Loading...
1985-05-07w CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA MAY 7, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order. ' '10 2. Roll Call. at 3. Adoption of Agenda. -' 4. Approval of Minutes, April 5. Consent Calendar: — j4 16, April 30. a. Acknowledgement of letter to Mr. and Mrs. Gonsowski. b. Acknowledgement of Code Enforcement monthly report. c. Acknowledgement of April 23 Planning Commission minutes. d. Acknowledgement of Memo on Summer Help for Public Works. e. Approval of the List of Claims. f. Approval of the List of Licenses. End of Consent Calendar 6. Public Comments 0,ie 7. Response to Public Comments and Requests: a. Mee o an roposedOrd n gulatin Truck Parking. (Ordinance No. 213). b. Memo onaz L�aKe LeFJa�y� Flooding (Bredvold) . " c. Memo on Requ for Sid walk. 8. Unfinished and New Business: a. Memo on Fire Marshal - PauldjCa.iser will be present. i b. Memo and Resolut on n Nort End Sd S reef ;vemen s. (Resolution No. . — ..:!.? t.—*. n tel_' c Case No. 85-07, United Properties - HEARING to Request Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development and Preliminary P at. (Recommend ApprovalResolution No. 8573 8:30 j Prn� Gi 4.'..-1,Y,,4 d. Case No. 86-02, Kubes Request for Lot Division. (Recommend Approval - Resolution No. 85-34). ,../4 e. Case No. 85-06, Redding - Request for Variance. (Recommend Approval). f. CAO 85-03, Taurin ka � Request for Critical Area Variance. (Recommend . Approval). /, May 7, 1985 Agenda Page Two 8. Unfinished and New Business - Continued g. Memo on 1.7/rIlGlnexal Contractor License. ett+64.---&4V; h. Memo on Roger's Lake Tennis ourt Overlay. /4 i. Memo on Cost of City Newsletter • j._..t..4 — j- Memo o isance nd - k. Memo on Green BusinejsDtZlopments.,-. 0 ...vr.,.., 1. Memo an enCode Enfor ment. m. Memo on ti. ban Stree 1, porary Easement._,4 • .,14 9. Council Comments. • ign Policy (Resolution No. 85-35). jiitrt-i,t4 7y,,cp otk.,6/ 12,9w 7)44, 6,41pi,t 762A- (e) h_ /tri f 4 cuaL. FIRE MARSHAL CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT This Agreement, made the 17th day of April, 1985, by and between the City of Mendota Heights, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 (hereinafter referred to as CITY), and Mr. Paul M. Kaiser, 7233 South Sheridan Avenue, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 (hereinafter referred to as CONSULTANT. The CITY hereby retains the services of the CONSULTANT to carry out the functions and duties of Fire Marshal for the CITY. It is agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. The CITY retains the services of the CONSULTANT to perform the services of Fire Marshal as set forth in Attachment A. 2. The CONSULTANT will carry out those functions in a manner generally prescribed by the City Administrator and Fire Chief of the City of Mendota Heights. 3. Hourly compensation for services provided shall be $12.50. The CONSULTANT is also authorized to charge the CITY 20.50 per mile for use of a personal vehicle while conducting the business of Fire Marshal. The CONTRACTOR shall submit a monthly invoice for services provided. The CITY shall provide office space, office supplies, telephone, clerical services, and other items of general administrative support necessary for fulfilling the duties of Fire Marshal. The CITY shall not be responsible for payment of any additional compensation or benefits, except for incidental expenses that may be agreed to by the CONSULTANT and the CITY. 4. This Agreement shall be for an indefinite period of time. Either party may terminate the agreement upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party. Paul M. Kaiser, CONSULTANT / i7 r - Kevin D. Frazell, CITYf'ADMINISTRATOR Date NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION c/o City Offices 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMISSION FULL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1985 1. 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 EXCUSED ABSENCE Baird - Sunfish Lake Carlson - Lilydale Boelter - Mendota Harrison - Sunfish Lake Tatone - Inver Grove Heights Witt - Mendota Heights Kinney - South St. Paul UNEXCUSED ABSENCE Bruestle - Mendota Weiss - Lilydale Lanegran - South St. Paul Also present was John Gibbs, legal counsel. 2. Harrison moved, seconded by Walker to approve the agenda. Voting 8 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 3. Tatone moved, seconded by Henderson, to approve the minutes of the January 16, 1985 meeting. Voting: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 4. Several items of communication were presented: Winter and Spring 1985 Reports to Minnesota from Rudy Boschwitz; MCCB meeting agendas for January 11, February 8, March 8, and April 12, 1985; MCCB meeting minutes for December 14, 1984, January 11, February 8, and March 8, 1985; copy of Order Issuing A Regular Certificate of Confirmation to Continental Cablevision from the Minnesota Cable Communications Board. Kinney moved, seconded by Henderson to receive the above communica- tions. Voting: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 5. Chairman Zemke commented on the items that for certification. He stated the MCCB was Commission in the way that the franchising took place at the hearing very complimentary to the process was conducted. Tatone reported that he has been contacted by Rite Cable Company keeping him informed of items going on around the state. He also reported that there is an education committee in NDC4 and that they are meeting regularly. They have formulated a position paper regarding joint programming, use of facilities etc. Treasurer Kinney reported that the escrow account was closed out April 17, 1985. The original award was $122,503.43, the Commission received $1,004.60 in interest for a total of $123,508.03. The Commission had an existing balance of $1,938.12. The grand total of the checking account is $125,446.15. Kinney also presented a number of billings to the Commission which included a bill from the City of Mendota Heights for secretarial fees in the amount of $130.04; bill from Anita Stech for technical consulta- tion for $210.40; bill from Roger A. Blessen and Associates, Inc. for renewal of public official liability insurance in the amount of $783.08; a bill from Herbst & Thue for legal fees in the amount of $28,535.12. Motion by Henderson, seconded by Wit to pay all of the bills. Voting: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 6. Chairman Zemke addressed the subject of reimbursement to the cities. John Gibbs, legal counsel, stated that the cities have provided an itemized statement of cable costs. The figures he -has reflect actual expeditures and the cities contribution to the Commission. Henderson requested a breakdown of contributions for all cities. Zemke suggested partial reimbursement to the cities at this time and, complete reimbursement to the cities upon receipt of operating funds from Continental. The suggested payment being 90% now and 10% at the time Continental provides the operating funds. This would be a 3-4 month time frame. Kinney asked what a reasonable balance would be for the checking ac- count. Zemke stated $10,000 - $12,000. Kinney stated that if the Commission paid total reimbursement to the cities the balance would be approximately $4,500, if 90% were paid the balance would be approxi- mately $13,500. After some discussion, Walker moved, seconded by Hanson to pay 90% of the costs incurred by the cities. Voting: 7 ayes, 1 nay - Tatone. Motion carried. Kinney stated a letter should accompany the check explaining to the cities what the Commission is doing and why. 7. Gibbs reported on Continental's plans for construction, office facili- ties, and the status of the franchise. The next meeting of the full Commission will be Wednesday, May 17, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. 8. There were no comments from the public. 9. Tatone moved, seconded by Hanson to adjourn. Voting: 8 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 8:21 o'clock P.M. Prepared by: Diane F. Ward Staff Secretary Engineering Offices April 18, 1985 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Mr. and Mrs. Eugene J. Gonsowski 544 Miriam Street Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gonsowski: Thank you for complying so promptly with the City's request to move your recreational vehicle. There is still some concern about the blacktop pad that remains on the City right of way. The pad is lower than the street and provides an area for ponding water. This water can then enter the subgrade of the street softing it and allowing for breakup. The City Coun- cil has asked that the pad be removed and that the area be raised to prevent ponding water. Because the pad is on City right of way, the City mainten- ance forces would remove the pad, put in black dirt and seed or sod the area as lawn. Before we proceed with this work we wanted to coordinate it through you so there were no misunderstandings on what was going on. Please call me at 452-1086 before May 1, 1985, if you have any questions, concerns or comments on this matter. Thank you. Very truly yours, James E. Danielson, P.E. Public Works Director JED:dfw 750 South Plaza Drive • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 • 452-1086 PLANNING REPORT DATE: 23 April 1985 CASE NUMBER: 85-05 APPLICANT: Michael R. Kurtz LOCATION: Westerly of Hunter Lane at Orchard Place ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of Subdivision PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Attached is a copy of a drawing submitted by the applicant and prepared by E. G. Rud and Sons, Inc., Land Surveyors, indicating a proposal to develop a third lot consisting of portions of two existing lots to the north and south for the proposed new lot. The existing lot to the south (Lot 2, Phillips Hill Addition) consists of 31,500 square feet. The existing lot to the north is 45,885 square feet. Each of these area calculations exclude the long thin strips of property devoted to access purposes. 2. The basic lot requirement, as you know, is 15,000 square feet of land area and 100 feet of frontage (with at the building line). Divided as proposed (into three lots) the southerly -most lot will contain approximately 29,400 square feet, of which 26,100 square feet is above the top of the slope. The center lot as proposed will have approximately 24,428 square feet, with 11,933 square feet above the slope line. The northerly -most lot will have 22,050 square feet with 16,050 square feet above the slope. The center lot, as indicated on the drawing, will have 85 feet of frontage at the building line, though the land area will be approximately 24,428 square feet. Thus, the proposed new lot will be 15 feet short at the building line, though it will have 104 feet of frontage at the rear of the building, if the building is 30 feet deep. It would appear that adequate setbacks can be accomplished on both sides of any proposed structure on the center lot, if it is designed to suit the site. 3. The principal issue with respect to the proposal is a combination of three strips of land providing frontage and access to the three lots. Obviously, at this point, two lots share this common access and frontage to Hunter Lane. Obviously, one of the optional ways of developing the property would be to construct a public street in the form CASE NUMBER: 85-05 APPLICANT: Michael Kurtz Page 2 of a cul-de-sac. Attached is a drawing we have prepared indicating how this could be done. The problem with this is two fold: a. The land area required for the construction of the cul-de-sac is anexisting attractive foreground to the existing homes and the proposed building site as well. There are also some good trees in this area, portions of which would have to be removed in order for the cul-de-sac to be built. b. The cost of such a cul-de-sac may make the development of the land uneconomical. 4. Obviously, the two existing lots are grossly over -sized (.in relationship to the standards), their being 77,385 square feet, compared to the minimum 30,000 square feet required for two lots. Isolated as the lots are at the top of the bluff, developing a third lot has some merit in terms of efficient and reasonable use of the land. We should not adversely impact existing development, but the efficient use of the remaining land to develop in the City is a meritorious objective. 5. The City has, in the past, approved isolated instances of extended, private, common access drives, where it appears reasonable in lieu of a dedicated street. The lot owners. bear the additional cost of the construction and maintenance of long individual sewer and water lines to the public street connection. Also they are responsible for maintenance and plowing of the common access drive. The City, on the other hand, does -not have to maintain a public cul-de-sac which could replace the common access drive system. 6. One concern might be that of safe and adequate access for emergency vehicles, particularly fire trucks. Ordinarily, fire access rules indicate that a single driveway should not be longer than 150 feet (the distance you have to back the truck out). We suggest the fire department be contacted regarding this concern. Without using the public street cul-de-sac, there could be a private loop system constructed which would allow a fire truck to turn around. This, however, would have to be carefully planned so as to preserve the maximum number of trees in the turn around area. 7. Subject to the fire truck access question, it would appear that the proposal is workable in this .particular circumstance, assuming the Planning Commission and Council regard the lot width variance as reasonable. l'Uf741,1Ci U'D4#L, -OCHT mac r:o, 1 t) -0 I si13— I CoMKON egyetta _ NOMA #r - 14L -.*0 • • �rp+z I'=tco /�IP�JCq" rver Sa,-7-7 ' e / VV. bL 101 • s.A!,: •11YN42G y PHIjLI PS'- ADDITI • -•N116•62.21 .0 210 i.i iii I93S j., I HILL wf I66-•^ I rbl •92 66 . ve.rh B.L c., ETV P1-1 1 (A! /.111. ^ 1 010-09 0 54 10 1 Ii/ Q IN 4 ti. P 0 0 • 0r z C. z n I l/ 1240SO 1 W0 ti -MM 2 ^ ♦ o 4 v 1 °I • i,yR Ntl7a16 377-- -2: 4 O Crk o�:1 N rt Q O :' b9 : KL.':'514.7; °`CO I ) •1 (,, .S927�f431.90 4Si72 /45, y - - htl9°IY13L G34,48 \.,Ve el 525 51, .moi • .44 t. o. •,rf•�0 N. ...5.04 5 4".� , ,► 33'V •d• _ �_ 44 pb r-F0'r•• c I �. rl0•.• Cl . • M.I * _ , 40 ' T' _~ b 1 a 0 NEW 50•53"E 336 40 • _N89°27'00'1 185 • Ac V 1 0 • 02: 11 "5 4(,0 S 0•.1 ., 3 f/ PG •t• 7'. i„ Q ti�1 4 (O S 0 0 h8p0C* 47,,-E 483 4E OAK POINT 4.1 x 22 S Jr,,- .0, /1/0 be/->�✓ 05,- z 407 -L• 51.ZG073-G• ORC HAR 02C•-08 Oi1+_op 2GOSZ-O 032- 08 040-08 15725 • 1-71.2; mv00 171 ry0 O N n 0* 74-89641". 51"-F Cr) 2 0' A 3 4' r.+ 13 s:•• • e. ,•• 14 l$ tor. A 15 r.'��4e 4 �, +.� 16 cp..... a,,+¢r _4°6,.? O S s1«..�s.aw `HOILANE 4 L Cu11.1L7AAP ,00 2 0 w �/% N , wl 421 LANE v �50 M AL.�1:74 6_. ROADi ,QE14E V 1EVE M1.Rr++Y 040-05 14 iGi• 5 ••-,y 175 00 OUTLOT A c. 0 I t5 00 101.50 IGENZ2 A1.73 t,r-r r Iitr%A • 1 r O 4//774, /4 PLANNING REPORT DATE: 23 April 1985 CASE NUMBER: 85-07 APPLICANT: United Properties LOCATION: North of Mendota Heights Road, Southwesterly of Transport Drive ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. As you know, the City has previously approved two planned unit development projects south of the development proposal now under consideration. The first. project has been completed and was rented quickly, and therefore United Properties proposed the second, now under construction. They now propose a third project consisting of three structures to be located between the Conserv building and the Big Wheel building north of Mendota Heights Road. 2. The project will consist of a total of 154,000 square footage to be developed as one story office/service buildings similar to the two previous projects approved. Because of their success of attracting extensive office .use in the two previous projects, this development is planned to accommodate five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet gross of the entire structure which would allow for the possible, ultimate 100 percent use of the buildings for office purposes. This concept results in higher value and higher quality, and ultimately provides a stronger tax base for the City (and for the communities sharing. in the fiscal disparities dispersion of tax benefits): 3. As in the two previous projects, the service areas provided to the structures orient to the interior of the site, an attractive design feature. which was utilized in the two previous planned unit developments as well. 4. The staff has "met with *the'- _applicants and carefully reviewed the site plansbuilding';plans, and landscape plans. The plans --appear well' done',;.and+ in the opinion of ;the staff, are appropriate and in conformance with development requirements. 5. At the southwest corner of the site, a portion of the property is owned and occupied- by the City of Mendota Heights. This parcel -'measures 80 feet by 50 feet and is CASE NUMBER: 85-07 APPLICANT: United Properties Page 2 occupied by a very important sanitary sewage lift station, which we are told cost $130,000 twenty years ago. The building is above a shaft which provides access to the sewage system. This shaft is some 20 to 30 feet deep, and thus the movement of this building would be very costly. The structure contains an emergency generator to provide power for the lift station in the event of power loss. We had discussed with the developers the possibility of incorporating this facility in the building, though it now appears this will be uneconomic to accomplish. 6. We suggest, however, that the applicants consider working with the City to move the driveway access to the building from the frontage street (Mendota Heights Road) to the driveway. Thus, a berm and landscaping could be developed between the building and the street, minimizing the visual impact of the structure upon the total development. An easement could be provided over the driveway so as to allow City vehicles access to the front of the building where there would have to be an asphalt pad oriented towards the openings on the south side of the structure. The Planning Commission and Council may wish to discuss this with the applicant, and include such provisions as a part of the development approval process. Subsequent detailing of such changes could be left for staff approval if the Planning Commission and Council so desire. ti J 0 37o. of 0 Asp. ZO.O RaKRT a. Ill G-roR 4 MAR L) TOV3IGI.1AIvT z4/07-44 J, (; • 50 S Ac. 20. o s 8 7 A N So i • 0 ; Z. a. teal 1R 1 22.0,o ti g. _._ 2126.t3_ X1i o 8 t!). o MENDOTA 2'7.0 O 4 4 r Lx 0 a k91.0 6 z,7 o N Z h Ce ^ N. Y 5 b o Mt" ). o ,go • I Ig _ / N PLANNING REPORT DATE: 23 April 1985 CASE NUMBER: 85-06 APPLICANT: William R. Redding LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Pueblo Drive and Keokuk Street ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of Front Yard Variance PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The Reddings propose to put a 12 foot by 12 foot addition on the front of their house which will accommodate a new eating area and entrance. Attached is a copy of a plan and a statement from the Reddings delineating their proposal. 2. The staff has discussed the plans for the addition with the Reddings and established the fact that if the addition is to accommodate these two functions, the appropriate location is as proposed. Because the existing structure is "L" -shaped, the variance to the required 30 foot setback is a mere 2 foot, 8 inches. Construction of the rear of the home will not require a variance where there is adequate room at the rear lot line. 3. You will notice, however, that the drawing indicates nine (9) foot ofsetback from the garage to the side property line. Here a variance should be also considered for the one (1) foot difference to the 10 feet required. Thus, the existing structure is not conforming to the extent of the one (1) foot shortage in the side yard setback. 4. The applicant's letter indicates that two contiguous neighbors are aware of the development proposal. The letter, however, does not make it clear that they approve of the variance. Perhaps this should be discussed at the meeting to clarify this point. 1 ' 5 ‘..410 ds s sp • • 1' OUTLOT i• ,f h • �t 't - . S t 1 OIL!? i'✓A TE,e C0., /,w:'. 26/37-b :NODE DISTRICT .197 24I37 -A 39 77 33 Ac PLANNING REPORT DATE: 23 April 1985 CASE NUMBER: 85-05 APPLICANT: Michael R. Kurtz LOCATION: Westerly of Hunter Lane at Orchard Place ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of Subdivision PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Attached is a copy of a drawing submitted by the applicant and prepared by E. G. Rud and Sons, Inc., Land Surveyors, indicating' a proposal to develop a third lot consisting of portions of two existing lots to the north and south for the proposed new lot. The existing lot to the south (Lot 2, Phillips Hill Addition) consists of 31,500 square feet. The existing lot to the north is 45,885 square feet. Each of these area calculations exclude the long thin strips of property devoted to access purposes. 2. The basic lot requirement, as you know, is 15,000 square feet of land area and 100 feet of frontage (with at the building line). Divided as proposed (into three lots) the southerly -most lot will contain approximately 29,400 square feet, of which 26,100 square feet is above the top of the slope. The center lot as proposed will have approximately 24,428 square feet, with 11,933 square feet above the slope line. The northerly -most lot will have 22,050 square feet with 16,050 square feet above the slope. The center lot, as indicated on the drawing, will have 85 feet of frontage at the building line, though the land area will be approximately 24,428 square feet. Thus, the proposed new lot will be 15 feet short at the building line, though it will have 104 feet of frontage at the rear of the building, if the building is 30 feet deep. It would appear that adequate setbacks can be accomplished on both sides of any proposed structure on the center lot, if it is designed to suit the site. The principal issue with respect to the proposal is a combination of three strips of land providing frontage and •access to the three lots. Obviously, at this point, two lots share this common access and frontage to Hunter Lane. Obviously, one of the optional ways of developing the property would be to construct a public street in the form CASE NUMBER: 85-05 APPLICANT: Michael Kurtz Page 2 of a cul-de-sac. Attached is a drawing we have prepared indicating how this could be done. The problem with this is two fold: a. The land area required for the construction of the` cul-de-sac is an existing attractive foreground to the existing homes and the proposed building site as well. There are also some good trees in this area, portions of which would have to be removed in order for the cul-de-sac to be built. b. The cost of such a cul-de-sac may make the development of the land uneconomical. 4. Obviously, the two existing lots are grossly over-sized_'(in relationship to the standards), their being 77,385 square feet, compared to the minimum 30,000 square feet required for two lots. Isolated as the lots are at the top of the bluff, developing a third lot has some merit in terms of efficient and reasonable use of the land. We should not adversely impact existing development, but the efficient use of the remaining land to develop in the. City is a meritorious objective. 5. The City has, in the past, approved isolated instances of extended, private, common access drives, where it appears reasonable in lieu of a dedicated street. The lot owners bear the additional cost of the construction and maintenance of long individual sewer and water lines to the public street connection. Also they are responsible for maintenance• and plowing of the common access drive. The City, on the other hand, does not have to maintain a public cul-de-sac which could replace the common access drive system. 6. One concern might be that of safe and adequate access for emergency vehicles, particularly fire trucks. Ordinarily, fire access rules indicate that a single driveway should not be longer than 150 feet (the distance you have to back the truck out). We suggest the fire department be contacted regarding this concern. Without using the public street cul-de-sac, there could be a ,private loop system constructed which would allow a fire truck to turn around. This, however, would have to be carefully planned so as to preserve the maximum number of trees in the turn around area. 7. Subject to the fire truck access question, it would appear that the proposal is workable in this particular circumstance, assuming the Planning Commission and Council regard the lot width variance as reasonable. • T scAtz r=te ic Y s )/0-1/47i :ii' iii:::r.: :iii:. S�.T7 CJ G / kV. Q• �a'J:€:::iii .?;.... ��\�• 'd __i .........................................................:j�;iiii'..ib`'.d'.%�+in)Q:::e,'.'1�Jtmau� ` y--'� °-..�„4...,��N 2.G�%• "" N��.2 lit 193119" jo PHWI�ll PS��� HILL : L —A -1)D-1,71:1 N 1 ,.:Hee'�¢;zi"[ wAS-• I rI 210 -- •92 116 1°•. 2407'3-19 Pik.:: -.0 010-09 ITS v I a vr. LIIT 2 N60'5f'53"E 336 40 11 10 1 o 4 0' •f P A ▪ Q :. O O '4 • 4. MM9Yolet ��124,34 w a 4.iz 44 R V41 V •a-�. .Ni VVV •dos k. ti' _.'k. :• e.oP.G6 '44. -,, 04-esr R.4n :..5.04 44" S 1459°,:!•.46"E 4633 4E 0 • 0 • • 2lS J1:1' .0. Z///eae -9 i 02C. - 08 t Co-; - C• 0' O R C H A R 01('-np '°�2LCd Z"D 032 -Oe 45725 • 0700 ^ 0 N69°16 31�I 171 2. 0' ZN8902700"E POINT 1 • 14 S 15 �,w %fia .$4.4*cf)Ni b 4+ 17 4,05411.> 4 • • • �. 2 .1 N .00 i o w • CULL 1u^tQi LANE v0 _ -, 41 ti 320.50 4 50 A MAtt RD -ROAD ;,,po.175 00 QEriL VtIEV£ M!!•t4r1NY OS, ',c.h 040 -05 N J IG7• S - /I6 .1-11 OUTLOT A G �+ 0 C., r 41 v 1 75 00 1 al.t0 4IGENZ2 VERONICA E//n4 121-f71, -PITRT 'tit _r_fivg6 Cvat,-Df.- /4(J • • Lge 74C7 For: 1.1IKE KURTZ ' 0 1 A//,a7'37,s, / Scale; Book Page Job No es -/V her. me or Land Sur . bore /f0 44e•a7'.99mw .red by July Registered resota. E.G. RUD & SONS, INC. LAND SURVEYORS 9560 Lexington Avenue N. New Brighton (Lexington), Mn. 70. 784-5556 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 1985 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Vice -Chairperson Morson at 7:02 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Morson, Frank, McMonigal, and Burke. Stefani had advised the Commission that he would be late and Kruse and Henning had advised the Commission that they would be unable to attend. Also present were Planning Consultant Howard Dahlgren and Public Works Director Jim Danielson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 HEARING, CASE 85-07, UNITED PROPERTIES, CUP FOR PUD Minutes of the March 26 meeting had been submitted previously, with a correction noted on Page 3. Commissioner Frank moved to approve the minutes as modified. Commissioner McMonigal seconded the motion. Vice -Chairperson Morson called the meeting to order for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from United Properties to consider a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Dale Glowa was present to explain the proposal. He noted that the property is located north of Mendota Heights Road, southwesterly of Transport Drive, and that it will be called Southridge Business Center. The site contains 13.8 acres of land and the buildings will be constructed in three phases, totalling 155,000 square feet of space. Mr. Glowa noted that Phase 1, directly north of Mendota Heights Road, will contain 53,700 square feet. The building exterior will be a little bit darker brick than that used across the street in the United Properties Business Park. He also noted that there are several plans regarding the City's lift station, which is located in front of Phase 1. He thought that it would be heavily landscaped to try to minimize its impact on the site. Planner Dahlgren noted that the site plan was done extremely well. Mr. Glowa added that the buildings will be 60% office space and 40% warehouse, and also that very little site work would be required. He also felt that construction would be over a one year period for each phase. Vice -Chairperson Morson asked for questions or comments from the audience. There were none. Commissioner Burke moved to close the public hearing at 7:14 P.M. Commissioner Frank seconded the motion. Page Two, April 23, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 HEARING, CASE 85-05, KURTZ, SUBDIVISION Commissioner Burke recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development and approval of the preliminary plat, as requested. Commissioner Frank seconded the motion. Vice -Chairperson Morson opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from Mr. Michael Kurtz, for the subdivision at the corner of Hunter Lane and Orchard Place. Mr. Lawrence Culligan spoke for Mr. Kurtz, noting that Mr. Kurtz owned two very large lots which he would like to make three lot out of. Mr. Culligan advised the Commission and audience that Mr. Kurtz proposes to substantially increase the size of the houses now located on the two lots. Mr. Culligan noted that the proposed north lot will contain 27,000 square feet, the middle lot will have 26,000 square feet and the lot with Mr. Kurtz's home on presently will contain 29,000 square feet. He felt that the proposal would not warrant a cul-de-sac, and felt that the proposed sites would be best served by a common driveway, diverting to the three separate lots. Mr. Culligan noted that Mr. Kurtz is requesting a 15 foot variance to allow a proposed home to be 85 feet from the building line, rather than the 100 feet that are required. Commissioner Stefani arrived at 7:26 P.M. Planner Dahlgren suggested a common driveway with separate sewer and water lines for each lot, noting that the City would not maintain the driveway. Vice -Chairperson Morson asked for questions or comments from the audience. Mr. John Phillips, 1835 Hunter Lane, advised the Commission that he is still the owner of Lots 1 and 2, Phillips Hill Addition, and that Mr. Kurtz is purchasing them on a contract for deed. He advised the members that he is strongly opposed to the subdivision until the lots are paid for. (He later stated that he would still be opposed even if he were given a cashier's check for the property tonight). He stated that when he was on the Planning Commission about 30 years ago, it was his understanding that these areas would be protected, and that was one of the reasons why he platted his lots the way they are. He said if anyone could get a variance for the lots, what is the purpose in having regulations. Page Three, April 23, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE 85-06" REDDING, VARIANCE Ms. Vicki Katz, 1855 Hunter Lane, wondered if the new home to be constructed would be for sale or for rent or for family members. She also had a question on the legal description contained in the hearing notice. Dr. Stephen Hunter questioned why anyone would choose to build their home on the middle lot, when it affords such a choice view, and then be limited to the size of the home that could be constructed since the lot is only 85 feet wide at the building site. Mr. Richard Frye, I844 Hunter Lane felt that by granting this subdivision, this could set a precedent and this would detract from the value of the land. Mr. Mike Kurtz, applicant for the subdivision spoke and stated that he is moving in to have some privacy. He noted that he is proposing to place protective covenants on the land and that none of the buildings will be seen from Hunter Lane. Dr. Samuel Hunter, 1175 Orchard Place, felt that he would be impacted by the proposed subdivision, since there would be more traffic in the area, and he asked if any of the Commission members had looked at the site. There being no further questions or comments from the audience, Commissioner Frank moved to close the public hearing at 8c05 P.M. Commissioner McMonigal seconded the motion. Commissioner Frank moved to recommend denial proposed subdivision. Commissioner Stefani seconded the motion. Mr. Kurtz asked the Commission if their recommendation would have been favorable had he moved the lot lines over to add 15 feet to the center lot. Vice -Chairperson Morson responded that the Commission could not answer that since that was not the proposal they looked at. He advised Mr. Kurtz that his idea could be presented at the City Council meeting on May 7tb, Mr. William Redding, 2331 Pueblo Drive, was present to request a variance to the front yard setback. Planner Dahlgren interrupted to advise the Commission that his :report Was prepared with the wrong location in mind, and the incorrect plans regarding an addition to the back of the home as well as to the front. Be apologized to Mr. Redding and -the Commission for the error. Page Four, April Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 23, 1985 Planning Commission Minutes CAO CASE 85-03, TAURINSKAS, VARIANCE Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 VERBAL REVIEW ADJOURN Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Mr. Redding explained that he would like to put an addition to the front of his home to allow more eating space in the kitchen. He had received written approval from his neighbors to his proposal. Commissioner Burke moved torecommend approval of a 2'8" front yard variance to allow construction of an addition to 2331 Pueblo Drive. Commissioner Frank seconded the motion. Mr. James Taurinskas was present tn request a 15 foot variance to the 40 foot setback to the bluff for his lot on Knollwood Lane, which is Lot 13, Block 1, Ivy Falls ' West 2nd Addition. Planner Dahlgren gave an oral report noting that this particular lot is suitable for a walkout home and is difficult to develop. Be noted that the deck, which will be located on the lower level, is 25 feet from the bluffline, and that the highest portion of the home is more than 40 feet from the bluffliue. Be noted that the front corner of the home is 30 feet from the cul-de-sac. Mr. Taurinskas had received written approval from his neighbors. Public Works Director Danielson noted that the plans were extremely well done and the home should be a good addition to Mendota Heights. Commissioner Stefani moved to recommend approval o 5 foot variance to the 40 foot setback of the bluffline and towaive the public hearing requirement. Commissioner McMooigal seconded the motion. Public Works Director Danielson gave a verbal review of the Linvill variance that had been acted upon by the City Council. There being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Frank moved that the meeting be adjourned. Commissioner Stefani seconded the motion. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 8:37 o'clock P.M. .?I1 1 J1 IL 11 11: I; i. .t,:l I lam% WINTHROP, WEINSTINE & SEXTON MEMORANDUM MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL DAVID E. MORAN APRIL 18, 1985 LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION APR 2 4 1985 The purpose of this memorandum is to briefly discuss the legislation which requires the establishment of watershed manage- ment organizations, and to discuss the terms of the proposed Joint Powers Agreement which has been negotiated by the City Administra- tors, Engineers and Attorneys for the eight cities within our designated watershed. THE STATUTES. In 1982, the Minnesota legislature adopted the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 473.875-883. The purpose of the legislation was to require multi -community planning for surface water problems in the 7 -county area. The vehicle chosen by the legislature to accomplish such multi -community planning is a watershed management organization ("WMO") created through a joint powers agreement. After it is created, the WMO proceeds to adopt a plan for dealing with the surface water problems within its boundaries. Briefly, the plan is required to describe the existing surface water situation, state objectives and policies for dealing with problems, and set forth a specific implementation program for dealing with the problems. After the plan's creation and approval, it must be submitted to the county, the cities within the watershed, the Metropolitan Council, the Department of Natural Resources and the Pollution Control Agency. All of these entities have the right to review and comment upon the plan. After the plan is approved and adopted, the cities within the district are required to prepare local water management plans including capital improvement programs, zoning and comprehensive plan amendments necessary to bring local water management into conformance with the WMO plan. After adoption of this local plan by the City Council, the City must submit the plan to the WMO for review for consistency with the overall plan. After all of these planning activities have been completed, projects will be adopted and implemented in accordance with the plans. The statute further provides that cities may establish "water- shed management tax districts" in the portion of the city lying within the watershed, for the purpose of paying the city's share of the costs of planning, capital improvements and maintenance. The statute sets forth the procedure for creating such a district and imposing the taxes. The statute also provides that any such tax levy imposed by a city in order to pay the costs of implementing the WMO, or the costs of capital improvements thereunder, is exempt from the levy limit. However, the proceeds of any tax levied to fund such items must be deposited in a separate fund and expended only for watershed management purposes. Finally, this statute provides that a city may issue bonds in the amount deemed necessary to pay for a capital improvement, and pay the bonds out of the proceeds of the tax. 2 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT. Although this memorandum will only discuss the "high points" of the proposed agreement, I would strongly urge you all to read the entire agreement carefully and contact either myself or Jim Danielson with any questions or comments you may have regarding its terms. As I mentioned at the April 16 City Council meeting, this agreement will be in place until at least January 1, 2000, and the City will be delegating a tremendous amount of its authority with respect to surface water management concerns to the WMO. Again, our main area of concern lies with the allocation of the costs of capital improvement projects which run through two or more cities and the maintenance of such projects. Such costs will probably run into the millions during the term of the agreement. The agreement contains a formula setting forth the method pursuant to which these costs should be allocated. In addition, examples have been attached to the agreement as illustrations of how the formula should work in practice. In the event the City is unhappy with a proposed allocation, our sole remedy will be to ask for arbitration with respect to the allocation. In essence, the decision of the arbitrators will be final and binding upon the City, since our right to appeal a decision of the arbitrators to District Court is limited by statute. Therefore, we will be committed to living with the terms of the agreement for many years, and I would strongly urge you to review the agreement in detail, and contact either Jim or myself with any questions or comments you may have. 3 1. Organization. The WMO will be governed by a "Board of Managers." The Board of Managers will consist of eight members, and each city party to the agreement will have the right to appoint one representative to the Board. We would also be required to appoint an alternate in the event the main representative is unable to attend. Most matters presented to the Board would be subject to a weighted voting system. The weighted votes are set forth in Section 4 of the Joint Powers Agreement. As you can see, the City of Mendota Heights has two7out of fourteen votes. Unless otherwise stated, a majority of all eligible votes is required to approve all matters before the Board. There are several situations in which extraordinary votes are required. First of all, at several points in the agreement, the weighted voting is not utilized, and each city shall have only one vote. Specifically, 5/8ths voting is required for purposes of adopting the plan (and approving local plans), acquiring, operat- ing, constructing and maintaining the drainage system improvements set forth in the capital improvement program which is part of the plan, and in ordering a specific improvement and allocating the costs of constructing that improvement. The other extraordinary vote situtation would arise in the event of the dissolution of the WMO. An 11/14ths vote is required to dissolve. 2. Powers and Duties. Paragraph 7 sets forth the powers and duties of the WMO. I leave the review of this section to you, since I feel most of the powers and duties are self-explanatory. 4 3. Capital Improvement Procedure. Section 8 sets forth the procedure pursuant to which the WMO will implement capital improvement projects. This procedure roughly approximates the procedure set forth -in Chapter 429 for ordinary projects funded by special assessments. The engineer prepares a feasibility report, indicating the estimated cost of the improvements and proposed allocation between the members. After notice, the Board will hold a public hearing concerning the improvement. By 5/8ths vote, the Boardmay adopt a resolution ordering the improvement, designating the engineers to prepare plans and specifications, and designating whether the WMO, or one of the member cities, will contract for the improvement. Thereafter, each city has from 90 to 270 days to conduct hearings complying with appropriate state law to ascertain how the city will finance its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement. In this regard, the City may either utilize a special taxing district hereinabove described, the special assessment procedure set forth under Chapter 429, or other appropriate financing method. If a city is unhappy with the allocation of the cost of an improvement project it can appeal the Board's determination. The appeal will be addressed to the Board, and the Board will refer the appeal to an arbitration panel. Arbitration must be completed within the same 270 -day period the member cities have to determine how they will finance their portion of the cost. Section 8 sets forth certain other rules concerning capital improvements, including the procedure for letting construction contracts, supervision of construction, easement and right-of-way acquisition matters, and design criteria for storm sewers, drainage ditches and detention ponds. 4. Finances. The agreement contains rules regarding the three main areas of financing: administrative expenses, capital improvements, and maintenance expenses. a. Administrative Expense. The WMO will adopt an administrative budget on an annual basis. Each city will be required to bear a portion of the total annual administrative budget determined by comparing the city's total area to the area of the entire watershed management district, and by comparing the city's total assessed valuation to the total assessed valuation of the entire district. The average of those two percentages is the amount of the total administrative budget which the city must bear. The WMO's annual administrative budget:vis "capped" by language in the agreement which provides that the budget cannot be increased beyond the point at which any member's share of the budget equals one-half mill of the city's assessed valuation. Information presented to us at the meeting indicates that Sunfish Lake will reach the one-half mill level at a point which would require Mendota Heights to pay no more than $21,000 per year in annual administrative expenses. b. Capital Improvements. The agreement provides that each city must bear the cost of constructing the portion of any project (to the extent the project - 6 - is located within its borders) which is necessary to accommodate its "allowable flow" and the allowable flow of all other upstream members. A city is also required to bear the proportion of costs of the drainage system which is necessary to -accommodate its "excessive flows" downstream from the city. Basically, this allocation language is an extension of the "reasonable use" doc- trine, a legal theory recognized in Minnesota, which states that entities or landowners are required to receive and bear the expense of runoff from upstream areas which existed in the natural scheme of things, and that any improvements by the upstream landowners or entities which increase the amount of runoff must be paid for by the upstream member. "Allowable flow" and "excessive flow" are defined in paragraph 3, and the examples attached to the agreement explain how those concepts work in practice. c. Maintenance. The WMO has the option of funding maintenance work through the general administrative budget or funding it as a capital improve- ment in accordance with the scheme hereinabove set forth for allocating the cost of capital improvements. Again, although this memorandum has discussed the high points of the agreement, I would urge you all to read the agreement as carefully as possible. As Mr. Danielson mentioned at the April 16 City Council meet- ing, we should move fairly quickly with respect to this agreement. If we are unable to reach agreement with the other seven cities in 7 our district by July 1, 1985, the County has the right to take control of the entire situation, and impose its will upon us with respect to capital improvements and all of the other items covered by the agreement. Mr. Danielson and myself will attend the next City Council meeting in order to answer any questions or comments you may have. DEM:rmb cc: Sherman Winthrop, Esq. Thomas M. Hart, Esq. 8 -t, CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT April 24, 1985 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights will meet at 8:30 o'clock P.M., on Tuesday, May 7, 1985, in the City Hall Council.Chambers, 750 South Plaza Drive, to consider an application from United Properties for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development to construct three office/service buildings on the following site: Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5, and that part of Lot 7, lying east of the west 116.9 feet; all in Block 2, Mendota Heights Industrial Park; and that part of the South 518.6 feet of the north 884 feet of the west 420 feet of the N1 of the S1 of Section 34, Township 28, Range 23, lying easterly of the northerly extension of the east line of the west 116.9 feet of said Lot 7. More particularly, this land is located on the north side of Mendota Heights Road, between Pilot Knob Road and Transport Drive. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Ordinance No. 401. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk MEMO TO: Mayor, City Council and City Admi istrator FROM: Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Building Activity Report for April, 1985 CURRENT MONTH NO. VALUATION BLDG PERMITS SFD 7 841,452.11 APT 0 0 c/I 5 3,671,200.00 MISC. 8 83,085.38 SUB TOTAL 20 4,595,737.49 TRADE PERMITS Plbg 5 Wtr 5 Swr 2 Htg, AC, Gas Pipe 1 FEE COLLECTED 5,554.72 0 15,980.96 1,037.04 22,572.72 126.00 27.50 35.00 53.50 • DATE: April 24, 1985 YEAR TO DATE - 1985 N0. VALUATION 14 1,572,015.49 0 0 9 4,346,700.00 15 130,960.38 FEE COLLECTED 10,681.28 0 19 ,450.04 1,737.96 38 6,049,675.57 17 13 8 7 31,869.28 404.00 12,562.50 140.00 261.00 SUB TOTAL 13 LICENSING Contractor's Licenses 23 TOTAL 242.00 575.00 45 147 13,367.50 3,675.00 YEAR TO DATE - 1984 NO. VALUATION FEE COLLECTS? 10 978,727.78 6,947.33 2 4,500,000.00 19,166.40 25 1,475,623.00 9,195.09' 15 1,993,142.00 9,771.65 52 8,947,492.78 45,080.47 33 2,273.00 25 125.00 20 350.00 41 3,585.00 119 6,333.00 180 4, 500'.00 56 $4,595.737.49 $23,389.72 230 $6,049,675.47 $48,911.78 180 $8,947,402.78 $55,913.47 NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee an. valuation amounts. April 25, 1985 To the city of Mendota Heights: We, Mr. & Mrs. William Wegner, owner's of the property adjacent to 583 Valley Lane, Mendota Heights, do not object to the building of a single car garage on the present location of the existing slab. k Dat e: 14°G2 trff‘ Signed: 577 Valle Lane Mendota Heights, MN CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Fraz- City Admini ator MEMO April 25, 1985 SUBJECT: Hearing on Mn/FSL General Contractor License INTRODUCTION Council originally scheduled a hearing for the April 2nd meeting to take.testimony from residents concerned about the performance of Minnesota FSL Corporation in their construction of Delaware Crossing. That hearing was tabled to the meeting of May 7th to give Mn/FSL and the homeowners an opportunity to meet and discuss the concerns. That meeting was held on April 17th, but unfortunately the problems were not resolved, so the homeowners still wish to appear before Council. DISCUSSION To prepare for the hearing, Council may want to review my memos dated March 22 and January 23, copies of which were included with the agenda material for April 2nd. To reiterate briefly, the test for revocation of a general contractor's license under City Ordinance No. 601, Section 9 is: 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 Hart has added that a finding of gross misrepresentation or fraud on the part of a contractor would also be legally acceptable grounds for a suspension or revocation. PURPOSE AND PROCESS OF THE HEARING The purpose of the May 7th hearing is for Council to receive testimony, so as to determine whether there is adequate cause for license suspension or revocation. The aggrieved homeowners should be allowed to present their case, and Mn/FSL to give its response. When Council feels that everyone has had adequate opportunity to present their position, the hearing can be closed. ALTERNATIVES FOR ACTION Upon completion of the hearing, Council would have, at least, the following alternatives: 1. Make a finding that Mn/FSL Corporation has mt. violated Ordinance No. 601, in which case, no further action would be required. - 2- 2. Make a finding of Ordinance violation of such severity that a suspension of 30 days to one year should be placed on the licensee. 3. Make a finding of Ordinance violation of such severity that the license should be revoked. 4. Refer the matter to staff for more complete investigation of the complaints raised, tabling any further action pending the outcome of that investigation. Staff follow-up would include an analysis of the legal issues involved. KDF:madlr CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 26, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Fraze City Administrator SUBJECT: Nuisance and Zoning Code Enforcement INTRODUCTION At the March 19 and April 2 meetings, we had some brief discussion about enforcement of nuisance and zoning code ordinances (i.e., weeds, refuse, illegally parked recreational vehicles, etc.). In my memo of response, I suggested that if the Council wished us to more aggressively enforce these types of ordinances, it would require additional staffing. Council asked staff to look into the cost of a "stepped up" seasonal enforcement program for the summer. DISCUSSION My suggestion was that, if Council wants more aggressive ordinance enforcement, we hire a person for the summer months, when we get the most complaints. Our most likely source for such a person would be a college student, such as we hire in public works. The cost to hire a student would likely be $4.50 - $5.00 per hour. There are no other fringe costs with seasonal employees, so the total personnel cost for 12 weeks at full-time would be $2,100 to $2,500. To this would be added transportation costs of approximately $400. The total direct costs would be $2,500 - $3,000. The above figures assume full-time work for a 12 week period. We could, of course, cut back either the number of hours per week, or the length of the season, although that could make it more difficult to hire the best person. ALTERNATIVES The alternative is to continue our current "response to complaint only" basis of ordinance enforcement. RECOMMENDATION Staff has no recommendation. The question is really one of preferred service level; in other words, how much money is the Council willing to spend on code enforcement. - 2 - BUDGET IMPACT No funds were budgeted for a stepped up enforcement program, so costs would have to come from the General Fund balance. ACTION REQUIRED If Council desires to continue pursuing the possibility of seasonal enforcement, it should authorize us to advertise the position. The remaining details could be worked out when we have selected an applicant for appointment. KDF:madlr TO: Planning Commission FROM: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 26, 1985 Jim Danielson Paul Berg Public Works Director and Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Case ##85-06, Redding, Variance at 2331 Pueblo Dirve DISCUSSION Bill Redding, 2331 Pueblo Drive, proposes to construct a 12' x 12' addition to the front of his home. The proposed addition will encroach 2'8" into the front yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Lots in the present-day lots been a number of Staff recommends yard setback. ACTION REQUIRED: Friendly Hills addition were platted at a size less than the at a minimum of 15,000 square feet. Consequently, there have variances granted to allow similar additions in Friendly Hills. the granting of a 2'8" variance to the required 30 foot front Review with the applicant the details of his plan and make a recommendation to the City Council. JD/PB:madlr CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 26, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council and City A inistrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Kubes Lot Division Case No. 85-02 DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their January meeting to discuss an application by Mr. Raymond Kubes to subdivide a lot at 645 Callahan Place. The Planning Commission approved the lot division provided that a survey was received prior to City Council review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has received the survey of the lot (attached) and recommend approval. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with staff and Planning Commission recommendation, they should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 85- , Resolution Approving the Lot Division of Lot 30, Willow Springs Addition, Section 25, Township 28 North, Range 23 West. JED:dfw City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 85 - RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT DIVISION OF LOT 30, WILLOW SPRINGS ADDITION, SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST WHEREAS, Mr. Raymond Kubes owner of Lot 30, Willow Springs Addition, Section 25, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, Dakota County, Minnesota, has requested from the City to divide that lot into two (2) lots; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lot split and finds the same to be in order. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota that the lot division submitted at this meeting be and the same is hereby approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of May, 1985. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Robert G. Lockwood, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 29, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Ad r I5, for FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Roger's Lake Tennis Court Overlay DISCUSSION: The Park and Recreation Commission at their April meeting discussed the condition of tennis court surfaces. They remembered that the courts at Friendly Hills and Marie Park were resurfaced three years ago and that the intention was to budget for the remaining four courts at the rate of two a year. Due to an oversite the remaining resurfacing were never budgeted for. Terry Blum (Park Forman) reported that of the four remaining courts, the one at Roger's Lake was in the worst and should be redone as soon as possible. The Commission would like Rogers Lake courts resurfaced this year and request that up to $3,440 be authorized from the general fund. Staff obtained one quote for information purposes and will get others if autho- rized to proceed. (Attached) If Council authorizes this court to be resurfaced in 1985 the Commis- sion will budget for one more in 1986 and the remaining two 1987. RECOMMENDATION: The Park and Recreation Commission recommends that Roger's Lake tennis courts be resurfaced in 1985. Financing to be from the general fund. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with the recommendation they should pass a motion authorizing an unappropriated expenditure from the Park and Recreation Budget of up to $3440. A C -TI 0 N COURTS, INC. Mailing Address P.O. Box D Rosemount, MN 55068 April 23, 1985 Dick Ploumen Mendota Hgts Parks & Rec. 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Dick: (612) 423-5555 Business Location 4860 Biscayne Ave. Eagan, MN We are quoting a price of $3,440.00 for resurfacing the tennis courts at Rogers Lake. This would include the following: -clean the court surface -flood the surface to locate areas holding water -patch depressions -repair cracks -apply 2 coats tennis court filler -apply 2 coats acrylic tennis court color -line stripe to USTA specifications All work would be done to U.S. Tennis Court and Track Builders Association specifications. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this quotation. Sincerely, c%k C, `w✓w` Don Smith, President DS/rmk Acceptance Date CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council 2�— FROM: Kevin D. Fra /� City Admini trator SUBJECT: Cost of City Newsletter INTRODUCTION April 29, 1985 While the City newsletter, Heights Hilites, continues to receive favorable comments, a recent cost accounting of the last issue revealed that it is not inexpensive to produce and distribute. The purpose of this memo is to seek Council directive for future publications. DISCUSSION One of our emphasis' over the past year has been to do a tighter cost accounting of City programs, so we better know just what they are costing. A recent audit of the Winter, 1985 issue of the newsletter revealed a cost of $3,652.85 for production and distribution. By far, the major cost factor is Guy's time for coordination, lay -out, photography, trips to the printer and post office, etc. We experimented with a new distribution method this issue which required some additional effort, that hopefully can be saved in the future. The 1985 budget as adopted includes only $5,800 for the newsletter: Administration $2,500; Utility Fund $1,300; Burliness Development Fund $1,500; and Tax Increment District $500. ALTERNATIVES Obviously, the appropriated funds will not allow for the publication of three additional issues in 1985. Alternatives to bring costs more into line with funds would include at least the following: 1. Taking all possible steps to reduce "overhead" and excess costs. 2. Reducing the size of each issue from 6 to 4 pages. 3. Reducing the number of 1985 issues. 4. Appropriating additional funds. 5. Publishing paid advertisement's as a source of revenue. We briefly investigated #5, paid advertising, and decided against it. The thought was for something appropriate and tasteful, such as "business card" notices from local merchants (similar to those in the LMC magazine). However, - 2 - our- our research revealed that market rates for such are modest, and the cost of administration could quickly exceed the revenues received. RECOMMENDATION I recommend a combination of alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 411 - Reducing overhead - This one almost goes without saying. However, the cost savings will not be significant. 413 - Reduce number of issues - We would publish only two more times (as opposed to three) in 1985. This should save approximately $3,500. Due to our temporarily reduced engineering staff size, and the early summer projects coming up, it will not be possible to get the next issue out until approximately July 1st anyway. We could then do a Fall issue. A more drastic option would be to do only one more issue this year, likely late summer. .. 414 - Additional funds - Much of the funding comes from enterprise restricted funds. These could easily be tapped a little more and additional funds (i.e., Engineering) asked to kick in. ACTION REQUIRED To select whatever alternatives Council prefers. KDF:madlr attachment CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Fra � /� City Admin' tra�o� April 29, 1985 SUBJECT: Resolution on Policy of Urban Design Streets INTRODUCTION During our recent discussions about projects of significant street reconstruction, Council expressed some interest in adopting a policy of a preference for urban design standards. Attached for your consideration is a proposed resolution adopting such a policy. DISCUSSION As we halediscussed this issue at some length, I think most of you are aware of the pros and cons of rural versus urban design streets. Therefore, I will not reiterate those in this memo. Attached is a proposed resolution setting forth the desirable aspects of urban design streets, and expressing a preference for urban design streets. Specifically, the resolution states that all new subdivisions will have urban design streets (which is already our current practice), and that when undergoing substantial reconstruction, existing streets will be upgraded to urban design standards, when technically and financially feasible. The biggest practical issue is, of course, going to be cost. Under MSA Chapter 429, the City can levy special assessments against a property, only to the extent that it can prove the assessment resulted in an equivalent improvement to the value of the property. As the City learned with the Ivy Falls project, it is extremely difficult to prove that the amount of the assess- ment necessary to pay for upgrading to urban standard streets will be reflected in the value of the property. Practically speaking, I thinkthat if the Council is serious about upgrading to urban design standards, we are probably going to have to subsidize these projects out of general tax revenues, to the extent that we cannot levy the assessment. In this case, upgrading streets becomes a community priority, competing with other city projects and programs for funding. RECOMMENDATION While I think it is going to be difficult to enforce the policy stipulated in the attached resolution, I do agree that if this is the Council preference, we are in a far better position if we have adopted a written policy standard, s.v -2 as opposed to reacting to each project on its own merits. Therefore, if urban streets are the Council preference, I would recommend passage of the proposed resolution. ACTION REQUIRED Motion to adopt resolution 85- KDF:madlr attachment CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 29, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Admi FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Northend Street Improvements Job No. 7843 Improvement No. 79, Project No. 3 DISCUSSION: At the public hearing for this project on April 16, 1985, Council asked for more input from residents on whether or not they desire curb and gutter along Hiawatha, Fremont, and Garden Lane. I have received a number of phone calls on the project and many of them left their names and opinions. The following were generally for the smaller project and against curb and gutter throughout. Mrs. Fred Vatke Alfred Johnson Catherine Pallas Mike Riley Audrey Longbern Tony Mancuso - 574 Hiawatha Avenue 1105 Dodd Road 924 Chippewa Avenue 947 Delaware Avenue 1100 Chippewa Avenue 552 Annapolis Avenue Two people called to report that they were circulating petitions for curb and gutter however they have not been received by City Hall as of this date. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council chooses to go with the project that has curb and gutter throughout, the costs are substantially higher and a new hearing should be ordered. Because of mailing and advertising requirements, that hearing should be set for 8:00 o'clock P.M., June 4, 1985. If Council desires to proceed as originally proposed they should pass a motion adopting 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) CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 30, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Ad inist ator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Redding Variance Case No. 85-06 DISCUSSION: Planning Commission reviewed the attached variance at their April meeting and unanimously voted to recommend approval to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission and Staff recommend that Council grant Bill Redding, 2331 Pueblo Drive a 2'8" variance into the front yard setback. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with the Planning Commission and Staff recommenda- tion, they should pass a motion waiving the public hearing and granting William R. Redding, 2331 Pueblo Drive a 2'8" variance to the required 30 foot front yard setback. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO April 30, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Ad 042 or FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: United Properties Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Case No. 85-07 DISCUSSION: At their April 23rd meeting the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on United Properties' proposal for a new Planned Unit Development (similar to their two previous ones). There was no public at the meeting and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposal to the City Council. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend granting United Properties a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat approval for their latest office/warehouse development. ACTION REQUIRED: Council needs to conduct a public hearing on the proposal and based on input from Council members and public, act on the Planned Unit Development and preliminary plat proposal. If Council desires to approve the proposal with no conditions, staff has prepared for consideration Resolution No. 85- , Resolution Approving United Properties Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat. JED:dfw City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 85 - RESOLUTION APPROVING UNITED PROPERTIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT WHEREAS, United Properties has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a Planned Unit Development consisting of office and warehouse space on Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5, and that part of Lot 7, lying east of the west 116.9 feet; all in Block 2, Mendota Heights Industrial Park; and that part of the South 518.6 feet of the north 884 feet of the west 420 feet of the N1/4 of the S1/4 of Section 34, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, lying easterly of the northerly extension of the east line of the west 116.9 feet of said Lot 7; and WHEREAS, such Planned Unit Development will consist of approximately 154,000 square feet of area enclosed within three structures and staged over three phases of construction; and WHEREAS, the proposed construction is to be on 13 acres of land. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights that the Conditional Use Permit for the United Properties Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat be approved. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of May, 1985. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Robert G. Lockwood, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk Page No. 2247 April 30, 1985 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Adjourned Meeting Held Tuesday, April 30, 1985 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the workshop 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 7:39 P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Lockwood, Councilmembers Blesener, Cummins, Hartmann, and Witt. Also present were Planning Commission members Kruse, Burke, Frank, Henning, McMonigal, Morson, and Stefani. Also present were Administrator Frazell and Planner Dahlgren. ADOPTION OF Councilman Hartmann moved adoption of the agenda for the meeting. AGENDA Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MENDOTA As the representatives from Mn/DOT, District 9, were present, INTERCHANGE Mayor Lockwood suggested that the agenda be reversed to take up this issue first. Mr. Dick Elasky and Mr. Earl VanBerkom, project manager for the Mendota Interchange were present. Mr. Elasky began by giving the group a quick rundown on the progress of the construction on the interstate system in Dakota County. Mr. VanBerkom then gave a presentation on the Mendota interchange project. He indicated that the purpose of the project is to split up the current intersection of Highways 13, 55 and 110, and to get these key intersections in different places. He said that the roadways would be urban expressways, with signalized intersections, rather than limited access freeways. This was due to the fact that traffic volumes are expected to drop with the opening of the interstate systems in Dakota County. He said that there would be signals at the intersections of 13 and 55, 13 and 110, and 110 and Lexington, in addition to the existing signal at 55 and Mendota Heights Road. He indicated that it was also likely that signalization would be needed at TH 13 and Pilot Knob Road at some time in the future. Mr. VanBerkom said that any kind of interchange of 55 with Acacia Blvd. :would be difficult, since the plan envisions the highway at this point tapering down to single lanes where it leads into TH 110. He also indicated that the curvature and grade approaching this intersection could make it dangerous. COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE PLAN AMENDMENT -HOUSING ELEMENT Page No. 2248 April 30, 1985 In general, the bid time letting for the stages of the project were Highway 110- March of 1988; Highway 55 - January, 1989; and the TH 13 and City of Mendota connection - January, 1990. Dick Elasky indicated that most of the funding for the project will come from federal sources, and that the timelines given are fairly well set. City Planner Howard Dahlgren said that he thought more attention should be given to the TH110 access road by the Gould property, where it intersects with Lexington Avenue. Mr. VanBerkom said that that could be looked at in the detail design stage. There was then a general discussion about the TH55/Acacia Blvd. intersection. Councilmember Witt questioned the need for a bridge from Acacia over to the access road on the east side. Planner Dahlgren said that a "T" intefsection at thigsloeatioh would have much less traffic than at the TH110/13 intersection, and that he felt that this connection was important to the quality and intensity of development that the City could expect in this area. Mr. VanBerkom responded that the bridge was put in because it was necessary that a County road be connected somewhere near its northerly terminus. Mr. Elasky responded that the curvature and grade changes in the area would make it dangerous to have a "T" intersection directly with TH 55. It was agreed that the City staff and Planner should come up with some traffic projections for development in the area so that the City Council could consider taking an official position on whether it wanted to request a "T" intersection with TH55. City Planner Howard Dahlgren gave a very brief overview of the substantative changes in the Housing Plan. He indicated that the plan stipulates that the City's goal will be the development of 45 low and moderate income housing units and 30 modest cost housing units by 1990. Mr. Dahlgren said this is approximately 25% of the City's projected increase in housing, which is a fairly substantial proportion. Planner Dahlgren also pointed out the implementation steps as being the allowance for a 25% density credit in multi -family units, and 15% in single family residential, as well as the option to forego immediate construction of a garage. He pointed out the Lexington Heights apartment project as one where the City had given a 25% density bonus and had created approximately 45 low and moderate income units. Mr. Dahlgren said that he thought because of the market forces, most developers in Mendota Heights will continue to develop large and expensive homes, and it may not be realistic to think that the goals would ever be achieved. However, he said it was possible that one or two major projects could achieve the goals. Page No. 2249 April 30, 1985 Planner Dahlgren also pointed out that even with the density bonuses, the allowable densities in Mendota Heights are still substantially less than the standard minimums in most other communities. There was some discussion about when and if garage construction would be required. It was agreed that the language in the chapter should be amended to stipulate that each developer's agreement will address this issue. Planning Commission Chairperson Kruse pointed out the certificate of occupancy program proposed if housing conditions become a community concern. It was generally agreed that while certificates of occupancy are a good idea, they can be difficult to enforce. There was agreement that the language stating that it could be invoked if it becomes a community concern was an acceptable way to approach it. Planner Dahlgren was then directed to make several minor wording changes, and to prepare the final draft for consideration and formal adoption by the City Council at an upcoming meeting. CONDOR CORP. City Administrator Frazell said that this issue was on the APARTMENT PROPOS- agenda tonight simply to inform Council and Planning Commission AL of an upcoming project. City Planner Dahlgren reported that Condor Corporation, developers of the Lexington Heights apartments, had been in to talk with staff about a proposal for a rather sizeable apartment project south of Mendota Heights Road and north of 494. Planner Dahlgren indicated that the land in question had been left at low and rural residential designation on the City's future land use plan in 1979, since it was not even certain, at that time, that the 494 freeway would be built. He said that with construction of 494, it might not be as practical to plan to build single family homes in that area. Planner Dahlgren indicated that the Condor proposal was for a rather low density apartment complex, approximately eight units per acre, but that that would be a significant change in density standards from the existing land use designation and zoning. City Administrator Frazell reiterated that no action was necessary on this item this evening, but that it is a very real project, and the Planning Commission and Council can expect to see it in the future. I-494/DELAWARE The Council and Commission briefly reviewed a letter from Inver INTERCHANGE GroVe Heights seeking an initial reaction to the thought of having an interchange with 494 and Delaware Avenue. Planner Dahlgren said that an interchange had not been planned there originally because of the large lot zoning in the area, ADJOURN Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 2250 April 30, 1985 and the feeling that the interchange was not needed and would n. be consistent with land development patterns in the area. It was the concensus of the Council and Commission that the conditions that had led to the original decision had not changed, and that there didn't appear to be any reason to change that decision at this time. There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Hartmann moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:07 o'clock P.M. Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator ATTEST: Robert G. Lockwood Mayor CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor, City Council, City Ad ‘s0aL FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Proposed Parking Restrictions April 30, 1985 INTRODUCTION On April 2nd Council received a complaint from Russ Wahl over the parking of a semi on Callahan Place. A staff memo to Council on April 16th indicated that comprehensive staff review of the City's Code of Ordinances (to identify issues which need to be addressed) would begin in the interim between the April 16th and May 7th Council meetings. We proposed that a draft ordinance to address Mr. Wahl's complaint would be given top priority in the review process. Mr. Wahl also appeared at the April 16th meeting and indicated that while the semi was no longer being parked on -street, the tractor was being "stored" on a residential property on Callahan. He urged that action be taken to resolve his complaint. The purpose of this memo is two -fold: to provide the Council with proposed regulations which react to the complaint, and to suggest an alternate course of action. DISCUSSION The attached proposed Ordinance is a response to the recent complaint, somewhat hastily prepared by Chief Delmont and me. We believe the issue raised by Mr. Wahl is adequately addressed therein and that the regulations proposed are both reasonable and enforceable. We agree that the City's Code should include the attached, or similar, provisions. However, the parking of various types of trucks is a problem throughout the community and we do not feel that the total issue should be addressed on a piecemeal basis. Dennis and I feel very strongly that serious study should be given to the total issue and that thorough review of all of the City's parking regulations should occur before any additional provisions are adopted. The City Code currently includes five individual ordinances regulating the parking of motor vehicles in residential areas. The Zoning Ordinance contains numerous references to the parking of vehicles (including recreational vehicles). Chief Delmont and I feel that it would be in the best interest of the community as a whole to update and consolidate all of the parking regulations into a single, enforceable Ordinance. Adoption of additional, new legislation at this time in response to an individual complaint would only hamper the Parking Restrictions -2- April 30, 1985 consolidation process, perhaps even conflict with existing Ordinance language, and very possibly be revised as the result of consolidation of parking laws. Chief Delmont and I plan to meet early next week to again review and, with input from other staff members and sample regulations from other communities, begin to consolidate and update all existing parking restrictions and determine what additional regulations should be recommended. ALTERNATIVES 1. Respond to the expressed complaint by adopting the attached proposed ordinance. Enforcement of the provisions and resolu- tion of the complaint could then occur after May 15th Ordinance publication. If this alternative is selected, Council should acknowledge that potential consolidation of parking restrictions may result in repeal of the ordinance in the near future. 2. Defer action on the issue until a consolidated parking restriction ordinance, which will include the parking of semi- trailers and commercial vehicles, is available for Council review and decision. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 1, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Ad FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director ►p�frrstrator SUBJECT: Temporary Easement - 1760 Douglas Court DISCUSSION: Attached is a letter from Tom Hart, requesting on behalf of a client the release of a 20 foot wide temporary construction easement. This ease- ment was for City Project 77-1 to install a 12 inch storm sewer lead that picks up a low spot in the south corner of the lot (see Map on Back). The City should retain the 10 foot permanent easement but there is no need to retain the temporary easement. RECOMMENDATION: The City no longer has a need for the subject temporary easement, staff recommends that it be released. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation, they should pass a motion authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to execute the attached Re- lease of Easement document on behalf of the City. 0 ml xl N zI O 01 zi O 0 175.32' 20' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIONI EASEME '" O 130.77' I 10' PERMANENT UTILITY EASEMENT 20' TEMPORAR Y CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT t0 DOUGLAS COURT 60' O 0 0 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 1, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Fraz City Admini .1)? ator SUBJECT: Green Space in Business Developments INTRODUCTION Following our recent discussion on the Linvill project, Councilmember Blesener questioned whether we should consider changing our regulations to require more "green space". This memo provides a response. DISCUSSION Attached is a copy of our zoning regulations establishing setbacks, floor -area ratios, etc., in the "Industrial" district. City Planner Dahlgren's opinion is that these criteria are already somewhat more restrictive than those found in the average metropolitan area community. For example, our front yard setback of 40 feet compares to a more usual 30 feet. The parking lot setback of 20 feet compares to 10 and 15 feet. "Interior" green space is controlled by the floor -area ratio of .5 set forth in Section 16.7 (6). Howard was aware of only one community, Golden Valley, that requires more. To reduce that standard further would, in essence, negatively impact that value of the property. ALTERNATIVES 1. Direct staff to prepare alternative Industrial development regulations for Council consideration. Before considering adoption of any amend- ments, we would likely want to meet with major landowners to get their suggestions and reactions. 2. Leave the current regulations in place. RECOMMENDATION Staff's recommendation is to leave the regulations as they are. The vast majority of the land left in the business park is controlled by United Properties, with whom we have had a very positive working relationship. As our regulations are already relatively restrictive, it might be disadvantageous to both the property owners and the City (i.e., in terms of potential tax base expansion) to further restrict -land use intensity. ACTION REQUIRED If Council concurs with the recommendation, no further action is required. Otherwise, staff should be directed as to further desired study or action. KDF:madlr attachments 16.5(3) All parking areas shall be surfaced with a hard all-weather durable material with an approved curb or bumper stops defin- ing*the edge of all parking areas and driveways. All parking areas containing more than six spaces facing a public street or residential zoned property shall have a solid screen wall or fence not less than four (4) feet or more than six (6) feet high. 16.5(4) No parking spaces or aisles serving parking spaces shall be less than twenty (20) feet from any public right-of-way nor less than ten (10) feet from a building or lot line. 16.6 Landscaping and Screening 16.6(1) All areas of any lot or combination of lots which comprise the site for one (1) or more buildings, except those areas used for parking or buildings, shall be landscaped with grass, trees, shrubs, or other planted ground cover, in accordance with detailed landscaping plans prepared and signed by -'a landscape architect. A bond in an amount not to exceed one and one-half (1 1/2) times the cost of landscaping and screen- ing shall be required to guarantee the placement and construc- tion thereof as required in this Ordinance. In addition: 16.6(2) The owner shall have a continuing responsibility to maintain such landscaping and any required screening in reasonable condition. 16.7 Lot Area, Height, Lot Widths and Yard Requirements 16.7(1) Not more than fifty (50) percent of the lot area shall be occupied by buildings. 16.7(2) No structure shall exceed forty-five (45) feet in height ex- cept as provided in Section 20. 16.7(3) Side yard abutting a street on a corner lot shall be not less than forty (40) feet in width. 16.7(4) Where a lot has a railroad trackage abutting the interior side lot line or rear lot line there shall be no side'or rear yard requirement abutting the trackage in providing a rail- road loading facility. 16.7(5) Whenever an "I" Use District abuts an "R" District a fence not less than fifty (50) percent opaque nor less than six (6) feet in height shall be erected along the property line. 16.7(6) Floor -area -ratio shall not exceed 0.5. (401) 71 • • 16.7(7) The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject .to the additional requirements, exceptions and modifications as set forth in this Section and in Section 20. Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard - Abutting Abutting Rear Yard Abutting "R" Interior Street an "R" District District 1 100 40 30 40 100 50 100 acre feet feet feet feet feet feet feet 16.8 General Requirements as specified in Section 4.17 of this Ordinance. 16.9 Performance Standards The manufacture, compounding, processing, packaging, treat- ment, assembly, or storage of products shall comply with the performance standards outlined in Section 17 of this Ordi- nance. (401) 72 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 1, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Ad rust ator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Taurinskas, Critical Area Ordinance Case No. 85-03 DISCUSSION: Jim Taurinskas has applied.for a 15 foot variance to the 40 foot bluffline setback as required by the Mississippi River Critical Area Ordi- nance (CAO). His home is to be'constructed on Lot 13, Block 1, Ivy Falls West 2nd Addition. Mr. Taurinskas met with Planner Dahlgren and Staff and a site visit was conducted. Staff feels that the proposed house has been situated as well as possible to respect the bluffline. The house only encroaches 25 feet at one corner, with the rest being setback between 30-40 feet from the bluff line. This lot was created in the Ivy Falls West 2nd Addition subdivision that was approved by the City in 1977 before the CAO was adopted. (Map on Back) To situate a home on the;lot with any reasonable depth to the home and retaining the 30 foot setback in the front yard, will require a variance to the 40 foot bluffline setback. Staff feels this creates a hardship on the homebuilder and provides for Council to grant a variance to a reasonable home proposal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and Planning Commission feel that there is sufficient hardship because of the dimension of the lot to allow the granting of a variance to the bluffline setback, and feel that Mr..Taurinskas' proposal is a reason- able one that should have a variance granted. ACTION REQUIRED: Review the plans with Mr. Taurinskas, consider waiving the requirement for a public hearing (applicant.has obtained signatures of approval from neighbors) and consider a 15 foot variance to the 40 foot CAO bluffline setback. S N 4 8 X40 SUBJECT LOT �J45 3200 ;eco >'��ssa;;; 150.00 1 '. 43.12 4 1 5 .T 8ern4 d M.4 Dons FiAnson YQn-D LaA !7 R o ber t E. SG a be r l is h 'Don4 d J Anderson 24./f3 -c. co 54,, s. a. ;•'44.16 ,/oh/7 77 cS, /47/`c 7C'e5 ./1/1c Bl'/de 41113-42. 1412? 1t=§p.cp 0 B 107. Z9 c� eRTO • 4.23-PS��• rRitgrr mwftr \ '� \ `• ` \‘. \ \• \ N. • �....� \% • • i aItel iaie1ioRt h"N • • • • • • • • • • • • eta Rcitro4 10titn6W"lL. CONSENT TO VARIANCE The undersigned hereby consent to the City of Mendota Heights granting P. James Taurinskas and Carla J. 1e++ Taurinskas a variance to allow said building to be located closer than 40 feet to the bluff line of said lot as re- flected in the attached documents. Rrn+�a'#ni. DATED: L(t (£i , 1985. ). '1'21 AED -r• - • N r site Plan -1': 20; • • • • s—. . — .r. • Some r_ IMMO Ws CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TO: Mayor, City Council and City A MEMO ega May 1, 1985 FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Request for Sidewalk DISCUSSION: Staff has received the attached letter requesting that a sidewalk be constructed along Emerson between Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue. The City presently has no sidewalks, only 8 foot wide trails (there is a sidewalk along Delaware Avenue north of Trunk Highway 149 which staff considers the County's). If the Council wants to install sidewalks they could be done by the City as public improvement projects and the costs assessed to the abutting homeowners. Staff would also ask that if sidewalks are installed, an agree- ment be reached with the property owners requiring them to complete snow re- moval. The person requesting this sidewalk along Emerson does not live along Emerson and would not be charged for the sidewalk unless some agreement is reached whereby the neighborhood would participate in the costs. Staff recommends that if the Council considers constructing a sidewalk at this location, the requestor be asked to contact or to help contact the neighborhood. It would be best if those along Emerson where the sidewalk would be constructed, were to petition for the sidewalk. ACTION REQUIRED: Review the request and determine if the City wants to begin con structing sidewalks. VAiA,,Suo ‘1..45t_pct—s. 0-7"551161/ • ) A k 1 isfe\ g -s-; )e -& )1 • t # ,Qi93\,„ wW1-t s.. D, 5 13 I A • .11-10-1-tkg L4),AAA,43-3A.) °I.75k3A CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS EN7.IEFNG DEM-. AD I I f CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 1, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Fraz / City Administ tor� SUBJECT: Fire Marshal Mr. Paul Kaiser, our new Fire Marshal, began his duties on May 1st. Paul will be present to meet the Council. Attached is Gene Lange's "official" resignation, which should be accepted by Council, effective April 30, 1985. ACTION REQUIRED Motion to accept the resignation of Gene Lange as Fire Marshal. KDF:madlr attachment March 7, 1985 Mr. Kevin Frazell, City Administrator City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Frazell: Please accept this letter as my resignation from the appointed position of Fire Marshal for the City of Mendota Heights. This resignation will take effect on the date the City Council appoints the new Fire Marshal, I wish to inform you and the Council that I have been working with Assistant Chief John Maczko on the record keeping and reporting of the Department's activities. We have also been working on the Annual Report for 1984. I will continue to aid him with the upcoming insurance report to the State and the 1986 contracts for our contract areas. John has been preparing the monthly reports for several months and is doing a fine job. Most of the records from my office have been transferred to John's office. The remaining records will be sent over to him shortly. My duties as Project Manager for the new station are just about completed. There are several problems remaining inside the building. These will be resolved in the upcoming meeting between the contractor and engineers. There are also several things on the outside that are documented on the last pay order for Steele Construction Company. They will be corrected as soon as the weather permits. I would like to thank the Members of the City Council and the Administration for their confidence and cooperation during the past nine years that I have served as Fire Marshal. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 2, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City/ &nstrator FROM: Dick Ploumen Public Works Superintendent SUBJECT: Summer Help HISTORY It is time, once again, to think about summer help in the Public Works department. As in the past, we would give our past summer help first oppor- tunity to come back for another summer. We have always had three people for the summer, one in each department. Of the three we have had, two want to come back, and the third one has to go to Army boot camp. Therefore, we will need to hire one new person for the Parks department. As in the past, we will hire from Mendota Heights first, and will hire only a person who is going to college next year. We will review applications we currently have on file. ACTION REQUIRED None. DP:madlr CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 85 - RESOLUTION COMMITTING FUNDS TO UPGRADING MUNICIPAL RADIO SYSTEM AT WEST ST. PAUL COMMUNICATIONS CENTER WHEREAS, the City of West St. Paul provides public safety communications for the City of Mendota Heights; and WHEREAS, the two cities have committed themselves to a substantial upgrading of their municipal radio systems; and WHEREAS, it has been previously agreed that Mendota Heights will pay, 30% of the estimated cost of $136,250 for upgrading of the communications center located in West St. Paul. NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights hereby agrees to contribute 30% of the actual cost for upgrading the Municipal Radio Communications System, as identified in Table II of the John R. DuBois report, dated November 23, 1984, in an amount not to exceed $40,875. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day of May, 1985. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Robert G. Lockwood Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. V"- City Ad istr o SUBJECT: Add-on Agenda for May 7th May 7, 1985 Three items are recommended for addition to this evening's agenda. 3. Adoption of Agenda It is recommended that Council adopt the agenda with the addition of Items 861 - Southridge Business Center Building Permit; 8n. - Resolution concerning radio system improvements, and 80. - Set date for goal setting workshop. 801 - Southridge Business Center Building Permit Item 8c is consideration of a Conditional Use Permit application by United Properties for a Planned Unit Development of their proposed Southridge Business Center. Pending approval of that PUD, United has requested Council consideration of a building permit for Phase I. Attached is a memo from Jim Danielson. ' 8n. - Resolution Committing Funds for West St. Paul Communications Center At its meeting of January 15, Council approved expenditures of an amount up to the $127,200 in the 1985 budget for upgrading of our radio system, including 30% of the costs of equipment upgrading at the West St. Paul Communications Center. The West St. Paul Council and staff are prepared to proceed with the project, but are somewhat concerned about the lack of action by our Council to commit funds specifically for the joint costs of upgrading the communications center. Attached is a proposed resolution which should address their concerns. As the resolution is fully consistent with past Council actions and our mutual understandings with West St. Paul, I recommend passage. ACTION REQUIRED Motion to adopt the resolution. (Resolution No. 85-36). 80.- Date For Goal Setting Workshop I I Council has expressed a desire to have a session to further i discuss and refine priority work projects. The only action required this evening is to select a date for that workshop. I * Please remember that we will be meeting next Tuesday, May 14th, to interview architects. attachments CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 7, 1985 TO: Mayor, City Council and City AYrib"Ez+ator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: United Properties - Building Permit Southridge Business Center DISCUSSION: United Properties is very anxious to begin construction on Southridge Business Center Phase I and have asked that Council, pending favorable action on the Planned Unit Development request, consider granting a building permit. Staff only received the final set of plans and specifications for review on May 6th so they have not as of yet been reviewed in detail, however a quick look finds no faults. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council grant United Properties a building permit for Phase I, Southridge Business Center subject to final review of the 1 plans and specifications by staff. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation they should pass a motion approving the building permit subject to final staff review. LIST OF CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 7, 1985 Excavating License: Industrial Utilities, Inc. Junek Excavating Company Raymond E. Haeg Plumbing, Inc. Wm: Murr Plumbing, Inc. Southview Sanitation Larson Excavating, Inc. Masonry License: Dan Dietrich Construction, Inc. General Contractor License: J and D Builders, Inc. AAA Builders, Inc. Donnelly Stucco L.H. Sowles Company B.J. Larson Remodeling & Construction Company Gas Piping License: Thermex Corporation Heating and Air Conditioning License: Gopher Heating and Sheet Metal, Inc. Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors, Inc. 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 16th day of April, 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: The installation of a bituminous overlay on all the above streets together with a limited amount of Storm Sewer, including appurten- ances 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 7th day of May, 1985. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Robert G. Lockwood, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 85 - RESOLUTION ADOPTING A PREFERRED STANDARD OF URBAN DESIGN STREETS WHEREAS, several subdivisions of Mendota Heights' were developed with streets at rural design standards, without curb, gutter, and storm drainage; and WHEREAS, many of these streets are at or near the end of their useful, life, and will soon require substantial reconstruction; and WHEREAS, streets developed to urban design standards, with curb, gutter, and storm sewer are preferable for several reasons, including: 1. Improved storm water runoff, reducing damage to both public and private property. 2. Extended street life. 3. Ease of maintenance, including snowplowing. 4. Improved neighborhood aesthetics. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that it is the policy of the City that urban design streets with curb, gutter, and storm sewer are the preferred standard. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, that all new subdivisions shall be required to install urban design streets, and when technically and financially feasible, existing streets undergoing substantial reconstruction shall be upgraded to urban design standard. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 7th day ofi May, 1985. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Robert G. Lockwood Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk STATE OF KIM IESOUZI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE NO. 296-8607 May 6, 1985 1200 Warner Rd., St. Paul, MN 55106 FILE NO. Kevin Frazell City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 MAY 4 145 Dear Mr. Hedges: We would like to request permission to hold a special deer hunt in Fort Snelling State Park on November 23 and 24, 1985. In order to hold a hunt, we will need an exemption from your firearm ordinances for that portion of the park located within your community. In order to get information about the Fort Snelling hunt into the statewide Big Game hunting synopsis, we need to finalize plans for the hunt in early June. It would be a great help to us if we could take this matter up at your last meeting in May, or your first meeting in June. Last year's hunt went very well. A total of 57 deer were taken by hunters in two days of hunting. There were no accidents or injuries, and; the mechanics of the hunt ran smoothly. The fifty-seven deer that were removed were not enough to reduce the herd to sustainable levels. Our census in January of 1985 showed an estimated deer population of 333 (40 deer/square mile) within the Park and the Refuge. This is down from the 1984 estimate of 381 deer (45 deer/square mile). The drop in deer numbers was probably due, in part, to a mild winter that led to a lower concentration of deer in the Park. It appears that enough deer were removed to prevent another increase in the herd,, but not enough deer were removed to reduce the herd to a level the Park can sustain over the long term. The other indicators of deer numbers also show that the problem has, not been solved. In 1984, 88 deer were killed in collisions with vehicles; 56 in Eagan, 22 in Mendota Heights, and 10 in the vicinity of the airport. Again, these are only those deer killed that were reported to us. There were most likely others killed that went unreported. By February of 1985, another 17 deer were killed by cars; 13 in Eagan, 2 in Mendota Heights, and 2 in the vicinity of the airport. Our surveys of Park vegetation show that the utilization of browse by deer was 35% as of March, 1985, down from 85% utilization at the same time last year. This is another reflection of the mild winter last year. Deer were not forced to begin browsing woody plants until very late in the season. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Kevin Frazell City Administrator May 6, 1985 Page Two However, there has been a continuing decrease in the number of woody plants indentified during the survey. In 1984, six species were found. In 1985, only two species were recorded. This indicates a continuing decline in the health and vigor of park vegetation, a decline that will have serious consequences for all park wildlife as well as the deer themselves. For these reasons we believe it is imperative that we take measures to further reduce the deer herd in the Park. Our proposal is to hold another public hunt, with the goal of removing 100 deer. All regulations would be basically the same as before. That is, the weapons allowed would be shotguns with slugs. All hunters would be required to attend a hunter orientation session, and would be required to hunt from portable deer stands. News releases, signing and other methods would be used to inform the public that a hunt would be held in the Park, and the Park would be closed during the hunt. Our experience last .year indicated that we were conservative in our estimates of how -many hunters could safely use the Park. Substantial areas of the Park received little or no hunting pressure, resulting in fewer deer taken. Therefore, we would like to increase the number of permits issued by fifteen. Ten additional permits would be issued in the zone within Eagan, and five additional permits would be issued in the zone within Mendota Heights. I appreciate you taking the time to review this request. Your help last year was a significant part of the reason the hunt went as well as it -did. I look forward to working with you again this year. If you need any more information, I can be reached at 296-2553. I will bring more specific data to your council meeting, and will be prepared to answer specific questions. a Craig A ox Resourc lanagement Specialist Page No. 2251 May 7, 1985 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, May 7, 1985 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City I 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 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Hartmann moved adoption of the agenda for the meeting including additional items contained in the add-on agenda. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the minutes of the April 16th meeting with corrections and approval of the minutes of the April 30th meeting. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Councilmember Hartmann 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 a letter to Mr. & Mrs. Eugene Gonsowski regarding removal of a parking pad. b. Acknowledgment of the Code Enforcement monthly report for April. c. Acknowledgment of the minutes of the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting. d. Acknowledgment of a memo on summer help. e. Approval of the List of Claims dated May 7., 1985 and totalling $163,789.20. f. Approval of the list of contractor licenses, granting licenses to: Page No. 2252 May 7, 1985 Excavating Licenses: Industrial Utilities, Inc. Junek Excavating Company Wm. Murr Plumbing, Inc. Southview Sanitation Raymond E. Haeg Plumbing,Inc. Larson Excavating, Inc. Masonry License: Dan Dietrich Construction, Inc. General Contractor Licenses: J and D. Builders, Inc. AAA Builders, Inc. Donnelly Stucco L.H. Sowles Company B.J. Larson Remodeling & Construction Company Gas Piping License: Thermex Corporation Heating and Air Conditioning Licenses: Gopher Heating and Sheet Metal, Inc. Metropolitan Mechanical Contractors, Inc. Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PARKING REGULATIONS The Council acknowledged and discussed a memo and proposed ordinance restricting semi parking. Councilmember Witt moved to direct staff to proceed with preparation of a comprehensive, consolidated z parking ordinance. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 LEMAY LAKE The Council acknowledged a memo from the Public Works Director responding to a request for help from Mr. and Mrs. Miles Bredvold about the rising level of LeMay Lake. Mrs. Bredvold, present for the discussion, stated that their property has already been partially destroyed: two acres of their land are now under water and many trees have been lost. She stated that if they were to decide to sell their property it would be very difficult to sell under current conditions. Mayor Lockwood stated that for involvement of public financing in a personal problem such as this, the Council would possibly want to limit the expenditure to the protection of the Bredvold home and garage. He informed the Bredvolds that the only way the City SIDEWALK REQUEST FIRE MARSHAL Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 NORTH END STREET IMPROVEMENTS Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Hartmann Page No. 2253 May 7, 1985 could expend public funds other than for protection of the structures would be to initiate a public improvement project to be financed by assessments. He felt that the City could offer no immediate solution to the problem of the rising lake level but indicated that he could see no reason why the City could not be doing some sandbagging to protect the structures if necessary. Councilmember Witt suggested that perhaps the Bredvolds should seek an abatement of taxes for the land which is under water. The Council acknowledged a request from Mrs. M.V. Seymour for construction of a sidewalk along Emerson Avenue between Dodd Road and Delaware Avenue. Councilmember Witt stated that she does not think the City should construct sidewalks and that the Council should not change its policy in that regard. Staff was directed to respond to the letter, explaining the City's position on sidewalks. Mayor Lockwood moved to accept, with regret and appreciation for past services, the resignation of Gene Lange from the position of Fire Marshal. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Administrator Frazell introduced Mr. Paul Kaiser, the recently appointed Fire Marshal, to the Council. Mayor Lockwood informed the audience that at the public hearing on proposed North End area street improvements held on April 16th, the Council had suggested that those property owners interested in a complete project including curb and gutter should submit a petition for such improvements. He stated that a petition for curb and gutter, signed by seventeen residents on Hiawatha and Garden Lane, has been received. He then read the petition for the audience. The Council, with input from several members of the audience, discussed the proposed improvements and potential assessment rates. After lengthy discussion, Councilmember Cummins moved to conduct a feasibility hearing on proposed North End area street and storm sewer improvements on June 4th and to direct staff to prepare a more categorized estimate of costs. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Page No. 2254 May 7, 1985 RECESS Mayor Lockwood called for a recess at 9:13 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 9:22 P.M. HEARING -- UNITED PROPERTIES P.U.D. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 85-02, KUBES LOT DIVISION Mayor Lockwood opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on an application from United Properties for a conditional use permit for Planned Unit Development, along with consideration of preliminary plat and building permit approval. Mr. Dale Glowa, representing United Properties, stated that the proposed site, located on the north side of Mendota Heights Road between Pilot Knob Road and Transport Drive, consists of 12 acres of land. He indicated that the proposed Southridge Business Center development would consist of approximately 155,000 square feet of office/ warehouse space, and would be an upscale research and development project. Mr. Glowa briefly reviewed the schematic plans for the proposed development and requested Council approval of a building permit for phase one of the project along with conditional use permit and preliminary plat approvals. Mayor Lockwood asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Cummins moved that the hearing be closed at 9:35 P.M. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Councilmember Hartmann moved the adoption of Resolution No. 85-32, "RESOLUTION APPROVING UNITED PROPERTIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY PLAT." Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Councilmember Cummins moved approval of the issuance of a building permit for Phase I of the Southridge Business Center subject to staff review and approval of the plans. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. The Council reviewed an application from Mr. Raymond Kubes for the division of a parcel of land described as 645 Callahan Place into two lots. After brief discussion, Councilmember Witt moved the adoption of Resolution No. 85-33, "RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT DIVISION OF LOT 30, WILLOW SPRINGS Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 85-06, REDDING Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. CAO 85-03 TAURINSKAS Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MN/FSL GENERAL CONTRACTOR LICENSE Page No. 2255 May 7, 1985 ADDITION, SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST." Councilmember Cummins seconded the motion. Mayor Lockwood moved to grant a 2'8" variance from the front yard setback requirement at 2331 Pueblo Drive (W. Redding property) to allow construction of an addition. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Councilmember Cummins moved to waive the Critical Area Ordinance public hearing requirement and grant a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot critical area bluffline requirement for Lot 13, Block 1, Ivy Falls West 2nd Addition. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Mayor Lockwood opened the meeting for the purpose of a fact-finding discussion relative to the Mn/FSL general contractor license. He observed that there were several Delaware Crossing homeowners present to share discourse on problems they have experienced in the Delaware Crossing area. He stated that the matter was originally scheduled for April 2nd to hear about performance of the contractor but that the discussion was tabled to tonight in order to provide the property owners and contractor an opportunity to get together to discuss the problems. Councilmember Cummins stated that for the benefit of those who are unclear on the proceedings, the matter before the Council is to take testimony to review the conduct of Mn/FSL as a general contractor in Mendota Heights. He stated that the firm is a developer and contractor in Delaware Crossing and the agenda item deals specifically with a proposal to consider revoca- tion or suspension of the general contractor license. Councilmember Cummins pointed out that the Council has heard of defective construction practices and failure to repair defects along with misrepresentations by the contractor. He stated that he has experienced problems with the firm after having purchased a home in Delaware Crossing which was constructed by Fasenden (Builders) in 1982. Councilmember Cummins pointed out that the attitude of Mn/FSL has been that they refused to deal with problems in a meaningful way. They have been more active in repairs since the license Page No. 2256 May 7, 1985 revocation consideration has come before the Council but have not in the past three weeks made any meaningful efforts to negotiate protective covenants. Councilmember Cummins stated that he has judged Mn/FSL as not being suitable to be a general contractor in the City. He stated that he believes that after hearing the testimony of the property owners the Council may arrive at the same conclusion and that if the City's licensing regulations are to have any meaning he believes the discussion should result in suspension or revocation. Councilmember Cummins stated that since he has an interest in the matter he would withdraw from the Council table for the discussion and subsequently vacated the Council table. City Administrator Frazell distributed communications received from Tom Balyk, Mn/FSL'S counsel, at the beginning of the meeting. Mayor Lockwood opened the meeting for presentations by the Delaware Crossing property owners. Dr. Ed Hanton, 2381 Apache Court, stated that he picked out a lot and Mn/FSL built his home. On August 30, 1983 the closing occured and his family moved into the home on the same date. He stated that at that time many items were left undone but his family was under time constraints and had to move in at that time. He stated that Mr. McKinstry gave his word that they (Mn/FSL) would deal with the problems. On the Thursday before Labor day he had 1 to 2 inches of water in his basement and called a plumber who came out to the house. On Labor Day morning they had another 2 inches of water in the basement. The plumber said that it appeared that a connection between the house and the sewer was not in tact. On Tuesday morning his driveway disappeared and it was discovered that the drain was not connected to the sewer. He stated that he was told that in the backfilling it must have been moved but felt that that could not have been possible. He stated that the problem got resolved but that they did get water in their basement at a later date. Mn/FSL later suggested that the problem was that his line was filled with sanitary napkins: Dr. Hanton stated that at that time his family had resided in the home for no more than two weeks, that nothing would support the Mn/FSL suggestion, and that he felt the suggestion was "a line of baloney." He Page No. 2257 May 7, 1985 stated that he still does not think the line is properly connected to the City sewer system. Dr. Hanton stated that many other things have not been fixed. He was told by Mn/FSL that the problem with the whirlpool could be solved by filling the water above the drains and then blowing into the drains to prime them to get them to work: this did not work. It has been two years and the whirlpool still doesn't work. He stated that last Thanksgiving he had a faimily party and happened to look out a window and saw a rat running across his yard and heading for the sewer. He contacted the Health Officer the next day and the Health Officer subsequently walked the neighborhood and commented to Mrs. Hanton that there was lots of evidence of rats in the neighborhood. He stated that there was lots of food wrappers, milk cartons and general debris and suggested that the Hantons contact the contractor to have the area policed. The Hantons contacted Mn/FSL and they agreed to clean the area but it snowed shortly thereafter and the policing never got done. Dr. Hanton stated that he contacted City Hall today and was told that there is no report from Dr. Chao but that contact from the City Clerk to Dr. Chao indicated that the area was littered with food wrappers, milk cartons and debris which would breed rats. Dr. Hanton stated that there was no report because the Health Officer did not feel it was a nuisance created by Mn/FSL. Dr. Hanton stated that he has found that Mn/FSL doesn't clean up anything and stated that this is not the type of neighborhood where neighbors have McDonald's on the back porch and pitch the wrappers into the yards. He stated that his family cleaned up their yard during construction and felt that the contractor would not do it. He stated that he has had a very bad feeling with Mn/FSL, that he has attempted to deal with the contractor. He asked whether this means that the license should be withdrawn: Mn/FSL is a very difficult group to deal with and does not go through with their promises. In response to a question from Mayor Lockwood, Dr. Hanton responded that the debris emanates from around the building sites: the workmen have to eat. He stated that the workmen bring their lunches and then leave the debris: they are responsible for leaving the debris behind. He felt that someone should be responsible for policing the area while the construction is going on. Page No. 2258 May 7, 1985 Mr. Tom Goetz, 700 Apache Court, stated that he closed on his home in March,1984 and had numerous problems at the time of closing. At that time Mr. McKinstry said the problems would be taken care of: some of them were, but there has been no contact from Mn/FSL since November. He stated that there are many deficiences in his house from workmanship on the tile installation to nail pops on the sheetrock, driveway sinking and cracking concrete and settling in the backyard. He stated he was told that those things would be taken care of in the spring. He stated that he has a letter from Mn/FSL acknowledging that he had referred the matter to the H.O.W. He stated that Mn/FSL told: those present at the neighborhood meeting that the residents should submit their problems to H.O.W. He stated that he is still waiting for the contractor to correct the deficiencies in the house and has not yet heard from HOW. Mr. Jerry Blank, 694 Ocala Lane, stated that his main problem has been a wet basement. He indicated that he has recently received a letter from Mn/FSL stating that they are going to put gutters on the house. Another problem he has experienced is plumbing problems in the laundry: Mn/FSL has indicated they would take care of the problem. He indicated that if Mn/FSL resolves those problems he will be satisfied, but he stated that the real point is that he has been complaining to the firm about the wet basement for over a year and only now are they going to do anything about it. Mr. Ron Jacob, 2353 Apache Court, stated that his was the first or second house built in the neighborhood and that Joe Dotty was the contractor who built it. He stated that he has not had any problems with the house but that at the time he purchased his property, Mr. Dotty represented to him that Minnesota Federal and he were partners, that the area (homes) would all be of a similar design and that there would be covenants and an approval committee. He indicated that Mr. Dotty made the same statement to the original people who were building similar houses. The covenants never materialized and the issue got lost when Joe Dotty and Minnesota Federal split up. He felt that Mn/FSL should follow through with the promise of a partner at that time. In response to a question from Councilmember Witt, he stated that Mn/FSL's response to the matter of covenants has not been positive and that what they propose is not worth Page No. 2259 May 7, 1985 anything. Mrs. Judy Cummins, 2312 Nashua Lane, stated that her primary concern is faulty windows. On final inspection of their home in August, 1982, they noticed that six windows did not function and made the contractor aware of this and $1,000 was put in escrow but nothing has been done about the windows. In July of 1983 she contacted the distributor who stated that the windows were designed for the southern climate and should not be used in Minnesota. Mrs. Cummins stated that she contacted Mn/FSL and on two occasions talked to Mr. McKinstry whose solution was to have the firm's handyman repair the windows: that did not work. In November, 1983, she contacted the manufacturer's representative and the firm inspected the windows and she was told that windows could not work properly in holes that were not square. She was also told that Peachtree windows are not appropriate in this climate and in putting double glass in the windows there is too much strain on the hardware. In July, 1984, Peachtree indicated that they would replace the hardware, but Mn/FSL will not do anything. Mn/FSL's response to the problem has been to send the handyman out numerous unsuccessful times and for Steve Vangan (from Mn/FSL) to close the windows from the outside while Mrs. Cummins promptly locked them from the inside. Thye have since received a letter from Mr. Balyk stating that Mn/FSL had no part in the problem. She stated that she was told originally that there were protective covenants and also was told that Huber Drive would remain a small street. Mr. Lance Moberg, 682 Ocala Lane, stated that his problem is that he bought a house in November, 1981 at which time he was given a surveyor's certificate that said that there were no encroachments. He only discovered later that his house encroaches on the adjacent lot. The response from Mn/FSL to this problem was to tell him that they could cut a corner off of his roof to take care of the encroachment. He stated that they presented him with an easement from his neighbors, but the point is that he bought his house with the understanding that there was no lot line encroachment and Mn/FSL will do nothing about it. He stated that the matter came to his attention because his survey was not the same as the neighbors and indicated that Mr. Moberg's house encroached on Page No. 2260 May 7, 1985 the lot line. Mr. Brent Baskfield, 687 Ocala Lane, stated that he has lived in his home for 3 1/2 years and has had too many problems to describe in 2 to 3 minutes. Some of the problems have been resolved and some have not. He stated that in general it is the attitude towards the customers and clients and neighbors which has been more adversarial than anything else. Dr. Hanton stated that at the recent neighborhood meeting Mn/FSL stated that the homeowners should go to their HOW warranties but that he never received a warranty and mentioned this both prior to and at the meeting. He indicated that he had just this past week received (from Mn/FSL) an application for HOW protection dated April 29, 1985 stating the date of begin.ing of the warranty period was August 30, 1983. He stated that the warranty is on the basis of one year for workmanship, 2 years for plumbing and 8 years for major defects. He stated that he has called HOW and informed him that he is confused on the matter. They did not have his name in their files at all. He stated that his home wasn't covered and is not now covered and now Mn/FSL wants him to sign and date the documents back to 1983 even though the two years of warranty are up. Mr. Ed Lavigne, 695 Apache Lane, stated that he has had no problems with his home but has attempted to generate constructive dialog with Mn/FSL on covenants and so far has been unsuc— cessful. Mr. Tom Balyk, legal counsel for Mn/FSL, stated that Mn/FSL is a subsidiary of Minnesota Federal and that a series of builders, including Fasenden and Dotty have built in the development. He stated that what is being considered is the general contractor license issued to Mn/FSL and the health and safety issues. He stated that he has provided the Council with a preliminary statement and that of all the testimony, Mn/FSL built only the Goetz house: the rest were built by August Construction and Fasenden. He stated that the Council has heard from 6 people and 31 homes have been built in Delaware Crossing. He indicated that he feels there are two problems, the warranty claims and the suggestion of fraudulent conduct on the part of Mn/FSL relative to covenants. He stated that he takes that issue Page No. 2261 May 7, 1985 seriously and does not take the allegation lightly. With regard to the Hanton discussion, Mr. Balyk stated that Mn/FSL "blew it," that they didn't order the HOW warranty and that this was an over— sight. He stated that the first time he heard about the issue was on April 17th and has responded in detail in that regard. Mr. Balyk stated that his firm has done a large amount of warranty work. In the Goetz case, he stated, a disinterested third party is needed and Mn/FSL is willing to remedy anything HOW requires. He stated that he will provide a list of Mn/FSL's costs for the warranty work which has been done. He pointed out that the Cummins home was not built by Mn/FSL, that the general contractor was Fasenden, but that as a good corporate partner, Mn/FSL has attempted to resolve the Cummins problem with the Fasenden product. In response to the Jacob complaints, Mr. Balyk stated that this is the first time he has heard from Mr. Jacob. He also stated that he has heard Mr. Lavigne's name mentioned previously but that the Lavignes have no problems with their house — they have a problem with the covenant issue. Mr. Balyk stated that he believes he has responded to all of the complaints he has received and also believes Mn/FSL is taking action to resolve those problems. He indicated that the firm has come back and done some additional work and that he has taken it upon himself to resolve the complaints. He stated that he is not saying that Mn/FSL will take care of the complaints: he believes the problems should have been taken care of in the HOW process. With regard to the covenants, he stated that he does not find any allegation that supports the issue. He indicated that his firm is willing to put protective covenants on the property and that he had submitted samples of covenants on a development in Ramsey County to the Counci this evening. Mr. Balyk stated that the samples reflect the kind of covenants that make sense for single family developments. Mr. Balyk stated that if he has not addressed and responded to the issues he will do so. He further stated that Mn/FSL has a vested interest in the project: there are still 30 vacant lots in the c Page No. 2262 May 7, 1985 development. He noted that some of the residents have talked about reduced property values: it would not be in Mn/FSL's best interest to do anything that would reduce the value of the remaining lots. Councilmember Blesener asked Mr. Balyk to respond to the comment about partnership with August Construction. Mr. Balyk stated that Minnesota Federal is the fee owner of the property and that Joe Dotty (August Construction) was the builder, so they were partners in a sense. He further stated that Minnesota Federal owns fee title to the properties and enters into joint ventures with a general contractor to build -- Minnesota Federal is a developer. Councilmember Witt noted that Mr. Balyk stated that Mn/FSL has built only one house and asked why the firm built that house. In response, Mr. Balyk stated that the firm only built one of the houses which was discussed tonight. Councilmember Witt asked why, if Mn/FSL didn't build any of the other houses they have made repairs and responded to the complaints. She asked if Mn/FSL did not therefore accept the responsibility for the problems. Mr. Balyk responded that Mn/FSL was being a good neighbor. Councilmember Blesener asked City Attorney Tom Hart whether a general contractor license is requied for a developer entity. He responded that a license should not be required if a developer, is the owner of the land contracting with someone to build the homes. Councilmember Blesener then asked if a homeowner wanted to buy a lot from Mn/FSL and wanted to contract with someone else to build a home whether they could do so. Mr. Hart responded that he did not know, and that even if the contract were through Mn/FSL that still would not require a license. From a contractual standpoint, he stated, if the owner has entered into a direct contract with Mn/FSL, they are responsible. Mr. Balyk stated that he thought he had resolved the survey problem (with Mr. Moberg) and further that he readily admitted that Mn/FSL made a mistake. He stated that Mn/FSL has spent a good deal trying to rectify the problem. Mr. Moberg responded that as far as he is concerned the problem has not been resolved: he has correspondence dating back three years saying Page No. 2263 May 7, 1985 that he is not satisfied. He further stated that in May of 1984 he sent Mn/FSL a letter saying that the easement is not a satisfactory resolution of the problem. Mr. Bruce Hinsted, Minnesota Federal general counsel and Vice President, stated that the last correspondence regarding the Moberg issue was from his attorney more than a year ago, that he had also talked to the attorney by phone. He informed the Council that Minnesota Federal paid Mr. Baskfield $4,000 for the easement. He has not talked to the Moberg's attorney since last year and has heard nothing else on the issue until this week. He also stated that the easement was executed and has changed hands. Mr. Baskfield stated that he had written a letter that as far as he was concerned the situation was unreasonable and that he also wrote about the shabby treatment and runaround from Mr. Hinsted and Mr. McKinstry. He informed the Council that he went to Mr. Mosentine, President of Minnesota Federal to resolve the matter. The $4,000 compensation was for the regrading of the property to prevent ponding from coming into his basement. He stated that he went through a horror story with Mn/FSL, had to put forth an extra effort to maintain a neighborhood relationship and that the matter was a nightmare. Mr. Baskfield stated that the process was anything but helpful and could be summed up as adversarial. He stated that he doesn't think that's the kind of neighborhood situation which should exist in the City, and that the state of the state at Mn/FSL could be described as almost an armed camp, that everyone was worked into a frenzy. Mr. Balyk stated that he participated in the neighborhood meeting and worked with Howard Dahlgren and the City in trying to resolve the encroachment problem. He stated that Mn/FSL has attempted to work with the City, that it has taken some time to resolve the problem but that he did attempt to resolve a problem created by a surveyor. In response to a question from Councilmember Witt regarding the level of Mn/FSL activity as a general contractor, Mr. Balyk responded that the firm is a general contractor in the Delaware Crossing area. Councilmember Witt stated that it seems to her that Mr. McKinstry has been contacted or come out to see the people often and that she doesn't know why he Page No. 2264 May 7, 1985 would respond if he had no responsibility to do so. She stated that the people are not complaining about Fasenden or August Construction, only about Mn/FSL. Mr. Balyk pointed out that the City ordinance talks about jeopardizing life or property and that resolution of the owners disputes happens as a common situation in the industry. He stated that he doesn't see the kind of activity that is talked about in the ordinance and that he hopes that the purpose of the hearing was to take testimony on that issue. Mr. Goetz stated that Mn/FSL indicated that he would give the Council the bills spent on his house: those bills have been spent for the mistakes made in the construction of the house. He stated that he has over 30 years of construction experience and that the standard comment he has heard from Mn/FSL representatives in response to the errors was "when you are sitting in front of your fireplaces with milk and cookies, you will forget about it." Mr. Rich Gabriel, 670 Apache Lane, responding to the covenants submitted by Mr. Balyk, stated that he has read them and that they basically prohibit nuisance, intoxicating liquor, and other things that the City's code would prohibit anyway. He stated that the homeowners have submitted protective covenants for Mn/FSL's consideration and asked for comments. There were none. He felt that there is a problem of attitude and responsibility: between the Hanton lot and his there is a vacant lot which harbors rats: He felt that this is a safety and health problem. He stated that there is debris all over the neighborhood: debris overflowing into the yards, creating life and safety problems, and he also pointed to the issue of raw sewage backing up (into the Hanton house). He felt that the basic party behind the problems is Mn/FSL and they have taken a do-nothing attitude. Mr. Balyk responded that the rat problem is not Mn/FSL's problem - the Health Officer did not report on it and told Mn/FSL it was not a problem. With regard to the sewer back-up, Dr. Hanton stated that he was with the plumber when the sewer line was "snaked" and there was no evidence of sanitary napkins. He also stated that the Health Inspector did find evidence of rats but made no report because he could find nothing specific to construction but did find debris and rat evidence. Mayor Lockwood thanked the members of the audience Page No. 2265 May 7, 1985 for their cooperation and patience. He stated that it is obvious that something is wrong. He further stated that if there is no finding by the Council of the dire problems which Council must use in making a determination on the license, it is obvious that there has been a lack of good faith dealings in vendor/ customer relationship. He did not think that the evidence is sufficient to immediately say that Mn/FSL can no longer do business in Mendota Heights but stated that he believes it is appropriate to refer the matter to the City's legal counsel and staff to review the information and prepare a report and recommenda- tion. Administrator Frazell indicated that preparation of a report may take considerable time since the issue is very complex and projected that the report may be available for the first meeting in June. Staff was directed to perform a thorough investigation and report. TENNIS COURT OVERLAY Councilmember Witt moved to authorize an unappropriated expenditure of up to $3,440 from the Park and Recreation budget for the resurfacing of the Roger's Lake Park tennis courts. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 NEWSLETTER The Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from the City Administrator regarding costs associated with preparation of the City's newsletter. It was the concensus of the Council that the newsletter should continue to be prepared on a quarterly basis but that the size should be reduced to four pages. Staff was directed to solicit bids for keylining and pasteup work to determine whether this would be less costly than keylining and pasteup by staff. NUISANCE ENFORCEMENT The Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from the City Administrator regarding enforcement of the City's nuisance and zoning code ordinances. Councilmember Cummins moved to authorize staff to solicit applications for a seasonal employee to perform nuisance and zoning code enforcement for the summer months, at a maximum cost of $3,000. Councilmember Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT GREEN SPACE STREET POLICY Ayes: 4 Nays: 1 Lockwood EASEMENT RELEASE Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 RADIO SYSTEM UPGRADE Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 2266 May 7, 1985 The Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from the City Administrator regarding regulations on green space in business developments. The Council acknowledged and discussed a memo and proposed resolution on an urban design street policy. Councilmember Blesener moved adoption of the proposed resolution adopting a preferred standard of urban design streets. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Councilmember Hartmann pointed out that the City can not assess above and beyond the value added by improvements. He stated that the Council must realize that if the City were to have a written policy the decision on an improvement project must be made with the knowledge that some of the assessments will be overturned. Attorney Hart stated that if the written policy is adopted and the Council were to decide to waive the policy for a future project, the Council would have to establish that the policy is not financially or technically feasible. Councilmember Cummins stated that the Council would have to make an affirmative finding before it could construct a street improvement project: the City would have to perform a market analysis. After discussion, Councilmember Blesener moved to table the matter indefinitely. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. On the recommendation of staff, Councilmember Hartmann moved to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Release of Easement document to release a temporary construction easement over Lot 10, Block 1, Tilsen's Highland Heights Plat 3. Councilmember Blesener seconded the motion. Councilmember Cummins moved the adoption of Resolution No. 85-34, "RESOLUTION COMMITTING FUNDS TO UPGRADING MUNICIPAL RADIO SYSTEM AT WEST ST. PAUL COMMUNICATIONS CENTER." Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. Page No. 2267 May 7, 1985 GOAL SETTING It was the concensus of the Council that a goal setting workshop be conducted on June 10th. ADJOURN ( Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 ATTEST: There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Witt moved that the meeting be adjourned to 7:30 P.M. on May 14th, at which time City Hall architect interviews are scheduled to be conducted. Councilmember Hartmann seconded the motion. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:45 o'clock P.M. Robert G. Lockwood Mayor t Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Applicant N /, / 6.640/1/V6.640/1/VNamme: CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION "OF PLANNING REQUEST 47/7iee_ Case No. O S 0 a Date of Application .5 7- Y 5' 'Fee Paid 3 7U /t /3 0.2i/ /97 Last First Initial Address: 7('f 1/v • k/e/%T/t/a' -4 4/ 62/76(0,..- a. 14, �i7. tate Zip Number & Street City Telephone Number: 5 47- .5 7 y C Owner Name: wit/ Last First Initial Address: 167 _4/ 44/It h/or,,--A I/ ACnc0h,'-a./(lt , ,j. -s 14%?. $S// 57 Number & Street City Zip Zip Street Location of Property in Question: 7 W. t✓e�� woY�-�, Legal Description of Property:/ - 1 -- �� P a// a G A P O 5,G 43 /!/ Type of Request: Rezoning ✓ Variance •i'a./off' w►Qtk as part og ' Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Minor Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval 'Plan Approval Wetlands Permit Other Applicable City Ordinance Number 30/(c04-)// Present Zoning of Property: Section Present Use of Property: / y ) Ssa Proposed Zdning of Property: 5; 1,1 -e Proposed Use of Property: /// 51i.1yJe o ,5714 -WI A:3M e Number of people intended to live or work on premises: I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional material are true. /72 /77 Signature of Applicant Date 171--aL/1 Received by.. (title) NOTE: The following plans shall be drawn and attached to this application: A. Applications involving a Variance shall submit the following plani;:, .• • ., • •• .• • • Date Received' Initial ' • 1. Site Development Plan 2. Dimension - .3. Landscape Plan 4. Grading Plan : • • B. Applications involving a Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit or Subdivision shall submit the following: 1. Sketch Plan .5 2. Abstractors Certificate. S-2- CPS . (If the subdivision involves cutting of existing parcel into two :or more lots). C. Applications involving a Wetlands Permit shall submit the :following: 1. A full & adequate description of all phases of the operationlaor proposed physical changes. 2. • A topographic map of the area. Contour intervals shall be drawn at two (2) foot intervals at a horizontal scale of 1" = 1,000' or larger. ' 3. A detailed site plan of the proposal showing proposed drainage, grading &.landsu 4. A site design map showing the location of existing and future man-made features within the site and -to a distance of five hundred (500) feet surrounding the sit( 05/07/85 AMOUNT 5.39 5.30 *.. 248.30 248.30 *, 252.30 252.30 *, 100.50 100.50 624.61 624.61 *- 105.00 26.25 26 .2 5 26,25 26.25 210.00 *-' 66 OD 60.50 126.50 47.06 47.36 3,440.00 3,440.30 *, 1'87.00 187.00 66.53 66.50 *� 31 .D0 5.00 1.00 17.50 .50 55.00 187.45 187 a4 5 42.5 0 42.50 *_, 141.45 141.45 147.00 HECK REGISTER VENDOR AMERICAN POLICE ACAD AIRPORT MEDI CAL CL CENTRAL AC&HT G CORRIGA:N ELECTRIC CO DAKOTA CTY AUDITOR FME CORP FILES534 EME_.CAR P_ FILES534 FME CORP FILE8534 FME CORP FILE8534 FME CORP FILE8534 PRECHS OF FI CE MCH KRECrIS OFFICE MCH LEONARD KANITZ KLAMM MECH CONTR JIM KILBUR3 LAND CARE ER THOMPSON ?LBG THOM'SO41 PLBG _.THOMP.SON._P_L6G. THOMPSIMN PLBG TH GAPS ON PLBG CITY M1 P=TTYCASH PEDICAL OKI! & EO CO RANDY MC NAMARA MENDS T4% ti3 TS FO Dept lU-Admin Dept 5U Kd&Bridge 15-Engr 60 -Utilities 20 -Police 70 -Parks 30 -Fire 80 -Manning I TEM DESCRIP TION--Ceo INFO REQUEST EXA MSVILLARD/THOMAS RPR HTG SYSTEM HWY 55&MH RD 0/S ASSMTS2121D00D 6MDS 86MTCN 6MOS85MTCN . _ 6MOS85MTCN 6MOS85MTCN 6MDS85MTC? IBM R B NS SPLYS COVERALLS PYMT 6 FS FINAL ELECTRICAL WORK FS. TORO BLADE ACC80N7mA0� o� 01-4402-020-20 01-4244-030-30 01-4330-490- 30 01-4211-420-50 16-4490-850-00 01-1215-000-00 490r_ 10 01-4305-040-40 01-4330-490-20 _05-4330,490-15 .01-4300-110-10 01-4300-110-10 f 01-4490-050-50 • 16-4460-850-00 01-41 10-031-30 01-4330.-496-70 RFD PER m2426 01-3254-000-00 RFD PERM1948 01-3255-000-00 RFIl _ S /C H _. RFD PER M2427 15-3252-000-00 RFD S -/CNG 15-3315-000-00 REIMBURSE PC CYL HYDRO TEST MI FF I TRNG IGH 01-1021-000-00 01-4330-490-30 01-4415-030-30 01-4400-030-30 A MOUNT 1 47.00 *- 1 ,800.00 1,800.00 *- 14.50 14.50 *, 29.40 29.40 *, 11.97 11,97 *� 479.50 479.50 88.70 88.70 88.60 266.00 60.00 60.00 +� 1w1422,76 1,422,76 +t, 82.12 '82.12 6,901.75 6,901 .75 - 9.15 9.15 9.20 27.50 535.J0 535.00 65.0 382.91 234.93 67.79 750.63 28.77 23.77 *- 122.80 122.8-0 *- 440.30 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR M000VS IMUESTORS SVC MAIL FIRE PROT L ROY NOA K PERSONAL COMPUTING POUCHER PRTG&LITHO P IONEER HI - BRED PIONEER HS -BRED PIONEER HI -BRED ST MINN POST BD ST TREAS SO ST PAUL BEELINE SHAUS HNESSY C0 S L S INC S L S INC S L S INC SPECIALTY SALESSVC UNITED ELECTR IC UNITED ELECTRIC UNITED ELECTRIC UNIT=D ELECTRIC UNITED STORES CRAGU NS LMC ITEM DESCRIPTION BOND RATING FEE ONE YR F IRE COMMAND EXP SPEC DRILL 4/20 ONE YR SUBS BO PRTG 2/1 ISSUE GRASS SEED GRASS SEED GRASS SEEO 1985 LIC 1ST QTR S/CHCS__ ALIGN 80 FEE 2/1 ISSUE I D CARDS I D CARDS I D CARDS PLAQUE FS PARTS PARTS PARTS PARTS BLA NKETS BALANCE ANNL CON F ACCOUNT NO. IN3b. 75-4226-000-00 01-4402-030-.30 TI 01-4490-030-30 01-4402-110-10 4 75-4226-000-00 .9 01-4305-050-50 2 01-4305-070-70 2 15-4305-060-60 2 01-4404-020-20 01-4447-110-'1 01-4330-440-20 2 75-4226-000-00 01-4490-020-20 7 01-4490-110-10 7 05-4490-105-15 7 16-4490-850-00 M 01-4330-460-30 4 ___01-4330-460-30 4 01-4330-460-30 4 01-4330-460-30 ,4 01-4330-440-20 A 01-4400-110-' 01-4400-110-10 MOUNT 440.00 11‘.." 182.10 182.10 713.55 713.55 3,59 4.50 8.09 23.00 53.36 76.36 4.44 4.44 107.91 4.45 121.24 -*/9 96.93 96.93 4,../ 63,36 63.36 59,84 59.84 12.00 3.38 27.80 6.42 34.26 7.38 9.75 100.99 CHECK REISTER VENN)? JOE WE PSS WILENSKY AT & T INF) SYSTEMS AT & T INFO SYSTEMS B&J Auro SPLY B&J AUTO SPLY BD WATER COMMISSION BO WATER :OMMISSION BO WATOR COMMISSION BD wAT:a :DMMISSION BROWN PHOTO CASE POWER&EQUIP CHAPIN PUBL CITY MOTOR SUPPLY CITY.MOTOR SUPPLY CITY MOTOR SUPPLY CITY MOTOR SUPPLY CITY MOTOR SUPPLY CITY MOTOR SUPPLY CITY MOTOR SUPPLY ITEM DESCRIPTION PARTS PARTSYLBR 304 APR SVC APR SVC ACCOUNT NO. INV. 01-4330-460-30 11 01-4330-490-50 w 01..4210'.020..20 014210..070..70 SEAL .BEAM-_. 01-4330-440-20 44 BATTERY CRE 01-4330-490-70 44 2431LEX 2431LEX 21210000 2431LEX 01!.4425..310..50 01..4425..310..70 01-4425-31 5-30 15..4425..310..60 FILM 01•4305..020..20 23 SEAL KIT/SOCKET 15..4330..490..60 37 SEAL COAT ._. 01-4240-050-50 34 FLOR DRI AC MUD FLAPS MISC PARTS MISC PARTS AC BELTS 505/506 01-4305-070-70 18 01,4330..440..20 18 01-4330-440-20 18 01-.4330-460..30 18 01...4330..490.'70 18 01-4330-490-70 18 01-4330-490-70 18 CHECK REGISTER MOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 14.72 2.77 9 .12 26• 61 *.. 74.1 5 118.65 59.32 252.1 2 125.36 4.75 1 30.1 1 *L COAST TO COAST COAST TO OAST COAST TO : OAST CONTEL CR_D IT CORP CONTEL CREDIT CORP CONT_L CREDIT CORP COPY ENUI' CO COPY__E.QUIP CO PAI NT TRASH BAGS TIE GOWNS MAY PYMT 42 MAY PYMT 42 MAY PYMT 42 MISC SPLYS VELLUM _ 01-4305-070 4( 01-4 305-070- 70 4i 01-4305-070-70 4E 01-4210-020-20 5:i 01....4210.0 10.0 0 5i 05-4210-105-15 5i 05-4300-105-15 1( _, .._--,--- - 10-43052!.000-00 1( 121.25 D;,R CORIP. 1985 TAXES 01-4200-600-10 1 ,601.00 DCR CORP. MAY RENT __._.____..,._..._-_01-4200-b00-10 121.25 OCR CORP. 1985 TAXES 01-4200-600-20 905.00 OCR CORP. MAY RENT 01-4200-600-20 1,664.00 DCR CORP. MAY RENT 05-4200-600-1 121.21 OCR CORP. 1985 TAXES 05-4200-600-. 4,533.71 *✓ 120.00 DENNIS DELMONT MO ALLOW 120.00 144.64 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY NOSE CUP 144.64 102.65 EXECUTONE SYSTEMS RPRS EXT14 102.65 iv 17.28 FRAZELL KEVIN TEA!! BLDG BOOKS _. 175.0,0 FRAZELL KEVIN MAY ALL01i 192.28 *_- 25.78 25,78 25.78 FORT ROAD I DWE . FORT RIOA) HD WE FORT ROAD HD WF SHOP CLNG_.SP.LYS SHOP CLNG SPLYS SHOP CLNG SPLYS _. 01-4415-021-20 01-4330-490-30 84 01-4330-490-20 31 01-4402-110-10 01-4415-110-10 _4.1-_4.3 35-310- 5 .... 01-4335-310-70 13 15-4335-310-60 13 AMOUNT, 77•34 *..> 107.82 105.32 213.14 21.20 45.00 66.20 *- 132.31 66.1 9 198.50 *V 49.75 16.15 7.60 3.60 80.30 21 .85 6.2 5 4 .40 189.90 8.41 2.70 13.74 10.00 2.67 7.18 1 4.15 4.72 11.89 75.46 5.95 6.77 3.90 9.23 25.85 *! CHECK REGISTER V:NDOR G0ODYE4-R SERVICE STR GOODYEAR SERVICE STR I C M A- I C M ICMA RC I CMA RC INTER CITY I NTE R CITY INTER CITY INTER CITY INTER CITY INTER CITY INTER CITY INTER CITY KNUTH TOM KNUTH TOM KNUTH TOM KNUTH TOM KNUTH TOM KNUTH TOM KNUTH TOM KNUTH TOM KNUTH TOM PAPER PAPER PAPER PAPER PAPER PAPER PAPER PAPER KULLANDER GUY KULLtNDER GUY KULLANDER GUY KULLMNDER GUY 1.273.00 LANGULA1 H09E 1 ,273.00 */ ITEM DESCRIPTION TIRES TIRES PMS PUBL ACCOUNT NO. INV. 01-.4330-4413-20 3: 01-4330-440-20 3 01-4402-020-20 0 ELECTED OFF HANDBOOK 01-4402-110-10 4/26 PAYROLL 4/26PATROLL COPY COPY COPY COPY COPY COPY COPY COPY PAPER PAPER PAPER PAPER PAPER PAPER PAPER PAPER THRU 4,/30 THRU 4/3 0 THRU 4/3 0 ._ MO ALLOW THR U 4 /30 THRU 4/3 0 _ ._ THRU 4/30 THRU 4/30 THRU 4/30 . THRU 4/30 THRU 4/30 _ THRU 4/30 THRU 4/30 ROTARY MOVER 01-2072-000-00 01-41 34-110-10 01-4300-020-20 B' 01-4300- 030-30 B' .0.1-_4300-040-.40_8 01-4 300- 080- 80 B° 01-4300-110-10 8 05-4300-105-15.8 10-4300-000-00 8' 15-4300-060-60 8' 01-4415-040-40 05-4305-10 5-1 5 _OS -4415-_105- 15.._ 05-4415-105-1 5 10-4415-000-00 .51-4415-.92.5-00 87-4415-812-00 88-4415-828-00 05-4415-105-15 __..10-4415-.000-00 87-4415-812-00 88-4415-828-00 12-4620-000-00 8; AMOUNT 1 53.00 153.33 59.80 293 .30. 67. 74 41 7.54 9.00 9.30, 9.00 1,092 .30 18.89 101 .60 18.80 557.65 73.35 1 8.80 1 ,881 .3 9 sk-'. 4 9.35 16.00 7.55 3.60 79.70 2.87 21 . 65 6.20 4 • 3, 191 .30 597,10 826 .50 436.30 155.00 651 .25 281.00 682.50 620.30 155.00 VEND0'. LEIS CHECK REGISTER Lmar HP 'LAN LMCI T 1P 'LAN LMCI T HP' 'LAN LEEF EROS INC LEEFBROS INC L EEF 8R'0S INC LO GI LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS 0 GI S LOGIS OGI M& W INC M&W INC M&W INC M&W INC M& W INC M&sti INC M&W INC M&W INC M&W INC CA NONPROD C14 NONPR op CANONPROD CA NONPROD CANONPROD CANONPROD CANONPROD CANONPROD_ CANONPROD MEDCENTERS HP MEDC:NTERS HP MEDCENTERS MEDCENTERS HP MEDCENTERS HP MEDCE NTERS HP MFDCr NT Re* ifiP MEDCENTERS HP MEDCENTERS HP ITEM DESCRIPTION MAY DUES: MAY PREM MAY PRE M MAY PREM APR SVC APR SVC_ APR SVC MAR SVC _ MAR SVC MAR S VC MAR SVC MAR SVC MAR. SVC MAR SVC MTC N/COP IES MTC N/COP IES_ MTC N/COP IES MTCN/COPIES MTC IN /COP IES. FRT T ONER MTCN/COP IES MTC N/CQLS.._ MTC N/COP IES MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY MAY PRE M PREM PREM PREM PREM PREM PREM PREM PREM ACCOUNT NO. xi* 01..20 75.• 000-.40 01-.20 74..000...00' 01-4131-020-2V ..01-4i 31-021- 20t 01-4335-310..50'1 017.7.4335-310..,70 15-4335-310-60 214."0 111'0 0 03‘,4214..,000...001 05..4214-10 5..1 5] 10...4214-,000' ] 15-4214-060- 16-4214-000-00 A ] 21r421 4-000-00 01-4300-020-20 _01.n4,3007.930!.30 01-4300-040-40 ' 01-4300-080-80 ' 01.524300-110-10 01-4300-110-10 ' 05-4 300-105- 15 4(30-!000?.00 15-4 300-060-60 .01?2074,..00.0-00 01-41 31-020-20 01-41 31-021- 20 01.m41 31-040-40 01-41 31-050-5'- 01-41 31-070- 0_1-4.1.31-!11 OT 1U 05-41 31- 105-15 15-41 31-060-60 AMOUNT 4,404.35 *� 833.33- 22,227.65 33.33- 22,227.65 2 ,083.33- 19,310.99 *� 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.80 7.83 7.80 62.40 *- 24.95 8.30. 32.95 *- 1 50.00 150.00 1 6.30 59.45 17.00 122.45 1 77.3 7 119.29 37.46 75.60 293.93 57.17 37.46 797 .98 * i 1 83,.3.3 80.00 260.00 *_-• CHECK REGISTER VE MD OR METRO WASTE CONTROL METRO WASTE CONTROL METRO WASTE CONTROL MILLER MILLER MILLER MILLER MILLER MILLER MILLER MILLER PRINTI NG PR INT ING PRINTI NG PRINTING PRINTING PRINTING PRINTING PRINTING MINN BENEFIT ASSN MINN_ BENEFIT ASSN MN DEPT PUBLICSAFETY MINN FIRE INC MINM FIRE INC MINN FIRE INC NORTHWESTERN BELL NORTIWESTERN BELL NORTHWESTERN BELL NORTH WE S T. . R N _._BELL NORTHWESTERN BELL NORTHWESTERN BELL NORTHWESTERN BELL OAK C REST KENNELS OAK CREST KENNELS 143..0 OSWALD SIRE HOSE ITEM DES CRIP.TI ON MAY INSTALL MAY INSTALL MAY INSTALL ID TAGS IO TA GS ID TAGS ID TAGS ID TAGS _. ID.. TAGS ID TAGS ID TAGS ACCOUNT NO. I1 14-3575-000-0( 15-4449-060-61 17-35 75-000-0( 01-4490-020-2( 01-4490-030-31 01-4490-040-4I 01-4490-050-5( 01-4490-070-7( _ .01-.4490-110-1( 05-4490-105-1' 15-4490-060-6( MAY PREM 01-2074-000-0C MAY _PrREM _ _.._ _._._ 01-4131-021-2( 1ST QTR CHGS _ _. _ _. DRY CHEM . FIRE OUT DRY CHEM APR SVC APR SVC APR SVC _.._.APR SVC APR SVC APR SVC APR SVC APR SVC ADAPTERS _ 01-4200-600-2( 01-4 305-.030-.3( 01-4305-030-3C 01-4305-030-3( 01-4210-020- 2C 01-4210-030-3C 01...4210.-050..5C 01-4210-070-7( 01-4210-110-1C 05-4210-105-15 15-4210-060-6( 01-4221-800-9C 01-4225-800-9( 01-4330-460- 3C 4MOUNT 140.00 7,84 153,65 135.03 296.52 *� 2,149,50 287.40 371 .00 52.85 477.50 271.15 1 ,338.35 52.25 5,000.0 164.85 164, 85 *�• 21 .49 35.05 11.41 48.05 18.49 12.98 5.06 4.25 156,78 40.00 __ . 40.00 *....- 1 _ 1 ,089.95 66.80 95.40 834,75 174,10 124.10 2,385 .10 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR PAYLESS ,CASH WAYS INC PAYLESS CASHWAYS INC PAYLESS CASH WAYS INC , PEAT-MARWICK- MITCHEL PEAT• MARWICK-MITCHEL PEAT -Mei RWI CK- MITCHEL PEAT -MAR WICK-MITCHEL PEA T-MARWI CK- MITCHEL PF AT.. MARWICK-MITCHEL PEA T-MARWI CK- MITCHEL PEAT- MARWICK-MITCHEL POWER BRAKE EQUIP CO S&T S&T S&T S&T S&T S&T S&T S&T OFFICE OFF ICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE _OFFICE OFFICE PROD PR OD PROD PROD PROD PR 00 PROD PROD SELAND R._DUAN E C SHAUGHNESSY L E JR SHAUGHNESSY L E JR . ,,. SH AUGHNESSY L E JR SHAUGHNESSY L E JR SHAUGHNESSY L E JR ._.....__ SHAUGHNESSY L E JR 10.44 SIGNAL CAR WASH ITEM DESCRIPTION_ SPLYS SPLYS SPLYS 2ND PYMT AUDIT FEE 2ND PYMT AUDIT FEE 2N0 PYMT._-_AUDITT_ FEE 2N0 PYMT AUDIT FEE 2ND PYMT AUDIT FEE 2ND PYMT AURIT_.F_EE__ 2N0 PYMT AUDIT FEE 2ND PYMT AUDIT FEE PARTS 501 FILES MI SC SPLYS MISC SPLYS MISC .STFLYS.. COL SHEETS MISC SPLYS ACCOUNT NO. IN+V:. 01-4305-050-50 01-4305-070-703S 01-4305-070-70€ 01-4220-130-10 03-4220-130-00 .05-4 220-130-15 10-4220-130-00 14-4220-130-00 16-4220-130-00 21-4220-130-00 01-4330-490-70 ?, 01-4300,020-20 IC 01-4300-020-20 IS 01-4300-020-20 34 01-43.00-.020-20 1 01-4300-020-20 16 01-4300-110-10 1� RBR,_BAND S__- ___.�_.___. _._05-4300_-_105-_i5 PENCILS 05-4300-105.-15 1g APR SVC APR._S VC .., APR SVC APR SVC APR. SVC APR S VC MAR WASHES 01-4415,-200-.7.0_.._ 01-4220-132-10 03-4220-132-.00. 05-4220-132.15 14-4220-132.00 16-4220-132-,00 21.4220-132-00 01-4430-020-20 21 A MOU NT 10.44 •+tom 1,945 .83 1 ,330.85 537.29 18.16 46.35 1 92. 39 106.44 1 41.39 178.70 58 .1 7_ 4,555.57 */ 45.48 45.4 8 16.15 32.35 48.60 . 82.65 20.65 200.40 */ 79.1 7 34.1 2 19.80 9.90 142.99 *- 90.0.0._. 90.00 *__ 72.33 10.50 82.80 VENDOR STATE STATE STATE STATE STATE. STATE _STATE STATE STATE STATE CHECK REGISTER TRE4 S TREAS TREAS TRE%S TRE4S TREAS TREAS TREAS TREAS TREAS DERA P ERA PERA P ERA PERA P ERA PERA P ERA PERA P ERA SUN NEWSPAPERS ^ UNIF ORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS UNLIMI TED UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS UNLIMI TED UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNITED CENT TRUSTEE UNITED CENT TRUSTEE UNITED CENT.. TRUSTEE. UNITED CENT TRUSTEE UNITED WAY, ST PAUL VIKING IND;ISTRIAL CT VIKING INDUSTRIAL CT ITEM DESCRIPTION_ 4 /1 2 PAYROLL... 4/12 PAYROLL 4/12 PAYROLL 4112 PAYROLL 4 /1 2 PAYROLL 4/12 PAYROLL 4/1 2_. PAY ROLL .. 4/12 PAYRCLL 4/12 PAYROLL 4/1 2 ,PAY ROLL __. HRG NOT HAT BLAC KFELLNER PANTS KL E!BER HI GLO .BADGE_.__._ MISC BLACKFELLNER GLOVES MILLER MAY PRE M MAY PREM MAX PREM_. _._ _......_._.__ MAY PREM ACCOUNT NO. IN` 01-2062-000-00 01-41 34-020- 20 01-4134-021-20 01-41 34-030-30 01-4134-040-40 01-4134-050-50 01-4134-070-70 01-4134-110-10 05-4134-105-15 15...4134- 060-60 63-4240-937-00 01-4410-020-20 01-4410-020-20 D1-4410-020-20 01-4410-020-20 01-4410-020- 20 01-2071-000-00 01-4132-020-20 _ 01-4132-050-50. 01-41 32-070-70 MAY. ...WH._..01-20 70-000- 00. TAPE EAR PLUG S._.__.____ ._..._ ..... 93.00 WALDOR PUMP, FLOAT 93 .00_. 01-4305-030-30 01-4490-070-70 15-4330-400-60 AMOUNT, 131.20 131 .20 *„., 26 9297.33 373.39 3 ,522 .21 98.29 1 ,273.00 478.92 23 ,625. 85 6,185,41 2 ,083.33- 195.05 7.18 45.48 9 ,1 t1 .25 18.05 13.95 11.89 69,243.42 MANUAL CHECKS 10750 10751 10752 10753 10754 10755 10756 10758 10757 10759 10760. 10761 10762 10763 10764 10765 10766 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR WESTERN LIFE INS CO FU4 0 FU ND FIND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND 01 03 35 10 12 14 15 16 17 21 51 63 75 87 88 98 TOTAL TOT AL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOT AL TOTAL TOT AL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL_ TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 4,733.22 Dir Internal Revenue 5,448.33 Commissioner REvenue 2,709.58 St Treas SS Fund 475.00 DC Bank 1,323.72 SCCU- -- 21,966.76 City MH PR Acct 76.00 Ramsey County 3,783.13 NSP VOID 21,653.54 Venita Warnke - VOID -- 500.00 2,677.16 4,976.61 475.00 1,323.72 22,423.81. 94,545.58 GT 163,789.20 USPost Office St Treas SS Fund Dir. Intarnal Rev DCB S CCU City MH -ft Acct ITEM DESCRIPTION MAY PRE M ACCOUNT NO.IN- 01-41 _ GENERAL FUND WATER REVENUE FUND ENGR ENTERPR ISE SPECIAL PARK FUND EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES C ONSOLIDA:TED_OEBT. SERVIC SEWER UTILITY TID 179-7/81-4/82-2182-6 UTIL RES ERVE__ _ . INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 179.-3 MI R IAM--HIAW DRAINA 179.1 3/.,8 2,3/82..4 494.135E_ 181 4/81 .4/81•4 T83...4/83-413 GRYC/OAK CTY 185-3 68, L___P,R DPER T Y 184-6MH RD LEX 55 MSA 4/12 W/H 3/26&4/12 W/H 4/12 FICA 4/12 Payroll Deductions Net Payroll 4/12 Bail . 4/30 Due Date-. Pymt 2 Refill Meter 4/26 Payroll 4/26 W/H 4/26 Payroll Deductions +., t1 Net -Net Payroll 4/26-------- 32-03( CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REGULATING TRUCK PARKING The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, ordains as follows: SECTION 1. It is unlawful to park a detached semi -trailer upon any residential street within the City. SECTION 2. It is unlawful to park a semi -trailer, truck -tractor, �r a combination thereof, within an area zoned as a residential district, except for the purpose of loading or unloading the same. SECTION 3. Any person violating any provisions of this Ordinance may be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction may be punished by a fine of not more than seven hundred dollars ($700.00) or imprisoned for not more than ninety (90) days or both, plus the. cost of prosecution in any case. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its publication according to law. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this of , 1985. ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Robert G. Lockwood Mayor CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor, City Council and Cit dntif{s�� trator FROM: Jim Danielson Public Works Director and Thomas C. Knuth Senior Engineering Technician SUBJECT: Lake LeMay Flooding INTRODUCTION: In response to a request for help from Mr. Bredvold about the rising level of Lake LeMay (letter attached), staff has completed a background study. DISCUSSION: The water levels in both LeMay and Augusta Lakes, because there is no outlet and development has continued in the area, has been steadily getting higher (see attached table). As of 3-21-85 the water level of LeMay was about 3-1/2 feet below Bredvold's garage/basement; 1-1/2 feet below their gravel driveway; and 5 feet below their neighbor's garage. Estimating from the contour map, this would put the Lake elevation at 839+, up 3-4 feet from 1982 and up 7-9 feet from the 1974 aerials. Lake Augusta's elevation is estimated to be about 835, up 2 feet from 1982 and up 7 feet from the 1974 aerials. For comparison purposes, if Lake LeMay were to rise another 3 feet, this would be approximately 98 acre-feet of water, while the drainage district for LeMay is 190 acres. If the Lake continues to rise before Mn/DOT begins work on Trunk High- way 55, an emergency pumping project could be undertaken across to Lake Augusta over land 23 feet higher than Lake LeMay. (Resurrection Cemetery is already having problems with flooding of their pump house) If a real dire situation were to arise, a horseshoe pattern of sandbags could protect the basement until the pumps lower the lake. Another alternative would be to install the proposed LeMay overflow storm line before Mn/DOT construction. This would be done at a considerably higher expense than during a coordi- nated construction project. Estimated pumping costs and extra overflow storm sewer costs can be obtained if needed. (The Bredvold's will be noti- fied that this matter is being put on the May 7, 1985 City Council Agenda by sending them a copy of this memo) RECOMMENDATION: There is little the City can do at this time to help the Bredvold's with their problem. The time to act will be in conjunction with the Mn/DOT Mendota Interchange Project, which is due to be completed in 1989. If the water continues to rise, and the City wants to help the Bredvold's, the possibility of pumping into Lake Augusta could be studied as an emergency alternative. ACTION REQUIRED: Short of ordering a project there is no action that can be taken by the Council at this time. ' -HISTORr-OFLAKE LEMAY AND LAKE AUGUSTA LEVELS DATE AUGUSTA LEMAY SOURCE 1934+ 825+ 830+ McLagen Survey 1954 822 1974 Hickock Report 1962 6-26 825.15 826.2 Barr Engineering 1962+ 822 830 Barr Engineering 1967 822 U.S.G.S. 1963 825+ 826.6 (Swamp) Mn/DOT Topography 1974 Nov. 828.3 832.2 S Mendota Heights Topo- 830.1 N graphy Air Photo Topo- graphy by Harry S. Johnson 1980 6-26 833.7 WCA Survey 1980 7-29 833.2 WCA Survey 1980 834.4 Mark on Resurrection Cemetery Pump House Wall 1982 4-27 833.23 835.63 WCA Survey 1985 3-20 839+ Mendota Heights Engineering Dept. • ^:7.17, NEWSLETTER COSTS - FIRST QUARTER - 1985 Printing/Typesetting $880.45 Northwest Printcrafters $357.45 Miller Printing 523.00 Postage 265.45 Mileage/Miscellaneous 176.00 Staff Costs 2,381.75 Total Cost $3,652.85 ..f MENDOTA ri's FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT Fire Calls No.85-42 Thru .85-64 Number of Calls 23 Month of April FIRE ALARMS DISPATCHED TYPE NO. STRUCTURE CONTENTS MISC. TOTALS TO DATE $2,n00 $9,090 Commercial Residencial 2 Vehicle Fires 3 Contract Fires(A11) Vehicle Accidents Rescue (no fire) Grass, Brush&No Value False Alarm Criminal 1 False False 11 Commercial. Residencial -0-- $2,000 3,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Monthly Loss Totals Men,Htgs. 3 All Fires All Areas $ 4,000 $ 5,090 -0- 7 4 Men Hgts Only Struct/Contents 2,090 Men Hgts Only Miscellaneous 3,000 Men Hgts Total Loss to Date 5,090 .BILLING FOR SERVICES Good Intent Calls 2 Agency 'This Month To Date TOTAL CALLS 23 Mn:DOT LOCATION OF FIRE ALARMS To Date Last Yr. Milw RR Mendota Heights 20 57 45 CNW RR Mendota 3 3 Others Sunfish Lake 1 2 Lilydale Other Mutual Aid, WSP 2 2 1 FIRE MARSHAL'S TIME FOR MONTH TOTAL 23 64 57 Inspections 1 7 TOTALS $ WORK PFRFORMED Fire Calls Meetings Drills Weekly Clean -Up Special Training Administrative Fire Marshal TOTA Hours To Date Last Yr. 345 1017 1263 76 160 125 68 226 230 42 76 188 NOT REPORTED 177 Investigations Fire Calls Meetings ills, Training Miscellaneous Total NOT REPORTED 799 2228 .2055 Remarks: See other side of this !Meet for monthly synopsis. SYNOPSIS OF MONTHLY CALLS This was a very busy month for the department. We responded to 23 calls, seven of which were of the grass -type fires. The department had one serious structure fire on April 21, at 2535 Pilot Knob Road. The department was dispatched at 5:11 P.M., to a waterflow alarm there. When they arrived, they found heavy smoke in one of the rented spaces owned by Ralph Linvill & Associates. The fire was virtually out when the men entered,thanks to the operation of the sprinkler system. Smoke and fire damage was confined to the silver products space, but water damage occurred in three other rental units. Damage was set at $2,000. The department also responded to two mutual aid calls to West St. Paul. The first was to fight a large grass fire in the Dodge Nature Center and while fighting that fire, we assisted in responding to a possible structure fire, which turned out to be nothing. West St. Paul then returned the favor and assisted us at a large brush fire near Sibley. SYNOPSIS OF MONTHLY TRAINING The department had a very busy month with over 260 hours devoted to training. The highlight of the month was on April 20th, when an airplane carrying 70 passen- gers crashed at St. Thomas Academy. There -were over 300 people and 20 agencies participating in the drill. According to sources, this was one of the largest drills ever conducted in the metropolitan.area. The drill did not go as smoothly as everyone would have liked it to, but overall, we felt that everyone learned a lot and that there still is work to be done to prepare for such a large disaster. FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY WORK PERFORMANCE Month ,4ptsL , 1985 Calls for Month ot3 Fire Calls Fire Calls Per- centUp Clean Month- ly Bus. Meet- Of Pr Meet Spec. Drills Other Act'y Other Act'y Year Total to Date (,'I . Att'd Month Att'd Year Att'd Year • Hrs 2.. rill Hrs 2 ing Hrs 1 ing Firs/ liars a. ix&OA Hrs 7 Ste"- Hrs LeRoy Noack. Chief` 13 Y 7 77 k X kX X X XXX )( Admin John Maczkof .Asst. 13 $ , .59 X XX Xi x XXr X_ e'7 Hrs Asst. ` - C.pt. Jamie Lerbs 1y 37 50 X X K Paul Dreelan . 12.. 37 S6 X X X ` ' X Mike Coonan ' to a 3 3 to A X X Gordy Skjerven 11 32 0 X X• k• Ed A4rian 8 31 Pat Knight 10 37 513 X rX X XXIX Y X Allen Valencout.1 / .2 3-2- i ?i .._2(X .___K,1� �X `J►' Marc Connolly Cam T ? LIS 10_e 7 j„S(X - X" I)0( Paul Maczko Rengef6 Bill Chisler 5 20 i' )( Y Y John Neska Zo L•/5 70 X X X Steve Carlson 8 .0 31 X X Dick Zwirn 1O 37 5$ X X X X X George Lowe 11 3 L1 53 X 1 X X x X Mike Thomas 7 1 X' Pete Villard -- �c __X_�_ Cagt- .Teff St•Pnh mg 10 015- 19 X 1 • Il 1 i . Gnrgp Nnark Sr 9 013 3(. jIx I Gera1A Na1Snn 12- 30 H7 X X X !X JC K T.amhart• nprk. 027 yZ X• • Bill7.enc� _JO 3 12 19 X ' X , George Noack Jr. 18 38. 59 X Ted Husnik I3 35 55 X r X X Mike Maczko l'1 : 35 Ss 1: X • • Capt. Ken Noack 15 . YS 70 X x X J( a' .X 'X ' Tom Weinzettel 9 .23 3(0 X Tom Olund 9 al 3 8 Xi x John Lapakko 15 113 (07 )( X Jim Kilburg /C 37 58 X : XX X 1 Y X !C _ Keith Stein /3 �7 58 )0X 1 X"X' • XX x Randy McNamara 13 3 2.. 50 X 1C ! X i ar X � t i Total Attended a� � • 3R a�`I !-� aV A0 a Tot. Man Hours in_ J8 2 +'{ 'S 1- ! o S • T•' M., • L. M.• • L.st Y. C mments -17-4"..."-* .r '..-. .,. .. ►�. .. '. .. Aver.MeriPer`-'Ru'n I......_J.K'r'liL..r..,<C . - 5. 5'. : - ' '_• .. r•v=+.+..-_ .f4.09 4.0 i+.�-:.._n+-L:�'R-'+n .-- a.54 �..,..-.fin.—a:�-...sc ��.... ++M.:.. - Aver.% for - ' . 51.103 _ 57.73 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS TREASURER'S REPORT - APRIL, 1985 L. SHAUGHNESSY DAKOTA COUNTY STATE BANK Checking Account Savings Account C.D. Due Savings Certificates 9-25-85 @ 8.86% Collateral - Bonds Gov't Guar. CHEROKEE STATE BANK C.D. due 7-28-85 @ 7.85% C.D. due 7-07-85 @ 12.75 C.D. due 5-4-85 @ 8.35% Savings Cert. 9-3-85 at 10.7% TOTA L Collateral -Bonds Gov't. Guar. U.S.TREASURY BILLS due 3-20-86 $690,000 9-12-85 425,000 5-02-85 680,000 Collateral -Bonds Gov't. Guar. BALANC E $ 97,043.75 387.87 25,000.00 TOTAL $22,431.62 $200,000 100,000 250,000.00 300,000.00 125,000.00 13,952.59 $ 688,952.59 1,500,000.00 100,000.00 (AM) (10.60) (1st) (9.85) (Dk) MINNESOTA STATE BANK C.D. Due Collateral, Gov't. Guar. MINNESOTA FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN C.D. due 3-12-85 @ 11.85% Collateral, Gov't. Guar. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ST. PAUL C.D. due Collateral - Bonds Gov't. Guar. Repo. $625,884.43 405,877.36 648,234.93 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: $2,491,380.93 COLLATERAL $300,000 1,600,000 100,000 RE: Case 1185-05, Michael R. Kurtz, Subdivision April'l8, 1985 There is no problem with this site plan from the fire surpression view as long as they maintain a minimum clearance of 12' x 12' in the driveway wide high