Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1984-07-10
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA Agenda July 10, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order. —7-.3 2. Roll Call. — 3. Adoption of Agenda — 4. Approval of Minutes, June 19 and June 20- 5. Consent Calendar a. Acknowledgement of May 23rd Northern Dakota County - 4 meeting minutes. b. Acknowledgement of May 22nd Planning Commissio "inutes. c. Acknowledgement of June 26th Planning Commission minutes. d. Acknowledgement of letter to Mn/DOT regarding TH 110 speed limit. e. Acknowledgement of memo on Industrial Revenue Bond Entitlement. — fk f 1 d S f m. Approval of the list of Contractor Licenses. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR Ac now a gement o Engineering Latus Report or June. g.- Acknowledgement of Code Enforcement Monthly Report for June. h. Acknowledgement of second quarter financial operating statements i. Acknowledgement of memo from League of Minnesota Cities regarding committee appointments. — Z j. Adoption of resolution approving final payment for Kingsley Estates improvements. .j k. Acknowledgement of memo on Wholesale Water Study. :F V 1. Approval of the List of Claims. m. Approval of the list of Contractor Licenses. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR Agenda -2- July J10, 198 6. Public Comments 7. Hearings, Bid Openings and Awards \ RIA a. Case No. 84-11, Country Day School -- Hearing on Application }, for conditio al us perm* 7.45 P:t1: - b. Case No. 84-06, Schuster -- Hearing on Application for subdivision. (Planning Commission recommends approval). See attached letter from E. Stringer. 8:00 P.M. 11 y- „ S— 0 -. c. Memo and a ula ion of ids re ive for''//1984 Seal Coating project. C� � — &D-9, 36S.9a Unfinished and New Business a. M= n�p in n to ighw y_ O/1/1.49 are tas orae b. Memo ons re wa Roa ome oCcupaiion��``" c. Memo on I-494 noise agreement. -- d. Case No. 83-27, Target Applic d o for ondi� use permit for guard house. — e. Case No. 84-07, Pilot Knob S vice enter -- Application for Variance. -- f. Case No. 84-08, Lynch -- Appl'catiop, for sybdivi ian�v�"2'� g. Case No. 809, C � for vari ce� h. Case No. d410 Isaac -7 Applica ion for et nds rmit. SDS----�-�--z i. Case No. CAO 84-01, Lerman -- Application -fpr Critic Area Ordinance Review. j. Metnoon Tempco addionA �. 7L k. Mem regarding Gar on Corp rare uest for ea ibi s u y or Gould Site. ���`7 S vv. 1. Memo on sign pegipi t/Jfor, 2360 P,i 1 oM KnooRoad . m. Memoeon Northa nd and mpany min'n permi — Cid n. Memo on Amendment to NSP easement agreement. 7LI ,.- o. Memo onA sisja,,,Iire Chief p sition. -- p. Memo regarding acquisfi'ion of fire hose. -= I#- 060 q. Memo requesting authorization for Opticom Emitter acquisition., / r. Memo regarding proposed liquor licensing and regulations ordinante.� M_ 9. Council Comments and -Requests 10. Adjourn. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO July 10, 1984 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazel, � Cityo�Administraxor ? ;:w., RE: Add -On Agenda for July 10 Meeting There are no additional items to be added to this evening's agenda. Therefore, the agenda can be adopted as printed. There is, however, additional information attached regarding Items 7b, 8c and 8j. 3. Adoption of AgerWa The agenda should be adopted as printed. 7b. Case No. 84-06, Schuster Subdivision Attached is a memo from the Schuster's concerning their application for a subdivision. 8c. I-494 Noise Agreement A copy of the proposed agreement, as executed by Johnson Brothers, is attached. This is the same agreement as was reviewed by Council on June 19. It is recommended that Council pass a motion authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the agreement. 8j. Tempco Addition The site and floor plans submitted in the agenda packet are not the most up-to-date. The iiewer drawings are attached for your review. Staff continues to have the concerns with the site plan expressed in Mr. Berg's and Mr. Danielson's memo of July 5th. Although the Code simply states "Site grading plans shall be submitted indicating existing and proposed grades and provisions for surface drainage," the City Attorney is of the opinion that implicit in that requirement is the right and obligation, of the City to insure a functional system. Therefore, it is recommended that Council either deny the permit request, or grant the permit subject to satisfaction of the City Engineer with grading, drainage and licensing of subcontractors. DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: CONSIDERATIONS: 10 July 1984 Joseph O. Schuster Southeast Corner of Wachtler Avenue and Hilltop Road Approval of Subdivision of Land Two new houses on the block will enhance the neighbor's property. Since 1977 we (the Schusters) spent considerable time and money to improve our house's appearance and we plan to make further major improvements if we are successful in getting approval of the subdivision. Please refer to the plat and you will note some (10) lots to the North that have the minimum 100' frontage and minimum areas. Our lot is the only lot that we know of in the entire area that lends itself to any kind of subdividing without involv- ing (2) or more parties and/or involving new streets or cul- de-sacs and new sewer and water services. What doesn't show on the plat is the extreme indulation of the land in the Sommerset Hills and Ridgewood area. As you probably know, this area was once "Bunker'Hills" golf course. I personally experience playing it once back in 1947, shortly before it was abandoned because of low play. One player called it a goat course, i.e., "you have to be a goat to negotiate this course". Powered golf carts would never have been used later unless special paths were provided. Our house is the first house built on the property so it stands to reason the first owner picked out the best lot, the only one that is relatively level. None of the neighbors appeared at the'Planning Commission hear- ing, excepting the Mullins who stated that they were not adverse to the subdivision. We understand the commission approved the lot subdivision with the stipulation that the $600.00 park assessment be paid and some mention was made of a variance for the North lot. I don't believe a variance should be necessary because the new house on the North lot would face Wachtler and trees to the East completely screens off the eastern houses along Hilltop. I'm sure the council panel will be without bias and impartial in their final judgment. AGREEMENT CONCERNING NOTSE GENERA'rED FROM THE 1-494 ROADWAY CONSTRUC'T'ION IN MENDOTA HI:TCHTS, MINNESOTA ., :_ 'i` „ — _ .s tri ef•:ri:�_ces:..•_•`r �'r��.�;:::._:..:- _ __. "..: •"f• •'Y%r;%;:,.r:"?�%w�=.e�F"_ir'3+si :.i,:'.'.a+i�.,�,n .r..�s .i:;.. ;....'•'•a•,ti-ir.i�,�raif1'iy#rJ�F'y.�p"!6!{!�!L::, •wi' .•.'fi'y THIS ��a_ . S AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ~, 1984, by and between the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City) and Johnson Brothers Corporation, a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota with an address at 1500 South Lilac Drive, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"); W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Contractor is the State of Minnesota, Department of Transporta- tion's contractor for constructing a portion of I-494 in Mendota Heights adjacent to a residential district; and WHEREAS, City residents have voiced complaints to the City Council con- cerning existing and future noise generated by such construction; and WHEREAS, City residents have also voiced concern that -the subject construc- tion be completed on time; and WHEREAS, City has an interest in causing this project to be completed on time with as little damage to adjoining residents as possible; and WHEREAS, Contractor agreed at the June S, 1984, City Council meeting to enter into an agreement limiting noise generation from this project. lows: NOW TUEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the two parties as fol - 1. Contractor agrees to operate within the guidelines of the Minneapolis Noise Ordinance, Section 389.70, Construction Equipment, a copy at- tached hereto (Exhibit "A"). 2. Contractor agrees to operate within the PCA guidelines for noise li- mits. 3. , Contractor agrees to limit pile driving, jack hammering, pavement breaking and chain sawing to between the hours of 7:00 o'clock A.M. to 6:00 o'clock P.M. ' 4. Contractor's overtime work will be loading and hauling of fill. The work will be accomplished by use of scrapers. The hours of operation will be limited to 6:00 o'clock A.M. through 11:30 o'clock P.M. There are 1.5 million cubic yards of fill to be removed and the work is scheduled to be accomplished during the months of July, August and September, 1984. Primary disposal sites are located in Eagan: 1) Southwest quadrant of I-494 and Dodd Road, 2) R.E.S./Lauka Beck pro- perty in Eagan, 3) Visitation south of Mendota Heights Road (pending permit approval). 1 5. Contractor is willing Lo pursue Lhe design and construction of a mound on School District 197 property. This mound, .if approved, could be constructed immediately to help screen FriendLy Hills residents from remaining construction noise. " .... n�.•.n• r..t'z......i ._-....:.... .r..w_�.v.vf.+G': yy 1f..t� r _.+ ..Y= .. 6. Contractor is willing to review evening operation equipment and limit the operation of any specific piece of particularly offensive or noisy piece of equipment. 7. The terms of this agreement will not alter the Contractor's completion schedule on this project: Scheduled Dates: 1. Open Dodd Road - November 9, 1984. 2. I-494 through loop and ramp - September 1, 1985. JOHNSON BROTHERS CORPORATION By, (- Its CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Robert G. Lockwood Mayor Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator 2 SITE DAT � KxaoZ' 60 —%03 - BUILDING ADDITION N7Tt�C.-G p. ATF PLAN hOIN .1•r::Yt DATE: a s..a FkEV&x Hs sheer NO. WEST ELEVATION 7, 1:1 tli �-m NORTH ELEVATION —©=� --�1 � ® LLQ LLQ I - SOUTH ELEVATION CATE: FIEVGX)NS 'A."(, 04 TI/I. ww 10 'VSECTION +W— ;I C4319 a'kk"-*LL- 7a. LA 40 IWO •r MANLFACTLFM BLXDNG O -lk CTURINC ARE& V, j WEET NO. -4* MOW L VA cz"Tfuf, + E:5 f wxlN..,ao ��wl. r. a .y NOTE NEW Agornow To NCLUM HVAC AND 3A�-4 1�9PM AMA. SULAF,�,V:). ALtTOWATIC 8PRINW04 J4.bp Ski., !!rf baE. r uo& &&,-r IN4" SYSTEM dr Mh FLOOR PLAN Page No. 2044 June 19, 1984 CITY OF MENDOTA HEI(JITS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, June 19, 1984 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Lockwood called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Lockwood, Councilmembers Blesener, Hartmann, Mertensotto and Witt. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mayor Lockwood moved the adoption of the amended agenda for the meeting. Councilman Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF Councilman Hartmann moved approval of the minutes of the MINUTES May 15th meeting with correction. Counclwoman Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilwoman Witt moved approval of the minutes of the June 5th meeting. Councilwoman Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 4 Abstain: 1 Lockwood Nays: 0 Mayor Lockwood moved approval of the minutes of the June 11th Board of Review meeting subject to inclusion in the minutes of the list of who met with the County Assessors with regard to complaints on valuations. Councilman Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Witt moved approval of the consent calendar as submitted and recommended for approval as part of the meeting agenda, along with authorization for execution of all necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgement of the Fire Department monthly report for May. b. Acknowledgement of the Treasurer's monthly report for May. c. Approval of the list of claims dated June 19, 1984 and totalling $127,561.63. d. Acknowledgement of a memo from % regarding the firemen's pension :4-1 e. Acknowledgement of a letter from regarding the Brooks lawsuit. f. Approval of the list of licenses,=' Benke Electrical Contracting H & K 1-7 Doree Construction Gia. Thomas Gehrz Gait' Genz -Ryan Plumbing and HdgWl' Heating Company '?_ Hinding Company Hinding Company Gni The Morin Company Ge• Prestige Pool & Patio Geuw Radford Custom Builders GeazN Vickerman Construction Co. Gens. Earl Weikle & Sons, Inc. Ge - Councilwoman Blesener seconded the:QW. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PERSONNEL HEARING Mayor Lockwood opened the meeting for Oe. hearing to consider the removal of the Wr Mayor Lockwood stated that the Council m7 on June 5th, but that events levBj establishment go back into last fallL conflict occurred in the department. Hzz- of the Council questions the Chief's knvO nor his abilities as a firefighter but af. of communications and a lack of respons6mE Mayor Lockwood asked for questions a -i audience. Chief Noack responded to a resolution to% Council relative to his removal from offer conflict arose between Assistant Chiefib fire scene in Lilydale on November 20th ai, the fire station Mr. Lange turned in his I he did not consider the problem to be mr November 22nd felt that the problem couj that date Mr. Lange submitted a memo rei absence until the conflict could be rest stated that he still had no major concert and that he was contacted by the Cit :11 Page No. 2046 June 19, 1984 problem after a time. He stated that he though the problem was minor until January 18th and could have been easily resolved through mechanics in place in the fire departmeht. Chief Noack stated that at the meetings between himself and the City staff more problems arose. The problem was not coming back to the department but was being handled by the City staff. In early January he made a decision that he would not take Gene Lange back as Assistant Chief for two reasons: morale of the department and operations. He stated that as the meetings progressed Administrator Frazell and former Administrator Johnson had major concerns over the fire station, outside agencies, the police department, deterioration of the fire department and Chief Noack's inability to change, his age and the potential that he might soon retire. Chief Noack stated that Administrator Frazell had a plan to resolve the problems, which plan was to select a new future fire chief. He stated that he was asked to review the plan, that he had reviewed the plan and discussed it with Mr. Frazell, and that at the time he though he could agree with the plan that he be removed and that a new chief and assistant be appointed. He stated that the Administrator was present at the January 17 general meeting of the department and presented the plan but did not present the full plan. Chief Noack stated that it was good that the Administrator appeared at the meeting because of minor problems the department was having: low prior of the Fire Department by the City -- five days with an engine with bad batteries, a concern over the large amount of snow in front of the station, squirt repairs and in regard to fire station construction, the size of the apparatus bays. Chief Noack reviewed department activities during January, February and March. He stated that April was a very difficult month -- the month chosen for selection of a new chief and assistant. He said that the Administrator informed him in the first part of April that the Council had chosen the officers and suggested that his (Chief Noack's) resignation should be forthcoming. He acknowledged that the plan called for his submission of his resignation letter on May 1st but that events which occurred during April caused his lack of response. The Administrator reminded him of the need for a letter at a later date but he felt that if there was any trouble the Council should call him. Chief Noack stated that he asked the Administrator if he should come to a Council meeting to get direction and that he appeared before the Council in April and assured the Council that his resignation would be forthcoming. He stated that after the meeting and for the following ten days events were taking place and pressures were applied which were hard for him to keep up with. He said that two major incidents occurred: pre-release of press information on his resignation and removal of the tanker from 1 Page No. 2047 June 19, 1984 the fire station without notice to the dispatcher. He stated he made a decision not to respond to the resignation request because of the problems. Firefighter Marc Connolly read a petition signed by 24 members of the Fire Department opposing the removal of Chief Noack from office. Firefighter John Lapakko read, and submitted to the Council, a letter in opposition to the removal of the Chief from office. Mrs. Tobey Lapakko stated that one thing that needs to be said is that the residents feel the City has a very .fine Fire Department which functions efficiently. She said that State Law Chapter 14 establishes rules for such a public hearing and that none of the requirements of the law have been met, that there has been no legal publication and only press information in the Sun newspaper. She stated that her only information on the issue has been the Mayor's comments this evening: that there is a lack of communication and a lack of responsiveness. She felt that everything was done prematurely, that when the City didn't get the requested resignation it started on another track. She said that no onehas indicated incompetence and felt that there is no reason for discharging the chief. Firefighter Ken Noack stated that several members of the Fire Department are present in the audience to voice their support for the chief and dispute the reasons for removal. He said that he finds the primary reason being an incident between the chief and former Assistant Chief Lange and that the chief didn't act improperly. He stated that Mr. Lange turned in his gear and those members who witnessed the incident considered it a resignation. He said that according to the proposed removal resolution the department is being eroded and asked how the Council would know since he hasn't seen any Council members at any fire scenes or drills. He said that the only erosion is between the department and the Council. He stated that the department must work together and make snap decisions that could cause lives to be lost, that the department has never been better trained or had better mutual aid relation- ships. He said that none of the department has had a full story on the issue and now that they know, they support the chief. Mr. David Noack, son of Chief Noack, stated that he had met with Administrator Frazell to discuss the issue and that it was his intention at that meeting was to discuss several questions he had as to why the chief was being asked to resign. He stated that he sees two main points: leadership and communication. With regard to communication, he felt that the chief's communication with the Council. might be a problem Page 2048 June 19, 1984 but that communications with the department members and other fire departments is better than it has ever been. With regard to leadership, he noted that the Chief leads by example and that the Fire Department has been his commitment for thirty years. He felt that the department has been unified under Chief Noack's leadership and that if the Council really wants to work together with the chief that he would be willing to do SO. He stated that if the City is really concerned about the department there is no one better qualified to serve in the chief's capacity. Mr. Don Schoells, Chief Noack's son-in-law, stated that he has known Chief Noack as fireman, captain and chief and knows that he does a good job. He stated that it is obvious that the department supports him and that it appears that the City is in a bad position in that it appointed a new chief and assistant chief before receiving a written resignation. He said that two wrongs don't make a right and asked that the Council not lose the best man it has because of a decision made earlier. He observed that communication appears to be the problem and that the chief got tired of the pressure for his resignation. Mr. Tom Alcorn, an Inver Grove Heights resident and member of its volunteer fire department, informed the Council that he had given the Mendota Heights department a forty -hour first responder training program and is familiar with the department. He stated that he had not planned to make any statements but felt he should address the tanker sale issue because the sale of the tanker affects his community. He stated that the mutual aid documents indicate that Mendota Heights has two tankers and that eighteen other fire departments depend on Mendota Heights manpower and equipment. Administrator Frazell, responding to a request from a member of the audience, reviewed his history with the City as it relates to the removal issue. He stated that he began his employment with the City on October 31st and that one of his first assignments was to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Fire Department. His first meeting regarding fire department matters was on discussion of plans and specifications for the new fire station. He stated that part of the discussion was the level of confidence in department recommendations. He stated that it was evident that there were problems and he was willing to work with the chief. In November the City received a letter from Assistant Chief Lange and in response spent one and one-half months with Administrator Johnson, Chief Noack and Mr. Lange trying to resolve the problems. He stated that when it became apparent that the problems could not be resolved, Chief Noack suggested that the solution would be to fire him. Administrator Frazell stated that that was not the objective of the discussion. He Page No. 2049 June 19, 1984 stated that he discussed the matter with the Council and talked to Chief Noack and the general feeling was that because of the situation and the lack of communication and the need for recruitment of an assistant chief that the City should also look at recruitment of a new chief since Chief Noack would be near to retirement soon. Chief Noack agreed that this was a good idea, Mr. Frazell stated. He further stated that he felt the problem should be dealt with confidentially between Chief Noack and himself and that he was surprised at the rumors which soon began. He pointed out that Chief Noack agreed with the process and that department members sat on the appointment review panel. He noted that he was concerned that he had not received a written resignation prior to appointments. Administrator Frazell stated that Chief Noack took the position that he would not do anything until he was sure the new chief and assistant appointees were members of the department, and that Chief Noack assured him that the resignation would be submitted. It was not until May lst that Chief Noack indicated he would not submit the letter. He stated that the Council determined that they should meet with the chief and did so in late May, but there was no result and no further communication. Administrator Frazell stated that there must be a close relationship between the department heads, the City Administrator and the City Council. He pointed out that the City Council are the elected representa- tives of the community and have a right to expect that their policies will be carried out, that department heads and the administrator must have the confidence of the Council that their directives will be carried out and that they will get good recommendations. He stated that the analysis was that the situation that had occurred created a crisis in confidence that could occur again. Mr. David Noack stated that -as far as the resolution is concerned, the chief stated has stated that regardless of when the resignation would come, the plan would only go into effect September 30th and until that time as chief he is responsible for the operations of the department. He stated that the chief felt that he could not submit the resignation until then. Mr. Lapakko stated that the department has agreed that they would not come to the meeting and lobby for the fire station, and that if the Council needed more information they should have called the members of the department. He stated that he didn't know about a crisis in confidence, that it was just because the fire chief and administrator can't get along. He said that completing the interviews for a chief and assistant doesn't mean they must be appointed. Mayor Lockwood stated that Chief Noack has acknowledged that he met with the Council on April 17th and that at that point Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Nage No. 2050 June 19, 1984 it was the Council's understanding that Chief Noack still planned on submitting a letter of resignation. (le pointed out that the Council has acted in good faith. Councilman Hartmann pointed out that the comments made by the Inver Grove Heights fireman were not correct, that the City has never had any intention of having more than one tanker, that the City currently owns one tanker, and that the one disposed of this spring was considered dangerous to operate. There being no further questions or comments from the audience, Councilwoman Witt moved that the hearing be closed at 9:18 P.M. Councilman Hartmann seconded the motion. Mayor Lockwood stated that he would prefer not to discharge the chief but that the issue must be clearly understood by all parties and that the problem of prematurely having two people tentatively appointed as chief and assistant chief exists. He stated that if the department is as cohesive as they indicate, 'he would like to have a recommendation from them as to how to resolve the problem of the appointments which were made in good faith. Councilman Mertensotto stated that he is vitally concerned by the fact that the petition contained such a large number of signatures from the department. He wondered where all the support was prior to this evening. He noted that when the Council met with Chief Noack he had made the statement to the Chief that it appears as though the men did not support him. In response to the Inver Grove Heights fireman, Councilman Mertensotto also pointed out that the Council had received a recommendation from the department that the tanker which was disposed of was unsafe. In response, Chief Noack stated that he thinks that the safety of the unit is a debatable issue and questioned whether the people involved in making the recommendation were competent to do so. Councilwoman Blesener suggested that a meeting with the entire Fire Department should be conducted to discuss the issue. She stated that the crux of the issue is the communication and credibility problems between the fire chief and City Council, that there has never been any question on the chief's capabilities as a fire fighter, but that the current problems arose because of his failure to meet his commitment. It was the concensus of the Council that a meeting between the City Council and the entire fire department should be conducted at City Hall at 9:00 P.M. on June 20th, following the general meeting of the department which is scheduled earlier in the evening on June 20th. Page 2051 June 19, 1984 RECESS Mayor Lockwood called for a recess at 9:51 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 10:00 P.M. AIRCRAFT NOISE Mr. Bernard Friel was present to discuss the issues of air traffic and aircraft noise over the Friendly Hills area. Mr. Friel stated that there has been an increasing amount of noise in the southern part of the City and that he has always been of the assumption that there was in effect on the two runways which affect Mendota Heights a shifting of take -offs that spreads air traffic so that no residential area would bear undue burden. He noted that he has been in error and that he has discovered the reason that no spreading of. take- off patterns occurs. He stated that the only headings given to pilots using runways 11L and 11R are 90 and 105 degrees. The 90 degree heading occurs when traffic is taking off on both runways simultaneously, that if such heading were maintained when the aircraft got two miles from the runway end the southern area of Mendota Heights would be avoided, s. but that the heading is being taken on the west side of the river. He informed the Council that he had recently met with the F.A.A. assistant control director who advised him that a small residential area in Eagan, the Timberline Addition, was designated at some past time as a no fly -over zone. He stated that as a consequence, all of the- aircraft using runways 11L and 11R are directed on a heading of 105 degrees off of runway 11R and a fifteen degree separation is maintained on runway 11L during simultaneous take -offs. As a consequence, Mendota Heights is receiving a disproportionate number of flyovers than any other areas affected by airport operations. Mr. Friel asked that the Council instruct its Metropolitan Airport Sound Abatement Council representative to take what- ever action necessary to see to'it that the disproportionate number of fly -overs comes to a halt. He also requested that the Mayor and City Council members attend the June 26th MASAC meeting to support a change in air traffic patterns which will provide more equity. Mr. Friel then distributed copies of a resolution which had been adopted by the Friendly Hills Civic Association on the issue. Councilman Mertensotto moved to direct staff to prepare a protest resolution for Council consideration on June 20th with subsequent distribution to the Metropolitan Airports Commission and Metropolitan Airports Sound Abatement Council. Councilman Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TASK FORCE The Council. acknowledged a memo from the City Administrator containing names of suggested candidates for appointment to Page 2052 June 19, 1984 the downtown Mendota Heights task force. Discussion on the matter was tabled to the July 10th meeting. Y REVENUE SHARING The Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from Treasurer Shaughnessy regarding Federal Revenue Sharing handicapped accessibility requirements. Councilman Hartmann moved that the City Administrator be appointed to receive complaints on handicapped accessibility and that staff be directed to prepare a handicapped accessibility self-evaluation and draft policy statement. Mayor Lockwood seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL Mrs. Phyllis Ettinger was present to request that the Council waive the requirement for Planning Commission hearing on a conditional use permit application which would allow the use of the Victor building as a second site•for the Country Day School. She informed the Council that it is hoped that the school can begin operations in September and that the hearing requirement would pose time constraints which could delay consideration by the Council until August. Councilwoman Blesener moved to establish a tentative public hearing on the Country Day School application for conditional use permit on July 10th, the hearing date to be subject to Planning Commission consideration and approval of the hearing waiver request at its June 26th meeting. Councilman Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MISCELLANEOUS The Council acknowledged a letter from the Somerset View Pioneer Association requesting permission to conduct a block party on June 29th. Councilman Mertensotto moved that the Somerset View Pioneer Association be given permission to conduct the block party as requested subject to conditions placed on similar requests from the Association in past years. Councilman Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 FIRE STATION The Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from the Fire Marshal regarding soil conditions on the fire station site and recommending approval of a construction contract change order to provide for correction of the soil conditions. 41 Page 2053 June 19, 1984 After discussion, Mayor Lockwood moved to approve Change Order No. 1 for general construction of the fire station, along with authorization for execution of the document by the appropriate City officials. Councilwoman Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 1 Hartmann Abstain: 1 Blesener LOGIS Councilman Hartmann moved the adoption of Resolution No. 84- 34, "RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN UPGRADE OF MEMBERSHIP FROM ASSOCIATE TO FULL MEMBERSHIP," in the Local Government Information Systems Association. Ayes: 5 Councilwoman Witt seconded the motion. Nays: 0 AMM Mayor Lockwood moved that Councilwoman Blesener be appointed as the City's delegate to the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and that Councilman Hartmann be appointed alternate delegate. Ayes: 5 Councilwoman Witt seconded the motion. Nays: 0 NOISE AGREEMENT The Council acknowledged and discussed a memo from the Public Works Director regarding a proposed agreement on freeway construction noise with the Johnson Brothers Corporation. Council directed that staff finalize the agreement details for Council consideration on July 10th and further that staff request the Pollution Control Agency to provide noise monitoring equipment to the City. STREET MAINTENANCE The Council acknowledged and briefly discussed a memo from the Public Works Director regarding a proposed street maintenance project in the Fremont/Hiawatha area of the City. Councilman Hartmann moved that the Council conduct an informational hearing on July 17th for a discussion of the proposed bituminous street maintenance project. Councilwoman Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 SEAL COATING Councilman Mertensotto moved approval of the plans and specifications for the 1984 seal coating project along with authorization for advertisement for bids to be received on July 6th. Mayor Lockwood seconded the motion. Ayes: -5 Nays: 0 EVERGREEN KNOLL The Council reviewed and discussed the plans and specifications for the Evergreen Knoll Addition public Page .2054 June 19, 1984 improvement project. The Council also acknowledged and discussed a memo from the Public Works Director which advised that staff has been unable to successfully negotiate the acquisition of right-of-way for Wachtler Avenue from Mr. Albert Hanson and which recommended that the City proceed with condemnation of the right-of-way. Councilman Mertensotto moved the adoption of Resolution No. 84-35, "RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE EVERGREEN KNOLL AND ADJACENT AREAS (IMPROVEMENT NO. 83, SANITARY SEWER The Council acknowledged a memo regarding the 1984 .sanitary SEALING sewer sealing project, informing the Council that the sealing budget has been exceeded by $3,900 to date and recommending that an additional $4,000 be authorized for the sealing of lines north of Ridgewood Drive, Clement Avenue north of Fourth Avenue, and Lake Drive west of Swan Drive. Councilman Hartmann moved to authorize staff to proceed with the sealing of additional sanitary sewer lines as recommended by the Public Works Director for an estimated cost of $4,000. Mayor Lockwood seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MISCELLANEOUS The Council acknowledged a letter from the Mendota Heights Lions Club requesting approval of the issuance of a temporary 3.2 onsale malt beverage license to permit the sale of malt beverages in conjunction with the annual Turkey Barbecue on July 28th from noon to 7:00 P.M. Councilman Mertensotto moved to grant a temporary 3.2 on -sale malt beverage license to the Mendota Heights Lions Club for July 28th, Noon to 7:00 P.M. in conjunction with the Club's Turkey Barbecue, along with waiver of the license fee. Councilman Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PROJECT NO. 4)," bids to be received on July 17th. Councilman Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Councilman Hartmann moved the adoption of Resolution No. 84- 36, "A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE ACQUISITION BY CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN .UTILITY, STREET, AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA." -Councilman Mertensotto seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 SANITARY SEWER The Council acknowledged a memo regarding the 1984 .sanitary SEALING sewer sealing project, informing the Council that the sealing budget has been exceeded by $3,900 to date and recommending that an additional $4,000 be authorized for the sealing of lines north of Ridgewood Drive, Clement Avenue north of Fourth Avenue, and Lake Drive west of Swan Drive. Councilman Hartmann moved to authorize staff to proceed with the sealing of additional sanitary sewer lines as recommended by the Public Works Director for an estimated cost of $4,000. Mayor Lockwood seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MISCELLANEOUS The Council acknowledged a letter from the Mendota Heights Lions Club requesting approval of the issuance of a temporary 3.2 onsale malt beverage license to permit the sale of malt beverages in conjunction with the annual Turkey Barbecue on July 28th from noon to 7:00 P.M. Councilman Mertensotto moved to grant a temporary 3.2 on -sale malt beverage license to the Mendota Heights Lions Club for July 28th, Noon to 7:00 P.M. in conjunction with the Club's Turkey Barbecue, along with waiver of the license fee. Councilman Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 a . . Page No. 2055 ^ June 19, 1984 SPEED LIMIT Councilman Mertensotto expressed his concern over the safety hazard at the intersection of T.H.110 and T.H. 149. He asked that the Council take formal action to request that the speed limit on T.H. 110 be reduced to 45 miles per hour from one-half mile west of Lexington to one-half mile east of " Delaware. Councilman Mertensotto moved to direct a request to Mn/DOT to reduce the speed limit on T.H. 110 to 45 miles per hour as it traverses the City of Mendota Heights, both east and west bound lanes, one-half mile west of Lexington Avenue to one- half mile east of Delaware Avenue. Councilman Hartmann seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 MISCELLANEOUS Councilwoman Witt informed the Council of complaints she has received relative to "Thumb Thing" commercial operation being conducted on South Freeway Road. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilman Hartmann moved that the meeting be adjourned to 9:00 P.M. on Wednesday, June 20th for the purpose of meeting with the fire department membership along with discussion on any other business requiring Council consideration. Councilman Mertensotto seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:32 O'Clock P.M. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Robert G. Lockwood Mayor Page No. June 20, 1984 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Continued Meeting Held Wednesday, June 20, 1984 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the continued meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, was held at 9:00 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. ;.�TM`Ma3*or Lockwood called the meeting to order at 9:05 o'clock P.M. City `<? -,Administrator Frazell noted on Roll Call that all members of the Council `' ' .,,,were present. Item 3A Consideration of a resolution to be directed at the Metropoli- tan Airports Sound Abatement Council, concerning aircraft noise over Mendota Heights. Motion by Councilman Mertensotto, second by Councilman Hartmann, to adopt Resolution No. 84-38, "RESOLUTION REGARDING AIR TRAFFIC PATTERNS," and to direct the sending of copies to the Metropolitan Airports Sound Abatement Council, the Metropolitan Airports Commission and the City of Eagan. Motion passed unanimously. It was also noted that copies of the resolution should be sent to Bernard Friel and the president of the Friendly Hills Civic Association. Item 3B _ Continued discussion regarding Fire Department officers. Mayor Lockwood began the discussion by noting that at the previous evening's regularly scheduled Council meeting, the Council had conducted a public hearing on the removal of Fire Chief Leroy Noack from office. Mayor Lockwood said that due to the show of support by the Fire Department, the Council had asked the department to go back and come forth with a recommendation as to how the City could resolve this dilemma. Assistant Chief William Lerbs reported to the Council that the department had in fact discussed the matter and reached a concensus on a recommendation at their monthly meeting earlier that same evening. Lerbs said it was the department's recommendation that Leroy Noack continue as Chief, and that Bill Lerbs and John Maczko both be appointed as Assistant Chiefs, with one specific area of responsibility for the Assistant Chiefsp toy be a . communication line between the fire department and the City. Cit . Lerbs noted that when Leroy Noack had been selected for appointment to the position of Fire Chief two years ago, it had been done in a hurry -up fashion. He said that�therefore� it had been very difficult for Noack to assume the responsibilities quickly. Councilwoman Blesener questioned what kind of a division of duties there would be for the Assistant Chiefs. Councilman Mertensotto stated that we might Page No. June 20, 1984 not have a second Assistant Chief in the future, but that this would be an interim solution for the time being to resolve the impasse. Councilwoman Witt questioned what input the fire hall committee wished to have on the construction of the station. Lerbs responded that the committee wished to have the opportunity to review and comment on significant changes, and would work cooperatively with project manager Gene Lange. Councilman Mertensotto said that he thought there was a need for more discussion and communication between Noack, Lerbs, Maczko, Mayor Lockwood and City Administrator Frazell to clear up the respective roles and responsibilities. Mertensotto went on to say that the petition which had been presented to the Council last night asking for the retention of Leroy Noack as Fire Chief was different from what he had been told. He said that in the past he had understood that there were some serious divisions within the department. Mertensotto said that he hoped the petition was an honest reflection of the sentiments of the department, and not just a quick fix solution to get us out of an immediate crisis. Firefighter Marc Connolly responded that what the Council had received was not a petition, but a letter objecting to the manner in which Noack had been treated by the City. Firefighter Ken Noack asked if the department still had a particular liaison person on the City Council. Councilman Mertensotto responded that that was no longer the case, that the City now has a full—time City staff and Administrator. He said that the days of the commission form of government, in which each Council member was responsible for a particular City department, are over. At that point, Mayor Lockwood said that he would like to turn the meeting over to Acting Mayor Mertensotto, so that he, City Administrator Frazell, Chief Noack, and proposed Assistant Chiefs Lerbs and Maczko, could recess to the City Administrator's office for a private discussion about understandings on how this might be worked out. The`' remaining members of the Council and Fire Department then had an open discussion about issues of concern to the department. Firefighter John Lapakko said that the department was concerned that there had been no contact by any city person with people in the Fire Department about all of the problems. Councilman Mertensotto explained the City's operational structure now, which provides for the City Council setting policy, and working throught the City Administrator for day to day operations. It was explained that the Fire Department reports to the City Administrator like any other City department, and that it is in fact considered a City department. There was some discontent expressed about the role of the building committee, versus that of project manager Gene Lange, in the construction of the new fire station, that being that the committee would like to be more involved in significant decisions. The Council agreed that one member of Page No. June 20, 1984 the committee should be designated to be the liaison with Lange, so that important decisions could be coordinated. The method of disposition of the old fire tanker was discussed, and it was clarified that there needed to be better communication between the City staff and the fire officers whenever disposing of equipment, so that there were no misunderstandings. Other issues which were discussed included: 1. The clearing of snow in front of the fire station. 2. The delay in getting new batteries in the first line pumper unit. 3. The delay in putting the new chief's car into service. 4. General equipment maintenance procedures. 5. A desire that the Council and City Administrator not become involved in the selection and approval of captains. 6. The method and procedures for reviewing applications for membership on the Fire Department. At this point Mayor Lockwood, City Administrator Frazell, Chief Noack, Assistant Chief Lerbs and Mr. Maczko re-entered the meeting. Mayor Lockwood indicated that the group concurred that the department's recommendations as to officer positions would be acceptable and workable. He said there had been extensive discussion about Lerbs and Maczko attending regular City staff meetings to keep lines of communication open, and handling presentations to the City staff and City Council on Fire Department matters. Lockwood also reported that the group had discussed the Fire Department study committee, which had been part of the original plan for a change over in officers. Lockwood said that there were still several issues in the department _which need to be clarified and a recommendation brought forth to the Council, so it was the feeling of the group that the study committee should go forth. City Administrator Frazell indicated that he was pleased with the proposed solution, and felt that it could satisfy everyone's concerns. Frazell said that in his opinion, although the Fire Department is a volunteer organization, it is no less important than any other City service, and he considers it to be a full status department of the City just like any other department. Frazell also said that with the officers' problem resolved, he would make himself more available to the department, and would try to maintain closer contact. Councilwoman Blesener questioned whether it would be a good idea to have written job descriptions for the officers' positions, to clarify responsibilities. Mayor Lockwood responded that he felt that could be a part of any revision to the City ordinance governing the Fire Department, which would be one of the subjects of study by the study committee. Motion by Mayor Lockwood, seconded by Councilmember Witt to lift the suspension of Chief Leroy Noack, and to appoint John Maczko as a second Assistant Chief, effective July 1, 1984. Motion passed unanimously. There was a question raised as to the authority for a second Assistant Chief's position under the ordinance, and what the pay would be. City Page No. June 20, 1984 Administrator responded that he thought both the ordinance language and the pay scale should be the subjects considered by the study committee; and that in the meantime we would "wing it," with Maczko being paid at the same Assistant Chief rate as is now established for Lerbs. y Motion by Councilman Mertensotto, seconded by Councilman Hartmann to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 o'clock P.M. Motion passed unanimously. Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator ATTEST: Robert G. Lockwood Mayor NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION c/o City Offices Nellc 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 3. NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMISSION FULL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 23, 1984 The meeting was called to order by Chairman David Zemke at 7:39 o'clock P.M. The following Directors were present: Harrison - Sunfish Lake Boelter - Mendota Walker - West St. Paul Bruestle - Mendota Lanegran - South St. Paul Baird - Sunfish Lake Kinney - South St. Paul Tatone - Inver Grove Heights Henderson - Inver Grove Heights Carlson - Lilydale Hanson - West St. Paul Witt - Mendota Heights Zemke - Mendota Heights Weiss - Lilydale Also present were John Gibbs, legal counsel; Anita Benda Stech, technical consultant; Rollin H. Crawford, Barbara Sitkin, Robert Sachs, Bill Colemen, Tom Ryan of Continental Cablevision; Lee Bertman, Jim Riegler, Kevin Foley of Rite Cable Company; Melanie Soucheray of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis; Sean Kelly of the Dispatch; Michael Mischke and Andy Driscoll of the Highland Villager. Harrison moved, seconded by Witt to approve the agenda. Voting: 12 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. Lanegran moved, seconded by Baird to approve the minutes of the May 2, 1984 Public Hearing amended as follows: 1. Page 1, Item 1, Paragraph 5, Line 5, correct spelling of Walter Eisner. 2. Page 3, Paragraph 2, Line 1, correct spelling of legal "counsel". 3. Page 3, Paragraph 2, Line 10, correct spelling of "O'Neill". 4. Page 3, Paragraph 2, Line 12, correct spelling of "telecommunications". 5. Page 3, Paragraph 7, Line 5, correct spelling of "Megahertz". 6. Page 3, Paragraph 7, Line 5, correct spelling of "Magnavox". 7. Page 5, Paragraph 2, Line 2 should read "Northern Dakota County system "will" be interconnected with St. Paul. 8. Page 5, Paragraph 6, correct spelling of "sufficient". 9. Page 6, Paragraph 1, Line 5, correct spelling of "positive". 10. Page 6, Paragraph 6, Line 1, correct spelling of "addressing". 11. Page 6, Paragraph 6, Line 6, should read "raise debt capital although additional documentation is still required on". 12. Page 6, Paragraph 7, Line 1, should read "given" by the applicants. 13. Page 7, Paragraph 7, Line 1, should read "cushion in their budget is "the" $800,000". 14. Page 7, Paragraph 11 & 12, Line 1, correct spelling of "leasehold". 15. Page 9, Paragraph 12, Line 1, should read "The Commission reacted to Loss' comments by stating that the Commission has been". Voting: 14 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. Baird moved, seconded by Lanegran to approve the minutes of the May 9, 1984 meeting as submitted. Voting: 14 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 4. Chairman Zemke stated that Andy Driscoll reporter,of the Highland Villager, wished to speak before the Commission in regard to an article published in the Highland Villager. Andy Driscoll addressed the commission by reading the following letter from Maurice F. Mischke, Publisher of the Highland Villager: In a news story .which appeared in the May 23, 1984 columns of the Highland Villager, the following paragraph appeared within a story headed "St. Paul's southern neighbors witness their own cable wars": "Another of Rite's co-owners is a Miami -based businessman who has been under investigation for bribery there." We now know that this statement was false, incorrect and had no basis in fact. The reporter and this newspaper sincerely regret this factual -error, and we wish to apologize to the owners of Rite Cable Company, the Bertman Corporation and any of its attorneys, lobbyists, or persons connected with Rite Cable Company and its affiliated companies. Michael J. Mischke, Editor of the Highland Villager also addressed'.the article in the newspaper by stating as the Editor of the Highland Villager, allow me to add my apologies to those of my father and publisher of this newspaper. I also regret the error and I'd like to apologize as well to the owners of Rite Cable Company, the Bertman Corporation and all its repre- sentatives and those connected with Rite and its affiliates. The correction read by Mr. Driscoll will appear verbatim in the next issue of the Highland Villager, scheduled for publication on June 6, 1984. Edward J. Anderson of the law firm of Curtin and Mahoney, legal counsel for Rite Cable Company thanked the Commission for letting the newspaper editor and reporter correct the error before the Commission tonight because the correction would not have been made public until the publication of June 6, 1984. Several items of communications were presented; Phillips Publishing.•_sub- scription; Letter from Herbst & Thue and copy of the letter from Michael J. Hoover in regard to advisory opinion of O'Neill, Burke and O'Neill's repre- sentation of Rite Cable Company and the cities of Lilydale and Mendota; Letter from Herbst & Thue and a copy of a letter from O'Neill, Burke, and 2 O'Neill in response to the advisory opinion from Michael J. Hoover relative to the conflict of interest issue; Letter dated May 21, 1984 from O'Neill, Burke and O'Neill regarding their withdrawal from legal representation of Rite Cable Company; responses to performance questionnaire from cable fran- chise areas served by Contintental Cablevision and Rite Cable Company; Letter from Mary Ann Anderson, Dean of Continuing Education, Inver Hills Community College indicating the services they would like the area's fran- chise holder to provide; Letter from James Riegler of Rite Cable Company of Minnesota, Ltd. regarding Reservation Agreements pertaining to limited partnership interests and an article from Cablevision Plus; Letter dated May 22, 1984, from Lee Bertman, Vice President of Rite Cable Company, Inc. regarding St. Paul franchise substantive change standard and Rite Cable Company's financial plan. Hanson moved, seconded by Henderson to receive the above communications. Voting: 14 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 5. Treasurer Kinney informed the Commission that the balance in the checking account as of May 9, 1984 is $11,543.73. The Commission is in receipt of the Sunfish Lake 1984 contribution of $950.00 and three (3) bills,The first is from Roger Blessum and Associates for insurance in the amount of $597.98. The second bill is from the City of Mendota Heights for secretarial services in the amount of $331.67. The third bill is from Anita Stech and Kinney stated that he was confused by the bill. Chairman Zemke stated that the bill should be tabled until the June 6, 1984 meeting to discuss the billing with Stech. ® After some discussion, Lanegran moved, seconded by Hanson to pay the bills to the City of Mendota Heights and Roger Blessum and Associates. Voting: 14 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. Tatone had no report to make regarding affiliation with the educational institutions. Chairman Zemke stated that both cable companies have received a copy of the Inver Hills Community College letter. 6. Chairman Zemke addressed the issue of the Selection Process by stating that the resolution adopted at the last meeting should be used in evaluating each proposal because it states what establishes the proposal for each applicant. Because the adoption of those resolutions was contingent upon the technical consultant evaluation of the two letters from Continental Cablevision and one from Rite Cable Company, he asked Stech to present her findings. Stech stated that the Commission asked her to'evaluate the letters to see if they constituted a substantive change to the original proposal. In regard to Continental's letter addressing their commitment to provide one upstream and one downstream channel for computer communications, and high speed data, she stated that this letter is not a substantive change because the dedica- tion of the channels for those uses can be accomplished through the finan- cial and technical commitments originally proposed. In regard to the letter to Ken Hanson, Stech stated that if the $1.45 increase is included in the $1.94 rate increase proposed in year 6, it is not a substantive change. She urged the Commission to seek confirmation of this from Continental. In 3 regard to the May 7, 1984 letter from Rite Cable Company in reference to equity funding and CATV Support Services guarantees, Stech stated that the original proposal and the May 7, 1984 letter meant that the guarantee for the NDC4 project is strictly from Mr. Wright and Mr. Riegler's net worth, which exceeds the total needed, and not from CATV Support Services, there- fore this letter is not a substantive amendment from the original proposal. Bruestle asked the technical consultant in regard to Institutional Network capacity if Continental is meeting the requirement in the RFP. Stech stated that the RFP requires dedication of one upstream and one down- stream channel for computer communications and one upstream and one down- stream channel for high speed data. Continental referred to computer communications and high speed data transmission in its original proposal. The dedication of these channels for the uses can be accomplished by the commitments Continental originally proposed. But also stated she has not seen the specific dedication but the commitment does not represent a sub- stantive change to the original proposal. Henderson asked Stech why is the distinction made between computer communi- cations and high speed data, and does the distinction have any bearing on one versus two channels? Stech stated that the capacity is the same, the capacity would be able to accommodate many more channels. The difference is there are two different requirements that address this in the RFP. Sachs stated that it is Continental's intent, as stated in the May 7, 1984 letter, but in order to make it clear for the record, that Continental will provide one upstream and one downstream channel for computer communications and in addition, one upstream and one downstream channel for high speed data. Tatone stated that the consultant has done what the Commission has asked her to do which was to determine if the letters submitted represented a substan- tive change and now reports that none of the letters represent a substantive change. Zemke asked Continental if the increase of $1.45 in subscriber rates is included in the $1.94 per month rate increase as shown in the original proposal. Sachs stated that the $1.45 per month increase was included in the rate increase of $1.94 per month in year 6. Stech stated that legal counsel should take note of the oral comments made tonight so that they may be incorporated in the franchise ordinance. Henderson moved, seconded by Hanson, that Continental Cablevision provide a letter confirming that the $1.45 per month increase to subscribers is in- cluded in the $1.94 increase proposed for year 6, as shown in the original proposal. Voting: 14 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 4 Bruestle moved, seconded by Henderson to have Continental provide confirma- tion that they will provide one upstream and one downstream channel for computer communications and also one upstream and one downstream channel for high speed data. Voting: 14 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. Chairman Zemke addressed the evaluation categories and stated that the Commission should comment or ask questions under each category. Chairman Zemke then proceeded through each category. Services Henderson commented on access channels and access support policies in refer- ence to Regional Channel 6. Neither company offered this but it is a statutory requirement and he therefore disagrees with the consultants eval- uation on those items. John Gibbs, legal counsel, stated that the applicants have commited to comply with the MCCB requirement of Regional Channel 6 and that the Commission should consider that both applicants propose to offer Regional Channel 6. Stech stated that in the final report the consultants had two problems with Rite in terms of channels, one was the Regional Channel 6 and the other was the placement of access channels on the universal tier. Technical and Engineering Henderson commented on the interconnect item by stating that the regional interconnect is a requirement over which neither the Commission or the successful applicant has any control, it is a mandated requirement. Gibbs stated that the cable board rule provides that all metropolitan area cable systems shall interconnect when the board so orders. That order has not taken affect yet but when it does all systems will have to interconnect. Weiss asked legal counsel where the Commission stands when a company does not meet the minimum requirement. Gibbs stated according to a Minneapolis hearing it does not require the Commission to reject the proposals because it does not meet the minimum specifications. Henderson stated that he added under Category B, home alarm services, he asked the technical consultant if this is correct. Stech stated that home alarm services are included with auxiliary services. There are a couple of areas where the services sections and the technical/ engineering sections dealt with the same issue but in different terms. Financial Management Henderson asked, in the context of the final report for Commission evalua- tion, what does local management mean? Stech stated that it deals with how local people would be involved in management and operation of the system. 5 General Goals There were no comments on this section. Priority Elements Gibbs advised the Commission to discuss the priority elements which were taken directly out of the RFP. Chairman Zemke asked the Commission if they wished to discuss the priority elements and assign numerical value to them. Lanagren stated that she thought the Commission agreed not to put numerical value on the matrix. Stech reviewed Priority Category No. 1 for the Commission as stated in the final report. Stech stated that in Item E it states that Continental has not shown how Lilydale, Mendota Heights, and Sunfish Lake will be included in its system design or channelization plan. Continental has provided this information and this item should be stricken from the report. Henderson asked Stech if Rite had a separate budget for the institutional network and the subscriber network. Stech stated that Rite had a budget for the institutional network and a budget for the subscriber network and there is no -problem with their budget for the separate institutional network for 50 miles as shown in the original proforma but that there were problems in regard to the subscriber network budget. Tatone asked if the -consultant is going to respond to the Bertman letter of May 22, 1984. Baird stated that if Rite wants the Commission and consultant to evaluate this letter they should pay for it. He felt it was not germain at this point. Gibbs stated that Rite raised three issues in the May 22, 1984 letter. The first issue was Continental's 21 million dollar error in St. Paul. He commented on this by stating that Continental did not amend and does not intend to amend the proposal because of this error and it was disclosed before the State Cable Board and the Cable Board granted a certificate of confirmation to Continental for the St. Paul franchise. There was no viola- tion of the cable board rule regarding substantive amendments. The second issue dealt with the definitions of substantive amendment standard. The third issue dealt with financial plan of Rite Cable which was discussed at the last meeting that the revised proforma would not be included as part of the proposal. He also stated that these issues should not delay the Commis- sion in their timetable. „ Baird asked Rite why they brought the letter to the Commission's attention tonight and not when the matter actually occured. M. Bertman stated that it seemed inappropriate to bring the matter up before the disposition by the MCCB. Weiss asked if the 21 million dollar error in St. Paul, being there is a shared head end, would bring increased costs to Northern Dakota County to recoup that loss. Sachs stated all of the capital expenditures for Northern Dakota County relating to the head end are charged to Northern Dakota County on an incre- mental basis. The issue dealt with operating expenses, nothing to do with capital expenditures of any element of the St. Paul Cable system. Only the additional costs necessary to provide the additional services would be charged to the Northern Dakota County system. The Northern Dakota County system will share the head end in St. Paul but in all other respects act as an independent cable system, with its own set of books, records, program- ming, staff, office, and any decision regarding rates or any other matters will be based on the performance of the Northern Dakota County system. If Continental's return is less in St. Paul, it will bear on St. Paul rates. It will not bear on rates in Northern Dakota County. Gibbs stated that the separate operating expenses will be drafted in the franchise ordinance accordingly and provide in the rate change section not only the St. Paul error but other operating and capital cost overruns in the St. Paul system so it will not be cause for a rate change in the Northern Dakota County system. Henderson stated that he is concerned because of the accounting methods by Continental. Tatone stated that he is satisfied and should not delay the process any further to answer any questions raised in'the May 22, 1984 letter. Category 2 There were no comments or discussions. Category 3 There were no comments or discussions. Category 4 Gibbs addressed the issue of the responses received in regard to the perfor- mance questionnaire by stating that these responses show the experiences and the overall rating of the applicants in other franchise areas they operate. Tatone stated he felt the comments were more important than the overall ranking. Lanegran felt that the responses didn't give her anymore information than she already had. Bruestle asked if any of the responses were from cities with a shared head end. 7 Chairman Zemke stated that the questionnaire was sent to cities with similar systems in regard to mileage, home ratio similar to Northern Dakota County and multiple cities. Sachs stated that Newton, MArand South Pekin and Pekin,Illinois,will or are sharing the same head end. Weiss asked Sachs, as far as the construction costs of the head end are concerned, Northern Dakota County will not be allocated any portion of that cost. Sachs responded by stating that Northern Dakota County will only be responsi- ble for those additional costs which are necessary to provide service to Northern Dakota County. Weiss asked Sachs, what happens if Continental asks for a rate increase in St. Paul and not in Northern Dakota County, could St. Paul say have Northern Dakota County share in these costs being the head end is shared. Sachs reaffirmed what he has stated before that Northern Dakota County will be treated separately from the St. Paul system and to deal with each com- munity fairly regardless of size. He also stated that the best way the Commission could evaluate their performance in this matter is by the re- sponses from the communities they are currently serving. These systems are treated separately as the rates are different even though they share a head end. Stech stated that cable companies generally come back to the Commission for something but the proposals and the franchise ordinance will give the Com- mission something to hang on to should St. Paul express the desire to have Northern Dakota County assume some of the cost overruns of the St. Paul system. Baird moved, seconded by Harrison to adopt the following resolution: Be It Resolved that: At this point we commit ourselves in principle to accepting the proposal of Continental Cablevision of Northern Dakota County, Inc., final acceptance to be made at our meeting on June 6, 1984, at which time our attorney and consultants are instructed to present to the Commis- sion suitable findings of fact sufficient to support our decision. Chairman Zemke stated that it will take 12 affirmative votes.to adopt the resolution. As defined in the Joint Powers Agreement each director is able to vote 1/2 of the cities weighted vote. In absence of a director from a city the director that is present is able to cast all votes. Tatone stated that he will vote in favor of the motion and that the reason for this -'.is because of the statement by Mr. Rakoske of Continental at the public hearing about the questions the Commission has to ask themselves. They were: What is the track record of the applicant, how realistic is the applicant's proposal and rely on intuitive feelings. The track record is difficult because Rite is the new kid on the block, Continental appears to have a more realistic proposal in its expenses and penetration and his intuitive feeling is that Continental's proposal is the better proposal. Henderson stated he concurred withithe general tenor of Tatone's statement but added that even though he raised alot of questions he just wanted the Commission to evaluate and accept the best possible proposal. He also stated that in evaluating Rite's proposal it was higher than expected but in the total ranking it was Continental who had the better proposal. He thanked Rite for their effort and stated that he will support the resolu- tion. Weiss made a statement supporting the resolution by stating that he felt that he didn't reject anyone but was supporting the better proposal. He also commended Rite for their time and effort. Chairman Zemke stated that he appreciated the patience and courtesy extended to him and the Commission by both cable companies. Voting: Harrison - Sunfish Lake - 1/2 Boelter - Mendota - 1/2 Kinney - South St. Paul - 2-1/2 Bruestle - Mendota - 1/2 Lanegran - South St. Paul - 2-1/2 Witt - Mendota Heights - 1 Baird - Sunfish Lake - 1/2 Tatone - Inver Grove Heights - 2 Henderson - Inver Grove Heights - 2 Carlson - Lilydale 1/2 Hanson - West St. Paul - 2 Weiss - Lilydale - 1/2 Zemke - Mendota Heights - 1 Walker - West St. Paul 2 18 affirmative, 0 negative. Motion carries. vote affirmative vote affirmative votes affirmative vote affirmative votes affirmative vote affirmative vote affirmative votes affirmative votes affirmative vote affirmative votes affirmative vote affirmative vote affirmative votes affirmative Chairman Zemke stated that the resolution adopted directs the legal counsel to work with the consultant to develop findings of fact to be presented at the next full commission meeting on June 6, 1984. He also advised both Gibbs and Stech that this document is to be available by June 1, 1984 for distribution in the packets. Sachs thanked the commission for the vote of confidence and commended the Commission on the time and effort that they have put into the process. He stated everyone deserves credit for conducting a process which was above board and adhered to higher standards than has been seen elsewhere. He also wished Rite good luck in their other endeavors in Minnesota. Baird moved, seconded by Weiss to commend Rite Cable Company in their ef- forts, their interest in the cable franchise and responding to the many questions by the Commission and also wishing Rite well in their future. Voting: 13 ayes, 1 nay - Bruestle. Motion carried. Lee Bertman, Vice President of Rite Cable Company, thanked the Commission for the kind motion and that it is unique in the history,of cable fran- chising. He also stated that the Commission conducted an excellent process. He congratulated Continental and he appreciated their good wishes to Rite. He stated that Rite has enjoyed working with the Commission and would like to see Northern Dakota County get the best cable system possible and wished 0 the communities well also in the future of cable television and hoped that Rite will have the opportunity to come back in the future and see,Continen- tal's system functioning and hopes the Commission can come and visit some of Rite's systems in other locations. Barbara Sitkin of Continental stated that Continental is looking forward to building the system as soon as possible and that if Continental can help expedite the process of the franchise ordinance, they are willing to do so. 9. There were no comments from the public. 10. Boelter moved, seconded by Kinney to adjourn the meeting. Voting: 14 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:01 P.M. Prepared by: Diane Ward Staff Secretary 10 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 22, 1984 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Kruse at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Kruse, Frank, Burke, Stefani, Ridder, Morson, and Henning. Also present were Planning Consultant Howard Dahlgren and City Administrator Kevin Frazell. APPROVAL OF Minutes of the April 24 meeting had been submitted previously. MINUTES Frank moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Morson seconded the motion. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 CASE 484-04, CUP Chairperson Kruse called the meeting to order for the purpose for PUD, Clapp- of a public hearing on an application by Clapp-Thomssen for Thomssen a conditional use permit for a planned unit development amendment concerning Lot H, Clapp-Thomssen Ivy Hill Townhouses. There was no one present in the audience for the hearing, and Chairperson Kruse advised the Commission that the applicant had requested postponement of the hearing until the June 19th meeting. Frank moved to postpone the public hearing for one month. Stefani seconded the motion. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 VERBAL REVIEW City Administrator Frazell informed the Commission of Council approval of the Anderson and Simmons lot splits., as well as the mining permit for Northland Land Company and the efforts to annex into the City of Mendota Heights that portion of the City of Eagan lying north of I-494. Administrator Frazell also gave the Commission a brief status report on the Callahan creek improvement project. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Commission, Frank moved that the meeting be adjourned. Ridder seconded the motion. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 7:12 o'clock P.M. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 26, 1984 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Kruse at 8:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Kruse, Frank, Burke, Stefani, Morson, and Henning. Ms. Ridder notified the Commission that she would be late. Also present were Planning Consultant Howard Dahlgren, Public Works Director Jim Danielson, and City Administrator Kevin Frazell. APPROVAL OF Minutes of the May 22, 1984 meeting had been submitted MINUTES previously. Frank moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Burke seconded the motion. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 CASE #84-04, CUP Chairperson Kruse called the meeting to order for the for PUD, Clapp- purpose of a public hearing on an application by Clapp- Thomssen Thomssen for a conditional use permit for a planned unit development amendment concerning Lot H, Clapp-Thomssen Ivy Hill Townhouses. There was no one present in the audience for the hearing, and Chairperson Kruse advised the Commission that the applicant had requested post- ponement of the hearing until the July 24th meeting. Frank moved to postpone the public hearing for one month. Stefani seconded the motion. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 CASE #83-27, CUP, Chairperson Kruse reviewed the facts concerning the City Target Stores Council's suggestion to remove a condition placed upon Target Stores to match a guard shack facade with the principle structure's facade at their R.L. Johnson ware- house facility on Pilot Knob Road. Consensus of the Planning Commission was that the existing guard shack facade was acceptable. Stefani moved to recommend to the City Council that the condition requiring the same facade as the principle structure on the guard shack be removed from the condi- tional use permit. Henning seconded the motion. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 CASE #84-07, Variance, Chairperson Kruse skipped Case #84-06 because the ap- Pilot Knob. pointed time had not arrived and asked Mr. Ralph Linvill Service Center to present his variance request. Mr. Linvill was wait- ing for his sign man so the matter was tabled. CASE #84-11, CUP, Phyllis and Ron Ettinger presented information concern - Country Day School ing their request to operate a private day school in the Victor building located on the west end of South Plaza Drive. This building is in a B-1 zoning district which allows for private academies with a conditional use permit. Because of state requirements 80 children would be the maximum enrollment. 22 stalls of parking are required and are available. Grass play areas will be fenced. The applicants had contacted contiguous neigh- bors and presented letters of consent. They also pre- sented a proposed site plan. Because of time con- straints for fall enrollment they asked the Planning Commission to waive the requirement for a public hearing at the Planning Commission level. That would still mean a hearing would be conducted at the Council level. Stefani asked what impact would allowing this facility have on Downtown Mendota Heights planning. Burke moved to waive the public hearing and recommend approval of the conditional use permit to allow a pri- vate day care facility to be located at the Victor building, 790 South Plaza Drive. Stefani offered a friendly amendment that would condition approval on the installation of a black wrought iron fence totally enclosing the play area. Stefani seconded the amended motion. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 CASE #84-07, Variance, Jim Griggs, Ralph Linvill's sign contractor was now Pilot Knob Service present and presented information concerning the vari- Center" ance request. Kathleen Ridder arrived at 8:30 o'clock P.M. Stefani asked what was the elevation of this sign rela- tive to United's sign across the street. Frank asked what was the distance to the curb of United's sign and Linvill's proposed sign. Griggs stated 30 feet on Linvill's and SO feet on United's. Kruse asked what will the sign look like. Griggs re- sponded that it will be vertical aluminum extrusion to match turrets on building. Stefani suggested that they will then be back with more yard sign requests in the future. Frank moved to recommend approval subject to this sign being their only yard sign and that no tenant names appear on this sign. Seconded by Morson. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 CASE #84-06 Chairperson Kruse•called the public hearing to order for Subdivision, the purpose of considering a proposed subdivision of Lot Schuster 17 and part of Lot 22, Somerset Hills. Mrs. Schuster presented facts concerning the subdivision to the Commission and handed out written documents and maps concerning vacation of a portion of Wachtler Avenue and the nature of the request. Morson was concerned that there were some beautiful trees on the lot and efforts to preserve them should be made. Ridder asked if there were any changes made since the last application. Mrs. Schuster responded that the south lot line has been adjusted to improve setback problem. Ridder asked which way will the homes face. Mrs. Schuster stated that all homes will face west and that even through it appears as that their home faces north it functions and from a practical' -standpoint is facing west also. Chairperson Kruse asked for comments from the audience, their being none he closed the public hearing. Commis- sion members were surprised that only one other land- owner showed up for the hearing. It was established that there would be a hearing at the Council level also. Stefani moved to grant a 3.7 foot front yard•setback variance to the existing home and approve the subdivi- sion as presented. Morson offered a friendly amendment to condition the approval on applicant making every effort to preserve existing trees. Morson seconded the amended motion. Ayes: 6 Nays: 1 - Frank CASE #84-08, Earl Lynch, the applicant, presented facts and answered Subdivision, questions concerning his proposed subdivision. He also Lynch presented signed letters from contiguous landowners approving his request. Burke moved to recommend waiving the public hearing, granting the 2.5 foot front yard variance and granting the subdivision. Morson seconded the motion. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 CASE #84-09, Variance, Mr. and Mrs. Carolan presented facts and answered ques- Carolan tions concerning their proposed variance. They stated that they have been working with the Tucks, their neigh- bor across the street east, who called the City to indicate their opposition to the project, to better inform them of what they are proposing to do. The Carolans staked out the limits of their proposed con- struction and feel that now that the Tucks are better informed, they are not as opposed to the project. The fact that the Tucks were not at the meeting seemed to indicate such. Ridder moved to recommend to the City Council to grant the ten (10) foot front yard variance. Henning seconded the motion. Ayes: 6 Nays: 1 - Morson CASE #84-10, Wetlands Joe Isaac and Alf Wiik (Sussel) presented facts and Permit, Isaac answered questions concerning Isaac's wetlands permit application. Kruse expressed concern about the contours as depicted on the site plan. They are shown as a 1:1 slope away from the house in all directions. There is also no level area for yard. Wiik presented home plans and showed how the contours could work. The Commission still had a concern that this plan was unworkable. Isaac agreed to change the contours to remove Planning Commission's concerns. Burke moved to recommend approval of the wetlands permit to the City Council subject to the applicant presenting a technically acceptable site plan that was approved by the Public Works Director prior to July 3, 1984. If the applicant does not meet this deadline, he is to return to the Planning Commission for the July meeting. Kruse seconded the motion. Henning stated he would not vote for this motion because he feels that matters such'as-this- should be worked out by Planning Commission prior to forwarding to the City. Council. Kruse asked Kevin Frazell and Howard Dahlgren their feelings on approving this variance subject to applicant correcting the site plan and it was felt by them that this was a technical problem not a policy decision and they thought it would be acceptable to City Council. Ayes: 5 Nays: 2 - Henning Ridder PROPOSED COMPRE- Howard Dahlgren presented the proposed Comprehensive HENSIVE PLAN Plan Amendments. He was directed to prepare the text AMENDMENTS for their review at the next meeting. DOWNTOWN MENDOTA Bill Burke was appointed as the Planning Commission HEIGHTS TASK member to the Downtown Mendota Heights Task Force Com - FORCE mittee. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:22 o'clock P.M. • Engineering Offices CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS June 28, 1984 Mr. Kermit McRae Minnesota Department of Transportation District 9 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Box 2050 North St. Paul, MN 55109 Dear Mr. McRae: The Mendota Heights City Council at their June 19, 1984, City Council meeting discussed traffic safety on Trunk Highway 110 in Mendota Heights. The subject was brought to their attention because a City employee was recently involved in a serious accident at the intersection of Trunk Highway 110 and Dodd Road and witnessed by a City Councilmember. It is felt by the Councilmembers that the safety at all the intersections along Trunk Highway 110 in Mendota Heights is not good and would be greatly improved if the speed limit were re- duced. They specifically cited Trunk Highway 36 in North St. Paul as an example, where the speed limit is 45 miles per hour on a similar road. The Council then passed a motion directing me to draft a letter to you requesting that the speed limit on Trunk Highway 110 in Mendota Heights from 1/2 mile west of Lexington Avenue to 1/2 mile east of Delaware Avenue be reduced to 45 miles per hour. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments on this request. Very truly yours, aures E. Danielson, P.E. Public Works Director JED:dfw 750 South Plaza Drive • Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 • 452-1086 og �r� �nlacv� a����� l --a o -� s r)1v1S_-a Zoo , i�,Ns SI�91gH 'gIaQ W41N- - r- • s s-� X0-7, r � � i � SO � ��{ NI a j j{ !aa�cy" rvm 'c-u11v-� nvrI1 calm livor jL?c+�1ld-� �v�z+v� a Sin � �������a� -A-VQ T4$ b� j C'�� ZlZtojn r� Wo-�II d3o3�C1 yuoYJ Wo 36s oo`�) S3f�1-1 °/0iv -aevoO�Ql _ S�Slti�� Sv s_r s w _,H wo7 0�3 �.1, a -v vim, �a1� t� S -7.t3 r m � �.►� d t1 �, � m - - _ 0 4�bb �2$ �� � -a H � . � �n����o� C-�-��.-ter¢-� S•�-��o-,�c�-��oa��,,a 1.-I$ � - - •�r� X 71 ?,I ,lo CoU.�l,'1tG�i r� a r� -� b� `w►1 1�` � 6'66 ;,�. �+8 L�� B1 'oe b$�2•bg a,000,� �o�) erg►-, �vmC. �o Coi1-3-i�wo� 7riar-�� o-aaCi� Sa� �v° �v�•��.y # -�_ �$ •�.w) �-A Y w--4 --Zjl-Ya SIHII Jso o'�9� m! �- "°7 ^Vof J.1n1915Yj og �r� �nlacv� a����� l --a o -� s r)1v1S_-a Zoo , i�,Ns SI�91gH 'gIaQ W41N- - r- M G, N D 0 Y k H r. I G �liG iF.1t�.�IrJG - 12.0 mac. J r �6ASIB ILJ rY T-STIMhVr- GOTM.Tal-. �►0 WfG1=- �ST, To Atm '?e-0je4T IoST 1 1 o/, COM Q. THIS -DhTr Iccw�5TywcT-)a&-) I`�MAP-le t, 1Mp 3-� ��rt a4fR4 �40LLS C R e-) 57-L']oo II — - _ ou-rFort_. po►os -�� ('oP- 12rzc.Eiump o0 T�L -I I� � 1��4- . M 9oTR S• R -v U �P r�• 14q C-1 TI S"Arl.{ �oo l-or DoiNe- fora -9- As ?hMT o •F}{ "4 0000 -YL f 0,kY- + arzjl3r%iNG 7xoGa.�S . ti, o - 14 CIO MO. Ro. 20200004- - Ho IDoT w,k-L -Do t)on..IL- �, '�n ole --rt 494 GvlJ5Ti�c.11pX3 U1r1D�2 WA -T. UJ�ST�R 1/JS�n�� h� !oJ 5 ri—moo _ No Ito isufFi� _ Go►�TraoLC �000�' _ — — `no IUorL� T 6 17or-lC � ala1DOT As nn.F oic 4 ?az a Bch WArLva O. M f-� o'j'�A 4Gn� TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Building Activity Report for CURRENT MONTH NO. VALUATION BLDG PERMITS SFD 2 213,315.81 APT 0 0 C/I 6 224,135.00 MISC. 14 41,058.52 SUB TOTAL 22 478,509.33 TRD PERMITS Plbg 8 Wtr 5 Swr 5 Htg, AC & Gas Pipe 9 SUB TOTAL 27 LICENSING Contractor's Licenses 23 FEE COLLECTED 1,472.63 0 1,779.69 4,346.77 222.00 25.00 87.50 435.50 770.00 575.00 MEMO DATE: June 25, 1984 YEAR TO DATE - 1984 2,640.00 YEAR TO DATE - 1983 36 180.00 23 NO. VALUATION FEE COLLECTED NO. VALUATION FEE COLLECTED 19 2,095,107.32 14,770.63 24 2,620,221.88 18,027.11 2 4,500,000.00 19,166.40 0 0 0 32 2,135,358.0.0 13,075.23 11 4,298,769.08 19,001.20 49 2,167,952.74 12,536.70 53 341,260.25 4,465.07 102 10,898,418.06 59,548.96 88 7,260,251.21 41,493.38 48 2,640.00 29 655.00 36 180.00 23 390.00 31 542.50 21 442.50 60 4,756.00 26 2,600.50 175 8,118.50 99 4,088.00 228 5,700.00 186 4,650.00 TOTAL 72 $478,509.33 $5,691.77 1505 $10,898,418.06 $73,367.46 1373 $7,260,251.21 $50,231.38 NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee and valuation amounts. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO I July 5, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Edward F. Kishel City Engineer SUBJECT: Final Payment Kingsley Estates Improvement 83-5 Job 8314 INTRODUCTION: The Kingsley Estates Utility Project has been satisfactorily completed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 84- accepting the project and the approval of Final Payment Certificate No. 5, attached hereto. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council approves of staff recommendation, it shall adopt Resolution No. 84-_ and approve Payment Certificate No. 5 as submitted. f CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 84 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT (IMPROVEMENT NO. 83, PROJECT NO. 5) WHEREAS;' -pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Mendota 'Heights on October 20, 1983, M & M Sewer and Water, Inc., of Burnsville, Minnesota, has satisfactorily completed the improvement of installing sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and watermains to service Kingsley Estates, Improvement No. 83, Project No. 5, in accordance with such contract; NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of Mendota Heights, that'the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and -approved; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby directed to issue a proper order for -'the final payment on such contract in the amount of $2,551.17, taking the Contractor's receipt in full. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights -this tenth day of July, 1984. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Robert G. Lockwood Mayor CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 750 South Plaza Drive ® Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT IMPROVEMENT/PROJECT NO. 83-5 CERTIFICATE NO. 5 -FINAL JOB NO. 8314 hOwner) City of Mendota Heights Date:July 1, 1984 -;101'xation Date:July 1, 1984 Contract Date:October 20, 1984 --For .•`Per.iod Ending:June 30, 1984 ,s Ths Is to certify that M & M Sewer and Water, Inc., 11421 Christiansen ''Court, Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 Contractor for Sewer & Water Construction Kingsley Estates) is entitled to .-final payment of Two Thousagd Five Hundred Fifty-one and 17/100------------------ ($1,127.00) Dollars, as per contract. SEE ATTACHED BID PROPOSAL FOR AMOUNT OF WORK PERFORMED TO DATE. CIT OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT Original Contract Amount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $80,519.60 Total Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ None Total Deductions. . (As Per Unit Decreases) $ 1,960.86 Contract.Amount to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $78,558.74 Total Amount for Work Performed to Date $ $78,558.74 Advance on Materials Stored at Site $ None Total Amount Payable to Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $78,558.74 Less 0 % Retained. . . . . . . . . . . . $ Less Liquidated Damages . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,500.00 Less Payment Previously Certified . . . . .. $ 74,507.57 $76,007.57 NET AMOUNT DUE THIS ESTIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,551.17 Page 1 of 2 J . Application & Certificate for Payment (Continued) Improvement/Project No. 83-5 Job No. 8314 Certificate No. 5 -FINAL Date July 1, 1984 r The undersigned Contract hereby swears under penalty of perjury that (1) all previous progress payments received from the Owner on account or work performed under the contract referred to above have been applied by the undersigned to discharge in full all obligations of the undersigned incurred ti;.7niA..�connection with work covered by prior Applications for Payment under said ;;,-contract, being Application for Payment numbered 1 through 4 inclusive; .,-:and(0) all materials and equipment incorporated in said Project or other- ,,::wise;'aisted in or covered by this Application for Payment are free and clear +o�all liens, claims, security interest and encumbrances. DATE: 15 19 M & M SEWER & WATER, INC. CONTRACTOR By ...— T it 1e!"- COUNTY OF STATE OF Before a on_ -this day of - 19 &y personally appeared A7 ul-ti�, _,�Vhowd t99 me, who being duly sworn, did depose and say that he 's the /P- u 7`i of the Con - (Office) tractor above mentioned; that he executed the above Application for Payment and statement on behalf of said Contractor; and that all of the statements contained therein are true, correct and complete. Page 2 of 2 Qz�`�? , Notary Public My Commission Expires: t KATHLEEN M. SWANSON r P10T1%RY PL*'8! 1C—MI!•.NE`OTA .. br DAKOTA COWTY { 4Y COMM. EXPIRES FEB. 19, 1991 r r BID PROPOSAL T0: City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewers, Watermains and Storm Sewers Kingsley Estates Job No. 8314 Improvement No. 83 Project No. 5 ., '4 Gentlemen: tithe undersigned, having familiarized with the local conditions r' I'viaffecting the cost of the Work and the Contract Documents including Advertise- ment for Bids, Instruction to Bidders, Performance and Payment Bond Require- ments, Bid Proposal, Specifications, Plans and Drawings, Addenda No. , and the Form of Agreement as on file in the office of the Owner hereby pro- poses the furnishing of all labor, equipment, material and skill necessary for the complete construction of Sanitary Sewers, Watermains and Storm Sewers, and all other incidental work for the construction of Improvement No. 83, Project No. 5, for the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota all in accordance with the Contract Documents, for the unit and lump sum prices as set forth hereinafter and in. accordance with Sections 1 through 5 of this Specification. SCHEDULE "A" - SANITARY SEWER LATERALS Item Quan. Unit . Description Unit Price. Amount 1. 250 LF 8" VCSP, ES 7'-9' deep, in place. @ $ 12.00 $ 3,000.00 2. 100 LF 8" VCSP, ES 9'-11' deep, in place. @ $ 12.50 $ 1,250.00 3. 241 LF 8" VCSP, ES 11'-13' deep, in place. @ $ 13.00 $ 3,133.00 4. 480 LF 8" VCSP, ES 13'=15' deep, in place. @ $ 13.50 $ 6,480.00 5. 150 LF 8" VCSP, ES 15'=-17' deep, Class C bedding, in place. @ $ 14.50 $ 2,175.00 6. 93 LF 8" VCSP, ES 17'-19' deep, Class C bedding, in place. @ $ 15.50 $ 1,441.50 7. 120 LF 8" VCSP, ES 19'-21' deep, Class B bedding, in place. @ $ 16.50 $ 1,980.00 8. 50 ' LF 8" VCSP, ES 21'-23' deep, Class 8 bedding, in place. @ $ 17.50 $ 875.00 9. 8 Each Std. M•.H. 8' deep or less, in place.@ $ 800.00 $ 6,400.00 (3314 ttp _ 1 25. 1 Each Restore Lexington Avenue at Kings- ley Circle South, as specified. 26. 1 Each Restore Lexington Court easement area, as specified, 27._ WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION SUB -TOTAL (Items 21-26) @ $ 300.00 $ 300.00 @ $ 850.00 $ $ 27,100.00 8314 RP -7 850, nn Item Quan. Unit Description Unit Price Amount 10. 29 LF Std. (48" Dia.) M.H., Extra Depth @ $ 60.00 $1,740, 11. 16 Each 8"X4" VC Wye Branch, encased in con- crete, in place. @ $ 65.00 $1,040.00 12• 70 LF 4" E.H. C.I. Riser Pipe, in place. @ $ 8.50 $ 595.00 13. 1 Each Restore Lexington Avenue at Kings- ley Circle North, as specified. @ $ 400.00 $ 400.00 14. SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION SUB -TOTAL (Items 1-13) $ 30,509,50 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE CONNECTIONS 15• 493 LF 4" E.H. C:I. Service Pipe, in place.@ $ 9.18 $ 4,525.74 16. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE CONNECTIONS SUB -TOTAL (Item 15) $ 4,525.74 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, 17. 50 CY Binder Stone, in place, as ordered. @ •10 $ 5.00 18- 0 CY Pit Run Gravel, in place, as ordered@ $ .10 $ ---- 19. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS SUB -TOTAL (Items 17 & 18) $ 5.00 20. SANITARY SEWER TOTAL SCHEDULE "A" (Items 14, 16, & 19) $ 35,040.24 SCHEDULE "B" - WATERMAINS AND APPURTENANCES 21. 1750 -' LF 6" Ductile Iron Water Main, in place. @ $ 11.00 $ 19,250.00 22• 6 Each 6" Gate Valve & Box, in place. @ $ 325.00 $ 1,950.00 23• 3 Each St. Paul Std. Hyd. , 8. 5' bury, in place r $ 875.00 $ 2,625.00 23A. 1 Each 6" Pres. Tap on 12" main including tapping sleeve, tapping valve & box. @ $_ 900.00 $ 900.00 24. 1225 LBS Cast Iron Fittings, in place. @ $ 1.00 $ 1,225.00 25. 1 Each Restore Lexington Avenue at Kings- ley Circle South, as specified. 26. 1 Each Restore Lexington Court easement area, as specified, 27._ WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION SUB -TOTAL (Items 21-26) @ $ 300.00 $ 300.00 @ $ 850.00 $ $ 27,100.00 8314 RP -7 850, nn Item Quan. Unit Description WATER SERVICE CONNECTIONS Amount 28. 422 LF Domestic Water Serv. Trench, Exca- vated, backfilled & compacted as per Paragraphs 38, 39, -and 40, of Section 2 of Specifications. @ $ 8.00 $ 3,376.00 29. WATER SERVICE CONNECTION SUB -TOTAL (Item 28) $ 3,376.00 WATER CONSTRUCTION TOTAL SCHEDULE "B" (Items 27 & 29) x'60EDULE "C" - STORM SEWER �,Sr X31. 95 LF 32. 1 Each 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 70 LF 1 Each 1 Each 1 Each 5 Tons $ 30,476.00 12" RCP, R-4, 0'-7' deep, in place. @ $ 17.50 $1.662.50 12" RC Apron, on sheet piling, tied. 3 sections, complete in place. - -@ $ 2.45(1.00: $1.450.00 6" DIP, 0'-7' deep, in place. @ $ 10.00 $ 700.00 48" Dia. Std. M.H., Catch Basin with Neenah R -2571-D1 inlet assembly, or approved equal, complete in place. @ $ 700.00, $ 700.00 Beehive Drainage Inlet, as shown, in place. @ $ 950.00' $ 950.00 12" Surge Basin to fit 6" DIP, com- @ $ 490.00 $ 490.00 plete in place. Class A Random Rip Rap, in place. @ $ 30.00 $ 150.00 38. 280 SF Steel Sheet Piling, (Armco gauge 5 Metric Sheeting, or approved equal) min. 3/16" thick furnished and driven as shown, in place. 39. 17.4 CY Place Gabion Baskets. 40. STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION TOTAL SCHEDULE "C" (Items 31-39) 41. SUMMATION: SCHEDULE "A" (Item 20) SCHEDULE "B" (Item 30) SCHEDULE "C" (Item 40) GRAND TOTAL - This is Basis of Award "@ $ 15.00 $4,200.00 @ $ 100.00 $1,740.00 $ 13,042.50 $ -35,040.24 $ 30,476.00 $' 13,042.50 $ 78,558.74 83144BP-3 Our proposal contemplates performing the Work upon the Unit and Lump Sum Prices Bid,the quantities shown being approximate only and for use in de- termining the low bid. Final Payment will be made upon the quantities as actually measured. Performance of the Agreement will begin days after the date stated in Letter of Award. The project will be competed as specified in Section 2 of the Specifications, with the entire project to be completed on or before June 1, 1984. Accompanying this Bid Proposal is a Certified Check, Cashier's Check or Bid Bond in an amount equal to at least five percent (5%) of the total Bid sub- mitted on this Proposal, payable without condition to the Owner in the event of the default of the undersigned. This Bid Security is guarantee that the undersigned will enter into an Agreement with the Owner for the Work described in this Proposal and furnish Performance and Payment Bonds as specified to cover this Bid. In submitting this Bid, it is understood that the right is reserved by the Owner to reject any and all Bids, or to make award on the basis most advan- tageous to the Owner, and it is agreed that this Bid may not be withdrawn for a period of thirty (30) days after the opening of Bids. Official -Address: Date: FIRM NAME_ By Title i 8314 BP -4 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 26, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City iMi irYsi:rator FROM: Edward F. Kishel City Engineer SUBJECT: Wholesale Water Study Job No. 8401 INTRODUCTION: At the last meeting of the City Council, Councilman Mertensotto in- quired as to the status of an agreement with Short -Elliott -Hendrickson, Inc. to study the engineering factors involved in converting Mendota Heights from retail to wholesale water. DISCUSSION: Attached is a copy of a recent letter from Short -Elliott -Hendrickson, Inc. indicating that they will start on the week of July 9, 1984 and be completed by the end of August, 1984. ACTION REQUIRED: None, this is informational only. SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, INC. � � CONSULTING ENGINEERS MorST. PAUL, MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISCONSIN June 20, 1984 RE: MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN WATER SYSTEM LME�;3'+ ��- SEH FILE NO. 84199 Jim Danielson, P.E. Public Works Director City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive ` Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mr. Danielson: Thank you for the signed copy of the agreement to study the engineering factors involved in converting the Mendota Heights water system from a St. Paul retail to a wholesale customer. On June 14, 1984, you called with a request for our schedule for completing this work. We would anticipate that the study would be completed and the report written in a two month period. We anticipate starting on the study the week of July 9, 1984, with completion by the end of August, 1984. If you need more detail or if this schedule is not satisfactory, please call me. Sincerely, Wilbur R. Liebenow, P.E. jcj 200 GOPHER BUILDING • 222 EAST LITTLE CANADA ROAD • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 • PHONE (612) 484-0272 - .7/3/84 CLAIMS LIST— - -�--__.-........ Dept .10-•Admi-n__--- --Dept-50-Rd&Brddges---___..,� ^ LAWTON PRTG 16.50 15-Engr 60 -Utilities 134.64 FRT ENO ALIGN CHECK REGISTER 20 -Police 70 -Parks 96.28 30 -Fire 80 -Planning F 01. N i V E N D C R I TE N `"E 9�'-m--I F141 N 90 A�456 FOW6.oll h V 40.50 *� AFRICAN HUS INS AGY #6ENCRE FS 16-4250-850-00 40.50 152.17-5 25.50 79.42 SOUTH ST PAUL BEE L W E CHISL^R JR ST FIRE CONV 01-4400-030-30 171.60 W E C HISL= R JR MI ST FIR£ CONV 01-4415- 030-3fl 251.42 14.`0 SPEED PRINT 14.59 30.90 CONWAY FIRE&SAFETY HYDROTEST AIR PAK 01-4305-030-30 80 �n0 ,►, 1?0.';0 57.77 1 Oil .�)0 ELECTRONIC CNTR INC SPLYS 01-4305-030-30 57.77 *� 4.52 *_ 19178..00 AMY 5 MMO_S 85DUES01-1215_-U_00-00 1 9649.00 AMM 7POS 840LES C'1 -44C4-11 0-1G 29827.00 *i 16.95 THE NATL CENTURION 12 ISSUES -0-1----4402- - 020-20 16.95 *� 143.20 GENL SAFETY EG CORP PARTS FIR£ TRK �1-4330-460-30 143.20 *� MI ST FIREWCCNV 16.50 ST FIRE CCNU EXP LAWTON PRTG 16.50 *� A&C SPLYS 134.64 FRT ENO ALIGN JAMIE LERRS 1 34.64 96.28 JOHN MACZKO 96,28 *� ?5.94 RUSS E WMITH 35.94 *� _ 152.95 S&S ARTS8CRAFTS 152.17-5 25.50 SOUTH ST PAUL BEE L 25.50 120.24 JEFF STENHAUG 120.24 14.`0 SPEED PRINT 14.59 89.00 ERUNSCIV INST CC 80 �n0 ,►, 1?0.';0 FRCD EQ R•"NTAL 1 Oil .�)0 *� 4.52 MINN DEPT EC SEC 4.52 *_ INDEX TABS _ G1-4300-110-10 MI ST FIREWCCNV 01-4415-030-30 ST FIRE CCNU EXP 01-4400-030-30- .PARTS ..01-4330-490-50 A&C SPLYS C1-4435-200-70 FRT ENO ALIGN 01-4330-440-20 ST FIRE CCNU EXP 01-44000-030-30 FIN STMM T COVERS 01-4300-110-10 LEVEL ROD C5-4620-105-15 BOBCAT RENTAL 01-4200-610-70 INTEREST G1-4456-000-00 45.00 CANIELSON JAMES E REGR ST NN 05-4404-105-15 45.00 *11 57.90 DASCO INC. SPLYS 01-4305-030-3u 9 57.90 *•/ CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. 3.45 AT & T INFO SYSTEMS JUN SVC L'1-4210-020-20 4.89 AT &_T INFO SYSTEMS DUNS_VC 01-4210-05C-50 9.80 AT T IKF-0 SYSTEFOS JUN SVC 01-4210-070-70 4.50 AT & T INFO SYSTEMS JUN SVC 01-4210-315-30 4.90 AT & T INFO SYSTEMS JUN SVC 15-4210-060-60 67.64 6&J AUT10 SPLY MISC PARTS 01-4330-460-30 0 13.42 8&.' AUTO, SPLY VISC PARTS 01-4330-460-30 0 34.28 8&J AUTO SPLY MISC PARTS 01-4330-490-50 0 104.48 B&J AUTO SPLY BATTERIES 01-4330-490-70 r- 19.55 19.55 B&J AUTO SPLY OIL DRI /SEALER 15-4305-060-60 0 32..6.5 CITY MOTOR SUPPLY WATER PUMP 01-4330-440-20 1 75.99 CITY MOTCR SUPPLY MISC PARTS 01-4330-440-20 1 4.77 CITY MOTOR SUPPLY A/C 01-4330-490-70 1 24.32 CITY MOTOR SUPPLY MISC PARTS 15-4330-490-60 1 137.73 */ 3.49 COAST -TO- COAST MISC SPLYS 01-4305-030-30 3 3.18 COAST TO COAST GUIKCRETE 15-4305-060-60 3 6.67 82,59 CORCORAN HOWE&IMPL PARTS 01-4330-490-70 1 82.59 *� 29.98 COPY EQUIP CO BLUELINE/ERASER 05-4300-105-15 0 95.62 COPY EQUIP CO BLUELINE 05-4300-105-15 0 5.85 CCFY EQUIP CO XEROX VELLUM 05-4300-105-15 0 131.45 45.00 CANIELSON JAMES E REGR ST NN 05-4404-105-15 45.00 *11 57.90 DASCO INC. SPLYS 01-4305-030-3u 9 57.90 *•/ CHECK REGISTER• aMOUNT VENDCR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV 35.83 DAVIS ©LECTRONIC SVC RPRS/PARTS 01-4330-450-30 26.29 CAVIS ELECTRONIC SVC BATTERIES 01-4330-45-0-30 25.44 DAVIS ELECTRONIC SVC RPRS/PARTS 01-4330-450-30 50.00CAVIS EILECTRONIC SVC PARTS 01-4330-450-30 - 137.56 _ 1.125.00 OCR CORP. JUL RENT 01-4200-600-10 637.50 OCR CORP. JUL RENT 01-4200-600-20 19170.00 OCR CORP. _ JUL PENT 05-42010--600-15 2,932.50 90.00 DENNIS DELMONT JUL MI 01-4415-020-20 90.00 221.54 FRAZELL Kr -VIN REIMB EXR LMC CONF 01-44010-1'10-10 175.00 FRAZELL KPEVIN JUL NI 01-4415-110-10 396.54 _ 127.69 ICNA RC W/H 6/22PR 01-2072-000-00 79.33 ICNA RC 6/22 CONTR 01=4406-110-10 207.02- 10.34 KNUTH TOM MMI THRU 6/28 05-4415-105-15 5.72 KNUTH TOM MI THRU 6/28 67-4415-941=00- 6..3R KNUTH TOM MI THRU 6/28 74-441 5✓81 3-00 12.76 KNUTH TOM MI THRU 6/28 87-4415-812-00 1.98 KNUTH TOM MI THRU 6/28 90-4415-816-00 37.18 20.04 KULLANOER GUY NL 01-4268-650-10 7.04 KULLANDER GUY MI THRU 6//28 05-4415-105-15 6.82 KULLAADER GUY NI THRU 6/27 87 -4415 -812 -OC 33.90 *� 3.22 LANGULA HOWE NAILS/STAPLE"S 01-4305-030-30_ 15.Q3 LANGULA HDWE PLASTIC RCLL 01-4305-030-30 10.91— LANGULA HOWE MAY DISC 01 -43G5 -0.30-3C 9C.^4 LANGULA HDW�: BULP,S 01-4305-030-3C 98.18 *i CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. IM 144,00 LELS JULY DUES 01-2075-000-,j0 1 4 4.0 O * --- --- 99,70 LMCIT HP PLAN JUL WH 01-20 74- 000-00 2.90.00 LMCIT HP PLAN _ _ _ JUL--P-REM, 01-4245-020-20 67,74 LMCIT HP PLAN JUL PREM 01-4245-021-20 135.00 LMCIT HP PLAN JUL PREM 01-4245-040-40 67.74 LPCIT HP PLAN JULPREM 01-4245-050-50 660'.18 */ 8.50 LEEF BROS INC JUN SVC 01-4335-310-50 8.50_ LEEF BROS INC JUN SVC 01-4335-310-70 8.50 -LEEP OROS INC JUN SVC - 15-4335-310-60 25.50 */ 543.20 MEOCENTERS HP JUL WH 01-20 74- E17,05 PEDCENTERS HP JUL PREM - 01-4.245-5120-20 333.50 XEDCENTERS HP JUL PREM 01-4245-021-20 459.10 MEOCENTERS HP JULPREM 01-4245-_050- 252.30- - PEOCENTERS HP JUL PREM- 628,20 PEDCENTERS HP JULPREM 01-4245-110-10 405.00 MEOCENTERS NP JUL PREM 05-4245-105-15 145.00 MEDCENTERS HP JUL _ PREM 15=4245-;- 60-60 3,5f3,35 1.262.25 14,TTR•0 WASTE CONTROL JUN SACCHGS 15-4448-060-60 21,742.44 PETRO WASTE CONTROL JUL INST 15-4449-060-60 23 9C04.69 17.00 NINA FIRE INC EXTINGUISI-ER REFILL 01-4305-030-30 17.00 - 3.40 MINN MUTUAL LIFE JUL NH 01-2071-000-00 10.20 MINN MUTUAL LIFE JUL NH 01-2074-000-00 3.40 MINN MUTUAL LIFE JUL PREM 01-4245-020=20 3.40 MINN MUTUAL LIFE JUL PREM 01-4245-021-20 1.70 MINN MUTUAL LIFE JLL PREM 01-4245-050-50 3.40 MINN MUTUAL LIFE JUL PREM 01-4245-070-'7- 5.10 MINN MUTUAL LIFE JUL PREM 01-4245-110- 1.70 FINN MUTUAL LIFE JUL PREM 05-4245-105-1:) 32.30 */ AMOUNT CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV 350.00 PURR WMFLBG RPR _L_TAE-1303SYLV 15-433.0-_477-60_ 350.00 *i 201.09 NORTHWESTERN BELL JUN SVC 44_.68 - -- NORTMWESTERN BELL JUNSV_C_ --.—_- 1 20.82 N0RTHWEST"RN BELL JUN SVC 337.44 NORTHWESTERN BELL JUNSVC 55.65 NCRTMWEST£RN BELL JUN SVC 67.05 NORTHWESTERN BI=LL JUN SVC 44.68 NORTHWESTERN BELL JUN SVC 8 71 .41 */ PROD PENCIL 05-4300-105-15 115.00 CAK CRDST KENNELS 25.00 CAR CREST KENNELS 140.00 JUN RETAINER JUNBOARD 01-4210-020-20 01-4210_-050-50 01-4210-070-70 01-4210-110-10 01-4210-31 5-30 ..._.__05-4210-105-1 5T 15-4210-060-60 _ 01-421-800-90 01-4225-800-90 23,44 _CXYGEN SERVICE CC CXY/ACET _ 01-4305-050-50 11.70 OXYGEN SERVICE CO DEMURRAGE THRU 5/15 01-4305-050-50 35.14 27.85 - PAYLESS CA SHWAY S INC SPL YS - - -01-4305-1370-70 27.85 526.93 FINE-'BENO PAVING INC WEAR/FINE MIX 01-4423-05G=50 4' 526.93 *-- 1-__.____-..__..__ - - ._. 90.00 FLOUMEN RICHARC REIMB TUITION 01-4400-050-50 40.00 FLOUMEN RICHARD REIMB TUITION 01-4400-070-70 130.00 1.38 S&T OFFICc. PROD STYRO CUPS 01-4450-020-20 1 1,38 c&T OFFICE" PRCC STYRO CUFS 01-4490-110-_10 ' 2.07 S&T OFFICE PROD PENCIL 05-4300-105-15 26.64 S&T OFFICE PROD CAT ENV 05-43OD-105-15 1,38 S&T OFFICE PROD STYRO CUPS 05-4490-105-15 1 32,95 124.J0 SATELLITE INDUST INC RENT THRL7/21.VY 01-4200-610-70 CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT UNLIMITED VENDOR 01-4410-020-2 ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO.* a 124.00 01-4410-020-2 SATELLITE INDUST .INC RENT THRU7/21ROG L 01-4200-6 1 62900 UNITED SATELLITE INDUST -._INC ._ _ _.RENT THRU7/21FH._ ._-. __. .------_01-4200•-61..-.'M 68.65 SATELLITE INDUST INC RENT THRU 6/23FH 01-4200-610-V, 124.00 SATELLITE INDUST INC RENT THRU7/21 WENT 01-4200-610-M 128o43 SATELLITE INDUST INC RENT THRU7//21 MA RIE 124 _ _0011--44220000--6611.00.-4 7,I 759.51 */ 35.00 .---- -.-------.---------.__.____-- SELANDER DUANE C JUL MI 01-4415-200-�f ?5.00 9744.20 SHAUGHNESSY JR SVC 01-4220-132- _1 104.50 - _ - - -L-E SHAUGHNESSY L E - -- JR ----JUN JUN SVC 03-422:D-132-4- 152,80 SHAUGHNESSY L E JR JUN SVC 05-4220-132-11y 278.10 SHAUGFNESSY L E JR JUN SVC 16 -4220 -132 --SI 2,280.00 165.58 SHIELY J L CO REC ROCK 01 -4422 -070 -VL 30.87 SHIELY J L CO CL2KEY 01-4423-050-5, 196.45 *j - 19.80 SIGNAL CAR WASH JUN WASHES 01-4430-020-2 19 .39 0 */ 12.72 SUN NEWSPAPERS s HRG NOT SOM HILLS Oi-4240-080-,8' 7.68 SUN NEWSPAPERS ORD207 01-4240-110-- 18.98 SU`N NEWSPAPERS AD FOR BIDS 01-4423-050-5 39.38 *i - 19.59 19.59 * f 79.05 48.60 4.9.60 177.1 5 +✓ TRAIL DODGE INC PS HOSE 01-4330-440-2' UNIFORMS UNLIMITED JACkET_MACK - 01-4410-020-2 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED MISC 2216 01-4410-020-2 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED MISC BRIDGER 01-4410-020-2 57.74 UNITED CENT TRUSTEE 36.11 UNITED CENT TRUSTEE 18.76 LKITED CENT 1RUSTEE 18.76 UNITED CENT TRUSTEE JUL WH JUL PREM JUL PREM JLL PREM 01-2071-00 01-4246-02U-2 01-4246-070-7 15-4246-060-6 CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 131.37 *� t ' 75.00 UNITED WAY -ST PAUL JUL WH ACCOUNT N0, I:Nu 01-2070-000-00 2,000.00 WINTHROPWEINSTINE&S RERILEY LEX HGTS 21-4220-120-00 2,000*00 *i 731.30 ZIEGLER INC RPR BRAKES 305 01-4330-490-501 731 .30 */ 169753.58 FUND 01 TOTAL GENERAL FLND 104.90 FUND 03 TOTAL WATER REVENUE FUND 2,109.47 FUND 05 TOTAL ENGR ENTERPRISE 239623.58 FUND 15 TCTAL SEWER UTILITY 318.60 FUND 16 TOTAL TID I79-7/8.1-4/82-2/82-6_ 29000.00 FUND 21 TOTAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMZNT 5.72 FUND 67 TOTAL I80-3 TH13 REALIGN/WATER 6.38 FUND 74 TCTAL CCNS PROJ FUND 19.58 FUND 87 TOTAL 183-4/83-4B GRYC/OAK C T Y 1.98 FUND 90 TOTAL I83 -7B MH RD MN DOT 44 9943,79 TOTAL MANUAL CHECKS 10541 13.05 UPS Plans&Specs 83-4 10542 4,551.40 St Treas Pera 6/8 Pera - 10543 500.00 US Post Office - Meter refill 10544 50.00 DCB Payroll Deductions 6/22 10545 300.00 " - -- -10546 - --- 965 -15 -- -SCCU 10547 4,677.50 Dir Int Revenue FIT w/h 6/22 10548 2,525.75 St Treas SS Fund FICA 6/22 10549- -23,076.43 City MH Payroll -Acct Net Payroll 6/22 36,669.28 GT 81,613.07 LIST OF 1984 CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 10, 1984 Anderson and Keith Builders General Contractor's License Deckworks General Contractor's License Gamber Roofing Roofing License Greg's Roofing General Contractor's License Hanson Homes, Inc. General Contractor's License LeRoux Excavating Excavating License Masters Construction Company General Contractor's License Parkos Construction General Contractor's License Precision Craftsmen General Contractor's License Rivard Masonry Masonry License Peter G. Schlagel Masonry License Spear/Friedell Company General Contractor's License W.J.T., Inc. General Contractor's License CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS June 29, 1984 NOTICE OF :TEARING ON APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5< ,,TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mendota ..:rbHegt�ts will meet at 7:45 o'clock P.M., on Tuesday, July 10, 1984, in the .1C.ty Hall Council Chambers at 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, Minne- ' nota, to consider an application from Ron and Phyllis Ettinger, for a Con- ditional Use Permit to operate a private day school at 790 South Plaza Drive, commonly known as the Victor Building. This notice is pursuant to City of Mendota Heights Ordi-nance No. 401. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed Conditional Use Permit will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk Applicant Name: Case No. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTACOUNTY, MINNESOTA APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION_., OF PLANNING REQUEST JJDate• of4-Ap tion P1 Pee Paid OC7 ]CIL Last Fdtst Initial, A,< Address: LLCr Number & Street City_ -Telephone Number: ',Owner Name: le45,0 t Address:. ' I % Number & Street City State Street Location of Property in Question: Arive Legal Description -of Pr opertyrf, pc)q f6� nl- Z :: .t.; First Initial- ' Type of Request: t,,Rezoning 4gj Var ce - A --c -Conitional,Use-Permits, - 2lz- 1 —Conditional Use.Permi;n t for P. U D Minor. C �oriA it ional 'Use Permit 74 Subdivision Ap -i6Val,,, ,oPlan'Ap0roval' W e`tlandd'Perm'it,l a* e'r MA T N -M R _3 T N, v w C Applicable City Ordinance Number Section Present Zoning of Property: Q1Q Present Use of Property: l7LC•5/%I cPSS `A� Proposed Zoning of'Property:��� ; Proposed Use of Property: 4 OA �1017ti _ 4e3e• - Oti✓/Iir 41�c/ 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. _ Signa llure of Applicant �/a AA? Date Received by (title) NOTE: The following plans shall be drawn and attached to this application: A. Applications involving a Variance shall submit the.following plans: Date Received,,, Initial 1. Site Development Plan 2. Dimension Play* 3. Landscape Plan 4.T, Grading Plan B. Applications involving a Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit or Subdivision shall submit the following: 1. Sketch Plan 2. Abstractors Certificate (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 operation &/or 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 &.landscaping 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 site. 0 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 29, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director and Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Ettinger - Country Day School Conditional Use Permit Case No. 84-11 nrcriiccrnni. Planning Commission agreed to waive the required public hearing to facilitate an early decision on the use of the Victor Building as a day care center. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission without benefit of public input has recommended the granting of a conditional use permit to allow a day care center sub- ject to installation of a wrought iron fence surrounding the play areas. ACTION REQUIRED: Council needs to conduct a public hearing and based on comments of the public and Council review, act upon the requested conditional use permit. 0 PLANNING REPORT • DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT:' LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 26 June 1984 84-11 Ron & Phyliss Ettinger Southeast Corner of South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road Approval of Conditional Use Permit to Conduct a Day School 1. Ron and Phyliss Ettinger have conducted a "Country Day School" on a residential site at the southeast corner of Trunk Highway 13 and Victoria Avenue in an R-1 area with a land area approaching 7.0 acres. The Planning Commission and Council in the past have processed Conditional Use Permits for this operation which is a conditional use in the R-1 Zone as well as being a conditional use in the B-1 Zone. This school has been highly successful and currently has approximately 130 students with up to 90 children on the site at any one time. 2. The Ettingers have expanded their school system in other communities and have been looking for a second site in Mendota Heights for some time. They have informed us that they have approximately 50 families on their waiting list today. Their objective is to open another school in the City of Mendota Heights for the fall term. They have secured an agreement for a lease on the existing office building at the southeast corner of South Plaza Drive and Dodd Road. This land is zoned B-1 within which a nursery day school is a conditional use. The Ettinger students vary from 16 months to five years in age. 3. This structure has 4,500 square feet on one floor, and the lot area approximates 20,000 square feet. The Ordinance requires that there be four (4) parking: spaces plus one (1) parking space for each 500 square feet over 1,000 square feet. This formula would produce a parking requirement for 11 spaces on this site. They anticipate up to six and seven employees with 80 to 90 students ultimately. 4. It should be noted that in recent years there has been a marked tendency to build nursery day care centers in business districts as a part of a trend to put such institutions near where people work rather than necessarily where they live., 5. On 19 June, the Ettingers appears before the City Council requesting that they be allowed to process their Conditional Use Permit application as quickly as possible so as to open the school in time for the fall term. The time sequence can be significantly shortened if the Planning CASE NUMBER: 84-11 APPLICANT: Ron and Phyliss Ettinger Page 2 Commission can determine that a public hearing is not required at the Planning Commission level. The Council has suggested to the Ettingers that they make such a request to the Planning Commission. Therefore, this application appears without the appropriate written data and drawings. We have secured the information outlined in this report from past experience and by phone conversation with the Ettingers. They will be in attendance at the 'Planning Commission meeting with drawings we have suggested indicating how they propose to develop the site, provide parking, play space, and adequate area for drop-off and pick-up of children. 6. The Ettingers have indicated their general intent to convert a portion of the parking lot into play space, and therefore orient this activity away from the single family residences to the south. Under these conditions, it would appear that the occupancy of the structure as a nursery day school would not constitute a deleterious impact on the single family residential area along its south lot line. The Ettingers also informed us that only 10 to 12 children will be in the play space at any one time, with the teachers staggering the outdoor activity during the day time hours of the school. 7. The most difficult aspect of this site, as many of you are aware, is the traffic conditions at Dodd Road and South Plaza Drive during rush hour periods. Hopefully, over a period of time, as the plans evolve for "Downtown Mendota Heights", this condition can be alleviated. As it is, of course, the only access to the site is via the entrance to South Plaza Drive and/or the entrance to the shopping center further to the north. Both of these access points have their problems during rush hour. 8. We have suggested to the Ettingers that it is important to hire a good architect to design the site so as to peacefully and safely accommodate the children's play space and provide for efficient parking, access, and egress. Some interior remodeling of the building is anticipated as well. The Ettingers intend to lease the building so that if the site does not work out as well as anticipated, it is not• necessarily a permanent location. I - _ no _ — ------ S. 89044'25"E. ' S.89°44'25"E. `VJ.o,yy s� -010-50 rte. F 020-50 1492.9 "Y 00 ti s, .84-z 2. �f N C'rjy � q �p e • p 0 O) CVJ , ray Ws 1 1 i North 1 ":200' dizSubject Property 0 N. 890 41' 45" W. 920.23 .Sovey PLAZA P91VE Stan/ey c . E. S 'A EEM TR. MID -AMERICA ',o di�e3 2.(.060- B-1. a oBANCORPoRATION H p 9z Ac-� 050-50 26056^B 040-50 040-51 ."u a � 70[+ SS 147. !6 t�J}� ss CPErK AVE, ` jos 90•>• too .. S5' w �i • t s s s3 3 $as 17 17 (. G Q N G w I G s • �) 13 3 3'1 010-52 Qw4 4Q s ~ 7 e 7 y IS CoA zl s� • � ,� � f 030-52AC 3 to.r ' 040-52 :, o *19 a (/ ).. ! h/rchnar'• Ws 1 1 i North 1 ":200' s June 28, 1984 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights will meet at 8:00 o'clock P.M., on Tuesday, July 10, 1984, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, to consider an application from Mr. Joseph Schuster for the subdivision of property described as Lot 17, Somerset Hills. More particularly, this land is described as 1900 Wachtler Avenue; that part of Lots 17 and 22, Somerset Hills, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder, l)-akota County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of Lot 22 of said Somerset Hills, 26.00 feet southerly of the northwest corner of said Lot 22, measured along said west line; thence easterly to a point on the easterly line of Lot 17 of said Somerset Hills, said point being 25.00 feet northerly of the southeast corner of said Lot 17, measured along said east line, and there terminating. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed subdivision of property will be heard at this meeting. Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 29, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James•;E. Danielson Public Works Director and Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Schuster Subdivision Case No. 84-06 nT Cri ICCTnN 0 A public hearing was conducted at the Planning Commission meeting in June for the subdivision of Mr. Schuster's property. There was only one affected resident in attendance. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting staff received several calls from other neighbors stating that they were not notified of the meeting. A check of the city's records ® indicate those who called were mailed notices, the reason they weren't received is unknown. All the people who have called saying they were not notified have also stated that they are opposed to the proposed sub- division. -This is the second time the applicant has requested this sub- division. The first time City Council had a legal opinion prepared by Sherman Winthrop and staff has requested Mr. Winthrop to prepare an update to the previous opinion. We have asked that he complete the up- date prior to the Council meeting being held on July 10th. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission saw no technical reason to deny the subdivision and no residents were in attendence who opposed the project, so Planning Commission has recommended to Council to grant the subdivision. ACTION REQUIRED: Council needs to conduct a public hearing and based on comments from public and Council review act upon the request. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director and Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Schuster Subdivision Case No. 84-06 HISTORY: June 20, 1984• - This proposed subdivision was denied in 1978. At that time the City Council had the City.Attorney prepare an opinion::(attached for your review). nTcrr1ccTnN The lots that Mr. Schuster proposes to.create have adequate square footage and frontage on Wachtler Avenue. Sewer and water service is avail- able to the proposed lots. Because of the existing homes established set- backs in excess of 100 feet along Hilltop, a variance would be necessary to construct a home on the northerly lot. It also appears that the southerly lot would have to -have a front yard setback greater than the minimum 30 feet as required by ordinance because existing homes on Wachtler also exceed the required setback. RECOMMENDATION: This subdivision meets the City minimum requirements with the following exceptions: 1) front yard setback of the northerly lot; 2) the new lots would be substantially smaller lots than many of the other lots in the area; 3)1. the present attitude of the neighbors with .respect to this proposal is unknown. Subject to receiving no valid objections from the public hearing and Planning Commission review, staff could support approval of the proposed subdivision with the acknowledgement that a future front yard variance would need to be granted for the northerly lot and receipt of the $1200 park con- tribution. Staff would also recommend a 3.7 foot front yard setback be granted for the existing house. ACTION REQUIRED: Conduct public hearing and based on input from public and Planning Commission, make recommendation to City Council. Calc No. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA APPLICA'T'ION FOR CONSIDI7RATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Date ofj4pplication j:11—P Fee Pai ,3,�5. U1J / oA, ' Applicant Name: SCHUSTER JOSEPH 0. Last First Initial Address: 1900 WACHTLER ST. PAUL MN Number & Street City State Telephone Number: 452-3038 Owner Name: SCHUSTER JOSEPH 0. Last First Initial Address: 1900 WACHTLER ST. PAUL MN Number & Street City State Street Location of Property in Question: 1900 WACHTLER, ST. PAUL (MENDOTA HEIGHTS), MN 55118 Zip 55118 Zip Legal Description of Property: That part of Lots 17 and 22, Somerset Hills, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the County Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the following aescribea line: Beginning at a point on the west line of Lot 22 of said Somerset Hills, reet southerly or the northwest corner o said o , measu ed along said west line; thence easterly to a point on the easterly line 01 Lotor said omerse s, said point e g 25.00 feet northerly of the southeast corner of said Lot 17, measured along said east line, there terminating. Type of Request: Rezoning Variance Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Minor Conditional Use Permit x Subdivision Approval Plan Approval _ Wetlands Permit �^ Other 6/5/84 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION of Part of Lots 17 & 22, Somerset Hills PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR CITY COUNCIL Some lots in the affected area do not meet present zoning standards - ie, 100' frontage. The present minimum lot size 15,000 sq. ft. is already large (by Metropolitan standards) minimum lot size require- ments. (See diagram showing lot size, frontage sewer and water) Neighbors in the immediate area that are most affected by subdividing have expressed little objection. Most objections in the past have come from occupants of lots that had variances in the past and which would not be affected by the proposed subdivision. Lot 17, the lot being subdivided is relatively level, so it is 100% usable. The frontage is more than adequate for the desired subdi- vision proposal. In short, a request for subdivision is in compliance with applicable state law and local ordinances so it should not be denied without a showing that the proposed subdivision would be detrimental to the health welfare, safety or morals of the City of Mendota Heights. Some new construction on the newly, designated lots would enhance the neighborhood by taking away some of the "dated" appearance that happens everywhere after a time. I understand there is a city need for a donation for Parks and I hold no objection to this requirement. J.O. Schuster 1900 Wachtler Mendots Heights, MN 55118 WINTHROP, WEINSTINE & SEXTON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW SHERMAN WINTHROP 1800 CONWED TOWER ROBERT R. WEINSTINE THOMAS J. SEXTON 444 CEDAR STREET RICHARD A. HOEL ROGER D GORDON SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 STEVEN C TOUREK HART KULLER DAVID P. PEARSON THOMAS M HART = ' DARRON C KNUTSON DOUGLAS B. ALTMAN WENDY WILLSON LEGGE MARK J. BRIOL GIRARD P. MILLER MICHELE D. VAILLANCOURT MARY M. COLLINS JON J. HOGANSON PEGGY A. NELSON JAY R. NAFTZGER SCOTT J. DONGOSKE July 3, 1984 City Council City of Mendota 750 South Plaza Mendota Heights, Heights Drive Minnesota 55120 Re: Application of Joseph and Betty Schuster to Subdivide Lot 17 and part of Lot 22, Somerset Hills Gentlemen:_ (612) 292 -8110 You have requested our review of the application filed by Joseph and Betty Schuster to subdivide Lot 17 and a part of Lot 22 of Somerset Hills into three separate lots. The property in question contains approximately 60,745 square feet with approximately 419.01 feet of frontage on Wachtler Avenue and with approximately 188.24 feet of frontage along Hilltop Road. The lots to the east of the subject property along Hilltop Road, namely Lots 18, 19 and 20 are of a similar scale. The lots immediately to the south of the subject property, namely Lots 22, 23 and 24 facing Wachtler Avenue are of a slightly smaller scale. Somerset Hills was subject to a private deed restriction which, we understand, expired by its terms in April of 1978. Somerset Hills was originally platted in 1948 with 45 lots. The largest lot of the subdivision contains approximately 200,000 square feet. The smallest lot contains approximately 29,000 square feet. The smaller lots of the subdivision abut City Council July 3, 1984 Page Two Dodd Road with the larger lots for the most part lying to the interior or westerly portion of the subdivision. With the exception of only two or three lots, each of the lots in the Somerset Hills subdivision contains a single family residence. The homes presently situated on Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20 are all set back a substantial distance from Hilltop Road which setback, we understand, varies from approximately 150 to 200 feet. The Schuster home is located on Lot 17 near the center of the lot. The Schusters propose to divide the property into three separate parcels of which the northerly lot would have 21,497 square feet (with 158.11 feet of frontage on Wachtler Avenue), the center lot would have 22,773 square feet (with 151 feet of frontage on Wachtler Avenue), and the southerly lot would have 16,475 square feet (with 110 feet of frontage on Wachtler Avenue). Each of the three proposed lots would meet the City's minimum lot requirements of 100 feet of frontage and 15,000 square feet of area. A substantially similar subdivision proposal was submitted by the applicants in 1978. That Application was denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. While the plan as presently submitted has•some minor variations from the plan proposed in 1978, for the most part the plans are substantially identical. After a hearing recently held on this subdivision request, the City's Planning Commission recommended that the request be granted. Pursuant to the City's ordinances; the matter has now been referred to the City Council for final action. In a matter of this kind, the City Council must consider general factors such as the health, safety and welfare of the community and its residents. The determination of the City Council will be upheld unless the Council's decision is arbitrary and capricious. In arriving at its decision, the City Council should, among other things, take into consideration the following factors: 1. The construction of a single family residence on the most northerly of the proposed subdivided lots'wo,uld be in violation of the setback requirements of Section'4.6(4)b of the City Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 401) which provides as follows: "Whenever buildings have been built on one side of the street and between two intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend so as to project beyond a line drawn between�:the forward most.. portion of: the nearest building on each side." --L City Council July 3, 1984 Page Three 2. The proposed subdivision would create three lots which would be considerably smaller in area than a majority of remaining lots in the Somerset -Hills subdivision. The lack of harmony and consistency with the adjacent properties is a factor which may be taken into consideration by the City Council. Assuming that the City Council were to,determine that all or .::,.,any of the factors set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above do in �-,--;Tact exist, it would be our opinion that a denial of the subdivision f request in question based on such factors would not be deemed to be "arbitrary and capricious." If you have any questions or desire any additional information in this connection, please do not hesitate to ask. - Very truly yours, WINTHROP, WEINSTINE & SEXTON By- Sherman Winthrop SW:pjk PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 26 June 1984 84-06 Joseph A. Schuster Southeast Corner of Wachtler Avenue and Hilltop Road Approval of Subdivision of Land 1. This property is a large single family lot occupied by an existing single family residence near the center of the lot. The lot is located at the southeast corner of Wachtler Avenue and Hilltop Road, and contains 1.39 acres. 2. The proposal is to divide the existing lot into three parcels. Attached isa copy of the proposed land division indicating the three lots. Beginning at the north and proceeding to the south, the lots would have the following square footage: Lot 1 21,497 square feet Lot 2 22,773 square feet Lot 3 16,475 square feet TOTAL 60,745 square feet 3. The minimum lot size standard for the R-1 Zone to which this property is zoned is, as you know, 15,000 square feet of land with 100 feet of frontage on the public street as measured at the building line (normally 30 feet from the right-of-way). In this case you will note that the square footage and public street frontage standard are exceeded in the subdivision proposed for this land. 4. The problem here is, however, that the proposed land division will create lots that are substantially smaller than the majority of the lots created at the time of the platting of the original Somerset Hills Plat, of which this lot is a part. This identical proposal was submitted by the current applicant in 1978 for subdivision approval by the City of Mendota Heights. At that time, a number of public hearings were held with considerable public involvement on the part of neighbors residing and owning property in the area. These neighbors expressed considerable concern because of the substantial difference between the proposed lot sizes and that of the original platted lots. Though the proposed lots met the minimum requirements, the City Council decided that the substantially reduced lot size was incompatible with the lots in the immediate area, and therefore, it was not in the public interest to divide the lots as proposed. CASE,NUMBER: 84-06 APPLICANT: Joseph Schuster Page Z 5. The applicant is now applying for the same subdivision that was disapproved in 1978. To our knowledge, there are no substantial changes in the area which would indicate a change regarding the impact of the development proposal on the land in the immediate neighborhood area. We suggest that the Planning Commission and Council hold the public hearings, respond to citizens input pro and con, and make a value judgment on the proposal- in the general interest of the immediate property owners in the area, and the City as a whole. It will be helpful if members of the Planning Commission and Council could view the site and relate the lot sizes proposed with the existing development. Attached is a copy of a map indicated the general disposition of lot sizes in the immediate area of the property in question. 3 m 19 a0 4 G ^ N �m p n` 40 ^ Oil- o ;l .4 i� i Z1 00 . ti V Vr PLA Flo TGT o 2 L i R North 1":200' 19 L/ y i w izd o. je"` f � 4 of ,� 0 0 Q � h 1� J 19 a0 4 G ^ N �m p n` 40 ^ Oil- o ;l .4 i� i Z1 00 . ti V Vr PLA Flo TGT o 2 L i R North 1":200' 19 L/ y i w izd o. HAND OUT s EP ' 'YCU OPPENHEIMER, WOLFF, FOSTER. SHEPARD AND DONNELLY Jr 1978 ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILLIAM H. OPPENHEIMER II17a1 RICHARD J. MOEN BENNO F. WOLFF ROBERT R. REINHART, JR. WOOD R. FOSTER 1700 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING PAUL R. HANNAH GORDON SHE►ARD SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101 JAMES R. OPPENHEIMER NOEL RICHARD A. ER DAVID C. DONNELLY TELEPHONE: 612% 227-7271 SAMUEL E. WETTERLIN RICHARD O, LAREAU TELEX- 29-7015 DOUGLAS L. HEMER SHERMAN WINTHROP KEITH E. GOODWIN JOHN D. HEALY. JR. STEVEN E. HETTIG LEON R. GOODRICH BRADLEY G. CLARY ELMER B. TROUSDALE 4624 IDS CENTER 29 SOUARE d6 M EEUS THOMAS W. ANDERSON LEHAN J. RYAN MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55402 1040 BRUSSELS. BELGIUM JAMES F. PEDERSEN STEVEN J. OLSON ROGER O. GORDON JAMES L. WALSH ON71 TELEPHONE (612) 332.6451 TELEPHONE: 511-19-52 STEVEN C. TOUREK LEO J. HARRIS TELEX 26 0135 TELEX: 62236 BRUNO M. 1. VUYST' WILLIAM F. ARCHERD MARK P. WINE HARRIS RAVINE MARK C. PETERSON ROBERT L. BULLARD KRISTEN L. HULSEBUS MICHAEL BERENS RITA A BURNS JOHN H. WOLF DENNIS P. WHEL►LEY THOMAS P. KANE GARY M. NELSON CRAG W. GAGNON MARK S. OLSON DAVID F. MC ELROY. JR. T. MITCHELL WILLEY JACK W. HANSON EDWARD M. LAINE RONALD C. MICKEL ROBERT R. WEINSTINE INE September 5, 1978 CLAES ENS ANTON J. S JAMES D. LAHO MICHAEL J. BLECK ERIC R. MILLER DOUGLAS G. SCRIVNER THOMAS J. SEXTON_ CHARLESMEYER JEAN RUSSOTTO' DONALD W..SELZSELZER. JR. RICHARD M. BISANX PAULA D. OSBORN WAYNE G. FARIS _ _ _ _ MARK O. ANDERSON JOHNP. SCHMIDTKE JANICE MILEO WILLIAM P. STUDER —� CHARLES M. LEVENBERG STAN O. DONNELLY STEVEN C. NELSON OF COUNSEL EDWARD J. HAYWARD' - —� DANIEL R. PENHIE 'NOT A MEMBER OF KIMBALL J. DEVOT THE MINNESOTA BAR City Council City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 Re: Application of Joseph and Betty Schuster to Subdivide Lot 17, Somerset Hills. Gentlemen: You have requested our review of the application filed by Joseph and Betty Schuster to subdivide Lot 17 of Somerset Hills into three separate lots. The property in question contains approximately 60,000 square feet with 390 feet of frontage on Wachtler Avenue and with approximately 198 feet of frontage along Hilltop Road. The lots to the east of the subject property along Hilltop Road, namely Lots 18, 19 and 20 are of a similar scale. The lots immediately to the south of the subject property, namely Lots 22, 23 and 24 facing Wachtler Avenue are of a slightly smaller scale. Somerset Hills was subject to a private deed -restriction which, we under- stand, expired by its terms in April of 1978. Somerset Hills was originally platted in 1948 with 45 lots. The largest lot of the subdivision contains approximately 200,000 square feet. The smallest lot contains approximately 29,000 square feet. The smaller lots of the subdivision abut Dodd Road with the larger lots for the most part lying to the interior or westerly portion of the subdivision. With the exception of only two or three lots, each of the lots in the Somerset Hills subdivi- sion contains a single family residence. OPPENHEIMER,' WOLFF, FOSTER. SHEPARD AND DONNELLY City Council Page Two September 5, 1978 The homes presently situated on Lots 17, 18, 19 and 20 are all set back a substantial distance from Hilltop Road which setback, we understand, varies from approximately 150 to 200 feet. The Schuster home is located on Lot 17 near the center of -the lot. The Schusters propose to divide the property into three separate parcels of which the northerly lot would have 20,400 square feet (with 158 feet of frontage on Wachtler Avenue), the center lot would have 20,040 square feet (with 135 feet of frontage on Wachtler Avenue), and the southerly lot would have 19,560 square feet (with 100 feet of frontage on Wachtler Avenue). tach of the three proposed lots would meet the City's minimum lot require- ments of 100 feet of frontage and 15,000 square feet of area. After a hearing held on the Schuster subdivision request, the City's Planning Commission on May 23, 1978, unanimously recom- mended that the request be denied. Pursuant to the City's ordinances, the matter has now been referred to the City Council for final action. In a matter of this kind, the City Council must consider general factors such as the health, safety and welfare of the community and its residents. The determination of the City Council will be upheld unless the Council's decision is arbitrary and capricious. In arriving at its decision, the City Council should, among other things, take into consideration the following factors: 1. The construction of a single family residence,on the most northerly of the proposed subdivided lots would be in viola- tion of the setback requirements of Section 4.6(4)b of the City -Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 401) which provides as follows: "Whenever buildings have been built on one side of -the street between two intersections, no building shall hereafter be erected to extend so as to project beyond a line drawn between the forward most portion of the nearest building on each side..." 2. The middle lot of the proposed subdivided lots containing the existing Schuster home would be in violation -of the existing City setback requirement's. A drawing of the proposed middle lot shows that the rear yard setback from the existing home would be only. 28 feet. Under the. provisions of Section 7-.4 0) of the City Zoning Ordinance, it is provided that the rear yard must be 30 feet or 20 per cent of' the average lot depth whichever is greater. '.OPPEN11EiMER. WOLFF, FOSTER, SHEPARD AND DONNELLY City Council Page Three September 5, 1978 3. The proposed subdivision would create three lots which would be considerably smaller in area than a majority of remaining lots in the Somerset Hills subdivision. The lack of harmony and consistency with the adjacent properties is a factor which may be taken into consideration by the City Council. 4. There is a serious question as to whether or not a home built on the most southerly of the proposed subdivided lots would meet the City's setback requirements in relationship to Lots 22, 23 and 24 which face Wachtler Avenue. Assuming that the City Council were to determine that all or any of the factors set forth in paragraphs 1 through 4 above do in fact exist, it would be our opinion that a denial of the subdivi- sion request in question based on such factors would not be deemed to be "arbitrary and capricious." If you have any questions or desire any additional information in this connection, please do not hesitate to ask. Very truly yours, OPPENHEIMER, WOLFF, FOSTER, SHEPARD AND DONNELLY By - Sherman Winthrop SW:srl '9- r Apri 1. 25, 1978 PLANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: 77-38 Joseph Schuster Southeast Corner of Hilltop Road and and Wachtler Avenue ACTION REQUESTED: Subdivision of an Existing Lot PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This proposal first came before the Commission in December, 1977 at which time the proposal was withdrawn because deed restrictions were still in effect which prevented the division of the land. Those restrictions expire in April, 1978 and therefore, Mr. Schuster is now back to the City proposing his division into three parcels as originally applied for in December, 1977. 2. A nearby resident, Mr. Ed Stringer, residing at 795 Hilltop Court, was present -at the December meeting of the Commission at which time he expressed his opposition to the proposed division. This being the case, it would seem appropriate for the Planning Commission to schedule a public hearing on the application as proposed for its next regular meeting. As you all know, the Planning Commission may allow a subdivision of an existing lot without such public hearing if they feel it will not serve a useful purpose. In this case, we suggest this is not the case. 3. Attached is a copy of a report we prepared for the December meeting. This report includes a suggestion on our part to divide the land into two lots rather than three, which division may be more compatible with the existing lot sizes in the area. 6 December 27, 1977 PLANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 77-38 Joseph O. Schuster Southeast Corner of Hilltop Road and Wachtler Avenue Subdivision of an Existing Lot 1. The property in question contains 60,000 square feet (slightly less than an acre and a half) with 390 feet frontage on Wachtler Avenue. The attached sketch at a scale of 1 inch equeal 400 feet, shows the location of the lot relative to the other lots in the area. You will notice that the lots to the east (along Hilltop Road) are of a similar scale. The lots to the south are slightly smaller along Wachtler Avenue. We understand that these lots are d ed restricted from further subdivision and that this restriction is due to expire in the very near future. 2. Mr. Schuster has a home located near the center of the property. The attached subdivision plan submitted by Mr. Schuster shows the location of his house relative to the proposed lots. He proposes to divide the property into 3 parcels of which the northerly lot would have 20,400 square feet (with 198 feet of frontage on Wachtler Avenue), the center lot would have 20,040 square feet (with 135 feet of frontage on Wachtler Avenue), and on the southerly most lot, 19,560 feet (with 100 feet of frontage on Wachtler Avenue). Each of the three lots meets or exceeds the minimum lot requirements, that of 100 feet of frontage and 15,000 square feet of area. 3. On the attached sketch at a scale of 1 inch equals 400 feet, we have indicated the location of the water and sewer lines on Wachtler Avenue. The sewer lines are indicated by the solid black lines. You will note the sewer does not run past the southerly most lot, although it may be possible to extend the sewer so as to serve this lot. The water indicated by the dotted line passes along the frontage and is in a position to serve the three lots proposed. In a subdivision of this nature, where -the proposed lots meet the City minimum require- ments, but are substantially smaller than the lots in the immediate area, it is common for some of the owners of the neighboring lots to register an objection. We are not aware of the attitude with respect to the neighbors regarding this proposal as of"this time. When the public hearing is held however, it may well be that these objections may come forth. Case Number 77-3 December 27, 1977 Page Two ` 4. In the event that serious concern is expressed, we would suggest that an optional plan could be considered. It would appear resonable to divide the property into two lots, eliminating the southerly most lot, and increasing the size -of the northerly most lot (at the immediate corner of Wachtler and Hilltop Road). This would result in four homes being placed in a relatively good position on the four quadrants of Hilltop Road and Wachtler. The new`lots to the north then may well be increased to appro- ximately 25,000 square feet, leaving 35,000 square feet for the remaining lot to the south occupied by the existing home. We suggest that the Planning Commission schedule a public hearing for its next regular meeting, at which time: the lot division could be.resolved with neighborhood input. EDWARD C. STRINGER PILLSBURY CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 612,1330-5 8 6 2 June 29, 1984 Honorable Robert G. Lockwood Mayor City of Mendota Heights 2 Hingham Circle Mendota Heights, MV 55118 Dear Bob: Last Wednesday I received a call from one of my neighbors and was absolutely astonished to learn that on the preceding night, Mr. Shuster presented a petition for a lot division to the Planning , Commission, -and the Commission recommended that the lot division be approved. Upon inquiry as to how this could happen when the Council unanimously turned down the same application in 1978, one of the Planning Commission members responded that there were no neighbors there to voice their objections; I'm not surprised - I didn't receive notice, nor did Mr. and Mrs. Pierson, next door neighbors. I don't know what happened to my notice, but Pierson's went to some address on Mt. Curve (they have lived in their current residence 20 years) and Brown, Griggs and Ljungkull (lots 14, 15 and 16 respectively) have all moved away since Shuster's last application. Thus our voices in objection were not heard. I'm sure you will remember this very bitter dispute-; I'm sorry that it has arisen again, and that we have to come back to the Council to defend the Page 2 integrity of our neighborhood. But apparently that is what has to be done. I am told the matter will be on the public hearing before the Council on July 10. Unfortunately, I have had very little notice of this and will be on vacation the week of July 2 and have some tentative business travel plans on July 10 and 11. Therefore, my ability to personally appear before the Council is in doubt. I hope you will take this letter into consideration. All* of this came up in the summer of 1978 when Mr. Shuster presented a petition to divide lot 17 into 3 lots. The subdivision deed restrictions expired.some months -before that time. Strong opposition was expressed to Mr. Shuster's petition based upon the following points: 1) Somerset Hills was originally platted in 1948 with 45 lots; the largest lot is approximately 200,000 square feet in area and the smallest lot approximately 29,000 square feet. The lots immediately adjacent to Mr. Shuster's - lot 17 all have 40,000 square feet or more in area and the remaining lots are approximately 33,000 square feet. Virtually all the lots in the area are now developed (I know of none that are not) in accordance with the standard setback requirements and consistent with large lot development. In lots surrounding lot 17, the setbacks appear to be in the neighborhood of 150-200 feet from Hilltop Road. --.Thus the setback line is clearly established, and a lot division as proposed would permit construction of a residence in clear violation of this setback; in fact, since the northerly lot is in effect Mr. Shuster's front yard, the lot division would result in the construction of a home in an area that serves as open space and front yard area for all other homes in the neighborhood. This is in violation of then applicable Section 4.6(4) of Ordinance #401 pertaining to building setbacks. 2) Based upon Mr. Shuster's application in 1978 (I am told he has reapplied with the same proposal), Mr. Shuster's existing home would be setback only 28 feet from the rear lot line in violation of Ordinance #401, Section Page 3 f 7.4(3) requiring 30 feet or 20% of the average lot depth for rear yard setback. 3) Most disturbing is the total inconsistency of Mr. Shuster's application with the environ- ment and character of the neighborhood. This is obvious simply by passing through the area and observing the large lots that enticed us all into the neighborhood we have cared for for so long. I feel that what Mr. Shuster now proposes is a gross and unfair intrusion into the property rights and interests of those who have worked so hard and invested so much of their lives and earnings to preserve. 4) There were many objections to the hearing in 1978; since it appears that something may.- have ay-have gone wrong with the notice system this time, obviously there were none at the Planning Commission meeting. But be assured that of the handfull that I have talked to about this in the last couple of days, the feelings are running just as high now as six years ago. As mentioned above, the Council unanimously turned Mr. Shuster's application down at the meeting on September 5, 1978. I understand there was a legal opinion from Sherman Winthrop's office supporting the rejection, although I have not seen it. I assume that the same legal considerations pertain now as then. In the course of the discussion at the September 5 meeting, my notes indicate that the following comments were made by the Council as then constituted: Mayor Lockwood - The character of the neighborhood would be destroyed, it is not consistent with the. setback requirements; the principles of the ordinance would be violated. Councilman Wahl - The proposal is inconsistent with the neighboring lot sizes. Councilman Loslaben - It would disrupt the plan of the neighborhood; the plans are vague and to approve it would begin a process where loss of control of the neighborhood would be a serious threat. Page 4 Councilman Mertensoto - In addition to the ordinance violations, it violates the principles of the restrictions on lot size and architectural controls. Councilman Huber-- It represents a�clear violation of at least 2 and perhaps 3 ordinances and is inconsistent with the plat as originally planned and developed. Councilman Huber moved the denial of the applica- tion, Councilman Loslaben seconded the motion and it passed 5-0. There is very little I can add to the comments of the Council at that time; nothing has changed, the neighborhood remains -the same; --the interests of the neighbors are to keep the neighborhood in the same character and environment as now. I therefore request that the Council deny the application. Yours very truly, r Edward /Stringer ECS:ne CC: Councilman John Hartmann Councilwojran Janet Blesener Councilman Charles Mertensotto Councilwoman .Elizabeth Witt Mr. Howard Dahlgren, Planning Consultant Mx. Kevin Frazell, City Administrator is. Kathy Swanson CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO July 6, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Edward F. Kishler City Engineer SUBJECT: 1984 Seal Coating Job 8413 INTRODUCTION: 1984 Seal Coat Bids were received at 10:00 A.M. July 6, 1984. DISCUSSION: The attached Bid Tabulation indicates the result of bids received. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Allied Blacktop, Inc., Maple Grove, MN, as the lowest responsible bidder, be awarded the contract for the 1984 Seal Coating. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with the_!aff recommendation, it should accept the bids and adopt resolution No. 84awarding a contract to Allied Blacktop, Inc., Maple Grove, MN in the amount of $29,365.90. Attachment BID TABULATION PROJECT: LOCATION: 1984 Seal Coating IMPROVEMENT NO. None JOB NO. 8413 Sheet of BID DATE: July 6, 1984 TIME:10:00 A.M., C.D.S.T. RECORDED BY - CONTRACTOR BASE BID CK or BB START DATE COMP. DATE ALLIED BLACKTOP, INC. M AP LIS MN 29,365.90 BB BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS, INC. MINNEAPOLIS MN 33,292.74 BB BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, INC. BUFFALO MN 34,743.96 BB MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION H PKI S MN 3$,201.28 BB ACE BLACKTOP, INC. INVER GROVE HEIGHTS MN 38,243.97 BB c ENGINEER'S 35 000.00 City of Mendota Heights Mendota Heights, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 84 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF 1984 SEAL COATING PROJECT NO. 8413 WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for proposed 1984 SEAL COATING, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law and the following bids were received complying with said advertisement: NAME OF BIDDER AMOUNT OF BID ALLIED BLACKTOP, INC. 29,365.90 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS, INC. 33,292.74 BUFFALO BITUMINOUS, INC. 34,743.96 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION 38,201.28 ACE BLACKTOP, INC. 38,243.97 and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommended that the low bid submitted by ALLIED BLACKTOP, INC. of MAPLE GROVE, Minnesota, be accepted. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the bid of ALLIED BLACKTOP, INC. of MAPLE GROVE, Minnesota, submitted for the construction of the above described improvements be and the same is hereby accepted. 2. That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all contracts and documents necessary to consummate the awarding of said bids. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 10th day of July 1984. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Robert G. Lockwood, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO Mayor and City Council ;r rhFR,OM: Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator July 2, 1984 RE: Appointment to Highway 110/149 Area Task Force Se The following "nominees" have been received by Staff: -- City Council - -Jan Blesener Planning Commission - -Bill Burke Friendly Hills - -Fred Lambrecht Mendota Plaza - -Sam Shephard, Minnesota Federal -Phyllis Lange, Country Club Mendakota - -Lou Brenner "At -Large" -John Rosztgk - ,p -Dorothy McMonigal - Richard Spicer Robert Leffert •- Kevin Howe —Carl Cummins III ACTION REQUIRED To make appropriate appointments and, if Council desires, designate a chair. Respectfully submitted, Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator MEMO June 25, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council, and City Ad�istrator FROM: Dennis Delmont, Chief of Police SUBJECT: 680 So. Freeway Rd. Introduction The City Administrator indicated that there had been complaints received by a Council member and a Planning Commission member regarding the operation of a business at 680 So. Freeway Rd., in an R1 Zone. History This same complaint surfaced in December, 1983 and the attached memorandum was directed to the City Administrator. The situation has not substantially changed. Discussion sNeil Baker is a full time employee of the post office and has, for many years, ' operated a business called "Thumb Things" out of his home on Freeway Rd. The main products he produces are novelty buttons. His clients are primarily groups and schools and he sells novelty items at a booth at the State Fair as well. His business has grown and that has caused some changes. He has leased space on Robert St. and will double that space on August 1, 1984. This will allow him to move most of his operation to new quarters. He now has a large trailer that will be parked off-site and used for storage. As pointed out in the previous memo, the fiber barrels left outside his home are the most unsightly evidence of the business. He says that the only barrels that are left out are the ones that his neighbors want. He leaves them out until they pick them up. He is puzzled by the complaints as many neighbor children work for him assembling buttons and a neighbor woman receives his evening calls via call -forwarding. His immediate neighbors also have businesses that are operated out of their homes (contracting and a travel agency). The only traffic he generates is an occasional car dropping off artwork or picking up buttons. He says these visits are sporadic and short. In response to my immediate requests, he has agreed to remove the barrels, clean up'the breezeway, and remove the boat trailer from the driveway. Alternatives Mr. Baker could be advised that he is in violation of the Home Occupation Ordinance, and required to close operation immediately. A copy of the ordinance language is attached for Council review. If compliance was not forthcoming, the Code Enforcement Officer could cite Mr. Baker for violation, and allow the Court to decide the issue. However, as previously discussed in other cases, the Home Occupation Ordinance can be difficult to enforce. As an alternative, the City could attempt to work cooperatively with Mr. Baker to straighten out the problem to an acceptable point. Recommendation and Action Required 4 Mr. Baker has been invited to attend the July 10 Council Meeting to discuss this matter with Council. Upon completion of the discussion, Council can direct further appropriate action. -2- 3.2(50) Garage, Repair: A building or space for the maintenance of vehicles but not including auto wrecking or junk yards. 3.2(51) General Floor Plan: A graphic representation of the anticipated utilization of the floor area within a building or structure. 3.2(52) Governing Body: The City Council. 3.2(53) Home Occupation: Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements: when engaged in only by persons residing in their dwelling, when that occupation is conducted in not more than one (1)room within the principal structure, when evidence of the occupation is not visible from the G1-_reet., when the principal structure becomes the base of operation for that occupation using only that equipment or machinery which is usually found in a home, and when not involving the retail. sales of products produced off the site. A professional person may use his residence for consultation, emergency treat- ment or performance of religious rites but not for the general practice of his profession. No accessory build- ing shall be used for such home occupation. 3.2(54) Hotel: A building containing,eight (8) or more guest rooms in which lodging is provided with or without meals for compensation and which is open to transient or permanent guests or both, and where no provision is made for cooking in any guest room, and in which ingress and egress to and from all rooms is made through an inside lobby or office supervised by a person in charge. 3.2(55) Junk Yard: An area where used, waste, discarded or salvaged materials are bought, sold, exchanged, stored, baled, cleaned, packed, disassembled, or handled, including but not limited to scrap iron, and other metals, paper, rags, rubber products, bottles and lumber. Storage of such material. in conjunction with a permitted manufacturing process when within an enclosed area or building shall not be included. 3.2(56) Kennel, Animal: A place where three (3) or more of any single type of domestic animal, over four(4) months of age, are owned, boarded, bred or offered for sale. 3.2(57) Land Reclamation: Restoration of land to useable form by depositing of clean fill materials so as to elevate the grade. 3.2(58) Landscaping: Plantings such as trees, grass, and shrubs. (401) 8 MEMORA ND1IM TO: Orvil Johnson FROM: Dennis Delmont SUBJECT: 680 South Freeway Road December 20, 1983 I have been checking the above address sporadically since November 25, 1983. I have found no "on -street" parking problems or any other ordiance violations that are visible from the street. The house in question has a boat trailer, a boat and trailer, a camping trailer and a car in the driveway most of the time. There is also a van that is often in the driveway. This van is painted and contains the logo "Thumb Things" on the side. It has lettering that advertises a novelty business involving the sale of personalized novelty items like buttons, mugs, etc. In the several weeks I have been checking the van was only parked on the street twice. There is no address or phone number on the van. There is what appears to be a large amount of material stored in the breezeway of the home. This may be raw material for the production of his final product. Obviously, business contrary to the R-1 zoning is taking place in the home. The impact of that business on the neighborhood is questionable. If the material in the breezeway were removed and the van was repainted, all evidence of the business would be gone, but the character of the neighborhood would not be noticeably altered. I find no evidence that prohibits•the parking of recreational vehicles or boats in driveways and those vehicles account for the majority of the clutter and the "messy" image of the house. I have seen no evidence of excessive parking problems due to vehicles other than the homeowner. Other city residences take advantage of the streets to a greater degree than Mr. Baker. An issue built on the parking of the "commercial" van at the house would also have to include other vehicles used for trade, ie; plumbers and electricians pick up trucks, station wagons with magnetic signs etc. DJD/rmd CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 49 MEMO June 28, 1984 T0: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: I-494 Noise Agreement DISCUSSION: The noise agreement that has been drafted to limit noise generation from I- 494 construction is now in final form and has been executed by Johnson Brothers Corporation. The agreement has also been reviewed by Dale Glewwe and Bernie Friel and seems reasonable to all parties. Tom Knuth lives in the Friendly Hills area close to the project and I have asked him to inform me when the noise generated from the project seems to be at a higher level. I will then contact Dave Kelso at the Pollution Control Agency to borrow some noise meters for testing. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends Council approve the Agreement concerning noise generated from the I-494 roadway construction in Mendota Heights. The agreement distributed in the June 19th agenda has not changed. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council wishes to implement staff recommendation, they should pass a motion authorizing the Mayor and Administrator to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 28, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director 1 and Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer K SUBJECT: Target Stores - Guard House Case No. 83-27 J HISTORY: In August 1983, Planning Commission and Council had approved a conditional use permit allowing Target to install a 6' X 8' metal guard -house at their warehouse site (2360 Pilot Knob Road). Part of the condition was to provide a more aesthetically and architecturally pleasing guard house. (See attached Resolution No. 83-73) In May of 1984, Target submitted to staff for Council approval a method of ® applying an exterior facade to match the principle structure. Upon review Council recommended leaving the guard house as it is and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has considered and approved leaving the guard house as is. RECOMMENDATION: Stafi f will again state its concurrence with the proposal. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council wishes to remove the condition stated in Item 1 of Resolution No. 83-73, they should pass a motion to do so. t City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 83-73 RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WHEREAS, R.L. Johnson Construction Company is leasing 275,000 square feet of Johnson's Warehouse at 2360 Pilot Knob Road to Target Stores; and WHEREAS, Target Stores desire to install an 8 foot chain link fence around the parking lot and construct a 62 X 8 foot accessory structure to be used as a guard house; and WHEREAS, the proposed fence and accessory structure is to provide security for the warehouse. ' NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Mendota Heights City Council that a Conditional Use Permit is hereby granted to allow R.L. Johnson Construction Company/Target Stores to install an 8 foot chain link fence and an accessory structure (guard house) on the property at 2360 Pilot Knob Road subject to the following conditions: 1. The provision of a more arc-hi'tecturally and aesthetically pleasing guard house; 2. That there be no outdoor storage and no use of truck trailers parked deliberately in parking lot, rather than being unloaded, to augment storage in the warehouse. Adopted by the --City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 6th day _ of September 1983. ATTEST: fla Ju^ k.c.1, , Mary gXnn DeLaRosa Deputy Clerk CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Robert G. Lockwood Mayor CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 20, 1984 TO: Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director and Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Guard House - Target Warehouse 2360 Pilot Knob Road Case No. 83-27 HISTORY: - Late.summer 1983 Planning Commission and Council granted a Conditional Use Permit to Target Stores for the installation of an 8 foot high chain link fence and a 62' X 8' guard house. Council at the time had concerns with the asthetics of the proposed guard house. Approval was conditioned upon making the guard house comparable with the principle structure. Target was given nine months to come up with a plan to comply with that requirement of the permit. Resolution 83-73, in part requires that a more asthetically and architectually pleasing guard house be provided. In response to Resolution 83-73, late in May of 1984, Target submitted for approval by Council a method of residing the metal guard house in the following manner: The building shell will be furred out, insulated between furring strips, covered with an exterior grade plywood and 1"X8"X16" pieces of redwood installed over the plywood. Around the top of the building * 1"X2" vertical redwood strips would be attached to the facia. To complete the job the guard house was to be painted to match the principle structure. At the Council meeting of June 5, 1984, Council acknowledged receipt of a letter from Target Stores and a memo from the Code Enforcement Officer relative to the temporary (9 month) installation of a the 6k' X 8' metal guard house on the R.L. Johnson warehouse property occupied by Target Stores. At the time of the first approval, Councilman Losleben felt that the metal guard shell was not appropriate. - Current Council, after reviewing Target's proposal felt that the existing guard shell, as it is, is acceptable and would like to remove that condition from the permit. Council has referred the matter back to Planning Commission for concurrence. Staff concurs with City Council and recommends deletion of the first condition of Resolution No. 83-73 (see attached). ACTION REQUIRED: If Planning Commission is in agreement with Council they should pass a 'motion to Approve leaving the guard shack as it is. PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: 26 June 1984 83-27 Target Stores East of Pilot Knob Road, North of Railroad Tracks ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of Amendment to Variance Condition PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. As most of you will recall, the Target Stores, Inc. leased a substantial portion of the R. L. Johnson warehouse east of Pilot Knob Road, northerly of the railroad tracks. So as to more adequately secure the property, Target Stores applied for a permit to fence the property and construct a guard house at the entrance on Pilot Knob Road. 2. Attached is a copy of the drawings and our report prepared for the 23 August 1983 meeting, at which time the Planning Commission considered and proposed approval of that development. The fence was approved to be eight foot high (without any barbed wire) whereas the Ordinance provides for a maximum of six foot height if located on the property line (as is the case in this proposal). Target Stores also requested permission to construct the guard house which is currently in place on the site. A condition was added, however, that the guard house be built so as to match the existing building materials of the principal structure (the warehouse). This condition was particularly important to a member of the Council who no longer serves on the Council. A member of the current council, who is also a registered architect, suggests that the existing structure is more appropriate aesthetically than the revised design received by the City. Under these conditions the Council is referring the matter back to the Planning Commission to get their advice regarding the revised proposal. 3. The options are two - one is to leave the existing guard shack in place, and the other is to revise the design as submitted by Target Stores in their attempt to conform to the condition. The guard house now in place, which was ordered prior to their application for approval last year, was installed by Council approval as a temporary solution pending their final design submittal. It would be helpful is members of the Planing Commission review the site and the existing guard house. We have not seen a copy of the revised design, but are hopeful that copies of that design will be attached to this report for your perusal. •PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 23 August 1983 83-27 Target Stores Inc. East of Pilot Knob Road, North of Railroad Tracks (see sketch) Approval of Variance to Fence Height 1. The property in question is a 23.4 acre site upon which the R. L. Johnson Construction Company built a 400,000 square foot warehouse with a clear ceiling height of 24 feet. There is'approximately 1,200 square feet of office within the structure. The building was built iri 1979, and was a year in construction. Portions of the building (up to 50 percent) have been leased on 4,temporary basis to various users, but the building has never been totally leased. This structure is the largest building in Mendota Heights, and one of the largest structures in the Metropolitan Area, covering approximately 10 acres of floor space on the ground. ® 2. Target Stores Inc. are leasing 275,000 square feet of this structure (the southerly portion) and have an option to lease the remainder. The lease requires that the parking area be fenced for security purposes. They there- fore propose to construct 1,100 lineal feet of No. 9 chain link fence. The fence posts and top rail will be galvanized, and it is proposed to be eight feet in height. The parking area enclosed includes stalls for 110 cars and 64 truck parking spaces. The permit was issued on the basis that portions of the green space within the fence could be enlarged for additional truck parking, up to and including 52 additional spaces. 3. The Ordinance allows a fence six feet high to be placed on the property line. The initial proposal was to construct a six foot fence with three strands of barbed wire at the top. We discussed this with the applicant and suggested that a higher fence without barbed wire would be more appropriate.. They propose at this time to construct an eight foot fence without barbed wire. Thus, a variance is requested for two feet of additional fence height. 4. You will notice from the attached site plan where the fence is indicated with an orange line, that the fence will be contiguous to the parking area but will not be on the property line. The fence is set back, we believe, 69 feet from the property line (right-of-way of Pilot Knob Road). It would appear that the large setback between Pilot Knob Road and the fence is a factor in determining a reasonable fence height. You will notice that the fence on the north side of the parking lot is contiguous to a large Ll CASE NUMBER: 83-27 APPLICANT:- Target Stores Page 2 ponding area, which is several hundred feet back from a future extension - of the'right-of-way for Trunk Highway 13 proceeding northeasterly toward Trunk Highway $5. Under these conditions, it would appear that the additional two feet in fence height will not be a deleterious aesthetic concern.- 5. They are also applying for permission to construct a small accessory building to function as a gate house. A plan of this structure is attached to this report. The structure will be approximately eight feet by 7.5 feet, and will be utilized as a guard post monitoring movement of trucks and cars in and out of the secured parking area. This structure is to be painted the same color as the building, and will be located well behind the required setback from Pilot Knob Road, in line with the proposed security fence. Again, it would appear that setback this distance, the existence of the security building will not be a significant problem. 6., The members of the Planning Commission and Council may wish to question the applicant regarding changes that may occur in the event that portions of the building are leased to someone else. Due to problems of vandalism and theft it is not unusual these days for large warehousing operations to secure their access and egress areas, particularly when handled by -a single tenant; For instance, the Red Owl Warehouse in Hopkins, has similar arrangements, as do others of this similar scale and function. 1 FLOR. Fl-Xj 4 ;�ov 4 ;t �TARRCO I 1 PORTABLE BUILDING C. 5. sRx I MDDE L # 6B ® CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 29, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director and Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Pilot Knob Service Center - Variance Case No. 84-07 nrrn��r e�rn.�_ See attached memo to Planning Commission dated June 20, 1984. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval to City Council. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council wishes to implement Planning Commission and Staff's recommendation they need to pass a motion granting.Mr. Linvill a 40 foot setback variance. Case No. g -/— 0 % CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST Date of Application 5/16/84 Fee .Paid 100.00 Applicant Name: Linvill Ralph W. Last First Initial Address: 230 N. River Ridge Circle Burnsville Minnesota 55337 Number & Street City State Zip Telephone Number: 890-5400 Owner Name: Pilot Knob Partners Last First Initial Address: 230 N. River Ridge Circle Burnsville Minnesota 55337 Number & Street City State Zip Street Location of Property in Question: 2535 Pilot Knob Road, Mendota Heights, Minnesota Legal Description of Property: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, Carew Business Center Type of Request: Rezoning X Variance Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Minor Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Plan Approval Wetlands Permit Other attached 'We are applying for'•a variance to,build a pylon sign 32 feet west from the curb of the right turn lane of Pilot Knob Road on the southeast corner of our building on Pilot Knob and Morthland Drive. On the enclosed plan we indicate the distances of United Property's two signs and feel that our sign is on a lesser traveled intersec- tion than United Property's north sign plus we have a severe grade change to our parking lot. I have enclosed an as built survey, a -.-proposed sign location plan and a sketch plan of the proposed sign made of the same metal as on our building. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 20, 1984 TO: Planning Commission FROM: 'James E. Danielson Public Works Director and Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Variance - Pilot Knob Service Center Case No. 84-07 DISCUSSION: Ralph Linvill has s.u.bmi.tted drawings and an application for a variance to install an identification sign for his building located at 2535 Pilot Knob Road. ® The proposed sign will be a ground sign 8 feet wide by IO feet high. The variance requested is to place the sign closer to the property line than allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.(Ordinance requires 40 feet from property line). Mr. Linvill is requesting to erect his sign on the lot line abutting Pilot Knob Road (see attached drawing). Mr. Linvill has submitted a written explanation of his requested variance (attached). Staff feels that there are two hardships relative to Mr. Linvill's request. One being the topography and the second is that Pilot.Knob Road is not centered on the right of way. (See back for map) RECOMMENDATION: Staff can support Mr. Linvill's request and recommends approval. PARCEL NO.2 PROGRAMMED LAND, INC. STA. 889 * 50.60 DAKOTA CQ._ STA. 61+ 90.13 MN. D.O.T. S.BL 3,AwJ - -C: }r �`Vi.�; ;v:F'^F..t�•:�:�A":.�u:,� z.,o�.. .�•`t ?��j�'�,:;;"�-r:.ia-rf�^ �1'�tu� f."�-f� P.I. STA. 889+50.60 DAKOTA CO. _ i STA. 61+90.00 MN.D.O.T. NBL t THE NORTHLAND LAND CO. PARCEL NO.7 to STRIPED ARI MI 30 PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT:' LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 26 June 1984 84-07 Ralph Linvill Northwest Corner of Pilot Knob Road and Northland Drive Approval of Variance to Sign Location 1. The applicants, as you are well aware, have constructed a new office - service building at the northwest corner of Pilot Knob Road and Northland Drive. The applicants now propose to construct a pylon sign closer to the public street right-of-way than required by Ordinance. 2. As you know, the City has been approving a variety of "ground signs" at a distance approximately 20 feet from the public right-of-way whereas 40 feet is normally required. These standards have been applied to a number of signs in the Northland Industrial Park, and to the signs which designate the industrial park itself. One such sign exists at the southeast corner of Pilot Knob Road and Mendota Heights Road. 3. When discussing this proposal with the applicants, we suggested that a drawing indicating the relationship between the sign they propose and that of the other signs in the area (particularly that of the United Properties development to the east) that this would be helpful to the members of the Planning Commission and Council. Such a drawing, we understand, has been proposed, though it has not been submitted to us at this time. Hopefully, a copy of that drawing is attached for your consideration. 4. As a design guide, we suggest that the standards applied to the United Properties to the east, which we feel have produced a highly desirable aesthetic result, could be used as a standard in considering the merits of the variance proposed in .the applicant's development west of Pilot Knob Road. 5. When the drawing is available for our review, we will be prepared to add additional comments regarding this proposal. Attached are copies of two statements submitted by the applicant, Ralph Linvill. FJ TD USIGNAN ! r V) Q` U) 2c ia7-A CU i olo-so y 70s•810 O a v r 5- A c.. 1^ `SrL���•^..= 041.7A v 0- 0 O +Zoo. o 0S0_ bl� &COO ' Z24e t20,0 0 NORTHWEST PL.AST/CS� S/Vc. i4 S ,2 MFS 1%0-4 �� \ 3 6 o S� m � Q 2 , .:r 26095 -C- 'A Co 060. 070-78 O 1 1S0 0 is 1 �S so' �\•,?iC7 T YT L 7" Z so 6 3 /••l. r- G -T-4 ;zz CD /A 0 220.0 / S,o so TZIP, :yy,i •,u5 a z ♦n ti' �b a' ap •ry M . 771E .�/�f/L //Y6 �0.� /A/,=- f4 Ncf4 1a•t'P�'020-79 *� s.89*3 5VE 660.00 170%\_ iN M O � 9q p r?�o t • o ,c 7i0 WEST Z. i� DRIVE °t' _ E.a j� o s oI .r vo : NORTHL DRIVE e' -5/0? wE5T 193.40 C a.ao !�. 193.30 , c e• as o6 • >ee-• 1 n j M 0 Subject Property �e� m a a b w m 4 North 1":200' I 2 s { z on n� o, o N 4z -A r A 3 i � ^ � 540.45 K- 69'32 10" INNESOTA DEPARTMENT . o TRANSPORTATION RIGH _ .. LINE ►ER DqC.moo. �6s3 WAY PLAT NO. 19-3 MI C. WC03. 99.70. 076 0.. L!— -- Z 8 8 6 -- .a9°36'S9"E 660.00 336•of L 19!.40 196.30 EA GAN — T. 27 NR�.3P wzlthn/rr b w 6 0 1\ m p O iN M O � 9q p r?�o t • o ,c 7i0 WEST Z. i� DRIVE °t' _ E.a j� o s oI .r vo : NORTHL DRIVE e' -5/0? wE5T 193.40 C a.ao !�. 193.30 , c e• as o6 • >ee-• 1 n j M 0 Subject Property �e� m a a b w m 4 North 1":200' I 2 s { z on n� o, o N 4z -A r A 3 i � ^ � 540.45 K- 69'32 10" INNESOTA DEPARTMENT . o TRANSPORTATION RIGH _ .. LINE ►ER DqC.moo. �6s3 WAY PLAT NO. 19-3 MI C. WC03. 99.70. 076 0.. L!— -- Z 8 8 6 -- .a9°36'S9"E 660.00 336•of L 19!.40 196.30 EA GAN — T. 27 NR�.3P wzlthn/rr Mqy z� ADDENDUM TO LETTER FOR VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATION ON PILOT KNOB ROAD AND NORTHLAND DRIVE Enclosed is a more detailed blueprint of the proposed sign for Pilot Knob Service Center, and a more detailed plot plan showing our proposed sign location as well as distance from United Properties' signs. I would like to point out on the plot plan that we will still be 55' from the center line of the nearest traffic lane, where United Properties are 501. We also are 31' from the curb where United Properties are 32'. In talking with our engineering firm, Suburban Engineering, they feel Pilot Knob Road has been shifted closer to United Properties' lot line than ours. When I examined the road layout of Pilot Knob Road at the engineering office of Mendota Heights, the lot lines indicate we could build our sign South of our East drive legally as indicated on the attached plot plan but, because the county straightened out the East lot line, this is no longer possible without a variance. ro• LEROY SIGNS INC. 535-0080 FL NT m wrv%` Z.ft;• r�A��rrw.liil 20 EiP. ALL SrDf= Cov E.c ETD �ar•rrl �YTiGvDE'O Al\s M.N t. ea.r 3�!a.2eN aD Ju1La7.NG'• I...F^'Te 1rN i� _dal N.rF Cwt-Fa�Cs lsa� Ill m..i.r u 1� Zm••ctD $r6w� 1 Luu w.. w. AT.or+ .3.� I�IP�.u0.V 'VArdL� L��.�s 7 i?84 �liwN am N M w v; M;;Zwrd aNNO lMby Yew®waML R N 1 ALL CHANGES MUST BE "10A R L for rov r•r. w Nwalon I rl rn rM�r wn� rr.»� ror t rw1 lNN/ R M Mt N W p1o+T b wNld� INITIALED BY CUSTOMER or weir to be 004 ocol" r AND aov«er d tit AND SALESMAN ON THE ' FU+AL APPROVED PRINT { U •fir •� � V .TCS �'z 07'YRTI Ei V wr 'T� ?4L..4 slc.a ` y r2 aZ=o• s A • c I t F t _U .F I.wri Q �,"hf`'.'�'-r-f •+r 'r,Thi•�-•...._.r....«IL�ui+:%.lif»r Tili.'Jri�-- -•- / ?I t t:) -r 8 r 0 �:o• 3f�vni CMR I N921 �pw.rr. ttbbrpy�,L,,�wR,q �{/Ir MoaparMd M M pM r D� Nrm�e b =«.b Mew "�'o0w4 ~�iNu=M�LEROY SIGNS INC. 535-0080 p"aly of 241 SNHQ O 3r W+ s A • c I t F t _U .F I.wri Q �,"hf`'.'�'-r-f •+r 'r,Thi•�-•...._.r....«IL�ui+:%.lif»r Tili.'Jri�-- -•- / ?I t t:) -r 8 r 0 �:o• 3f�vni CMR I N921 �pw.rr. ttbbrpy�,L,,�wR,q �{/Ir MoaparMd M M pM r D� Nrm�e b =«.b Mew "�'o0w4 ~�iNu=M�LEROY SIGNS INC. 535-0080 p"aly of CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 1 MEMO June 29, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director •and Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Lynch Subdivision :1 Case No. 84-08 See attached memo to Planning Commission dated June 20, 1984. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission and staff recommend approval to the City Council. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council wishes to implement Planning Commission and staff's re- commendation they need to pass Resolutiori•No. 84- , Resolution Approving The Subdivision of Lot 14 and 15, Wagenknecht's Addition. "Ci ty of "Mendo'ta T eights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 84 - RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF LOT 14 AND 15, WAGENKNECHT'S ADDITION WHEREAS, Earl T. Lynch owner of the southerly 100.00 feet of Lot 14, Wagenknecht's Addition and the south 97.50 feet of Lot 15, Wagenknecht's Addition, Dakota County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, has requested from the City to split 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 loot split submitted at this meeting be and the same is hereby approved subject to receipt of the $600.00 park contri button. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 10th day of July, 1984. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Robert G. Lockwood Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk Case No. O �/— 0 k CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ' PLANNING REQUEST Date of Application 57 c,1y—d'Pf Fee Paid�.?35-C& Applicant LYNCH EARL T NaMex Last First Initial Address: 1164 OHIO ST. WEST ST. PAUL, MINN. 55118 Number & Street City State zip Telephone Number: 457-6471 Owner Name: LYNCH EARL T. Last First Initial Address: 1164 OHIO ST. WEST ST. PAUL MINN. 55118 Number & Street City State zip Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description of Property: Westerly Parcel: The southerly 100.00 feet of Lot 14, WAGENKNECT'S ADDITION, Dakota County, Minnesota Easterly Parcel: The south 97.50 feet of Lot 15, Wagenknect's Addition, dakota `1' ` ' ^ '0_61inty, Minneaota. Type of Request: Rezoning Variance Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Minor Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Plan Approval Wetlands Permit Other CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director and Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Subdivision - Lynch Case No. 84-08 nTSCIISSTnN June 20, 1984 Mr. Lynch was involved with the City at the time Michael DuPont platted his property south of the Mendota Elementary School. It was acknowledged .at that time that Mr. Lynch had a developable lot along Summit Lane. Sewer and water -services were stubbed into Mr. Lynch's property in anticipation of this subdivision. Staff feels that this application falls under the section in.the Subdivision Ordinance 11.3(1) Exceptions, and may be processed without .a public hearing. Both lots have adequate area (minimum 15,000 square feet) and the easterly lot has 97.5 feet of frontage on a public street. Both lots have sewer and water available (See map on back for lot location). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends granting a 2.5 feet variance to the easterly lot, waiving the public hearing and approval of the 'subdivision. Applicant should be reminded of the $600 park contribution required before the sub- division can be recorded at the County. -1 .. Ir• \38 a J/•5.s�. - 1 4 . f 1�aJQir1d�Y 15000 3 N..� p8 23Om3b ..f60 19 l%00 Q 5o 4eld 80.00 '�• oo-c3\\•• +•. � \\ . •:.y:'+..•.:i. •' G -.o..♦ `- ♦ ' W E7r ,. •. - - 3.,. 113.00 Tfor.I�j► ( 10715 124.56 ' ` •� �_ =-� I1 Nf1yg11�1fiW N i• ♦t I '50 ",0, so_ : ° , :gid 5 26o� N 8 1' 10"W 1"a �+ •�dr? :ao53 '7+ t3 ' 1o7.15 107.1516 Cal' TR co F 7gi ee e� �9 90. h o"• 1'Id1v.,{,� q'•.11 E. 237.00 �9 p0•: 1 d°r' ��29 ' 57,00 100.00 80 �r �3 -N.8%P41Ifi-W � Ia{tfOWbl- V� '� e� �' b () (� i 2 ^o ! ,, n 2 i n 3 i, > 8 30 ^ .g . O 60 1 00 Q (� 40 60 92 t3 �' IQO.OQ 85.00 125.00 r �' 130,00 _ t zo7a 10-4. vy�-•-a.av%Wvr c"'1 Wt., S. Q 197 V 26vrp7 - r ~ ~ 15 3 8 Char/os A 4 Louis, . .�'c1zF5 � - , !o fiC. 030-28 P 3aq 010-27 -19 C .E'obci-f L . 4 L /.14-1//c LEO, K/117,7, / V, �P z Y 7 020-27 `U I CHAEL D. Du PONT o Q, FIRST' ADDITION 1. �` • 421 - �a 1o,,ao so . .ai ! 4 b N Jr ¢ 3 ;K $; _ -" o+ E. "0,3 - - 70ITO 7.0 a a K^ Y •w. 1oa.� V�,Ca TOR IA ,.a�Oi!' 14tTs ':. `,4: so N a s V `S. N 16 a0.<2 103.08 �yu1 /.i as. aQIO 030.7, "folio 107.20 y" 4 E / aZ las= alas 1a.sa z h ^ 17 a2'/7yy1. 0 b 0 MPGM a ' '+ n'12 a 1t. ea 10 040-30 . s { aa.w lolaa 1ol.aa wua eaoa 2�0 M•i'97'4CIE. 461.04 /J2 ra - •".,fir r r.�f. .. .. • :iib ., . 7G7„f CG7. �zra. ••G%I7Cf' .......... 1351.90 •z-aM7:'W r'•' r+ K� PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: 26 June 1984 84-08 Earl T. Lynch West of Walsh Lane, East of Summit Lane, South of Kay Avenue Approval of Subdivision PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. This property consists of parts of Lots 14 and 15 of Wagenknecht's Addition. Attached is a copy of that portion of the section map of the City indicating these lots and the;proposed subdivision. You will notice that the subdivision proposed is made possible by the platting and construction of Summit Lane which was done a couple years ago. Summit Lane is formerly the private access road to the school site which was platted as a public street as a part of the Michael D. DuPont First Addition which you will notice on the attached sketch. 2. The proposal is to create two lots by parceling off the south 100 feet of Lot 14 and the southerly 97.5 feet of Lot 15. Each of these lots meets or exceeds the 15,000 square foot minimum lot site. It would appear that this proposal is a reasonable division of land. V I ulaues •. <.��•. V1 QQ �- 1\ N I''^^ N.83a411G'W N `O Y/ .%J O � In�p. S. n, 197 y l 260&7=F1vc 15.313 ACRES A 1 030-28 3 V11 v V �%*��ICHAEL D. Du PONT MIFRST ADDITION 0 g r 196.82 ` A 2 •oo ' tl I P � NA MP ' 40 'b LO 7 4 a /2 ' o Li "-'es;a W ° Z o J .89f'41 TR TE. FU23KU ' I7. QO IKD- � 57.00 100.00 80.00 d bbl s 23.Q3'<GT r •� 1 9 �10 4cd,34 g n % N 83 `� 100.00 85.00 • 12'5.00 6,D 60.23-- 0 8 � 4 - sT/��gp /T- 2 2 2- 7 020-1 S Subject �t -- --- - I 1 I I i Vo r,�o I I o'e V o o� ,� o� o rk o f s ) I 4Z+ s ° ?. 71 040-50 ° { North 1":200' 4 . / 74f 4r , 1 :GUI--• 0/14'/0 GnTR wfinpTcw ao SCALE IN FEET PER INCH PROPC;S�-EVATIONS: NONE 4 ' FIRST FLOOR TOP OF FOUNDATION GARAGE FLOOR LOWEST FLOOR SANITARY SEWER BENCHMARK ELEVATION BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION m 0 U1 U parrot®s proposed spot elevation M the point marked by "x". Denotes proposed directs, storm water runoff. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, survey, report MAY 2'9 X84 or specification was prepared by me and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Profes- sional Engineer under the L72p q�' a s of the Stale o Minnesota. J Ames H. Parker, Minn. Rog. No. 9235 w 0 i� C� A \ U . ff t\ �1 c l n�•_r 7n p, u, • � J V i L � i IV • 13 A•_�1� �• W CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO July 5, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer and - James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Case #84-09 Variance-Carolan DISCUSSION: Mr. Carolan in his presentation to the Planning Commission stated that he had met with the neighbor who was not in favor of his requested variance. He felt that he had made headway in convincing the opposing neighbor, so staff contacted them again and they have indicated that they are still opposed to the city granting the variance but would not attend the council meeting to express that oppostion. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission has recommended approval of this variance and staff can support the recommendation. ACTION REQUIRED: If City Council desires to implement Planning Commission and staff's recommendation they should pass a motion granting a 10' side yard variance. Applicant /� Name: e2AIeOLA N CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST OBER Last First Address: /33 I %y%E'pOP.4 AD- A Number & Street City Telephone Number: (G1-2 450 Owner Name: e4 fe©/ ,v /CODE Last First Address: /33y AfE OR'4 'e Number & Street Street Location of Property in Question: 1339 Legal Description of Property: City Case No. / Date of Application &Ev Fee Paid O f Initial In xt,y-S Sta a zip State zip Type of Request: Rezoning X Variance Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D.;t Minor Conditional Use Permit Subdivision -Approval, Plan Approval Wetlands Permit Other A. Applicable City Ordinance Number Section LT Present Zoning of Property:_ +" % Present Use of Property: &'.A6'N74L Proposed Zoning of Property: /S.xAEN7d L Proposed Use of Property: IC15 tri L 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. 52, Signature of Applicant Da e Received by (title) NOTE: The following plans shall be drawn and attached to this application: A. Applications -involving a Variance shall submit the following plans: Date Received Initial �. Site Development Plan 2. Dimension Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Grading Plan ($15C �> B. Applications involving a Rezoning, Conditional. Use Permit or Subdivision shall submit the following: 1. Sketch Plan — 2. Abstractors Certificate (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 operation &/or proposed physical changes. 2. A topographic map of the area. Contour intervals shall be drawn at two (2) foot intervals ata horizontal scale of 1" - 1,000' or larger. 3. A detailed,. site plan of the proposal,showing proposed drainage, grading & landscapins 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 site. r CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO:- Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director and Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Variance - Carolan Case No. 84-09 DISCUSSION: June 21, 1984 Mr. Carolan is proposing to construct a one story attached sun room. Fie has submitted with his application a very complete explanation of his request. In addition, he has acquired signatures of concurrence of all his neighbors with the exception of one. The neighbor who did not sign feels that their view will be hampered if the proposed addition is allowed to be constructed. That neighbor is aware of the Planning Commission meeting date and has said that they will be in attendence. (See map on back for applicant and opposer's lot locations) Staff feels that although the addition will not interfere with the line of sight at the intersection, it is a side yard abutting a street which requires the same setback as a front yard. ACTION REQUIRED: Planning Commission should -consider applicant and opposing neighbor's views to make a recommendation to Council. S 132100 270.00 `150.00 YI 't;: • •coo.; i/ `1CD 12 '', `• r.�' o ''' is 379 14 199;4 O It 3 BoM i. c' a Cy 117 10SQ34 �ok y eit e h 1'55 8a SBLSy to 9 N�IISOH ' : 8 titi 17'f* • • of ' lutli-D Lor�•27 ,L'hti' o �.; o�,t �' � ., 'Robht E. �C��fC1 Jl h t r s'w1 DOr�ld �%'.141>ddt'.S�'if>)CNV2.3 -19 (� orc[on• 4lsebt•1!� : • .. : �,� � y ��� p i ;:/ • o.. - 2.O `%: � �' � A •'! � _ 4 IT•. +�: 3Yc 1dillr�n 1�. � e K. _ :� .� „ . ��• 63,x;,• '''� %• _ `< `o�Q 1i�eq�0!1cf 4.18 1354, '• X4„p'l. iO �:•+ 2;;:; `. B 3 5 25 �CIl3•Ri �/ .. � �j• � � - �3�. •. -•O'L ?Qtr{ti3� • �q •-.iiG:_ �. �'. -� '�C ' :.:;'• . • ; �_ X428 004. all 141. 2 77 /✓,CLQ/-/O�G� 4 ` ..4 �•O•�.`f�i.w 'fir;'. "k';: %ti•,.. ",' °':'j. hr•'�, Pa ���•,�,.•' 13 .` -^.•"::,;i-. •!. •�•."J.: 5�:,t-'t: ��,l:lA �;f�y,� .�t•C�.:3: •�. .r � . r-f.l:.:_ 1�f •� 't ';'Yi',!`.:: r.'it�)t �..ii: •w•S' • J ,. may... t;�'iy• •r. • :,' �{ ';•,�� S ••��'. ? • >-%:. r.,. .•t=.;..y +'.t: p � �. :h,t 'k{ :�.e `•°i•;: •.'T' ,N• �:ii::: J^i•�' •\.,;"�.��::'�•'� j)�)ty�..�:rjiu�'+Tf'i'^;l- '.i . F ;fir •'i••: a si.. •q• r: !� ' s ^ •- 4_+.";r. t ,r...f�9i:'.r:i;''Ci.'t_J, ;p t:¢. •�--t'ti:". �,� � F t f''�' � .. .' :; ' � ..t\aty�.11•'a::. �� ;`i . Sen. +�!i+;`' 'yl.."'y�l�...,L •'• • ,•• r •1 J.�_ d '� �i,f .1.1-R -:".�: �iN r. �w''.• 'i 'Fi•[•r -9'• t(� •���••..';.: ••:.r ` ' ..J�� i l ti � - ,,�. :f.�'4;`' :^ `::ry.•�}��:Yr :Y °•`r •S;•.;iY.• r.a .:. I i a•1► l ±F[ A'lI ?!i{{:11'1 ��' t i 11 i ,f,�ct'il;t �s ii�ft l',`d�i i 111 ,t. • _.e� .: ,}y, • , i. W.ilti r .. • ' :�': 11i . �'1 t�/ PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT LOCATION: 26 June 1984 84-09 Robert F. Carolan Northwest Corner of Emerson Avenue and Madora Road ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of Side Yard Variance PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The Carolans have constructed a very substantial house on a large lot at the northwest corner of Emerson and Madora. The lot substantially exceeds he 15,000 square foot area and 100 foot frontage minimum. The lot was platted as part of Jim Wiley's subdivision in this area about four or five years ago. 2. The home was initially constructed within Ordinance requirements which, of course, required that the structure be 30 feet westerly of Madora, and 30 feet northerly of the right-of-way for Emerson Avenue. They propose at this time to construct a sun room addition on the southerly side which would measure approximately 14 feet by 30 feet. This side of the house is, in effect, three stories high inasmuch as a portion of'the basement is exposed on this side. 3. Attached is a copy of a letter submitted to the City by the Carolans and a copy of a site plan showing the location of the existing home and the proposed addition. Also attached is a copy of a portion of the landscape plan indicating the plantings in this area of the lot'. 4. We have reviewed this proposal with the Carolans and examined the interior house plan to ascertain whether or not .the proposed addition could be accomplished on some other area of the lot so as to not require a variance. It is our conclusion that due to the layout of the interior, that adding the sun room on .any other side of the a house would, in fact, seriously reduce the aesthetic quality of the existing structure. It would appear that adding the addition at the first level (plus the basement level) on the southerly side of the house will, in fact, materially improve the aesthetic appearance of the home. If you drive by the house, you will notice that the south side of the house is relatively stark with its apparent three stories in height. This is due to the roll of the terfain which exposes portions of the basement on this side of the house. It would appear that an addition then on this side would soften the large.straight plane of the house on this side. 5. One of the most important elements in considering a variance on a corner lot is the retention of a triangular open space at the apex of the angle which is created if the structures are held back 30 feet from each right-of-way. On the attached drawing you will see dotted lines which indicate the location of this 30 foot setback and indicating that the CASE NUMBER: 84-09 APPLICANT: Robert Carolan Page 2 proposed addition would not infringe upon this line of sight angle across the corner. In other words, if the structure had been built within 30 feet of each of the rights-of-way (Madora and Emerson) the visibility across the corner would have been less than that which will be produced if the proposed addition is allowed. 6. The specific action requested is for a reduction in the minimum side yard setback along Emerson Avenue -to be 20 feet rather than the 30 feet required. At the southeasterly corner of the building, the variance is three feet (27 feet rather than the 30 feet required). 7. The Carolans have taken pictures of the site which will be available at the Planning Commission and Council hearings to illustrate the existing conditions and the nature of the side of the house where the addition is proposed. 8. In some cases, it is possible to move such an addition toward the rear of the lot, without infringing upon the side yard requirements. In this case, however, you will note that there is a bay window which is an eating area contiguous to the kitchen. Trying to add this addition on that side would have, in our opinion, an extremely deleterious effect on the aesthetic quality of the bay window. Thus, it seems that the proposal in the location as suggested for the construction of the sun porch is, in fact, the best place to locate this addition. 9. Again, it would be helpful if members of the Planning commission and Council viewed this site so as to ascertain these conditions for themselves. 4 ,� --- - - - 13200 270.00 150.00 s 1 $lo N �• SP 13 12 379 14 1 _ s93s O ~z R 1S `o N ^ %99.40 vo 16 0 6 80) �.:° AO 1`'a a +-'9 "-'„� ° o`er . O �C. M �M OD�b .. • h .o ,. 3e 15 to tD s 17 Lp ° �1 A ^ •Ib'' 0 p V? 7I co so ,o. G3��, N 6 N . c 41 .&rrldrd A1.4 Doris... 218.31. 22` 18 a 1 42 Yt,st-o L.o� z7 •. •��'�' � X90 • � co �� �� •7 �5_ obe rt'. E . SGi berl kh oo "� h ♦ . NZ �PT21 -Dor,4ld:.T. Rndersor� N h� �a O' . •� s ' s .6 '• .3 719. 23 \ car . 19. - (�Crc:on �33dbt/� /230 �v .►+�• p 20 a • ° -�/�'�-.L.S.t o tj T&Jr* l oftG . a; 9. o .,A . ♦y. .4 • 24' • 0 1-10.00 4z,6.� :.. 50 .3 Y Ifwallift, IC 65w �OfY� CO i. J44.18 '�1 ��o Y` 26 13.5 ` B T - . A !1 2L113 -R3. O I W. -in -5 �y 25• It To' 6 9! r2G.4c C M1 5 -x C �� J\ 2 40 c �s �2 6 R' 166.77 �' .� 635 R �Q.00 h '' ` .f0/7/1 %� G�" 14122 _ s tv 2 0 6 " `J � /}`g.1t s1�� 27 o 8.04 1 /W"-- B/'YC2/e - _ 4 = ; 188.45 ` 28• - o 160.56 �1�+ :.'r 242.40 3 ICIZ45 \I 77.81 : •�. VY ,BALL Yrs 3 �, :. �1•�� ,CA Z..., 2 Subject Property 1 2 o ao% r 5 s x \ .E.• tf i;o. sl I�..�a .fib/oy-� �4 • Q s ° t 7 ° kit 050 s \z ayl°�0 ' O : ,.7 v ,Po' IWO CO AVEL E 8 T =Z�.43 Pic te.-son vJAqNF_ Y. Z 6o t O tts- PA7ru.M •L o � � m Q' S L.SONI. _• 1?J -3 2 °N OC r s -A. .tai �• 0 1� - � o. � IJ/6. � - 1 4 Q S `3 Z�1 . ZIt.z3 a VANDALLS O IV C ..='s = : North 1 ":2%.oa �2 N 7 a \� � � W.2f ,4L.SL -:21.1x/ tOS•3S " .2¢ see r -C '' - • - - - -)-5 ;_ - - - �4�-�✓-r•�y-E}•t� --- --� U] 1339 Medora Road Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118 June 15, 1984 Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 Attention: Mr. Kevin Frazell City Administrator Dear Mr. Frazell: My wife and I are requesting a three to ten foot variance from the side -yard setback requirements of Ordinance 401, Section 4.6 (4) a, in order to add a first floor sun room to our home. The variance would be a maximum of three feet for the front of the addition and ten feet for the rear. Our reasons for this request are: (0.4 7/hE 90k SE 1. Because of the architectural style, layout and unique configuration of our lot, it is unfeasible to build the addition on the only other side of the house (west). An addition on the west side of the house would destroy the effect of the bay windows on that side of the house; 2. The first floor addition would diminish the steep, vertical line that now exists because of the topography of the lot and the current configuration of the house. Moreover, it would be visually compatible with the current landscaping; 3. Our proposed addition is only partially outside of the current setback requirements. The addition would require approximately a three foot variance on the front and a ten foot variance on the rear. The variation in depth of the variance request is due to the inverted pie -shaped configuration of our corner lot; Members of the City Council Members of the Planning Commission Mr. Kevin Frazell Page 2 June 15, 1984 4. In addition to being a corner lot, we believe the unique configuration of this lot makes the request reasonable and appropriate. If this lot were a normal rectangular lot from front to rear, a variance would not be needed because of the following dimensions: Dimension of front of lot 134.42' Dimension of front of house 77.5' Side -yard setback on north side 11.8' Normal 30' setback on north side 30.0' = AREA INSIDE OF SETBACK 15.12' 5. Our variance request does not disturb the normal thirty foot line of sight line for traffic safety at this intersection. We are enclosing copies of the site, dimension and landscape plans for our proposal as well as photographs of the site. If we can be of further assistance to you in reviewing our request, please contact us. We thank you for your time and consideration and hope that you will be able to grant our request. Sincerely, Robert F. Carolan Enclosures 0 i „V�" R=% N i I N I m � ' W U L\ W W' W F� 9 d U U ' CV M ti In 0 OD 00 J 9 D 9 M co a J ,1 �,,r�Q.�yUEb r, r ri•c��.c.•.. i �lhs!!=E`•C � i - MINI VIA AONr, Fes! `AM CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEM0 July 5, 1984 TO: City Council and City Administrator FROM: Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer and James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Isaac Wetlands Permit Case #84-10 DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission had serious concern about the steepness of the grading of this yard. Planning Commission directed the application to resubmit the proposed grading plan to reflect a flatter front yard and an equal slope from the drainage way easement to the rear of the proposed house. Those changes were to be accomplished and submitted to staff on or before July 3 for review. The applicant has complied with that Planning Commission request. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission has recommended to City Council the granting of this wetlands permit. Staff does support to Planning Commission recommendation. ACTION REQUIRED: If City Council wishes to implement Planning Commission and staff's -recom- mendation, they should pass a motion granting Mr. Isaac a Wetlands Permit to construct his new home within 100' of a designated wetlands. Case No. ��— /O CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING REQUEST `q Date of 'Application 1 Fee Paid Applicant I �! Name: Lja_st` r first F �O �l f' 1 ,� W Ob1 S� 1 0, Lk initial-,Address:— F Number & Street City State Zip nr . ,'-Telephone Number: • ,Owner hCCVNN ' Name: Last First Initial '... Address: Number & Street City State Zip Street Location of Pro t in Question: Legal Description of Property: ,Type of Request: Rezoning Variance Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit for P.U.D. Minor.Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval Plan Approval Wetlands Permit Other Applicable City Ordinance Number 1 -ID Z, Section 2, Present -Zoning of Property: 1 P� Present Use of Property: ` ' ;Pr posed Zoning of Property: " t Proposed Use of Property: J �f; Number of people intended to live or work on premises: I hereby declare that all statements made in this ;reques and o the additional material are true. Signature bf Applicant! `/ Date Received Py (title)+ , , NOTE: The following plans shall be drawn and attached to this application: A. Applications involving a Variance shall submit the following plans: Date Received Initial I. Site Development Plan 2. Dimension Plan 3. Landscape Plan 4. Grading Plan ' 1Vily..- B. Applications involving a Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit or Subdivision shall submit the following: 1. Sketch Plan 2. Abstractors Certificate (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 operation Vor proposed physical changes. 1'/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. V3. A detailed site plan of the proposal showing proposed drainage, grading & landscaping '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 site. 117VAAEL NCB Z SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 84098 JOB NUMBER STANDARD SYMBOLS 24 28 23 SEC/TWP/RN oe Isaac LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 5300 HIGHWAY 101 SOUTH MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55303 Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug CLIENT bearing State Registration No. 9235, set. The West 131.5 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, T.T. SMITH'S SUBDIVISION No. 2 6/28/84 DATE REVISED 4/17/84 DATE SURVEYED 4/30/84 DATE DRAFTED 30 SCALE IN FEET PER INCH PROPOSED ELEVATJONS: 914.5 FIRST FLOOR 913.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION 906.0 GARAGE FLOOR 905.6 LOWEST' FLOOR 894.94 at manhole SANITARY SEWER 905.88 BENCHMARK ELEVATION BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: Top of manhole as shown "0" Denotes iron monument found. "+" Denotes cross chiseled in concrete surface. "982x5" Denotes existing spot elevation measured at the point marked by "x", in this case, 982.5 feet above mean sea level. "982x5" Denotes proposed spot elevation at the point marked by "x". >" Denotes proposed direction of storm water runoff. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this plan, survey,.report or specification was prepared by me and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Prof sional Engineer under the L sof the State f Minnesota. " / ! J4mes H. Parker, Minn. Reg. No. 9235 e05.6 904.37 in v. Macho% <Beach,t�%rk� 7-0905.58 o 0 M 9 \ Inv. 9065`6.00 tu 0 i f o c 9p i 1 PROPOS 11%0.01 GARAGE 1 I PROPOSE !! 1 I }�� 1 // / I►� C' /DWELLING g� / N 90a- 1 .1 0902.9/11 I V.I l 907. 1 T Q -- y / 31.0 — 0�__{� IG t—�-__ �3—--fr2o3T� o iP. Gas "aa -03 Flag, o -r II� ^C► 902 0 I f N } or oG Drainage Qr,;0ell, �� C 1 �' �Sovfh /Ine ofL 0otl 2x10�� T'x40 - 901M9v 1902\ j+ 900 x0°-J �9 0 So a STR M /l/or,`h Awe cf L ct 2 g0� 906.•35 0671 � 0�oa 9 O'9 ---131.05 --- km f2VnTCf%U 1s no E%nQ n RTInRl '' •+, LUG 01 I{ptIIN(, I:U..�`- �',`' � GEC.40 N.Q:, .2269 VERTICAL SCALE: 1"•7• a raalecT:ra ` Y `PROPOSED RESIDENCE, FOURTH AVENUE, MENDOTA HEIGHTS, r"',! DEPTH, in t' 96.3 SURFACE ELEVATION: N W9 SAIAPLf 3A Pc F IFLD )'LADUIIA IUl{v, I I S�Is MC. DEN L L �= . FEET DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION GEOLOGY Tv!'L CLAY, roots, slightly organic, 4 ? SS 10 1- black, (CL), TOPSOIL j 2- 4 ? SS 12 3 - Y SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, WEATHERED with a trace of gravel, mottled SOIL 4_. gray & dark brown, light brown, or (slightly plastic -SM) GLACIAL 5 Y SS 6 5_ TILL 6- or FILL "o 7, SILTY SAND, fine grained, with a ' trace 'of gravel , dark ' brown, 5 Y SS 2 8- (,nonplastic -SM) GLACIAL TILL 9_ 7 Y SS 10 ,''"'•r'' ' •• '12 — _ � �I , ,.. � ,L' , � _.. I . y 1 ' .. f 1• + � by •'�"�-�, �'ti ' 7 Y SS 12 ' '13— ' SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, 14- wi th, a trace of gravel, gray, .F brown, (nonplastic -SM) A 15_ ,mottled 0 Y SS 10 ; 16- ND OF BORIN 17— 7-18-21 Is- 20- 21— DEPTH DRILLING METHOD WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO ' • ' t *SAMPLED CASING CAVE-IN DRILLING WATER 0-143,; HSA s DATE': -TIME DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH MUD LEVEL • LEVEL THE ATTACHED " 9/10 "11 16 16 ! SHEETS FOR AN-" , EXPLANATION QF s ' , TERMINOUl�O0Y 9/10 ' 11:28 16 0 12.5 wpt `BORING 9/10/79 3 '9 :16 COMPLETED: ill 10 11 23 ON THIs`ioc ;. .0 H Dlr Rig; , ' • M JM 45 •.. '��. �' ., .35E �', •, , GEC #2269 I ® Boring,Number & Location -- — Proposed Building Lines Bench Mark Manhole on Centerline Assumed Elevation - 100.0 South Edge of Asphalt 4th Avenue i 40 50, i 25'� #1 ® rAL E, - CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director and Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer June 20, 1984 SUBJECT: Wetlands Permit - Isaac Case No. 84-10 HISTORY: This lot was created in 1977 by rearranging some lot lines of existing platted lots. It was acknowledged at the time this lot split was approved that there was a drainage way running down the middle of the lot and an easement was created. It was also noted that future wetlands permits would need to be obtained at the time home were constructed. (See back) DISCUSSION• Applicant has set his proposed house in compliance with the zoning ordinance but the home is within 100 feet of a drainage way as indicated in the City's Wetlands Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: As of this,�date applicant has not paid the wetlands permit fee. Subject to receipt of that fee staff would recommend approval of the requested wet- lands permit. C-,, 1-ty of ,/Yletidwtrr }{ei3/Its BANK -'BUILDING 750 SOUTH PLAZA DRIVE • MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA 55120 TELEPHONE (612) 452-1850 August 3, 1977 Mrs. J.M. Schneider 3149 Military Road Newport, Minnesota 55055 Re: Subdivision Dear Mrs. Schneider: This will advise that the City Council, by a four to one vote, approved your subdivision and accepted the $500 park contribution. There was a considerable amount of discussion concerning the Wetlands Ordinance and its application to this property. It was acknowledged by all that the waterway will require additional discussion by the Council when building permits are requested,'Fherefore, it would be helpful to all concerned if you advise any future buyers that additional ordinance requirements will be necessary prior to house construction. I am enclosing a copy of assessment figures prepared by our engineer, assessments relating to previously installed sewer and water improvements. These amounts will be certified to the County Auditor in the near future unless they are paid here in the office prior to September 30. In addition, the Council will be adopting an assessment roll relating to other improvements on Fourth Avenue, and these figures are also shown as 1976 improvements and the associated amounts. Very truly yours _ i Orvil J. hnson City Administrator OJJ:kms ' A of PLANNING REPORT DATE: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT:* LOCATION: ACTION REQUESTED: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: t 26 June 1984 84-10 Joseph Isaacs South of Fourth Avenue, Westerly of Dodd Road Approval of Wetlands Permit 1. One of the basic requirements of the Wetlands Ordinance adopted by the City of Mendota Heights about 12 years ago, requires that development improvement be kept a minimum of 100 foot distance from the center line of drainage courses, ponding areas, lakes, etc. When dealing with development in open country, we are often able to achieve this standards and frequently exceed it. However, -in the case of existing platted areas, it is often a significant hardship to attempt to maintain that standards. in some case, in fact, existing lots and frontage along established roadways would-be undevelopable. 2. Such is the case here in the application on the part of Mr. Isaacs. This land was platted a couple of years ago having taken the larger lot which included the red house on the corner' (southwest corner of Fourth and Dodd• Road) and platted it into three lots. This lot is the westerly most lot of those three. It has a frontage of 131.05 feet and when the land was platted, it was realized that a variance to the Wetland Ordinance would be necessary to develop this lot inasmuch as there is an existing drainage stream running approximately through the center of the'lot (east -west). 3. The Isaacs propose to build a new house setback the required 30 feet from Fourth Avenue. The house will have a depth of 26 feet. This will place the rear of the house a minimum of 32 feet from the drainage course. 4. Attached is a copy of a site plan prepared by the applicant showing the existing and proposed contours of the site. It would appear that the applicants have attempted to keep the home as far from the wetlands as possible, inasmuch as a 26 foot deep house is not excessive. Rarely is a home constructed with less than 24 feet of depth and more normally homes are constructed 32 feet and deeper. These dimensions are popular because two 2xl2s, twelve feet long will produce a 24 feet deep house (with a center beam in the basement). If you go to 2x6s, then these will span 16 feet, producing a 32 foot home. 5. Attached also are copies of soils reports, and elevations of the home which we believe will be available for attachment to this report. 0 13 ON 0 7 o OMIT • +� s c t0. 22 0 137.S4 a ' c, O s p V p p IS 200.54 O h l as 12 too ' 8 0 6 0' 9 7 7 c s« L! 0. h 13 E 147. o 0 o 5 ry a P� N Wa 3 aoI $3��2o 209. 4 0 HmAs'� t3 E. « I iwoo r �b ap a 7 sa y - o 39j� 01 1 Z 160.00 60 _too 174.2e) 4 r� A ENDO J3N INIU Subject Property Z .o C ND O I ;41 is /4 13 /L •11 a -Y1 7 L Z V R E UI D N 77 7 /1 © Z! ZL 24 is 24 S/ M s! 4 ' M• firiis I^W."Y ALIACE 42ADA - 1 .Sch�/7Z c/ate 4011 t IiAW 14 c , �a4A9y�-A �6�9 c- o•si Ate, - °� �C � - ; ,, I W177 J 8 Grace S 7z Or'd A. Co//ifo� A(iffc/ 41(Z_ � d Lois ohn.�on � � Q A 8 G..� Qo�/7/c/ ✓ �C ,�osC l S 9/ ,qc • i Schd r.E dbzQ3-A 1 DURAV4T W.kJANE-r Q �0 a 1 - ; MANAE K 34 - a 2(.-Lai-C.,} ' G Bec//`dam - a 2c:xo3 -Az ,s , AR6AR.Er A. • - 1 — 't KLEIDlS DatrA y F+ALm4 K. i DEREwF ; 2, OS -B t �d q� _/a', 3,6 North 1 x:200' - Loft-�' �i�.. •- •c2 1 i /DVANCE- 5300 HIGHWAY 101 SOUTH MINNETONKA. MINNESOTA 55343 SURVEYING d ENGINEERING CO. 84098 JOB NUMBER STANDARD SYMBOLS 24 28 23 SEC/TWP/RN Denotes 112" ID pipe with plastic plug Joe Isaac CLIENT bearing State Registration No. 9235, set. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: "•" Denotes iron monument found. The West 131.5 feet of Lots 1 and 2, ,,,, Block 4, T.T. SMITH'S SUBDIVISION No. 2 Denotes cross chiseled in concrete surface. 4/17/84 DATE SURVEYED 4/30/84 DATE DRAFTED 30 SCALE IN FEET PER INCH PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: 914.5 FIRST FLOOR 913.5 TOP OF FOUNDATION 906.0 GARAGE FLOOR 905.6 LOWEST FLOOR 894.94 at manhole SANITARY SEWER 905.88 BENCHMARK ELEVATION BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION: Top of manhole as shown "982x5" Denotes* existing spot elevation measured at the point marked by "x", in this case, 982.5 feet above mean sea level. "982x5" Denotes proposed spot elevation at the point marked by "x". Denotes proposed direction of storm water runoff. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this pian, survey, report or specification was prepared by me and that I am.a duly Registered Land Surveyor and Prof sional Engineer under the L�yvs of the State7i, Minnesota. \ _ _ . / H. Parker, Minn. Reg. No. 9235 ..: _ .. �.-e05.6 GEC #2269 ® Boring Number 6 Location Proposed Building Lines Bench Mark Manhole on Centerline Assumed Elevation - 100.0 4th -Avenue 30' 50'-- - - - 40' - --� #2 25' South Edge of Asphalt i 'GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION — 41C JOB NO: -2269 VERTICAL SCALE" t•• •:1• L 0(; <u 11M41 1, NO 1 .a 4ROJECT: PROPOSED RESIDENCE, FOURTH AVENUE= MENDOTA HEIGH S i 96.3 f IELU . i.AUUIIA I()11Y "l l Sly OE►TH, SURFACE ELEVATION: tinr.tl�l.f _ _ N W In B 'C Tvl•l rtt� L L. - FEET DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION GEOLOGY MC DENi 0 CLAY, roots, slightly organic, 4 ? SS 10 black, (CL) TOPSOIL + ru 4 ? SS 12 3- Y SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, WEATHERED 4_. with a trace of gravel, mottled SOIL gray & dark brown, light brown, or 5- (slightly plastic -SM) GLACIAL 5 Y SS 6 , TILL 6- or FILL SILTY SAND, fine-grained, with a 5 Y SS 2 ? B_ trace -of gravel, dark brown, (nonplastic -SM) GLACIAL 9 - TILL 7 Y SS 10 - 12 - 7 •Y SS 12 SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained, 14_ with a trace of gravel, gray, mottled brown, (nonplastic -SM) 15— 0 Y SS 10 1�- ND OF BORIN 17— . 1B 20 - V o - V — DEPTH DRILLING METHOD -102-: HSA i BORING COMPLETED: 9/10/79 11: :C : • MH D1r : JM Rig: 45 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN r EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG - GATE TIME SAMPLED DEPTH CASING DEPTH CAVE-IN DEPTH DRILLING MUD LEVEL WATER LEVEL 9/10 11:16 16 14', _ 9/10 11:28 16 0 1 Wpt 9/10 11:23 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO July 5, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer and James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Lerman --Critical Area Ordinance Review nrcriiccrnm- Staff has received an application for a critical area site plan review for a pool to be installed in the rear half of the Lerman property located at 1645 James Rd., (L-25 B-3 Tilsens Highland Heights Plat 3). The -Lerman property falls within the boundary of the River Corridor Critical Area, therefore requires council approval of the site plan. In the case of minor development or a change involving a Single Family Dwelling and if the site plan conforms to the standards of the Critical Area Ordinance,_City Council has the right to waive the Planning Commission review and hearing. Staff has reviewed Lermans application and finds that it does conform to the standards of the Critical Area Ordinance. NOTE: Applicant will be unable to attend council meetings. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends council waive Planning Commission review and public hearing and grant approval of the site plan as presented and allow the Code Enforcement Officer to issue the pool permit when it is applied for. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs with staff recommendation, they should pass a motion waiving the Planning Commission review and public hearing and approve the swimming pool site plan. Case No. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Dakota County, Minnesota CAO APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF CRITICAL AREA DEVELOPMENT (Ordinance NO. 403) Date of Application ei - ZQ-.p Fee Paid 4 loo.00 Receipt Number \ \ �.p r-5,�4' Applicant : / 6(- � Name: ,� ,J (� / (-V/,o Last First Initial Address : G r'4S /y, Number & Street City State Zip Code Phone: Home Work Owner : � Name : JCZ Me__ Last First Initial Address: Number & Street City State Zip Code i u Street Location of Property in Question: Legal Description of Property: �oT Is- 3 3 Type of Request: Variance Site Plan•Approval Modified Site -Plan Approval X Crilica� 4rea_ ®Rb. /lea 1 c- kL) r Present Zoning of Property:_ Present Use of Property: �N\ Proposed Use of Property: I hereby declare that all statements made in this request and on the additional, material are.true. sin urel Ap licant Date Received by (title) Note: The following information shall be provided in the site plan: 1. Location of the property, including such information as the name and numbers of adjoining roads, railroads, existing subdivisions, or other landmarks. 2. The name and address of the owner(s) or developer('s),"the section, township, range, north point, date, and scale of drawings, and number of sheets. 3. Existing topography as indicated on a contour map having a contour interval no -greater than two (2) feet per contour; the contour map shall also clearly delineate any bluff line, all.streams, including intermittent streams and swales," rivers, water bodies, and•wetlands located on the site. 4. A plan delineating the existing drainage of the water setting forth in which direction the volume, and at what rate the storm water is conveyed from the site in setting forth those areas on the site where storm water collects and is gradually percolated into the ground or slowly released to stream or lake. 5. A description of the soils on the site including a map indicating soil types by areas to be disturbed as well as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable. All areas proposed for grading shall be identified by soil type, both as°to soil type of existing top soil and soil type of the new contour. The location and extent of any erosion areas shall be included in the soils description. 6. A description.of the flora and fauna, which occupy the site or are occasionally found thereon, setting forth with detail those areas where unique plant or animal species may be found on the site. .1 r iN�a = yo"Po c I S 5 ;L f► r CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO' July 5, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council.'. and City Administrator' - FROM: Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Office and James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Tempco Addition INTRODUCTION -- Mr. Willard Weikle of Earl Weikle and Sons has submitted plans and permit application requesting a building permit to construct a 34,250 square foot addition to the Tempco building located at 2475 Highway #55. The proposed addition will contain manufacturing and sanitation facilities. The addition will be of the same construction as the existing building. DISCUSSION --,.Police and fire recommended that there be an access provided to the site on the west side of the new addition to facilitate better fire department and truck dock access. The site plan was changed to allow for the police and fire departments request. The site plan meets the city requirement to show existing and and proposed grades and has provision for surface drainage, however, the grades and drainage provisions are questionable. Some example of the -staff's more serious concerns are: Vf , 1. Grading adjacent to the building is over the floor and door elevations in some places. 2. The storm catch basin by the over head doors on the north is only 6 inches below the floor elevation and during heavy rains or when the drain gets plugged water will enter the building. 3. There doesn't appear to be enough elevation to get fall from the catch basin in the north of the building to the connection in the street. The contractor who made the application and submitted these plans was mate aware of the staff's concerns and refused to make any changes. He adamently maintains that these details are none of the city's busingss. I have reviewed the building code and other pertinent zoning ordinance requirements and find them to meet the minimum standards as set forth in building code and zoning ordinance. RECOMMENDATION -- Staff would recommend approval of the permit subject to en- gineering department satisfaction with grading and drainage and proper licensing of subcontractors. ACTION REQUIRED -- If City Council wishes to approve the permit as requested upon completion of their review they should pass a motion approving the plan and authorize•a permit to be issued by the Code Enforcement Officer. SITE DATA BUILDING. ADDITION IWIF �µ x co � � O K' IIsi `� • EMPLOYEE PAmMq-' a •. - \�. +- 577 4� l .. .�IAv p.G ''\•\. i i exiso I �*• s r.."- ^w.�.-tee �- '1 HAINIioNhWZ. ph+lb. - , -. •:j'�� . '..� '.t; .�,,.4 ; :.. , ' �.ZiSW. �nR�tl: 7ltA•'h,r. �9bg1?. .smo N't { �f+•ro s.s psubs. MENDOTA HEIGHTS ROAD •141 �+,te�aa {Sy ;� SITE PLAN JUN 131884 w ' Q -- 17 -..q.. ��� ••�� .r • ice^' �.,�� . WEST ELEVATION v I ❑ O ❑ ❑ © ❑ m _ = u ! NORTH ELEVATION Y WY•/ A. 3t• _ 1 .. .�. ®_zrr� SOUTH ELEVATION t e SECTION EXISTING MANLIFACTUFUNG BULDNQ MANYF I i4- mom. GPRum .K, Us n FLOOR PLAN CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO July 5, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and,City Administrator FROM: Edward F. Kishel City Engineer SUBJECT: Garron Corporation Feasibility Report Gould Battery - Mendota Bridge Site INTRODUCTION: - The Gould Battery Company property site adjacent to Acacia Cemetery, in;: the vicinity of the Mendota Bridge, has been the subject of discussion for development by numerous persons in the past several years. The lack of ready sanitary sewer and water facilities has been the usual reason for non -development to date. DISCUSSION: Recently Garron Corporation has shown interest in developing the site for a Corporate Headquarters Building and is requesting a feasibility study to determine how utilities can be installed to serve such a facility. The property is zoned,B-1A and the developers are proposing a 100,000 square foot structure. They have discussed the matter with Howard and Jim and are aware af the various city requirements. They have been informed that a $5000 escrow is required. Larry indicates that the balance of study costs will come from T.I.F. funds. Attached is a copy of a formal request for the feasibility study. It is staff's opinion that this feasibility study will be extensive. It will probably require a sewage lift station and the extension of a looped water line from Pilot Knob Road to Lexington Ave. and may involve cooperation with Mn/DOT in their reconstruction of Highways 13, 55 and 110 in the vicinity of the Mendota Bridge. It should also include the possibility of providing utilities to serve the Furlong addition and vicinity. The developers are requesting that a study be completed in the next 90 days so that they may commence building construction in 1985. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a feasibility report be prepared to study providing public utilities to serve the Gould Site as requested. It recommends that the report include all unserved areas in that part of the city, including a watermain loop to Lexington Avenue or equivalent location. 4L . ACTION REQUIRED: If Council approves Staff recommendation, it shall direct Staff to do so after receipt of the suggested escrow. r CORPORATION I,gBfi June 29, 1984 Mr. Kevin Frazell City Administrator City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Kevin: I would like to request a feasibility study for availability of sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, street, and other required utilities to serve the Gould Site situated at the south end of the Mendota Heights Bridge. I would further request that the study be completed as soon as possible. Attached is a location plan of the site. Sincere ,_` GARR N CORRATION Steven E. Gluge President SEG/ala cc: Don Patton 7336 OHMS LANE • EOINA, MINNESOTA 55435 • 612/631-4000 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS f MEMO June 27, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and Citnistrator FROM: Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Sign Permit for 2360 Pilot Knob Road INTRODUCTION _ Mr. James Hanson, Project Engineer for the Target Stores, has submitted a site plan, drawing and a sign permit applicati6n requesting approval to install an identification sign at 2360 Pilot Knob Road. DISCUSSION The proposed sign will contain nine (9) square feet. (4'6" Long 2' High). The sign will be five (5) feet from grade to the top of the sign. (See attached drawing). The sign setback will be 40' from the right-of-way line adjacent to Pilot Knob Road. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend approval of the requested sign permit subject to proper licensing of the sign contractor since the sign meets City setback requirements and does not exceed the maximum allowable square footage for signs in the "I" Zone. Attachment Z 3 to O PILO T AM)LG pON O L -1 M A /N T/4R(;Z r FAcrz-1 Tif'S ln' 2360 PILOT ,eN,0A 7Aa MENDO r� ,VTS, l 1At�V a o TA RGET N DISTRIBUTION CENTER 2360 PILOT KNOB ROAD a o • Mf:TAI. 4-,104 fpAlNTw<,fl"Al�i • W L4r.*o f Pf Az . TAKT oN VtlTa GHQ �RCV�N 0 6" A NDN ! 1_pm 511�N n N CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 28, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Northland Land Company - Mining Permit DISCUSSION• Northland Land Company was granted a conditional use permit to remove 300,000 cubic yards of fill adjacent to I-494 at the May 15, 1984 City Council meeting. This approval was granted conditioned upon Northland and their contractor executing a Developer's Agreement with the City addressing some items of concern. That agreement was drafted and has now been executed by Northland and Shafer Contracting. (Copy attached) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve the Developer's Agreement concerning fill removal from the Mendota Heights Business Park in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council wishes to implement staff's recommendation they should pass a motion authorizing the Mayor and Administrator to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. • DELOPER' S AGREEMENT CONCEFcN L -ENO F ILL k EI,iOVAL FROM THE MENDOTA HEIGHTS BUSINESS PARK IN MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA This Aareement, made and entered into this day of 1984, by and between. the City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, (hereinafter referred to as "Citi-"), and Northland Land Company, a corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with add._ess at 350G ;vest RGtr, Street, Mir eaoolis, Minnesota, 55431 (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and Shaer Contracting Co., Inc., a Minnesota corporation, with address at Shafer, Minnesota, 55074 (hereinafter referred to as "Developer"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Developer proposes to remove approximately 300,000 cubic yards of dirt and fill from Owner's Mendota Heights Business Park and adjacent lands; and = WHEREAS, Developer and Owner with resect to said removal Developer Agreement"), and have entered into an agreement dated June 12, 1984 ("Owner - WHEREAS, the City has an interest in causing this project to be completed as approved by City Council action. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties as follows: 1. Developer agrees to remove fill and grade the subject area in accordance with the Grading Plan as approved by the City Council and attached hereto (Exhibit A). In the grading of the area, measures shall be taken to prevent any deleterious results to adjacent City streets. Topsoil shall be placed on all disturbed areas upon completion of grading. Seeding shall be accomplished to establish a cover of vegetation as soon possible after grading. The Project shall commence in June 1984 and shall be completed by August 1, 1985. It is contemplated that the project shall consist of 2 phases. The first phase consisting of the grading of Area 1 on Exhibit A and the second phase consisting of the grading of Area 2 on Exhibit A. 2. The Developer and his agents shall use extreme care during the grading process (which includes proper timing of restoration, seeding and erosion control) to protect and maintain existing: a. Private land characteristics; b. Public land characteristics; c. Public inves:,,tents such as sewer and water mains, street surfacing, curb and gutters and storm sewer facilities. Any deterioration of public property due to Erosion, silting, soil deposition or degradation shall be corrected immediately upon written direction from the Public Works Director. 3. The Developer and his successors and assians, s�:all indemnify and hold the City and Owner harmless from and against anv and all liability, claims, damages, causes or causes of action by third parties, or other costs and expenses, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by the City arising out of, relating or in connection with this Agreement. 4. The Developer shall deposit with the City prior to commencement of each phase a performance, materials and labor security satisfactory to the City and Owner; to guarantee completion of the work required of the Developer by each phase of the project as set forth herein and in the Owner-DeveloDer Agreement, and also guaranteeing the payment for all materials and labor costs incurred in conjunction with the work. The amount of the security shall be for 125% of the estimated cost of the work for each phase and as approved by the City Engineer's Office. Said security shall be for the joint and several benefit of the City and Owner. 5. It is acknowledged and commenced only if required by the the Owner -Developer Agreement), does commence Phase 2 all terms CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Robert G. Lockwood, Mayor Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator IWAI understood that Phase 2 shall be needs of Developer (pursuant to provided however, if Developer of this Agreement shall apply. SHAFER CONTRACTING CO., INC_, BY Its NORTHLAND LAND COMPANY 9 e - CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 27, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council FROM: Edward F. Kishel City Engineer City Ad n and i Rfi i;strator n C SUBJECT: Admendment to Easement Agreement Job No. 8303 Improvement No. 83, Project No. 2 INTRODUCTION: As a part of the installation of watermains to serve Riverwood Place (Strub) along State Trunk Highway 13, it was necessary for*lhe Developer to provide a site survey of the platted area. In so doing, certain in- accuracies were discovered which made easement desciptions obtained from Northern States Power Company in 1967 for sanitary sewer installtion no longer valid. DISCUSSION: When the errors were discovered, staff contacted the Real Estate Division of Northern States Power Company and together worked out amended discription-s to describe the easements over which the sewers are located, a matter of about 10 to 12 feet from originally described locations. Northern States Power Company has prepared the Amendment to Easement Agreement, amending the 1967 easement on file in the County Recorder's office. RECOMMENDATION: Staff now concurs that the amended easements are accurate and proper and herewith recommend Council approval. ACTIO14 REQUIRED: If Council concurs with the staff recommendation, it should adopt the attached Resolution No. 84- , Resolution Approving An Amendment to an Easement Agreement for the Installation of Sanitary Sewers as Part of Im- provement No. 4, Project No. 7B. authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to endorse the Amendment to Easement Agreement, also attached. This will permit Staff to proceed with recording the Document and to provide Northern States Power Company with proof thereof. City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 84 - RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT - FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SANITARY SEWERS AS PART OF IMPROVE- MENT NO. 4, PROJECT NO. 7B WHEREAS, the City Engineer has determined that a land description under Parcel Three in a certain Easement Agreement between Northern States Power Company and the Village (now City) of Mendota Heights, dated December 15, 1967, and recorded February 16, 1968 in Book 82 of M.R., Page 118 as Docu- ment No. 346267_ with the Dakota. -County Recorder, is technically in error; and WHEREAS, an amendment to Easement Agreement has been prepared correcting the technical error. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: " 1. That the Amendment to Easement -Agreement, dated June 12, 1984, by hereby in all respects approved. 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to endorse said Agreement. 3. That Staff be directed to have the approved Agreement duly re- corded in the office of the County Recorder. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 10th day of July, 1984:. e CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By VRobert G. Lockwood, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk t City of Mendota Heights Dakota County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 84 - RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MONTHLY COMPENSATION FOR ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF POSITIONS WHEREAS, the City Council=has recently appointed Mr. William Lerbs and Mr. John Maczko as Assistant Fire Chiefs; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish rates of compensation for these positions. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, that the following monthly salaries be implemented, effective on the date shown. Employee Monthly Effective Salary Date William Lerbs $172 May 1, 1984 John Maczko $172 July 1, 1984 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 10th day of July, 1984. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS b - _ By _ Robert G. Lockwood, Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson, City Clerk 2 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 26, 1984 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator SUBJECT: Assistant Fire Chief Position - At the meeting of May 1, 1984, Council voted to appoint William Lerbs as Assistant Fire Chief. At the special meeting of June 20 , 1984, Council voted to appoint John Maczko as 2nd Assistant Chief, with the understanding that the rate of pay would be the same. As pay for permanent part-time employees is set by resolution, Council should pass the attached resolution clarifying the pay for these two positions. The $172 per month is the same figure as was set for the As'aistant Chief's compensation at the beginning of the year. Budget Impact 1984 expenditures for the 2nd Assistant Chief will be $1032. The unbudgeted expense will be somewhat offset by the call out pay Mr. Maczko would otherwise have received. As salary expenses in the Fire Department are speculative at best anyway, I recommend that Council take no action on appropriations at this time, but simply recognize that a modest over expenditure may be created. Action Required Motion to approve the attached resolution. Respectfully ubmitted, . IV, ?�/ Kevin D. Frazell, City Administrator. 1 •- CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO July 5, 1984 TO: Majior, City Council and City Administrator FROM: LeRoy Noack Fire Chief and James E. Danielson Acting City Administrator SUBJECT: New Hose for Fire Department nTCt'lICCTnKI. In 1984 the Fire Department budgeted $9800 for hoses and nozzles, $2176.43 of that amount has been spent for nozzles. Chief Noack now requests Council authorization to spend up to $5000 for hoses. He would use that amount to purchase hoses through the Seven County Joint Purchasing Agreement. The hose he would like to purchase .is: 11 1 1000 ft. of 4 inch diameter hose at $3.48/ft. _ $3480 1100 ft. of 12inch diameter hos-e at $1.00/ft. = $1100 TOTAL $4580 The reason he requests an amount "up to $5000" is that the 12 inch hose now available is Pond Supreme and Chief Noack prefers Bilateral which is slightly more expensive. If Bilateral hose should become available, he would like to be able to purchase that brand in lieu of the Pond Supreme. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council authorize Chief Noack to expend up to $5000 for new hose with the money to be made available from equipment certificates. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council wishes to implement staff request, it should pass a motion authorizing the expenditure. ' • MEMORANDUM June 21, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council, City A nistrator FROM: Dennis J. Delmont, Chief of Police,,' SUBJECT: Purchase Authorization II I have learned that the 3M brand Opticom Emitter that we planned to purchase later this year will rise in price by 10% in August, 1984. Request authori- zation to purchase one (1) Opticom Emitter for the City's pfimary Police Squad in July, 1984. Funds of $1,300.00 are noted in 1984 CIP Program Sheet. Current Cost $1,205.00 August, 1984 $1,325.00 -approximate DJD:cb CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 28, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City AdmiAstr-ator FROM: Larry Shaughnessy, Treasurer SUBJECT: IR Bond Entitlement INTRODUCTION The U.S. Congress has passed a bill (HR -4170) which will impose several limitations on local communities which wish to issue( Industrial Revenue Bonds. The State of Minnesota, in anticipation of such limitations, -has adopted a Statute (Chapter 582) which will set up an allocation procedure for any authority limit granted the State under the Federal legislation. HISTORY The State Chapter provides that the State will receive the first $100,000,000 ,of an allocation. Eighty percent of the remaining allocation will be allocated to "Entitlement" communities with the balance to be divided by requests. Under ,the law, Mendota Heights would qualify as an Entitlement Community. That is, ,a municipality which has an average in three of the past four years issued in excess of $1,000,000 in IRB Bonds. The balance of the funds go to a pool from which the State will allocate assuring authority based on 19 qualifying points. To qualify as an Entitlement Community, we certified prior to May 29 with the Department of Energy and Economic Development our qualifications. We have received an initial allocation'of $3,065,000 and will now recertify based on the finally adopted Federal Legislation. Based on the final law, we can expect our final allocation to be somewhat higher than the initial certification. We have to August 31 to commit the Entitlement to a proposed user. The Entitlement can be retained after that date by payment of a fee of 1 percent of the principal amount. If by August 15 we do not have a user lined up, we could authorize payment of the fee from the IR Fund with the stipulation that the user reimburse the City when an issue is approved. ACTION None at th potential users s time, except guidance as to distribution of the information to of the Entitlement. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO July 6, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council, City Administrator FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Liquor Ordinance INTRODUCTION: The liquor ordinance has been re -drafted to reflect the May 15th Council concensus on several issues. The size/seating requirements were not resolved on that date, and further research has since been conducted. By this memo we will make recommendations on those requirements, additional off -sale require- ments and support a recommendation from our legal counsel. BACKGROUND In the most recent liquor memo we addressed the dining room size and seating requirement for on -sale licenses by making comparisons of familiar establishments. The examples in some cases used overall structure size and in other cases used seating examples. We have been unable to break out information on dining room area from total square footage because the infor- mation is not required by other communities. We have therefore taken a different approach to making a recommendation. On its liquor license application, the City of Bloomington requires on - sale applicants to attest that the structure being licensed provides a restaurant dining area of 1200 square feet with provisions for seating a minimum of 50 persons. While the base equals to 24 square feet per person, there is no "sliding scale" in the requirement. That is to say, as an example, there is no requirement that 1224 square feet be provided for 51 people. Bloomington requires that structures on the I-494 strip be a minimum of 10,000 square feet, but it does not stipulate how much of that size be dedicated to dining area. With regard to hotel/motel operations, Bloomington requires 900 square feet of dining area with a minimum of 30 person seating. In order to present a reasonable recommendation which would provide for desirable overall facility size, we have chosen to use the Uniform Building Code as a basic tool, making some informed assumptions on space needed for service area, bar area and other overall facility space needs. The Building Code requires that restaurants maintain a dining room _y seating area of 15 square feet per person. The liquor ordinance requires minimum seating for 200 people. We propose that a facility of 8,000 square feet would be the minimum desirable size. The total structure size would then be 2,000 square feet less in size than those on Bloomington's strip, (which are regulated by zoning, not liquor ordinance requirements), and I 4' . , 2000 square feet larger than Ground Round and Senior T's in West St. Paul. We are informed that approximately 50% of a restaurant facility which serves liquor is required for service area, bar, storage, waiting area, etc. If our information is correct, a requirement of 4,000 square feed of dining area would present a similar service area size need, resulting in a minimum 8,000 square foot facility size, much greater than Bloomington's 1200 square feet dining area liquor ordinance requirements, and, at a basic minimum of 20 square feet per person (4000:200), Building Code's 15 square feet and Bloomington's basic 24 square feet space requirement per diner. The May 15th draft ordinance required hotel/motel restaurant size and seating area of 2,000 square feet for 100 diners. It also required that on -sale wine licensees provide a minimum dining room area of 2,000 square feet for 50 diners. It seems appropriate that the 20 square feet per person allocation recommended above for restaurants should be also applied to hotel/motel and on -sale wine establishments. No change is necessary with regard to hotels, however, I believe that in the case of on -sale wine licensees, either the minimum seating capacity (50 person) should be increased or the dining room area should be reduced. The type of operation that I would anticipate requesting such a license would be a small, ethnic food facility, 1 which could perhaps be located in the shopping center. Given the type of operation I envision, it seems to me that 50 person seating and 1,000 square feet of dining area is realistic. Consideration of the off -sale facility space requirement recommendation has taken a considerably different slant from what I had anticipated in the May 11th liquor memo. In order to arrive at a recommendation, I contacted the managers of four facilities with the following results: The Cellar (So. Robert St., W. St. Paul) 3000 sq. ft. sales/display area Beverage Barn (Village Square Shopping Center, Inver Grove Heights) 2500 sq. -ft. total area Cedarval-e-.Liquors, Eagan 4800 -sq. f. sales/display area Booze Mart (Thompson Ave., W. St. Paul) 4000 sq. ft. sales/display/storage (Main floor level) 2500 sq. ft. addition under con- struction Our draft ordinance requires 3,000 square feet of sales/display area and 1500 square feet of storage area. Of the four facilities surveyed, only the Beverage Barn is located within a shopping center, and it is also the smallest facility. It seems to me that the largest concern over reducing the facility size requirement from 3000/1500 square feet is the potential for caselot storage and aisle -clutter in the display/sales area,. In order to resolve such, problems before they occur, we have provided additional language in a new section, 11.20, which stipulates that display area caselot st ill not he�ermitted-a nd that three foot traffic aisles mus a maintained at all times. In consideration of this new language, we have reduced the display/ sales area to 2000 square feet with a requirement for 500 square feet of non -display area storage. INFORMATION: We have, received a several -page ordinance review from attorney Dave Moran of the City Attorney's Office. In his letter, Mr. Moran suggested a number of manor technical changes which are all incorporated into the attached final draft. Mr. Moran suggested also that Section 1.8, Minor, be changed to stipu- late age 21 rather than 19, anticipating adoption of pending federal legis- lation to require states to raise the legal drinking age. Dave cites an Attorney General's opinion which provides that where a municipality sets a higher drinking age than does state law, state law prevails. I agree with his logic that by establishing a drinking age of 21 we will not be required to amend the ordinance to raise the age shortly after its passage. The draft ordinance has been adjusted to reflect Attorney Moran's recommendation. If Council determines that the liquor ordinance is in acceptable form and concurs in our recommendation that it be adopted, the provisions will become effective after an ordinance summary has been published. After ordinance adoption, staff will be in a position to develop and print the multi -page application forms necessary for each type of license required by the ordinance. I am anticipating that preparation and printing will take at least four weeks, consequently the effectiveness of the ordinance will be delayed beyond its publication date. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend Council approval of the following ordinance changes: 1. On -sale restaurant minimum dining area/seating requirements of 4,000 square feet and 200 persons respectively; 2. Off -sale minimum space requirements of 2,000 square feet for sales and display areas and 500 additional square feet of storage area; 3. On -sale wine minimum dining area size and seating of 1,000 square feet for 50 people; 4. A change in the definition of minor to reflect age 21; 5. Concurrence with the language of New Section 11.20. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council concurs that the ordinance is in acceptable form and addresses all forseeable concerns, it should take the following actions: 1. Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 208, "An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 1403," rescending municipal liquor store provisions; and 2. Motion to adopt Ordinance No. 209, "An Ordinance Licensing and . Regulating the Sale and Consumption of Intoxicating Liquors," codified as Ordinance No. 1403. Attachment CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. A1j ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1403 The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, ordains as i '1`�SZCT•ION 1. Ordinance No. 1403 entitled "An Ordinance Establishing a Municipal -,`L3quor More" is hereby repealed. L: SECTION 2. 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 -119th day of June, �"1984 . t CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Robert G. Lockwood Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk AMENDMENT TO EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 1984, by and between NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, and the VILLAGE (now City) OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, a municipal corporation, is hereby granted to amend a land description under Parcel Two, subdivision B and a land description under Parcel Three in that certain Easement Agreement between Northern States Power Company and the Village (now City) of Mendota Heights, dated December 15, 1967, and recorded February 16, 1968 in Book 82 of M.R., page 118 as Document No. 346267 with the Dakota County Recorder. Parcel Two, subdivision B shall be amended to read as follows: Also, a permanent easement 30 feet in width, said easement being a strip of land 28 feet wide adjacent easterly of and a strip of land 2 feet wide adjacent westerly of the northerly extension of the East line of Government Lot 2, ® Section 23, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, across the above described tract. Parcel Three shall be amended to read as follows: A permanent easement for sanitary sewer construction and maintenance over and across the Westerly 28 feet'of the Northerly 640 feet of the NE-;,- of the NE4, Section 23, Township 28 North, Range 23 West, Dakota County, Minnesota. This Agreement constitutes a Partial Release of said Easement Agreement by said Village (now City) of Mendota Heights as to any property described in said Parcel Two, subdivision B, therein which is not encompassed in, the description of Parcel Two, subdivision B as described above. All other terms, covenants and conditions contained in the Easement Agreement of December 15, 1967 referred to above shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties have caused this instrument to be duly executed this day and year first above written. VILLAGE (Now City) OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Tit And Title !1 11 1 Page f, I{ i 1 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY s By Its Vice President And ✓ Its Assistant r7lltary loft CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF PROCEEDING FOR VACATION OF STREETS The undersigned, GILBERT M. RADABAUGH, City Clerk of the City of Mendota Heights, situated -in Dakota County, Minnesota, hereby certifies that at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mendota - Heights duly called and held on the 6th day of August, 1974, in the City Ball of the City of Mendota Heights, at which a quorum was present, the following,�resoiution was unanimously adopted,* to -wit: WHEREAS, a petition has been duly presents* -d to the City Council of tlic. City of Mendota Ileights signed by a majority of the owners of the pro- perty abuttin'q upon the following described street situated in the City of Mendota 11 i ights' in Dakota County, tdinnesota, - to -wit: That part of wachtler Avenue lying between -the southerly right of way !line of Valley Curve and the northerly right of way line of Hilltop Road, �. q and 11DEREAS, notice of, a hearing on said petition has been duly published m and posted ore tan two weeks before the date scheduled for a hearing on said petition all in accordance with the applicable Minnesota -Statutes, an, - WHEREASI a public hearing was held on said petition on Tuesday, August 6, 1974, ate 8:00 p.m. at the City IIall of the City of Mendota heights, andI WIEREAS, the�City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said petition and all persons interested Caere afforded an opportunity to present their views and objections to the granting of said petition, and 'i I WHEREAS, there rrere no objections presented to said petition. 1\1O1-7 THEREFORE, IT JS hEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the Village of :Mendota Heights, Minnesota, as follows: 1) That the vacation of that part of the street more particularly described above situated in the City of Mendota! 1lcigl is is in the best"interests of .the public and the; City. 2) That thejfollowing described street situated in the City of Mendota heights, Dakota County, Minnesota, to -wit: That part of Wachticr Avenac lying between the southerly right of way lina- of Valley Curve and the northerly richt of,wa•y line of Hilltop Road be and the same is hereby vacated. . ' r le 1I . 1 3) T hz--ei-ty -tllerk •}e- --and is hereby authorized and direc d-, tp �r�IAr'e��d pres'Wit to the; Proper 'Da}iota Coun •-oT�i=i�f.S1'a 1 po'tx* e of Gompleti.on of tht e Ivacation proc i�a�s1 n aceo dance{ c�ith the applic�hl Minnesota State 16!r, " t, Adopted by , ea Cit, rn Go n-- 9.]r: of~ thl City cf Mendota +ei hq� 'this 6th day of Augi f-9"?;. SIO That ic4oic nee ;withVaidt resolution, said vadat on proceedings have been dom letbd•', z '' • Dated i• r.august:..%0...L9Z4...__ .�.. . Gilbert b abaugh City Clerk _� City of Mendota He is LA A i r, PROPOSED 5"1'A9,01-1-v10v lo-rr 17-22 Of t '~��•'�' S01H ERSA•T H/tt.S eA 0 wv rA SL//IrY�YvR t7"0s4El0 0. ScyvJTER WAYNf /til c LA44W ti /c/00 f/~jx,5,f 4LI,, ;2,33 DArro to A Y fv yjf S� D.ia� 45z- 3038 yd7- 3G y3' • iYovc.Ni�R J7, /978 Sc�llE /" s ✓ro 1 }tereby dertrty that tris survey, pier, or reporf was prepared by me or under my direct super• vis.on and that I am :. du,y ReRts'ered Land c SNDTCATes SRoN '••r thr IdwS ot'ht stlit! j Minne- , till seta .� -V r Tate l.yis�6-T- -so Reg.iVo._ %s'S9 o Q rY„ `ke ' of r pi.4r I 41, 91 33 •1 i e I � I rye, '� .. DESCRIPTION h EAsr That part of Lots 17 and 22, Somarsefo Hills, according to "the plat thereof, i on file in the office of the County'. Recorder, Dakota County, Minnesota, �a lying northerly of the following described line; Beginning at a point on thew z `T"Y "'°`� \3 line of Lot 22 of said Somers Hills, 26.00 feet southerly of I northwest corner of said Lot 22,E measured along said west line.; thence easterly to a point on E�rT easterly line of Lot 17 of salcl.; yam' Somerset Hills, said point beil 25.00 feet nnctherly of the soul ;+ east corner of said Lot 17, '' 3° sured along said east line, ct there terminating. I r •. ; h tL I o I v 33o� L� I ' I ••' 1 r 5 � �F I i r s 3° L ye _ _J a^ f U) Z - j 439824 x 0 � /! STATE Of MINNISOTA } su r County'of Dakota, Office of Register of Deedsd This is to certify that the wiffilm ittsttume..t was filed for recon Id , this office, ?t Hastings, on theT,,�„ a ' `' day of �= A. D. at-" T o'clock_ _�•-1., and that i the some was duly recorded in Dakota County Records. .JAMES J.-Foutcttts 1 -------�' 15514 r Rarter of ossa. atk File No. :Certificate No. 14227 Books 45 & 4 gaga 188 & 198 Osp y �r..,.,.�..,..,..,..._,._.....,..;..,.. ;State of MinnesotaIss t County of Dakota Office of the Registrar of Titles. This is to certify that the within ,instrument was filed in this office at Hastings, on the 13th day of December A. D. 19 74at; ` I 14.00 o'clock P. M. ^� T Registrar of Titles— B . t y - n e '"� LAA -Al/ 1 a-------_---.�.--------..��..�; . � ��,quditor, D• �a►cata �°` I ' � f i"' • ., /..fit/. Z/ n a No Charge i i