Terminal Sply Co 01-4330-490-50 splys 16.95
89 Terminal Sply Co 01-4330-490-70 splys 16.95
89 Terminal Sply Co 15-4330-490-60 splys 16.93
267 50.83
Totals Terno Check Nurnber 89
Ternp Check Nurnber 90
90 Terrys Rubber Svc 01-4330-460-30
90
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 90
Ternp Check Nurnber 91
91 Twin City Saw & Service 01-4330-490-50
91 Twin City Saw & Service 01-4330-490-70
91 Twiri City Saw & Service 01-4330-490-50
91 Twin City Saw & Service 01-4330-490-70
364
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 91
Ternp Check Nurnber 92
92 U S West Cc•rnrnunicatic•ris
92 U S West Communications
92 U S West Communications
}
01-4210-110-10
01-4210-020-20
01-4210-040-40
rprs
rprs
rprs
rprs
rprs
Jul svc
Jul svc
Jul svc
50.00
50.00
105.25
105.28
14.40
14.45
239.38
254.49
324.03
46.62
0
2 Aug 1991
Claims List Pape 15
Fri 2:02 PM City of Mendota Heights
Ternp Check Nurnber 92
Ternp.
Check
Number Vendor Narne
Account Code
92 U S West Communications 05-4210-105-15
92 U S West Communications 15-4210-060-60
92 U S West Communications 01-4210-030-30
92 U S West Communications 01-4210-050-50
92 U S West Communications 01-4210-070-70
92 U S West Communications 15-4210-060-60
828
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 92
Ternp Check Nurnber 93
Comments Amount
Jul svc 139.09
Jul svc 50.56
Jul svc 95.70
Jul svc 44.78
Jul svc 44.78
Jul svc 44.78
1,044.83
93 Uniforms Unlimited 01-4410-020-20 solus Currie 182.85
93 182.85
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 93
Ternp Check Nurnber 94
94 United Way St Paul
94
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber
Ternp Check Nurnber 95
01-2070
94
95 Vision Energy 01-4330-490-50
95
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 95
Ternp Check Nurnber 96
96 Western Life Iris
May contr
solus
196.00
196.00
22.95
22. 95
n
1„)
01-4132-031-30 Aug prem 111.80 {�
96 111.80
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 96
Ternp Check Number 97
97 Zee Medical Svc 01-4305-050-50
97 Zee Medical Svc 01-4305-070-70
97 Zee Medical Svc 15-4305-060-60
291
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 97
Ternp Check Nurnber 98
splys
splys
splys
11. 10
11.10
11.10
33.30
98 Zimmerman Exteriors 09-4460-000-00 Re 89-6 I 2 2,986.19
98 2,986.19
Totals Ternp Check Nurnber 98
t
•
2 Aug 1991
Fri 2:02 PM
Ternp Check Number
Temp.
Check
Number Vendor Narne
10495
Grand Total
98
Claims List Pave 16
City of Mendota Heights
Account Cade
MANUAL CHECKS
13230
13231
13232
13233
13234
13235
13236
13237
13239
13240
13241
13242
15.00
290.65
164.50
200.00
3,614.52
300.00
8,349.03
3,259.55
43,791.44
14,343.89
150.00
150.00
13243-247 345.00
13248
13249
13250
13251
13252
13253
3,614.52
300.00
8,104.79
14,096.96
3,246.80
45,726.78
150,063.43
G.T. 292,222.93
Comments
Sensible Land Coi&ition
Southview Chev
Trophy House
Diane Ward
State Capitol C. U.
Dakota County Bank
PERA
Commissioner of REv
Payroll acct
Dakota County Bank
Minn Dept of Health
District Court
Umpires
State Capitol C. U.
Dakota County Bank
PERA
Dakota County Bank
Commissioner of REvenue
Payroll a/c
Amount
142. 159.50
Regr
P. D.
Softball
7/12 payroll dedu thoas
rr
6/28 payroll
7/12 sit
7/12 net payroll
7/12 w/h
pl review 90-4
P. D.
Softball
7/26 payroll deductions
7/12 payroll
7/26 w/h
7/26 sit
7/26 net payroll
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
August 2, 1991
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator
FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Director
Kevin L. Batchelder, Administrative Ass'
SUBJECT: Kensington Phase II - Settlement Plan
BACKGROUND:
During negotiations with Centex, Council established five
major areas of criteria to be addressed in order for a plan to be
acceptable. At the July 2, 1991 City Council meeting, Council
determined that all the criteria established had been met and
ordered public hearings for review of final drawings. Council
accepted this concept as a proposed settlement of the Centex
lawsuit that resulted from the rezoning denial on August 7, 1990.
The Parks Commission reviewed the proposed park dedication
at their July 9, 1991 meeting. (See attached Park Minutes
included in the attached Planning Commission memo). On July 18,
1991, City staff conducted an open house for interested residents
to view the newly submitted, detailed plans. This open house was
published in the Sun Current and attended mainly by manor home
residents concerned about changes involved with the replatting of
Phase I and the location of the carriage homes adjacent to the
manor homes.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on July
23, 1991 to review the plans, receive input from the public and
to create a public record for Council's review tonight. The
Planning Commission minutes have been forwarded to the Council
with this agenda packet. The detailed staff review of the plans
is included in the Planning Commission memo and not repeated
here.
Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has met with
the developer and outlined the conditions, suggestions and items
of concern that arose at the Planning Commission hearing and are
to be addressed by the developer prior to tonight's public
hearing. The developer has provided a written response and the
revised plans that are included in this packet. (See July 25th
staff letter and July 31st Centex Homes letter).
411
DISCUSSION:
Centex Homes is requesting a settlement to the lawsuit in
asking for the City's approval tonight of Kensington Phase II.
The specific approvals that are requested are:
1. Rezoning
2. Preliminary and Final Plan Approval for a Conditional
Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development.
3. Preliminary and Final Plat Approvals
4. Wetlands Permit Approvals
5. Vacation of streets to be realigned in Kensington
Phase I
The Planning Commission generated a list of 18 conditions,
suggestions or items of concern for the developer to address
prior to the August 6, 1991 City Council meeting. These 18 items
are listed in Planning Commission Minutes and in the attached
July 25, 1991 letter to the developer.
The developer has responded, in writing, to each item on the
list and has submitted new plans showing the corrections made.
Please note the new preliminary plat and final plat are the only
plans that show the minor lot adjustments that were made in
response to the Planning Commission's request. There is a
driveway plan for Morson Circle and Winthrop Court, as requested.
A revised landscape plan shows the berming and plantings along I-
494 and the relocation and screening for Lots 11 and 12, Block 5
adjacent to the existing manor homes. The carriage home
buildings on Lots 11 and 12 have been moved slightly eastward and'
some additional parking was added in response to manor home
residents concerns.
The developer has responded to the Planning Commission's
concern about tree preservation and mass grading in the Owen's
Pond area with a proposal to work with a surveyor and forester to
individually treat wooded lots and the clearing for streets.
This proposal is outlined in the Centex Homes letter. Lot
adjustments, in response to the Planning Commission requests,
have been made as indicated in the Centex letter. For the most
part, Centex has complied with the Commission on suggested
technical changes to the plan, or has indicated in the letter why
they haven't made the suggested changes. The park dedication has
been corrected, on the preliminary plat, to coincide with the
420' north/south dimension of the concept plan, however, the
submitted final plat does not show this correction.
The location of Outlot A has been an item of discussion
amongst staff, developer and Planning Commission. We agree with
the developer. that the best location for Outlot A is where it is
shown. We also believe that an Outlot, which Centex agrees to
deed to the City, is the best legal manner to handle access in
the future for the land south of Kensington Phase II.
r
•
Council needs to review the Planning Commission suggestions
and the developer's response and determine if the concerns have
been adequately addressed.
STREET VACATION:
Part of Kensington - Phase I is being replatted to eliminate
some manor homes and be included with Phase II. The roads and
easements within this replatted area need to be vacated so that
they can be replatted to conform to the alignments needed for
Phase II.
REZONING:
The underlying zoning of the proposed Kensington project is
R -1A, R -1B and R-1. (See attached Planning Commission package
that includes a zoning map). The Comprehensive Plan guides this
area to be zoned as MR -PUD and HR -PUD. The developer's request
is to rezone the property consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
CUP FOR PUD:
The developer is requesting that both the preliminary and
final plan for the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit
Development be approved tonight. As indicated in the Planning
Commission memo, storm sewer plans, watermain plans, and grading
plans have not been submitted in sufficient detail for review by
the Engineering staff. In addition, landscape plans have been
submitted only on a large scale drawing.
The developers have proposed a developer's agreement that
states they would be willing to comply with staff approval on all
engineering review of their plans. The landscape plan is also
made contingent upon staff approval in the proposed developer's
agreement. The City Attorney and the developer's Attorney are
working towards a developer's agreement acceptable to both sides
for submittal on Tuesday evening.
Any conditions Council wishes to place on Kensington Phase
II should be stated for inclusion in the Developer's Agreement.
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Centex desires to have both Preliminary and Final Plat
approved at tonight's meeting and intends to come back with
completed final plats for the Mayor's signature either as one
plat or in phases. Staff review of the final plat finds that
several sewer easements need to be added and the southerly park's
north - south dimension needs to be increased to match the
preliminary plat. Engineering staff is currently reviewing the
final plat and will submit changes to Centex prior to signature
by the City.
WETLANDS PERMIT:
WETLANDS
This property includes three wetlands areas that are
designated within the City's Wetlands Ordinance. Wetlands
setbacks less than 100 feet are designated on the preliminary
plat and development plan. These setbacks have been measured
utilizing an 80 foot SFD housing pad, normally a 60 foot pad is
utilized. This 80 foot setback should be more than ample to
include any decks that would be constructed in the future. The
following is a listing of the structures that require a wetlands
permit.
Building
LOT BLOCK. SETBACK IN FEET
4 Block 2 80
5 Block 2 10
1 Block 3 45
7 Block 3 45
8 Block 3 40 Front
60 Rear
9 Block 3 45
10 Block 3 40
11 Block 3 50
13 Block 3 80
14 Block 3 60
15 Block 3 60
16 Block 3 60
17 Block 3 80
24 Block 3 80
25 Block 3 60
26 Block 3 50
27 Block 3 55
30 Block 3 50
31 Block 3 20
32 Block 3 40
35 Block 3 55
36 Block 3 30
37 Block 3 30
38 Block 3 40
39 Block 3 40
40 Block 3 70
41 Block 3 70 Front
40 Rear
42 Block 3 35
43 Block 3 35
44 Block 3 55
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously that the City
Council approve the settlement plans including rezoning, CUP for
PUD, Preliminary Plat and Wetlands Permit, with a list of 18
conditions (as outlined in letter to developer dated July 25,
1991) .
ACTION REQUIRED:
Conduct the public hearings to consider the Rezoning, the
CUP for a PUD, Preliminary Plat, Wetlands Permits and street and
utility vacation for Kensington Phase II. If Council desires to
approve the project - Kensington PUD Phase II, they should
consider the following actions:
1. A motion to approve the rezoning by approving Ordinance
Nos. & , AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
401. (One for MR -PUD and one for HR -PUD.)
2. A motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development stating the terms and
conditions to list in a resolution to be prepared by
staff based on tonight's decision. This motion should
also authorize the Mayor to execute the resolution
approving the CUP for PUD and the Develpor's Agreement
that will also list the terms and conditions.
3. A motion approving the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat
with Phased Final Plats to be approved by resolution on
consent agendas as the project is developed.
4. A motion approving the Wetlands Permits as listed
above.
5. A motion adopting Resolution No. 91- , A RESOLUTION
APPROVING VACATION OF STREET RIGHT OF WAYS AND DRAINAGE
AND UTILITY EASEMENTS.
JED/KLB:mlk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 401
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
ordains as follows:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 401, known and referred to as
the "Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended in the
following respects:
A. The following described property, commonly referred to
as Kensington Planned Unit Development, Phase II,
situated in the City of Mendota Heights in Dakota
County, Minnesota, is hereby rezoned from an "R-1," and
"R -1A" One Family Residential Districts, as the case
may be, to an "HR -PUD" High -Density Residential Planned
Unit Development to -wit:
(Description available Tuesday Evening)
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Mendota Heights
referred to and described in said Ordinance No. 401 as that
certain map entitled "Zoning Map of Mendota Heights" shall not be
published to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the City Clerk
shall appropriately mark the said Zoning Map on file the Clerk's
office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove
provided for in this Ordinance, and all of the notations, refer-
ences and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated
by reference and made a part of this Ordinance.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be
from and after its publication according to
Enacted and ordained into an Ordinance this
1991.
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
full force and effect
law.
Sixth day of August,
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 401
The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota
ordains as follows:
Section 1. Ordinance No. 401, known and referred to as
the "Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance," is hereby amended in the
following respects:
A. The following described property, commonly referred to
as Kensington Planned Unit Development, Phase II,
situated in the City of Mendota Heights in Dakota
County, Minnesota, is hereby rezoned from an "R-1," "R -
1A" and "R -1B", One Family Residential Districts, as
the case may be, to an "MR -PUD" High -Density Residen-
tial Planned Unit Development to -wit:
(Description available Tuesday Evening)
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Mendota Heights
referred to and described in said Ordinance No. 401 as that
certain map entitled "Zoning Map of Mendota Heights" shall not be
published to show the aforesaid rezoning, but the City Clerk
shall appropriately mark the said Zoning Map on file the Clerk's
office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove
provided for in this Ordinance, and all of the notations, refer-
ences and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated
by reference and made a part of this Ordinance.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be
from and after its publication according to
Enacted and ordained into an Ordinance this
1991.
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
full force and effect
law.
Sixth day of August,
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Charles E. Mertensotto, Mayor
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 91 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING VACATION OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAYS
AND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Mendota Heights is the current record owner of a
street right-of-way as described as follows;
That part of the following described streets situated in Mendota
Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota:
All of Lockwood Drive as dedicated in the plat of KENSINGTON
P.U.D., according to the recorded plat thereof.
That part of Concord Way as dedicated in the plat of KENSINGTON
P.U.D., according to the recorded plat thereof, which lies east-
erly of the southerly extension of the west line of Lot 4, Block
2 of said KENSINGTON P.U.D.
That part of the following described drainage and utility easements
situated in Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota:
All of the drainage and utility easements that lie within Lots 1,
2, and 3, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 2, and Lot 6,
Block 3, as dedicated in the plat of KENSINGTON P.U.D., according
to the recorded plat thereof.
and
WHEREAS, a notice of hearing on said vacation has been duly published
and posted more than two weeks before the date scheduled for the
hearing on said vacation, all in accordance with the applicable Minne-
sota Statutes; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said vacation on August 6, 1991,
at 8:00 o'clock P.M. or as soon as possible thereafter, at the City
Hall of the City of Mendota Heights; and
WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interest-
ed in said vacation and all persons were afforded an opportunity to
present their views and objections to the granting of said petition.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the vacation of the street right-of-ways and drainage
and utility easements described above, situated in the City
of Mendota Heights, is in the best interest of the public
and the City, and is not detrimental to the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
2. That the above described street right-of-ways, drainage and
utility easements be and the same is hereby vacated.
3. That the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized and directed
to prepare and present to the proper Dakota County officials
a notice of completion of these vacation proceedings, all in
accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th
day of August, 1991.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
Charles E. Mertensotto,
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: 23 July 1991
CASE NUMBER: 90-03
APPLICANT: Centex Corporation
LOCATION: South of Mendota Heights
Road, North of I-494,
West of Delaware Avenue
(see sketch)
ACTION REQUESTED:
GENERAL OVERVIEW
Rezoning, Preliminary
and Final Development
Plan Approval,
Preliminary and Final
Plat Approval, Wetlands
Permits, and Developers
Agreement Approval.
The current plans for the area known as Kensington Phase II are
significantly different than the previous plans that have been
reviewed for this site. The mix and type of units have changed
to include more single-family and fewer multi -family units.
The overall number of units has been reduced to a total of 385
units, including the 80 Manor Homes located in the Phase I
area. This represents a reduction of 170 units over the
original plan and 24 units fewer than the last plan reviewed by
the Planning Commission.
The current plan also reduces the number of residential units
located near the power line to a minimum. There are only five
single-family lots that abut the power line easement. In
addition, all or portions of 12 townhome units are within 100
feet of the easement.
The current proposal is for 306 units on 95.9 acres. The
project includes 98 single-family lots, 138 Carriage Homes and
70 Townhomes. The Sketch Plan that was reviewed by the Council
showed 305 units total with only 69 townhomes. The current
plan has an additional townhome unit on Lot 4 of Block 6. The
proposal also includes 12.9 acres of park divided into two
separate areas.
The smaller of the two (4.4 acres) is located along the south
side of Mendota Heights Road directly south of Huber Drive.
The other area is 8.5 acres and is located near I-494, which is
similar to the previous plans. The proposed park acreage
satisfies the 10 percent park dedication for the entire
Kensington project area including Phase I.
The roadway system within the project area is comprised
primarily of dedicated public streets. There is only one
private roadway remaining and it is located with an area of
townhomes toward the western end of the property. The roadways
are intentionally arranged in a circuitous pattern in order to
discourage through traffic from circulating through the project
and into the existing single-family neighborhood to the north.
The two primary roadways, Concord Way and Lockwood Drive, are
provided 60 foot wide ROW, while the remainder of the public
streets have 55 foot ROW widths. The streets themselves are 34
feet wide in all cases with 80 foot diameter cul-de-sacs.
These standards are adequate for local streets.
The project area falls into two different land use designations
on the current Land Use Guide Plan. The area generally west of
the power line easement is guided for HR -PUD with a recommended
density of 8 units per acre. The rest of the site is
designated MR -PUD with a density of 4 units per acre. The
current plan has a net density within the area guided MR -PUD of
approximately 2.2 units per acre. The density in the HR -PUD
portion of the project area is approximately 6.2 units per
acre. The combined net density of the project is" 3.6 units per
acre. The proposed density of the project is well within the
intent of the current adopted Land Use Guide Plan.
Single -Family Area
Generally, the proposed plan divides the site into two areas
with the dividing line being the power line easement, which runs
through the property from the southeast to the northwest.
Development east of the power line would be single-family homes
with lots ranging in size from a few at just over 13,000 square
feet to one or two at nearly 50,000 square feet. The
predominant character of the single-family area will be that of
a large lot development.
The City established a list of criteria with respect to the lot
size and lot width that were deemed acceptable for the
single-family lots within the project area. The criteria are
intended to allow the developer to vary from the typical
15,000 -square -foot lot for a certain percentage of the total
lots. The same is true for the lot widths. Basically, the
criteria stated that up to 10 percent of the single-family lots
could be in the 13,000- to 13,999 -square -foot range. Another
10 percent could be in the 14,000- to 14,999 -square -foot range
and the remaining 80 percent must 15,000 square feet or larger.
The current plan, like the one reviewed in November of last
year, has lots that are platted out into the ponds and wetlands
on the site. The lot sizes indicated on the Preliminary Plat
and Development Plan include the water area. However, the
water was excluded from these lots for the purpose of analyzing
the plan's compliance with the lot size criteria. The proposed
plan meets these criteria and the actual breakdown is listed
below:
BREAKDOWN OF SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS BY AREA
13,000 - 13,999 SF:
14,000 - 14,999 SF:
15,000 or larger:
9 lots (9.2%)
9 lots (9.2%)
80 lots (81.6%)
The lot width criteria are similar. There are three
categories: 20 percent of the lots are allowed to be 80 to 89
feet in width, another 20 percent can be 90 to 99 feet wide,
and the remainder must meet or exceed the standard 100 -foot -lot
width. The proposed plan has a few discrepancies with respect
this criteria. The actual breakdown is listed below:
BREAKDOWN OF SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS BY WIDTH
100 feet or greater:
90 feet - 99 feet:
80 feet - 89 feet:
less than 80 feet:
48 lots (49%)
23 lots (23.5%)
12 lots (12.2%)
15 lots (15.3%)
The less than 80 feet category includes eight flag lots and two
lots that are landlocked and will require permanent access
easements in order to be developed. Since the applicant is
requesting preliminary and final plat approval, the Commission
should take note that the easements do not show up on the final
plat drawings and should be included prior to Council
approval.
Multi -Family Area
The remainder of the residential development on the property
would consist of two different types of multi -family units.
Generally, the most densely developed area is in the southwest
corner of the site, adjacent to the freeway. The units
proposed for this area are called Carriage Homes. Basically,
this is a two-story unit with tuck under garages similar to a
quad-plex were the interior units share three walls and the end
units share two walls. The units are arranged in clusters of
ten or twelve per building and are designed so that at least
one of the shared walls is always a garage wall. These units
are intended to be the most affordable of the two multi -family
type units.
The remainder of the multi -family housing is proposed to be
two-story townhome type units with tuck under garages. This
plan has no individual garages as the previous plans did.
The plan has been designed so that there are no multi -family
units directly adjacent to single-family lots. One of the
primary concerns of the adjacent residential neighborhood to
the north was that in the previous plans there was multifamily
housing located directly across Mendota Heights Road from
single-family homes. The current plan locates single-family
housing or park land all along the south side of Mendota
Heights Road where there are existing single-family homes on
the north side of the road.
Parking
The proposed plan supplies more than adequate parking to serve
the multi -family housing within the project area. The Mendota
Heights Zoning Ordinance currently requires two parking stalls
per unit within all residential districts. In the area of the
Carriage Homes the parking ratio is approximately 2.7 stalls
per unit. The ratio for the townhomes is three stalls per
unit. A breakdown of the parking provided is listed below:
CARRIAGE HOMES
PARKING BREAKDOWN
Enclosed:
In Driveways (1 per unit):
Other Surface Parking:
Total Provided:
Total Required:
TOWNHOMES
- Enclosed:
In Driveways (1 per unit):
Total Provided:
Total Required:
186 stalls
138 stalls
49 stalls
373 stalls
276 stalls
140 stalls
70 stalls
210 stalls
140 stalls
There are a few places within the Carriage Homes area where
parking stalls are located within 10 feet of a housing unit or
very near a property line adjacent to a public ROW. Lot 4 of
Block 5 has a cluster of five parking stalls that are squeezed
in between the unit and the street. One or two of these stalls
should be removed to allow more room for landscaping in this
area. A similar situation exists for the parking cluster on
Lot 8, Block 5.
Building Spacing and Setback
During the review of previous plans, several standards were
established for maintaining adequate distance between the
residential structures, garages, and surface parking areas on
the site. These standards are somewhat less crucial now since
the detached garages have been eliminated and the amount of
hard surface has been reduced. However, it is still important
to maintain adequate distance between the multi -family dwelling
units in order to preserve a sense of privacy and avoid the
feeling of overcrowding. For this review, we continued to use
the standard of 50 feet between residential structures when
they are facing each other and 30 feet where the structures are
oriented with the ends or corners together. The current plan
was•also checked for compliance with the minimum setback from
the public ROW that was established as 30 feet in previous
reviews.
Generally, the proposed plan meets or exceeds the criteria for
building spacing. The only exception is the buildings on Lots
1 and 2 of Block 7, which are located within 28 feet of each
other at the rear corner. There are two buildings that do not
meet the minimum setback standard of 30 feet -- the building on
Lot 6, Block 5 and the building on Lot 12, Block 5. Both of
these structures appear to be located approximately 28 feet
from the ROW. In both cases there is room to move the
structure back and meet the standard.
Wetlands Permit
The applicant is also requesting the wetlands permits for the
entire project at this time. The lots which will require
wetlands permits are located in the single-family area. The
Development Plan shows a wetland setback for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4
of Block 7 in the townhomes area. However, a wetland permit
was granted previously for this area and the grading has
already been done so no additional permit will be necessary.
The lots within the single-family area where permits will be
required are indicated on the Preliminary Plat and Development
Plan. The dimension of the setback from the pond to the edge
of the area where construction activities would occur is
indicated on those lots requiring a permit. In cases where a
lot is adjacent to more than one wetland, there are setback
dimensions shown from both ponds.
The wetland setback shown assumes a total buildable area of 80
feet deep from the front yard setback. This area includes 50
feet for the house, 15 feet for a deck, and 15 feet for
additional grading activities and vegetation removal to
accommodate the house and deck.
There are three wetlands affected by the proposed development
within the single-family area. The largest is roughly in the
center of the site and is known as Owens Pond. The second
largest wetland, which we will refer to as the South Pond, is
the long narrow wetland directly south of Owens Pond. The
third wetland, which will be referred to as the East Pond, is a
small narrow area located east of the South Pond. Only a small
portion of this wetland is located within the project area. In
some cases a lot requires a permit. The following is a list of
the lots that require permits and the proposed setback as
indicated on the Preliminary Plat and Development Plan:
LOTS REQUIRING WETLANDS PERMITS
Owens Pond
Block 3
Lots:8 (60 feet)
9 (45 feet)
10 (40 feet)
11 (50 feet)
13 (80 feet)
14 (60 feet)
15 (60 feet)
16 (60 feet)
17 (80 feet)
24 (80 feet)
25 (60 feet)
26 (50 feet)
27 (55 feet)
30 (50 feet)
31 (20 feet)
32 (40 feet)
35 (55 feet)
36 (30 feet)
37 (30 feet)
38 (40 feet)
39 (40 feet)
40 (70 feet)
41 (40 feet)
South Pond East Pond
Block 3 Block 2
Lots: 7 (40 feet) Lots: 4 (80 feet)
8 (40 feet) 5 (10 feet)
41 (70 feet)
42 (35 feet)
43 (35 feet)
44 (55 feet)
A total of 30 lots are affected by the proposed development.
The proposed setbacks on fourteen of these lots are less than
half of the preferred 100 -foot dimension identified in the
Wetland Systems Ordinance. This is similar to the way in which
the Copperfield and Hampshire Estates areas were developed. In
those subdivisions a scenic easement was established around the
edge of the ponds to insure that the sensitive shoreline area
is not disturbed and to preserve some of the natural appearance
of the wetland environment.
A cursory review of the Preliminary Grading and Landscape Plans
reveals that development of many of the lots adjacent to the
wetland areas will require significant grading and vegetation
removal. Criteria 18 through 23 in the Wetland Systems
Ordinance outline the standards for minimizing impacts during
construction in those areas where grading and vegetation
removal is unavoidable. Should this plan go forward, these
standards should be strictly enforced.
Criteria Number 23 states that development in wooded areas
shall not reduce the existing crown cover by more than 50
percent. It is difficult to determine whether this standard
would be violated based on the plans submitted by the
applicant. More detailed drawings identifying vegetation to be
removed should be required prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
There are two lots in the development that do not meet the
standard requiring lowest floor elevations to be at least 3
feet above the highest known water level. Lots 6 and 7 of
Block 3 are shown as having walk -out type homes on them on the
Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan. The lowest floor
elevation of these units is identified as 862 and 863
respectively. Since the 100 -year -flood elevation of the
adjacent wetland is shown at 866, these units must maintain an
elevation of at least 869.
Landscaping
The Landscaping as shown on the Landscape Plan submitted by the
applicants is very weak. No plantings are indicated on the
berm separating the freeway from the multi -family units along
the southern portion of the project area. Nor is there any
consideration for the edge between the parks and the
multi -family units that abut them in several locations. No
effort has been made to enhance the environment within the
multi -family area. Rather the plants appear to be randomly
placed with no particular objective in mind.
More emphasis should be placed on creating spaces within the
open areas between the multi -family housing units. Plantings
should be placed to screen parking areas from the units and
the public ROW. More uniform street plantings should be added'
in the multi -family neighborhood to strengthen and unify the
image of the area. Plantings should be arranged in clusters to
create stronger massings.
The details included for the monument signs are adequate.
There is no indication of how many of these signs will be
provided or where they are to be located. The planting detail
shown for the Carriage Home units is adequate, though the use
of Taunton Yew should be limited to east and north exposures.
The proposed plan offers a solution to many of the concerns
expressed by the residents of the surrounding neighborhoods.
The number of units has been substantially reduced, the street
pattern will reduce the likelihood of traffic generated by the
project exiting the area through the adjacent single-family
neighborhood to the north, and the expansion of the
single-family area creates a more compatible relationship with
the properties north of Mendota Heights Road. In addition, the
relationship of the surrounding development to the power line
has been improved over previous plans. The plan also has its
shortcomings. The amount of park land has been reduced and the
area around Owens Pond that was originally to be utilized as
passive open space will now be platted as part of the
single-family lots. The impact on the wetlands within the
single-family area is also of significant concern. Every
effort should be made to minimize the loss of vegetation and
the potential for soil erosion and runoff diminishing the water
quality and wildlife habitat in and around these wetlands.
MOATwEPh
EtASE.Ek t p
KAtEl C
-HIGHWAY 494
r
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
TO: Tom Lawell
City Administrator
FROM: John P. Maczko
Fire Chief
MEMO
SUBJECT: Review of Centex Development
July 25, 1991
The following comments are from my review of the plat and
utility plan for the Kensington Phase II development.
Street Names
I would like to ask that street names be consistent where
possible. Example: Where Pond Circle West is on the north side
of Mendota Heights Road and Haverton Road is on the south side of
Mendota Heights Road, directly across from Pond Circle, I would
suggest that the name stay consistent. I would also suggest that
Sutton Court and Langford Circle be renamed as there are already
streets in different parts of the City that have very similar
names. I would also like to ask what the name of the street is
going to be between Stockbridge and Witfield. I would assume
that it is Witfield but I do not know for sure.
Posting of House Addresses
The next area of concern is the adequate posting of address-
es. A number of the lots have very unique geometrics to them
that make them invisible from the road. Examples of those lots
would be Lots 8, 9, 41, 44, 45. Conventional methods of house
addresses on the house will not be adequate to direct emergency
responders to the proper location. I would suggest that they
propose some other method, in addition to the house numbers, that
is utilized on the roadway directing emergency personnel to the
proper addresses.
Adequate Ingress/Egress
Lots that have long drives across through other lots (i.e.
Lots 8 and 9, Lots 44 and 45) the driveways must be wide enough
to accommodate fire appratus and if there are any trees the trees
have to be kept clear to a height of fifteen (15) feet to allow
emergency response access.
In the manor home area, I would like to see adequate turning
radii, enough to allow truck movement in the manor home areas.
This is not to say there should be enough to turn a vehicle
around but enough so that when we corner we don't drive over
curbs. Some of the driveways allow through operation, they
appear to look adequate on the drawing but it is hard to say
until we actually see the actual widths and radii.
Parking
Parking may need to be banned on all areas other than drive-
ways to be able to get access into these manor home areas and on
Clairmont Drive to allow adequate access for fire apparatus.
Private Driveways and Street
It will also be very critical snowplowing and snow removal
be adequate on the driveways to the manor homes and on Clairmont
Drive to permit fire apparatus to drive through the areas. It
may sound that I am being picky on this point but I know of
several other cities that have had problems on privately owned
streets so it is best that we put the developer on notice that we
expect this to occur.
Hydrants
The water supply and hydrant locations look to be adequate
with the exception of the one in front of the townhome unit #7 on
Concord Way. I would like to see the hydrant relocated to the
northeast corner of Clairmont Drive and Concord Way.
Access during Construction
I would also like to remind the developer that adequate
access to all buildings must be maintained during construction
should there be a fire or a need for us to get to the area. This
requirement is also spelled out in the Minnesota Uniform Fire
Code.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further,
please contact me.
cc: Jim Danielson
Dennis Delmont
City of
!JJ Mendota Heights
July 9, 1991
Dear Kensington Area Resident,
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with an update of
the.Kensington Phase II development proposal. Since last summer's
public hearings a number of events have occurred and residents are
now being invited to provide additional comments on the issue.
Enclosed please find a formal notice of public hearing scheduled
before the Planning Commission on July 23, 1991 to discuss a
concept settlement plan for the Kensington Phase II area. Perhaps
a recap of the progress which has been made on this issue over the
past 12 months will be helpful as background information.
On August 7, 1990 the original Centex plan for Kensington
failed to receive the requested rezoning from the City Council.
Following that action by the City, Centex Corporation, offered a
compromise plan to the City that was referred to the November
Planning Commission meeting. Centex Corporation was not encouraged
by the results of the Planning Commission review and in January
1991 filed a lawsuit enjoining the City for the denied rezoning.
In April 1991 the City Council directed Tim Malloy, City
Planner with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, to study the possibility
for amending the City's Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Area.
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 concept 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. At the July 2, 1991 City Council meeting, the Council
accepted a proposed settlement plan and ordered the above scheduled
public hearing for consideration of the more formal plans for
Rezoning, Planned Unit Development, Wetlands Permits and
Preliminary Plat.
City Council also scheduled an open house for July 18, 1991 at
City Hall from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. to provide interested residents a
more informal atmosphere to review plans and inform themselves
prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
Sincerely, Sincerely,
Kevin Batchelder
Administrative Assistant
mes Danison
lic Works Director
1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118. 452.1850
ok5 809F
SATHRE — BERGQUIST, INC.
0
co
o/ 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391
cl‘
co
s Q (612) 476-6000 FAX 476-0104
co
NON P\ -Ps
July 2, 1991
,KENSINGTON PHASE II
CENTEX - MENDOI'A HEIGHTS
Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 1; Lots 1, 2, 3, & 4, Block 2; Lot 6, Block 3;
Outlots E, F and G; Lockwood Drive; and that part of Concord Way lying
east of the southerly extension of the west line of Lot 4, Block 2, of
said KENSINGTON P.U.D. according to the recorded plat on file in Dakota
County, Minnesota.
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 said Southeast Quarter; thence
North 00 degrees 12 minutes 37 seconds West, bearing assumed, along the
east line of said Southeast Quarter, a distance of 721.62 feet to a
point on a line parallel with and 103.40 feet southerly of, as measured
perpendicular to the north line of the south 50 rods of the South Half
of said Southeast Quarter and the point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence North 00 degrees 12 minutes 37 seconds West,
continuing along said east line of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of
451.79 feet; thence South 84 degrees 52 minutes 58 seconds West, a
distance of 364.29 feet to a point on a line parallel with and 362.95
feet westerly of, as measured perpendicular to, said east line of the
Southeast Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 12 minutes 37 seconds West,
along said parallel line, a distance of 287.00 feet; thence North 80
degrees 49 minutes 39 seconds East, a distance 367.44 feet to said east
line of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 12 minutes 37
seconds West, along said east line of the Southeast Quarter, distance of
327.49 feet to the north line of the South 30 rods of the North Half of
said Southeast Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 22 minutes 52 seconds
West, along said north line of the South 30 rods, a distance of 1611.37
feet; thence South 00 degrees 12 minutes 37 seconds East, parallel with
said east line of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 988.46 feet to
said north line of the South 50 rods of the South Half of said Southeast
Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 24 minutes 31 seconds FQGt, along said
north line of the South 50 rods, a distance of 138.51 feet; thence South
20 degrees 16 minutes 08 seconds East, a distance of 109.80 feet to a
line parallel with and 103.40 feet southerly of, as measured
perpendicular to, said north line of the South 50 rods; thence north 89
degrees 24 minutes 31 seconds East, along said parallel line, a distance
of 1435.19 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to easements,
restrictions, and reservations of record, if any. EXCEPT that part
embraced within the plat of HAMPSHIRE ESTATES, according to the recorded
plat thereof.
Outlot A, HAMPSHIRE ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof.
That part of the South 1815.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section
36, Township 28, Range 23 which lies westerly and southwesterly of a
line described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said
Southeast Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 24 minutes 06 seconds West,
assumed basis for bearings, 1097.00 feet along the south line of said
Southeast Quarter; thence North 0 degrees 35 minutes 54 seconds West
395.50 feet; thence North 74 degrees 48 minutes 54 seconds, West 252.00
feet; thence North 20 degrees 14 minutes 55 seconds West 383.28 feet to
the north line of the South 825.00 feet of said Southeast Quarter;
thence South 89 degrees 24 minutes 06 seconds West 130.07 feet along
said north line to the east line of the West 1032.56 feet of said
Southeast Quarter; thence North 0 degrees 27 minutes 53 seconds West
990.00 feet along said east line to the north line of the South 1815.00
feet of said Southeast Quarter and said line there terminating. EXCEPT
that part of said 1815.00 feet which lies within the right-of-way of
Interstate Highway No. 494 as established by MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 19-57, on file or record in the
office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota. Also except
that part embraced within the plat of HAMPSHIRE ESTATES according to the
recorded plat thereof.
That part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36,
Township 28, Range 23, which lies easterly of the plat of KENSINGTON
P.U.D. according to the recorded plat thereof and which lies southerly
of the westerly extension of a line drawn 40.00 feet south of and
p rallel with the north line of the South 1815.00 feet of the Southeast
Quarter of said Section 36. EXCEPT that part of the East Half of the
Southwest Quarter as shown -on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 19-56, on file and of record in the office of the
County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota.
CE HOMES
Designed for today. Built for tomorrow.
July 31, 1991
City of Mendota Heights
City Council and Staff
11011 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
RE: Kensington Phase II
The following is our response to each item as highlighted in Mr. Kevin
Batchelder's letter to Centex dated July 25, 1991.
1. The two Carriage Home buildings nearest to the Manor Homes have been
shifted easterly, increasing the horizontal separation between the
different buildings. Also, additional landscaping has been added to
the transition area. Constructing Manor Homes on the east side of
Heritage Drive would be a worse transition than what is currently
proposed. The Carriage Home driveways and garages would appear to be
in the rear yards of the Manor Homes.
2. The Developer acknowledges the significance of the natural wooded
environment on the eastern portions of this site and understands the
City's desire to preserve significant trees where possible. To protect
and enhance these wooded areas (specifically east of "Ovens Pond") the
following steps will be taken by the developer.
In areas of street and utility construction within the wooded portions
of the site, the developer will work with a surveyor and a forester to
establish the best alignment for improvements given the types and
sizes of trees as well as health and likelihood of survival after
construction.
The developer will not "mass grade' all the wooded lots. The
construction phase vill include clearing of street and soil correction
areas and protection of remainder of wooded area ,Where root
protection is needed adjacent to construction areas"vibratory plow'
will be used to clean-cut the root zone prior to4digging:.Fencing villi,,
be installed in areas where no construction is allowed.; a+' +�'•
Cooperation of small utility contractors i important sorr`+that..after-
the street is in, the gas main contractor does„ notcome' in ' and , cut
across the root zone.
During home construction the forester will be availabletto consulter'.':_ .
with the builder to protect the trees to be retainedand to•.locate,,th
home on the lot with the "best trees" retained. onst'ructionl
YC
techniques adjacent to various tree species vilbe explainedran
appropriate measures taken.
This approach will result in the rightitrees being pr ectedliththe
highest likelihood of survival.
Baker Technology Plaza, 5929 Baker Road, Suite 470, Minnetonka, Minnesota55345f/-(612):-.93&7833%J.
1
City of Mendota Heights (cont.)
Page 2
3. A. Adjustment made on plan.
B. Lots will be graded at time of house construction, front walk -outs
will be considered.
C. Will leave as proposed.
D. Configuration is a result of land use change from multi -family to
single family. (see driveway plan)
E. Developer acknowledges that special care will be necessary to
develop this lot.
F. Adjustment made on plan.
G. Lot is of adequate size.
H. 6% slope is reasonable for a driveway. All driveways will be
reviewed by engineering and building departments prior to
construction.
4. All lots are in compliance with established criteria on revised plan.
5. See #1, revised landscaped plan and revised site plan.
6. An 8-10 foot high berm will be constructed between I-494 and the
Carriage Home area. See landscape plan for berm plantings.
7. All basement floor elevations will be a minimum of 3 feet above the
established ordinary high water levels for the adjacent ponding areas.
(see revised plans)
8. The total number of units, as well as the building types were
previously found to be acceptable by the City Council.
9. Changing Claremont Drive to a public right of way will result in
decreased common green space in the rear yards as well as decreasing
the separation from the power lines for some units.
Snov removal for all private roads and drives, including up to each
unit, vill be accomplished by a private snow removal contractor which
will be hired by the homeowners association. Landscaping and other
exterior maintenance will be handled in a similar fashion.
10. Centex has offered to make it's Manor Home models available to the
City for noise measurements.
11. It is not the developer's intent to include Outlot B in the park
dedication of this time.
City of Mendota Heights (cont.)
Page 3
12. Dr. Owen's homesite has been included in the revised final plat.
13. Outlot A works best in it's proposed location. It will be deeded to
the City upon recording of the final plat.
14. See driveway plan.
15. A 30 foot minimum separation between multi -family buildings, as well
as a 30 foot setback to public rights of way will be provided.
16. All driveway slopes, as well as roadway grades will be reviewed and
approved by the building and/or engineering departments prior to
construction. We believe that the 3% maximum is not reasonable.
17. See #3b. Individual setback variances will be considered in an attempt
to accommodate the natural terrain and woodlands.
18. Storm water computations will be reviewed by the engineering staff.
Enclosed with this letter are 10 revised sets of the plans for this
project.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact
our office.
Sincerely,
CENTEX HOMES
Daniel A. Blake
Land Development Manager
enclosures
cc: Mr. John Bannigan
DB2/ctymnhts/cd
ingaMiUit
R'_:Y�.
KENSINGTON PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
As City 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 - Allowable number of units in
Kensington was established at 385, including the existing
manor homes in Phase I.
2. Multi- family/Single family - Only single family units east 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. Required 55' R.O.W. for the less traveled
lower density single family residential areas. B618 curbs
required.
4. Parks - Required to provide the minimum park dedication (10%
of land area) with usable park land. Northern park area to
include the existing comfort station and to be of sufficient
size to include tot lot, a dimensioned area for a possible
practice soccer field, and amenities. The southern park area
needed to 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. Required was a trail
link to Delaware Avenue from the soccer area and a trail link
from the southern park area to the northern park area and
Mendota Heights Road. Developer will balance quantity of
soils for park 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 to 14,999 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 is 10 ' side yard setbacks and 30 ' rear yard
setbacks.
A quality assurance plan would be submitted.
Square Foot Area
13,000 - 13,999
14,000 - 14,999
15,000 +
LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS
Actual Criteria
5 or 5% 10 or 10%
7 or 7% 10 or 10%
86 or 88% 78 or 80%
Total 98 - 100% 98 - 100%
LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS
Frontage in Feet
80 - 89
90 - 99
100 +
Actual Criteria
13 or 13% 19 or 20%
26 or 27% 20 or 20%
59 or 60% 59 or 60%
Total 98 - 100% 98 - 100%
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS
Unapproved 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
Total 555 385
* Dwelling unit counts include existing Phase I.
min JAA A A Aa,
City of
Mendota Heights
July 25, 1991
Mr. Tom Boyce
Mr. Dan Blake
Centex Real Estate Corporation
5929 Baker Road, Suite 470
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Dear Mr. Boyce and Mr. Blake:
As you are aware, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing for the Kensington PUD, Phase II on the evening of July 23,
1991 to consider Centex Homes' request for a Rezoning, Preliminary
and Final Plan Approval for a Conditional Use Permit for Planned
Unit Development, Preliminary Plat and Wetlands Permits. During
the course of that hearing a number of concerns and technical
issues were raised regarding the submitted plans and the Planning
Commission listed a number of items for you, as the developer, to
address prior to the August 6, 1991 public hearing with the City
Council.
The purpose of this letter is to document the specific requests for
response that the Planning Commission directed you to provide prior
to the next public hearing in order to address their recommended
conditions, suggestions and items of concern. Your response should
be directed to city staff by August 1, 1991 in order to allow for
staff review prior to the August 6, 1991 City Council meeting.
At the Planning Commission's public hearing, you were asked to
address the following conditions, suggestions or items of concern.
1. Consider adjustments to address the transition area between
the manor homes in Phase I and the back •to back townhomes in
Phase II, particularly consider manor homes on both sides of
Heritage Way.
2. The Planning Commission has a primary concern for protecting -trees on the single family lots, especially around Owens Pond
and Haverton Circle. They suggested a Tree Preservation
Committee of Planning Commissioners and citizens to" work
closely with the developer throughout construction and provide > j
a quarterly report to City Council on tree preservation.' They k
suggested documentation of existing tree growth by videotape.
The Planning Commission's intent is to provide the City with
a measure for leverage in the preservation of trees in the i
area.
1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850 ' '
Mr. Boyce and Mr. Blake
July 25, 1991
page 2
3. A number of specific lot adjustments, or fine tuning were
recommended as conditions. They are:
Block 1, Lots 3 and 6 Lot 3 is only 13,600 sq. ft.
and Lot 6 is 24,800. Suggest a
balance in this cul-de-sac.
Block 1, Lots 4, 17, 18, 22 Grading and front walk outs
considered for these lots to
protect trees and lot grades.
Block 3, Lot 22 Too small for Mendota Hts.
Road.
Block 3, Lots 24, 25, 26, Narrow necks and the close
27, 30, 31, 32 proximity of driveways needs
adjustment or response.
Block 3, Lot 8 Front and rear wetlands
setbacks needed for this lot.
Tree and pond preservation plan
for the grading and
construction of this lot.
Block 4, Lot 1 and 7
Block 4, Lot 17
Block 5, Lot 9
Lot I too small for Mendota
Hts. Road. Possible balance
with Lot 7 adjustment.
Possibly made bigger by
massaging lot lines up to Lot
13.
6% grade on driveway too steep.
• 4. Address the lots listed in the July 23, 1991 Planners Report
that are not in compliance with the established criteria.
Particularly, Block 1, Lots 5 and 6; Block 3, Lots 7 and 26;
Block 4, Lot 14, as well as the flag and neck lots.
5. Consider adjustments to and screening for parking provisions
in Carriage Home/Manor Home transition area. Also, Block 5.
Lots 4 and 8. There was not consensus on the Planning
Commission on this item, however, it was discussed.
6. A condition established was to provide a more detailed
landscaping plan. Particularly to show the berming and
screening along the I-494 corridor. Standards for the berm
were suggested to be a berm as high as possible with a 3:1
slope and a four foot top. The intent is to have the berm
Mr. Boyce and Mr. Blake
July 25, 1991
page 3
above window level.There should be trees
provide additional noise protection from the
7. Address lot elevations and high water lines
work with engineering staff for a report
elevations throughout the project.
8. Consider reducing back to back townhomes in density by
changing 12 unit buildings to 10 unit buildings and 10 unit
buildings to 8 unit buildings.
9. Consider changing Claremount Drive to a public right of way.
Address snow removal plan on all private drives, especially
Block 5.
on the berm to
highway.
in Block 7 and
on grades and
Staff is requested to make available a report from the Fire
Department on the site plan and emergency access.
10. Noise measurement tests should be conducted on the next series
of buildings completed to test compliance with the City's
Noise Attenuation Ordinance.
11. Outlot B should be considered for inclusion into the park
dedication.
12. Dr. Owen's homesite should be included in the platting as an
outlot.
13. Consider moving Outlot A one lot to the west. Consider
platting Outlot A as a right of way with larger than normal
utility easements and possible side yard setback variances.
14. Submit a driveway plan for Langford Circle, particularly Lots
30, 31 and 32.
15. Provide a minimum 30 ft. separation between multi -family
buildings, particularly Block 7, Lots 1 and 2. Provide a 30
ft. setback to roads, particularly Block 5, Lots 6 and 12.
16. Throughout the project, meet a suggested standard of 3%
maximum grades for the parking/driveways of the carriage
homes; for intersection approaches; and for all cul-de-sacs.
17. Consider tuck under design, or other designs to most
strategically save trees and lot grading; particularly Block
1, Lots 4, 17, 18, and 22. Consider setback variances as a
method to better design building pads for individual lots.
Mr. Boyce and Mr. Blake
July 25, 1991
page 4
18. Storm water computations provided to engineering staff for
analysis. Of particular concern, is the nature of the pond in
the northern park dedication area.
In addition to the above listed conditions, suggestions and items
of concern, the Planning Commission also recommended that the
developer address any concerns listed in the staff and planner's
reports. As you are aware, staff has mentioned in meetings that
engineering, grading, storm water runoff and utility plans need to
be provided in greater detail for analysis.
Staff is expecting a response on the measurements of the park
dedication, particularly the southern soccer area, where there is
a 24 foot difference in the concept plan and the plat for the
north/south dimension from the single family lot to the freeway.
The intent of this letter is to provide a common basis for
addressing concerns of the Kensington Planned Unit Development
prior to the City Council's August 6, 1991 public hearing. The
above list should not be considered all inclusive for the items
that need to be addressed prior to the City Council. We have a
great amount of detailed and technical items to address in a weeks
time and I am hoping that we will continue to have the same level
of cooperation between our staffs that we have had throughout this
important project.
Sincerely,
Kevin Batchelder
Administrative Assistant
cc: City Council
Tom Lawell, City Administrator
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning
James E.
Kevin L.
CASE NO:
INTRODUCTION:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
Commission
July 18, 1991
Danielson, Public Works Director
Batchelder, Administrative Assis
91-23: Kensington Phase II -
Settlement Plan
Tonight the Planning Commission is reviewing the Settlement
Plan for Centex's proposed Kensington PUD Phase II. This is the
continuation of the Rezoning that was denied to Centex on August
7, 1990 and is the result of settlement negotiations between the
City Council and the Developer.
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 City Council's acceptance of
a conceptual plan at their July 2, 1991 City Council meeting. At
that meeting, the Council ordered tonight's Public Hearing and
instructed the Developer to prepare the plans that have been
submitted for tonight's review (forwarded to you earlier this
week) .
Council also ordered staff to conduct an informal meeting
with interested residents to present the plans and provide
information on Thursday evening, July 18th. Any significant
result of that open house will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission.
DISCUSSION:
In unanimously accepting the Concept Plan, Council felt that
the criteria that they had established had been met. The purpose
of tonight's meeting is to conduct a public hearing, to review
the settlement plan, and to forward comments to the City Council
for their August 6th meeting.
The specific planning considerations for the Kensington
development are:
1. Rezoning
2. Preliminary and Final Plan Approval for
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit
Development
3. Preliminary Plat Approval
4. Wetland Permits
REZONING
The underlying zoning of the proposed Kensington project is
R -1A „ R -1B and R-1. See attached zoning map. The Comprehensive
Plan guides this area to be zoned as MR -PUD and HR -PUD. The
developer's request is to rezone the property consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Guide Plan.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
Centex intends to complete both preliminary and final
platting for the entire site at this time. Staff comments on the
plat are as follows:
1. The trail easement on Lot 7, Block 3 should have the
southwest corner adjusted to have the south line of Lot
45 extended easterly to its intersection with the
proposed trailway easement.
2. Lots 9 and 45, Block 3 do not have direct street
access. A private driveway easement should be included
on the preliminary plat.
3. Sutton Court and Langford Circle are too similar in
name to existing Mendota Heights streets and should be
changed. Please see attached memorandum from Police
Chief Delmont.
4. The Planning Commission should be aware that Kensington
Phase II includes the replatting of a portion of Phase
I. Phase I was approved for 136 manor homes, and now
will be reduced to 80.
5. The storm sewer utility easement located between Lots
27 and 30, Block 3 needs to be a minimum of 30 feet in
width.
6. Lot 8, Block 5 has a storm sewer line that needs to be
located a minimum of 10 feet from the building.
7. Outlot A has been shown between Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot
5, Block 2 to provide access to the rear yards of the
three single family homes located along Delaware
Avenue. This Outlot has been shown at this location to
avoid having to disrupt the large hill and woods
located to the west.
The outlot access idea was established to provide
private driveway access for two to four future lots to
be platted at the rear lot area of the three homes
located along Delaware. The private drive idea was
established in lieu of a City street because of the
major disruption a City street would cause to the high
hill and wetlands in the area.
Finally, we feel that this Outlot should be converted
to a platted R.O.W. Platted R.O.W. would leave no
doubt in anyones mind, who would purchase lots in this
area, that a future street or driveway is to be
installed.
8. Dr. Owens' homestead property is not shown to be
included within the plat. Dr. Owens had agreed to have
his lot platted with this development and Centex will
provide a revised plat reflecting this addition.
9. Easements need to be put on the final plat.
CUP FOR PUD
1. Public Improvements
The following comments are details that can be worked
out through engineering staff and are only listed to
insure that they are addressed later.
Storm Sewer
Storm sewer calculations need to be submitted for
review and approval, of particular concern are the
ponds. It appears that more catch basin pickups need
to be added. A storm water stub needs to be installed
for use in the south park area.
Watermain
The watermain needs to be studied in more detail,
however, it appears as if more looping of lines needs
to occur and larger trunk lines installed through the
higher density areas.
Grading Plan
The grading plan submitted has only addressed building
elevations and street grades. Staff is working with
Centex to address a number of homesites which appear to
be either too high in relation to proposed street
grades or too low in relation to the proposed pond
levels. These details will be more closely addressed
by engineering staff as the final site grading plan is
designed.
2. Park Considerations
The parkland criteria adopted by the City Council in
the negotiated settlement plan requires that the
dedicated land area provide adequate, useable park
acreage to accommodate certain park improvements
envisioned for the area. This criteria results in a
proposed parkland dedication in excess of the minimum
required. More specifically, the current Kensington
plan indicates approximately 13 acres for park
dedication, while the normal 10% dedication would yield
only 11.2 acres.
The plan provides for two distinct park areas which are
connected by a pedestrian trailway. Consistent with
prior plans, the northern park is along Mendota Heights
Road to incorporate the existing comfort station
building into the park. The park area has been sized
to accommodate the typical neighborhood park
improvements, however, the specific design elements
have been left for future Park and Recreation
Commission review and recommendation.
The southern area of park is 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. Again, the specific design elements have
been left for Park and Recreation Commission review and
recommendations at a later date.
The plan submitted by Centex Homes meets these minimum
requirements established by City Council for an
acceptable plan. The Parks Commission reviewed these
plans on Tuesday, July 9th and their minutes are
attached.
Council has also established a criteria that the
developer will balance the earthwork within the
development including the City park land. The text
indicates that the rough grading of the parks would
occur concurrently with adjacent site work. The
portion of the development near the parks could occur
in the latter phases of the project's development and
may affect the timing of the park improvements if the
City intends to coordinate the rough grading with the
developer.
3. Settlement Criteria
Council established five major areas of criteria to be
addressed in order for a plan to be acceptable. This
criteria was delivered with the earlier plans reviewed
by the Commission and are also attached herewith.
Council has determined that all the criteria
established were met in concept and the final drawings
need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for
their input.
WETLANDS
This property includes three wetlands areas that are
designated within the City's Wetlands Ordinance. Wetlands
setbacks less than 100 feet are designated on the preliminary
plat and development plan. These setbacks have been measured
utilizing an 80 foot SFD housing pad, normally a 60 foot pad is
utilized. This 80 foot setback should be more than ample to
include any decks that would be constructed in the future. The
following is a listing of the structures that require a wetlands
permit.
Building
LOT Block Setback in Feet
1 Block 7 25
2 Block 7 25
3 Block 7 ' 25
4 Block 7 25
4 Block 2 80
5 Block 2 10
1 Block 3 45
7 Block 3 45
Lot Block Setback in Feet
8 Block 3 40 Front
60 Rear
9 Block 3 45
10 Block 3 40
11 Block 3 50
13 Block 3 80
14 Block 3 60
15 Block 3 60
16 Block 3 60
17 Block 3 80
24 Block 3 80
25 Block 3 60
26 Block 3 50
27 Block 3 55
30 Block 3 50
31 Block 3 20
32 Block 3 40
35 Block 3 55
36 Block 3 30
37 Block 3 30
38 Block 3 40
39 Block 3 40
40 Block 3 70
41 Block 3 70 Front
40 Rear
42 Block 3 35
43 Block 3 35
44 Block 3 55
POLICE AND FIRE REVIEW
Copies of these plans have been submitted to the Police and
Fire Departments for their review. The Police comments are
attached, Fire Department comments will be available at the
meeting.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Conduct the public hearing. Make a recommendation to the
City Council on Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Wetlands Permits and
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to the City
Council for their August 6, 1991 meeting.
JED/KLB:mlk
_-i
r
15TAftlin7i N
v.s
POWK EASE•111/
:10
t r• -i a
:,1 , • Y I
r
1 -' , ."-- :.•••••::-T----
i- \\\*:-.• ••1 i i t
• ....--1• —...--... I
•
4 /
1 L
4v
-5-
Iz
:
1"
1 ED
',mom) st
wAGsTROLiotING
PARK
• r
• • • • • • ••:(1f
HIGHWAY'
Mendota Heights Police Department
MEMORANDUM
18 July, 1991
TO: City Administrator
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: KENSINGTON PHASE II PUD
I have reviewed the plans for the Kensington Phase II PUD and offer the
following comments:
1. Streets named Sutton and Lansford already exist in the city. By
naming Kensington streets Sutton and Langford there is a very good
chance that emergency responders may become confused. I would strongly
recommend that these two streets be re -named.
2. Pond Circle West and Pond Circle East are directly across Mendota
Heights Road from Haverton Road and Canton Road. It would seem logical,
and it would be much more effective for emergency services, to make
these two streets extensions of Pond Circle and rename them.
3. All streets that meet Mendota Heights Rd. or Delaware Ave. need to
be stopped at those intersections with "stop" signs. This would include
Abbey Way, Lockwood, Whitfield, Langsford, Winthrop, Haverton, and
Canton.
4. As you are aware, I am a proponent of street lighting, particularly
in more densely populated areas. I understand, however, that this is a
Council decision.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
JULY 9, 1991
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation
Commission was held on Tuesday, July 9, 1991, in the City Hall
Conference Room, 1101 Victoria Curve. Chair John Huber called the
meeting to order at 7:00 o'clock p.m. The following 'members were
present: Huber, Damberg, Lundeen, Hunter, Kleinglass and Katz.
Spicer was excused. Staff members present were Parks Project
Manager Guy Kullander and Administrative Assistant Kevin
Batchelder.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Damberg moved to approve
of the June 11, 1991 Parks and
Commission meeting. Commissioner
seconded the motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
SYLVANDALE
VERBAL
6.
0
the minutes
Recreation
Kleinglass
STORM WATER PROJECT
Chair John Huber requested a report from staff on
the Sylvandale Storm Water Project. Administrative
Assistant Kevin Batchelder stated that the City
Council had approved a storm water project that
rerouted the flow of storm water through Ivy Hills
Park. Batchelder stated that this project does not
impact the park or the pond at all. Batchelder
stated that there was a potential in the future for
another phase of storm water construction that
would impact the pond. Parks Project Manager Guy
Kullander explained the general nature of the storm
drainage and pond expansion should that storm water
project occur.
UPDATES
Batchelder stated that minor improvements had been
undertaken by the Parks crews in Hagstrom-King Park
and Victoria Highlands Park. He stated that
grading and leveling had occurred at the basketball
court in Hagstrom King Park. He stated that top
dressing and leveling, as well as reseeding would
occur in both parks and that the Parks crews were
following a schedule to complete the maintenance
items necessary.
Batchelder explained that the Adopt -A -Park program
had been contacted by four more applicants 'and that
Dr. Hunter, of Centre One Dental,.: had adopted Marie
Park and that Jim Dzik, of Mendota Heights
Taxidermy had adopted Victoria Highlands Park.
Batchelder stated that signs had been ordered and
the applicants were meeting with staff to go over
the agreements and safety precautions.
Kullander explained the progress of construction at
Mendakota Park. Kullander stated that the roofing
is being done, and that most of the carpentry work
is complete. He stated the railings would be
installed -soon. Kullander anticipated an August
1st completion date for the buildings and that the
seeding would be done according to contract
specifications. Kullander stated the ideal time to
apply new seed is late August and early September.
Kullander stated the irrigation was partially
installed and landscaping would be installed in
September or October. Kullander explained that the
play equipment construction would begin next week.
Batchelder stated that the City had been contacted
by the Fire Department about leasing the
concessions area at Mendakota Park. Kullander
stated he had contacted Mr. and Mrs. Will, the
original vendor proposers, and they had indicated
they were still interested in participating in the
City's Request for Proposals on leasing the
Mendakota Concessions.
Batchelder stated that all property owners had been
identified in the Mayfield Heights, James Road and
Douglas Road area and would be receiving notices if
they are adjacent to any possible trail connections
or easements. Batchelder stated that the property
owners for the different trail alternatives would
be contacted a group at a time by letter inquiring
if they would be interested in participating in
providing trail easements.•
Batchelder stated the City would be applying for a
grant from the DNR for a tree planting program if
Mendota Heights meets the criteria for the Tree
City Program.
KENSINGTON PUD - PARK DEDICATION
Chair Huber introduced the Centex proposed
settlement plan that was a result of the
negotiations between the developers of Kensington
and the City Council following the lawsuit over the
denied rezoning. Batchelder described the plan and
explained the criteria that City Council had
established in order for a plan to be acceptable.
Batchelder stated -that the criteria established for
the parks was a .riedication where the minimum
acreage requirement was usable land. Batchelder
stated the minimum requirement in this case was
approximately 11.3 acres and that 13.4 acres of
usable land was provided.
Batchelder stated that another criteria was an area
to serve ap-a neighborhood park along Mendota
Heights Road. He stated this neighborhood park
area should include the existing comfort station
and be large enough to site a tot lot, practice
soccer field and other amenities. Batchelder
stated other criteria included a trail link from
the north park area to the south park area and that
the south park area needed to be of sufficient size
to site one 360' by 240' soccer field and one 360'
by 300'soccer field , a parking lot and an area for
play equipment and amenities with a trail link to
Delaware Avenue from the soccer area. Batchelder
stated the developer would be required to balance
the soils in the park areas.
Batchelder stated that the City Council had
accepted the plan and ordered public hearings to
consider the more formal plans required for
rezoning at the July 23, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting and the August 6, 1991 City Council
meeting. He stated that tonight the Parks and
Recreation Commission had a chance to review the
proposed dedication for 'comments and -that should
the.settlement be achieved the specific design
elements would be handled at future Parks and
Recreation Commission meetings for recommendation
to City Council.
Chair Huber stated that he had been contacted about
the design of the northern neighborhood park area
and had received input that. this should not be
developed with a field, that it should remain open
park area, that it would be niceto have a park
without a field in it. ...CommiSsioner Damberg stated
that this would need to be discussed during the
design phase. Chair Huber stated he was concerned
about the active soccer field under the power line,
that this has never been done before. Chair Hube4 •
stated that in this respect the park dedication is
worse than all earlier proposals.
Commissioner Damberg stated it appeared to her to
be the same old story of getting the undesirable
land for development as the park dedication. Chair
Huber stated that depending on the height of the
power lines soccer balls could be kicked into the
line, thus interfering with play. Chair Huber
stated that ihterference with play was a serious
concern. Commissioner Damberg stated she was
further concerned with the health effects of
Electro -Magnetic fields with power lines.
Commissioner Katz agreed and stated that EMF
concerns should be considered in relationship to
active soccer fields.
Commissionet Hunter stated the Parks and Recreation
Commission should state its concerns about power
lines and active fields and let the Planning
Commission and City Council decide land use issues.
Kullander suggested the trail links from the soccer
fields connect with Delaware Avenue and Mendota
Heights Road. The Commission agreed.
Commissioner Damberg stated that she was upset that
once again the Commission was being put in the
position of accepting a dedication without any
choice of its location or parameters. Commissioner
Katz stated that she agreed and that she fully
expected the Parks and Recreation Commission to
have control of the recommendations during the
design phase of this park dedication. Commissioner
Katz stated that the northern area in particular
needs to be considered for the proper use, as the
southern area is mostly earmarked for soccer.
Chair Huber instructed staff to make sure the Sting
and Mend -Eagan Soccer groups were aware of the
configurations and layout for the soccer area so
they could participate in the public hearings.
Kullander discussed irrigation and buildings.
ROLE OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Batchelder submitted a summary of the Role of the
Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission
decided to make "To provide leadership, study and
recommendations to the City Council" the number one
role and drop "To develop the City's recreation
program" to the second priority.
Commissioner Katz moved to approve the summary of
the Role of the Parks and Recreation Commission as
revised and submit it to City Council for approval .
Commissioner Lundeen seconded the motion.
AYES: 6
NAYS: 0
ADJOURN
There being no further business the Parks and
Recreation Commission adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Kevin Batchelder
k
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
August, 1, 1991
Mayor, City Council and City Adminis
James E.
Kevin L.
CASE NO.
BACKGROUND:
Danielson, Public Works Director,
Batchelder, Administrative Assis
90-35: Reconsideration of Duggan
Wetlands Permit for Fence
Mr. Ultan Duggan, of 2331 Copperfield Drive, has appeared
at the September 25, 1990 Planning Commission meeting and the
June 4, 1991 and July 16, 1991 City Council meetings to request a
Wetlands Permit to construct a fence enclosing his rear yard and
swimming pool. The July 16, 1991 City Council meeting was a
public hearing and the result of that meeting was a denial of the
Wetlands Permit on a 3-2 vote.
At the public hearing, the Mayor instructed the applicants
that if they revised their plan, they could return for
reconsideration by the City Council of their requested Wetlands
Permit. Mr. Duggan has proposed a revised plan that would
eliminate the chain link portion of the fence, so that the whole
fence is wrought iron. Based on this revision, the Mayor has
asked staff to place this item on the agenda for reconsideration.
DISCUSSION:
At the July 16, 1991 City Council public hearing there was
much discussion about private covenants and protection of the
open backyards and park like area surrounding the scenic
easements of Copperfield Ponds. The City does not enforce
private covenants or require that private covenants be adhered to
prior to any planning applications.
The prevailing side at the public hearing was promoting
protection of the open backyards and park like nature of the
Copperfield neighborhood. The Wetlands Ordinance was enacted to
apply uniformly throughout the City for the following purposes:
1. To protect, preserve, maintain and regulate the use of
wetlands and water resource related areas.
2. To maintain the natural drainage system.
3. To minimize the disturbance which may result from
alteration by earthwork, loss of vegetation, loss of
wildlife and aquatic organisms as a result of the
disturbance of the natural environment, or from
excessive sedimentation.
4. To provide for protection of probable fresh water
supplies.
5. To ensure safety from floods.
In order to grant a Wetlands Permit, there are 23
requirements, or standards, that need to be met in order to issue
the permit. (See attached Section 7. Standards Pursuant to
Issuance of Permit.) Of these standards, the only standards that
apply in the case of fence installation are in Items 13 and 14
relating to removal of vegetation. In this case it appears that
there would be no significant removal of vegetation.
Staff has sent an informal hearing notice to all property
owners on the Duggan Abstract Certificate. See attached. We
have received several written responses and these are attached
also.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Meet with the applicants to discuss their revised plan and
determine if the City Council desires to reconsider their action
of denial.
JED/KLB:mlk
r? - ..•
1 •
•\er/ /)
•
•
•
•
./ / (
'-�
•
\, \4J Cfr� 1 1. i` w
4,1
•1 ` . ,
.\\.\\:•....., (H _ `.....„,,,A
' •y 1......A0`ii„' �''� -' *
((( {? C •• g 0 0..il i 1
�.lurrrn�`. $
'h US (t,..4' CT.'" 1. .
1
-Le +10,vvis DrrAttAct.VIL.t.
6. The altering of any embankment or ponding area or the
changing of.the flow of water or ponding capacity;
7. Permanently storing materials;
8. Disposing of waste materials,.including but not limited
to sewage, garbage, rubbish, and other discarded materials.
9. Installation and maintenance of essential services.
C. The application must submit, if determined necessary,
engineering data that clearly indicates the magnitude of impact
on the wetland system or any component of the system, if any, that
will result from the proposed development.
D.. All proposals to adjust a "W" District boundary line shall
follow the same administrative procedures as outlined in
Section 5.7 of the City Zoning Ordinance.
-- ---
E. Permit application shall Ise.--precessed_in accordance with
the procedures specified for the processing of -a conditional
use permit under the City Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 7.)Standards Pursuant to Issuance of Permit.
permits shall be issued unless it is determined that the
proposed action within a "W" District complies with the following
requirements:
1. Dredging and/or filling shall be located in.areas of minimal
vegetation.
2. Dredging activities shall not significantly reduce the water
flow characteristis or ponding capacity.
• 3. The size of the dredged material shall be limited to the
absolute minimum and said limits designated on the dredging/
grading plan.
4. Disposal of the dredged material shall not result in a
significant change in .the current water flows, ponding, or
in destruction of vegetation, fish spawning areas, or in
pollution of water.
5. Earthwork will not be performed during the breeding season
of water fowl or the fish spawning season.
6. Only one boat channel or marina shall be allowed per large
scale development or PUD. In other residential developments,
dredging shall be located so as to provide for the use of
(402). 3
boat channels and marina by two (2) or more adjacent
property owners. The width of a boat channel to be dredged
shall be no more than the minimum required for the safe
operation of boats at minimum operating speeds.
7. No part of any septic tank system or any other sewage
disposal system requiring on -land or in -the -ground disposal
of waste shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet from
the edge of a "W" District boundary unless it can be shown
that no effluent can reach the wetland because of existing
physical characteristics of the site. On-site sewage
disposal systems shall be permitted only if they meet state
and city regulations.
8. Run-off from developed property and construction projects may
be directed to the wetland only when reasonably free of silt
and debris and chemical pollutants, and at such rates such
as not to disturb wetland.vegetation or increase turbidity.
9. No deleterious waste shall be discharged in a wetland or
disposed of in a manner that would cause the waste to enter
the wetland or other water resource area.
10. "W" District lands may not be used for disposal of organic
refuse or garbage material "typically disposed of in a
landfill. No part of a wetland should be used for a
sanitary landfill.
11. Lowest floor elevation of buildings located within the "W"
District must be at least three (3) feet above the highest
known water level.
12. No development shall be allowed in the "W" District which will
endanger the health, safety, and welfare of persons or which
will result in unusual maintenance costs to road and parking
areas or the breaking or leaking of utility lines.
13. Removal of vegetation shall be permitted only when and where
such work within the "W" District has been approved in
accordance with the standards of this Ordinance.
14. Removal of vegetation within the "W" District but outside
the wetland shall be limited to that reasonably required
for the placement of structures and the use of property.
15. The proposed action will not cause storm water runoff to
take place at a rate which would exceed the natural rate
of run-off occurring from a rainstorm of a twenty-four (24)
hour duration and a once in two (2) year frequency.
16. Any increase in.run-off due to the proposed action will
be detained on the site for infiltration through the soil
to the water table. Detention of water shall be calculated
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. on the basis of one hundred (100) year frequency rainfall
published by the U.S. Weather. Bureau.
17. The quality of water infiltrated to the water table or
aquifer shall remain undisturbed by the development of the
site.
(a,) Drainage water shall be directed in such a manner as
to travel over natural areas rather than across
contaminated surfaces.
(b) Treatment of run-off prior to release to natural
.drainage.shall be provided for parking areas and land
uses which manufacture products likely to contaminate
ground water.
(c) No portion of any septic tank drainfield shall be
located closer than four and one-half (41/2) feet from
the highest known water table on the site or underlying
bedrock.
18. Land shall be developed in the smallest practical increment
at any one time and for only the shortest practical period of
time; not to exceed a single construction season.
19. Sufficient control measures and retention facilities shall
be put in place prior to commencement of each development
increment to limit gross soil loss from the development
site to not more than five (5) tons per acre per year.
20. Existing wetlands shall not be used as sediment traps.
21. ,Sediment yield from construction sites adjacent to streams
and lakes shall not exceed two (2) tons per acre per year.
22. The person seeking the development permit shall be required
to demonstrate that after the development is completed the
conditions on the site will be stabilized such that the yearly
solid loss from the site will not be greater than 0.5 tons
per acre.
23. Development of woodlands shall not reduce the existing crown
cover by more than fifty per cent (50%). The removal of
trees seriously damaged by storms or other acts of God, or
diseased trees shall not be prohibited. •
SECTION 8." Permit Conditions.
A. A permit hereunder may be approved subject to compliance with
such conditions as are reasonable and necessary to ensure compliance
with the requirements contained in this Ordinance. Such conditions
may, among other things, limit the:pize, kind, or.character of the
proposed work, require the construction of other structures,
require placement of' vegetation, establish required monitering
procedures, stage the work over time, require the alteration of the
(402) 5
City of
......�
Mendota Heights
July 22, 1991
Dear Resident:
I am writing to inform you that the Duggan Wetlands Permit,
Planning Case No. 90-35, is being reconsidered by the City Council
at the August 6, 1991 meeting, 7:30 p.m., City Hall, 1101 Victoria
Curve. You are being notified of this meeting, which is not a
formal public hearing, because you are listed as a property owner
on Mr. and Mrs. Duggan's abstract certificate. An abstract
certificate lists all property owners within 350 feet of the
subject property.
As you may or may not be aware, the City Council acted on the
Duggan's Wetlands Permit for a Fence at 2331 Copperfield Drive on
July 16, 1991 by denying the request. However, the Mayor granted
the applicant the option of returning to the City Council if a
revised plan is presented. Mr. Duggan has proposed a revised plan
that would eliminate the chain link portion of the fence, so that
the whole fence is wrought iron. The fence location is the same as
the original proposal.
This alteration meets with the Mayor's approval and he has
suggested that Mr. Duggan return to the City Council on August 6,
1991 to have his Wetlands Permit request reconsidered. This item
will be part of the August 6, 1991 City Council agenda. The
meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at
452-1850 anytime prior to the meeting.
Sincerely,
1c< v- --
Kevin Batchelder
Administrative Assistant
cc: City Council
1101, Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452-1850
July 28, 1991
Mendota Heights City Council
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, Mn. 55118
Re: WETLANDS PERMIT, PLANNING CASE NO. 90-35, DUGGAN
Enclosed are copies of the Copperfield Covenants which govern what can
and can not be approved and the procedures to follow in complying with
the Covenants. We are enclosing another copy because we feel these
covenants are vital to the disposition of this Wetlands Permit Request.
There are several points listed in these binding covenants that this
permit request does not comply with:
1. On page 6 under item 14 you will note that the "Term" of "These
covenants, restrictions and conditions are to run with the land and
shall be binding on ALL parties and ALL persons claiming under them for
a period of thirty years...". This means that ALL Copperfield residents
are bound by these covenants. It does not bind us to any covenants or
restrictions set forth in other neighborhoods such as Hampshire Estates.
Ms. Smith stated at the July 16, 1991 City Council meeting that a
precedent had been set by allowing a fence to be built toward the pond
in her neighborhood of Hampshire. The Copperfield Covenants do not
apply in that development or vice versa. Therefore, that fence does not
have a bearing on this case.
2. On page 4 under item 12, the Copperfield Covenants state that "all
fencing or decorative walls shall meet the requirements of the City of
Mendota Heights and shall be approved by the Copperfield Architectural
Review Committee (hereafter referred to as ARC). The following
Copperfield standards shall govern fence/wall locations: " The lots on
the ponds are then listed, including the Duggan's lot, stating "lots
adjacent to the drainage/scenic easement around the ponds SHALL NOT
construct a fence or wall closer than 75 FEET from the regulated water
level of the ponds." This is a very clear statement. Fences are NOT
•PERMITTED closer than 75 feet. Period. In addition, Mr. Duggan's fence
does not meet the requirement of being approved by the Copperfield
Architectural Review Committee.
3. This section goes on to state that "No structure, fence or
wall...shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot until the plans
and specifications and a plan showing the location of the structure,
elevations, and finished grade levels have been approved...as to (i)
quality and types of workmanship and materials, (ii) external design and
harmony with any existing structures, and (iii) location with respect to
topography and finish grade elevation." Again, Mr. Duggan's plan has
NOT been approved. Nor, did we receive in totality the above
specifications from Mr. Duggan.
A little history here may be enlightening:
* 1989 - pool was built with no information given or approved by ARC.
Letters sent from ARC to Mr. Duggan requesting plans.
* 1990 - Mr. Duggan went to the City Planning Commission, which he is a
member of, to seek approval for a fence. He had been informed in
writing through the covenants and, also, from the ARC that he needed to
receive our approval first. He did NOT receive our approval. Planning
Commission approval was given for Mr. Duggan's fence request. A date
was set for final approval from the City Council. The Copperfield
Architectural Control Committee intervened as no plans had been
submitted to ARC. Several members of ARC met with Mr. Duggan at his
property, expressed our concerns, again explained the covenants and
asked again that he submit his detailed plans in writing to ARC.
* Spring, 1991 - The ARC had not received detailed plans indicating
fence material, etc. in writing. We heard, Mr. Duggan had again gone to
the City Planning Commission and received approval. We did receive a
hand written note and a drawing dated 6/4/91 informing us that the City
Council would be considering his application on June 4. Neither the
letter or plan specified the exact location of the fence in terms of the
scenic easement, distance from pool or any measurements nor stated the
fencing material. Mr. Duggan stated that "if we were to build it on the
75 foot setback, we would be dividing the yard in half ---totally
non-functional and unsightly." This clearly indicates that Mr. Duggan is
aware of the 75 foot covenant, but does not wish to comply.
* May 28, 1991 - A letter was sent to the City Council and Mr. Duggan
from ARC stating that ARC did not approve of the fence and requesting a
public hearing.
4. At the public hearing, Mr. Mayor stated that the fencing material
was not in question for the Wetlands Permit, only the location in regard
to the 100 foot setback was. The fencing material was an issue for the
ARC in addition to the setback location. The Mayor asked Mr. Duggan what
setback footage he would accept as a compromise. Mr. Duggan stated that
he was not willing to compromise. The mayor, then, asked Mr. Duggan to
think about a revised location and present it in 2 weeks at the next
meeting. This statement is in disagreement with the recent letter from
Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assistant dated July 22, 1991 which
stated that in "Mr. Duggan's revised plan, the whole fence is wrought
iron. The fence location is the same as the original proposal. This
alteration meets with the Mayor's approval." Only the fencing material
was changed and that was of no concern in regard to the Wetlands Permit.
The location was the issue and that did not change. Why the change in
the Mayor's approval?
5. The ARC is not willing to compromise the Copperfield Covenants in
regard to this setback. The artificial landscape berms built by the
owners knowing that a fence around the pool was required somewhere
between the pool area and the 75 foot setback requirement is NOT a
reason to grant fencing approval.
6. This situation is a precedent for future fencing requests as well as
other deviations from the Copperfield Covenants. Owners purchased lots
in Copperfield trusting in the Copperfield Covenants as binding
agreements. As Council Member Jan Blesener wisely stated, "This is
definitely a precedent -setting situation...a few years down the line, a
neighbor putting up a fence may have a dramatic negative affect. Yet
nothing can be done because the precedent is in effect." And Council
Member Buzz Cummins statement that "...I view it as extrememly
inconsistent with our effort to establish and maintain a natural habitat
in Copperfield." The ARC survey of pond lot owners results of 947..
against fencing within the setback area confirmed this commitment by
residents to protect this restriction of the Copperfield Covenants.
7. The City may approve a Wetlands Permit from a 100 foot setback to a
75 foot setback and not conflict with the Copperfield Covenants.
Approval of a permit in excess of this amount is clearly against the
Copperfield Covenants.
8. The covenants are enforceable "by proceedings at law or in equity
either to restrain violation or to recover damages, against any person
or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant, restriction
or condition." Should the City Council vote to approve a fence that is
not approved by the Covenants of the Copperfield neighborhood, it would
violate the rights of the owners of the 198 lots in the development.
In summary, two bodies must approve the fence: ARC and the Mendota
Heights City Council. It must be approved by both. The City Council
should not consider the fence issue until approved by ARC. The fence
has NOT been approved by ARC.
We feel that the factual items listed in this letter and described in
the covenants clearly demonstrate that a fence MUST NOT be constructed
within the 75 foot setback area. Mr. Duggan is required by the
covenants to submit a plan to ARC detailing the items indicated in item
3 above and receive written approval from ARC BEFORE any fence
construction can begin. A copy of a letter to Mr. Duggan is attached.
We thank you for your time and consideration for the residents of
Copperfield and the covenants that we have all agreed to in the purchase
of our lots and homes. Should you have any questions, please feel free
to contact us.
Thank you,
Copperfield Architectural Control Committee
Developers: Dick Putnam, Steve Lyman
Residents: JoanE. Bjorklund, Cynthia Betz, Doug Restemeyer
July 28, 1991
To: Ultan and Terry Duggan
2331 Copperfield Drive
From: Copperfield Architectural Review Committee
Re: Fencing
This notice is to again inform you that the fencing plans you
have submitted to the Mendota Heights City Council in Planning
Case No. 90-35 are NOT approved by the Copperfield Architectural
Review Committee.
As your plan submitted to us did not detail measurements or
fencing maerial, we are basing this decision on the details you
have provided to the City in your request for a Wetlands Permit.
As we have stated previously on several occasions, the
Copperfield Covenants do NOT permit fencing closer than 75 feet
from the ponds. The Copperfield Covenants clearly state that
"lots adjacent to the drainage/scenic easement around the pond
SHALL NOT construct a fence or wall closer than 75 feet from the
regulated water level of the ponds." Your request asks for a
substantial deviation from that restriction in requesting to
fence in your two lots to the scenic easement.
If you wish to resubmit a revised plan detailing exact
measurements of your requested fence from your home, pool and
scenic easement as well as details of fencing materials, etc. as
specified in the Copperfield Covenants you are certainly welcome
to do so. You are required to submit this information in writing
to the Copperfield Architectural Review Committee and receive
approval in writing BEFORE any work on a fence is begun.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter given to City Council Members
detailing our position on this matter.
Thank you,
Copperfield ARC Members
Developers: Dick Putnam, Steve Ryan
Residents: Cynthia Betz, JoanE. Bjorklund, Doug Restemeyer ,
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
COPPERFIELD, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
THIS DECLARATION, made this 13 day of 410+ ,
1987, by Copperfield Associates, a Minnesota partnership, (hereinafter referred
to as "Declarant").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of that certain real estate located
in the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, and Iegally described as follows:
Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Copperfield 3rd Addition, according to the
plat thereof now on file in the office of the County Recorder for Dakota
County, Minnesota, (hereinafter referred to as the "premises"):
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that the premises shall
hereafter be held, sold; and conveyed subject to the following convenants,
restrictions, and conditions, which are for the purpose of protecting the value
and desirability of, and which shall run with the premises and be binding on all
parties having any right, title, or interest in the premises or any part thereof,
their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall inure for the benefit of each owner
thereof.
1. Land Use and Building Type. No lot shall be used except for
residential purposes. No building shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted
to remain on any lot other than (i) one detached, single-family dwelling; and
(ii) a private attached garage, provided, however, that any purchases of a lot
from Declarant who erects a dwelling thereon may use such dwelling as a model
for a period not exceeding 12 months from the date of completion of such dwelling.
For purposes of this Declaration the term "lot" shall mean any lot within
Blocks, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as shown on the recorded plat of Copperfield
3rd Addition.
2. Dwelling specifications. No dwelling shall be erected, altered
or placed on a lot or permitted to remain there other than one detached
single-family dwelling not to exceed two stories in height, as measured from
grade. In the event the dwelling includes a walk -out basement to the rear, the
basement shall not be counted as a story. 9.zch dwelling shall have an attached
garage for at least 2 automobiles, and may have an attached building for storage
purposes. If the dwelling has one story (whether all on one level as in a rambler
or on different levels as in a split-level), excluding any walk -out basement, the
first floor area shall be at least 1,400 square feet. If the dwelling has two stories,
excluding any walk -out basement, the combined total floor area of the first and
second floors shall be at least 1,800 square feet. The first floor area described
in the preceding two sentences shall be exclusive of breezeways, open porches
or garages. All structures constructed or placed on the property shall be
completely finished on the exterior thereof within nine months after
commencement of construction.
3. No Temporary Structures. No trailer, basement, tent, shack,
garage or any other structure of a temporary character shall be used on any
lot at any time as a temporary or permanent residence.
4. Building Location. No building shall be located on any lot nearer
to a front lot line, a rear lot Iine, an interior side lot line or nearer to a side
street right of way line, if any than the applicable city ordinance, as related
to this subject plat, shall allow.
For purposes of the covenants and restrictions set forth in this
paragraph 4, eaves, steps, fireplaces, and open porches shall not be considered
as part of a building, provided, however, that this .shall not be construed to permit
any eave, step, fireplace, or open porch on a lot to encroach upon another lot.
5. Easements for Utilities and Drainage. Utility and drainage
easements are reserved as shown on the recorded plat of Copperfield 3rd Addition.
Within such easements no building, structure, planting, fill, or other material
shall be placed on, or permitted to remain, which may damage or interfere with
the installation and maintenance of utilities, or which may change the direction
or impede the flow of water over the drainage easements. Such easements shall
be maintained continously by the owner of the lot which is subject to said
easements except that such owner shall not be responsible for those improvements
for which a public authority or utility company has assumed responsibility.
6. Nuisances. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on
upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which is or may become an
annoyance or nuisance to any owner of any lot.
7. Signs. No sign- of any kind shall be displayed to the public view
on any lot except one sign of not more than five square feet advertising the
property for sale or rent, or signs used by a builder or Declarant to advertise
the property during the construction and sales period. This restriction shall not
apply to permanent entrance monuments which may be approved by the City
of Mendota Heights and erected by the Declarant.
8. Livestock and Poultry. No animals, livestock, or poultry of any
kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any lot, except that dogs, cats and other
household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred or maintained
for any commercial purpose. Dog kennels are prohibited except when they meet
the following requirements: exterior dog. kennels or runs shall be located so
as to be screened from streets and from neighboring lots. The fencing or outside
run area shall be adjacent to the main structure and shall not exceed 80 square
feet in fenced area with a maximum 6 foot high fence. Dog kennel plans shall
be reviewed and approved by the Copperfield Architectural Review Committee.
9. Garbage and Refuse Disposal. Trash, garbage or other waste
shall be kept in sanitary containers. All equipment for storage or disposal of
such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition, and screened from
public view.
10. Radio, Satellite and Television Antenna, etc. No radio or television
broadcasting or receiving antenna or other similar apparatus shaII extend above
the roof of the' dwelling. Conventional TV antennas should be mounted within
the attic of the structure. Any receiving or broadcasting equipment to be located
outside the structure shall be screened from view from streets and adjacent
lots. The Copperfield Architectural Review Committee shall review and approve
all plans and installation of such equipment outside a structure.
11. Recreational Equipment. Recreational equipment is defined for
the purposes of this Declaration as travel trailers, pickup campers or coaches,
motorized dwellings, trailers, snowmobiles, fish houses, ATV's, boats and trailers.
No recreational equipment shall be used on a Zot for living, sleeping or
housekeeping purposes. No such equipment shaII be parked as permitted herein
unless it is in condition for safe and effective performance for the function for
which it is intended. Recreational equipment which is parked on a lot for a
cumulative period of 30 days or more in any calendar year will be treated for
purposes of this Declaration as being stored. No recreational equipment may
be stored on a lot unless completely enclosed in a garage or attached accessory
structure.
12. Fencing. All fencing or decorative walls shall meet the
requirements of the City of Mendota Heights and shall be approved by the
Architectural Review Committee. The following Copperfield standards shaII
govern fence/wall locations:
a) Lots I through 11 Block 3 and Lots 8 through 13
Block 6 and Lots 1 through 10, Block 4 adjacent
to the drainage/scenic easement around the ponds
shall not construct a fence or wall closer than
75 feet from the regulated water level of the ponds.
b) Corner lots or lots with frontage on two streets
shall not construct fencing or wall closer than
30 feet from the street right of way.
13. Architectural Review Committee.
a. There is hereby= created an Architectural Review Committee
("Committee") which shall initially be composed of the following:
Name Address
Richard A. Putnam 6440 FIying Cloud Drive, 1106
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Stephen T. Ryan P.O. Box 40
Exce isior, MN 55331
A majority of the Committee may designate a representative to act for
it. In the event of death or resignation of any member of the Committee, the
remaining member or members shall have full authority to designate a successor
or successors. Neither the members of the Committee, nor its designated
representative, shall be entitled to any compensation for services performed
pursuant to this Declaration. At any time after 90% of the lots affected by
this Declaration have been sold by the Declarant or its successors and assigns,
to owners who reside in dwellings constructed on said lots, then such owners
of a majority of all of the lots affected by this Declaration shall have the power
to change the membership of the Committee, eliminate the Committee or modify
its powers and duties. Such action shall be effective only when evidenced by
an instrument which has been executed by 'such owners of a majority of the lots
and recorded in the office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota.
b. No structure, fence or wall and broadcasting or receiving equipment,
shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot until the plans and specifications
and a plan showing the location) of the structure, elevations, and finished grade
levels have been approved as: provided in Subparagraph, c below by the Committee
as to (i) quality and type of workmanship and materials, (ii) external design and
harmony with any existing structure, and (iii) location with respect to topography
and finish grade elevation. Accompanying such documentation, shall be the name
and address of the party to whom approval or disapproval is to be mailed. Approval
or disapproval will be effective on date of postmark when mailed by first class
mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the named party. Plans and specifications
and site plans shall be deemed to have been received by the Committee when
one or more of the Committee members or its designated representative
acknowledges receipts of such documents in writing.
c. The Committee's approval or disapproval shall be in writing. In the
event the Committee fails to approve or disapprove the plans and specifications
and site plans within 30 days after the same have been submitted to it, approval
will not be required and the restrictions, covenants, and conditions set forth
in this document shall be deemed to have been complied with.
14. Term. These covenants, restrictions, and conditions are to run with
the land and shall be binding on aII parties and all persons claiming under them
for a period of thirty years from the date these covenants, restrictions, and
conditions are recorded. After which time the same shall be automatically
extended for successive periods of 10 years unless an instrument signed by the
then owners of a majority of the lots has been recorded, agreeing to change the -
same in whole or in part.
. 15. Enforce.ment. Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity
either to restrain violation or to recover damages, against any person or persons
violating or attempting to violate any covenant, restriction or condition.
16. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants, restrictions
or conditions by judgement or court order shall in no wise effect any of the other
provisions which shall remain in full force and effect.
Cel
Copperfield Associates has caused this Declaration to be excuted the day
and year first above written.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
COPPERFIELD ASSOCIATES, a general partnership
By Tandem Corporation, a partner
By Zep/L/X President
Lyman Lumber Company, a partner
Asst. Vice Pre`
On this 13th day of August, 1987, before me, a Notary Public within and for
said County, personally appeared Richard A. Putnam, President of Tandem
Corporation, and Stephen T. Ryan, Ass't. Vice Pres. of Lyman Lumber Company,
to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing
instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act
and deed.
CAROL J. KNOWLTON
MARY PUBLIC. MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY >
My Commission Expires June 11, 199: r
XITIMYMTMYTYYTMYTTITYYMYYX
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY:
LYMAN LUMBER COMPANY
P.O. BOX 40
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
July 20, 1991
Mendota Heights City Council
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, Mn 55118
In the file of information regarding the fencing permit for
the Duggan's fence is a paper dated 5/31/91 which says that
we accepted their fencing proposal. This is notice that we
rescind that acceptance and no longer want anyone to believe
that a fence which breaks the legal covenants of Copperfield
is acceptable to us.
We tried to reach a reasonable compromise with Mr. Duggan but
he is not really interested in a compromise. His neighbor's
concerns are of no concern to him. Mr. Duggan misrepresented
the true facts about fencing his pool and his original intent
was a huge entirely chain link fence. After he changed his
plan to wrought iron on the neighbors' sides, we agreed this
was better but still had severe doubts about the depth of the
-fence after we stood out on our deck and once again admired
our view.
I believed I had a first amendment right to express those
concerns at the council meeting but Mr. Duggan apparently
felt otherwise. After the July 16th council meeting where I
attempted to express two concerns and the Duggan proposal was
narrowly defeated, Ultan Duggan chose to verbally make a
personal attack on me outside the council chambers. He ended
the series of insults with a neighborly remark about how he
was going to put up a fence the way he wanted and would make
sure that we hated it.
I would like to reiterate my two concerns. Chain link
fencing has no place in a community like Copperfield.
More importantly, fencing should not be built within 75 feet -
of the scenic easement around Copperfield ponds as stated in
the legal covenants to preserve the natural beauty of the
ponds and also the adjoining neighbors' property values.
Sincerely,
Ahto Niemioja
July 24, 1991
Mendota Heights City Council
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, Mn 55118
The Copperfield restrictive covenants state that lots
"adjacent to the drainage/scenic easement around the ponds
shall not construct a fence or wall closer than 75 feet
from the regulated level of the ponds." These covenants
are in place to protect the value and desirability of these
lots.
We bought our lot and built our home in 1988. We chose our
specific lot primarily because of the view of the pond and we
paid a significant premium for that view. Now three years
after our considerable investment, the city council is
considering approving a permit to allow the Duggans to
construct a fence all the way back to the scenic easement of
our pond instead of the required 75 feet back. The majority
of Copperfield residents have not requested that the
covenants be changed. We specifically do not want such a
fence to be constructed since the Duggan's lot is directly
adjacent to ours and the proposed fence would most definitely
interfere with our view and enjoyment of the pond.
Though the Duggans keep telling everyone that they can't
fence only around the pool or that their yard would be
unusable if they abided by the 75 foot rule, their remaining
yard behind a pool fence would still be deeper than most lots
in Copperfield given the positioning of their house. The
truth is that they don't really want to look at their fence.
They want to keep it hidden from their view as much as
possible at the expense of their neighbors. It was their
decision. to build in Copperfield and put in a pool. It was
not our choice so we should not be forced to view it everyday
from our windows or deck. If the Duggan's house and fence
had been in place in 1988, we would never have chosen a
location with such a fence. We honestly believed the
covenants could protect us from such eyesores.
We do not understand why any of the council members voted to
approve the Duggan's fencing permit July 16th given the
facts. Two members voted yes. We believe they ignored the
rights of the Duggan's neighbors on both sides and also the
wishes of the majority of Copperfield residents.
A fence is required because of their pool and a five or ten
foot variance could be acceptable, but a 75 foot variance is
clearly not within reasonable limits of the legal covenants
and it would definitely lower our property value.
We sincerely hope that when the Duggans propose their next
plan, that all council members will base their decision on
the facts and the effect it will have on neighbors and not
bow to one couple's special interests.
Sincerely,
144-- Al,‘el,..
•
,c,i„v4. 7),_(.;,,,,:+_
Ahto Niemioja IlinJda Niemioja
IMAA
City of
Mendota Heights
August 2, 1991
Mr. Ultan Duggan
2331 Copperfield Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Dear Mr. Duggan:
Your application for a Wetlands Permit will be reconsidered by the
City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will
be held on Tuesday, Aucrust 6, 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.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kevin Batchelder
Administrative Assistant
KLB:mlk
Enclosures: City Council Agenda
Staff Memo to City Council
1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
July 31, 1991
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administ
FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direc
Kevin L. Batchelder, Administrative Assis
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-25: Stehr - Variance
DISCUSSION:
Mr. and Mrs. Stehr, 6 Dorset Road, appeared before the July
Planning Commission meeting to present their request for a 4.2
foot side yard setback variance to allow construction of a single
car garage addition to their existing one car garage. See
attached plans and memos.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that
City Council grant a 4.2 foot side yard setback variance to allow
the garage addition as proposed.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Meet with the applicant and review the requested side yard
variance. If the City Council desires to implement the Planning
Commission recommendation they should pass a motion to grant a
4.2 foot side yard setback variance to allow the garage addition
as proposed.
JED/KLB:mlk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
July 17, 1991
FROM James E. Danielson, Public Works Dire
Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assist
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-25: Stehr - Variance
DISCUSSION:
Mr. and Mrs. Stehr, 6 Dorset Road, desire to construct an
8.6 foot addition to their existing 13.4 foot single car garage
in order to convert it into a two car garage. This garage
addition will encroach upon their side yard setback by 4.2 feet
at its closest point.
The Stehrs have obtained signatures of consent from their
adjoining neighbors.
ACTION REOUIRED:
Review the request with the applicants and make a
recommendation to the City Council.
JED/KLB:mlk
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: 23 July 1991
CASE NUMBER: 91-25
APPLICANT: Colleen M. Stehr
LOCATION: 6 Dorset Road
ACTION REQUESTED: Side Yard Setback
Variance.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The applicants propose to construct an addition to their
existing single -car garage to make it a two -car garage.
This requires the garage to be extended 8.6 feet closer to
the north property line leaving a side yard setback of 5.8
feet at the closest point. This results in the need for a
variance of 4.2 feet from the required 10 -foot interior
side yard setback.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to justify
the proposed variance as required by Section 5.5 of the
Zoning Ordinance. They have indicated that they own two
vehicles and would like to be able to store both of them
indoors. They have also indicated that they are already
parking the second vehicle on a slab that is located in
the area where the garage addition would be built.
3. The proposed garage addition is consistent with the
character of the homes in the surrounding neighborhood.
Many of the homes in the area have two -car garages
including the home directly opposite the subject
property.
4. The criteria for considering applications for a variance
require that the granting of the variance will not impair
an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
properties, unreasonably increase congestion on adjacent
public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the
public safety, unreasonably diminish established property
values, or otherwise impair the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
The concern regarding the impairment of adequate light and
air and the increased danger of fire are both sustantially
mitigated in this case by the fact that the homes in this
area are generally set back further than the required 30
feet and also generally have more generous side yards than
required. The distance between the existing garage on the
subject property and the adjacent home to the east is
approximately 43 feet. This distance would be reduced to
approximately 35 feet if the garage addition were built as
Colleen Stehr, Case No. 91-25 Page 2
proposed. This is still 15 feet further than would be
permitted if both lots were built -out to the required
10 -foot side yard setback.
5. Clearly the proposed garage addition does not create any
concern with respect to traffic congestion, nor does it
result in any other health, safety or welfare concerns.
6. One of the more common issues regarding setback variances
relates to the impact on the aesthetic character of the
surrounding area and, thus, the potential for reductions
in property values for adjacent properties. That concern
is minimized here for several reasons. First, as
mentioned earlier, the properties in this area generally
have generous front and side yards. The subject property
is setback almost twice the required 30 -foot standard.
This results in the situation where changes to the
setbacks of the magnitude requested by the applicant do
not critically affect the overall appearance of the
neighborhood, as would be the case in an area were the
lots are built to the minimum setback.
Second, the property most directly affected by the
proposed addition, the lot to the north of the subject
property, has some built-in conditions that help minimize
the impact of the garage addition. One of these is the
additional side yard discussed earlier. Also, the south
end of the house on the adjacent lot has only two windows,
both of which are smaller than the typical casement window
and are located relatively high on the wall. In addition,
there is mature landscaping in the area between the
existing house and the proposed garage addition, including
one or two large evergreen trees that are located near the
southwest corner of the adjacent house.
7. Architecturally, the proposed addition will actually
improve the proportions and appearance of the house. The
lines and proportions of the existing garage appear
slightly stubby compared with the rest of the house. In
addition, The applicants have indicated that the front
facade of the garage will match the existing facade of the
house. They have also stated in their letter that they
intend to replace the existing brick on the remainder of
the house to insure that all of the brick matches. They
have not indicated whether they intend to try to match the
roof material, or if they will be re -roofing the entire
garage.
8. Finally, the proposed garage addition would clean up the
appearance of the property by eliminating the presence of
the additional vehicle currently parked on the open slab
adjacent to the existing garage.
i:ia•[•17it�i:nt
" j C.
•
SUBJECT PROPERTY
NORTH t
SCALE V=800'
COUNTRY
JABAn
WELL, -
COURSE
(Private)
1 -
OEM"
!/
-
i/
9_5-
j
9.5`
czzj
t.
7
8
7
I G
S I! 4
3
2
\/
-•I
9 S
, C
JULY 6, 1991
TO: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
FROM: PHILIP & COLLEEN STEHR
6 DORSET ROAD
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55118
RE; GARAGE ADDITION, SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
WE HAVE A ONE CAR GARAGE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE INTO
A TWO CAR GARAGE. AN ADDITIONAL.• 8,6 FEET WOULD BE ADDED
TO THE WIDTH OF THE EXISTING GARAGE. THE LENGTH WOULD
NOT CHANGE.
WE ARE ALREADY PARKING WHERE THE NEW GARAGE ADDITION WILL
BE. THERE IS A CEMENT SLAB AND A DRIVEWAY SO NO CHANGES
TO THE LANDSCAPING WILL BE MADE. THE NEW ADDITION WILL BE
SMALLER THEN THE EXISTING SLAB.
A NEW SLAB WILL BE POURED BECAUSE FOOTINGS ARE NEEDED.
IT WILL BE SIDED WITH MATCHING SHAKES AND THE FRONT WILL
BE BRICKED. WE WILL REPLACE THE FRONT BRICKS ON THE HOUSE
TO MATCH THE NEW ADDITION.
WE HAVE REVIEWED AND ARE NOT APPOSED TO 'THE NEW ADDITION:
NAME
'DATE
g !%
7— (-7/
Thr5< " 9ac�' _ X37- ,t-ctf
Qat 7- V
City of
Mendota Heights
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
Case No.
Date of Application q---'5?
Fee Paid ...CDO e0 C ,Pio 1049
Applicant Name: S+ 1w 0- 0 1 tee ok M. PH: Vsi- S 9
(Last) (First) (m1)
Address: 6 "1:),, .J.fi f"fi74-, isZu
(Number & Street) (City) (State) (Zip)
Owner Name: —71-, h1,
(Last) (First)
Address: 6, s e+ t3i ill Ai
• (Number & Street) (City)
Street Location of Property in Question: (. -Dapsd I21
(State)
(ZP)
Legal Description of Property: L + 7 131. cic 4 SO 1"`t s r_ V lie la
Type of Request
Rezoning A/ Variance
Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval
Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Wetlands Permit '
Plan Approval Other (attach explanation)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Applicable Qty Ordinance Number Section
Present Zoning of Property 4- Present Use S
Proposed Zoning of Property ati - Proposed Use S
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the jdditional
material are true. •
(Signature of Applicant) • •
7/9/7/
(Date)
Ad -a)
(Received by - Title)
1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452-1850
min JAA A A AA A
City of
Mendota Heights
July 18, 1991
Ms. Colleen Stehr
6 Dorset Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Ms. Stehr:
Your application for a Variance will be considered by the Planning
Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will be
held on Tuesday, July 23, 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:mlk
Enclosures: Planning Commission Agenda
Planner's Report
City Staff Report
1101 Victoria Curve •Mendota Heights, MN- 55118 • 452.1850
DIA
City of
Mendota Heights
July 26, 1991
Ms. Colleen Stehr
6 Dorset Road
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Ms. Stehr:
Your application for a Variance will be considered by the
City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will
be held on Tuesday, August 6, 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 City Council
grant a 4.2 side yard setback variance to construct the proposed
garage addition.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kevin Batchelder
Administrative Assistant
KLB:mlk
Enclosures: City Council Agenda
Staff Memo to City Council
1101 Victoria Curve • Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850
L
vo+s,
• ) I Ct
W3,010718piat,
421:8"29!.273!Meas
LiFt 1.5,0 0 Plat
JOB NO. 91221
91.221,13/28/23 STEHR, COI1 FEN
ADVANCE SURVEYING .& ENGINEERING CO.
5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267
SURVEY FOR: COLLEEN STEHR
SURVEYED: June 3, 1991
DRAFTED: June 5, 1991
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 7, Block 6, SOMMERSET VIEW, according to the recorded plat thereof, Dakota County, Minnesota.
LIMITATIONS:
We have surveyed the above described property which the client claims to own or appears to own from various government records.
We make no representation that the client does in fact own the property nor that a search of the records has been made to determine
the extent and nature of his holdings. If there is any doubt concerning the accuracy of the legal description, competent legal counsel
should be retained to perforin a title search and issue a title opinion for our .use in preparing the survey. We show only those
easements which:the client informs us of or which we happen to become aware of through other sources. The survey shows only those
improvements which are visible and which we deem important.
STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:
"o" Denotes 112" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 10535, set, if "o" is filled in, then
denotes found iron monument.
CERTIFICATION:
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota.
Samuel G. Parker R.L.S. 10535
SCALE: ONE INCH EQUALS 20 M.FEET .' ` , .
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
July 31, 199
Mayor, City Council and City Administra
James E.
Kevin L.
Danielson, Public Works Direct
Batchelder, Administrative Assist
CASE NO. 91-27: Kayoum - Front Yard Setback Variance
Side Yard Variances
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Abdul Kayoum, of 706 First Avenue, appeared before the
Planning Commission to request a front yard setback variance of
four feet three inches to allow construction of a garage
addition. Staff is also processing two side yard setback
variances to the existing structure to bring it into conformance.
The east side yard setback variance would be one foot, the west
side yard setback variance would be two feet. See attached plans
and memos. Mr. Kayoum has submitted signatures of consent form
his neighbors.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the
City Council grant the requested variance of four feet three
inches to the front yard setback, one foot variance to the side
yard setback on the east and a two foot variance to the side yard
setback on the west.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Meet with the applicant and review the requested variances.
If the City Council desires to implement the Planning Commission
recommendation, they should pass a motion granting the following
variances:
1. A four foot, three inch variance to the front yard
setback to allow construction of the garage addition as
proposed.
2. A one foot side yard setback variance along the
easterly property line to bring the home into
conformance.
3. A two foot side yard setback variance along the
westerly property line to bring the home into
conformance.
JED/KLB:mlk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
July 16, 1991
FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Dire
Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assis
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-27: Kayoum - Front Yard Variance
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Abdul Kayoum, of 706 First Avenue, has completed some
remodeling within his existing home that has made his garage
unusable. In order to correct this problem, Mr. Kayoum desires
to expand his garage by eight feet towards First Avenue. This
expansion will encroach upon the front yard setback by four feet
three inches (4' 3"). See attached plans and memos.
Mr. Kayoum has submitted signatures of consent from his
immediate neighbors, with the exception of the Strebigs who are
out of town. Mr. Kayoum has indicated he will bring this
signature to the Planning Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission should consider granting
housekeeping variances to the west side of Mr. Kayoum's house
where it encroaches upon the east side yard setback by 7.2 inches
and to the west side where it encroaches by two feet on a side
yard abutting a street. (Clement Avenue is platted but was never
constructed).
ACTION REQUIRED:
Meet with the applicant to discuss the requested variance of
four feet three inches (4' 3") to the front yard setback, 7.2
inches to the east side yard setback and (2' 0) feet to the west
side yard abutting a street and make a recommendation to the City
Council.
JED/KLB:mlk
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: 23 July 1991
CASE NUMBER: 91-27
APPLICANT: Abdul K. Kayoum
LOCATION: 706 1st Avenue
ACTION REQUESTED: Variance to front yard
setaback requirement.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The applicant wishes to construct an 8 -foot addition to
the front of his garage. This addition would extend to
within 25.75 feet of the front lot line along First
Avenue. The subject property is located in the R-1
District where the required front yard setback is 30 feet.
Therefore, the proposed garage addition would require a
variance of 4.25 feet. The reason for the garage addition
is explianed in detail by Mr. Kayoum in his letter of
intent. In summary, Mr. Kayoum relocated the kitchen from
the basement of his home to the main floor in 1989. In
order to make room for the kitchen, they decided, with the
advise of a contractor, that they would extend a wall into
the rear of their garage and then add onto the front of
the garage to regain the room necessary to park their
cars. During this process, the fact that a variance would
be needed to allow for the extention of the garage was
overlooked.
2. The circumstances that have lead to the applicant's need
for a variance, as described in his letter of intent, are
truely unique and unfortunate. Clearly, Mr. Kayoum has a
practical difficulty. The question here is whether there
is a ligitimate hardship. One of the criteria for
determining hardship states that "the condition that
creates the hardship cannot be the result of actions taken
by the applicant". In this case, the kitchen addition was
built at the request of the applicant. The fact that the
work was done by a contractor does not dismiss the
applicant from the responsibility of making sure that
improvements to his house meet the requirements of the
zoning ordinance. Allowing this variance would set a very
undesireable precedent. While Mr. Kayoum may be the
victim of circumstance and an honest mistake, other
applicants could use this example to their advantage.
Abdul Kayoum, Case No. 91-27 Page 2
3. Having said this, it is important to examine the options.
If the City does not grant the variance, the applicant has
few alternatives. He could do nothing and continue to
park his vehicles in the front driveway. He could
reconstruct the interior of the house to regain parking
space in the garage and relocate the kitchen elsewhere on
the main floor or back to the basement. This would be
very expensive. Ordinarily, the *owner could pursue some
legal action with the contractor to get this work done, or
to help defer the cost. However, in this case, the
contractor has been banned from operating in the City and
may even no longer be in business.
4. One of the functions of a zoning ordinance is to maintain
the aesthetic character of the community. Generally, the
front yard setback is the most sacred in terms of its
value for preserving the aesthetic appeal of the community,
since the front yard is the most visible to the public.
However, the option of doing nothing results in the
applicant continuing to park his cars on the front
driveway. This has some minor negative impact on the
aesthetic character of the surrounding area as well. The
subject property is located somewhat prominently within
the neighborhood. Clement Street ends and curves into
First Avenue in front of the property. In addition, the
lot is directly adjacent to the public trail, which is
located within the ROW for Clement Street south of First
Avenue. From an aesthetic point of view, the applicant's
proposed garage addition, if properly designed and
constructed, may be the lesser of two evils.
5. If the City decides to grant the requested variance, we
would recommend that additional landscaping be required in
the northwest:'corner of the property to help screen the
proposed addition from the intersection of Clement Street
and First Avenue and from the public trial corridor.
6. The subject property is also nonconforming with respect to
the setback from the east and west property lines. The
Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance requires that all
nonconforming uses and structures be brought into
conformance prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or building permit. In order to bring this
property into conformance, variances would be required for
the setbacks from both the east and west property lines.
On the east side of the property, the house is located
within 9.4 feet of the interior side lot line. This would
require a variance of .6 feet in order to meet the 10 -foot
side yard setback requirement. The situation is a little
more complicated for the west side of the lot. This
property is platted as a corner lot, though the ROW for
Abdul Kayoum, Case No. 91-27 Page 3
Clement Street has not been utilized for roadway purposes
(there is a walking trail located within the ROW).
Therefore, the required setback on the west side is 30
feet. The existing setback to the bay window on this side
of the house measures approximately 26 feet (since this is
officially a front yard, bay windows are not exempt from
the setback requirements as they are in side and rear
yards) and, therefore, a 4 -foot varinace would be
required.
. ,••
<-
lilt
...
<
) „.•
,
• e
•
Sr
/
f4.'
"
/
;77-
o'
• -----V7`"
il
11
11
1r- —
..4
1-4
49.
/ k
111
•
SOMERSET
COUNTRY
CLUB
8
GOLF COURSE
V
(Privaie)
1_ /
of
m
N-
35
176 q8
3
3
178 98
NU.J. BUD. 1
N9.2
P'0 LOT 28
)-9/09-8
0
.Pa'
Pe to -So a
f 29
0
,Y6 48
JO 3o
WAyNE V 4-
PATR1C.tA
NEL-Soot
7-6 !8 S-
0
VANDALLS
OUT LOTS
P/0 LOT 7
J- 5 1 - - - >A-'/€44- E - -
/yz/cq,
�o Z. 7 Jahn G.
�^ B Anna
SUBJECT PROPERTY
NORTH t
SCALE 1"=200'
Voa.c2
/ . Sy.gc.
't=7,-/7/4-e-7i��j-i7
/7a`t
Ia
7
55'
"1 1
VI LI
d
7
6
S
4
3
\::
/2
/3
/4
/S
/6.
/7
/8
\ ie, 0 n
A N
7
4
5
4
3
2
/
8
7
e.
/
4.
3
1
/
1
_
-7
1
//
f,! ,9/biz
.16,h/7,547/7
0 7/ /9'
Asb, V E
h
9 N
/e
//
/Z
13 14/
1S
/6
f%21
8
7
e.
/
4.
3
00
13
-L E7. S
1st Avenue
-iS&.i9
115
11S .15
Inti..nLI•f` 1
3 115
/2
S 6
.03 ! 103
T
a - ( M
115 1 s
5 1 ,0y
70
T" REAt RANGt f�t� N ! :
103.56 = 105 X 105 ^_I /05
0
a
1/8 Sc.
f :•H^9 f•
! •
REARANGEMENT. OF
FLOCK 9 T.T. SMITH:1 -
4.�
1
39'7 1
SI.BOIVIISION NO.
Flf� ^ c .7:
.,.,q1 ,-s'50•'E .C: ' .
\••40
7E�1-
/
4o
, Z
.•
3
•'
+4.
S
c
0
1I
\i5
h //
/a
9
B
7
31L
60
8
7
e.
5-
6
/O'
S M
N 89°18.22"E 180.00
0(7 C
as 21 a
a 0 �o
mfgam
N.89`18 25' ' E a
TsW55o)
i1 N 'P 2 ='';'
GN m
aoN.89°18 .23"E 1
180.00
9 m �m
O u• Q•
°D N. 89°1823"E. a.
180.00
/ 4.0
L0
7
1.
S /1:2
9
/0
//
(Z
/3
/4-
/S
/6
/
/8
//
/L
/3
\_
S
/ 6
8
7
e.
5-
4.
3
1
/
1
_
-7
l-
'
/8
//
/L
/3
\_
S
/ 6
$
7\,,X6
S
4.
i�14
J
z
/
T
' 9
/0
1
/5
/3
/4-
/S
/4 b
$
7\,,X6
S
4.
3
z
/
1
-7
_
' 9
/0
/1
/5
/3
/4-
/S
/4 b
2
y
7
6
5
4
3
Z
/-
9
/0
//
/ L
:3
i.-
/s
/4 h
67
,6
/
S 7
2.
7
z
4♦
7
3 �a
4.0 SIN 155
V r, I3
- ...
0
N
IL
0
9
9 9
8
S7
7
S 7
4
66
4 ra•
h
7
0
z, r
1 171
/3N
/ }.
9 7�J6
\CONDOMINIUM
¢
-
July 6, 1991
TO: City of Mendota Heights Planning Commission
RE: Variance to set.backs - front and side
Lot 4,.Block 1, Kallin rearrangement
Dear Sirs:
For years we had wanted to build a kitchen on the main floor of
our home- Because our youngest son was getting married in May
• 1989, and he and his fiancee wanted to have the wedding reception
in our home, we decided to have the kitchen built.
At the time I applied,for a building permit through the City of
Mendota Heights somewhere around the middle of April 1989, my
older son, Joseph, was planning to do the work, however, because
of his work schedule with other contractors and the demands on
his time, we were forced to find someone else. We contacted
John F. Schwab (a local building contractor who we thought had
built some impressive homes in Mendota Heights) and told him of
our plans. He agreed with the plan we had to take the back por-
tion of the garage for the kitchen, but he suggested instead of
extending our garage 41/2 ft. northbound (toward First Avenue)
which we planned, to extend it 6 ft. and he never mentioned this
would require variance approval. Mr. .Schwab started the work,
but never completed the project. He did shoddy work.- We ended
up having our son's wedding reception someplace else. The kitchen
project was finally completed at the end of 1989.*
On April 11, 1990, I contacted the office of Mr. Paul Berg, Code
Enforcement, for the expansion of the .garage and he informed me
that I had to have a survey taken .of my property and drawing made
of the building as this was needed for a variance approval by
your Commission and the City Council. As I stated, Mr. Schwab
never informed me of any requirement for a variance.
In 1990, I had a stroke and abandoned the garage project. Our
cars have sat in the driveway for two winters as the interior
length of the garage is only14 ft. 6 in.
We are ready to, at last, complete this project, however, we do
need approval by your Commission and the City Council. The survey
and drawing was done by Mr. Paul R. McLagan and Son, June 4, 1991.
We do appreciate and want to thank you, in advance, for your
• consideration and approval of this project.
City of
Mendota Heights
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
Case No. 91 - 2
Date of Application 7 -q - I
Fee Paid 3 j of R.2_ . cin 13r)
Applicant Name: )?G -y O 1,c
(Last
Address: 7o 6 I St A ve.
(Number & Street)
Owner Name: Kor_yO LCwt
Address: 7 o 6 1 S+ v.
(Number & Street)
Abclu) K• PH:111 4-57-8176
(First) (Mn
endoftp ft S•, �`'ii�• S51f S
(City) (State) (Zip)
Carole ,'IQdul L.4
(First) (m
Kc( ofa- {t ---, Mt - SStcS
(City)
(State) (Zip)
Street Location of Property in Question:
Legal Description of Property: Loi 9-, i 1 P r (� C I % i h MPQ 2-1-47 ,� t...(S.
Type of Request:
Rezoning
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D.
Plan Approval
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Applicable City Ordinance Number
)1 Variance
' Subdivision Approval
Wetlands Permit
Other (attach explanation)
Present Zoning of Property - I Present Use 5
Proposed Zoning of Property - k Proposed Use
Section
•
l¢. fir• • l�
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional
material are true.
(Signature of Appli
7-1-'iI
(Date)
(Received by - Title)
1101 Victoria Curve -Mendota Heights, MN - 55118 452-1850
614' of Mcdota Jic4jkts
BANK BUILDING
750 SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE • MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 55120
TELEPHONE (612) 452-1850
Mr. A.K. Kayoum
706 First Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55118
Dear Mr. Kayoum:
October 19, 1978
This is to formally advise you of City Council action taken on your
application for variance. As you are aware, the Council, on October 3rd,
reviewed and approved your application for a fifteen foot variance from the
setback requirements on the east side of your property.
In your presentation on October 3rd, you advised the Council that you
propose to construct the garage addition, with a bedroom addition above it,
in such a manner as to maintain a single roofline on your home. A brief
field inspection of your property indicates that you have a single story
home at the present time and retention of the single roofline does not
appear to be possible. I must caution you therefore that since Council
approval of your application was predicated on the single roofline,
building permit approval will also be based on this factor. During your
presentation you also indicated that the additional room is necessary as
you hope to invite an additional family member to share your home. In a
later part of the meeting, the Council asked that I caution you that
approval was based on a bedroom/garage addition. Since our zoning ordinance
does not allow the separation of a home into two separate and distinct -
living quarters, a permit for this type of activity will not be approved.
Prior to construction of your addition, it will be necessary for you
or your licensed contractor to apply for the required building permit. If
you have any questions regarding the building permit process or on the
above information, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
; Z
.727
i•
-Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
cc: Dick Bjorklund
,
4 •
City of
!fljMendota Heights
July 16, 1991
Mr. Abdul Kayoum
706 First Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Kayoum:
Your application for a Front Yard Variance will be considered by
the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting,
which will be held on Tuesday. July 23, 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:mlk
Enclosures: Planning Commission Agenda
Planner's Report
City Staff Report
-1101 Victotia Curve ,../Viendota'lleights;" MN ; 55118 7452-1850
City of
Mendota Heights
July 26, 1991
Mr. Abdul Kayoum
706 1st Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
Dear Mr. Kayoum:
Your application for a Variance will be considered by the
City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will
be held on Tuesday, August 6, 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 City Council
grant a four (4) foot three (3) inch front yard,variance to allow
construction of the proposed garage addition. The Planning
Commission also recommended that City Council grant housekeeping
variance to your side yard setbacks. The east side is a one foot
side yard setback variance and the west side is a two foot side
yard setback variance.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kevin Batchelder
Administrative Assistant
Enclosures: City Council Agenda .
Staff Memo to City Council
1101 Victoria Curve .Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452.1850
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
July 31, 1991
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administr`
FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direct
Kevin L. Batchelder, Administrative Assista
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-29: Catholic Cemeteries - Sign Variance
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Dave Kemp, Operations Manager for Catholic Cemeteries
appeared before the Planning Commission at their July meeting to
request sign variances to allow the cemetery to construct
temporary signs at their entrances located on Lexington Avenue
and Highway 110. See attached plans and memos.
The Planner's memo discusses the variances necessary for the
proposed temporary signs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that
City Council grant a variance to the temporary sign requirements
to allow 113 square feet of sign area for the four proposed signs
within Mendota Heights.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Review any questions or concerns with the applicant and then
if Council desires to implement the Planning Commission
recommendation, they should pass a motion approving variances to
allow four temporary signs with a total of 113 square feet of
area for a period of five years, with City Council review of the
signs after 3 1/2 years.
JED/KLB:mlk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
July 16, 1991
FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direct
Kevin Batchelder, Administrative Assista
SUBJECT: CASE NO. 91-29: Catholic Cemeteries - Sign Variance
DISCUSSION:
Resurrection Cemetery currently has their main entrance
located in the north east corner of their cemetery along
Lexington Avenue. They experience traffic problems from funeral
processions backing up to Highway 110 from this entrance. In
order to correct this problem, Resurrection proposes to close
this entrance and develop the southeast entrance as the main gate
to the cemetery. They also propose to improve and more fully
utilize their access along Highway 110 on the north side of the
cemetery. See attached plans and memos.
In order to accomplish this entrance change, they propose to
install one entrance nameplate sign along Lexington Avenue and
two entrance nameplate signs along Highway 110. Within the site,
Resurrection proposes two information signs, one at each access.
Cemeteries are typically in residential zones, in which strict
sign regulation ordinances apply. Our Zoning Ordinance only
provides for one twelve square foot sign per lot in residential
zones.
Resurrection Cemetery is the largest cemetery in the State
of Minnesota, and contains a number of lots within their total
site. The City's Zoning Ordinance allows one sign per each
permitted use and that sign is not to exceed 12 square feet
(Section 18.6 (3)). The signs that Resurrection proposes are on
separate lots, one along T.H. 110 and one along Lexington Avenue.
The western most nameplate sign along T.H. 110 is in the City of
Mendota and out of our jurisdiction. The size of the nameplate
signs are 19 1/2 square feet per side.
We feel that the following variances need to be granted in
order to allow construction of the proposed signs:
1. Lexington Avenue Signs
Nameplate Sign - Area (2 sided) = 39 s.f.
Variance required to 12 s.f. max. = 27 s.f.
Informational Sign - One sign allowed per lot
Variance required to allow second sign
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: 23 July 1991
CASE NUMBER: 91-29
APPLICANT: Keith B. Wehrman
LOCATION: Resurrection Cemetery
ACTION REQUESTED: Sign Variance
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. The Catholic Cemeteries, the organization that owns and
maintains the Resurrection Cemetery, wishes to locate
entry signs at three separate locations, as well as two
informational signs to be located on the interior of the
cemetery. The location of the proposed signs is indicated
on the site plan provided by the applicant, Keith Wehrman,
who is representing Catholic Cemeteries. The Resurrection
Cemetery is located in a residential district (R-1) and is
considered a conditional use. Section 18.6(3) allows one
nameplate sign for each conditional use within an "R"
district. This sign is limited to 12 square feet per
surface.
2. The standard identified in the previous paragraph is
intended to limit the potential for urban clutter in
residential areas. This standard is generally designed
for areas where the predominant character is small,
closely arranged lots. The subject property is an
extremely large open area and as such, is a very unique
situation that deserves special consideration. Limiting
this use to one sign with 12 square feet per surface would
be an undue hardship. A use of this magnitude has the
right to adequate identification and informational
signage.
3. The proposed signage includes five separate signs, three
of which are entrance signs to be designed as shown on the
plans submitted by the applicant. One of the entrance
signs is actually located in the Village of Mendota. This
sign is not with the jurisdiction of Mendota Heights and
will, therefore, not be addressed further. The total area
of signage as proposed is approximately 113.5 square feet.
Each entry sign is to be two sided and each side is 19.5
square feet in area. The two informational signs are one
sided and each sign is 17-3/4 square feet in area. The
signs are within the height limitations identified in the
Ordinance and the setbacks for the two entry signs are
also consistent with the Ordinance requirements.
Keith Nehmen/Catholic Cemeteries, Case No. 91-29 Page 2
4. Aesthetically the signs are simple and attractive. The
signs are to be made of wood and painted and are not
intended to be lit in any way. The materials and design
of the signs are not commensurate with the stature and
image of the entry of a major cemetery. However,
according to John Cherek, Director of The Catholic
Cemeteries, the proposed signs are intended to be
temporary and will be replaced with more prominent
monument signs at some point in the future. He indicated
these signs might be replaced in.5 to 7 years depending on
the success of their marketing efforts.
5. The proposed signage as indicated on the plans and
sketches submitted by the applicant is appropriate under
the understanding that it is temporary and will eventually
be replaced by more substantial monument signage. The
applicant's request for a variance to allow four signs
with a total area of 113 square feet meets the criteria
for consideration of a variance in the Ordinance.
ho
*--
City of
Mendota Heights
Applicant Name:
Address:
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
Case No. ql-
Date of Application n - It -at 1
Fee Paid a to157- 3 5. c4:1
B. Keith FH.: 612-221-0401
(First)
Wehrman
a..ast)
365 E. Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55101
(Number & Street) (My) (State) (Zip)
Owner Name: The Catholic Cemeteries
Address:
(Last)
(First) :
(m1)
244 Dayton Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55102 .
(Number & Street) .(42i4)- (State) (Zip)
Street Location of Property in Question: 2101 Lexington Avenue -South
Legal Description of Property: Attached
Type ofRequest:
Rezoning
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D.
X Plan Approwal
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Applicable City Ordinance Ninnber
Present Zoning of Property 12
Proposed Zoning of Property
401 1
Present Use
Proposed Use Signs
Variance
Subdivision Approval
Wetlands Permit
Other (attach explanation)
Section .-:- 5.5
Cemetery and Undeveloped
I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and
material are true.
th
ditional
of App cant) Stute)g, iiVe;
July 11, 1991
(Date) •
flcwcLL
(Received by - Title)
11111 AA co rt tietta lac.; hi- AA N 4.411R .149.1Rgil
File No._ _
Certificate of Title
• OWNER'S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE
Certificate No. 4 2 6 0 7 Document No. 7 7 5 5 0
Transfer from No. 3 1 9 1 1 Originally registered the 22nd
Volume Six page 84-85-86-87-88-119
District Court No.
day of July
State of Minnesota,) ss
County of Dakota. 1 i'i% id to col*, duet The Catholic Cemeteries,
244 Dayton Ave.,
of the
County of
is now the owner
of
and State of
of an estate. to wit: fee simple
following described land situated in the County of Dakota
St. Paul
Minnesota
19 32
• of and in the
and State of Minnesota, to wit:
Lots Two (2), Twenty-one (21), Twenty-four (24), Twenty-six (26), Thirty (30), Thirty-three (33),
Thirty-four (34), Thirty-eight (38), Forty (40), Forty-one (41), and Lots Eight (8), Eleven (11),
and Twenty (20), except that part of Lots Two (2), Eight (8), Eleven (11) and Twenty (20) of Auditor's
Subdivision No. 34 shown as Parcel 212 on the plat designated as State Highway Right of Way Plats
Numbered 19-1 and 19-2 on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds iu and for
Dakota County, Minnesota;
Subject to rights as set forth below, forming and being part of said Parcel 212:
Access: All right of access to said Parcel 212 as shown on said plats by the access restriction
symbol.
Temporary Easement: A temporary easement for highway pruposes in Resurrection Cemetery and First Addition
to Resurrection Cemetery as shown on said plataas to said Parcel 212 by the temporary•easement
symbol, said easement shall cease on December 1, 1986, or on ouch earlier date upon which the
Coanissioner of Highways determines by formal order that it is no longer needed for highway
purposes.
Subject to the encumbrances, liens and interest noted by the memorial underwritten or endorsed hereon; and subject to the following
rights or encumbrances subsisting, as provided in M. S A. Section 50825 namely:
1. Liens. claims, or rights arising or existing under the laws or the constitution of the United States, which this state cannot require to
appear of record;
2. The lien of any tax or special assessment for which the land has not been sold at the date of the certificate of title;
3. Any lease for a period not exceeding three years when there is actual occupation of the premises thereunder;
4. All rights in public highways upon the land;
5. Such right of appeal. or right to appear and contest the application. as is allowed by this chapter;
6. The rights of any person in possession under deed or contract for deed from the owner of the certificate of title.
That the said The Catholic Cemeteries is a corporation organized and existing -under the
MOW laws of the State of Minnesota. actabcxxcacommodeonccomccoozamtisabiiinix
Jia Yfirneti h/I%exe? 1 have hereunto subscribed my name and afltxed the seal of my office,
this 15th day of Hay 19 75
JAMES J. FOUTCHIS
Registrar of Titles
In and for the County of Dakota and State of Minnesota.
MEMORIAL
(Seal)
of Estates, Easements or Charges on the Land described in the Certificate of Title hereto attached.
oawwort
MAN
ams or
*S1*.Jwcxr
OATS OF REGISTRATION
nuc a *STUMM
AMOWa
ROIOINIG MFAVOR OF
SIGNATURE OF REGISTRAR
wine
err
UM&r
mxJ
IIMMI
err
run
►x
2306
Plat
Dec.
27
L933
3
12
19
'33
-
C. E. Tuttle
tall
lots
in this
rtificate
platted
into
"Resurrection Cemetery")
17672
Easement
Apr.
5
L958
11
6
20
'53
-
State of Minnesota
10n
Lots
2-8-1L-20,
And.
Sub.
No.
14)
A. A. Welshons
51762
Hwy.
(Pt.
of
Lots
38.6
0, Aud.Sib.
#54,
See
Itstr.)
Easement
une
6
969
11
5
9
'69
-
State of Minnesota
Richard W. McCarthy
54898
Resolution
une
24
970
3
1
27
'70
-
The Catholic Cemeteries
Richard W. McCarthy
1
JAA AA A A
City of
Mendota Heights
July 16, 1991.
Mr. Keith Wehrman
Catholic Cemeteries
365 E. Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Dear Mr. Wehrman:
Your application for Sign Variances will be considered by
the Planning Commission at their next regularly scheduled meeting,
which will be held on Tuesday, July 23, 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:mlk
Enclosures: Planning Commission Agenda
• Planner's Report
City Staff Report
•
City of
Mendota Heights
July 26, 1991
Mr. Keith Wehrman
Catholic Cemeteries
365 E. Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Dear Mr. Wehrman:
Your application for a Sign Variance will be considered by the
City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting, which will
be held on Tuesday, August 6, 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_City Council
grant the requested sign variances as proposed.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kevin Batchelder
Administrative Assistant
KLB:mlk
Enclosures: City Council Agenda
Staff Memo to City Council
1101 Victoria .Curve .Mendota Heights, MN • 55118 452-1850
TO MIN NE A POLIS
HIGHWAY
ENTRANCE SIGN (2) 1 -SIDED
10' S B OR-FROM-R;O:W
31.PAUL
INFORMATION SIGN
RESURRECTION CEMETERY ,
Mendota Heights ,, Minnesota
IN IS 1 IN m
SIIII la 1111
Augusto
Mendota Heights Police Department
MEMORANDUM
1 August, 1991
TO: Mayor and City Council
City Administrator
FROM: Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Cat Control Ordinance
History
Mr. Ralph Johnson has appeared before the Council several times requesting an
ordinance to assist in controlling the nuisance, predation and health hazards
resulting from domestic cats. Several options have been discussed and Council
directed the police chief to meet with Mr. Johnson to develop an ordinance
that would balance his needs with the needs of the majority of the citizens
and the financial capabilities of the City.
Discussion,
The text modifications of our existing trapping and animal ordinances include:
1. Allowance for the humane trapping of nuisance cats with city -provided
traps.
2. A requirement that cats be subject to the same licensing, vaccination,
running at large and impoundment provisions that now govern dogs.
Financial Inpact
This ordinance will restrict cats and cat owners to a much greater degree than
ever before. The cost to the City will include traps, license tags,
administrative costs for issuing licenses and releasing and impounding cats,
boarding and euthanasia fees for unclaimed cats, and the manpower cost to pick
up and deliver cats. While it is nearly impossible to forecast the amount of
work generated by an ordinance of this nature, I would estimate something in
the area of $1,000.00 for the first year.
policy Considerations
If this ordinance is enacted, the police department will generate a policy
that would include the following:
1. Police officers will only respond to cat calls that involve sick or
injured cats and cats that are an imminent threat to the health or
safety of people.
2. Citizens with nuisance cat problems will be directed to come to the
police department during normal business hours to check out a trap.
3. They will be given written information on the proper use of the traps.
Citizens who trap a cat will be required to call the police, who will
pick up the animal and deliver it to the impoundment facility.
Recommendation
As directed, this ordinance was drafted with the intent of satisfying Mr.
Johnson while causing the least possible impact on City manpower and finances.
It is narrowly focused and for the benefit of a seemingly small group of
people. At the same time, it creates severe restrictions on another larger
group of citizens. Council must determine the need for such an ordinance and,
if such restrictions are deemed necessary, the police department recommends
the attached ordinance for approval.
ORDINANCE NO. 914
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING TRAPPING AND HUNTING IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA
HEIGHTS
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this ordinance to preclude the potential harm
that may be inflicted upon people, particularly children, and prevent
the unselective catching, maiming and destruction of wild animals and
birds and domestic animals that may result from the indiscriminate use
of firearm and trapping devices.
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS
As used in this ordinance the terms below have the meanings described:
2.1 Trap. Any mechanical device, snare, artificial light,
vehicle, net, bird line, or any other similar type
-contrivance.
2.2 Trapping. The setting or laying or otherwise using of a
trap anywhere in the City of Mendota Heights to trap, catch,
snare or otherwise restrain free movement of animals,
wildlife or birds.
2.3 Hunting. The pursuit of wild animals, birds or any form of
wildlife involving the use of firearms or any other
mechanical device or any use of physical force to bring
down, restrain, harass, injure, maim or kill any such wild
creatures.
SECTION 3. VIOLATION
Trapping and hunting anywhere in the City of Mendota Heights is
prohibited.
SECTION 4. EXCEPTIONS
4.1 The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to
representatives of the City, County, State or Federal
governments who may in the course of their duties be
required to use a trap to trap, catch, snare, kill or
otherwise restrain the free movement of any animal, wildlife
or birds for humane or other authorized purposes, or to such
representatives, or teachers for school programs, or to
scientists intending to identify animals, wildlife or birds
and then returning them to their natural environment.
(914) 1
4.2 The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to persons
who engage in trapping or hunting on their private property
to prevent an unsafe condition or the waste or destruction
of their property when such persons have complied with other
applicable provisions of the ordinances of this City and the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
4.3 The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to persons
who engage in the humane and live trapping of domestic
animals, on their private property, when those animals have
caused damage or have jeopardized the health, safety or
repose of the owner of that property:
a) Domestic animals are only to be trapped using an
approved trap provided by the Police Department.
b) Trapped animals shall be delivered over to the
Police Department as soon as practical.
c) The Police Department will cause all trapped
domestic animals to be impounded by the City designated
kennel or clinic.
SECTION 5. PENALTY
Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of
this ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined a sum not to
exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or shall be imprisoned for a
period not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both.
ORDINANCE NO. 1301
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING DOGS AND CATS, PROVIDING FOR THE LICENSING AND
OF DOCS AND THE IMPOUNDING OF DOGS AND CATS, AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF.
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS
As used in this ordinance, the following terms shall mean:
1.1 Owner: Any person, group of persons or corporation owning,
keeping, or harboring a dog(s) or cat(s). The "Harborer" of
a dog or cat shall mean any person who has the custody of
any dog or cat or permits the same to be kept or to stay on
or about his premises.
1.2 Kennel: Any person, group of persons or corporation engaged
in the commercial business of breeding, buying, selling or
boarding dogs or cats. '
1.3 At Large: A dog or cat shall be termed to be at large when
it is not under restraint as defined in this ordinance.
1.4 Restraint: A dog or cat is under restraint, within the
meaning of this ordinance, if it is controlled by a leash
not exceeding six feet in length or by a competent person
and immediately obedient to that person's command, or if it
is within a vehicle being driven or parked on the public
streets, or it if is within the property limits of its
owner's premises.
1.5 Animal Shelter: Any premises designated by action of the
City Council for the purposes of impounding and caring for
all animals found in violation of this ordinance.
1.6 Animal Warden: The person or persons designated by the City
Council as the enforcement officer of this ordinance.
1.7 Health Officer: The Health Officer designated by the City
Council.
SECTION 2. LICENSING
2.1 Except as provided in Section 18, no person shall own, keep
or harbor any dog or cat within the City limits unless such
dog or cat is licensed as herein provided. Written
application for such license shall be made to the City Clerk
and shall state the name and address of the owner and the
name, breed, color, age and sex of the dog or cat. The
(1301) 1
license fee shall be paid at the time of making the
application, a numbered receipt shall be given to the
applicant, and a numbered metallic tag shall be issued to
the owner. In addition, any owner who makes application for
a dog or cat license for any dog or cat six (6) months of
age or older shall furnish proof of the date the dog or cat
received its last rabies inoculation. No license shall be
issued for any dog or cat which has not received a rabies
inoculation within the one, two, or three year effective
period of the vaccine last used.
2.2 The yearly license fee shall be $6.00 for an unspayed female
dog or cat and $3.00 for a spayed female dog or cat or a
male dog or cat.
2.3 All dog and cat licenses shall be issued for one year
beginning with the first day of June. Application for
licenses my be made sixty (60) days prior to the start of
the licensing year, and thereafter during the licensing
year. Applications made after June 30th of the licensing
year shall be assessed a penalty of fifty cents (.50) for
each late month or portion thereof which amount shall be
added to and collected with the regular license fee. Any
owner who secures a dog or cat after the start of the
license year shall be allowed thirty (30) days after
acquiring such dog or cat to secure a license and must with
his application for a dog or cat license file an affidavit
identifying the dog or cat and stating the date of its
acquisition. Any dog or cat which may be impounded for
violations of this chapter, within such thirty -day period
may be reclaimed by the owner without paying the impounding
fee, but such owner shall be responsible for paying the cost
of keeping such dog or cat during its impounding.
2.4 Any dog or cat owner, upon first becoming a resident of the
City of Mendota Heights, shall be allowed thirty (30) days
from such time within which to obtain the dog or cat
license. Any dog or cat which may be impounded for
violations of this chapter, within such thirty (30) day
period may be reclaimed by the owner without paying the
impounding fee, but such owner shall be responsible for
paying the cost of keeping such dog or cat during its
impounding.
2.5 An owner of a new born dog(s) or cat(s) shall be allowed
thirteen (13) weeks from the date of birth of such dog(s) or
cat(s) within which to obtain the dog or cat license or
licenses required hereunder.
2.6 In the event that the metallic license tag issued for a dog
or cat shall be lost or stolen, the owner may obtain a
duplicate tag by surrendering the receipt issued for the
f
(1301) 2
lost or stolen tag and upon the payment of One Dollar
($1.00) .
2.7 If there is a change of ownership of a dog or cat during the
license year, the new owner may have the current license
changed to his name by surrendering the receipt issued for
the first tag and upon the payment of a transfer fee of One
Dollar ($1.00).
SECTION 3. TAG AND COLLAR
3.1 Upon complying with the provisions of this ordinance, there
shall be issued to the owner a metallic tag, stamped with a
number and the year for which issued.
3.2 Every owner is required to k ep a valid tag securely
fastened to the dog or cat's hoke chair, collar or harness,
which must be worn by the do or cat at all times.
3.3 No person shall counterfeit an official dog or cat tag of
this City, or use such a counterfeit tag, or aid or abet in
any such violation of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. RESTRAINT OF ALL DOGS AND CATS AT ALL TIMES
4.1 No owner of a dog or cat shall permit his dog or cat to -be
at large in this City, but shall keep such dog or cat under
restraint at all times.
SECTION 5. CONFINEMENT INDOORS OF CERTAIN DOGS
5.1 The owner of a dog shall confine within a building or secure
enclosure every fierce, dangerous or vicious dog, except
when securely muzzled and in the control of a competent
person.
5.2 Every female dog in heat shall be confined in a building,
secure enclosure, veterinary hospital or boarding kennel.
SECTION 6. KEEPING OF NUISANCE DOGS PROHIBITED
6.1 No person shall keep or harbor a dog which habitually barks
or cries. Any such dog is hereby declared to be a public
nuisance.
6.2 No person shall keep more than three (3) dogs or cats over
four months of age upon any premises within the City limits.
The keeping of more than three (3) such dogs or cats is
(1301) 3
is hereby declared to be a public nuisance.
0
SECTION 7. BITING
7.1 No owner shall permit his dog to attack or bite a person
outside the owner's premises.
SECTION 8. ANIMAL SHELTER
8.1 The City Council may provide for a City -owned animal shelter
or may designate as the animal shelter of the City a
suitable kennel either within or outside the City.
SECTION 9. ANIMAL WARDEN AND ASSISTANTS
9.1 The City Council shall designate the animal warden and may
if it so determines appoint such additional persons as it
may deem necessary to aid and assist such animal warden in
the performance of his duties hereunder. All references to
the animal warden in this ordinance shall be deemed to
include such assistants. Such persons and the police
officers of the City shall have police powers to cite owners
of dogs or cats for violations of this Ordinance, in
addition to their powers in impounding dogs or cats.
SECTION 10. IMPOUNDING DOGS AND OR CATS
10.1 The Animal Warden and his assistants and any police officer
of the City may take up and impound any dog or cat found not
to be kept, confined or restrained in the manner required by
this Ordinance. To enforce this Ordinance, such officers
may enter upon private premises where it appears or where
there is reasonable cause to believe that a dog or cat is
not being kept, confined or restrained as herein required.
Any dog or cat so impounded shall be confined in the Animal
Shelter in a humane manner for a period of not less than six
(6) days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, if
not claimed prior thereto by its owner. Thereafter said dog
or cat shall become the property of the City, may be
disposed of,in a humane manner or may be sold to or placed
in the custody of some other suitable person. If a dog or
cat is destroyed pursuant to this chapter, -the license for
such dog or cat shall expire.•
10.2 Immediately upon the impounding of a dog or cat wearing a
current license, the animal warden shall make every
reasonable effort to notify the owner of such dog or cat of
such impoundment and of the conditions whereby the owner may
(1301) 4
regain custody of the dog or cat. Any verbal notices shall
immediately be confirmed in writing by the animal warden.
SECTION 11. REDEMPTION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS
Any dog or cat impounded hereunder, not being held for
suspected disease, may be reclaimed by the owner within six
(6) days, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, upon
payment of the owner to the City of an impounding fee of Ten
Dollars ($10.00) for the first redemption, Twenty -Five
Dollars ($25.00) for the second redemption in a twelve-month
period, and Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the third redemption
in a twelve-month period, plus the cost of the City for
keeping such dog or cat in the City Animal Shelter. If the
dog or cat so reclaimed requires a license under the
provisions of this Ordinance, such license shall be obtained
before such dog or cat is released.
SECTION 12. INTERFERENCE
No person shall interfere with, hinder or molest the animal
warden or any of his assistants or any police officer in the
performance of their duties hereunder, or seek to release
any animal in the custody of the animal warden except as
herein provided.
SECTION 13. KILLING DOGS WHICH CANNOT BE IMPOUNDED
If a dog or cat is diseased, vicious, dangerous, rabid or
exposed to rabies and such dog or cat cannot be impounded
after a reasonable effort, or cannot be impounded without
serious risk to the persons attempting to impound, such dog
or cat may be immediately killed.
SECTION 14. DISEASED ANIMALS
14.1 Whenever the animal warden, any police officer, or the
Health Officer have reason to believe that any dog or cat in
the City of Mendota Heights has been exposed to rabies, or
whenever the animal warden, any City police officer, or the
Health Officer has reason to believe that a dog or a cat has
bitten any person within the City of Mendota Heights, the
animal warden, any City police officer, or the Health
Officer is hereby authorized and empowered to take such dog
or cat to the Animal Shelter and there keep such dog or cat
for such time as the Health Officer shall order, to give the
Health Officer an opportunity to determine whether such dog
or cat is diseased and no diseased dog or cat shall be
(1301) 5
killed unless so ordered by the Health Officer. The cost of
keeping such dog or cat in the City Animal Shelter shall be
paid by the owner of such dog or cat. Such impounding may
be by the owner who must keep such dog or cat inaccessible
to other animals and confined within a building approved by
the Health Officer and the owner shall furnish proof in
writing that such dog or cat is being impounded, unless a
complaint is signed by the person bitten, or a parent or
legal guardian of the person bitten, which requires
impoundment at the City Animal Shelter. On expiration of
such impoundment period by the owner, if the dog or cat does
not have rabies, it may be released, and the Health Officer
shall be notified just prior to such release. If the dog or
cat is impounded in the Animal Shelter, such dog or cat may
be reclaimed on expiration of such impoundment period after
payment by the owner of the costs of such impoundment.
SECTION 15. REPORTS OF BITE CASES
15.1 It shall be the duty of every physician or any other person
to report to the animal warden the names and addresses of
persons treated for bites inflicted by animals within the
City of Mendota Heights, together with such other
information as will be helpful in rabies control and the
animal warden shall immediately inform the Health Officer of
such report.
SECTION 16. RESPONSIBILITIES OF VETERINARIANS
16.1 It shall be the duty of every licensed veterinarian to
report to the animal warden his diagnosis of any animal
within the City of Mendota Heights observed by him as a
rabies suspect and the animal warden shall immediately
inform the Health Officer of such report.
SECTION 17. INVESTIGATION
17.1 For the purposes of discharging the duties imposed by this
Ordinance and to enforce its provisions, the animal warden
or any police officer of this City is empowered to enter
upon the premises upon which a dog or cat is kept or
harbored and to demand the exhibition by the owner of such
dog or cat and/or the license for such dog or cat. The
animal warden or any police officer may enter the premises
where any animal is kept in a reportedly cruel or inhumane
manner and demand to examine such animal and to take
possession of such animal when in his opinion it requires
humane treatment.
(1301) 6
J � 1
SECTION 18. EXEMPTIONS
18.1 Hospitals, clinics and other premises operated by licensed
veterinarians exclusively for the care and treatment of
animals are exempt from the provisions of this chapter
except where such duties are expressly stated.
18.2 The licensing requirements of this chapter shall not apply
to any dog or cat belonging to a non-resident of the City
and kept within the City for not longer than thirty (30)
days provided that all such dogs or cats shall at all times
while within the City be kept under restraint.
SECTION 19. RECORDS
19.1 It shall be the duty of the animal warden to keep or cause
to be kept, accurate and detailed records of the licensing,
impoundment and disposition of all animals coming into its
custody.
19.2 It shall be the duty of the Health Officer to keep, or cause
to be kept, accurate and detailed records of all bite cases
reported to him and his investigation of the same.
19.3 The animal warden shall account for and pay over monthly to
the City any money received by him on behalf of the City
hereunder, and shall also give an accurate written report
each month to the City Council stating all monies collected,
all dogs impounded and the duration of impoundment, and all
dogs or cats destroyed.
SECTION 20. Any person violating any of the provisions of this
Ordinance shall, upon conviction therefor, be punished by a fine of
not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by imprisonment for
not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both.
(1301) 7
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ
SUBJECT: DNR Alternative Deer Control Program
INTRODUCTION:
August 2, 1991
The City has received a request from the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources for approval of a three year
Alternative Deer,Control Program within the Minnesota River
Valley area. It is the intent of this memo to describe the
request and recommend that the program be authorized subject to
certain special conditions.
DISCUSSION:
In 1989 the DNR Wildlife Service formed the Minnesota Valley
Deer Management Task Force to analyze and recommend methods of
dealing with the deer overpopulation problem which exists within
Fort Snelling State Park, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
Refuge, and the Bloomington open space lands east of I -35W. The
16 member task force included representatives from all four
affected communities: Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan and Mendota
Heights. In April of 1989 the City Council appointed City
resident Kathleen Ridder to serve as our representative on the
task force. The task force issued its report in June 1990, and
based on a recommendation made in the report, the DNR has '
requested that the City approve the implementation of the
attached three year Alternative Deer Control Program.
.The detailed program has as its first goal the removal of
160 deer from the River Valley over the course of three separate
weekends in late November - early December 1991. This hunt is
similar to those undertaken in past years, which have proven
helpful in controlling the deer population.
Mr. Jon Parker, DNR Area Wildlife Manager, will be present
at our August 6th Council meeting to further describe the program
details, if necessary. Mr. Parker indicates that the City of
Bloomington has already approved the program, and the Cities of
Burnsville and Eagan are expected to do so during the month.
Th
5. The DNR agrees to distribute to all program
participants a copy of this Resolution, and
will have each program participant sign a
statement indicating that they have read and
understood all rules, regulations, and
conditions which govern the conduct of the
special hunt.
6. All operational details and costs of the
program are the responsibility of the DNR as
set forth in their proposal dated June 12,
1991.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this
6th day of August 1991.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS.
By
Charles E. Mertensotto
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
setSTATE OF�G-= ,EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
PHONENO. (612) 445-9393 June 12, 1991
TO: Mendota Heights City Council
Imo: Jon Parker, Area Wildlife Manager
Area Wildlife Office
118 S. Fuller Street, #3
Shakopee, MN 55379
PROPOSAL:
1991-1993 ALTERNATIVE DEER CONTROL PROGRAM
FORT SNELLING STATE PARK
MINNESOTA VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
BLOOMINGTON OPEN SPACE LANDS EAST OF INTERSTATE 35W
FILE NO.
THREE-YEAR PROGRAM: In accordance with the Deer Task Force recommendations we
reauest that the cities authorize a three-year program. The results will be
monitored by the Deer Task Force annually and modifications in the deer
removal goal numbers, number of participants, and dates may be made. This
could include one or more years which no removal would be done. Cities would
be notified annually by May 1 of the next Fall's program.
)1 DATES: NOVEMBER 30 - DECEMBER 1; DECEMBER 7 - 8; DECEMBER 14 - 15.
Three weekends. We may wish to add a Friday to each of the last two weekends
to increase success and to attract enough participants.
ALTERNATIVE DEER CONTROL AREAS: The area labelled F2 on the attached map
would be included in the program in Mendota Heights. This incl»af. DNR Fort
Snelling State Park lands only.
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: Approximately 123 per weekend for the entire area;
actual numbers would be based on one participant per 25 acres. Numbers of
participants in Mendota Heights F2 would be 25 per weekend. Each weekend would
utilize a different group, but any successful applicant could participate on a
"standby" basis. Selection would be by random drawing from postcard
applications.
FIREARMS: Shotgun with slugs.
NUMBER OF DEER TO BE TAKEN: 160 for the entire area including Burnsville,
Bloomington, Eagan, and Mendota Heights. Each participant may kill only one
deer on a bonus license. Only antlerless deer would be taken. If we do not
reach the goal, the remainder would be taken by sharpshooting, if possible.
LICENSE: All participants must have purchased a 1991 deer license.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mendota Heights City Council
Page 2
June 12, 1991
ORIENTATION: All participants must attend an orientation session conducted by
the Department of Natural. Resources and US Fish & Wildlife Service.
SPECIAL REGULATIONS: Same as previous controlled hunts. (Attachment #1)
ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS: Three additional regulations were proposed by the
Deer Management Task Force. These regulations cannot be instituted under
State authority. They are: 1. Participants under 18 years old must be
accompanied by a qualified, selected adult and have previous deer hunting
experience. 2. Violations (of program regulations) will result in immediate
revocation of the current year's program permit, (and) ineligibility for
participating in the program in future years.. 3. After the first year,
priority will be given to applicants with previous experience in the program.
We would like to include these regulations, but we have been advised that they
must be included in City regulations in order to be enforced. This would
require an ordinance and a city permit which could be issued at the
orientation along with the purchase of a bonus license (see Attachment #2).
SHARPSHOOTING: If the 160 deer are not taken in the Alternative Control
Program, we will attempt to reach the goal using sharpshooters. These
shooters will be DNR and US Fish & Wildlife Service Enforcement Officers as in
past years.
Hunting"Zones 1991-1993
FORT SNELLING STATE PARK &
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge
•...I 4.11
I
1 I, W
1211101 '
l
1.1.'
*./1*
z.217
- :es
one Oak Rd.'
!I: •
i
•:;
:
0
7.
• )•
H zone
Lot
Black Dog Lake Unit
Long Meadow Lake Unit
Fort Snelling State Park
Alternative Deer Control Program
C..101
Scale in feet
JLJ5.30.1r1
ATTACHMENT #1
COMMISSIONER'S ORDER NO. 2350
Appl t 'be postmarkedmr--delivered"by-4:10`-'p
September T;,.,.1989 . If applications e*ceed the number of
available permits,*-a.random drawing will be held. If
applications number less than available permits, the number of
permits for Fort Snelling State ,?ark will be reduced.
•
Applications must be addressed- to Miniesota Valley Deer Hunt,
DNR -Metro Parks, 1200 Warner Road, St., Paul, 'Minnesota 55106.
This is Special Permit Area Number 394. Each permitwill be
•
•
(b) Special Regulations. Successful applicants in
drawings for the shotgun hunt in Fort Snelling State Park and the
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge must comply with the
following regulations:
(1) Attend -an orientation. session and receive a
permit validated for an assigned hunting compartment. There will
be a $2.00 fee for each permit. Mapsof the open areas will be
provided to permittees. Permits forfeited by those who do not
attend an orientation session will be issued to alternates drawn
from the list of applicants.
(2) Only hunters with valid permits will be
allowed in the hunting compartments and only from 5 a.m. to 6
p.m. each day.
(3) Each permittee sh411 hunt only in the
assigned compartment for which his/hef permit is valid and shall
enter and leave only by way of designated access points.
-2-
•
COMMISSIONER'S ORDER NO. 2350
(4) All firearms must be unloaded and completely
contained in a case except while the hunter is occupying a
temporary or portable elevated stand.
(5)• Shooting is allowed only from a temporary or
portable stand at least five (5) feet above the ground. No
permanent stands may be constructed or occupied. Temporary
stands must be removed from the huntipg compartment at the end of
hunting each day.
(6) No hunter shall pursue a deer outside of
his/her assigned hunting compartment. Attempts to retrieve
wounded or dead deer outside of the assigned compartments require
prior approval of and accompaniment by an agent of the
:ommissioner or of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(7) All deer taken must be registered at the Fort
Snelling State Park Headquarters within 24 hours of taking. Deer
may be registered between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Saturdays and
Sundays and between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Deer taken in Fort Snelling State Park and the Minnesota Valley
-National Wildlife Refuge may be removed from the area prior to
registration if the registration station is closed, but they must
be registered at the headquarters witpin 24 hours of taking.
(a) Carvel -Raids, Wilkie, Louisville Swamp. Carver
%) Y}^ -
Rapids State Wayside and the Wilkie=.ai1=:_.d Louisville Swamp Units of
`he Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge in'Scott..County are
open -to -deer -hunting, -by -legal bow and -•arrow-:•--• This--ar-ea-is• -"
- T A a..
Attachment *2
1991-1993 Alternative Deer Contol Program
SUGGESTED LANGUAGE FOR CITY ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR
THE MINNESOTA VALLEY ALTERNATIVE DEER CONTROL PROGRAM.
Section X. A special permit. required for and allowing the discharge of
firearms in the special deer hunts authorized in Section 1. will be issued by
the city. Permits will issued by the City and distributed by the DNR at their
required orientation session. There will be no charge for the permit. In
addition to the DNR and US Fish & Wildlife Service requirements for special
hunt eligibility. the following City provisions to protect the public safety
will apply:
1. Permittees under 18 years of age must be accompanied while hunting by an
adult who has been selected for participating in the special hunt.
2. After the first year of the special hunts, priority for permit issuance
will be given to the previous years' special hunt participants who are
familiar with the area and special safety provisions.
3. This permit may be revoked by the Chief of Police upon a report by a City.
State. or Federal law enforcement officer the the permittee has been charged
with a violation of the special hunt regulations. when. in the judgement of
the Chief. further discharge of firearms would result in danger to the public.
The individual whose permit was revoked could continue to assist in the
speical hunt. but could not discharge firearms. Such revocation. or a court
conviction of violation of State laws or the special hunt rules during the
special hunt would disqualify the individual from obtaining any future city
permits for discharging firearms in the special hunts.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO .
August 1, 1991
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administ
FROM: James E. Danielson, Public Works Direc
Kevin L. Batchelder, Administrative Assis anggi)
SUBJECT: Building Permit and Site Plan Approval
United Properties - LENNOX Industries, Inc.
DISCUSSION:
United Properties has obtained a signed lease with LENNOX
Industries Inc. to construct a 30,517 square foot office
warehouse in Mendota Heights Business Park (the old MAC site)
across from Big Wheel/Rossi at the southwest corner of Pilot Knob
Road and future Commerce Drive. They are requesting site plan
approval, variance reconfirmation, TIF assistance, a street name
change and building permit approval. See attached plans.
SITE PLAN REVIEW:
Enclosed are site plans, elevations and floor plans for the
proposed LENNOX building. United Properties is requesting a 20
foot sign setback variance, a 4 per 1000 square foot parking
•ratio and a parking stall size variance to allow 8 1/2 feet wide
stalls. These variances have been routinely granted in the
industrial park, and in fact have already been granted on this
site for the Fi-Sery proposal. In addition to the routine
variances, a side yard setback variance of ten feet (40 feet
required) was granted to this site adjacent to future TH13.
Future TH13 will have an extremely wide green space. See
attached December 18, 1990 minutes.
The preliminary plan shows an Outlot that was created to
contain a drainage pond. Staff did not feel that it would be
wise to create a lot that would not have a principal structure.
We asked United Properties to combine Outlot A with the LENNOX
lot. United Properties agreed and will show a combined parcel at
the time of final platting. United Properties created the Outlot
because their agreement with LENNOX requires them to pay the real
estate taxes for the ponding area.
STREET NAME:
The loop street planned for the area was named after an
existing street that was part of the old residential development
that was acquired and removed by the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC). United Properties would like to change the
name of the street at this time to "Commerce Drive" which they
feel is a more commercial sounding name than LeMay Drive. The
MnDOT maintenance facility is the only existing building on LeMay
and they use Pilot Knob Road as an address. We feel that the
street name change to Commerce Drive is acceptable.
PROOF OF PARKING:
The required number of parking spaces for this site is 51
stalls. United Properties would like to construct the 42 spaces
shown on the east side of the building. They are requesting
approval on proof of parking for nine future spaces shown at the
northwest corner of the building.
BUILDING PERMIT:
United Properties has submitted a site plan, elevations,
floor plan and a preliminary plat. The landscaping and grading
plans have not been completed in time for this meeting. Council
needs to determine whether they are willing to grant a full
building permit leaving the landscape and grading plan for staff
review and approval. The other option would be to consider
granting a footing and foundation permit to allow construction to
begin now with Council review of grading and landscaping at a
later date. United Properties desires to begin construction
before the August 20th meeting.
TIF CONSIDERATIONS:
There are two issues to consider in the request for Tax
Increment Financing (TIF). Council previously approved a "Pay As
You Go" TIF proposal for this site and Larry Shaughnessy, City
Treasurer, and Tom Hart, City Attorney, are working with United
Properties representatives to prepare a Developer's Agreement
formalizing this agreement. That agreement will not be ready for
review and final approval by City Council at this meeting.
A proposal addressing the TIF policy for the entire MAC site
for public improvement was presented and reviewed by the City
Council in 1988. Public improvements are proposed to be
installed in accordance with the TIF guidelines established in
1988, with each phase being done on a pro rata basis. (See
attached letter dated July 30, 1991).
During the site design of the LENNOX building it was
determined that the building needed to be moved further west to
accommodate the higher grades of future TH13. This left an area
adjacent to Pilot Knob Road that was undevelopable. It was
determined by United Properties and staff that this undevelopable
area would be a good location for the storm water pond that was
planned to be built in the southwest part of the site. That pond
was part of the improvements the City had previously agreed to
fund out of TIF. The costs for the pond are $10,000 for land and
$15,000 for grading. United Properties will grade the pond in
conjunction with their site grading for LENNOX. Council should
consider including storm sewer construction as part of the public
improvements for the LENNOX site. Because United Properties will
be doing the actual pond construction, it is proposed that we
give them credit for the costs against their assessments for
public improvements.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Meet with the developer and discuss this proposal. Consider
motions of approval for the following items:
1. Site plan approval reaffirming previously granted b(Slpt,LS
variances for a 20 foot sign setback, a 4 per 1000 i1)0O
parking ratio, allowing a 8 1/2 foot parking stall
width and a ten foot side yard setback variance
adjacent to future TH13. Any approval should also
consider granting a nine stall "proof of parking" plan.
2. Authorizing staff to issue the building permit
contingent on consent agenda approval of landscape and
grading plans.
3. Approve the renaming of LeMay Avenue to Commerce Drive.
4. Tax Increment Finance approvals for "Pay As You Go"
have been previously granted and the developer's
agreement formalizing that agreement will be on the
agenda for August 20, 1991. The public improvements
were addressed in the feasibility study approved by
Council April 16, 1991 without consideration for a
storm water holding pond. Council needs to consider
authorizing $25,000 of TIF expenditures for
construction of the storm water holding pond and to
authorize giving United Properties' credit for these
expenditures against their assessments.
JED/KLB:mlk
• <r, r
Ayes: ,4,
Nays: 0
Page No. 2984
April 16, 1991
Administrator Lawell stated that he would not
suggest "picking" numbers tonight for the
purposes of mailed notices but rather that the
hearing be delayed to May 21st. Acting Mayor
Blesener suggested that Council meet in
special session on May 24th before the
scheduled team -building workshop.
Councilmember Cummins moved to lay the matter
over to a special meeting at 5:30 P.M. on
April 24th and direct staff to recalculate the
proposed assessments with the position that
the residential lot assessments should on
average exceed $10,000.
Councilmember Koch seconded the motion.
LENNOX INDUSTRIES TAX Council acknowledged a memo from Treasurer
INCREMENT FINANCING Shaughnessy regarding a request from United
Properties for tax increment financing
assistance in connection with construction of
a Lennox Industries office warehouse building
on the MAC property.
Mr. Dale Glowa, from United Properties,
briefly described the Lennox project, which is
development of a 30,000 square foot
office/warehouse facility at Pilot Knob Road
and Lemay. He requested $425,000 in tax
increment financing for the project, part of
which would be a pay-as-you-go benefit. He
explained the financing request described in
his letter of April 18th, and informed Council
that United Properties will own the building
but Lennox will hold a ten-year lease.
Treasurer Shaughnessy explained the "pay-as-
you-go" concept, stating that the City would
issue a revenue note to United Properties that
would be paid out of the annual taxes on the
project. United Properties would use the
money to write down the lease expense, and the
City has no obligation to pay on the note
unless the tax is actually received.
After discussion, Councilmember Cummins moved
to authorize a Tax Increment Financing
expenditure of $425,000 for the Lennox project
as requested by United properties.
Councilmember Koch seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Page No. 2988
December 18, 19904,t-------
9904--_
Councilmember Blesener commented that the
style of the buildings in this part of the
business park are quite different that in the
other half of the park, and asked if this
building will set the tone for the remainder
of the development. Mr. Glowa responded that
it will, and that this is much more of an
industrial building design and reflects the
character of the land. The site is too far
away from the highways for firms to wish to
spend as much money on design as the first
half of the business park.
Councilmember Cummins asked what the degree of
urgency is to get all of the requested
approvals this evening. Mr. Glowa responded
that the project must start immediately,
planning a 50,000 square foot design with the
flexibility to shorten the structure to 30,000
square feet. The reduction in size of the
building would come on the west end ofthe
structure.
Treasurer Shaughnessy explained the TIF
request for Council, stating that most of the
$600,000 would be reimbursed to the developer
in the future, and only a small portion would
be used up front, for Lemay Avenue.
Councilmember Blesener moved to approve Tax
Increment support for the project totaling no
more than $600,000, on the "Pay -As -You -Go"
plan.
Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion.
Councilmember Cummins moved to waive Planning
Commission review with respect to the variance
requests; to approve the building permit for
the FiSery project based on sketches and
drawings presented to Council this evening; to
authorize issuance of a building permit
subject to final staff review and approval of
grading, landscaping and building plans; and
to grant approval for parking stall number and
size variances and sign setback variance
consistent with the existing business park,
all subject to completion of a final plat.
Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Councilmember Cummins moved adoption of
Resolution No. 90-94, "RESOLUTION ACCEPTING
UNITED PROPERTIES
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
July 30, 1991
Mr. M. Thomas Lawell
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
RE: LENNOX Industries, Inc.
Mendota Heights Business Park (Acacia)
Dear Tom:
United Properties Development Company requests the approval of
the City of Mendota Heights for a building permit and variances
subject to staff's approval of final plans and specifications for
the LENNOX Industries, Inc. building. As requested, we have
included 10 sets of the site plan, building elevation, and floor
plan for the referenced project. The preliminary plat,•
preliminary landscape plan, and grading plan will be submitted
subsequent to Council's meeting, August 6.
The proposed project will be located on approximately 2.34 acres
at the southwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and the to -be -built
Commerce Drive (formerly LeMay Avenue) extension, across Pilot
Knob Road from the new Big Wheel/Rossi building. The
architectural design of this building will include painted
precast Fabcon panels, like the Big Wheel building, glass and
extensive landscaping. The building will consist of
approximately 30,000 square feet of building area.
We have recently modified our initial site plan by moving it
slightly to the west. We have thereby created an outlot,
approximately 30,000 square feet in area, to serve as a location
for one of the retention ponds we agreed to install on the Acacia
property when we acquired it. Locating the pond, the design of
which is subject to staff's approval, not only serves functional
purposes, but also creates a handsome landscaped impact at this
entry to the Acacia property.
LENNOX Industries, Inc. is the largest manufacturer of heating
and air-conditioning units in the world. The proposed building
3500 West 80th Street Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55431 (612) 831-1000
Page 2
will consolidate into one location sales offices anddistribution,
currently located in Edina and Bloomington respectively. This
will not be a manufacturing facility. They sell and distribute
finished products to their service accounts. LENNOX is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Time is really of an essence for this project which is being
developed on a fast-track basis for a February 1, 1992 occupancy.
We will submit the final plat for approval as soon as it is
completed by the surveyor. In addition to the building permit
approval, we request the following variances for a 4/1,000 s.f.
of office area parking ratio for purposes of calculating the
number of required parking spaces; for 8' 6" parking stall width;
and for a 20' property line setback off of Commerce Drive for the
tenant identification sign (standard MHBP design). These
variance requests have been approved in the past by you for the
Mendota Heights Business Center, Southridge Business Center,
Northland Insurance Company, Solvay, and the Big Wheel projects.
We also request approval for a zero lot line setback along the
eastern property line. As stated above, we will construct a
retention pond to the east of this site that will be landscaped
into a water feature amenity creating an excellent setback buffer
from Pilot Knob Road.
We sincerely appreciate your consideration of these requests.
Ver truly yours,
Dale J. Glowa
Senior Vice President
DJG/jas
Enclosures
UNITED PROPERTIES
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
July 30, 1991
Mr. M. Thomas Lawell
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
RE: Acacia Property
Dear Tom:
Please refer to the attached letter dated August 29, 1988 from
Larry Shaughnessy, Jr. with regards to the use of tax increment
funds for a variety of land development costs on the above
referenced property. As you know, we have submitted the LENNOX
Industries, Inc. project to the City for building permit
approval. As part of the submission, we explained our desires to
create a retention pond on approximately 30,000 square feet of
land area at the southwest corner of the intersection of Pilot
Knob Road and Commerce Drive (formerly known as LeMay Avenue).
The purpose of this letter is to formerly request the use of TIF
funds, consistent with the understanding described in the
attached letter, to create the retention pond.
As a point of history, the initial plan when we acquired the
Acacia Park property was to provide storm water drainage to a
retention pond south of the proposed Highway 13, to. be created by
MnDOT. Shortly after the land purchase, MnDOT informed the City
that they were not going to acquire the land and create the.
retention pond. We were instructed, and agreed, to construct two
retention ponds on the Acacia property as an alternative. We are
now proposing the construction of the the first pond.
Not only does the retention pond meet the agreed upon
requirement, it also helps United Properties with its development
plans for the adjacent LENNOX site. MnDOT's current design for
Pilot Knob Road raised the intersection of Pilot Knob Road and
Commerce Drive by three feet, which tripled the amount of fill
required for the initial LENNOX site and still created some
unacceptable site grades. We have moved LENNOX to the west of
the proposed outlot which enables us to get the grades lower and,
therefore, more practical for the project.
3500 West 80th Street Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55431 (612) 831-1000
Page 2
We request City Council approval to use a portion of the TIF
funds described in the attached August 29, 1988 letter for this
retention pond to include the following costs:
1. Land for ponds
30,000 s.f. x $15,090/acre = $10,000
2. Pond construction $15,000
3. Grading and utilities to be determined by City staff.
Our request is consistent with earlier discussions with the City
with regards to the eventual site improvements of the Acacia
property. This tax increment support is associated with the
Acacia property and is different from that approved for the
LENNOX site. We sincerely appreciate the City's consideration of
our request for this assistance.
Ver truly yours,
Dale J. Glowa
Senior Vice President
DJG/jas
4.1d minict rat i‘c ()!rice
August 29, 1988
CITY OF AIENDOTA HEIGHTS
Mr. Dale Glowa, Vice President
United Properties
3500 W. 80th Street
Bloomington, MN 55431
Dear Dale:
11"1••••••-r,
2 9 19@8
Kevin and I have been reviewing the plans to develop the MAC
property to determine in which areas the use of tax increment
funds might best be committed to accomplish the use of funds for
public purposes and insure orderly development.
As you know, the land was incorporated in the tax increment
district to allow the City to insure any developer that the
expenses of development and public improvements would be
compatible with those of parcels which I.4::re not subject to
limitations.
The attached would be a suggestion which would keep the City
funds committed in the area of public facilities, and still keep
their costs within the figures which could be expected on a normal
parcel.
In addition to the proposed costs, the City will have some
future expense when Mn/DOT completes Pilot Knob Road and we
complete the looping of the water system in the area. When you
come in next week, we can go over the thoughts together and see if
we can come up with a plan acceptable to the Council.
Very truly yours,
Larry Selighnessy, Jr.
Treasute
LES:madlr
attachment
750 South Plaza Drive • Mendota Heights. hilihnesota 55120 • 452-1850
1
MAC PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT EXPENSE
Site Gen. Cond.
Clearing
Grading
Utility & Grading
Roads
Lights
Ponds Construction
Land for Ponds
Other
Contingency
COST
$ 50,000
70,000
155,000
205,000
95,000
50,000
30,000
20,000
50,000
100,000
$830,000
* Storm sewer grading
T. I.
55,000*
100,000
50,000
25,000
30,000
20,000
$280,000
ASSESS U.P.
50,000
70,000
100,000
105,000
45,000
25,000 Add to
Light District
$175,000 $220,000
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Lawell, City Administ
SUBJECT: Additional Information for August 7th Budget Workshop
As you know, Council and staff will be meeting tomorrow
evening to review the City's 1992 Draft Budget. Due to its
length, the document was distributed to Council on Wednesday of
last week, hopefully allowing enough time for you to become
familiar with the major budget issues for 1992.
In my budget message which led off the document, several
important topics were addressed, and I concluded several by
saying "we should plan on spending some time at the budget
workshop discussing ". Additional background material is
being provided on three of the identified topics, as follows:
August 6, 1991
1. Legal fees for Police prosecution work.
Please see attached letter from City Attorney Tom Hart
outlining the need for a fee adjustment in this area
(see blue paper). Also, please see a recent survey of
various Metropolitan suburbs comparing our legal fees
with other similar sized communities (see yellow
paper) .
2. Fire Department Pension Contribution.
Please see attached memo from Chief John Maczko
regarding the application of the 1992 proposed four
percent wage adjustment within the Fire Department (see
pink paper). On an annual basis, we seem to discuss
whether or not the cost of living percentage increase
should be applied to the hourly fire call wage, or to
the City contribution to the Fire Department Relief
Association. In his memo, Chief Maczko proposes a
mechanism by which the City is insured that either way,
the cost to the City is identical.
3. Fire Department Equipment Refurbishment.
Please see attached memo from Chief Maczko regarding
the use and proposed plans to upgrade our existing Fire
Department response vehicles (see green paper). In
1992, the Fire Department proposes to refurbish one
fire pumper and do minor modifications to another.
This memo attempts to clarify the need and purpose of
the budget request, in the context of our overall Fire
Department response capability.
Hopefully this additional background material will prove
helpful in addressing these issues tomorrow night. Should you
have questions on these items prior to then, please let me know.
MTL:mlk
r
ZRMAN WINTHROP
ROBERT R, WEINSTINE
RICHARD A. HOEL
ROGER D. GORDON
STEVEN C.TOUREK
STEPHEN J. SNYDER
HART KULLER
DAVID P. PEARSON
THOMAS M. HART IV
DARRON C. KNUTSON
JOHN A. KNAPP
MICHELE D. VAILLANCOURT
DAVID E. MORAN, JR.
DONALD J. BROWN
JON J. HOGANSON
SANDRA J. MARTIN
GARY W. SCHOKMILLER
TODD B. URNESS
SCOTT J. DONGOSKE
PETER J. GLEEKEL
ROBERT S. SOSKIN
EDWARD J. DRENTTEL
JEFFREY W. COOK
JEFFREY R. ANSEL
LAURIE A. KNOCKE
WILLIAM F. MOHRMAN
WINTHROP & WEINSTINE
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
3200 MINNESOTA WORLD TRADE CENTER
30 EAST SEVENTH STREET
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
TELEPHONE (6121 290-8400
FAX (6121 292-9347
DIRECT DIAL
Mr. M. Thomas Lawell
City Administrator
City of Mendota Heights
1101 Victoria Curve
Mendota Heights, MN 55118
290-8481
May 31, 1991
?c.. X013\mak
LLOYD W. GROOMS
JULIE K. WILLIAMSON
MARK T. JOHNSON
BETSY J. LOUSHIN
BROOKS F. POLEY
JULIE WIDLEY SCHNELL
CHRISTY JO GASPERS
THOMAS H. BOYD
JOSEPH C. NAUMAN
DANIEL C. BECK
ERIC J. NYSTROM
BRIAN J. KLEIN
KRISTIN L. PETERSON
Re: Mendota Heights Prosecutions/Fee Arrangement
Dear Tom:
JOANNE L. MATZEN
TIMOTHY K. MASTERSON
EVAN D. COOBS
THOMAS A. WALKER
GINA M. GROTHE FOLLEN
E. JOSEPH NEWTON
PATRICK W. WEBER
CHARLES A. DURANT
CRAIG A. BRANDT
DAVID A.KRISTAL
KARL A. WEBER
ALOK VIDYARTHI
DANIEL W. HARDY
OF COUNSEL
I am enclosing herewith some information which our Controller,
Greg Triplett, has recently compiled against our recent
time/billing history with respect to the prosecutions being
handled by our office on behalf of Mendota Heights. As you can
see, for the period from January, 1989 through March, 1 991 , the
amount of time incurred by our office in handling these
prosecutions exceeded amounts billed by over $200,000.
As you know, I have recently spoken with Dennis Delmont regarding
this matter; he has indicated that he believes the prosecutions
are being handled efficiently. Indeed, as you will see from the
page entitled "Personnel Hours," much of the work is being
handled by Tony Kulinski, a paralegal. Joe Newton, one of our
younger associates, has also invested considerable time over the
last two years. More senior attorneys, notably Jeff Ansel, have
acted primarily in a supervisory role. Based on my discussions
with Dennis, along with our internal discussions, we do not
believe that the significant increase in time spent over the last
couple of years has been a result of inefficiency or "churning,"
but rather reflects an increase in the amount of service being
required.
I am submitting this information to you for purposes of
initiating discussions with respect to next year's budget. It
would appear that some significant adjustment in our fee
arrangement needs, to be made.
Mr. M. Thomas Lawell
May 31, 1991
Second Page
I would be very happy to discuss alternatives with you, whether
it be an increase in our monthly retainer or billings based on a
percentage of our usual hourly rates.
After reviewing the enclosed material, please give me a call so
that we may discuss this matter further.
Very truly yours,
WINTHROP & WEINSTINE
By
M. Hart
TMH/j j
Enclosures
c: Charles Mertensotto w/encl.
f
City of Mendota Heights
Billing Variance per Time Incurred
Billed Incurred Variance
03/31/91 9.78 94.43 (84.65)
02/28/91 8.58 95.23 (86.65)
01/31/91 8.84 102.01 (93.17)
12/31/90 14.13 87.03 (72.91)
11/30/90 14.41 83.04 (68.63)
10/31/90 7.07 79.81 (72.75)
09/30/90 9.86 76.26 (66.40)
08/31/90 8.14 78.42 (70.28)
07/31/90 9.36 77.15 (67.79)
06/30/90 8.37 75.92 (67.55)
05/31/90 9.77 75.01 (65.24)
04/30/90 13.25 82.10 (68.85)
03/31/90 12.37 80.81 (68.44)
02/28/90 9.25 78.91 (69.66)
)1/31/90 8.68 77.26 (68.59)
12/31/89 11.47 71.73 (60.26)
11/30/89 11.49 72.72 (61.23)
10/31/89 8.93 74.89 (65.95)
09/30/89 31.23 77.82 (46.59)
08/31/89 14.67 67.56 (52.89)
07/31/89 10.43 78.52 (68.10)
06/30/89 12.88 69.71 (56.83)
05/31/89 16.76 69.47 (52.71)
04/30/89 15.86 71.11 (55.25)
03/31/89 23.78 77.38 (53.60)
02/28/89 18.92 73.18 (54.26)
01/31/89 28.84 78.66 (49.82)
City of Mendota Heiohts
Personnel Hours
Ansel Budoe Danielson Hart Kulinski Kyle Newton Ofstedal Pedersen Rolinoer Soskin Spellacy Winthrop
3/31/91 1.75
2/28/91 3.50
1/31/91 2.25
2/31/90 4.25
1/30/90 3.75
0/31/90 6.00
3/30/90 2.50
3/31/90 5.25
7/31/90 2.50
;/30/90 3.00
5/31/90 0.50
4/30/90 1.50
3/31/90 0.25
2/28/90 2.00
1/31/90 4.00
77.75 65.25
81.00 75.25
55.00 112.50
28.25 62.25
38.10 44.25
105.75 89.
0.30 92.00 40.75
101.75 54.50
87.00 48.25
96.75 47.25
80.75 6.00 36.50
38.50 55.25
68.75 56.75
86.75 61.00
83.00 51.00
11,1
2/31/89 8.00 69.75 34.25
1/30/89 11.75 61.'x', 33.00
0/31/89 35.25 83.75 21.25
3/30/89 12.25 22.50
8/31/89 9.80 71.25
7/31/89 19.25 4.20 72.25
6/30/89 29.60 52.50
5/31/89 0.25 20.40 40.50
4/30/89 25.80 43.50
3/31/89 0.25 21.00 26.50
2/28/89 0.25 27.10 28.00
1/31/89 0.50 20.70 24.25'
1.
29.80
2.00
3.75
0.60
3.00
0.40 0.20
T
144';
,
169.75 ` .
94.75
86.10
200.75
135.55
164.50
138.35
150.75
126.75
95.25
125.75
150.35
13P
0.40 112.40
105.75
140.25
0.60 35.35
82.05
0.80 126.30
82.10
0.20 61.35
0.40 69.70
2.40 50.15
55.35
45.45
I
City of Mendota Heights
Billing Varience per Time Incurred
Billed Incurred Varience
03/31/91 9.78 94.43 (84.65)
02/28/91 8.58 95.23 (86.65)
01/31/91 8.84 102.01 (93.17)
12/31/90 14.13 87.03 (72.91)
11/30/90 14.41 83.04 (68.63)
10/31/90 7.07 79.81 (72.75)
09/30/90 9.86 76.26 (66.40)
08/31/90 8.14 78.42 (70.28)
07/31/90 9.36 77.15 (67.79)
06/30/90 8.37 75.92 (67.55)
05/31/90 9.77 75.01 (65.24)
04/30/90 13.25 82.10 (68.85)
03/31/90 12.37 80.81 (68.44)
02/28/90 9.25 78.91 (69.66)
)1/31/90 8.68 77.26 (68.59)
12/31/89 11.47 71.73 (60.26)
11/30/89 11.49 72.72 (61.23)
10/31/89 8.93 74.89 (65.95)
09/30/89 31.23 77.82 (46.59)
08/31/89 14.67 67.56 (52.89)
07/31/89 10.43 78.52 (68.10)
06/30/89 12.88 69.71 (56.83)
05/31/89 16.76 69.47 (52.71)
04/30/89 15.86 71.11 (55.25)
03/31/89 23.78 77.38 (53.60)
02/28/89 18.92 73.18 (54.26)
01/31/89 28.84 78.66 (49.82)
JUN- 4-91 TUE 9:28
City of Mendota Heights
Billing Variance
Billed
P. 02
Incurred Variance
03/31/91 1. 415. 65 13. 669. 40 (12, 253. 75 )
02/28/91 1. 370. 72 15, 213. 22 (13. 842. 50 )
01/31/91 1, 500. 37 17, 315. 37 (15. 815. 00)
1991 Total 4, 286. 74
46, 197. 99 (41, 911.25)
12/31/90 1. 338. 52 8, 246. 27 (6, 907. 75 )
11/30/90 1, 240. 76 7, 149.76 (5, 909. 00 )
10/31/90 1, 418. 54 16, 022. 29 (14, 603. 75 )
09/30/90 1, 336. 40 10, 336. 40 (9, 000.00)
08/31/90 1. 338. 92 12, 900. 17 (11, 561. 25)
07/31/90 1, 294. 89 10, 673. 39 (9, 378. 50 )
06/30/90 1, 262. 18 11. 444. 68 (10. 182. 50 )
05/31/90 1, 238. 33 9, 507. 08 (8, 268. 75 )
04/30/90 1, 262. 15 7, 819. 65 (6, 557. 50 )
03/31/90 1. 555. 70 10, 161. 95 (8, 606. 25)
02/28/90 1, 390. 64 11, 863. 39 (10, 472. 75)
01/31/90 1. 197. 56 10, 662. 56 (9, 465. 00 )
1990 Total 15, 874. 59
126, 787. 59 (110, 913. 00 )
12/31/89 1. 289. 77 8, 062. 77 (6. 773. 00 )
11/30/89 1, 215. 45 7, 690. 45 (6, 475. 00 )
10/31/89 1, 252. 88 10, 502. 88 (9, 250. 00 )
09/30/89 1, 104. 00 2, 751. 00 (1, 647. 00 )
08/31/89 1, 203. 51 5, 543. 51 (4. 340. 00 )
07/31/89 1, 316. 71 9, 917. 46 (8, 600. 75)
06/30/89 1, 057. 05 5, 723. 05 (4, 666. 00 )
05/31/89 1, 028. 05 4, 262. 05 (3, 234. 00)
04/30/89 1. 105. 61 4, 956. 61 (3, 851. 00 )
03/31/89 1, 192. 69 3, 880.69 (2, 688. 00 )
02/28/89 1, 047. 17 4, 050. 67 (3, 003. 50 )
01/31/89 1, 310. 79 3, 575. 29 (2. 264. 50)
1989 Total
Period Total
14, 123. 68
34, 285. 01
70, 916. 43
243, 902. 01
(56, 792. 75)
( 209, 617. 00 )
. • •
LEGALOI: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Survey conducted by the City of Moundsview-- July 1991.
M:\LOTUS Legal Fee Survey - Various Metro Suburbs
1991 1990 Actual 1991 Estimated
City General Prose- Total General Prose- Total
Population Legal cutions Legal Legal cutions Legal
Crystal 23,729
Cottage Grove 22,887
New Hope 21,762
West St. Paul 19,134
Hopkins 16,473
Robbinsdale 14,438
Mounds View 12,433
Ramsey 12,382
•Shakopee 11,721
Chanhassen 11,700
Mendota Heights 9,385
Little Canada 8,946
Arden Hills 8,804
St. Anthony 7,720
Orono 7,213
I
Spring Lake Park 6,509
Ckrcle Pines 4,498
Wayzata 3,781
111,696
136,203
28,727 84,806 113,533
82,084
15,375 63,195 78,570
39,087 52,159 91,246
36,509
84,000
95,816
140,000_
14,766 51,275
18,300 28,800 47,100
37,654 121,196 158,850
19,255 41,498 60,753
17,683 28,463 46,146
53,297 40,432 93,729
1991 Comments
32,500 Based on Budget Allocation
96,472 Based on data through June-- projected to year-end
40,736 81,688 122,424 Based on data through June-- projected to year-end
81,875 Salary and overhead for in-house attorney
23,940 44,880 68,820 Based on $65/Hr. rates
34,820 69,048 103,868 Based on data through March-- projected to year-end
30,000 50,000 80,000 Based on Budget Allocation
40,000 Based on data through June-- projected to year-end
109,000 Salary and overhead for in-house attorney
129,816 Based -on data through March-- projected to year-end
48,773 17,734 66,506 Based on W&W invoices through May -z projected to year-end
19,020 32,100 51,120 $1,585/month civil retainer, $2,675%month pros. retainer
$85/Hr. General, $65/Hr. Prosec., $100/Council Mt.
28,800 Based on $2,400/month prosecution retainer
11,957 91,255 103,212 Based on data through May-- projected to year-end
23,586 31,590 55,176 Based on data through June-- projected to year-end
21,600 24,571 46,171 Based on data through May-- projected to year-end
29,350 35,936 65,286 Based on data through June-- projected to year-end
Mendota Heights Budget Detail:
1990 1990 1991 1991 1991
Budget Actual Budget thru 5/30 Estimate 1991 Comments
General Fund Expenses -
Legal Retainer 6,200 5,858 6,200 2,606 6,254 Budgeted at $500/month plus expenses
Other Legal Work 7,600 18,411 12,100 9,052 21,725 Hourly rate varies by attorney ($190/Hr. for T. Hart)
Police Prosecutions 13,000 14,766 14,000 7,389 17,734 Budgeted at $1,000/month plus expenses
General Fund Totals 26,800 39,035 32,300 19,047 45,713
Non -General Fund Legal Work 12,240 8,664 20,794 Charged to Improvement Projects as Required
Total Legal Expense 51,275 27,711 66,506
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
July 30, 1991
TO: Tom Lawell
City Administrator
FROM: John P. Maczko
Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Pay Increases for Firefighter in 1992
At our July 17, 1991 general membership meeting Mayor Mertensotto
was present to discuss how we could go about getting the typical
increase, that has been put onto our hourly wage, converted into a
lump sum and added to our retirement contribution.
As you are aware, this has been an objective of the membership of
the fire department over the last several years but it has always met
with complications. According to Mayor Mertensotto, he would like me
to recommend in my annual budget, whatever the membership's desire is.
The membership discussed the process and it was stated that they would
like to keep this flexible based on the year (ie. this year they wish
the increase in retirement benefits, next year they may wish the
increase on the check). In the past it has been customary that the
volunteer firefighters have received whatever percent increase that
the non-union employees have received. As it is stated in the budget
process the anticipated increase for 1992 is four percent (4%). It is
not the intent of the firefighters to get any more from the City than
anyone else is getting. For 1992 the fire department membership would
like to have their increase, whatever it turns out to be, placed in
the retirement contribution. The suggested method of appropriation is
to look at the amount of dollars that were actually spent during the
previous year and multiply that by the percent wage increase given to
non-union employees and give that lump sum amount to the firefighters
as an increase in the City's contribution to the retirement plan.
Currently the City contribution is $350 per man per year. Please see
the attached sheet for an example of how this would work now and into
the future. I see this plan as a net trade-off with no additional
costs to the City or citizens of Mendota Heights than would normally
have been incumbered. I feel that this is a fair and equitable way of
disbursing increases to both the firefighters and the City. It is my
recommendation that the process be followed.
Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this further,
please feel free to contact me or Jim Kilburg.
JPM: dfw
cc: Jim Kilburg
Relief Association
Board of Trustees
E•,
Page 1
Example of how proposed plan would work
all Numbers are for example
purposes only
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Hourly Rate
$7.75
$8.06
$8.06
$8.06
$8.38
Retirement contribution / FF month service
$29.17
$29.17
$33.98
$38.79
$38.79
current is $350/FF/ months service = $29.17
Payroll for year previous
-
$50,000
$52,003
$52,003
$52,003
Non union negotioted increases
4%
4%
4%
4%
Option used (Check or Retirement)
-
Add to Hourly
Add to retirement
Add to retirement
Add to Hourly
Addition to hourly wage
$0.31
$0.32
Addition to retirement
$0.00
(52,003*.04)/432 = $4.81
$4.81
$0.00
(Lump sum/months of sevice)
Cost = 6452 hours *Rate/hour
$50,000.00
$52,003.12
$52,003.12
$52,003.12
$54,059.38
Retirement Contribution
(Based on 36 Active FF all year)
$12,600.00
$12,600.00
$14,679.00
$16,757.00
$16,757.00
Total cost to city
$62,600.00
$64,603.12
$66,682.12
$68,760.12
$70,816.38
increase
3.20%
3.22%
3.12%
2.99%
In this example FF chose in 1992 and 1993 to have there increases credited to retirement as opposed to hourly.
In 1994 they opted to have increase on Hour y rate.
Page 1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Tom Lawell, City Administrator
FROM: John P. Maczko
Fire Chief
July 22, 1991
SUBJECT: Additional Information on Refurbishing 2287
As per your request I would like to further detail the plan
for the refurbishing 2287. First, let me start with some histo-
ry. Currently the department operates with four pumpers:
▪ 1960 Ford 750 GPM Pumper that carries the department's
fifty foot ladder.
• 1970 Ford 1000 GPM PUmper with an articulating arm
squirt device
1978 1250 GPM Pumper
1988 1250 GPM Pumper
The 1960 pumper was scheduled to be replaced with the 1988
Ford pumper when we purchased it. It is tired however the body
is in very good shape. In evaluating the needs of the department
at the time the 1988 pumper was purchased, it was determined that
we needed at least a 50 foot ladder to be able to carry out
necessary rescue operations. The purchase of the 50 foot ladder
was made as a stop -gap -quick measure so we were able to provide
basic rescue to an apartment complex and a lot of the new housing
that was being constructed. Prior to this we did not have a
ladder that would reach some of the areas involved. In order to
accommodate this ladder the only truck that the department had
that was able to carry it was the 1960 pumper. Therefore, for
$1,000 the pumper was fitted such that it could carry the 50 foot
ladder. It was later determined that we could also get some
credit from the ISO for having a reserve pumper within the City,
therefore it also serves in that capacity giving us additional
credit towards a better ISO (Insurance Service Organization)
rating.
The 1970 Pumper with the articulating arm squirt serves the
purposes of attack vehicle on major fires and also in defensive
modes, for exposure protection, of other buildings. The piece of
equipment, throughout its 21 years of service with Mendota
Heights, has proved to be very valuable to Mendota Heights and to
neighboring departments that we are in Mutual Aid service with.
The articulating arm squirt itself, has a major advantage of
being able to deliver large volumes of water very quickly with
minimum personnel needed to operate. Advantages of this piece of
equipment are that large volumes of water can be delivered imme-
diately, the amount of personnel needed to deliver 1,000 GPM is
minimized and it can be used in very dangerous areas and be left
unattended to operate. At this point the engine and drive train
for this piece of equipment are very tired and underpowered. We
have looked at several options for repowering this piece of
equipment because the body is in very good shape, but estimated
costs to install a new diesel engine and an automatic transmis-
sion amount to approximately $32,000. The cost to put a new
chassis under this vehicle would be approximately $55,000 -
$60,000. As you can see it is very expensive to try and retrofit
a 21 year old piece of equipment in this case.
The 1978 piece of equipment is a very functional piece of
equipment and operates as a pumper. The chassis, engine and
drive train in this vehicle, even 13 years old, are still state
of the art. Several years ago we had the running boards on the
chassis replaced with aluminium due to heavy corrosion and they
are holding up nicely. Unfortunately, a major refurbishing on
the body portion is necessary to eliminate corrosion problems. In
talking with the original manufacturer of this piece of equip-
ment, they have informed us that the reason the equipment is
deteriorating as it is, is due to the fact that when the truck
was built was the first year that the steel tariffs were removed.
The steel that was purchased and that all manufacturer were using
at the time was a cheaper steel manufactured overseas. We have
checked with several other truck manufacturers and owners of
equipment from the same era and it appears that what the original
manufacturer is saying is true because it not only carries across
their product line but also several other manufacturers lines.
Since that time with the problems involved with steel, most
manufacturers have either gone to recommending stainless steel
construction or aluminum construction were corrosion is not an
issue.
Truck Assignments on a Fire Call
On any reported structure fire it is necessary for us to
activate all four pieces of equipment. The 1988 Pumper is the
primary pumper at all scenes except for the contract areas. The
1978 Pumper is the hydrant truck that lays in a water supply line
to help attack a fire. The 1970 Squirt is necessary for exposure
protection to other properties and possibly for attack depending
upon the size of the fire. The 1960 Pumper is necessary to roll
because it carries the 50 foot ladder that may be needed to
rescue a life. Getting all four pieces to the scene is sometimes
difficult to do because of limited personnel responding, espe-
cially during the day time.
Proposal
The proposal that I have made in 1992 budget is this. The
1978 Pumper needs to be refurbished. The chassis i excellent
shape as is the drive train and diesel engine. It is anticipated
that we will get many years of wear out of the drive train and
c-assis in this case. The 1978 chassis is the same chassis as
our 1988 Pumper and is still used in fire equipment construction
today. The body is what is corroding out and causing the prob-
lems and issues, not the chassis.
In an effort to provide better service and get the.needed
equipment to the scene as quickly and safely as possible I am '
recommending that the articulating arm squirt device be taken off
of the 1970 Pumper and placed on the 1978 with the body to be
refurbished. In the refurbishing the cab crew area would be
constructed identically to the cab on the 1988 Pumper. The
articulating arm itself could easily be mounted on this piece of
equipment without overburdening the equipment, in fact, St. Paul
and Minneapolis are currently putting this type of equipment on
the exact chassis and have done some refurbishing.
The articulating arm squirt device itself is in excellent
shape and was certified approximately six years ago for worthi-
ness. Since the articulating arm device would be taken off of
the 1970 pumper the intent would be to make a large compartment
on the back and to keep the truck as our third pumper. By ap-
proving this proposal we would be able to on an initial response
to a structure fire, put the three necessary pieces of equipment
at the scene that are needed in a quick and efficient manner.
This proposal also solves the underpowering problems with the
1970 Pumper by lightening the load considerably and gives us the
attack equipment that we need at the scene.
Total cost of the refurbishing I have described will be
approximately $85,000. Compared to what the piece of equipment
would cost brand new today the savings are about $125,000 and we
will end up with a piece of equipment that should last another 20
years.
As you are aware, I am also in the process of establishing a
capital replacement committee. It would be intended that this
committee would look at the needs of the fire department over a
forty year span to determine what equipment is necessary and
needed. By proceeding with the refurbishing and relocation of
the squirt it will allow us the necessary time to make an effec-
tive plan that is financially feasible and is based on the needs
of a growing community.
I am willing to discuss this issue further and may suggest
that anyone interested in further exploring this issue, meet at
the fire station for discussion.
It is my strong recommendation that this project be funded
and that we establish committee in the fire department immediate-
ly to work on specifications needed to work on this process.
JPM: dfw
� � ��i � � � I , � � . � � � ��.
l
� � �',I . \ , /'/ �� \
� � �� �� ' � I � � i CfTI
/
V ��
r
i , 3
I I / � '�
I � � � I � � � � �
I 1\ l I I o0
� , , � ��
,`
!' I 11 �I / J \� II , �� , n� Ps
i I I ' � o°�� � �°o
i
1 I 1 i �i � � �� �� ; W �1 01 U1 A W N F'
��I � � � � � � �� � � � . .� ._. ... � ... ._. .� ...
� � � �� �
I �'
� j i �, � � � � � �. � � , O Y T� m cn G1 H H� H xf m m'+] � N ff G1 t"
� � � , � � , -- ry
' ,�� - \` Tf G C f0 7 � W? fD �- �• n r• O fD O O
I I � (�D 'O W �< �r GNN W��O 7 ��4h70
'' � � � ` N31°26�48°VI� 361.06 ao.00 --. � _ ao.00 -- �, n �' w , r�r � � � M R
i
� n
�• �m n Hnn •ii
� I I '� I'� �� � � - � .. � O O K �• N w P� w m r-� •• G �Ll � x7 �-
, 271.06 , m �, m cr c � K c+ � � •• �• o
i � � � r m � y�G H rr 7 �
�
'. � ' � � � �i A , . . . i� J , �'t fD O N C1 � N �'S 0 N n (D � H O
i �
1 ; I � ` ' � j ao ao m m ro K ro p�, ro r* r• rr H a� ro
� I I � �' / � O � G �'f O ht - O O' 7 7 H
�
', � �I � � � � � / ' I - n w CY O K O� 3 C K W d `G [9 N
. � �I � � � � ..�� � . � ff � m 1�D r• � ^ 7 R t' X' m O r
� � 'C W w Z 'tf tD w C (D (D (] ri N P+ � P. O N rt 0 �
� �� � � � \ � � � ���no a���nd a �rt n �oo rn � n oxc
1 I �\ � � �� O O O n O O O r• rt 'G G � rr r• r-• N R
� / �oofi �oort ro fi � � w �r a n r•
(D � p' (D � fD n O O O N O M N�• TJ r H n r
1 r � I
I'I \ , � \ \ \ �\ � �� � � �� � ' ���mw ��ama �o �n �a �om m n � nrr~r
• � � � � � � � � � ' � - �� _ __ o��m� w�mro m wm mn co,.. .. ro n �•
�:\ \ \ �"" � ;" p .-�---- w r+ ct a w r+ R n h rt< n fD � a� M r H• lD
� � � � � . e' � - - , r O r O 0 rt rf r• r- p' P' N O tn
1 I \ tioi / .� I� 07 L-� I� W"0 'G O N fr O R if Yt ID ^J `J �
Q N� O A� �� o m n N• �' rn K rf m 7
� � 1 m O rt 7 O rr rt � O W p A ID N-
V � � m � � � o+ m �� � � . ��ye � I � ` O x^J A. O z•7 W r K� J 7 f1' N N f1 a UI � O
, " � �„ �` �. � � � , � � � � � � o- m f� [n tD ao G W 'G N tn a+ w a `G O ,p
�� � �. lo � �' � � � _ � � / " . � O O O O �
m ff O fT N W N'O N ct n O N � W �
� � m i � � . ` in r"f � tn rS p� O O G �� O C p'[7
� � v v v ��--�
v�mro u,m o � rt� m �r N w ���� rn m oro
� � � � o � � �ma Amm r• �a' �N mmmm r on
. �� � � � � A e � � . W fT J W�'+ C � rt ht O fD Rf N N fD N N 3', O p O
\ � � � \ \\ si� N 6S �� � s . . h+ K F+ N � fD n 'J h' O� � M ft Ct ft fT `J � 1-'•
, "�T �- / �99 / o m • m X� r- p. N h, �
z �.,..., \ \ \ \ \ \ �_ � i � ........., . . . - - . . _ � � R 'C7 N • � a rOt r�t � �t
�, � \ \ � \ _ -�se-- m �• rr m w -- �o
� � \ ss \ � � �- ---.� / � � � � a
�, \ I � / rt � r• O ID �-n N x �p
s �, T. ,v � O M 7 n fD x O
. \ °� \ \ \ � \.� � � � ` v. p D � W U�i � � � (aj �+
� s Z ,� >
� � n -
�� � � r �o / ..
� � � O G
� 1 I� \ p � rt= � rt.
° ° \ m � - ,--� � c M � z m �
� '� �, `, � -- �" - � ...
- -- - - - , - --
\ \ � \ — � n rn o �
, � �' �-t m o
1 I' 1 � \\ \\ \ \ \ � / ..'_ , d0 ' - ----- / rt r w'II rt ID
� � �� � � 858� �` � �� � �4 � 0 O N
1 _ - �°� r+ � r• � ID
I � 1� \ \ � \ \ -� - � �n �a�� ` / ft ]' a F-' U1
II W \ \ \ ... .\ \ �_ - � �____ Y / / 1--� (� ~ ii
� � � � 6 � � �� � ��� � � I � Li �
D I O ,�d �� --__� � . . / x W O O O O W
� x m
* ; , N. � o � � �� �� � n v
"' �. A 1 � ,,, v m � �t m a a � r�r
x
� � � � � _ v�
�r �
� �. � �� � -�� ,, � � .. ,.
�� � � � ,
zl a� � �, m � Z
A� �� � � \ � \� �� � \ Z
i � � D � � � .r � � �, � A m,�� �, m t7i
� � o � � �� a � � � ��, r . � � . ��-_ -0 � � �� W
' � AUt � �� \ \ ; ` ` > "'=' � � w_ w
m m� �� � � � . �P �� � QJ �� �� �C_t{�� � - b
o I _ . m "' (T� . ' t .r"„� s '� N _ � � / ,
�, . _ N r
, � I 0 � '� � w � `x � �� � � � . �� ^�% o. ' (T� , � � /z
�
� Z � � � � u: � � � � �� _ . .
p o I� w i . . . j' ._
� p � \ 'I i / i . �
� 'v ti i � � / . N � . �
� � �� � ��� � � � � � �
� � n � � �� �>r`'� � � I
� o N i� N � r.�
� � �� � � i
� n I� N li � // , / W �* . . �� j/ I
� � � n � � �>. i �s ' � �
� ,
o � " I m � .N . _ �� '� � ,, . .. ' � �
mm u
i ,
s � �.� � / "_ , - b D � � �
'A/ �''� � � � � �m � � s ��aMrs aoa � m �rzm,oa ��o�rKy
�� � / to r- r• fD tJ F� �. 7 o O�' o fD G tn �0 r� w,7' 0 7'
i � �� . �r� �� � � � t0 O ff ft N C• F� rt' ft ft O r'f n t0 � O �t t*
� , I 7 m m � o �Cl 7 G N n f� a �� X m a
y ,, ��� Ny `�f� �m � ��� a 1D W-• N rt o 1D W 5''0 7� rt 0 a N K Z 7
/ 0 5� �� ��U i/ � W O Cl �+ O N� �4 fD �• N fA i't � W 0 w''i � W
� � � � �, � � � '� �rtmx� °mm�m �c+�rtnn
, �
C � a� � ; �� .�r . / �� / �a ���fDMr�*m�rtmM�aa°p���r
� �
/,
i � 1 / i� zrn , ' o°� moo� �Nr•no�o�, r.�o�woo
i '
a m M(D E N w W�' MG rt f/� �.� ��r N n ro
T
� i / � � �, % � N..Q �p � rK N . �p � �.ro .� n a
Z i � ! �a � � � ' , � � / � aw yN�ma tr� o �n` mm
/� , � ��
! � � a r�'y ,I a / r / a / / 'u / / '/ �_ 7mN�r*yaH�w��c�aON��ax
i
�'a Yn' �. �00 � o � � � �' � � � - c� F+•'�' F+ � p� �4 f.. 7� O Ct y� N, N� b
,
� � � � �- > '� �' / � - m7o a a�� �ro� rtcrt7fin�
0 � i / ,� .p . _ i _ /% � rr °` � 7 S � p, N' �p t'' �, r* �p N rt a+
�� ' � ���, / �, � / / ' � x0 �m�7 o�'��a::m o�,n .
i �
' ��i � �' � � �" � % ;'� m rnroa�rt o� w � a'rr� n �'i°-rp��c�
� � � � � � n � _. ° o �
2 �� I I � i ,-' ,� m n°' o rt� ,� y w m
� . � � , � �� / �,-� fDnrt�rt n' w�M�,• �,°� �- �n
/� � K < o w m
u, D I � � � /�� / � '� w �➢ �/ J / ' `9e/ / �rooNw�P+Gt+�r'W�m�oab�K"'c
I �
2 � � �� � ;� " gys � ' j� � � � 7'n Nsimrtm�„,aW� v�m�n��dr�+
� � � � � � � � � ��� . � I / � � rN.r w 0.� °' � v� ts' � rr N a Fw., C � a `+ W �. tri
I � - . � ao �r�*rt o
' � / i- �� ��n �" rt �� G N h� N a N 7 . O W
--
� � , / � . � � - - - — -- — - " V� / n � �, � �� � �' � �' n r+ N tn w N �4 o n n o �.' y �
�R O O � <
0 �' , 7' N y�1 ft fi' � F-� �
� � � � j � i �' � / ; /� � � � � -.n i � � �, � � � � � • o w rr a m K � p p
� � / � ,( � � , i � ZJ�'m wfnN ��tr� �'� � �H £ ° �
I VN * / f � / i / `- � / N- (D N � o (l n � �q O ~' N � G
a� � � O F � i i� � �' P . �� ' �� � / i� p'N.P Cl'i].f't� � �� N fD M��� R'�61
I� / /
� I � , �� 9a / �rK �,�-fD �a�Mao a � w rt �.� �
p � ��. � � � � � � � � � > � . . � � � � � /v � � rt `� � � � N M � � � � O � ro � �
% 1
/
Z ��� � i -0 " Q �-�� ��� ' � � � � � �� n � N �N'��N o� W �.� ��,"a��
�
l T� . � � � �
� � � om , � � ,
� ,� -� , �� � � m m
� % � � ' � ' � ,.�} � / � ' / ' � /�� ---- -------40--- m --- ----�� --- �� � � a o �'� a a a a A � �-z a� � � y �
� ` ' � m � � o m ro w n
/ �; i �,° ", � � � � ���, ro o ro n a �.. m o
� / -L � ,� N - � r W �. - � r ro ��p t.. (� p rn O C rt N F� � J Cl
� � � � � � � � � � �T �-. A� � � ��� � � � � i w w N N• N C � � � � �' N 7' H R �' �0 C�' �
/
� / � � ��� / �I y�,� �� � Zl I � . m� � Z N R,O rt N � n�� rt w N W Ci Z� N N a
i
� � � � � � � � � � � ` � � � � � � � °'� � � p. N 1�-� U1 J M F' W N O P• O� ft f]� � M `� a �Cl
m �
� � � � � ° .
i � �_ � y9 U m i� � � ��
,� � � � � , _ ��, ��,T b � � /
;
; � > � ; ;�� � /� �— , / / �/ � � � �
� � m
y � i y �
v 4, p / • � \ m
/ � � w � /
� � �� � � � � � � /� � p�/,�^ • � � u °v � � w � � m
� O�� �� � � � � cn /G58 �' � °' v � CJl p� "' ,
% � j y N i�p / p / /
, �"°�h . � / / � / / —" ` , � �— � ` � � � � /
--� � � � � �� � � � � �� � / �!�� � � � �
� /
� �o ��_°�/ � g� � � ^�' � � /
__� � �� � � � ;� � � � _ � °� � /
._: � , � � / � , � � � - �
�'�_ i � % � �� % , / �� � a � � °' / � / � / / ,-
1 `I p /� �^ N / /� I� / / m / / / O / / �5 / \ -i—��
_ p � � � � �P�
V i
Y / / �n � / � 0
— / L
� �, ; , m� , , � � � � � / � � --, -,
� I ��
_ -- i I m , � , / � _ �,_ ,
�I � .
�
�
�� � � - � ` �
Cb ,.m'� i . �, , �, � � ' �___
� W � s � � 53��26�48��Em 2% . � " � � n _, _.:
� �� � w w � �
( � P Q / � � I
I /
- ,� � � � m� � � __�� � a �� _,�
,-
�,
� � ;
' m � / �
� � � i m � �ree— � ,� / :.
- �- / / . ' / � `-- -
/ l
�
_= _ � � � � � �,�,�� � / � � � � � �mm �� '_-'
� / � ;
�� �; N / � �- / , _=__
a �
ti / / �
_.�- a �� ,r�� ti m � -
1 U1 � � � � �r°� . � � � � 11 � r "'
� � � O � � � � � �� � m �� � � � _'
----�� �� / ' � / � 0 � � � �� --
, o � � � w� , �� � o ;
�� = I i � �:� � — � o ,%
I m � � �'�-,
I � `° � � ^' � / � � � � O ' , '
� � �' �o � � � � � � i
\� ' � i x , i
,-��� I x `4 �d3` OW r � / r ;� '
� �
;� � �a � p / � � � `_'� e�
�
—� _,=,, ��, � - � I \ / �� � o � �� . � ; _ ,
_, j � � �� 0 / � � /o� / � / ,-. / � /
� i �
_ �� , I���� ��i" N � �� � � �
� �
N � �x/�� �
1 J.� / O / j �\
°' ��1
� � _• o
f �� \ cu "' N / / — '
� � � /
`-- � / I � °'-A m � � � � ��� � � �` /�� N
� "��3 ` - � � � °' ` � / N
I � /
� �� � � � , � �' 9Sff� � � � � � �� � � � °� � � p / � � =
�,.=,
� ������ °� � � � � D / ��� / � =� � � /
� � _'�d �`� � � % � o � 2�'� n �w / � . � � � � � � � � �
p
� \ � �. ti `° �, � ``� / v � � u N
� � �Sa � � � \ � � � � C � � �� � � �� W � � � � .
m \ j, h.Qr � .r n9g /�w � �. u' � /
�� w � � N_� w/ ,S6o ' � �'y 90 / t / / /6g8�- I \ ' �
\ � �N � � °� I ` 4 08�eSp�, . / � p� 9 �/ . N \ �
� � �� n � -gg9� � � °' �`3 � F � � � rn � � � � N
� s V � - � � ( �h �� �� � / �� , s � �
� ,�
�� � ����� � m � � � � � � �R,��� 2s8igs � / � � � �
��� � he��4? � .��� � , n - � �
\ w * \ '__.�' 6S \ / 4 N�e � a ' 4 w "�...�r � _ � � r
m BS�\ � �-� 1'1 � i , SrFR<r - S`�°� Qr o� � ` / � � ° �' .v
�\ � �` � 1� 1 � � � 'o,,, w . (�,yF o S 4�� /80 / / � a / oL� o
� � � � � `� � �� �� F ���3 ' � �� � � �
� �/ j �-�_ � // �E9e_ rR �D � � m m
� �� m o � —� � � �cyr � � � , N � �, � . e �
�
o � // � � �Y C �� � a / `� W :���
m ��/ � � /� �\ x qr p r �3 SS � - ( � . Wv ��
° �-- �_ � � � �� � S9 � � � � � .
� � � m
� � _ �� m �� ���' m �� � �S� c�� i.\ ��i � ��� � � °' � �.� �� '- o
� / �
I i
lb G`7. \= I� ( I x o \\\ \ / / 1 d 7'�
°' �'�NOL F�F . ' 1 � � \\ /� I �. \ ._--� ;
� 'v � C n � o� � � � o a� mo�- 9,� / � I 1�i ` i� �'1
� � y e�C o �\ � 9\\ � 66\ p_ PLC S II a, �i ' ' � � i
\ \ i � � N \ \\ s>��� J \��� 4N I , ,
� � � � ����� — �� �� � � � ��o � �; _
P � N�
i , \ I / , ��
m � �� • � � �i \ �� � �� � ' D/ rn��•� - � '• � -i � '
�_>'� io I 2� * 1 a,� � \ e\\\ p w b \ S m � _ i i
N
�' �i hCc° rn o w \ \ \\�/ / q i � "
. � � �� ��� _ _ . � � � m � � m ����m� \��� �� � � i 6' ,x . i 1 i." � b7
� �3 :
� m � � �� � m� �� � � � ,
.
� ' O O � O
�
� �, m/ �\� s° \� � 6 ,, qo l _ _ -' � m m m
__� o���
\\ " " � �. °� \ � � �— � � � , J o 0 0
� \ Y ` a � w 1� °' \\ � ssa _; —% ` � 2 '� � — '" m m m
\ p m o _ __
� m � � � � � � �' x � � � �� � 'm � �`�� � 'm i A � N N Ul
.� / n:' ay '�-� 4 i i
�� � � � � �, � � � � F N � ��� . S � `� f�-i'� p G Ai (D
£ £ c*
o /�i �� . �� . �' � \P , �oti� p ^m° ; ; � mmm
� , i � n rr rr N
\ 3.,Gqs �o �\/ N v � \ 6 \ I \,� � vp. 2G� t --__7 N ri �'S ,�,7.
m " > � � w ,. � G O
� \i
\ \� P� 7
�� o � 0°,1 U(�' l � m u� °' �°' -__� F-� ID
� g,r N F< \ . I I ' '-' m cr
.\ � o
vv � -- �
� ° o � 'r / ; —�� x
� � M��� m tiF Bn� ���(Y / G "
F �� � � � � � � \ L$ � � �i
� � °� �iF � V 0� � ,o � � ;
. \ J �F � � / �•
`
� a r� �� ,
M N��S w Oe / � / � �, ro t � ' �
� � � �
0
6 T
�
C p
p�= C
�b p
m0�
m � I
N � T
A Zrt
U � R
n£
O
<
�G
G
� c w Gmr�n�m
z rt �•m a
�a.. � a an �
�a [y-�� rt �a'mon
N A� Z N N �. b. (D 'G
o �
a x � r r�r, �� rt m
aamr�r
m c c rN* a O�,� �,•
:° a F K a K�„m mK
� . ~ � � N N
z- z � �
�
w� � t�-e o m° r*w
�r z ti � �rtr*
N!n (� � � O rr O r+
.� �i �' � r7
. owfD �•
7 � 0 N
� "� � M
�o m � w r.
�0 0� � � d N
r� r• p,
• a o �, m
r ~' W G
a o' n rt
� w o < K
a�< m c
• ��o� m
C �
G� �
xz�r
room�n
�r�om�r�o
� 7 7 7 �
r°rr°r�r�rr°r
N (D N (D N
N N N N(fi r
R7 � N G O I�
oK a 7 < �
E aa am �
(D K r'' �p rj 'L
"�a�am �
n
�4
TS R r'f �'i G
O K O G
N G
�D m a �
� �h n
� � n
� �-
x°
0
�
m
v�� , � � � � �
\ + i
°' SU�'� � �'a � � o �; �s � �
�
� . 9 " 1 r � ,�
� 4 b�� .
� ` � CCc c� 8 p �s * aa. ��\'N'iRe n � r
F'9s m � m m m� ���CF � i � s� �
D � � � � � � ��� �
O `_ 4F m � N.
o �
r I � TN ,
A
m ..:� FNFi� � / �T � � °�� � ��r
I \ ... . ✓ 4OFSF � �O / M/N S, � �'� ...1` �k :'� .y i `
C �/ t9 � -. � \ /
� \ +�
� � ��. �� �, ���� � ��R ��e �� �` � ' �
— � / � � �<F��� - %�
c �
,� i � ,
z'i � � � �_ i
� '
�
�
/r �� � � ��° � � � � �..
/ m _
O �� � a r
m
� �Y � � , ��� � �`'.
'I■� \3" m� I / � `�ci
■ •
�, Gq w � o
p � � / ° �� � � � % �� fm
m � ��� � m� ; � ��
a m ,A /� �, � , , = � No
� � O � � � , �� m
(P� � � �
� / �m
_ �- / !nz
i Nm
,� � , wI/:
� `\\� `A
� /Y � \ � ' \ I % � b �
� �
O N
�� � .. ���� �. ���
�
� /�� m \..... ro.�
. ....... .... .. .. . . . . .....
� �
r� r m r� � �n
r N 'LS r N '0
(D � F'• N 'C F'�
w�i m w bm
rr r+ <
r• s� �• m �-
o<r• o ��
� m � � c
� N rh
II G II � r-
fD N �"h
w�m mor+
�n 0 C c� 7 7
�O � N �O
�E rr Nm O
N (D 7' 01 N £
N M �
ro rt �o �n n
(p O (D N
(D N E N F'-'O
c+an �*� o
m m �
TJ O �
O O r+� Ui z
rn r o n
m roc �
% N F� �' F1
�o o �
O C n O �
(Y (Y M
x x
� o 0 0
o r+, �r �
� (� x1 N
7J O 0 �S
N � A� N
a� • o
m �
o m
n
r- -,
< M
m •
rn w
X �
a i
�
�
�
�
_
�
` !
0
�
0
=
0
�
,
�
c��
��
�
_
0
�
H
�
�
a
�
n
�
�
0
�
U.
C
�
y
�
�
r
r�
C
�
y
�
O
�
�
r
�
C
�
y
�
O
�
�
O
�d
�
�
r
�
.
t�
r
�
C
�
y
�
O
�
PA,UL R. IYIcLAGAN & SON �,o s�LL��, Ro��,� ��r���
D.IINNESOTA REGISTL'R�ll LAND SURVlYORS West St. Yuul, Mlun. 65tte �t57-:i�95
tor� Abdul Kayoum date� June 4, 1991 sculc� � inch = 20 teel
,
�escription
I.ot 4, Blocic 1, Kallin Rearrangement, according to the recerd���� ulat
thereof on file in ttie office of the County R_P�nrrl�r. ual:ota l:uuuty,
Minnesota.
� 1st
0
�
6p.0
�,, 1
WM
W 32.5 �
N
3 cn�vricrv�n
in �
cN cp z 8. � -
o r�
� `
Z
• �
iawcR
oac� -
N 89°58'21" E
� 14.49
� �
�, �
ti n
21-0 __�
L _ _ ___
r
ol /ROPOSfO oi
w� A00/ rioN ��
sHEO
AVENUE
- . . �—j . . -9
y �c�
: Y.' 0
,
,yo usE �� �'
Ln 7
waoo FEacf
� ,.,,- ,...._. ...,�
,
PoDG
,,._ ._.._ , �
9. `/
w00D FENC[
7/MdCH NCTA/N/Nb �M1'A[t
94.03
S 89°59'07" W
o. 9
�.
o.Y
� W
M �
pp M
I v�
j M o
I � O
Z
2. 3
3
oIndicates irun set, marked with Registration No. 1b099
I hereby certlfy that thls survey, plan or ruport vius
prepured Gy rna or under my dkrect eupervlslon nud
ti-�a[ 1 u�n t� duly Registere� L�nd Surveyur uuder thu
luws ol tLa Stute of t�liruuautn.
i���uL �. n1�ciNLi.��, �:.�..s.
MIN�c
STftAT '� NU. 1ts�uu
i'
sHi�aac/ i i w+u-c�u
�� - ii ���
�,2 F-r. X ,2 Fr.
AUTOMA7ID
DRlVE-IN DOOR
� �-- SECOND DaT
/
REVISED
,_„
I��S =1 -U
• :,�
�' :,� �. � -
:�
1-- ►� ---�-��
�.
� sx�o
- - - - - - - - �
BATTFRY I
qiARG'E
1� I
�
---------�
)�o�r x�o�r.
NON-AUTOAIAIED
DRIVE-W DOORS
9 fT. x 10 FT. HT. DOq( DOORS
7 fT. WIDE x 6 FT. DEEP
MANUAL DOq( LEI�ELERS
sroR. aos�r r�n� -
�ausr� s�vEs
�:
�❑
�
ELIMINARY FLOOR P
Oi iHE BLDG. W1LL HAVE A 22 FT. CLEAR
HT. UNDER THE ROOF JOISTS.
O2 CONC. WHSE. FLOOR TO BE MINIMUM
4000 P.S.i. 6° 1HICK SEALED CONC.
SLAB. INTEX OR EQUAL CURE/SEALER.
O3 WFiSE. LIGHTING TO BE SFT. TWO BULB
FLOUR. STRIP FlXTURES MOUNTED TO BAR
JOISTS OPERATED BY ELEC. PN. BREAKER
SNITCH. (30 FOOTCANDLES)
O4 ALL HVAC EQUIP., INSTALLATION AND
ENGINEERING TO BE PROVIDED BY
LENNOX.
�5 15'-7° WIDE X 53 FT. LONG MIN. 5000
P.S.L CONC. DOLLY WHEEL APRONS TO
BE PROVIDED IN FRONT OF EACH DOOR.
O6 OFFlCE SPACE TO HAVE 2 X 4 LAY—IN
ACOUSTiCAL PANEL CWG. AT 8'0' HT.
O7 OFFICE LJGHTING TO BE S1D. 2 X 4
REC. FLOURESCENT FlXiURES WITH
ACRYUC LENSES TO PROVIDE 100
FOOTCANDLES AT THE WORK SURfACE.
CONF.
OSC
l�S�.
„x12
NkISE.
11�A��
DH
ewwa�
��lesis`-
I ( � � LJ LJ ��
��— °M�is� s��"ira►� �"' �� �� I� I� � r_ ;'
�an2 �anz e�ns I e�n�i� I a,na s I e�n�'_ I e�n�— I a���z— � r�c�aT./ �,�
I I I I � i J�� L�
---1----L----�---1---J_.�
COA75
Mb1iEN'S - - - - - - -�
- �_ FlLFS, � ���.
ClASS R0011 CONF. EUPLOYEE I I
2� 12� g� � �
� �
� f
�
i� i r---�---� 1
�� I��_ I I �
I � � �
LL 7J �23x34 .� - - �- - - i
� � � �
I I � i
� ALL WHSE. DOORS TO BE 3'0" X?'0"
INSUL STEEL IN 2" H.61. iRAMES AND
ALL WTEPoOR OFFICE DOORS'TO BE 3'0"
X 6'S' S.C. H.M. WITH H.M. FRAMES
� ALL OFFICE �LOORS TO BE 32 OUNCE
GLUE DOWN CLOSED LOOP CARCET AND
2-1/2' SiRAIGHT CARPET BASE, EXCEPT:
A— VESTIBULES TO HAVE QUARRY ?NE
FLOOR APJU BASE.
B— MENS' AND WOMENS' ROOMS TO HAVE
CtRAMIC TiLE FLOOR ANG BPSE.
�10 ALL OFFICE WALLS SNALL BE PAINTED,
EXCEPT:
A— BRANCH MGR'S OFFICE TO HAVE
ViNYL WALL CO`JERI!�'GS.
9— M�NS' AND WOMENS' R00�.iS TO Hh.VE
C.?. W.AIN�COATING TO 4 FT. HT.
ON ALL WET WALLS.
C— W!iSE. l;'1LITIES ROOM AND
JANITOR'S CLOS�i TO dE TAPED AND
SANDED ONLY.
AIFN'S
B4�L
9x12
yf i I I I I II II $TNR �p jp y�E
l i � l l i l ll II E
1LJ1LJ1�_ �
�uLL r+T. �-�. auznnart �nn�
1-HR. DOOR A� fRAME ASSdABUES � GLAZIN� ASSEMBIJES
(STANDARD 54' WIDE x 38' HT. 'FIREIITE' CIEAR FlRE-RAiED
GUSS BORROWED UIES BY 'TECHI�CAL GLASS PRODUC'15'
IN 1-HR RATED S7}�L FR,qNES)
❑
n
0
NOTE: ROOM DIMENSIONS AS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE.
�11 COMPLETE AN UNFINISHED LIGHT
STORAGE MEZZANINE LEVEL OVER
6000 SQ. FT. OF OFFICE SPACE.
PROVIDE GUARD RAIL ON WNSE. SIDES
AND GATE FOR FORK LIFi ACCESS.
(12 PROVIDE AN EXTERIOR STORAGE AREA Of
4000 SQ. FT. W11}i A FUi1 AREA 6"
TNICK CONC. S�AB AND A 6" FT. CHAIN
LINK FENCE SURROUNDING IT.
13 PROVIDE 220 VOLT POWER TO T' IE
CONFERENCE%C�SSROOM.
74 PROVIDE RUBBER DOCK 9UMPERS,
DOCK SEALS AND MANUA� DOCK
LE'JELERS AT ALL FOUR LDA.DING DOCK
DOOkS.
15 ELEC. SERVICE TO BE B00 P.MP MAIN
SER'JICE 22ij"480 VOL� UNDERGROUND
W!TN i— 400 AMP METER AND 6— 100
AMF MEIERS WI1H BREAKERS ON EACH.
�
� WHSE. TO HA'JE:
A— ONE 240 VOLT, SWGLE PHASE, 65
AMP pISCONNECT FOR TESIING.
B— THREE 240 VOLT, SIP:GLE PHASE,
45 AMP OUTLETS FOR BATTrRY
CHARGERS.
COPY,
15�x20�
�❑
�
��
n
ann AI TFRIJdTx'c av I CAIAIl�V
Ol WHSE. LIGHTING TO BE H.Lp. Vr1TH 40
FOOTCANDLES AT 6 FT. ABOVE FLOOR.
�2 PROti9DE ONE DUPLEX ciEC. OUiLET A?
EACH WFiSE. COLUMN AND AT EACN OF
FOUP. WHSE. DOCK DOORS.
O3 PAINT ALL WHSE. WALLS, S7EEl ROOF
DECK ANO STEEL ROOF
STRUCPJRE/SUPPORT COLUMNS WHITE.
� PR0�1DE NIHSE. BATHROOM AS SHON?J
FINISHED SIMILAR TO hIE OFFICE
MENS' k WOMENS' ROOMS.
O5 PROVIDE W1LL CALL OfFICE & LOBa'f
N^TH COUNTER & 1�'B" �1N'Y� n�E
FLOOR WITH 2 1 j2" COVED �1N11 BASE.
O6 COMPLETE AN UNFINISHED LIGH?
STOR. ME'ZAti'INE LEVEL OVER iHE
ENTIRE BOOG Sp. FT. OFFICE SPACE.
YYINDOW
14e�i
SHOWR0011/
DISPLAY
2700�
!Ill�illli�� � �� I i�'����i,
IIIIIIIIIii�lil I�ii!��i
' � �►���ill�ll!IINIIII m f�e �
ueller
ii architects,inc.
3600 weat 80th st., sulte 35
bloomington, mn 55431-1 070
tel. (612) 897-5001
fax (612) 897-5073
project:
LENNOX
INDUSTRIES
INC.
OFFICE 8,000 ¢
WHSE. 22,517 ¢�
TOTAI 30,517: �
revfsions:
no. date descriptlon
3/26/91 REVISED
3/28/91 REVISED
4/2/91 REVISED
4/15/91 REVISED
4/22/91 REVISED
4/25/91 REVISED
��� �4 �N �I �� Id I M' �!"9 � M6 �I 7 i�s� 'i,���,.
���j�"'�f'��b1' �i� �' � ^;.,
�ti � ryam ;;�i � ti w iFe�i dlr�"��V
comm. no. gipgl
date 3/18/91
drawn by DGG
checked by SP�I
sheet number
of ONE sheets
_ �,._—.—.r---.--`---- — — --
r. � � �
'��7�i ;:iw . ' � ' �.
� , . . �..�� ^.���
. .._ ., , y� c..i e . I� i ,I�li xai i i^VIWII" .;,...u-ler' v'^vm�+^�"��� I mi^ mr�pri � . p._�w;, .;,v�..
: -r
: .. -.: ,�•,� �. yw . . . ' _. '
•' „ s . -iri i, . .,. . . , . -.-r-,
. .. . � . . , -. . � _. . ..
-,- . . ' �' ... ., �� .�. 'i .
:�,,,� . ,�W�ad" {" r w{i{t!��P�, ..� w
«v .�a�
.. ;� 4. Ae � le'�r i'i'+' 7�.�i1 _,�.�+
+ �
.��i
.:�M
�
vi
1 /8"=1 �_�n
NOTE: ROOM DIMENSIONS AS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE.
SPECIFICATIONS ADD ALTERNATES BY LENNOX
OHTE U DER THE k00F ,�p�STS T. CLEAR '✓ NSUL,.�STFEDOOR� TO Bf�AMES AND /1, S�TORAGE tiEZZAN NESHEVELIOVER O FOOTCA DLES AT 68 T.HABOVE7TFLOOR.
ALL INTERIOR OFFICE DOORS'TO BE 3'0" 6000 SQ. F?. OF OFFICE SPACE.
O2 CONC. WHSE. FLOOR TO BE MINIMUM X 6'8° S.C. H.M. WITH N.M. FRAMES PROVIDE GUARD RAIL ON WHSE. SIDES O2 PR0�9DE ONE DUPLEX eliC. OUTLET AT
4000 P.S.I. 6" THICK SEALED CONC. AND GATE FOR FORK LIFT ACCESS. EACH WFiSE. COLUMN AND AT EACH OF
SLAB.INTEX OR EQUAL CURE/SEALER.
O3 WHSE. UGHTING TO BE BFT. TWO BULB
ROUR. STRIP FIX111RES MOUNTED TO BAR
JOISTS OPERATED BY EiEC. PN. BREAKER
SWITCH. (30 FOOTCANDLES)
O4 ALL HVAC EQUIP., INSTALLATION AND
ENGINEERING TO BE PROVIDED BY
LENNOX.
O5 15'-7' WIDE X 53 FT. LONG MIN. 5000
P.S.I. CONC. DOLLY WHEEL APRONS TO
BE PROVIDED IN fRONT OF EACH DOOR.
O6 OFFlCE SPACE TO HAVE 2 X 4 LAY—IN
ACOUSIICAL PANEL CLNG. AT 8'0' HT.
O7 OFFICE LIGHTING TO BE STD. 2 X 4
REC. FLOURESCENT FlXTURES WITH
ACRYLJC LENSES TO PROVIDE 100
FOOTCANDLES AT THE WORK SURFACE.
� 9 ALL OFFICE FLOORS TO BE 32 OUNCE
6LUE DONM CLOSED LOOP CARPET AND
2-1/2' SiRAIGHT CARPET BASE, EXCEPT:
A— VESTI6UIFS TO HAVE �UARRY THE
FLOOR AND BASE.
B— MENS' AND WOMENS� ROOMS TO HAVE
CERAMIC P.LE FLOOR AND BASE.
�10 ALL OFFICE WAl1S SHALL BE PAINTED,
EXCEPT:
A— BRANCH MGR'S OFFICE TO HAVE
�IN'f! WALL CO`�'�RIFGS.
6— MENS' AND WOMENS' ROOb!S TO HAVE
C.T. W.4INSCOATING TO 4 FT. HT.
ON ALL WE7 WAI LS.
C— Nh,iSE. U11J11ES ROOM AND
JANITOR'S CLOSEi TO BE TAPED AND
SANDED ONLY.
12 PROVIDE AN EXTERIOR STORAGE AREA Of
4000 SQ. FT, w1TH A FULL AREA 6"
THICK CONC. SLAB AND A 6" FT. CNAIN
LINK FENCE SURROUNDING IT.
13 PROViDE 220 VOLT POWER TO 1?iE
CONFERENCE%CLASSROOM.
14 PROVIDE RUBBER DOCK 6UMPERS,
DOCK SEALS AND MANUAL DOCK
LEVELERS AT ALL FOUR LDADING DOCK
DOOkS.
15 ELEC. SERVICE TO BE B00 P.MP MAIN
SER'JICE 227j480 VOLT UhDERGROUND
WITH 1— 400 AMP METER AND 6— 1G0
AMP METERS WITH BREAKERS ON EACH.
(1� WHSE. 70 HAVE:
A— ONE 240 VOLT, SINGLE PHASE, 65
AMP DISCONNECT FOR iESi1NG.
B— THREE 240 VOLT, S!P�GLE PHASE,
45 AMP OUTLETS FOR BATiERY
CHARGERS.
FOUP WHSE. DOCK DOORS.
O3 PAINi ALL WHSE. WAl1S, STE�L ROOF
DECK AND STEEL ROOF
SIRUCPJRE/SUPPORT COWMNS WHITE.
� PROb1DE WHSE. BAT}IROOti1 AS SHOWN
FINISHED SIMILAR TO TNE OFFICt
MENS' & WOMENS' k00MS.
� PROVIDE W1LL CALL OFFICE & LOBBY
WITH COUNTER & 1 j8" b1��r ?1LE
FLOOR WITH 2 t j2" COVED VINYL BASE.
�6 COMPLETE AN UNFINISHED LIGHT
STOR. ME'ZANWE LEVEL OVER TH�
ENTIRE B000 SQ. FT. OFFICE SFACE.
�
�
�
jafvert
mueller
itects,inc.
)th et., sulte 35
mn 55431-1070
97-5001
97-5073
TRIES
8,000 �
22,517 ¢�
30,517. !�
revisions:
no. date descriptlon
3/26/91 REVISED
3/28/91 REVISED
4/2/91 REVISED
4/15/91 REVISED
4/22/91 REVISED
4/25/91 REVISED
��1 ��I�I��Yvi'k�� a �. � � ..
��R COHSTRUC������u.
comm. no. 91081
date 3/18/91
drawn by DGG
checked by SPM
sheet number
of ONE sheets
r�
� �1 �
L-�..� �.. �_� � �
.,� _. --,
• -� -�� — �—
— — — —� _ w � 3n�d 3adnnd ew� —
w
...__ __---_ —
� � � � _ _, � , ,,..-....��.. - ..-� � . � �_..---�
1 --�'-
`"+,,,� ,,,, r t f '
. •.
� I .y4�. \�
� 1 ��C .4 �~�a � .�a.��«e � u .'.i I � --.....�,'A---�._ _.�...�
n
�
I
I I I � .. • � , � ^ .
� ' v
_ . �...,....... l � a..,i a -� � nwm� ��a
�^ ' �
�_ � r N � ` '. �f.. � ..,. ��„ ".; ., y .,.,.�. e�' -*,.
, � .
I
`T I .. '`% � ,
_ ,
`� 5
�� �`ti 'W ��: ' �, -:. , -•
� r -., __�._ ,. ,..-..-__. ; . .�. ,. e P' l
� m .:. � �.. .�. i �K�. �....,
� � ,� � � .. � ,
� _� ' � �' � � �
E ,� �
~ ' ' � c0
�
t
_._ � � � ,
__ �� �_ ' � � �
_ �, ',
r �
� � 1 . t .�«-� �,
�
lsb � �'� � C URT � �, � �;
� �.�.
3 3j�tll� QNOd w CANTO�1 "" O ys,a;�' `, � y p
� � Z � � �
_ ,
� � ^""", ws .«; '
�
� �� �� �. y� � #(" � `�. •C .
� � li�� �t' ; ,�"._ ' lt t 14 � E
, „w
� ,
r
� `w ...-, ...d � . . .
�
I I � t
Q � r�r.s ' � 'i a 1
� Z I � t
W ��
W r ..........._. � .
:�
�a
QI � I� :�-""�' ����'' ��a* .� I`� N I
� � � �..� � ap � , , ��. � , �
� r ,. _ --- �
a� r � � �
. ,.. -
,� Oi�'�, -- � (.r0 �' �' pm '"[ .;.�..: ��� � '.v
w , _ �W � �,��v
W T" �_ . - � .' �-_ __���� t �v,."r .r .
N- � - � .�ti ��",
¢ � � , r� _ � � � _ v�.a, �� �' � ti
— iT CO � �+'i <.
2 � r .,-"� r , �� ;. -_"�
fn "`
;
� � r
', u�
�
� - -"` ,— � �
-- �
�
� � .µ
_ _ _ �- ,
. a�
Q r"
I � � � T�
.
j I ' �
r .
s ' .
Z 7 a ..�.��a- �,r' ,
� . ..' r ,ye� a,
. >� r'" .' i YI �"'
� � � .
�- '.
- � �„_
� € f' - �
T
,�
k � y^`
? t
, ,- �
��J� ;x � �I � ,x' \� i � � .�
� � . �' �
�� � _ .
—. J ,.� �� f �� . e.
\ ��� �N�d ,'� � �� �b�b � �'�
�_ _ . _, � - i Q
1 � � � � �� � �
- ��
� 1
=F�-= �I \ E
f' �
�- � � -
, _. • . '-�_ � � r �w4��My��
� ���'
�� ` Nr � .
� � �I � ' -- ✓'� eQ a� 9� � �, _ �` �'���
i Tr r : }7 •y;b�` �f -
� W " y _
'' � .,t' 'C *i*�&'+` � ad`m � FI � ,
l� X. �* + '�' g'"'' 4�� r
7 N � � `,� M� , ' � �.y ' ,,p �'#,� —;� .;; ��W �,� p.,. �.l*1�r� ... h ��. �.
/�� `�, ry. ,.�,. y} . .� � �� a x ,a�
� � f .�_ -_"-^�.V .. Ji , i�'�''�.,,, � . / C,p�WI ���j � � (� . 4 � ���.,. y �a'� � �" ,
� y
: S +� /y�
..
� � ^�, � � � � . ��� � �.� 5 t "� � ��� + s X�
P � { 1 � � � i � N J )'� �1h � S ; � _
� Y "
I
,� . �• >
; �zy, . ... .. . ; > ,
I ' ^ � ;
I _ a � ,�y 4 .
,.., � d � ' ' ��?
,.
,. � ` a
w �n
.; ,.; , � . ,
p �y , ��D .. 1 jY t.s.�
I i.r^ �''�(6 . � . .
I 1��� ��
.7 dO ; �s r�+',; � ' " r
g i ; A� ..
i `
._.. �N� ':,�, .�,'
I M . � �,.�����
-, r .
� m.' �! r�l:
,.
�
¢~ m m ca ra ra co w
m aa w m ai m aa
N' a e e [ ' '
y �n �n �n v� �n �D ao
N N N fV N
� _
Z 1+ C
41 �.1 N
a a u w °� � a�
ro � a N
,-�i x � � � cn ro
N � � � ro v �
N C � t� O� � N
E. � � N �
a ,° a �n � �¢
Y
CV' ,-i � y N u'1 M Q�
� .-+ r'7 r'f c u1 VI �
] �
Q .
Q
�OO��� '
N
:
.
e
�
N �
01 0
N A
m �•
:;
s
�
5�
o`a
�
��
�•
i;
.�
.
AY
U m
a
c
mm
.� h
� � }��� � � � � �
._ _.. � . � � ' _ �I'+
. ` �4x � �` V `; Y..K�f � �
a I _ .. �M,� �,�� . _ .; , —
:3 ... w � : • fe , � ! � � y � ` ' _ -.-. +- � � Z
`� F
Z N �� ti4�� ���.�. • � '•� � � w
Y ����T� �'� � / t � � W
I I v, ti �� t::_r: r+ ' T` .3 T a;,f �;3 �jQ',�� �# . � � in
� F � �
� �,�'"� � r �. ��" ��' � �.. +Y ' � #�_ �''' J ° H W
� I I � `.,.� . . ,r':. ,��. ..�� � i� � ,
. ` ,�, r c, � Z
.
�� � 7� ; � � � � � �.� ' � .,� ' tafti ` .5 "}�} ��..��� ..� r' � Z
Q I x y � � X��,�� Y� �� �� L J1 r� C � / t uf J
� � �� � �� f � �� �,�.(.�..�.i. / " � � •.�D -+-, . 1 Q Z
� � ./�. f ^'� � .+Tt �� i �� (4,� ♦ .. W O
I �ai� � � f � '�y � ' `` ' W �'
�[�U � a y 3 Y lf J 5�� � � � F Z �
�' -"-' `,'O i• ;;�.� � ..', / � � /�/ t ' J �
i�
� ';, ii�}�'��� , �. �' � �� . �/ � � d z
, , �
7 , . � ��� o�, d �
�,
_
. � ,
�
� y ,
:
- ' 'tt,_, ry � .. � i � H
� � � � �i�. �
� ' �� �
;
� r.
� � p / :
., ���, l � O �
`l �., 4 '. � ¢�� } � ,; r / ,,� � i' O
� $' `� �
�V �
�
V '� � n ' ',� .. 1 . r;' �� " '' � � ..� ..,� �
�
\ \f •
� .
� y � � r l � i
1 . �� . � . • : .
z
� . _ � '� '.. . - .� 'y '� �� t/ A � �Y � '� /1 �.�' �Q �
•
� ' � l /
r � , / . � '� ' .. � t
` ' f" F '
�
.
� � � �" �n
.. M �, ,� / � �
�" ,
'. , � i a ua r { .. , i - � / �
N M
�
�
. ,
� , .. .. , i/ . � �� �� ��
� � ~
\ , �_ �} .y
� � . � . , h ��� �' . ' y � v ;
p
^ � �
r
� �. . �c� . ,i,�.i� {- . �
� .
.
\ _ . �' 4- , r. � �. � ._S y j t �JJ 3
,, ,\
�� 1 � '� o+�� +at� _. " ��j[ � �� `f� ��F
\ �. � ,� � .. . �a /Ffr r .� .. J �Q� 5 y . . j - � � � � / ,�..«^��. » ; ' �
/ / �\, .. . � . � rC F' -i ' �,y,% �^.+�.,�^'TT�.�' t� �4. ��ly /� b /•� �� � 3
� . �
�..� ! . �}.,.� }. •� +^ ": I Y �: `Y�'1 ' ... �t �q � .i � y.`o ./
� ��� `� ( . �,� � .: Q . 3v.� , �. � a - � � 'n1� �: ��'.W � , . r/ .� ,• . ,, . ry�a f � � �w'� 4 - /� ,
� � � �
�p, � : - � � �* � . . ,, . �` � �� �
l
>
��. . :.. � r .�.r
! / / . ��� �. �` ..,,: , .. � . �, `61� xy: ;� �`3 �� a � y'W .rc'- .., ,r�+ ."e � ;�Z; '"-�-' � `y S � '
.
�t� y TM
. .
: .
`, P / _ � � ., , € �
/ \ �, �� �. ., . . y w � , .- ..R t l ._. � 1 � ` � '�* ,.. � -; / �,''r ; 7
� � . r „.
.
\ � .
Cj[ • � � ti ', t; �f, � ..F�: .a ,� : . R" � �: / ,,,,..% {
:
, {
. �
.; !
NPM� � � � _ _~-� � ' �� / ,,-' � -�-�'' ' ��
� � � �� ,� =- _ �._.� � �
� ,� ,,.,--- ;
, , � e' �.,.,�-�- � i
. �
, � � - � � ; f � / ,
� - � �-'�� ,.-`"". '
�
�
� - �� -:•i►' ► ••� •:' � ,,
-.► : ,- � ;.; !!.�
:,.-�.�7�=:: •► ,;.r
•-- ►'�
//y y► �I •
. .
. ��0
.
� �r� . ;� ,
. �
. ..
•a
��� � .
�,�
,,
�i,�,,� • ..
_� �� � , -
lii� ,._ � •� _ ':•� :
� �`� � � � �`�
�� y� `�
•��»' �
, � ��� *�� Q1,�,.� � �.� �► �5�� � �,� -
_
� � ��� , ,,� ��'�� ♦ . , �1I/�Q�� ���.
�• . � !► �.- �i� \ � .. `�� � �
i ��
r', ���' "• �a�1�V � � l►��, al_.
, � / `� ♦ �i�� '�, r; ��!�,; �
.,� . � .'' �,,; i � ��� �� `
� � e � � � �� ,.b � ���� � ��� �
� �
� ° � ��� �'���►� :�
; '��, :�a , � r�r: �
. ;%: ��►
, :�:. �, -,_� �t� ,,, � �. �
� � �
,�;, +� . � � `',,, .�.
�; �i: .�,T , f • • � . � �� .r'
� :�� � r�
.�, a �'a., - )�: � .,. �
� '�� `-_: F
,� :
�. '�
� �� ,i� ���► : ;� �
` �� �
� � ;: ���. 'w! � � ''� ��" ' � : '� �� � 4
0 � !� � - i �
/►� u. ,.,. , , A
E - ° . . �.,, i��`�r�� ��►�� e��r►�E�� �.
.�+ � ' � �� � �� � i+��
,� � ��/� �� <�17e1��� ��� � a►�
���_�. ; ,w'1����• �, •. ,�;a���l -� , r'��••�►�1 ��'
. `�` .r � �L �` ��.l7� , !� �`,
7 ,
�Y,� � • `��y ,Q „ � � ��_' �\ � �R
. � �� � �
;` �:p��,� - ;!:�� . �� ' ����' �
I '��► ' ��..� ��� �i �' . . ��Q � ,
.. � �� t.��,� ��j� �rr� o :: w ��
b ,
t
'� ' a�.:. Q� ,_ ���� � � (� �+�`
� �PI' .�w�� QI I_ ���` r�.
��! � � ^ � ��
'"� ��'�I I► �i , � �i�� � . � �� � �� �
� a�r � - �i � �� ����, � '� � �����
, • ` � �;�; -�� _..� �'' �
�-� I ` � �� ' �� �`� �� �
.�a . _ . : � �� �� �f�,l� ���� � �= �
� '�` Q .� �A � ���� .. .� � �. ��r �
,� � , �
`„� %`; . �"'Z�, ,. � , �� � '. � i �:a� ."�w `� , I, ��I�_
: �� , _ .. �� .�1t'��� r � �a� .� ��'1 !�►, ���� �
;.�,� . � � :� �'�. ,�' � �di ♦ `�
• ,� . a. � .,;"` � �� ��l�1�� � ���,, � �� •• �� �
� .,� ,�. ��� � � �
' �� �iv�r�n� � �, w
� � � � �y � ��� ,�
; ��; � � ,�� � � ���r .� ��.. . � • . � � �� +��� �: � _ �� �
,
1� � \� „����I��.,r�� �,�a� ,/� �, _ �i � � _,�-- �
� � ���U�' ��/ � �` �� ��� � �
• �ji �A� � � � .��► ��� � �, � �� ��' �` � �
' `� �.��'/" �...�.��"�i � ���' � � `� �� �� � , j,�� � '`� 'r
��•�� �^ � �9� � � � �� � 1 • �� � �� � � ��
. �y � �p���=,,�z�` , � �',y� +,� �' �� .
i� �!* I� p . � rf,, �I'�� � �r ��. � �` �p
. • �!� � '� �r � -. � . � � ., .�I► �► �- �
. . ,• � � �'� '� - �•., � ,,i�� �►
. . � - ��, �� �� �� ,, �� - `y � '�,
� �' . � ,� ��� ��,� ' � � ,� �� ��
( �' ' ` ^�' _ � � �� '� ,�„� � .�11%ji�
• • A`� � . ' , -+7�e��^�_ � � �`�' '_ _ - ����1'�
\��� , ..'. ' i �-.r. , ``� � 1� � �
� `v ���� v . . /1a"� � � ' ...
I ' - •,„
' M. e' r �' �
i� �,� � „ � ��
♦ . � .
� �. �� � I � �
., . . i �._ r= � f � , j{ � .
. "eq „ , � :� . ' - � / I � . � � � • � i . � .
� . . t . . ' � � � .
'� r � e�r
g ` '. ". `". , . r" 1 '
6 � .
} 1' �
5 � `
���Lt��, -�*�� y .. . .. � � �.s �i - � � _
\\ \� _ / � � ��i «� l _ �\ I I � `� ��.. ,'_ < `-_..`` '\
� \�� ,\ � `. ! � 'K � �� Y'S NC'Jr !-j�� � ���5 �� ���� ��� I ! I � ` � �
e� ` \ �
�� x h ,N �yy. 4 S .'.� r(:. ./ ' l'Y � 4l — � ,� ,�
\
� ` �� . � t 'v.i.e' ` .. _ VfIA ♦ �fi� ..,.i ��
� "r \ � � . � � S ��� `� '�....�,�,�,�yy '�-� � � �v4w �� " � / � ��� . � `� 3
� , �I g
II , �� Y K� � l"' � �^9* � , yrs '� � _ � � �` � { �
� �
` - � "Y�, '� 7a 3 y
� ' • � � �, � t �
. } _
r , � F � � � � � r �. �-�.-•��'. �.; � � �' � � c. �_ �! -r`-�.�a ' i , �I i � ,
� ��
, p
y� �� . � ,� �t� �� �y - -- 4 { ; � � r
�. . a
� � _ � . 1� � .- .`r°.:. � ; p
, ;
�, . e , > � .
.:
w. ��� �,� �
4,y � «,. ,w
� , w . t��„ � �� � ,..�m �. > � � �t � � �
_.
� , �,�,A �� � �� ".y Q n � y� � y .r � %� ar � �r� b ��
j ' ti " .�. � .�Ss� 7 .-/ � \ � �j � f r ..' T�,- � - � � �
� E _ � � �: �'ei �.
f� ������ �� � Y / % � .�@•-"� � �' j •���� � � �
�%1~ � � ,� � . , ., j/J /r r+��
f l�� .�Allt� . _ • � _ , . �,�_ �������4 1� � //✓ � . , . .. � . ���4` .. fi. .. R �
;
S133NS ��
133HS
3`Jtld >1009
/�I � ��vl
or+ sor
� �01 111
31Y�S
1 b-SI —L
31da
03M�3M�
NMtltlO