1985-06-04CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
qw- DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
JUNE 4, 1985 - 7:30 P.M.
1. Call to Order. " 7:3 r
2. Roll Call.
3. Agenda Adoption. - d�
4. Approval of Minutes, May 21. , 14
5. Consent Calendar: -A
a. Acknowledgement of Code Enforcement monthly report for May.
b. Acknowledgement of the May 28 Planning Commission minutes.
c. Acknowledgement of the April 17 NDC4 minutes.
d. Approval of the List of Claims.
e. Approval of the List of Licenses.
f. Approval of Rubbish Haulers License to Roadway Rubbish.
End of Consent Calendar.
6. Introductions:
a. Appointment to Volunteer Fire Department. Erick Schmidt will
be present. —
7. Public Comments.-
8.
omments.-
8. Resolution on Gun Club Lake Water Management Organization. �(H�
). Resolution No. 85-41-01/ "Ir
9. HEARING:
a. Resolution on North End Street Improvements. (See attached Hearing
Notice). 8; 0 P.M Resolution No. 85-42. - —Cl
10. Unfinished and New Business:
� n a. Planning Commission Case No. 85-08, McGown, Request for Subdivision
and Preliminary Plat approval. (Recommend approval).
b. Planning CommissionA�seN85-09, Fett, Request for Variance.
(Recommend approval).
c. Planning Commission Case No. 85-13, Sellner, Request for Variance.
(Recommend approval). —
d. Planning Commission Case No. 85-14, Ur}ited Properties, Request for
Variance. (Recommend approval). ',
June 4, 1985 Agenda, Page Two
s
e. Planning Commission Case No. 85-12, Durbahn, Request for Variance.
'--o
(Recommend approval). Z4
f. Reque t fo dified Site Plan Approval for 711 Woodridge Drive. r�
g. Con nued iscuss n of Mn/FS Genera C tractor's License.
m4,,4- h. Resolution on Backbone Trail System. (Resolution No. 85-43). —
Ivv
i. Alterns PdrFalls East Street Repair.
j. Request for Study of 1-494 Corridor. _ f
11. Response to Council Comments and Requests.
a. Discussion of MASAC Representative.
12. Council Comments.
r
ourn.
/, . &s
1/—V u ` t�_7j- 611r
7° 3 A-`,- "'PIJ -'
May 22, 1985
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Dennis J. Delmont,
Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Mendota Highlands
After reviewing the site plan for the above -captioned development, we have
the following comments, which we will be glad to discuss as the planning
process continues:
1. Name Identification:
The goals of the City would be best served if the development
identified itself with Mendota Heights, and not Mendota. Some
type of City identification should appear prominently on their
project identification signs.
2. Lighting should be provided on private road, Mendota Heights Rd.,
parking lots and building facades - particularly the "rear"
exposures.
3. Stop signs at exit points from each parking lot.
4. 3 -way stop at Huber and Mendota Heights Rd.
5. Private loop road posted, "No Parking Anytime".
6. More parking stalls at Recreation Building.
7. 24-hour management telephone number for Public Safety, as well as
24-hour access mechanism to each building.
8. Sufficient lighting at each doorway and in each "foyer".
9. Adequate security control for underground garages and storage rooms.
10. Renters name (initial and last name) displayed on unit doors.
11. Proper identification of the buildings and swimming pools and
tennis courts, i.e., west pool - east pool; west tennis court -
east tennis court.
COMMENTS FROM FIRE MARSHAL:
I would like to see additional sprinkler systems for the store room, mech-
anical room and laundry room. Also, adequate turning radii for all fire apparatus
should be provided. Otherwise, the plan appears OR, provided that adequate fire
department protection is included in the final drawings.
Paul Kaiser, Fire Marshal
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
and
Paul R. Berg
Code Enforcement Officer
May 22, 1985
SUBJECT: Mendota Heights Associates (Jim Riley)
Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development
Rezoning, Variance and Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Case No. 85-10
DT4C IggTnN
Mr. Riley is proposing to construct apartments on the Laukka-Beck site
and has completed the attached description of his proposed project. The
project area is now zoned low density residential but is impacted by both I-
494 and airport noise (in Zone 4). Staff feels that due to this factor, low
density residential zoning is inappropriate.
Mr. Riley's proposal is to rezone the land to high density residential
and construct eight 74 unit apartment buildings. These apartments would be
almost identical in floor plan to his first development in Mendota Heights
located along Lexington Avenue. The exterior facade would be changed to be
more rustic. City sewer and water is not presently available to the site.
Extensions would have to be made from the south end of Huber Drive located
approximately 800 feet north of the site. Mendota Heights Road, as con-
structed by Mn/DOT last year, does extend up to the site, however, staff
feels that as part of any approval for development of this site, Mendota
Heights Road should required to be constructed through to Delaware Avenue.
Mr. Riley proposes to have private roads for internal circulation within the
site.
Mr. Riley has stated that he has met with all the affected property
owners listed on the abstractor's certificate and informs us that none of
them had serious concerns with his proposed project.
This proposal is a very ambitious one and although I don't believe
anyone expected single family development on the site, what is proposed is
quite a change from the expectations most nearby residents may have expected
for the land. Staff suspects that the Planning Commission may be somewhat
overwhelmed by the proposal and may want to schedule a working session with
the developer to more fully discuss some of the details and concerns raised
at the public hearing. The extent of notices only go within a 350 foot
radius of the site so only eight residents were notified of the hearing.
None in the Friendly Hills/Delaware Crossing neighborhoods were notified of
the scheduled hearing.
Thi�s.-.proposal was discussed informally with the City Council and they
felt that the entire I-494 corridor zoning matter should be studied in
conjunction with this application to make sure everything is compatible.
Being that this is a very ambitious development requiring the City to
install street and utilities a Developers Agreement will need to be drafted
addressing such items as phasing, erosion control, developer's and city's
responsibilities in getting public facilities to the site, park dedication,
etc.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Conduct public hearing and based on input from public and Planning
Commission make a recommendation to City Council.
EE
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
9901
May 24, 1985
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Fraze
5W
City Admini ator
SUBJECT: Mn/FSL General Contractor License
INTRODUCTION
At the conclusion of the May 7th hearing, Council directed staff to
analyze and further investigA the complaints against Mn/FSL to determine
whether there was sufficient evidence for Council to revoke or suspend.the
firm's general contractor license. It is staff's conclusion that a revocation
or suspension at this time would not be advisable, in part because some of
the complaints that might at one time have justified action have now been
resolved. Based on our research, however, we do suggest that the Code Enforce-
ment Officer carefully monitor future construction, and that any
serious discrepancies be brought to the attention of the Council.
It must further be indicated, that in reviewing the situation, staff
limited itself to code violations that might justify Council action against the
contractor's license under the standards of City Ordinance No. 601. The fact
that we are not prepared to recommend such action at this time should not be taken
as a finding on the validity of complaints that might properly be pursued through
other recourse (i.e., civil action). We simply did not feel that many of the
complaints fell under the auspices of Ordinance No. 601, and therefore, did not
investigate them further.
nTqrTTqqTnM
9 is:
Once again, the test for revocation or suspension in Ordinance 601, Section
The Council may suspend or revoke the license of any person licensed
under this Ordinance, whose work is found to be improper or defective
or so unsafe as to Jeopardize life or property.
City Attorney Tom Hart is of the opinion that in order to justify license sus-
pension or revocation, "improper" or "defective" would have to be something
beyond the standard types of problems found in most new construction. Therefore,
we developed a three-point test to use in deriving a list of specific problems
for further investigation:
1. Those that were potential safety or health hazards.
2. Those that indicated an unusual type of defect on a consistent basis.
3. An attitude of "stonewalling" in responding to 1 and 2.
- 2 -
City building permit records showed the following complainants to be
living in houses for which Mn/FSL was the general contractor:
Hanton
- 2381
Apache Court
Goetz
- 700
Apache Court
Blank
- 694
Ocala Lane
Skogheim
- 2279
Ocala Court
The following residents also testified at the May 7th hearing, or sent in letters,
but live in homes constructed by other general contractors:
Jacob
- 2553
Apache Court
- August Construction
Moberg
- 682
Ocala Lane
" It
Baskfield
- 687
Ocala Lane
it
Lavigne
- 695
Apache Lane
" It
Koppen
- 683
Apache Lane
" it
Cummins
- 2312
Nashua Lane -
Fasenden Construction
As Mn/FSL is not the general contractor of record, construction defects in the latter
group of homes could not legally be used as a basis for license suspension or
revocation. As area developer and "go-between" with the buyer and other general
contractors, Mn/FSL may have contractual or ethical obligations to address
these problems, depending on the specifics of each individual case. Their perfor-
mance as a general contractor, however, is not at question. August and Fasenden
no longer hold City licenses.
Limiting our review to the first four houses, staff identified three
particular complaints that might potentially meet the "three-point" test discussed
above. They were:
Hanton - 2381 Apache Court - sewer line failure
Goetz - 700 Apache Lane - cracked driveway
Blank - 694 Ocala Lane - wet basement walls
FINDINGS
Hanton - 2381 Apache Court - Dr. Hanton's complaint regarded a problem
around Labor Day, 1983, when on two occasions he had water standing in
his basement. He questioned whether the sewer service had ever been
connected to the City sewer. City records reveal that Utility Mainten-
anceperson Tom Olund did inspect and approve the connection in May, 1983.
Therefore, the line apparently was moved at some time between May and Sept.
Code Enforcement Officer Paul Berg visited the Hanton residence on May
17, and was told that the water was grey water from the laundry facilities
that came up from the floor drain. The sewer line was subsequently dug
up and reconnected, and there reportedly has been no problem since.
Goetz - 700 Apache Lane - Code Enforcement Officer Berg inspected the
Goetz driveway on May 20th. Paul found a number of hairline cracks, and
some sinking near the St. Paul Water standpipe. However, the driveway
was still serviceable, and absent any building code standards for driveway
durability, staff did not feel this situation would justify action against
the licensee
- 3 -
Blank - 694 Ocala Lane - Mr. Blank's complaint was damp basement walls.
Code Enforcement Officer Berg inspected the Blank residence on May 16th
and found evidence of water stains, particularly near the basement
windows. However, the drain tile system appeared to be in place, and Paul
recalls inspecting it during construction of the house. It appears that
the problem is most likely due to water coming in the window wells, a
problem that hopefully will be resolved by the recent installafion of
gutter and downspouts. Mrs. Blank said they would monitor the situation
during heavy rains, and let us know if the situation has been corrected.
OTHER ISSUES RAISED
In addition to the concerns about -possibly defective construction, those
testifying at the May 7th hearing or sending in letters made repeated reference
to two additional concerns, protective covenants and debris (and rats) in the
neighborhood.
Several homeowners testified that protective covenants regarding minimum
sales prices and house sizes were promised by the developer, but to the present, leave
not been produced. Although the City does not usually concern itself with cov-
enants, City Attorney Hart has opined that misrepresentation (if substantiated)
could be a basis for license suspension or revocation. However, most of the
testimony on this matter has been to the effect that such covenants were generally
stated, but without exact dollar or square footage figures. Absent conclusive
evidence that specific covenant restrictions were promised, it would be difficult
for the City to use this as a basis for action against the license.
There was also concern expressed with debris left in the neighborhood, and
a resultant problem with rats. As was discussed at the hearing, City Health
Officer, Thaddeus Chao inspected the area in response to a complaint last Fall.
Dr. Chao did find debris (i.e., food wrappers) and evidence of rats, but did not
necessarily attribute the situation to Mn/FSL. For the debris problem to be
used as a basis for license revocation or suspension, it would have to be proven
that the presence of the debris was closely related to Mn/FSL's business as a
general contractor, and substantially under their control. Normally, correction
of such a situation would be accomplished through enforcement of the nuisance
ordinance. Such evidence would be almost impossible to obtain several months
after the fact.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Make a finding of Ordinance violation of such severity that a suspension
of 30 days to one year should be placed on the license.
2. Make a finding of Ordinance violation of such severity that the
license should be revoked.
3. Make a finding that the evidence before Council would not justify
action against the license at this time.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis and follow-up investigation, staff does not
recommend Council action against the Mn/FSL general contractor's license at this
time, Alternative 3.
- 4
As I indicated to Council in one of my earlier memos on this matter,
revocation or suspension of a license to do business is a particularly serious
legal undertaking, and must be done only upon the basis of a very objective and
substantiated basis of facts. The two situations in the Delaware Crossing sub-
division that might be construed as violations of the standards in Ordinance No.
601 (the Hanton sewer line and the Goetz basement walls) are both unclear as to
exactly why the problem occurred, and in any event, have since been corrected.
Although we are not recommending action against the license at this time,
staff is not prepared to say that there never have been violations of severity
to warrant such action. A more thorough investigation of the problems closer in
time to when the homeowners first became aware of them might well have justified
license suspension or revocation. At a minimum there has obviously been a
great deal of ill will created between Mn/FSL and the homeowners of Delaware
Crossing by the manner and timelines of dealing with problems.
Staff would suggest that the Code Enforcement Officer be diligent and
thorough in his inspections of future construction done by this contractor,
and that should any pattern of improper or defective workmanship appear, it
be brought to the Council's attention for review.
ACTION REQUIRED
To choose whatever alternative Council deems appropriate, and act
accordingly.
0
FRITZrIt"1=1
P
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor, City Council and City
--;ar?to r
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Backbone Trail Construction
Job No. 8410
DTr.rllqqTnN -
The City's 1985 Backbone Trail Construction between I -35E and Rogers
Lake is to be on land now owned by Mn/DOT. The City has asked for and Mn/DOT
is presently proceeding with the process to reconvey the land back to the
City for park purposes. That paperwork process is slow and would not be
done in time for the City to construct its backbone trail this summer.
Mn/DOT has therefore prepared a Limited Use Permit to allow for trail con-
struction during the interim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City enter into the attached Limited Use
Permit with the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation so that
the backbone trail construction can proceed as planned.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation they should
pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 85- , REsolution Approving Limited
Use Permit LU 1-85 Between The Minnesota Department of Transportation
And The City Of Mendota Heights For A Pedestrian Walkway.
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING LIMITED USE PERMIT LU i-85
BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY
WHEREAS, Limited Use Permit LU 1-85 has been submitted to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said Limited Use Permit and finds the
same to be in order.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the Limited Use Permit LU 1-85 submitted at this meeting be
and the same is hereby approved.
2. That the appropriate City official be and they are hereby authorized
to execute the Limited Use Permit on behalf of the City of Mendota
Heights.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of
Jume, 1985
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Robert G. Lockwood, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk
.,.i . iJ1V % 1. LI • 11V
.L.U. 1-85
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LIMITED USE PERMIT
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sec. 161.434 and Federal Aid
Highway Program Manual Volume 7, Chapter 4, Section 1, and Federal Aid
Program manual Volume 6, Chapter 2, Section 5, Subsection 2, a Limited
Use Permit is granted to the City of Mendota Heights. This permit is
for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and supervising a
pedestrian walkway within the rights of way of Trunk Highway No. 35E
and 110 as shown in red on Exhibits "A" and "B", which are attached
and incorporated as a part of this permit. In addition, the following
special provisions shall apply:
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1. This permit is granted for the purpose of construction and
maintenance, by the City of a pedestrian walkway.
2. The construction, maintenance, and supervision of the walkway
will be at no expense to the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
3. Before construction of any kind, the plans for such construction
shall be approved in writing by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation, through its District Engineer.
4. No permanent structures or advertising devices in any form or
size shall be constructed, placed or permitted to be constructed
or placed upon the State's Right of Way.
5. No commercial activities shall be allowed on State's Right of
Way.
Sheet 1 of 5
this includes the plowing and removal of snow during the winter,
and installation and removal of regulatory signs.
I
7. This permit is non-exclusive and is granted subject to the rights
of others, including, but not limited to public utilities which
may occupy the State's right of way.
8. The City will preserve and protect all utilities located on the
lands covered by this permit at no expense to the Minnesota
Department of Transportation.
9. The walkway shall make any crossings of the trunk highway,
perpendicular to the centerline of the highway and where there is
adequate stopping sight distance.
10. The City shall construct the walkway at the location shown in the
attached Exhibits "A" and "B" subject to verification by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation's District Engineer at
Oakdale that the construction geometries and procedures result in
walkways that are compatible with the safe and efficient
operation of the highway facility.
11. Approval from Mn/DOT District Engineer, will be required for any
changes on Highway Right of Way from the approved plan.
12. The City upon completion of the construction of the walkway,
shall restore all disturbed slopes and ditches in such manner
that drainage, erosion control and esthetics are perpetuated.
13. This permit does not release the City from any liability or
obligation imposed by federal law, Minnesota Statutes, local
ordiances, or other agencies relating thereto and any necessary
permits relating thereto shall be obtained by the City.
Sheet 2 of 5
14. Any use permitted by this permit shall remain subordinate to the
right of the Minnesota Department of Transportation to use the
property for highway and transportation purposes. This permit
does not grant any interest whatsoever in land, nor does it
establish a permanent park, recreation area or wildlife or
waterfowl refuge facility that would become subject to Section 4
(f) of the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1968, nor does this permit
establish a Bike Trail or Pedestrian walkway which would require
replacement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes (1976) 160.264.
15. This permit shall be subject to cancellation and termination by
the Minnesota Department of Transportation for any cause or
reason, by giving the City 60 days written notice of such action.
Upon cancellation of said permit the walkway shall be removed
within 60 days at no cost to the Minnesota Department of
Transportation.
;.'e - 16. The City for itself, its heirs, its personal representatives,
successors in interest, and assigns, agrees to abide by the
provisions of Title VI Appendix C of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, to the end that in accordance with the Act, Regulations,
and other pertinent directions, no person in the United States,
shall on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be
excluded from, or denied use the walkway.
17. The City will hold harmless and indemnify the State, its
Commissioner of Transportation and employees from liability
claims for damages because of bodily injury, death, property
damage, sickness, disease, or loss and expense arising from the
Cities operations or its successors and assigns from the Cities
use of the portion of highway right of way over which this permit
is granted.
18. The City will hold harmless and indemnify the State, its
Commissioner of Transportation and employees from claims
resulting from the temporary or permanent termination of trail
user rights on any portion of highway right of way over which
this permit is granted.
19. The State, through its Commissioner of Transportation, shall
retain the right to limit and/or restrict the parking of vehicles
and assemblage of trail users on the highway right of way over
which this permit is granted, so as to maintain the safety of
both the motoring public and trail users.
20. In the event that it becomes necessary to relocate or abandon all
or a portion of the permanent or temporary trail, the City shall
obliterate that portion of the trail and restore the ground cover
and vegetation to the satisfaction of Mn/DOT District Engineer.
21. By the execution of this permit the City hereby agrees to accept
for future reconveyance, the area between the future right of way
and the existing right of way as shown on Exhibit "A", pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes 161.44.
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By: By:
District Engineer
Date
APPROVED BY:
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BLDG.
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155
By:
Director, Office of Right of Way
Date
The Commissioner of Transportation
by the execution of this permit
certifies that this permit is
necessary in the public interest
and that the use intended is for
public purposes.
This instrument was drafted by the
State of Minnesota, Department of
Transportation, Reconveyance Unit
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
RW00025615G
Mayor
Date
PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
28 May 1985
85-09
Robert and Gretchen Fett
On Apache, Between Keokuk
Lane and Pueblo
Variance to Front Yard
Setback
1. As is the case in many Friendly Hills single family homes,
the Fetts propose to expand their residence to provide
greater living area on the first floor. They propose to
convert a portion of the existing garage to a family room,
and construct a new garage in front of the old garage.
The garage would be 20 feet in width, and extend 17 feet
toward the street from the front of the existing garage.
This will place the new garage 11 feet into the required
front yard setback, leaving 19 feet of driveway within which
to park two cars inside the front lot line (street
right-of-way). The garage will actually be 22 feet in depth
with five feet of the new garage extending into the old
garage.
2. The original proposal was to place the new garage entirely
in front of the old garage. This, however, would have
reduced the depth of the parking area in front of the garage
by another five feet. The staff discussed this proposal with
the Fetts and suggested that the City policy has been to
restrict front yard variances so as to maintain adequate
space for the parking of private vehicles in the front of the
garage on their own property.
3. It would appear that the proposed scheme will work well, and
provide a valuable living space utilizing 17 feet of depth
in the rear of the existing garage.
4. The Fetts have obtained signatures of approval for the
affected property owners on each side and across the street.
5. Attached is a copy of the site plan, floor plan, and a
perspective of the proposed completed development. You will
note that the statement prepared by the Fetts indicate a
variance of ten feet. The drawings, however, seem to
indicate that the variance will be 11 feet. Perhaps this
discrepancy should be clarified at the Planning Commission
meeting.
0 Av
-43--
4 43 v
b X
7 j
,
04
Ic'
64
'V
SUBJECT P
ye /r c
Ga
ZO
4p
0.
is-
ff
10
0-1
f4
C. <
(e
17
ZO
14
13
<
I Ivy j
Of
79
4 r
'z 3o
010-27
to
ff
4��WV ``1
sm
a
/4'r-
2 4
CASE NUMBER:
85-:09
APPLICANT:
Robert Fett
IND. SCHOOL
D13rmiCT *,197 26!37-A
PLANNING REPORT
DATE:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
.ACTION REQUESTED:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
28 May 1985
85-08
Bernice McGown
South of Wentworth Avenue,
Easterly of Wachtler
Approval of Subdivision
Variance to Lot Width
1. The McGown's have lived for many years in the single family
home located in the far easterly side of a tract of land with
380 feet of frontage on the south side of, Wentworth Avenue
and a depth of 368 feet. The McGown's plan at this time to
divide their tract of land into four lots as indicated on the
copy of the attached subdivision proposal.
2. The three westerly -most lots (Lots 1, 2, and 3) are each
proposed with a frontage of 93.3 feet, leaving a lot width of
approximately 100 feet for the easterly -most lot occupied by
the existing single family home (Lot 4). The west line of
Lot 4 is located ten (10) feet from the existing home so as
to conform to the required side yard setback.
3. The 93.3 foot lots are, of course, 6.7 feet short of the
minimum 100 foot lot size required by the City. The lot
area of these 93.3 foot lots, however, is 33,334 square
feet, whereas 15,000 square feet is required. Dividing the
property into three lots would, of course, create lots far
larger than the required standard, each of which would in
that case have approximately 127 feet of width. It is thus
a question of platting three lots, 27 feet wider than
required, or four lots with 6.7 feet less.
4. We suggest that this small reduction will not be discernible
and perhaps the overly large lot area will compensate for the
reduction in the lot width standard.
5. Attached is a copy of the Gryc Plat contiguous to the McGown
property on the south. This drawing shows the relationship
between the contiguous subdivision approved and that of the
McGown property.
Ac
d 7;7
J A
9- E Li 7-AC-TH
Zol JS- STA LDf-Fl-
vo,
mm
Z C.. 45
7 D
—
SUBJECT PROPERTY —
AWWA
33
A
5,19 1
I A I
v v - -r
Z
V t"AGE 0 F
fv\EA/C)orFv
1 :11.0 190
111.74
2 n`.74
It837
Lof 492
Cr
\jb��etiry�
a
c
'�
J\
`���
1�0'�
r,
CASE NUMBER: 85-08
za. 0
.3 9, MARY L.
BK,
APPLICANT: Bernice
McGown
40
4
4 2- 0 46 - 7
C.
v
l\A
&P,
•
1�2
2- o
Lof 492
CASE NUMBER: 85-08
APPLICANT: Bernice
McGown
v
•
1�2
o N LOS
46400. 9900
).27 --
Isr-
6
MAT14
/Z M
t3
2s.)-1 q -f �^
FA Los 'y
/!`1.77
07.0
5
mArt; 6
4
4 -xs;i 14
- Y, 3 5 4'... W#
2XLL
Al.
.
z
404
%0
2
4 1-
a
2
10 L.L
L
C
A
I
McCown Property
iA
`` '1~ { '1 ,i •Y ,.' J} "�� "�T - w'iss :• ��•° .Ff. r ,}. [ ""�S . j, t ��._.. 1 Y } l I-V
:ZZ-: I J
K;'
r x f / •= i P ! �•�� ,�„a `i' [ ••4 .. .fJ. ,G n:� /��� S If f '
i• `, + 'i:��r "in 2�1e �:i it s m 7i�' :s•..ld ,
y•� '"i ��`•iii+•.East tat✓ , i r 6•t. [.d ;tDlO` . �
•D(—Tff trr AtxiwtT[ [•fllillC _ ' .. .•.. .
NOTE'EXISTING CONTOURS FURNISHED
BY CITY.
i... ta• at -'�-
Jame -s R. Hill, (-c JAMES C. orRYC PRELIMINARY EVERGREEN KNOLLS
PLANNERS / ENGMIEERS / SURYE VOR$ T3 0000 •OAb WCHOOTA
U11a0TA Nf'1MRt, WL 960" DRAINAGE PLAN Tt, MR.
_� 1�;I � �.•i .t t.wa,rw. .. M.1.. ••i ... R.•
TOTAL 107 $932,125.05 $9,378.31 1340 $6,981,800.92 $58,290.09 1 433 $10,419,908.73 $67,675.69
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee and
valuation amounts.
1 1174 1\ 10
DATE: May 28, 1985
TO:
%�
City Adm' 6r
Mayor, City Council and
tr4
FROM: Paul R. Berg
Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Building Activity
Report for May, 1985
CURRENT MONTH
YEAR
TO DATE - 1985
YEAR
TO DATE - 1984
NO. VALUATION
FEE COLLECTED NO.
VALUATION
FEE COLLECTED
NO.
VALUATION
FEE COLLECTED
BLDG PERMITS
SFD 6 819,401.69
5,177,71 20
2,391,417.18
15,858.99
17
1,881,791.51
13,298.00
APT 0 0
0 0
0
0
2
4,500,000.00
19,166.40
C/I 3 23,795.00
290.51 15
4,370,495.00
19,740.55
26
1,911,223.00
11,295.54
misc. 15 88,928.36
1,233.59 30
219,888.74
2,971.55
25
2,126,894.22
11,442.25
SUB TOTAL?4 932,125.05
6,701.81
65
6,981,800.92
38,571.09
80
10,419,908.73
55,202.19
TRADE PERMITS
Plbg 11
299.00
28
703.00
40
2,418.00
Wtr 8
40.00
21
12,602.50
31
155.00
Swr 9
157.50
17
297.50
26
455.00
Htg, AC,
Gas Pipe 22
1,355.50
29
1,616.00
51
4,320.50
95
15,219.00
148
7,348.50
SUB TOTA{0 1,851.50
LICENSING
Contractor's
Licenses 33
825.00
180
4,500.00
205
5,125.00
TOTAL 107 $932,125.05 $9,378.31 1340 $6,981,800.92 $58,290.09 1 433 $10,419,908.73 $67,675.69
NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee and
valuation amounts.
Applicant
Name: fel
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION
OF
PLANNING REQUEST
rf�eS
Case No. �� /'j/
Date of ApplicaWn
Fee Paid /OD
Last
Firs�t-
Initial
Address:
o
/
O" J7Y�
/
r /003'1 "
Number &
Street
City
tate Zip
Telephone Number:
Owner
%C•
Name: lc w.-
C- S Gc 1!-<-
Last
First
Initial
Address:
Number &
Street
City
State Zip
Street Location of Property in
Question:
X333 �i�av��•1�,,,���
l%��'✓e
Legal Description of Property:
Type of Request: Rezoning
Variance
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D.
Minor Conditional Use Permit
Subdivision Approval
Plan Approval
Wetlands Permit
Other
IV
60�
NZ6
ol,
6/-;� Or5;-
Ae 1-6S
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 28, 1985
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairperson Kruse at 8:04 o'clock P.M. The following members were
present: Kruse, Burke, Morson, Stefani, Frank, McMonigal and Henning. Also
present were Planning Consultant Howard Dahlgren, Public Works Director Jim
Danielson and City Administrator Kevin Frazell.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the April 23 meeting had been submitted
previously.
Commissioner Stefani moved to approve the minutes as
submitted.
Commissioner Morson seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
HEARING, CASE 85-08, Chairperson Kruse called the meeting to order for the
MCGOWN, SUBDIVISION purpose of a public hearing on an application by Mrs.
Bernice McGown, 768 W. Wentworth, for the purpose of
subdividing her property into three new lots. Mrs.
McGown stated that she intends to sell her present home
and build a new home on the proposed Lot 2 of Wentworth
Meadows. Mr. Paul McGinley, surveyer, was present to
answer any questions the Commission or audience may
have.
The Commission members expressed concern over the
driveway placement along Wentworth. Mr. McGinley noted
that the driveway for Lot 1 will be in the northwest
corner of the lot and that all driveways will contain a
turnaround so there will be no need to back onto
Wentworth. The driveway for Lot 2 would be in the
northeast corner of Lot 2 and Lots 3 and 4 do not have a
visibility problem. He stated that the driveway for Lot
3 would probably be in the center of the Lot. Mr.
McGinley also stated that the setback from Wentworth
would be 50 to 60 feet from the right-of-way. He went
on to say that drainage would be to the rear of lots 1,
2, and 3. The front yards would also drain to the rear
of the properties.
Chairperson Kruse expressed his concern with the
driveway visibility and stated that he would like to set
conditions on that matter prior to building permit
issuance. He indicated that the developer should leave
room for a turnaround driveway.
Chairperson Kruse asked for questions and comments from
the audience.
Page Two, May 28, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes
Mr. Brad Lawrence, owner of Lots 7 and 10, Evergreen
Knoll, expressed concern over drainage. He noted that
his two lots will have walkout homes and he did not want
them flooded. He was assured that there would be no
drainage problems to his property.
There being no further questions or comments from the
audience, Commissioner Frank moved to close the hearing
at 8:17 P.M.
Commissioner Henning seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Commissioner Henning moved to recommend approval of the
preliminary plat of Wentworth Meadows as presented,
subject to the driveway conditions meeting all staff
safety compliance measures.
Commissioner Morson seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
CASE 85-09, FETT, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Fett, 2337 Apache, were present to
VARIANCE request a 10 foot front yard variance to allow
construction of a garage, while converting their existing
garage into a family room.
Commissioner Stefani moved to recommend approval of a 10
foot front yard setback variance as requested for Lot 6,
Block 19, Friendly Hills Rearrangement.
Commissioner McMonigal seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
CASE 85-12, DURBAHN, Mr. Dennis Carlson, representing the estate of Walter
VARIANCE Murray, was present to request a variance for 583 Valley
Lane. He proposed to construct a single car garage
on the existing slab, where a previously built single
car garage had been torn down. The previous garage was
constructed approximately 1'10" away from the side
property line, where a 5 foot setback is required on a
detached garage. He also noted that the garage would be
12' x 20' (240 square feet) and the City's minimum
garage size is 440 square feet. Mr. Carlson had written
approval for the construction from the neighbor on the
affected side.
Commissioner Stefani expressed concern with the exact
setback and said that he does not want a portion of the
garage or the roof overhang extending onto someone
else's property. He suggested that a survey showing the
exact lot lines and the exact location of the garage and
projected roof overhang should be required.
r -
Page Three, May 28, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioner Frank moved to recommend approval of a 200
square foot variance to the garage size and approval of
a sideyard variance subject to the established lot lines
being accurate and that the overhang not exceed the
lot lines as shown on a registered survey.
Commissioner Stefani seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
HEARING, CASE 85-10, Chairperson Kruse opened the meeting for the purpose of
MENDOTA HEIGHTS a public hearing on an application from Mendota Heights
ASSOCIATES, CUP FOR Associates for a conditional use permit for a planned
PUD, REZONING, COMP. unit development to construct eight 74 unit apartments
PLAN AMENDMENT, VARIANCE on the south side of Mendota Heights Road, north of 494,
between Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue.
Mr. James Riley was present for the request. He noted
that he is the owner of the 69.7 acres of land and he
proposes apartments in this area which would have a
rustic setting.
Mr. Tim Erkkila, designer from Westwood Planning and
Engineering, also gave a presentation. He noted that
there are eight - 3 story apartment buildings proposed,
each with 74 units, having a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom
units. There will be a recreation building on the site
and the land is currently zoned R and R-lA, rural and
low density. He noted there are four requests before
the Commission:
1. To amend the Comprehensive Plan for higher density.
2. To rezone to R-3.
3. For a conditional use permit for a planned unit
development.
4. For variance to the number of parking spaces
required, from 2.5 to 2.08 spaces. He noted that
if a need for more spaces becomes apparent, that
this will be satisfied.
Mr. Erkkila noted that there will be 1.08 covered
parking spaces per unit, 80 underground and 80 outside
per building. He then gave a background of the 494 and
35-E proposed construction in 1979, and the density
uses of different cities along freeways, using
apartments as a buffer zone. He noted that there are
592 units proposed, with 8 to 8 1/2 units per acre. He
stated that they will be rental units but are hoped to
be owner occupied condo units in the future. He noted
that the site is buffered on the west by woods and hills
and on the east by three ponds.
r
Page Four, May 28, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes
Mr. Erkkila advised that the project will be in four
phases, with two buildings proposed in each phase, which
will cover a 3-5 year time span. He noted that the
extension of sanitary sewer and water from Huber Drive
will be required and that there will be a looping
roadway system within the project.
In response to a Commission question, Mr. Riley stated
that his present project, Lexington Heights Apartments,
has 175 out of 225 units rented. He also stated that he
would require only sewer and water connections, but that
he would not require the extension of Huber Drive to
complete his project. He noted that his property abuts
494 and that there would be no possibility for a
Frontage Road to the site. He also stated that there
would be no assessments to neighbors, except at such
time as Mendota Heights Road is extended. He also
remarked that he is cognizant of the Commission's
concerns regarding landscaping at corners and their
concern that visibility not be blocked by plantings.
Mr. Riley stated that there will be no subsidized
housing in this project, and that this site is in a
lower air noise zone than the Lexington Heights project.
He noted that he plans to install triple glazed windows
and sound abatement measures in this project also. Also
noted was the fact that there is a gas pipeline easement
and overhead power lines to contend with in the site.
Mr. Riley stated that he is willing to work with the
three property owners to the east to screen his
buildings from their view, as well as work with Mr.
Glewwe on the west on screening matters.
Chairperson Kruse asked for questions and comments from
the audience.
Mr. William King, owner of the 50 acres northeast of the
site, expressed concern with the type of roadway Mendota
Heights Road will be for the 500+ cars that will be
using it twice a day. Public Works Director Danielson
responded that it will be 44 feet wide and should be
adequate to handle the additional traffic. Mr. King
felt that buildings 5 and 6 should be moved south,
closer to 494 and away from Mendota Height Road.
Dr. Owens, 2455 Delaware, owner of the land directly
east of the site, stated that he has plans to build
around the ponds on his property. He expressed. concern
over the lack of screening and was concerned also with
the amount of traffic on Mendota Height Road. He felt
that there could be as much as 1300 cars from the
project using the road. He expressed concern over the
Page Five, May 28, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes
drainage effect on his ponds and felt that there should
be a control on the stormwater. He indicated that with
the construction of 494, problems are already becoming
apparent. He also asked what the City's plan is for
parks in this area.
Mr. Riley responded that his feeling is that the
majority of the traffic will exit the site on the west
end to Dodd Road, rather than travel easterly to exit on
Delaware. He also stated that his project will not
create a greater water rate than is presently in place.
Planner Dahlgren responded to the park issue by noting
that a park contribution in lieu of park land would be
required, and that the City has no plans for park space
on this land.
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Kennedy, 2567 Delaware, expressed
concern over the property values of adjacent homes with
1200 people living in eight buildings.
Dr. King noted that he is opposed to the proposed
rezoning. Dr. Owens stated that he would prefer to see
apartments along 494 and townhouses along Mendota
Heights Road, with not such a severe density ratio.
City Administrator Frazell briefly noted City Council
reaction to the proposal. He did not expect a quick
action until a comprehensive review of the entire 494
corridor, from 35E to Delaware Avenue, had been
conducted. Planner Dahlgren advised the Commission of
the City's concern over the entire 494 corridor and its
related zoning and density. He noted that there is a 60
day time limit before the City Council may take action
on a proposal without prior City Planning Commission
recommendation.
Commissioner Henning stated that he would like more
information regarding the City's intention for Mendota
Heights Road and the extension of Huber Drive. He felt
that the major concern of the audience was the placement
of buildings 5 and 6, and was hopeful that the developer
could resolve that problem in the next month. He also
felt that the rezoning issue must be addressed prior to
conditional use permit approval.
There being many questions needing answering �ythe City
Council relative to the entire 494 corridor and its
proposed density and zoning, Commissioner Frank moved to
continue theup blic hearing to June 25, 1985.
Commissioner Morson seconded the motion.
M
Page Six, May 28, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
It was the concensus of the Commission members to
receive Council input regarding the impact of the zoning
and density issues of the 494 strip and also to receive
input regarding the proposed extension of Mendota
Heights Road and Huber Drive.
Commissioner Morson moved to recommend that the City
Council request Planner Dahlgren prepare a
preliminary study of the entire 494 corridor, from 35E
to Delaware, addressing.zoning and density issues, and
that the study be completed prior to the June 25
Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Stefani seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
CASE 85-13,SELLNER,
Mr. and Mrs. John Sellner, 1855 Summit Lane were present
VARIANCE
to request an 8 foot rearyard variance to allow
construction of a two car garage on Lot 13, Block 2,
Lexington Highland East. Mr. Sellner noted that at
present he has a 1 1/2 car garage, but because there are
stairs in his garage, he can only put one vehicle in it.
He desires an additional two car garage for their two
vehicles and a boat. The Sellner's did have written
approval from their adjacent neighbors for their
proposed garage construction. Mr. Sellner advised the
Commission that the driveway entry will be the same
width at the street level as is currently in place, and
will only widen upon nearing the future garage doorway.
After a brief discussion, Commissioner Frank moved to
recommend approval of an 8 foot rearyard variance for
Lot 13, Block 2, Lexington Highland East, as requested.
Commissioner Morson seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
CASE 85-14, UNITED
Mr. Dale Glowa, representing United Properties, was
PROPERTIES, VARIANCE
present to request a 20 foot front yard variance to
allow placement of a tenant sign for Cray Research at
1333 Northland Drive. He noted that the proposed sign
will be five feet high and five feet wide by one inch
deep and will sit on a base two feet tall by 10 feet in
length. He advised that this is a tenant sign and
differentiates from a monument park sign, and is
intended for tenant identification only. He noted that
there will be no site visibility problems with the sign
as proposed to be located.
Page Seven, May 28, 19185 Planning Commission Minutes
He advised the Commission that the sign will be a high
grade aluminum sign, internally lit and mounted on a
brick base, to coordinate with the existing park signs.
Commissioner Burke moved to recommend approval of a 20
foot setback from the right-of-way of Northland Drive
for installation of the proposed sign.
Commissioner Henning seconded the motion.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
CASE 85-11, ACACIA There being no one present to represent this
CEMETERY, VARIANCE application, the matter was tabled to the June 25th
meeting.
VERBAL REVIEW Public Works Director Danielson gave a verbal review of
the cases that had been before the City Council, noting
that the United Properties, Redding, and Taurinskas
cases had received Council approval. However, he noted
that the City Council had directed that the Kurtz
subdivision request be returned to the Planning
Commission for further review.
ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the
Commission, Commissioner Morson moved that the meeting
be adjourned.
Commissiner Stefani seconded the motion.
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:53 o'clock P.M.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 29, 1985
TO: Mayor, City Council and City AcPa t ?r
t
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Fett Variance
Case No. 85-09
nTOOTiQQTAM.
Mr. and Mrs. Fett, 2337 Apache, propose to convert their existing
garage to a family room and construct a new garage in front. There is an
established City Policy that this variance request fits. (Attached)
RECOMMENDATION•
The Planning Commission considered the request at their May meeting and
recommend that the City Council grant approval to Lot 6, Block 9, Friendly
Hills Rearrangement for a 10 foot front yard setback variance.
ACTION REQUIRED•
If the Council wishes to implement the Planning Commission recommenda-
tion they should pass a motion granting a 10 foot front yard setback vari-
ance to Lot 6, Block 9, Friendly Hills Rearrangement.
1
EXCERPT from
September 18, 1979
City Council minutes
VARIANCE POLICY It was the concensus of the Council that a
policy should be adopted
Pted which would limit
consideration of front yard setback variances
to applications for variances of 10 feet or less'
The primary concern was that approval of var-
iances which would allow conversion of garage
space into living space might create situations
where future garage construction might require
variances which would intrude upon the front
yards closer than twenty feet from the propert,%,
line.
After discussion, Councilman Losleben.moved the
adoption of a policy limiting front yard set-
back variance consideration to those applic-
ations requesting variances of ten feet or less.
and requiring submission of a plan showing how
a new garage could be constructed in such a way
as not to create the necessitv to consider
additional future front yard setback requests
(in those cases where an existing garage is
being converted to living space).
Councilwoman Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
.0
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 29, 1985
TO: Mayor, City Council and City A��trrator
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Sellner Variance, 1855 Summit Lane
Case No. 85-13
At their May meeting the Planning Commission considered an 8 foot rear
yard variance to Lot 13, Block 2, Lexington Highland East to allow the
construction of a two car garage addition. The garage would be located in a
corner lot's rear yard area that functions as a side yard. During the
presentation, there was some discussion about reducing the addition to a one
car garage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council grant the variance
as requested.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If the City Council wishes to implement the Planning Commission
recommendation, they should pass a motion granting Lot 13, Block 2,
Lexington Highlands East an 8 foot variance to the required 30 foot rear
yard setback.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 29, 1985
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Adm*41or
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: McGown Subdivision and Variances
Case No. 85-08
nTgrT144TnN
The Planning Commission at their May meeting conducted a public hearing
to consider Wentworth Meadows, a four lot subdivision in the vicinity of the
Wachtler/Wentworth curve. There were only three neighbors present at the
meeting and one had a concern about surface water. That question was an-
swered. The Planning Commission expressed some concern about the new drive-
ways that will be entering Wentworth near the crest of a hill. The hill
reduces the sight distance and creates potentially hazardous conditions.
The Planning Commission discussed requiring "T" driveways to avoid cars
backing on to Wentworth Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION•
The Planning Commission recommends that Council approve the Wentworth
Meadows subdivision subject to a condition that all driveway designs and
locations be reviewed and approved by staff for safety considerations.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council wishes to implement the Planning Commission recommendation
they should pass a motion granting 6.7 foot front yard frontage variances to
Lots 1, 2, and 3 and approving the Wentworth Meadows Preliminary Plat with
the condition that driveways be reviewed for safety ,considerations and
approved by staff before construction.
BERNARD H. LARSON
DAKOTA COUNTY SURVEYOR
-DA KOTA COUNTY -
TELEPHONE (612) 437-0250
DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER 1560 HWY. 55 - HASTINGS, MINNESOTA 55033
City of Mendota Heights
750 South Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Att: Kevin D. Frazell, Administrator
Dear Mr. Frazell:
May 1, 1984
The Dakota County Plat Commission met on May 21, 1985 to consider
the proposed plat of WENTWORTH MEADOWS. Said plat is adjacent to
County Road #8 and is, therefore, subject to the Dakota County
Contiguous Plat Ordinance.
After review of the plat, it was the consensus of opinion of the
Plat Commission that said plat does satisfy the provisions of the
Ordinance. However, it would be better for the traffic
conditions of said County Road #8 if these lots could combine
driveways rather than each lot having its own separate
driveway. We leave this only as a proposal and not as a mandate.
If you have any further questions please let us know.
Sincerely yours,
Bernard H. Larson
Dakota County Surveyor
BHL:vf
CC: Paul McGinley, Land Surveyor
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
c/o City Offices
No 1)C 750 South Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120
1.
2.
3.
NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMISSION
FULL COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES - MAY 29, 1985
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Dave Zemke at 7:35 o'clock P.M.
The following Directors were present:
Henderson - Inver Grove Heights
Hanson - West St. Paul
Walker - West St. Paul
Zemke - Mendota Heights
Carlson - Lilydale
Bruestle - Mendota
EXCUSED ABSENCE
Kinney - South St. Paul
Lanegran - South St. Paul
Harrison - Sunfish Lake
Tatone - Inver Grove Heights
Witt - Mendota Heights
Baird - Sunfish Lake
Boelter - Mendota
UNEXCUSED ABSENCE
Wiess - Lilydale
Also present was John Gibbs, legal counsel and Randall Coleman of Con-
tiental Cablevision.
Henderson moved, seconded by Tatone to approve the agenda. Voting 11
ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried.
Witt moved, seconded by Henderson, to approve the minutes of the April
17, 1985 meeting. Voting: 11 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried.
4. Several items of communication were presented: MCCB meeting agenda for
May 10, 1985 and minutes of the April 12, 1985 meeting; Subscription to
Cablevision magazine. Tatone moved, seconded by Hanson to receive the
communications. Voting: 11 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried.
5. Randall Coleman gave a recap since certification. He stated that they
have been and are continuing strand maping. They are also preparing
inventory for construction, beginning to prepare in final format the
construction time table for NDC4, organizational chart, preparation of
a slide presentation for NDC4, searching for office, warehouse and
studio space and hope to have that decision in 30-45 days.
Coleman also stated that for the summer, Continental plans on giving a
presentation to the Commission and City Councils of the cable construc-
tion. They have applied for pole attachment agreements with the util-
ity companies and hope to have them back in three months with physical
construction to begin at that time. They will have a person to obtain
permission to place anchors on people's property. This is one com-
plaint that will hopefully be alleviated by the contact person. The
next step is stranding, then the cable is up, then splicing, activia-
tion and finally turned over to marketing.
Coleman also stated that construction will begin in South St. Paul and
work to West St. Paul and Inver Grove Heights and then west to the
remaining cities.
Tatone asked what is the process if the marketing people come out and
someone orders cable.
Coleman stated that the customer states what they want and a work order
is filled out. The next day the work order is routed through dispatch
to the installer who installs a drop cable from the nearest pole to
just below the eve of the back of the house, below'where siding would
normally stop drill in at the basement or first floor level and run the
cable along the base board to the television set. He stated that this
is a typical case but there is a lot of talking with the homeowner to
establish where they want the cable to run. The cable installation
location is approved by the homeowner.
Boelter asked about VCR hookups.
Coleman replied that in St. Paul they are offering free VCR hookup for
certain levels of service.
Henderson asked if the slide presentation would be available for the
next meeting. He stated that he would like to see it before its goes
to the public.
Coleman stated that it should be available for the June 19th meeting.
Henderson asked about dates of milestones such as first date of cus-
tomer hookup etc.
Coleman stated that Continental will keep weekly tabs on the mileage of
cable going up and that he will provide progress reports.
Chairman Zemke asked that Continental provide a management summary so
that the Commission would be aware of their scheduling process.
6. Chairman Zemke addressed the issue of Franchise Administration. He
reported that the Executive Committee addressed this issue and the
concensus was that the Commission should retain an administrator, that
the Commission does not have the time available to properly administer
the activities around the franchise area or monitor construction or
handle details of that kind, etc.
Tatone recommended that the Commission hire an administrator. He also
stated that the funds for this administrator, for at least the first
couple of years, would be advanced by Continental and then taken out of
receipts from year 6 to 12. The cities would not be required to
provide an assessment as in the past.
Questions were asked of whether the administrator would be full-time or
part-time and what the salary range was.
2
Zemke stated that the Commission should decide if the administrator
should be full or part-time and that the salary ranged from $20,000-
40,000.
Witt asked what the process would be for hiring the administrator.
Zemke stated that the Personnel Committee composed of Henderson,
Lanegran, Tatone and Zemke, would draft the job description, be respon-
sible for the publication of the position opening,•receive and evaluate
the resumes.
Henderson suggested that the full Commission should be at the screening
of the final applicants.
Tatone asked the Councilmembers on the Commission if they thought their
City Councils would have any objections to an administrator making
decisions for them.
Walker asked if that would be legal.
John Gibbs, legal counsel, stated that the Joint Powers Agreement
states that the Commission has the authority to contract the adminis-
tration of the franchise.
Henderson asked if the full Commission could review the job guidelines,
etc.
Chairman Zemke stated that the job description would be brought to the
Commission for approval prior to publication.
Mw. Baird moved, seconded by Tatone, to hire a full-time administrator.
Voting: 10 Ayes, 0 nays, 1 Abstention. Motion carried.
Henderson stated that his impression would be that the Commission would
oversee the franchise administration.
Bruestle stated that he was concerned that the cities (Mendota) would
be burdened if the franchise administration was up to the individual
cities and the costs borne by them.
Henderson stated that it was his understanding that the revenues (a
percentage) would cover the costs involved in the administration fran-
chise.
Henderson moved, seconded by Walker, that this Commission will continue
and administer the franchise. Voting: 10 ayes, 0 nayes. Motion car-
ried.
After some discussion, Tatone moved, Walker seconded, to approve the
proposed 1985 NDC -4 budget.
Zemke stated that this budget is to cover the period since certifica-
tion of the franchise. The bills for administration are funded by
Continental. Repayment will be made in the 6-12 year time frame.
3
Zemke stated that some of the costs are based on 6 months and some are
based on 9 months. Costs were listed as follows:
Admin/Consultant
- 6
mo.
Secretarial
- 9
mo.
Legal Counsel
- 9
mo.
Office Supplies
- 9
mo.
Rent/Adm. space
- 6
mo.
Telephone/admin.
- 6
mo.
Postage
- 9
mo.
Furniture
- 6
mo.
Insurance
- 1
year
Advertising/admin.
- 6
mo.
Conference Expense
- 6
mo.
Zemke stated that the big question was the amount for rent.
Tatone stated that he checked several places and the City of Inver
Grove Heights would charge the Commission $6.22 per square foot. That
totals $746 per month for a 300 square foot area. The buildings we
checked were from $8-11 per square foot. The reason the executive
committee came back to the Dakota County State Bank is that wherever
the administration is housed is where the Commission should have its
meetings.
Zemke stated that the rent amount should be about $3,000.
Hanson stated that he thought the mileage was too high.
Tatone moved, Witt seconded, to approve the budget with the change of
rent to $3,000, that the total of the budget is $38,135.
Henderson asked what is the purpose of the budget if the contingency is
that Continental pays for the administration of the franchise.
John Gibbs, legal counsel, stated that the purpose of the budget is to
give Continental an idea of the cost for the administration of the
franchise, and it is the document which would be presented to Continen-
tal for payment.
Tatone stated that he felt it was a realistic budget and by putting
everything up front the City Councils would not have any questions on
how the money would be spent.
Walker asked about the 10% that still has to be refunded to the cities.
Zemke stated that the 10% would be refunded when the budget was esta-
blished and funded by Continental.
Walker stated that the 10% should be shown on the budget.
Gibbs stated that the treasurer's report could be sent with the 1985
budget to the cities.
4
After considerable discussion, Tatone moved, seconded by Witt, to adopt
the budget as amended. Voting: 6 ayes, 3 nays, 1 abstention. Motion
carried.
Henderson moved, seconded by Walker to attach to the approved budget
the treasurer's statement and any explanatory introduction drafted by
the treasurer and chairman. Voting: 10 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.
Chairman Zemke stated that this budget and attached material should be
presented to all City Councils for approval.
7. In Treasurer Kinney's absence, Chairman Zemke stated that the balance
of the checking account is a little over $12,000.00
He presented a bill for legal services from Herbst and Thue in the
amount of $703.35.
Hanson moved, Tatone seconded to pay the Herbst & Thue bill. Voting:
10 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.
Chairman Zemke presented the Commission with clarifying information
about City expenses.
Chairman Zemke stated that the calculation of the City of Lilydale
expenses had been incorrect and the City of Lilydale's 907. reimburse-
ment payment was understated by $1026. A check in the amount of $1026
has been sent to the City of Lilydale.
Tatone presented the Commission with the Educational Program Develop-
ment Committee's working paper.
Chariman Zemke stated that there is a seminar on June 16, 17 and 18 on
Municipal Administration of Cable Television in Madison, Wisconsin.
Tatone moved, Henderson seconded, that the next full Commission meeting
be June 19, 1985. Voting: 10 Ayes, 0 Nays. Motion carried.
9. There were no presentations by interested members of the public at the
meeting.
10. Henderson moved, seconded by Hanson to adjourn.
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 9:45 P.M.
Prepared by:
Diane Ward
Staff Secretary
5
r
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Frazel
City Admini ator
SUBJECT: Northend Street Improvements
INTRODUCTION
May 29, 1985
At the April 16th hearing, one of the toughest issues was that of cost
allocation, or everyone paying their "fair share." In particular, the Chippewa
residents contended that they were being asked to "subsidize" curb and gutter on
the other streets. What follows is an attempt to make some sense of all -the
numbers, facts, and figures.
HISTORY
Approximately one year ago, staff prepared cost estimates for a "limited
reconstruction" project, which included some base reconstruction and a 2" - 2
1/2" overlay for all area streets. The estimated cost of that project was
$130,000 or $15.50 per assessable foot. The average 80 foot lot would have
been assessed $1,240 under this plan. No storm drainage was proposed. At the
conclusion of that hearing, staff was directed to seek MSA designation for
Chippewa, and look into any further possibilities for Federal or State subsidy.
As Council is aware, we were successful in achieving MSA designation for
Chippewa, and also received a $54,000 CDBG grant. The CDBG grant was designated
to provide direct interest-free loans to eligible households, and does.not impact
overall project costs, or average assessments. !ZL
On March 19th, Council was presented
MSA monies available for Chippewa. Scheme
standards, with concrete curb and gutter,
The remaining streets were to receive the
rehabilitation. Scheme "B" was to upgrade
other streets to City urban standards.
SCHEME "A"
with two alternatives incorporating the
"A" upgraded Chippewa to MSA
storm sewer, and bituminous overlay.
"limited reconstruction"
Chippewa to MSA standards, aiid all
The cost for Scheme "A" is estimated to be $260,000; $188,000 for streets
and $72,000 for storm sewers. If the neighborhood were asked to pay this entire
cost, assessments would be2$ 2.38 per lineal foot for streets, and .15 Per square
foot for storm sewer. The average 80 foot x 120 foot lot would be facing a total
assessment of $3,230. Fortunately, these costs can be drastically reduced by the
availability of $162,000 in MSA funds for Chippewa; $135,000 for street and
$27,000 for sewers. In essence, the State pays the bill for building Chippewa,
and also that portion of the sewer capacity needed to handle runoff from the
street. The remaining sewer cost is for other storm water runoff (i.e.,
adjoining properties) that finds its way into the Chippewa system.
Y
- 2 -
As Council is aware, Scheme "A" envisioned a level assessment to all
properties in the project area, regardless of whether the lot abutted Chippewa,
built to MSA standards, or some other street at lower standards. After
application of the MSA monies for street, only $53,000 remains to be assessed
against the neighborhood, for a lineal foot cost of $6.40. The $45,000 of storm
sewer costs to be assessed, after application of the MSA funds, means that sewer
assessment can be reduced to .095 per square foot. Under this arrangement the
average 80 foot by 120 foot lot would see an assessment of $1,416; $512 for
streets and $902 for sewers.
THE LEGAL AND "FAIRNESS" ISSUES
At the April 16 hearing, two questions were raised about applying the MSA
funds to the entire project area, versus just Chippewa:
1) Is it legal?
2) Is it fair?
The answer to the first is yes. While "fairness" like "beauty" is in the
eye of the beholder, a sound argument can be made that the answer to the second
is also yes.
First, the legal issue. Some at the hearing argued that MSA funds could not
be applied to improvements on other streets. They are correct! The City does
not propose to seek MSA funds for those streets, and we will be applying for
reimbursement only for the cost of upgrading Chippewa. As stated above, MSA will
pay most of the cost of upgrading Chippewa.
What we do propose is that lots abutting Chippewa will receive an
assessment, the same as every other lot in the project area. As the cost of
Chippewa is already mostly paid for by MSA, these assessments generate excess
funds that can be used to defray costs on the remainder of the project. Levying
assessments against properties that abut the MSA street is fully consistent with
past City policy (i.e., Marie Avenue). It is also a common practice in other
metropolitan communities and specifically authorized by statute. The theory is
that those who abut MSA roadways should not get by without paying the same street
assessments as everyone else. The most usual practice is to assess at a per
front amount equivalent to City averages for recent projects. Recent street
costs in Mendota Heights have run at least $30 /lineal foot. Many cities use
these revenues to create street "slush funds" to be used to underwrite the cost
of other City street projects that can not be fully assessed.
The second question, is it fair? Again, fairness is really an opinion, but
as explained above, past City practice and State law are based on the premise
that it is. If we were to accept the argument that MSA funds should benefit only
those properties abutting the MSA street, we would have a situation where
Chippewa lots would have a nine ton street with curb, gutter, and storm sewer at
little or no cost, while lots on the other streets would be getting a "limited
reconstruction" street at over $15.00 per lineal foot. That scenario raises othe
"fairness" viewpoints.
- 3 -
SCHEME "B"
Scheme "B" upgraded all streets in the project area to urban standards with
curb and gutter, storm sewer, and bituminous overlay. Only Chippewa would be
built to MSA standards (i.e., 44 foot width, 9 ton capacity).
Of course, the cost of Scheme B is substantially greater; $394,000; $250,000
for streets and $144,000 for sewers. As there would be no further MSA
participation, the entire $134,000 extra cost would have to be borne by the
project area. We estimate that street assessments would go from $6.40 (under
Scheme "A") to approximately $14.00 per foot, and sewer from .095 per square foot
to .13 per square foot. The average 80' x 120' lot would face an assessment of
$2,368; $1,120 for streets and $1,248 for sewers.
The Chippewa Avenue residents have argued that Scheme "B" unfairly increases
their assessments to benefit the other streets. As they are already getting
curb, gutter, and storm sewer for $6.40 and .095, they see no benefit to them in
increasing their assessments to the $14.00 and .13.
While their position is certainly understandable, the issue of who is paying
for what benefit, and who is subsidizing whom is really one of arithmetic and
semantics. The answer to their argument is that the City is not increasing their
assessment, we simply are able to subsidize them less, because the benefits of the
fixed MSA dollars are now spread evenly over a more costly project.
SUMMARY
The City staff and Council have worked diligently to come up with a project
that meets the needs of the Northend neighborhood, while keeping costs
reasonable. The result -- a good deal for everyone. Who's being subsidized? --
Everyone! Who's paying their "fair share"? -- No one!
Under Scheme "A", Chippewa residents receive a street worth $25 - $30 per
lineal foot, and residents on other streets, a street worth $15 -$16 per lineal
foot. The cost for both, $6.40. It is not inappropriate that Chippewa be of
higher standards, since it serves as a collector for the entire neighborhood.
Under Scheme "B", Chippewa residents receive the same street, and those on
other streets, a street worth $20 - $25 per lineal foot. The cost for everyone -
approximately $14.00.
The point is that neither the $6.40 nor the $14.00 are costs that reflect
the true benefit. They are simply averages after a hefty subsidy from MSA.
Therefore, it is not really appropriate to argue that deviating from these
figures must be justified by increased benefit.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Scheme "A"
2. Scheme "B"
3. Some modification or combination of the above.
-4 -
RECOMMENDATION
The tone of this memo probably appears to be in favor of Scheme nB'`. This
was not the intent. The objective of this project was to address a serious
street and storm drainage problem as economically as possible. If Scheme "A"
satisfies both the neighborhood and Council, it seems feasible to staff. We do,
of course, have some preference for urban oudodard streets, but recognize the
cost and assessment problems associated with Scheme '`8n. Rather, the purpose of
this memo was to justify Scheme "8n as a viable and fair alternative, should the
Council determine that it is preferred.
Staff has no recommendations.
ACTION REQUIRED
Tohold the public hearing, and pass the attached resolution ordering what-
ever project Council desires. If Council prefers Scheme /,&'/, it abnuId poaa the
resolution with Alternative A; if Scheme '/Bx, with Alternative D.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Fr
2�
City Admie? strator
May 29, 1985
SUBJECT: Appointment of Erick Schmidt as Firefighter
Mr. Erick Schmidt, 849 Cheri Lane, has applied for appointment to
the Mendota Heights Fire Department.
Mr. Schmidt is a Mendota Heights native, having graduated from Henry
Sibley High School in 1984. He is currently completing his freshman year at
the College of St. Thomas, and intends to transfer to the University of Minn-
esota next fall with a major in Business Administration and Accounting.
Erick's past work record includes employment with the Target Store on
Robert Street, and most recently manual labor with Anderson Maintenance Services,
a lawn maintenance and landscaping firm.
Erick has been approved for membership by Chief Noack and the members of
the Fire Department, and has also received a medical approval from the Airport
Medical Clinic.
Erick will be present at the meeting on June 4th to be introduced to the
City Council.
ACTION REQUIRED
Motion to appoint Erick Schmidt to the Mendota Heights Fire Department.
KDF:madlr
%I CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. FraZ414—�.�
City Admipieetrator
SUBJECT: MASAC Representation
May 30, 1985
At the Council Comments section of the May 21st meeting, Council -
member Cummins raised the possibility of having a resident from the southern
end of Mendota Heights represent the City on the Metropolitan Airport Sound
Abatement Council (MASAC).
Larry Shaughnessy has been the Mendota Heights representative on MASAC
since it was initially formed. He indicates that after 15 years of service
he has no objection whatsoever to giving up this "privilege".
ACTION REQUIRED
Council should discuss the issue of MASAC representation, and take
whatever action it deems appropriate.
KDF:madlr
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 30, 1985
TO: , Ma orCit Council and City Adm�or
Y Y ' O
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: United Properties Variance
Case No. 85-14
DISCUSSION:
United Properties desires to construct a building identification sign
for their new two story office building that is to be occupied by Cray
Research. The building is located at the intersection of Northland Drive
and Transport Drive. United would like to have the sign be a low ground
sign of a similar design to their office park monuments located along Pilot
Knob Road. They have constructed a plywood mock up of the sign and placed
it in its proposed location along Northland Drive for anyone desiring to
view how it would appear.
The sign conforms to all the City ordinances except that it is proposed
to be set back only 20 feet from the property line, 40 feet is required.
Several years ago United presented a proposed ordinance change to the
City that would allow for a 20 foot setback for low ground signs in the
Industrial Park. The Council agreed with the concept but has yet to adopt
the ordinance. Instead we have been routinely granting the variances for
the 20 foot setback.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and Planning Commission recommend that the City Council grant
United Properties a 20 foot variance to the 40 foot front yard sign setback
requirement.
ACTION REQUIRED•
If Council wishes to implement the recommendation they should pass a
motion granting a 20 foot variance to the 40 foot front yard sign setback
requirement for Lot 1, Block 2, Mendota Heights Business Center.
1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
'n � May 31, 1985
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Admi s rator
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Street Study
Ivy Falls East
Job No. 8507
Improvement No. 85, Project No. 3
nTR(:TIR4TnN -
At the May 7th City Council meeting, the City Council received and
discussed a feasibility study addressing alternatives for improving the
streets in the Ivy Falls East area. At that meeting Council recognized that
there was no neighborhood support for a project and determined that the
present condition of the streets was not bad enough to warrant completing a
major project this year.
Staff was directed to investigate alternatives for constructing and
paying for a street maintenance project.
Staff has researched and found that it is possible to assess street
maintenance costs. The City has assessed for maintenance projects in the
past but has not done so for approximately 20 years. To start now could be
setting a new precedent for future maintenance/seal coat projects. Council
should seriously consider the policy setting impacts a decision to assess
this maintenance project has on future street maintenance projects within
the City. If Council decides to proceed with assessing for street mainten-
ance, staff feel the term of the assessment should be short (2 years recom-
mended).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Full Reconstruction
Remove existing street surfacing and curb and gutter and install
new at present day City standards. Total estimated cost is
$127,000 or $4,700 per lot.
2. Substantial Reconstruction
Remove and replace settled sections of curb and gutter and failed
sections of bituminous, overlay entire area. Total estimated
costs is $62,000 or $2,300 per lot.
1
3. Overlay Maintenance
Patch failed sections of bituminous and overlay entire area.
Total Estimated costs is $37,000 or $1,400 per lot.
4. Seal Coat Maintenance
City crews patch failed sections of bituminous and then seal coat
entire area (could not be completed before 1986). Total estimated
cost is $7,500 or $260 per lot (does not include City crew or
equipment dollars).
5. Minimum Maintenance
Have City crews patch pot holes with temporary patch material.
Total estimated cost $300.
ACTION REQUIRED:
Review all the alternatives and select one to be implemented.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 31, 1985
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Fraze
City Admin' rator
SUBJECT: Study of Land Use in 494 Corridor
At its May 28th meeting, the Planning Commission heard presentation and
held a public hearing on the Condor (Jim Riley) apartment proposal. I
informed the Commission of Council's position that a spot rezoning for this
project would be inappropriate until the Commission and Council had taken a
comprehensive look at the future of the whole 494 corridor. The Commission
was generally in agreement with that approach, but eager to "get on with it"
and not hold up the Riley proposal for an unreasonable length of time. They
continued the public hearing and tabled further action until the June 25th
meeting.
The Commission did pass a motion requesting Council to authorize City
Planner Dahlgren to prepare a preliminary study of the 494 corridor, from
35E to Delaware, addressing zoning and density issues. The Commission was
hopeful that the study could be before them by the time of their June meeting.
I suggested that when the study is completed, the Commission and Council would
probably want to have a joint workshop to discuss the results, and set some
policy parameters.
I have attempted,
and the cost for such a
evening so Council can
KDF:.madlr
unsuccessfully, to talk with Howard regarding his thoughts
study. I will hopefully have that information by Tuesday
react to a recommendation.
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 31, 1985
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Adm' istat6r
FROM: James E. Danielson
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Durbahn Variance, 583 Valley Lane
Case No. 85-12
nTQrTTQQTnM
Variances for garage size and side yard setback were considered for 583
Valley Lane at the May Planning Commission meeting. (See attached reports)
The Planning Commission was concerned about approving a side yard setback
this close to the lot line without a registered survey to confirm the exact
location.
RECOMMENDATION•
The Planning Commission recommends approval of a 200 square foot
variance to the garage size and subject to receipt of a registered survey
confirming that no part of the garage including eaves will encroach over the
lot line, a variance to the side yard setback.
ACTION REQUIRED:
If Council desires to implement the Planning Commission recommendation
they should pass a motion granting a 200 square foot variance to the
required square footage for a garage and a side yard variance (exact
dimension to be determined from the survey available at the meeting) to Lot
5, Block 3, Kirchner Addition.
1
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 31, 1985
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Fraz C�
City Admini ator
SUBJECT: Gun Club Lake Watershed WMO Agreement
INTRODUCTION
Enclosed for Council consideration is an agreement between the cities
of Mendota Heights, Eagan, and Inver Grove Heights establishing a watershed
management organization for the Gun Club Lake watershed. The purpose of
this memo is to highlight substantive issues in that agreement.
DT9rTTSSTnN
At the two May meetings, Council had the opportunity to review the Lower
Mississippi Agreement. As that presentation and written material by Attorney
Dave Moran included a good deal of background on the watershed legislation, I
will not reiterate that here.
The Agreement would establish a WMO to plan and implement improvements
for storm water projects in the Gun Club Lake watershed. As can be seen on
the map, that area includes about half the southwestern quadrant of Mendota
Heights, all of Eagan, and a small portion of western Inver Grove Heights.
The most difficult issue in negotiating the agreement was how to weight the
voting on the Board to recognize that Eagan has 80% of the land mass, and
the vast majority of the assessed valuation, while giving the other two comm-
unities some clout. Frankly, the task was not easy, and we came to the con-
clusion that functioning of the WMO was going to have to rely as much on
good will between the communities, as on the actual language in the Agreement.
For the most part, we addressed this concern by requiring a supermajority
vote on most issues.
STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS (Pg. 2, Section 6-1)
The WMO begins with a Board of 7 members - 3 from Eagan and 2 each from
Mendota Heights and Inver Grove Heights. This Board prepares and adopts the
watershed management plan, as required by statute, by majority vote. 30 days
after plan adoption, the Board reduces to 5, with Mendota Heights and Inver
Grove Heights each losing one Director's position. Thereafter, most Board
actions (i.e., ordering an improvement„ allocating costs, etc.) are by 4/5's
vote. One exception is the annual budget, which I discuss below.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (Pgs. 7-8, Section 8-2)
Capital improvements incorporating two or more members require a 4/5's
vote of the Board. An improvement affecting one member only requires a 3/5's
vote, but at least one favorable vote must be cast by that member.
- 2 -
FINANCES AND COST ALLOCATIONS (Pgs. 11-14, Section 9)
Subdivisions 2 and 3 - General Administrative Budget -
Sets forth the procedure for adopting a general administrative budget.
The contribution toward that budget is based 50% on land area and 50% on assessed
valuation within the district. As Eagan will be contributing the vast majority
of the budget (essentially all their land mass and valuation is in the district),
they insisted that the budget be adopted only by majority vote. However, there
is a maximum limit of one mill of our assessed value in the district as our
contribution.
Subdivisions 4 and 5 - Capital Improvement Cost Allocation -
Provides the option of funding capital projects through Minnesota Statutes
473.883. Chapter 473.883 allows for the County to levy an ad valorem tax on
all assessed valuation in the watershed district, as opposed to assessments
based on benefit. We felt the Board should have this option available to it,
but only on a 4/5's vote.
The other alternative (Subdivision S.A. (2)), is to allocate costs on the
basis of surface water runoff, assessed value in the benefitted area, or some
combination thereof. Again, we are leaving the Board wide discretion, but
require a 4/5's vote.
.WJ
This memo has summarized the highlights of the Agreement. Council will
likely want to read the entire document.
As with the Lower Mississippi WMO, our alternative is to leave management
of the watershed to Dakota County.
RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION REQUIRED
It is recommended that Council approve the Agreement by a motion to
adopt the attached Resolution.
KDF:madlr
attachment
TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT UPDATE 6-1-85
Over the past three years, the Tax Increment District has developed
rapidly, and planned improvements totaling over $1,250,000 have been com-
pleted. The value base in the District continues to grow, with over
$7,000,000 of new construction now underway in 1985, and an additional
$8,000,000 in the planning stage.
As of year end 1984, we held about $250,000 for future improvements
which, between 1985 and 1989, should grow to about $1,500,000. Several
major projects are also in the planning stage which will use Increment funds.
At this time, the following are the major projects:
MAC Property, Phase II
Garron Property
Alpha Property
Furlong Addition Utilities
TH 55 Utility Improvements
Cost Est.
Ant. Assmts. Est.
$350,000
$175,000
470,000
190,000
500,000
200,000
740,000
250,000
$2,060,000 $815,000
Increment Necessary: $1,245,000
Timing of the future improvements and any change in assessment rates will be
important as to future borrowing needs of the District, as well as changes
in the manner increment aid is applied to any specific project.
LED: mad lr
6-18-85
NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
c/o City Offices
No UE 750 South Plaza Drive•
Mendota Heights. Minnesota 55120
June 2, 19B5
Mayor Robert G. Lockwood
2 Hingham Circle
Mendota Heights, MN. 55118
Dear Mayor Lockwood,
Attached is a copy of the proposed budget for NDC4 for 1985.
i At the May 29, 1985 full commission meeting the proposed budget
was approved for submission to the member city councils for their
! consideration. Pursuant to section 9.01 of the Franchise
Ordinance, this admininstrative budget shall be funded by the
cable company thru prepayment of the.franchise fee.
Pursuant to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement creating
NDC4, please present the attached proposed budget to your city
council for consideration. Upon approval please provide the NDC4
with notice of approval at above address.
The budget will become effective and the commission will
submit the budget amount to the cable company for payment when at
least six of the seven member city councils provide notice of
approval to the commission. Upon receipt of funding from the
cable company the commission will return the remaining 10%
reimbursement of expenses to the member cities.
Should you have any questions relative to this budget I can
be contacted at 456-6312 or 452-1086.
Sincerely,
David H. Zemke
Chairman, NDC4
CC: City Clerk
Attachment
NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
C/o City Offices
N, U 4 C750 South Plaza Drive
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120
6/1/85
PROPOSED
1985 NDC4 BUDGET
BUDGET ITEM PROPOSED BUDGET
REMAINDER OF REIMBURSEMENT TO CITIES
19,237.64
ADMINISTRATOR/CONSULTANT:
SALARY
12,500
BENEFITS
4,000
MILEAGE
1,950
SECRETARY
1,500
LEGAL COUNSEL
10,800
OFFICE:
SUPPLIES
750.00
RENT
3 , 000. 00
PHONE
600.00
POSTAGE
150.00
FURNITURE
500.00
INSURANCE
785.00
ADVERTISING
600.00
CONFERENCE EXPENSE
11000_00
TOTAL PROPOSED BUDGET
1477372.64
CURRENT CHECKING ACCOUNT BALANCE :12,823.89
1985 PROJECTED EXPENDITURES DUE FROM 134,548.75
CONTINENTAL AS PREPAYMENT OF FRANCHISE
FEE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
1
Page No. 2275
June 4, 1985
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Minutes of the Regular Meeting
Held Tuesday, June 4, 1985
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City
Council, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at City Hall,
750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota.
Mayor Lockwood called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following
members were present: Mayor Lockwood, Councilmembers Blesener, Cummins,
Hartmann and Witt.
AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption of the agenda
for the meeting including additional items contained
in the add-on agenda.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Hartmann moved approval of the minutes
of the May 21st meeting with corrections.
Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the consent
calendar as submitted and recommended for approval as
part of the regular agenda, along with authorization
for execution of all necessary documents contained
therein.
a. Acknowledgement of the Code Enforcement monthly
report for May.
b. Acknowledgement of the minutes of the May 28th
Planning Commission meeting.
c. Acknowledgement of the minutes of the April 17th
NDC -4 meeting.
d. Approval of the List of Claims dated June 4, 1985
and totalling $126,147.97.
e. Approval of the list of contractor licenses,
granting licenses to:
M.J. Ryan Construction Co.
Able Fence, Inc.
Midwest Fence and
Manufacturing Co.
Excavating License
Fence Installation License
Fence Installation License
C
Egan and Sons Company
Metropolitan Mechanical
Contractors, Inc.
Steel Fence and
Construction
Nick Heinen
Holle Construction
Egan and Sons Company
Page No. 2276
June 4, 1985
Gas Piping License
Gas Piping License
General Contractor License
General Contractor License
General Contractor License
Heating & Air Conditioning
License
f. Approval of the issuance of a Rubbish Hauler
License to Roadway Rubbish.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
FIRE DEPARTMENT Councilmember Witt moved that Erick Schmidt be appoin-
ted to the Volunteer Fire Department.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
PLANNING STUDY The Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from the
City Administrator regarding preparation of a study of
land use in the I-494 Corridor. Mayor Lockwood stated
that requests for rezoning and multiple residential
development have been made for development along the
corridor and Council is considering the question of
whether a planning study should be made on the I-494
corridor. The estimated costs are $8,500 for phase
one and $12,000 for phase two, for a total maximum
study cost of $20,500. Administrator Frazell stated
that the estimated time for completion, including
preparation of Comprehensive Plan amendment, is ten to
eleven weeks.
It was the general concensus that Council should meet
with Planner Dahlgren to provide input prior to report
preparation. Councilmember Cummins suggested that
Condor Corporation should be notified that its
development proposal cannot be considered for at least
three months. Councilmember Hartmann suggested that
staff research files to determine whether a study had
been done on the Owens property in the past.
Councilmember Witt felt that the park issue should
also be addressed in the report. She noted the
portion of the May Planning Commission minutes which
stated that park contributions for development in the
area would be cash rather than land and pointed out
that the Park Commission has the right to review all
development proposals before Council review and before
Page No. 2277
June 4, 1985
any determination is made on park contribution on any
of the projects.
Planning Commission Chairperson Kruse, present for the
discussion, stated that he would hope the Planner
would also look at how the land could be developed if
the properties are not rezoned. }
After discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved to
authorize preparation of the I-494 corridor study.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0 The Council directed that the City Planner be
requested to meet with Council either before or after
the Board of Review meeting on June 10th or at 6:30 on
June 18th to determine elements that should be
contained in the report.
HEARING - NORTH END Mayor Lockwood opened the meeting for the purpose of a
STREET IMPROVEMENTS public hearing on proposed street and storm sewer
improvements in the north end area. Mayor Lockwood
turned the meeting over to staff for review of the
proposed improvements.
Public Works Director Danielson stated that at the
hearing conducted in April to consider street and
drainage improvements staff proposed that curb and
gutter be installed on Chippewa Avenue only, that
Chippewa be upgraded to MSA standards, and that a
bituminous overlay be installed on Fremont, Hiawatha,
Garden Lane and Ellen Street. He stated that at
that hearing property owners on Hiawatha and Garden
expressed interest for curb and gutter, and staff was
directed to study the feasibility and costs. He
informed the audience that the estimated cosis for the
originally proposed project were as follow: $188,000
for street and curb and gutter, reduced by $135,000 in
M.S.A. financing and $72,000 for storm sewer
improvements, reduced by $27,000 in M.S.A. financing,
for estimated assessment rates of $6.40 per lineal
foot for street improvements and $.095 per square foot
for storm sewer. The estimated cost for construction
of Chippewa to M.S.A. standards and urban standard
streets and increased storm sewer throughout the
project is $394,000. After application of the M.S.A.
subsidy, the estimated assessment rate for street,
curb and gutter is $13.69 per lineal foot, and the
estimated rate for storm sewer improvements is $0.13
per square foot.
Administrator Frazell presented a comparison of
proposed project costs and assessment rates for the
project proposed in 1984, prior to the availability of
Page No. 2278
June 4, 1985
M.S.A. financing, which consisted of limited
reconstruction of all of the streets with a 2 to 2 1/2
inch bituminous overlay, the project considered at the
recent public hearing and the project being considered
this evening. The 1984 proposal would have resulted
in an estimated cost of $1,240 for a typical (80 by
120 foot) residential lot. Scheme A, full
construction on Chippewa, limited storm sewer
construction and a bituminous overlay on the other
streets, would cost an estimated $3,250 per typical
lot before application of MSA financing. After appli-
cation of the MSA monies, the estimated cost per
typical lot is $1,424. Scheme B, MSA standard
construction for Chippewa Avenue and urban standard
streets, with curb and gutter and increased storm
sewer throughout the remainder of the project, would
result in an estimated assessment of $3,917 per
typical lot. After application of MSA financing, the
estimated assessment for Scheme B is $2,343 for a
typical lot.
Administrator Frazell explained that the total area
has been defined as a project area and that MSA
financing will be used to upgrade Chippewa. He
further explained that it has been City policy in the
past to assess the properties abutting MSA streets at
a per front foot amount equivalent to City averages
for recent improvement projects. It is proposed,
under both schemes, that the remainder of the project
cost, after application of the MSA funding, be
assessed against all of the benefitting properties at
the same assessment rates.
Mayor Lockwood asked for questions and comments from
the audience.
Mr. Peter Solberg stated that he does not feel that
this is a neighborhood project and asked why the City
could not treat Chippewa as one project and the rest
of the area as another. Mr. Frazell responded that if
the City were to treat this as any other MSA project,
the residents would be asked to pay the average rate
for street construction which is now about $30.00 per
front foot.
Mr. Don Clifford stated that Chippewa provides the
only access to Dodd from much of the north area and
suggested that maybe all of the other streets in the
area, Diego Lane, Kirchner, etc., should be assessed
for Chippewa Avenue improvement also.
The owner of 1070 Chippewa stated that last year the
estimated cost just to put a "cap" on the streets was
C
Page No. 2279
June 4, 1985
$15.50 and all streets were going to be the same. At
the hearing, the neighbors asked the City to get some
aid, which it did (MSA). As the result, he said, the
project doubled and the cost was cut in half: now the
costs projected are back up (Scheme B).
Ms. Ruth Houle, 933 Delaware, asked how her property
would be affected by the storm sewer portion of the
project.
Mr. Norbert Patterson, 953 Delaware, stated that the
water from the properties on the hill -side of
Chippewa, with Delaware oerChippewa addresses, does
not cross Chippewa until it gets to Annapolis and
doesn't cause any of the problems involved in this
project.
An owner of property on the west end of Hiawatha
stated that he is in favor of the project and believes
the entire block is but he does not know of anyone on
his block who is in favor of storm sewer improvements.
He felt that storm sewer is unnecessary and stated
that he could agree with curb and gutter installation
and street improvement, but not storm sewer.
Mr. Solberg asked whether the projected cost includes
reconstruction of driveways and landscaping on private
property. He did not believe that it should, and felt
that the property owners should take care of their own
landscaping.
The owner of 1035 Chippewa stated that she has about
210 feet of frontage and asked whether she would be
assessed for full frontage on her odd -shaped lot.
Mr. Robert Reedstrom, 530 Hiawatha, stated that a good
deal of water from the street runs onto his lot and
that he has 10 to 20 inches of water in his back yard
during very heavy rains. He stated that the water
runs from Chippewa and that he is in favor of putting
storm sewer down at least the section of Hiawatha
where the water is coming from. He felt that if this
is not done, Hiawatha will require continual
maintenance because of erosion problems created by the
storm water. He felt that if possible, half of the
MSA money should be used to subsidize Chippewa Avenue
residents, and the other half should be applied to the
balance of the area.
i
Mr. Allan Wise, 990 Chippewa, stated that he couldn't
see why Chippewa property owners should help to pay
for storm sewer for the balance of the project since
Page No. 2280
June 4, 1985
Chippewa properties were assessed for storm sewer nine
years ago.
Public Works Director Danielson replied that the storm
sewer is not a neighborhood project: it is to be paid
for on a square footage basis and only those
properties whose water drains into the system are
proposed to be assessed.
Mayor Lockwood stated that one problem facing the
Council is whether the proposal reviewed at the
earlier hearing met with the expectations of the
people and whether those expectations can be
fulfilled. He informed the audience that it must be
understood that there will still be some ponding of
water on private properties. Public Works Director
Danielson confirmed that there is no guarantee that
all backyard drainage problems will be resolved: if
ponding occurs in backyards, the property owners will
have to do some yard grading so that the water flows
to the street.
Mayor Lockwood informed the audience that a petition
has been received for curb and gutter improvements on
Hiawatha.
Mr. Solberg read, and presented to the Council, a
petition from Chippewa Avenue property owners
opposing the proposed method of assessment under
Scheme B.
Mr. Donald Suchomel, 531 Hiawatha, reminded the
Council that a petition for curb and gutter on
Hiawatha Avenue and Garden Lane was submitted at the
May 7th meeting.
Mr. David Longbehn, 921 Chippewa, objected to proposed
Scheme B.
Ms. Kathy Johnson, 950 Delaware, asked how many MSA
street projects have been completed in the past and
how they have been assessed.
i
Mr. Wise stated that there are only two accesses to
Highway 13 from the area and asked how long it will be
before additional access is provided.
There being no further questions or comments from the
audience, Councilmember Cummins moved to close the
hearing at 9:22 P.M.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CI
I
Page No. 2281
June 4, 1985
Councilmember Witt stated that at the prior discussion
there had been comments from some people on Hiawatha
that they would assume the costs for curb and gutter
themselves. She asked if a cost projection is avail-
able. Public Works Director Danielson indicated that
the cost for curb and gutter would be approximately
$10 to $12 per front foot.
Mayor Lockwood stated that if Scheme B is not
constructed, the only curb and gutter feasible is for
Hiawatha, not Fremont or Garden. He felt that if the
City can accommodate the people who have petitioned
for curb and gutter on Hiawatha and the costs can be
assessed only against those properties at a reasonable
cost, it should be considered.
Councilmember Cummins asked, based on past precedent
for MSA projects, if just Chippewa were being improved
and none of the other streets were considered, whether
the Chippewa properties would be assessed $20 to $30
per foot. Public Works Director Danielson responded
that if past policy were applied (assessing an average
rate for current street improvement projects), the
rate would be $22.38 per foot under this project.
Mayor Lockwood noted that a number of Hiawatha Avenue
property owners had requested curb and gutter and
suggested that storm sewer installation under Scheme A
could be upgraded to the extent necessary to support
the curb and gutter petitioned. The property owners
could pay for curb and gutter, the cost for storm
sewer construction necessary to make the drainage
system work could be paid by all of the assessible
property within the project. He pointed out, however,
that all of the curb and gutter improvements,
including that petitioned for Garden Lane, must be
contiguous and must run westerly from Chippewa.
Councilmember Blesener stated that several Chippewa
Avenue property owners have objected to increased
street assessment rates if curb and gutter
improvements are constructed on streets other than
Chippewa. She pointed out that what the Council is
now discussing is that property owners on Hiawatha
would pay a much greater rate, if Hiawatha receives
curb and gutter, than the $6.40 per foot that those on
Chippewa would pay. Councilmember Cummins stated that
curb and gutter would be an option for Hiawatha
residents.
Administrator Frazell suggested that staff be directed
to prepare plans and specifications with delete
Page No. 2282
June 4, 1985
alternates (for curb and gutter) to determine what
actual rates will be.
After discussion, Councilmember Hartmann moved the
C adoption of Resolution No. 85-41. "RESOLUTION
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS
AND APPURTENANCES TO SERVE CHIPPEWA AVENUE, ELLEN
STREET, GARDEN LANE, HIAWATHA AVENUE, FREMONT AVENUE,
MUNICIPAL STATE AID PROJECT NO. 140-108-01 AND
ADJACENT AREAS (NORTHEND STREETS, IMPROVEMENT NO. 79,
PROJECT NO. 3)," with curb and gutter improvements on
Hiawatha, Fremont, Garden and Ellen to be addressed in
the plans as deduct alternates.
Mayor Lockwood seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
RECESS Mayor Lockwood called a recess at 9:45 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:55 P.M.
CASE NO. 85-09, FETT Councilmember Cummins moved approval of a 10 foot
VARIANCE front yard setback at 2337 Apache, to allow
construction of a garage addition 20 feet from the
k; front property line.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CASE NO. 85-08, Representatives of Mrs. Bernice McGown were present to
MCGOWN SUBDIVISION request approval of the subdivision of part of Lot 36,
Auditor's Subdivision No. 3 (768 W. Wentworth) into
four lots, along with approval of 6.7 foot variances
from the lot width requirement for proposed Lots 1, 2
and 3. It was noted by Mrs. McGown's son that the
only concern expressed by the Planning Commission was
over the new driveways -which will enter Wentworth. He
stated that Mrs. McGown agrees with the recommended
requirement for "T" driveways and informed the Council
that Mrs. McGown plans to build a residence on Lot 2
and will put in a turn -around ("T") driveway.
Councilmember Blesener asked whether the applicant had
considered providing a single easement for access to
Wentworth by all of the lots. Surveyor Paul. McGinley
stated Mrs. McGown had considered a 5 to 6 l.ot plat
with an internal street and cul-de-sac but the cost
for cul-de-sac construction was too great. He stated
that an access easement and "flag lots" were not
considered because he did not believe it is customary
to divide single family lots without providing
individual access to the street.
Page No. 2283
June 4, 1985
Mayor Lockwood expressed the concern that someone who
buys one of the lots may in the future want to sell
off the back of his property for development. Mr.
McCown responded that whoever buys the lots will buy
them as large lots with the understanding that they
cannot be further divided.
Mr. McGinley distributed copies of a site plan showing
proposed driveway locations with a 1% slope to
Wentworth.
After discussion, Councilmember Hartmann moved
approval of the preliminary plat for Wentworth
Meadows, including lot width variances as requested, on the
condition that the driveways be "T" type similar to
the suggested site plan presented by Mr. McGinley.
Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CASE NO. 85-13, Councilmember Hartmann moved approval of an 8 foot
SELLNER VARIANCE variance from the required 30 foot rearyard setback
requirement at 1855 Summit Lane, Lot 13., Block 2,
Lexington Highlands East, to allow construction of a
garage addition 22 feet from the westerly property
line.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CASE NO. 85-14, Mayor Lockwood moved approval of a 20 foot variance to
UNITED PROPERTIES the 40 foot front yard sign setback requirement for
VARIANCE Lot 1, Block 2, Mendota Heights Business Center to
allow installation of a Cray Research building
identification sign 20 feet from the property line.
Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CASE NO. 85-12, Mr. Dennis Carlson, representing Ms. Michele Durbahn, appeared
DURBAHN VARIANCE to request approval of variances from the garage
►� size and sideyard setback requirements for 583 Valley
Lane. Mr. Carlson reviewed a site survey showing the
location of the garage, to be constructed on the
existing slab of a garage which has been demolished,
one and one-half feet from the side property line.
Mr. Carlson stated that the garage will be constructed
so that the eaves are no closer than 6 inches from the
property line.
Councilmember Blesener moved approval of a 3 1/2 foot
variance from the sideyard setback requirement and a
Page No. 2284
June 4, 1985
200 square foot variance from the 440 square foot
garage size requirement to allow construction of a 240
square foot garage one and one-half feet from the
easterly property line at 583 Valley Lane in
accordance with the site survey dated May 31, 1985.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
CRITICAL AREA SITE Mr. Donald Taylor, 711 Woodridge Drive, was present to
PLAN REVIEW request approval of a modified critical area site plan
for construction of a porch addition. It was noted
that the structure will not intrude on the 40 foot
critical area setback and that Council review of•the
site plan is a procedural requirement of the Critical
Area Ordinance.
Councilmember Blesener moved approval of the critical
area site plan for 711 Woodridge Drive along with
waiver of the site plan review fee.
Councilmember Witt seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
MN/FSL CONTRACTOR The Council acknowledged and discussed a report from
LICENSE the City Administrator regarding investigation of
complaints against MN/FSL made at the May 7th hearing.
Attorney Curt Anderson was present on behalf of
MN/FSL.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Abstain: 1 Cummins
Councilmember Cummins stated that the contractor's
behavior has improved since the hearing and indicated
that if staff continues to monitor the contractor's
activities he will be satisfied.
Mayor Lockwood moved that the City Council finds that
the evidence before Council does not justify action
against the MN/FSL general contractor license at this
time.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
There was brief discussion over the need for issuance
of certificates of occupancy and the necessity for
clarification of the licensing ordinance language.
PEDWAY Councilmember Witt moved adoption of Resolution No.
85-42, "RESOLUTION APPROVING LIMITED USE PERMIT LU 1-
85 BETWEEN THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS FOR A PEDESTRIAN
Ayes: 5 WALKWAY," BETWEEN I -35E AND ROGERS LAKE.
Nays: 0 Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion.
Page No. 2285
June 4, 1985
IVY FALLS EAST The Council acknowledged and briefly discussed an
STREETS engineering study on Ivy Falls East street
improvements. It was the concensus of the Council
that, until a petition for street improvements is
received, a "minimum maintenance" approach of filling
potholes with temporary patch material be taken.
GUN CLUB LAKE Discussion on the proposed Gun Club Lake watershed
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT management agreement was tabled to June 18th.
MASAC Councilmember Witt moved that Bernard Friel be
appointed as the City's representative on the
Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council,
effective for the July meeting.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
The Council expressed its appreciation to Lawrence
Shaughnessy for his many years of service on the
MASAC.
MISCELLANEOUS The Council acknowledged a memo from the City
Administrator informing Council that 12 ash and spruce
trees surrounding the Mendota Heights Road lift
station must be removed. The memo indicated that if
acceptable to Council the trees would be transplanted
to the City property adjacent to that portion of the
Lexington Highlands Outlot which was recently sold by
the City. The Council indicated that the proposal is
acceptable.
ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the
Council, Councilmember Witt moved that the meeting be
adjourned.
Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:16 P.M.
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
ATTEST:
Robert G. Lockwood
Mayor
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 85-41
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GUN CLUB LAKE WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights has reviewed
the proposed Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization Joint Powers
Agreement dated June 1, 1985 ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a verbal and written explanation
of the proposed Agreement from the City Administrator and Public Works
Director; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the proposed Agreement is
proper and acceptable in all respects and that the execution of the proposed
Agreement by the appropriate City officials would be in the best interest of
the City.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized and
directed to execute said proposed Agreement on behalf of the City and the
appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to perform
any and all acts necessary or desireable in order to implement said proposed
Agreement.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of
June, 1985.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Robert G. Lockwood
Mayor
ATTEST:-
Kathleen
TTESTr
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
GUN CLUB LAKE WATERSHED
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING A
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
JUNE 1, 1985
INDEX GUN CLUB LAKE WATERSHED
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
PARAGRAPH/ITEM PAGE
1.
Name........................................................1
2.
General
Purpose
.............................................1
3.
Definitions
.................................................1
4.
Membership..................................................2
5.
Advisors....................................................2
6.
Board of Managers
...........................................2
Subd.
1.
Appointment....................................2
Subd,
2.
Eligibility/Qualifications ......................3
Subd.
3.
Term............................................3
Subd.
4..**
Compensation...................................3
Subd.
5.
Organization/Structure ..........................3
7.
Powers and
Duties of the WMO................................4
Subd.
1.
WMO.............................................4
Subd.
2.
Employees.......................................4
Subd.
3.
Loca,tion........................................4
Subd.
4.
Materials.......................................5
Subd.
5.
Surveys.........................................5
Subd.
6.
Public/Private Organizations ....................5
Subd.
7.
Local Improvements ..............................5
Subd.
8.
Operation/Maintenance ...........................5
Subd,
9.
Insurance.......................................5
Subd.
10.
Testing/Measuring Devices.......................5
Subd.
11.
Technical Assistance/Local Water Management .....
5
Subd.
12.
Technical Assistance/Legal......................6
Subd.
13.
Reserve Funds...................................6
Subd.
14.
Revenue.........................................6
Subd.
15.
Contracts.......................................6
Subd.
16.
Financial Audits................................6
Subd.
17.
Information Availability ........................6
Subd.
18.
Amendments......................................7
Subd.
19.
Additional Powers...............................7
Subd.
20.
Supplemental Studies ............................7
Subd.
21.
Pollution Abatement .............................7
8.
Capital
Improvement
Process.................................7
Subd.
1.
Assessments........ ... ...... ................7
Subd.
2.
Preliminary Reports/Public Hearings ...............
7
Subd.
3.
Appeals/Arbitration .............................9
Subd,
4.
Contracts for Improvements .....................10
Subd.
5.
Supervision....................................10
Subd.
6.
Land Acquisition...............................10
9.
Finances
................
.................................11
Subd.
1.
Depositories/Disbursements .....................11
Subd.
2.
General Administration .........................11
Subd.
3.
Budget.........................................12
Subd.
4.
Capital Improvements ...........................12
Subd.
5.
Capital Cost Allocation ........................13
10.
Special
Assessments........................................14
11.
Duration
...................................................14
Subd.
1.
Expiration.....................................14
Subd.
2.
Termination....................................15
Subd.
3.
Dissolution....................................15
12.
Dissolution
................................................15
13.
Effective
Date.............................................15
14.
Signature
Page.............................................16
15.
Exhibit
A ..................................................17
16.
Exhibit
B ..................................................18
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
ESTABLISHING A WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
FOR THE GUN CLUB LAKE WATERSHED
The parties to this agreement are cities which have land within the Gun
Club Lake Watershed. This agreement is made pursuant to the authority
conferred upon the parties by Minn. Stat. 1982 471.59 and 473.875, et. seq.
1. Name. The parties hereby create and establish the Gun Club Lake
Watershed Management Organization.
2. General Purpose. The purpose of this agreement is to provide an
organization to preserve and use the natural water storage and retention of
the Gun Club Lake watershed to (a) reduce to the greatest practical extent
capital expenditures necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of
runoff, (b) improve water quality, (c) prevent flooding and erosion from
surface flows, (d) promote ground water recharge, (e) protect and enhance fish
and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities, (f) secure the other
benefits associated with the proper management of surface water, and (g) carry
out all the duties and responsibilities outlined in Minn. Stat. 473.875
through 473.883.
3. Definitions.
Subdivision 1. "Watershed Management Organization" ("WMO") means the
organization created by this agreement; the full name of which is "Gun Club
Lake Watershed Management Organization". It shall be a public agency of its
respective governmental units.
Subdivision 2. "Board" means the Board of Managers of the WMO.
Subdivision 3. "Council" means the governing body of a governmental unit
which is a member of this WMO.
Subdivision 4. "Governmental Unit" means any signatory city.
Subdivision 5. "Member" means a governmental unit which enters into this
agreement.
1
Subdivision 6. "Manager" means an individual appointed by a governmental
unit to comprise and serve on the WMO Board.
Subdivision 7. "Gun Club Lake Watershed" or "watershed" means the area
within a line drawn around the extremities of all terrain whose surface
drainage is within the mapped areas delineated on the map filed with the Water
Resources Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 473.877, Subd. 2. The attached
Exhibit A references the preliminary draft of the watershed defined and
controlled by the Gun Club Lake WMO. The attached Exhibit B lists the
estimated area and respective ratio of each community to the total watershed.
4. Membership. The membership of the WMO shall consist of the following
governmental units:
City of Eagan
City of Inver Grove Heights
City of Mendota Heights
No change in governmental boundaries, structure, organizational status or
character shall affect the eligibility of any governmental unit listed above
to be represented on the WMO, so long as such governmental unit continues to
exist as a separate political subdivision.
5. Advisors. Dakota County and the Dakota County Soil and Water
Conservation District shall be requested to appoint a non—voting advisory
member to the WMO. The County and District shall not be required to contri—
bute funds for the operation of the WMO, except as provided in M.S. 473.883,
but may provide technical services.
6. Board of Managers.
Subdivision 1. Appointment. The governing body of the WMO shall be its
Board of Managers which. shall consist of seven (7) managers during the
preparation and adoption of the Board's watershed management plan. Three (3)
members shall be appointed by the City of Eagan with the cities of Inver Grove
2
Heights and Mendota Heights each appointing two (2) members: Thirty (30) days
after adoption of the plan by the Board of Managers, the Board shall be
automatically reduced to five members consisting of the three (3) managers
appointed by the City of Eagan and one (1 ) manager appointed by the City of
Inver Grove Heights and one (1) manager appointed by the City of Mendota
Heights. Each city shall have the option and right to designate appropriate
alternates if necessitated by the absence of its respective representative
manager(s).
Subdivision 2. Eligibility or Qualification. The Council of each City
shall determine the eligibility or qualification of its representative on the
WMO.
Subdivision 3. Term. The appointed managers of the WMO Board shall not
have a fixed term, but shall serve at the pleasure of the governing body of
the local unit appointing such manager to the WMO.
Subdivision 4. Compensation. Managers shall serve without compensation
from the WMO, but this shall not prevent a governmental unit from providing
compensation to a manager for serving on the Board.
Subdivision 5. Organization/Structure. At the first meeting of the
Board and in January of each year thereafter, the Board shall elect from its
managers a chair, a vice chair, a secretary, a treasurer and such other
officers as it deems necessary to conduct its meetings and affairs. At the
organizational meeting or as soon thereafter as it may be reasonably done, the
WMO. shall adopt rules and regulations governing its meetings. Such rules and
regulations may be amended from time to time at either a regular or a special
meeting of the WMO, provided that at least ten days' prior notice of the
proposed amendment has been furnished to each person to whom notice of the
Board meetings is required to be sent. A 4/5 vote of all eligible votes of
the then existing managers of the WMO shall be sufficient to adopt any
proposed amendment to such rules and regulations.
�3
7. Powers and Duties of the WMO.
Subdivision 1. The WMO, acting by its Board of Managers;
(A) Shall prepare and adopt a watershed management plan meeting
the requirements of Minn. Stat. 473.878;
(B) Shall review and approve member's local water management plans as
provided in Minn. Stat. 473.879;
(C) Shall exercise the authority of a watershed district under Minn.
Stat. Chapter 112 to regulate the use and development of land when one or more
of the following conditions exist:
(1) The local government unit exercising planning and zoning
authority over the land under Minn. Stat. 366.10 to 366.19, 394.21 to
394.37 or 462.351 to 462.364 does not have a local water management plan
approved and adopted in accordance with requirements of Minn. Stat.
473.879 or has not adopted the implementation program described in the
plan.
(2) An application to the local governmental unit for a permit for
the use and development of land, requires an amendment to, or variance
from, the adopted local water management plan or implementation program
of the local unit.
(3) The local governmental unit has authorized the WMO to require
permits for the use and development of land.
Subdivision 2. Employees. The WMO may employ such persons as it deems
necessary to accomplish its duties and powers. However, the Board of Managers
shall not retain the services of any consulting engineering or planning firm
that previously or presently represents any of the signatory governmental
units for the preparation, adoption and implementation of the required water—
shed management plan.
Subdivision 3. Location. The WMO may contract for the necessary space
to carry on its activities either with a member or elsewhere.
4
Subdivision 4. Materials. The WMO may acquire necessary personal
property, material and supplies to carry out its activities, powers and its
duties.
Subdivision 5. Surveys. The WMO may make necessary surveys or use other
reliable surveys and data, and develop projects -to accomplish the purposes for
which the Commission is organized. The WMO may enter upon lands within or
without the watershed to make these surveys and investigations.
Subdivision 6. Public/Private Organizations. The WMO may cooperate or
contract with the State of Minnesota or any subdivision thereof or federal
agency or private or public organization to accomplish the purposes for which
it is organized except as noted in paragraph 7, subdivision 2.
Subdivision 7. Local Improvements. The WMO may order a governmental
unit to carry out that member's local water management plan which has been
approved by the Board, or if the local unit of government fails to do so, in
addition to its other remedies, in its discretion, the Board may implement any
required action or improvement in accordance with this agreement.
Subdivision 8. Operation/ Maintenance. The WMO may acquire, operate,
construct and maintain those capital improvements so constructed by the Board
and as delineated in the watershed management plan adopted by the Board.
Subdivision 9. Insurance. The WMO may contract for or purchase such
insurance as the Board deems necessary for the protection of the WMO.
Subdivision 10. Testing/Measuring Devices. The WMO may establish and
maintain devices for testing, acquiring and recording hydrological and water
quality data within the watershed.
Subdivision 11. Technical Assistance/Local Water Management Plans. The
WMO may provide any member governmental unit with technical data or any other
information of which the WMO has knowledge which will assist the governmental
unit in preparing land use classifications or local water management plans
within the watershed.
5
Subdivision 12. Technical Assistance/Legal. The NNO may provide legal
and technical assistance in connection with litigation or other proceedings
between one or more of its managers and any other political subdivision,
commission, board or agency relating to the planning or construction of
facilities to drain or pond storm waters or relating to water quality within
the Gun Club Lake watershed. The use of WMO funds for litigation obolI be
only upon a favorable vote of omojority of the eligible votes ofthe then
existing managers of the gM8.
Subdivision 13~ Reserve Funds. The WM8moy accumulate reserve funds for
`
the purposes herein mentioned and may invest funds of the AMO not currently
needed for its operations.
Subdivision 14. Revenue. The AMO may collect money, subject to the
provisions of this agreement, from its members and from any other source
approved by o majority of its Board.
Subdivision 15. Contracts. The WMDmay make oontracto,iocur expenses
and make expenditures necessary and incidental to the effectuation of its
purposes and powers.
Subdivision 18. Financial Audits. TbeWMU shall cause tubemade an
omouaI audit ofthe books and accounts ofthe WMO and shall make and file a
report to its respective cities at least once each year including the
following information:
(a) The financial condition of the @M0
(b) The status of all WM0 projects and work within the watershed;
(o) The business transacted by the WMO and other matters which
affect the interests of the WMO. Copies of the report shall be
transmitted to the clerk of each member governmental unit.
Subdivision 17~ Information Availability. The WNOya books, reports, and
records shall be available for and open to inspection by its members at all
reasonable times.
M
Subdivision 18. Amendments. The WMO may recommend changes in this
agreement to its members. Any amendments shall require ratification by all
member units of government.
Subdivision 19. Additional Powers. The WMO may exercise all other
powers necessary and incidental to the implementation of the purposes and
powers set forth herein and as outlined and authorized by Minn.Stat. 473.875
through 473.883.
Subdivision 20. Supplemental Studies. Each member reserves the right to
conduct separate or concurrent studies or tests at their own expense on any
matter under study by the WMO.
Subdivision 21. Pollution Abatement. The Board may investigate on its
own initiation or shall investigate upon petition of any member all complaints
relating to pollution within the Gun Club Lake watershed covered by this
agreement. Upon a finding that the watershed is being polluted, the Board may
order the member governmental unit to abate this nuisance and each member
agrees that it will take all reasonable action available to it under the law
to alleviate the pollution and to assist in protecting and improving the water
quality of surface water in the watershed.
8. Capital Improvement Process..
Subdivision 1. Assessments. All construction, reconstruction, extension
or maintenance of storm water facilities within the Gun Club Lake watershed,
including but not limited to outlets, lift station, dams, reservoirs,
appurtenances of a surface water or storm sewer system ordered by the WMO
which involved potential assessment against any member governmental unit or
against privately or publicly owned land within the watershed shall follow the
statutory procedures outlined in Minn.Stat. Chapter 429 except as herein
modified.
Subdivision 2. Preliminary Reports/Public Hearings. For those
improvements initiated by the WMO or so designated in the WMO's watershed
7
management plan to be constructed by the Board, the Board shall secure from
its engineers or some other competent person a preliminary report advising it
whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it shall best
be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement and the
estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. The Board shall then hold a
public hearing on the proposed improvement after mailed notice to the clerk of
each member governmental unit and published notice in the Board's official
newspaper. The WMO shall not be required to mail notice except by notice to
the clerk. The notice shall be mailed not less than 45 days before the
hearing, shall state the time and place of the hearing, the general nature of
the improvement, the estimated total cost and the estimated cost to each
member governmental unit.
To order an improvement incorporating two (2) or more members, a resolu—
tion setting forth the order shall require a favorable vote of 4/5 of all of
the then existing Board of the WMO; however, an improvement affecting but one
member requires only a 3/5 favorable vote, providing that a favorable vote is
cast by the affected member city. The order shall describe the improvement,
shall allocate in percentages the cost between the member governmental units,
shall designate the engineers to prepare plans and specifications, and shall
designate who will contract for the improvement.
After the Board has ordered an improvement, it shall forward the
preliminary report to all member governmental units with an estimated time
schedule for the construction of the improvement. The Board shall allow an
adequate amount of time, and in no event less that 90 days, for each member
governmental unit to conduct hearings, in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 429 or the charter requirements of any city, or to ascertain the
method of financing which the member governmental unit will use to pay its
proportionate share of the costs of the improvement. This 90—day period may
be modified if all affected member governmental units pass a resolution
n
waiving this requirement for the sake of expediency.
If the WMO proposes to use Dakota County's bonding authority, or if the
WMO proposes to certify all or any part of a capital improvement to Dakota
County for payment, then and in that event all proceedings shall be carried
out in accordance with Minn.Stat. 473.883.
The Board shall not order and no engineer shall prepare final detail
plans and specifications before the Board has adopted a resolution ordering
the improvement. The Board may order the advertising for bids upon receipt of
notice from each member governmental unit who will be assessed that it has
completed its hearing or determined its method of payment, or upon expiration
of 90 days after the mailing of the preliminary report to the members, which—
ever occurs first.
Subdivision 3. Appeals/Arbitration. Any member governmental unit
aggrieved by the determination of the Board as to the allocation of the costs
of an improvement shall have 30 days after the WMO resolution ordering the
improvement to appeal the determination. The appeal shall be in writing and
shall be addressed to the Board asking for arbitration. The determination of
the member's appeal shall be referred to a Board of Arbitration. The Board of
Arbitration shall consist of three persons: one to be appointed by the Board
of Managers, one to be appointed by the appealing member governmental unit,
and the third to be appointed by the two so selected. In the event the two
persons so selected do not appoint the third person within 15 days after their
appointment, then the chief judge of the District Court of Dakota County shall
have jurisdiction to appoint, upon application of either or both of the two
earlier selected, the third person to the Board. The third person selected
shall not be a resident of any member governmental unit and if appointed by
the chief judge, shall be a person knowledgeable in the subject matter. The
arbitrators' expenses and fees, together with the other expenses, not
including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration shall be
i
divided equally between the WMO and the appealing member. Arbitration shall
be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act, Minn.Stat.
Chapter 572.
Subdivision 4. Contracts for Improvements. All improvement contracts
ordered by the Board shall be let in accordance with Minn.Stat. 429.041. The
bidding and contracting of the work may be let by any one of the member
governmental units or by the Board as determined by the Board of Managers
after compliance with the statutes.
Contracts and bidding procedures shall
comply with the legal requirements applicable to statutory cities.
Subdivision 5. Supervision. All improvement contracts shall be
supervised by the entity awarding the contract. The WMO staff shall also be
authorized to observe and review the work in progress and the members agree to
cooperate with the WMO staff in accomplishing its purposes. Representatives
of the WMO shall have the right to enter upon the place or places where the
improvement work is in progress for the purpose of making reasonable tests and
inspections. The WMO staff shall report and advise and recommend to the Board
on the progress of the work.
Subdivision 6. Land Acquisition. The WMO shall have the power of
eminent domain. All easements or interest in land which are necessary will be
negotiated or condemned in accordance with Minn.Stat. Chapter 117 by the Board
or, if directed by the Board, by the governmental unit where the land is
located, and each member agrees to acquire the necessary easement or right—of—
way or partial or complete interest in land upon order of the Board to
accomplish the purposes of this agreement. All reasonable costs of the
acquisition, including attorney's fees, shall be considered as a cost of the
improvement. If a member governmental *unit determines it is in the best
interests of that member to acquire additional lands, in conjunction with the
takin.g of lands for storm and surface drainage or storage, for some other
purposes, the costs of the acquisition will not be included in the improvement
10
costs of the ordered project.
Members may not condemn or negotiate for land acquisition to pond or
drain storm and surface waters within the corporate boundaries of another
governmental unit within Gun Club Lake Watershed except upon order of the
Board.
9. Finances.
Subdivision 1. Depositories/Disbursements. The WMO funds may be
expended by the Board in accordance with this agreement in a manner determined
by the Board. The Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or
trust companies authorized to receive deposits of public monies to act as
depositories for the WMO funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of
WMO funds without the signature of at least two Board managers, one of whom
shall be the treasurer. The treasurer shall be required to file with the
secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least $10,000 or such higher
amount as shall be determined by the Board. The WMO shall pay the premium on
said bond.
Subdivision 2. General Administration. Each cost participation member
agrees to contribute each year to a general fund, said fund to be used for
general administration purposes including, but not limited to: salaries, rent,
supplies, development of an overall plan, insurance, bonds, and to purchase
and maintain devices to measure hydrological and water quality data. The
funds may also be used for normal maintenance of the facilities, but any
extraordinary maintenance or repair expense shall be treated as a capital
improvement cost and processed in accordance with Paragraph $ of this
agreement. The annual contribution by each member shall be based fifty (50%)
percent on the assessed valuation of all property within the watershed and
fifty (50%) percent on the basis of the total area of each member within the
boundaries of the watershed each year to the total areas in the watershed. In
no event shall any administrative assessment require a contribution by a local
11
unit of government in any calendar year to exceed one mill of each dollar of
assessed valuation of its territory within the watershed.
Subdivision 3. Budget. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board
shall adopt a general administrative budget for the ensuing year by a majority
of the eligible votes of the then existing Board of Managers of the WMO and
shall decide upon the total amount necessary for the general fund. The secre—
tary of the Board shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the clerk of
each member governmental unit, together with a statement of the proportion of
the budget to be provided by each member. The council of each member agrees
it will review the budget, and the Board shall upon notice from any member
received prior to August 1, hear objections to the budget, and then give
notice to the members of any and all modifications or amendments. Each
governmental unit agrees to provide the funds required by the budget and said
determination shall be conclusive.
Subdivision 4. Capital Improvements.
(a) An improvement fund shall be established for each improvement
project ordered by the WMO. Each member agrees to contribute to fund its
proportionate share of the engineering, legal and administrative costs as
determined by the amount to be assessed against each member as a cost of the
improvement. The Board shall submit in writing a statement to each member,
setting forth in detail the expenses incurred by the WMO for each project.
Each member agrees to pay its proportionate share of the cost of the
improvement in accordance with the determination of the Board under Paragraph
8, Subdivision 2. The Board or the member awarding the contract shall submit
in writing copies of the engineer's certificate authorizing payment during
construction and the member being billed agrees to pay its proportionate share
of the costs within 30 days after receipt of the statement. The Board or the
member awarding the contract shall advise other contributing members of the
tentative time schedule of the work and the estimated times when the
12
contributions shall be necessary.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this
subdivision, the WMO may fund all or part of the cost of a capital improvement
contained in the capital improvement program of the plan in accordance with
Minn.Stat. 473.883 upon approval of 4/5 vote of the Board. The WMO and Dakota
County may establish a maintenance fund to be used for normal and routine
maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole or in part with money
provided by Dakota County pursuant to Minn.Stat. 473.883. The levy and
collection of an ad valorem tax levy for maintenance shall be by Dakota County
based upon a tax levy resolution adopted by the WMO and remitted to the county
on or before October 1st of each year. If it is determined to levy for
maintenance, the WMO shall be required to follow the hearing process
established by Minn. Stat. 112.611. Mailed notice shall also be sent to the
clerk of each member municipality at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
Subdivision 5. Capital Cost Allocation
A. WMO Plan Improvements:
(1) All capital improvement costs of improvements designated in the
Board's adopted watershed management plan for construction by the Board
which the Board determines will provide district—wide benefits shall be
constructed and financed pursuant to Minn. Stat. 473.883 upon approval of
4/5 vote of the Board. The members understand and agree that the costs
will be levied on all taxable property in the watershed.
• All capital improvement costs of improvements designated in the
Board's adopted watershed management plan for construction by the Board,
which the Board determines will benefit only one Member, shall be paid
for entirely by that member.
(2) All capital improvement costs of improvements designated in the
Board's adopted watershed management plan for construction by the Board,
which the Board determines benefit more than one member, shall be
13
apportioned by the Board on a 4/5's or greater vote on the following
bases:
(a) Capital costs and the financing thereof may be apportioned to
each benefited member based on the ratio of the assessed property valua—
tion of each benefited member within the boundaries of the benefited area
to the total assessed property valuation of the benefited members in the
benefited area.
(b) Capital costs and the financing thereof may be apportioned to
each benefited member based on surface water runoff determined by "peak
flow factors" and/or the "rational method."
(c) Any combination of (a) and (b).
(d) Credits may be given to any member for lands acquired by that
member to pond or store storm and surface water.
(e) The project may be constructed and financed pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 473.$$3, only upon a 4/5 vote of the Board.
B. Member's Local Water Management Plan Improvements:
All capital improvement costs incurred by the Board for improvements
delineated in a member's Local Water Management Plan, which the Board
undertakes pursuant to Article 7, Subdivision 7, because the local unit of
government fails to do so, shall be apportioned entirely to that local unit of
government.
10. Special Assessments. The WMO shall not have the power to levy
special assessments. All such assessments shall be levied by the member(s)
wherein the benefited land is located.
11. Duration.
Subdivision 1. Expiration. Each member agrees to be bound by the terms
of this agreement until January 1, 2000, and it may be continued thereafter
upon the agreement of all the parties.
Subdivision 2. Termination. This agreement may be terminated prior to
14
G
January 1, 2000, by the written agreement of 4/5 of the member communities.
Subdivision 3. Dissolution. In addition to the manner provided in
Subdivision 2 for termination, any member may petition the Board to dissolve
the agreement. Upon 30 days' notice in writing to the clerk of each member
governmental unit, the Board shall hold a hearing and upon a favorable vote by
4/5 of all eligible votes of then existing Board members, the Board may by
resolution recommend that the WMO be dissolved. The resolution shall be
submitted to each member governmental unit and if ratified by 2/3 of the
governing bodies of all eligible members within 60 days, the Board shall
dissolve the WMO allowing a reasonable time to complete work in progress and
to dispose of personal property owned by the WMO.
12. Dissolution. Upon dissolution of the WMO, all property of the WMO
shall be sold and the proceeds thereof, together with monies on hand, shall be
distributed to the eligible members of the WMO. Such distribution of WMO
assets shall be made in proportion to the total contribution to the WMO
required by the last annual budget.
13. Effective Date. This agreement shall be in full force and effect
when all three (3) governmental units delineated in paragraph four (4) of this
agreement, file a certified copy of a resolution approving this agreement and
upon the execution of this agreement by all the parties. All members need not
sign the same copy. The resolution and signed agreement shall be filed with
the City Clerk of the City of Eagan, who shall notify all members in writing
of its- effective date and set a date for the Board's first meeting. The first
meeting shall take place at the Eagan Municipal Center within 120 days after
the effective date. Prior to the effective date of this agreement, any
signatory member may rescind their approval. Unless all three (3)
governmental units have signed this agreement by June 15, 1985, it shall be
null and void.
15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental units, by action of
their governing bodies, have caused this agreement to be executed in
accordance with the authority of Minn.Stat. 471.59.
Approved by the City Council
,1985
Approved by the City Council
►1985
Approved by the City Council
,1985
-
CITY OF EAGAN
.By
Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
By
Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
GUN CLUB LAKE
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
.JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT B - AREAS
lu
NATURAL
GUN CLUB
LAKE
PERCENT OF
CITY
WATERSHED
WMO WATERSHED
TOTAL AREA
Eagan
18,905 Ac
18,915
Ac
89.03
Mendota Heights
1,445 Ac
1,390
Ac
6.54
Inver Grove Heights
1,070 Ac
940
Ac
4.43
Mendota
25 Ac
-
-
Rosemount
2,125 Ac
-
-
Apple Valley
905 Ac
-
-
Lower MN River
Watershed
2,590 Ac
-
-
27,065 Ac
21,245
Ac
100.0
lu
RESOLUTION #
GUN CLUB LAKE WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, in 1982, the Minnesota legislature passed
statutes 471.59 and 473.875 requiring communities within the
seven county metropolitan area to formulate and establish definitive
watersheds; and
WHEREAS, management of each watershed is to be handled
by a watershed management organization to be established through
a joint powers agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Gun Club Lake Watershed has been recognized
and defined to incorporate the communities of Eagan, Inver Grove
Heights and Mendota Heights;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council
of approves the Joint Powers Agreement establish-
ing a watershed management organization for the Gun Club Lake
Watershed incorporating communities of Eagan, Inver Grove Heights
and Mendota Heights.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk
are hereby authorized to execute herein referenced Joint Powers
Agreement.
It was so moved by , seconded by
with all members voting in favor and none opposed.
Date:
Attest: By:
Mayor
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
June 4, 1985
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Fraz
City Administ ton
SUBJECT: Add-on Agenda for June 4, 1985
There is only one additional item for this evening's agenda, 10L. -
Transplant of trees. However, item 8 - Gun Club Lake WMO is recommended
to be moved to item 10k., and there is additional information for items 9a.
and 10j.
3. Agenda Adoption
It is recommended that Council adopt the agenda moving Item 8 to Item 10K,
and adding Item 10L.
8. Resolution on Gun Club Lake Water Management Organization ,
Attorney Dave Moran will not be present. Public Works Director Danielson
and I will answer any questions. Therefore, as a courtesy to the many people
that will be present for other items, it is recommended that this be moved to later
in the agenda.
9a. North End Street Improvements
Please see the attached letter from area resident, Donald 0. Olson.
Also, if Council desires, I will be prepared to highlight my memo for the audience.
10j. I-494 Corridor Study
Please see attached memo.
10L. Transplant of Trees
See attached memo.
KDF:madlr
il
583 Hiawatha Avenue
8t, Paull M0 55118
457-6473
Robert G. Lnckvood^ Mayor
City of Mendota Heights
750 South Plaza Drive
Mendota DeiQbta, MN 55I20
Dear Mayor:
It appears there is considerable confusion and disagreement relative
to the road improvement and curbing proposal for the Northeast area
of Mendota Heights.
Many folks won't express themselves in o public meeting for one
reason or another' but will indicate tbier wishes in a letter if
given the opportunity. Several vocal individuals at the public
hearings have made it appear they are speaking for the majority,
which isn't necessarily the case.
I suggest the specific projects that are proposed be detailed in
a letter to each property owner along with any alternative plans^
each with the approximate price so the bmuemxoer can figure his
particular cost and then check the option he wants from the choices
you give him. The reply would give you o clear indication of all
the peoples wkobes on the matter which I assume is what you are
after.
This issue is tom costly not to gine full opportunity to each
property owner euvolved the chance to express their desire on
exactly nbot they want done or not done.
Your consideration of this suggestion will be greatly appreciated.
Yours truly,
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Frazel
City AdminiSZ ator
SUBJECT: 1-494 Corridor Study
BACKGROUND
June 4, 1985
As indicated in the memo submitted with your agenda packet, the Planning
Commission has requested Council to authorize a study by Planner Dahlgren of
the 1-494 corridor from 35E to Delaware.
Since the Planning Commission meeting last week, staff has also learned
that Tandem Corporation has purchased the Opus property generally southeast of
Huber Drive. Their preliminary plans are for approximately 150 single family
homes, with some land to the south left for attached housing at a later date.
Like the Riley proposal, this development also has zoning and 494 compatibility
issues surrounding it. As they hope to be before the Planning Commission this
month, the 494 study increases in urgency.
PROPOSED STUDY
Planner Dahlgren has suggested that the study be accomplished in two
stages, a preliminary analysis and report, in the form of memo and drawing,
then a final plan document to be adopted into the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The report would analyze:
highway noise impacts
airport noise impacts
economic impact on City's tax base
density and land use patterns
compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods
Because of the Tandem proposal, Howard has suggested that the study area include
not only the 494 corridor, but the area east of Huber Drive as far north as the
Dodge Nature Center.
As part of the report, Howard and his staff would meet with current land-
owners and abutting property owners to get their input. The report would also
include neighborhood meetings with the broader surrounding community (i.e.,
Friendly Hills, etc.).
Howard's firm is taking aerial photographs later this week, and if
Council approves the study, would inch de this area.
- 2 -
COST
The cost for Phase I, the preliminary report, would be $6,000 - $8,500,
not -to -exceed the later figure. Phase II would be an additional $9,000 -
$12,000, again, not to exceed the later figure.
FINANCING
The adopted Planning budget includes approximately $17,000 for special
projects. We feel it would be safe to pay for at least Phase I from this
source. Phase II would then be paid either from remaining funds in the account
later in the year and/or from General Fund balance.
As an alternative, we could apply to the Metropolitan Council for an interest-
free local planning loan. We have levied $7,500 for the past two years to pay off
an earlier loan, and could continue that levy for a couple more years.
ACTION REQUIRED
If Council concurs with the need for this study, it should pass a motion
authorizing Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., to commence the study, and the
City Administrator to finalize a consultant's contract to be considered at the
June 18th meeting.
KDF:madlr
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kevin D. Fraze 7zz5)
City Adminis ator
SUBJECT: Transplant of Trees
June 4, 1985
The City has 12 relatively mature ash and spruce trees surrounding
the sanitary lift station north of Mendota Heights Road, near Transport
Drive. These trees are actually planted on property owned by United
Properties, and United has said that the trees will need to be removed
as a part of their construction of Southridge Business Center.
Staff feels that the trees should be transplanted to other City
property. The job could probably be accomplished in half a day, with the
hiring of a tree spade (estimated cost $65/hr.). Our thought was that a
logical place to put these trees would be on the grassy spot behind the
lot that we are selling on the corner of Marie and Summit. Councilmember
Blesener has agreed that this would be a good way to accomplish some of the
desired landscaping on this lot. I have also talked with Park Chairman
Stein, who indicates that it is also an acceptable plan to him.
ACTION REQUIRED
For Council to indicate whether the above proposal would be an acceptable
plan. No formal action would be required.
KDF:madlr
LIST OF 1985 CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 4, 1985
xcavatinq License:
M. J. Ryan Construction, Company
Fence Installation License:
Able Fence, Inc.
Midwest Fence and Manufacturing Company
Gas Piping License:
Egan and Sons Company
Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
General Contractor's License:
Steel Fence and Construction
Nick Heinen
Holle Construction
Heating and Air Conditioning License:
Egan and Sons Company
IST OF 1985 RUBBISH HAULERS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 4, 1985
Roadway Rubbish
City of Mendota Heights
Dakota County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -
RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS
AND APPURTENANCES TO SERVE CHIPPEWA AVENUE, ELLEN STREET, GARDEN
LANE, HIAWATHA AVENUE, FREMONT AVENUE, MUNICIPAL STATE AID
PROJECT NO. 140-108-01 AND ADJACENT AREAS
(NORTHEND STREETS, IMPROVEMENT NO. 79, PROJECT NO. 3)
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 4th day of June, 1985, at
8:00 o'clock P.M. in the City Hall of the City of Mendota Heights,
Minnesota pursuant to resolution duly adopted by the City Council of
the City of Mendota Heights on the question of the proposed construc-
tion of the following described improvements:
(ALTERNATIVE A)
The installation of a bituminous overlay on all the above streets
together with a limited amount of Storm Sewer, including appurtenances
and incidentals thereto.
(ALTERNATIVE B)
The installation of a bituminous overlay on all the above streets
together with Storm Sewers and Curb and Gutter, including appurtenances
and incidentals thereto.
WHEREAS, due publication of the notice of public hearing on said pro-
posed construction has been attended to; and
WHEREAS, mailed notice of said hearing has been mailed more than 10
days before the date of said hearing to the owners of each parcel
situated within the area proposed to be assessed, all in accordance
with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director reported that the proposed improve-
ment and construction thereof were feasible and desirable and further
reported on the proposed costs of said improvements and construction
thereof; and
WHEREAS, the area proposed to be assessed for said improvements is
situated within the City of Mendota Heights in Dakota County, Minnesota
and is more particularly described as follows:
The property lying West of Delaware Avenue, North of Junction
lane, East of State Trunk Highway No. 13, and South of Annapolis
Street.
WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested
in said improvement and all persons were afforded an opportunity to
present their views and objections to the making of said improvements.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mendota Heights, Minnesota as follows:
1. That it is advisable, feasible, expedient and necessary that
the City of Mendota Heights construct the above described improvements,
and it is hereby ordered that said improvement be made.
2. That the Public Works Director be and he is hereby authorized
and directed to prepare plans and specifications for said improve-
ment.
3. That said improvement shall hereafter be known and designated
as Improvement No. 79, Project No. 3.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 4th day of
June, 1985.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
By
Robert G. Lockwood, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen M. Swanson
City Clerk
SMOUNT
27 .0 0 */
587.10
836.50
436.30
155.0
651.25
"281 .jO
682.50
6 20 .0 0
15500
4,404.35
CHECK REGIST=R
VENDOR
MEDCENTERS HP
MEDCENTERS !HP
MEDCENTERS HP
ME OCENTERS HP
ME-DCENTERS HP
MEOC-NTERS HP
MEOCENTER3 HP
MFDCENTERS HP
M EDCENTERS AHP
ITEM DESCRIPTION
JUN PREM
JUN PREM
JUN PREM
JUN PREM
JUN PREM
JUN FREM
JUN PREM
JUN PREM
JUNPREM
ACCOUNT N0. IN%
01-2074-000-00
01-4131-020-20
01-4131-021-20
01-4131-040-40
01-4131 -0 50- 50
01-4131-070-70
01-4131-110-10
05-4131-105-15
15-41 31-060- 60
833.33-
METRO JAST= CONTROL
JUN
INSTALL
14-3575-000-00
6.732.00
METRO WASTE CONTROL
APR
SAC CHGS
r 15-4448-060-60
6973230
_
METRO WASTE CONTROL
MAY
SAC CFGS
15-4448-060-60
221227.65
M - TRO WASTE CONTROL
JUN
INSTALL
15-4449-060-60
29083.33-
M;TRO WAST= CONTROL
JUN
INSTALL
17-3575-000-00
32,774.99
*�
#
7.90
MILLER PGrNTTNG
SUPR
PERS CARDS
} G1-4300-020-20
41.75
MILL -R ?RI,NT1NG
BUS
CARCS KAISER
; 01-4300-030-30
135.75
MILLER PRINTING
FIRE
I NSP RP?S
CI -4300-030-30
7.RO
MILLER PRINTING
SUPR
PERS CARD
(311-4300-030-30
7.87
MILLER PRINTING
SUPR
PERS CARDS
01-4300-040-40
7.75
_ _
MILLER PRINTING _ _
_ SUPR
:PERS CARDS
I 01-4300-050-50
7.90
MILLER POINTING
SUPR
PERS CARCS
01-4300-110-10
41.75
MILLER PRINTING
BUS
CARDS ECKLES
j 05-4300-105-15
258.20
*/
i
19295..)0
MINN MINIVG&MFG
OPTICOM
EMITTER
12-4620-000-00
1 9295 .0.3
*/
322,19
N^QT-AERN ST POWER CO
MAY
SVC
i
i 01-4211-300-50
49.43
NORTHERN ST POWER CU
MAY
SVC
; 01-4212-315-30
370.62
*/
j
176.01
NORTHWESTERN BELL
MAY _.SVC
01-4210-020-20
110.95
NORTHWESTERN BF'LL
MAY
SVC
S1-4210-730-30
37.46
NI.;RTHWESTLRN BELL
MAY
SVC
Cl -4210-050-50
28.27
i'+ 10RTIWESTCRN BELL ,
MAY
SVC
01-4210-070-70
37 .46
NnRTH WESTERN BELL
MAY
SVC
01- 4 2 10- 070- 70
292.63
NORTHWEST --4N BELL
MAY
SVC
; 01-4210-110-10
AMOUNT
12 .1 5
208.1 2 */
CHECK REGISTER
VEND0R ITEM DESCRIPTION
FR AZ=LL KEVIN MTG EXP
19.95
1 C M A
19.95 *,
6.35
132.31
ICMA RC
66.19
ICMA RC
198.50 */
4.72
881.25
KAISER. PAJL
881.25 *i
KNUTH
10.100
KNUTH
TOM
6.35
KNUTH
TOM
6., 6
KNUTH
TOM
4.72
KNUTH
TOM
21.93
KNUTH
TOM
2.26
KNUTH
TOM
51.32 +�
NEG LOC GCVT PUBL
5/24 PAYRCLL
5/24 PAY RCLL
MAY SVC
JUNE ALLCW
MI THRU 5/28
SPL YS
MITHRRU 5/28
MI THRU 5/28
MI THRU 5/28
19800.90 LAHA3S MFG&SALES INC PLOW
1980r-=.00 */
13.95 LA'IGJLA H3NE
29.96 LANGULA HDWE
43.91 */
1 53. -1 0 L'= LS
153.03 */
49.80 LMCIT HP ALAN
303.?0 LMCIT HP, 'LAN
67.74 LMCIT MIP ALAN
417.54 */
LING
PARTS
JUNE DUE S
JUN PREM
JUN PREM
JUN PREM
,ACCOUNT N0. INV,
01-4490-11C 1
01-4402-110-10
01-2072-000-00
01-41 34-110- 10
01-4268-1 50- 30
05-4415-105-15
0 5- 4 415- 105- 15
51-4305-925-00
51-4415-925-00
87-4415-812-00
97-4415-825-00
01-4630-070-70
01-4305-070-70
01-4330-490-70
01-2075-070-00
01 -2074 -000 -OD 1
01-4131.020-20 l
01-4131-021-20 i
9.30 LEFF BROS IN-- POKY SVC 01-4335-310
9.r0 L -'-:'EF BROS INC MAY SVC 01-4335-310-70
9000 LErF BROS INC MAY SVC 15-4335-310-60
AMOUNT
5.10
01
98. �d�
98.00 *�
81,73
30.63
20.42
10.21
142,99 */
90.^0
90.00 */
150«29
150.29 *�
5 , 7n9 .79
71.40
2,573.63
557.40
1 v295.03
59.1 7
36.111 .67
1 86.1 5
2 13S3.33-
132,60
10.78
1 .00
21 .93
2.26
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOI
STREICN--R DON GUNS
UNITED CE.XiT TRUSTE--:-
UNITED
RUSTEEUNITED CENT TRUSTEE
UNITED CENT TRUSTEE
UNITED CENT TRUSTEE
UNITED WAY -ST PAUL
VIKING INDUSTRIAL CT
FUND
01
TOTAL
FUND
03
TOTAL
FUVD
05
TOTAL
FUND
10
TOTAL
FUND
12
TOTAL
FU4D
14
TOTAL
"TOTAL
FUND
15.
FUVD
16
TOTAL
FUND
17
TOTAL
FUND
21
TOTAL
FUND
51
TOTAL
_. FU4 0
79
TOTAL
FUND
87
TOTAL
FUVD
97
TOTAL
54,642.45 TOTAL
ITEM DESCRIPTION
FE0 NYCLAC
JUN PREM
JUN PREP
JUN .PREM
JUN PREM
JUN WH
MISC SPLYS
GENERAL FUND
WATER REVENUE FUND
EAfGR ENTERPPISE
SPECIAL PARK FUND
EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES
CONSOLIDATED DEBT SERVIC
SEWER— .UT ILI T Y
TID 179-7/81-4/82-2/82-6
UTIL RESERVE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
179-3 MIRIAM—HIAW DRAINA
183-4,/83-4E GPYC/OAK CTY
IS5-1 ANDER/CURLEY
ACCOUNT NO. I.A
01 —4410-020— 2C
r-1-2071-000-00
C1-4132-020-20
01-4132-0 50- 50
01-4132-070— 70
01— 2 070— 000-00
01-4305-020-20
AMOUNT
64.73
37.46
792.97 �✓
1 85.J0
140.110
325.10
CHECK REGISTER
VEN0OR ITEM DESCRIPTION
NORTHWESTERN BELL MAY SVC
NORTAWESTEIN BELL MAY SVC
OAK CREST KENNELS
OAK REST KENNELS
9.96 PAYLESS CASHWAYS .INC
9.38 PAYLESS CASHWAYS INC
19.34 *.,-
178,95
/
178.95 'PLCUMEN RICHARD
14.75 FLOUMEN RIC4ARD
193 .'0
RET /CALLS PAY
MAY IMP
DRAIN PIPE
2X3S
SPRG CONT
PLATES85 CHEV
ACCOUNT N0. Ikl
05-4210-10 '5
15-4210-06. .0
01-4221-800-90
01-4225-800-90
01-4305-070-70
�1-4330-490-70
01-4400-050-50
01-4490-070-70
134.53
PRUD-NTIAL
JUN
PREM
01-2074-000-00
7C.00
PRUDENTIAL
JUN
PREM
01-4131-020--'0
204.53 *�
86.25
S&T OFFIC=
PROD
FLUOR
MAGNIF LAMP
01-4300-020-20
3.28
S&T OFFIC=
PROD
SHT
PROTECTOR
01-430_0_-020-20
18.94
S&T OFFICE
PROD
SCRIOT
ELEMENT
01-4300-020-20
17.21
SRT ')FFIC-
PROD
iN/ GUT
BOARD
01-4300-020-20
9.52-
S&T OFFICE
PROD
RTN
FOLDERS
05-4300-105-15
116.16 */
35.0fi3
SELAND=R DUANE
C
JUNE
ALLOW
01-4415-200-70
35.)0 *�
1.165.35
SHAUGHNESSY
L =
JR
MAY
SVC
01-4220-132-10
71.40
SHAUSHVESSY
L E
JR
MAY
SVC
03-4220-132-00
102.:0
3HAUGHVES3Y
L E
JR
MAY
SVC
05=4220-132-15
892.50
SHAUGHNESSY
L E
JR
MAY
SVC
14-4220-132-00
186.15
SHAUGHNESSY
L E
JR
MAY
SVC
16-4220-132-00
132.60
SHAUGHNESSY
L E
JR
MAY
SVC
21-4220-132-00
2 v 5 50 . ).D */}
5.10
SHAW LUMAER
CO
RED
CEDAR 1X12
01-4305-050-50
MANUAL
CHECKS:
10777
50.00
St. Paul Police
Trng REgr.D. Anderson -
10778
6,125._00_lst„Bank
St Paul
G.O. Cert Int &Fee
10779
28,829.75.—.
American Natl Bank
St Aid Bonds
10780
35.00
11PELRA
Regr. K. Frazell
10781
4,486.16
St Treas PERA..
5/10 PERA
10782
2,664.68
St. Treas SS Fd
5/24 FICA
10783
4,872.91
Dir Int Rev
5/24 FIT
10784
475.00
DCB
5/24 Payroll, Deductions
10785
1,323.72
SCCU
if
10786
22,643.30
City MH PR Acct
Net Payroll 5/24
71,505.52
GT
126,147.97
54.99
CITY
MOTOR _SUPPLY
GATES/S BEAM
01-4330-440-20
C+IECK REGISTER
CITY
MOTOI SUPPLY
"MOUNTVENDO?
01-4330-460-30
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. IN1
40.97
ANDERSEN EARL F&ASSO
CLE VIS
01-4305-070-70
340.;;0
ANDERSEN EARL F&ASSO
POSTS
01-4420-050-50
380.97 *,-
C04ST
TO CUAST
miSC
5.30
AT & T INFO SYSTEMS
MAY SVC
01-4210-050-50
5.29
AT 3 T INFO SYSTEMS
MAY SVC
171-4210-070-70
5.33
AT & T INFO SYSTEMS
MAY SVC
15-4210-060-60
15.59 */
TO COAST
FITTINGS
01-4330-490-70
24.30
B&J AUTiJ S?LYx ^�
CABLE NE 6 TRK
01-4330-4917-70
24.30 v
54.99
CITY
MOTOR _SUPPLY
GATES/S BEAM
01-4330-440-20
47.77
CITY
MOTOI SUPPLY
BETTERY CABLE
01-4330-460-30
7.33
CITY
MOTOR SUPPLY
4C
01-4330-490-70
110.14
1.2
C04ST
TO CUAST
miSC
C1-4305-050-50
COAST
TO COAST
I'll ISC
C1-4305-050-50
1.17
COAST
TO COAST
M?SC
01-43(25-050-50
6.(24
COAST
TO COAST
FITTINGS
01-4330-490-70
9.73 *�
74.15 CONTEL CR=)IT CORP JUN OYMT 01-4210-020-20
118.65 CONT=L CREDIT CORP JUN PYMT 01-4210-110-10
59.32 CONTEL CR=)IT CORP JUN PYMT (15-4210-105-15
252.12 */
1 •601 *131 DCR CORP. JUN RENT 01-4200-600-10
905.00 OCR CORD. JUN RENT 01-4200-600-20
19664.)0 DCR CORP. JUN RENT 05-4200-600-15
4,170.t'0 *-/
90.?0 0FF"iNIS DELMONT JUN ALLOW 01-4415-021-20
90.00
175.00 FRAZELL KEVIN JUN ALLOW 01-4415-110-10
20.97 FRAZELL KEVIN SUMEKNKSHF LXY 0.1-4490-110-10
6/4/85 CLAIMS LIST
MOUNT
5.70
5.00
5.^0
15.00 *i
3.75
37.79
41.54 */
20.?'
20 .
43.35
43.35
1 5.?0
15.:0 *�
49.41
49.41 *,
208.26
20.26
1.^C
149,31
62.J0-
46.00
390.`?0
523.70
41 .106
41.?6
92.75
92.75 *i
1 74.2 5
550.40
724.65 �
48.00
4p. ;0 +►�
8.30
23.70
20
111.45
111 .45 */
vepL iu-gamin
15-Engr
_r
50-Rd&Bridge "
20 -Police
��
79-4475-802-00
60 -Utilities
CHECK
REGISTER ///
01-4250-110-10
70 -Parks
30 -Fire
ADDTLFS ENO 11
01-4250-110-10
80 -Planning
VENDOR
IT= M
DESCRIPTION
90-AnimaACGZ%lU i l N0. IN1
ABC REVITALS
FLOOR
BUFFER
01-4335-31' 0
ABC RENTALS
FLOOR
BUFFER
01-4335-31, 0
ABC RENTALS
FLOOR
BUFFEP
15-4335-310-60
ARCD MINN-_SOTA-INC
ARCO MINNESOTA INC
FLOY3 A'RNOT
MNDOT COMM TRSPT
DATLYK SONS 3T
KRECHS 'OFFICE MCH
KREM=R SPRG&ALIGN
M A C
LMCIT A:MER BUS RISK
LMCIT 4 -MED BUS RISK
LMCIT AMER BUS RISK
LMCIT AMER BUS RISK
NORTHERN AUTOMOTIVE
SPE---) PRINT
CHAMPION INTL CORP
CHAMPION lNTL CORP
INTL ASSN CH POLICE
Tr MA 3FPT RESEARCH
EDWARD VAILLANCORT
RUFFR.DGE JOHNSON
CORRESPONC FORMS FM 01-4300-030-30
EASEL FADS .01-4300-110-10
ADJ APR/MAY INS SIH C1-4131-020-20
RE -LAMP 35E/110 01-4330-420-50
RFD DEPOSIT 05-3371-000-00
MTCN IBM&7Y1=EE.LEM
01-4330-490-50
RPRS 302
15-4330-490-60
HWYEASE
79-4475-802-00
ADDTL FS END 12
01-4250-110-10
B3ILER INSOLL FS
01-4250-110-10
ADDTL FS END 2
01-4250-110-10
ADDTLFS ENO 11
01-4250-110-10
PARTS 2287
01-4330-460-30
PRINT&COLLATE 01-4305-020-20
16 GA ENDS ECTIONS ri1-4337-050-50
16 GA S TEEL/=LB3!WS 13-4330-000-00
RENEWALORDER VOL16 01-4402-020-20
PUBL 35963 01-4402-110-10
ADJ ,APR 7MA Y .INS WH C1-41 31-020-20
BRA KEASS yY 306 C,1-4330-490--
_
DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT
MENDOTA HIGHLANDS
MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA
DEVELOPER
MENDOTA HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES
May, 1985
The -proposed Mendota Highlands project
REQUESTED ACTION consists of 592 rental apartment units on
a 69.7 acre site for a density of 8.5
units per acre. The eight 3 -story
buildings contain 74 units each. Site
amenities include 2 outdoor pools, 4
tennis courts and a recreation building
with an indoor pool, patio area and party
room. The site is presently zoned R-1
and R -1A and guided for low density and
rural residential.
Requested is review by the City of
Mendota Heights Planning Commission and
Council for:
- Comprehensive Plan amendment to High
Density Residential .
- Rezoning to R-3 Multiple Family
Residential.
- Preliminary Development Plan review
under the Planned Unit Development
ordinance (P.U.D.) for more than one
(1) principal building per lot.
Variance to the off street parking
requirement of 2.5 spaces per unit to
2.08 acres per unit (1.08 enclosed,
1.0 open).
1
The site topography is rolling with a
SITE ANALYSIS number of high points, depression areas
and small ponds. Elevations range from
about 862 in the north central part of
the site to about 908 along the southern
boundary. The land and runoff generally
fall to the east and north to pond areas.
According to the Soil Survey of Dakota
County, the existing soils are primarily
sandy loams and generally suitable for
development given some modification or
avoiding development in certain areas.
Soils include the following:
49B - Antigo silt loam, 1-8%
150B - Spencer silt loam, 2-6%
155B - Chetek sandy loam, 3-8%
155C - Chetek sandy loam, 8-15%
189 - Auburndale silt loam
208 - Kato silty clay loam
342B - Kingsley sandy loam, 3-8%
342C - Kingsley sandy loam, 8-15%
344 - Quam silt loam
895C - Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer
complex, 8-15%
1824 - Quam silt loam, ponded
1902B - Jewett silt loam, 1-6%
Tree cover is a mix of oak, elm,
boxelder, cottonwood, poplar, silver
maple and cherry. The major massing is
along the northeast and east boundary
around 2 small ponds. The remainder of
the site has some scattered trees but is
primarily open, grassed fields.
Adjacent existing land use to the north,
east and west is large lot, single family
residential. Zoning for these areas is
one family residential. The Land Use
Plan shows rural residential to the east
and northeast, low density residential to
the west, and school and park to the
northwest. A project called Amesbury
East, consisting of 70 townhouse units,
was proposed for the property to the east
and reviewed by the City in 1981 but is
now inactive. Adjacent to the south is
Interstate Highway 494 (now under
construction).
2
Site access is by way of Mendota Heights
Road, which is a newly constructed 44
foot roadway from Highway 149 (Dodd Road)
that now ends at the northeast corner of
the site. Plans are for Mendota Heights
Road to continue east to Delaware Avenue
(County Road 63) along the north site
boundary.
A 12 inch watermain within Mendota
Heights Road provides municipal water
service to the site. This trunk water
will be looped to Delaware Avenue and
Huber Drive with future extensions of
Mendota Heights Road and Huber Drive.
Sanitary sewer to service the site is
located about 800 feet to the north at
Huber Drive and will be extended to the
site along with Huber. Other utilities
consist of an underground gas pipe line
and overhead electric transmission line
running together (southeast to northwest)
across the east part of the site.
3
;i _
', � , • �^� F IC. �c ..rte—}.,};, • :,.s: tu[ ... _
.o t 4
NIG 4 ww,
1 � ♦ Jv O i — -- •
110••
+ I !• % i
I M[Mp .^/�at corsroi a �o�•.•p• .vs
hr, � Y � .a•1 J
f
• 1 � w
Nature
r
r C
J!L I., a Preserve
Ilk
1 �
LR RR
p 'Ile
.iM
an
LR
♦ t :' '
Ilk �.
SITE
4 LAND USE PLAN
111 \ ,.• z I 1 ,tea. ._ w _,. �.
CiT ■ 1 ; � 1 i
XALL 1
Li
IlBe2
_:
r ----------I
ERN
POWER nn '
�ITION h 11 I 1
EA5£YII,T
1
= I { FRIEN Y MARSH
PARR*IA-
-
IHERI ARIL
_1
/ AT
/ RArYpO STi V ,'�( l
O
KAZEL
O,P
K '77R•IB-.
y
j 1 �
• '{r. rte• •}rv'r., -
MENDOTA • . '.{+ »ti}vr,:;:; :;:ti if;.� •�r•r'•r:.' — -
� 1 rf •;.;:;r � 1 {. ;:;:fir •'r /• <
< V
\__ `-'`�� I •fir.•'{: :•''•':•::r:: •:•'•:'`•:•::»;'••:•:•r •••'b:hY - _. .. 14
_—_'--r--t — 7 ------- — ----_��:. _,- ---1"".�—r,.�-'fs•'••. --•— .IPS
LA
K' _i'`
SITE`�..-
s ZONING
PROPOSAL
Requested is review of proposed MENDOTA
HIGHLANDS for the following:
- Change in Comprehensive Plan for this
area from rural and low density
residential to multifamily and
corresponding rezoning to R-3.
Because of the change of character of
the site, primarily due to this
construction of I-494, we believe our
request is in the best interests of
the immediate area and Mendota Heights
in general. When completed, the
project should generate approximately
$500,000.00 in additional Real Estate
Taxes. The land to the west has only
two houses on it and, because of the
freeway construction, it seems clear
that this is not the most desirable
area for single family residential
and, that sometime in the future, a
higher use will be proposed for this
land. The land to the east was
approved for a townhouse project
(Amesbury East, 70 units) which
indicates a trend to attached housing
in this area.
- Preliminary plan review of a P.U.D. to
allow construction of eight, 74 unit,
3 -story rental apartment buildings on
one lot. The buildings will be
similar to those recently built at
Lexington Heights, also in Mendota
Heights, by the same developer.
- Variance to the off street parking
requirement of 2.5 stalls per unit to
allow 2.08 stalls per unit (1.08
enclosed, 1.0 open). In view of the
experience we have had at Lexington
Heights Apartments, we do not feel it
is necessary to provide one and one-
half outside parking as required in
the ordinance. We would however,
agree to provide additional parking in
the future should this amount prove
inadequate.
We propose to construct the project in
four, 148 unit phases (moving west to
east), starting in the fall of 1985 with
total completion in 3 to 5 years
depending on market conditions. We would
0
start constructing the main recreation
facilities in conjunction with the second
phase of development. Since the entire
project will be owned by one entity,
there will be no common open space, but
there will be a separate lot for the main
recreational facilities. The main
recreational facilities will consist of
an indoor pool, sauna, game room, card
room, exercise room, a large party room
and the management office for the
project. In addition, there will be two
outside pool areas and two tennis court
areas which will be constructed with the
various phases.
The natural terrain, trees, ponds and low
area will be preserved to the greatest
extent possible. The style of the
buildings will be similar to Lexington
Heights Apartments in that the entire
building, except for the balcony areas,
will be brick and the balcony treatment
will be the same. The roof line will be
changed to be more rustic looking and
more in keeping with the rural atmosphere
of this project. All other details of
the project will be equal to or better.
Site grading has provided maximum buffer
to I-494 and retention of site character.
In view of the favorable reception of
Lexington Heights Apartments together
with the proposed and existing business
development to the south of the freeway
and the accessability provided to other
areas of the metropolitan area because of
the new freeway, we feel that there will
be a strong market for the type of
housing that we are proposing. The rent
range ($455-$660 for 1 and 2 bedroom
units) will -be similar to Lexington
Heights and the facilities equal or
better.
In conjuction with this application, we
intend to seek mortgage revenue bonds to
finance this project.
The proposed density is 8.5 units per
acre (on 69.7 acres) which is well below
the density allowed in an R-3 zoning
district. Based on a unit mix of 29 one
bedroom, 44 two bedroom and 1 three
bedroom units for each 74 unit building
W
and a 300 square feet credit per unit for
underground parking, the proposed 592
units could be supported on 57.4* acres.
The use of P.U.D. is proposed to best
utilize the site, to protect trees and
other site amenities and to best protect
and minimize impact on adjacent property.
The proposal meets or exceeds all yard
regulations for a R-3 district.
The project will offer housing for
present Mendota Heights residents who
desire an alternative to single family
home ownership and for those who now and
will work in the various existing and
future business south of I-494 in Eagan.
We will submit a preliminary plat of the
property which will divide the land into
nine different lots, one for each
building and one for the main
recreation area. At this time we feel a
preliminary indication of the approval of
the project should be obtained before
submission of the proposed plat. It is
our intent to dedicate whatever land is
necessary for the completion of Mendota
Heights Road.
Two site access points are proposed from
Mendota Heights Road. They will be
connected by an internal, private 30 foot
wide collector loop road. Mendota
Heights Road now provides access to the
northwest corner of the site. It's Huber
Drive and Mendota Heights Road will be
extended through the area when development
of this site occurs. Sanitary sewer will
become available to the site with the
Huber Drive extension. Municipal water,
presently located at the northwest corner
of the site, will be looped thru the site
with hydrants at various locations and
connect back to future trunk water
extensions to be installed with Mendota
Heights Road and Huber Drive. Storm
water runoff will be collected by storm
sewer or overland swales to various low
ponding areas around the site. The
necessary drainage and utility easements
will be provided as •required for public
improvements.
E:]
The plantings will use a combination of
ash, maple, linden, oak, cherry, crab,
hawthorn, pine, spruce, fir (to name a
few) along with a variety of shrubs to
compliment existing preserved vegetation,
screen and buffer sensitive areas,
enhance the buildings and to visually
screen and soften the parking areas. A
project identification sign will be
located within each entry island.
Traffic analysis indicates the proposed
site use will generate a total ADT of
3611 trips (6.1 trips per unit) on Mendota
Heights Road. Of this amount, 2734 trips
will be to and from the west and 877
trips to and from the east. By
comparison, a single family development
of 3 units per acee (10.2 trips per unit)
will generate 2132 total ADT. An
analysis of the P.M. peak hour traffic
shows the following assuming that a
single family plan for the site would
have the same access points to Mendota
Heights Road.
P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIPS
592 units 209 units
Movement Multi -family Single/family
West
access
right
turn in
174
98
West
access
left
turn out
69
45
West
access
right
turn out
17
11
East
access
right
turn in
86
48
East
access
left
turn out
29
19
East
access
right
turn out
15
9
Total Site Generation 390 230
Based on these figures and future
extension of Mendota Heights Road, the
roadway system servicing this site will
be adequate to accept the site traffic
generation for sometime into the future.
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Total Site Area
Existing Zoning
Proposed Zoning
Existing Land Use Plan
Proposed Land Use
Proposed Units
Site Density (592 unit/69.7 acres)
Proposed Parking (2.08 stalls/unit)
Variance
Enclosed underground (1.08/unit)
Open (9' x 20' - 1.0/unit)
Total
Ordinance Requirement (2.5 stalls/
unit)
Zoning Regulations
Front Yard Minimum
Side/Rear Yard Minimum
Distance between buildings
Lot width
Parking Setbacks
Front Yard Minimum
Side/Rear Yard Minimum
To Building
OWNER
Jim Riley
2320LexingtonAvenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
DEVELOPER
Mendota Heights Associates
2320 Lexington Avenue
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
10
- 69.7± acres
- R-1, R -1A
- R-3
- Low density/rural residential
- High density residential
- 592
- 8.5 units per acre
- 640 stalls
- 592 stalls
1232 stalls
- 50 ft.
- 40 ft.
- 50 ft.
- 150 ft.
- 40 ft.
- to ft.
- to ft.
S
:r
,C>C LE
ter, ti.Lsx�
ry' ' 3
Js NJ,—,,",,asv �o S t N l
r
• "tt � 1
V)
- I
i
i
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 28, 1985
?-
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Adm' S�raa
FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Modified CAO Site Plan Review for 711 Woodridge Drive
DISCUSSION
Gausman Builders, Inc., on behalf of Donald Taylor, 711 Woodridge Drive,
has submitted building and site plans requesting approval of a building permit
to construct a 12' x 12' three -season porch addition. Staff has reviewed the
plans and made a site visit and finds that the addition will be in'excess of
the 40 foot setback required from a 40% slope (bluffline) as required by the
Critical Area Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recommend approval of the permit as requested subject to
Council review.
ACTION REQUIRED
The action required is if Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation
to approve the modified CAO site plan review, it should pass a motion approving
the issuance of the building permit as requested.
PRB:madlr
SITE�PLAN
PREMIER BUILDERS
SCALE: 1" = 100'
J
Hi.Aw
0
lV
,;,;,;;;;;;,
r
.40
�4
• .- •• - � `34'•5 ,s* ' � • ' .
Lot 6, Block 2 GUAD?ALUPE HEIGHTS Dakota, County, Minnesota.
This map represents an..overlay, o.£ a blowup .of the City ..of Mendota Heights aerial
contour map over the plat of GUADALUPE HEIGHTS. No field survey was performed
verify the relationship of the contours to the lot lines shown. Also depicted
the proposed house on Lot 6 per a plot plan provided'by.the'*client.,
hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report
was prepared by' me -•or under my direct super-
vision and that' I am a duly, Registered Land
Surveyor under the laws of the'State of Minne- ]PAUL R:• McLAGAN & SON
sofa. G
�Q Q 233 Dakoq Avenue WEST ST. PAUL, MINN. $5118
Date, 7- -9-`� Reg. No. 6D Minnesota Registered Land Surveyors'
ANNUAL REPORT - TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS June 1, 1985
The City Council established the Tax Increment District No. 1 by resolution on May 5, 1981.
The Dakota County Auditor has confirmed the original taxable value of the District, and several
plan projects have received preliminary approval for action. Among the plan projects to date
approved for action are the following, including the areas of the District affected:
PLAN PROJECT ACTION COST ESTIMATE STATUS
1. Pilot Knob Road Phase I completed
2. Industrial Park Phase I completed
Phase II Railroad crossing $125,000 Pending Developer approval
3. MAC property Phase I completed
Phase II Feasibility Study
completed 350,000 Pending MAC Land Sale
4. Public Safety Relo- Construction completed 825,000
cation
5. Redevelopment, Feasibility and planning studies
149 site completed
6. NW Area Imp. Feasibility study accepted, imp- Phase 1-$470,354
provement hearing held, imp- Phase 2- 385,925
rovements ordered Phase 3- 191,688
Phase 4- 738,668
7. Hwy. 110 improve- Developer requested study Unknown
ments
As various projects proceed through the planning and feasibility stages, further
revision in priorities will probably be necessary.
Pending landowner & Council
action
Pending landowner & Mn/DOT
action
Awaiting developer escrow
deposit
AREA AFFECTED
All property in I zone
All property in I zone
All property in I zone
All property north of
Mendota Heights Road,
west of TH 55
Highway 149 property
NW quadrant
TH 110 Gould site
SURVEYING 8 ENGINEERING CO.
85285 JOB NUMBER
13 28 23 SECITWPIRN
Dennis Carlson CLIENT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 5, Block 3, KIRCHNER ADDITION
5/30/85 DATE SURVEYED
DATE DRAFTED
20 SCALE IN FEET PER INCH
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: none
FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF FOUNDATION
GARAGE FLOOR
LOWEST FLOOR
SANITARY SEWER
BENCHMARK ELEVATION
BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION:
H
5300 HIGHWAY 101 SOUTH
MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55343
STANDARD SYMBOLS
"p" Denotes 112" ID pipe with plastic plug
bearing State Registration No. 9235, set.
Denotes iron monument found.
Denotes cross chiseled in concrete surface.
"982x5" Denotes existing spot elevation measured
at the point marked by "x", in this case,
982.5 feet above mean sea level.
"982x5" Denotes proposed spot elevation at the
point marked by "x".
"-- >" Denotes proposed direction of storm water
runoff.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, survey, report
or specification was prepared by me and that I
am.a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Prof -
sional Engineer under the L s the State o
Minnesota.
am s H. Parker, Minn. Reg. No. 9235
•
12s.00.
30'
4
<
'
D
-o
r.
N'
O
-�--a
NN NNN0
26.0
�o
i z -n
O
H
5300 HIGHWAY 101 SOUTH
MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55343
STANDARD SYMBOLS
"p" Denotes 112" ID pipe with plastic plug
bearing State Registration No. 9235, set.
Denotes iron monument found.
Denotes cross chiseled in concrete surface.
"982x5" Denotes existing spot elevation measured
at the point marked by "x", in this case,
982.5 feet above mean sea level.
"982x5" Denotes proposed spot elevation at the
point marked by "x".
"-- >" Denotes proposed direction of storm water
runoff.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, survey, report
or specification was prepared by me and that I
am.a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Prof -
sional Engineer under the L s the State o
Minnesota.
am s H. Parker, Minn. Reg. No. 9235
•
0
0
0
12s.00.
4
o
-o
t
N'
O
-�--a
NN NNN0
26.0
�o
i z -n
O
n
N
G)
w
fl
0D`_
LL
W :
A
Lo
. 0
0
19
N
54.5
`" 20.0 �..
"cc
rom.SyOR�1`,,
0L �q�I F
I z 6, 00
o
D
N p
-t-Q.
A
3 3
3
0
0
0
w 07
,v ` V 1. .fA� k', `$" CGi'; �• I ` `7 - - ./�� '�� ' r9 it
f � .' rye � -/ �., � • ,- �� � N • • K .. � .' . _ - �� , • '
Lli
cc
ILL
Tip
41
' '� ' , ��.�� ��ii r'S ' `3� .. . °• , � ll ', -ate /
! RC1 ,v OM1 �, yt.. '�'` `„ a�V,t • � .
a •.
l
r}� JJ
%t ')� '•} End b. q v
�wM•r`4.e'a:,•� iiaR, Y' '/ O� 'z0 CJ. � l � ..S 9Ces `� � , 1 ,i �. + 'V � p ( i ' V' , r.�Aj►1+t ? ".k
+ ' ! � ! \ 1, , f"..{„'f:ri''•v t .a� ... . ,. . 1
tj
End L'aric.
y
�I 1 5 1 .853.0-+x. b '`� - - ,� � � ••• •, ' ... - .:�' qrj 1 �p
,135 ac¢s 17d"
'• c: G ._�S. _ � 1
8412'
8 9." *� OQ j 1� Ex Fir jr
. • �Uti/it Esq z`. - • _�. •: - _, � . � est. e t/yd��rrr;
`, �`
^ Exi Con C. CurAL
_. r v
41 ao Uzi
ap W
: rNot¢:. for Eo t�anc¢s aidJnM` � Sr � E
i9e Plazas, S'¢¢• Arally*acz`vi�,� �►
�rawi�ys.• 5�x�� �i EL
i r'
t-Lex
NA
_ I
40
•.. ; • _ • �'..C.—� b' 'SIC.-�._J. _
'- -t- . '.
ani .
Uj
VA
z
&A 4
_VaIS .29VO NO _Z07V
'�wvav�r Q4�w S"05wl ze-7A0.7.
7-77.3
lw
Ir _� V_l P(01_LV/\a_tEl
crv:i
"(:;:\fiLA :4MVLLSAnU. QA-3Y/V_'44 v/nintV/giv
:� I i i ;� 'i i i! II I
'SNI
NOWtf3SStl
00AWZ"aw t=d
It
c
0 2000 i • or.` BC CC
a�—
Scale in feet
0
ANNUAL REPORT - TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT N0. 1, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
� The City Council established the Tax Increment District No. 1 by resolution on May 5, 1981.
The Dakota County Auditor has conf irmed the original taxable value of the District, and several
plan projects have received preliminary approval for action. Among the plan projects to date
approved for action are the f ollowing, including the areas of the District affected:
PLAN PROJECT ACTION COST ESTIMATE
1. Pilot Knob Road Phase I completed
2. Industrial Park Phase I completed
June 1, 1985
STATUS
Phase II Railroad crossing $125,000 Pending Developer approval
3. MAC property Phase I completed
Phase II Feasibility Study
completed 350,000 Pending MAC Land Sale
4. Public Safety Relo- Construction completed 825,000
cation
5. Redevelopment, Feasibility and planning studies
149 site completed
6. NW Area Imp.
7. Hwy. 110 improve-
ments
Feasibility study accepted, imp-
provement hearing held, imp-
rovements ordered
Developer requested study
Phase 1-$470,354
Phase 2- 385,925
Phase 3- 191,688
Phase 4- 738,668
.
Unknown
As various projects proceed through the planning and feasibility stage's, further
revision in priorities will probably be necessary.
�",,��._ -r"- - �. •�
'> , .. . . .
Pending landowner & Council
action
Pending landowner & Mn/DOT
action
Awaiting developer escrow
deposit
AREA AFFECTED
Al1 property in I zone
Al1 property in I zone
All property in I zone
All property north of
Mendota Heights Road,
west of TH 55
Highway 149 property
NW quadrant
TH 110 Gould site
� , SITE�PLAN
� PREMIER BUILDERS � � �
� � � SCALE: 1" = 100' .
• . . .. • , . ,) .� �. •�,•• . ,
. , .r �. � � � �...... � � . _.'."� � 1'►
—J .f � .l� �' � � . I � � . ;
. ... ..
� � � �-i I �W � � � � � x �
o . � `�• . i
. � ' " f � � I . , `~' ; L� , ,. i
, ,, . � ,,.. , . . � - . � . �
. � .. , ,.� . ; �� . , �. �,
o�� , . . , ., . . . ,�• � � - :. h . -�� �: .
. ,,. � . .
��� � . . � '�:� �� o ' '� �
, ; ,�� 9 � , � . i
> ' �' �1� a . =� �� .."' � � ' � � ._; � ' �
�.� u ��- . �
� �T• � • , � �V , � 1 � .
� � ,; � �. � , . � •, ;. , •' .. . �• , � �
'r��,.;�;;.:;� ` �, , • . , � � I 'i
. . : �,';'„ •k r' • � � � �
� � �, r �� .., � � •� J .' • �;
� �i♦ •� y � '�' .�� x � .
1 ' �� r �• . r l�•rt _�1✓ I ,
�' • , � . • , • � �) �f
. . � J . I �A,• f • 1.
. .a�� �, , , , . , '', l
.���+ f�': �;�q6 : � ; :l.
r� : , � � ,� ' . . ,. . E
, � � . .�.. i . ,
. , , ,
.
J ` .. •• ' ' . , � .' . � ' �
. . , , .�
. •�`, ,;�wo . • • • � S
• ' � ' .%'- '� '�.1 , . . .. • � �. , � � .
�+ .•� �., � � ' �
. '; • � � 1 `
. � /v . ' � I
,� ; , .. . ..� . � , ?
• ' ' ''C � 't • , . , � � � ;
� �....� �,;�8 y �o .;,, �y . �, , ,,�
�C � . , �� . .. � � .
,.. � �• . �3 V .
'; ► . , • •.S .. �':,�., .�' . . .. i ,� . . ' . . .'.
J � •i, ..`:.. �. `` � i� � � I � � ' . � � • . �• '
.. . � � , .. . � � � � . . .� . . f .' �.� �,... � . .
�� � , �., . . � . =� � . .
. , .- " . .�• . . - ' . � `�y.•5 s! '' . . ,J , . �
:� , '� • �' "� 1 f � � �'r^` �� • � . �'� � ' , .
, . .. b .
. , ,. .. . . , , .,�. , . � . .
.�;., .. � . �'�,. . . , . ..
�1.� . i� :� , � : � ! -.- - . ,�' � : a �. :
Lot 6, B1ock 2 GUAI?ALUPE HEIC��ITS Dakot�, Cou.�ty, Minr�e.sota� .•
This mag represents an..overlay. o.£ a blowup of the City •,of Mendota Heights aerial
contour map over the plat•of GUADALUPE HEIGHTS. No field survey was performed, �
� verify the relationship of the contours to the 1ot lines shown. A1so depicted
the proposed house on Lot �6 per a plot plan provided' by .th,e'�client. .'
I hereby certify that this survey, pian, or report . � .
. was prepared by' me��or under my' direct supar• � � � �
vision and that' I am a duly Registered Land . �
Surveyor under the laws ofi the'State ofi Minne- � pAUL R:� McLAGAN & SON
sota. � G : . . . � ,: , : . � . .
�33 Dakoq Avcnue WEST ST. PAUL, MIN�I. 55118 .
Date �� ��— �� f7Q9. N0. � D� Minnesoti Registaed 1�nJ Sun•q•ors� .. .
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 28, 1985
T0: Mayor, City Council and City Adm' Stsa�r�
�
FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Modified CAO Site Plan Review for 711 Woodridge Drive
DISCUSSION
Gausman Builders, Inc., on behalf of Donald Taylor, 711 Woodridge Drive,
has submitted building and site plans requesting approval of a building permit
to construct a 12' x 12' three-season porch addition. Staff has reviewed the
plans and made a site visit and finds that the addition aill be in excess of
the 40 foot setback required from a 40% slope (bluffline) as required by the
Critical Area Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recommend approval of the permit as requested subject to
Council review.
ACTION REQUIRED
The action required is if Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation
to approve the modified CAO site plan review, it should pass a motion appr.oving
the issuance of the building permit as requested.
PRB:madlr
;t;:
��.;
;�
i� '
w , � i
, �
.. , . . . ... . .. ., �.� ., . -.; . . . .. . _ . . � ,:. x.. . ,
_ � ' ; �.
y �� � ��`�—�._ �,s . , . .�
�o
�`"�. ... - . � . ' j .�1� �f � n4 ' , _ . - . . .�. . . :�r . �r, . . .f;,�;:�•� .,.� , , �- -, , . , . „ . . . ._., ( .
. � ;t=... , :•!' ��� ; ' - � .. . , . , � . . . � . �
f` 1�� �� ._ . � i ._._
_r , � � • �� ..` �� , � ��/-{��,,7,,. , . . ` .
� _ �1_`�"...j `M1-��� �''� r r'�r-.-�.�..rY . -- � � �/'�
., .-.-��1'CJ�%O "� .. ( � :;,a.; �'.r_ .U,�� . ,... � . .�C:. . � _ .. . ..a �.r,/"`. �. .... . . . _� .. ... . ... . . # . . t _ �.l' . . -, �. .-. _•-
� . � ` . � . , f � � �.
6R� • �'�
FRo� ' � �� ; � E � �''
TH � S #�ai ti-r- � 48 �+, 1 �'k;C�i� ,.;' ' _ �7
. . . i • , : � • �,. ` � P�t�D tTK}11i � � � " : a ,�;
�} . r , , { j� --�
�.? ` �2x�2 •`.� ; N . � �
�y' �!� . ' � o
� ; f � ; a -r
. jt= 4
�y , r'`, + ; ` , � �
� r' Ei<�S'TI t�iG r� . ` , � �
; YfC?uS�:� ','f ' - , �
. . �» ' . � 4 .
�� 3? �' � Q . , .
. ;/ .
J
•j b �
�� �
6 } t ,' � �'
0�, �� At�
I TA� H��.
= . ��-��� � .
, /
� ;'� � -F---- tVo � T't-i
YJ-�0 F t i
_. � , . ,:
,,; .
�.t ,
-� '
. �`�;� ,
i • - � ,_�""�. _Y � ?
1 �� • •
r .�!
I! I � �� ry,�.;�' : , t. t - , ... . , . ' G f�'.;,��
� , J '," ;��:� �`Y • ,�.,�,� :, ' � ,f , - , t, �` },y� / '' p ` . v
/ +�+�+ � � ,� 'r • 3 ''.�i A • ' �''' � ' . � '� V ' P �' ' ' �
� / : �.'- ��;.�,'� ., y . ; '�`� i � � , r f ; j {� ,
� �� i ^ ", �. � � ir.��':,, ,� � ; , - . � � � ! t
; + , ;�;, Y. � -'y�;�`y`k� . �' ��j ` r i �1
1 + � �'F � �.� ii' ^'� 4: ' ...L. r
� � + •:k��;�„� i�h � �:.�;yY• �;� �, • . � P . • •� p / , � /
� � . . •��.r± , +, . • 1
� ;,�, ;;;•-�' .� � / � - (�
'� !� Q � � ��r�i�'�'�'.�: ..f, �f :� ii��;��� t�.'[ � �(lJ � . i �Qy � � {A '� � t 1..
I I`� ! ` (�. f � �l}.i, �•� ;;.'y, � �Y.t`'..'�i i, Q, .�' ..� . �r i V . `' ' �t�,J �, . /I t`j
�. � -� ,�: � �' ' �:.� � �` ^ `� .T I . r •,+�.. �} � ' � �
i � j .�,r, � � '�'tw-� ; e � ' � .+ '�.'� ' . { f f � f f e
'� � . �adr�, t `�k Sy �. y ,���G� - . n , � . ' ��r `*' . �+� fi ��`�,% ;� ` �� .
in ' \ t :>'%�f���.'!�, '.`:'.� Y�71` �����`��,• , + j
t Y � ?�t� • ,� Y.. . I ' / lj � �
r �
�� � I �i � . d i �'Z-'.-� � .i �; r��r�.��. � t,�;,�.�c:f'?i. , � . .. � / � . S� � • ' : . ` . S`� • , � � � , .
, � � q � : °���� �:,;:��~�'[���:�;�� ��� 'h _'! i} ,,�� i . � �,�,,, , ,. ��,�i' �► � ,'� ,q ' . ,
, ; ' � ., 3 �� , t � .. t,' •'a.� �+en4��.,:j,:' .�.'a; ' v • �.�.__ II'^— � � ! ' •%�• � / .
' � (yj LL t:i y"r ,��'` �`'': � �i� ;:�;,; ; �{� ' � �t�, ^"'"�� 1P p' � ,- Qg S � .p'-
� "_ / R.4ry.� 'S. �y' w���'. Y.j o.}a. ���.%+ , 8 d� �{ . I jR I �A (� � r 1
�� � � ' ` � � '+��� rt��r-::i; � / � . . , y �! � � • , ''"� Vw � v tI i , �
' � � : ' ��,�;4' � 4 ::��' �:4 � , . .
� t,, � , ;: .,. �.;.��,�.,,,.. r;..,���, �}� • • V. . , • - xw,=�59Q :: '.� p � G ��j• � � �
� � � w �p • � � �['�, :�i: ��-;4!'�;:.�:��:.I_»3�,°�D ��`�'`,, 4,,� Y ,, , - _ ,,- . j� �fP � 1. , .
�� ' � �� �, A � ., . t �� "�"' •t�t,' .� ', • �i�d ��• � • " , 4 ir _1 , V ,
I +y :��' I+-. `�`,;f4,;� it.: �� i '/• 1-
� ! f + 'v \�y :�y ,� +,`J.yt.t F.',��+,i �•'# � , � � C.�lf ,� "�� �rw � � r"� ,. � , r � ��
t �.� = r_ r��.� ,/% �- � . `��•, • ��� �• � �
, , , t ,� � �5 � �...��� ., , ����►; a� � � h � �.,� l3 s ��� s �. � �. : , �. � , d5; . a D �
�� � ' , �r `v� .a.''��_„ . ' .. . ` � `� � . ` , ' • (
, � � , '�• �,i �* ''�:i=r.• ���"w3"a�'4`' . ', . . �J 9O`"!/%�% v' ' % . /�j�(1 i � �
,.. -r.,
1 � � i �;r'sr i.} �Z ..fi ��; e ^ � " •' �- �! � � !
' � 1 � , ' ` � / :�.� `. �Ki�t�.��'�r ' S• / G. %� ,�r i . . . ,�r , � � /. � �
J{ � =� �-� � ����Y n� �.� .. _. . ; . �� _ . � . P� y� , .�� �
I 1 f ! � � ��,�;�,l��.t ` � . � '� . �/ i� S,� (� � r � � i ' a % �
� � � ! . � . � . i �{ . .. ! /
1 , � , ; , --.� , 8ss o-� ,_._ � , e . -� � . . _ , � � � • . � � , .- ��a ��A � `
.-----=----- - ..� /�p� �
��: �r �r / / �i —�e-- .T�.._._ --._.-'"'--^,� � . . . .. ' � i , . � . . ' .� • . ' ' - • � r r-' , � p,j�'1� q'1 4
// � / � /"! {, . ^�,� . r- , / ..`3 � i!v � }
- � ��' / %��' j C���%/fll+ ' 'rV /�'" 13S ac¢s' 9. ,;=J17�.0+ ✓�� V � V i. s ` i
' / � � Y ' f: / / _ • (n ' � . . i . • . � �� ` . � ' . � � + �.��� y
`n �1 ,.�'" „� '', r '� ���� �r , ' ��.4 , �i i" �' \r ti 4 rr .
87.I�� f� i�', �'r � �-_ , r � %.rU ' CI +, �J"��_ � �
�.=_ ��" „' ,-'� •,. . , .,,1--- . ; ,� , �, �, -� e nc. L'�rrb h . � -'"'�- '
` gSCi.. _ _.. _ � � l,�` J � � ��+ �O � ,G3;�a�iaa„f�.e.' y�' ' , � ' �, . S � V V '` ,r� C} � �:.: . 2 � 7 . '`s�, • � � ;N, . ��p ` '� . /t
�sf. � Fir¢ �l�d�ant , � U , , � , • : � � , �� • - • , �• , °0 � . • . • ist. e Nyd�B�'
. • � � "�Uti �i�` Es� z`' � : ==� � � ` t' � . -�� ; _ - ____� Fx Frr
_ . _._ - •- �� - - - --__-..... % .� �.._._._~_-__; ___.___ _ • ,_�t; • _..: - _ , ----'-----�----- `� ` . . - --- �, • . _ . , . �., - . _ —r----- '" .
�Exr's t. C. B. "T r ; . C • ',,( .�.. . ; }� ' . ,' • - . . , . ,, �
i� J . /j� t I L .�/SL.r •!1. . ' • il 'r . I� ' . � � • • , t� n r
I s I
--._y � 1 � , i
� ♦ � � ' , - r � + � ' . �. ' • `
�� ; . � �; . � '��, � � . � �� �: . � .� ��, N .Li � R l �"�..�.�1�. :L.. �-.�- �,, D,. -. . C�� R� �1 '�! '-� � .
. _ ._ .
�, Exist. C.'8. , . � . � , �� . , . - . , . . . , � . . � ., . . � , ` -•
,_._ , � , , � . , . E�xi Cor� c. Gu.rb.-� `,
� ._ _ �- �,i �n � ' � , - �. . � � ' ' �. , � - ; ' . � . . � � . � �
°p w oq . o� � . ap . . oo � � ap . '. . qj ' °4 . '• W
, . , - . ' � _ � -
, • . . . , „ - . . . • • .
' : . ; ' • • ' . . . � . ' ' . t � , , • , _._.�.'""—.�""'.-„-.� ' _ ; �..- C7la`� •
. , . . . . . . � . � . � - � (�-�Tr-'M� �'F 5'r�r''-�'
, , . _ . . , . . . � � r�{/ot¢: For Ent�ancas an+d ,8i-�dy�¢ L7¢z�,3i , �, .
- . � � • � � ' .: • � . � ' � ! �� � fIz` f'l�zas, S'¢¢� r9r-cr/>.�z`¢ctri�-a,� � • . . �
� ` �' II
� . . � . ' � ' l.�rat,ui�9s.• . � � � ^�� '��x�� �:► � i' 1' � ' �~..,.�'s
. � . - . . . . . � �uf�o�� c�
. . . . � . !. � . � . � ' .rc�il'�-}�°^�� - � �+;.
� . . •' • . ' , . • . ' _ * ' _!� s`1 �.1...
� ' ' . , � ' � � ' � . �-^�'`.'�_"�_�. • ' � i��� 1 �i ��t
r
. . . . „�. j -�..- �I.. �� - �.. . � .
_ . r��� �F-St�H►�
,
}o� -r,� , . t�,�"� s� uT�.�-�`�' � �
'.�.__�� T�. —
� -
1�-:�i�'�a�n- T�"`.""'� � . b� �) �'r"� �
"" .. ... .. .. _. . , ..�. %�7 . ' +!^i �
�'� �
I 'fi � '� � � '='-3 I
� �c�� �' �� �'
f�° ����f �o
�
. 5 W\`l
( -� � � �
�
a
3
�
D
�
�
�I
�Vr=- �'i
� r+ �u.� ..L3T7r�Q'7
�
� •7•0„0� • 9nritH�h I
�tK�795FaFJ►71J l/Idlrto /�iy/H
� s„s��r1s �u�sr�i,s L 'r�y
i
-� �_, �.7p �'ti� - -
y�n��Y/S�-1y' �t.��'
II
� /v�o yo n��tsoc�/
at bv�d� s��rdr
— ��s �ro nao 10 �s
4LN/ S.ty9SN/ �I3A0,7 �
��.-i�� t�'�
1.� �s.� �'tall.p/�-�
�x�r�.-� �.,�a. �sv'� �t���.
���:�1— �'+�'.�11�'(71Vr(1"l�l� 1.C'��"��—�7c,r1� • ��
, �n/�� - �.t`[�-( ��v.�-7p ,�� �
t�`=�n�� �1'+dt�n�.`r� -��:n a�n.�/�� 3�v.� v��niv�c,�p :���•
� ti�IT'1L� �rVttl�ll�.��d - �Y/4X� V�n�f'��Y�t�
�hi� �?V� 3�t`�n_n!1 !1�L.qn�Yim��
,
,
,� . . ;
. .; . i� �� il ,� : i' I
,� � '� i �I ,, '�.�� --�� �' I�
. �; I. ,; �, �� �,.
� � �f � '; i: �; '! ' �� �i
I i _ � �� �
� �; _ � i� ;i. +I j� �i
� � ! ,� � �' ii � I: ��
li � � �' '' '� '� � ' ��
, � � i� �I �► �: . �� . �: �,
. _. .. � �= y i-� � J 1: � _
; . ; i�
. _ —.. ��
., ;
��������
�
� 1-on� h�. � � �
7• _._r-
� .(YM�iM 7�2C��3 � ,
.R
— -,
,.�
--� � '
Z�,��,,
.�� Y
�b
z5
,T
fi'
N
,=
. __,�
�-- --f-�--"
.�
�
- = ; .
= i, ,
� � -
��------�---��-
�----��--� �t���.�i.rtc��� `�__.. '� � ,,� �S
.. ..._._._..._._....____.___..._.... . ._... _ . _._--- ------._.._ _...--------.--_-.------ --..._.._..---._..._.. . .__.-��--- ----------_. _ ......... ... ...................- �---
-�----.._. .- ----._____.._..._._..._. .. . .
o - � � __,;z-R► -- --- - - --- --
,. � -- - -
- - �-
- ---
. �
�
/ �l..l� �:.�.���'�1 K �
SURVEYING 8 ENGINEERING CO.
85285 JOB NUMBER
l� � SECITWPIRN
Dennis Carlson C�iENT
L.EGAL DESCRIPTlON:
Lo� 5, Black 3, KIRCFiNER ADDITION
� �����8� DATE SURVEYED
DATE DRAFTED
SCA�E IN FEET PER INCH
PR4POSED ELEVATIONS: nane
FIRST FLOOR
TC?P QF FOUNDATI4N
GARAGE F1.00R
LOWEST F�OOR
SANITARY SEWER
� � BENCHMARK ELEVATION
' BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION:
�. s�
. ,,' i. :I' .t,�+ } ` + 1 '
� � ' '�� ' ' '' ' `
� . ' i ;
,. ` � � . , . . , . . t
. 1' ' � ' ' �
., .�:.... ..
. ,
� � ..
�
0
f—'
�'
, Z
rn
s
a
. ,.,
• -} .
5300HlGHWAY f01 SOUTH
MtNNETOlVKA, MlNNESOTA 553d3
STANDARD SYMBOLS
1,'�j�
"p" Denotes 112"' ID pipe with plastic plug "�� �;��1�
bearing S#ate Registration No. 9235, set.
"�" Denotes iron monument found.
"�" Denotes cross chiseled in concre#e surface.
"982x5" Denates existing spot elevation measured �
at #he poin# marlced by "x", in this case,
982.5 feet above mean sea level.
,"982x5"' Deno#es propased spot elevation at the
poin# marked by "x„
,
"�"�'"' Denotes proposed directian of storm water
runoff.
CERTIFICATION
1 hereby certify that this pian, survey, report
or specificatian was prepared by me and that I
am.a duly Regis#ered Land Sunreyor and Prof -
siona( Engineer under the � s the Stat o
Minnesota.
am s H. Parker, Minn. Reg. No. 9235
. . �
I 2 S. C} O
�
i
�
�
�
� : ..
,
:�
. �
m
ANNUAL REPORT - TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS June 1, 1985
The City Council established the Tax Increment District No. 1 by resolution on May 5, 1981.
The Dakota County Auditor has confirmed the original taxable value of the District, and several
plan projects have received preliminary approval for action. Among the plan projects to date
approved for action are the following, including the areas of the District affected:
PLAN PROJECT ACTION COST ESTIMATE STATUS
1. Pilot Knob Road Phase I completed
2. Industrial Park Phase I completed
Phase II Railroad crossing $125,000 Pending Developer approval
3. MAC property Phase I completed
Phase II Feasibility Study
completed 350,000 Pending MAC Land Sale
4. Public Safety Relo- Construction completed 825,000
cation
5. Redevelopment, Feasibility and planning studies
149 site completed
6. NW Area Imp. Feasibility study accepted, imp- Phase 1-$470,354
provement hearing held, imp- Phase 2- 385,925
rovements ordered Phase 3- 191,688
Phase 4- 738,668
7. Hwy. 110 improve- Developer requested study Unknown
ments
As various projects proceed through the planning and feasibility stages, further
revision in priorities will probably be necessary.
Pending landowner & Council
action
Pending landowner & Mn/DOT
action
Awaiting developer escrow
deposit
AREA AFFECTED
All property in I zone
All property in I zone
All property in I zone
All property north of
Mendota Heights Road,
west of TH 55
Highway 149 property
NW quadrant
TH 110 Gould site
SITE�PLAN
PREMIER BUILDERS
SCALE: 1" = 1001
.Q1
4-0.0
�-
Tfa
"1 t
ot,,
•
• � 1 � i
Lot 6, Block 2 GUADALUPE HEIGJJTS Dakota. County, Minae.sota.
This map represents an. overlay, o.£ a blowup of the City.,of Mendota Heights aerial
contour map over the plat -of GUADALUPE HEIGHTS. No field survey was performed
verify the relationship of the contours to the lot lines shown. Also depicted
the proposed house on Lot 6 per a plot plan provided'by,thd"6lient.. '
hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report
was prepared by' me*'or under my direct super- ;
vision and that ' I am a duly, Registered Land
Surveyor under the laws of the'State of Minne- PAUL R:- McLAGAN & SON
so'ta. G
�Q �� /� q 233 Dakoq Avenue WEST ST. PAUL, MINN. $511i .
Amami �� �_ `� Reg. No. Z.46��L.�. i Registered Land Surveyors
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
MEMO
May 28, 1985
TO: Mayor, City Council and City Adm'�
,; eajOr!
FROM: Paul R. Berg, Code Enforcement Officer
SUBJECT: Modified CAO Site Plan Review for 711 Woodridge Drive
DISCUSSION
Gausman Builders, Inc., on behalf of Donald Taylor, 711 Woodridge Drive,
has submitted building and site plans requesting approval of a building permit
to construct a 12' x 12' three -season porch addition. Staff has reviewed the
plans and made a site visit and finds that the addition -will be in'excess of
the 40 foot setback required from a 40% slope (bluffline) as required by the
Critical Area Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recommend approval of the permit as requested subject to
Council review.
ACTION REQUIRED
The action required is if Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation
to approve the modified CAO site plan review, it should pass a motion approving
the issuance of the building permit as requested.
PRB:madlr
t•.
N.1.-joN
10 L2
m
W 0
r
1.11
0
C-�
13
N.1.-joN
10 L2
m
W 0
r
f pS r
CIC
CIC
'� r :ate "",�,•�� ;'"_� ;�`�" '•• ' 1lO � � 7zv � Ind'.
i la IR V rr ktf;{ :•S: :r '. ..+ >i' i=r,,•i�;,%•::,,�, /r i r , r • �f •,
'/yea fQ�; I f}j`��.- �: •.:z, r•�:;.":.��c,,,;,. � 4 / ��JJ � -
! t ♦ t '�'• ' ,t -moi, d , •$' �. _ n f . �►*�-1 t , '',f ~Vj /
i " 1 � „t,`4 '� "+ > a. P{r:-� IYI'{, r . r "' "« •• .. 'r ' � / � t i
01
�) i i V j .` q / ,,Q •� ����;� % _ �'rt,��'y'�','r•'r}•4�xfi:'���;_7s•..'�:I, � -,r'�_ ti S¢ yrr .:, '�_ � �� �,r t�VV !
i ! (� V , {�' i ; %=f-:'"owYt:_i r/?(�/t s✓, rr+1 a V 6 4�)• !
i t + � \'f c: .�, �>:.a:s;�:•`.'�.���l;rx: .F rJCS - �' r~ _ j• V
:�►
j (`,i �,1,� wee'R`••:,'i�R ti �o V.'�% 13 S' sees @�' [�` ,.r �'• �j�V��';
r f ") ' Q �1/Li`jL 17. p9' •j i. •t� {
qj
Er%4: �il/7L^
Ny
" lJ' r/� Y
;�; � r'Ci,'� .� C�'!jurb` •�)p ',•�' 5'o ac¢s' 9-•s=>/7�,p' '` �; Gco
,.��•. ! = YYY
X8'/2 ` - ; ,- � , .. ' ,- �,j—.�:--_ , • , / , ' d '
=-' 'N r u/ '� �. Curb t
850 _
C n
tsz�.' Fii ¢^j�drar�t ! S „_ 8 r a' ? `'�
• '� � � 'Uti/it Esrr.�'.Z`.• . , ;, r ' , _ �, - ' .Exist. Frre h'ydrsrr�'
IF
1 14
N -0 R T -1-H. I A.* 1414
Exi Cort C. Cu re)' -z , ' �•�--
°j W op ap op o4 W �' 00 b
il/of¢: Fnr En&W17C¢s arx� All* 9e 992'.9113-i�'�nt-t �s► �-.
/fz 10/19zas, See. A -e' Iy¢c�`U�-�r�
• .. • _ - 111 Tc -7r- c•'F
RESEARCH
1333
T
4,
INC.
I
-FtuU \VEL -G
Al i /&1UILJ/n FKNAE - FbLYU E FlWL>µ ,
.bac: �.�.u�nlr���n �ec� ��/��-v c���- Rx-�ux�.T�l�,►E FI�1�-1
�' i c ' tSLKYL ► L Lel � - \V U cid `
C • FL.0 0 KE—,C_EUT \ LL U I A I U &n C, ►.1 — I ZC�'J
Mf, -t C K £ e r -c c -MAI -=K�
EL�V,M-kod L-•d.YL 'ST
1%4 ,= I I c P
l..It✓ :rc��-E
16
�o
Z
adze
An 40 Q
to
N_
C_
N M C
Q
E
S
d
.gym ..
v 3 ?� Jj
�. 4 (,!E-, . 4
4�,t5
J1
7
�. 4 (,!E-, . 4
4�,t5
DhIVA N C E 5300 HIGHWAY 101 SOUTH
MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55343
SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
85285 JOB NUMBER STANDARD SYMBOLS
13 28 23 SEC/TWP/RN Denotes 11211 ID pipe with plastic plug
Dennis on-elcnn
CLIENT Dearing State Registration NO. 9240, set.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Denotes iron monument found.
Lot 5, Block 3, KIRCHNER ADDITION "+" Denotes cross chiseled in concrete surface.
5/30/85 DATE SURVEYED
J/ 'j-1 0j — DATE DRAFTED
20
SCALE IN FEET PER INCH
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: none
FIRST FLOOR
TOP OF FOUNDATION
GARAGE FLOOR
LOWEST FLOOR
SANITARY SEWER
BENCHMARK ELEVATION
BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION:
30
' #
"982x5" Denotes existing spot elevation measured
at the point marked by "x", in this case,
982.5 feet above mean sea level.
Denotes proposed spot elevation at the
point marked by "x".
Denotes proposed direction of storm water
runoff.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, survey, report
or specification was prepared by me and that I
am.a duly Registered Land Surveyor and ProPp�,--
5
sional Engineer under the L e State
Minnesota. r-0�T ;�j
H. Parker, Minn. Reg. No. 9235
0
17—
z
9
1
125.00
2
4
-n
N I. "NNNNN
26.0
rn
0 o
0
0
OD
0
17—
z
9
1
125.00
4
-n
N I. "NNNNN
26.0
0 o
0
0
OD
(L
0
L0
0 0
P
.0
54.5
CD
IS.00
S' oat